No Time To Die: Production Diary

19209219239259262507

Comments

  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,138
    The general movie going audience doesn't really care whether Daniel Craig stays or goes. It's only the likes of fans like ourselves that get worked up over such things. But as he's the current and well established Bond, they'll be happy to see him return. The thing with Bond, is he's bigger than any one actor. People go to see a 'Bond film'. Not the latest Daniel Craig movie in which he plays James Bond.
    So long as Bond ticks off the appropriate boxes, then general audience members will be pleased.
    Of course a semi decent story and actors helps. Along with some stunts that keep up with rival action films or at least entertain us.
    It's only the mega fans like us that dissect everything, want things just so. Every now and then we get a nice surprise...and sometimes we're left with a bitter after taste.
  • Posts: 11,425
    True to a large extent. But who is Bond is clearly of interest to casual fans otherwise why would every media outlet cover the slightest rumour about whether Craigs comes back or not.

    Yes Bond is bigger than one actor, but that casting is still big news and matters to a lot of people beyond hardcore fandom.
  • Posts: 1,162
    bondjames wrote: »
    The_Donald wrote: »
    I don't think anyone can supersede Connery as the GBOAT. By performance standard, not a chance Craig is on his level. Plus Connery has a better set of films.
    Hear hear!
    +2.

    No doubt about it!
  • Posts: 1,162
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Craig can def do Bond again in 2022 at 54. He still looks great

    Sure, and after that he can pursue his new career as an astronaut.
  • Posts: 1,162
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    If he pulled off another CR, I believe that would cement him as the best Bond for many (certainly for me).

    Another film on a par with CR and I think I'd have to agree with you there.
    Not for me.
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Perfect world for me, Bond 25 a continuation of Spectre where Madeline dies at the end (not a remake of OHMSS but an ending similar to it), than Bond 26 in 2022 being a faithful adaptation to YOLT.

    And that ends Craigs run as Bond

    I'd be happy with that.

    But given we have had someone die being the climax of two out of four of Craig's films I'd have B25 be just a classic 'stop the villains scheme' film with gadgets and all that bollocks and with Madeline surviving. Blofeld would barely feature and the main villain would be a Largo type SPECTRE number 2.

    The end of the film would be as Hunt intended with Bond and Maddy driving off into the sunset.

    Then B26 would have Maddy being killed off in the PTS and be a very dark character driven piece with Bond's breakdown and depression and the ominous tone of the novel realised on screen and only one or two big action set pieces as a sop to the audience who expect these things. The end of the Craig era sees a broken Bond heading off towards Vladivostok. With a well written script (i.e. not by P&W) and the right director Dan might even blag himself an Oscar nomination as he bows out.
    Are you really advocating for this thing being dragged out over two more films? One is more than enough for me at most. I also think we're getting ahead of ourselves with thoughts of Oscar noms for a Bond role. It's very unlikely.

    Well I'd sooner see it done well over two films than shambolically cobbled together into one.

    If they're going to do an adaptation of YOLT they need to set it up properly which they haven't done with SP. This way they could use B25 to dig themselves out of the SP hole and then go full tilt into a decent version of YOLT for B26. What I don't want to see is Blofeld escape, Maddy die and Bond be depressed before being sent off to Japan all in the first half hour of B25.

    I didn't say an Oscar nom was likely. But with the right script and director YOLT certainly has the heft to give a Bond actor a chance at a nomination. But of course given the rank mismanagement and reliance on P&W the odds of it happening are infintessimal.
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Yes @ForYourEyesOnly, I agree that it needs a revitalization. I just don't have the belief that some others do here that Craig has to be the man to do it. That has nothing to do with a dislike of him (he's my third favourite) but rather a strong feeling that in the interests of the long run health of the franchise, SP marked a clear ending (accentuated by its critical tepid reception) and EON should blaze forward with a new path after a 2nd long 4 year break.

    I can't see how it makes sense to go gritty and dark with a new approach on B25 with him in tow and then refresh again for B26. That runs the risk of potentially resembling the jumbled continuity (and tonal) mess that was the Roger Moore transition to Dalton for two before a long break and Brosnan. Or even the Connery to Laz to Connery to Moore switch. I don't want that kind of messy transition again just to benefit one actor's legacy.

    You have every right to dislike SP but you're slightly rewriting history by claiming it got a tepid critical reception. Most of the reviews I read (admitedly mainly from the UK) were glowing.

    Here's a sample of the critically "tepid" reaction SP got:

    http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/spectre-20151104

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/film/james-bond-spectre/review/

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/oct/21/spectre-review-james-bond-is-back-stylish-camp-and-sexily-pro-snowden

    For every positive UK review there's a US one slating it. The UK reviewers seemingly blinded by patriotic Bondian fervour were oblivious to its flaws whereas the yanks saw straight through it.

    So what?

    Does that change the fact that the UK reviews (and presumably European and Asian too) were actually wildly positive?

    Yes we know the US market and critics responds differently. LTK went down well in the UK and Europe but tanked in the US.

    The fact American critics may not have liked SP doesnt negate the fact it was very well received elsewhere and did highly respectabLe box office.
    If you think US box office and word of mouth doesn't matter, even today with a smaller piece of the global pie, you're in for a surprise.

    They control the narrative and the loudspeaker. Production costs are measured in US$ and with exchange rates being volatile, revenue and net profit conversion into US $ will be quite important for a future studio, who only takes a small piece of the pie (With EON & MGM retaining the bulk based on Sony data). All of the studios vying for the distribution job are US based and retain a higher % of the pie in US theatres (according to what I've read) due to arrangement with theatre chains.

    US critical reception and opinion does matter disproportionately even today.

    LTK? Widely regarded as a flop, despite its global positive grosses.

    Oh, and btw, we are all aware that UK critics went mad for SP. You're not stating anything that we don't know. When have they not gone mad for a Craig Bond film? That's not the point and is irrelevant. It's a home grown entity. There was a coordinated marketing approach taken with SF (positive reviews for two weeks prior to US release) which worked brilliantly to create positive market buzz and it backfired with SP. I even called attention to it 'before' SP's release anywhere as a possible risk on the box office thread that was active at the time (e.g. stating that the US word of mouth would be critical to keeping the momentum built in the UK going, as had happened with SF). I also mentioned a few weeks back that with the fall in the UK £ since Brexit, UK gross will likely be less relevant going forward.

    Where did I say anything about the US box office being irrelevant?

    I didn't even say US critics are irrelevant. What I objected to was the implication in your post that whatever US critics say can be taken as representative of the global response to a film. Increasingly this is not the case - actually, was it ever true?

    As for box office, it's widely known that US BO, while still essential is less and less important to the overall success of a film. This is why films increasingly target Asian BO and Chinese and Indian finance is increasingly important even for what appear to be "old school" Hollywood blockbusters - fewer and fewer of which are of course actually made anywhere near Hollywood.

    Yes LTK was a success outside of the US but was deemed a flop becuase it performed badly stateside. Yes Brosnan was cast primarily to satisfy the perceived tastes of the US market. Thankfully those days are long gone. Would someone like Craig have even have been cast as Bond if the US still dominated critical responses and BO in the way you suggest?

    Films can tank or just perform moderatley well in the US and still go on to be very successful commercially. Film financiers have known this for years, even if this seismic shift in the globalisation of film finance and consumption seems to have passed you by.

