271 replies to this topic

[Guy Haines]

My main problem with the Craig era is that, to me, DC just isn’t Bond. He lacks that certain something that both Connery and Moore had. Even Brosnan had it to some degree (Lazenby and Dalton not so much). I don’t enjoy watching Craig for the sake of watching him like I do with Connery and Moore – the charisma isn’t there. This may very well be because of age, I’m not growing up with Craig – he’s not that much older than me and all that. Clearly DC is still doing very well as Bond, but the problem for me isn’t that I don’t want to be in his world, it’s that I don’t want to be his Bond.

Interesting. I love Craig (and also loved Dalton) precisely because they bring a spark of charisma -- an energy, signs of something moving behind the eyes -- to the role that I do enjoy. Granted, it's different from the Moore/Brosnan "shove and wink" line delivery, which I found to be increasingly tedious; it also marred the latter half of Connery's run as Bond, which is why I have very mixed feelings about him. His first four films were outstanding, and of course he was the original cinematic Bond. But then he started phoning in his performances with what came across to me as a sluggish, barely-there presence. I think of "Dr. No" or "From Russia With Love" and smile; then I think of "Diamonds Are Forever" and shrug.

Craig is the first Bond actor, after Connery and Lazenby, whom I find physically convincing in the role. When he goes into action during that "Quantum of Solace" knife fight, I'm right there with him, and am completely convinced that Bond is fighting for his life right before my eyes. I can't think of a single instance where I found Moore or Brosnan that believable . . . and even Dalton, whom I adore, wasn't as convincing in the physical stunts. As my husband -- the longtime Bond fan in our family -- put it (after seeing "Casino Royale"), "Finally, they have a Bond who really looks like he can kill someone!" I think he had felt that was not the case since Connery. And since that's supposed to be part of Bond's job, he believed it important enough to take notice.

I agree, in particular with the second paragraph of your post. However much we try not to think about it, and bring to the fore the girls, gadgets and style, Bond is, fundamentally, a state sponsored killer, and Craig's performance underlines that more than any Bond since Connery. One reviewer over here drew comparisons of Craig in Casino Royale with not only Connery at his best, and Patrick McGoohan's implacable Number 6 of "The Prisoner", but Robert Shaw's Red Grant of FRWL. The reviewer (in The Guardian newspaper, I recall) said that one reason Craig's Bond worked was that you could easily imagine him playing Bond or Grant. Indeed you could.

[sharpshooter]

Clearly DC is still doing very well as Bond, but the problem for me isn’t that I don’t want to be in his world, it’s that I don’t want to be his Bond.

Well, speaking for myself, I would easily aspire to the Connery/Dalton blend.

It's a very commanding, no nonsense approach and people know their place. He cuts straight to the issue and there isn’t any spin. He has an intimidating physical presence – and anyone who takes him on is unconscious quickly. And above all, he does seem to be reasonably flippant and carefree. Roguish. For example, throwing the hard hat to the side in Blood Stone, and the other similar instances in the films.

[The sniper was a woman]

I really do think that it's becoming quite irritating.
I'm just really getting worried that this era just won't be Bond anymore. They're changing too much.

...You mean irritating and "un-Bond" like... Moore's Bond ?

[Blonde Bond]

It's been a blessing not have those things in the two Craig films so far. There is a plenty of that Bond feel left even without the theme and gun barrel in it's "rightful place" in the beginning. Just a few weeks ago I noted that many familiar things were still used.

One way or another , doesn't make any real difference to me whether theme and gun barrel are back.

Although my hunch says they'll be back just to remind the audience that after 4 year hiatus Bond is back!

Regarding Penny and Q; not necessary. But like someone said on page 1 or 2 , they could be brought into the story to show 4 years have passed and Bond is now part of the team. Either way I could be satisfied.

[double o ego]

... and quite honestly less is more when it comes to using the Bond theme.. Arnold balanced it quite nicely in Tomorrow Never Dies, but for TWINE and DAD it just gets over blown.. ugh!

We must not be watching the same film. TND had the Bond theme playing in every other scene not that i have a problem with it.

[Emma]

First of all, I think everyone knows on here that I'm a massive Daniel Craig supporter, and Casino Royale was a blessing. BUT, I really do feel that the producers are becoming too un-connected with the classic Bond era. As much as I've enjoyed the Craig era, I really do think that it's becoming quite irritating.

