Where does Bond go after Craig?

1564565567569570680

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,382
    peter wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    As much as I love Connery, to me Daniel Craig is the quintessential Bond. We can't go back to jokey Bond now.

    I'd put Dalton up against Craig any day as Fleming's Bond. Not jokey for sure, but better written humor needs to return.

    I liked Dalton a lot. But his weakness, for me, was the stick up his rear approach. Too often, he always seemed angry. Too angry to the point of being close to unlikeable.

    No matter what Fleming said, his character was likeable and he certainly was not one where he was ready to snap at everyone he came in contact with.

    Craig had a better sense of when to slow down, and say, have a drink with Mathis and enjoy it, although it was business; after his win with Le Chiffre , he celebrated; using Fields for his own enjoyment, but to soften her up and manipulate her in his favour; having dirty Martinis with Madeleine… he was far more dimensional than Dalton.

    I repeat myself too much on this, but the key to the cinematic Bond for me is his swagger and huge self-confidence. They've all had it, even if that sometimes veers towards arrogance (maybe Lazenby) or smugness (Roger and Pierce may have gone there occasionally), but all of them walk into a room and there's not a doubt in their mind that they are the sexiest, manliest, coolest guy in that room. But Dalton's Bond just doesn't quite know that for sure: he doesn't convince me in the swagger stakes- he couldn't do the Range Rover crash/keys over the shoulder bit from CR or the grape thievery from TB & DAD; he's not comfortable in his own skin enough. And the 007 we love is totally at ease with who he is: Craig even manages that in CR, where Bond actually isn't quite supposed to be the full 007 just yet. I'm always kind of amazed they pulled that off.

    I wonder if Dalton wasn't trying to make it too much like the books without examining what made the movie version so beloved. Roger, as much as he wasn't a great actor and knew not to imitate Connery, absolutely got it. The little move Dalton does in the Prater cafe where he pushes away the coffee that Saunders has bought for him in disgust: that always strikes me as such an actorly bit of detail to throw in because he's decided that's what the character in the books would do- that's great for folks who love that but I can't help but feel like it shows a focus on the wrong things.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    meshypushy wrote: »
    meshypushy wrote: »
    I love this video and the attitude this Bond fan is bringing. I find it totally refreshing to listen to and wish more of fandom adopts it.

    He strikes me as a guy who spends most of his time trying to kiss ass with brands, in return for free stuff, whilst being extremely careful about putting his real thoughts out there, trying to strike the balance of not biting the hand that feeds. It was pretty clear he wasn’t a fan of NTTD around the time of its release but he smiled, threw out a few pleasantries, showed up for the free brand events and then when the marketing blitz for the NTTD release ended (and associated freebies for him and his ilk had dried up), he speaks a little more freely on his thoughts on the movie.

    He has zero credibility in my view - either speak freely or take the money from the brands but don’t try fooling and patronising your audience. He’s a good example of why I prefer professional critics and journalists over ‘influencers’.

    Gee, you’re a ray of sunshine.
    I’m just calling out what I see - I’m glad others enjoy his output but it’s not for me. Critique is not an indication of a lack of sunny disposition.

    Okay. For example, I agree with his viewpoint 100% and I’m not at all receiving any kickbacks from Eon. So let’s say that what he’s saying is also my own viewpoint, what do you think of what is said?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited June 10 Posts: 8,395
    The difference between Craig and the other actors is personality. Craig played it like a "blunt instrument", the downside being that save for a few exceptions he delivers virtually every line as emotionally detached and stoic. No matter how cool and alpha connery had a reputation as, when something catches him off guard, a genuine reaction slips through the facade e.g. "ejector seat, you're joking!" Craigs bond is so preoccupied with emotional depth and "being real" that he forgets about the personality that draws you in to begin with.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    mtm wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    As much as I love Connery, to me Daniel Craig is the quintessential Bond. We can't go back to jokey Bond now.

    I'd put Dalton up against Craig any day as Fleming's Bond. Not jokey for sure, but better written humor needs to return.

    I liked Dalton a lot. But his weakness, for me, was the stick up his rear approach. Too often, he always seemed angry. Too angry to the point of being close to unlikeable.

    No matter what Fleming said, his character was likeable and he certainly was not one where he was ready to snap at everyone he came in contact with.

    Craig had a better sense of when to slow down, and say, have a drink with Mathis and enjoy it, although it was business; after his win with Le Chiffre , he celebrated; using Fields for his own enjoyment, but to soften her up and manipulate her in his favour; having dirty Martinis with Madeleine… he was far more dimensional than Dalton.

