It's also worth noting that Red Grant is an assassin, something we often forget Bond also is.
But is Bond an assassin in the same way?
Bond is allowed to kill, yes, but in the course of his duty/mission. He isn’t sent on missions to specifically kill a person, as Red Grant was.
Bond kills if he has to, in order to get the job done, as he said to Scaramanga in The Man with the Golden Gun (the film). He says this to show Scaramanga that he not an assassin like Scaramanga is.
Craig’s Bond has been written as a hired assassin in a way the novels and earlier films didn’t portray Bond.
No, they are not assassins in the same way. Bond is a heroic assassin, and those have existed in the real world. The assassination of Heydrich in WWII is one example. I think a Flemingesque Bond should have some simularities with Red Grant and I think Craig does it right.
Star Wars Episode One: The Phantom Menace beat Star Wars Episode Five: The Empire Strikes Back at the box office (both adjusted for inflation and not) but few would argue that it's a better film in that series... or more to the point, better cast.
Liam Neeson, Ewen MacGregor, Natalie Portman, Sam L Jackson, Ian McDiarmid, Terence Stamp... it's hard to argue that it has a significantly worse cast!
I'm not arguing that- I used the word "cast" as a verb, not a noun. "Empire" is better cast, not has a better cast.
Loved the video early on in the post, disagree strongly that DC is mis cast in any way to be James Bond. Confident is a better description than smug and DC has confidence times 10. Good looking covers a wide range of possibilities and while men like PB have traditional good looks, DC has a very rugged handsomeness and a level of fitness that is beyond any other Bond which is also to be considered good looking. Just my thoughts.
Star Wars Episode One: The Phantom Menace beat Star Wars Episode Five: The Empire Strikes Back at the box office (both adjusted for inflation and not) but few would argue that it's a better film in that series... or more to the point, better cast.
Liam Neeson, Ewen MacGregor, Natalie Portman, Sam L Jackson, Ian McDiarmid, Terence Stamp... it's hard to argue that it has a significantly worse cast!
I'm not arguing that- I used the word "cast" as a verb, not a noun. "Empire" is better cast, not has a better cast.
Not quite seeing the different there: are you saying Neeson etc. were miscast? And who was cast for Empire: Frank Oz and Billy Dee Williams? They're great and everything, but I'm not sure better. The rest of them had already been cast (verb) years previously.
Loved the video early on in the post, disagree strongly that DC is mis cast in any way to be James Bond. Confident is a better description than smug and DC has confidence times 10.
Yes I think conveying total self-confidence is possibly the most essential aspect of any actor playing Bond. Lazenby and Brosnan maybe swerved into smug a little (Lazenby moreso) and that's not quite the same thing, whereas I think Dalton's version lacked that confidence and that's why he never quite won over audiences. And it's also why I think people who say Craig is repeating what Dalton did are wrong: he's got the swagger than Dalton missed.
well said and I think the swagger has matured right along with his character. In CR he certainly had swagger but it was brash and even out of control. By Skyfall and Spectre, it was calculating and smarter swagger that portrayed an even greater level of confidence that screamed I can deal with any situation and I won't even break a sweat. I think he is going to be a tough act to follow but I thought that of PB as well. RM never really did it for me at all and SC kind of transitioned himself out as his last performance just felt like he had had enough. Perhaps DC will do the same, but I think his casting couldn't have been much better and he has grown into the role in a wonderful way.
Yes you're right about his swagger maturing: he was brash and headstrong in CR, and I loved how in Spectre he'd become more laid back and playful - that little wave he gives the goons at the funeral in Rome is just wonderful, and pure Bond. I can't imagine Dalton ever doing that.
It's also worth noting that Red Grant is an assassin, something we often forget Bond also is.
Donovan Grant is also literally a looney who is compelled to murder every full moon. Like a werewolf in horror fiction.
CraigBond is presented as not-quite-right, but he doesnt do that.
