A dissenting opinion

[Darth YAM]

As heretical as this seems, Craig's performance doesn't bother me. Each actor has a spin on the character, and they each bring it to life.
Craig I view as a sort of hybrid of the movies and books. He's charming and charismatic, but it's also clear that when he has to be he can be both cold and ruthless. This is similar to the novel bond; at the same time he has a more vulnerable side, like Brosnan's bond. He's also professional (connery's bond delays an important flight so that he can bang sylvia trench whereas bond holds off round two with solange so that he can stop her hubby's plan.)
Yes there are things that are stupid (Bond sleeping with the wife of the guy he's spying on to get info I can get, but publicly humiliating the guy in poker is just......yeah, I get that he's a rookie and they can make mistakes but that's just idiotic, and the fact that the axe wielding businessman is more of a challenge then several mi6 agents is indeed stupid).

There were some things I liked.

Bond is vulnerable: I had a hard time enjoying films like Tommorrow Never Dies because he very rarely makes a mistake that is truly cataclysmic (okay there's Teri Hatcher getting killed but honestly that was kind of a trend to the point where he's probably used to it (meaning the impact is less), and the character at that point kind of went through it like a dozen times.) In Craig's films, bond screws up more often. He gets into hot water many times, he almost looses to Le Chiffre, and finally everyone he touches or cares for usually dies (yes at least three women got fridge stuffed but the reboot makes it feel like its still raw rather than numb.) In essence, Bond felt more likely to f**k up whereas in the others I never really got that impression that Bond was in true danger or screwing up.

Compelling Bond Girls: To be fair, the later films had compelling females (Wai Lin from Tommorrow never dies, natalya from golden eye, Tatania from Russia with Love) but quite often they were merely fucktoys. Solagne and Fields (Gemma Arterton) fill the bill but there is hints of depth. Solange is in a loveless marriage with a douchebag husband, and freely admits that she's only letting bond screw her as payback, while Fields's whole point was the young desk agent in over her head. She doesn't suffer derailment, and the courting process in the case of Camille and Vesper actually consisted of more than stupid one liners. Camille is actually successful in being a full on secondary protagonist and I genuinely felt it was as much her story as bond's. Also, the fact that he didn't f**k her was a pleasant surprise, and shows that he is capable of genuine respect and of viewing women as equal (looking at you Connery, and Moore for that scene with Jane Seymour.)

Reboot: I get that reboots can be controversial and yes they should be done with care; but to be honest the old films were a product of the cold war. Yes goldeneye pulled off a compelling plot without it being the focus but to brutally honest it was there. Also, some of the later plots became stupid (Die Another Day where the laser can burn through ground thousands of feet below yet not blow up a plane that phases right through out, or the surfing on tsunamis, Denise Richards as a nuclear physicist, the camp of roger more). Sometimes you need to scale back and try a new approach and there are still elements in there (the villain, the girl, most of the tude and some from the books, the EVUL organization that lurks in the shadows, the Aston Martin, the one liners,). Now this is my opinion but I don't think it went to far from the roots (hell if they have Q we might get gadgets.)


In essence, I think that while there are weaknesses the whole "craig is ruining the franchise" is a little dumb.

[Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry]

Welcome to the forum.

I'm not sure that I'd agree that Daniel Craig is "charming and charasmatic"!

[Darth YAM]

I felt there were. when he and solange were kissing post coital and she asks why good men can't be like him, the way that he says "but then they'd be bad" felt pretty bondian. I didn't mind him being rough. Roger Moore (who incidentally enjoyed the film) said that Craig's character was earning his stripes. In that context it's more believable. With Solange (the first one he ever seduced and bedded) she knew he was trying to do it, she played along as a f**k you to hubby and because he actually offered a chance at passion (something that she didn't get with hubby). Agent Fields is similar but than again she's a desk agent who's in over her head. He's still pretty handsome even if he isn't necessarily the bondian image (I think is but that's just me.) Even if he's new to the seduction thing (which he may not be) it's implied that to a degree many of the people he sleeps with are people in loveless marriages, disatsifed, or extremely young and vulnerable. In essence, he's probably going to grow into it over time (I believe the Quantum movies capture bond's move from rookie who is cold yet still not bitter to professional and charming, but brutal and unable to connect.)

What's more the book bond is ruthless, and in that regard Craig's bond more than captures it. Case in point agent fields;She's a young agent with no field experience. In order to avoid getting pulled off his vendetta he seduces her and f***s her brains out. Now even if he left it at that it's still pretty nasty, since she might wind up getting pregnant with his child. Than, he gets her to attend a party with him at the big bad's manor, and while she did get in Green's firing line, Bond put her in the situation by dragging her into a real dangerous situation where the potential for death was possible. End result, Green murdered her really f**king horribly. Same with Solange; when he killed hubby Le Chiffre concluded that she talked, resulting in her getting raped tortured and murdered. I think they wanted to capture that and while bond can be ruthless, he also captures some humanity as well (he's genuinely upset that he got those women murdered.)

