113 replies to this topic

[Lachesis]

In any event I would have to say that facet of the character is not in any way in the hands of the actor playing the role but rather the script writer.

I don't agree. I score Lazenby very high on 'cocky', but mark him down on 'romantic'. The script calls for him to be the latter much more, but he shines through on the former, because that was the vibe he gave off. The script calls for Roger Moore to be ruthless on occasion - I never believe it. I don't find his slapping women about convincing. Brosnan was meant to be haunted at times - it fell flat for me. So I think it's really a lot to do with the actor.

My apologies that I was not clear, but the prior post of mine specifically regarded the anti-authoritarian feature and not in any way a reflection on the other aspects of the personality you were suggesting we rate (of which I basically agree are quinessential Flemming).

For the final point quoted above it seemed more than a suggestion that 'anti-authoritarian' aspect was directly related to Bond considering resigning or going against orders and that is something an actor can only do if the script allows. Equally while I take the admirable argument offered by Trident and yourself I would suggest that in many cases we are unable to determine if Bond's motivation is any more 'anti authoritarian' than the average guy in the street or just his 'in the field' knowledge of the pertinent facts and/or in certain cases personal investment, maybe its semantics but this was something I considered associated with his 'indvidualism'.

If I may so bold Flemming would sometimes suggest an opinion as if it were fact then prove its valididty by events, Bond considers a guy an idiot, guy proves to behave idiotically, people who rest their hands high on a steering wheel are bad drivers, bad driver cuts Bond off allowing him to note the hands too high on the wheel etc But I take your point and accept its something I have perhaps included elsewhere in the evaluation.

[Jim]

He likes cheap watches

Oh lordy. Bull / red rag interface.

Interesting thread; especially interesting the differing perceptions folks have taken from the books. The list of attributes is a fine one. The proposal that James Bond is not debonair is fascinating although, on reflection, it may be that he is playing at being debonair when at heart he is a thug.

On neither count does Mr Dalton convince me, I'm afraid. The Dalton Bond is unutterably plebian; one doesn't carry one's hamper. I suspect he went to a comprehensive and has a whiff of off-the-peg about him. He probably eats chips.

I would agree that bleak introspection is another valid character trait but this is probably a little unwelcome on film. Mr Craig appears to be trying some of this, though.

[spynovelfan]

Is it possible (and I observe this with all due respect, again, for your fine attempt to put some metrics to what may inevitably always come down to a gut-call), that you are the one with the preconceived notion: That Timothy Dalton cannot be considered the truest Ian Fleming James Bond?

If you don't mind me asking, spynovelfan, what if you took a few moments out and argued (as lawyers are trained to do) the opposite point of view?

What if you had to argue that Dalton was ultimately truest to the literary 007?

Could you present that case?

If so, how?

No, I think the preconceived notion is that Dalton is closest to Fleming's Bond, and I am simply disagreeing with it. I agreed with it myself at one time: it's an attractive notion for many reasons. But I then read Fleming's work and realized it wasn't quite true.

If I had to argue Dalton was the closest, I'd do what you've done. I'd argue that Fleming's character was a ruthless, driven agent with a romantic streak, but disagree that he was a bon viveur (dreadful expression), individualistic (eccentric, perhaps, is that what you mean?) or debonair (James Bond? I mean, really). In other words, I would downplay all the elements of Fleming's character that Dalton doesn't resemble, and emphasize those that he does.

If I were to argue that Roger Moore was the closest to Ian Fleming's depiction, I'd do the same, and point to passages where Bond makes witty rejoinders, loves life, is posh and charming and likes his meals and his clothes, and point out that Bond is not a ruthless dark assassin, as that charmless Dalton played him - he is actually rather a poor assassin, on the face of it.

Lawyers, and perhaps Bond fans, can argue subjects any way they like. I think a cruelly handsome, debonair, cold-blooded, good-living, cocky, laconic, driven, menacing, individualistic, romantic, womanizing, haunted, anti-authoritarian British secret agent is in fact a pretty good and rounded description of Ian Fleming's character, and it doesn't have any slant. Arguing that he's not debonair of all things clearly does. The point of the exercise is to try to look at the character a bit more honestly, devoid of PR hype, what makes the best story, and what we might have felt at the time. I challenge you, sir, to seriously test Timothy Dalton's Quantum of Fleming.

[spynovelfan]

My apologies that I was not clear, but the prior post of mine specifically regarded the anti-authoritarian feature and not in any way a reflection on the other aspects of the personality you were suggesting we rate (of which I basically agree are quinessential Flemming).

For the final point quoted above it seemed more than a suggestion that 'anti-authoritarian' aspect was directly related to Bond considering resigning or going against orders and that is something an actor can only do if the script allows.

Well, if Roger Moore had had a film in which he resigned, do you think he would come across the same way Dalton or Lazenby did? I don't. I think cocky and anti-authoritarian are quite closely linked. Craig's reaction to Vesper being sent from the Treasury is partly anti-authoritarian, I feel, but he plays it a certain way. How would Brosnan have been in Casino Royale? Imagine Dalton in Moonraker. The way Connery walked said certain things about the character. Their accents say certain things. Their eyebrows and moles.

[The Shark]

Since when is Anti-authoritarianism a characteristic of Fleming's Bond?

I would say it were the opposite, in many respects.

Oh, well, Timothy Dalton's in trouble, then. He quits MI6, remember?

As is Craig, and possibly even Lazenby.

Please see the rest of the thread for my response to this. Or read the short story The Living Daylights, the Shrublands scenes in Thunderball, or any of the occasions on which he considers resigning from MI6 in the novels.

He only considers it, but he never acts on it. If he were were all accounted on the basis of our thoughts, we'd seen as very different animals as to what we are now. Fleming's Bond also contemplates going to a sadomasochistic bar in TLD, and if I remember correctly, thinks about paying for a high class hooker in AVTAK.

For now I'm ignoring that, though the other parameters are rather good.

I'm a adding a few here to the end.

A Handsome (in a somewhat cruel way)
B Debonair
C Cold-blooded
D Bon-viveur
E Cocky
F Laconic
G Driven
H Menacing
I Individualistic
J Romantic
K Womanising
L Haunted
M Loyal
N Chauvinist
O Unhealthy

- Sean Connery A9 B8 C9 D8 E8 F9 G8 H9 I8 J8 K9 L8 M9 N10 O9
- George Lazenby A8 B7 C6 D7 E9 F8 G9 H6 I8 J9 K8 L7 M7 N8 O6
- Roger Moore A8 B9 C8 D8 E8 F7 G8 H8 I7 J7 K10 L8 M8 N9 O7
- Timothy Dalton A6 B7 C8 D7 E6 F8 G9 H9 I7 J8 K4 L9 M6 N5 O8
- Pierce Brosnan A7 B7 C4 D6 E6 F3 G6 H2 I4 J5 K5 L3 M7 N2 O7
- Daniel Craig A8 B7 C10 D7 E9 F10 G8 H9 I5 J8 K7 L9 M5 N6 O3

Results (after averaging them out):

1. Sean Connery - 8.5
2. Roger Moore - 8
3. TIED: George Lazenby / Daniel Craig - 7.5
4. Timothy Dalton - 6.5
5. Pierce Brosnan - 5.6

[spynovelfan]

Since when is Anti-authoritarianism a characteristic of Fleming's Bond?

