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
This, absolutely! The first 4 SC films were truly great. Flawless.
Which is how Fleming wrote it, after all.
The passing of Ms Carver hurt even more since she was so real, and so spectacular...
I know this is going to sound silly but, what separates SC from the much of the rest of the pack is that he almost never ran anywhere. That is a good part of his self confidences. That creates the appearance of being one step ahead in any situation. I know it won't happen but I'd like to see a new 007 that doesn't run around all the time.
Not silly at all, I know what you mean. I'd much rather the future films reflect the Connery era than the Craig, but they're gonna cater for modern audiences. So christ knows what we'll get with the next Bond. Tastes have changed.
But back to the running, the scene of CraigBond running down the street with the Tennyson poem was one of my favourite bits of the CraigBond era. It was really clumsy how M started doing poetry when she was in that court scene, but when it cut to CraigBond running, it really worked for me. I felt like the 'hero' aspect of Bond had returned, after the blunt instrument thug stuff in QoS.
Then I realised that Connery did some running in YOLT, albeit in small doses: the rooftop fight, running from the guards at Osato's, running towards Blofeld's "office" in the volcano, ... He ran from the exploding base in DN, looking for Honey. He ran from the helicopter in FRWL. He ran a bit in the PTS of GF. And so on. But those moments were always short, either because the scene didn't require lengthy running sequences, or because an actor really has to be whipped into shape before he can overcome the natural exhaustion -- and Connery's physique is impressive, but he doesn't strike me as someone who'd have hit the gym in preparation for his next movie.
Lazenby did a small bit of running, but his running is more like dancing IMO. Moore had a few great running scenes -- especially when chasing Loque in FYEO. Dalton ran with stamina in the PTS of TLD. Brosnan ran when we first saw him in GE.
Craig portrayed a young version of Bond in CR. And since Cruise had been doing some impressive running in the M:I films, Damon in the Bourne films, and so on, the time was right, I guess, to introduce a running Bond. It paid off too. Craig runs "beautifully" (if that makes sense), and the parkour chase in CR took many an audience member's breath away. (I was there, several times, to witness the awe.) Remember that CR was announced back then as a film that would play more down to earth, with fewer big explosions and car chases, and more focus on Bond himself. When you make this Bond run his lungs out, you create a more subjective perspective. Plus, Craig could do it. Few of his predecessors would have been able to run up a moving crane (hell, Craig barely managed because it is so challenging.) But part of what sold Craig to audiences in '06 was the very fact that he did all these things himself, that he did pull them off, that he didn't have to shy away from Damon or Cruise. That why him running past a straight line of bullets in Venice works: you actually believe that this man can do that. If anyone can, it's this Bond. And since then, the physical stuff has been a staple of the Craig era.
The next Bond doesn't have to be so athletic in my opinion. Brosnan operated a tank where Craig might have run through St. Petersburg. ;-) But I accepted Brosnan in '95 as easily as I accepted Craig in '06. Being able to give such exhausting physical performances doesn't have to be a part of the job description, IMO. But if the actor can do it, and if he does it well, and if the film knows what to do with the physical stuff, then yes, I'm certainly willing to enjoy it, even if I don't need it in a good Bond film.
In that sense, @ColonelAdamski, I'm not entirely sure I agree with the "modern audience" comment, though it depends on what we call "modern", of course. ;-) I think that a Bond who runs (well) has been appealing to audiences for forty years or more. Even when poor Roger ('s double) had to run around outside Zorin's castle and through the Silicon Valley tunnels, they were obviously going for more kinetics. And that's, in my opinion, what it's all about: kinetics. One of the most important things that separate the films from the books, in my opinion, is the kinetic element. Fleming wrote some good action scenes, but they were few. (Though he generally wrote briskly, but that's another thing.) Yet since GF, Bond films have been expected to move fast at times. And that's a thing to be proud of too because those fast car chases and dynamically cut fight scenes (PTS OHMSS) were ground-breaking and new back then. Though I get what @delfloria is saying, I'm not sure that a Bond who has to run means that he's less self-confident. The way I see it, his running is merely an extension of the fact that the movie Bond isn't merely a spy, but also the guy who escapes danger and averts big disasters by using speed and stamina in the process. You sort of have to quicken the pulse too, to keep 25 movies interesting, and to compete with contemporary competitors. Either way, is it just modern audiences who like some running, jumping, and ducking away in their movies? I don't know. When I watch some Dirty Harry or Shaft, some Bullitt or The Getaway -- all films from before the mid-'70s -- I'm seeing quite a bit of running, jumping and so on. I'd say that movies of the action / spy genre have simply organically evolved to be like this, with Bond not just falling in line, but also partly pioneering the trend.
