› ›

What do you think? Is Daniel Craig in Skyfall close to Sean Connery's portrayal of the character?

007bond762007bond762
edited November 2012 in Skyfall Posts: 71
I think he has definetly some of the traits and characteristics of Sean Connery's Bond especialy in Skyfall . I think Daniel Craig is the Sean Connery of the Bond 2.0 era
«1

Comments

  • SixFour59SixFour59
    edited November 2012 Posts: 2
    Connery started the series off, Craig will carry it forward.
  • doubleonothingdoubleonothing Los Angeles Moderator
    Posts: 864
    MOVED to Skyfall

    Perhaps you might use some punctuation in your thread title to help clarify it, too?
  • JamesBondJamesBond
    Posts: 669
    007bond762 wrote:
    I think he has definetly some of the traits and characteristics of Sean Connery's Bond especialy in Skyfall . I think Daniel Craig is the Sean Connery of the Bond 2.0 era

    You must be joking.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,243
    I have to be honest. I think Craig has given a totally unique take on the character and at no point was I thinking he is like Connery. That's in a good way. The personalities are so different as men that I do not see it.

    Sure scenes with the DB5 can make some think that, but if you truly watch Craig's work overall in Bond, it is not really like the Connery era. And why should it be?

    Plus Craig's acting style is very different to Connery's.



  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    JamesBond wrote:
    007bond762 wrote:
    I think he has definetly some of the traits and characteristics of Sean Connery's Bond especialy in Skyfall . I think Daniel Craig is the Sean Connery of the Bond 2.0 era

    You must be joking.
    YOU must be joking.
  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    Posts: 803
    Well, I'll likely get skewered by some here for suggesting this, but I have found Craig's performance in the role for more interesting and enjoyable than what Connery did with the role.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    NO, Craig is no Connery and as such will never achieve Connery's greatness. ANd like JimThompson this is my humble opinion.
  • JamesBondJamesBond
    Posts: 669
    SaintMark wrote:
    NO, Craig is no Connery and as such will never achieve Connery's greatness.

    That's what I'm thinking of.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,243
    JimThompson45 wrote:
    Well, I'll likely get skewered by some here for suggesting this, but I have found Craig's performance in the role for more interesting and enjoyable than what Connery did with the role.

    That proves to me why Mr Craig is very unique. Just like Dalton in his era. In some ways I think SF was the two fingers being put up to those who think the old style will be back in the way it once was.


    Had he been a Connery clone then I doubt you would be saying that. And of course he is not.

    Craig is no more a Connery clone than Dalton was. They are actors who stand and fall on their own interpretations.

    I think in all honesty, I did not really see Connery style in SF. And if I did, it was nothing more than superficial as well as fleeting.

    How Craig handles Severine at the bar is nothing like the way Connery's Bond would. Craig had this hypnotic intensity in that scene. And Craig's body language is very different too.

  • JamesBondJamesBond
    Posts: 669
    No offence, people, but Dalton and Craig were not even close to Connery's 007. If you want to know who's Connery's clone, it's Lazenby. And that is not a good clone, badly delivered.
  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    edited November 2012 Posts: 803
    acoppola wrote:
    That proves to me why Mr Craig is very unique. Had he been a Connery clone then I doubt you would be saying that. And of course he is not.

    Craig is no more a Connery clone than Dalton was. They are actors who stand and fall on their own interpretations.

    I think in all honesty, I did not really see Connery style in SF. And if I did, it was nothing more than superficial as well as fleeting.

    How Craig handles Severine at the bar is nothing like the way Connery's Bond would. Craig had this hypnotic intensity in that scene. And Craig's body language is very different too.
    Pet peeve alert: "Very unique" is redundant; something is ether unique or it isn't. :P

    As to your point, Skyfall is tailored to Craig; I'm not sure Connery could have pulled off what Craig did in that movie. That's nothing against Connery; he's a fine actor, too. But Connery trying to impersonate/replicate what Craig does would be every bit as off-the-mark as Craig trying to impersonate/replicate what Connery did.
  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    Posts: 803
    JamesBond wrote:
    No offence, people, but Dalton and Craig were not even close to Connery's 007. If you want to know who's Connery's clone, it's Lazenby. And that is not a good clone, badly delivered.
    No offense, but you couldn't be more wrong. :-P
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,243
    JimThompson45 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    That proves to me why Mr Craig is very unique. Had he been a Connery clone then I doubt you would be saying that. And of course he is not.

