Home › Bond Movies › Actors
Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
the closer to Fleming argument
Having watched all the films and read most of the books, I often think about the talk about which actor is closest to Flemings Bond. It seems the general feeling is that Timothy Dalton and Daniel Craig are the nearest thing to Fleming's character on screen.
I may be alone in this but personally I don't see any resemblence to Fleming when I watch the current films starring Daniel Craig and while I admire Dalton's take on the character, I feel a lot of the charm and sophistication of the character in the books was lost. Does just playing the character dead straight automatically mean it's close to Fleming?
Having just finished reading Goldfinger again recently, I don't think that it can be denied that the plot is ridiculous and there is a big fantasy element to it, so is Quantum of Solace really closer to Fleming than say The Spy Who Loved Me?
I may be alone in this but personally I don't see any resemblence to Fleming when I watch the current films starring Daniel Craig and while I admire Dalton's take on the character, I feel a lot of the charm and sophistication of the character in the books was lost. Does just playing the character dead straight automatically mean it's close to Fleming?
Having just finished reading Goldfinger again recently, I don't think that it can be denied that the plot is ridiculous and there is a big fantasy element to it, so is Quantum of Solace really closer to Fleming than say The Spy Who Loved Me?
^ 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
Craig on the otherhand is well a thug (alright maybe that isnt fair- he is a "one off" wonder like George Lazenby) he doesnt fit the physical description- as bond isnt a peroxcide blonde and his acting is well its not on par with Dalton (in other words he is more wooden- dont believe me watch QOS in which there is only 2 minutes of dialogue in a 30 minute action sequence)
Qantum of Solace the film is diffrent from the book mainly as the book is about bond and some bloke talking together while the film is a mess
The film process and product (which is what Bond has essentially become) needs to stop being so schizophrenic and decide who exactly the man is. I'm hoping Mendes is all over this!
Dalton had the same qualities, but missed the killer instinct which the book-Bond definately has, as does Craig's. What they also both share with the book-Bond is the lack of slap-stick comedy, as introduced by Connery in DAF, and taken to another level by Moore. Brosnan still had that, painfully obvious one-liners included.
Conners; danger, suaveness, elegant, virile, coldness and worldly sophistication
Sir Rog; more the Etonion dropout that Fleming had imagined
Brozz; sophistication
Craig; danger, virile
Laz; human
Dalton; close too Fleming’s 007, but he does not have the worldly sophistication that Fleming’s Bond has.
So in an ideal world the recipe for a prefect Bond should be about one part Dalton, one part Connery, plus just a dash of Moore.
:D
Look everyone, a member of 'CraigNotBond'! I don't think Craig is a thug at all. If you are worried about his hair color you obviously have more problems than you think. If you let things like that get in the way of one of the greatest Bond debuts to date then I am sad for you. I have no idea what so called thirty minute action sequence in QoS with "two minutes of dialogue" is either. Just go and find more to pick about on CraigNotBond. I also don't view Dalton as completely Fleming Bond. He has the brooding down to a T but a don't think he is completely in the muse of the literary James Bond. For me it is Sean or Dan. Sean had the charm, the style, and he actually bled. Same with Dan and so much more so. Between CR and QoS Dan takes a beating for his work. It is those two for me, and those two only.
But to be honest i don't care about being close to flemmings bond. 007 has changed so much that flemmings bond is pretty much lost already, flemming didn't like the way connery looked, so imagine how he would've felt about some of the others. This is the same reason why i don't care if there is a black bond.
Craig also (once again) reminds me of Connery and Dalton, but slightly a bit more thuggish as someone may have pointed out. He's a no-nonsense Bond for the most part, as with (once again) Connery and Dalton were before him most of the time, and it's easy to see the Fleming within him, but at this moment in time he's still some way off as the nearest they got to the original character
IMO: moore in TMWTGG, yes. Brosnan, i don't think he was close to flemming in DAD but i do think he was close to flemming in alot of scenes in his other films (especially TWINE). DAF, some of it is like flemming, parts of it are no where near.
100% in agreement. Before Craig came along I did think that Tim Dalton was closest in portrayal and loved the fact that he didn't play it for laughs. But DC has taken Bond to a whole new level of excellence and Fleming-esque accuracy in my humble opinion. And re: hair colour at least Dan Craig has his own hair!
I never thought connery was all that close to flemming. I liked connerys bond, he's my 2nd fave along with brosnan, but i find him very overrated. As for craig, he's close, but as i said, i don't think flemmings bond would be as rough n reckless as craig sometimes is. Thats why i think dalton is closest. But to be honest, like i said before, the character has changed so much i don't think being close to flemmings character matters that much anymore. This is why i don't despise moores bond like some people too, and why i don't care if craig is blonde, and why i don't care if they cast a black bond
The first thing that surprised me when re-reading the books again is just how...casual Bond can be in conversation and also in his mannerisms. He never comes across as prissy or too upper-class. Often he seems like "just one of the guys" which is why a lot of people liked Connery in the 60s - he was a two-fisted man's man (a trait that I think Craig comes closest to recapturing). He doesn't have supreme confidence - often times he's thinking that just maybe there's a ghost of a chance that something would work - and can be very poetic and a bit of a romantic. He doesn't engage in bad puns or even sardonic one-liners, and he doesn't seem to have endless riches to rely upon in his personal life. He isn't a know-it-all who has expert knowledge of every subject although he's surprisingly interested in obscure subjects, such as an Indian scientist who proposes that plants can "scream" to each other. He's dogged and determined and very good at being a detective or policeman.
Because of all of this I think that Connery, Lazenby, Dalton, and Craig come closest to Fleming's Bond but again they all touch on bits of the character instead of the whole. I feel bad for any actor who takes up the role of Bond who is a fan of Fleming; that character is so divorced from what cinema audiences expect that I can't imagine that being a popular characterization.
It being something completely different and therefore a new interpretation of Bond may be just what the public want or could be looking for one day, maybe even after Craig, so never say never.
I'd love to know which parts of the character Craig tries to focus on most, when playing Bond. Hopefully someone interviews him on Fleming's novels so we can hear his thoughts, one day. The press seem to always miss, or not even care, about this facet of Bond's origin because I think, they think they know him and have who he is down to a tee. A real shame.
As for actors, I thought Connery nailed it (in the early days) then after GF he became a bland superman...not at all like Fleming.
Lazenby did a good job with showing another side of Bond.
Moore had the sophistication down but with the exception of a couple of scenes his movies never showed the menace or danger and violence of Bond's world
Dalton and Craig does fine.
I never knew what the hell Pierce Brosnan was doing....
As for books versus films I must say that FRWL is the closest and most realistic of the book to film.
I see the Bond of the books and the Bond of the films as completely separate things.
The further we move from the time of the Bond books the more their stories wouldn't work now.
In general I agree with OHMSS69, although I think OHMSS is the closest and most realistic of the book to film.