I am glad that you "enjoyed" viewing CR'06. Why not put it somewhere in your favorite films list.
A healthy disagreement over the merits of a film, means that at least someone paid some attention to it. I am going to treat myself and watch CR'06 again and pay attention to some of the points you raise.
For my part, until now I felt the last really good Bond had been made in 1969 - that's a long wait for something "good" IMO.
Casino Royale was a hit wth me for reasons senitmental as well as the actual content. I recall looking forward to the "Based on the Novel by Ian Fleming" in the credits as much as anything.
Fleming wrote some great novels and I am always horrified when the producers toss his material out to add a chase or a bimbo. How neat it would have been to have Bond ambushed by two suicide bombers (as in the book) in Montenegro - more exciting than an airport chase redux of LTK Peterbuilt races!
As for Clive, I saw "Children of Man" and was not as impressed by his appearance in that film as I was by DC in "Layer Cake".
Dan Same,
I know you did not refer to Craig as "Old POtato Head". That honor goes to Loeffelholz. As for exactly what I meant by masculine strength and presence is that both Craig and Connery have a presence which exudes a particular male strength. Call it machismo if you like. While Brosnan did a fine job in the role he was way too good looking. His features were soft, almost pretty. The same holds true for Roger Moore especially in his first two outings as Bond. He never seems worried or frightened and the action just explodes harmlessly around him while he winks and raises his eyebrows. Craig's Bond bleeds, gets angry, gets arrogant and yet can be gentle.
The scene in which he finds Vesper sitting in the shower, trying to wash the blood from her hands and he manages to comfort her, just by his presence, is something that would be beyond a Moore or Lazenby. It's one of the best scenes in the film. I honestly can't see Roger Moore or even Pierce Brosnan performing that scene quite as convincingly.
Daniel Craig is a fine Bond and I hope he stays around for a while.
-{
As for exactly what I meant by masculine strength and presence is that both Craig and Connery have a presence which exudes a particular male strength. Call it machismo if you like. While Brosnan did a fine job in the role he was way too good looking. His features were soft, almost pretty.
Too good looking? I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this. For I did not find Brosnan to be too good looking at all. This is a common criticism of Brosnan but I don't find it implausible that a 00 would look like him. I do agree with you that Connery and Craig exude what conventional society might consider to be 'a particular male strength.' I don't agree with this, not because I don't think that Craig is weak, but because I don't think that Moore and (particularly) Brosnan are weak. I have never had a problem with the looks of any Bond; except Craig.
BTW, as for calling Brosnan pretty; I don't know why that matters. Are all tough guys non-pretty? Muhammed Ali referred to himself as pretty, yet he was one of the greatest boxers of all time. I don't know why a Bond can't be both pretty and tough.
The same holds true for Roger Moore especially in his first two outings as Bond. He never seems worried or frightened and the action just explodes harmlessly around him while he winks and raises his eyebrows.
I disagree. In LALD he escaped from the crocodiles and embarked on the chase, while in AVTAK there was the fight in the dressing room. I think Moore was fantastic in LALD, and was pretty good in TMWTGG, and IMO displayed the appropiate amount of toughness in each film.
Craig's Bond bleeds, gets angry, gets arrogant and yet can be gentle.
The scene in which he finds Vesper sitting in the shower, trying to wash the blood from her hands and he manages to comfort her, just by his presence, is something that would be beyond a Moore or Lazenby. It's one of the best scenes in the film. I honestly can't see Roger Moore or even Pierce Brosnan performing that scene quite as convincingly.
Perhaps you're right about Moore and Lazenby (although I disagree about Brosnan) handling that scene convincingly, but the question is, would you want them to? :v I mean, in that scene Bond sucks Vesper's fingers. Whereas some people loved that scene, I found it to be very creepy and quite vampire-like. Ah well, each to his own.
Daniel Craig is a fine Bond and I hope he stays around for a while.
-{
That's fine. Although I have opposite sentiments, I'm happy that he has his admirers. :007) (afterall, if he wasn't successful, the producers might be less willing to make more Bond films. I may not like Craig, but I need for him to be successful so that there's still a series for when IMO a real Bond comes along. ))
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
What's this about the "Old Potato Head" nick name for DC, I kind of like it and find it "fun".
