How can Bond fans also be fans of the Craig movies?
onemonk909
Posts: 65MI6 Agent
For years now I’ve had a hard time understanding how people who are Bond fans can still be fans of the Craig movies. To me, Craig is not playing James Bond – he’s just playing a character of the same name.
The Craig “Bond” movies are more along the lines of Tom Cruise’s M:I vanity vehicles, having nothing to do with the original version, just riding on the name recognition and the theme song. The Craig films are also revisionism of the worst sort. I knew I was in for trouble when CR featured that “memorable” shot of Craig emerging from the sea in his speedos, showing off his gym bod…because, you know, the James Bond movies have always been about the exploitation of the male body…
Then of course there was his infamous response when the bartender asked him if he wanted his drink shaken or stirred, snarling, “Like I give a damn.” Ooooh, he’s not your mama’s James Bond!!
I bailed on CR halfway through and never looked back, and that was what, 12 years ago? And people still think he’s the “best Bond since Connery?” (This though is a recurring motif…one thing I’ve noticed in 30-some years of Bond fandom is that every new Bond is declared as the best one since Connery. He may be reviled today by Bond fans, but once upon a time even Pierce Brosnan was declared as such…)
Even the argument that Craig’s Bond is “closer to Fleming’s version” is laughable. Craig’s Bond looks like he’s taken a few cleats to the face on the rugby field, spends all his time honing his six-pack at the gym, and likes to sport speedos on the beach. The literary Bond smokes a billion cigarettes a day, has to be pushed to even do minimal exercise, and judges men over how they knot their ties.
The films are progressivist reboots of what was once an unrepentant macho male fantasy…we’d already been geared to accept a female M in the Brosnan years (that alone would’ve been enough to give a resurrected Ian Fleming another fatal heart attack), but they also had to go and make Moneypenny black and a kick-ass field agent to boot, because when you’re doling in cliches, why not just go all the way with it? (And that would make for a third fatal heart attack for poor Mr. Fleming…) Because in modern Hollywood, you can’t have a strong hetero male carrying a picture…no, he needs to be assisted (and usually bettered – while of course also being ridiculed) by a “strong female.” This in a franchise in which the original Bond once smacked a girl on her ass and told her to shoo off so the men could talk.
And because James Bond can no longer just be a secret agent with a job to do, instead we have to come up with an elaborate, contrived background story for him – it’s what modern audiences demand, apparently, as practically every show is about the protagonist trying to piece together his or her murky background. “Wow, Dad was really a spy for the Commies!” and the like. Even here the Eon people have gone into unintentional parody…sounds to me like the “big reveal” in Spectre is almost identical to the one concerning Austin Powers and Dr. Evil in Goldmember…
To me the Bond movies ended with the Brosnan pictures…they weren’t perfect, and some of them were downright annoying, but at least they still felt like Bond movies. But then it would seem clear that Craig’s Bond is not intended to be the character portrayed by those actors in the previous films. So if that’s what people take from the Craig movies, and enjoy them as their own thing, that’s fine…though personally I think those people would do just as well watching the Bourne movies, which are pretty much the same thing.
The Craig “Bond” movies are more along the lines of Tom Cruise’s M:I vanity vehicles, having nothing to do with the original version, just riding on the name recognition and the theme song. The Craig films are also revisionism of the worst sort. I knew I was in for trouble when CR featured that “memorable” shot of Craig emerging from the sea in his speedos, showing off his gym bod…because, you know, the James Bond movies have always been about the exploitation of the male body…
Then of course there was his infamous response when the bartender asked him if he wanted his drink shaken or stirred, snarling, “Like I give a damn.” Ooooh, he’s not your mama’s James Bond!!
I bailed on CR halfway through and never looked back, and that was what, 12 years ago? And people still think he’s the “best Bond since Connery?” (This though is a recurring motif…one thing I’ve noticed in 30-some years of Bond fandom is that every new Bond is declared as the best one since Connery. He may be reviled today by Bond fans, but once upon a time even Pierce Brosnan was declared as such…)
Even the argument that Craig’s Bond is “closer to Fleming’s version” is laughable. Craig’s Bond looks like he’s taken a few cleats to the face on the rugby field, spends all his time honing his six-pack at the gym, and likes to sport speedos on the beach. The literary Bond smokes a billion cigarettes a day, has to be pushed to even do minimal exercise, and judges men over how they knot their ties.
