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
Whether his character is poor isn't relevant. I was responding to a post that was concerned purely with the idea of Whishaw as an actor, not Q. Saying his career has been nowhere and is going nowhere is the definition of stupid.
Yes but BondJasonBond006 responded to you clarifying he meant he was awful in Skyfall, thus my reply. It would be rather silly to think Ben Whishaw managed to land the role of Q without having a successful career.
Thanks, I tried to explain it to CR7 but it's no use. I offended him, and he will not forgive me...lol...
Megalolz
I don't. I would prefer if the films had a mixed tone to them.
That only happened twice - "THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH" and "SKYFALL". What's with the exaggeration?
Balance is the key. Spectre looks to have a mixed tone.
It's just sour grapes where our Swiss friend is concerned, staunch Dalton fans are the same, if Dalton had been playing Bond in those films and believe he would have loved to have they would be completely different.
Craig is a far more confident cinematic actor than both Brosnan and Craig and even with some questionable material he elevates it in a way neither of those could, I don't see any awkward moments in any of his films where as you could make a good list of when both the Irish man and Welsh one look out of place or uncomfortable.
As for the idea Bond when Craig leaves will revert to Moore/Brosnan type because of the success of the likes of Kingman & MI5, I'm looking forward to seeing Brosnan groupies getting very disappointed.
Anyone who can't see that the next actor will want more of what Craig got is living in denial, the type of actor that would want that role has now changed. So yes I would say despite showing it possible that someone not called Sean Connery could be Bond like Rog did, Craig is still the most significant actor since Connery because he's shifted the character the most significantly from what it was, Bond is regarded in a way it never was before, the reaction to Skyfall proves that whether you can't stand the sight of it.
Craig will not be regarded like Brosnan or Dalton he will be different, he set a new bench mark and mark my words the next Bond will not want be in A to B travelogues with no depth like some are clearly crying out for once again. The things is we get only 3 films of this when the previous twenty were for the good part just that, some people don't want change or shake ups just the same old man on a mission and a clothes horse to play the role, which is what we got with Brosnan.
I'll take a gifted actor like Wishaw over the buffoonery of Cleese's pale version of Q in DAD all the time, I love Fawlty Towers and Basil Fawlty but it has no part in a Bond film which is what dear old John was playing. He's a great comedian and writer and legend but versatile actor no i don't think so. Wishaw in comparison is one of the most gifted young actors we have and has an exciting career ahead of him and I hope he continues to give us more of his Q with Craig and after he's gone if that is possible depending how SP plays out judging on recent comments from one member in the spoiler section.
A: Radiohead is the best thing since sliced bread.
B: Craig is the saviour of the Bond franchise.
C: Ben Whishaw is the rising star in Hollywood and UK and we will all be flabbergasted at how he'll play anything to the wall again in Spectre.
Nice to see how compassionate you are though.
GE and TWINE especially are not that different to CR or SF when it comes to style of story, and seriousness.
SF has a bit more depth, so does CR to some extend, but that's about it.
QOS is as mindless as DAD is, just totally different in style.
Every actor has a weaker movie in his repertoire (except Lazenby).
Every actor has one of the most beloved movies.
Craig has one truly great movie, one quite good with flaws and one big disappointing movie.
That just doesn't cut it to already propose he is as good as Connery or even better.
IF Spectre turns out to be as good as CR or even better, THEN we can start to discuss if Craig actually could be seen as No 2.
Sour grapes have nothing to do with it? I dislike Craig's Bond because the character he plays doesn't resemble James Bond in any way shape or form.... in my opinion.
Brosnan was not only more popular, but also financially successful than Dalton (I say this even as a hardcore Dalton/Bond fan. But Brosnan never appealed to me at the time. Yet I can still look at the Brosnan films (yes, all four), and pick out the bits that I like. I suppose this also translates to sour grapes just because?
I guess the world would end, if just 1 person on this planet didn't like Craig.
The world will end if:
A: Justin Bieber is doing a Bond theme
B: Justin Bieber gets cast as Bond
C: Justin Bieber becomes Batman or a Star Trek Captain.
D: A comet is hitting earth.
I truly hope for option D.
Joking of course. I do agree to go back on stand alone films. Not necessary ligther in tone then SF.
IMO he is highly overrated, but that will pass once a new actor has made at least two Bond movies.
Furthermore popularity and success go hand in hand. Without Skyfall's gigantic success we would not even discuss if Craig is as good as Connery or even better.
He is certainly polarizing, since he's such an unusual and unconventional pick. Almost art house in a way.
I agree that time must pass after he retires from the role before we can correctly assess and pass judgement on how his tenure will be seen in the history books. Nevertheless, he has been hugely impactful (irrespective of box office).
Regarding the last point, I certainly felt that SF, his most financially successful film by far, was also his weakest performance as Bond (relatively speaking, for him). I'm looking forward to SP to see where he goes with the character from here.
Those "people" were the immediate die-hard Craig fans. And exactly that's when they went unbelievable immediately.
Declaring an actor the best Bond AFTER ONLY ONE MOVIE!!!
Craig would have been torn apart by the media.
But I'll agree that Craig did absolutely fine in CR. After all it is my No 4 movie and that is because the movie itself and the actor are marvelous.
True, in forums, the Brosnan haters and the Craig-fans are the loudest, closely followed by the Craig haters.
But forums like this don't represent reality. If I talk amongst friends or colleagues about Bond I get a completely different picture.
Craig had strong opposition from the second he was announced as Bond. And he still has.
That's something that never happened before to that extend. Not even with Dalton and certainly not with Brosnan who was applauded and welcomed and even celebrated by about everyone, except some purists maybe that couldn't live with anyone else than Connery.
Yes, about anybody I knew didn't think he was the right choice, but after CR's release about anybody I knew thought Craig did very well and was convincing.
Don't forget it depends on age quite a bit.
I'm 40 years old and my generation was brought up to the Brosnan movies. My generation loves Brosnan in general.
Older people might be much more critical of Brosnan and much more fond of Craig as he is a bit more like Connery.
Very young people naturally like the Craig Bond movies the most. It's logical.
Could be true.
My favourite though is Timothy Dalton as I believe he was the Fleming Bond and has the best two first movies of all the actors, by far!
Craig was polarizing when cast. Not anymore: he has been widely accepted. His tenure can truly be judged once it is over, but overall as it stands it has been far more successful than the Brosnan era was overall.
That is very interesting & somewhat surprising to me @Birdleson. Lazenby was ok, but I'm surprised you would rank him so high on the basis of his first outing compared to Connery, Craig or even Moore's first.
I agree with your ranking based on the first two films though