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
@MajorDSmythe, where I think he may succeed when it's all said and done (and the jury is still out) is in having cemented a new, enduring, believable 3rd cinematic characterization/interpretation of Bond that is also very successful, financially. Some of the others were either inconsistent, brought combinations (rather than anything really new) or just did not catch fire with the general public.
Connery closely followed by Moore.
The Craig characterisation in the end is too serious, fun-less and even somewhat boring.
It worked for 2006-2012 where such characters were the latest craze in Hollywood, but the pendulum is already swinging in the other direction again.
Brosnan or Moore would work perfectly now again, just look at Spy, Kingsmen, UNCLE etc.
Spectre may be the last Bond who takes itself too seriously and has no fun in it.
Craig also has had the benefit of shaping the character from his early days, including lasting psychological trauma, a luxury which the other's did not have.
You may be right about the pendulum swinging back to lighter characterizations. If that's the case, and without turning this into a 'next Bond' discussion, then I'm all for Tom Hiddleston, because I think he could do the casual/nonchalant Bond combined with a little darkness/mysteriousness. He's on record saying he'd "like to bring a certain British charm to the part,"
But after seeing all the films countless times over the years, Connery is the one i would still consider the best - and it's not just because he was the first - he really personified and oozed "cool".. he was a man's man.. dashing and debonaire, but never afraid to throw down...
but i think i've reached a point in my life where i stopped trying to rank the actors or the films.. there is absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying all the films equally (some more than others obviously lol) - but I like each one of the actors that has played Bond, and have watched their films countless times.. putting together an arbitrary ranking system wouldn't be honest for me.
Moore often gets lambasted on here for being a bit one note, all "nudge nudge wink wink" etc., but one of Moore's greatest appeals for me is that his performances across his seven films are so varied. You have a rookie Moore in LALD, a more hard edged Moore in TMWTGG, his quintessential performance in TSWLM etc- he can be the gentleman spy, but he can also be a cold bastard (and it's not just scene where he kicks Locque of the cliff). Connery sits at no.2 for me, because although his performance as Bond in DN, FRWL and GF (possibly TB, but there's something lacking here, and I can't quite put my finger on it) are undoubtedly iconic and all that, I just don't think his heart is in it from TB onwards, whereas Moore always gave a satisfying, consistent performance, and that's what edges him in to first place.
Dalton now sits at no.3 (at one point he was even at no.2), but two films just can't compete with the legacy of the Connery and Moore films. He's still a bloody brilliant Bond, and both of his films are top ten material.
Craig and Brozzer are interchangeable, I do very much like them both as Bond. But I just don't know- they have never been my favourites, perhaps it's something to do with that the modern era of Bond (for me, that starts with GE) has not piqued my interest as much as the films did between '62 and '89. Thus Brozzer and Craig are not quite held in such a regard as Connery, Moore and Dalton. It's strange really, because I grew up in the modern era (of Bond). I suppose most would expect that the Brosnan entries would be my favourite...
Lazenby is a curious case- I don't like to rank him with the rest because I feel that would be unfair considering he only did one. But from what I saw, I liked very much. In fact, when I ranked individual Bond performances (I.e. On a single film basis), Laz broke the top ten, which is extraordinary considering his lack of acting experience. Laz is the face that I picture as Bond when I read the novels.
I think Daniel Craig also got films tailored for his own style and had a huge support from Barbara to make the character the way he wanted to be. I wonder two things could they have made Casino Royal more Brosnan style for someone like Henry Cavil ? And two could Craig do the lighter Bond or if it's really needed the change of tone will he leave ?
To answer your first question, yes, I think they didn't have to make CR in quite the way that they did (tonally). They could have made it, with Cavill, in a different manner if they chose while still staying true to the source material. Whether it would have been as successful critically or financially is a different matter. I also think Eva Green would have chewed the scenery up if cast against Cavill.