I also liked the way he delivered the line at the end of Casino Royale.

Also, he's far more convincing than f**king connery in the charm. (I'm sorry but Connery is so blatant and sexist in it that how women were attracted boggled the mind. I mean in thunder ball he practically blackmails a nurse into it in a scene that could amount to a kind of rape.) I get that not everyone likes.

And to be honest the continuity in the previous ones were getting screwy and kind of hard to follow. I don't think they were saying we were stupid for liking it, they were saying "okay if we continue things will get more convoluted, so maybe we should start with a blank slate." Also, given that 4 of Craig's predecessors endorsed him I don't think he was that unwise a choice (he got the cold and ruthless and in Quantum he displays more of the suave than he did earlier.)

[007]

That's a turn up for the books the other Bond actors saying they liked Craig. They are hardly likely to say he was s**t if asked. Welcome to the forum by the way.

[carl stromberg]

Welcome

[Kristatos]

What's more the book bond is ruthless, and in that regard Craig's bond more than captures it.

So we keep being told, but I've read all Fleming's Bond books and I actually think the movie Bond is far more ruthless than the literary version, who seems to find killing rather distateful. Only Dalton really captured that for me.

[JackWade CIA]

Cubby Broccoli had the golden rule of keeping Bond looking forward his daughter killed this idea. She rebooted and yet didn't as a result she has very little room to go with Daniel Craig's Bond more likely than not will be restarted once more.

I don't believe Cubby Broccoli's rule was not against telling back story as much as it was to prevent the franchise from folding back on itself. If Ms Broccoli's Bond reboot will never experience On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Live and Let Die, Moonraker, I am not sure what the point of this exercise in film making is.

Daniel Craig was Brilliant in Casino Royale, Quantum not so much, however I am having second thoughts about Casino R maybe it was a fluke. I do not like the idea of Solange & Agent Fields as "pity f***s" it is unBondian and I believe unbelievable for a man as old as Daniel Craig is and looks. While I enjoy Casino R it has worn with age, it is less credible to me the James Bond as he was in the book Casino Royale, as he was in the first movies would ever had such a rough origin story. In the movie Daniel Craig is a veteran of the SAS (SBS in reality?), a military man moving to the Secret Service job as a military veteran, as a veteran he would have experience in dressing well, certainly experienced with women, and more than likely killing.

The reboot in my opinion was a great idea, not that it had to be rebooted to continue telling Bond stories but once it was done they should committed to retelling as many Bond stories as they could, so far they will not and their history of coming up with original stories is very spotty. I think in the end the Daniel Craig reboot will itself be rebooted to a more traditional Bond time line unless Skyfall is unbelievably brilliant I do not think his contributions to will be remembered as well as say Roger Moore, Sean Connery, and Pierce Brosnan. I think he will be sloughed off with the other two as interesting as Bond but too experimental in their own way.

[Darth YAM]

I didn't mind the reboot because the continuity had become kind of a mess. It's one of the reasons why DC rebooted in 1985. Things were kind of messy.

As for Bond:

I wouldn't say he's a novice at seducing women. Given Solagne's comments about how he likes married women, he's most likely done it before. But seducing a woman in a frustrated relationship is one of the easier forms of seduction. Seducing someone who isn't interested in sex or a happy relationship is harder. solange and fields weren't so much "pity f***s" as much people who were either a.) desperate for passion or b.) inexperienced. Also, Craig is hardly ugly. He's reasonably attractive and I felt that he was good enough in the seduce woman department. He had the killing down fine, and if I recall right SAS is secret military raid not seducing women. It requires skill, but not the same as MI6

As for "telling as many bond stories......" Many of those were depended on the cold war, and as such would be well.....dated. The main reason they changed trevelyan's motivation in the goldeneye game is because by that point he wouldn't have been old enough to experience the betrayal of the lienz cossacks. Ian Fleming asked them to make sure the movies followed different plots from the books, so I see no reason why they can't blaze a new trail.




Also,

[Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry]

I liked the continuity of the old series. If anyone ever replaces Craig will he follows straight on from the CraigBond timeline?

[JackWade CIA]

Lienz cossacks was historical fact neither nor irreverent to the cold war. Just a back drop for the why of a characters motivation. Who could of imagine a grandfather being tortured by the British Empire in Kania 80 years ago could have political implications today.

Ian Fleming asked them to make sure the movies followed different plots from the books, so I see no reason why they can't blaze a new trail.

I am not so sure this happened except for "The Spy Who Loved Me.". Dr. No, From Russia, On Her Majesty's, Thunderball pretty much follow the book with a few notable artistic liberties taken.