I watched CR'06 again this morning. I must say DC is inspired casting. Given the revised "profile" the producers concocted on their web page he is a great match. I am delighted that he is not a Connery or Moore knock off.
Dan Same, I know you did not refer to Craig as "Old POtato Head". That honor goes to Loeffelholz.
Sorry, but I must issue a correction: The term "Old Potato Head" was, in fact, used by my good friend Dan Same---on page one of this thread---to which I merely replied with a triple ) ...so the 'honour' is all his...
I'm as solid a supporter of Daniel Craig as any on this site---in fact, I've been one of his strident supporters since the onset of the Craig Wars on 14 October 2005. I laughed at Dan's use of the term 'Old Potato Head' because it hearkened back to those Wars, and the hackles raised by such offhandedly-used slag-terms...but we're really past all that now. Dan didn't mean it in a negative manner; it was an homage B-)
The Craig Wars are over, save for the occasional border skirmish---and accompanying burst of automatic gunfire :v
Craig's Bond is a hit, and I'm quite happy about that. I enjoy the miseries of the Anti-Craig crowd, since I once suffered through a 14 year-long Bond Dark Age, and I know how they feel...
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
I don't know if all those British lottery funded films gave me a Daniel Craig phobia or something but I do seem to be almost the last person left on this site who struggles with the Craigster. I thought Casino Royale was quite a schizophrenic film. It made Bond more of a 'real' person but only after the parkour chase, which must rival anything in the series for implausibility, and then Bond somehow avoiding hundreds of bullets in the Embassy etc.
I think I would have enjoyed it a lot with a more 'traditional' Bond actor. Craig never looks quite right to me in a refined setting.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I don't know if all those British lottery funded films gave me a Daniel Craig phobia or something but I do seem to be almost the last person left on this site who struggles with the Craigster.
I know for certain you're far from alone in this respect; I could quickly name a dozen regular posters here who feel the same way---no Bond is everyone's favourite---but the fact is that Craig (as Bond) is a fait accompli, and there comes a point where it's just wasted energy.
I certainly didn't spend the years 1973 thru 1985 railing against Eon's choice of actors; it was what it was, and I got what enjoyment I could from it.
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
You're not alone arthur. I still have issues with him too. And the fact that he cannot wait to be done with this role and move on with his life endears me even less. It's the role of a lifetime, and he should feel damn lucky. Especially since he was such a long shot in the first place. I know in some interviews he's come off better than others, saying that he truly does care about it, and wants to do justice to it, but typically I can't be bothered with whining actors feeling sorry for themselves.
Lump me in with the lepers who have trouble with Craig as Bond. He did a better job than I thought he would and he clearly took the role very seriously. But he just doesn't do it for me. I'm just trying to figure out if it's just Craig or the overall tone of CR that leaves me cold. The more I watch the movie, the less I like it. That's not an indictment of the movie, just a reflection of my tastes and preferences.
It took me a while to come around to Dalton's interpretation of Bond; I now hold it in very high regard, even if his movies aren't my favorites. Maybe the same thing will happen with Craig. I probably won't have a definitive answer to this question until Bond #22. Still, as Loeffs says, all one can do is try to derive as much enjoyment as possible until the pendulum swings back some place closer to one's own personal comfort level.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
...all one can do is try to derive as much enjoyment as possible until the pendulum swings back some place closer to one's own personal comfort level.
And swing it will...if history's taught us nothing else, that much is clear {[]
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
DC got the bond role on his performance in layer cake as stated by EON in an interview. I have nothing against DC as an actor I've seen many of his films and enjoyed the majority of them. Watching CR if Eon had not said previously that DC was bond until someone called him 007 in the film I would not have known who was playing Bond. It's just that DC does not look or act like a 007 (imo) I kept expecting the story line to be that DC is perhaps 006 or 008 looking for 007 who has gone missing. Why was DC more Bond in layer cake than in CR?. Lets hope that DC does retire from Bond after the next film, and the next Bond will be someone who can play Bond and not some phsycho ex forces streoid freak with a chip on his shoulder.
