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.
That’s unnecessary and is based on a misinterpretation of what I said. Let’s not call each other ignorant.
I can guess what you mean by ‘type‘ in Bond’s case (although I’d say Moore doesn’t fit that either and until Craig came along Bond was basically defined as either Moore or Connery), but what I don’t understand is why you think it’s relevant anymore. Craig, Moore, Keaton, Downey etc. show that it’s not important.
For me the only ‘type’ that Bond needs to be cast to is that he should be vaguely athletic, convincingly British, attractive in a masculine way. Hair colour, height, exact style of looks, ethnicity even I think are all debatable.
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.
So exactly the same situation as Keaton as Batman then. Downey Jr isn’t the comic book Stark at all, but he shaped the character to himself and was a massive success.
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.
That’s unnecessary and is based on a misinterpretation of what I said. Let’s not call each other ignorant.
I can guess what you mean by ‘type‘ in Bond’s case (although I’d say Moore doesn’t fit that either and until Craig came along Bond was basically defined as either Moore or Connery), but what I don’t understand is why you think it’s relevant anymore. Craig, Moore, Keaton, Downey etc. show that it’s not important.
For me the only ‘type’ that Bond needs to be cast to is that he should be vaguely athletic, convincingly British, attractive in a masculine way. Hair colour, height, exact style of looks, ethnicity even I think are all debatable.
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.
So exactly the same situation as Keaton as Batman then. Downey Jr isn’t the comic book Stark at all, but he shaped the character to himself and was a massive success.
RDJ is closer to being Tony Stark, including physical qualities, than DC is to Bond. By your argument on relevance, then DC is Bond in name only? Maybe a better Holmes comparison is Benedict Cumberbatch's version, because like DC's Bond, Cumberbatch is Sherlock Holmes. And yet is Cumberbatch really Sherlock Holmes?
"...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.....
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.
That’s unnecessary and is based on a misinterpretation of what I said. Let’s not call each other ignorant.
I can guess what you mean by ‘type‘ in Bond’s case (although I’d say Moore doesn’t fit that either and until Craig came along Bond was basically defined as either Moore or Connery), but what I don’t understand is why you think it’s relevant anymore. Craig, Moore, Keaton, Downey etc. show that it’s not important.
For me the only ‘type’ that Bond needs to be cast to is that he should be vaguely athletic, convincingly British, attractive in a masculine way. Hair colour, height, exact style of looks, ethnicity even I think are all debatable.
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.
So exactly the same situation as Keaton as Batman then. Downey Jr isn’t the comic book Stark at all, but he shaped the character to himself and was a massive success.
RDJ is closer to being Tony Stark, including physical qualities, than DC is to Bond.
Gosh I wouldn't say so. He's quite short and slight. Comic Stark is, like all comic book men, a big tall musclebound, chiselled and perfectly handsome chap. Downey is way more interesting!
DC is an alpha male, very masculine type who pretty much matches Bond. And when we say matches the Bond description, that's a sort of vaguely agreed-upon definition reached by combining the movie actors who have defined him- it's moved beyond Fleming's version of Bond which none of the actors have really matched all that well. Maybe Dalton because he's actually a bit slimmer than the rest, and that's what IF seemed to have in mind physically.
By your argument on relevance, then DC is Bond in name only? Maybe a better Holmes comparison is Benedict Cumberbatch's version, because like DC's Bond, Cumberbatch is Sherlock Holmes. And yet is Cumberbatch really Sherlock Holmes?
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by the two suggestions in this paragraph.
For me the only ‘type’ that Bond needs to be cast to is that he should be vaguely athletic, convincingly British, attractive in a masculine way. Hair colour, height, exact style of looks, ethnicity even I think are all debatable...
Well, Barbel, TP, myself and a good percentage of the UK fit into that category... and I'm not quite sure that Fleming had such a loose description in mind.
