72 replies to this topic

[Emma]

I was just checking DC’s wiki entry and the entry said that Craig’s Bond is closest to the character that Fleming envisioned. Now I could never ever finish any of Fleming’s 007 books. But from what I have read and studied of the character in the novels, I just can not agree with this assessment.

Craig’s Bond, while certainly likable and noble, comes across as way too thuggish and emotional to have any semblance to the Bond in the books. Of all the actors who have come close to the book Bond, Timothy Dalton seems to fit the profile more readily. He’s more serious, measured and professional. Than Craig’s Bond who just flies by the seat of his pants and doesn’t appear to think things through.

Thoughts?

[George88]

I thought that the idea of Casino Royale is that Bond was not made, he became, and therefore what you see in the later/earlier Bonds (bit of a mindflip!) is the finished product whereas the Craig Bond is slowly becoming that finished article. Certainly smoother at the end of Quantum of Solace than at the start of Casino Royale.

There are aspects of all that Fleming wrote in all of them; but then Fleming didn't write much really about Bond so we all transpose onto a pretty fuzzy character all sorts of things.

[Lachesis]

Indeed I don't think we have seen the final 'Daniel Craig Bond' yet, when we do however it wil be one reimagined for a very different era than the books. imo and in literal terms Daniel Craig's Bond is the furthest yet from the novels, but that doesn't nescessarily make him any less than the right 'Bond for the 00's. The trick will be for him to distinguish himself from an increasingly generic crowd of wannabes. None of the actors capture Fleming's Bond in its entirety, all channel or bias some aspects at the expense of others, personally I find Connery the best balance (Dalton probably next) but it is down to personal preference and nothing more.

I am less concerned by the distance the character has moved from its progenitor than I am that the stories have lost or dispensed with so much that they cease to tick all the boxes Bond has traditionally made good on, the Bond novel and the earlier films were as much about the other characters, the locations, the scheme or about Flemings own personal opinion than just, Bond, the man and those are the elements hanging on by a length of nail by QoS.....if I am optimistic its that the new Bond event is in the final stages of preparation, if I am pessimistic its that the franchise has been sold out to appease the allegations made by Greengrass and the Bourne template.

[jamie00007]

Really kind of depends on the book. Take the YOLT novel for instance. Craig is the only Bond actor who I can imagine could have pulled that off. His character in QoS isnt too much different. But Connery in Dr No, FRWL and GF totally nailed the character from the books.

[Guy Haines]

I've always thought of the Bond books as Ian Fleming's "fictional biography", if that doesn't sound a bit odd. So much of the Bond character of the novels takes its cue from the author that when the question crops up, as it frequently does, "who was Bond based upon?", the answer to me seems obvious - for the most part, Ian Fleming himself.

I don't think there is a definitive screen Bond, any more than there is a definitive portrayal of Shakespeare's leading characters such as Hamlet, Othello or Macbeth. Its a matter of the actor's interpretation and audience preference. The comments on these forum pages very often prove this point.

I know which versions of Bond I prefer, and Craig's is most definitely one of them.

[Bryce (003)]

Well stated by each of your posts.

In the "here and now" - the concept of Bond is representitive of two things. The contemporary world in which the character exists and, to a point, the era in which he was created.

All of the actors who took the mantle, if you will, of what became an iconic cinema role tried to fit thier time. Connery had to be shaped and had the virtue of being the first (no offense to Barry Nelson ) and then Lazenby had to follow in a long shadow after five previous films and the end of the 60's culture. When Roger came on board it was a reflection of the times.

It's been stated, by myself and others here in various threads, that Moore's Bond and the films of that time did just that.

For my take, LALD was a mirror of the "blaxploitation" films, TMWTGG acknowledged the Hong Kong cinema and the ever lasting history that was Bruce Lee and TSWLM reflected the fascination with sea-based films (Jaws, The Deep etc. ) and although, as we all know, FYEO was announced as the film to follow SPY, but with NASA on the verge of it's predicted first shuttle mission and Star Wars and Close Encounters draw, they took one of the few remaining Bond titles that could have a space angle.

