› ›

Has Daniel Craig changed the way people see James Bond?

SzonanaSzonana Mexico
in Actors Posts: 1,130
Its not like he is the first great actor on the franchise but his casting I think has changed the way people see Bond and what they want from the character.

When Pierce was announced to leave the media's names were more like your typical good looking star in a suit mostly pretty boys like Orlando Bloom or tall dark and handsome like Clive Owen and Hough Jackman.

At that time people only wanted for Bond to be sexy, sophisticated and charming.


Now fast forward to present day and the choices for the next Bond are much more outside of the box and people are demanding talent something we never asked before from the Bond actor. The names have much more variety, we still have the pretty boys like Henry Cavil but we also have some quite geek looking guys Benedict Cumberbatch, thespian intense guys like Tom Hidleston and really tough guys like Tom Hardy.

I think Craig has implemented new standards on how the character is supossed to be and now everyone demands much more from the character than look good in a taux and have fun with the ladies. Before Craig the only concern was entretainment now people look for great scripts and credibility.

Comments

  • fanbond123fanbond123
    edited July 2016 Posts: 1,661
    Yes, I believe Daniel Craig has changed the way people see James Bond. 100 percent. I suspect that tv show 24 and the Bourne film franchise influenced Eon's decision to ditch Brosnan and recast. I suppose if there were a Pierce Brosnan version 2 out there in 2005, who knows, perhaps B Broccoli might have picked him but I don't know for sure. She has her own image of what Bond looks like.

    The big gamble paid off. The average film goer could have rejected Craig as Bond - be it he because he doesn't conform to the traditional image of Bond or because he's not as smooth or whatever - but they didn't.

    I don't know if I would say Craig has implemented new standards. The first three Bond films are considered among the best of the series - arguably the most Fleming in tone - so I personally don't think Craig has elevated the franchise to new standards but I'm not a huge Daniel Craig Bond fan. He's okay in the role but not up there as my one of my favourite Bond actors.

    Ultimately no matter what the actor looks like he has to deliver a credible James Bond performance. That is the ultimate test. If the actor can make you believe he is Bond, he's done his job. The box office stats for Craig's Bond films prove most people believe he is Bond and I'm sure the next Bond actor will convince most people irrespective of his appearance.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    edited July 2016 Posts: 7,131
    Craig has changed views. But in my opinion not entirely for the good. It's true he brought his acting talents to the job and it's wonderful that they now look for a good actor to take over. I'm not saying Broz was a bad actor, on the contrary, but the scripts in his days focussed on less demanding performances to counter the misconception that Dalts was too serious.

    Nevertheless, what I don't like about all this is that Bond has become more of an Everyman. He has become too working class, the snobbery is gone. They've also overemphasised his fitness. They've put him clothes that are way too tight which makes him look like a fitness jock. They've made him more of a bodybuilder than a bon vivant.

    I'd prefer a Bond who is somewhere in the middle. One who can be just enough of a fantasy figure, but one who does not challenge you're suspension of disbelief too much.

    Therefore Connery and Dalton (and to a smaller extend Lazenby) have been my favourites.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Szonana wrote:
    people are demanding talent something we never asked before from the Bond actor.

    Speak for yourself. I for one have always expected any actor playing Bond to have talent; which is why I rejoiced when the unconventional casting of Craig was confirmed. I knew then that EoN were taking things seriously and trying to reestablish credibility to the series.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,215
    Along with acting ability, he brings a greater physicality to the role
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2016 Posts: 15,718
    All the Bond's has changed the perception of Bond their immediate predecessor gave to the character. Moore changed the perception of Bond after Connery, Dalton did the same after Moore, Brosnan did it after Dalton, and now Craig has done it after Brosnan. If EON wants Bond #7 to be successful, he will change the perception Craig gave. That's the key to the franchise longevity, each new Bond are quite different from their immediate predecessor.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2016 Posts: 23,883
    No, I don't think he has changed the way people see Bond. He played Bond in a way that best suited him as an actor, as a person and also amplified his natural strengths. The best Bond actors always do that, and this is why they succeed critically and commercially. Ultimately because they are credible as the character (who filmically has changed a lot over the years anyway, but ultimately is always icy cool/cold, fair minded, brave, competent, and a little alpha).

    He's had a long run, so his imprint will likely be remembered more than some others, that's all. Additionally he will have the advantage of always being known as the reboot Bond, just as Connery has always had the advantage of being known as the first Bond. That is an advantage - make no mistake. However, just as Connery was replaceable with Moore who brought a completely new approach, so will Craig.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited July 2016 Posts: 10,591
    Up until Craig, much of the general public viewed Bond as an indestructible hero. But Craig made Bond human again. I think he did change the public's perception of the character, or at the very least, cleared up any misconceptions about what Bond should be.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    jake24 wrote: »
    Up until Craig, much of the general public viewed Bond as an indestructible hero. But Craig made Bond human again.

