Pointless negativity towards Craig as Bond.
Started by
malaysian_bond
, Oct 17 2005 10:06 AM
7 replies to this topic
#1
Posted 17 October 2005 - 10:06 AM
Some of the hostility and negativity towards Daniel Craig being the likely next Bond is silly. I think a lot of things are not being taken into consideration here.
Firstly, the amount of silly criticism for his 'blond hair'. Now granted, Bond is typically described as being tall, dark and handsome, but I think his hair colour is not really a factor in whether he can pull Bond off. Let's not forget that in this day and age, there is the wonderful product known as hair dye (Daniel Craig himself sporting the use of it in 'Sylvia') and, in addition, if it does turn out that Bond has fairer hair: who really cares? While it may take some getting used to, I for one won't be distraught if Bond is a few shades lighter than what we've come to imagine (it wouldn't be the greatest crime commited in the Bond franchise now, would it?)
Secondly, this whole concept of Craig not being 'charming' or 'dangerous' enough. I think considerations must be made about Craig and the book Casino Royale. Firstly, we haven't really had a chance to see Craig play anything close to a James Bond character, so criticising his ability to play Bond without even seeing him seems rather disrespectful to me. Secondly, Casino Royale (the book) is very much concerned with the start of Bond's '00' career. In the book, Bond isn't quite as deadly, charming or persuasive as he has been in the films (he has only just become a '00' operative) and, in fact, Bond very nearly gets outclassed by a woman and a better opponent in the book (something, naturally, he won't let happen again).
Finally, I have heard many people get annoyed because Craig doesn't 'look' like Bond, or isn't suave enough to be Bond. I think those sorts of accusations are pretty unfounded to be honest. Roger Moore wasn't the best looking man in the world, nor Timothy Dalton, but they took the role and made it their own. Looks aren't everything, and charm isn't necessarily conveyed in an instance.
Ultimately, I think people should just let Craig have his chance and then judge. All these silly 'they've killed the franchise' posts are nonsense. The franchise has been dead, pretty much, for the last 4-6 years. Bond has become so far removed from the real world that it's no longer fun to watch, even if I do believe Brosnan was a good Bond. I think Daniel Craig represents a great choice in Bond. Why? Because he has a sense of realism about him. He isn't absolutely beautiful. He doesn't look like he's walked out of a salon. His charm is a quieter, more subtle charm akin to a true gentleman, and not condensed into a few one-liners.
What Casino Royale should represent is a chance to bring the gadgets, effects and explosions down a few notches, and instead focus on Bond and his allies and enemies a little more. I like the idea of a Bond you could almost imagine walking down the street. I understand Bond is handsome, charming and suave, but first and foremost he is a spy (something totally forgotten in the last 10 years). He is ruthless. He is a chameleon and absolutely unpredictable. Bond shouldn't just be picking up chicks left, right and centre. His ways should be more subtle, his manners less obvious. In the books he used women, praying on their affections for him to further his mission and complete his tasks. I think Craig may just have these qualities. He isn't instantly noticeable, but has a chiseled, well-worn but handsome face. He is physically well-built but his manners are more subtle than the 'painting-by-numbers' Bond that EON has given us the last few movies.
Most people are unfortunately judging Craig on the Bond of fantasy. The problem is, a predictable and perfect Bond has bred bad movies, bad character and bad dialogue. It's nice to think we might have a Bond who's younger, naieve and isn't so obvious in his ways. If you read the books, Bond is a human. He has weaknesses, he has strengths and he plays on them all for the sake of his mission. His ultimate strength should be as a spy, and all his womanising and charming should be for the benefit of his line of work. I think Craig might just break the mold that, although feels comfortable, is actually doing more to stifle the Bond franchise than maintain it. We need something of an adrenaline injection into the Bond franchise, and this whole new concept, with a slightly younger, potentially different Bond, might be just what it needs.