Ordered to assassinate for his first two kills, For Your Eyes Only (and that was an unofficial favour for his boss, not for Queen and country), and the Living Daylights. Agrees to kill Dr Shatterhand in exchange for Tanaka's Russian intel before he even knows Shatterhand is Blofeld.
Though in FRWL, when he helps Kerim Bey kill Krilencu, Bond tells himself he has never killed in cold blood.
It's also worth noting that Red Grant is an assassin, something we often forget Bond also is.
Donovan Grant is also literally a looney who is compelled to murder every full moon. Like a werewolf in horror fiction.
CraigBond is presented as not-quite-right, but he doesnt do that.
Though in FRWL, when he helps Kerim Bey kill Krilencu, Bond tells himself he has never killed in cold blood.
Yes, that's the most important difference between Red Grant and Bond.
Yes you're right about his swagger maturing: he was brash and headstrong in CR, and I loved how in Spectre he'd become more laid back and playful - that little wave he gives the goons at the funeral in Rome is just wonderful, and pure Bond. I can't imagine Dalton ever doing that.
Yep, I love the Mickey Mouse introduction and the tiny little smirk at the very end with the line "all out of bullets" is absolutely priceless.
Liam Neeson, Ewen MacGregor, Natalie Portman, Sam L Jackson, Ian McDiarmid, Terence Stamp... it's hard to argue that it has a significantly worse cast!
I'm not arguing that- I used the word "cast" as a verb, not a noun. "Empire" is better cast, not has a better cast.
Not quite seeing the different there: are you saying Neeson etc. were miscast? And who was cast for Empire: Frank Oz and Billy Dee Williams? They're great and everything, but I'm not sure better. The rest of them had already been cast (verb) years previously.
Can't go into it right now. Get back later.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Fun thread! Reminds me, fondly, of the days of The Craig WarsTM.
Miscast? Not as far as I'm concerned. Craigger made the role his own, and has perhaps redefined it to a degree. He is Bond, to a generation. We all had ours :007)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Like many here, I've gone back and read the Fleming books many times, and do
feel that DC brings much of the Literary Bond to the screen. In much the same
way Dalton tried the first time round.
As in the past it takes a few films before everything settles down and the actor
gets in to his stride and owns the role.
The next guy will get the same treatment ....
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Fun thread! Reminds me, fondly, of the days of The Craig WarsTM.
Miscast? Not as far as I'm concerned. Craigger made the role his own, and has perhaps redefined it to a degree. He is Bond, to a generation. We all had ours :007)
Yeah a mate of mine who is ten years younger (so in his teens when CR came out) said he thinks Craig is the best Bond of them all; I don't know if I'd say that necessarily but I don't think he's wrong, and he's certainly the guy for now.
When CR first came out, I thought DC had been miscast (mainly because I still wanted Pierce to be Bond), but by second viewing I had changed my mind. I think he’s a gritty Bond but also does have charm. He’s more down to earth. He shows emotion but often it’s controlled so you just get a glimpse of it. From a female perspective, I find DC good looking and having sex appeal. Through watching CR and hearing that it was pretty true to the book, I began reading and enjoying the Bond books. So, I will always connect that to DC. I was introduced to Bond by watching the Roger Moore films and so I have him to thank for that.
Craig being blond was not a stumbling block for me, as I think James Fox or his brother Edward would have made good Bonds.
With Craig, the problem for me is that he is devoid of charm. I was in contact with Roger Moore very briefly in the late 2000s via email, and he mentioned to me that he thought Craig, though an excellent actor, and generally suited as a Bond for these times, lacked charm and wit, which he, Moore, thought essential for Bond.
Another thing about Craig that has already been mentioned here, is that his suits are too tight, and his gait is too studied “hard man”, as is his facial expression, which is like chiselled rock.
Indeed, Craig’s Bond is closer to Robert Shaw’s Red Grant than to Bond.