DALTON FOREVER
And the fact that he cannot wait to be done with this role and move on with his life endears me even less. It's the role of a lifetime, and he should feel damn lucky.
I couldn’t agree more. I liked DC and CR but his apparent lack of appreciation for the role does bother me. Connery’s bad attitude about Bond bothers me too. That was one thing I really liked about Brosnan; that he seemed to be a Bond fan and really enjoy being the actor who portrayed him.
"A blunt instrument wielded by a Government department. Hard, ruthless, sardonic, fatalistic. He likes gambling, golf, fast motor cars. All his movements are relaxed and economical". Ian Fleming
Good grief--did no one pay attention to two crucial things from the MI6 article? Here they are:
The paper quotes Craig as saying "I don’t want to make just spy films. I’ve never made movies for money."
From that they stretched the headline to read that it was only "1 more 007 film for Daniel"
Craig didn't slam the role, express dissatisfication with the film or with his success, or say that he'll abandon the franchise as soon as he can. He simply said he doesn't want to make ONLY spy films. And just as the Sun turned that into "Craig quits," some people here are stretching this innocent comment into "Craig pees all over the Bond role and Bond fans." Man, does anyone wonder why Craig attacked that press photographer?
Good grief--did no one pay attention to two crucial things from the MI6 article? Here they are:
The paper quotes Craig as saying "I don’t want to make just spy films. I’ve never made movies for money."
From that they stretched the headline to read that it was only "1 more 007 film for Daniel"
Craig didn't slam the role, express dissatisfication with the film or with his success, or say that he'll abandon the franchise as soon as he can. He simply said he doesn't want to make ONLY spy films. And just as the Sun turned that into "Craig quits," some people here are stretching this innocent comment into "Craig pees all over the Bond role and Bond fans." Man, does anyone wonder why Craig attacked that press photographer?
Exactly right, Hardy.
People can have honest disagreements over the quality of a film, but this kind of harping on Craig borders on the pathological. All I've ever heard the man say is that 1) He didn't grow up dreaming of being Bond 2) Didn't think he was a serious contender for the role 3) Saw it as a challenge 4) Decided to take a stab at the challenge 5) Tried to give it 110 percent 6) Is looking forward to other challenges 7) Appreciates a good payday like everyone else but not at the expense of good work (and a lot of the best stuff is where he comes from: independent films) 8) The praise for 21 was nice, but Bond 22 has to be even better.
What the hell is wrong with that? What does he have to do? Promise to hurl himself over a cliff when his Bond contract is up? Ask to be buried in his James Bond tux like Bela Lugosi and his Dracula cape? Insist his friends call him "007"?
I don't think any of the comments about Craig in this thread render anyone pathological. Jesus..I was simply letting arthur_pringle know he wasn't alone in his feeling. And Hardy, I wasn't even talking about that article..neither was Tony, or arthur. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother hitting the reply button anymore.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
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
I have managed to survive Sean Connery, David Niven, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan.
It seems that the feelings against Craig are stronger than any expressed against any of the others who have earned the oo7 title.
I find that odd because the film would stand on its own if you changed the names of the charecters!
As pointed out Craig is sincerly devoted to making a superior Bond film. In light of nasty creations like DAD, everyone should be cheering!!
It takes awhile to accept change. Craig with his lighter hair and "potato" looks do not mirror PB, SC or TD - SO WHAT! I hated GL for years, until I was able to realise SC was an actor playing a part - he was NOT James Bond. Once I did GL worked for me and I could appreciate the effort he brought to the role.
Instead of dogging DC (unless its just for fun) fans need to open their imaginations and try to embrace the new film and the new direction.
People can have honest disagreements over the quality of a film, but this kind of harping on Craig borders on the pathological. All I've ever heard the man say is that 1) He didn't grow up dreaming of being Bond 2) Didn't think he was a serious contender for the role 3) Saw it as a challenge 4) Decided to take a stab at the challenge 5) Tried to give it 110 percent 6) Is looking forward to other challenges 7) Appreciates a good payday like everyone else but not at the expense of good work (and a lot of the best stuff is where he comes from: independent films) 8) The praise for 21 was nice, but Bond 22 has to be even better.
