@NeoLosman said:

In an age such as ours, where billions of folks around the globe regularly tune into The Team House each week, a character who's simultaneously more deadly than the most decorated of SAS operatives and more posh than The Kardashian/Jenner sisters is becoming an increasingly impossible sell to a public who's nowhere near as naive as paperback novel aficionados of The 1950s(i.e. Fleming's original fan base)were

Billions? More deadly?

Fictitious characters like John Wick and Caine are now ridiculously more effective at killing than Bond and at the moment more popular with millions of fans.

@NeoLosman said:

@Midi-chlorian_Count said:

@mechajutaro said:

@Midi-chlorian_Count said:

Daniel Craig was way shorter than the other actors who legitimately played Bond. Plus you have his more ugly Sid James-a-like features and beefy man titted physique to consider.

In short he literally did not look like a spy or someone with the sophisticated grace to effortlessly move within the casino / jet set crowds where he sought information. He would stand out like a sore thumb.

Not particularly realistic compared with any of the other Bonds.

He definitely was the most unconventionally handsome of all the Bonds thus far. As I believe DRDMusings has already pointed out, The Craig Bond was more akin to the brooding action heroes that populated so many other action moves. To that end, his physique and demeanor matched up with the direction the character took between '06-'22. He's not supposed to be someone who can effortlessly move within high society, so much as he is MI6's premiere killing machine. We can have an entirely separate conversation as to whether or not rebooting Bond in such a way was a canny move, on the part of Eon

I'm sympathetic to those who found The Craig Bond to be the most joyless and glum of them all, and I even agree that Babs Broccoli and the gang went overboard when it came to exploring his past and trying to give him a depth that's never been present in the character from the get go. That said, whether or not the franchise would've survived an immediately post-9/11 world WITHOUT things going darker and grittier is highly questionable. Pierce Brosnan's interpretation looked even more out of place in Die Another Day than did Moore's in A View To A Kill

Not adapting to the cultural temperaments of the time would've ensured that what the first scene in XXX prognosticated at the time(007 being relegated to the pages of history, as brawnier and rawer heroes took center stage)would've come to pass. Who knows though.... The next era of Bond may herald a return to the more light hearted days of Brosnan and Moore. With Western international policy being in the crapper at the moment, zany escapism may be therapeutic

Sorry, this is a bit weird but I've just discovered I seem to have had you blocked! Not sure how that happened as I don't particularly block many people and I'm sure we've discussed stuff in the past without any daftness (?) so I'm guessing I must have screwed up when hitting reply or something 🤷

Anyway, with regards to:-

He's not supposed to be someone who can effortlessly move within high society, so much as he is MI6's premiere killing machine.

Not necessarily high society I guess but if he can't move about inconspicuously he can't really be considered much of a spy I guess - more like you said just a killing machine / enforcer...

The fatal flaw may not be so much with the actor who's playing Bond at any given time, but the inherently anemic source material upon which this franchise is based. I'm saying this as a life-long fan of The 007 franchise, who's seen every flick from A View To A Kill on up during their initial theatrical runs

As Richler points out: ""The success of Bond is all the more intriguing because Ian Fleming was such an appalling writer. He had no sense of place that scratched deeper than Sunday-supplement travel articles or route maps, a much-favored device. His celebrated use of insider's facts and O.K. brand names, especially about gunmanship and the international high life, has been faulted again and again."

In the decades since Flemming penned the Bond novels and the first cinematic adaptations hit the screen. spy fiction has been blessed with several hundred more writers who's senses of place are exponentially more vibrant than what one finds in travel articles and route maps. And in a world that's had access to unlimited intel via the internet for well over 3 decades now, it's becoming less and less easy to dupe audiences with juvenile depictions(which was what Flemming and The Bond series has mostly traded in, from the very get go)of what an actual gun fight or life among 1%ers really looks like

In an age such as ours, where billions of folks around the globe regularly tune into [The Team House](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXFKXo5oRUJp2jMqlmEHU3Q) each week, a character who's simultaneously more deadly than the most decorated of SAS operatives and more posh than The Kardashian/Jenner sisters is becoming an increasingly impossible sell to a public who's nowhere near as naive as paperback novel aficionados of The 1950s(i.e. Fleming's original fan base)were

Who are these 'billions of folks'? I had never even heard of that YT channel until today (& I visit YT regularly).