I saw Tinker, Taylor, Soldier, Spy. Obviously a good thriller, but devoid of any action. To be frank, that's not what I'd like my Bonds to be. Action, and with that also an occasionally running Bond, is an integral part of the cocktail I prefer for the Bonds. Just my opinion, of course. ;-)
Nah, he always runs where others walk :)
(Actually I never liked that lyric! I agree with you: walking where others run makes him sound more on top of things to me)
Apparently Roger did actually specify that he wouldn’t run onscreen. The reason was… he looked ridiculous. Pretty much the only time you see him running in a Bond is after the Kung Fu bit in MWTGG, and he does look quite silly- he doesn’t seem to be able to take long enough strides. Connery actually ran a fair bit in comparison, unless it was Bob Simmons doing it for him with his round-shouldered, weird shuffling run.
If we toss aside the possibility that a stunt double was doing most of the work, I'd say Roger ran quite a bit in FYEO.
He ran some from the bikers, and from the attackers on the beach. ;-) Not much, I know. Oh, and let's not forget OP, when he was being mocked by the youngsters in the open car. ;-)
With Roger, it was almost always small bits of running and possibly not even him, I agree. Compare that to Dalton running like a pro after the jeep with a straight face and cold determination in the PTS of TLD. ;-)
It's weird how something as natural and unconscious as running can be so difficult to do on film without looking daft. Matt Damon benefited from having Franka Potente in The Bourne Identity - she'd obviously done a lot of running in Run Lola Run and looked good doing it. He asked her advice and she said she'd had herself filmed running several times in preparation for it and had gradually ironed out all the awkward and dopey moves she was pulling, until she arrived at what looked good on film. So Damon did the same thing until he found what worked for him. Running and movie running - not the same thing, apparently!
It's silly, stupid yet also rather creepy throughout, and one of my guilty pleasures. It feels more like a Hammer Horror film in parts, with the eerie Barry music, unsettling scenes and characters, with a rather strange atmosphere looming over it.
If I recall correctly, in his James Bond Diary (for Live and Let Die), Moore admitted that he does not look good when running. Too stiff and straight up. He stated it was better to avoid showing it.
True. Hence what I said a few posts back. The fact of a Bond running or not running isn't entirely a matter of modern vs. old, but rather of the actor looking good running or not (among other things.) Tom Cruise looks good running, while Steven Seagal ran pretty "girly" in his days. Roger wasn't a big runner. Dalton and Craig were a lot better at it. Brosnan ran pretty "cool" too, in the PTS of GE for instance.
Yes ! And Brosnan ran hard for quite a stretch on the giant platform in Cuba in the climactic scenes, too. Seagal had -- and, I suppose, has -- a strangely straight-up appearance when running, too, eh ?
I'm sure I heard an actor saying recently how there is such a thing as 'movie running': you've got to alter your style a bit to look good onscreen. Cruise has, of course, perfected that.
Not to hijack another thread with Seagal, but yes, whatever it is, he moves better standing still than running. ;-)
I admire Brosnan's physique in GE! In fact, he had a few impressive running scenes in all four of his Bond films. Despite being handed poorer scripts than he deserved, he was committed in every way. Too bad that DAD's CGI surfing scene tends to distract us from the level of physicality that he retained during his days as Bond.
Or sitting down.
That's acting in the 21st century. 🤔😉
Sean was a great, natural athlete.
Roger had weak glutes, which gave him knobby knees, and flat feet, which made his running a terrible thing to watch. A trick they failed to capitalize on with Moore: he had a huge frame. I'd have stylized his fights as being more aggressive with "blunt force trauma"; kind of like the fight in the belly dancer's room in TMWTGG-- it's not slick, but he threw his big body about and it was more realistic than some of his other unarmed combat scenes.
Seagal's actually always had an odd run.
Like others have said, there seems to be an art to good movie running.
It's why his fights against bigger, slower brutes are his best. Tee-hee, Sandor, Jaws, etc. All good, evenly balanced bouts in terms of fighting styles.
Any time he's up against someone with a bit of flair or speed in his films I find them difficult to watch, as they really should be beating him easily.
💯 %^^^