    Craig is no more a Connery clone than Dalton was. They are actors who stand and fall on their own interpretations.

    I think in all honesty, I did not really see Connery style in SF. And if I did, it was nothing more than superficial as well as fleeting.

    How Craig handles Severine at the bar is nothing like the way Connery's Bond would. Craig had this hypnotic intensity in that scene. And Craig's body language is very different too.
    Pet peeve alert: "Very unique" is redundant; something is ether unique or it isn't. :P

    As to your point, Skyfall is tailored to Craig; I'm not sure Connery could have pulled off what Craig did in that movie. That's nothing against Connery; he's a fine actor, too. But Connery trying to impersonate/replicate what Craig does would be every bit as off-the-mark as Craig trying to impersonate/replicate what Connery did.

    SF is a Craig exclusive. It would not suit the more relaxed Connery style.

    I think some give Connery credit for everything even when it is not deserved. Connery gets credit for his era and a huge credit it is no doubt.

    But I think out of all the successors, Dalton and Craig truly went against the grain of fits like a glove Bond. They both in their own ways drew a line in the sand.

    Why I like SF better to CR, is because in CR, I could see Campbell forcing some scenes onto Craig and Campbell at the time of filming had huge leverage not being the newcomer. The media backlash no doubt gave Campbell even greater control over Craig.

    I bet you any money that Craig preferred working with Mendes to Campbell. My assumption but I really see a vastly different Bond than his first film. And nothing to do with it being his third because brilliant actors get things right on any film they do.


    What do I mean? I do not think Craig told Spielberg on the Munich set, that by the third film he will get the character right. Only in Bond lore is the third film seen as a magical milestone which does not exist like Santa Claus never existed.

    Take Roger Moore. I liked his Bond more in the Guy Hamilton era particularly TMWTGG, then TSWLM. I actually thought Moore's Bond in his third was not as strong.

  • JamesBondJamesBond
    Posts: 669
    *sigh*
  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    Posts: 803
    acoppola wrote:
    SF is a Craig exclusive. It would not suit the more relaxed Connery style.

    I think some give Connery credit for everything even when it is not deserved. Connery gets credit for his era and a huge credit it is no doubt.

    But I think out of all the successors, Dalton and Craig truly went against the grain of fits like a glove Bond. They both in their own ways drew a line in the sand.

    Why I like SF better to CR, is because in CR, I could see Campbell forcing some scenes onto Craig and Campbell at the time of filming had huge leverage not being the newcomer.

    I bet you any money that Craig preferred working with Mendes to Campbell. My assumption but I really see a vastly different Bond than his first film.
    I don't know as I agree with your thoughts about Craig's performance in Casino Royale. For me, these three movies show a progression of experience in the character without losing some of the core elements of Craig's take on the character, which he seems to have had a pretty decent handle on right from the start.

  • ZHalfterZHalfter
    Posts: 198
    I do not think that but what I like is that they made it like Craigs Bond in Skyfall had already done all the other missions but he is just getting Moneypenny. What makes me think though is Ralph Finnes supposed to be Bernard Lee's M??
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Craig is his own Bond and gives for my money the best performance in a Bond film but is level pegging with SC now as Bond if that makes sense?

    Craig's acting is the best, he's a better actor than Sean period.
  • ZHalfterZHalfter
    Posts: 198
    Shardlake wrote:
    Craig is his own Bond and gives for my money the best performance in a Bond film but is level pegging with SC now as Bond if that makes sense?

    Craig's acting is the best, he's a better actor than Sean period.

    Couldn't have said it better myself.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    JimThompson45 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    SF is a Craig exclusive. It would not suit the more relaxed Connery style.

    I think some give Connery credit for everything even when it is not deserved. Connery gets credit for his era and a huge credit it is no doubt.

    But I think out of all the successors, Dalton and Craig truly went against the grain of fits like a glove Bond. They both in their own ways drew a line in the sand.

    Why I like SF better to CR, is because in CR, I could see Campbell forcing some scenes onto Craig and Campbell at the time of filming had huge leverage not being the newcomer.