    I repeat myself too much on this, but the key to the cinematic Bond for me is his swagger and huge self-confidence. They've all had it, even if that sometimes veers towards arrogance (maybe Lazenby) or smugness (Roger and Pierce may have gone there occasionally), but all of them walk into a room and there's not a doubt in their mind that they are the sexiest, manliest, coolest guy in that room. But Dalton's Bond just doesn't quite know that for sure: he doesn't convince me in the swagger stakes- he couldn't do the Range Rover crash/keys over the shoulder bit from CR or the grape thievery from TB & DAD; he's not comfortable in his own skin enough. And the 007 we love is totally at ease with who he is: Craig even manages that in CR, where Bond actually isn't quite supposed to be the full 007 just yet. I'm always kind of amazed they pulled that off.

    I wonder if Dalton wasn't trying to make it too much like the books without examining what made the movie version so beloved. Roger, as much as he wasn't a great actor and knew not to imitate Connery, absolutely got it. The little move Dalton does in the Prater cafe where he pushes away the coffee that Saunders has bought for him in disgust: that always strikes me as such an actorly bit of detail to throw in because he's decided that's what the character in the books would do- that's great for folks who love that but I can't help but feel like it shows a focus on the wrong things.

    I have to agree with all of this, especially about Bond stepping into a room, and just being so comfortable in his skin that he IS the coolest cat in the room, and all eyes pull over to him.

    Oftentimes Dalton was too stiff, and too disheveled to do this (which to me is ironic as I find him to be the most handsome of the actors (great jaw, wolf like eyes, a perfectly straight nose)). He's just too anal as Bond to be legitimately cool.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 10 Posts: 16,382
    Disheveled is an interesting term; I must say that hadn't occurred to me. I wonder if that's because, due to his casting so late in the day for TLD, he's the only Bond not to wear bespoke suits?
    I agree he looks absolutely perfect though.
    echo wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    As much as I love Connery, to me Daniel Craig is the quintessential Bond. We can't go back to jokey Bond now.

    I'd put Dalton up against Craig any day as Fleming's Bond. Not jokey for sure, but better written humor needs to return.

    I liked Dalton a lot. But his weakness, for me, was the stick up his rear approach. Too often, he always seemed angry. Too angry to the point of being close to unlikeable.

    No matter what Fleming said, his character was likeable and he certainly was not one where he was ready to snap at everyone he came in contact with.

    Craig had a better sense of when to slow down, and say, have a drink with Mathis and enjoy it, although it was business; after his win with Le Chiffre , he celebrated; using Fields for his own enjoyment, but to soften her up and manipulate her in his favour; having dirty Martinis with Madeleine… he was far more dimensional than Dalton.

    I see your point. What works with Dalton best for me is the casting of d'Abo...I just *believed* their chemistry in a way that I hadn't in a Bond film in years. Her innocence played nicely against his world weariness. She didn't seem superfluous to the story, nor to Bond.

    I think that's totally fair. They do actually seem to really like each other for a change in a Bond film (even if I'm not sure his move on the ferris wheel isn't a bit creepy! :) ).
  • Posts: 2,266
    Personally I prefer Dalton’s Bond to Craig’s Bond because I because imo Dalton’s Bond is always 10 steps ahead of his enemies, playing them like chumps as a result. That makes him an incredibly engaging character to watch; an engagement that I sadly don’t have with Craig’s Bond (whose quite good in his own way.)
  • Posts: 4,139
    The difference between Craig and the other actors is personality. Craig played it like a "blunt instrument", the downside being that save for a few exceptions he delivers virtually every line as emotionally detached and stoic. No matter how cool and alpha connery had a reputation as, when something catches him off guard, a genuine reaction slips through the facade e.g. "ejector seat, you're joking!" Craigs bond is so preoccupied with emotional depth, that he forgets about the personality that draws you in to begin with.

    Not sure I get that sense to be honest. There's little moments in CR especially where for me it actually came off as Craig's Bond being fully natural (it comes through for me when he's speaking with Vesper over the celebratory dinner after the game. There's that great little moment from Craig where he agrees that his quip about naming his cocktail the Vesper was a 'good line' and he genuinely seems to be chuckling. Honestly, just his smile and demeanour in that moment look so natural, far more relaxed than Dalton or Brosnan looked in the role). Even in more dramatic moments like the first Silva encounter in SF you can tell so much about Bond's mindset from him looking away after Silva reveals he didn't pass his evaluations and his little facial expressions. Also I'm not sure how he can say every line as emotionally detached while being preoccupied with emotional depth...

