It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Fingers crossed DC is sincerely up for one more. Unleash the chains Mendes strapped to him, and let's see DC growl and fight his way through another story (more along the lines of CR and QOS, with just a dash of SF)!
I think that's part of what gives him a Fleming air, though. In the books he's not a pretty boy spy, he's rugged, rough and has "cruel" instead of fine features and looks. He's supposed to look like he's been to hell and back, a bit more Richard Burton and a lot less Cary Grant. Dan very much represents an appeal and presence that is in touch with how Fleming drafted Bond, a tough man for a tough world with striking and brutal features that weren't of the norm, but that contained an air of attraction. There's a reason why the women around him on the books first compare Bond to a person that wasn't known for being attractive in the first place (Hoagy), but then corrected themselves by stating that he has an even more severe distortion of that look.
I think Dan really brings out this raw, "cruel" look quite well, and feels like a man from that dangerous world like no other Bond actor before him.
The photo above very much reminds me of this picture of Sean from GF, a raw portrait of a dark man in a dark world that reminds me of Fleming's original:
Put on your armour, my friend-- the slings and arrows may be on the way!!
You're absolutely right ( and honestly I never realized that before), but the difference is, Connery could looks that way any take, everywhere, while Craig manages to do so just 20% of the time. Maximum!
I agree that Dan is less of a practical look, and as I've talked with a lot of people here about, he can be hard to shoot as lighting changes him from shot to shot. I think that's all down to his rough looks, though, which I don't think Sean had to deal with. Sean was not only younger during his films, and was done the first time around with the series before Craig's age when he was cast, but he was also almost too handsome for Bond. He was able to use his acting to bring out that dark and dangerous energy in Bond that set off his looks well, but he and Craig are very different in that they represent two different spectrums of what a sex symbol could be, with Sean representing the expected mold and Craig the unexpected one (for some).
This.
I mean, come on, Craig puts us all to shame. Any contest that tests our masculinity, he wins. Any masculinity scale should start at 0 and end at "Daniel Craig".
Whenever the time comes for another actor to fill the role of Bond, it'll be difficult to find an actor who doesn't come off as feminine compared to Craig. Another reason why I don't particularly like that Turner guy is that he looks like Craig could make him cry by staring him down for five seconds.
Craig is a bit of a Trojan horse in that sense. It's great to have him as Bond now but I wouldn't want to be the guy who has to cast a decent successor. "No, stay!", is one of my favourite moments of Craig in SP. Because it doesn't even feel like anyone's acting at that point, neither Craig who hands out the command, nor the guys soiling their underwear because Craig spoke to them, barely even looking at them.
Craig's Bond would terrify me if I saw him on a mission, and the films build him up as a bulldozer to meet his look. He's the only Bond outside of Sean that I believe could actually kill a man, not only in his ability to do so, but by the feeling he gives off.
He does that same "fling" manoeuvre with the cell phone in QOS, right after M reprimanded him for his killing spree. Most teenagers nowadays make love to their phones, Craig just threw it on the seat next to him, barely having finished his last word to M, not even looking at it or checking if it would land properly. Brosnan's Bond would have gently clicked it off and put it back in his jacket pocket. Craig's Bond simply doesn't care. If Craig's Bond had done the backseat driver thing in TND, he would have found no further use for Q's phone and he'd have thrown it away while walking out the garage, rather than cleanly put it back. That's why I also like the heavily debated door knob moment in QOS. Sure it's probably very tricky to simply jerk that thing loose with one quick move, no matter how muscled you are. But from this Bond, I instantly buy it.
Brosnan's Bond forgot to knock, Craig's Bond simply knocks his way through the wall. When he knifes Dimitrios, look at his eyes. He knows he's got the man, so his eyes relax and he immediately worries about putting him out of sight somewhere and get on with the mission. Same with Slate. Bond cuts open an artery, immediately scans the environment for potential witnesses, all the while holding up Slate's arm so as to fasten the bleeding. This Bond is relentless.
When people say "Bond has to evolve", it used to be in terms of gadgets and cars but otherwise his manners and such would stay the same, which is why Brosnan did the best he could to keep his Bond one leg in the 60s, one in the 90s. A gentleman, he still was. But Craig's Bond is the one you'd have sent out to kick Bin Laden's ass. He's the one you actually, truly believe could take down any terrorist organisation in the real world. Because when you're face to face with those guys, you don't hesitate, talk, play baccarat or show mercy or even wait for the acid in the pen to dissolve steel. You act on impulse, which is what he does, and you take the cuts (see Miami International) or you use your fists against a wild man wielding a machete the size of a broomstick. The Craig Bond has evolved. He'll be a gentleman all right, but only when he wants to. He concedes his arrogance to Vesper but immediately tells her she's a bloody idiot for not giving him more money to play with. Being a gentleman is fine but when the mission requires a more hands-on approach, he won't lie about that nor hesitate.