Spot on. I think DC would have made a spectacular Grant. He lacks finesse and that sense of Danger with a veneer of sophistication. All that being said he has had some terrific moments and I have warmed to him despite his being mis cast. I cant think of any of the others that could have pulled off the Torture scene in CR with such aplomb, or the relationship with Dench as M. He also has good rapport with Q. He has developed a sly humour which I hope to see more of. So not my Bond by a long chalk, but a fine actor and a good Bond.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Yes, Craig as Red Grant would have been good to see, particularly if they had followed up Casino Royale with a remake of From Russia.
I support real-life Craig as he does so much for charity, but as an actor I don't think there's much to his version beyond presenting a sullen thug who pouts too much.
Although I think the series needed a real shot in the arm after Brosnan's tenure, I think Clive Owen would have been a far better choice. But then we're not the ones making the decisions.
In fact, for the little it's worth, I'm a little dubious of Barbara Broccoli's decision making process. Upon seeing Layer Cake at a private showing, she pronounced to her companions, "I'm in love with Daniel Craig! He's going to be the next Bond!"
Although I think the series needed a real shot in the arm after Brosnan's tenure, I think Clive Owen would have been a far better choice. But then we're not the ones making the decisions.
In fact, for the little it's worth, I'm a little dubious of Barbara Broccoli's decision making process. Upon seeing Layer Cake at a private showing, she pronounced to her companions, "I'm in love with Daniel Craig! He's going to be the next Bond!"
If that happened I'm not sure what the problem is there.
Even if you don't personally like him it's hard to deny he's been a critical and financial success in the role. By all measurable standards, she was right to pick him.
If that happened I'm not sure what the problem is there.
Even if you don't personally like him it's hard to deny he's been a critical and financial success in the role. By all measurable standards, she was right to pick him.
Though I don't like Craig's Bond (for the most part, I am able to get into the story and look beyond it while watching the film themselves), I'm delighted that his tenure has been such a huge success as it's great for the health of the series and bodes well for it's future prospects.
Maybe it's fine for a producer to choose a leading man because she quite fancies him (and I'm not saying that's any way improper or compromised anything - she was already in a relationship with celebrity chef James Martin at the time, after all). An attraction is a belief of sorts. Any casting is an investment and for that you need to have the courage of your convictions. Even Cubby and Harry had to ask Dana Broccoli for a woman's view of Connery. I just think it's an interesting - and, as we've seen, profitable - way of informing a decision.
In fact, for the little it's worth, I'm a little dubious of Barbara Broccoli's decision making process. Upon seeing Layer Cake at a private showing, she pronounced to her companions, "I'm in love with Daniel Craig! He's going to be the next Bond!"
If that happened I'm not sure what the problem is there.
Even if you don't personally like him it's hard to deny he's been a critical and financial success in the role. By all measurable standards, she was right to pick him.
That wasn't wat happened. Babs noticed Craig in 1998's Elizabeth and at least saw him as a potental Bond from then on.
Even if you don't personally like him it's hard to deny he's been a critical and financial success in the role. By all measurable standards, she was right to pick him.
Well put, emtiem.I have to agree with this, and accept that my own disapproval of the casting is merely peeing in the wind and that long-term Bond fans dating back to the 60s is not the demographic they're looking for- and for perfectly sensible reasons.
In fact, for the little it's worth, I'm a little dubious of Barbara Broccoli's decision making process. Upon seeing Layer Cake at a private showing, she pronounced to her companions, "I'm in love with Daniel Craig! He's going to be the next Bond!"
If that happened I'm not sure what the problem is there.
Even if you don't personally like him it's hard to deny he's been a critical and financial success in the role. By all measurable standards, she was right to pick him.
That wasn't wat happened. Babs noticed Craig in 1998's Elizabeth and at least saw him as a potental Bond from then on.
No need to take my word for it, it was in a print interview she and Wilson gave for SP. I've also seen her say that she spotted Craig first in Our Friends in the North. Perhaps it's a mixture of all three.
Maybe it's fine for a producer to choose a leading man because she quite fancies him (and I'm not saying that's any way improper or compromised anything - she was already in a relationship with celebrity chef James Martin at the time, after all). An attraction is a belief of sorts. Any casting is an investment and for that you need to have the courage of your convictions. Even Cubby and Harry had to ask Dana Broccoli for a woman's view of Connery. I just think it's an interesting - and, as we've seen, profitable - way of informing a decision.
