Daniel Craig has now played Bond as long as Connery did

JEFF62JEFF62 Posts: 5,093
Forum Member
I still think of Daniel Craig as the "new" Bond. Then I realised it is nine years since he made his debut in Casino Royale. That means he has now equalled Sean Connery who also played the role for nine years from 1962 - 1971. (Yes I know he came back in 1983 for the unofficial film so that technically means he played the role over a period of 21 years.) But in terms of the official series I can't believe he will soon have beaten Connery. Brosnan did four films in seven years so Craig has already surpassed that. So another three to four years in the role and he could actually equal or beat Roger Moore and become the longest serving Bond actor. I suppose its the long gap between films nowadays that has helped. Maybe if there had been a Bond film in 2010 and this was his fifth then maybe he would be calling it a day.
«134

Comments

  • Ben_CaesarBen_Caesar Posts: 307
    Forum Member
    He's EASILY the best Bond ever. Much better than the awful campiness of Moore (even though Moore still has the advantage of appearing in more Bond movies...). Casino Royale alone is a more comprehensive Bond movie than any of Connery's flicks. People look at his era with rose tinted glasses when the reality is Connery made 2 good Bond movies, the others were rubbish. Plus Craig is the only one you could really believe in being this super spy and his suaveness is just a bonus.

    Now the question is whether he can leave on a high. Connery outstayed his welcome as did Pierce Brosnan and Roger Moore (though Moore was never a remotely good Bond anyway haha!). I still think Craig has one more in him after Spectre. Spectre looks soooo good :cool:
  • RebelScumRebelScum Posts: 16,008
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    JEFF62 wrote: »
    I still think of Daniel Craig as the "new" Bond. Then I realised it is nine years since he made his debut in Casino Royale. That means he has now equalled Sean Connery who also played the role for nine years from 1962 - 1971. (Yes I know he came back in 1983 for the unofficial film so that technically means he played the role over a period of 21 years.) But in terms of the official series I can't believe he will soon have beaten Connery. Brosnan did four films in seven years so Craig has already surpassed that. So another three to four years in the role and he could actually equal or beat Roger Moore and become the longest serving Bond actor. I suppose its the long gap between films nowadays that has helped. Maybe if there had been a Bond film in 2010 and this was his fifth then maybe he would be calling it a day.
    The way I see it, once Bond - always Bond. Connery, for example, officially played the character for 9 years, but he's "been" Bond by association for over 50. That's why current the Bond will always feel like the "new" Bond.
  • Virgil TracyVirgil Tracy Posts: 26,805
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    but this is Craig's last Bond isn't it ?
  • koantemplationkoantemplation Posts: 101,293
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Ben_Caesar wrote: »
    Now the question is whether he can leave on a high. Connery outstayed his welcome as did Pierce Brosnan and Roger Moore (though Moore was never a remotely good Bond anyway haha!). I still think Craig has one more in him after Spectre. Spectre looks soooo good :cool:

    I found the last two Craig Bond films very empty.

    Quantum and Skyfall, just felt like set pieces with little heart to them, more like Bourne films rather than Bond films.

    The first two films were better.
  • ASIFZEDASIFZED Posts: 1,388
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Believe he's contracted to one more Bond after Spectre. Will be good for him to exit on a successful 'trilogy' (hopefully). I think everyone wants to forget about QoS...
  • Ben_CaesarBen_Caesar Posts: 307
    Forum Member
    I found the last two Craig Bond films very empty.

    Quantum and Skyfall, just felt like set pieces with little heart to them, more like Bourne films rather than Bond films.

    The first two films were better.

    Quantum of Solace definitely was a hollow movie but even here Craig carried himself off very well. Skyfall was a terrific nod to Bond's history (being the 50th anniversay and all...) whilst remaining forward thinking. It's the movie Die Another Day should have been. Plus a classic villain in Silva and the great visual work by Deakins makes it a classic Bond movie.