DC is an alpha male, very masculine type who pretty much matches Bond. And when we say matches the Bond description, that's a sort of vaguely agreed-upon definition reached by combining the movie actors who have defined him- it's moved beyond Fleming's version of Bond which none of the actors have really matched all that well.
I'm not sure that 'the Bond description' should move beyond Fleming's version, or pretty soon Bond will be reduced to just another generic, anodyne action hero. And why stop at convincingly British, attractive and vaguely athletic? If you dispense with the essential 'Bond description' you can pretty much dispense with everything else, so he could be played by anyone from Arnold Schwarzenegger to Danny DeVito... )
For me the only ‘type’ that Bond needs to be cast to is that he should be vaguely athletic, convincingly British, attractive in a masculine way. Hair colour, height, exact style of looks, ethnicity even I think are all debatable...
Well, Barbel, TP, myself and a good percentage of the UK fit into that category... and I'm not quite sure that Fleming had such a loose description in mind.
Well okay, mid-late thirties too. Fleming describes him as looking like he's got 'mixed blood' in LALD, so ethnicity is fairly debatable.
The best idea we probably get (apart from most probably Bond being a slightly idealised version of himself!) is when he says he looks like Hoagy Carmichael, and very few of the actors so far have been very close to that. Apart from having a rounder face, Craig actually doesn't look all that dissimilar to Carmichael.
I daresay when Connery was cast Fleming probably thought he was a fairly blandly good-looking male model type instead of the more rugged, cruel version he seems to describe in the novels.
Personally I get the impression he was picturing someone like Richard Johnson:
DC is an alpha male, very masculine type who pretty much matches Bond. And when we say matches the Bond description, that's a sort of vaguely agreed-upon definition reached by combining the movie actors who have defined him- it's moved beyond Fleming's version of Bond which none of the actors have really matched all that well.
I'm not sure that 'the Bond description' should move beyond Fleming's version, or pretty soon Bond will be reduced to just another generic, anodyne action hero. And why stop at convincingly British, attractive and vaguely athletic? If you dispense with the essential 'Bond description' you can pretty much dispense with everything else, so he could be played by anyone from Arnold Schwarzenegger to Danny DeVito... )
That's a pretty textbook strawman argument so I'm not really going to go into that.
I would say that it's too late to complain about it moving beyond Fleming's description as that happened a long time ago.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
That’s rich, ad hominem calling the straw man black )
"...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.....
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Fleming's conception of Bond doesn't seem to be as ruggedly masculine as Eon favoured in the early '60s. They were looking for a Stanley Baker type, while Fleming preferred Richard Todd and Edward Underdown.
Having seen quite a few films with all those actors, I'd agree those were good choices.
Richard Johnson would've been good too, as mentioned.
The only time Cubby went slightly off-piste was casting Roger (my favourite, as it happens), as they were trying to pick someone who was already a household name as opposed to establishing a star from scratch as they had done with Lazenby. Dalton was a more organic choice. Brosnan was stereo-typically good-looking which, as it turned out, was a perfect decision for the metro-sexual '90s of lurid after-shave commercials and preening pin-ups.
That’s rich, ad hominem calling the straw man black )
? I haven't had a go at you?
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
?
"...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.....
'Ad hominem' means to attack the person rather than the argument.
The object of such an argument is not limited to a person per se, but can include ideas and statements you oppose and which therefore you attempt to discredit. You know, the Internet is your friend. A good example is this very assertion you’re making, as well as the manner of your attacks elswhere in this thread on statements you don’t agree with, in that something is not this, which is often highly subjective on your part btw, and so therefore it is that.
"...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 just rediscovered this thread now after making a comment in it a few years ago.
It's good that a thread like this has not caused the outrage it would have possibly caused back in 2006, when Craig's casting was seen as the only step foreword for the franchise.
I was one of those who thought Craig was miscast, and I still think that, but I can watch his performance as Bond in a more detached way now.
I think part of my problem with him, was that his hair was too light and was semi-crewcut in his first two Bond films. Not something that lent itself to my idea of how Bond looked from the novels and previous Bond films.