I know I'm just rehashing much of the obvious here, but it made it easy for the Eon family to follow the trend of the times and Roger ran with it in his depection of 007. His style was right for the times and he did get not only some key action bits, but also a few (dare I say) great dramatic moments. The confrontation with Anya and the face off with Orlov spring to mind.

As with Lazenby, Tim stepped in at the last minute (due to PB's contract probs with NBC) and he worked with a script that was written without knowing who would be Bond. He brought back the smoking and with LTK went for a darker side that was quite good. Maybe more for we "dyed in the wool" Bond fans, but not for the masses. I enjoy all the speculative threads about what his third Bond outing would have been like.

Then we got Pierce. Granted, after the dreadful hiatus in the series, we were all thrilled to not only have 007 back, but also see an actor in the role who had the look for the times and also had been cheated and REALLY (No....Really) wanted the part and to prove that even ten years on could deliver.

Times change.

Then Dan. A bold and risky move for the series but the whole "diamond in the rough" approach and the fact the series was able to do so with the great (IMO) adaptation of the story and character makes it work. Watching CR and QoS back-to-back makes QoS work for me and seeing perhaps what I call "the best five-act Bond epic" gives credit to both the man/actor filling the role and to the people producing these adventures.

As I had the pleasure to speak with MGW and BB directly, they both said flatly that the actors and the series wouldn't be anywhere or where they are without the fans.

Dan is the MAN now. I'm sure he carries it without a certain amount of disdain but balances it with appreciation and wants to deliver.

So, to address this thread again - Definitive? Depends on your opinion. Doing well by it? Damn straight.

Anyway, there's my two pence tossed into the fountain that is CBn. Cheers

[sharpshooter]

But Connery in Dr No, FRWL and GF totally nailed the character from the books.

He sure did. In DN and FRWL especially, Connery had all of the Fleming aspects perfected. Craig is very close - especially in the cruel looks department, but overall, Connery is closer. For me, anyway.

[Bryce (003)]

But Connery in Dr No, FRWL and GF totally nailed the character from the books.

He sure did. In DN and FRWL especially, Connery had all of the Fleming aspects perfected. Craig is very close - especially in the cruel looks department, but overall, Connery is closer. For me, anyway.

Agreed. Until CR, FRWL has always been the best for me. It also worked well as it was almost right on par within the time it was made and written in '59.

Truly though, it all came down to the talent and direction and (most importantly based on the DVD doc. ) the post production.

[elizabeth]

But Connery in Dr No, FRWL and GF totally nailed the character from the books.

They were spot on. Craig is more like Matt Damon in the Bourne films.

[jaguar007]

Agreed. Until CR, FRWL has always been the best for me.

Same with me. Go figure. Great minds think alike...and so do ours.

They were spot on. Craig is more like Matt Damon in the Bourne films.

Sorry, but I don't understand this frequent comparison. The only similarity I see between the Bourne movies and the Craig/Bond movies is the editing on QoS (the same can be said for almost all current action films). I can't see any similarity between Craig's Bond character and Damon's Bourne character. What is it that makes so many people compare the two?

[Bryce (003)]

Agreed. Until CR, FRWL has always been the best for me.

Same with me. Go figure. Great minds think alike...and so do ours.

Quite....

"Old man."

[AgentPB]

I like Craig a lot but I don't think there will ever be a Bond that incapsulates the character completely. For example for me Brosnan had the look of Bind down pat but was given horrible scripts. Craig has the mood of the character but not the looks. Sean and Dalton are the closest to getting the looks, slight humor, and character down.

[jamie00007]

They were spot on. Craig is more like Matt Damon in the Bourne films.

How? I cant see any similarities. Craig's Bond is the complete opposite of Jason Bourne in pretty much every way.

[captnash2]

not close at all.

fleming's bond has more joy for life, is less blood thirsty, less of a lone wolf and more sensitive to his women than craig's bond, who is channelling connery's bond and bourne.

