MovieChat Forums > No Time to Die (2021) Discussion > Was Daniel Craig Really Closer To "The B...

Was Daniel Craig Really Closer To "The Bond Of The Books" Or Was He Just Garbage?

posted 6 months ago by FootOfDavros (6905)
6 replies | jump to latest

Daniel Craig is widely considered to have been a garbage addition to those who've played Bond.

However, some argue (as it it gives him a pass but that that is another debate in itself) that he's more like Ian Fleming's "original character" in the books.

Interestingly though, most people claiming this haven't actually read the books and more likely make this judgement based upon Fleming's drawing of Bond. I'm not even sure how that works - I think it may be because Fleming drew him with a large scar across his cheek which gives him a certain roughness / ugliness which matches Craig?

But that's a drawing isn't it, not the actual books themselves, so what is it specifically in the books which allows Craig a "pass"?

He's not slim, tall and dark haired, as per the books. He's not a chain smoker, as per the books. He doesn't drink Scotch and soda, as per the books. He's not an excessive womaniser (famously toned down in fact), as per the books.

I'm pretty sure the Craig "Bond"'s character soap opera antics - e.g. relationship with Blofeld, over familiarity with M, family / kid, etc - were definitely not as per the books.

So asides from the humour and gadgets being removed - which aren't actually things which were explicitly IN the books, rather than things which was removed from the films - what is it that actually makes him MORE like the Bond of the books?

[–] DMT (3916) 5 months ago

yeah his acting is over the top and cheesy. I like Sean Connery's version of the films

[–] pjl69 (2453) 4 months ago

Never read the books, so I don't care how close he is to the source material. I enjoyed watching his portrayal of Bond, but the direction they took storywise after Quantum of Solace was garbage. Sam Mendes' movies were a misstep. However, No Time to Die was better than I expected after all. It did the best it could to salvage rubbish storyline. When the time comes, I hope they recast the whole supporting cast (Moneypenny, M, Q). I didn't like them and their increased participation of Bond's missions.

[–] FootOfDavros (6905) 4 months ago

...and their increased participation of Bond's missions.

Absolutely agree with that - Less "James Bond And Friends" more "James Bond".

Not sure if I'll bother start watching them again though. Gave with with Skyfall and from what I've read doesn't seem like that was a bad decision...

[–] TandyMan (10434) 4 months ago

He's rubbish. The only similarity with the books is he's a bit more ruthless in a fight and a bit cold in demeanor. Both of which Dalton already done did.

[–] thingmakersback (1238) 4 months ago

He's not slim, tall and dark haired, as per the books. He's not a chain smoker, as per the books. He doesn't drink Scotch and soda, as per the books. He's not an excessive womaniser (famously toned down in fact), as per the books.

I don't think the fair hair is a problem and his craggy looks are in his favor. He may not be as tall as previous Bonds but it really never seemed that way and he's slim as you might want. Bond in the books drank variously... and is often picky about the specifics of a Martini or what constitutes excellence in champagne. The movies had been toning down the womanizing since the '70s, probably. Ian Fleming liked to insert a lot of what almost sound like nerdy details about drinks and food.

I'm pretty sure the Craig "Bond"'s character soap opera antics - e.g. relationship with Blofeld, over familiarity with M, family / kid, etc - were definitely not as per the books.

You'd be right about that. The writing of these films has gone downhill from Skyfall on - I rather like Quantum of Solace aside from the goofy camerawork and editing. The relationship of Bond to M in the books is fairly well depicted in the Connery era. Inventing the relationship to Blofeld was an appalling bit of writing. BUT - I do not mind the child and family business. All of that can be seen as a coda, which would happen after the events of the novels. Fleming would never have written it; he had unfortunate contempt for his own creation and would probably not have been capable of writing him a finale as good as what he got in the last film.

[–] thingmakersback (1238) 4 months ago

So asides from the humour and gadgets being removed - which aren't actually things which were explicitly IN the books, rather than things which was removed from the films - what is it that actually makes him MORE like the Bond of the books?

You are on to the thing that does make him a bit more like the Bond of the books. Humor was a very limited thing in the books along with gadgets. Bond was very serious and always somewhat conflicted about what he did. This came across perfectly in Casino Royale, which is the best of the Daniel Craig Bond films and, arguably, the best Bond film ever. Craig conveys a sense of complexity and while there is a painfully soap opera-like aspect in the writing of the later films, it gives him a chance to be a less cartoony Bond and therefore more like the books.