    I bet you any money that Craig preferred working with Mendes to Campbell. My assumption but I really see a vastly different Bond than his first film.
    I don't know as I agree with your thoughts about Craig's performance in Casino Royale. For me, these three movies show a progression of experience in the character without losing some of the core elements of Craig's take on the character, which he seems to have had a pretty decent handle on right from the start.

    Oh Craig is a consistent performer and an actor who knows where he should be in terms of character in each scene.

    But he was to me head and shoulders above the performance he gave in CR by the time of SF. He just commanded the whole film better and his friendship with Mendes facilitated this approach. He trusted Mendes a lot.


  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    Posts: 803
    acoppola wrote:
    Oh Craig is a consistent performer and an actor who knows where he should be in terms of character in each scene.

    But he was to me head and shoulders above the performance he gave in CR by the time of SF. He just commanded the whole film better and his friendship with Mendes facilitated this approach. He trusted Mendes a lot.

    It's possible. Personally I have found all his Bond movies interesting, entertaining and enjoyable.

  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    JimThompson45 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    Oh Craig is a consistent performer and an actor who knows where he should be in terms of character in each scene.

    But he was to me head and shoulders above the performance he gave in CR by the time of SF. He just commanded the whole film better and his friendship with Mendes facilitated this approach. He trusted Mendes a lot.

    It's possible. Personally I have found all his Bond movies interesting, entertaining and enjoyable.

    Interesting they are. Enjoyable too but not in the mindless way.

  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    Posts: 803
    acoppola wrote:
    Enjoyable too but not in the mindless way.
    For me that's a prerequisite: If something is mindless I don't find it enjoyable.

  • ReganRegan
    Posts: 173
    This is the non-popular opinion at the moment but I actually prefer CR to SF... Craig is a great actor, he really is and SF allows him to evidence this, but to me nothing beats Le Chiffre's chair, the poker game or the poison scene (or that interlude with Vesper on the train)...

    Which is why I've been able to detect... ...an undercurrent of sarcasm in your voice.

    Priceless.
  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    Posts: 803
    I can certainly see why people would feel this way. Casino Royale is a really well done film.

    I personally enjoyed Skyfall a bit more, but when it comes to the Craig Bond films I'd simply say I really enjoy them all. Choosing between them is very much akin to trying decide which of my favorite foods to eat.
  • actonsteveactonsteve
    Posts: 1,492
    JimThompson45 wrote:
    Well, I'll likely get skewered by some here for suggesting this, but I have found Craig's performance in the role for more interesting and enjoyable than what Connery did with the role.

    The scripts didn't require him interesting with the character. FRWL had a little character trajectory but not alot.

    Craig is his own Bond. He is unique but I will add that he is the portrayal with the most natural machismo after Connery.

  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    Posts: 803
    actonsteve wrote:
    Craig is his own Bond. He is unique but I will add that he is the portrayal with the most natural machismo after Connery.
    I think Craig, Dalton, and Connery all brought a certain sort of "mannishness" to the role which really helps people see them as being James Bond.

  • ReganRegan
    Posts: 173
    JimThompson45 wrote:
    actonsteve wrote:
    Craig is his own Bond. He is unique but I will add that he is the portrayal with the most natural machismo after Connery.
    I think Craig, Dalton, and Connery all brought a certain sort of "mannishness" to the role which really helps people see them as being James Bond.

    Agree... Different styles, but it's there.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    Regan wrote:
    This is the non-popular opinion at the moment but I actually prefer CR to SF... Craig is a great actor, he really is and SF allows him to evidence this, but to me nothing beats Le Chiffre's chair, the poker game or the poison scene (or that interlude with Vesper on the train)...

    Which is why I've been able to detect... ...an undercurrent of sarcasm in your voice.

    Priceless.

    I never like popular opinions @Regan :)

  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    JimThompson45 wrote:
    actonsteve wrote:
    Craig is his own Bond. He is unique but I will add that he is the portrayal with the most natural machismo after Connery.
    I think Craig, Dalton, and Connery all brought a certain sort of "mannishness" to the role which really helps people see them as being James Bond.

    I agree. those three are uber manly. All hard and vicious too at times.

  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    Posts: 803
    acoppola wrote:
    I agree. those three are uber manly. All hard and vicious too at times.

    Cruel is the way Fleming described it, and all three of those actors could portray that side of Bond's nature quite well, I think.

Sign In or Register to comment.