I think all the actors did their jobs. To me, 007 depends mostly on the wit, the fun, the adventure, and most of all the exotic scenery. Craig was unfortunate in appearing in the least exciting movies with the least exciting scenery and with the most depressing story lines as far as "guy movies" are concerned. But he's a very good Bond. Still, I like Moore just as well for his wittiness, Connery for his cool and wit that is pretty much like Craig's, and the others for what they did.

007 movies went downhill after the golden era of Connery and Moore, because the directing and writing wasn't as good. The excitement of Thunderball's underwater battle has never been matched in underwater action scenes.

But there is nothing wrong with Craig. He pretty much carries the modern day Bond movies solo.

@NeoLosman said:

@bratface said:

@NeoLosman said:

@Midi-chlorian_Count said:

@mechajutaro said:

@Midi-chlorian_Count said:

Daniel Craig was way shorter than the other actors who legitimately played Bond. Plus you have his more ugly Sid James-a-like features and beefy man titted physique to consider.

In short he literally did not look like a spy or someone with the sophisticated grace to effortlessly move within the casino / jet set crowds where he sought information. He would stand out like a sore thumb.

Not particularly realistic compared with any of the other Bonds.

He definitely was the most unconventionally handsome of all the Bonds thus far. As I believe DRDMusings has already pointed out, The Craig Bond was more akin to the brooding action heroes that populated so many other action moves. To that end, his physique and demeanor matched up with the direction the character took between '06-'22. He's not supposed to be someone who can effortlessly move within high society, so much as he is MI6's premiere killing machine. We can have an entirely separate conversation as to whether or not rebooting Bond in such a way was a canny move, on the part of Eon

I'm sympathetic to those who found The Craig Bond to be the most joyless and glum of them all, and I even agree that Babs Broccoli and the gang went overboard when it came to exploring his past and trying to give him a depth that's never been present in the character from the get go. That said, whether or not the franchise would've survived an immediately post-9/11 world WITHOUT things going darker and grittier is highly questionable. Pierce Brosnan's interpretation looked even more out of place in Die Another Day than did Moore's in A View To A Kill

Not adapting to the cultural temperaments of the time would've ensured that what the first scene in XXX prognosticated at the time(007 being relegated to the pages of history, as brawnier and rawer heroes took center stage)would've come to pass. Who knows though.... The next era of Bond may herald a return to the more light hearted days of Brosnan and Moore. With Western international policy being in the crapper at the moment, zany escapism may be therapeutic

Sorry, this is a bit weird but I've just discovered I seem to have had you blocked! Not sure how that happened as I don't particularly block many people and I'm sure we've discussed stuff in the past without any daftness (?) so I'm guessing I must have screwed up when hitting reply or something 🤷

Anyway, with regards to:-

He's not supposed to be someone who can effortlessly move within high society, so much as he is MI6's premiere killing machine.

Not necessarily high society I guess but if he can't move about inconspicuously he can't really be considered much of a spy I guess - more like you said just a killing machine / enforcer...

The fatal flaw may not be so much with the actor who's playing Bond at any given time, but the inherently anemic source material upon which this franchise is based. I'm saying this as a life-long fan of The 007 franchise, who's seen every flick from A View To A Kill on up during their initial theatrical runs

As Richler points out: ""The success of Bond is all the more intriguing because Ian Fleming was such an appalling writer. He had no sense of place that scratched deeper than Sunday-supplement travel articles or route maps, a much-favored device. His celebrated use of insider's facts and O.K. brand names, especially about gunmanship and the international high life, has been faulted again and again."

In the decades since Flemming penned the Bond novels and the first cinematic adaptations hit the screen. spy fiction has been blessed with several hundred more writers who's senses of place are exponentially more vibrant than what one finds in travel articles and route maps. And in a world that's had access to unlimited intel via the internet for well over 3 decades now, it's becoming less and less easy to dupe audiences with juvenile depictions(which was what Flemming and The Bond series has mostly traded in, from the very get go)of what an actual gun fight or life among 1%ers really looks like

In an age such as ours, where billions of folks around the globe regularly tune into [The Team House](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXFKXo5oRUJp2jMqlmEHU3Q) each week, a character who's simultaneously more deadly than the most decorated of SAS operatives and more posh than The Kardashian/Jenner sisters is becoming an increasingly impossible sell to a public who's nowhere near as naive as paperback novel aficionados of The 1950s(i.e. Fleming's original fan base)were

Who are these 'billions of folks'? I had never even heard of that YT channel until today (& I visit YT regularly).