    UK BO for SP was $135m and U.S. BO was $200m. Given the relative size of the two markets (the U.S. is what, five times larger), UK BO is still obviously very important to Bond, out of all proportion to the size of the respective markets. Therefore why on earth would you insist that the response of UK critics is irrelevant?

    Seems to me, regardless of what you personally thought of SP, that The rapturous UK critical response was actually central to SP's significant global commercial success.

    Are you somehow suggesting that a poor UK critical reception would have boosted US BO?

    I personally don't give a sh*t about critics or BO. It has no bearing on whether or not I like a film.

    But the fact is that SP was given a massive critical thumbs up in one of its key markets and this helped drive hefty global BO, including in the US.

    You seem to forget SP was still top 10 at the US BO in 2015 and beat what seems to be your favourite film of the year MI:RN.

    I'm sure EON had hoped for better in the US and there may have been disappointment at its performance, but I don't think SP was either the critical or commerical flop people like you are claiming - not at least if you look outside the U.S. bubble.

    As for exchange rates, which you've brought into the equation, SP's global BO take would have actually rivalled SF if the $ had still been at its 2012 level. All smoke and mirrors and fairly irrelevant to my appreciation of Bond, but nevertheless you are wrong.

    You and many others can argue all day long but at the end of the day the fact still remains, that I have yet still to meet someone wasn't bored by the movie. And about the financial success. Sure, it is James Bond movie! They always make money, because there is a Fanbase that just goes to the cinema when a new one hits the screen. Yet those I know have been bored when they left the theater. I just don't buy that all the people I know are simply the exception to the rule.
  • Posts: 1,162
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Craig can def do Bond again in 2022 at 54. He still looks great

    Funny, that will be 10 years on from skyfall. I thought he looked too old in skyfall.

    I think Queen Elizabeth looks old.

    Sjee, since when is the casting for a new Bond film a new pageant show from Trump tower? Give Mr Craig a break man. There's one big important thing that separates him from The Rock, Tom Cruise or Eggsy: Acting!

    There is also something that distinguishes James Bond from his competition. Good looks ( at least according to Mr. Fleming), style and suaveness.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    If he pulled off another CR, I believe that would cement him as the best Bond for many (certainly for me).

    Another film on a par with CR and I think I'd have to agree with you there.
    Not for me.
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Perfect world for me, Bond 25 a continuation of Spectre where Madeline dies at the end (not a remake of OHMSS but an ending similar to it), than Bond 26 in 2022 being a faithful adaptation to YOLT.

    And that ends Craigs run as Bond

    I'd be happy with that.

    But given we have had someone die being the climax of two out of four of Craig's films I'd have B25 be just a classic 'stop the villains scheme' film with gadgets and all that bollocks and with Madeline surviving. Blofeld would barely feature and the main villain would be a Largo type SPECTRE number 2.

    The end of the film would be as Hunt intended with Bond and Maddy driving off into the sunset.

    Then B26 would have Maddy being killed off in the PTS and be a very dark character driven piece with Bond's breakdown and depression and the ominous tone of the novel realised on screen and only one or two big action set pieces as a sop to the audience who expect these things. The end of the Craig era sees a broken Bond heading off towards Vladivostok. With a well written script (i.e. not by P&W) and the right director Dan might even blag himself an Oscar nomination as he bows out.
    Are you really advocating for this thing being dragged out over two more films? One is more than enough for me at most. I also think we're getting ahead of ourselves with thoughts of Oscar noms for a Bond role. It's very unlikely.

    Well I'd sooner see it done well over two films than shambolically cobbled together into one.

    If they're going to do an adaptation of YOLT they need to set it up properly which they haven't done with SP. This way they could use B25 to dig themselves out of the SP hole and then go full tilt into a decent version of YOLT for B26. What I don't want to see is Blofeld escape, Maddy die and Bond be depressed before being sent off to Japan all in the first half hour of B25.

    I didn't say an Oscar nom was likely. But with the right script and director YOLT certainly has the heft to give a Bond actor a chance at a nomination. But of course given the rank mismanagement and reliance on P&W the odds of it happening are infintessimal.
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Yes @ForYourEyesOnly, I agree that it needs a revitalization. I just don't have the belief that some others do here that Craig has to be the man to do it. That has nothing to do with a dislike of him (he's my third favourite) but rather a strong feeling that in the interests of the long run health of the franchise, SP marked a clear ending (accentuated by its critical tepid reception) and EON should blaze forward with a new path after a 2nd long 4 year break.

    I can't see how it makes sense to go gritty and dark with a new approach on B25 with him in tow and then refresh again for B26. That runs the risk of potentially resembling the jumbled continuity (and tonal) mess that was the Roger Moore transition to Dalton for two before a long break and Brosnan. Or even the Connery to Laz to Connery to Moore switch. I don't want that kind of messy transition again just to benefit one actor's legacy.

    You have every right to dislike SP but you're slightly rewriting history by claiming it got a tepid critical reception. Most of the reviews I read (admitedly mainly from the UK) were glowing.

    Here's a sample of the critically "tepid" reaction SP got:

    http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/spectre-20151104

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/film/james-bond-spectre/review/

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/oct/21/spectre-review-james-bond-is-back-stylish-camp-and-sexily-pro-snowden

    For every positive UK review there's a US one slating it. The UK reviewers seemingly blinded by patriotic Bondian fervour were oblivious to its flaws whereas the yanks saw straight through it.

    So what?

    Does that change the fact that the UK reviews (and presumably European and Asian too) were actually wildly positive?

    Yes we know the US market and critics responds differently. LTK went down well in the UK and Europe but tanked in the US.

    The fact American critics may not have liked SP doesnt negate the fact it was very well received elsewhere and did highly respectabLe box office.
    If you think US box office and word of mouth doesn't matter, even today with a smaller piece of the global pie, you're in for a surprise.

    They control the narrative and the loudspeaker. Production costs are measured in US$ and with exchange rates being volatile, revenue and net profit conversion into US $ will be quite important for a future studio, who only takes a small piece of the pie (With EON & MGM retaining the bulk based on Sony data). All of the studios vying for the distribution job are US based and retain a higher % of the pie in US theatres (according to what I've read) due to arrangement with theatre chains.

    US critical reception and opinion does matter disproportionately even today.

    LTK? Widely regarded as a flop, despite its global positive grosses.

    Oh, and btw, we are all aware that UK critics went mad for SP. You're not stating anything that we don't know. When have they not gone mad for a Craig Bond film? That's not the point and is irrelevant. It's a home grown entity. There was a coordinated marketing approach taken with SF (positive reviews for two weeks prior to US release) which worked brilliantly to create positive market buzz and it backfired with SP. I even called attention to it 'before' SP's release anywhere as a possible risk on the box office thread that was active at the time (e.g. stating that the US word of mouth would be critical to keeping the momentum built in the UK going, as had happened with SF). I also mentioned a few weeks back that with the fall in the UK £ since Brexit, UK gross will likely be less relevant going forward.

    Where did I say anything about the US box office being irrelevant?

    I didn't even say US critics are irrelevant. What I objected to was the implication in your post that whatever US critics say can be taken as representative of the global response to a film. Increasingly this is not the case - actually, was it ever true?

    As for box office, it's widely known that US BO, while still essential is less and less important to the overall success of a film. This is why films increasingly target Asian BO and Chinese and Indian finance is increasingly important even for what appear to be "old school" Hollywood blockbusters - fewer and fewer of which are of course actually made anywhere near Hollywood.