Why is Daniel Craig still earning the Bond theme? It's not even in Blood Stone. Why? Blood Stone has been marketed as a classic Bond adventure, and as much as I look forward to playing it, this is really bugging me. It was established at the end of Casino Royale that James became Bond, and we were rewarded with a Bond theme at the end of the movie. In Quantum of Solace, we still didn't get the Bond theme in it's full form until the end credits. I can kind of understand the reason why, but the thing is WHY is there no Bond theme in Blood Stone? Bond is over Vesper, Bond is Bond. There's not even a hint of the Bond theme in the score, as great as it sounds. You would've thought that Craigs Bond has earnt a massive Bond theme appearance by now during an action sequence?

So, we now move onto the gunbarrel. Why isn't this in Blood Stone either? I can understand why Quantum of Solace had it at the end, to show Bonds story arc is now completed Vesper wise, but no gunbarrel at the start of Blood Stone, why? It doesn't take much effort to slam it at the start and have it open up on the shot of Athens. Why is there no Gunbarrel in GoldenEye 2010, either? You would think they'd put one in that.

The casual Bond look is getting tiresome as well. I don't understand why Criag's Bond feels the need to run around in jeans and a T-shirt. Yes we get a tux in Blood Stone, and a suit. But seriously, a green jersey? He looks like my grandad.

I'm all up for the producers shaking up the formula, and it was brilliant for Casino Royale and most of Quantum of Solace. I just get the impression now that they're messing it up just for the hell of it. It's like the Craig era is just against the idea of the Bond theme and the gunbarrel, even though it's a Bond film...

There's no need for Blood Stone or GoldenEye not to have a gunbarrel, or the Bond theme. It's as if they thought "Oh look, it's the Craig era, no one wants it anymore."


I love Craig. I love Bond. I'm just really getting worried that this era just won't be Bond anymore. They're changing too much.

I wouldn't quite call it annoying. The only thing I find annoying is some of the fan behaviour who carry on as if Dan is the second coming of Jesus who can do no wrong. But I really think that the producers have strayed from what Bond is. To me Bond is supposed to be a suave and elegant man. But that is not what Craig is demonstrating. When I line up his Bond against the others he just does not fit. The other day I was re-wataching CR and almost felt as if I were watching a Steve McQueen film. On the other hand I am loath to complain because next to Pierce, Dan is my favourite Bond. Dalton is too uptight, Moore and Lazenby too boyish and Connery too sleazy and nasty (it might have worked in the 60's, but I find his 'I'll be ****ing you later attitude towards women disgusting). What made CR work for me was Daniel Craig I liked the fact that beneath the rough brutish exterior he was a good and moral man. But I still look at him and think,that's not who Bond is supposed to be.

[Matt_13]

A very reasonable description Emma, and one that I think a lot of fans can identify with. I personally don't want Craig to lighten up to the point where Brosnan was, but I do want some more humor and style. Casino Royale and Quantum both have these moments, but they are few and easily forgotten. I want him to do 2 more.

[SecretAgentFan]

On the other hand I am loath to complain because next to Pierce, Dan is my favourite Bond. Dalton is too uptight, Moore and Lazenby too boyish and Connery too sleazy and nasty (it might have worked in the 60's, but I find his 'I'll be ****ing you later attitude towards women disgusting). What made CR work for me was Daniel Craig I liked the fact that beneath the rough brutish exterior he was a good and moral man.

Bond - a good and moral man? Hmm. I must admit I never attributed these qualities to this character.

[tdalton]

On the other hand I am loath to complain because next to Pierce, Dan is my favourite Bond. Dalton is too uptight, Moore and Lazenby too boyish and Connery too sleazy and nasty (it might have worked in the 60's, but I find his 'I'll be ****ing you later attitude towards women disgusting). What made CR work for me was Daniel Craig I liked the fact that beneath the rough brutish exterior he was a good and moral man.

Bond - a good and moral man? Hmm. I must admit I never attributed these qualities to this character.

I've never really attributed those qualities to the character either.