What the hell is wrong with that? What does he have to do? Promise to hurl himself over a cliff when his Bond contract is up? Ask to be buried in his James Bond tux like Bela Lugosi and his Dracula cape? Insist his friends call him "007"?
Who's being pathological? Take another look at this thread and you'll see that nearly every post discusses Craig's portrayal of Bond and the tone of the movie - and, save for a couple of odd entries, does it in a very friendly and good natured manner. Hardly anybody even references the article.
I can't speak for anyone else but I didn't even read the article in the Sun; I could care less what they or Craig or anyone else have to say about whether he will or will not do another movie. My comments were largely for Monique's and Arthur's benefit and focused 100% on the tone of the movie and Craig's portrayal. End of story.
I have managed to survive Sean Connery, David Niven, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan.
It seems that the feelings against Craig are stronger than any expressed against any of the others who have earned the oo7 title.
I find that odd because the film would stand on its own if you changed the names of the charecters!
As pointed out Craig is sincerly devoted to making a superior Bond film. In light of nasty creations like DAD, everyone should be cheering!!
It takes awhile to accept change. Craig with his lighter hair and "potato" looks do not mirror PB, SC or TD - SO WHAT! I hated GL for years, until I was able to realise SC was an actor playing a part - he was NOT James Bond. Once I did GL worked for me and I could appreciate the effort he brought to the role.
Instead of dogging DC (unless its just for fun) fans need to open their imaginations and try to embrace the new film and the new direction.
Finally, READ THE BOOKS!!!!!
Stay out of this thread, stay out of this thread, ah what the hell.
First I have read the books, several times over, as have many many people on this site. However, I do not understand what that has to do with a person's liking or not liking an actor in a role. Craig is not my Bond cup of tea, but I do think he gave a good performance in the film. I just like my Bond a little different looking, no big deal. Tony and Mo stated about the same thing, what is wrong with that. They certainly didn't say anything out of line IMO.
Loeffs doesn't care for the Moore years, Blue doesn't like the Brosnan years, put me in the camp of not caring for the Craig years. Like Tony the more I see CR, the less I like it.
The good thing is, in a few years Craig will be gone and we can all start argueing over who the new Bond should be. I know Loeffs is already working on his Henry Cavill campaign.
I have managed to survive Sean Connery, David Niven, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan.
It seems that the feelings against Craig are stronger than any expressed against any of the others who have earned the oo7 title.
I find that odd because the film would stand on its own if you changed the names of the charecters!
As pointed out Craig is sincerly devoted to making a superior Bond film. In light of nasty creations like DAD, everyone should be cheering!!
It takes awhile to accept change. Craig with his lighter hair and "potato" looks do not mirror PB, SC or TD - SO WHAT! I hated GL for years, until I was able to realise SC was an actor playing a part - he was NOT James Bond. Once I did GL worked for me and I could appreciate the effort he brought to the role.
Instead of dogging DC (unless its just for fun) fans need to open their imaginations and try to embrace the new film and the new direction.
Finally, READ THE BOOKS!!!!!
Stay out of this thread, stay out of this thread, ah what the hell.
First I have read the books, several times over, as have many many people on this site. However, I do not understand what that has to do with a person's liking or not liking an actor in a role. Craig is not my Bond cup of tea, but I do think he gave a good performance in the film. I just like my Bond a little different looking, no big deal. Tony and Mo stated about the same thing, what is wrong with that. They certainly didn't say anything out of line IMO.
Loeffs doesn't care for the Moore years, Blue doesn't like the Brosnan years, put me in the camp of not caring for the Craig years. Like Tony the more I see CR, the less I like it.
The good thing is, in a few years Craig will be gone and we can all start argueing over who the new Bond should be. I know Loeffs is already working on his Henry Cavill campaign.
Sorry about the pathological crack. It was directed more at the latest "news" story than the folks here. That some of you don't like Craig as Bond, I feel your pain -- and I've felt it longer, too: I haven't really liked a new Bond since Connery, until Danny came along. But what's up with these transparently fabricated "news" stories that seem designed to make him look like an *******? Now I may be wrong, but I don't remember reading these types of things about other Bonds, and certainly not this late in the game -- and they all had their detractors, too. Craig's had the job for a couple years now. To be still portraying him as some kind of disrespectul, reluctant ingrate, which is transparently untrue yet a common thread to these stories, IS pathological.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I know Loeffs is already working on his Henry Cavill campaign.
