Don't know if he's trying to do that specifically---I'm sure he'd say he isn't; he just wants to give a good performance, do something interesting with the character, and be successful, etc.---but he has, in my book :v ...albeit, just barely at the moment. I find his interpretation very satisfying, indeed, and I anticipate his future efforts with great enthusiasm.
He's certainly the 'second originator' of the role, at least, inasmuch as he's been much more successful than any other actor (since Connery) in taking the character back to its roots, at least in spirit...and as such, he is in the process of re-defining the role. Certainly no previous actor has encountered the same degree of entrenched resistance---though of course Lazenby must be happy there was no internet in 1969...
Granted, Craigger goes over like a lead balloon in Italy, ) , and other isolated but vocal pockets of fandom, if anecdotal evidence is to be given its due...but he's not completely repulsive to the masses as a whole :007)
Many might seek to minimize his overall impact on the franchise, but I believe it will become increasingly difficult to do so in years to come.
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 think he is trying to be a professional actor and do the best he can with the part he has been given and no chance he can overtake Connery, the man defined the role.
To me this whole idea of one actor "topping" another is not the best term to use because it all comes down to everyone's personal opinions and preferences. However, concerning whether or not Craig's Bond will become a version of Bond that is as lauded and praised as Connery's Bond is something that only time will tell. I do not think any Bond actor can "re-define" the role. This is because different approaches exist that are loved by many different people.
Currently to me there are three different types of Bonds. They are the Balanced Bond, the Cinematic Bond and the Fleming Bond. They are epitomized by Sean Connery, Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton respectively. These are my three favorite Bond actors and I prefer Moore out of them because of the cinematic approach. This leads me to claim that Connery did not really "define" the role since there are other possible approaches to take. It just so happens that his approach in my eyes had the balance required to be the best. So I will say that he is the best, but my favorite is Moore. He is always called the best Bond just because he is the original and that is in my opinion not a valid claim. There are plenty of instances in art and performance where originals can be "topped". There is no rule that says the original is the best and can never be beaten.
So, I believe that for the audience to proclaim Craig as the best or their favorite Bond he is going to have to take his style of Bond, which is Fleming, and do the best job with it. He will have to prove that it is better than the other approaches. I believe that if he does at least two more films he might be able to pull this off in the eyes of many. That is why the public has a lower opinion of Dalton. He did only two films and had no chance to seal the deal and prove to some fans that his approach was best. Heck, the guy almost sold me on Fleming as the best approach and I am a Cinematic Traditionalist! Craig is following in Dalton's footsteps and bringing us Fleming's Bond, but in my opinion he has yet to perform at Dalton's level. After a few more films he just might surpass it. Only time will tell.
All in all for Craig or any actor in the future to be able to convince the majority of the audiences that their Bond is the best and should be the new standard to look to over Connery's version they must choose one of the three Bond approaches and dominate it. Right now Moore and Connery are a favorite of many fans because in lots of people's eyes they have already dominated their respective approaches. All that is left is Fleming. Can Craig dominate his approach as well as make it the preferred approach of the fans and the regular cinema-goer? Only time will tell.
As for Craig having a big impact and being considered a pivotal figure in Bond history on down the road I think that view is a bit off. Craig may indeed be considered pivotal in the continued success of Bond due to his drastically different approach to the character coupled with the whole "reboot" thing. However, Roger Moore, if he is not already, should be considered just as pivotal. His impact and importance cannot be forgotten because as the successor to Sean Connery he had to approach the character in a different way and make it his own. He did just that and the franchise lasted over a decade with him. I, like many others, appreciate versatility and an ever-changing approach to the films and the character. Having said that if someone else other than Roger Moore came in and tried to be just like Connery and tried to make the films just like Connery's I do not think the franchise would have lasted. Roger Moore made different films than Connery and the audiences welcomed his change. Roger Moore helped the franchise survive its first major casting change. I do not see a challenge as big as that one on the horizon for Craig or any other actor.
Some of you may ask if there exists a different approach other than Balanced, Cinematic, and Fleming. In my opinion no other approach exists yet. Brosnan borrowed from all three of these and Lazenby had no time to form one. So what other approaches to you guys see, if any? Who in the future could pull it off? Who could possibly challenge the current dominators in their respective approaches?