    Yes LTK was a success outside of the US but was deemed a flop becuase it performed badly stateside. Yes Brosnan was cast primarily to satisfy the perceived tastes of the US market. Thankfully those days are long gone. Would someone like Craig have even have been cast as Bond if the US still dominated critical responses and BO in the way you suggest?

    Films can tank or just perform moderatley well in the US and still go on to be very successful commercially. Film financiers have known this for years, even if this seismic shift in the globalisation of film finance and consumption seems to have passed you by.

    UK BO for SP was $135m and U.S. BO was $200m. Given the relative size of the two markets (the U.S. is what, five times larger), UK BO is still obviously very important to Bond, out of all proportion to the size of the respective markets. Therefore why on earth would you insist that the response of UK critics is irrelevant?

    Seems to me, regardless of what you personally thought of SP, that The rapturous UK critical response was actually central to SP's significant global commercial success.

    Are you somehow suggesting that a poor UK critical reception would have boosted US BO?

    I personally don't give a sh*t about critics or BO. It has no bearing on whether or not I like a film.

    But the fact is that SP was given a massive critical thumbs up in one of its key markets and this helped drive hefty global BO, including in the US.

    You seem to forget SP was still top 10 at the US BO in 2015 and beat what seems to be your favourite film of the year MI:RN.

    I'm sure EON had hoped for better in the US and there may have been disappointment at its performance, but I don't think SP was either the critical or commerical flop people like you are claiming - not at least if you look outside the U.S. bubble.

    As for exchange rates, which you've brought into the equation, SP's global BO take would have actually rivalled SF if the $ had still been at its 2012 level. All smoke and mirrors and fairly irrelevant to my appreciation of Bond, but nevertheless you are wrong.
    We are fully aware of how the exchange rates would have positively impacted SP's box office. Such a discussion was had in detail in 2015 on the box office thread. So again, you bring nothing new to the discussion. I never said SP was a weak box office performer anyway. I do stand by my point that UK box office will be less relevant for B25 if the UK £ stays where it is vis-vis the US $. That's just pure arithmetic.

    As to your continued belabouring of the implication that I said that SP's reception was poor. This is in fact what I said, which was a part of a broader response to another poster, which you interjected into.
    bondjames wrote: »
    Yes @ForYourEyesOnly, I agree that it needs a revitalization. I just don't have the belief that some others do here that Craig has to be the man to do it. That has nothing to do with a dislike of him (he's my third favourite) but rather a strong feeling that in the interests of the long run health of the franchise, SP marked a clear ending (accentuated by its critical tepid reception) and EON should blaze forward with a new path after a 2nd long 4 year break.
    Tepid suggests lukewarm, subdued and indifferent. I stand by that assessment. Your bringing up UK critics hailing SP doesn't change my point that the overall reception, perception and lingering opinion is that it wasn't a game changer. I stand by my use of the term 'tepid' to describe the overall film's perception, in the context of the response to the previous poster. Would you disagree that the overall global perception was 'tepid'? Or are you suggesting that the UK reviews which you posted more accurately reflect lingering global perception of the film? If that latter, then there's nothing more to discuss, because we have a fundamental disagreement.
    Getafix wrote: »
    Yes LTK was a success outside of the US but was deemed a flop becuase it performed badly stateside. Yes Brosnan was cast primarily to satisfy the perceived tastes of the US market. Thankfully those days are long gone. Would someone like Craig have even have been cast as Bond if the US still dominated critical responses and BO in the way you suggest?
    Yes. Bale had already been cast as Batman, and the Bourne franchise had indicated a shift towards more serious fare. I contend that the rugged Craig was exactly the kind of actor for the times and the tone that all markets (including the US) were gravitating towards in 2006, and not Brosnan, whose time had passed.
    Getafix wrote: »
    Seems to me, regardless of what you personally thought of SP, that The rapturous UK critical response was actually central to SP's significant global commercial success.
    To you maybe. I think other countries made up their own minds, like they normally do.
    Getafix wrote: »
    Are you somehow suggesting that a poor UK critical reception would have boosted US BO?
    I don't remember suggesting that. Strange logic.
    Getafix wrote: »
    I personally don't give a sh*t about critics or BO. It has no bearing on whether or not I like a film.
    Really? Could have fooled me. Seems like you've become rather obsessed about it.
    Getafix wrote: »
    As for box office, it's widely known that US BO, while still essential is less and less important to the overall success of a film. This is why films increasingly target Asian BO and Chinese and Indian finance is increasingly important even for what appear to be "old school" Hollywood blockbusters - fewer and fewer of which are of course actually made anywhere near Hollywood.
    We are fully aware of that. It's suggested in my earlier post and on several others in other threads (including a few yesterday) as other posters know. It's a major consideration when making films these days. However, US box office is still relevant to the marketing narrative. It's a far more important element than UK box office when the story is written about whether a mahor release is a success or not. I've explained why in my previous post. They control the bullhorn and the profits and costs are measured in US $. The exchange rates are also important due to this. The 33% drop off in US box office of SP vs. SF will certainly be given consideration when thinking about how to continue the SP story going forward. So yes, the US isn't what it once was (never said otherwise) but it's till the largest individual market for Bond and therefore hugely influential.
    Getafix wrote: »
    You seem to forget SP was still top 10 at the US BO in 2015 and beat what seems to be your favourite film of the year MI:RN.

    I'm sure EON had hoped for better in the US and there may have been disappointment at its performance, but I don't think SP was either the critical or commerical flop people like you are claiming - not at least if you look outside the U.S. bubble.
    I'm fully aware that SP beat MI-RN. What's that got to do with anything? SF thrashed MI-GP as well. Am I supposed to like SP more because it was a bigger box office success? I've never said that SP was a commercial flop in any of my posts anywhere. Neither have I said that it was a critical flop. I will once more (and hopefully for the final time) indicate that the word I used was 'tepid'. Hardly something worth getting in a tizzy over.

    I've seen you go of on these tangent rants and raves to argue points which weren't made in the past, as you did when I commented on Brosnan and DAD last week. Next time pay attention to what is said before responding to things which weren't intended. It makes for a better debate. If you want to take it further, PM me. I think we've clogged up this thread enough with this useless back and forth.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    The_Donald wrote: »
    I don't think anyone can supersede Connery as the GBOAT. By performance standard, not a chance Craig is on his level. Plus Connery has a better set of films.
    Hear hear!
    +2.

    No doubt about it!

    I don't know. Don't get me wrong Connery was James Bond, he owned the role. But Craig's been pretty great and he's played a Bond with much more depth than Connery's version. Much more in line with Fleming's Bond than Connery too, much more human and vulnerable. Plus Craig always gives it his all. Connery started phoning it in towards the end. In fact you could make a case for that beginning even earlier (in his first two I've noticed he at least sort of attempts an English accent, but that goes out the window by GF/TB). I don't think he's overrated because at his peak he owned the role, but he did go downhill, and I do sometimes wonder how much of the shadow he's cast over the rest of the actors was because of Terrance Young tutoring him and him being the first one.

    I think the only thing Connery has that Craig doesn't is the tongue in cheek, self aware side of things. Craig is fine with one liners but I can't really imagine him selling "I'm afraid you've caught me with more than my hands up" for example. It takes talent to make those sorts of lines sound cheeky rather than cringe worthy and dad joke esque. But it doesn't matter that Craig couldn't do that because he's not getting that sort of material, and a more rounded/jack of all trades Bond doesn't necessarily mean a better one imo (and I'd argue Pierce was more rounded than Connery anyway, because he had more of an emotional range).