I would say it were the opposite, in many respects.

Oh, well, Timothy Dalton's in trouble, then. He quits MI6, remember?

As is Craig, and possibly even Lazenby.

Indeed. I think all of the film Bonds countermand orders from time to time.

He only considers it, but he never acts on it. If he were were all accounted on the basis of our thoughts, we'd seen as very different animals as to what we are now. Fleming's Bond also contemplates going to a sadomasochistic bar in TLD, and if I remember correctly, thinks about paying for a high class hooker in AVTAK. .

Well, now I would be arguing for Dalton, I think, but some thoughts weigh more heavily than others - and they are not all just thoughts. Which do you think is the stronger character trait as shown in Fleming's story The Living Daylights? Bond's anti-authoritarian streak, shown in his refusing to complete his mission to kill the opposition sniper because he likes the look of her, or his sadomasochism, as evidenced by that stray thought? How about his time at Shrublands, his explusion from school, M's obituary, his telegram to M, his decision to go ahead with the Blofeld mission regardless or any of the examples given by Trident in his post above? How do they weigh on his character against his thought in AVTAK? Which, incidentally, I would classify as individualistic womanising, with a streak of menace.

Interesting results you got. Can't really see being unhealthy as a character trait, though. And surely all the actors were about as healthy as each other? Or is this about smoking or something?

[The Shark]

Since when is Anti-authoritarianism a characteristic of Fleming's Bond?

I would say it were the opposite, in many respects.

Oh, well, Timothy Dalton's in trouble, then. He quits MI6, remember?

As is Craig, and possibly even Lazenby.

Indeed. I think all of the film Bonds countermand orders from time to time.

He only considers it, but he never acts on it. If he were were all accounted on the basis of our thoughts, we'd seen as very different animals as to what we are now. Fleming's Bond also contemplates going to a sadomasochistic bar in TLD, and if I remember correctly, thinks about paying for a high class hooker in AVTAK. .

Well, now I would be arguing for Dalton, I think, but some thoughts weigh more heavily than others - and they are not all just thoughts. Which do you think is the stronger character trait as shown in Fleming's story The Living Daylights? Bond's anti-authoritarian streak, shown in his refusing to complete his mission to kill the opposition sniper because he likes the look of her, or his sadomasochism, as evidenced by that stray thought?

Good point. One results in a behaviour, the other's a dead-end thought. I would say that, along with all of the other examples you mentioned, are more down to Bond's cockiness, drive and individualism, than any deep rooted disrespect for authority. All of the rebellious incidents you refereed to IMO are merely exceptions to the rule, and overall Bond is a highly loyal (only occasionally hot-headed) agent of the state, and always will be.

Interesting results you got. Can't really see being unhealthy as a character trait, though.

Aren't you forgetting Bond's use of uppers and downers, shrublands, his incredibly rich diet, and chain smoking?

And surely all the actors were about as healthy as each other? Or is this about smoking or something?

It's about a number of factors, but all of the different actors were at varying degrees of physical fitness, with Craig probably the most clean-cut.

[spynovelfan]

I would say that, along with all of the other examples you mentioned, are more down to Bond's cockiness, drive and individualism, than any deep rooted disrespect for authority. All of the rebellious incidents you refereed to IMO are merely exceptions to the rule, and overall Bond is a highly loyal (only occasionally hot-headed) agent of the state, and always will be.

I don't see the two as being incompatible, really. I suppose we'd disagree on how 'occasionally' he is hot-headed. I think he's a loyal but sometimes hot-headed agent, and that the latter is a significant character trait. It is one that M chooses to write about in his obituary. I'd agree that the films have made more of it, though.

Aren't you forgetting Bond's use of uppers and downers, shrublands, his incredibly rich diet, and chain smoking?.

No. But his attitude towards his health is not the same as his health. Are you marking Craig down because he gets his goolies bashed and spends time in a clinic? He is an individualistic bon-viveur. I suppose other ways of expressing it would be hedonistic, living-in-the-moment, cavalier, devil-may-care. But being unhealthy is not a character trait. Being cruelly handsome isn't really, either, perhaps, although I think in some ways it is. The way he looks informs how people treat him and he them. And heaven knows how much I'd have had to justify the list if something like that hadn't been in.

It's about a number of factors, but all of the different actors were at varying degrees of physical fitness, with Craig probably the most clean-cut.

But how physically fit the characters are is hardly all that relevant, is it? I think he has to come across convincingly as a menacing presence, and as a cold-blooded secret agent. Both of those attributes are already there. So you marked Craig down because he was too fit to be Fleming's Bond? Did you mark Connery down because he gets treatment at a health spa?

[plankattack]

Just a quick comment as to TD's reputation as the closest to the literary creation:

I think he gets it because it he was the only actor to really nail Bond as a three-dimensional character, rather than a variant of the standard celluloid hero. That maybe the wrong way to describe it, but Dalton's prowess as an actor (and he is by any theatrical standard, that) meant that he could reflect the character's inner-monologue in his actions and delivery of lines.

He's terrific in LTK for precisely that reason - you can see him think, so to speak. He weighs up Sanchez in the way that Bond weighed up Largo (I think - excuse me if I'm wrong) evaluating his clothes, his choice of tie knot etc. None of the others actors related to the other characters to the same degree. For example, Sir Rog reacts to Drax the way he does because, well, he's the baddie and that's what the script demands. TD-Bond reacts not because the plot says so, but because as an actor he was able to convey Bond reaching a mental conclusion. He was the best at making Fleming's Bond a "real" person.

Does this make him the closest to Fleming's Bond? On it's own no, but in comparison to the three that preceeded him and the one that directly followed, he's most definitely an exception.

So much of Bond in the novels comes across in his thoughts, his views. TD, no doubt due to his classical-training, did the best job at reflecting these in terms of how he behaved on-screen - actions as a result of thought and opinion.

Sorry this post doesn't make a lot of sense - hopefully someone will get the gist of it.

[The Shark]

I would say that, along with all of the other examples you mentioned, are more down to Bond's cockiness, drive and individualism, than any deep rooted disrespect for authority. All of the rebellious incidents you refereed to IMO are merely exceptions to the rule, and overall Bond is a highly loyal (only occasionally hot-headed) agent of the state, and always will be.

I don't see the two as being incompatible, really. I suppose we'd disagree on how 'occasionally' he is hot-headed. I think he's a loyal but sometimes hot-headed agent, and that the latter is a significant character trait. It is one that M chooses to write about in his obituary. I'd agree that the films have made more of it, though.

Good point, though I think "anti-authoritarian" is the wrong word. I'd consider Jason Bourne to be an anti-authoritarian figure, but Fleming's Bond quite the opposite. He's a traditional, obedient, loyal figure who works for the state.

"Single-minded" might be a better term.

Aren't you forgetting Bond's use of uppers and downers, shrublands, his incredibly rich diet, and chain smoking?.

No. But his attitude towards his health is not the same as his health.

Ok, so you're splitting hairs. Which one of those character traits would you say best describes "attitude towards health"? As far as I'm aware, "hedonist" isn't there.

Are you marking Craig down because he gets his goolies bashed and spends time in a clinic?