I agree that there is no neccessity in the first incarnation of a role being definitive. For example many actors had played Sherlock Holmes before Jeremy Brett, but that does not stop his portrayal being regarded as the best so far by many fans (this one included)
I think that we get into a lot of hot water when comparing and ranking Bond actors as we are unlikely to agree on criteria. I believe Flemingesqe to be a red Herring also as the Novels are open texts and capable of a variety of interpretations by concentrating on facets of the character either explicity drawn by Fleming, or deducable and implicit.
For me Craig is unlikely to 'top' Connerry as I have not seen that extra ingredient of Magnetism and charm combined with ruthlesness that Connery did so well. We have seen ruthless alright but not the rest yet. He is a fine actor, and I hope future films give him the opportunity to develop this dimension. For me though he lacks the physical prescence of Connerry and that easy grace that was evident to Saltzman and Borccoli watching him walk across a road.
Still prefer Basil Rathbone's portrayal, and regarding Sean Connery, he's still the best Bond, certainly the most well rounded (handsome and able to do romance, humor, menace, physicality, and supercool with equal brilliance), and the model against which all Bonds will be measured. I really like Daniel Craig, who is my second favorite Bond, edging out (gasp!) George Lazenby, who in another film would have been terrific, but he's basically only had to play Bond in two modes so far: stone-cold, relentless pursuer and stone-cold but with weary, cynical heart broken. To elevate him further will require the films to do much more with him.
haven't you been starting the treat about DC trying to top SC (which is IMHO absurd. He may have his personal motivation & goals but I am sure, they have nothing to do with Sean Connery)
I wonder, why you are now starting with GL and TD ?:) ?:) ?:)
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
haven't you been starting the treat about DC trying to top SC (which is IMHO absurd. He may have his personal motivation & goals but I am sure, they have nothing to do with Sean Connery)
I wonder, why you are now starting with GL and TD ?:) ?:) ?:)
Before Daniel Craig was James Bond, here are the top actors who had played Bond:
1. Sean Connery
2. Roger Moore
3. Pierce Brosnan
4. George Lazenby
5. Timothy Dalton
So Timothy Dalton is a failure.
When Daniel Craig became Bond, here are the results:
1. Daniel Craig???
2. Sean Connery
3. Roger Moore
4. Pierce Brosnan
5. George Lazenby
6. Timothy Dalton
yes the man/woman above is correct in my opinion, bond actors are just the bond of the time, connery had the advantage of being first and craig has the advantage of being the present superspy.
I don't watch a film and think oh what would connery have said that line like because it's not the point of the bond films!!!
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
There is no valid way to compare Connery and Craig, they are very different men and their Bond films are decades apart made in vastly different eras.
Which is true, of course; it's just a matter of favourites...and lesser favourites. Daniel Craig is trying to give the best performance he can---make the best film(s) he can---he's (IMO) not trying to 'top' anyone. He's already declared Connery his own favourite...
Sean Connery's position as the big-screen originator of the role places him on an endlessly defensible pedestal...and deservedly so. His portrayal did, in fact, define the role, and was very much of its time, in so many respects.
Craig's also very much of his own time, given the distinct variance in overall style from what has come before (yes, Dalton included!); opinions will naturally vary, which is fair enough. I eagerly anticipate the rest of his tenure, to see where it goes from here, and whether he can deliver on the considerable promise he's shown through only two films.
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 personally think comparing one Bond to the other is completely nonsense. It also doesn't matter how you look at it. People in general can never be compared to eachother; Craig's interpretation of Bond is his, Connery's was his. I like to look at it somewhat like a Shakespearian role(or any famous role throughout history): it is each actor's job to give a new interpretation to the role, and even if one tries to do the same as a previous did, it will still be different, because you will always have your own face, bodylanguage, voice and character as an actor. Therefore I say, stop comparing, just like one interpretation or don't.
(but, just for the record, I will always prefer Connery over Craig:P)
NightshooterIn bed with SolitairePosts: 2,917MI6 Agent
I personally think comparing one Bond to the other is completely nonsense. It also doesn't matter how you look at it. People in general can never be compared to each other;
That's going to come as a great relief to many people, I'm sure! Especially Paris Hilton, who by now must be quite weary of constantly being mentioned in the same sentence with people such as Mother Teresa, Helen Keller and Madame Curie...
