179 replies to this topic

[JimmyBond]

And I rank him just below Brosnan at this point -

Would you be sold on Craig if he had dark hair? Just curious.

For me, it would help alot. It would also help if he had a little bit of body hair or eyebrows, but that doesen't detract from his performance too much. It just makes him different from classic/Fleming Bond, when that is who he is trying so hard to be.

Why are we so hung up on physical appearance though? Craig nails Fleming's Bond in his performance, and that's what counts.

Because of his light brown hair, Rog didn't look a whole lot like Fleming's Bond either, but he had his own thing going on, and had the other features about right, and I loved him (he is my alltime favorite Bond). But, I think Craig's look is still such a more drastic change from the original Fleming character, or the previous actors, that the classic look of the character is gone.

Ok, so why give Rog a pass and not Craig? That doesnt make sense.

Why not go ahead and cast Denzel as Bond while you are at it?
He is a good actor, who cares if he is black, and looks nothing like the character?
It would be like an unconventional looking, red-headed actor as Superman. He may be a good actor, but he wouldn't look like Supes to me.

Bad analogy, Superman's look is based on at least 70 years of comic books. Bond's is not.

[Harmsway]

Why not go ahead and cast Denzel as Bond while you are at it?
He is a good actor, who cares if he is black, and looks nothing like the character?
It would be like an unconventional looking, red-headed actor as Superman. He may be a good actor, but he wouldn't look like Supes to me.

Bad analogy, Superman's look is based on at least 70 years of comic books. Bond's is not.

Furthermore, Superman's look has been consistent for 70 years. Bond's has been quite inconsistent.

[Dr.Mirakle32]

And I rank him just below Brosnan at this point -

Would you be sold on Craig if he had dark hair? Just curious.

For me, it would help alot. It would also help if he had a little bit of body hair or eyebrows, but that doesen't detract from his performance too much. It just makes him different from classic/Fleming Bond, when that is who he is trying so hard to be.

Why are we so hung up on physical appearance though? Craig nails Fleming's Bond in his performance, and that's what counts.

So you wouldn't care if Bond was played by a 300lb Japanese guy, who happened to be the next Olivier or Brando? And also because physical appearance is 50% of the total package.

Ok, so why give Rog a pass and not Craig? That doesnt make sense.

Sure it does, Roger Moore is the muthering MAN, that's why!


In all seriousness though, with the exeption of the scar and light hair, he had all the important Bond qualities which I felt were lacking from Craig. Plus Moore wasn't TRYING to be Fleming's Bond, and his films reflected that. CR as a franchise reboot, and Craig himself promised to go back to the Fleming roots to make a faithful adaptation. Would a little bit of hair dye kill him, if he was THAT commited to it?

Bad analogy, Superman's look is based on at least 70 years of comic books. Bond's is not.

It isn't a bad analogy at all. James Bond is only 14 years younger than Superman, and they are both seriously ingrained in pop culture.
Bond has also been featured in comic books, and has been illustrated on book covers since the 1950's, so that, along with the iconic portrayals of Connery etc, give us a general idea of what Bond SHOULD look like.
Plus, Bond, like Superman, has always been portrayed as tall, dark and handome. Craig is tall, but obviously not dark, and his status as being classically handsome is VERY debatable.

And honestly, a light haired actor who I felt had the right qualities wouldn't bother me at all in the role. Before Craig was announced, I thought Kevin McKidd would have been perfect in the role. Hell, I still do. If they had to cast a blond in the role, it definitely should have gone to McKidd. I just did't care for Craig's performance as Bond.

[Harmsway]

So you wouldn't care if Bond was played by a 300lb Japanese guy, who happened to be the next Olivier or Brando? And also because physical appearance is 50% of the total package.

His looks more than embody the spirit, if not the letter, of the character I've loved.

And honestly, I like the blonde look. It may not be what Fleming described, but it works.

Would a little bit of hair dye kill him, if he was THAT commited to it?

Since he doesn't look good with hair dye (and he doesn't), sure.

I just did't care for Craig's performance as Bond.

Explain, using scenes and details, where Craig specifically missteps in his performance. I'm curious as to what you have to say.

[Dr.Mirakle32]

I didn't think he was bad by any means, he just wasn't my favorite. Here is a thread explaining why:
http://debrief.comma...p...=36750&st=0

[Harmsway]

I didn't think he was bad by any means, he just wasn't my favorite.

If he's not bad, why do you criticize him of being a rather bad Bond (for example, claiming he does badly in his interactions with women). Seems to me like you think he was bad.

[Turn]

Let's see: an actor with attitude who is physically convincing or an actor who mocks past actors and has dark hair

I think I'll take the former, which Craig represents.

[kneelbeforezod]

I just cannot believe there are still people saying "dye his hair!"

How anyone could watch such a charismatic, sexy, threatening and downright Bondian performance, and then want to "fix it" with a dye-job is beyond me.

We were hearing this Jimmy Bourne crap 6 months ago! The only thing they share is that Bond is now physically intimidating.

[Dr.Mirakle32]

It's already too late for him to dye his hair. That's something they should have done in the first place. As it is, it wouldn't hurt him to grow it out in future films either (I thought his hair looked better in ENDURING LOVE and MUNICH than it did in CR.)

[B5Erik]

I love how some people have been drinking the Kool-Aid.

Craig's good, CR is good - but it's not earth shattering, it's not life changing, and it's not the best in the series, IMO.

James Bond is SUPPOSED to be an expert on many things - that's partly why he was elevated to "00" status. As a Double O he needs to be able to fit in in as many situations as possible and be able to seem like he belongs there. He can't be a bumbling idiot making it up as he goes along - or just relying on his fists and guns.

James Bond is SUPPOSED to know class and be able to exude class (whether learned, as Connery and Dalton's Bond's appeared to be, or by social status, like Moore and Brosnan's Bond appeared to be). He is SUPPOSED to be suave, sophisticated, and debonair - it's part of the character.

Daniel Craig's Bond was WAY to street level for me. Like I said before, that was intentional as they're trying to show HOW Bond became, "Bond, James Bond," but they HAVE to have him actually BECOME, "Bone, James Bond."

YOU CAN'T REDEFINE AND RECREATE THE CHARACTER NOW - IT'S TOO LATE. We've got 54 years of history with Bond, and you can't just throw that away. If you do, then it ISN'T James Bond. You can restart and REFOCUS the series, as they apprear to be attempting, but you can't change the character now. Just like Bond can't be gay or black he also can't be a street level, working class guy in a cool (but dangerous) job. That isn't James Bond.

At this point I like Brosnan better than Craig because BROSNAN EMBRACED JAMES BOND. Craig said he WOULDN'T read Fleming's books (except, apparently, for CR). Craig said he WOULDN'T play the same old James Bond. If he didn't want to play Bond the way Bond IS, then he shouldn't have accepted the role.

Just like Emmerich and Devlin SCREWED UP Godzilla by changing him too much, Craig, Wilson, and Broccoli can also screw up Bond if they don't bring him back just a little closer to the Bond who has been so loved for so long - and the center of the most successful and long running film series EVER.

Casino Royale was VERY good, maybe great. But for me it will all be for nothing if they turn him into James xXx Bourne. (Halfway between Bond and Bourne, with a little xXx attitude thrown in - NO thanks. I like Bourne, but if I want Bourne, I'll watch a Bourne movie. When I watch a Bond movie I want JAMES BOND.)

By the way, I dont give a rat's about Craig's hair color...

[JimmyBond]

Different strokes for different folks I guess. I see nothing in Craig's performance of what you're accusing him of. He seemed more James Bond than Brosnan was in all four of his films (Despite the fact that I love Brosnan and his films).

There's certainly nothing "street level, working class" about him either. He seemed as suave and sophisticated as the rest. Personally I want more of this James Bond, and less of Brosnan's "been there, done that" approach.

[B5Erik]

I disagree that Craig was at all suave and sophisticated. All that stuff seemed VERY forced and artificial to me.

His break in of M's apartment really bugged me. He seemed like a pouting, spoiled brat in that scene. Rather that going to the office and briefing M properly (like a PROFESSIONAL), he breaks in to her apartment? He probably would have been shot for that. His attitude in that scene really seemed like, "Who the hell are you to tell me what to do? I know better than you."

His trashing of that guy's car was very childish as well. Sure, it was funny, but it was as out of character as Roger Moore's silliest moments.

