179 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

My favorite anecdote is that I was on a flight, reading an Entertainment Weekly with Craig on the cover, and a big guy across the aisle from me, who I hadn't said a word to, says, "Hey, is that the new Bond? Man, I LOVED him!"

Most of my friends think Craig is an amazing Bond, and they have no problem with him at all, but many of them disliked CASINO ROYALE. Sad to say, a lot of people really do much prefer zany, OTT, fun-for-all-the-family, Austin Powers-esque James Bond. As Publius points out, DIE ANOTHER DAY was "much lighter and sillier fare, which means a wider demographic". Mind you, as I never tire of noting, THE BOURNE SUPREMACY is even darker and grittier than CR, with absolutely no comic relief or humour whatsoever, and not really any "audience-pleasing" elements to speak of, yet it outgrossed CR in the States (although not really by all that much, if memory serves).

My point, though, is that, if there was a "problem" with CR, it had little or nothing to do with the choice of Craig, who if anything was the film's biggest asset. Heck, when I first saw it, even I felt that CR strayed much too far from the formula of a good old-fashioned fun James Bond movie of the kind the man on the street knows and loves, so I have no problem seeing how non-fans may have been not too keen on it.

[triviachamp]

"zany, OTT, fun-for-all-the-family, Austin Powers-esque James Bond"
was regarded as old-fashioned 20 years ago so it is practically ancient now. No way would bringing that back be a good idea.

[B5Erik]

I guess one thing that has stuck with me is the number of people that I know who haven't even given Craig a chance because they just don't think he looks like a "proper" James Bond, and because their impression of him is that he isn't as classy and smooth as he is dangerous. These people haven't even gone to SEE Casino Royale for those reasons.

That could be your 9%. And, believe me, MGM, Sony, and EON would love to have that 9% - the icing on the cake.

But we all know that they are EXTREMELY happy with the overall worldwide numbers, so they aren't exactly going to cry over the lost 8 or 9%.

I do think that they need to "Bond Up" Craig JUST A LITTLE in Bond 22. Keep the style, keep the sophistication of the script, but give just a little nod to the people who haven't been won over yet.

(Nothing silly or sophomoric, but have him be a little smoother, a little classier, and a little more comfortable being 007.)

Edited by B5Erik, 11 February 2007 - 03:44 AM.

[Harmsway]

(Nothing silly or sophomoric, but have him be a little smoother, a little classier, and a little more comfortable being 007.)

But what do you really mean by that? You keep talking in abstractions, never in specifics. What, specifically, does that mean to you?

[Harmsway]

Sad to say, a lot of people really do much prefer zany, OTT, fun-for-all-the-family, Austin Powers-esque James Bond.

Sure. We all knew that. And I'm surprised CASINO ROYALE wasn't more controversial, considering the rather intense torture scene.

There's always two schools of thought on Bond - those who detest the zany Bond, and those who like the darker, more subdued Bond. Usually the former has always won out (darker Bond has never fared well). CASINO ROYALE has become the first "gritty" Bond to be a runaway success, and so I tend to think we're going to see a shift in what people expect from their 007.

CASINO ROYALE, in many ways, seems to have attracted people who weren't big Bond fans to begin with. In that way, it may have forsaken one group and gained another. I know plenty of people who walked out of CASINO ROYALE saying, "I've never liked Bond. Man, did I like that."

As Publius points out, DIE ANOTHER DAY was "much lighter and sillier fare, which means a wider demographic". Mind you, as I never tire of noting, THE BOURNE SUPREMACY is even darker and grittier than CR, with absolutely no comic relief or humour whatsoever, and not really any "audience-pleasing" elements to speak of, yet it outgrossed CR in the States (although not really by all that much, if memory serves).

At the end of the day, it's hard to analyze B.O. success, and why something does better than another. CASINO ROYALE did very, very well (even in the United States). And in the end, that's what matters.

[B5Erik]

(Nothing silly or sophomoric, but have him be a little smoother, a little classier, and a little more comfortable being 007.)

But what do you really mean by that? You keep talking in abstractions, never in specifics. What, specifically, does that mean to you?

