This is good to know. I have never read one word of Ian Fleming but hearing this from you (obviously a huge Fleming aficionado), I might pick one up and read it. I really like the way Daniel Craig plays the character. He’s not even that good-looking. He’s in good physical shape but a pretty boy he is not. With Pierce Brosnan as Bond, everything seemed unbelievable, since he was so strikingly handsome. Now, with Craig, he’s just an ordinary looking man, so the action in the movie somehow seems more real to me. KWIM?
In the novels, James Bond takes great pleasure in his ordinary-ness. This is one of the reasons he is such a good agent–he doesn’t stand out. Even his name is ordinary (although now everyone in the world knows the name “James Bond!” ).
He is described in the novels as “handsome.” In Goldfinger, P-u-s-s-y Galore nicknames him, “Handsome.” (“If any little thing goes wrong with this caper, for my money it’ll be Handsome who knows why. Get me?”)
I agree that Daniel Craig isn’t really good-looking in a pretty way, but I think it’s fair to say that he’s “handsome.” I certainly get the colly-wobbles looking at him! (Should I post somewhere on CAF asking if “colly-wobbles” is a mortal sin?")
And one thing I love about Daniel Craig is his level of fitness. In the novels, Bond does some amazing physical feats that would require high levels of fitness and lots of muscle. He is described as an “athlete.” I think that of all the movie Bonds, Craig best fits that profile.
I really recommend the Fleming novels. Try to read them in order. The first one is Casino Royale. There is a rather graphic scene in which Bond is tortured by the villain (Le Chiffre).
The smoking will crack you up! It’s hard to remember a time when people didn’t think smoking was a criminal act!
John Gardner also wrote several Bond novels, and they’re pretty good, too.
I wish that Felix Leiter played a bigger role in the movies. He’s been in several movies, but played by a different actor every time, and never given the importance that he has in the novels.
The one thing I’m worried about with the new Bond movies is that they seem to be appealing more to old folks like me. My daughters (in their 20s) have absolutely no interest in the James Bond franchise (although my older daughter loves the Sherlock series on BBC).
When I was a little kid and James Bond first came out, television began releasing a number of “spy shows” that were more suitable for small children . The best example was “Get Smart,” which was brilliantly written by Mel Brooks! My brother and I adored this show and we played “secret agent” all over the house.
Other shows with “kid appeal” were “The Man From Uncle,” “I Spy”, and “Mission Impossible.” A lot of the adult dialogue went right over our innocent little heads, but we “got” the gadgets and the chase scenes and the “cool” factor of the secret agents.
A lot of cartoons came out with “secret agent” episodes, too. The best, IMO, was the Flintstones episode with Madame Yes–“I’m too important to be captured!”
And there were a ton of “secret agent” toys, including the camera gun and the radio gun. Boy, my brother and I had fun with these!
All this set kids like us up to eventually become James Bond fans when we were finally old enough to actually go see a James Bond movie!
I hope that this will happen again. I just can’t see children getting interested in James Bond through watching Sponge Bob or even Dora the Explorer.
I’m afraid that if the Bond franchise doesn’t capture the interest of children and teenagers, they won’t have any fans left in 20 years when all of us die off. OTOH, I’ve noticed a James Bond ad campaign that targets Hispanics, so maybe the franchise is writing off American children and teenagers and looking to other fields to find new fans.
The whole theater erupted in guffaws when Bond said, “What makes you think it would be my first time?”