Obviously, it has every potential to go badly wrong, but after Die Another Day there isn't much further down the tube to go. All these world dominations, 2D characters and terrible action and dialogue have taken the soul out of Bond. So, my opinion is, if you want a good, challenging and interesting re-start of the Bond franchise, don't look for the old methods but embrace the new. Craig (if he is chosen) is a wildcard, but if nothing else this may be the first time in a long time we've had a Bond that might make good cinema, and not just good popcorn flicks.
Firstly, the amount of silly criticism for his 'blond hair'. Now granted, Bond is typically described as being tall, dark and handsome, but I think his hair colour is not really a factor in whether he can pull Bond off. Let's not forget that in this day and age, there is the wonderful product known as hair dye (Daniel Craig himself sporting the use of it in 'Sylvia') and, in addition, if it does turn out that Bond has fairer hair: who really cares? While it may take some getting used to, I for one won't be distraught if Bond is a few shades lighter than what we've come to imagine (it wouldn't be the greatest crime commited in the Bond franchise now, would it?)
Secondly, this whole concept of Craig not being 'charming' or 'dangerous' enough. I think considerations must be made about Craig and the book Casino Royale. Firstly, we haven't really had a chance to see Craig play anything close to a James Bond character, so criticising his ability to play Bond without even seeing him seems rather disrespectful to me. Secondly, Casino Royale (the book) is very much concerned with the start of Bond's '00' career. In the book, Bond isn't quite as deadly, charming or persuasive as he has been in the films (he has only just become a '00' operative) and, in fact, Bond very nearly gets outclassed by a woman and a better opponent in the book (something, naturally, he won't let happen again).
Finally, I have heard many people get annoyed because Craig doesn't 'look' like Bond, or isn't suave enough to be Bond. I think those sorts of accusations are pretty unfounded to be honest. Roger Moore wasn't the best looking man in the world, nor Timothy Dalton, but they took the role and made it their own. Looks aren't everything, and charm isn't necessarily conveyed in an instance.
Ultimately, I think people should just let Craig have his chance and then judge. All these silly 'they've killed the franchise' posts are nonsense. The franchise has been dead, pretty much, for the last 4-6 years. Bond has become so far removed from the real world that it's no longer fun to watch, even if I do believe Brosnan was a good Bond. I think Daniel Craig represents a great choice in Bond. Why? Because he has a sense of realism about him. He isn't absolutely beautiful. He doesn't look like he's walked out of a salon. His charm is a quieter, more subtle charm akin to a true gentleman, and not condensed into a few one-liners.
What Casino Royale should represent is a chance to bring the gadgets, effects and explosions down a few notches, and instead focus on Bond and his allies and enemies a little more. I like the idea of a Bond you could almost imagine walking down the street. I understand Bond is handsome, charming and suave, but first and foremost he is a spy (something totally forgotten in the last 10 years). He is ruthless. He is a chameleon and absolutely unpredictable. Bond shouldn't just be picking up chicks left, right and centre. His ways should be more subtle, his manners less obvious. In the books he used women, praying on their affections for him to further his mission and complete his tasks. I think Craig may just have these qualities. He isn't instantly noticeable, but has a chiseled, well-worn but handsome face. He is physically well-built but his manners are more subtle than the 'painting-by-numbers' Bond that EON has given us the last few movies.
Most people are unfortunately judging Craig on the Bond of fantasy. The problem is, a predictable and perfect Bond has bred bad movies, bad character and bad dialogue. It's nice to think we might have a Bond who's younger, naieve and isn't so obvious in his ways. If you read the books, Bond is a human. He has weaknesses, he has strengths and he plays on them all for the sake of his mission. His ultimate strength should be as a spy, and all his womanising and charming should be for the benefit of his line of work. I think Craig might just break the mold that, although feels comfortable, is actually doing more to stifle the Bond franchise than maintain it. We need something of an adrenaline injection into the Bond franchise, and this whole new concept, with a slightly younger, potentially different Bond, might be just what it needs.