Bond should be confident - not cocky. Bond should not be surprised by how good he looks in a tux. Bond should be well mannered and more "proper" than Craig's Bond was (publicly). (And that whole scene in M's apartment REALLY bugged me - the way it was written, and the way Craig played it.)

Bond should be able to out-think his opponents and not need to get into a fight every 20 minutes of the movie (he should be able to use his wits occasionally to get out of situations rather than slugging it out or shooting it out).

Craig rubbed me the wrong way (and I know I'm not the only one). He came across as cocky, juvenile, occasionally pouty, angry, bitter (and it was too early in his career for him to already be copping an attitude and being angry & bitter), and insubordinate (again, WAY too early for him to have earned the right to get at all insubordinate - they'd drop him from double-0 status asap if he showed those kind of tendencies before even earning the respect of his superiors).

Now, maybe I (and anyone else who feels the same way) am being overly critical because I'm comparing him to Brosnan, Dalton, Moore, Lazenby, and Connery. Maybe it's because he IS following Brosnan that those tendencies are jumping out and screaming at me where you may not have even noticed them. Maybe it's just like when Brosnan took over and EVERY LITTLE THING that he did differently than way Dalton would have done them bugged me.

Sure, I do see some Dalton in his performance - the intensity, the real emotion - and I do see some Connery there as well as some Lazenby (a lot of Lazenby, actually), but I don't see the classier side of Dalton, and none of the class of Moore (good thing that he doesn't) or Brosnan (not such a good thing that he doesn't). When it comes to class, he seems like he's faking it - like he's the truck driver that Ian Fleming was so worried about. Maybe that was in the script, maybe it was the direction, maybe it was Craig. Maybe a combination. I don't know. I just hope that they find a balance for Craig to follow that says that this is the real James Bond, and not just some modern character with the same name.

At that point we might as well go ahead and say that James Bond is a code name with different guys using it, and Craig is just the new guy.

[Harmsway]

Bond should be confident - not cocky.

Odd. I've always thought Fleming's Bond was reasonably cocky. He's fairly arrogant throughout all of Fleming's novels.

Bond should not be surprised by how good he looks in a tux.

I thought he was surprised by how good Vesper's tux looked, not that he looked good in a tux, period. That was the intent as stated in the script, too.

Bond should be well mannered and more "proper" than Craig's Bond was (publicly).

Bond's not particularly well-mannered or "proper" in Fleming's novels.

Craig rubbed me the wrong way (and I know I'm not the only one). He came across as cocky, juvenile, occasionally pouty, angry, bitter (and it was too early in his career for him to already be copping an attitude and being angry & bitter), and insubordinate (again, WAY too early for him to have earned the right to get at all insubordinate - they'd drop him from double-0 status asap if he showed those kind of tendencies before even earning the respect of his superiors).

I think M would have dropped him as a Double-O if he hadn't come up with a lead on his own. At that point, I think she was genuinely fed up with him, but she let him off the hook as he came up with more and more results.

And by the very end of the film, I think she feels he's learned enough of a lesson that he's fine and good to keep on board.

Sure, I do see some Dalton in his performance - the intensity, the real emotion - and I do see some Connery there as well as some Lazenby (a lot of Lazenby, actually), but I don't see the classier side of Dalton, and none of the class of Moore (good thing that he doesn't) or Brosnan (not such a good thing that he doesn't).

I see what class there was from Connery. I don't particularly like the more "elegant"/"aristocratic" Bond - I don't see that in Fleming, and it wasn't at all there in Connery either.

[HildebrandRarity]

At that point we might as well go ahead and say that James Bond is a code name with different guys using it, and Craig is just the new guy.

Right now...go ahead...do it.




You know it's fiction, right? Pure entertainment, Hey Erik?

And you do realize Craig just stuck Brozza's old face into the turd in terms of acting chops and in terms of pure dollars pulled in by the studios...you DO realize that, right?

I mean, I have not seen either the critical acclaim or the $575M global take on a Broznan bond...Have you?