    I always find it hard to rank the Bond actors. Dalton is my favourite and Brosnan would probably be a close second. Past that I just can't, because they're all great and I hate putting any of them at the bottom. But if they give Craig YOLT and he nails it I think he'll easily take second place for me.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 170
    Pierce 'pain face' Brosnan more emotional range than Connery? Come on that's got to be a joke. Overacting and melodramatic lines do not equate to more range. It is true Connery was never called upon for his full repertoire. But then Connery was playing the stiff upper lip as per the original character. And if we're talking about accents, well we have to mention Brosnan's American-Irish 'barrrm'. Connery's accent is cultured & iconic, a major plus not a minus.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 12,837
    The_Donald wrote: »
    Pierce 'pain face' Brosnan more emotional range than Connery? Come on that's got to be a joke. Overacting and melodramatic lines do not equate to more range. It is true Connery was never called upon for his full repertoire. But then Connery was playing the stiff upper lip as per the original character. And if we're talking about accents, well we have to mention Brosnan's American-Irish 'barrrm'. Connery's accent is cultured & iconic, a major plus not a minus.

    Notice how I said favourite rather than best. So it's my personal preference, the ones I enjoy the most. Not joking.

    True Brosnan never bothered with an accent either but at least he never phoned it in. And yep, definitely more emotional range. Can't imagine Connery coming across as wounded or vulnerable as Brosnan does in say any of the scenes with Paris for instance. Or as angry in say the scenes with Zao early in DAD or killing Trevelayn in Goldeneye. Connery was the definition of cool, ice cold, but it made for a more one dimesional character. Brosnan's Bond had more range. More intense, more emotional. And Connery did have opportunities to add this himself. For example when he tells Domino about her brother's death he could have played it more sorrowful/compationate. When he's confronting Blofeld in DAF he could have come across a lot more angry.

    Stiff upper lip as per the original character? In GF after killing the Mexican Bond struggles to come to terms with it for days afterwards. It really shakes him up. Connery just cracked a one liner and got on with it, heading back to Miami to slap Dink on the arse then ditch her straight away (Fleming's Bond was a much more romantic, emotional character than Connery imo, something only Dalton has really captured). Not a bad thing but actors since have gotten a lot closer. In terms of being close to the original character Lazenby shits on Connery (not sure how much of that was down to Hunt/the script but we'll never know and I'm glad because if Connery had phoned it in again OHMSS could have been ruined).

    And his accent is definitely a minus imo, as is Brosnan's. Being iconic doesn't excuse it not fitting the character he was meant to be playing (old Etonian who's spent the majority of his life in England). Connery himself seemed to know this at first but by the end had all but given up hiding it. Another example of how he went downhill.

    Besides, we weren't talking about Brosnan. We were talking about Craig. And Craig is imo a much better actor than Connery, probably just as good a Bond, and has the potential to be even better than Connery if he does one more and it proves me and everyone else who was hoping for a fresh start wrong.

    With Brosnan it's a matter of personal preference. I just like him better than Connery. With Craig I think he's possibly genuinely better. Certainly a much better actor anyway.
  • Posts: 1,493
    The_Donald wrote: »
    Pierce 'pain face' Brosnan more emotional range than Connery? Come on that's got to be a joke. Overacting and melodramatic lines do not equate to more range. It is true Connery was never called upon for his full repertoire. But then Connery was playing the stiff upper lip as per the original character. And if we're talking about accents, well we have to mention Brosnan's American-Irish 'barrrm'. Connery's accent is cultured & iconic, a major plus not a minus.

    Agree. Brosnan tends to overact, ham it up if he's not got a strong director to reign him in - some of his "emotional" scenes in TWINE are cringe-making (worst Bond performance ever IMO). Anyone who doesn't think Connery has range and is a very fine actor needs to watch The Hill, The Offence (in fact any of the 5 films he made with Lumet), The Man Who Would Be King, Outland, Indy 3 - and the list goes on.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 12,837
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    The_Donald wrote: »
    Pierce 'pain face' Brosnan more emotional range than Connery? Come on that's got to be a joke. Overacting and melodramatic lines do not equate to more range. It is true Connery was never called upon for his full repertoire. But then Connery was playing the stiff upper lip as per the original character. And if we're talking about accents, well we have to mention Brosnan's American-Irish 'barrrm'. Connery's accent is cultured & iconic, a major plus not a minus.

    Agree. Brosnan tends to overact, ham it up if he's not got a strong director to reign him in - some of his "emotional" scenes in TWINE are cringe-making (worst Bond performance ever IMO). Anyone who doesn't think Connery has range and is a very fine actor needs to watch The Hill, The Offence (in fact any of the 5 films he made with Lumet), The Man Who Would Be King, Outland, Indy 3 - and the list goes on.

    I'm not talking about him as an actor, I've seen a couple of those films (I'd add Robin and Marion as another example). I'm talking about him as Bond specifically. But I like how I wrote a lengthy post about Craig in comparison to Connery, but an aside about Brosnan being the most rounded/jack of all trades Bond and a little line at the end saying Brosnan is my second favourite is enough to get people saying "are you joking?" and "go watch xyz film to see why you're wrong".

    I didn't want to talk about Brosnan. Frankly I get tired of defending him on here anyway because it's pointless when the usual suspects (not you two) just ignore everything you write. Wish I hadn't mentioned him now.
  • Posts: 1,493
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    The_Donald wrote: »
    Pierce 'pain face' Brosnan more emotional range than Connery? Come on that's got to be a joke. Overacting and melodramatic lines do not equate to more range. It is true Connery was never called upon for his full repertoire. But then Connery was playing the stiff upper lip as per the original character. And if we're talking about accents, well we have to mention Brosnan's American-Irish 'barrrm'. Connery's accent is cultured & iconic, a major plus not a minus.

    Agree. Brosnan tends to overact, ham it up if he's not got a strong director to reign him in - some of his "emotional" scenes in TWINE are cringe-making (worst Bond performance ever IMO). Anyone who doesn't think Connery has range and is a very fine actor needs to watch The Hill, The Offence (in fact any of the 5 films he made with Lumet), The Man Who Would Be King, Outland, Indy 3 - and the list goes on.

    I'm not talking about him as an actor, I've seen a couple of those films (I'd add Robin and Marion as another example). I'm talking about him as Bond specifically. But I like how I wrote a lengthy post about Craig in comparison to Connery, but an aside about Brosnan being the most rounded/jack of all trades Bond and a little line at the end saying Brosnan is my second favourite is enough to get people saying "are you joking?" and "go watch xyz film to see why you're wrong".

    I didn't want to talk about Brosnan. Frankly I get tired of defending him on here anyway because it's pointless when the usual suspects (not you two) just ignore everything you write. Wish I hadn't mentioned him now.

    Fair enough. I think Connery's Bond was perfect for that time. I suspect, if OHMSS had come earlier, after GF as originally planned, he would have thrown himself into that and revealed other sides of his Bond, he certainly had the acting chops for it. But there you go. BTW, I love Robin and Marion as well. Terrific film.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    If he pulled off another CR, I believe that would cement him as the best Bond for many (certainly for me).