No, I'm marking him down because he's incredibly physically fit, has a six pack, can jump from cranes and roof-top non-stop like a duracell bunny, never smokes, and doesn't seem to have a very rich diet.

He is an individualistic bon-viveur.

That's very much an ambitious umbrella term. What about "insalubrious temperament"?

But being unhealthy is not a character trait. Being cruelly handsome isn't really, either, perhaps, although I think in some ways it is. The way he looks informs how people treat him and he them.

Bond's un-healthiness influences other people's perception of him as well, even if it's not to the same degree.

Is womanising really a character trait? Isn't that really just a set of behaviours, that are the product of several traits?

And heaven knows how much I'd have had to justify the list if something like that hadn't been in .

You don't have to justify it at all. Every actor's performance as Bond has a weak point, or Achilles heel, when it comes to how Fleming-esque they are. i.e. Dalton's probably would be his womanising.

It's about a number of factors, but all of the different actors were at varying degrees of physical fitness, with Craig probably the most clean-cut.

But how physically fit the characters are is hardly all that relevant, is it?

It is. Very much so. Bond is very much a flawed Byronic hero, and an important part of that is his un-healthiness. That's down to his "I shall not waste my days trying to prolong them. I shall use my time" mentality.

I think he has to come across convincingly as a menacing presence, and as a cold-blooded secret agent.

Connery did that, without needing to have a six-pack, and super-human stamina. He still smoked, and engaged in other activities harmful to his health.

Both of those attributes are already there.

Yes they are, but it takes more than two attributes to be Fleming's Bond.

So you marked Craig down because he was too fit to be Fleming's Bond?

Yep.

Did you mark Connery down because he gets treatment at a health spa?

Sure, I gave Connery a few points because of Shrublands. The state of his lungs on Osato's x-ray machine in YOLT was another determining factor.

[spynovelfan]

I see what you mean, The Shark. I meant all that smoking and drinking and hedonistic stuff to go into 'bon vivant', but perhaps it's not quite all-encompassing enough a term. And I also think there is a contradiction in the character, in that Fleming wants to have Bond eat and drink and smoke to astonishing excess, but at the same time he can just spend a few weeks with a commando chappie or Quarrel, and bam! He's a totally professional secret agent who can swim all sorts of distances and rarely lose his puff when it matters. He smokes 70 cigarettes a day. I think the whole Shrublands idea was partly to try to lessen the impact of this contradiction and make it seem more realistic. Even M has noticed that it's not really possible to be both.

[jaguar007]

I think alot of it has to do with how one interpenetrates Bond in Fleming's books. Personally I never saw Bond in the books as much of a Bon Vivant or as debonair that he was in the films. I also never saw him as being particularly charming. He had a certain taste in what he wore, but not necessarily out of style or fashion, but because that is what he was used to, his uniform so to speak. Just like the old "I use xxx product because my mother used it and that is what I am used to." Of course Fleming's Bond is a snob and I don't think Dalton portrayed Bond as snobbishly as he could have but I think Dalton did have many other traits of Fleming's Bond, especially in the later books.

Much of who Bond is has to do with the times the books take place. To bring Bond to modern times, one has to modernize him a little bit or he will look silly (ie. Austin Powers). As far as the clothes and all, it is easiest to picture Connery in the books because his films were closest to the era of Fleming's novels.

A far as Fleming's Bond and his health, people did not know as much about health back in the 50s as they do today. Fleming gave Bond his habit of smoking excessively and eating rich foods, yet had Bond undergoing strenuous physical situations that Fleming would certainly not survive.

Anyhow, here is my take:

A Handsome (in a somewhat cruel way)C-5, L-4, M-2, D-4, B-2, C-4 (It is not that I don't think Moore and Brosnan are not handsome as they are probably the 2 most handsome, but I don't think they have a cruel look)
B Debonair C-4, L-3, M-5, D-2, B-4, C-3
C Cold-blooded C-5, L-3, M-2, D-5, B-3, C-4
D Bon-viveur C-4, L-3, M-5, D-2, B-4, C-3
E Cocky C-5, L-5, M-5, D-2, B-4, C-4
F Laconic C-5, L-2, M-2, D-5, B-1, C-4
G Driven C-5, L-4, M-4, D-5, B-4, C-5
H Menacing C-5, L-4, M-2, D-4, B-1, C-4
I Individualistic C-5, L-4, M-5, D-4, B-4, C-5
J Romantic C-3, L-4, M-3, D-5, B-3, C-4
K Womanising C-5, L-5, M-5, D-2, B-5, C-3
L Haunted C-0, L-3, M-0, D-5, B-4, C-4
M Anti-authoritarian C-4, L-4, M-4, D-5, B-4, C-5

Connery 55
Laz 48
Moore 44
Dalton 50
Brosnan 43
Craig 52

Of course I don't really agree with everyting on this formula because as I said I don't really see Fleming's Bond as that debonair or Bon Vivant and giving high points to an actor in those categories takes them a little further away from Fleming imho.

[Trident]

That debonair side of Bond would in my opinion depend upon what we define under the concept. If we take clothes as an indicator of his level of debonair cultivation, then there was a handy comparison by Amis, locating Bond between the off-the-peg dresser Barlow (protagonist of the then-popular series Z-Cars and Softly, Softly Taskforce) and the impeccably well dressed dandy John Steed of The Avengers. It boils down to Bond being a reasonably well dressed man, that nonetheless avoids the more obvious follies of fashion. This theory would also hold true to the OHMSS test; the four button suits, cuffs and double vents mentioned would seem perfectly at home on Steed's frame, but give a nice indication of what Bond considers over-dressed.

(on a side note: the comic adaption of OHMSS doesn't at all reflect this; Bond is simply depicted as ever, his suit apparently only a two button model)



The difference and distinction between individualistic and anti-authoritarian would be most difficult, as I would like to argue that, up to a point, the one would necessitate the other. Individuality has to come with a certain amount of questioning one's surroundings, including the authorities these surroundings host. Vice versa, challenging authorities would have to come with an individualistic streak, or it would be pointless and effete, a hollow and flat pose without content. So I think, if we accept Bond's individualism, we indirectly also have to acknowledge his anti-authoritarian streak, and vice versa.

But The Shark rightfully objects that Bond is a loyal character. To me this is not a contradiction. Bond's loyalty doesn't prevent him from being individualistic, or having a certain kind of disregard for authority. Bond can be disillusioned about the politics of his time, the society, the gender relationship and any number of things. But in the end he accepts his own part in the greater scheme of things, a tiny wheel inside the apparat, eventually having to obey, regardless of what his own convictions would tell him.

Bond doesn't dwell on the past, and although his eyes look from the very end of the British Empire onto a world that doesn't need empires any more, his view isn't entirely clouded with sentimental regrets about a past that, in the end, never was as glorious as one would have it in memory. I'd agree that Bond would sometimes seem to be a little old-fashioned. But it would, remarkably, always seem to be just a little. The balance between living in the here-and-now and just a slight tinge of melancholy is nearly perfect, with Bond never crossing the line into becoming an insufferable impenitent old geezer with incurable indigestion and a wildly fanatic fixation on the good-old-days. In the end, Bond shrugs and goes on pursuing his life.

