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
I'm quite sure Brosnan* spent a fair time in the gym between GE and TND as he doesn't look quite as "puny" in the latter.
Connery I suspect had to do his fair share of training to stay fit too. The only difference is we didn't hear about it.
Dalton I don't know - but he did learn water-skiing and scuba diving.
I really don't think you can compare Craig to Statham. True they both have a bit of a "working class" manner about them but I doubt you would catch Craig appearing in a film like Crank.
*this thread is about PB
If this thread is about PB, then why did you bring up Craig and his lovely eyes?? :) Whoops! That got everyone's knickers in a twist. :)
Yes, but when Brosnan was cast as Bond, his physicality was not factored or brought into question. He was seen as Mr Perfect.
In the context of the ruthlessness you mentioned, then naturally I would compare Craig and Statham as Jason was doing it years ago and when I saw the new Bond, I did think they could have gone with him. And Statham has the height as well which Bond always had.
In fact some did remark that you could have easily had Statham in QOS. Statham has dryness about him like Craig does. Not bad by any means, but I cannot give Craig credit for something that this other man has done years back so well.
Yes, all the Bond actors did exercise but it was not publicised to the degree it is now. Connery, Dalton or Moore did not have different physiques before they took Bond on. They were pretty consistent. Craig underwent a transformation after the adverse criticisms from the media.
Dalton is relevant in this discussion as it concerns his era.
Anyway Brosnan. From what I remember, despite his praising, there were a few criticisms of him being too "lite" physically - more so after GE came out. There are Siskel and Ebert review of both Ge and Tnd on youtube somewhere. The GE one is critical of Brosnan's lean build but in TND they admit he looks better.
True Broz didn't get nearly the same of stick Craig did but it was still there.
In all fairness to Brozza Monsieur Bain as I think he sure looked the part more than Craig did from the traditional standpoint. Had Brozza really worked on amping the acting and grittiness I would have been elated with his Bond.
I know me and you have seen The Fourth Protocol. I thought he was super good in that and he had all the right balances as a Bond without the tackyness they sank him with in the films.
True, Brozza was a slim build but he certainly did not look puny to me. I think Brozza had the image down but played up the Moore-ishness more than the Connery-ness.
Thank you @accoppola, and I do agree with all you said. Imagine Tim and Eva on screen together? It would have been great.
Uhu... darling, he certainly was.
Sincerely thanks @Regan I have been watching Dark Shadows a lot lately and must say Eva is super amazing in that film! :) I could certainly imagine her and Tim having a kinky session. She's a witch and Tim is a vampire. :)
Still, he would have looked even more "lite" had he got the part in 86.
I think he looked better in the next two - although there was still a slightly 'male model' quality about him in TND.
He was about right in TWINE.
That's the perfect pairing :D. I loved Depp and Green in their kinky Dark Shadows session, but substitute Depp for Dalton and it would have been out of this world.
In regards to Brosnan's look, I have to say I vastly prefer him in GE, regardless of the male model quality, mind you. I think he looks stunning there and I never believed that Bond needs to be all muscled to be believable. It's more about the wits with him, or at least that's how I interpret the character. He couldn't be more different than your Stallone types.
I don't like Brosnan in the older films, when his age really starts to show. I recently rewatched DAD and I couldn't believe he was the same bloke from GE that I loved so much.
Depp and Green had great chemistry in Dark Shadows. The sexy parts were really funny and worked well. A younger Tim and her would be great indeed. I could see him work really well off her acting ability.
I got to say, but Eva has amazing class as well as the whole package.
Yeah, I thought Brosnan looked super handsome in Goldeneye and equally in TND. He did not really need the muscles. I certainly did not hear anyone complain about him at the time. Women found him highly attractive. He was in good shape though and certainly took care of himself. Bond is described as slim in the books.
The muscle fad came with the Arnie's and Stallones.
Hey, Brozza has wonderful blue eyes. Everyone keeps mentioning Craig's eyes. Whoa! Some do forget these days! :)
I think Brosnan kept slim to make him look younger. Studios will sometimes put pressure on an actor. He had such good looks that in the producers estimation there was no need to buff him up. He looked great in the three piece suits.
And he came to the role pre-accepted.
But I do not see many new actors that have that classic handsomeness of the yesteryear Bonds. Part of the Bond fantasy was to have a man who had rare good looks and look unusual. Clive Owen looks the best fit for the role out of any actor out there. I saw him on Ellen Degeneres tv show and women were almost having orgasms.
Trust me, if Owen became Bond tomorrow, I think women would not complain! :) He is my ideal as his face is killer and his personality has that attractive "I don't need to try too hard to get some action!".
Some of the younger names look a bit too squeaky clean. Michael Fassbender or whatever the f his name is, is not my idea.