    Another film on a par with CR and I think I'd have to agree with you there.
    Not for me.
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Perfect world for me, Bond 25 a continuation of Spectre where Madeline dies at the end (not a remake of OHMSS but an ending similar to it), than Bond 26 in 2022 being a faithful adaptation to YOLT.

    And that ends Craigs run as Bond

    I'd be happy with that.

    But given we have had someone die being the climax of two out of four of Craig's films I'd have B25 be just a classic 'stop the villains scheme' film with gadgets and all that bollocks and with Madeline surviving. Blofeld would barely feature and the main villain would be a Largo type SPECTRE number 2.

    The end of the film would be as Hunt intended with Bond and Maddy driving off into the sunset.

    Then B26 would have Maddy being killed off in the PTS and be a very dark character driven piece with Bond's breakdown and depression and the ominous tone of the novel realised on screen and only one or two big action set pieces as a sop to the audience who expect these things. The end of the Craig era sees a broken Bond heading off towards Vladivostok. With a well written script (i.e. not by P&W) and the right director Dan might even blag himself an Oscar nomination as he bows out.
    Are you really advocating for this thing being dragged out over two more films? One is more than enough for me at most. I also think we're getting ahead of ourselves with thoughts of Oscar noms for a Bond role. It's very unlikely.

    Well I'd sooner see it done well over two films than shambolically cobbled together into one.

    If they're going to do an adaptation of YOLT they need to set it up properly which they haven't done with SP. This way they could use B25 to dig themselves out of the SP hole and then go full tilt into a decent version of YOLT for B26. What I don't want to see is Blofeld escape, Maddy die and Bond be depressed before being sent off to Japan all in the first half hour of B25.

    I didn't say an Oscar nom was likely. But with the right script and director YOLT certainly has the heft to give a Bond actor a chance at a nomination. But of course given the rank mismanagement and reliance on P&W the odds of it happening are infintessimal.
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Yes @ForYourEyesOnly, I agree that it needs a revitalization. I just don't have the belief that some others do here that Craig has to be the man to do it. That has nothing to do with a dislike of him (he's my third favourite) but rather a strong feeling that in the interests of the long run health of the franchise, SP marked a clear ending (accentuated by its critical tepid reception) and EON should blaze forward with a new path after a 2nd long 4 year break.

    I can't see how it makes sense to go gritty and dark with a new approach on B25 with him in tow and then refresh again for B26. That runs the risk of potentially resembling the jumbled continuity (and tonal) mess that was the Roger Moore transition to Dalton for two before a long break and Brosnan. Or even the Connery to Laz to Connery to Moore switch. I don't want that kind of messy transition again just to benefit one actor's legacy.

    You have every right to dislike SP but you're slightly rewriting history by claiming it got a tepid critical reception. Most of the reviews I read (admitedly mainly from the UK) were glowing.

    Here's a sample of the critically "tepid" reaction SP got:

    http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/spectre-20151104

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/film/james-bond-spectre/review/

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/oct/21/spectre-review-james-bond-is-back-stylish-camp-and-sexily-pro-snowden

    For every positive UK review there's a US one slating it. The UK reviewers seemingly blinded by patriotic Bondian fervour were oblivious to its flaws whereas the yanks saw straight through it.

    So what?

    Does that change the fact that the UK reviews (and presumably European and Asian too) were actually wildly positive?

    Yes we know the US market and critics responds differently. LTK went down well in the UK and Europe but tanked in the US.

    The fact American critics may not have liked SP doesnt negate the fact it was very well received elsewhere and did highly respectabLe box office.
    If you think US box office and word of mouth doesn't matter, even today with a smaller piece of the global pie, you're in for a surprise.

    They control the narrative and the loudspeaker. Production costs are measured in US$ and with exchange rates being volatile, revenue and net profit conversion into US $ will be quite important for a future studio, who only takes a small piece of the pie (With EON & MGM retaining the bulk based on Sony data). All of the studios vying for the distribution job are US based and retain a higher % of the pie in US theatres (according to what I've read) due to arrangement with theatre chains.

    US critical reception and opinion does matter disproportionately even today.

    LTK? Widely regarded as a flop, despite its global positive grosses.

    Oh, and btw, we are all aware that UK critics went mad for SP. You're not stating anything that we don't know. When have they not gone mad for a Craig Bond film? That's not the point and is irrelevant. It's a home grown entity. There was a coordinated marketing approach taken with SF (positive reviews for two weeks prior to US release) which worked brilliantly to create positive market buzz and it backfired with SP. I even called attention to it 'before' SP's release anywhere as a possible risk on the box office thread that was active at the time (e.g. stating that the US word of mouth would be critical to keeping the momentum built in the UK going, as had happened with SF). I also mentioned a few weeks back that with the fall in the UK £ since Brexit, UK gross will likely be less relevant going forward.

    Where did I say anything about the US box office being irrelevant?

    I didn't even say US critics are irrelevant. What I objected to was the implication in your post that whatever US critics say can be taken as representative of the global response to a film. Increasingly this is not the case - actually, was it ever true?

    As for box office, it's widely known that US BO, while still essential is less and less important to the overall success of a film. This is why films increasingly target Asian BO and Chinese and Indian finance is increasingly important even for what appear to be "old school" Hollywood blockbusters - fewer and fewer of which are of course actually made anywhere near Hollywood.

    Yes LTK was a success outside of the US but was deemed a flop becuase it performed badly stateside. Yes Brosnan was cast primarily to satisfy the perceived tastes of the US market. Thankfully those days are long gone. Would someone like Craig have even have been cast as Bond if the US still dominated critical responses and BO in the way you suggest?

    Films can tank or just perform moderatley well in the US and still go on to be very successful commercially. Film financiers have known this for years, even if this seismic shift in the globalisation of film finance and consumption seems to have passed you by.

    UK BO for SP was $135m and U.S. BO was $200m. Given the relative size of the two markets (the U.S. is what, five times larger), UK BO is still obviously very important to Bond, out of all proportion to the size of the respective markets. Therefore why on earth would you insist that the response of UK critics is irrelevant?

    Seems to me, regardless of what you personally thought of SP, that The rapturous UK critical response was actually central to SP's significant global commercial success.

    Are you somehow suggesting that a poor UK critical reception would have boosted US BO?

    I personally don't give a sh*t about critics or BO. It has no bearing on whether or not I like a film.

    But the fact is that SP was given a massive critical thumbs up in one of its key markets and this helped drive hefty global BO, including in the US.

    You seem to forget SP was still top 10 at the US BO in 2015 and beat what seems to be your favourite film of the year MI:RN.

    I'm sure EON had hoped for better in the US and there may have been disappointment at its performance, but I don't think SP was either the critical or commerical flop people like you are claiming - not at least if you look outside the U.S. bubble.

    As for exchange rates, which you've brought into the equation, SP's global BO take would have actually rivalled SF if the $ had still been at its 2012 level. All smoke and mirrors and fairly irrelevant to my appreciation of Bond, but nevertheless you are wrong.
    We are fully aware of how the exchange rates would have positively impacted SP's box office. Such a discussion was had in detail in 2015 on the box office thread. So again, you bring nothing new to the discussion. I never said SP was a weak box office performer anyway. I do stand by my point that UK box office will be less relevant for B25 if the UK £ stays where it is vis-vis the US $. That's just pure arithmetic.