    For me, it's Lazenby and to a lesser extent sometimes Dalton and Brosnan who put up too much of a facade as Bond and didn't always look quite natural. Craig is up there with Connery and Moore for me as being so comfortable in that role.
    mtm wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    As much as I love Connery, to me Daniel Craig is the quintessential Bond. We can't go back to jokey Bond now.

    I'd put Dalton up against Craig any day as Fleming's Bond. Not jokey for sure, but better written humor needs to return.

    I liked Dalton a lot. But his weakness, for me, was the stick up his rear approach. Too often, he always seemed angry. Too angry to the point of being close to unlikeable.

    No matter what Fleming said, his character was likeable and he certainly was not one where he was ready to snap at everyone he came in contact with.

    Craig had a better sense of when to slow down, and say, have a drink with Mathis and enjoy it, although it was business; after his win with Le Chiffre , he celebrated; using Fields for his own enjoyment, but to soften her up and manipulate her in his favour; having dirty Martinis with Madeleine… he was far more dimensional than Dalton.

    I repeat myself too much on this, but the key to the cinematic Bond for me is his swagger and huge self-confidence. They've all had it, even if that sometimes veers towards arrogance (maybe Lazenby) or smugness (Roger and Pierce may have gone there occasionally), but all of them walk into a room and there's not a doubt in their mind that they are the sexiest, manliest, coolest guy in that room. But Dalton's Bond just doesn't quite know that for sure: he doesn't convince me in the swagger stakes- he couldn't do the Range Rover crash/keys over the shoulder bit from CR or the grape thievery from TB & DAD; he's not comfortable in his own skin enough. And the 007 we love is totally at ease with who he is: Craig even manages that in CR, where Bond actually isn't quite supposed to be the full 007 just yet. I'm always kind of amazed they pulled that off.

    I wonder if Dalton wasn't trying to make it too much like the books without examining what made the movie version so beloved. Roger, as much as he wasn't a great actor and knew not to imitate Connery, absolutely got it. The little move Dalton does in the Prater cafe where he pushes away the coffee that Saunders has bought for him in disgust: that always strikes me as such an actorly bit of detail to throw in because he's decided that's what the character in the books would do- that's great for folks who love that but I can't help but feel like it shows a focus on the wrong things.

    Not wrong. I feel if he'd have been given a third film perhaps he would have found a bit more confidence/been more comfortable in the role. Still, I think he puts in great performances in his films, just not fully developed ones as Bond.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,382
    007HallY wrote: »
    Not wrong. I feel if he'd have been given a third film perhaps he would have found a bit more confidence/been more comfortable in the role. Still, I think he puts in great performances in his films, just not fully developed ones as Bond.

    I'd have liked to have seen him with a different director. He puts in bigger, starrier performances in some of his non-Bond films I think. He's even got some of that swagger in Rocketeer.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    edited June 10 Posts: 4,629
    A few viewpoints on James Bond literary and cinematic, past, present and future.

    They are great Bond adventures. Quite a few of the continuation novel authors are active on social media. Raymond Benson, Jeffery Deaver Anthony Horowitz and Kim Sherwood are just a few who have liked and interacted with fans. There are also several Bond alumni in general who have liked my social media posts. I recommend the Dynamite Comics run. The authors also interact with Bond fans. Hang in there fans, the memories are always there, and more of the people are lovely. For future Literary Bond adventures, I was thinking of Charles Cumming and Charlotte Philby. Both are thriller writers, with a bit of spy influence. Fleming wrote Bond as a modern day character, IFP should stick to that for now. A modern day spinoff I would like to see are for certain villains: Blofeld and Irma Bunt, Goldfinger and Oddjob, Alec Trevelyan and Francisco Scaramanga. They could all have interesting backstories set in the modern day BEFORE they meet James Bond.

    The only 2 negative things that I will say about EON's future with Bond is that Purvis and Wade should be done writing. Great ideas men, but it's simply time for a change. Even Richard Maibaum took breaks! And sadly bashed 2 of the 3 movies he didn't work on. Also, no actor should ever again get the amount of creative control that Craig had. He was like a spoiled brat at times. It always seemed Barbara Broccoli bowed down to him, (and never to Brosnan). If her dad could have given Connery even half of that, he might have played Bond longer.

    On the positive side, Gregg Wilson (MGW's son) has become more active in producing. He could take over his dad's job one day, with his aunt. Plus, if Amazon is helping with the budgets, more movies could be made more quickly. They want a return on their MGM investment, Bond will surely help with that!

