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
You mean like when Craig is casually and coolly strutting across the rooftops at the beginning of SPECTRE? Or silkily moving through the casino in Macau in Skyfall? Yes, very stylish indeed. He fits right in with all the other Bonds in those moments, with the skill and craft on the other side of the camera often meaning it eclipsed those Bonds in the moment. I say "in the moment", because as mentioned previously, it doesn't mean the films get unilateral praise from me. SPECTRE is a bottom tier entry for me.....because of the script.
@SIS_HQ Personally, I find the idea of Craig's Bond not being charismatic to simply just not be true. He has charisma in spades. It's just different to the charisma the previous actors had. I don't think him being "harder" or having more of an edge negates that. If that were the case, then there are a lot of very famous leading men/action stars throughout cinema history that we could argue about not having charisma.
I could make a case of Tom Cruise being charismatic, or for his edginess, Matt Damon in his Bourne years, but Craig leaned on too much toughness, again, I know what they're trying to do with Craig, but the way he carried himself, like he's almost too gritty at times (the guy could still make humor and be stylish), but there's no certain sophistication in him, he's too hard of a man, almost like a bodyguard (well, I understand because of his background), but there's no balance, he comes off to me as John Wick, lacking any charisma or sophistication and just comes off as a hard assassin.
So, for me, Craig's iteration (I know the guy is a great actor), didn't succeed in making Bond distinctive from any contemporary modern action heroes of today, and instead, doing the opposite by aligning Bond with them.
Again, it's a personal feeling.
@CraigMooreOHMSS based on the examples you gave what we're talking about are two completely different things. You're talking about understated cool, and I never said Craig didn't look cool in a suit. I'm talking about the filmmaking itself having great style, for example in LALD how when BAINS is killed the music ramps up to a crescendo, and then drops away as his body turns lifeless and the first notes of macartney kick in. Or how solitaire is reading bonds future is cut with his plane screeching down onto the runway. Those of bold, stylish choices that gives the film character, whereas Craigs films are mostly stoic and very matter of fact about how they unfold.
Brossa, in the opening of TWINE, just looks like a geography teacher late for class!
That was good! That's what I'm talking about, the little flourishes, but they are few unfortunately. :-<
It's rubbish mate. It may not be to your taste, but to pretend there aren't any jokes in there (seem them with an audience in a cinema: you'll hear laughs) or style or swagger is just boring. Like the guy who claimed that Connery's Bond 'never ran' a page or two back, I'm not sure why we get people who feel they have to pretend that black is white just to say that they have a preference for a different flavour.
To me, Skyfall is one of the most stylishly made of all of the Bond films: it has actual flair and flourish in the filmaking where the previous films were all turned out by pretty style-free workmanlike directors. And that's fine, but you don't get many tense scenes of stalking through a maze of glass reflections or a one-shot fight scene in silhouette done that way, purely for the sake of aesthetic style. Or the oppressive mood of the overcast, doom laden approach to the Skyfall house itself; a one shot monologue to introduce your magnetic villain as he walks to the camera; the pure luxury of the approach to the Macau casino.
You may not appreciate it, but surely you can see they were at least aiming for style in all of those, and more?
Just say 'I would prefer more jokes' if that's how you feel, you don't have to go for hyperbole just to get attention.
I don't think we're talking about different things. You're just not cohesive in the slightest about what you are talking about. I'm not simply saying "Craig looked good in a suit" - that would be an obvious analysis that anyone above the age of twelve could come up with.
The examples I gave were in response to your example of a Brosnan Bond moment in TND (a little moment I very much like too) which itself is absolutely nothing like that moment in LALD.
The entire casino sequence in Macau is bold and stylish and worthy of mentioning in any great Bond moments list, including the examples you gave above.
You just don't seem interested in seeing them for whatever reason. They are there though, regardless.
To be fair, poor David Dencik had to work very hard to sell some of that Obruchev fluff in the last film and I still found it eye-roll worthy.
Just take how Bond films in the past have used their villains bases, how you get a sense of the scope and majesty, and see them used to their full potential, and compared them with how the lairs in SP and Bond 25 were used. Flat, boring, dull. What's the point in thinking up and creating an iconic lair and then do nothing to showcase it?
:))
And we also live in a world where "Bond is a serious spy" in A View To A Kill.
Oh yeah, I guess that's a fair point. I'm not sure some of that wasn't in the line readings too though!
I'm struggling to see how that relates to the supposed point that there are no jokes, style or swagger in the movies- it feels like you're just careering around mentioning random things rather than constructing any sort of cohesive argument; and honestly I don't even agree with you on this point anyway. The crater base wasn't the most memorable, no; but it was the one which felt the most like a Fleming book to me and I enjoyed that. The NTTD base I see no problem with at all.