Your not having heard of The Team House until today is almost certainly attributable to the fact that you've been spending most of your time on YT visiting VV's channel , ever since being introduced to her work over on The ST boards

What the hell is wrong with you? Please go away.

@NeoLosman said:

To me, 007 depends mostly on the wit, the fun, the adventure, and most of all the exotic scenery. Craig was unfortunate in appearing in the least exciting movies with the least exciting scenery and with the most depressing story lines as far as "guy movies" are concerned.

The writing of these movies was largely(though not entirely)devoid of wit, fun, and adventure, and even the exotic scenery ended up looking pretty drab in the most of The Craig movies. All this would've been received more warmly in a John Le Carre adaptation. In a Bond film though, everyone walked out wondering "What did we just sit through?"

Stop saying things like 'everyone' when you are trying to prove a point (it's meaningless). I never thought that after seeing Craig's Bond, I'm pretty sure there are others.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

I like the witty smarm and charm of an agent who knows a) he's got a licence to kill b) he's essentially dead anyway, so who GAF? c) balances the tension of the intelligence community, creative action, and being a playboy. It's serious and not serious all in one.

As such, to me:

• Craig/Dalton are too serious, look utterly miserable, weary, hopeless...never seemed to have any fun. There are plenty of other brooding action heroes, nothing to see here.
• Moore is too campy, not serious enough, and the 70s was just an ugly decade
• Brosnan was slick and seemed to have transitioned to his post-Bond years almost as elegantly as
• Connery, who remains iconic cool in an early 60s uncertain cold war milieu before everything changed

And, hey, my ranking could change if I actually sat down to watch through the Moore years again (though I'm not hopeful: when I was a kid in the mid-late 70s, Bond movies had seemed to descend to the level of made-for-tv movies, I don't remember anyone ever saying they were going to a movie theatre to watch a Bond movie in the time of Jaws and Rocky and Star Wars and Close Encounters, and Kramer vs. Kramer...)

I've sat through them all again, and done some reading and yes, my ranking has indeed changed!

*TL:dr *

They're ALL great — even Lazenby!

Details

First of all, I read an article explaining how Ian Fleming himself originally did not like the casting of Scotsman Sean Connery for his very English agent. BUT, what Broccoli and Connery did with Ian's Bond changed his mind — so much so that he actually changed his novel Bond to match Connery's Scottish ancestry.

In other words, Connery CREATED the "Bond template" with Ian Fleming's blessing. For all those who rate Connery #1, there's good reason - he was not only the first, but the standard.

Lazenby was not much of an actor when he was spotted and invited to audition. It was his good looks that got him the job. So, when I first watched his installment and found it odd that he spent too much time smiling, almost into the camera, like he was just happy to be there, apparently, he really was. As for his Bond, On Her Majesty's Secret Service was silly fun with end-of-the-world stakes...and the ending was among the most shocking, heartbreaking scenes captured on film, and set another beat for Bond.

Moore did more Bond installments than any other actor, to his credit. He came in to rescucitate the franchise and made it his. The 70s were, to me, just an ugly decade, but Moore was all smarm, and charm, funny when he had to be, brutal when he had to be.

Dalton surprised me. Not only was he fully Bond, but he was funnier and more charming than the reputation of his era. I sat down to watch his first installment and was enthralled from the opening. The second is equally rewatchable.

Brosnan might have been my favourite before this exercise. He had the looks, the wit, could charm the ladies, but had a menace to him that, to me, took Bond to another level. He dispatched enemies with what sometimes looked like enjoyment. At any rate, I'm not sure why his tenure ended so unceremoniously, but it's a shame.

Which brings us to Craig. After Brosnan, the Broccoli family rebooted the franchise back to more closely represent Ian Fleming's original novel Bond. This is critical to appreciate. The way Craig's Bond was written was NOT intended to follow in the template that Connery, and every actor to follow him before Craig, set. For those who actually read Fleming's novels, Craig was refreshing. So, when I sat down to get into his installments, I had to consciously forget those who'd gone before — which, I must hasten to add, became my approach to each era change. Every actor to portray Bond made it theirs, such that I feel like I've graduated to a place where comparing them is not the better way to approach the franchise anymore. Each occupied a socio-political milieu and played Bond accordingly. That said, Craig, like Dalton, was more witty, and more a lady's man, than I'd recognized before. Yes, "Bond" had been dismantled to be built back up - it took a while for Q to re-emerge but, again, Craig is "the beginning of Bond" anew, so sure, there wasn't going to be everything in the first installment.