Edited by captnash2, 04 March 2010 - 10:24 AM.

[Germanlady]

not close at all.

fleming's bond has more joy for life, is less blood thirsty, less of a lone wolf and more sensitive to his women than craig's bond, who is channelling connery's bond and bourne.

The Craig Bond isn´t sensitive to his women? What do you call his relation with Vesper and Camille then? He didn´t even s*** Camille - that´s how sensitive he is...

[Lachesis]

They were spot on. Craig is more like Matt Damon in the Bourne films.

How? I cant see any similarities. Craig's Bond is the complete opposite of Jason Bourne in pretty much every way.

Even in CR I felt there was a very definite Bourne effect (or more preciesly a generic Americanisation(no disrespect I love some of the archtype America heros)) on the reimagining of Bond, the changes made to Fleming story seemed directly designed to draw them togther, then comes QoS which is a story that could so easily have starred Jason Bourne (or A.N. Other) with no real alterations.

The effect has been a shift in bias rather than any one element so we get a massively increased physical emphasis, a near superhuman indestructbility, isolation and segregation from any infrastructure or support, a need to furnish a raison d'etre, a low key relationship with the outside world, the unremarkable nature of the enemies and threats around him, the diminsihed role of wit, guile or ingenuity, the personal bias, the lack of charisma etc are all elements that invoke Bourne and the typical Hollywood action star but that Bond has traditonally stood apart from. Bonds unique nature, his individualism and beliefs are now delivered as far more mundane and unremarkable than previously understood. Accesible perhaps but like the magic trick whose method is know, its that bit less interesting for me.

Of course Fleming wrote Bond in a very different age and he needs to move with the times, these are very personal feelings. But imo its Bond's unique qualities that have seen him weather the decades, a period when any number of Bond wannabes and generic actioners have come and gone. Daniel's Bond (assuming he has played Bond rather than just - the man who will become Bond etc) is more a steroidally od'ed Harry Palmer sans intellect...or Jason Bourne...than any Bond I actually envisage when reading the books.

[O.H.M.S.S.]

Sorry, but Sean Connery in his first four, George Lazenby, Timothy Dalton and even Roger Moore in his first two Bonds come closer to Fleming I'd say.

[jaguar007]

not close at all.

fleming's bond has more joy for life, is less blood thirsty, less of a lone wolf and more sensitive to his women than craig's bond, who is channelling connery's bond and bourne.

I disagree. I think Craig's Bond in Casino Royale actually has more of a joy for life than I ever felt Bond in the books did. Look at the scenes in the Bahamas for example. Also as Germanlady pointed out, Craig's Bond i much more sensitive to women than Connery or Moore ever were. I will agree that Craig's Bond does seem to channel Connery but I think the other part he is channeling is Fleming, not Bourne.

The effect has been a shift in bias rather than any one element so we get a massively increased physical emphasis, a near superhuman indestructbility,

Superman indestructibility??

Because a Bond who physically looks like he can do what he is doing makes him superhuman while a 50+ year old man fighting on top of Goldengate Bridge or hanging to the top of an airplane without getting his clothes or hair messed up is not?

Unlike most previous Bond movies Criag's Bond bleeds and gets hurt (remember, he spent time in the hospital after getting his gonads whacked while previous Bonds would have gotten up and walked around).

[Lachesis]

Superman indestructibility??

Because a Bond who physically looks like he can do what he is doing makes him superhuman while a 50+ year old man fighting on top of Goldengate Bridge or hanging to the top of an airplane without getting his clothes or hair messed up is not?

Unlike most previous Bond movies Criag's Bond bleeds and gets hurt (remember, he spent time in the hospital after getting his gonads whacked while previous Bonds would have gotten up and walked around).

In fairness I was at pains to make it clear it is only how I percieve it. Fights are de-rigour for the character but the fight is usually offset by resolutions more thoughful and ingenious than just the victory of brute force. The blunt instrument is a taunt usually thrown out to be risen above yet in the case of QoS it's a comprehensive description of the character imo.