    Until SP came along.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,278
    doubleoego wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Up until Craig, much of the general public viewed Bond as an indestructible hero. But Craig made Bond human again.

    Until SP came along.

    Well that was what the general public (at least) wanted all along apparently - a more traditional James Bond film.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Up until Craig, much of the general public viewed Bond as an indestructible hero. But Craig made Bond human again.

    Until SP came along.

    Well that was what the general public (at least) wanted all along apparently - a more traditional James Bond film.

    Including me. I do like the new take but i prefer the traditional one.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,167
    I'll agree each 007 has changed perception to a degree. I feel a large number of casual film goers seem to only think whatever is current is any good. Many people I've spoken to who have only seen the Craig films poo poo the idea of even glancing at FRWL. They're reasoning is that having been made in the 60s, FRWL is automatically cheesy and campy like the Adam West Batman series. I stand in awe.
    Then there are people that say " Daniel Craig is what made me interested in James Bond again!!!!", to which I usually reply, " that's exactly what you had said about Pierce !"
    People forget until nostalgia hits 20 years later. I completely believe Brosnan will have a resurgence after Bond number 7 is cast. Craig much later as well.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I still want the traditional Bond in its wholly back myself. And I prefer him unsympathetic.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    edited July 2016 Posts: 1,130
    bondjames wrote: »
    No, I don't think he has changed the way people see Bond. He played Bond in a way that best suited him as an actor, as a person and also amplified his natural strengths. The best Bond actors always do that, and this is why they succeed critically and commercially. Ultimately because they are credible as the character (who filmically has changed a lot over the years anyway, but ultimately is always icy cool/cold, fair minded, brave, competent, and a little alpha).

    He's had a long run, so his imprint will likely be remembered more than some others, that's all. Additionally he will have the advantage of always being known as the reboot Bond, just as Connery has always had the advantage of being known as the first Bond. That is an advantage - make no mistake. However, just as Connery was replaceable with Moore who brought a completely new approach, so will Craig.


    Sure Craig is not irreplaceable but as a reboot Bond he kind of oppened a new phase for the character with a whole new take.
    I guess in that way he is like Sean Connery he has given Bond a new beginning and feel, now for the new generations Bond will be seen as Craig Portrayed him just like the previous generations see Bond the way Connery portrayed him.

    Heyy now i see it that's why Dalton didn't work because his serious Bond was in the same timeline as the more light hearted predecessors and succesor but if he would have started with a whole new timeline probably would have been accepted.

    Even if on Her Majesty's secret service ends up in a dark tone Lazenby's Bond was quite similar to Sean Connery so were Moore even though he was much lighter and the same goes for Pierce who stayed in the same style of Sean.

    all( Moore, Lazenby and Pierce) followed a set of rules which Connery setled : being a womanizer, charmer, cool and conventionally good looking and now Craig hs opened a new timeline with new rules for his succesors who I think will be anoher 4 and then will come another one with a whole new beginning and timeline.

    So that means in my new theory Craig is not Bond #6 but # 1 again And if the franchise continues so Bond #12 will go back to be Bond # 1.







  • TellyBlofeldTellyBlofeld
    edited August 2016 Posts: 489
    Craig brought back the toughness to the role which had evaporated in the 1970's.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    TellyBlofeld wrote: »
    Craig brought back the toughness to the role which had evaporated in the 1970's.

    Err didn't Dalton do that?
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    TellyBlofeld wrote: »
    Craig brought back the toughness to the role which had evaporated in the 1970's.

    Err didn't Dalton do that?
    I think Dalton brought back the intensity, but his athletic department was very lacking.
  • TellyBlofeldTellyBlofeld
    Posts: 489
    Dalts is a fine Bond, but to me nowhere near as fierce as Craig.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Agreed. Craig's Bond is very intense in the fistfight bits.
  • JawsIsAliveJawsIsAlive
    Posts: 233
    I really wonder what people are talking about when they say they want the "traditional" Bond back. Is it the painful excuse for "comedy" that infested much of the Moore era, or are we after Brosnan-esque mediocrity? Harking back to a more "traditional" version of Bond is absurd when the character has gone through so many dramatic shifts over the last 50 years.