I'm not sure how we've established that she ever did fancy him, and as you say even if she did see how attractive he is then I can't see why that's even worth commenting on when discussing the casting of a character who is supposed to be very attractive. It's like noticing he's got enough legs to play 007. Is it supposed to be inappropriate or something?
Our Friends In the North seems a likely place for them to have first seen him: it's the first time I'd heard of him and was his breakthrough role, wasn't it?
Maybe it's fine for a producer to choose a leading man because she quite fancies him (and I'm not saying that's any way improper or compromised anything - she was already in a relationship with celebrity chef James Martin at the time, after all). An attraction is a belief of sorts. Any casting is an investment and for that you need to have the courage of your convictions. Even Cubby and Harry had to ask Dana Broccoli for a woman's view of Connery. I just think it's an interesting - and, as we've seen, profitable - way of informing a decision.
I'm not sure how we've established that she ever did fancy him, and as you say even if she did see how attractive he is then I can't see why that's even worth commenting on when discussing the casting of a character who is supposed to be very attractive. It's like noticing he's got enough legs to play 007. Is it supposed to be inappropriate or something?
Our Friends In the North seems a likely place for them to have first seen him: it's the first time I'd heard of him and was his breakthrough role, wasn't it?
Craig is certainly her Bond, in that he was the first lead she cast (Cubby cast Pierce), so I think that choice and the success that came from it is something she is (and should be) very proud of. As for whether she does or has ever fancied him, she does give that impression in interviews, but then she's selling a product at those times, and therefore should be emphasizing her belief in her lead actor.
I think the Craig era, in terms of the current regime, is ground zero in the way that the Connery era was for Cubby. And that's as it should be. A new heyday. A resetting of the clock.
I'd imagine Our Friends... was when she saw him first, but with the long hair he had in the role, didn't seem him as Bond. Then she saw him with short hair in Elizabeth, and seeing him finally do action in Layer Cake would've nailed it.
Craig already proved he had the sex appeal to play Bond in both Tomb Raider and Layer Cake. Which is what really comes first before anything else when casting Bond. Both films having scenes showing off his chiseled torso and hooking up with attractive women. It didn't take much imagination to picture him as Bond from there.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
My opening caveat is, I actually like Craig as Bond. I didn't in the beginning, was wowed by CR and was sold completely with QoS. However, I do think he was miscast, I'm hopeful at the potential of the guy after him, and I somewhat lament the lost time of not having a "proper" Bond in place...and since 2006, that's at least 5 movies, and possibly even more like 7 with "a proper Bond."
To the question if DC was miscast, in terms of box office, no he was not, in terms of audience likability, no he was not, but in terms of the essence of the character, he was for the sentiments Barbel touched on above.
I don't like the line of thinking among DC's most ardent fans, that because they're convinced that he's all that with a side of fries, everyone else must acquiesce and agree, unless there's something wrong with their thinking. And to assert that view, the pro's will try to argue on those three criteria I mentioned. No one can argue against the first two, box office and the wide appeal of DC's Bond to audiences, which are linked together. But when such fans try to argue for the third criterion, it's an argument too far. What is that type? Lazenby is the embodiment that there is indeed a Bond type and he and everyone else who followed up to Brosnan fit the profile, with some deviating a bit, but not too much. But there is indeed a Bond type and DC fits it, as much as Michael Keaton did with Batman and as Robert Downey Jr. did as Sherlock Holmes. Lastly, caliber or credentials does not necessarily make a performer more right for a role.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I think technically he was miscast for CR as the script seems to be be specifying someone younger.
Otherwise I’m not sure what you mean about ‘types’: your examples kind of show how those are irrelevant. Looking at the comic books I’d say Downey Jr was miscast to play Iron Man too, but does anyone really believe that?
