Is it possible for you to enjoy Bond 22 and/or Daniel Craig?

[james stock]

Ok 'Jmes Stock' i understand your viewpoint...........but can you tell me what type of Bond films in the past you liked.

Me personally i liked the macho Connery in TB, also i though OHMSS was
a very good film, plus i liked the style of humour in LALD.

My favourite Bond is Roger Moore but my favourite Bond movie is Licence to Kill to me that is gritty Bond done right, out of Rogers film i liked live and let die i think mostly because he didnt try to imitate connery. Its funny but i associate Bond More with Roger than i do with Connery, Connery for me is Remierez from Highlander. I do enjoy Connerys Bonds mind you but i think i was exposed more to Roger Bond when i was younger if you pardon the expression

[james stock]

All through the casting process I didn't take Daniel Craig seriously as a candidate. I presumed he'd been spoken to about playing Le Chiffre and someone in the press had got their wires crossed. When it became clear he was not only a candidate but the favoured candidate I was desperate for them to cast anyone else. Cavill, O'Lachlan, Barbara Broccoli's Postman. Why? Because 1) Daniel Craig looks like any number of unremarkable everyday people I see in the street on a daily basis (surely the opposite of Bond, James Bond, a fantasy figure and established handsome devil) and 2) I knew exactly how Craig would play Bond. He'd underplay it mostly, purse his lips, talk in that affected I'm an actor luvvie fake voice, and overact violently in at least one scene. I find him bland, uncharismatic, humourless and faintly creepy. When he smiles his entire face contorts into one gigantic wrinkle. I was watching the news when they unveiled him and I was absolutely gutted when they confirmed it was Craig (about an hour before the conference if I recall because his Mum blabbed to the press). Right up until that moment I had my fingers crossed that Clive Owen or Hugh Jackman or James Purefoy or anyone else would walk out and the Craig thing would be revealed as a smokescreen or a nightmare I was having after eating too much cheese. It was a total anti-climax for me and for the first time ever I had little interest in the new Bond film. I stopped posting on Bond forums when the PR bulls**t kicked into gear, now alienated from my favourite nerdy interest. When the film came out I looked at the reviews and thought to myself 'Well, Craig might not be my cup of tea but it looks like they've made a great film'. When I actually watched Casino Royale I was amazed at how overrated the film was. Overlong, boring, dialogue that made me wince. Craig was like the invisible man to me in that film. Just blah. Is James Bond in this film? Where?

So, my interest in Bond 22 is very low. Recent interviews with Paul Haggis and pictures of a load of horses being maimed have hardly wetted my appetite. Even if they made Goldfinger with Daniel Craig I'd walk out wishing another actor was playing Bond. My favourite Bond actor was always the bloke playing him in the film I was watching at the time. Daniel Craig has blown that right out of the water and I never, ever thought that would happen.

I completly agree with you 007 i was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt but it was a sole destroying expearience what were the critics seeing when they gave 4 stars accross the board?

[Kristatos]

what were the critics seeing when they gave 4 stars accross the board?

They were seeing the sort of dreary middlebrow fare that plays well with the critics (and the Academy).

[Jedi007]

Here is a serious question for you all, and intelligent responses only please.

Is there anything at all that that may make you enjoy Bond 22, regardless of Craig playing Bond? Or is there anything that Craig may do in his performance to suddenly make you accept him more as Bond?

I really disliked Brosnan's reign, but I always lived in hope that his next movie would be better, but it appears many of you on here are not looking for anything to win you over with the next film. Is this true? Are you all lost causes now for the next few years, or could some of you be won over if certain elements did change, while Craig remains as Bond?

It appears as though some of you hated CR's direction more, while others disliked Craig's uncoothness in the role. If some of these elements were to change in 22, could you be one of the few here that may suddenly enjoy Bond 22?

Like I said, serious replies only please...

IF they do change it in Bond 22, then maybe I could enjoy it. I do enjoy CR as a film, but it doesn't really feel a Bond film to me. I feel like when you changed the "James Bond" name into something else (maybe Harry Tasker would do), critics would still go crazy about it. CR's totally trashed all the Bond elements.

I do have a question for you Sweeney: why do you hate Brosnan? Is it because his films are not serious? But if that's the case why not hate Moore, when his films are more lighter than Brosnan's? In the serious department Dalton may be on top of him, but I do like Brosnan because he has successfully combined Bond's seriousness with Bond's cinematic humor.

[The Sweeney]

what were the critics seeing when they gave 4 stars accross the board?

They were seeing the sort of dreary middlebrow fare that plays well with the critics (and the Academy).

Not to mention most Bond fans on the other Bond websites....

[bjmdds]

I get the impression here after reading some of the posts, that some members are basing their dislike of the current Bond franchise on
DC only and this is making them give a negative impression on the films.
Like most things i have disliked various actors initially in tv series or films when there has been a change, but generally most people after a while accept the current actor when they have seen more material that he/she
has made in the relevant role.
I mean CR has its faults, but no way is it the turkey that some people here make it out to be.

EA

Not only DC EA. For me, Dench as M insulted the Bond-time continuum. Rebooting the franchise was not needed, IMO. Even Butler or Owen or Jackman with Dench would not have worked for continuity, but at least they fit the Bond 'suit'. The lack of Q and his gadgets also was a huge negative for me, and no Moneypenny as well.