[Guy Haines]

On the other hand I am loath to complain because next to Pierce, Dan is my favourite Bond. Dalton is too uptight, Moore and Lazenby too boyish and Connery too sleazy and nasty (it might have worked in the 60's, but I find his 'I'll be ****ing you later attitude towards women disgusting). What made CR work for me was Daniel Craig I liked the fact that beneath the rough brutish exterior he was a good and moral man.

Bond - a good and moral man? Hmm. I must admit I never attributed these qualities to this character.

I've never really attributed those qualities to the character either.

From Casino Royale - Vesper -"It doesn't bother you, killing all those people?" Bond-"Well, I wouldn't be very good at my job if it did."
Exactly. Bond is a "blunt instrument", so called, carrying out some distasteful and otherwise illegal acts on behalf of HM Government. Outside of "office hours" we don't get a glimpse of his life. He may well be good and mostly moral, though his attitude towards women is questionable. He is not, I think, a mysoginist so much as one who probably loves women too much, but hurts them along the way because of this.

Curiously though, his sense of moral outrage at the plans of his opponents does surface sometimes. In the film "Octopussy", for example - to Orlov - "and I don't suppose you give a damn about the thousands of people killed in that "accident" of yours?" It is almost an inversion of the line supposedly attributed to Stalin - "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths a statistic". For Bond, sometimes, preventing a million deaths is a triumph, whereas one death, even of a lady friend or a service ally, is an occupational hazard.

Edited by Guy Haines, 18 November 2010 - 11:25 PM.

[The sniper was a woman]

In the film "Octopussy", for example - to Orlov - "and I don't suppose you give a damn about the thousands of people killed in that "accident" of yours?" It is almost an inversion of the line supposedly attributed to Stalin - "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths a statistic". For Bond, sometimes, preventing a million deaths is a triumph, whereas one death, even of a lady friend or a service ally, is an occupational hazard.

Very good analysis. Interesting !

[Lachesis]

In the film "Octopussy", for example - to Orlov - "and I don't suppose you give a damn about the thousands of people killed in that "accident" of yours?" It is almost an inversion of the line supposedly attributed to Stalin - "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths a statistic". For Bond, sometimes, preventing a million deaths is a triumph, whereas one death, even of a lady friend or a service ally, is an occupational hazard.

Very good analysis. Interesting !

Yes good point. I think Bond has his own sense of values and morality which can/should be respected ONLY by application to the life he leads. In the larger and objective sense he is anything but good and morale, and to try and paint him into that mould would be to largely undermine everything that defines him imo.

'Living his life like every day is his last' is the real defining phrase for how I percieve the character morally, and right from book 1, where he discusses his resignation this is proven to be a choice rather than the restriction or conscrpition so many other 'spies' rely on to justify their existence. At the back of this the good/bad issue is supported only by the idealised nature of the world, while the UK government can be sometimes seen as misled/mistaken/beaurocratic or inept it is rarely suggested as overtly duplicious ensuring Bond himself is kept on the straight and narrow. These are factors that define Bond to be different and to make the stories adventures to my mind.

[Emma]

On the other hand I am loath to complain because next to Pierce, Dan is my favourite Bond. Dalton is too uptight, Moore and Lazenby too boyish and Connery too sleazy and nasty (it might have worked in the 60's, but I find his 'I'll be ****ing you later attitude towards women disgusting). What made CR work for me was Daniel Craig I liked the fact that beneath the rough brutish exterior he was a good and moral man.

Bond - a good and moral man? Hmm. I must admit I never attributed these qualities to this character.

I meant Craig's Bond. Not Bond as a whole. With maybe the exception of the scene at the embassy where he shot the bomber even though he had already surrendered. All the things he did was justified. I mean it took me five viewings to understand that much of Bond's behaviour was due to the fact that he hates ***holes. He's a shark who goes after other sharks. He doesn't like evil/wicked people and thinks the world would be safter with them gone.

I think that his response to Vespers question to him about not being bothered about killing those men, was more of a macho front than anything else. I suppose he could have given her a big long speach about the fact that the men were trying to kill them and he had every right to defend himself and her. But it was just easier for him to shrug and say it's my job. Let me just put it this way. When Craig leaves or is removed from the role. I hope that they start easing back to the old stuff. I like Dan's Bond, he's affable and not perfect and the type of hero I like to root for. However he's missing some of the elements I associate with Bond. If the producers are really serious about Bond developing as a person. They might do better to cast an actor in the role who can incorporate some of Craig's diamond in the rough Bond. But at the same time also incorporate the sophistication that the character is known for.