    The Bourne movies were a good kick up the arse for the Bond movies (though I'll admit they went too far with Quantum...). But there are PLENTY of great classic Bond movies in CR and Skyfall. Even in QoS when Bond confronts the Quantum organization at the opera, that was classic Bond.

    Plus Craig would annihalate Connery in a fight :cool:
  • koantemplationkoantemplation Posts: 101,293
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Ben_Caesar wrote: »
    Quantum of Solace definitely was a hollow movie but even here Craig carried himself off very well. Skyfall was a terrific nod to Bond's history (being the 50th anniversay and all...) whilst remaining forward thinking. It's the movie Die Another Day should have been. Plus a classic villain in Silva and the great visual work by Deakins makes it a classic Bond movie.

    The Bourne movies were a good kick up the arse for the Bond movies (though I'll admit they went too far with Quantum...). But there are PLENTY of great classic Bond movies in CR and Skyfall. Even in QoS when Bond confronts the Quantum organization at the opera, that was classic Bond.

    Plus Craig would annihalate Connery in a fight :cool:

    I preferred 'Die Another Day' to 'Skyfall'.

    Yes it was OTT and a bit camp, but it had everything I prefer in a bond film.

    I like the realism Craig has brought to the franchise but it just needs a bit more gadgetry and world domination, rather than just spy vs spy stuff.
  • ShaunIOWShaunIOW Posts: 11,303
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I've found the Daniel Craig Bond films to be quite boring compared toi the others, and unlike the others not ones I've any desire to rewatch.
  • clm2071clm2071 Posts: 6,637
    Forum Member
    RebelScum wrote: »
    The way I see it, once Bond - always Bond. Connery, for example, officially played the character for 9 years, but he's "been" Bond by association for over 50. That's why current the Bond will always feel like the "new" Bond.

    Not forgetting his character in The Rock is basically James Bond
  • AlrightmateAlrightmate Posts: 73,120
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I think Daniel Craig is good as Bond, in fact I think they've all been good one way or another, but I think he's very similar to the Timothy Dalton Bond.
    Because even though people often compare Craig to Connery as a rough and tough Bond, Connery also delivered many humorous lines. Not to the extent of Moore, and not so much with the corny punchlines, but Connery's Bond frequently displayed a dark and sarcastic sense of humour. Craig seems a bit more serious, like Dalton.

    So even though I like Craig as Bond, I wouldn't personally say he was better.
  • Ben_CaesarBen_Caesar Posts: 307
    Forum Member
    I think Daniel Craig is good as Bond, in fact I think they've all been good one way or another, but I think he's very similar to the Timothy Dalton Bond.
    Because even though people often compare Craig to Connery as a rough and tough Bond, Connery also delivered many humorous lines. Not to the extent of Moore, and not so much with the corny punchlines, but Connery's Bond frequently displayed a dark and sarcastic sense of humour. Craig seems a bit more serious, like Dalton.

    So even though I like Craig as Bond, I wouldn't personally say he was better.

    Dalton was definitely the first 'serious' Bond. There was a lot of grit about him. In some ways he's the true precursor to Craig's era. But Craig is easily the most 'complete' Bond to date. He is tough as nails and actually looks convincing in a fight. But he can also be really smooth without coming off like a complete buffoon like Moore did or even sometimes Connery/Brosnan.

    Craig is the only one who can act too so his Bond has another layer of depth his predecessors never had.
  • mgvsmithmgvsmith Posts: 16,452
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    ShaunIOW wrote: »
    I've found the Daniel Craig Bond films to be quite boring compared toi the others, and unlike the others not ones I've any desire to rewatch.

    I tend to agree with you. The Bourne movies have had a strong influence on the later Bond movies and the humour has suffered. I don't find myself wanting to revisit any of the Craig outings that much.

    Also the idea that Daniel Craig has been Bond for as long as Connery isn't quite right. Craig has played the character in three movies which means he hasn't appeared on screen as James Bond as long as Connery or Moore for example.
  • Dub2Dub2 Posts: 2,866
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I think history will be unkind to him.

