Quote:
Originally Posted by joshEH 
Craig was 37 when he was cast as Bond. Connery last played Bond at age 53; Roger Moore was 45 when cast, and played until age 57.
Dalton was 41 when he was cast, and Brosnan was 42 (and played Bond until he was almost 50 years old). Lazenby was the youngest, at age 30.
Daniel Craig is positively on the young end of the age-spectrum for Bond actors -- not counting Lazenby, the second-youngest in the franchise's history, in fact.
Craig was 37 when he was cast as Bond. Connery last played Bond at age 53; Roger Moore was 45 when cast, and played until age 57.
Dalton was 41 when he was cast, and Brosnan was 42 (and played Bond until he was almost 50 years old). Lazenby was the youngest, at age 30.
Daniel Craig is positively on the young end of the age-spectrum for Bond actors -- not counting Lazenby, the second-youngest in the franchise's history, in fact.
The book Bond is early thirties. It is time for a younger Bond. Connery and Lazenby were the right age at 31 and 30, respectively, when they were cast, but a mid-twenties Bond is not inconsistent with Fleming if the writing is mature instead of amateurish. Craig looked ten years older than his actual age when he was cast. He's a good actor and I like his work in other films.
Remember, Casino Royale was conceived to depict an early twenties Bond, and they wrote him that way, but they couldn't find an actor, so they gave the part to a 37-year-old after all. So you had the incongruity of a 37-year-old who looks even older playing a maladjusted, egotistical, psychotic 20-something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshEH
As for respecting the source material...if you tried adapting one of Fleming's novels as exactly as written, as fully-straight-up period-thing (with anachronisms intact), it'd get laughed right off the screen in this day and age. Some changes to the content have to be addressed, if they expect the Bond franchise to continue, and in a real world where even teenagers are generally far more tech-savvy than their adult counterparts, I don't really see a younger Q as a major incongruity with the times.
As for respecting the source material...if you tried adapting one of Fleming's novels as exactly as written, as fully-straight-up period-thing (with anachronisms intact), it'd get laughed right off the screen in this day and age. Some changes to the content have to be addressed, if they expect the Bond franchise to continue, and in a real world where even teenagers are generally far more tech-savvy than their adult counterparts, I don't really see a younger Q as a major incongruity with the times.
Nobody advocated a literal verbatim transfer of Fleming into a film. I didn't suggest any such thing, and I have responded to that misrepresentation in this thread and elsewhere. It is possible to be faithful to author Fleming while making highly original films. I can name three: Dr. No, From Russia With Love and On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and elements in other Bond films right up to Licence to Kill (1989).
As a rule, Daniel Craig's fans overlook the incongruities, reject all standards, and never run out off making of excuses for him.
On another matter, I find the references to "naked day-care" in your Location and "nude unicorn man" in your Signature inappropriate and perhaps even prurient. Are you sure that's the impression you want to create about yourself?