To answer your second question, I think SP will determine that. From what I have read, it will incorporate more humour in it and a slightly lighter take on Bond than we've seen to date....taking us perhaps towards the Connery creation, if not the Moore/Brosnan one.
i have the feeling that Casino Royal could have been made for someone more like Cavill and i do think it could have been equally succesful with the critics since they loved the film as a whole not just Craig's performance.
And you are Right Spectre seems like it will incorporate more of the humor of the past films so will see if Craig was good becasue he got the films he wanted or because he is really that good as James Bond.
Tom Hiddleston would be a fabulous choice I really like him and he is even the right age.
Yes, he is a talented fella no doubt. Great things ahead for him I'm sure.
Regarding Bond possibly going lighter in tone post-DC, I suspect that this is likely as well. They've pretty much exhausted the angst driven concept.
They've also pretty much changed tone with every actor change except possibly between Connery to Lazenby, but then that was the first changeover and they were not as confident with doing it (I can't imagine how challenging replacing Connery must have been in the mid 60's). DAF was much lighter in tone, but many say that was a dress rehearsal for Moore's introduction shortly thereafter.
Look for clues to the direction they will go in SP.
I think it was a big challenge of course, but then Moore was in the pipeline a long time before he actually got the role to play, so was Dalton and so was Brosnan.
The only actor that was kind of a "last minute" decision was Craig, and I don't mean this negatively in any way.
One thing I am certain of though, to cast the next actor is the greatest challenge ever for BB.
It will almost be impossible to find an unique actor again who can bring something truly new to the role. Except of course she does the unthinkable and doesn't cast a white man or makes Bond 25 years old. Again, I don't mean this negatively.
change isn't something that is forced.. it just happens.. to suggest a forced change after Craig might have an adverse effect.. look at the tonal shift from Moore to Dalton - regardless of how the films would've been received with Broz, the tonal shift was something that i dont think fans were quite ready for either.....
so... it's easy to say a tonal shift would be coming post Craig.. but it's the public that will ultimately decide if and when that shift will come..
Fair points. I'm not suggesting a forced change per se. Nor am I suggesting that they go back to some of the more overblown, almost comedic films. I did not explain my thinking clearly above.
I also think it just follows and is inevitable, particularly when replacing a long running and very successful Bond. Some of it is unavoidable (they tend to start serious and then by the time you get to the end it's inescapably less so, and this seems to be happening with Craig too).
Some of it is intentional though. It seems that EON tries to suit the tone to the actor....and that again seems to suggest a different approach, since long running actors tend to make their mark indelibly in one direction or another, so it's best not to cast a successor who will be compared unfavourably for being inferior but too similar......arguably Craig has already done dark and brooding to perfection, so going that route with the new guy is likely not advisable.
Regarding the tonal shift from Moore to Dalton - I don't think EON handled that well at all, in so many ways, and so it was forced and appeared as such. No matter how one cuts it, Dalton was not as popular as Moore, so they should have been a little more careful. I'd argue that TLD was just the right tone (and suitably different from AVTAK & OP). I think they should have had Dalton properly establish himself with another one before going all out for dark with LTK (and perhaps should have thought more clearly if it was even necessary to change the style so drastically for a new actor's 2nd film). Even I was shocked when I saw LTK......it was just out there compared to what had come before, and appeared forced.
Arguably the same can be said of QoS, which surprised a lot of people after CR, but at least it had the benefit of CR's downer ending to justify its tone.......I'd suggest that Craig's performance saved that film initially and on first watch for many people.
The general trend will likely influence their direction, as will the actor they have in mind. I also think that it seems to be going to less personal angst (something which began I think with Nolan's Bat reboot). The one thing that is certain going forward: the actor they cast will be competent at his job and being able to bring James Bond definitively to the screen, no matter what tone they choose. They've learned their lesson there, and Craig's success has ensured this will be the case going forward.
Furthermore Q and MP seem to be much more like their predecessors than in Skyfall.
Yes the Spltrailer makes it look like we are going back to the formula again.
With Q, MoneyPenny a more strict and all business M and more than just one Bond girl.
I can't wait fot Spectre.
The trailer is really promising and my question if Craig can do the more light hearted Bond will be answered.
If anything the new Bond era will be more lighthearted and fun again, that doesn't mean Bond can't be a deep character with personal issues.
It should just be more balanced than now.
The trick now is to create believable and memorable characterizations within each film. I think Mendes did a great job of this in SF (it really wasn't all that much about Bond, but more about the supporting cast and their issues.....in many instances in the later part of the film he was more of a bystander observing Silva and M's problems playing out).
I think this is the direction we are headed with the next actor.
SP (without revealing anything that i know story wise) is probably the closest to the traditional Bond formula that we've gotten in Dan's run thus far - i mean, finally (as of right now anyway) the film will open up with the gunbarrel opening thats been absent for 3 films lol..
If that's really true that a proper gun-barrel sequence will be at the beginning of the movie then that's bloody marvelous and bloody time :P
I will never forgive BB for doing away with that iconic and important feature for three movies or having the gun-barrel at the wrong end.
On the other hand this is one more thing that is highly inconsistent in Craig's era if now the gun-barrel is "suddenly" there.
the one thing about BB and MGW is that during Craig's run, they seem really adamant to being a little more hands off when it comes to filming (unless it's absolutely necessary for them to be needed) - what i mean by that is, they seem to want to let the filmmakers have more creative control than in years past... obviously there are still the standard EON guidelines to follow - but they are willing to let the directors get away with some decisions that they might not have before... MGW even laughed one time when asked about the gun barrel opening, and his comment was something to the effect of "our directors sure do like to move that thing around."
remember also, Mendes had originally planned for SF to open with the gun barrel as well - but he nixed it feeling it wouldn't look right with his opening shot... personal opinions aside about choice of shot to start the film (which could've been changed to facilitate the gun barrel) that was his choice and he stuck to it..
Forster originally had NO intention of putting it in his film, and he decided to eventually tack it on at the end - something that was repeated by Mendes in SF..
personally - i want to see Bond films from now on stick to tradition and have the movie open up with the gun barrel.. it worked for 40 years - i understood it's movement in CR, and even somewhat in QOS.. but to me, it really should've been back in place for SF... but thats my personal opinion... but as long as it's in the film somewhere - front, back, right smack in the middle lol, i dont care anymore..
Good comments.
Just want to add that it certainly wasn't Martin Campbell's idea to omit the gun-barrel for CR. That was the producer's choice.
I was born a month and a half before TSWLM was released and as such grew up with Connery and Moore at the same time due to the rise of VHS. Never saw OHMSS till I got it for Christmas when I was in high school. During my teenage years, I definitely came to prefer Connery over Moore and held Dalton up there with Connery. When Goldeneye arrived, Pierce became my favourite. I didn't care for his departure and that his final outing wasn't even a movie. I was mildly resistant to Craig, or at least had to be won over, compared to Brosnan where I had immediate acceptance of his appointment. Once the credits scrolled on CR, Craig was, and still is, my current favourite.
When I read the books, my image of Bond always takes the form of the current actor. For the Fleming books, my imagination usually can't erase the actors from the movies.
That's a really interesting thought.
Normally I don't have a face directly on my mind when reading the novels.
But if I have it's Cary Grant and that works perfectly for me.
Interesting 6 different actors have played Bond and yet your guy while reading the books is Cary Grant?
Nothing wrong with it, actually ive never read the books but its funny how non of the actors who already play Bond pop into your mind while reading the novels
The thing is Cary Grant would have been Bond, but he turned down the role.
As he is my favourite actor of all time I always wondered and imagined how he would have been in the role.
That's probably why I like to see him as Bond in my mind when reading the novels :)