I take your point re AVTAK but it is a matter of personal opinion whether someone facing a near death battle and escaping to reset his hairdo is demonstrably less convincing than doing pretty much the same and taking three bruises and a cut over the left eye. Indeed the bias toward physicality is a vicious circle that makes increasing demands on the credibility of the character in a manner more palpable and apt to break connection than any other element imo. The level of implied damage has increased, the capabilities of the central character are more evident, but the level of physical involvement is far greater still and its prominece and influence on the propagation of the plot ever more marked - the net effect is just as unconvicing, if not moreso to myslef, than Roger Moore's backcreen projected fisticuffs. But then Superman never convinced me a man could fly.

A gonad attack on Roger Moore would have seen very real result, a high pitched voice and a funny walk at the very least ^^.

[DR76]

Craig’s Bond, while certainly likable and noble, comes across as way too thuggish and emotional to have any semblance to the Bond in the books. Of all the actors who have come close to the book Bond, Timothy Dalton seems to fit the profile more readily. He’s more serious, measured and professional. Than Craig’s Bond who just flies by the seat of his pants and doesn’t appear to think things through.

Thoughts?

Disagree with you. I don't consider Craig's Bond as a mere thug. Just someone who is inexperienced as an 00 agent. Dalton's Bond is simply an older and more experienced agent. And both actors did a great job in conveying their own personal style in portraying Bond . . . just as Connery, Lazenby, Moore and Brosnan did.


I couldn't care less if any of the actors portraying the agent came close to Fleming's Bond. I'm not a big fan of the literary Bond to begin with. And I'm just relieved that each actor managed to convey his own approach to portraying the role without slavishly imitating Fleming's literary character.

[captnash2]

not close at all.

fleming's bond has more joy for life, is less blood thirsty, less of a lone wolf and more sensitive to his women than craig's bond, who is channelling connery's bond and bourne.

The Craig Bond isn´t sensitive to his women? What do you call his relation with Vesper and Camille then? He didn´t even s*** Camille - that´s how sensitive he is...

craig's bond more joyful? he can't even enjoy a good martini!

true the vesper ot the book is a traitor to the end so bond gets over her a lot quicker. the vesper in the film is stone cold in love with him and sacrifices her life for him hence his determination to avenge her death.

Edited by captnash2, 05 March 2010 - 10:01 AM.

[Zorin Industries]

M needs to be someone that we believe was Bond in his/her younger years.

[CasinoKiller]

Well personally I think Flemming's Bond was a more multi-faceted character than most people give him credit for. The truth is that Flemming's Bond, while a cold-blooded killer, a gambler and a chauvanist, was also a dedicated officer of Her Majesties Government, a gentleman, suave and sophisticated, who did have a genuine regard for women beyond viewing them as mere sex objects...and yes, though critics of the Moore era may be shocked, he DID have a sense of humor...

Basically, the point I'm trying to make is that every actor to play Bond has portrayed one aspect or the other of the Flemming Bond and so, to some extent, ALL of them have played 'Flemming's Bond'. While its true that Dalton and Craig have come closest to the playing 'Flemming's Bond' owing to the realistic tone of their films, the same can be said for the realistic Connery and Moore films, and hell even Lazenby and Brosnan.

That said, Craig is undoubtedly the best Bond after Connery, but Connery is THE Definitive James Bond of the big screen!

[Guy Haines]

Well personally I think Flemming's Bond was a more multi-faceted character than most people give him credit for. The truth is that Flemming's Bond, while a cold-blooded killer, a gambler and a chauvanist, was also a dedicated officer of Her Majesties Government, a gentleman, suave and sophisticated, who did have a genuine regard for women beyond viewing them as mere sex objects...and yes, though critics of the Moore era may be shocked, he DID have a sense of humor...

Basically, the point I'm trying to make is that every actor to play Bond has portrayed one aspect or the other of the Flemming Bond and so, to some extent, ALL of them have played 'Flemming's Bond'. While its true that Dalton and Craig have come closest to the playing 'Flemming's Bond' owing to the realistic tone of their films, the same can be said for the realistic Connery and Moore films, and hell even Lazenby and Brosnan.