    His thuggish blonde eastern European looks are not classic James Bond, and i reckon future fans will look back in dismay at such an ordinary actor attaining such longevity in the role.
  • Ben_CaesarBen_Caesar Posts: 307
    Forum Member
    Dub2 wrote: »
    I think history will be unkind to him.

    His thuggish blonde eastern European looks are not classic James Bond, and i reckon future fans will look back in dismay at such an ordinary actor attaining such longevity in the role.

    Eastern European? At least Craig didn't have to wear a pathetic toupe like Connery lol! And Craig looked far more English than the caked up oraganutanesque Connery with his awful makeup. And the less said about the even more horrid look of acting 'asian' in You Only Live Twice, the better :D

    DC is the definitive Bond.
  • JEFF62JEFF62 Posts: 5,093
    Forum Member
    mgvsmith wrote: »
    I tend to agree with you. The Bourne movies have had a strong influence on the later Bond movies and the humour has suffered. I don't find myself wanting to revisit any of the Craig outings that much.

    Also the idea that Daniel Craig has been Bond for as long as Connery isn't quite right. Craig has played the character in three movies which means he hasn't appeared on screen as James Bond as long as Connery or Moore for example.

    My point is that he has been employed in the role of as long as Connery was. In fact if we are being picky you could say it is longer. Connery left in 1967 after five years and then came back for a one off in 1971 so it could be argued that Connery was employed in the role for six years in total. Craig has never left the series in nine years. But yes he has made fewer movies and has not appeared on screen as much as Connery did in nine years.
  • MrMarpleMrMarple Posts: 3,424
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I found the last two Craig Bond films very empty.

    Quantum and Skyfall, just felt like set pieces with little heart to them, more like Bourne films rather than Bond films.

    The first two films were better.

    Erm, am I being thick here, but Quantum is the second film.
    How can it be better while at the same time you didn't like it?
  • Irma BuntIrma Bunt Posts: 1,847
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Dub2 wrote: »
    I think history will be unkind to him.

    His thuggish blonde eastern European looks are not classic James Bond, and i reckon future fans will look back in dismay at such an ordinary actor attaining such longevity in the role.

    I couldn't disagree more. If we're talking about the best Bond - which will always be subjective - I would like to think of who embodies Ian Fleming's James Bond. For me, that is Daniel Craig.

    Fleming's Bond was not a tuxedoed playboy swanning around the world pushing buttons with a martini in one hand and a merry wisecrack for every occasion. Fleming's Bond was a paid assassin on the side of the "good" guys. He was a man who didn't like killing but liked to do his job well. He was frequently beset by moral doubts and questions about his profession.

    Ian Fleming didn't approve of Connery. After their first meeting, Fleming told a family member: "That was a thousand miles away from my idea of James Bond. Everything is wrong - the face, the accent and the hair." But I'm sure he would have approved of Craig, who embodies the character perfectly.
  • RebelScumRebelScum Posts: 16,008
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Dub2 wrote: »
    I think history will be unkind to him.
    Despite the mixed reception Dalton received at the time, history has been kind to him. It's often said Craig has a lot in common with Dalton in terms of grit. On that basis alone, I'd dissagree with your opinion.
  • Ben_CaesarBen_Caesar Posts: 307
    Forum Member
    RebelScum wrote: »
    Despite the mixed reception Dalton received at the time, history has been kind to him. It's often said Craig has a lot in common with Dalton in terms of grit. On that basis alone, I'd dissagree with your opinion.