    I'm very grateful to the James Bond fandom. However, we need to keep ourselves in check. We can disagree while being respectful to each other. That's one thing that Bond fandom has over other fandoms. I'm always interested in listening to others' James Bond opinions. Let's always be kind. We are one of the luckiest fandoms in the world. Let's always be appreciative of each other. Most franchises burn out. Bond hasn't, and probably never will at this point. It's because of respectful fans that this has happened. Please respect each other, it is shown. We are truly lucky.
  • Posts: 2,266
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Not wrong. I feel if he'd have been given a third film perhaps he would have found a bit more confidence/been more comfortable in the role. Still, I think he puts in great performances in his films, just not fully developed ones as Bond.

    I'd have liked to have seen him with a different director. He puts in bigger, starrier performances in some of his non-Bond films I think. He's even got some of that swagger in Rocketeer.

    I would’ve liked to have seen this too; I don’t think John Glen was a bad director by any means, but I think a different director could’ve perhaps played a bit more to Dalton’s strengths as an actor. He probably could’ve done with different screenwriters too.
  • Posts: 4,139
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Not wrong. I feel if he'd have been given a third film perhaps he would have found a bit more confidence/been more comfortable in the role. Still, I think he puts in great performances in his films, just not fully developed ones as Bond.

    I'd have liked to have seen him with a different director. He puts in bigger, starrier performances in some of his non-Bond films I think. He's even got some of that swagger in Rocketeer.

    Oh yeah, he definitely went bigger in some of his later roles (he can actually do comedy quite well too as per Hot Fuzz, which not all actors can do convincingly. It's why I always suspect he simply didn't want to play up that side in Bond, spitting out his quips in LTK and all that).

    With a different director and a certain script I'm sure he could have put in a better performance (again, not that TLD and LTK are bad performances at all, far from it).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 10 Posts: 16,382
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Not wrong. I feel if he'd have been given a third film perhaps he would have found a bit more confidence/been more comfortable in the role. Still, I think he puts in great performances in his films, just not fully developed ones as Bond.

    I'd have liked to have seen him with a different director. He puts in bigger, starrier performances in some of his non-Bond films I think. He's even got some of that swagger in Rocketeer.

    Oh yeah, he definitely went bigger in some of his later roles (he can actually do comedy quite well too as per Hot Fuzz, which not all actors can do convincingly. It's why I always suspect he simply didn't want to play up that side in Bond, spitting out his quips in LTK and all that).

    With a different director and a certain script I'm sure he could have put in a better performance (again, not that TLD and LTK are bad performances at all, far from it).

    Yeah, I don't think he's bad; it's just not a star performance. And I should say, TLD is probably my favourite Bond movie!
    Hot Fuzz is interesting yeah, he has loads of presence in that: he really feels like a big star. He even physically looks bigger to me. It's odd.

    MaxCasino wrote: »
    He was like a spoiled brat at times.

    Not keen on that.
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    I'm very grateful to the James Bond fandom. However, we need to keep ourselves in check. We can disagree while being respectful to each other.

    I think we can respect everyone then.
  • Posts: 4,139
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    He was like a spoiled brat at times. It always seemed Barbara Broccoli bowed down to him, (and never to Brosnan). If her dad could have given Connery even half of that, he might have played Bond longer.

    Well, I don't know about the creativity side, but in terms of pay I think the issue was that Cubby could have paid Connery more but seemingly didn't. Not that he was underpaid, but combined with the stress and demands of Bond films I can imagine that being a factor. I don't think it's fair to say Craig was a spoiled brat. The truth is none of us actually know him, nor the reason why BB and MGW decided to make him a producer. I suspect it could have well been because they got along with him and wanted his input/ideas... to be honest that's the most likely reason...
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Not wrong. I feel if he'd have been given a third film perhaps he would have found a bit more confidence/been more comfortable in the role. Still, I think he puts in great performances in his films, just not fully developed ones as Bond.

    I'd have liked to have seen him with a different director. He puts in bigger, starrier performances in some of his non-Bond films I think. He's even got some of that swagger in Rocketeer.

    Oh yeah, he definitely went bigger in some of his later roles (he can actually do comedy quite well too as per Hot Fuzz, which not all actors can do convincingly. It's why I always suspect he simply didn't want to play up that side in Bond, spitting out his quips in LTK and all that).

    With a different director and a certain script I'm sure he could have put in a better performance (again, not that TLD and LTK are bad performances at all, far from it).

    Yeah, I don't think he's bad; it's just not a star performance. And I should say, TLD is probably my favourite Bond movie!
    Hot Fuzz is interesting yeah, he has loads of presence in that: he really feels like a big star. He even physically looks bigger to me. It's odd.