Bond is a byronic hero as in Tall, Dark and Handsome. One day who knows, but maybe a midget will be Bond and we will be told to be happy and shut up! :)
I guess they need to bring new qualities to the role to justify it's existence. :)
I've never claimed he was - he's too "rough" physically. But I think there are certain aspects of the character Craig gets perfectly. The way he knocks back drinks, the way he talks quietly to women and his rather "casual", slightly flippant manner - and the way he fights dirty. There's a rather nasty sequence later on in Drax's house involving Bond and one of Drax's henchman which demonstrates Bond's more "thuggish" side - that's an instance when Craig DID come to mind.
Who do you picture so far @getafix? I find that none of the actors come to mind regularly, more certain actors here and there.
No.
Daniel Craig is 3 inches taller than Statham. Fleming described Bond as being 6 feet tall; Craig is 5'11" and Statham is 5'8". Interestingly, an entertainment reporter here said that she was surprised how tall Craig was when she met him - "reassuringly tall" is how she described him - because she had believed all the stuff originally coming from the CraigNotBond website.
Back to Brosnan - women I worked with thought he was incredibly attractive, but they thought it was a mistake to show him in swim trunks and in the bedroom in Cuba in GE because he was so "skinny". Apparently they weren't the only ones; Brosnan went to the gym on a program to add 15 pounds of muscle for TND. And he was even slimmer back in '86 and looked even more boyish - even the sense of relief of having a younger Bond after Moore wouldn't have made up for the fact that Brosnan looked *too* young:
Actually, no. Daniel Craig is 5'10'' not 5'11''. Statham is 5'9'' not 5'8''. To be more precise, Craig is 3 centimeters taller than Statham (not 3 inches). 1.78 vs. 1.75. It really is only an inch difference, so almost imperceptible.
It's not a bad thing, but nor is it as unique as we are told ad nauseum. I watched some Statham films recently and it hit me that the new Bond is similar to him in attitude. I could see Statham in CR for example and he could have pulled off the new approach. As in show little emotion and kick the sh*t out of anything in your way. Soul of a robot.
And the muscly aspect which is associated with Craig was very much a part of Statham's image. It seems to be fashionable with a lot of action characters. Kind of like the a resurgence of the 80's Stallone/Arnie though not as big.
I don't see much Fleming in Craig's Bond. And that is even without the palpably obvious image discrepancy unless I am to ignore Fleming's description of his build, look, height and hair colour. Jet black sends a powerful image to the mind. How can I picture Blonde? Unless I am an idiot! :) If Fleming writes man, then I do not picture woman is my add on to solidify my opinion.
Dalton is the closest to that ideal and really worked towards it hence getting the unfair criticism of not being fun enough. Dalton had this face that was chiseled. And Dalton is a natural womaniser. When you see him in Wuthering Heights seducing the sister of his former flames husband, he does it with ease.
Ironically, when Dalton did Jane Eyre, he had a huge female fanbase and this is why Joan Collins wanted him as her lover in Sins. Back then, tv series were big attractions, widely watched.
In fact, the only criticism he got for Jane Eyre was being way too good looking. In the novel, Rochester is not a sexually attractive man. Dalton's looks made women think Jane Eyre was too slow on the uptake.
Thanks for saving my lovely ass @Regan :)
I am very confused by the public and it's blatant fickleness. Women were nuts about Brosnan as Bond back in the day and all of a sudden jump onto Craig's boat.
But there is no logic to denying that Brosnan is a superbly handsome man. In fact to me the best looking British actors in the 1980's were Dalton and Brosnan. And it's no wonder they were both hot contenders for Bond. Sam Neill never stood a chance once Cubby had those two in mind.
Damn, Statham looks taller on screen. He is very well proportioned and the camera sure makes him look 6 foot to me.
When I saw Brozza'ss Bonds in the cinema, you could sense this love for him. In fact, I thought at the time who could replace him as it would be tough to find an actor of comparable looks. And Brozza's looks were seen as the ideal not exception.
Likewise, when I saw TLD on several cinema trips, I sensed the audience warmed to Dalton too. I was there and he certainly did not disappoint with his looks. It was later that the fickleness set in just the same as happened to Brosnan which I did not see coming.
When Dalton kicks the lorry driver out of his cabin in LTK, he does it thuggishly and highlights that Bond in the books occasionally is a dirty fighter when time is not on his side. But that seems to be forgotten and not given it's credit as in he was a brutal Bond at times.
Yes Craig deserves his praise, but I have to give Dalton kudos for doing it in an era where the Roger Moore style was so imbedded in the public consciousness.
But Craig over does the thug element in the first two especially. Bond is not a terminator with no emotion. And he was a little too unsympathetic. When the lover of the villain is killed because of him, he does not care. Fleming's Bond was never like that.
I do like the alcoholic element Craig introduces to Bond because that is very Fleming. He drinks in a desperate way which is excellent.