Had he had black hair, like he did in the film "Sylvia", I could have accepted him more easily. Superficial, I know, but films, as an earlier poster has said, are visual.
But what does an assassin have to look like? Surely they need to not look violent, otherwise they would stand out. The Bond "as only an assassin" theory, is not tenable. He had other duties in the field. Yes, he killed people, but do you have to look like a "brute" to do that well?
"The best idea we probably get (apart from most probably Bond being a slightly idealised version of himself!) is when he [Fleming] says he [Bond] looks like Hoagy Carmichael, and very few of the actors so far have been very close to that. Apart from having a rounder face, Craig actually doesn't look all that dissimilar to Carmichael."
Here a picture of Carmichael. To me, he is nearer to Dalton than Craig in looks.
In my book he definitely wasn’t miscast. He was absolutely superb in Casino Royale. Very good in QoS and parts of Skyfall. I just wish they hadn’t given him so much clout in the films after Casino.
I'd say there's a bit of both. Dalton has the bone structure, Craig has similar features. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
In terms of general build, style of looks etc. I'd say that David Niven is probably a closer match to the type of guy Fleming was thinking of than either of those! 😊 Or indeed Richard Johnson, who's almost a lookalike.
Bond of the books is a period character, basically. If you update that person to the 80s you have Dalton, bouffant, baggy suit and all; bring that type to the 2000s and Craig is a good match.
I agree, Richard Johnson would have fitted the part, but he lacked charisma, at least he did in the films he was in that spoofed Bond.
I always thought a young Martin Kemp would have been a good fit, looks-wise. He also has a bit of George Lazenby about him. But whether he is able to play the part is not known. He was good in The Krays film, though.
The suits Craig wears as Bond are very tight fitting as has been mentioned here before. He's the only MI6 agent in his Bond films that wears tight suits.
Oh absolutely, Johnson wasn't much of a movie star, although he was fine. I'm absolutely just talking in terms of the physicality of matching the book Bond.
Martin Kemp is a very interesting idea. Whenever I see the BBC version of A Caribbean Mystery, I always think that Michael Feast has the kind of look of how I imagine Fleming's 1950s Bond to be, even though he's not the most movie star beautiful man out there.
I'll agree with you, he's even not the Bond of the books (many think of physical, but also in deeds), I mean he's always going rogue, arguing with his superiors and stoic.
The Bond of the books at least smiles, even laughs, and obedient to M and his orders.
Both Lazenby and Dalton got this.
Craig had his own thing, does he fit the modern era? Yes, perfectly.
But that's not the ideal Bond, sure while he's the Bond of or for this era, he's not the trademark or signature Bond that we knew nor the Bond of the books.
There were 3 Cinematic Bonds but my personal favorite was Brosnan, It started with Connery then Moore and finished with Brosnan, they are varients of THE SAME Cinematic Bond, sure Moore went over the top at times with comedy and Brosnan could be completely ruthless and has killed more henchmen than anyone else but they have the same CORE ELEMENTS needed to be Bond where it really mattered...... A Deadly Charming Charismatic Suave Sophisticated Womanizing Playboy and that's why every guy wanted to be him
If you want the more serious and realistic Bond of the novels then watch Dalton and Craig movies which are good action movies but NOT Bond movies, a generic action movie wouldn't have gotten past Dr No
Bond was by far the coolest guy on the planet for decades (despite LTK being as serious as a heart attack) through Connery Moore then Brosnan
You can't be the coolest guy on the planet if you resign twice because you've fallen in love TWICE
Bond died the day Brosnan handed in his Walther PPK & LTK imo
Comments
That’s unnecessary and is based on a misinterpretation of what I said. Let’s not call each other ignorant.
I can guess what you mean by ‘type‘ in Bond’s case (although I’d say Moore doesn’t fit that either and until Craig came along Bond was basically defined as either Moore or Connery), but what I don’t understand is why you think it’s relevant anymore. Craig, Moore, Keaton, Downey etc. show that it’s not important.