[The sniper was a woman]

On the other hand I am loath to complain because next to Pierce, Dan is my favourite Bond. Dalton is too uptight, Moore and Lazenby too boyish and Connery too sleazy and nasty (it might have worked in the 60's, but I find his 'I'll be ****ing you later attitude towards women disgusting). What made CR work for me was Daniel Craig I liked the fact that beneath the rough brutish exterior he was a good and moral man.

Bond - a good and moral man? Hmm. I must admit I never attributed these qualities to this character.

I meant Craig's Bond. Not Bond as a whole.

Indeed. Moore's approach was (IMO) exactly the opposite.

[The Shark]

On the other hand I am loath to complain because next to Pierce, Dan is my favourite Bond. Dalton is too uptight, Moore and Lazenby too boyish and Connery too sleazy and nasty (it might have worked in the 60's, but I find his 'I'll be ****ing you later attitude towards women disgusting). What made CR work for me was Daniel Craig I liked the fact that beneath the rough brutish exterior he was a good and moral man.

Bond - a good and moral man? Hmm. I must admit I never attributed these qualities to this character.

Then you've clearly misinterpreted (or haven't read) Fleming. Bond in the books is a chivalric, honourable, and tenacious man - far from a cold blooded sociopath.

Indeed. Moore's approach was (IMO) exactly the opposite.

Couldn't disagree more. Moore's strongest performances as Bond - his three, Bond has become a sympathetic, good natured, compassionate, but still tough-as-nails knight in rusty armour.

When he utters the line "And I suppose it doesn't matter a damn to you that thousands of innocent people will die in this little 'accident' of yours?" - in one of his finest scenes, you know that he cares about every single person on the planet.

Countless examples, including his barely contained fury of Tibbett's death in FYEO, his subdued handling of Ferrara and Lisl's demises, honourable rejection of Bibi's hormone-charged advances, and ruthless disposable of Locque's cliff-hanging car - show that this is a good man. Old and increasingly out of his time perhaps, but you can't deny that he gave it his all for those John Glen pictures.

If you want to see Sir Rog's Bond at his least moral (and furthest from Fleming), watch LIVE AND LET DIE, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, and THE SPY WHO LOVED ME.

[Matt_13]

Craig's Bond is not a sociopath. All killers are cold blooded, and Fleming's character is just as ruthless as DC's Bond. I agree that he is chivalric, honorable, and complex in Fleming, but so is Craig's Bond in the film CASINO ROYALE. There, we see Bond battling emotion (genuine affection toward Vesper) with the icy detachment of his career. He treats Vesper with respect, and hardly forces himself on her unlike Connery in his films. Additionally, he feels remorse and responsibility for the death of Solange, much like he feels remorse for the murder of Agent Fields in Quantum of Solace. Still, he doesn't let these things get in his way, which makes him tenacious. He is purposely a little off the handle before the Perla de las Luna showdown, but that murderous glint disappears soon after the assault. That same, brief moment of anger and aggression can be found in the last line of the novel Casino Royale, too. He's very Fleming, merely updated.

[The Shark]

Craig's Bond is not a sociopath. All killers are cold blooded, and Fleming's character is just as ruthless as DC's Bond. I agree that he is chivalric, honorable, and complex in Fleming, but so is Craig's Bond in the film CASINO ROYALE. There, we see Bond battling emotion (genuine affection toward Vesper) with the icy detachment of his career. He treats Vesper with respect, and hardly forces himself on her unlike Connery in his films. Additionally, he feels remorse and responsibility for the death of Solange, much like he feels remorse for the murder of Agent Fields in Quantum of Solace. Still, he doesn't let these things get in his way, which makes him tenacious. He is purposely a little off the handle before the Perla de las Luna showdown, but that murderous glint disappears soon after the assault. That same, brief moment of anger and aggression can be found in the last line of the novel Casino Royale, too. He's very Fleming, merely updated.