There is a lot of hypocrisy amongst some fans who applaud Craig's Flemingness and then say Dalton sucked. I read the books. Dalton was Fleming's Bond and it was exactly that which was the cause of the misunderstanding of who the character really was.
And Fleming wise, Dalton looks and acts it to a tee! The smoking, the conflicted emotions and the "I am a nice bastard when I want to be!".
Craig according to the Fleming novels, would remind me of Red Grant more. Or is Red not blonde, well built and cold? :) He is Bond's equal in physicality and ruthlessness. Chew on that one dudes and dudettes! as Keanu Reeves would say :)
My apologies, tell a lie. Red Grant was blonder.
Red Grant is the antithesis to Bond's byronic qualities. Square it up with Fleming. He created it not me.
In the MR novel Bond sneaks up on Krebbs when he's not looking, kicks him across the room and threatens to physically disfigure him. Thats why i really like the PTS of CR. It shows that nasty streak but takes it a bit further than Dalton managed.
I will agree that, physically, Dalton is closer to Flemings description of Bond than Craig.
Regarding Broz, I always liked his fight with the goon on the yaucht in GE
True Bond has killed with his bear hands in the novels. But it was something he did when he started out. And he feels guilty about it. So CR being his first mission, captures that correctly.
Also the context of Craig having to strangle the villain at the bottom of the stairwell was a necessity to not alert anyone. But it was scene contextual and the villain was a particularly nasty fighter with his machete. Had Bond not kicked over that man he was with then the fight would have been won by the machete wielding villain with the aid of his henchman.
Of course Dalton could have strangled someone as Bond. Brosnan too. But vision and script is a factor. And era. Just like violence is less severe in films 40 years ago than today where it is normal. Formula too as film studios target those films at their biggest demographic 18-24 year old males.
The nastiest Bonds were Connery, Dalton and Craig. They were capable of anything depending on how angry they were internally at the time. Dalton had hate too which made him worse.
Dalton could have managed taking it further but there were certain preventions by the producers and director. Glen would only allow Bond so far. And everyone was complaining about the violence of Dalton's Bond and how he was not as much of a gentleman. Times have changed and now it is accepted with the modern world we are in.
When Dalton was Bond, it was an era of optimism as the Cold War was dying out and everyone thought we would have a utopia. But now looking back, his Bond brutality fits in with the kind of world we are in and to an extent always have been.
And a strangling scene with Bond in the eighties would have increased the rating of the film. LTK was initially given an 18 certificate reduced to 15 once cuts were made at the time.
You can show a villain strangling back then but not the hero. Nowadays everything is less black and white.
Gee, when Bond sets Sanchez on fire, that was pretty severe. Far worse than strangling. That irked the censors too who found it sadistic in the extreme. That is a bad way to die.
With Brosnan, they emphasised his gentleman qualities more than his brute force. Though his could have a nasty streak but too quickly they would move on to a funny moment.
Craig's Bond owes the brutality to audiences being more used to it from other cinema characters. He is a dirty fighter in The Bourne films and that is where EON took their cue from whilst telling us it was Fleming all along.
It took 44 years before we saw Bond strangle on film. Ask yourself why so long and what else was around that changed the direction of the series?.
Post 9/11 audiences wanted a more brutal Bond. No 9/11 and Bond would be different.
With cinema Bond, you have to also look at the popular culture around you and many things that were unacceptable 20 years ago are now normal. Bond in film is a product of his cultural setting in any given time.
Brosnan's Bond had no real reason to be dark. The stupider elements were what the public wanted and got. Then they complain.
With Bond you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
The whole business about class in a Bond actor is an interesting one. The literary Bond is an old Etonian and audiences would, I think, struggle to accept a performance that reflected this background too much. Connery brought some working class Edinburgh into the mix, which made Bond a slightly more everyman figure (bearing in mind Bond is the coolest guy in the world) who has achieved things in life through his own merits, rather than privilage.
Some actors can walk this upper/working class tightrope needed for a Bond actor, others can't - I could never have imagined Lewis Collins as a Bond for this reason.
Brosnan was "slick".
I think it's interesting to note that Bond was never a particularly "cultured" man. However he has a rather prestigious upbringing. I'd say he's middle to upper class.
To circle back to Dalton, I suppose "dangerous" is a good summation, either that or "intense". In any case, he's a great balance between the gentleman and the killer.
And not to deviate too much from Brosnan... I do believe he was insanely beautiful when he was younger. I've said this before, but most teen girls in my high school circa '95 had a major crush on the new James Bond.
I think if there's any criticism of Craig in relation to Fleming's Bond its that he is a bit too working class in manner. I'd still put him above Jason Statham though - with all respect to JS I can't imagine him acting in a scene like the interrogation of Jusef at the end of QoS.
Actually I think it should have been Brosnan in 97, with Dalton getting more films in the 90s and Brosnan getting another film in 2004.