...and you do realize that Broz just called Daniel Craig the best James Bond ever, right?

Now please do stop it.

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 11 February 2007 - 05:18 AM.

[HildebrandRarity]

So, explain to me why DAD - a generally crappy movie - had higher attendance than CR?

CR is a much better movie, has gotten VASTLY better reviews, and yet has lower attendance?

What's the new ingredient?

One acronym: CGI.

DAD had loads of noticable CGI whereas CR had virtually none of it.

CGI and dumbed-down dialoge, plot and action that borders on pure fantasy.


And that what Americans love...CGI (look at the top 10 this year...almost everyone a CGI fest except Casino Royale) and wildly unbelievable action and, lastly, dumbed-down dialogue and plot.



DAD had to compete with Wizards and Witches and Hobbits like Harry Potter and Bilbo Baggins...and you saw what they had to do to compete with that...dont you?

Those are/were the ingredients...too bad you can't see it.

[Publius]

I think M would have dropped him as a Double-O if he hadn't come up with a lead on his own. At that point, I think she was genuinely fed up with him, but she let him off the hook as he came up with more and more results.

And by the very end of the film, I think she feels he's learned enough of a lesson that he's fine and good to keep on board.

Yeah, Bond has as much a licence to kill as a licence to do his job mostly unfettered. He might be stubborn and even arrogant, but he gets the job done and marvelously at that, and that's something this old "Cold Warrior" M clearly respects and values.

[B5Erik]

Bond should be confident - not cocky.

Odd. I've always thought Fleming's Bond was reasonably cocky. He's fairly arrogant throughout all of Fleming's novels.

Cocky is OVERconfident without reason. Cocky is reckless and somewhat IGNORANT of the possible negative outcomes. Bond should NEVER be cocky.

Confident, even arrogant - absolutely, but not cocky.

Bond should be well mannered and more "proper" than Craig's Bond was (publicly).

Bond's not particularly well-mannered or "proper" in Fleming's novels.

No, but when he's on the job he should know how to walk the walk and talk the talk - and it should look fairly natural.

Craig rubbed me the wrong way (and I know I'm not the only one). He came across as cocky, juvenile, occasionally pouty, angry, bitter (and it was too early in his career for him to already be copping an attitude and being angry & bitter), and insubordinate (again, WAY too early for him to have earned the right to get at all insubordinate - they'd drop him from double-0 status asap if he showed those kind of tendencies before even earning the respect of his superiors).

I think M would have dropped him as a Double-O if he hadn't come up with a lead on his own. At that point, I think she was genuinely fed up with him, but she let him off the hook as he came up with more and more results.

And by the very end of the film, I think she feels he's learned enough of a lesson that he's fine and good to keep on board.

I totally disagree. M's name and address are supposed to be unknown for a reason. What if Bond had been followed? M's life would be in jeopardy. That's not something that CAN be overlooked - even if he's got a nice little lead.

The other items I mentioned about Craig's Bond are very un-Bond like, and I think are legitimate gripes about Craig's performance (and perhaps the script).

Sure, I do see some Dalton in his performance - the intensity, the real emotion - and I do see some Connery there as well as some Lazenby (a lot of Lazenby, actually), but I don't see the classier side of Dalton, and none of the class of Moore (good thing that he doesn't) or Brosnan (not such a good thing that he doesn't).

I see what class there was from Connery. I don't particularly like the more "elegant"/"aristocratic" Bond - I don't see that in Fleming, and it wasn't at all there in Connery either.

You can be classy without being "elegant" (that just sounds feminine), or "aristocratic" (that sounds like Moore's Bond, which I pointed out wasn't what any of us want). But Dalton's Bond was classy in a very tough, hard edged way. He could fit in with the "aristocratic" set when needed, but you could tell that he didn't like those people. Connery's Bond was sort of like that as well. Brosnan seemed a little too eager to fit in with that group, but not so much as Moore's Bond who seemed born to it. Craig's Bond should be classy and carry himself with a certain amount of dignity - it isn't until later in his career that it's all worn on him and if M fires him Bond will, "Thank him for it."