Craig's interpretation of Bond is his, Connery's was his. I like to look at it somewhat like a Shakespearian role(or any famous role throughout history): it is each actor's job to give a new interpretation to the role, and even if one tries to do the same as a previous did, it will still be different, because you will always have your own face, bodylanguage, voice and character as an actor. Therefore I say, stop comparing, just like one interpretation or don't.
Also quite a relief to, say, Mel Gibson, who now will never have to endure endure any further comparisons with Sir Laurence Olivier )
(but, just for the record, I will always prefer Connery over Craig :P )
To call such a comparison nonsense would naturally be...nonsense :v
But of course you can compare one actor to another---one football team to another, one rock band to another, etc., ad infinitum. It's the grist of the internet chat mill; it's our raison d'etre. Where you have independent thought, you have differing opinions, which inevitably leads to comparison, since when you prefer one over another, you often have reasons for doing so.
That said, and proceeding in agreement with your premise that comparisons are nonsense, I'd have to say that (for me) it's a knife-edge lead for Craig at this particular point in time. Nobody can diminish what Connery accomplished as James Bond, and he may well take the lead for me once again, when Craig's run is through, and Craigger takes his place in the rear-view mirror of history.
In order for the nonsensical comparison to be complete, however, Craig will have to turn in at least one bored performance, one fat performance...and, finally, one 'geezer turn' after abandoning the role for many years. Failing all that (which we won't know for decades!), Connery will probably triumph in the end, IMNO*, since such a feat will likely never again be duplicated.
:007)
* In My Nonsensical OpinionTM
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
My personal feeling is that Craig is one of the best actors to play Bond. Not in how he was trained, but in his ability to pull off the caracter. For example, Dalton was a well trained actor grounded in Shakespear and the classics. However, for me, Dalton did not quite pull off the Bond character. I see Craig in the Robert DiNero mold. He does what's required for the role. Craig got ripped for the role of Bond, the way DiNero got ripped and then pudgy to play Jake LaMotta in Raging Bull.
Furthermore, I don't see Craig trying to ape Connery, he's very much his own man in the role of Bond. Nevertheless, I still think Connery is the gold standard. I don't think Craig is trying to topple Connery either. Why should he? To be compared to Connery favorably is, I would think, the greatest reward. If you are compared favorably to the gold standard, don't you meet the standard?
DG
So, what sharp little eyes you've got...wait till you get to my teeth.
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
I think acknowledgement is the fair and level-minded way to appreciate things, vs. the not uncommon mania to get absolute validation for something you like, which I’ve done myself during the pre-CR days...validation by audience consensus, polls, etc. Similarly, some automatically hate the opposite of what they like, though it doesn’t seem right to totally dismiss any merit a person might have, just because he/she’s not you’re favorite. Then again, there are some who I think are the most entertaining of the bunch, over-extending themselves to suggest knighthood or canonization for their guy.
"...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.....
What's really striking about this thread is that it's comparing Craig's Bond and Connery's Bond... not Craig's Bond and Brosnan's Bond. One would think the two most recent Bonds would be the hot comparison, but oddly not.
What's really striking about this thread is that it's comparing Craig's Bond and Connery's Bond... not Craig's Bond and Brosnan's Bond. One would think the two most recent Bonds would be the hot comparison, but oddly not.
Well, IMO Connery and Craig are the two best---and they're probably closest in overall style, if not tone. Opinions will vary, but the question of whether Craig will 'top' Connery is more to the point, because he's the current Bond, and his future films/performances are an unknown, so a possibility remains (however remote for some ) that it could happen.
With Brozzer's four-film run complete, the jury's likely already in on whether or not he 'topped' Sir Sean.
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
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 he is trying to top Connery. I do think however, when Craig's run is finished we will be talking about him as the best Bond ever.
