If you dislike Daniel Craig, as James Bond, tell me something....
JohnMasterson
MinnesotaPosts: 326MI6 Agent
Could you see, ANY OTHER ACTOR doing what Daniel Craig did in Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall? Now, I'm NOT talking about the stupid, petty, romantic, subplot thing that you people seem to crave, to have done properly...Because I don't care about that. None of the James Bond films have the witty repartee that movies like Charade (1963) To Catch A Thief (1955) and North By Northwest (1959) had--Or maybe they used to have it, but now it's long gone.
No, what I'm talking about is; can you see any other actor doing the kinds of stunts and action scenes that Daniel Craig, did? I don't know about you but maybe I could see Jason Statham or Ray Stevenson, doing the Daniel Craig stunts and the Daniel Craig action set pieces but I couldn't see anybody else doing it. And I especially couldn't see an actor SIMILAR to Pierce Brosnan, (in acting style and appearance) doing those kinds of stunts and those kinds of action set pierces either.
No, what I'm talking about is; can you see any other actor doing the kinds of stunts and action scenes that Daniel Craig, did? I don't know about you but maybe I could see Jason Statham or Ray Stevenson, doing the Daniel Craig stunts and the Daniel Craig action set pieces but I couldn't see anybody else doing it. And I especially couldn't see an actor SIMILAR to Pierce Brosnan, (in acting style and appearance) doing those kinds of stunts and those kinds of action set pierces either.
"Goodbye, my son. Our hopes and dreams travel with you." Jor-El ~ Man of Steel (2013)
Comments
So is DC right for the part? I think he is doing a good job, but I don't like him as Bond. Particularly in Skyfall he looks a bit too hench and the short "grade 3 all over" haircut makes him look, to my eyes, like a football hooligan. He also looked really old in the film... I guess that was intentional but I did find it distracting.
Well, that's the thing. If the producers don't care about the James Bond books, what makes you think they care about the James Bond character?
You Only Live Twice was an original OO7 adventure, that pisses all over the fundamental Ian Fleming novel, because it wasn't anything like the source material. Now, one could argue that James Bond 'becoming' Japanese, in the movie is probably from the original book, but who cares? It's just a small detail. And a small detail didn't mean that they were telling the story of You Only Live Twice...It just meant that they kept a small element from the book. I would have been much, much happier, if Cubby Broccoli had ordered Lewis Gilbert to film either Diamonds Are Forever, Moonraker, or The Spy Who Loved Me back in 1967.
Because if The Spy Who Loved Me, had been made in '67 as opposed to '77--I believe the only difference would have been a change in actors, (obviously Sean Connery in the lead role) a change in music, (I doubt Carly Simon would have sung "Nobody Does It Better" and John Barry probably would have done the score) and the tone of the movie would be drastically different, which is something I would have appreciated. A lot.
I also felt like Cubby was backing himself into a corner, with his cinematic version of You Only Live Twice. Because that book (YOLT) was supposed to be the story where James Bond, a broken man, strangles Ernst Starvo Blofeld, in retailation, for murdering his wife, Tracy Di Vincenzo, in a drive-by shooting. But of course, we didn't get that story because A: Cubby already produced You Only Live Twice prior to OHMSS and B: On Her Majesty Secret Service was the first big disappointment that Mr. Broccoli had encountered; in terms of box office numbers.
But what if OHMSS hadn't been a box office disappointment? What then? Would Cubby Broccoli had used Live and Let Die as the basis for a James Bond revenge thriller? Because it's hard to tell what Mr. Broccoli would have done back in those days. By the way, you should read Diamonds Are Forever, Moonraker, Live and Let Die, and The Man With The Golden Gun and then watch the very movies that cash-in on the names that Ian Fleming created; and tell me that those motion pictures didn't piss all over the very books that were founded on.
Dr. No, Goldfinger, and Thunderball may not be perfect adaptations of those books but at least they have somewhat of an idea; of what those books are.
On a closing note, I always felt like Roger Moore was a much worse James Bond than Daniel Craig. Because not only was Roger Moore too old, but the man was a pacifist, and a pacifist should never be James Bond because Bond himself is not a pacifist. If Bond was a pacifist then he wouldn't have joined Her Majesty's Secret Service in the first place.
I don't Hate DC and infact I think he gave his best performance as Bond in Skyfall. -{
But Honestly any Competent actor can do Physical acting as H Ford said " I do
running, jumping and falling down "
the actors Face over the stuntmans.
Also Bond is more than just Fight scenes he has to be sophicated, witty and drop the odd
dry One-Liner.
I could imagine T Dalton and G Lazenby even S Connery ( In their younger days ) doing all
the same stuff.
What the hell if they're stuck I'll do the next one.
