Is Craig a lame duck Bond?

[The Sweeney]

With this talk of Bond 23 being more traditional, I think Craig could breeze through an early Connery type film, or a Dalton type film.
He would struggle with a Brozza/Moore type flick definitely. So let's hope we get a traditional film in the Connery/Dalton mould.

Which is all good in my book.....

[Gary Seven]

With this talk of Bond 23 being more traditional, I think Craig could breeze through an early Connery type film, or a Dalton type film.
He would struggle with a Brozza/Moore type flick definitely. So let's hope we get a traditional film in the Connery/Dalton mould.

Which is all good in my book.....

Daniel Craig cannot make a Connery or Dalton type film because.....he is not Connery or Dalton.

[The Sweeney]

With this talk of Bond 23 being more traditional, I think Craig could breeze through an early Connery type film, or a Dalton type film.
He would struggle with a Brozza/Moore type flick definitely. So let's hope we get a traditional film in the Connery/Dalton mould.

Which is all good in my book.....

Daniel Craig cannot make a Connery or Dalton type film because.....he is not Connery or Dalton.

Eh?? I don't understand what you are saying.

So, could Connery not appear in a Dalton or Craig type flick because.........he is not Dalton or Craig.

[Mazer Rackham]

Maybe my memory is fuzzy, but did Craig really say that he wanted to play "Recruited Bond" in all his films? Last I recall that was originally for CR then the next film would be standard business until EON changed their minds and expanded CR with QOS, and now again they're starting clean again with Bond 23. I've always assumed that Craig would play a straight Bond film after CR along the road, it seemed inevitable. Moneypenny and Q were always said to be brought back in the future. Bond elements have been brought back in QOS one way or another, now they're going full on. Just because Craig is enthusiastic about a more relaxed film after QOS I don't think we should take it as in he wants to do it Roger Moore style. Now I'd complain about that. I think the best tone to go for is similar Connery's early films (the Terence Young ones), albeit a more modern interpretation. A mix of spy thriller and adventure.

You memory is fuzzy and your humor is warped anything else we should know?

Most expected, as you did, for a more classic Bond to return the follow up to CR. But the plan was for 3 story arc concentrating on "Bond Begins" theme. Looks that plan was dropped kicked into the shitter.

BTW he can't do Connery/Dalton Bond. He'd have to have charisma for that

[Mazer Rackham]

With this talk of Bond 23 being more traditional, I think Craig could breeze through an early Connery type film, or a Dalton type film.
He would struggle with a Brozza/Moore type flick definitely. So let's hope we get a traditional film in the Connery/Dalton mould.

Which is all good in my book.....

Daniel Craig cannot make a Connery or Dalton type film because.....he is not Connery or Dalton.

Eh?? I don't understand what you are saying.

So, could Connery not appear in a Dalton or Craig type flick because.........he is not Dalton or Craig.

Connery is frickin 80 years old. He should be out there doing RoboBond movies?

I think the sentiment is more a he lacks the stature of those actors as well as their personable manner that made them so fun to watch.

[stockslivevan]

Of course you guys don't think Craig can pull a more standard Bond film off. I don't think there's anyway to convince you of that, but the question is to the eyes of the public could he pull it off? Perhaps. He's got the charisma, and shined in the two films' lighter moments, but of course you won't agree.

[Gary Seven]

Eh?? I don't understand what you are saying.

So, could Connery not appear in a Dalton or Craig type flick because.........he is not Dalton or Craig.

It's quite simple. Connery and Dalton had the looks and the skills to play James Bond. Daniel Craig, in my opinion, does not. Therefore, after ditching his morose tough Bond he cannot simply turn up and play Bond like an "early Connery" or replicate Tim Dalton's great Bond performances. An actor with the looks of Connery or Dalton and some of their charm could.

Stocksilvian wrote
he's got the charisma, and shined in the two films' lighter moments

Not an opinion I agree with.

[doubleoLisa]

If he was not lame duck he was a injured duck when he was entering. What he could do with Bond was extremely limited. They say David Arnold had one armed tied behind his back trying to scratch out that awful Casino Royale sound track. This is precisely what Craig is facing as an actor taking on James Bond. He went in to it with BOTH arms tied behind his back. I don't see him doing anything better than what he was already done and in truth that wasn't James Bond.

[James]

I thought all the maddest Craig supporters hated traditional Bond films anyway. I had a look at Cbn the other day and there was a thread where people were standing in line to say OHMSS was shite. If these people think traditional Bond films are somehow beneath them & OHMSS was crap, how on earth did they ever become fans of the series in the first place?

[Kristatos]

If these people think traditional Bond films are somehow beneath them & OHMSS was crap, how on earth did they ever become fans of the series in the first place?

Because they didn't think traditional Bond films were shite until Craig came along. Now they're all saying "I can't watch any Bond film made before CR any more, because all the previous Bonds are crap compared to Craig" (some of them may make an exception for Connery's first two films).

[katied]

Sort of related to this, but on the Michael Sheen as Blofeld thread at MI6 someone said that everyone likes the white cat Blofeld. I disagree. I think it's a veryveryvery divisive thing.There are the fans that don't like the white cat Blofeld and get wht bringing that version of his is a dumb idea,and the people that like it because it's redolent of a Bond era gone by.

[mcbride007]

If these people think traditional Bond films are somehow beneath them & OHMSS was crap, how on earth did they ever become fans of the series in the first place?

Because they didn't think traditional Bond films were shite until Craig came along. Now they're all saying "I can't watch any Bond film made before CR any more, because all the previous Bonds are crap compared to Craig" (some of them may make an exception for Connery's first two films).

Will these people like Daniel Craig's successor? Or are they just fans of him?

[Kristatos]

If these people think traditional Bond films are somehow beneath them & OHMSS was crap, how on earth did they ever become fans of the series in the first place?

Because they didn't think traditional Bond films were shite until Craig came along. Now they're all saying "I can't watch any Bond film made before CR any more, because all the previous Bonds are crap compared to Craig" (some of them may make an exception for Connery's first two films).

Will these people like Daniel Craig's successor? Or are they just fans of him?

Given how fickle they are, they'll probably all be saying that they never liked Craig in the first place.

[doubleoLisa]

If these people think traditional Bond films are somehow beneath them & OHMSS was crap, how on earth did they ever become fans of the series in the first place?

Because they didn't think traditional Bond films were shite until Craig came along. Now they're all saying "I can't watch any Bond film made before CR any more, because all the previous Bonds are crap compared to Craig" (some of them may make an exception for Connery's first two films).

Will these people like Daniel Craig's successor? Or are they just fans of him?

It not about the man playing 007 it is about the history.whoever the next Bond is Craig's minions will fall in line with little to no fuss.