I love Craig's portrayal. That is amazing to me considering when he was announced I thought the series was over, especially when I heard the rumors about him failing to do different stunts, etc.
jorgem
DTWPosts: 98MI6 Agent
Comments
Don't know if he's trying to do that specifically---I'm sure he'd say he isn't; he just wants to give a good performance, do something interesting with the character, and be successful, etc.---but he has, in my book :v ...albeit, just barely at the moment. I find his interpretation very satisfying, indeed, and I anticipate his future efforts with great enthusiasm.
He's certainly the 'second originator' of the role, at least, inasmuch as he's been much more successful than any other actor (since Connery) in taking the character back to its roots, at least in spirit...and as such, he is in the process of re-defining the role. Certainly no previous actor has encountered the same degree of entrenched resistance---though of course Lazenby must be happy there was no internet in 1969...
Granted, Craigger goes over like a lead balloon in Italy,
Many might seek to minimize his overall impact on the franchise, but I believe it will become increasingly difficult to do so in years to come.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
You mean like putting something in his tea?
Currently to me there are three different types of Bonds. They are the Balanced Bond, the Cinematic Bond and the Fleming Bond. They are epitomized by Sean Connery, Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton respectively. These are my three favorite Bond actors and I prefer Moore out of them because of the cinematic approach. This leads me to claim that Connery did not really "define" the role since there are other possible approaches to take. It just so happens that his approach in my eyes had the balance required to be the best. So I will say that he is the best, but my favorite is Moore. He is always called the best Bond just because he is the original and that is in my opinion not a valid claim. There are plenty of instances in art and performance where originals can be "topped". There is no rule that says the original is the best and can never be beaten.
So, I believe that for the audience to proclaim Craig as the best or their favorite Bond he is going to have to take his style of Bond, which is Fleming, and do the best job with it. He will have to prove that it is better than the other approaches. I believe that if he does at least two more films he might be able to pull this off in the eyes of many. That is why the public has a lower opinion of Dalton. He did only two films and had no chance to seal the deal and prove to some fans that his approach was best. Heck, the guy almost sold me on Fleming as the best approach and I am a Cinematic Traditionalist! Craig is following in Dalton's footsteps and bringing us Fleming's Bond, but in my opinion he has yet to perform at Dalton's level. After a few more films he just might surpass it. Only time will tell.
All in all for Craig or any actor in the future to be able to convince the majority of the audiences that their Bond is the best and should be the new standard to look to over Connery's version they must choose one of the three Bond approaches and dominate it. Right now Moore and Connery are a favorite of many fans because in lots of people's eyes they have already dominated their respective approaches. All that is left is Fleming. Can Craig dominate his approach as well as make it the preferred approach of the fans and the regular cinema-goer? Only time will tell.
As for Craig having a big impact and being considered a pivotal figure in Bond history on down the road I think that view is a bit off. Craig may indeed be considered pivotal in the continued success of Bond due to his drastically different approach to the character coupled with the whole "reboot" thing. However, Roger Moore, if he is not already, should be considered just as pivotal. His impact and importance cannot be forgotten because as the successor to Sean Connery he had to approach the character in a different way and make it his own. He did just that and the franchise lasted over a decade with him. I, like many others, appreciate versatility and an ever-changing approach to the films and the character. Having said that if someone else other than Roger Moore came in and tried to be just like Connery and tried to make the films just like Connery's I do not think the franchise would have lasted. Roger Moore made different films than Connery and the audiences welcomed his change. Roger Moore helped the franchise survive its first major casting change. I do not see a challenge as big as that one on the horizon for Craig or any other actor.
Some of you may ask if there exists a different approach other than Balanced, Cinematic, and Fleming. In my opinion no other approach exists yet. Brosnan borrowed from all three of these and Lazenby had no time to form one. So what other approaches to you guys see, if any? Who in the future could pull it off? Who could possibly challenge the current dominators in their respective approaches?
I think that we get into a lot of hot water when comparing and ranking Bond actors as we are unlikely to agree on criteria. I believe Flemingesqe to be a red Herring also as the Novels are open texts and capable of a variety of interpretations by concentrating on facets of the character either explicity drawn by Fleming, or deducable and implicit.
For me Craig is unlikely to 'top' Connerry as I have not seen that extra ingredient of Magnetism and charm combined with ruthlesness that Connery did so well. We have seen ruthless alright but not the rest yet. He is a fine actor, and I hope future films give him the opportunity to develop this dimension. For me though he lacks the physical prescence of Connerry and that easy grace that was evident to Saltzman and Borccoli watching him walk across a road.