That said, Craig is undoubtedly the best Bond after Connery, but Connery is THE Definitive James Bond of the big screen!

Fleming's Bond gained a sense of humour, certainly - particularly post 1962 with the arrival of the Bond films. Despite its tragic end, OHMSS wasn't without the odd humourous reference (Ursula Andress gets a mention as the star of a highly successful film), and YOLT, despite its doomfraught plot has its lighter moments, even when Bond is in The Question Room (I liked Bond's invitation to Blofeld to put the whole Garden Of Death/Question Room set up on Broadway and get Noel Coward -another in joke there? - to set it to music).

Was Fleming giving Bond a humourous side to round the character out, or could he see the way the films were going and wanted to dovetail his literary Bond with them? We'll never know.

[Publius]

Since being definitive usually means being first AND good, I'm afraid Connery won this contest before Craig was even born.

Craig (or any other actor) would somehow have to make three or four critically acclaimed AND popular Bond movies that forever redefined the character to have a realistic shot at dethroning Connery.

Basically, if you could find a way to make the literary YOLT a billion dollar blockbuster, that's Craig's best hope right there.

As for being like the literary Bond, I agree that Dalton comes closest, but Craig is more like a mix of that and what Connery/Lazenby brought to the table, only in a modern context (hence what you call thuggish, a.k.a. being a semi-plausible special agent).

In other words, other than Dalton, who is most like the Bond of the novels? Connery and even Moore might have shown flashes, but that's not what they were about. At his best, Craig rivals Dalton in this regard, and given time I think can surpass him.

[Stephen Spotswood]

I've recently reread Casino Royale, and there was no indication that Bond was a new 00.

They mentioned spy missions before the war in Monte Carlo.

A description was given of Bond getting his double-0 license during some unspecified time, but since his victims were a Japanese radio operator and a double-agent working for the Germans, I'd say it's reasonably safe that it was during World War II, which ended in 1945, and the book CR was published in 1953. So one can safely presume Bond had been a double-0 for eight years already.

But Bond was burning out with what he called playing cowboys and Indians. Agents killing other agents, who had more in common than differences, and were only following their orders. But the forced suicide of Vesper turned his attention to SMERSH, and he seems to get reenergized to fight what he considered evil.

He seemed to miss Vesper, despite his harsh line at the end of the book. He was visiting her grave when he first encountered Contessa Teresa di Vicenzo in the book On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

Edited by Stephen Spotswood, 16 March 2010 - 01:21 PM.

[Pete]

But Connery in Dr No, FRWL and GF totally nailed the character from the books.

He sure did. In DN and FRWL especially, Connery had all of the Fleming aspects perfected. Craig is very close - especially in the cruel looks department, but overall, Connery is closer. For me, anyway.

Connery is nothing like Fleming's Bond. The closest is Dalton followed by Craig and Lazenby. Connery is the film icon that every other actor had to follow, but he was nothing like the Bond in the books.

[The Shark]

But Connery in Dr No, FRWL and GF totally nailed the character from the books.

He sure did. In DN and FRWL especially, Connery had all of the Fleming aspects perfected. Craig is very close - especially in the cruel looks department, but overall, Connery is closer. For me, anyway.

Connery is nothing like Fleming's Bond. The closest is Dalton followed by Craig and Lazenby. Connery is the film icon that every other actor had to follow, but he was nothing like the Bond in the books.

I disagree considerably, I'd say Connery was one of the closest. Care to explain why?

[jaguar007]

Connery was much cooler than Bond in the books, but I think that the time period of the Connery films being closer to the time period of the books gives Connery an edge. There are some aspects of the character that worked in the 50s and early 60s that are outdated in the 70s-00s.

[Stephen Spotswood]

Although I think Dalton is the Bond most like the books, this guy looks the part more to me:

http://www.cedmagic....-strangways.jpg