    As to your continued belabouring of the implication that I said that SP's reception was poor. This is in fact what I said, which was a part of a broader response to another poster, which you interjected into.
    bondjames wrote: »
    Yes @ForYourEyesOnly, I agree that it needs a revitalization. I just don't have the belief that some others do here that Craig has to be the man to do it. That has nothing to do with a dislike of him (he's my third favourite) but rather a strong feeling that in the interests of the long run health of the franchise, SP marked a clear ending (accentuated by its critical tepid reception) and EON should blaze forward with a new path after a 2nd long 4 year break.
    Tepid suggests lukewarm, subdued and indifferent. I stand by that assessment. Your bringing up UK critics hailing SP doesn't change my point that the overall reception, perception and lingering opinion is that it wasn't a game changer. I stand by my use of the term 'tepid' to describe the overall film's perception, in the context of the response to the previous poster. Would you disagree that the overall global perception was 'tepid'? Or are you suggesting that the UK reviews which you posted more accurately reflect lingering global perception of the film? If that latter, then there's nothing more to discuss, because we have a fundamental disagreement.
    Getafix wrote: »
    Yes LTK was a success outside of the US but was deemed a flop becuase it performed badly stateside. Yes Brosnan was cast primarily to satisfy the perceived tastes of the US market. Thankfully those days are long gone. Would someone like Craig have even have been cast as Bond if the US still dominated critical responses and BO in the way you suggest?
    Yes. Bale had already been cast as Batman, and the Bourne franchise had indicated a shift towards more serious fare. I contend that the rugged Craig was exactly the kind of actor for the times and the tone that all markets (including the US) were gravitating towards in 2006, and not Brosnan, whose time had passed.
    Getafix wrote: »
    Seems to me, regardless of what you personally thought of SP, that The rapturous UK critical response was actually central to SP's significant global commercial success.
    To you maybe. I think other countries made up their own minds, like they normally do.
    Getafix wrote: »
    Are you somehow suggesting that a poor UK critical reception would have boosted US BO?
    I don't remember suggesting that. Strange logic.
    Getafix wrote: »
    I personally don't give a sh*t about critics or BO. It has no bearing on whether or not I like a film.
    Really? Could have fooled me. Seems like you've become rather obsessed about it.
    Getafix wrote: »
    As for box office, it's widely known that US BO, while still essential is less and less important to the overall success of a film. This is why films increasingly target Asian BO and Chinese and Indian finance is increasingly important even for what appear to be "old school" Hollywood blockbusters - fewer and fewer of which are of course actually made anywhere near Hollywood.
    We are fully aware of that. It's suggested in my earlier post and on several others in other threads (including a few yesterday) as other posters know. It's a major consideration when making films these days. However, US box office is still relevant to the marketing narrative. It's a far more important element than UK box office when the story is written about whether a film is a success or not. I've explained why in my previous post. They control the bullhorn and the profits and costs are measured in US $. The exchange rates are also important due to this. The 33% drop off in US box office of SP vs. SF will certainly be given consideration when thinking about how to continue the SP story going forward.
    Getafix wrote: »
    You seem to forget SP was still top 10 at the US BO in 2015 and beat what seems to be your favourite film of the year MI:RN.

    I'm sure EON had hoped for better in the US and there may have been disappointment at its performance, but I don't think SP was either the critical or commerical flop people like you are claiming - not at least if you look outside the U.S. bubble.
    I'm fully aware that SP beat MI-RN. What's that got to do with anything? SF thrashed MI-GP as well. Am I supposed to like SP more because it was a bigger box office success? I've never said that SP was a commercial flop in any of my posts anywhere. Neither have I said that it was a critical flop. I will once more (and hopefully for the final time) indicate that the word I used was 'tepid'. Hardly something worth getting in a tizzy over.

    I've seen you go of on these rants and raves to argue points which weren't made, as you did when I commented on Brosnan and DAD last week. Next time pay attention to what is said before responding to things which weren't intended. It makes for a better debate. If you want to take it further, PM me.

    My views on SP are not completely unaligned with yours. When I first saw it at the cinema I was totally underwhelmed. On second viewing I thought it was okay - a slight improvement for me at least on the very underwhelming SF. I wasn't expecting much at all after SF and so went in with low expectations.

    I see all the faults in SP. A lot of them are quite similar to SF for me - rather listless direction and poorly choreographed action. They are both very recognisably Mendes films for me.

    But you're still wrong about the 'tepid' critical response. The fact remains that pretty much across the board in the UK SP hit it out of the park as far as critics were concerned.

    I have no idea how the critics responded in France, Germany etc, but by the same token you haven't provided any evidence to suggest that the critics in Europe or Asia responded any less positively than they did in the UK. You talk about an 'overall' critical reception, but for you this still seems to just mean the US?

    If the UK critical reception is not important to the US market, why is Bond always released first in Europe? Not saying it's the key driver, but clearly EON and their partners have a reason for doing it that way. At least in part they must want to build momentum before releasing in the US.

    Getting back on topic (and incidentally bolstering some of you case), which is of course Pierce Brosnan, I thought the Brozzer made some very perceptive comments about DC and the wrist slasher comments, reported here:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3322422/Pierce-Brosnan-slams-weak-Spectre-storyline.html
    Defending him, Brosnan offered: 'By the time you finish making a Bond movie, you don't want to hear the name, see the name or have anything to do with it because you just want to go to ground. Give him another year off here, and he'll be ready to rock and roll for sure.'

    I note that Brozzer has nothing but praise for DC's performance. Of course he would say that though, wouldn't he?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I didn't meant to suggest that UK critics aren't relevant in general. Just that it didn't impact SP. They did for SF and they may again for B25, but ultimately the film must stand on its own two feet.

    I don't know how SP was received critically globally. It was very successful, as you note.

    I do know that US opinion on the film and Craig in major US publications is picked up and spread globally in publications in all languages. That is what I mean about still controlling the bullhorn. It doesn't mean I agree with it, but it's a fact.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 170
    The_Donald wrote: »
    Pierce 'pain face' Brosnan more emotional range than Connery? Come on that's got to be a joke. Overacting and melodramatic lines do not equate to more range. It is true Connery was never called upon for his full repertoire. But then Connery was playing the stiff upper lip as per the original character. And if we're talking about accents, well we have to mention Brosnan's American-Irish 'barrrm'. Connery's accent is cultured & iconic, a major plus not a minus.

    Notice how I said favourite rather than best. So it's my personal preference, the ones I enjoy the most. Not joking.

    True Brosnan never bothered with an accent either but at least he never phoned it in. And yep, definitely more emotional range. Can't imagine Connery coming across as wounded or vulnerable as Brosnan does in say any of the scenes with Paris for instance. Or as angry in say the scenes with Zao early in DAD or killing Trevelayn in Goldeneye. Connery was the definition of cool, ice cold, but it made for a more one dimesional character. Brosnan's Bond had more range. More intense, more emotional. And Connery did have opportunities to add this himself. For example when he tells Domino about her brother's death he could have played it more sorrowful/compationate. When he's confronting Blofeld in DAF he could have come across a lot more angry.

    Stiff upper lip as per the original character? In GF after killing the Mexican Bond struggles to come to terms with it for days afterwards. It really shakes him up. Connery just cracked a one liner and got on with it, heading back to Miami to slap Dink on the arse then ditch her straight away (Fleming's Bond was a much more romantic, emotional character than Connery imo, something only Dalton has really captured). Not a bad thing but actors since have gotten a lot closer. In terms of being close to the original character Lazenby shits on Connery (not sure how much of that was down to Hunt/the script but we'll never know and I'm glad because if Connery had phoned it in again OHMSS could have been ruined).

