It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Like I said: do you remember his performance in The Hobbit? Me neither.
Couldn't agree more.
The only thing memorable was the giantess element to that love story ....and that Turner was the prettiest hobbit. Beyond that I really don't remember anything either.
+2 well said.
I agree about the peeling back the history of Bond. It has to stop. But, I do believe in making the next one "personal", in so far as Bond vs Blofeld. It should be two men hating each other passionately. Both their egos have been battered by the other. No, not jealous step brothers, but an agent for good vs an agent of overwhelming hubris/greed.
I desire a more suspenseful, desperate Bond adventure. Babs and company know they have a brilliant actor in the lead role. Their job now is to shepherd in the proper script for "25". Use DC's acting abilities to the hilt, and allow him to be physical and forceful in the action.
Unleash the full potential of DC's 007. A mixture of CR/QoS. Put the character on unsteady ground. Make it look like this time Blofeld has trumped Bond and he's been backed into a corner (many of the novels have Bond stranded in the corner, desperate, and relying on his wits and survival instinct).
No gadgets. We live in a world of gadgets, so anything Bond uses should be of this world. It was different in the 60s and 70s, but today we can do anything on our phones! So gadgets don't excite me.
Having a man in a corner, with his two fists and a gun, against an overwhelming force of nature in SPECTRE and Blofeld, that's exciting.
So credibility has been lost with me, and given we only see these films once every 3 (or is that 4?) years these days, my patience is wearing very thin with the current team. At least for me, most of the good will that Craig brought in so enthusiastically with his masterful performances in CR/QoS (which were a decade and almost a decade ago respectively) is pretty much gone.
I'm open to one more chance, but they'd better deliver.
They do need a Villeneuve, or someone like that. I find Mendes doesn't have a complete grasp of the character. As a story-teller he lost the plot on who 007 was, and tried too hard to do his greatest hits with SP.
Granted, by the time they hired and fired and re-hired writers, with a looming deadline, maybe the greatest hits package we got is all they had time for.
I hope the script development is different on "25".
But as far as Mendes goes: I don't think he's got any juice left. If anyone's "tired", I'd expect it'd be him. We need a rugged director to give us a rugged Bond adventure.
Sadly I agree... I won't leave Bond. I'll stay and be faithful and hopefully wait it out until hopefully EoN recalibrates back to reality.
They know they had a shit-show on their hands last time. From the Sony leaks, down to all the script problems; to DC unfortunately injuring his knee, to the mediocre reception to the finished film, especially in NA.
They're no dummies.
I expect them to climb back on the horse and deliver for "25". And that's why I expect them to do this with their man DC (through all the ups and downs, globally, he's come out of everything respected and unscathed; he's bank).
The main reason for the Craig era success is not down to Craig's performance as such, but because both Casino and Skyfall were very timely, well produced films that found a place in the zeitgeist, and both films led to a follow up that largely coasted on the good will of it's predecessor. I'm glad people are a fan of the Craig films and Craig himself, but I also look forward to the time when we can look back with a bit more objectivity, and reappraise this era with some perspective.
And as far as other roles DC has played in, The Golden Compass wasn't a DC vehicle. He was a supporting role. GWDT was an amazing film, very dark, very R-rated, released at Christmas time. It made bank, but, even then, DC was more of a co-star. It wasn't exactly a leading man type of role. Same thing with Defiance; he shared the screen with his co-stars.
So, unlike Cruise et al, DC tends not to look for big hollywood type, leading man action films outside of Bond. He chooses for variety. Not more of the same.
So you're actually comparing apples to oranges my friend.
I also agree that the Craig films make the Brosnan films look inferior, but that's not down to Craig, that's down to better directors, better cinematography, better actors etc. Essentially EON have taken a lot more care with the aesthetics of these films than they did in the 90's.
General audiences are happy with Craig, don't get me wrong, but it's not as if he is the monolith holding the whole franchise together. In fact what makes the Bond franchise so unique, or it used to, was that the audience was already primed with the knowledge that a new guy would fill the tux every few years, and they accepted it.
There would be a brief period of reflection, and the Craig era will always have it's fans, but I doubt the news of Craig's departure would really effect the public much. Most people are probably starting to think that Craig is getting on a bit, and anticipating a changing of the guard on the horizon. That's just how Bond works.
"the audience was already primed with the knowledge that a new guy would fill the tux every few years, and they accepted it"...???
I don't think the general audience is ever primed and ready for someone else "every few years"... That's a truly odd statement.
And as for Craig being the monolith holding the franchise together, uh, yes he is. Not since Connery has a Bond been so universally praised-- overcoming a devastating start where the media and fans alike took to trying to destroy the man before they had even seen one clip!
So, no, @Mendes, to compare Brozzer (who EVERYONE wanted to be Bond (as in the general audience; when he was cast, it was like he was ordained), to Craig (who was attacked relentlessly), is just plain wrong. And, in spite of the negativity, Craig came out on top, his performances since have been praised universally praised, and he makes Brozzer (who I do like), seem very wooden and one dimensional.
You'd like to see history as being different, but, I'm afraid, your perception is not reality. What other actor had taken such abuse BEFORE one scene of the film had been released. It was DC's talent that elevated an already wonderful project in CR, and it's his continued talent that elevates the weaker entries (SP).
Daniel Craig is not universally praised as Bond, in fact, no Bond is. Some are praised more that other, but none are universally praised.
"the audience was already primed with the knowledge that a new guy would fill the tux every few years, and they accepted it"... Tell that to Laz and Dalts... Even Moore suffered indifference to his first two films... 007 in '74, was on shaky ground (as he was in '89-'95)
I agree.
If not everyone rates him that highly, then it's not universal or completely favourable.
"the audience was already primed with the knowledge that a new guy would fill the tux every few years, and they accepted it."
Would Laz agree with this? Dalts? Early Moore?
DC was beaten to a pulp before his first scene was released, and he overcame the vitriol to global praise, a praise that put an end to Bond as a fluff pop culture character that was losing relevancy by 2002...
Craig ignited the fuel and destroyed the caricature.
Some say, oh it was, Mads, or, it was Eva, and yes, I agree, they were a part of the recipe, but, if the lead actor couldn't portray a hero we could back, CR would have been an absolute failure.
DC was the monolithic piece of the puzzle that has held everything together from CR to SP.
If he isn't, and wasn't, then tell me what was that magic component to make Bond relevant to the modern audience ('cause I don't think it was Forster or Mendes, nor Haggis, or even Babs or Wilson, or Mads or Green, or Javier Bardem)...
Every new actor every now and then gets beaten to a pulp at first. Craig isn't a martyr in this case. Are we forgetting Ben Affleck when he was cast as Batman? Or the backlash Heath Ledger received when he was cast as The Joker? Or even going back to the 80s when Michael Keaton saw a flames raining down upon him when he was cast in a role that's made him iconic of a figure in pop culture? It's not a star-driven vehicle. Bond, no matter the actor who plays him, is the franchise and the star of its own.