    It may well have been him limiting himself as Bond/not wanting to let his hair down as much as the likes of Moore, Connery and Craig did.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited June 10 Posts: 8,395
    007HallY wrote: »
    Not sure I get that sense to be honest. There's little moments in CR especially where for me it actually came off as Craig's Bond being fully natural (it comes through for me when he's speaking with Vesper over the celebratory dinner after the game. There's that great little moment from Craig where he agrees that his quip about naming his cocktail the Vesper was a 'good line' and he genuinely seems to be chuckling. Honestly, just his smile and demeanour in that moment look so natural, far more relaxed than Dalton or Brosnan looked in the role). Even in more dramatic moments like the first Silva encounter in SF you can tell so much about Bond's mindset from him looking away after Silva reveals he didn't pass his evaluations and his little facial expressions. Also I'm not sure how he can say every line as emotionally detached while being preoccupied with emotional depth...

    Personality and emotional depth aren't the same thing. Moore and Brosnan had tons of personality, and sometimes a good deal of depth. Dalton had a lot of depth, but sometimes struggled selling the super outgoing, debonair, charisma-magnet appeal ("are you calling me a horses a**e?!" ). Again, besides the small part where he's joking with Vesper after beating Le Chiffre, seducing Lucia, some stuff with moneypenny (swaggering away in skyfall, which was cool), Craig doesn't demonstrate much personality or character, and when he does its grumpy or sarcastic. People pay deference to him because he is a dangerous person, but what charm does he have outside of that?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,382
    Craig doesn't demonstrate much personality or character

    Yes, he does.
  • edited June 10 Posts: 4,139
    007HallY wrote: »
    Not sure I get that sense to be honest. There's little moments in CR especially where for me it actually came off as Craig's Bond being fully natural (it comes through for me when he's speaking with Vesper over the celebratory dinner after the game. There's that great little moment from Craig where he agrees that his quip about naming his cocktail the Vesper was a 'good line' and he genuinely seems to be chuckling. Honestly, just his smile and demeanour in that moment look so natural, far more relaxed than Dalton or Brosnan looked in the role). Even in more dramatic moments like the first Silva encounter in SF you can tell so much about Bond's mindset from him looking away after Silva reveals he didn't pass his evaluations and his little facial expressions. Also I'm not sure how he can say every line as emotionally detached while being preoccupied with emotional depth...

    Personality and emotional depth aren't the same thing. Moore and Brosnan had tons of personality, and sometimes a good deal of depth. Dalton had a lot of depth, but sometimes struggled selling the super outgoing, debonair, charisma-magnet appeal ("are you calling me a horses a**e?!" ). Again, besides the small part where he's joking with Vesper after beating Le Chiffre, seducing Lucia, some stuff with moneypenny (swaggering away in skyfall, which was cool), Craig doesn't demonstrate much personality or character. People pay deference because he is a dangerous person, but what charm does he have outside of that?

    I'd say plenty, but to each their own honestly. I think even in those stoic moments of Craig's Bond it shows a lot of personality and idiosyncratically (I can't see any other Bond, for instance, doing that key throw and swagger in the CR hotel scene that Craig did, even when he's a so called 'blunt instrument' in that moment). Even the sarcastic side to his Bond/how he plays it shows personality and an individualistic take on the character. You've actually cited a lot of examples where Craig's Bond shows personality by your own criteria ironically...

    But I think a lot of this is very much about personal preference anyway. To each their own.
  • Posts: 2,266
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Not sure I get that sense to be honest. There's little moments in CR especially where for me it actually came off as Craig's Bond being fully natural (it comes through for me when he's speaking with Vesper over the celebratory dinner after the game. There's that great little moment from Craig where he agrees that his quip about naming his cocktail the Vesper was a 'good line' and he genuinely seems to be chuckling. Honestly, just his smile and demeanour in that moment look so natural, far more relaxed than Dalton or Brosnan looked in the role). Even in more dramatic moments like the first Silva encounter in SF you can tell so much about Bond's mindset from him looking away after Silva reveals he didn't pass his evaluations and his little facial expressions. Also I'm not sure how he can say every line as emotionally detached while being preoccupied with emotional depth...

    Personality and emotional depth aren't the same thing. Moore and Brosnan had tons of personality, and sometimes a good deal of depth. Dalton had a lot of depth, but sometimes struggled selling the super outgoing, debonair, charisma-magnet appeal ("are you calling me a horses a**e?!" ). Again, besides the small part where he's joking with Vesper after beating Le Chiffre, seducing Lucia, some stuff with moneypenny (swaggering away in skyfall, which was cool), Craig doesn't demonstrate much personality or character. People pay deference because he is a dangerous person, but what charm does he have outside of that?

