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
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.
Yes Bond is bigger than one actor, but that casting is still big news and matters to a lot of people beyond hardcore fandom.
No doubt about it!
Sure, and after that he can pursue his new career as an astronaut.
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.
There is also something that distinguishes James Bond from his competition. Good looks ( at least according to Mr. Fleming), style and suaveness.
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.
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.
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.
To you maybe. I think other countries made up their own minds, like they normally do.
I don't remember suggesting that. Strange logic.
Really? Could have fooled me. Seems like you've become rather obsessed about it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
I note that Brozzer has nothing but praise for DC's performance. Of course he would say that though, wouldn't he?
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.
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 sometimes feel some of you would suffer a stroke if they indeed anounce they have found a new Bond.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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).
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.
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.
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.
That's why I'm surprised by the recent rumours. Unless of course they want Craig to bow out with the 60th.