[The Sweeney]

I do have a question for you Sweeney: why do you hate Brosnan? Is it because his films are not serious? But if that's the case why not hate Moore, when his films are more lighter than Brosnan's? In the serious department Dalton may be on top of him, but I do like Brosnan because he has successfully combined Bond's seriousness with Bond's cinematic humor.

I don't hate Brozza. I actually quite like the guy. I just didn't like the films he appeared in. With the Moore films, I guess I tolerate them more because there is a sense of nostalgia with them, mixing that with reminding me of childhood, when I watched these films as a kid. Because of that, it is a little harder to judge those films objectively.

By the time of AVTAK, I started to see the Moore films for what they were, (growing out of puberty, etc.) and I hated Moore's last film even more than Brosnan's. Especially that by this stage I had started reading the books, and suddenly realised the Moore films were nothing like them.

Then Dalton came along, like a breath of fresh air. TLD was superb, and LTK even better.

With Brosnan, his films came on the back of LTK (the CR of its day). So I had a taste of the more serious films, and thought they would have continued along the path set out by Dalton. Unfortunately, they never did, and I guess my tolerance level for anything remotely silly, too humourous, straying too far from Fleming, etc. is way too low now.

CR is not faultless either. There are the odd cringeworthy lines (the train scene with Vesper, little finger line, etc.), the action sometimes gets borderline Brosnan (Miami airport, Madagascar, Venice) but the film for once tries to honour as much as it can the essence of the novels, and for once tries to keep comedy to a bare minimum.

For this I am grateful, and feel like we are back in 1989 again (or 1990), right off the back of LTK. Guess I should be grateful to Matt Damon, Greengrass and co. too for reminding EON how the tone and action of Bond should be....

[The Sweeney]

I get the impression here after reading some of the posts, that some members are basing their dislike of the current Bond franchise on
DC only and this is making them give a negative impression on the films.
Like most things i have disliked various actors initially in tv series or films when there has been a change, but generally most people after a while accept the current actor when they have seen more material that he/she
has made in the relevant role.
I mean CR has its faults, but no way is it the turkey that some people here make it out to be.

EA

Not only DC EA. For me, Dench as M insulted the Bond-time continuum. Rebooting the franchise was not needed, IMO. Even Butler or Owen or Jackman with Dench would not have worked for continuity, but at least they fit the Bond 'suit'. The lack of Q and his gadgets also was a huge negative for me, and no Moneypenny as well.

But back on topic bj, is there anyway you may like Bond 22, starring DC?

[English Agent]

If CR was a reboot as such then i'am sure in time the familiar characters of M and Q will reappear, which will please the people here.....and me!

[Jedi007]

I don't hate Brozza. I actually quite like the guy. I just didn't like the films he appeared in.

How about Goldeneye? The World is Not Enough may be full of Moore lines but I think the story is great. Don't you think they are good films?

[stockslivevan]

I think a title like "Inconsistencies Galore" would have been more suitable for Bond 19 than "The World is Not Enough".

[007 Roger Moore]

Well, I think that (surprise...not) Daniel Craig is the worst official Bond, but I still think he´s a good Bond (even if he reminds me of Jack Bauer).
Casino Royale was one of the worst Bond films (I know, most people in the world disagree) but i enjoyed it, and went home happily (from the premier, I mean).

I don´t enjoy Royale as much now (the first time is always special) but it´s a very good film. The poker scenes and some of the scenes in Montenegro remind me of older Bond movies.

I think (and hope) that Bond 22 will be more classic Bond (Rumors of Craig practicing skiing have occured), so I will surely enjoy Bond 22.

I´m not a Craig fan, but try, really try to accept him: he is, for now, James Bond 007, the greatest gentleman agent with a license to kill!!!

[bjmdds]

Well, I think that (surprise...not) Daniel Craig is the worst official Bond, but I still think he´s a good Bond (even if he reminds me of Jack Bauer).
Casino Royale was one of the worst Bond films (I know, most people in the world disagree) but i enjoyed it, and went home happily (from the premier, I mean).

I don´t enjoy Royale as much now (the first time is always special) but it´s a very good film. The poker scenes and some of the scenes in Montenegro remind me of older Bond movies.

I think (and hope) that Bond 22 will be more classic Bond (Rumors of Craig practicing skiing have occured), so I will surely enjoy Bond 22.

I´m not a Craig fan, but try, really try to accept him: he is, for now, James Bond 007, the greatest gentleman agent with a license to kill!!!

You seem to contradict yourself in your first two statements Moore. If CR was one of the worst Bond films, how can you enjoy it? If you feel Craig is the worst official Bond, how can he be a good Bond?

[007 Roger Moore]

You seem to contradict yourself in your first two statements Moore. If CR was one of the worst Bond films, how can you enjoy it? If you feel Craig is the worst official Bond, how can he be a good Bond?

Well, I even enjoy the worst Bondfilms (except for CR67). And Daniel Craig is good,but the others are better.

[James]

I think a title like "Inconsistencies Galore" would have been more suitable for Bond 19 than "The World is Not Enough".

Fair comment and one that can applied to CR also.