For me the only ‘type’ that Bond needs to be cast to is that he should be vaguely athletic, convincingly British, attractive in a masculine way. Hair colour, height, exact style of looks, ethnicity even I think are all debatable.
So exactly the same situation as Keaton as Batman then. Downey Jr isn’t the comic book Stark at all, but he shaped the character to himself and was a massive success.
RDJ is closer to being Tony Stark, including physical qualities, than DC is to Bond. By your argument on relevance, then DC is Bond in name only? Maybe a better Holmes comparison is Benedict Cumberbatch's version, because like DC's Bond, Cumberbatch is Sherlock Holmes. And yet is Cumberbatch really Sherlock Holmes?
Gosh I wouldn't say so. He's quite short and slight. Comic Stark is, like all comic book men, a big tall musclebound, chiselled and perfectly handsome chap. Downey is way more interesting!
DC is an alpha male, very masculine type who pretty much matches Bond. And when we say matches the Bond description, that's a sort of vaguely agreed-upon definition reached by combining the movie actors who have defined him- it's moved beyond Fleming's version of Bond which none of the actors have really matched all that well. Maybe Dalton because he's actually a bit slimmer than the rest, and that's what IF seemed to have in mind physically.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by the two suggestions in this paragraph.
Well, Barbel, TP, myself and a good percentage of the UK fit into that category... and I'm not quite sure that Fleming had such a loose description in mind.
I'm not sure that 'the Bond description' should move beyond Fleming's version, or pretty soon Bond will be reduced to just another generic, anodyne action hero. And why stop at convincingly British, attractive and vaguely athletic? If you dispense with the essential 'Bond description' you can pretty much dispense with everything else, so he could be played by anyone from Arnold Schwarzenegger to Danny DeVito...
Well okay, mid-late thirties too. Fleming describes him as looking like he's got 'mixed blood' in LALD, so ethnicity is fairly debatable.
The best idea we probably get (apart from most probably Bond being a slightly idealised version of himself!) is when he says he looks like Hoagy Carmichael, and very few of the actors so far have been very close to that. Apart from having a rounder face, Craig actually doesn't look all that dissimilar to Carmichael.
I daresay when Connery was cast Fleming probably thought he was a fairly blandly good-looking male model type instead of the more rugged, cruel version he seems to describe in the novels.
Personally I get the impression he was picturing someone like Richard Johnson:
That's a pretty textbook strawman argument so I'm not really going to go into that.
I would say that it's too late to complain about it moving beyond Fleming's description as that happened a long time ago.
Having seen quite a few films with all those actors, I'd agree those were good choices.
Richard Johnson would've been good too, as mentioned.
The only time Cubby went slightly off-piste was casting Roger (my favourite, as it happens), as they were trying to pick someone who was already a household name as opposed to establishing a star from scratch as they had done with Lazenby. Dalton was a more organic choice. Brosnan was stereo-typically good-looking which, as it turned out, was a perfect decision for the metro-sexual '90s of lurid after-shave commercials and preening pin-ups.
? I haven't had a go at you?
'Ad hominem' means to attack the person rather than the argument.
The object of such an argument is not limited to a person per se, but can include ideas and statements you oppose and which therefore you attempt to discredit. You know, the Internet is your friend. A good example is this very assertion you’re making, as well as the manner of your attacks elswhere in this thread on statements you don’t agree with, in that something is not this, which is often highly subjective on your part btw, and so therefore it is that.
I just rediscovered this thread now after making a comment in it a few years ago.
It's good that a thread like this has not caused the outrage it would have possibly caused back in 2006, when Craig's casting was seen as the only step foreword for the franchise.
I was one of those who thought Craig was miscast, and I still think that, but I can watch his performance as Bond in a more detached way now.
I think part of my problem with him, was that his hair was too light and was semi-crewcut in his first two Bond films. Not something that lent itself to my idea of how Bond looked from the novels and previous Bond films.