    I'd rather we tried to emulate the spirit of the Fleming books, particularly where the character of Bond is concerned, as I feel that's the approach with the most consistent results. It was a real disappointment to see the Craig era slip back into gadgets and quips, and that's coming from someone with Spectre and Skyfall in their top ten.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    the only thing i think Daniel Craig really has done to change Bond - is having the ability to make him more of 3 dimensional character, who can go through arcs throughout the course of the movie - instead of being something of the 2 dimensional cliche' that a lot of people "think" or "come to expect" Bond to be... He wasn't the first to bring that many layers to Bond though (see: Dalton), but Craig's style fit the current world and cinema landscape..

    that being said - nothing can ever be done to change the mass public perception of Bond - which is why we are still being fed Hollywood pretty boys as 'Entertainment Weekly's Next Choice For Bond is (insert flavor of the week here)!"... the names announced and tauted by major media outlets are just as uninspired now as they were back in 2004 - and there were some outside the box names in there as well.. for every Hugh Jackman or Clive Owen, you got a Goran Visnjic or Julian McMahon... then along came Daniel Craig - not completely out of left field, but he certainly was not even in most people's top 10 to take over the role when Brosnan's time was up..
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    In a word: YES
  • TellyBlofeldTellyBlofeld
    Posts: 489
    JawsIsAlive wrote: »
    I really wonder what people are talking about when they say they want the "traditional" Bond back. Is it the painful excuse for "comedy" that infested much of the Moore era, or are we after Brosnan-esque mediocrity? Harking back to a more "traditional" version of Bond is absurd when the character has gone through so many dramatic shifts over the last 50 years.

    I'd rather we tried to emulate the spirit of the Fleming books, particularly where the character of Bond is concerned, as I feel that's the approach with the most consistent results. It was a real disappointment to see the Craig era slip back into gadgets and quips, and that's coming from someone with Spectre and Skyfall in their top ten.

    Agree with all this. The Moore era is literally a gag a minute, especially Moonraker. I felt that CR went back to the Fleming roots, as did Skyfall to a lesser degree, and more of that please.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    @TellyBlofeld, this thread literally has nothing to do with Moore's era. You don't need to insult the man in every single thread.
  • TellyBlofeldTellyBlofeld
    Posts: 489
    Please see the previous post. I didn't bring it up.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    TellyBlofeld wrote: »
    Please see the previous post. I didn't bring it up.
    TellyBlofeld wrote: »
    Agree with all this. The Moore era is literally a gag a minute, especially Moonraker. I felt that CR went back to the Fleming roots, as did Skyfall to a lesser degree, and more of that please.

    Try again.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2016 Posts: 23,883
    HASEROT wrote: »
    the only thing i think Daniel Craig really has done to change Bond - is having the ability to make him more of 3 dimensional character, who can go through arcs throughout the course of the movie - instead of being something of the 2 dimensional cliche' that a lot of people "think" or "come to expect" Bond to be... He wasn't the first to bring that many layers to Bond though (see: Dalton), but Craig's style fit the current world and cinema landscape..

    that being said - nothing can ever be done to change the mass public perception of Bond - which is why we are still being fed Hollywood pretty boys as 'Entertainment Weekly's Next Choice For Bond is (insert flavor of the week here)!"... the names announced and tauted by major media outlets are just as uninspired now as they were back in 2004 - and there were some outside the box names in there as well.. for every Hugh Jackman or Clive Owen, you got a Goran Visnjic or Julian McMahon... then along came Daniel Craig - not completely out of left field, but he certainly was not even in most people's top 10 to take over the role when Brosnan's time was up..
    I agree.

    I don't think that the public's view of Bond himself as a character has changed, but I think that they certainly expect a certain kind of Bond film from Daniel Craig, just like they did from Moore before him.

    In Craig's case, they expect something more 'three dimensional', as you said.
  • TellyBlofeldTellyBlofeld
    Posts: 489
    A more complex, unpredictable Bond, in reaction to the Bourne films, was really where EON wanted to go, and has resulted in a pretty darn good interpretation.
  • identigraphidentigraph
    Posts: 1,052
    People used to want to be Bond, now I'm not so sure, that's the change!
  • lady_xanaxlady_xanax
    Posts: 22
    I would say that he did change it in CR and QoS, which are much darker films, but Skyfall and Spectre are more traditional Bonds. Craig was basically a soldier Bond and that was a well-timed interpretation.

    Now I think that people want to see glamour and a sort-of rarified world of privilege, a bit like The Night Manager. Apart from Casino Royale, glamour has been very intermittent in Craig Bonds and yet I think that is a part of Bond's appeal as it shaped cultural fantasies about wealth as well as masculinity and female beauty.
Sign In or Register to comment.