The level of personal fitness, of sheer physical ability, as depicted by Fleming, would naturally be an item of contradiction. Fleming imagined an adventure hero based on what he understood as good life, back in a time when neither smoking nor drinking was exactly seen as impairing one's health or physical capability. Naturally, he came up with a truly ludicrous discrepancy between Bond's way of life and the physical exertions of his adventures. Let's face it, Bond would have stood no chance at all to survive his various adventures on what the books depic as his usual lifestyle. And let's not bring up the awful twenty push-ups and toe-touches.

Bond might have been able to sit behind his desk without major afflictions, had his regimen been 200 of these excersises, each morning and evening, but given the fact of his daily alcohol intake (roughly 1500kcal extra) and his habit of ordering double portions and second helpings, he would inevitably have run to fat with each year past his 30th birthday. His tall frame might have covered up for this for a time, but eventually the quick draw from his holster would have taken certainly more then the requested time for active double-0 agents.

Let's face it, Fleming has drawn the picture of a man slowly becoming a glutton. And he knew it perfectly well, or he wouldn't have given the satirical Shrublands treatment with tea and hot clear soup. Bond loses considerable weigth there, ten pounds, and, like most middle-aged reborn-sportsmen, keeps his newly found health for a time. But eventually, he falls back into the old ways of scrambled eggs with butter and double whiskys.

Now, what does this mean for the filmic depiction of Bond on screen? Do we want a Bond faithful to Fleming's description of Bond's diet, drinks and smoking? This would not only seem outdated today, but also entirely undermine any credibility where Bond's active side is concerned (and after all, most of us pay to see this, his adventures, not his canteen plate or the empty bottles May has to get rid of). In this context I think a physical presence as Craig's or the early Connery's (he had a six-pack too) is actually more faithful to what the role of Bond demands. A running-to-fat middle aged guy with ruggedly good looks may be closer to the pages, but he'd also be much farther from the adventure. Marking down an actor for actually being more convincing in his physical part would seem to be most peculiar in the circumstances.

[BoogieBond]

I like the attributes to measure the quantum of Fleming.
Of course we know Bond is brave, resourceful, tough, courageous, a bit daredevil, adventurous, charming etc, but other characters were that too. plus you would have a very long list.
Plus I would look at attributes that come up time and time again, and these do. The "Good Life" the "Suave agent" able to mix in. You see it in Casino Royale(I take a ridiculous pleasure in what I eat and drink Bond says to Vesper, another example is "The vesper" itself) Then in Live and Let Die(Moments of extreme luxury in a secret agent's life)Moonraker (blades dinner and bridge) could go on and on, but the Bon-Viveur he most definitely is. Dalton struggles here to me.


Charm I would say is also a pretty recurring theme, Bond Displays charm to Vesper, Tiffany Case, Domino, Tracy etc etc pure Connery Bond to me. Dalton & Craig I feel struggle in this regard also.

I would add toughness and durability(a high tolerance of pain as per his FRWL dossier) as an attribute, but I am afraid Dalton would not fare well here either. Ruthless and Cold yes, a tough bugger ? hmm. Connery and Craig(and Laz)immediately spring to mind, not so Dalton.

Dalton would win some toughness points for his escape from the tanker in LTK, he looks pretty bashed up there, a nice touch(but more a vulnerability side they were trying to show).

I believe Dalton did try and show Bond "Sizing up" a villain as in the books. But sometimes I find his acting a bit theatrical. "Hamlet with a handgun" I think he is described. I like Dalton a lot and wish he would have got 1 or 2 more films, but his Bond is his own.

I got a more Laconic/Sardonic/Saturnine feel from Craig and Connery. Bonds dry humour(although pretty non existent is there sometimes (e.g. in YOLT novel "Alright Blofeld you mad Bastard") is displayed better by Connery than others, although they ramped that up and added a lot more humour than in the books. Connery definitely sizes up Grant in FRWL however. Perhaps Connery and Craig's style is just a bit more nuanced and underplayed.
All in all, IMO no Bond actor completely resembles the Book Bond for me, and a good thing too, they all have their particular style.

Edited by BoogieBond, 17 February 2010 - 10:56 AM.

[David Schofield]

But how much Fleming revisionism is a censequence of Craig's (brilliant) performance?

Suddenly, Fleming Bond is not debohair, not a good-liver! (Hell, I've heard it ventured on these boards Fleming-Bond might have been working class...)

Suddenly, Fleming Bond is not immaculately (in a formal, collar and tie sense) dressed all the time.

Suddenly, Fleming Bond is not conventionally good looking - BECAUSE CRAIG ISN'T? - and yet Tatiana says he has the looks of a (50s) movie star!

Suddenly, modern Fleming Bond has to be a able to bench press a truck and flash his glistening pecks because that's what a modern spy would do! Where's the evidence for this??? Bond is NOT a Steven Seagal commando - that is Jason Bourne! He is a spy, and if you follow Fleming not in hand to hand combat that much!!!

Conversely, Fleming Bond is essentially bored with his work, and disgusted when he has to carry it out at the type of person he has become. He is more le Care civil servant spy that secret agent.

Bond is apparently anti-authoriatrian. Again, why? Because Craig is a bit chippy and grew up in actors theatre in Liverpool with a bunch of lefty actors? Fleming Bond is part of the Eton/Blades/military world of 50s Conservatism. Sure, Spy, he was chucked out of Eton for shagging a maid but that can't have been that much of a sin in a world of whole scale buggery, can it?

Bond is now driven because Craig-Bond is determined??? Why. Fleming Bond was an upper middles class fellow of good background WITH A PRIVATE INCOME!!!!!

And Bond looks ruthless because Craig looks like a hardcase!!! So a 2000s interpretation James Bond has to look hard (Craig) not handsome (Brosnan)?

I know the Bond de jour is THE man. Particularly when played as well by Craig. But how much of the re-think here on Fleming's Bond isn't Craig influenced.

And though I only whisper it, how many of us prefer Craig's ordinary-man Bond? His average height, average looks Bond? Sure, he's got a great physique but most of us could achieve that with gym work.

And James Bond is aspirational. Should be. And Craig's Bond is the most achievable for us. The most, well, average.

But I think while Fleming wanted us all to identify with Bond, I also think he wanted him to remain a littel out of reach. Unattainable.

[Trident]

But how much Fleming revisionism is a censequence of Craig's (brilliant) performance?

Suddenly, Fleming Bond is not debohair, not a good-liver! (Hell, I've heard it ventured on these boards Fleming-Bond might have been working class...)

Suddenly, Fleming Bond is not immaculately (in a formal, collar and tie sense) dressed all the time.

Suddenly, Fleming Bond is not conventionally good looking - BECAUSE CRAIG ISN'T? - and yet Tatiana says he has the looks of a (50s) movie star!

Suddenly, modern Fleming Bond has to be a able to bench press a truck and flash his glistening pecks because that's what a modern spy would do! Where's the evidence for this??? Bond is NOT a Steven Seagal commando - that is Jason Bourne! He is a spy, and if you follow Fleming not in hand to hand combat that much!!!

Conversely, Fleming Bond is essentially bored with his work, and disgusted when he has to carry it out at the type of person he has become. He is more le Care civil servant spy that secret agent.

Bond is apparently anti-authoriatrian. Again, why? Because Craig is a bit chippy and grew up in actors theatre in Liverpool with a bunch of lefty actors? Fleming Bond is part of the Eton/Blades/military world of 50s Conservatism. Sure, Spy, he was chucked out of Eton for shagging a maid but that can't have been that much of a sin in a world of whole scale buggery, can it?