Had he had black hair, like he did in the film "Sylvia", I could have accepted him more easily. Superficial, I know, but films, as an earlier poster has said, are visual.
Craig in "Sylvia"
But what does an assassin have to look like? Surely they need to not look violent, otherwise they would stand out. The Bond "as only an assassin" theory, is not tenable. He had other duties in the field. Yes, he killed people, but do you have to look like a "brute" to do that well?
Emtiem wrote:
"The best idea we probably get (apart from most probably Bond being a slightly idealised version of himself!) is when he [Fleming] says he [Bond] looks like Hoagy Carmichael, and very few of the actors so far have been very close to that. Apart from having a rounder face, Craig actually doesn't look all that dissimilar to Carmichael."
Here a picture of Carmichael. To me, he is nearer to Dalton than Craig in looks.
Yes, I've always felt Craig does have a bit of Carmichael about him.
In my book he definitely wasn’t miscast. He was absolutely superb in Casino Royale. Very good in QoS and parts of Skyfall. I just wish they hadn’t given him so much clout in the films after Casino.
I'd say there's a bit of both. Dalton has the bone structure, Craig has similar features. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
In terms of general build, style of looks etc. I'd say that David Niven is probably a closer match to the type of guy Fleming was thinking of than either of those! 😊 Or indeed Richard Johnson, who's almost a lookalike.
Bond of the books is a period character, basically. If you update that person to the 80s you have Dalton, bouffant, baggy suit and all; bring that type to the 2000s and Craig is a good match.
I agree, Richard Johnson would have fitted the part, but he lacked charisma, at least he did in the films he was in that spoofed Bond.
I always thought a young Martin Kemp would have been a good fit, looks-wise. He also has a bit of George Lazenby about him. But whether he is able to play the part is not known. He was good in The Krays film, though.
The suits Craig wears as Bond are very tight fitting as has been mentioned here before. He's the only MI6 agent in his Bond films that wears tight suits.
Oh absolutely, Johnson wasn't much of a movie star, although he was fine. I'm absolutely just talking in terms of the physicality of matching the book Bond.
Martin Kemp is a very interesting idea. Whenever I see the BBC version of A Caribbean Mystery, I always think that Michael Feast has the kind of look of how I imagine Fleming's 1950s Bond to be, even though he's not the most movie star beautiful man out there.
He's just never been Bond for me, no fun and escapism like with Connery Moore and Brosnan, I feel like I haven't seen Bond for 20 years
I'll agree with you, he's even not the Bond of the books (many think of physical, but also in deeds), I mean he's always going rogue, arguing with his superiors and stoic.
The Bond of the books at least smiles, even laughs, and obedient to M and his orders.
Both Lazenby and Dalton got this.
Craig had his own thing, does he fit the modern era? Yes, perfectly.
But that's not the ideal Bond, sure while he's the Bond of or for this era, he's not the trademark or signature Bond that we knew nor the Bond of the books.
Well this is my take....
There were 3 Cinematic Bonds but my personal favorite was Brosnan, It started with Connery then Moore and finished with Brosnan, they are varients of THE SAME Cinematic Bond, sure Moore went over the top at times with comedy and Brosnan could be completely ruthless and has killed more henchmen than anyone else but they have the same CORE ELEMENTS needed to be Bond where it really mattered...... A Deadly Charming Charismatic Suave Sophisticated Womanizing Playboy and that's why every guy wanted to be him
If you want the more serious and realistic Bond of the novels then watch Dalton and Craig movies which are good action movies but NOT Bond movies, a generic action movie wouldn't have gotten past Dr No
Bond was by far the coolest guy on the planet for decades (despite LTK being as serious as a heart attack) through Connery Moore then Brosnan
You can't be the coolest guy on the planet if you resign twice because you've fallen in love TWICE
Bond died the day Brosnan handed in his Walther PPK & LTK imo