The films are progressivist reboots of what was once an unrepentant macho male fantasy…we’d already been geared to accept a female M in the Brosnan years (that alone would’ve been enough to give a resurrected Ian Fleming another fatal heart attack), but they also had to go and make Moneypenny black and a kick-ass field agent to boot, because when you’re doling in cliches, why not just go all the way with it? (And that would make for a third fatal heart attack for poor Mr. Fleming…) Because in modern Hollywood, you can’t have a strong hetero male carrying a picture…no, he needs to be assisted (and usually bettered – while of course also being ridiculed) by a “strong female.” This in a franchise in which the original Bond once smacked a girl on her ass and told her to shoo off so the men could talk.
And because James Bond can no longer just be a secret agent with a job to do, instead we have to come up with an elaborate, contrived background story for him – it’s what modern audiences demand, apparently, as practically every show is about the protagonist trying to piece together his or her murky background. “Wow, Dad was really a spy for the Commies!” and the like. Even here the Eon people have gone into unintentional parody…sounds to me like the “big reveal” in Spectre is almost identical to the one concerning Austin Powers and Dr. Evil in Goldmember…
To me the Bond movies ended with the Brosnan pictures…they weren’t perfect, and some of them were downright annoying, but at least they still felt like Bond movies. But then it would seem clear that Craig’s Bond is not intended to be the character portrayed by those actors in the previous films. So if that’s what people take from the Craig movies, and enjoy them as their own thing, that’s fine…though personally I think those people would do just as well watching the Bourne movies, which are pretty much the same thing.
Comments
Plus, they were not speedos, they were trunks and he said "DO I LOOK LIKE I GIVE A DAMN?" after losing all his government's money, being sassed by Vesper and having his charm rejected. His world was falling apart. I'd like to see how you would want Bond to react.
If you're going to **** on Craig, get your facts straight :007).
This argument has been going on since
DC became 007. Those who dislike or
Hate him. Always will and those who think
He's great will also hold their views.
No correct answer, if you enjoy DC keep on
You're doing nothing wrong. Same if you
Dislike him. Many on here dislike Brosnan.
Happily I have enjoyed all the actors and can
Predict. I'll enjoy the next fella too -{
https://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/40718/convince-me-of-craig/
https://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/38035/do-you-look-forward-to-the-day-when-craig-is-no-longer-james-bond/
(And I am very far from thinking he's the best Bond since Connery. He's not even the best Bond since Dalton, speaking from 50+ years of Bond fandom.)
I feel that Bond does need to be updated for the times. I have no problem with women having power over Bond, because that's only changing Bond's surroundings, not Bond himself. And changing the ethnicity of other characters has no effect on Bond either. I'm also fine with Bond's attitudes changing. He needs to be relatable to people today. A Bond who is a racist chain-smoker isn't the character for today's audience. But a Bond who struggles to stay in shape, and a Bond who makes judgements of other characters based on things that they do (rather than on who they are) is still relevant today. I think that Bond can still be a chauvinist today so long as his is made to look a fool for it (like in Moonraker), though I think people will still see any chauvinist character as being a bad thing, even the trait is portrayed as undesirable. So many of the traits that made both the literary Bond and the original film Bond special are now gone. I think the biggest change with Craig's Bond in comparison to all the incarnations that came before is that Craig's Bond no longer succeeds at his job. Fleming's Bond was able to do his job most of the time, even if he wasn't happy doing it. That defining trait of Fleming's Bond has never been present in any of the films.
Qos is arguably the most Flemingesque of Bond films, ok it's editing is not to everyone's taste but again Craig captures the essence of Bond as a blunt instrument well irrelevant of physical appearance, the film itself blasts from location to location and despite its short run time makes good use of the locations, incidentally the short run time is in keeping with Flemings not over long stories, snappy, exciting and well crafted.
Skyfall needs no explanation.
Spectre,, Spectre works on so many levels but there are also so many missed opportunities and aspects that just don't work as well as they should.
You can't really compare Bond with the M.I series, M.I is a take off from Bond as is Jason Bourne M.I tends to be the same story and events just changed around and improved upon as much as I enjoy them they just aren't as diverse as Bond.
For my part I enjoy all the Bond incarnations and count myself lucky to be a Bond fan and have the choice of so many films for any mood I'm in.