He had the killing down fine, and if I recall right SAS is secret military raid not seducing women. It requires skill, but not the same as MI6

If you ever happen to a Marine Ball you will see some well dressed, well groomed, attractive men and women looking sharp in dress uniforms all capable of being smooth operators on the dating and seduction scene. As a service man of whatever branch Commander James Bond should have a sense of style and dress as well as being an adult male attracted the opposite sex he should possess some experience in wooing the fairer sex.
Not saying the SAS (SBS?) have a course for this however, maybe they should , from Ian Fleming's description teenage James Bond certainly pursued it with vigor.
Looking back the Casino R. romances were far too clumsy for such a experienced man, a much younger man say early 20s it might work better a script element. Then there were the weird half hitman part monk comets so maybe this awkwardness is intentional.

Casino R was a good move it just was not a followed up on with the some professionalism Casino R. had dedicated to it. Skyfall is supposed to redeem the Craig era, maybe it can, I just don't have the faith in the Bond producers a lot of others do.

[Thunderpussy]

I've just noticed an earily apperance of D Craig In a Bond, At the start of Octopussy Bond is towing a horsebox
In a couple of scenes you can clearly see Old Danny boys face staring out from the back of it.

[Darth YAM]

Quantum of Solace did have some dumb things (I mean the fact that bond has trouble with a single axe wielding buisnessman yet effortlessly dispatches a large amount of MI6 agents.) However, there were some good things that I liked.

The Camille Bond relationship had a degree of potential and I feel that if the romance was well executed than it could be compelling. If he and Camille have a relationship than I hope it ends not in her tragic death, but in a relatively amicable parting. This would allow him to face his demons enough that he is no longer as brooding as he was in Quantum of Solace, but still has trouble connecting. I would have honestly redone QOS in several ways.

[A Crag-like face]

What's more the book bond is ruthless, and in that regard Craig's bond more than captures it.

So we keep being told, but I've read all Fleming's Bond books and I actually think the movie Bond is far more ruthless than the literary version, who seems to find killing rather distateful. Only Dalton really captured that for me.

Bingo!

I recently did a full-blooded Bondathon. I re-read all the Fleming books and rewatched all the movies (even the David Niven spoof CR). Before my Bondathon, I'd accepted Craig as Bond in spite of his Crag-like face and ears, and I had somehow managed to slog through the endlessness of Craig's CR and the horrid editing of QOS.

But after my Bondathon, I couldn't accept Craig as Bond anymore. He comes across more as a sociopathic nut (who bashes through walls like he's Kool-Aid Man) rather than Fleming's Bond, who, as Kristatos aptly says, takes no pleasure in killing. Compare Dalton's deep sigh after killing Sanchez in LTK to Craig's complete lack of expression at the death of Solange in CR. Dalton's Bond has every reason to kill Sanchez, and the audience is rooting for him to do so. Dalton's Bond has even thrown his career away to get at Sanchez. And yet, after the deed is over, Dalton shows no satisfaction. Craig's Bond actively seduces Solange (who is herself not terribly guilty of anything), and then leaves her to an awful fate. When he sees that he's caused her death (a gruesome death at that) it doesn't faze him at all.

[katied]

Welcome, Crag! Brave of you to sit through the Niven CR(it's fun, but probably not to every Bond fan's taste. I've seen it a few times(ages ago). Perhaps I'm due for another viewing!

[Darth YAM]

There are scenes where bond does show honest emotions regarding women, and he does develop. He ultimately spares Yusef (one of the people responsible for vesper's death) rather than simply executing him (Something m points out), and finally he does show genuine feelings towards the women in QoS. In his final battle with Greene greene tries to break him by shouting "looks like you've lost another one." Combine this with the voiceover of bond giving camille advice as she does her part of the raid, and the heart to heart they have in the cave and i got the feelings that he honestly cares for her as a human. When greene is monologuing of all the women bond has gotten killed he's basically "let's get the f**k out here" implying to me at least that greene's comments did affect him on a fundamental level. My interpretation was for Solange that it may have affected him on a personal level, he just didn't show it outwardly. Also, Solagne admitted flat out that she knew exactly what was going on when he seduced her. I feel that the main reason i liked craig is because he feels more flawed. In brosnan the only time that came to bare was goldeneye and WINE; In TND he felt invincible and DAD was just f**king stupid. Craig makes mistakes, people die or get hurt (the way he looses to le chiffre in the first round of casino royale was a perfect example; he fucked up, and it was only because Leiter saved his ass by funding him that things didn't go to s**t.) His arrogance nearly jeopardized the mission and it's entirely his own goddamn fault. I also feel that sometimes reboots are good.
Also, when he leaves Greene to die in the desert with only oil to drink it's pretty much a way of payback for murdering fields (she was drowned in oil, now he will have to either go thirsty in the desert or most importantly drink oil. the same substance he used to murder her.) He was definately enraged about fields. with vesper he's definately burying his pain. His execution of the police officer is payback for mathis; he definately cares about his allies, and while he's tortured inside there is a sense of honor and humanity buried beneath all the rage.

