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
Why Craig's Bond isn't as close to Fleming as you think?
Recently, I went away and read and analysed Flemings books, and I must tell you, Craig isn't as close to Flemings Bond as most of the people on this forum make him out to be. First I will say that he is the coldest of the Bond's, which is one point for Flemingness, but he is not as debonair and as calculating. Flemings Bond has to find specific ways to kill the villains while Craig just bashes down a door and beats up some guys. Flemings Bond is also twice as witty and sharp as Craig with a better sense of humour.
Also I have a quote from Edgar Fleming, Ian Flemings grandson:
"Craig is just a muscle headed action hero who is playing Bond as a muscle headed action hero. This isn't grandpa's creation. The only demographic that likes him are the kids and the brain dead (which are often one and the same)."
You have to admit he has a point, all kids these days like in movies is action and just that, nothing else. So he gets the popular votes from kids and my parents and all my relatives think that Daniel Craig is the worst Bond, which shows how perspectives are different, I personally love Craig as Bond, although he's not even in my top three, I think that Flemings Bond is a mix of Connery and Dalton, none of Craig.
Also I have a quote from Edgar Fleming, Ian Flemings grandson:
"Craig is just a muscle headed action hero who is playing Bond as a muscle headed action hero. This isn't grandpa's creation. The only demographic that likes him are the kids and the brain dead (which are often one and the same)."
You have to admit he has a point, all kids these days like in movies is action and just that, nothing else. So he gets the popular votes from kids and my parents and all my relatives think that Daniel Craig is the worst Bond, which shows how perspectives are different, I personally love Craig as Bond, although he's not even in my top three, I think that Flemings Bond is a mix of Connery and Dalton, none of Craig.
^ 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
21st Century Bond is a more fitting tag for Craig. That said, I think the tone of Skyfall could easily have been inspired from a Fleming novel.
I think Edgar Fleming's quote is wide off the mark.
Age is no reason to like or dislike Craig's take on the character. I'm 30 and have been a Bond fan all my life, I like Craig. My mother is turning 61 next month and has been a Bond fan since the beginning, books included, she loves Craig. Same thing with my 85 year old grandfather, fan as you might guess since the very start, he adores Craig!
Another thing, as far as I'm aware Fleming has no grandchildren.
Edgar Fleming is entitled to his opinion and I do agree that Craig is perhaps too "working class" to represent Fleming's Bond. That said the comment I bolded is a rather unfair generalisation.
Personally there are aspects of the character I think Craig "got" (or was allowed to get?) better than Dalton. First, I could buy Craig as a serial gambler and "philanderer" more than Dalton (Fleming did indeed describe Bond as such). Second I never saw Dalton downing drinks in one gulp in the way Fleming's character did - and indeed Craig does.
I can actually see where Edgar is coming from believe it or not (would Craig "blend in" in a place like Blades? Not sure!) but that sort of brash comment isn't particularly insightful or thought-provoking.
To be honest I don't picture any of the actors consistantly when reading/listening to the novels anyway. All I know is the person I picture the least is Moore.
That said, if the test is proximity to Fleming's literary interpretation - bizarrely enough I find Lazenby fits the bill. That said, I think that the fact that OHMSS the movie is so close to the novel influences this a lot.
Dalton has to be the closest thing to the books, by far. I do think you achieve that combo with a mix of Connery and Craig though. However the more I read the more I just see literary Bond as literary Bond, it's own separate entity that I enjoy in a different way I enjoy the films.
I could smell a rat as soon as I read grandson. A simple google search has revealed this quote came from a spoof article =)) There is no grandson!
http://www.thespoof.com/news/entertainment-gossip/45809/daniel-craig-voted-worst-james-bond-of-all-times
Before naming a source people should check it it actually exists.
But who cares? As I stated in several other threads Craig's Bond would not be top of anybody's Dinner Party's guest list.
No culture, no communication skills, no thoughts (I see a bloody ship).
Hahaha! Blown! Well sniffed out.
Damn these spoof articles, convincing Naive people like me to post the quote, I don't use wikipedia much and so would not know much about Flemings personal life, but if he did have a grandson, that is what he might have said.
It baffles me how many people on here take that line out of context. It's even worse than CR's Shaken or stirred? "Do I look like I give a damn?" Put the line in context!
Hilariously ironic.
I highly doubt that. But it is something a Craig hater would want everyone to believe. Not saying you are, but just in case ;)
This. Why would Fleming's grandson say something like that? Craig's Bond is an advertisement for the books. I can't help but wonder how many copies the Casino Royale the movie sold to a generation who didn't even know it existed.