It's so easy to say 'it's all rubbish'.
You aren't understanding my point. Hardcutting to Bond darting to his car in TND is inventive and slick, as was Craig skipping along the outside of the wall to avoid detection. Bond simply going to a casino and looking good is not in and of itself a bold creative flourish. I will say the lanterns on the water as bond arrives is neat looking though.
I mean, I have nothing against that moment, but I've also never given it a second's thought. It's just an actor crossing the street, what's inventive about it?
A man crossing the street is stylish and inventive but a one-take fight scene in total silhouette with a giant floating LED jellyfish isn't even aiming for any style?
The way you're moving the goalposts, often within the same post, suggests to me that you don't even understand your own point; especially now we've gone from talking about humour and sophistication to talking about how a hard cuts make a scene slick and inventive.
"Bond simply going to a casino and looking good" - ah, okay then. As I said previously, Craig "looking good" wasn't part of my thought-process. I was thinking more of all of the numerous elements involved in elevating a scene above the norm.
Care to mention any of them?
Stop touching your ear...
Now, now,.... As he drops the ear piece into Moneypenny's glass of champagne.
That was all of what? Fifteen seconds of screentime? Twenty? Packed plenty of cool, light moments into a small amount of time....
I do love the little stunt before where Bond rolls out under the shutter, and the whole scene is very enjoyable, but I'm curious where all this 'style' is in the filmmaking.
I've no doubt that you'll say that this is "not what you're talking about" so I would invite you to start again and actually outline what it is you are talking about; we started off talking about humour and style and now we're here. So far all you've said with conviction is the old Bond films had humour and style while the new films didn't. We all knew the former (we wouldn't be fans otherwise!), but you've provided no proof of the latter so far other than "it's just not there, I saw the films loads of times".
TND’s brief 4 seconds of Brosnan going to his car is a very cool momment because he makes it stylish.
But why are we comparing the two? I don’t see the point.
Okay, I asked what made that scene stylish, and you gave me cinematography and set design. I think this is the problem we're having, you're taking to analysis individual elements. This is why I brought up the example of the lairs. Craigs lairs are cool in concept and design, there's nothing wrong with the cinematography or the lighting or any of those individual elements you mentioned. What matters is how they are used. The bases in YOLT, TSWLM, MR, are fully taken advantage of for their climaxs. You have chance to take in their breathtaking scope, and get a sense of their opertation. When the action starts, its dynamic and almost balletic. In either SP or B25 bond runs around empty corridors for 2 minutes (less in SP), picking off enemies like the tutorial level of a videogame, there's no tension whatsoever, it might as well happen behind a supermarket, it would make no difference. Zero effort is put into getting something out of the location.
There are plenty of other examples we could argue back and forth, but that's a pretty basic one. If you can't see how Craigs bond films are toned down on the style I honestly find that pretty surprising since, as I mentioned in one of my original posts, this was done intentionally by the filmmakers to keep the feeling of realism intact.
Once again, it has to do with the intentionality behind the filmmaking, not the individual elements themselves. For stance that example I gave about the snake biting BAINS and the music ramping, technically you could have the scene end another way, with a wide shot of the villagers leaving the sacrifice, the lighting of the film would be the same, as would the cinematography, staging, acting, everything would be equal except you'd lose a great moment that ultimately adds something to the style and character of the film.
When I say the Craig films lack style, I mean they unfold in a very matter of fact manner. Again, I know this is intentional for the most part, as its not only for the sake of realism, but also down to grappling with more sombre subject matter, but that doesn't mean that it isn't real. They want you to feel the reality of the situation, which is in stark contrast to how Bond films used to be made.
…. And it was during this exploration that I realized @Mendes4Lyfe posts, and their meanings, are still the great mysteries of this universe still to be solved….
Or gadgets and fantastical stuff. The only one I felt was trying too hard to feel grounded was QoS, and they course corrected after that pretty much straight away.
Mendes seems to live in a different UK to us where the Craig films were much less popular.
'Zero effort' is another bit of nonsense hyperbole.
Regardless, you start off by saying that CraigMoore is talking about cinematography and set designs and that's wrong, and then you talk about how good the cinematography and set designs were in the old films.
And using a location in a particular way is not 'style'- as Craig said, you really don't seem sure of what your point is. Beyond 'new films are bad'.
It's telling how you have to actually ignore all of the examples of the Craig films screaming style in order to make a point about CraigMoore not being able to see something. If you're ignoring something, you're choosing not to see something, so you can't really speak from a position of superiority on that one.
Which is utter nonsense of course, they drip in style, especially the Mendes movies. Watch Skyfall and TWINE or TMWTGG or OP back to back, and then tell us which has the more atmosphere, the more inventiveness, the more filmmaking panache.