    I'd say plenty, but to each their own honestly. I think even in those stoic moments of Craig's Bond it shows a lot of personality and idiosyncratically (I can't see any other Bond, for instance, doing that key throw and swagger in the CR hotel scene that Craig did, even when he's a so called 'blunt instrument' in that moment).

    Even better was the moment where he encounters the men who owned that car and he just smiles and walks away. I like that Craig’s Bond had a concealed sense of “dickishness” that was on par with Connery. Thankfully that was never something they lost as his era went on as opposed to the softening of Connery’s Bond to make him more palpable.
  • edited June 10 Posts: 4,139
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Not sure I get that sense to be honest. There's little moments in CR especially where for me it actually came off as Craig's Bond being fully natural (it comes through for me when he's speaking with Vesper over the celebratory dinner after the game. There's that great little moment from Craig where he agrees that his quip about naming his cocktail the Vesper was a 'good line' and he genuinely seems to be chuckling. Honestly, just his smile and demeanour in that moment look so natural, far more relaxed than Dalton or Brosnan looked in the role). Even in more dramatic moments like the first Silva encounter in SF you can tell so much about Bond's mindset from him looking away after Silva reveals he didn't pass his evaluations and his little facial expressions. Also I'm not sure how he can say every line as emotionally detached while being preoccupied with emotional depth...

    Personality and emotional depth aren't the same thing. Moore and Brosnan had tons of personality, and sometimes a good deal of depth. Dalton had a lot of depth, but sometimes struggled selling the super outgoing, debonair, charisma-magnet appeal ("are you calling me a horses a**e?!" ). Again, besides the small part where he's joking with Vesper after beating Le Chiffre, seducing Lucia, some stuff with moneypenny (swaggering away in skyfall, which was cool), Craig doesn't demonstrate much personality or character. People pay deference because he is a dangerous person, but what charm does he have outside of that?

    I'd say plenty, but to each their own honestly. I think even in those stoic moments of Craig's Bond it shows a lot of personality and idiosyncratically (I can't see any other Bond, for instance, doing that key throw and swagger in the CR hotel scene that Craig did, even when he's a so called 'blunt instrument' in that moment).

    Even better was the moment where he encounters the men who owned that car and he just smiles and walks away. I like that Craig’s Bond had a concealed sense of “dickishness” that was on par with Connery. Thankfully that was never something they lost as his era went on as opposed to the softening of Connery’s Bond to make him more palpable.

    It's actually a tricky thing to play - being a bit of a bastard but still likeable. Many actors simply can't do it. I'm not sure if even Brosnan could have pulled off Bond verbally sparring with Vesper as Craig does in CR and come off the same way. I reckon it would have drifted too much into smugness.
  • Posts: 2,266
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Not sure I get that sense to be honest. There's little moments in CR especially where for me it actually came off as Craig's Bond being fully natural (it comes through for me when he's speaking with Vesper over the celebratory dinner after the game. There's that great little moment from Craig where he agrees that his quip about naming his cocktail the Vesper was a 'good line' and he genuinely seems to be chuckling. Honestly, just his smile and demeanour in that moment look so natural, far more relaxed than Dalton or Brosnan looked in the role). Even in more dramatic moments like the first Silva encounter in SF you can tell so much about Bond's mindset from him looking away after Silva reveals he didn't pass his evaluations and his little facial expressions. Also I'm not sure how he can say every line as emotionally detached while being preoccupied with emotional depth...

    Personality and emotional depth aren't the same thing. Moore and Brosnan had tons of personality, and sometimes a good deal of depth. Dalton had a lot of depth, but sometimes struggled selling the super outgoing, debonair, charisma-magnet appeal ("are you calling me a horses a**e?!" ). Again, besides the small part where he's joking with Vesper after beating Le Chiffre, seducing Lucia, some stuff with moneypenny (swaggering away in skyfall, which was cool), Craig doesn't demonstrate much personality or character. People pay deference because he is a dangerous person, but what charm does he have outside of that?

    I'd say plenty, but to each their own honestly. I think even in those stoic moments of Craig's Bond it shows a lot of personality and idiosyncratically (I can't see any other Bond, for instance, doing that key throw and swagger in the CR hotel scene that Craig did, even when he's a so called 'blunt instrument' in that moment).