I'm not arguing Matt, I'm just defending Moore's Bond, who seems to be frequently bashed by some of the Craig intelligentsia around here.

However, I do doubt that Bond feels "remorse and responsibility for the death of Solange." From what I remember he emotes nothing, just stares at her body with blank fixed expression on his face.

[Matt_13]

I think Moore deserves more credit than he gets from contemporary viewers as well. He was a charming S.O.B. He is an icon, there is no denying that, and I do think that as Bond fans we need to appreciate each Bond for what he brought to the table, because without one we wouldn't have the others.

As for the Solange scene, Bond puts up that emotional barrier in front of M, but it's apparent that he is quietly disturbed (his silence is testament to that).

[SecretAgentFan]

On the other hand I am loath to complain because next to Pierce, Dan is my favourite Bond. Dalton is too uptight, Moore and Lazenby too boyish and Connery too sleazy and nasty (it might have worked in the 60's, but I find his 'I'll be ****ing you later attitude towards women disgusting). What made CR work for me was Daniel Craig I liked the fact that beneath the rough brutish exterior he was a good and moral man.

Bond - a good and moral man? Hmm. I must admit I never attributed these qualities to this character.

Then you've clearly misinterpreted (or haven't read) Fleming. Bond in the books is a chivalric, honourable, and tenacious man - far from a cold blooded sociopath.

It obviously depends on what one wants to read or interpret into something.

[Guy Haines]

On the other hand I am loath to complain because next to Pierce, Dan is my favourite Bond. Dalton is too uptight, Moore and Lazenby too boyish and Connery too sleazy and nasty (it might have worked in the 60's, but I find his 'I'll be ****ing you later attitude towards women disgusting). What made CR work for me was Daniel Craig I liked the fact that beneath the rough brutish exterior he was a good and moral man.

Bond - a good and moral man? Hmm. I must admit I never attributed these qualities to this character.

Then you've clearly misinterpreted (or haven't read) Fleming. Bond in the books is a chivalric, honourable, and tenacious man - far from a cold blooded sociopath.

Indeed. Moore's approach was (IMO) exactly the opposite.

Couldn't disagree more. Moore's strongest performances as Bond - his three, Bond has become a sympathetic, good natured, compassionate, but still tough-as-nails knight in rusty armour.

When he utters the line "And I suppose it doesn't matter a damn to you that thousands of innocent people will die in this little 'accident' of yours?" - in one of his finest scenes, you know that he cares about every single person on the planet.

Countless examples, including his barely contained fury of Tibbett's death in FYEO, his subdued handling of Ferrara and Lisl's demises, honourable rejection of Bibi's hormone-charged advances, and ruthless disposable of Locque's cliff-hanging car - show that this is a good man. Old and increasingly out of his time perhaps, but you can't deny that he gave it his all for those John Glen pictures.

If you want to see Sir Rog's Bond at his least moral (and furthest from Fleming), watch LIVE AND LET DIE, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, and THE SPY WHO LOVED ME.

I think that Moore probably did show more outrage at the schemes of his opponents than, say, Connery. With Sean in the role, his relations with his adversaries, when he wasn't trying to kill them (or them, him!), were a mix of professionalism and occasional mock admiration (example - when Bond realises what Operation Grand Slam really entails - "I apologise, Goldfinger. It's an inspired deal!"). Moore, when his Bond got older, did tend to display more than a hint of disgust about his opponents and their schemes. I understand Sir Roger was always concerned about the impact these films had on the young. Perhaps he wanted his Bond to make it quite clear he was on the side of the angels.

As for the "Craig intelligentsia" you mentioned elsewhere, Shark - I've never made any bones about my approval of Craig or the direction his movies have taken, although like some I had my qualms about aspects of QoS. Or that I'm a Connery fan. But I also like Roger Moore - the person and his interpretation of Bond. My issue with his era as Bond was the direction the people behind the scenes took the films he made. By the time of his third film he had established himself as 007. Audiences more than accepted him. The film makers didn't need to throw in the sillier elements, particularly the sight gags and musical "jokes" in support.