Craig already proved he had the sex appeal to play Bond in both Tomb Raider and Layer Cake. Which is what really comes first before anything else when casting Bond. Both films having scenes showing off his chiseled torso and hooking up with attractive women. It didn't take much imagination to picture him as Bond from there.
Although I did think he was pretty nothing-y in Tomb Raider: he didn’t really get the chance to do anything. Layer Cake though definitely: it’s almost a Bond audition piece.
I’m sure Road To Perdition helped too.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
If you say you don't know what I'm talking about with the Bond "type," you're just being coy, or you are genuinely ignorant that would warrant the benefit of the doubt. The inclusion of Tony Stark/Iron Man is also a bit stretched, since a major interpretation that has never been done since the character was created would have needed to be done retro if strict adherence had been the goal. Rather, Robert Downey, Jr.'s rendition reasonably captured the essence of the character.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Comments
But is Bond an assassin in the same way?
Bond is allowed to kill, yes, but in the course of his duty/mission. He isn’t sent on missions to specifically kill a person, as Red Grant was.
Bond kills if he has to, in order to get the job done, as he said to Scaramanga in The Man with the Golden Gun (the film). He says this to show Scaramanga that he not an assassin like Scaramanga is.
Craig’s Bond has been written as a hired assassin in a way the novels and earlier films didn’t portray Bond.
I'm not arguing that- I used the word "cast" as a verb, not a noun. "Empire" is better cast, not has a better cast.
Not quite seeing the different there: are you saying Neeson etc. were miscast? And who was cast for Empire: Frank Oz and Billy Dee Williams? They're great and everything, but I'm not sure better. The rest of them had already been cast (verb) years previously.
Yes I think conveying total self-confidence is possibly the most essential aspect of any actor playing Bond. Lazenby and Brosnan maybe swerved into smug a little (Lazenby moreso) and that's not quite the same thing, whereas I think Dalton's version lacked that confidence and that's why he never quite won over audiences. And it's also why I think people who say Craig is repeating what Dalton did are wrong: he's got the swagger than Dalton missed.
CraigBond is presented as not-quite-right, but he doesnt do that.
Ordered to assassinate for his first two kills, For Your Eyes Only (and that was an unofficial favour for his boss, not for Queen and country), and the Living Daylights. Agrees to kill Dr Shatterhand in exchange for Tanaka's Russian intel before he even knows Shatterhand is Blofeld.
Though in FRWL, when he helps Kerim Bey kill Krilencu, Bond tells himself he has never killed in cold blood.
Yes, that's the most important difference between Red Grant and Bond.
Yep, I love the Mickey Mouse introduction and the tiny little smirk at the very end with the line "all out of bullets" is absolutely priceless.
Can't go into it right now. Get back later.
Miscast? Not as far as I'm concerned. Craigger made the role his own, and has perhaps redefined it to a degree. He is Bond, to a generation. We all had ours :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
feel that DC brings much of the Literary Bond to the screen. In much the same
way Dalton tried the first time round.
As in the past it takes a few films before everything settles down and the actor
gets in to his stride and owns the role.
The next guy will get the same treatment ....
Yeah a mate of mine who is ten years younger (so in his teens when CR came out) said he thinks Craig is the best Bond of them all; I don't know if I'd say that necessarily but I don't think he's wrong, and he's certainly the guy for now.
Spot on. I think DC would have made a spectacular Grant. He lacks finesse and that sense of Danger with a veneer of sophistication. All that being said he has had some terrific moments and I have warmed to him despite his being mis cast. I cant think of any of the others that could have pulled off the Torture scene in CR with such aplomb, or the relationship with Dench as M. He also has good rapport with Q. He has developed a sly humour which I hope to see more of. So not my Bond by a long chalk, but a fine actor and a good Bond.
I support real-life Craig as he does so much for charity, but as an actor I don't think there's much to his version beyond presenting a sullen thug who pouts too much.
Although I think the series needed a real shot in the arm after Brosnan's tenure, I think Clive Owen would have been a far better choice. But then we're not the ones making the decisions.