Bond is now driven because Craig-Bond is determined??? Why. Fleming Bond was an upper middles class fellow of good background WITH A PRIVATE INCOME!!!!!

And Bond looks ruthless because Craig looks like a hardcase!!! So a 2000s interpretation James Bond has to look hard (Craig) not handsome (Brosnan)?

I know the Bond de jour is THE man. Particularly when played as well by Craig. But how much of the re-think here on Fleming's Bond isn't Craig influenced.

And though I only whisper it, how many of us prefer Craig's ordinary-man Bond? His average height, average looks Bond? Sure, he's got a great physique but most of us could achieve that with gym work.

And James Bond is aspirational. Should be. And Craig's Bond is the most achievable for us. The most, well, average.

But I think while Fleming wanted us all to identify with Bond, I also think he wanted him to remain a littel out of reach. Unattainable.

I do not necessarily think this is really much to do with Craig, but with what Fleming designed Bond to be. In my opinion he's fairly classless. I wouldn't go as far as make him working class, but his father apparently did have a job. Yes, a private income is mentioned, so there is money available. But it wouldn't seem to be old money, making a huge difference. And apparently it also wouldn't seem to be very much money either, as is indicated when Bond tells Marc-Ange to keep his million pounds:

"'...I didn't have any money and I haven't needed it. I've loved winning money gambling because it is found money, money that comes out of the air like a great surprise. If I'd inherited money, I'd have gone the way of all those playboy friends of Tracy's you complained about so much. No, Marc-Ange.' Bond drained his Steinhäger decisively. 'It's no good.'"

To me, this indicates a remarkable disregard for financial things. Together with his own characterisation as 'Scottish peasant' he certainly doesn't come across as intent on being very 'upper'. For his time I think Bond qualifies as surprisingly classless, a template that can contain a wide range of background. That Craig portrays Bond only reveals how much room there really is for identification in the books. But I didn't change my view of Bond (the literary version here) because Craig came along and played the 'ordinary' version. I've seen Bond in this way all along.

Bond's features conventionally good-looking? When we meet him for the first time there is this:

"Then he slept, and with the warmth and humour of his eyes extinguished his features relapsed into a taciturn mask, ironical, brutal, and cold."

Not what I would come up with, had I to describe the face of a conventionally good looking hero.


Craig's physical presence. Well, I think one must distinguish between what the characterisation of Bond necessitates, i.e. ruggedness, charm, bon-viveur, charisma, cockyness, so on, and between what the specific filmic endeavour demands of the character. This is not something to do with Bourne, or at any rate not specifically.

The films cover a certain terrain of their genre, a terrain that calls for a vast amount of physical action, for a certain kind of capability. We can depict this with the help of a number of tricks, of stuntmen/women, with camera and editing work. But, big BUT here, the extent unto which audiences are willing to accept, to 'believe' into the fiction they see on screen has become a different one since the days of Moore or Dalton. Or even Brosnan, for that matter.

We know we want certain elements to appear in a Bond film. Appear without fail, you can bet all your worldly belongings on it, you just won't find anyone coverning the bet against you. These elements, roughly, would be:
-hand-to-hand fights, several
-shootouts, several
-chasing sequences, at least one

Now, while these are the staple diet of any Bond film, regardless of script, date or actor, they have one thing in common. They must be convincing in looking dangerous (and some truly are dangerous, even for the stuntpeople involved). And this quality today is only to achieve if the actor in the role of Bond can convince us he's up for it. This is a change from the practice of 15 or even 10 years ago, yet it's a change you cannot ignore. All action sequences, regardless of genre or subgenre, have become considerably more demanding. Even if I shoot a film not focussing on action, any action sequence nonetheless has to be up to scratch, even in a kitchen-sink drama. And if audiences are expected to believe a character not only does any number of dangerous things, but also survives them remarkably well, then they need to see someone who at least gives that impression physically. I grant that Craig may have done more than necessary in this regard. But I also think a physique like Dalton's (fairly average) wouldn't be convincing any more today.

[Lachesis]

A lot of well argued points and a very interesting study, forgive my inability to multiquote in response.

@Trident - I agree with your assertion that individualism implies a degree of anti-authoritarian behaviour but as this is an effect of the former trait I beleve its best covered in the Individualism score.... much like <the shark> points out, he is loyal and dedicated, he supports authority, but in his own way. In this way there is no character contradiction and his appreciation or longing of the rapidly dissapearing 'old empire' is credible etc.

As to the general discussion re Bonds physical fitness and lifestyle, its very much Flemings message that Bond lives his life hard and to the edge because he doesn't anticipate reaching 44 (I think that was double 0 retiement age??). In this way there is some validity to the unhealthy trait as Bond's incredibly physical lifestyle meets a determination to enjoy the high life, each meal or woman or cigarette may be his last, he spends to the limit of his ability seeing no reason for savings or a pension...No its not pc today, nor is killing people, or womanising, or expressing an appreciation of the old British Empire but imho if we lose that we lose a lot of what makes the character tick. Equally Craig's physical presence is overwhelimng to the exclusion of threat and creativity in the production, every problem suddenly soluable by the use of the fist.

@BoogieBond "All in all, IMO no Bond actor completely resembles the Book Bond for me, and a good thing too, they all have their particular style." Absolutely we are arguing differences that are in real terms relitively minor from best to worse and the ideal literary Bond and the ideal cinematic Bond are not garanteed to be one and the same.

@David Schofield - I think this is exactly what is happening, its happened before when Dalton took on the role, I think there is a great danger in making the character of Bond too accessible, too real and decyphering the life right out of him. Like Flemming Bond is a survivor of the old world making the most of the modern, escapist adventure not real documentary. Like Holmes its the uniqueness of the Bond character that has survived the test of time and while we might be right to shift emphaisis to adapt with the times we should not dismiss or exclude elements simply because our current time frowns on them or becuase it makes him more attainable....men may want to be him, women may want to be with him but if they actually can the adventure comes to an end.

[David Schofield]

I do not necessarily think this is really much to do with Craig, but with what Fleming designed Bond to be. In my opinion he's fairly classless. I wouldn't go as far as make him working class, but his father apparently did have a job. Yes, a private income is mentioned, so there is money available. But it wouldn't seem to be old money, making a huge difference. And apparently it also wouldn't seem to be very much money either, as is indicated when Bond tells Marc-Ange to keep his million pounds:

"'...I didn't have any money and I haven't needed it. I've loved winning money gambling because it is found money, money that comes out of the air like a great surprise. If I'd inherited money, I'd have gone the way of all those playboy friends of Tracy's you complained about so much. No, Marc-Ange.' Bond drained his Steinhäger decisively. 'It's no good.'"

To me, this indicates a remarkable disregard for financial things. Together with his own characterisation as 'Scottish peasant' he certainly doesn't come across as intent on being very 'upper'. For his time I think Bond qualifies as surprisingly classless, a template that can contain a wide range of background. That Craig portrays Bond only reveals how much room there really is for identification in the books. But I didn't change my view of Bond (the literary version here) because Craig came along and played the 'ordinary' version. I've seen Bond in this way all along.