See, that's the thing - too much of Craig's Bond hasn't been earned. He hasn't earned the right to be this bitter and angry and ready to quit. He hasn't earned the right to be insubordinate. He hasn't gone through or done much yet. To me, getting all moody or upset about having to follow the rules is out of line at that point - that's just being a whiner. Get over it already. You're a paid assassin, and you're good at what you do. If you didn't want to do it you shouldn't have taken the damned job in the first place!

And while I am being specific in my concerns/complaints about his performance, and not giving Craig any leeway, I do think that he did a good job overall.

I just think - as posed by the topic - that Craig needs to be "Bonded up," just a little more in Bond 22. The character flaws that I see in CR are just annoying and childish - and have no place in a James Bond characterization. Bond knows better - Bond IS better.

I don't know, maybe I am being hard on him - but those things really bugged me. Totally rubbed me the wrong way.

Maybe I'll soften my stance on Craig's Bond after I watch the DVD a couple times. (It's not like I hate him - I've said it probably 100 times already - I like Craig's performance overall, there are just some things I'd like to see tweaked in the next script.)

Edited by B5Erik, 11 February 2007 - 06:58 AM.

[tdalton]

[deleted]

[Harmsway]

No, but when he's on the job he should know how to walk the walk and talk the talk - and it should look fairly natural.

I think it does.

I totally disagree. M's name and address are supposed to be unknown for a reason. What if Bond had been followed? M's life would be in jeopardy. That's not something that CAN be overlooked - even if he's got a nice little lead.

Well, I admit that. I really don't like that Bond breaks into M's apartment - it's my biggest issue out of anything in the film. I think most of us don't. The scene could have been set in M's office at MI6 just fine, and that would have fit. Otherwise, I like the scene, I like the dialogue, and I can overlook that detail.

You can be classy without being "elegant" (that just sounds feminine), or "aristocratic" (that sounds like Moore's Bond, which I pointed out wasn't what any of us want).

I specifically chose "elegant" with all of its connotations because I think it fits Brosnan's Bond to a tee.

He hasn't earned the right to be this bitter and angry and ready to quit.

I don't think that was really there though. He wasn't ready to quit, for sure (something that only entered his mind with Vesper). He wasn't particularly angry or bitter, either (the only time that comes up is when he says, "I understand Double-Os have a very short life expectancy," which is more of a melancholy reflection on the very deadly occupation he's in).

He hasn't earned the right to be insubordinate. He hasn't gone through or done much yet. To me, getting all moody or upset about having to follow the rules is out of line at that point - that's just being a whiner.

I don't see whining in Craig's Bond, I see arrogance. There's a difference. He's not getting moody or upset about following the rules, but he's just being arrogant, thinking he has it all figured out.

At this point, Craig's Bond thinks he has it figured out, and yes, it is a nieve belief - but that's why he's put through the ringer in this film. His whole life he's been the guy who gets it right, and for a lot of the film, things still pay off. He's gotten to thinking he can't screw up, he hasn't tasted loss or the pain of a big mistake.

You're a paid assassin, and you're good at what you do. If you didn't want to do it you shouldn't have taken the damned job in the first place!

I never see him whining about not wanting to do his job, really, aside from coming to realize the negative effects of his job. But he never whines about it.

[B5Erik]

That's the beauty of film - different people can see the same movie and interpret the same things different ways.

To me, Craig's bond wasn't SAYING anything that made him a whiner, and he didn't SAY that he was angry or bitter, but it was looks on his face, and the way he'd react to what M said. Kind of like a kid thinking that his parents are total tyrants and have no right to be critical of him - Sort of a, "Why are you bugging me, you just don't understand!" kind of thing. It wasn't what was said - it was all the subtle stuff in his performance. The tone of his voice, the expression on his face, the way he'd take a breath while being dressed down by M that said he was annoyed that he was being criticized, that's what I'm talking about.

It wasn't all the time, in fact, there were just moments here and there - but enough to annoy me.

Hell, I bet I could make the changes I'd like to see and most of you would actually agree with them if you saw them on screen. It would be so subtle that all it would do is clearly identify this man as, "Bond, James Bond."