In fact, for the little it's worth, I'm a little dubious of Barbara Broccoli's decision making process. Upon seeing Layer Cake at a private showing, she pronounced to her companions, "I'm in love with Daniel Craig! He's going to be the next Bond!"
Thank goodness!
If that happened I'm not sure what the problem is there.
Even if you don't personally like him it's hard to deny he's been a critical and financial success in the role. By all measurable standards, she was right to pick him.
Though I don't like Craig's Bond (for the most part, I am able to get into the story and look beyond it while watching the film themselves), I'm delighted that his tenure has been such a huge success as it's great for the health of the series and bodes well for it's future prospects.
Maybe it's fine for a producer to choose a leading man because she quite fancies him (and I'm not saying that's any way improper or compromised anything - she was already in a relationship with celebrity chef James Martin at the time, after all). An attraction is a belief of sorts. Any casting is an investment and for that you need to have the courage of your convictions. Even Cubby and Harry had to ask Dana Broccoli for a woman's view of Connery. I just think it's an interesting - and, as we've seen, profitable - way of informing a decision.
That wasn't wat happened. Babs noticed Craig in 1998's Elizabeth and at least saw him as a potental Bond from then on.
Well put, emtiem.I have to agree with this, and accept that my own disapproval of the casting is merely peeing in the wind and that long-term Bond fans dating back to the 60s is not the demographic they're looking for- and for perfectly sensible reasons.
No need to take my word for it, it was in a print interview she and Wilson gave for SP. I've also seen her say that she spotted Craig first in Our Friends in the North. Perhaps it's a mixture of all three.
I'm not sure how we've established that she ever did fancy him, and as you say even if she did see how attractive he is then I can't see why that's even worth commenting on when discussing the casting of a character who is supposed to be very attractive. It's like noticing he's got enough legs to play 007. Is it supposed to be inappropriate or something?
Our Friends In the North seems a likely place for them to have first seen him: it's the first time I'd heard of him and was his breakthrough role, wasn't it?
Craig is certainly her Bond, in that he was the first lead she cast (Cubby cast Pierce), so I think that choice and the success that came from it is something she is (and should be) very proud of. As for whether she does or has ever fancied him, she does give that impression in interviews, but then she's selling a product at those times, and therefore should be emphasizing her belief in her lead actor.
I think the Craig era, in terms of the current regime, is ground zero in the way that the Connery era was for Cubby. And that's as it should be. A new heyday. A resetting of the clock.
I'd imagine Our Friends... was when she saw him first, but with the long hair he had in the role, didn't seem him as Bond. Then she saw him with short hair in Elizabeth, and seeing him finally do action in Layer Cake would've nailed it.
To the question if DC was miscast, in terms of box office, no he was not, in terms of audience likability, no he was not, but in terms of the essence of the character, he was for the sentiments Barbel touched on above.
I don't like the line of thinking among DC's most ardent fans, that because they're convinced that he's all that with a side of fries, everyone else must acquiesce and agree, unless there's something wrong with their thinking. And to assert that view, the pro's will try to argue on those three criteria I mentioned. No one can argue against the first two, box office and the wide appeal of DC's Bond to audiences, which are linked together. But when such fans try to argue for the third criterion, it's an argument too far. What is that type? Lazenby is the embodiment that there is indeed a Bond type and he and everyone else who followed up to Brosnan fit the profile, with some deviating a bit, but not too much. But there is indeed a Bond type and DC fits it, as much as Michael Keaton did with Batman and as Robert Downey Jr. did as Sherlock Holmes. Lastly, caliber or credentials does not necessarily make a performer more right for a role.
Otherwise I’m not sure what you mean about ‘types’: your examples kind of show how those are irrelevant. Looking at the comic books I’d say Downey Jr was miscast to play Iron Man too, but does anyone really believe that?
Although I did think he was pretty nothing-y in Tomb Raider: he didn’t really get the chance to do anything. Layer Cake though definitely: it’s almost a Bond audition piece.
I’m sure Road To Perdition helped too.