    Even better was the moment where he encounters the men who owned that car and he just smiles and walks away. I like that Craig’s Bond had a concealed sense of “dickishness” that was on par with Connery. Thankfully that was never something they lost as his era went on as opposed to the softening of Connery’s Bond to make him more palpable.

    It's actually a tricky thing to play - being a bit of a bastard but still likeable. Many actors simply can't do it. I'm not sure if even Brosnan could have pulled off Bond verbally sparring with Vesper as Craig does in CR and come off the same way. I reckon it would have drifted too much into smugness.

    I’d imagine that in some hypothetical world where Brosnan was in CR, the relationship between Bond and Vesper would probably be something more akin to Bond and Natalya in GE; an obvious attraction towards one another but also mutual respect.

    I think for what it’s worth, Brosnan had that ability to come across like a bastard in Goldeneye; he’s a bit more rugged than in future performances. For example when he knocks out Xenia in the car after she makes some petty remark. His response to Alex’s revelation about his facial scar. He even says that they could kill Natalya on the train because she “meant nothing to him” (obviously we know he was trying to call their bluff and he rescued her anyways.) In many ways they softened Brosnan’s Bond up as the films went on and this element was sort of lost.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Being chauffeured by Tibbett
    edited June 11 Posts: 682
    mtm wrote: »
    Disheveled is an interesting term; I must say that hadn't occurred to me. I wonder if that's because, due to his casting so late in the day for TLD, he's the only Bond not to wear bespoke suits?

    Apparently Dalton wasn't very comfortable in bespoke clothing, and he wanted a more ordinary, dressed down look. It didn't help that baggy/oversized fits were coming into fashion, and came in full force on LTK.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    I definitely can’t imagine Dalton wearing all that Brioni clothing, which I felt made Brosnan look more stuffy than sophisticated.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Being chauffeured by Tibbett
    edited June 11 Posts: 682
    I definitely can’t imagine Dalton wearing all that Brioni clothing, which I felt made Brosnan look more stuffy than sophisticated.

    Douglas Hayward was the tailor for Moore's last three films. Hayward cut a fairly soft and relaxed silhouette that probably would've suited Dalton as well, but for whatever reason, he didn't care for it.
  • meshypushymeshypushy Ireland
    Posts: 142
    Okay. For example, I agree with his viewpoint 100% and I’m not at all receiving any kickbacks from Eon. So let’s say that what he’s saying is also my own viewpoint, what do you think of what is said?
    I’m not quite sure what you’re expecting me to say in response to this and this doesn’t feel appropriate for an on-thread conversation but here goes…

    I have watched and enjoyed many of his earlier videos (where he discussed the movies) and found myself largely aligning with his views.

    I noted a lack of critique from him around the time of the marketing blitz for NTTD - he basically waited until everything had died down before giving anything like a frank and honest take on the movie.

    It’s a difficult balancing act to build relationships with brands to be in position to create ‘lifestyle’ content AND produce opinion-driven / critique - I get that.

    I felt like he went too far on reining in his views on NTTD, so that he could maintain relationships with the brands / EON etc (which appeared to have been developing between SP and NTTD).

    That might be good business for him, his channel and those that enjoy his content but for me, he loses credibility on that basis. That was my comment in a nutshell. He seems like a nice guy and he produces fun, positive content for the community but I would prefer, when hearing someone’s views, to actually have a sense that they are being open and honest, and not holding back. That is my choice as to what I expose myself to, in terms of media consumption.

    I have no opinion on you having the same viewpoint as him and we did not get into a specific dissection of his views, yours or mine.

    Again, to clarify, my comments were not aimed at you or anyone else who enjoys his content and I am unsure as to why you are looking to bring a personal angle on this.

    The more discussion, the healthier the community but not everyone is going to have similar views.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    No, no, no, I’m not talking about his viewpoint across all his videos. I don’t really follow him at all, and as far as I can recall I’ve only seen maybe one other video of his.

    The viewpoint I’m talking about is only specific to the video I shared earlier, which is simply about how to cope as a Bond fan during this franchise draught with no signs of Bond 26 happening soon. I see a lot of fans wallowing in negativity during this hiatus, a lot of a doom and gloom over the state of the film series, and what I respected about the video was him trying encourage fans to focus on what they’ve always enjoyed about Bond and keep sharing in that. That’s why I shared that video, I thought it was refreshing after seeing many prolific Bond fans on social media circles just wallowing in that negativity. At least, that’s how I feel.