But the Draco quote is, essentially, Bond in denial, enabling him to justify turning down Draco's offer: hell, he has been gambling in a French casino, he drives a Bentley - not living the lifestyle of a Scottish peasant.

Bond's private income DOUBLES his earnings. I would venture this is not minimal. Somewhere along the lines he has acquired a Chelsea home. he drives Bentleys, not Fords i.e. no financial restiction appears to be imposed on his lifestyle.

Bond is educated at Eton. The home of the great and the good. The ruling elite Britain, the wealthy.

Remember, it is Craig's Bond that (okay, Vesper assumes) is a grammar school charity case sent to Eton as a consequence of SOMEONE ELSE'S philant. hropy

[spynovelfan]

But how much Fleming revisionism is a censequence of Craig's (brilliant) performance?

Suddenly, Fleming Bond is not debohair, not a good-liver! (Hell, I've heard it ventured on these boards Fleming-Bond might have been working class...)

Suddenly, Fleming Bond is not immaculately (in a formal, collar and tie sense) dressed all the time.

Suddenly, Fleming Bond is not conventionally good looking - BECAUSE CRAIG ISN'T? - and yet Tatiana says he has the looks of a (50s) movie star!

Suddenly, modern Fleming Bond has to be a able to bench press a truck and flash his glistening pecks because that's what a modern spy would do! Where's the evidence for this??? Bond is NOT a Steven Seagal commando - that is Jason Bourne! He is a spy, and if you follow Fleming not in hand to hand combat that much!!!

Conversely, Fleming Bond is essentially bored with his work, and disgusted when he has to carry it out at the type of person he has become. He is more le Care civil servant spy that secret agent.

Bond is apparently anti-authoriatrian. Again, why? Because Craig is a bit chippy and grew up in actors theatre in Liverpool with a bunch of lefty actors? Fleming Bond is part of the Eton/Blades/military world of 50s Conservatism. Sure, Spy, he was chucked out of Eton for shagging a maid but that can't have been that much of a sin in a world of whole scale buggery, can it?

Bond is now driven because Craig-Bond is determined??? Why. Fleming Bond was an upper middles class fellow of good background WITH A PRIVATE INCOME!!!!!

And Bond looks ruthless because Craig looks like a hardcase!!! So a 2000s interpretation James Bond has to look hard (Craig) not handsome (Brosnan)?

I know the Bond de jour is THE man. Particularly when played as well by Craig. But how much of the re-think here on Fleming's Bond isn't Craig influenced.

Well, some of the rethinking on here may be. But 'ruthless' isn't one of the characteristics I've put in my Quantum of Fleming, neither is physical fitness or anything about bench-pressing, nor is that he is not conventionally good-looking. He is described as cruelly handsome in almost every Fleming novel, so I hardly see that as a bias towards Craig (and many would mark him down on that score anyway).

We're left with anti-authoritarian and driven in my list. I've said that anti-authoritarian may be the weakest attribute of the bunch, but saying that it's just about his being expelled is a bit irritating, because I've mentioned several other incidents. If anything, this favours Dalton and Lazenby, especially the former. I think apart from his objections to Shrublands, the short story The Living Daylights is perhaps the clearest example of this trait in the character. He deliberately countermands an order and does not complete an important mission because he doesn't agree with it. Read the story again and tell me Fleming's Bond didn't have at least some anti-authoritarianism in him. It's rather a lot more than being rude to a waiter (I started this thread well before Quantum of Solace was released, or even chosen as a title, so Craig had not broken into M's flat. Which is perhaps taking the streak too far.)

I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say that Fleming's Bond was a driven character. I think the best example of it would be the end of Casino Royale, when he vows to hunt down the threat behind the spies. But I think there are dozens of examples in the books, and don't see it as being controversial.

I've also included debonair and bon-viveur, and defended both, so I'm not sure where you've got the idea that I'm biasing it towards Craig. I've tried to come up with a broad spread of characteristics to give a fairer picture than the one usually given, and of course to make people think and stimulate an interesting discussion.

I would agree with you, though, that the current Bond actor can influence how people see this. Even in Brosnan's tenure, the publicity invariably focussed on how 'this time, we're going back to Fleming'. But I think it happened most during Dalton's era. He represented such a major contrast, and it was insisted on so heavily that he was returning to Fleming, had read the books and so on, that it became accepted that the elements he highlighted in Fleming were all the elements of Fleming. There was plenty of Fleming's character in Roger Moore's Bond, I think, but you still hear 'dark, gritty', 'Bond is a ruthless assassin in the books, you know' and I think this is a result of the Dalton era.

[David Schofield]

I've also included debonair and bon-viveur, and defended both, so I'm not sure where you've got the idea that I'm biasing it towards Craig. I've tried to come up with a broad spread of characteristics to give a fairer picture than the one usually given, and of course to make people think and stimulate an interesting discussion.

Sorry, Spy, I wasn't trying to suggest any pro-Craig bias in your spread of characteristics merely I wonder how many might have been influenced by Craig in THEIR rely.

[David Schofield]

A lot of well argued points and a very interesting study, forgive my inability to multiquote in response.

@Trident - I agree with your assertion that individualism implies a degree of anti-authoritarian behaviour but as this is an effect of the former trait I beleve its best covered in the Individualism score.... much like <the shark> points out, he is loyal and dedicated, he supports authority, but in his own way. In this way there is no character contradiction and his appreciation or longing of the rapidly dissapearing 'old empire' is credible etc.

As to the general discussion re Bonds physical fitness and lifestyle, its very much Flemings message that Bond lives his life hard and to the edge because he doesn't anticipate reaching 44 (I think that was double 0 retiement age??). In this way there is some validity to the unhealthy trait as Bond's incredibly physical lifestyle meets a determination to enjoy the high life, each meal or woman or cigarette may be his last, he spends to the limit of his ability seeing no reason for savings or a pension...No its not pc today, nor is killing people, or womanising, or expressing an appreciation of the old British Empire but imho if we lose that we lose a lot of what makes the character tick. Equally Craig's physical presence is overwhelimng to the exclusion of threat and creativity in the production, every problem suddenly soluable by the use of the fist.

@BoogieBond "All in all, IMO no Bond actor completely resembles the Book Bond for me, and a good thing too, they all have their particular style." Absolutely we are arguing differences that are in real terms relitively minor from best to worse and the ideal literary Bond and the ideal cinematic Bond are not garanteed to be one and the same.

@David Schofield - I think this is exactly what is happening, its happened before when Dalton took on the role, I think there is a great danger in making the character of Bond too accessible, too real and decyphering the life right out of him. Like Flemming Bond is a survivor of the old world making the most of the modern, escapist adventure not real documentary. Like Holmes its the uniqueness of the Bond character that has survived the test of time and while we might be right to shift emphaisis to adapt with the times we should not dismiss or exclude elements simply because our current time frowns on them or becuase it makes him more attainable....men may want to be him, women may want to be with him but if they actually can the adventure comes to an end.

I'd agree with all your responses.