[Krychek]

(It's not like I hate him - I've said it probably 100 times already - I like Craig's performance overall, there are just some things I'd like to see tweaked in the next script.)

Anyone who's been observing you long enough would know that's a thinly-veiled attempt to disguise your bashing of Daniel Craig. All they have to do is to read all of your back posts which always start with as little praise as possible before you start being nasty about it. Here are some choice gems from your back posts:

"Not bad, and it definitely will turn a profit, but it's going to pale in comparison to Brosnan's box office results in Bond movies."

"My theory is that because he comes across as the opposite of Pierce Brosnan - the James Bond that most of the public loves and still wants - not as many people will come out to see Casino Royale as did for DAD, TWINE, or TND."

"Yes, I for one honestly belive that there are millions of people who would rather see Brosnan in Casino Royale than Daniel Craig - and I think the box office numbers will bear that out."

"It's not that they haven't heard of him, it's their reactions to the way he looks. He does not have the typical "James Bond look." He looks like a Bond villain. It may be a superficial reason, but a lot of people make knee-jerk reactions based on stuff like that."

I think I've heard some other typical DC basher saying "He looks like a Bond villain" and I won't be surprised if that's you.

[HildebrandRarity]

He does not realise that Craig's Casino Royale had the highest critical acclaim ever and the highest world-wide gross for a James Bond movie over the past 25-plus years...certainly vastly superior to anything Pierce's films were able to do.

Further, PB has recently called Daniel Craig the best James Bond ever.

I do hope Erik looks at the facts and stops pining away over an actor who is well over the hill to be James Bond and embarrassingly so.

Millions have spoken and they've said that Pierce is completely finished as 007 and let's see what Criag does for James Bond going forward.

That's what millions upon millions have just said and who cares about 4 or 5 of Erik's friends. It's about "The big picture".

Move forwards, never back. Eon see this James Bond as a work in progress and we'll see a fully polished 007 by the end of 22 or the middle of 23. And if people think that Daniel Craig can't act the part of "James Bond" (as a tiny minority view him) then they are obviously underestimating his ability to "act".

Those folk are a very tiny minority and, primarily, Erik's American friends like Deana, Mario and Gravity's Shilouette, et al.

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 11 February 2007 - 02:25 PM.

[Loomis]

To be fair, I don't think Erik has ever said that he wanted Brosnan for CASINO ROYALE (and I don't think Gravity's Silhouette did either). He's not a Brosnan fundamentalist like some of the DanielCraigisnotBond folks. I believe he's a hardcore Daltonite.... which is why I'm surprised that he isn't keener on Craig.

He's also written that he thinks CR is a superb film, which is after all the main thing.

Talking of Brosnan, I think he could have pulled off CR, despite his age. I don't think he'd have been nearly as good as Craig, and I'm not saying he should have done it, but I think it could have worked. It wouldn't have been an origin yarn, of course, but the story of an ageing, embittered, almost burned-out Bond who's starting to feel a little bit lost in a rapidly changing world run by younger people and high technology, and who falls for Vesper partly as a 50-something's last-ditch, desperate attempt to settle down and begin again, putting decades of blood and betrayal behind him. With Haggis, Campbell and co. tweaking the script appropriately, and Brosnan performing to the same standard as his superb work in THE MATADOR, you're not going to tell me that this would necessarily have been a disaster.

I also think Owen could have done it, more or less as the script stands. Again, he wouldn't have been as good as Craig, but then again he would have been very, very far from terrible. Jackman might have been okay. At the end of the day, though, they chose by far the best man for the job.

[B5Erik]

(It's not like I hate him - I've said it probably 100 times already - I like Craig's performance overall, there are just some things I'd like to see tweaked in the next script.)

Anyone who's been observing you long enough would know that's a thinly-veiled attempt to disguise your bashing of Daniel Craig. All they have to do is to read all of your back posts which always start with as little praise as possible before you start being nasty about it. Here are some choice gems from your back posts:

Before you go there, perhaps you should read these quotes from my review of CR on the Members CR Reviews page:

http://debrief.comma...showtopic=36369

"Bottom line? Casino Royale is a damned good movie, Bond movie or otherwise, and is a much needed, very much welcomed restarting of the series."