Quite right...and trying to figure out how I can make a dollar in the process {:)
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
It seems that the feelings against Craig are stronger than any expressed against any of the others who have earned the oo7 title.
To my personal opinion, this has nothing to do with DC. It is just the way, the yellowpress is bending stories to get themselfs more spectacular ergo to sell more magazines. It has nothing to do with DCs performance or the tone of Casino Royale, it is just to produce one more spectacular story after the last one.
The "good old" days in the e.g. R.M area did not know the internet, instant messaging and hundreds of cable tv channels, it is simply the huge amount of info the yellow press has to battle.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
After re-reading some of this thread, prehaps I should have directed my remarks more specifically at the "anti - Craig" slant of the original article.
My point regarding the books, was that the second half of CR'06 was relatively faithful to the book - and for me that was the essence of it's success - a good story that translated at the box office into the Highest Grossing Bond.
Forgive me if you have read the books, but so many posters seem to regard reading as a "lost art". For Bond to continue as "James Bond" there HAS to be a connection with the source material- otherwise hire Burt Reynolds or Bruce Willis for the lead and make "Die Another Day Part Two".
I'm not overly concerned about that The very fact that they shook things up with the last one has made another DAD unlikely in the short run (I hope)...
This story is precisely intended to stoke things up during a quiet spell whilst the next Bond is still in pre-production. I really think that, failing some remarkable development, Craig will fulfill his three-picture deal (at least). After that, it will be more about how much Eon is willing to pay him, picture-by-picture---and whether Craig still has any interest in what they're doing with the character; he strikes me as the sort who will walk away from Big Money if he's bored...
I agree, that definitely sounds like something he would do and if I were in his position I'd do the same to avoid being in another mess like DAD. I personally love DC and I would really love him to do as many more as possible so we can see where he takes Bond and makes him the great character that Connery did!
Comments
I am glad that you "enjoyed" viewing CR'06. Why not put it somewhere in your favorite films list.
A healthy disagreement over the merits of a film, means that at least someone paid some attention to it. I am going to treat myself and watch CR'06 again and pay attention to some of the points you raise.
For my part, until now I felt the last really good Bond had been made in 1969 - that's a long wait for something "good" IMO.
Casino Royale was a hit wth me for reasons senitmental as well as the actual content. I recall looking forward to the "Based on the Novel by Ian Fleming" in the credits as much as anything.
Fleming wrote some great novels and I am always horrified when the producers toss his material out to add a chase or a bimbo. How neat it would have been to have Bond ambushed by two suicide bombers (as in the book) in Montenegro - more exciting than an airport chase redux of LTK Peterbuilt races!
As for Clive, I saw "Children of Man" and was not as impressed by his appearance in that film as I was by DC in "Layer Cake".
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
I know you did not refer to Craig as "Old POtato Head". That honor goes to Loeffelholz. As for exactly what I meant by masculine strength and presence is that both Craig and Connery have a presence which exudes a particular male strength. Call it machismo if you like. While Brosnan did a fine job in the role he was way too good looking. His features were soft, almost pretty. The same holds true for Roger Moore especially in his first two outings as Bond. He never seems worried or frightened and the action just explodes harmlessly around him while he winks and raises his eyebrows. Craig's Bond bleeds, gets angry, gets arrogant and yet can be gentle.
The scene in which he finds Vesper sitting in the shower, trying to wash the blood from her hands and he manages to comfort her, just by his presence, is something that would be beyond a Moore or Lazenby. It's one of the best scenes in the film. I honestly can't see Roger Moore or even Pierce Brosnan performing that scene quite as convincingly.
Daniel Craig is a fine Bond and I hope he stays around for a while.
-{
Too good looking? I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this. For I did not find Brosnan to be too good looking at all. This is a common criticism of Brosnan but I don't find it implausible that a 00 would look like him. I do agree with you that Connery and Craig exude what conventional society might consider to be 'a particular male strength.' I don't agree with this, not because I don't think that Craig is weak, but because I don't think that Moore and (particularly) Brosnan are weak. I have never had a problem with the looks of any Bond; except Craig.