[Trident]

I do not necessarily think this is really much to do with Craig, but with what Fleming designed Bond to be. In my opinion he's fairly classless. I wouldn't go as far as make him working class, but his father apparently did have a job. Yes, a private income is mentioned, so there is money available. But it wouldn't seem to be old money, making a huge difference. And apparently it also wouldn't seem to be very much money either, as is indicated when Bond tells Marc-Ange to keep his million pounds:

"'...I didn't have any money and I haven't needed it. I've loved winning money gambling because it is found money, money that comes out of the air like a great surprise. If I'd inherited money, I'd have gone the way of all those playboy friends of Tracy's you complained about so much. No, Marc-Ange.' Bond drained his Steinhäger decisively. 'It's no good.'"

To me, this indicates a remarkable disregard for financial things. Together with his own characterisation as 'Scottish peasant' he certainly doesn't come across as intent on being very 'upper'. For his time I think Bond qualifies as surprisingly classless, a template that can contain a wide range of background. That Craig portrays Bond only reveals how much room there really is for identification in the books. But I didn't change my view of Bond (the literary version here) because Craig came along and played the 'ordinary' version. I've seen Bond in this way all along.

But the Draco quote is, essentially, Bond in denial, enabling him to justify turning down Draco's offer: hell, he has been gambling in a French casino, he drives a Bentley - not living the lifestyle of a Scottish peasant.

Bond's private income DOUBLES his earnings. I would venture this is not minimal. Somewhere along the lines he has acquired a Chelsea home. he drives Bentleys, not Fords i.e. no financial restiction appears to be imposed on his lifestyle.

Bond is educated at Eton. The home of the great and the good. The ruling elite Britain, the wealthy.

Remember, it is Craig's Bond that (okay, Vesper assumes) is a grammar school charity case sent to Eton as a consequence of SOMEONE ELSE'S philant. hropy

And yet there is next to none conceit or arrogance to find in Bond's posture (pardons to Etonians and Fettesians; this is of course not meant as a derogatory sign of both ). Nothing indicates to me he himself feels 'upper' or superior. While nursing a number of prejudices, Bond never comes across as elitist and is in fact able to mix into most any background without sticking out as upper crust.

Also, if we take a closer look at Bond's income, it would seem while the private part doubles his funds, he's still working. His musings in MR (where the private income is mentioned) also reflect that the game with Drax could have had disastrous effects on Bond's finances, if his trick hadn't come off, seeing Bond borrowing from M (who's also not too well off, it would seem).

And while his lifestyle most likely isn't the standard with Scottish peasants (otherwise Bentley would be competing in a league with Volkswagen, not be a brand of) it's still interesting to note how cleverly Fleming understated Bond's more exclusive luxuries. The 4.5 litre Bentley isn't explained much beyond Bond having bought the machine before the war. But it's replacement, the Continental, was only possible because Bond won a tremendous sum from Drax, certainly taking some strain off Bond's bank account.

We do not learn what became of Bond's first Continental, but it's replacement, the Continental Mark II ('The Locomotive') with 'R'-type chassis mentioned in TB is a used car. Used so much so that it came as a write-off from a traffic accident. Bond invests 1500 pounds in the wreck and pays another 3000 pounds (half his total funds) into getting it going again. So it cost him up to that time 4500 pounds, yet it would still be far from what a new model with the same specifications would have dented into his funds.

So it would seem Fleming on purpose carefully avoids showing Bond as too well off, giving him a background that speaks of a certain standard, but never of outright wealth and completely independent means.

[jaguar007]

Suddenly, Fleming Bond is not conventionally good looking - BECAUSE CRAIG ISN'T? - and yet Tatiana says he has the looks of a (50s) movie star!

and who were some of the top movie stars of the 50s? Marlon Brando, Robert Mitchum, Frank Sinatra, Charlton Heston, Gene Kelley.

As mentioned before, Fleming described Bond has having cruel looks and I always found Roger Moore (though he could look cruel at times) and especially Pierce Brosnan to have too pretty of a look to be Bond. I felt this long before I even knew who Daniel Craig is.

[David Schofield]

So it would seem Fleming on purpose carefully avoids showing Bond as too well off, giving him a background that speaks of a certain standard, but never of outright wealth and completely independent means.

Of course, had Fleming wanted Bond to be totally status free, he wouldn't have given him a private income at all, a Bentley, made him an old Etonian. These are, essentially, signs of a certain (high) standing in British society. I would venure the top 15% of 50s society? They are the plot device that allows Bond to do the things he does, go the places he goes, from austere 50s Briatin

But I do agree, Fleming DOES make Bond an everyman in his dealings with "foreigners", far more so that someone of Bond's social elite of the 50s might be expected to have. I think this is much to do with Fleming's over travel and experience of the world. Though I suppose by its very "falseness" Bond could be accused of being patronising in this regard.

[David Schofield]

Suddenly, Fleming Bond is not conventionally good looking - BECAUSE CRAIG ISN'T? - and yet Tatiana says he has the looks of a (50s) movie star!

and who were some of the top movie stars of the 50s? Marlon Brando, Robert Mitchum, Frank Sinatra, Charlton Heston, Gene Kelley.

As mentioned before, Fleming described Bond has having cruel looks and I always found Roger Moore (though he could look cruel at times) and especially Pierce Brosnan to have too pretty of a look to be Bond. I felt this long before I even knew who Daniel Craig is.

Well, Is suspect the kind of movie star Tatiana was suggesting would be Tyrone Power, Greg Peck, Cary Grant, Tony Curtis, Errol Flynn, Laurence Olivier etc.

But I supose she might have really meant she had a crush on Gene Kelley, though.

[The Shark]

And yet there is next to none conceit or arrogance to find in Bond's posture (pardons to Etonians and Fettesians; this is of course not meant as a derogatory sign of both ). Nothing indicates to me he himself feels 'upper' or superior. While nursing a number of prejudices, Bond never comes across as elitist and is in fact able to mix into most any background without sticking out as upper crust.

He's simply a rather non-elitist, more every-man, non-socially-superior, upper class citizen.

They do exist, believe it or not. Here in the UK, one's temperament isn't a deciding factor of one's social status. Though there are certainly stereotypes of upper-crust Etonians.

The level of personal fitness, of sheer physical ability, as depicted by Fleming, would naturally be an item of contradiction. Fleming imagined an adventure hero based on what he understood as good life, back in a time when neither smoking nor drinking was exactly seen as impairing one's health or physical capability.

I'm sure Fleming was well aware, increasingly, of his lifestyles toll on his health, and Bond's own.

Naturally, he came up with a truly ludicrous discrepancy between Bond's way of life and the physical exertions of his adventures. Let's face it, Bond would have stood no chance at all to survive his various adventures on what the books depic as his usual lifestyle.

I disagree completely. The physical action within the novels is minimal at best, and makes perfect sense with Bond's level of health.

Bond might have been able to sit behind his desk without major afflictions, had his regimen been 200 of these excersises, each morning and evening, but given the fact of his daily alcohol intake (roughly 1500kcal extra) and his habit of ordering double portions and second helpings, he would inevitably have run to fat with each year past his 30th birthday. His tall frame might have covered up for this for a time, but eventually the quick draw from his holster would have taken certainly more then the requested time for active double-0 agents.

One of the most interesting aspects to Fleming's Bond, and unfortunately has never been properly explored on screen. Mostly due to unnecessary and down-right ridiculous action sequences, resulting in this being ignored.