So, my previous ranking was a smidge half-baked, I had to circle back and concede. Live and learn.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

... The way Craig's Bond was written was NOT intended to follow in the template that Connery, and every actor to follow him before Craig, set. For those who actually read Fleming's novels, Craig was refreshing...

I think it's worth considering if there's actually truth in that.

Was Daniel Craig's "Bond" really like the Bond of Fleming's pulp fiction?

@Midi-chlorian_Count said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

... The way Craig's Bond was written was NOT intended to follow in the template that Connery, and every actor to follow him before Craig, set. For those who actually read Fleming's novels, Craig was refreshing...

I think it's worth considering if there's actually truth in that.

Was Daniel Craig's "Bond" really like the Bond of Fleming's pulp fiction?

Somewhere withing the TMDb landscape of Bond threads, @bratface highly recommended to me that reading Fleming's novel Casino Royale would help me get to know his original Bond and how Craig's Bond reflected that.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@Midi-chlorian_Count said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

... The way Craig's Bond was written was NOT intended to follow in the template that Connery, and every actor to follow him before Craig, set. For those who actually read Fleming's novels, Craig was refreshing...

I think it's worth considering if there's actually truth in that.

Was Daniel Craig's "Bond" really like the Bond of Fleming's pulp fiction?

Somewhere withing the TMDb landscape of Bond threads, @bratface highly recommended to me that reading Fleming's novel Casino Royale would help me get to know his original Bond and how Craig's Bond reflected that.

Read the original print.

Article from 26 February 2023:

... Excerpts from James Bond Books Edited To Avoid Offense To Modern Audiences – Report:

James Bond has been censored, not stirred.

A report indicates that Ian Fleming’s ribald James Bond books have been rewritten to accommodate 21st century sensitivities, removing a number of racial references ahead of the 70th anniversary this spring, The Sunday Telegraph reported. The books are expected to be republished in April.

Fleming’s thrillers — from Casino Royale to Octopussy — will be rereleased this spring after Ian Fleming Publications, the company that owns the literary rights to Fleming’s work, commissioned a review by “sensitivity readers.”

The re-published Bond novels will include a disclaimer: “This book was written at a time when terms and attitudes which might be considered offensive by modern readers were commonplace. A number of updates have been made in this edition, while keeping as close as possible to the original text and the period in which it is set.”

@wonder2wonder said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@Midi-chlorian_Count said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

... The way Craig's Bond was written was NOT intended to follow in the template that Connery, and every actor to follow him before Craig, set. For those who actually read Fleming's novels, Craig was refreshing...

I think it's worth considering if there's actually truth in that.

Was Daniel Craig's "Bond" really like the Bond of Fleming's pulp fiction?

Somewhere withing the TMDb landscape of Bond threads, @bratface highly recommended to me that reading Fleming's novel Casino Royale would help me get to know his original Bond and how Craig's Bond reflected that.

Read the original print.

Article from 26 February 2023:

... Excerpts from James Bond Books Edited To Avoid Offense To Modern Audiences – Report:

James Bond has been censored, not stirred.

A report indicates that Ian Fleming’s ribald James Bond books have been rewritten to accommodate 21st century sensitivities, removing a number of racial references ahead of the 70th anniversary this spring, The Sunday Telegraph reported. The books are expected to be republished in April.

Fleming’s thrillers — from Casino Royale to Octopussy — will be rereleased this spring after Ian Fleming Publications, the company that owns the literary rights to Fleming’s work, commissioned a review by “sensitivity readers.”

The re-published Bond novels will include a disclaimer: “This book was written at a time when terms and attitudes which might be considered offensive by modern readers were commonplace. A number of updates have been made in this edition, while keeping as close as possible to the original text and the period in which it is set.”

Nice link, @wonder2wonder!

The comments following that article all dance to the same drum beat — "this is censorship and it's bad!" But I will offer a counterpoint for consideration (one that will stick to the literary angle and not even bother to criticize common misconceptions about what "censorship" and "freedom of speech" really is about).

When Fleming wrote his novels, he included language and terms that were not considered offensive to his target audiences at the time. As such, they would not have tainted how the audiences, at that time, viewed Bond.

Sensibilities have changed, and that language read today could be distracting for some; that language would certainly change how some view the the character of Bond.

As such, changing some of that language, then, can be argued an effort to remove unecessary content that was never intended by Fleming to be an issue in how we view Bond, so that we might see Bond today as audiences saw him back then.