    And his accent is definitely a minus imo, as is Brosnan's. Being iconic doesn't excuse it not fitting the character he was meant to be playing (old Etonian who's spent the majority of his life in England). Connery himself seemed to know this at first but by the end had all but given up hiding it. Another example of how he went downhill.

    Besides, we weren't talking about Brosnan. We were talking about Craig. And Craig is imo a much better actor than Connery, probably just as good a Bond, and has the potential to be even better than Connery if he does one more and it proves me and everyone else who was hoping for a fresh start wrong.

    With Brosnan it's a matter of personal preference. I just like him better than Connery. With Craig I think he's possibly genuinely better. Certainly a much better actor anyway.

    Apologies I should not have tried to compare him to the books, which I haven't read in eons. I should have said I much prefer his character to Brosnan's and Craig's. I must say the scene with Paris does nothing for me, apart from slight embarrassment that Bond was so attached to this vapid woman.

    You mention the Domino scene. To me it wouldn't make sense for Bond to be emotional here. They're hours away from possible nuclear disaster. The relatively trivial death of a man he never knew would not touch him in the least. He just wants to persuade Domino to help him. My interpretation of him putting on sunglasses is that he doesn't want Domino see him calculating how best to persuade her.

    I agree with other choices Connery made such as being brusque to Kerim Bey's son. There's no time for sentiment, only time to issue his instructions and convey their import. Craig is not a better Bond or actor than Connery imo.
  • Posts: 1,162
    RC7 wrote: »
    Most general audiences will be put off by a 54 year old Craig playing Bond, and rightly so. The man just isn't aging well. All the comparisons to Liam Neeson and others don't work because the Taken franchise is about a much older man who has already retired from service. That's the conceit of the film, so an actor of Neesons age is appropriate. Then you have someone like Tom Cruise who already looks younger than Craig, who is playing a younger character and increasingly part of an ensemble. Do we want to see Bond, Q, Moneypemny and Tanner running around in the feild as a team together? Because that's what mission impossible is.
    Frankly, I don't think people are so pro-Craig since his said he would slash his wrists, only Craigites who think he can do no wrong.

    The desperation is palpable.

    I sometimes feel some of you would suffer a stroke if they indeed anounce they have found a new Bond.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited August 2017 Posts: 4,043
    Connery for me nailed Bond perfectly in FRWL and yes he can show range to degree as long as you aren't looking for an accent that is attributed to the characters nationality he's playing.

    Connery gets away with being charismatic, one of the most in cinema history but I don't confuse this with range, ability and depth, Craig as Bond has delivered here like no one else.

    He's playing a different type of Bond and I'll say it again Connery or any of the other Bond's have ever delivered a performance like Geordie Peacock in Our Friends In The North.

    I personally think once Bond is behind him Craig the character actor will emerge again, there are signs of it in Logan Lucky looking at the reviews.

    Craig is considerably better than Dalton on the big screen as well, he displays a confidence that no one other than Connery does who has been in the role.
  • Posts: 1,162
    Getafix wrote: »
    True to a large extent. But who is Bond is clearly of interest to casual fans otherwise why would every media outlet cover the slightest rumour about whether Craigs comes back or not.

    Yes Bond is bigger than one actor, but that casting is still big news and matters to a lot of people beyond hardcore fandom.

    Know what? They simply cover everything! Today alone I already heard two times on the radio and read it once that Katy Perry and Orlando bloom we are very "familiar" with each other at a concert last night. All of you "everybody loves him and wants him back" ask yourself the honest question, how many people you know for real wo have ever mentioned to you anything to that effect indeed. And no I don't mean those who were pressed by avidly glowing Craig supporters. Most people wouldn't even tell their best friend that a dress is much too tight or too short for her/his stubby figure let alone risk to rebuff an acquaintance or relative.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 11,425
    I always call out my male friends if I think their dress is too short.



  • Posts: 1,162
    Getafix wrote: »
    I always call out my male friends if I think their dress is too short.



    As you jolly well should!
    My mistake. I started the line only thinking about women's dress problems and then decided to coin it for both genders.
  • marketto007marketto007 Brazil
    Posts: 3,277
    Don't know who this guy is, so it's probably b/s. Anyway...

    cSOxIGR.png
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,539
    Don't know who this guy is, so it's probably b/s. Anyway...

    cSOxIGR.png

    It seems to be related to this Tweet about an entirely different film, but still has the Bond25 hashtag.

    https://twitter.com/AdamEthanCrow/status/895524356935172097

    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5128863/

    https://adamethancrow.com/
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    The_Donald wrote: »
    The_Donald wrote: »
    Pierce 'pain face' Brosnan more emotional range than Connery? Come on that's got to be a joke. Overacting and melodramatic lines do not equate to more range. It is true Connery was never called upon for his full repertoire. But then Connery was playing the stiff upper lip as per the original character. And if we're talking about accents, well we have to mention Brosnan's American-Irish 'barrrm'. Connery's accent is cultured & iconic, a major plus not a minus.

    Notice how I said favourite rather than best. So it's my personal preference, the ones I enjoy the most. Not joking.

    True Brosnan never bothered with an accent either but at least he never phoned it in. And yep, definitely more emotional range. Can't imagine Connery coming across as wounded or vulnerable as Brosnan does in say any of the scenes with Paris for instance. Or as angry in say the scenes with Zao early in DAD or killing Trevelayn in Goldeneye. Connery was the definition of cool, ice cold, but it made for a more one dimesional character. Brosnan's Bond had more range. More intense, more emotional. And Connery did have opportunities to add this himself. For example when he tells Domino about her brother's death he could have played it more sorrowful/compationate. When he's confronting Blofeld in DAF he could have come across a lot more angry.

    Stiff upper lip as per the original character? In GF after killing the Mexican Bond struggles to come to terms with it for days afterwards. It really shakes him up. Connery just cracked a one liner and got on with it, heading back to Miami to slap Dink on the arse then ditch her straight away (Fleming's Bond was a much more romantic, emotional character than Connery imo, something only Dalton has really captured). Not a bad thing but actors since have gotten a lot closer. In terms of being close to the original character Lazenby shits on Connery (not sure how much of that was down to Hunt/the script but we'll never know and I'm glad because if Connery had phoned it in again OHMSS could have been ruined).

    And his accent is definitely a minus imo, as is Brosnan's. Being iconic doesn't excuse it not fitting the character he was meant to be playing (old Etonian who's spent the majority of his life in England). Connery himself seemed to know this at first but by the end had all but given up hiding it. Another example of how he went downhill.

    Besides, we weren't talking about Brosnan. We were talking about Craig. And Craig is imo a much better actor than Connery, probably just as good a Bond, and has the potential to be even better than Connery if he does one more and it proves me and everyone else who was hoping for a fresh start wrong.

    With Brosnan it's a matter of personal preference. I just like him better than Connery. With Craig I think he's possibly genuinely better. Certainly a much better actor anyway.

    Apologies I should not have tried to compare him to the books, which I haven't read in eons. I should have said I much prefer his character to Brosnan's and Craig's. I must say the scene with Paris does nothing for me, apart from slight embarrassment that Bond was so attached to this vapid woman.