Now, like I've said - I really liked CR, and I thought Craig was good, but I don't think he was this gift from the M16 Gods or anything like that. His performance, to me, was flawed. The movie was flawed. It was a GREAT reboot/restart to the series, though, and a really needed one.

I just don't think we need a "new and improved" James Bond. Just a refocused one. (Back to Fleming/Connery/Dalton.)

Edited by B5Erik, 08 February 2007 - 03:07 AM.

[Harmsway]

I love how some people have been drinking the Kool-Aid.

Craig's good, CR is good - but it's not earth shattering, it's not life changing, and it's not the best in the series, IMO.

Keywords there are "IMO," and that's that. Nobody's drinking Kool-Aid. Maybe, and god forbid this be so, people actually think he is the best.

James Bond is SUPPOSED to be an expert on many things - that's partly why he was elevated to "00" status. As a Double O he needs to be able to fit in in as many situations as possible and be able to seem like he belongs there. He can't be a bumbling idiot making it up as he goes along - or just relying on his fists and guns.

Craig's Bond hardly felt like an uneducated guy. Furthermore, Fleming's Bond was never such a knowledgable expert of everything and anything. You won't find Fleming's Bond being an expert in lepidoptery or the location of flowers in Brazil. Knowing stuff like that is silly.

James Bond is SUPPOSED to know class and be able to exude class (whether learned, as Connery and Dalton's Bond's appeared to be, or by social status, like Moore and Brosnan's Bond appeared to be). He is SUPPOSED to be suave, sophisticated, and debonair - it's part of the character.

From where I'm standing, Craig was all of those things.

YOU CAN'T REDEFINE AND RECREATE THE CHARACTER NOW - IT'S TOO LATE. We've got 54 years of history with Bond, and you can't just throw that away. If you do, then it ISN'T James Bond. You can restart and REFOCUS the series, as they apprear to be attempting, but you can't change the character now.

Seems like they just did. But if you ask me, he hasn't changed much more than he has in the past (ala the jump from DR. NO Bond to THE SPY WHO LOVED ME Bond).

Just like Bond can't be gay or black he also can't be a street level, working class guy in a cool (but dangerous) job. That isn't James Bond.

I don't see anything particularly street-level about Craig's Bond. He was sophisticated, cool, charming, and very well-cultured.

Craig said he WOULDN'T read Fleming's books (except, apparently, for CR).

But he also said that he was taking a ton of inspiration from the portrayal of Bond as he was written in Fleming's Bond. And he furthermore said the epitome of Bond, which he wasn't changing, was that the essence of Bond is: "Bond's single-mindedness. His toughness. His ruthlessness. He wasn't infallible, but he always knew the answer, always knew exactly what to do in any situation. And he always knew how to wear a suit. He pulled it all off with such glamour. And that's really the essence of the character. Always has been."

Craig said he WOULDN'T play the same old James Bond. If he didn't want to play Bond the way Bond IS, then he shouldn't have accepted the role.

He said he was keeping the basics of Bond (how many interviews did you read? "I'm really trying to respect the character" - how many times did he say that? A hundred, maybe?), but he was also going to make the role his own. He didn't say he was transforming the character, but was indicating that there was plenty of room for him to bring his own material to the table within that framework.

[B5Erik]

Read my last post, Harmsway.

It's not all Craig - that I will admit. The writers had a lot to do with the stuff that bothered me, but Craig could have played some of those scenes better, IMO.

Do I have to love Craig to maintain my membership or something?

[kneelbeforezod]

Do I have to love Craig to maintain my membership or something?

Would you prefer it if everyone that disagreed with you kept quiet?

Its just a difference of opinion, it doesn't mean anyone's drinking "kool-aid".

The problem I have with your argument is this: you seem to imply that we drinkers of kool-aid have embraced a performance that has radically changed Bond, and that we're okay with that; that we all love Craig despite his not being suave, debonair, charming etc... whereas in fact is HE IS ALL OF THOSE THINGS, and that's why people love the performance!

[JimmyBond]

His break in of M's apartment really bugged me. He seemed like a pouting, spoiled brat in that scene. Rather that going to the office and briefing M properly (like a PROFESSIONAL), he breaks in to her apartment? He probably would have been shot for that. His attitude in that scene really seemed like, "Who the hell are you to tell me what to do? I know better than you."