Let's face it, Fleming has drawn the picture of a man slowly becoming a glutton. And he knew it perfectly well, or he wouldn't have given the satirical Shrublands treatment with tea and hot clear soup. Bond loses considerable weigth there, ten pounds, and, like most middle-aged reborn-sportsmen, keeps his newly found health for a time. But eventually, he falls back into the old ways of scrambled eggs with butter and double whiskys.

It would be great to see Craig put this screen. Better than wasting his acting talent, and spitting in this face of Fleming by having him become an-overpaid stuntman.

Now, what does this mean for the filmic depiction of Bond on screen? Do we want a Bond faithful to Fleming's description of Bond's diet, drinks and smoking?

Yes, essentially.

This would not only seem outdated today

Good, Bond should always be something of an anachronism. Makes him distinguishable from the homogeneous modern terrain of physically perfect, clean-cut, and super-human Jason Bournes and Frank Transporters.

but also entirely undermine any credibility where Bond's active side is concerned

Then show the character start-off unfit, but get into physical shape throughout the film. In other words, let him go to the gym, cut down on consumption, and lose about 10 lbs.

If anything, cut down to minimal but well executed action sequences, like Fleming's novels and the 60s Bond films.

(and after all, most of us pay to see this, his adventures, not his canteen plate or the empty bottles May has to get rid of).

I would pay to see both, in moderation.

In this context I think a physical presence as Craig's or the early Connery's (he had a six-pack too)

No he didn't. There was visible layer of flab and chair.

A running-to-fat middle aged guy with ruggedly good looks may be closer to the pages, but he'd also be much farther from the adventure.

If Bond can be physically imperfect in the novels, and fight a Giant Squid, then let him do it on screen.

Marking down an actor for actually being more convincing in his physical part would seem to be most peculiar in the circumstances.

I am marking down the actor for his physical part, not how convincing (Craig excels at this) he is.

[jaguar007]

Suddenly, Fleming Bond is not conventionally good looking - BECAUSE CRAIG ISN'T? - and yet Tatiana says he has the looks of a (50s) movie star!

and who were some of the top movie stars of the 50s? Marlon Brando, Robert Mitchum, Frank Sinatra, Charlton Heston, Gene Kelley.

As mentioned before, Fleming described Bond has having cruel looks and I always found Roger Moore (though he could look cruel at times) and especially Pierce Brosnan to have too pretty of a look to be Bond. I felt this long before I even knew who Daniel Craig is.

Well, Is suspect the kind of movie star Tatiana was suggesting would be Tyrone Power, Greg Peck, Cary Grant, Tony Curtis, Errol Flynn, Laurence Olivier etc.

But I supose she might have really meant she had a crush on Gene Kelley, though.

Tyrone Power, Cary Grant, Errol Flynn and Laurence Olivier were more 1930/1940 era movie stars where Brando, Mitchum etc were some of the top new crop of 1950's movie stars.

Of course we really don't know who Tatiana was referring to, I'm just making a case that not all leading men movie stars of that era had a pretty boy look, in fact most of them did not. The pretty boy leading man did not really become dominant until the 1980s. Prior to that, most leading men looked like, well, men.

[spynovelfan]

The physical action within the novels is minimal at best, and makes perfect sense with Bond's level of health.

Well, I don't quite agree. I think there's much less in the novels than in the films, but there's still a fair bit, and it's pretty unrealistic for a man on 70 cigarettes a day. But as you say yourself, I think Fleming was aware of this, hence all the stuff about M thinking the same thing and sending him off to Shrublands.

Then show the character start-off unfit, but get into physical shape throughout the film. In other words, let him go to the gym, cut down on consumption, and lose about 10 lbs.

What, remake Thunderball again?

No he didn't. There was visible layer of flab and chair.

Well, he was pretty fit in Dr No - just look at the behind the scenes photos of him with Andress, where he's bare-chested. He was Mr Universe not that long before.

I do see where you're coming from, but I think marking down Craig because he got in shape is a bit absurd. Especially as I think in doing so he brought some Fleming elements back. Much more than with Brosnan, I got the impression that this was a former commando, someone who I would seriously not like to meet down a dark alley, someone who was a killer... but also someone who liked smoking and drinking and having some fun because he knew he might not have long to live.

But then if we all agreed it wouldn't be very interesting.

[Trident]

And yet there is next to none conceit or arrogance to find in Bond's posture (pardons to Etonians and Fettesians; this is of course not meant as a derogatory sign of both ). Nothing indicates to me he himself feels 'upper' or superior. While nursing a number of prejudices, Bond never comes across as elitist and is in fact able to mix into most any background without sticking out as upper crust.

He's simply a rather non-elitist, more every-man, non-socially-superior, upper class citizen.

In other words: classless?

Now, what does this mean for the filmic depiction of Bond on screen? Do we want a Bond faithful to Fleming's description of Bond's diet, drinks and smoking?

Yes, essentially.

This would not only seem outdated today

Good, Bond should always be something of an anachronism. Makes him distinguishable from the homogeneous modern terrain of physically perfect, clean-cut, and super-human Jason Bournes and Frank Transporters.

but also entirely undermine any credibility where Bond's active side is concerned

Then show the character start-off unfit, but get into physical shape throughout the film. In other words, let him go to the gym, cut down on consumption, and lose about 10 lbs.

If anything, cut down to minimal but well executed action sequences, like Fleming's novels and the 60s Bond films.

(and after all, most of us pay to see this, his adventures, not his canteen plate or the empty bottles May has to get rid of).

I would pay to see both, in moderation.

LOOL! Great fun!

I take this to be the essence of your opinion with this regard and I can see fairly well where you're coming from. Unfortunately, we're in a minority amongst potential Bond audiences here. Modern film doesn't work this way any more, didn't even work back when the series started out. As a brand in cinema entertainment Bond is far beyond what Fleming purism would dictate.

And if we insist on 100 per cent pure single Fleming, then we should also take into account that Fleming himself wasn't nearly as puristic. He was willing to go a long distance to see Bond on the screen, make many compromises and I daresay he would have even be mildly amused and endlessly supportive during the more OTT follies of the series. Because he didn't take Bond nearly as serious we do today.

Lot's of our discussion here are spurred by numerous discrepancys, contradictions, apparent faults and failures in the canon. They nearly all stem from Fleming making the thing up as he went along, merrily tailoring each book as the whimsey took him, without too much regard for what he had written earlier or would write later, each book taking its own particular set of cliffs.

Up to a point, I think it's fair to say Fleming worked not so much different from what EON did with their films. And many of Fleming's stronger sides are pretty hard to transport to the screen. He had filmic potential, but the screen is far more greedy for action, violence and eye candy. If it wasn't the books would have not seen such a degree of treatment and re-writing. Today, with pretty much every commercial on TV having some VFX/SFX/CLEENEX, there is absolutely no chance to get back to the books in the way you suggest, mainly because the entire franchise is working in an entirely different league now.

[jaguar007]

No he didn't. There was visible layer of flab and chair.

Well, he was pretty fit in Dr No - just look at the behind the scenes photos of him with Andress, where he's bare-chested. He was Mr Universe not that long before.

For what it is worth, I just googled pics of Connery bare chested in Dr No and Craig in CR (you know, the famous picture of him coming out of the water). Craig definitely has more muscle definition but both had similar bodyfat levels. Craig did not have a readily visible six pack in Casino Royale