Daniel Craig was miscast as James Bond? I think so (Page 2 of 5)

Well if you're comparing to Fleming, he didn't exactly do nuanced characterisation for Bond either. Craig's Bond is actually way more interesting than Fleming's: there's not that much on the page.
It's very easy to use soundbites like 'one-note' to wave it away, but it's just not true. Yes he's more brutal than usual Bonds, but that's not all he is: just try watching the films. How many other Bonds do we see cry, fall in love, see suffer etc.?

Personally I think she was miscast: she can't deliver the banter lines, isn't hugely convincing and can't even do the accent! She also does this odd thing of delivering each line like she's totally emptied her lungs before saying it.
But ignoring that, the idea that he's only good because she's there is insulting and a bit ridiculous. Is Mikkleson not a good actor? Dench? His scenes with them fall flat? C'mon.

Is it complicated? People on this site like that outfit and replicate it. I'm not sure how else to phrase it...?

But that's what you're criticising him on, and you're getting them wrong. It's not 'details' if you're saying Fleming's Bond dresses in a way he doesn't.

Uncomfortable? What are you talking about? You were just complaining he doesn't look as smart as Fleming's Bond should do...?

Which lines are you thinking of here?
Forgive me, but when you're going for 'he can't wear clothes, can only act well when there's a certain actress with him, is balding, can't do jokes' etc. etc. I feel you're overstating your case a bit. It's hard to take seriously.

Do you think they did?! I love Roger; he's my favourite Bond, but does he honestly come across as trained killer to you?

Can you really not see the difference between Connery and Moore in terms of physicality and sheer testosterone? I'm not criticising Roger: that was his style and it was great. But one is a brawler and one is a charmer: isn't that obvious?

Well they are! That's what I'm talking about. They're fine in them but not convincing.

Yeah sure    What do you even mean 'product placement'? That's what all modelling basically is: they show off the clothes and list what they are! 

Arguably, casting Craig was a very shrewd move.

The Bond films have survived by continually traversing an arc between two poles – serious and comedic. A balancing act, not always delicately performed.

Some of us - a diminishing minority nowadays, no doubt - still tend to think of 007 as that saturnine chap adorning the painted covers of the 1950s Pan paperbacks. An image strikingly embodied by Connery in his first couple of outings, before Eon worked out what best pleased mainstream audiences made up of more than just those “red-blooded heterosexual males” who constituted Fleming’s original target readership.

Much later, when the franchise was flagging, Dalton tried to resurrect the Book Bond. He treated the role with respect. No ironic distance. No self-spoofing. A purists’ 007. Craig may lack the advantage of Dalton’s physical resemblance to the Book Bond, but he can’t be accused of not making an effort to play the character, albeit within the constraints of the material he’s given. Anyway, the Book Bond is paradoxical and contradictory, a dangerous-looking tough customer who’s nevertheless capable of succumbing to sentimentality and being “old-maidish” and fussy in his habits. Fleming’s daydream version of himself. Has any actor so far managed to convey all of those facets convincingly? (Why, I wonder, does Lazenby’s performance come to mind as perhaps best suggesting those contradictory qualities?)

Yet for a vast swathe of the international public, James Bond, if he registers at all nowadays, is a cartoonish caricature. A punning super-sexist in a perma-tux, equipped with a gadget for every possible contingency, dispatching assailants with nonchalant élan, dispensing groan-inducing quips while shooting his cuffs, straightening his tie and sipping at his vodka martini. Never so much as a hair out of place, with Vic Flick always standing by, just offscreen, ready to strike up his theme tune at the slightest provocation. Like one of those old Action Man dolls - pull a little cord attached to his chest and out come the stock phrases: “Bond, James Bond”, “Shaken, not stirred”. A quaint, painfully dated paragon of what, way back in a woefully “unwoke” era, passed for sophistication. The Alan Partridge/Austin Powers idea of Mr Cool, forever going up against Nehru-jacketed, cat-stroking megavillains. “We meet again, Meestair Bond!” Countless Bank Holiday TV repeats, DVDs and Blu-rays of half a century’s worth of films help keep this hackneyed persona in the public consciousness. Good fun when you’re in the mood, but where else can you go with him? How do you keep the money rolling in, going forward?