"As for Daniel Craig, well, the jury is still out. Give him one more movie and we'll know for sure, but this is a very good start. Not perfect - he's still a little too cold and cynical, but that can be explained away by the story. Like I said, we'll know for sure after the next movie."

Now, if that's not open minded I don't know what is. I'm not following lockstep with all those who are getting orgasmic over Daniel Craig's performance, but I'm not about to jump on "DanielCraigNotBond.com" or whatever and start bashing him, either. My feelings for his performance are mixed. He WAS very good - but it just wasn't BOND-ian enough for me, that's all. He was too much Daniel Craig and not enough James Bond - but they've set this whole thing up for the development of the character to BECOME, "Bond, James Bond." I'm just saying that they need to actually get there before Craig's third Bond movie, that's all.

Now, if this forum has become, "DanielCraigISBondandheisperfectandyoucannothaveanotheropinion.com," then the forum truly is spiritually dead. Just like the ANTI-Craig website is a joke, and anyone who is just blinded by his looks is a fool, a requirement to be so Pro-Craig that you can't be critical of ANYTHING about his performance is just as foolish and closed-minded (not to mention wrong - his performance ISN'T perfect, folks).

"Thinly veiled," yeah - whatever. I'm glad you're so tolerant of those who differ just slightly from your own views. Very open minded of you. The funny thing is that I honestly do think that Craig did a good job overall - his performance just had spots that either left me cold or rubbed me the wrong way. I'm sorry if that bothers you.

And while I will defend Pierce Brosnan when he is unfairly bashed, and I think the way that EON got rid of him was bogus, I don't think he was unreplaceable.

DALTON was unreplaceable!

(By the way, ALL of those quotes you listed were written BEFORE CR came out...)


By the way, thanks Loomis. You seem to get where I'm coming from. As a Dalton fan I'm a little surprised that I'm not as happy with Craig's performance as some other people are - but I'm not unhappy with it, either. I'd just like to see the characterization tweaked just a little for Bond 22 (can't change anything about CR now - not that it needs much changing).

Edited by B5Erik, 11 February 2007 - 03:38 PM.

[Loomis]

I totally disagree. M's name and address are supposed to be unknown for a reason. What if Bond had been followed? M's life would be in jeopardy. That's not something that CAN be overlooked - even if he's got a nice little lead.

Well, I admit that. I really don't like that Bond breaks into M's apartment - it's my biggest issue out of anything in the film. I think most of us don't. The scene could have been set in M's office at MI6 just fine, and that would have fit.

Agreed with both of you. It's a very silly scene in all sorts of ways, and it raises the question: why, exactly, does M cut Bond so much slack in this film, even when he's doing things like stealing her computer passwords? Now, if he were a seasoned pro James Bond who'd already saved the world on a few occasions, it would be understandable for M to give him a pass, but M's behaviour towards this rookie 007 often makes no sense.

Still, I agree, Erik, that CR doesn't need much changing. If pushed, I'd have made Villiers Moneypenny. I find Villiers irritating (although I guess he's meant to be so), but more than that an obvious and unnecessary Moneypenny substitute in the same way as Wade was an obvious and unnecessary Leiter alternative. And, of course, I'd love to see an extended cut of the film on DVD, reinstating things like the unused footage from the PTS, but I don't think I'd change much else.

[B5Erik]

Here's part of a review for CR that I think fits in to this discussion:

From the San Diego Reader, review by Duncan Shepherd.