Yes, it's incredible like people pay no attention to what they are watching. Bond is waiting for Q (whom he doesn't know), a young man sits next to him and starts talking about art. Naturally Bond tries to get him away as quickly as possible so that he can continue waiting for Q. It just happens that the young man is Q! Simple.
Or not!
Lesson number one: never quote something if you can't get a hold of the source.
Lesson number two: don't try to guess to opinion of someone who doesn't exist!
Lesson number three: don't trust Wikipedia either.
Its quite clear if you watch the scene that Craig was trying to get rid of this geeky stranger sitting next to him. Just after he says it Bond says "excuse me!" and begins to get up before Q stops him and introduces himself.
I can understand if you don't consider Craig the most sophisticated bloke but to cite a scene incorrectly weakens your argument.
Fleming
He’s certainly got little in the way of politics, but I should think what politics he has are just a little bit left of centre. And he’s got little culture. He’s a man of action, and he reads books on golf, and so on—when he reads anything. I quite agree that he’s not a person of much social attractiveness. But then, I didn’t intend for him to be a particularly likable person. He’s a cipher, a blunt instrument in the hands of government.
Would Craig's Bond be interested in Golf? I'm not sure but the rest I can (sort of) see in Daniel.
Bond isn't naturally sophisticated anyway. He can PRETEND to a certain degree but he isn't in the same sort of league as someone like M (who is a genuinely refined old buffer). He'd rather get drunk and shag about than go to a dinner party.
Bond isn't a gormet (Fleming explicitely states that in one of his books - can't be certain but I think its Live and Let) and neither is he particularly likeable. But he is indulgant!
All of this is very true. Bond is obviously waiting for Q, doesn't think this guy is him, and is trying to get rid of him. When you read Grant's prior posts, you tend to understand his motivation here.
Fleming Bond and Cinema Bond are two different things. Cinema Bond got culture from Terence Young. Yet people confuse the two all the time.
Unlike Brosnan, Craig has a solid understanding of Fleming Bond and has stated he's read the novels but as I see it, that was much more Dalton's bag as far as bringing that to the big screen. Craig comes more under Cinema Bond, but he's trying to be more like early Connery than Moore and Brosnan, and he is succeeding in the eyes of the public if box office to date is any indication.
I can sort of see where Grant is coming from (I still think Fleming would have labelled Craig as too working class) but to argue that Craig's Bond has "no culture" when the author himself has (apparently) said Bond was never meant to be particularly cultured doesn't make sense.
I think some people are moulding the literary and other actors takes on the character into one in order to make Craig look unsuitable.
Reading what Fleming said minus the Golf I think Craig's pretty much got it nailed, Bond isn't supposed to turn heads or stand out he's supposed to blend and all this I don't want to be Craig's Bond's talk that rears it's head from time to time is pretty redundant this day and age.
It would be utterly dated and quite offensive for any actor to play Bond like Moore or does and insufferable know it all playboy make for a credible 007 in 2013 to some?
If you don't want to be Craig's Bond then that is progress in my eyes, outside of the 12-14 year old schoolboys amongst us anyone who is an adult wanting to be Bond needs serious psychiatric help.
He's not especially "likeable" or "cultured. He's just a good looking but bland man. Thats pretty much it (Fleming did choose the name because it sounded flat after all).
Even funnier is that @Sammm04 is using the comment of a RELATIVE of Fleming to argue some point, which is about as reliable as the comment of any weak minded fool on the internet. Great job there. Nobody can say for certain whether Dan is or isn't like Bond except Ian Fleming himself, and he never got the opportunity. His thick grandson who didn't create the character or knows his motivations backwards and forwards can't tell us anything worthwhile.
Just the same old, same old: People trying to criticize Dan the only way they can, by gripping at straws.
Read the thread again.
Yes, it makes sense. Daniel is handsome, and Pierce obviously so. :)
Am I supposed to feel enlightened? Because I'm not. On top of that, one argument has been proved false already (Fleming's grandson) and untold others because some can't read scenes well.
Too working class? What does that have to do with anything? Who you are isn't who you play (though it can be a great method acting tool), so I don't understand how that matters at all. Sean had it damn rough, but guess what: He set the Bond standard and gave a timeless performance while helping the baby franchise get its legs to survive for decades and onwards.
That wasn't meant to be a dig towards Dan. I just have a feeling that Fleming - being the snob he was - would have wanted someone who LOOKED more refined to play the part onscreen.
It's well documented that Connery wasn't Flemings original choice for the part.
Agreed wholeheartedly with your thoughts here. I bolded the third paragraph because there are people here who would agree with that, Brosnan being the latest example. I genuinely think they'd prefer style over substance. Much I love Connery when he does it, I think he's the only one who can really get away with that.
That said, he would have loved Dalton.