« Buy the Gone in Sixty Seconds Mustang | Filmstalker | Stone says no more Basic Instinct »


Time to accept Craig as Bond

DanielCraig.jpgThe news is out today that the sequel for Casino Royale is underway. Barbara Broccoli is hard at work on an original script and Daniel Craig is already signed up and locked into his second Bond role. Meanwhile hardcore Bond fans are finding it incredibly hard to accept that Craig is the new face of Bond and they've started an online petition to collect names of people who will boycott the film until Pierce Brosnan is returned to the role.

Yet all this time, while the petition pushes over the fifteen thousand name mark, the filming continues on the new episode in the franchise, and Craig does his thing in front of the camera. Meanwhile he's been signed up for a sequel which is also in development.

So is it too late, and should these fans wake up to reality? Is it time to accept Daniel Craig as the new Bond?

Thinking back, was there this uproar when Roger Moore or Sean Connery were replaced? Why the fascination with Brosnan as Bond, and is that really the problem?

Perhaps not. This new Bond is set to be rugged, dangerous, dirty, and not like the suave womanising, wise cracking, over confident Bond we've come to know and love. Is it in fact this that is the problem? When George Lazenby took the reigns there were similar voices of dissent, and he too played a very different Bond. In that film Bond had married, put away his womanising ways and settled down, then he became a man of revenge and anger.

A similar thing happened with Timothy Dalton, his character was also settling down from the Bond ways. Not smoking, becoming monogamous, and much more serious than before. His outing too was cut somewhat short.

Okay, these actors have all been a turn away from the classic looking Bond that undoubtedly Brosnan epitomises, and both Moore and Connery come close to. Yet is it perhaps more that these actors have become Bond at a time when the character is undergoing major changes? Changes that the fan base just don't want to see?

Stepping back from the whole franchise for a moment, Hollywood is heavily relying on remakes and franchises, and let's face it the majority of these are very poor. In this time of sequels and prequels, perhaps it is a good thing to think that some franchises are not resting on a tried and tested formula, and are in fact trying to revitalise their series and characters? I think it is.

Bond has been the same for a very long time, and when the actor outlives his contract, becomes too old to play the part, or just simply moves on, we look to replace them with a carbon copy, a perfect Bond. It's come to the point where the films are following the same formula, only the gadgets and explosions get bigger. The time has come to change Bond or lose him forever.

What better way to change him than to add some realism to the character. By taking him back to an original Fleming story that has remained untainted by the film Bond treatment and filming it in the intended style, tough, hard and flawed. Frankly I'd rather that than lose the character.

With that, out goes the image of Bond we've sat through time and time again, for there's no way that character could work when returning to the source material of Fleming and adding that handful of reality. So why not accept a new Bond image? With a different hair colour, a girlfriend, human traits and flaws.

It's time to accept a new Bond, and it's time to accept Daniel Craig as that Bond. After all filming is underway and Craig is already hard at work. Why not welcome a renewed franchise rather than cling to an aging and flagging series?



Couldn't agree more. All of Pierce Brosnan's efforts have merged into one for me. It's time for something different, let's atleast give the guy a chance, if once it's out he sucks then fair enough. I doubt he will though surely the powers that be behind Bond have proved that they know what they are doing over the years...

I have accepted it since they announced it, I cant wait for the film to come out, for it to kick a lot of a** and prove the unbelievers wrong.

I never take to a new Bond at first. Just like cars. The only one I haven't changed my mind on was Dalton, but he played a more true Bond (as written by Fleming) than any other. Thus proving I know sh*t and am a heathen.

I liked Dalton too. I don't like Brosnan - too slimy.

Roger Moore was my favourite.

Dalton was rubbish, brosnan ok and connery unbearable.

This guy hasn't huge amount of "acting" to do anyways. its james bond for fecks sake. give me go.

But what´s wrong with Craig? He is a pefect dark Bond. A nice contrast to Brosnan.

I'm looking forward to seeing Craig as Bond. I never took to Brosnan and waited to see the last Bond flick until it was on cable. Even then I couldn't sit through it - man, it was awful.

there are so many things in life one can never accept, like hypocrisy and bestiality... and craig as bond

But I thought you said that the Bond films are... Oh whatever!

The last I heard he has been signed up for a 2nd film already. Now why did they do that, surely they could have waited until Casino Royale came out and see the reception to it?

Is it time to accept Daniel Craig as James Bond?

No, he can only be accepted or rejected when we have actually seen the film.

If audiences do not take to him then he will not be long for the role.

One of the few occassions I have to agree with you Morbius. If Casino Royale fails, the main culprit will be due to the audience not being taken to Mr. Craig, so if that's the case, they should seriously consider getting a new Bond, either James Purefoy or get a Scottish Bond in Gerard Butler.

I know what you're saying Morbius, but by then it's really too late. The film has been made, your money has been taken. From the Studio side at that point, who cares?

My comments were more about those who are *still* arguing for Brosnan to be put in that role and not Craig - that's what I mean by it's time to accept it.

Yet you can't say he is the main culprit if the film fails Simone. It could be the director, script writer, editor, studio, there are many things to blame for a film failing.

As Morbius says though, we will know in time for certain...but since we're here we have to talk about it! ;)

"Yet you can't say he is the main culprit if the film fails Simone. It could be the director, script writer, editor, studio, there are many things to blame for a film failing".

I realised that too after posting it Richard, that would be too cruel to put the blame on him, when actually, I never really had a problem with Craig.

I agree thats it's time to draw a line over the Bronson era. It's not as if Connery ever came back to do another Bond movie after quitting following 'You Only Live Twice' is it? ;-)

Simone, how utterly predictable that YOU would pick those two actors as possible future Bonds. :-P

Gypsy, Nice One.

Incidently all jokes aside I am not arguing over bringing Bronson back but I do have misgivings over Craig.

Bronson? Like Charles Bronson? You really meant Brosnan right?

Right Simobe, Brosnan.

Bringing Bronson back, now THAT would be something! :-)

Simobe is a nice name, you can start calling me that now too.

Yeah, I guessed you would notice that. Oh, for an edit function!!!

I will miss Brosnan as Bond but I can't wait for Daniel Craig in the new movie. He is a great choice.

I just hope they bring back Cleese as Q and a new Moneypenny in the film following Casino Royale. Also, I think it's a bit of a risk giving 40 year fans a "reboot" and disregarding the first 20 films. Even so, Daniel Craig is they way to go.

Looking forward to the Bond feature!!!


Add a comment


Site Navigation

Latest Stories



Vidahost image

Latest Reviews


Filmstalker Poll


Subscribe with...

AddThis Feed Button

Windows Live Alerts

Site Feeds

Subscribe to Filmstalker:

Filmstalker's FeedAll articles

Filmstalker's Reviews FeedReviews only

Filmstalker's Reviews FeedAudiocasts only

Subscribe to the Filmstalker Audiocast on iTunesAudiocasts on iTunes

Feed by email:


My Skype status


Help Out


Site Information

Creative Commons License
© www.filmstalker.co.uk

Give credit to your sources. Quote and credit, don't steal

Movable Type 3.34