[mttvolcano]

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but Bond is more like Jason Bourne, well in the QOS movie, not really Casino Royale.
I like Craig, don't get me wrong, but maybe it's the writers who have lost touch with it. He should be more charming as he was with all the previous Bonds, not always such a stone face.
I was disappointed to with QOS how it didn't have the gunbarrel in the beginning, at least it was at the end and I hope to God that it means it will show up at the beginning of Bond 23, if not i will be really disappointed.

[Zorin Industries]

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but Bond is more like Jason Bourne, well in the QOS movie, not really Casino Royale.

Actually I think you could be the first to see some resemblance. No-one has noted it before round here.

[Syndicate]

A lot of stuff needs to be done to the Craig era. They need to bring back the gunbarrel, Q, and Miss Moneypenny. Alo what are need is that Daniel Craig stop wearing that T-Shirt and blue jeans like in Layer Cake. What he need to do that mix and match of sport coat, dress pants and dress shirt without a tie, when not wearing a one piece suite no matter what his doing. Roger Moore did that in For Your Eyes Only, when he met up with Melina, while she was shopping. Pierce Brosnan did that in Goldeneye, when he investaged the yachet the next day in Monte Carlo, where found the Admiral dead. That is a way to make Bond drees down and still look high class. Also paramiltary or commando as it called in the Bond world, when needed. Connery did that at in Goldfinger, Moore in Live And Let Die, Dalton, The Living Daylight, Brosnan did that in Goldeney, Tomorrow Never Die and Die Another Day.

When I said Q, I mean Q going about this what you do or like that scence in Casino Royale when Q could have told Bond how to use that thing in the Aston Martin back at HQ. that is after hearing about it. Need the Bond and Moneypenny joke that fit Craig and who will play her.

Craig hair is little too short(almost military like), I can't even tell did he get the James Bond hair cut at all and still not dark enough like Roger Moore's or Arnold Schwarzenegger's that kind of brown, IF not black like Brosnan and Dalton's. Craig needs to grow his hair a little long but still consider short not covering the ears at all, like Brosnan in Tomorrow Never Dies and Die Another Day and Moore when he first stared playing Bond and not towards the end.

Stop trying to do a 360 degree change to Bond. IFthey do that, that means Bond more of a close to real world type spy and NOT a super spy. Which mean we'll have to hear terms like cipher lock, wet work, control officer, dead drop and mole. Last of all politics, can't get away with that, only way is stay as a super spy type. Mixing the super spy and close to the real world type is a bad thing, just like mixing drinks and drugs that not good.

Edited by Syndicate, 19 November 2010 - 11:41 PM.

[mttvolcano]

A lot of stuff needs to be done to the Craig era. They need to bring back the gunbarrel, Q, and Miss Moneypenny. Alo what are need is that Daniel Craig stop wearing that T-Shirt and blue jeans like in Layer Cake. What he need to do that mix and match of sport coat, dress pants and dress shirt without a tie, when not wearing a one piece suite no matter what his doing. Roger Moore did that in For Your Eyes Only, when he met up with Melina, while she was shopping. Pierce Brosnan did that in Goldeneye, when he investaged the yachet the next day in Monte Carlo, where found the Admiral dead. That is a way to make Bond drees down and still look high class. Also paramiltary or commando as it called in the Bond world, when needed. Connery did that at in Goldfinger, Moore in Live And Let Die, Dalton, The Living Daylight, Brosnan did that in Goldeney, Tomorrow Never Die and Die Another Day.

When I said Q, I mean Q going about this what you do or like that scence in Casino Royale when Q could have told Bond how to use that thing in the Aston Martin back at HQ. that is after hearing about it. Need the Bond and Moneypenny joke that fit Craig and who will play her.

Craig hair is little too short(almost military like), I can't even tell did he get the James Bond hair cut at all and still not dark enough like Roger Moore's or Arnold Schwarzenegger's that kind of brown, IF not black like Brosnan and Dalton's. Craig needs to grow his hair a little long but still consider short not covering the ears at all, like Brosnan in Tomorrow Never Dies and Die Another Day and Moore when he first stared playing Bond and not towards the end.