    You mention the Domino scene. To me it wouldn't make sense for Bond to be emotional here. They're hours away from possible nuclear disaster. The relatively trivial death of a man he never knew would not touch him in the least. He just wants to persuade Domino to help him. My interpretation of him putting on sunglasses is that he doesn't want Domino see him calculating how best to persuade her.

    I agree with other choices Connery made such as being brusque to Kerim Bey's son. There's no time for sentiment, only time to issue his instructions and convey their import. Craig is not a better Bond or actor than Connery imo.
    I agree on Connery's reaction in TB & FRWL. His behaviour was well suited to the situation at hand. He did show some sympathy for Domino in TB and he certainly was ticked when he found Kerim dead (as he was when he found Jill in GF). He handled the situations perfectly imho. That's how I expect a hardened agent to react. Keep focused on the job (or ticking clock) in hand. The way he firmly told Kerim's son about his father's death was perfection imho. It's similar to giving a potentially hysterical person a slap to shake them out of their momentary irrationality.

    I realize that Fleming's Bond was more introspective and emotional than Connery (or Moore) demonstrated, but I still much prefer their screen interpretations. Brosnan and Dalton laid it on a bit think imho, and perhaps I'm just not as emotional a person, and so when I see a so called battle hardened agent reacting like that it surprises me.

    Craig does it well too. Like Connery and Moore. Reserved for the most part. I like Laz's interpretation as well. Subtle (whether that was down to his limited acting range or not we'll never know).
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    Don't know who this guy is, so it's probably b/s. Anyway...

    cSOxIGR.png

    It seems to be related to this Tweet about an entirely different film, but still has the Bond25 hashtag.

    https://twitter.com/AdamEthanCrow/status/895524356935172097

    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5128863/

    https://adamethancrow.com/

    He's clearly a non entity who has realised that by adding '#Bond25' to his profile gets people googling him, as evidenced by your post.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    The_Donald wrote: »
    The_Donald wrote: »
    Pierce 'pain face' Brosnan more emotional range than Connery? Come on that's got to be a joke. Overacting and melodramatic lines do not equate to more range. It is true Connery was never called upon for his full repertoire. But then Connery was playing the stiff upper lip as per the original character. And if we're talking about accents, well we have to mention Brosnan's American-Irish 'barrrm'. Connery's accent is cultured & iconic, a major plus not a minus.

    Notice how I said favourite rather than best. So it's my personal preference, the ones I enjoy the most. Not joking.

    True Brosnan never bothered with an accent either but at least he never phoned it in. And yep, definitely more emotional range. Can't imagine Connery coming across as wounded or vulnerable as Brosnan does in say any of the scenes with Paris for instance. Or as angry in say the scenes with Zao early in DAD or killing Trevelayn in Goldeneye. Connery was the definition of cool, ice cold, but it made for a more one dimesional character. Brosnan's Bond had more range. More intense, more emotional. And Connery did have opportunities to add this himself. For example when he tells Domino about her brother's death he could have played it more sorrowful/compationate. When he's confronting Blofeld in DAF he could have come across a lot more angry.

    Stiff upper lip as per the original character? In GF after killing the Mexican Bond struggles to come to terms with it for days afterwards. It really shakes him up. Connery just cracked a one liner and got on with it, heading back to Miami to slap Dink on the arse then ditch her straight away (Fleming's Bond was a much more romantic, emotional character than Connery imo, something only Dalton has really captured). Not a bad thing but actors since have gotten a lot closer. In terms of being close to the original character Lazenby shits on Connery (not sure how much of that was down to Hunt/the script but we'll never know and I'm glad because if Connery had phoned it in again OHMSS could have been ruined).

    And his accent is definitely a minus imo, as is Brosnan's. Being iconic doesn't excuse it not fitting the character he was meant to be playing (old Etonian who's spent the majority of his life in England). Connery himself seemed to know this at first but by the end had all but given up hiding it. Another example of how he went downhill.

    Besides, we weren't talking about Brosnan. We were talking about Craig. And Craig is imo a much better actor than Connery, probably just as good a Bond, and has the potential to be even better than Connery if he does one more and it proves me and everyone else who was hoping for a fresh start wrong.

    With Brosnan it's a matter of personal preference. I just like him better than Connery. With Craig I think he's possibly genuinely better. Certainly a much better actor anyway.

    Apologies I should not have tried to compare him to the books, which I haven't read in eons. I should have said I much prefer his character to Brosnan's and Craig's. I must say the scene with Paris does nothing for me, apart from slight embarrassment that Bond was so attached to this vapid woman.

    You mention the Domino scene. To me it wouldn't make sense for Bond to be emotional here. They're hours away from possible nuclear disaster. The relatively trivial death of a man he never knew would not touch him in the least. He just wants to persuade Domino to help him. My interpretation of him putting on sunglasses is that he doesn't want Domino see him calculating how best to persuade her.

    I agree with other choices Connery made such as being brusque to Kerim Bey's son. There's no time for sentiment, only time to issue his instructions and convey their import. Craig is not a better Bond or actor than Connery imo.
    I agree on Connery's reaction in TB & FRWL. His behaviour was well suited to the situation at hand. He did show some sympathy for Domino in TB and he certainly was ticked when he found Kerim dead (as he was when he found Jill in GF). He handled the situations perfectly imho. That's how I expect a hardened agent to react. Keep focused on the job (or ticking clock) in hand. The way he firmly told Kerim's son about his father's death was perfection imho. It's similar to giving a potentially hysterical person a slap to shake them out of their momentary irrationality.

    I realize that Fleming's Bond was more introspective and emotional than Connery (or Moore) demonstrated, but I still much prefer their screen interpretations. Brosnan and Dalton laid it on a bit think imho, and perhaps I'm just not as emotional a person, and so when I see a so called battle hardened agent reacting like that it surprises me.

    Craig does it well too. Like Connery and Moore. Reserved for the most part. I like Laz's interpretation as well. Subtle (whether that was down to his limited acting range or not we'll never know).

    Connery is perfection as Bond. Amazing how he nails it from the first scene of DN. Roger was also briliiant in his own way but no one melded realism with the fantastical elements better than Connery. The other four dwell in the shadow of Connery and Moore.
  • Posts: 12,526
    If their had not been the writers strike between QOS and SF then DC would have most likely achieved 6 movies? However not now, always had a feeling Bond 25 would be his final outing!

    Then for the 60th Anniversary of Bond? We would have the 007th actor taking up residence!!!
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited August 2017 Posts: 13,978
    I would think that debuting the new actor in the 60th anniversary year, would put unnecessary pressure on all concerned. Best to make the clean break now, for 2019, then release the 2nd film from the 7th Bond actor in 2022.
  • RogueAgent wrote: »
    If their had not been the writers strike between QOS and SF then DC would have most likely achieved 6 movies? However not now, always had a feeling Bond 25 would be his final outing!

    Then for the 60th Anniversary of Bond? We would have the 007th actor taking up residence!!!

    Writer's strike between Quantum and Skyfall? The last Writer's strike was in 2007 ahead of Quantum's filming.

    The main event between those two movies was MGM's bankruptcy.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I would think that debuting the new actor in the 60th anniversary year, would put on unnecessary on all concerned. Best to make the clean break now, for 2019, then release the 2nd film from the 7th Bond actor in 2022.
    +1.

    That's why I'm surprised by the recent rumours. Unless of course they want Craig to bow out with the 60th.
Sign In or Register to comment.