Obviously, it has every potential to go badly wrong, but after Die Another Day there isn't much further down the tube to go. All these world dominations, 2D characters and terrible action and dialogue have taken the soul out of Bond. So, my opinion is, if you want a good, challenging and interesting re-start of the Bond franchise, don't look for the old methods but embrace the new. Craig (if he is chosen) is a wildcard, but if nothing else this may be the first time in a long time we've had a Bond that might make good cinema, and not just good popcorn flicks.
#2
Posted 17 October 2005 - 10:17 AM
Great post malaysian bond:tup:
Edited by avl, 17 October 2005 - 10:17 AM.
#3
Posted 17 October 2005 - 10:34 AM
Good post Malaysian_Bond, but your post does not change any of the facts.
Brosnan was instantly very widely accepted as Bond, before he was even given the role. Craig has not been.
Brosnan was not mocked by the media as boring or bland. He did not chew gum and give useless answers in his conference.
Brosnan did not have people saying he looked too old or too ugly or too short to be Bond.
Brosnan was well liked by the media and as has been said he was a great salesman for his Bond movies.
The problem is Brosnan was perfect casting and his replacement is far less than perfect. That is at the heart of the negativity.
Bond has become an institution, a tradition that has now been broken in what many of us regard as miscasting.
Add this to his gum-chewing lacklustre conference and the reasons given that Craig is to attract a younger audience, which is a joke, as is the idea that Craig looks young enough Bond to be at the start of his career.
Craig may pull off a fantastic performance, but if he is not accepted as Bond by the media and the public, his movie will flop at the box office.
Brosnan was instantly very widely accepted as Bond, before he was even given the role. Craig has not been.
Brosnan was not mocked by the media as boring or bland. He did not chew gum and give useless answers in his conference.
Brosnan did not have people saying he looked too old or too ugly or too short to be Bond.
Brosnan was well liked by the media and as has been said he was a great salesman for his Bond movies.
The problem is Brosnan was perfect casting and his replacement is far less than perfect. That is at the heart of the negativity.
Bond has become an institution, a tradition that has now been broken in what many of us regard as miscasting.
Add this to his gum-chewing lacklustre conference and the reasons given that Craig is to attract a younger audience, which is a joke, as is the idea that Craig looks young enough Bond to be at the start of his career.
Craig may pull off a fantastic performance, but if he is not accepted as Bond by the media and the public, his movie will flop at the box office.
#4
Posted 17 October 2005 - 11:00 AM
I think the saddest thing is that this negative reaction just shows how little imagination most people have. A load of blinkered, pessemistic moaners who want the same old thing served up to them.
But you are very wrong about one thing:
But you are very wrong about one thing:
Roger Moore wasn't the best looking man in the world
#5
Posted 17 October 2005 - 11:09 AM
But you are very wrong about one thing:
Roger Moore wasn't the best looking man in the world
My wife thinks RM is "camp" and therefore "unsexy". Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, Hey-ho.
PB is classically good looking, Craig is not. But classicially good looking can be a little, well, boring. Craig is good looking in a non-classic way and clearly some people take to him more than others (understatement of the year )
#6
Posted 17 October 2005 - 11:13 AM
Or Dalton. I'm not a big fan of Dalton's Bond - he never looked like he enjoyed clothes and food enough - but he was a very handsome guy. Still is, actually:
Bring back Dalton for Bond 22!
Bring back Dalton for Bond 22!
#7
Posted 17 October 2005 - 11:13 AM
My wife thinks RM is "camp" and therefore "unsexy". Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, Hey-ho.
Well absolutely- I don't think anyone finds Roger 'sexy'! He is very classically good looking in a slightly caricatured way, though- sexy and good looking can be two different things!
#8
Posted 17 October 2005 - 11:18 AM
I hear he eats puppies......
Oh this is a thread [/I]against[I] pointless negativity..well then, carry on.
Oh this is a thread [/I]against[I] pointless negativity..well then, carry on.