Stop trying to do a 360 degree change to Bond. IFthey do that, that means Bond more of a close to real world type spy and NOT a super spy. Which mean we'll have to hear terms like cipher lock, wet work, control officer, dead drop and mole Last of all politics, can't get away with that, only way is stay as a super spy type. Mixing the super spy and colse to the real world type is a bad thing, just like mixing drinks and drugs that not good.

well said

[jaguar007]

Alo what are need is that Daniel Craig stop wearing that T-Shirt and blue jeans like in Layer Cake. What he need to do that mix and match of sport coat, dress pants and dress shirt without a tie, when not wearing a one piece suite no matter what his doing. Roger Moore did that in For Your Eyes Only, when he met up with Melina, while she was shopping. Pierce Brosnan did that in Goldeneye, when he investaged the yachet the next day in Monte Carlo, where found the Admiral dead. That is a way to make Bond drees down and still look high class. Also paramiltary or commando as it called in the Bond world, when needed. Connery did that at in Goldfinger, Moore in Live And Let Die, Dalton, The Living Daylight, Brosnan did that in Goldeney, Tomorrow Never Die and Die Another Day.

He wore a t-shirt in one scene in CR (Miami) and jeans in 1 scene in QoS (final battle). He more commonly wears khakis and a polo like Connery in Thunderball.

Craig hair is little too short(almost military like), I can't even tell did he get the James Bond hair cut at all and still not dark enough like Roger Moore's or Arnold Schwarzenegger's that kind of brown, IF not black like Brosnan and Dalton's. Craig needs to grow his hair a little long but still consider short not covering the ears at all, like Brosnan in Tomorrow Never Dies and Die Another Day and Moore when he first stared playing Bond and not towards the end.

yes, it was a bit short in CR, but I think his hair was the perfect length in QoS.

[Syndicate]

For got to say this on the 360 degree change. IF they do that, that means Bond more of a close to real world type spy and NOT a super spy. Which mean we'll have to hear terms like cipher lock, wet work, control officer, dead drop and mole. Last of all politics, get away with that.

I forgot to say that they'll have say what Bond is, a regular British SIS Operation Officer or a British SIS Operation Officer that is in their own version of the CIA's Special Activities Division. Plus the ONLY way Bond would use any gun or carry is in the British SIS's own version of the CIA's Special Activities Division. A regular Operation Officer never learn to use even a hand gun. The super ssy car will gone, that we have seen in Goldfinger, The Spy Who Love Me, The Living Daylight, Tomorrow Never Die and Die Another Day. Also other stuff from Q branch will be gone also like the gehetto blaster, singature gun, exploding pen, laser watch and so on.

The only way to keep all that is stay as a super spy. There we don't need to know what Bond is a regular Operation officer or not. He is not even like Tom clancy's John Clark or in the same world. Clark is a CIA Operation Officer in Special Activities Division, who has done both kind of stuff even the regular Operation Officer stuff.

So IF they don't keep Bond a super spy then the movies will be more like Body Of Lie, The Russia House, The Hunt For Red October, Clear And Present Danger and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. It NOT going to be in the same area as Mission Impossible and The Man From Uncle.

Edited by Syndicate, 20 November 2010 - 02:25 AM.

[jaguar007]

Just because the Craig movies are slightly more realistic than some of the movies that came before does not mean they are (or are in danger of becoming) real life spy adventures. Craig's Bond is still the superspy he always has been, just slightly more grounded (more like FRWL than YOLT)

[Blonde Bond]

What he needs to do more is to smile. That Craig feller can be charming when he just , you know , smiles.

Less blank stares , more emotions. Unless he's in his killer mode.

[elizabeth]

What he needs to do more is to smile. That Craig feller can be charming when he just , you know , smiles.

Less blank stares , more emotions. Unless he's in his killer mode.

Bond is not supposed to have a lot of emotion. Ian Fleming wrote him as a killer, not a psychologist.

[Guy Haines]

What he needs to do more is to smile. That Craig feller can be charming when he just , you know , smiles.

Less blank stares , more emotions. Unless he's in his killer mode.

Bond is not supposed to have a lot of emotion. Ian Fleming wrote him as a killer, not a psychologist.

I agree. Bond is not emotionless, nor emotionally retarded, but he is a professional state sponsored assassin - to be blunt about the so called "blunt instrument" - and so has to restrain his emotions to do the job. A Bond who was all charm and cheesy quips without this side to him would not be complete. Even the most charming of the Bonds such as Moore and Brosnan could display a ruthless side when necessary.