BTW, as for calling Brosnan pretty; I don't know why that matters. Are all tough guys non-pretty? Muhammed Ali referred to himself as pretty, yet he was one of the greatest boxers of all time.
I disagree. In LALD he escaped from the crocodiles and embarked on the chase, while in AVTAK there was the fight in the dressing room. I think Moore was fantastic in LALD, and was pretty good in TMWTGG, and IMO displayed the appropiate amount of toughness in each film.
Perhaps you're right about Moore and Lazenby (although I disagree about Brosnan) handling that scene convincingly, but the question is, would you want them to? :v I mean, in that scene Bond sucks Vesper's fingers.
That's fine. Although I have opposite sentiments, I'm happy that he has his admirers. :007) (afterall, if he wasn't successful, the producers might be less willing to make more Bond films. I may not like Craig, but I need for him to be successful so that there's still a series for when IMO a real Bond comes along.
I watched CR'06 again this morning. I must say DC is inspired casting. Given the revised "profile" the producers concocted on their web page he is a great match. I am delighted that he is not a Connery or Moore knock off.
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
Sorry, but I must issue a correction: The term "Old Potato Head" was, in fact, used by my good friend Dan Same---on page one of this thread---to which I merely replied with a triple
I'm as solid a supporter of Daniel Craig as any on this site---in fact, I've been one of his strident supporters since the onset of the Craig Wars on 14 October 2005. I laughed at Dan's use of the term 'Old Potato Head' because it hearkened back to those Wars, and the hackles raised by such offhandedly-used slag-terms...but we're really past all that now. Dan didn't mean it in a negative manner; it was an homage B-)
The Craig Wars are over, save for the occasional border skirmish---and accompanying burst of automatic gunfire :v
Craig's Bond is a hit, and I'm quite happy about that. I enjoy the miseries of the Anti-Craig crowd, since I once suffered through a 14 year-long Bond Dark Age, and I know how they feel...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I think I would have enjoyed it a lot with a more 'traditional' Bond actor. Craig never looks quite right to me in a refined setting.
I know for certain you're far from alone in this respect; I could quickly name a dozen regular posters here who feel the same way---no Bond is everyone's favourite---but the fact is that Craig (as Bond) is a fait accompli, and there comes a point where it's just wasted energy.
I certainly didn't spend the years 1973 thru 1985 railing against Eon's choice of actors; it was what it was, and I got what enjoyment I could from it.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
It took me a while to come around to Dalton's interpretation of Bond; I now hold it in very high regard, even if his movies aren't my favorites. Maybe the same thing will happen with Craig. I probably won't have a definitive answer to this question until Bond #22. Still, as Loeffs says, all one can do is try to derive as much enjoyment as possible until the pendulum swings back some place closer to one's own personal comfort level.
And swing it will...if history's taught us nothing else, that much is clear {[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
DALTON FOREVER
I couldn’t agree more. I liked DC and CR but his apparent lack of appreciation for the role does bother me. Connery’s bad attitude about Bond bothers me too. That was one thing I really liked about Brosnan; that he seemed to be a Bond fan and really enjoy being the actor who portrayed him.
BRING BACK BROSNAN!
The paper quotes Craig as saying "I don’t want to make just spy films. I’ve never made movies for money."
From that they stretched the headline to read that it was only "1 more 007 film for Daniel"
Craig didn't slam the role, express dissatisfication with the film or with his success, or say that he'll abandon the franchise as soon as he can. He simply said he doesn't want to make ONLY spy films. And just as the Sun turned that into "Craig quits," some people here are stretching this innocent comment into "Craig pees all over the Bond role and Bond fans." Man, does anyone wonder why Craig attacked that press photographer?
Exactly right, Hardy.
People can have honest disagreements over the quality of a film, but this kind of harping on Craig borders on the pathological. All I've ever heard the man say is that 1) He didn't grow up dreaming of being Bond 2) Didn't think he was a serious contender for the role 3) Saw it as a challenge 4) Decided to take a stab at the challenge 5) Tried to give it 110 percent 6) Is looking forward to other challenges 7) Appreciates a good payday like everyone else but not at the expense of good work (and a lot of the best stuff is where he comes from: independent films) 8) The praise for 21 was nice, but Bond 22 has to be even better.
