I've read the Fleming novels several times, as well as the Gardner and Bensons (and the Amis one, too). From what I have read about this movie, this is not Fleming's Bond.
Well, yes and no.
First of all, none of the movie Bonds have been in the Fleming mold, in my opinion. All the actors so far have been handsome, suave, charming and witty, for one thing. Fleming's Bond was described as looking like Hoagy Carmichael (ick!) only with a scar on his cheek, which wouldn't help much! He has almost no sense of humor, no appreciation of culture (he likes his brand name clothes and watches, but that's not culture. Fleming's Bond is not a fan of art, literature or music) and he falls for pretty much every woman he shares a mission with, though on some occasions they reject him (as opposed to movie Bond, who beds whomever he likes and has feelings for almost none of them).
Fleming's Bond is pretty thuggish and indeed sees himself as not much more than a "blunt instrument" to do his country's dirty work. In that sense, Craig seems to fit.
On the other hand, based on what I've seen of the film and the "bio" provided at the official site, this is not technically Fleming's Bond because he did not serve in Naval Intelligence and indeed has a very different "backstory" from the one we know. Plus, as you say, Fleming's Bond was not recruited by a female "M" and so on.
Craig, as mentioned, looks NOTHING like James Bond... yeah, I know, blonde hair is obviously wrong, but are we supposed to believe that this is the same character that was played by Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan?
I pick up mixed signals. On the one hand, as noted above, Bond's life story has been re-imagined. On the other hand, why would he drive a 40-year-old Aston Martin DB5 if not for sentimental reasons? But how could he have fond memories of adventures he hasn't had yet? That car made a LITTLE sense with Brosnan driving, as a nod to the earlier films (assuming you never stopped to do the math and realize he'd have battled Goldfinger at the tender age of 11) but it makes none in a film where Bond has not yet met any of those adversaries we remember, and probably never will. I gather there are other little nods to the earlier films, but I hope not many as it'll distract me terribly.
Continuity has never been a strong suit of the Bond films. Some fit together, some do not. The first four can go together with some ease (in FRWL, Kronsteen selects Bond as SPECTRE's target because he killed Dr No in the previous film), but as time goes on it gets murkier. In OHMSS, for example, how does Blofeld not recognize "Sir Hillary Bray" as Bond when the two men met close up just two years earlier in YOLT? Personally, I find the films work better if you treat each as a separate entity and try not to tie them together at all. Otherwise when you see, for example, Bond flying over the lake in "Goldeneye", you expect it to go like this:
BOND: The bad guy's hideout is down there, under the lake.
NATALYA: How do you know?
BOND: Because that's where it was in "You Only Live Twice."
Anyway, to answer your question, I think the producers are trying to have their cake and eat it, too. No, they don't want Craig to be the old Bond. But they do want fans of the old Bond to come see the movie, so they'll throw in as many traditional-style "Bond" moments as they can manage.
All with their very good looks (007 in the novels looked a bit like Hoagy Carmichael and Fleming also saw men like Jimmy Stewart and Cary Grant playing Bond... all ordinary and hansome men)... Craig doesn't come close.
Well, as I said above, Carmichael was not a handsome guy. But in fairness, he was a fabulous songwriter who gave us one of the greatest tunes of all time, "Stardust". As for Jimmy Stewart, it's a long-standing misperception that Fleming wanted him to be Bond; he did not. At one point, Fleming was asked to list who he thought could work and he included a "James Stewart" on the list, but he was referring to a handsome young British actor who would end up changing his name to pursue a career in Hollywood (James Stewart having been, obviously, "taken" already). We now know that actor as Stewart Granger.
Cary Grant was a friend of Cubby Broccoli (having been best man at his wedding!) and was even offered the Bond role, but balked at comitting to a three-picture deal.
And yes, Craig is uglier than all of them on their worst day. But it should be noted that Sean Connery wasn't most people's idea of sexy prior to Dr No, and Fleming rejected him as "that damned lorry driver."
Daniel Craig also has said that he has no regard or respect for the source material and no respect for fans. He's foul mouthed and crude... THAT'S a big turn off for me...
Come now, I can't imagine anyone in their right mind saying all THAT. Certainly I never saw any quotes where he said he didn't respect Fleming or the franchise. Craig may not be a huge Bond fan, but he did read the books and watch the films to prepare for this role, and reading between the lines I gather he finds Bond a fascinating character. I don't know about "respect for fans" but considering the reaction he got from a lot of them...often in the form of very personal and petty attacks...I wouldn't blame him if he feels they're a dangerous pack of loonies.
As for his language, well I can't defend that. He does swear like a drunken sailor, which doesn't jibe with my image of Bond, either. As a lifelong Roger Moore fan, I miss the days of actors who comported themselves with grace and elan off-camera as well as on. It's hard to take Brad Pitt as "sexy" when he walks the streets looking like a homeless deviant, it's hard to take Tom Cruise as a genius superspy when he acts like a moron in interviews, and it's hard to take any "Bond" as urbane and polished when he spouts profanity at every turn.
Of course, this could be a reboot. A new Bond series from the old. Yeah, that means that THIS Bond never went into space in Moonraker and didn't blow up Karamanga in LALD and other absurdities "didn't happen" to this 007, but then again, he was never married, never went up against Goldfinger, SMERSH, SPECTRE (okay... Blofeld), Dr No and others.
Well, here's what gives me pause. Every time anyone wants to make Bond "closer to Fleming," they ramp up the gritty violence. We got it with "License to Kill" and now we're getting it again. But Fleming is about more than violence...if that's all you want, stick with Mickey Spillane. Fleming also worked in the macabre, the fantastic and the surreal. There was Dr No, described as a human slug, slithering along the floor and clacking his metal hands on railings. A guy, mind you, with a giant squid for a pet. There was Dr Shatterhand's Suicide Garden (and a castle from which Bond escapes via balloon...like Curious George!). There was Oddjob, and so on. The films didn't invent the fairy-tale like weirdness of Bond's world,though they did take it to new extremes. For me, at least, this sort of over-the-top, nightmare imagery is one of the appeals of the formula and my worry is that in trying to make Bond more "down to earth" and "gritty" they'll lose all that and turn him into just another action hero.
I'm not going to try and talk you into seeing it, of course. That's your call. But I'm trying to keep an open mind about it. I figure if I can enjoy Fleming's books and Roger Moore's films almost equally...the two being about as far apart as you can get...then there's always room for one more interpretation. And if I hate it, I've always got my DVDs.
Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM