How Would Daniel Craig Fare Under Old School EON?

superado · May 2014

I was just thinking the other day, how would DC have faired under the old EON formula. There are just so many elements in the recent Bond movies that have been revolutionary, whether originating from the EON team or borrowed from other movies. It’s a paradox how earlier on, EON originated (or vastly improved over) the success factors that put Bond movies ahead of its competitors through the years. But on the flip side is that old EON formula; how would DC Bond film look like if it written by Richard Maibaum, Directed by John Glen, Produced by Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman, had Bob Simmons or Vic Armstrong as the Stunt Arranger (etc., etc.) ?

Similarly, can you envision DC in any of the PB Bonds, keeping intact to a great degree the scripts, action sequences, etc., strictly not including any of approaches unique to the reboot? That would be an interesting "what if" since the many of the main players were present in both GE and CR for example, with Barbara Broccoli, Michael Wison and Martin Campbell.

Gassy Man · May 2014

Personally, I don't think the Craig Bonds are all that revolutionary -- the character hasn't changed that much from the one we've always known except for the blond hair.

What they've done is take him back to his roots, bypassing the paint-by-numbers approach of most of the films of the late 70s through early 2000s. His Bond is closer in spirit to Connery's and Lazenby's in terms of his masculinity and humanity; he is closer in temperament to Timothy Dalton's Bond. Because of the success of "darker" prequels like the Batman series, as well as the brutal adventure of movies like the Bourne series, we've gotten the Bond version.

Glen was a workmanlike director -- competent and occasionally interesting, but his approach was not remarkable. But we have to remember that the approach of many directors in the late 70s through late 80s was pretty much workmanlike. There are some great popcorn movies from that time period, but not as many great epics with vision -- certainly not like what one might have seen in the 50s and 60s. The better directors in the series were in the 60s, in part because they were old school and in part because they were competing with the likes of many great directors of that era.

I believe Maibaum would have written a better, tighter script than anything we've seen in the past 20 years. I think the films when Broccoli and Saltzman worked together were generally stronger than the ones where Broccoli was solo. But the daughter has been a good influence -- I think she's the one who recognized Craig's potential to bring back the Connery vibe.

With the sorts of movies that were made for Pierce Brosnan, Craig would have been a dismal failure. They basically needed a mannequin to walk through the cliches,and that's not Craig's strength. Although I'd been pining away for 30 years for a return to the Connery-esque Bond, the 80s and 90s were not the time for them. There was a different generation of filmmaker making movies for Baby Boomers. Now it's mostly Gen-Xers (like myself) making movies for Millennials.

Thunderpussy · May 2014

I can see DC doing all the Connery Films, including OHMSS and the Dalton movies.
Can't see him in the Moore or Brosnan films, except perhaps TWINE.

AlphaOmegaSin · May 2014

He would most likely receive the same Criticism as Dalton got, that Craig has been getting since 06'

Thunderpussy · May 2014

Hoping not to start a landslide of abuse. {:) but, ......
I know some people don't like him as Bond and that will never change, the same
with those who hate RM. Although I have a feeling that some have almost painted
Themselves into a corner, with their dislike and might feel they would look silly by
saying something good about his performance.
I thought he was brilliant in CR, also with SF, QOS I hated at first ( and was equally
Loud and angry with my opinions

) ). Although after many viewings I've changed
my opinion on it ( after following the advice of many here, to go back read the books
again, forget what you've been taught from the Moore era. Then see how close to
Fleming's Bond he is ).
So I had an epiphany and I have posted an apology to all those I had heated
Arguments with as I don't mind looking silly, I was indeed Wrong. {[] . Now I'm
Not saying anyone who doesn't hold my opinion is wrong ( no one has the right
view, only different )
But I do feel, if you read the novels, Bond is not a joke telling superman. He's a
Cold but human government assassin, with many demons he has to fight with.
IMHO Craig pulls that off, he's a troubled agent struggling with his darker side,
Sure when needed there is a great one line joke, but when he has to choke a
Guy to death with his bare hands it's totally believable, in fact in many ways I
think he's very close to Connery, very psychical, a man of controlled violence.
So apart from DAF, I can see him in all the Connery films, although I'd hope
He'd have the sense not to do NSNA.

)

David Schofield · May 2014

Don't think Cubby would have let Craig through the door - not tall enough

) And Cubby came from a very traditional Hollywood background of how a leading man should be what virtues he needed for the director and cinematographer to work with.

But on a less flippant note, Craig would have been fine in all the films expect the Rog films where Rog's comic timing and charm carry the films beyond anything to do with "James Bond"; Craig has little comic flair (though I'd love to see him do a rom-com just for the exercise and to see him lighten up; I think he has the acting ability) nor had Dalton (though I'd recommend a viewing of HAWKS to anyone as essential). Craig would have easily done the Dalton films, LTK containing just enough Bondian introspection and naval gazing to be the best film of this type, way better than SKYFALL; the humour in LTK - Dalton's huge grin in the plan full of cash - would have given a nice contrast to the miserable Craigian SKYFALL Bond). I also think the Brosnan's would have worked with Craig sans lines like Christmas coming more than once a year.

Even if his Bond films haven't been perfect after an amazing start in CR, we should all remember Craig is a very fine actor; the better material of "classic" Bond would have served him well.

BIG TAM · May 2014

I can see Craig working well within the early Broccoli/Saltzman/Connery dynamic. He'd have had more Fleming material to work with which seems to play to his strengths as an actor. I don't think he'd have fitted in so well with the Moore era which are more pastiches of past glories. I agree he'd have got more out of the Dalton phase but the Brosnan films' retro stylings perhaps wouldn't have suited.