    But perhaps you didn’t watch the video, so that’s probably why you’ve responded the way you have. In which case… never mind.
  • edited June 11 Posts: 1,859
    Regarding the comment "but all of them walk into a room and there's not a doubt in their mind that they are the sexiest, manliest, coolest guy in that room.", I've met or worked with all the Bond actors and the only one in real life that reflects this comment is................... Connery. You can feel his presence when he walks into a room. Very strange sensation.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    EON should adapt moonraker because honestly it's about time we got a villain with a healthy public image again. The only person in Craig's arc that had that was Greene and he didn't really have the presence to match. If they want to be topical, what about an Elon Musk, Steve Jobs capitalist Messiah who is supposedly making breakthroughs in sustainability and combating climate change throughout the world, until bond is sent to investigate. I think it's interesting when Bond has to stick up for a hunch he has despite protests and dismissals from his seniors "Max Zorin?! impossible, he's a leading French industrialist" "she kills her own father and attacks her own pipeline, why? to what end?"
  • Posts: 1,340
    meshypushy wrote: »
    meshypushy wrote: »
    I love this video and the attitude this Bond fan is bringing. I find it totally refreshing to listen to and wish more of fandom adopts it.

    He strikes me as a guy who spends most of his time trying to kiss ass with brands, in return for free stuff, whilst being extremely careful about putting his real thoughts out there, trying to strike the balance of not biting the hand that feeds. It was pretty clear he wasn’t a fan of NTTD around the time of its release but he smiled, threw out a few pleasantries, showed up for the free brand events and then when the marketing blitz for the NTTD release ended (and associated freebies for him and his ilk had dried up), he speaks a little more freely on his thoughts on the movie.

    He has zero credibility in my view - either speak freely or take the money from the brands but don’t try fooling and patronising your audience. He’s a good example of why I prefer professional critics and journalists over ‘influencers’.

    Gee, you’re a ray of sunshine.
    I’m just calling out what I see - I’m glad others enjoy his output but it’s not for me. Critique is not an indication of a lack of sunny disposition.

    Okay. For example, I agree with his viewpoint 100% and I’m not at all receiving any kickbacks from Eon. So let’s say that what he’s saying is also my own viewpoint, what do you think of what is said?

    Too optimistic.

    The longer the break, the more tired they seem to be.
  • meshypushymeshypushy Ireland
    Posts: 142
    No, no, no, I’m not talking about his viewpoint across all his videos. I don’t really follow him at all, and as far as I can recall I’ve only seen maybe one other video of his.

    The viewpoint I’m talking about is only specific to the video I shared earlier, which is simply about how to cope as a Bond fan during this franchise draught with no signs of Bond 26 happening soon. I see a lot of fans wallowing in negativity during this hiatus, a lot of a doom and gloom over the state of the film series, and what I respected about the video was him trying encourage fans to focus on what they’ve always enjoyed about Bond and keep sharing in that. That’s why I shared that video, I thought it was refreshing after seeing many prolific Bond fans on social media circles just wallowing in that negativity. At least, that’s how I feel.

    But perhaps you didn’t watch the video, so that’s probably why you’ve responded the way you have. In which case… never mind.
    My comments were relating to him, not that video, which I did not watch. I have not watched any of his content for quite a while now.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 11 Posts: 16,382
    I definitely can’t imagine Dalton wearing all that Brioni clothing, which I felt made Brosnan look more stuffy than sophisticated.
    I definitely can’t imagine Dalton wearing all that Brioni clothing, which I felt made Brosnan look more stuffy than sophisticated.

    Douglas Hayward was the tailor for Moore's last three films. Hayward cut a fairly soft and relaxed silhouette that probably would've suited Dalton as well, but for whatever reason, he didn't care for it.

    I'd not really thought about that, it's an interesting point. Brosnan used to say it was 'like putting the Batsuit on' in terms of him getting into character, and I guess when I think about it he did look a little stiff when he's all suited up: the Batsuit thing perhaps suggests he was a bit self-conscious in the suits. Makes me think about the stories about Terence Young making Connery sleep in his suit so it became second nature; I don't get that feeling from Pierce.
    Your point about Hayward is fascinating, I'll have to have another look. Certainly I think Roger always looked more at ease.
  • edited June 11 Posts: 4,139
    Was there any particular reason Dalton didn't favour bespoke suits/clothes? Just seems a bit odd considering Fleming's Bond wore bespoke suits that were a bit more slim fitting for the time, and emulating the literary character was Dalton's thing.

    I can understand wanting a more minimal wardrobe, which is very in line with the novels, but otherwise I didn't always get a strong sense of Fleming's Bond from Dalton's clothing in the role.
Sign In or Register to comment.