It has been said many times before on this website, but it seems many folks just still don’t seem to get it. We do not hate Daniel Craig and this is not a Daniel Craig “hate site”. Sure we don’t particularly think Craig’s hiring was a good bit of casting, but this site is not dedicated to lamenting over Craig’s blond hair, blue eyes and/or short stature, despite being painted as such by those who don’t bother to read what we actually have to say.
Perhaps bemoaning Craig’s hair color may have been the intention when this site was founded a decade ago, I don’t know as I wasn’t here then. However, before you go about casting stones, be sure to confirm your home’s walls are not made of glass. The idea that Craig was a very poor choice was not some fringe belief relegated to madmen roaming the street while muttering to themselves about blond locks. Remember the entire world exploded with indignation over the choice, the media, bloggers, the fans, even Sam “The Great One” Mendes admitted to feeling Craig was miscast upon hearing of the decision, of course he claims to have changed his mind but considering his vision of Bond perhaps he’s the wrong man to ask.
The irony is Craig’s casting had no effect on me either way, I felt he didn’t really look the part but was more than willing to give him a chance. I found Casino Royal and Quantum of Solace underwhelming but it wasn’t until Skyfall when I said enough is enough. I can tell you without a doubt I would not be here if whining about hair color was all we were doing.
No when we say Daniel Craig is not Bond we are speaking of the Craig era. The four films starring Craig are not Bond films; they are generic action movies with a heavy handed pop psych, postmodern nihilism overtone which happen to feature a character with the name of James Bond.
Ever since Craig’s casting EON has turned Bond in to a depressed, self-loathing Bourne/Dark Knight rip-off devoid of what made Bond “Bond”. Before you go on about “double taking pigeons” and “invisible cars” stop. You know damn well that’s not what I’m talking about or what constitutes “Bond”. Bond has always been a serious man who doesn’t take himself too seriously, not a weeping Freudian case study.
Something else bandied about the internet is the statement we here at DCiNB are not “true Bond fans” whatever that means. Seriously what does that mean? Is it because we don’t lap up any and all tripe regurgitated by EON with the James Bond label pinned to it? Is it because we expect Bond to behave in the manner in which the character has been established over the first 50 years of its existence, that we are not “true fans”?
I’m no hypocrite, if you enjoy Craig’s Bonds I’m not going to down grade your fan status, but if one of Craig’s films is your a number one favorite Bond film of all-time, perhaps you should re-evaluate what you love about it and reconsider how you feel about Bond as a whole.
I do contend however, those who “Didn’t like Bond until Daniel came along” are not “true Bond fans” as they state out right they don’t like Bond, at least the Bond who has been established over 50 years 20 films, 13 novels and 9 short stories. There’s no shame in that, just don’t go around advocating the change of an established franchise just to fit your film preferences.
In closing I’m going to steal a quote I heard in the forum that sums up my argument perfectly: “The problem with the series currently is not that Craig isn’t Bond, it’s that Barbara isn’t Cubby.”