Blackleiter · May 2014

BIG TAM wrote:

I can see Craig working well within the early Broccoli/Saltzman/Connery dynamic. He'd have had more Fleming material to work with which seems to play to his strengths as an actor. I don't think he'd have fitted in so well with the Moore era which are more pastiches of past glories. I agree he'd have got more out of the Dalton phase but the Brosnan films' retro stylings perhaps wouldn't have suited.

+1

superado · May 2014

Gassy Man wrote:

Personally, I don't think the Craig Bonds are all that revolutionary -- the character hasn't changed that much from the one we've always known except for the blond hair.

What they've done is take him back to his roots, bypassing the paint-by-numbers approach of most of the films of the late 70s through early 2000s. His Bond is closer in spirit to Connery's and Lazenby's in terms of his masculinity and humanity; he is closer in temperament to Timothy Dalton's Bond. Because of the success of "darker" prequels like the Batman series, as well as the brutal adventure of movies like the Bourne series, we've gotten the Bond version.

Glen was a workmanlike director -- competent and occasionally interesting, but his approach was not remarkable. But we have to remember that the approach of many directors in the late 70s through late 80s was pretty much workmanlike. There are some great popcorn movies from that time period, but not as many great epics with vision -- certainly not like what one might have seen in the 50s and 60s. The better directors in the series were in the 60s, in part because they were old school and in part because they were competing with the likes of many great directors of that era.

I believe Maibaum would have written a better, tighter script than anything we've seen in the past 20 years. I think the films when Broccoli and Saltzman worked together were generally stronger than the ones where Broccoli was solo. But the daughter has been a good influence -- I think she's the one who recognized Craig's potential to bring back the Connery vibe.

With the sorts of movies that were made for Pierce Brosnan, Craig would have been a dismal failure. They basically needed a mannequin to walk through the cliches,and that's not Craig's strength. Although I'd been pining away for 30 years for a return to the Connery-esque Bond, the 80s and 90s were not the time for them. There was a different generation of filmmaker making movies for Baby Boomers. Now it's mostly Gen-Xers (like myself) making movies for Millennials.

Thanks, Gassy Man, you addressed all main points. I'm currently reading the Cinema Retro's special edition on Dr. No and "workmanlike" is a term that struck me when looking back at the series' history. However, yes, I agree I could certainly see DC fair well in DN, which was a "sincere" rendition of a Fleming story like CR. I could see a strong DC with the other "sincere" entries, like FRWL and OHMSS, with all things equal. Connery helped make those films what they are, but even to remove him altogether and replace him with Craig, again with all things equal, we would still end up with finely done Bonds that would be even more "sincere" than the originals though they would lack that cinematic Bond luster that could be good or bad depending on one's disposition as a Bond fan. Craig’s version would certainly be closer in spirit to the books in character if not Bond’s physical appearance.

Gassy Man · May 2014

superado wrote:

Gassy Man wrote:

Personally, I don't think the Craig Bonds are all that revolutionary -- the character hasn't changed that much from the one we've always known except for the blond hair.

What they've done is take him back to his roots, bypassing the paint-by-numbers approach of most of the films of the late 70s through early 2000s. His Bond is closer in spirit to Connery's and Lazenby's in terms of his masculinity and humanity; he is closer in temperament to Timothy Dalton's Bond. Because of the success of "darker" prequels like the Batman series, as well as the brutal adventure of movies like the Bourne series, we've gotten the Bond version.

Glen was a workmanlike director -- competent and occasionally interesting, but his approach was not remarkable. But we have to remember that the approach of many directors in the late 70s through late 80s was pretty much workmanlike. There are some great popcorn movies from that time period, but not as many great epics with vision -- certainly not like what one might have seen in the 50s and 60s. The better directors in the series were in the 60s, in part because they were old school and in part because they were competing with the likes of many great directors of that era.

I believe Maibaum would have written a better, tighter script than anything we've seen in the past 20 years. I think the films when Broccoli and Saltzman worked together were generally stronger than the ones where Broccoli was solo. But the daughter has been a good influence -- I think she's the one who recognized Craig's potential to bring back the Connery vibe.

With the sorts of movies that were made for Pierce Brosnan, Craig would have been a dismal failure. They basically needed a mannequin to walk through the cliches,and that's not Craig's strength. Although I'd been pining away for 30 years for a return to the Connery-esque Bond, the 80s and 90s were not the time for them. There was a different generation of filmmaker making movies for Baby Boomers. Now it's mostly Gen-Xers (like myself) making movies for Millennials.

Thanks, Gassy Man, you addressed all main points. I'm currently reading the Cinema Retro's special edition on Dr. No and "workmanlike" is a term that struck me when looking back at the series' history. However, yes, I agree I could certainly see DC fair well in DN, which was a "sincere" rendition of a Fleming story like CR. I could see a strong DC with the other "sincere" entries, like FRWL and OHMSS, with all things equal. Connery helped make those films what they are, but even to remove him altogether and replace him with Craig, again with all things equal, we would still end up with finely done Bonds that would be even more "sincere" than the originals though they would lack that cinematic Bond luster that could be good or bad depending on one's disposition as a Bond fan. Craig’s version would certainly be closer in spirit to the books in character if not Bond’s physical appearance.

Hey, thanks, Supes. I think you're right about the tenor of the films with Craig in them instead of Connery. I thjnk, too, though they definitely would have dyed Craig's hair darker and put more makeup on him --if you watch older films, the actors typically are wearing considerably more makeup than they do today. With the brighter color and light of older movies, they would have had to so that Craig didn't completely wash out on screen. And I think they would have tried to play up the humor more, which I'm not entirely convinced yet is a strength of Craig's. But he'd still be tough.

How Would Daniel Craig Fare Under Old School EON?

Comments