Eon and the director of the day were also keen to have connery bare the flesh in shorts, and far more often than Craig has done, I believe there was far more clamour around Connery as a sex symbol back in the day that Craig has ever seen. So much for exploitation of the male body, which is exactly what lechiffre does to bond in the literary CR.
smoking is just not socially acceptable these days and what would you have Bond do? Nip out to the smokers area outside the casino in the middle of a poker game?
RM enjoyed a cigar but was hardly an international smoker nor was PB who I think smoked a cigar during his outings, even TD rarely smoked.
I look forward to seeing how this bun fight goes.
True, but that's the second half of the movie- our new friend bailed out halfway through.
That's because it's crap.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
OK so we should keep bond with the sensibilities of the 50's/60's slapping bottoms and any black character should just be an uneducated, servitude and disposable one!
If you'd watched cr all the way you'd have seen they made Felix black too..... Which for me was a masterstroke using Jeff Wright and I hope he returns.
Totally agree about Felix -{
Totally disagree about the rest, fiction yes but with a literary back story, which is very descriptive about Bond. Only way for me that can happen is retire Bond and fill the 007 position with a Black/Asian man. Black 007 yes, black bond no.
For us Roses come in all colours. If you have a problem
With colour. You too are part of the Rose ..... A Prick !
Naomie Harris is drop dead gorgeous :x
While I personally take no issue with such racial matters, he was described and conceived that way and we can't change that.
Craig differs on the fact that he's blonde and buff-er than the literary Bond.
No no no don't start the codename discussion
Problem is that you have Bond fans who read the books and have a fandom based around much more than just the eon movies, sure we have to move on in some respects, but why would you change the main characters ethnicity? What reason does it serve other than jumping on a pc inspired " look how diverse we are everyone" bandwagon?
The point is that Felix is a supporting player and if Jeff Wright was a terrible actor then you could argue he was cast for his colour not his skill, as it happens he's a brilliant actor who played his role perfectly, and got the gig due to that skill. His being Black is wholly irrelevant but adds a good modern dynamic.
"You fools! He's got you all shooting at each other!"
Couldn't the same argument also be made about Moonraker?
How did you get that when I wrote that most of Brosnan's films were annoying??
Well, my wife is Asian, not that it's any of your business, but I wouldn't like it regardless. However you all did make me realize something -- I was coming off in a sort of double standard, as I was overlooking how Felix Leiter changes throughout the series. So if he could change, why not Moneypenny? I guess in my mind Moneypenny will always equal Lois Maxwell. I think what annoys me more so about the reboot Moneypenny is less the race and more the fact that they had to redo her in Hollywood's modern cliche: the tough action chick.
Anyway to get back to our mini-argument, wasn't MR one of the biggest-grossing Bond films ever?
You can see her in action in the unofficial "OK Connery," with Sean's bro starring. In fact she's pretty cool in it.
I have to say, you all have swayed me on my reservations about the reboot Monneypenny, but I still feel that it's all sort of annoying...I understand things need to change to suit modern tastes, but how far can you go in revisionism until it has become a totally separate thing from the original? I would argue that this is what has happened to the Bond franchise. I mean, look at how the original movies (and novels) were marketed -- "Girls! Girls! Girls!" and the like. The franchise -- film and novel -- were clearly aimed for straight men. They were, and I say again, macho male fantasies, something which does not exist in the modern era, unless it is treated as a satire or parody.
I'd say this is why Sherlock Holmes continuation authors have left Holmes in his own era, but then of course we have had Sherlock and Elementary in recent years -- so even Holmes has experienced the reboot effect.
Also, love your Lo Meng avatar. Many years ago I wrote a Venoms spotlight for the City on Fire website, if you are interested: http://www.cityonfire.com/features/venoms/index.htm
I'm not shooting at Gymkata just enjoying a healthy and good natured discussion, my sights are set elsewhere at the moment. :007)
So you say...yet you claim "I seem to love Brozzers films" when I wrote no such thing. You're trying to turn this into a personal thing, which is lame, and more a sign of your issues than my own. My thread was just my opinion, and I appreciate those who have responded on here with their own equally-valid responses. As I admited upthread, I didn't even realize I was presenting a double standard.
I think you meant Largo, TP....
Anyway, welcome aboard, onemonk909. -{
I've been using Number24's autocorrect