This Bond, accused by some of being far too PC, walks into an embassy, kicks some serious butt while on camera and finished things off by blowing the place up, just to rid us of one more bombmaker. He doesn't worry about red tape or even his orders. Brosnan's Bond lectured M about how he didn't have to make compromises, but Craig's Bond actually shows it. Is he too PC? Not in my opinion.
When Bond says "I could have taken him" in SF, I believe him. I fault M and MP for letting Patrice go and for injuring Bond. If anyone could have taken Patrice, it's this guy. Perhaps not now but then tomorrow or the day after it. Case in point, an injured Bond had seemingly little trouble taking down Patrice in Shanghai. SF wanted to somehow pry away the "superbond" impression from our minds, but seeing what an injured Bond pulled off eventually, it's double the "superbond" for me now. But I digress.
Every 007 has gotten his really cool moments. We all love Connery confronting Prof. Dent or beating down Grant; Lazenby did some serious kicking and put every muscle in his body to good use; Moore pushed Locque off that cliff--a scene he himself despised but which sold him to me as a tough spy--; Dalton shoved a gun in a Russian general's face and drove a truck on two wheels, enough said!; Brosnan demolished St. Petersburg with an old Russian tank... I mean, sometimes we tend to forget the pure awesomeness that has come before, in nearly all the Bonds. Either in favour of the latest few entries in the series or because we have gotten used to the older ones after having watched them repeatedly, it's easy to forget how good those older ones are too. But every Bond film since 1962 has had its stand-out moments, sometimes directly thanks to the Bond actor, sometimes because of the stunt work, sometimes because of the breathtaking sets, ... The thing with Craig though, at least in my opinion, is that he is the only one of the six whose films are so densely filled with pure 007 awesomeness. He oozes "cool" from the first to the last second in nearly every scene he's in. In my opinion his acting is the most consistent too, taking Lazenby and Dalton out of the equation for a brief moment. If Craig's Bond substitutes for the brave heroes we crave in these uncertain times, then I'd say he's doing the job remarkably.
And to think that people got upset over that "what makes you think this is my first time" line... *sigh*
I am talking about that desperate, highly contrasted, almost chiseled look, both of them are featuring ont the photos. Still, I stand by my statement that it probably was much easier to have Connery look good, or even great, whatever the reasons might be.
Sorry, but I still use the old Bronson/Eastwood scale on which he only delivers a maximum of eight.
I'm completely open to a less 'masculine' looking actor as his successor however. It's all about how the actor plays the role and what take they bring to the character. Inevitably some will be disappointed post-Craig. It always happens since every actor is so different.
It certainly looks like an Omega. Like that would mean anything.
I just think because Sean is extremely alluring. He's the only guy, especially mid 60s Connery, that I could call good-looking without worrying about the awkward looks I'd get being a man talking about another man's looks. He just had that presence that made him an instant draw the camera ate up.
I am quite the enthusiast and I can't really make out what he's wearing. Maybe a planet ocean.
He probably woke up, threw on a shirt and went out, that's all. He doesn't really give a toss how people see him and he doesn't leave the house with a style team to primp his hair when it catches a breeze. It's one of the many refreshing things about him: despite being James Bond and known the world over, he hasn't forgotten he's a normal guy and doesn't act like he's a ladder step higher. He's very relatable and endearing to me, as he doesn't pretend or act for another's benefit. What you see is what you get.
It's shocking he can make it as an honest and regular guy in an industry where egotistical image prostitution, arse kissing and fake smiles are prime protocols for achieving success.
I dunno, @ClarkDevlin, I think Danny Boy is a bit too modest to be Johnny...
They're both fit as all hell though, so I'd love to see them compete in an arm wrestling competition.
Aah I didn't know that...that does indeed explain it,good old Seth !
Wow, that's pretty cool. I wonder if he was able to sneak in some voice acting for the show too?
http://variety.com/2017/film/reviews/logan-lucky-review-channing-tatum-adam-driver-daniel-craig-1202504091/
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/logan-lucky-review-1023775