Well, you try rebooting him as the tough-as-nails “blunt instrument”, the psychologically screwed-up loose cannon. A new interpretation for tough new times. Someone to give the likes of Bourne a run for their money. Not your dad’s Double-O-Seven. Maybe still not transgressive enough to earn Guardian opinion columnists’ Seal of Approval, but sufficiently “grounded in reality” to at least make the character a little more palatable to modern tastes, more culturally respectable.

This was, more or less, the assignment Craig took on – build a whole new fanbase, male and female. Trouble is, keep reinventing, reconstructing and rehabilitating Bond and you may have successfully kept up with the times and “repositioned your brand” in an increasingly tough marketplace, but you end up with a whole new character entirely. Not such a problem for younger audiences who come to the franchise without a load of sentimental baggage, but a matter of some regret for us sad old sods who appreciate the aesthetics of 007, enjoy witty variations on time-honoured themes, and still remember being a bit pissed off when they first saw DN and noticed that the makeup people hadn’t bothered to paint in a scar on Connery’s face.

That said, the Craig films have started edging back toward the comedic pole, dipping a tentative toe into Cartoon Bond territory, so who knows what’s next…

Yes, Craig is very like McQueen in Bullitt, and the motorbike scene in QOS reminded me of McQueen too.

From earlier:

  I'm glad I didn't bother responding to the rest of his post; what a load of contradictory nonsense.

The funny thing is that a blond actor could have made a decent Bond. I think of a young James Fox. Or even his shorter brother Edward. The latter's performance in The Day of the Jackal could be said in parts to have been "bondlike".

Which is one of the biggest disappointments of Daniel Craig's run. The lack of his early missions after Casino Royale, which wasn't perfect but it was a very good start and had me looking forward to the sequel. But it's been almost consistently downhill since Casino Royale for me. I can live without seeing Quantum of Solace and Skyfall ever again. I do like Spectre and I wish that closed out his run. As from what I'm seeing the new movie will once again have references to past Bond films to make us think, yes this is the same guy even though this is a rebooted series. He's supposed to be making new memorable moments.

But I don't think Daniel Craig was really miscast. If he was then so were many other Bonds. It is the material that will let them down.

I do not think Craig was miscast. CR and QoS are a great one-two punch, and I think he is excellent in both. Skyfall was moody and retro in a way that worked for the 50th Anniversary, although the plot didn’t make much sense, his portrayal of the character was not as sharp, and he was starting to show his age (I realize the plot dictated that to an extent). Spectre wasn’t any good and he wasn’t good in it. Overall, I would say the early promise of the Craig era has not been realized. If Bond 25 ends up being lackluster, I think his tenure will be remembered mainly for the quality of Casino Royale, the length of time he held the role, and ill-fitted suits.

Last edited by Miles Messervy (2nd Jul 2019 18:31)

Snort.  Craig almost single-handedly reinvigorated a sagging, predictable franchise that had become the punchline to an old joke, and people are still wondering if he was miscast?

Glad to see the danielcraigisnotbond folks still being present and angry 

Can't even be bothered to comment on any of it for that very reason.

I can comment on one thing, since I do have some authority on the subject as a bi man, he's hot.
All Bonds are in their own way. Never quite got that accusation about Craig. If he doesn't fit your kinks for what Bond should look like...well
If you want to comment on his appearance other than the fact he's blonde, shout at Roger or Brosnan first.

Excellent point regarding Skyfall.
One thing that has always impressed me about Daniel Craig; at least he looks like a guy who could kick a person's a$$!
I never got that feeling from Brosnan or Moore. Craig, Dalton and Connery all leave me feeling that they could fight, if need be.
I definitely agree with Gassy Man; Craig did reinvigorate the character with some much needed masculinity. Don't misunderstand, I liked Brosnan as Bond, I just never got the impression of potential danger from him. Obviously they're actors, but some sense of possible danger should come through from the screen.
I was wary of Craig playing Bond, but once Casino Royale began, I totally lost all thoughts of disliking Craig's interpretation of Bond. The parkour opening was spectacular and I loved it. It was a really creative way to bring the character into the present day with action.
Something that gets lost a bit in these discussions is the risk that Craig took in taking on the role of Bond. It was a gutsy move on his part and I think he's done a great job of it.

Star Wars Episode One: The Phantom Menace beat Star Wars Episode Five: The Empire Strikes Back at the box office (both adjusted for inflation and not) but few would argue that it's a better film in that series... or more to the point, better cast.