How is that any different than Dalton confronting M at the Hemingway house in LTK? Bond has done a lot of things that M hasnt cared for, I don't see how breaking into her apartment to pursue a lead is any different than Bond breaking into Leiter's house to pursue a lead.

His trashing of that guy's car was very childish as well. Sure, it was funny, but it was as out of character as Roger Moore's silliest moments.

How so? Bond needed a distraction so he could get into the club.

[B5Erik]

His trashing of that guy's car was very childish as well. Sure, it was funny, but it was as out of character as Roger Moore's silliest moments.

How so? Bond needed a distraction so he could get into the club.

No he didn't. He got mad because that guy thought Bond was the parking attendant and he threw a temper tantrum.

And the difference in Bond breaking into M's apartment and acting pouty and bratty and Dalton's Bond confronting M at the Hemingway House was that Bond was respectful at the Hemingway house. ("Then you have my resignation, sir.") Bond was agitated and emotional at the Hemingway House - but after his best friend (who had saved his life in the past) was maimed and that friend's new wife murdered Bond had good reason to be agitated and emotional. He respected M enough to offer his resignation rather than go against his orders. Craig's Bond was kind of, "Oh, so I just broke a MAJOR rule of protocol in finding out where you live, and then broke ANOTHER major rule in actually breaking in to your apartment? And you're mad? Why are you bugging me? I've got important information for you!" To me, there is a world of difference in those scenes.

I just find it odd to praise somebody as much as Craig has been praised for basically becoming a better version of George Lazenby. So far he's a one hit wonder. Let's see what Bond 22 is like, and how he handles the role in that one - THEN maybe I'll jump on board. I'm just not sold on him at this point. He honestly doesn't strike me as the James Bond type so far.

[Publius]

I don't see the Bourne comparison B5Erik does, nor do I understand how he can, given the vast differences between the two characters (that is, Bourne and Craig's Bond) and their films. As far as I can tell, the only similarities are that both can hold their own in a fight and both live in a relatively "real" world. Nothing Dalton didn't want to do with the character.

Speaking of which, I do see a fair comparison to Dalton and his two films, which is fine by me as I think that was (until CR) the height of the series in terms of character depth (hell of a combination there, height and depth ). I think Craig finally gave us what Dalton had been going for all along.

As for Craig's hair, I don't think they should dye it now (but wouldn't have minded had they done so and given him a consistent light-brown, as opposed to only having it in the shade). However, I'd like to see him with slightly longer hair, as seen in this (short and interesting) interview:

[B5Erik]

Bourne is a more street level guy - a working class guy.

I see a lot of that in Craig's Bond. To me his Bond seems to be TRYING to be sophisticated, but it's like he's pretending - like he's uncomfortable with it. He's so stunned by how he looks in that tux - like he's never looked that good before and he's uncomfortable with it. Some of that was scripted, some of it was Craig's interpretation.

[JimmyBond]

His trashing of that guy's car was very childish as well. Sure, it was funny, but it was as out of character as Roger Moore's silliest moments.

How so? Bond needed a distraction so he could get into the club.

No he didn't. He got mad because that guy thought Bond was the parking attendant and he threw a temper tantrum.

Well you missed the point of the scene, because that's exactly what Bond was doing. He created a distraction so he could get into the club and then into the security office. He needed to find the person who called The Bomber.

[tdalton]

As for Craig's hair, I don't think they should dye it now (but wouldn't have minded had they done so and given him a consistent light-brown, as opposed to only having it in the shade). However, I'd like to see him with slightly longer hair, as seen in this (short and interesting) interview:

I'd like to see his hair in that style as well. In that interview (and the others that he did sporting the same hair style) he looks incredibly "Bondian" (not that he didn't before, but even moreso in those interviews).

[B5Erik]

That's just cheap writing - JAMES BOND wouldn't have been mistaken for a parking attendant....

Daniel Craig might, though...

[Publius]

No he didn't. He got mad because that guy thought Bond was the parking attendant and he threw a temper tantrum.

I actually liked (hell, loved) that scene. Bond needed a diversion, and decided to have fun with it when the opportunity arose. It worked for me because I see Craig's Bond (at least at this early stage) as a great mix between Dalton and early Connery. This was one of those playful Connery moments.