That's not so bad.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@Midi-chlorian_Count said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

... The way Craig's Bond was written was NOT intended to follow in the template that Connery, and every actor to follow him before Craig, set. For those who actually read Fleming's novels, Craig was refreshing...

I think it's worth considering if there's actually truth in that.

Was Daniel Craig's "Bond" really like the Bond of Fleming's pulp fiction?

Somewhere withing the TMDb landscape of Bond threads, @bratface highly recommended to me that reading Fleming's novel Casino Royale would help me get to know his original Bond and how Craig's Bond reflected that.

Yeah, you definitely should if you haven't previously - Given your recent viewings you'd be in a great position to make some judgement.

I haven't read them for years. Sure they're fun but they're not amazing literature or anything.

As to Casino Royale, from what I remember the film followed the book's plot reasonably closely. I'm sure in the book he's just sent to break Le Chiffre - who was a SMERSH agent - with the idea that it would hit their finances. The film I guess made him a member of Quantum, later retconned into Spectre?

But the interesting thing for me would be is he really like the Bond of the books? I think that claim is basically made via a line of description in one book and the fact Fleming drew Bond with a scar (not sure how that even qualifies as Craig didn't have one! I guess it means you can have a rougher looking Bond than the "gentleman spy"?).

Beyond that I think the only reason the claim is made is because some of the trademark Bond film humour is absent from the books. But is that really all it means to say "he's more like the Bond of the books"? Or is there something tangibly more? e.g. Craig's Bond certainly isn't the slim built, heavy smoker of the books...

@Midi-chlorian_Count said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@Midi-chlorian_Count said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

... The way Craig's Bond was written was NOT intended to follow in the template that Connery, and every actor to follow him before Craig, set. For those who actually read Fleming's novels, Craig was refreshing...

I think it's worth considering if there's actually truth in that.

Was Daniel Craig's "Bond" really like the Bond of Fleming's pulp fiction?

Somewhere withing the TMDb landscape of Bond threads, @bratface highly recommended to me that reading Fleming's novel Casino Royale would help me get to know his original Bond and how Craig's Bond reflected that.

Yeah, you definitely should if you haven't previously - Given your recent viewings you'd be in a great position to make some judgement.

I haven't read them for years. Sure they're fun but they're not amazing literature or anything.

As to Casino Royale, from what I remember the film followed the book's plot reasonably closely. I'm sure in the book he's just sent to break Le Chiffre - who was a SMERSH agent - with the idea that it would hit their finances. The film I guess made him a member of Quantum, later retconned into Spectre?

But the interesting thing for me would be is he really like the Bond of the books? I think that claim is basically made via a line of description in one book and the fact Fleming drew Bond with a scar (not sure how that even qualifies as Craig didn't have one! I guess it means you can have a rougher looking Bond than the "gentleman spy"?).

Beyond that I think the only reason the claim is made is because some of the trademark Bond film humour is absent from the books. But is that really all it means to say "he's more like the Bond of the books"? Or is their something tangibly more? e.g. Craig's Bond certainly isn't the slim built, heavy smoker of the books...

Craig is more like the Bond from the first book, Casino Royale (which is the only Fleming book I have read). I can't find the link now but I read that he was okay with the change of Bond's style after the first couple of movies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_James_Bond_novels_and_short_stories#Books,_by_publication_sequence

Here is an article about how closely the movies followed the books.

https://screenrant.com/every-james-bond-movie-based-fleming-story-novels/#dr-no

@bratface said:

Here is an article about how closely the movies followed the books.

https://screenrant.com/every-james-bond-movie-based-fleming-story-novels/#dr-no

Makes me wonder...When all Fleming's written Bond works are exhausted and everything he wrote has been done...what next?

It'd be quite interesting to see a Bond movie that is not based on any Fleming novel, and is therefore original stories featuring Fleming characters.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@bratface said:

Here is an article about how closely the movies followed the books.

https://screenrant.com/every-james-bond-movie-based-fleming-story-novels/#dr-no

Makes me wonder...When all Fleming's written Bond works are exhausted and everything he wrote has been done...what next?

It'd be quite interesting to see a Bond movie that is not based on any Fleming novel, and is therefore original stories featuring Fleming characters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_James_Bond_novels_and_short_stories#Post-Fleming_James_Bond_novels

@bratface said:

Who are these 'billions of folks'?

Missed this discussion back in April, but the most popular video on there has... 219k views. There are 122k subscribers and the most recent release has had 6k views after 6 days. Must be using Trumpian mathematics.