Lazenby's physicality and ability to do action is really what got him the role in the first place. He actually wanted to do a lot of his own skying in OHMSS but insurance regulations forbid it.
Yeah, but is there any young James Bondian actor, working today who pull off any of Daniel Craig's stunts in your opinion? I believe that a Pierce Brosnan style Bond actor could not do any of Craig's action set pieces and stunts, because of the sheer nature of how much different Daniel is from Pierce.
Wow! Quite a statement to make, bearing in mind that neither of them have played the role of Bond ... ?!?
Bale and Hardy are both fine actors. Bale certainly could do a convincing Bond (I don't think EON would want to put up with his "personality" on set however).
Hardy, IMO is much more of a character actor and makes DC look like Cary Grant. Hardy, even when slimmed down, is much bulkier and squat looking than even Craig pumped up as he was in CR. Could Hardy do the stunts and other physical stuff? Of course, but there's more to Bond than that.
Not the jump though, that was a stuntman. Unless it was a sort of mock up, cutting away to the stuntman proper.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Damn right!
"If you dislike Daniel Craig, as James Bond, tell me something.... "
What’s the point of your post, anyway, as if you're calling people out? It’s a straw man argument that you've phrased so the only possible answer is "no" or "none," or so you think. You might as well ask, “Can ANY OTHER ACTOR play Bond as a buffed, 5’10” blonde with faintly noticable eyebrows and no classically handsome looks?” (not that DC isn’t handsome in his own rugged way, lol) Maybe if you bleach Tom Cruise’s hair and toughen up his face a little, you’ll have a close approximation, but isn’t it the character of James Bond that’s the true standard that all Bond actors must be measured against? It’s quite obvious that you’re bothered that there might be some people who don’t share your awe of DC, as if they're all blind or something. Sure, Daniel Craig IS Bond (note my bolded, underlined caps), but only because his paycheck says so for the moment. 8-)
To answer the other part of your post, please remember that the last 3 movies were written with DC in mind and conversely, DC was selected particularly for a reboot of the series, thus giving us "Anti-Bond." Also, the reboot was for a high-octane, high-adrenalin take on the character, directly influenced by the Jason Bourne movies (didn't EON hire the Bourne stunt director and even used the same "Go-car" technology for QoS, but which was first used for Bourne Supremacy?) So the question should rather be, were the last 3 Bond movies made as "traditional" Bond movies? The answer is "no." Therefore, would a "traditional" Bond work out using this template? Maybe not. Mystery solved. To borrow from someone else's phrase in this thread, what the current style of high-octane Bond movies needs is a football hooligan type, which is not a flattering quality for a Bond actor.
Well Timothy Dalton was a cadet in the Air Training Corps
Connery was Royal Navy http://www.bellybuzzonline.com/celebrity-veterans/2011/3/28/sean-connery-british-royal-navy-1946-1949.html and my SASC and other military qualifications make the ATC a bit more than the scouts in my opinion as do the Class A Commissions of all the officers into the Royal Air force Volunteer Reserve,the Dalton bit was a joke by the way.
Jones...Vinnie Jones
Seriously though any form of service is great in my view(22 years in the infantry myself). -{
Nonsense! Craig brings much more to the role than that. Sure, he's not everyone's cup of tea, but I think it's unfair to characterize him that way. It's like saying what the style of Bond movies in the 70s and early 80s needs is a circus clown type. As much as I didn't care for Roger Moore as Bond, I would never overlook his contributions to the role by dismissing him that way.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Now, now...I didn't say that Craig's Bond is limited to that. I merely responded to the "thesis statement" of this thread, who else but Craig could have delivered in the past 3 films? Because of the nature of the rebooted Bond, deliberately engineered for DC and vice-versa, you couldn't possibly have cast any of the past Bond actors had they been hypothetically in their prime unless major, and I mean major adjustments were done to the production to accommodate whichever actor would play Bond. From the opening sequence of CR with the brutal public toilet fight, you already knew that the traditional Bond had no place in this reboot and that you've just witnessed the rising of the new era of "Bond as thug," and DC fitted the bill...what's wrong with saying that? Did I take anything away from his superb acting ability, intensity or sincerity? Someone else just posted a photo of Vinnie Jones and I think it's funny, but in all seriousness, I am utterly convinced that the majority of today's Bond fans actually welcome and prefer a 007 cut from that Vinnie Jones fabric, albeit one with great acting skills. :007)
By the way, every Bond film is eventually tailor made for each Bond actor, as they even did with TLD (originally written for Moore) and GE (envisioned at its genesis with Dalton before the EON "haitus" dragged on), which is why I mentioned that the premise of this thread is a straw man argument.
Would the series have fared any worse had they not gone with DC and the reboot? I don't think so, not neccessarily. Was DC a critical factor in the dramatic change of direction? Yes, he proved to be and he deserves a lionshare of the credit for EON's success, but I don't think he was the all or nothing clincher, just as Connery's departure didn't spell out the series' doom.