    He doesn't even need 'time'. This guy is already an insanely popular Bond and it's his gritty portrayal along with decent movies around him that have rebooted Bond for a new generation. At worst he's considered the second best Bond by some. There was hate for Craig at the start when he was known as the 'Blonde Bond' but he blew everyone away with Casino Royale. Even when Quantum of Solace received a bashing, Daniel Craig was shielded from criticism because he was the one excellent thing about the movie. And of Skyfall was simply the biggest Bond success to date.
  • bass55bass55 Posts: 18,319
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    If Spectre is as good as Skyfall (or better) then Craig will arguably be the first Bond to have three awesome movies under his belt. To have only had one lacklustre movie (Quantum of Solace) is a rare achievement for a Bond; Connery had Thunderball, Diamonds are Forever, Never Say Never Again; Moore had Golden Gun, Moonraker; and Brosnan only had one decent movie (Goldeneye), poor thing.

    Craig is a great Bond and has rejuvenated the Bond series for a new generation. I seriously hope he carries on beyond Spectre. He's got at least two more movies in him after this one, especially when you consider Moore was pushing 60 by the time he left the role.
  • Virgil TracyVirgil Tracy Posts: 26,805
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I don't like to guess the audience , but my impression is that Craig is the most popular one with women .
  • OsusanaOsusana Posts: 7,461
    Forum Member
    DC is the best Bond ever in my opinion and I do not know why they are talking about only one more film?
    Both Connery and Moore played the roles until a much older age and were in less than top physical condition for most of their films
  • ChparmarChparmar Posts: 6,367
    Forum Member
    I probably disagree with most people on this thread: I think Craig is the worst Bond ever. Not having the stature is one thing, but coming across as frustrated (sexually?!) spy is just not cool as all!

    If you wanted a Bond that more closely resembles Fleming's writings that surely Lazenby was the man?

    It's funny when Dalton took on the role, the audience was split 50/50 on Connery/Moore. Now Sir Roger has been lost in the discussion and people easily labeling his movies as 'camp'. Though in reality Sir Roger had everything: he had the voice, the body, the hair and the general gentleman personality that makes a great Bond. His movies also, feature a greater variety of emotions, better bad guys and sidekicks.

    Finally he's also the Bond that bedded the most women by far and all of them were the right age!
  • yaristamanyaristaman Posts: 1,840
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ben_Caesar wrote: »
    Dalton was definitely the first 'serious' Bond. There was a lot of grit about him. In some ways he's the true precursor to Craig's era. But Craig is easily the most 'complete' Bond to date. He is tough as nails and actually looks convincing in a fight. But he can also be really smooth without coming off like a complete buffoon like Moore did or even sometimes Connery/Brosnan.

    Craig is the only one who can act too so his Bond has another layer of depth his predecessors never had.

    Disagree completely. You may prefer Craig but to say the others cannot act is complete BS
  • bass55bass55 Posts: 18,319
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Chparmar wrote: »
    I probably disagree with most people on this thread: I think Craig is the worst Bond ever. Not having the stature is one thing, but coming across as frustrated (sexually?!) spy is just not cool as all!

    If you wanted a Bond that more closely resembles Fleming's writings that surely Lazenby was the man?

    It's funny when Dalton took on the role, the audience was split 50/50 on Connery/Moore. Now Sir Roger has been lost in the discussion and people easily labeling his movies as 'camp'. Though in reality Sir Roger had everything: he had the voice, the body, the hair and the general gentleman personality that makes a great Bond. His movies also, feature a greater variety of emotions, better bad guys and sidekicks.

    Finally he's also the Bond that bedded the most women by far and all of them were the right age!

    I have always thought Roger Moore was an underrated Bond, particularly during his later outings when he really came into his own. For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy are both thoroughly entertaining, and I rather liked the presentation of 007 as an ageing, worldly-wise hero from a bygone era of gentleman spies. The Moore era also had, hands down, the most interesting villains: Scaramanga, Jaws, Mayday, Zorin, Dr Kananga, Hugo Drax, etc.

    But then I love Daniel Craig's interpretation of the character too. He's brought something new to the role, and his tenure has given the series new life. After Dalton, I think Craig's Bond is the one that most closely resembles that of the Fleming literature; not physically of course, but the character is spot on.
Sign In or Register to comment.