While Judi Dench reprises the role of "M," Bond himself has only just been promoted to double-0 status (a new beginning for sure) and has yet to earn his boss's trust. There is no equivalent of "Q" and his cute presentation of the gadgets du jour. There is no casual bedding of "Bond girls," and the one romantic relationship (with the enigmatic, darkly eyelined Eva Green) attains an emotional weight beyond even the all-the-way-to-the-altar affair of On Her Majesty's Secret Service. The hero's lame quips and puns, meantime, have thoroughly been expunged from the script. And "I don't give a damn" is his response to the bartender's inquiry as to whether he'd like his vodka martini shaken or stirred. All these changes are definite improvements. And yet, and yet, and yet.... The action, even if somewhat scaled back under the one-time Bond director Martin Campbell (Goldeneye, the beginning of the Brosnan Bonds, but scarcely a new beginning), is still more than sufficiently cartoonish. The plotting is skimpy. The whole thing runs on far too long. And then there's the fundamental question: if you want to do an alternative to James Bond, why call him James Bond?

Now, to be fair - and for complete disclosure - Duncan Shepherd can be an . He can be very harsh in his reviews. He's a real "artsy" guy - he strongly dislikes mainstream movies, but reviews all of them anyway.

But I thought the last sentence there hit on the point that I have heard and seen elsewhere - and shows that I'm not the only one who thinks Craig's Bond is less Bond-ian than the other guys.

Shepherd is no Bond fan, and even he can see the difference.

Now, I disagree that the movie is thin on plot (it's not), and I think that the action scenes are only slightly cartoonish (enough to make them exciting and entertaining, not so much that - as in DAD - you mutter, "Yeah, right," to yourself).

Craig IS good - and some of the changes ARE improvements - but his characterization is just one little step too far from the heart of the character as we've seen for 45 years (and read about for 54 years), IMO.

[CommanderBond]

the hair

Attached Files

•  2124470930.jpg   2.95KB   18 downloads

[Santa]

the hair

Oh joy. The hair discussion has come up again. He looks rough as bags with dark hair.

[spynovelfan]

Bond should be confident - not cocky.

Odd. I've always thought Fleming's Bond was reasonably cocky. He's fairly arrogant throughout all of Fleming's novels.

Cocky is OVERconfident without reason. Cocky is reckless and somewhat IGNORANT of the possible negative outcomes. Bond should NEVER be cocky.

What would you call him in Fleming's DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, then, when he completely dismisses the opposition because they're just Amellican gangsters? Or in Fleming's ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, where he is so pleased at having completed his mission he doesn't even consider that the enemy might still be around - cockiness that costs him his wife? Or, hey, what about Fleming's CASINO ROYALE, in which he dismisses women as nuisances who can only ruin a job, then falls in love with the woman who is sent, and never once considers that she might be working the other side?

Cocky, all three, surely? There are plenty of other examples, too.

[B5Erik]

In DAF he's not cocky, just single minded in his desire to get Blofeld.

In OHMSS he's not cocky, he just misjudged the situation (his judgment clouded by his feelings for Tracy).

In CR (the novel) I'd hardly call it cocky. Foolish, maybe, but not cocky.

Just another way to look at those situations.

But in CR the movie, he hasn't got enough experience to warrant the cockiness that Craig's Bond shows. He also doesn't have any reason to be cocky - he screwed up at the beginning of the movie and caused a major international incident! If anything, he should be overly cautious.

[tdalton]

But in CR the movie, he hasn't got enough experience to warrant the cockiness that Craig's Bond shows. He also doesn't have any reason to be cocky - he screwed up at the beginning of the movie and caused a major international incident! If anything, he should be overly cautious.

I think that it is possible for Craig's Bond to have earned the right to be cocky in the beginning of the film simply because Bond's government career does not begin once the MGM/Columbia logos fade into the PTS. If I recall correctly from the revised bio, Craig's Bond had been promoted to MI6 from the SAS (and in the case of Fleming's Bond, from the navy), so I think that Bond was most likely a very good agent in those fields (which is why he was promoted in the first place), and was, as shown, a very confident and cocky field agent coming into MI6, and the film then shows that sense of confidence and cockiness somewhat worn down as the film goes until he gets to the point where he's tortured and has his heart broken. After that, we see a more cautious Bond that trusts nobody and is seeking revenge on Mr. White and his organization.

[spynovelfan]

In DAF he's not cocky, just single minded in his desire to get Blofeld.