I doubt it's a majority of Bond fans, and that certainly doesn't apply to me. As for the rest of your explanation, I understand more clearly now what you were getting at, although I still disagree. But that's the fun of this forum - a chance to share differing views about our favorite superspy, no matter who plays him! -{
I think the association some people might make has less to do with acting chops but more about impression. Again referring to the opening sequence of CR, practically a foretaste of what to expect with DC's Bond, zeroing in on those indelibly lingering seconds of Bond's grimmacing face as he tries to violently drown some guy...who comes closer to mind, Sean Connery ( Lazenby, Moore, etc.) or Vinnie Jones? After all, it was arguably "Layer Cake," a Guy Ritchie-like flick, which impressed EON when considering DC'S suitability for a rebooted Bond. Why does it irk some DC-Bond afficionados that to others, DC is somewhat associated with the British gangster genre with the likes of Jason Stratham, Clive Owen, Michael Caine/Jack Carter...and yes, even Vinnie Jones? He's in good company.
Sir Rog had some military experience? That's great because it shows. Outside of Bond, I thought he was great in The Wild Geese, probably as closest to Fleming's ruthless and sardonic Bond that he ever came. The projected military "bearing," esp. of an officer is something that I think is important for the film James Bond to have. Guy Doleman, who played Count Lippe in TB as well as the "M" character in the Harry Palmer movies, had it, just as Ralph Fiennes did in SF. None of the Bill Tanners had it, IMO, though the Colin Salmon character could have, had he not incorporated some of Moneypenny into his role.
IMO, of all the Bonds to wear the Commander's uniform, RM was the most compelling, in that when he shot out orders to the US/UK/USSR submariners, you did believe it, whereas Brosnan...meh, he seemed like a smarmy Men's Department salesman trying to look sharp in uniform and Connery was more like Dean Martin who got blindsided with a military commission. As for our man of the moment, DC, I don't know if he can convincingly pull off being a Naval Commander just yet, though in what we've seen so far he does give off the dangerous and controlled vibe of a military type, maybe as an enlisted para, commando, or even a merc.
Did you see them try to make Roger Moore look like Sean Connery in Man With The Golden Gun? It was when Roger was manhandling Maud Adams. And they tried to make Pierce Brosnan look like Timothy Dalton, with this particular exchange in GoldenEye: "Well, don't just stand there, get us out of here!" followed by a, "Yes sir." in fact they had the 'Yes sir," line in there twice.
The point is; nobody else can be Sean Connery, nobody else can be Timothy Dalton, nobody else can be Roger Moore, and nobody else can be Daniel Craig. Everybody has brought something new to the role of James Bond except for Pierce Brosnan because his films never allowed him the opportunity to do that.
Even if Ray Stevenson or Jason Statham were doing what Daniel Craig was doing, people wouldn't say that Stevenson or Statham were imitating Craig, they would say that Stevenson or Statham were being Stevenson or Statham.
Here is one: Clive Standen.
He is 31 years old, 6'2'' tall and looks like this:
http://no.images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0geu8F1s6dQmTUAtoYrNAx.?p=clive+standen&fr=yfp-t-734&fr2=piv-web
He started in a professional stunt team when he was 12, learning to swordfight with both hands, ride and do stunts. In his late teens Standen was a Muay Thai Boxer and later fencing gold medalist. He hasan advanced gold certificate in sword fighting from the British Academy of Stage and Screen Combat.
He was trained as an actor at LAMDA and stars in TV series such as Robin Hood, Camelot and Vikings.
I'm not sure about Standen as a movie star, but when it comes to looks and stunts he must quallify.
With respect to the Bond actors having a convincing military bearing, IMO Roger Moore really did look/act like he could command a ship.
Connery's Bond persona would point more to Naval Intelligence (which is what Flemming wrote) than someone who spent much time giving or taking orders aboard a ship.
Brosnan IMO just didn't appear very "military" even when seen in uniform.
Hard to say with Dalton but he was a good enough actor that if the script called for it, he could probably pull off "military" well enough.
Daniel Craig is very interesting IMO in his portrayal of Bond as ex-military. The new backstory is "Special Boat Service" rather than "Naval Intelligence" which to me suggests he was more of a commando/Navy Seal/black ops type which could operate outside of the traditional chain of command, which could explain his reputation as haing a lack of respect for authority or at least "civil authority". Craig definately reflects Bond's military background in his posture. When he is traveling to the island in "Skyfall" he literally looks like he is standing in the military "as ease" position on deck of the yacht. Also, when DC as Bond is walking he almost strides at times like he is marching (this was very evident in the short film made for the Olympics).