What the hell is wrong with that? What does he have to do? Promise to hurl himself over a cliff when his Bond contract is up? Ask to be buried in his James Bond tux like Bela Lugosi and his Dracula cape? Insist his friends call him "007"?
Okay...perhaps there's more than a dozen
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I have managed to survive Sean Connery, David Niven, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan.
It seems that the feelings against Craig are stronger than any expressed against any of the others who have earned the oo7 title.
I find that odd because the film would stand on its own if you changed the names of the charecters!
As pointed out Craig is sincerly devoted to making a superior Bond film. In light of nasty creations like DAD, everyone should be cheering!!
It takes awhile to accept change. Craig with his lighter hair and "potato" looks do not mirror PB, SC or TD - SO WHAT! I hated GL for years, until I was able to realise SC was an actor playing a part - he was NOT James Bond. Once I did GL worked for me and I could appreciate the effort he brought to the role.
Instead of dogging DC (unless its just for fun) fans need to open their imaginations and try to embrace the new film and the new direction.
Finally, READ THE BOOKS!!!!!
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
Who's being pathological? Take another look at this thread and you'll see that nearly every post discusses Craig's portrayal of Bond and the tone of the movie - and, save for a couple of odd entries, does it in a very friendly and good natured manner. Hardly anybody even references the article.
I can't speak for anyone else but I didn't even read the article in the Sun; I could care less what they or Craig or anyone else have to say about whether he will or will not do another movie. My comments were largely for Monique's and Arthur's benefit and focused 100% on the tone of the movie and Craig's portrayal. End of story.
Stay out of this thread, stay out of this thread, ah what the hell.
First I have read the books, several times over, as have many many people on this site. However, I do not understand what that has to do with a person's liking or not liking an actor in a role. Craig is not my Bond cup of tea, but I do think he gave a good performance in the film. I just like my Bond a little different looking, no big deal. Tony and Mo stated about the same thing, what is wrong with that. They certainly didn't say anything out of line IMO.
Loeffs doesn't care for the Moore years, Blue doesn't like the Brosnan years, put me in the camp of not caring for the Craig years. Like Tony the more I see CR, the less I like it.
The good thing is, in a few years Craig will be gone and we can all start argueing over who the new Bond should be. I know Loeffs is already working on his Henry Cavill campaign.
Sorry about the pathological crack. It was directed more at the latest "news" story than the folks here. That some of you don't like Craig as Bond, I feel your pain -- and I've felt it longer, too: I haven't really liked a new Bond since Connery, until Danny came along. But what's up with these transparently fabricated "news" stories that seem designed to make him look like an *******? Now I may be wrong, but I don't remember reading these types of things about other Bonds, and certainly not this late in the game -- and they all had their detractors, too. Craig's had the job for a couple years now. To be still portraying him as some kind of disrespectul, reluctant ingrate, which is transparently untrue yet a common thread to these stories, IS pathological.
Quite right...and trying to figure out how I can make a dollar in the process {:)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
To my personal opinion, this has nothing to do with DC. It is just the way, the yellowpress is bending stories to get themselfs more spectacular ergo to sell more magazines. It has nothing to do with DCs performance or the tone of Casino Royale, it is just to produce one more spectacular story after the last one.
The "good old" days in the e.g. R.M area did not know the internet, instant messaging and hundreds of cable tv channels, it is simply the huge amount of info the yellow press has to battle.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
My point regarding the books, was that the second half of CR'06 was relatively faithful to the book - and for me that was the essence of it's success - a good story that translated at the box office into the Highest Grossing Bond.
Forgive me if you have read the books, but so many posters seem to regard reading as a "lost art". For Bond to continue as "James Bond" there HAS to be a connection with the source material- otherwise hire Burt Reynolds or Bruce Willis for the lead and make "Die Another Day Part Two".
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
I agree, that definitely sounds like something he would do and if I were in his position I'd do the same to avoid being in another mess like DAD. I personally love DC and I would really love him to do as many more as possible so we can see where he takes Bond and makes him the great character that Connery did!