And the difference in Bond breaking into M's apartment and acting pouty and bratty and Dalton's Bond confronting M at the Hemingway House was that Bond was respectful at the Hemingway house. ("Then you have my resignation, sir.")

I will agree with you there. Bond breaking into M's home is one of my quibbles with the film. Perhaps if they had given a good reason for its necessity, I'd be okay with it, but it did seem like a holdover from one of those earlier scripts where Bond was supposedly 28. At least he was respectful when she caught him in the act (he did seem to think he was going to pull it off unnoticed).

I just find it odd to praise somebody as much as Craig has been praised for basically becoming a better version of George Lazenby. So far he's a one hit wonder.

And I find it odd for a Dalton fan to be so harsh about Craig, knowing what Dalton went and is still going through, especially given that both men were basically coming at it from the exact same direction.

[JimmyBond]

That's just cheap writing - JAMES BOND wouldn't have been mistaken for a parking attendant....

Daniel Craig might, though...

But he wanted to be mistaken for a parking attendant. So he could get a car that wasnt his to cause a distraction. It worked out perfectly for him because the distraction worked and the security gaurds left their office.

[Harmsway]

His trashing of that guy's car was very childish as well. Sure, it was funny, but it was as out of character as Roger Moore's silliest moments.

How so? Bond needed a distraction so he could get into the club.

No he didn't. He got mad because that guy thought Bond was the parking attendant and he threw a temper tantrum.

Well you missed the point of the scene, because that's exactly what Bond was doing. He created a distraction so he could get into the club and then into the security office. He needed to find the person who called The Bomber.

Quite right. Which is why he was on the ground, tying his shoe, and looking at the security cameras.

[B5Erik]

Look, I've never EVER said Craig wasn't good.

Just that he isn't the second coming - that's all.

I've pointed out the things that bug ME about his performance, and that I find it odd that after only one movie so many people ARE willing to annoint him as the second coming. THAT I don't get at all.

[JimmyBond]

I could alternately ask you why you can praise Dalton so much after only two performances. But I won't (for obvious reasons) but my point stands.

[Harmsway]

That's just cheap writing - JAMES BOND wouldn't have been mistaken for a parking attendant....

Roger Moore's James Bond? Yeah, he would never be mistaken.

Fleming's Bond? Dalton's Bond? Maybe.

[Publius]

Bourne is a more street level guy - a working class guy.

Honestly, Connery and Lazenby both struck me as similarly working class, but it worked for me in all three cases. Moore and Brosnan struck me as the antithesis of working class, with Dalton somewhere in the middle.

I see a lot of that in Craig's Bond. To me his Bond seems to be TRYING to be sophisticated, but it's like he's pretending - like he's uncomfortable with it. He's so stunned by how he looks in that tux - like he's never looked that good before and he's uncomfortable with it. Some of that was scripted, some of it was Craig's interpretation.

It looked to me like more a matter of Bond being impressed by Vesper having indeed sized him up perfectly. Hence the little glance at her as she giggles while seeing him check himself out (which she might be doing as well...).

That and it was one of those highlighted and underscored "Bond Begins" moments for the audience to go "ooh" and "ahh" while Arnold just barely hints at the Bond theme in the background. No complaints here.

[B5Erik]

I could alternately ask you why you can praise Dalton so much after only two performances. But I won't (for obvious reasons) but my point stands.

Well, that's TWICE as many Bond films from Dalton as from Craig!

Have I not said probably 20 or 30 times on this board that I may just be won over by Craig in Bond 22?

I know for damned sure that I've pointed out several times that I didn't totally buy into Dalton until LTK. I liked him when TLD came out, but I wasn't sold on him yet (particularly since I was only 19 and had only seen the Moore films and Dr. No up to that point). After LTK it was like a light bulb clicked on. It was like the clouds parted and a ray of sunlight shone down on me. I got a clue - I "got it."

I get what Craig's going for - I'm just not sold that continuing in this direction without adding in JUST A LITTLE MORE of what we've seen from Bond over the years is a good idea. (Not a lot, just a little more...)

Edited by B5Erik, 08 February 2007 - 04:22 AM.