I was talking about the book. Obviously you could just say that every time Bond is cocky in Fleming, he was being foolish or misjudged the situation, but I think you're missing the point: most people - and especially most people who have read Ian Fleming's books - would agree that cockiness is a fairly clear part of James Bond's character. As to whether or not he has earned it in this film, I don't think that it's too hard to believe Vesper's assessment of him in the train when she first meets him. This is a man who can kick the living daylights out of an entire African embassy, pull whoever he wants (he prefers them married to make life simpler), has travelled all over the world, invents his own cocktails and can burn holes through people with his eyes. He has just been promoted to the most elite section of the greatest intelligence agency in the world after a dazzling career in special forces. He is damned cocky. That's the point. He's damned cocky in the novel, too - that's what he realises when he's in hospital.

I agree that his breaking into M's flat is a bit absurd. But perhaps it foreshadows the scene where he's brainwashed and tries to shoot M in an upcoming film?

[bill007]

.....and the film then shows that sense of confidence and cockiness somewhat worn down as the film goes until he gets to the point where he's tortured and has his heart broken.....

And that scene near the end, when Bond is on the boat talking to M. To me, it speaks of time he must have had for reflection not only for Vesper, but for himself as well. After all, no one stops growing when they turn 21. Yes, 007 was doing some soul searching there. It's going to be so much fun watching the next few films.

[Publius]

why, exactly, does M cut Bond so much slack in this film, even when he's doing things like stealing her computer passwords? Now, if he were a seasoned pro James Bond who'd already saved the world on a few occasions, it would be understandable for M to give him a pass, but M's behaviour towards this rookie 007 often makes no sense.

Not having seen the movie since last year, I forget the answer to this, but is there any indication this is Bond's first mission, or is it only clear that it's an early mission? That wouldn't explain why she tolerates his behavior, but it would make a bit more sense if she has some professional history with him.

And then there's the fundamental question: if you want to do an alternative to James Bond, why call him James Bond?

I'd ask that question for about 15 or so of the films, but it'd just be easier to realize that each of the Bond actors interpreted the character and gave performances far more different from each other than Mr. Shepherd would have you believe.

[kneelbeforezod]

Regarding his manners/classiness... I can't remember a Bond as polite as Daniel Craig's, he says "thank you" in that film so many times. I love how polite and English he seems.

Edited by kneelbeforezod, 12 February 2007 - 12:05 AM.

[Loomis]

why, exactly, does M cut Bond so much slack in this film, even when he's doing things like stealing her computer passwords? Now, if he were a seasoned pro James Bond who'd already saved the world on a few occasions, it would be understandable for M to give him a pass, but M's behaviour towards this rookie 007 often makes no sense.

Not having seen the movie since last year, I forget the answer to this, but is there any indication this is Bond's first mission, or is it only clear that it's an early mission? That wouldn't explain why she tolerates his behavior, but it would make a bit more sense if she has some professional history with him.

Well, M's "I knew it was too early to promote you" line implies that this is, at least, an early mission. How early? Bond's reply that he understands that Double-Os have a very short life expectancy and that her mistake will consequently be a shortlived one indicates that he cannot have been 007 for very long at all, no more than a few months at the most.

In which case, it's still possible that he has already aced an assignment or two in such a way as to make M tacitly recognise him as an excellent operative who has earned a free pass or two. More likely, though, Bond has worked for MI6 in various non-Double-O capacities for a number of years and pulled off a few brilliant coups that were noted by M (presumably, M doesn't only work with Double-Os), scored off the charts in all his training exercises, built an amazing reputation for himself in the military that filtered through to British intelligence, and so on and so forth. It seems reasonable to suppose that people must be evaluated very carefully for a long period of time based on their military and/or intelligence activities over a number of years before being considered for Double-O status.

All of which makes okay sense (I think) if the viewer takes a moment to mentally fill in the blanks, but as it plays in the film it looks as though Bond has only been there for five minutes, and met M only yesterday, yet is already an established maverick who can get away with sticking two fingers up at his boss (figuratively speaking) and basically running the show as he pleases. Which seems a little odd, even though it's fairly easily "explained".