He is more underated than George Lazenby.
haven't you been starting the treat about DC trying to top SC (which is IMHO absurd. He may have his personal motivation & goals but I am sure, they have nothing to do with Sean Connery)
I wonder, why you are now starting with GL and TD ?:) ?:) ?:)
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Before Daniel Craig was James Bond, here are the top actors who had played Bond:
1. Sean Connery
2. Roger Moore
3. Pierce Brosnan
4. George Lazenby
5. Timothy Dalton
So Timothy Dalton is a failure.
When Daniel Craig became Bond, here are the results:
1. Daniel Craig???
2. Sean Connery
3. Roger Moore
4. Pierce Brosnan
5. George Lazenby
6. Timothy Dalton
Connery brought to Bond his unique personal magnetism or cinematism if you will allow that term.
Craig has the advantage of being the present Bond, with alot of imput of the direction of the coming films.
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
I don't watch a film and think oh what would connery have said that line like because it's not the point of the bond films!!!
Which is true, of course; it's just a matter of favourites...and lesser favourites. Daniel Craig is trying to give the best performance he can---make the best film(s) he can---he's (IMO) not trying to 'top' anyone. He's already declared Connery his own favourite...
Sean Connery's position as the big-screen originator of the role places him on an endlessly defensible pedestal...and deservedly so. His portrayal did, in fact, define the role, and was very much of its time, in so many respects.
Craig's also very much of his own time, given the distinct variance in overall style from what has come before (yes, Dalton included!); opinions will naturally vary, which is fair enough. I eagerly anticipate the rest of his tenure, to see where it goes from here, and whether he can deliver on the considerable promise he's shown through only two films.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
(but, just for the record, I will always prefer Connery over Craig:P)
Hehe... 7289 is a manwoman!
That's going to come as a great relief to many people, I'm sure! Especially Paris Hilton, who by now must be quite weary of constantly being mentioned in the same sentence with people such as Mother Teresa, Helen Keller and Madame Curie...
Also quite a relief to, say, Mel Gibson, who now will never have to endure endure any further comparisons with Sir Laurence Olivier
To call such a comparison nonsense would naturally be...nonsense :v
But of course you can compare one actor to another---one football team to another, one rock band to another, etc., ad infinitum. It's the grist of the internet chat mill; it's our raison d'etre. Where you have independent thought, you have differing opinions, which inevitably leads to comparison, since when you prefer one over another, you often have reasons for doing so.
That said, and proceeding in agreement with your premise that comparisons are nonsense, I'd have to say that (for me) it's a knife-edge lead for Craig at this particular point in time. Nobody can diminish what Connery accomplished as James Bond, and he may well take the lead for me once again, when Craig's run is through, and Craigger takes his place in the rear-view mirror of history.
In order for the nonsensical comparison to be complete, however, Craig will have to turn in at least one bored performance, one fat performance...and, finally, one 'geezer turn' after abandoning the role for many years. Failing all that (which we won't know for decades!), Connery will probably triumph in the end, IMNO*, since such a feat will likely never again be duplicated.
:007)
* In My Nonsensical OpinionTM
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Furthermore, I don't see Craig trying to ape Connery, he's very much his own man in the role of Bond. Nevertheless, I still think Connery is the gold standard. I don't think Craig is trying to topple Connery either. Why should he? To be compared to Connery favorably is, I would think, the greatest reward. If you are compared favorably to the gold standard, don't you meet the standard?
DG
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
However, after watching Sir Sean all weekend - there is no beating him!
I love all of his quiet amusement during "Thunderball" - classic!
Well, IMO Connery and Craig are the two best---and they're probably closest in overall style, if not tone. Opinions will vary, but the question of whether Craig will 'top' Connery is more to the point, because he's the current Bond, and his future films/performances are an unknown, so a possibility remains (however remote for some
With Brozzer's four-film run complete, the jury's likely already in on whether or not he 'topped' Sir Sean.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Who's that?
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I love Craig's portrayal. That is amazing to me considering when he was announced I thought the series was over, especially when I heard the rumors about him failing to do different stunts, etc.