[A Crag-like face]

There are scenes where bond does show honest emotions regarding women, and he does develop. He ultimately spares Yusef (one of the people responsible for vesper's death) rather than simply executing him (Something m points out), and finally he does show genuine feelings towards the women in QoS. In his final battle with Greene greene tries to break him by shouting "looks like you've lost another one." Combine this with the voiceover of bond giving camille advice as she does her part of the raid, and the heart to heart they have in the cave and i got the feelings that he honestly cares for her as a human. When greene is monologuing of all the women bond has gotten killed he's basically "let's get the f**k out here" implying to me at least that greene's comments did affect him on a fundamental level. My interpretation was for Solange that it may have affected him on a personal level, he just didn't show it outwardly. Also, Solagne admitted flat out that she knew exactly what was going on when he seduced her. I feel that the main reason i liked craig is because he feels more flawed. In brosnan the only time that came to bare was goldeneye and WINE; In TND he felt invincible and DAD was just f**king stupid. Craig makes mistakes, people die or get hurt (the way he looses to le chiffre in the first round of casino royale was a perfect example; he fucked up, and it was only because Leiter saved his ass by funding him that things didn't go to s**t.) His arrogance nearly jeopardized the mission and it's entirely his own goddamn fault. I also feel that sometimes reboots are good.
Also, when he leaves Greene to die in the desert with only oil to drink it's pretty much a way of payback for murdering fields (she was drowned in oil, now he will have to either go thirsty in the desert or most importantly drink oil. the same substance he used to murder her.) He was definately enraged about fields. with vesper he's definately burying his pain. His execution of the police officer is payback for mathis; he definately cares about his allies, and while he's tortured inside there is a sense of honor and humanity buried beneath all the rage.

That's all well and good, but you have to read all these things into Craig's performance. He doesn't actually give you anything other than the same cold stare and emotionless dialogue. He's a blank slate. Now, being a blank slate, you can read some deep meaning into his performance, but I can just as reasonably read into his performance that he's an emotionless psycho who should be working for the bad guys.

To be honest, Craig reminds me of Jackson Pollock and other modern art "masters". Pollock literally just dripped paint onto canvases and claimed that there was deep inherent meaning behind his childish finger-painting. The darndest thing is that people believed him! Now anyone who doubts there is any meaning to Pollock is called a phillistine because he or she "just doesn't get it". It's the same scam with Craig. He hulk smashes around, mumbling some lines, and we are told that he's "bringing depth to the character of Bond". Anyone who questions this party line is immediately derided as some sort of Luddite who is too stupid to understand Craig's brilliance.

[bjmdds]

He belongs in a 1960s Beach Party film as Lunkhead or Deadhead.

[carl stromberg]

I don't understand why some people suggest Daniel Craig brings great emotional depth to Bond. For me he walks around doing the same stone faced facial expression in what are essentially awful action/thriller films.

Many people probably argue that Steven Seagal's ex-cop/special forces agent characters are portrayed with great emotional depth by Seagal in his Romanian filmed straight ot DVD action classics.

[Thunderpussy]

D Craig only has two facial expressions, The sullen/pout and the Grimace He pulls in a fight scene.
I never rated him as a actor, at least those actors who ( lets say aren't as emotionaly streched as actors )
have a terrific personalily to fall back on and hence come across as really nice guys so the public forgive them
for not being as good as Others.
Were as Craig always comes across as a prat, Dificult in interviews, sullen and not interested. Which would be
fine if he had the back log of high quality work to show he was worth it. BUT He doesn't he has a list of huge
failures with no boxoffice to speak off.
He really should be working on his funny stories, and being a bit more ligh hearted in interviews as He can't
act to save his life.
I do LAUGH at ( on some forums ) At how he's the next Steve McQueen.
He couldn't be the next Terminator, it would strech his acting ability to breaking point.

[Kristatos]

That's all well and good, but you have to read all these things into Craig's performance. He doesn't actually give you anything other than the same cold stare and emotionless dialogue. He's a blank slate. Now, being a blank slate, you can read some deep meaning into his performance, but I can just as reasonably read into his performance that he's an emotionless psycho who should be working for the bad guys.

There was a famous experiment where people were shown the same picture, of a Russian silent movie star who was known for his expressionless face, a dozen times and asked what emotion he was expressing in this picture. Most of them gave a different answer each time, even though it was the same picture. Echoes of the Craig phenomenon?