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
Not a big deal, though. I'm sure he's just a bit worn out from the long shoot and now all these interviews will people asking the same stupid questions over and over... it would make anyone sigh from time to time. It must be exhausting.
Can't agree. Craig said in a recent interview when he and Barbs discussed Bond at the time of casting he could not do it if he was coming in to act as someone else. I.e Dalton in to Brosnan where one actor is attempting to play the character the same way. Because that in his eyes offers nothing creative it's just script reading. I think that's the key to recent success is that it was originality rather than following formula. You will also struggle to cast a an actor of calibre if you just hand them a script and say read it. Actors of any merit will want a creative input and want to be original. I am sure EON know the difference now in casting based on a look and following formula than casting a really creative actor to do something original with the role. Formula is stagnant and the films historically get silly when that happens.
Craig's films and the way they have been filmed will age well, and when Bond turns 100 people will look back at his tenure with the same fondness we have of Connery's films. But unlike Connery's tenure Craig's films merge together and will tell one big story rather than a mish mash. The fact you hold Moore as higher regard of actor and Bond than Craig all I can say is I'm flabergasted. Moore was a paradoy of Flemings Bond beyond LALD.
@SirHilaryBray, when I make comments I try to be as clear as possible, so that my intentions and opinions are not misconstrued. I also like to be specific in the way I make my statements, so as not to paint actors and eras with too broad a stroke. Only the early Connery era is worthy of effusive praise imho.
In this period of possible/notable unbridled Craig fanboyism and revisionist history of the past, let me clarify my above statements:
----
Roger Moore was an exceptional James Bond, for the most part, imho. The films headed in a larger, formulaic, more comedic direction before he came on board. Elements of the Moore era were already apparent in YOLT and certainly in DAF, with only OHMSS (as a true to the novel film) being an exception.
Nobody did those 'larger than life' Bonds better than Roger Moore. The press recognizes that, and most of the public does too. Not Brosnan, not even the great Connery. He grounded those crazy (MR?) films with his laid back, not too serious performances.
His performance in the benchmark TSWLM is as good as it gets for James Bond, again imho. I recently completed a Bondathon and was impressed with his tenure as much as Connery's. Even FYEO (8 years after he started as Bond) gave us a very good Flemingesque performance. He was able to vary his performance to suit the changing nature of his films (including in the extremely well paced but over-comedic OP) while still being credible within the universe he was occupying.
He is an excellent actor as well. Watch The Man Who Haunted Himself or Ffolkes to see what I mean.
More than anything else, he was and remains a great spokesperson for the James Bond franchise, unlike most of his predecessors and successors.
----
My remarks about the Craig era stand. His best performance was CR (I have yet to see SP) because he had a meaty script worthy of his considerable acting talents. He did not have such a script in QoS and his performance, while excellent, was not as good (in terms of it portraying a holistic character). In that instance it was not his fault of course, but it still is what it is. I did not feel it was as good in SF either, where he seemed somewhat wooden in certain cases, and like a bystander in much of the film. To some extent, he was overshadowed (charisma and acting wise) by Dench's M and by Bardem's Silva, in contrast to CR where he shone very bright.
So, I never said RM was a better actor than DC. Just that his performances on the whole were better than DC in SF/QoS imho. I stand by that opinion. DC in CR is a completely different ballgame however......one of the best if not the best James Bond portrayals outside of DN/FRWL/TB.
It takes a very special charisma to act credibly in a 'formulaic' Bond film which doesn't have a meaty story and which doesn't have character depth. That is actually (imho) a more difficult thing to do than to act in a 'character driven' film. Roger Moore and Sean Connery proved they could do that, time and time again, and that is why I hold them in high regard.
As I said above, it is in SP where I will be able to tell if DC can hold together a formulaic Bond film like Connery and Moore were able to do (if SP is indeed one of these films, as is reportedly the case).
Many here idolize Lazenby's one performance in OHMSS, not recognizing/downplaying the fact that this film had the best score, the best cinematography, one of the best actresses to play off of, and the most close to Fleming adaptation. It was a gift to any actor, or even a model, and certainly to him. Moore and Connery never had such a luxury and they still delivered, time and time again.
----
I don't think replacing DC will be a problem when the time comes. He has been an excellent Bond, but as I said above, depending on the direction they choose to go in, there are several superb actors who can bring something new to the table and take this franchise forward. Only Dalton and perhaps Lazenby were not embraced at the beginning. So that bodes well for the new guy, whenever he may take over.
We are passionate fanboys after all.....and in the absence of real news (until SP drops on Monday) it's only to be expected......as such passions reach boiling point.
I hear you. Point taken. No one posted any more reviews yet though (likely we'll have to wait for state-side reviews to start coming through in dribs and drabs....and to be honest these are the ones I am most interested in because if they're good, SP is going to make some serious coin.....if they're not so good, then we're in for an interesting time over the next few weeks).
I admire your restraint.
All that typing just for me to respond cods wallop. I can not agree that replacing Dan will be easy. History will tell us how good a Bond Craig is. He will be remembered as a great top 2 because his films like Connery offer more serious element and are not a victim of the fashion of their times.
Then don't respond.
I disagree with you about Craig being difficult to replace. No actor is irreplaceable in this role.
All actors have played their part and done their bit for this franchise, as has he.
If EON executes well, and maintains calibre productions with good directors, the films will be successful, as will the actor, as long as he can act.
No your mixing up your own argument. The point being made was Bond hiring an actor to follow formula and still be as successful. My point was that you can not hire an actor to follow a formula and achieve the same success. The next Bond will have to make it their own and do something original again with the role. And that that's is why Connery and Craig's eras are so strong because they are original and first of their kinds. I can't see how you can argue with that. Or how that is so hard to understand.
On the contrary. I don't mix up arguments.
My point is you can have an actor following a formula and still be successful. It depends on the actor. That is my point. That is where I disagree with you.
For the next actor to be successful, they will indeed have to make the role their own (all successful Bond actors have actually done this) but they don't need to have excessive character depth to do that. They don't have to do something original necessarily imho, but they do have to make the role their own, confidently.
Some actors can work well within a formulaic premise (Moore, and Connery for sure.....to some extent Brosnan). Others did not get the chance or prefer not to.
We do not need DC type character studies with every actor and with every film. Many still find the first 3 - 4 Connery films to be the best (or among the best) in the franchise, and they were not in-depth character studies. They were just extremely well executed and coherent spy thriller plots, as are the last 2 Mission Impossible films.
That is my point.
That's what they tried with Dalton & Brosnan TLD and GE first outings were fine good scripts, but they had no longevity or made their mark. Therefore their is no evidence to substaciate your opinion that you can hire an actor to simple read a formula script. Connery's Bond was unique there were no other Bond type character films of the same time as his first 4. Everything was new to the audience the cars, gadgets. Showing locations people had never seen before to a generation sexually superseded and uptight. Connery's first 4 were new ground and his character was developed on Flemings original idea with Fleming still alive and having a say. Let's face it nobody wrote Bond like Fleming. It's a smaller world now it's harder to capture an audience's imagination. You need to try something different every time to keep it fresh and interesting so I'm sorry you won't convict me that EON can hire an actor just to turn and read from the screen play based on old formula and deliver what Connery and Craig could do more than on a 1st outing.
I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just stating my opinion, which is obviously different from yours.
Goldeneye was a very successful film, which was very well executed. It was also somewhat formulaic but not excessively so.
What was different about Brosnan's and Connery's eras was that EON's production, script, and director/casting choices for his last 3 were lousy, and Brosnan himself took too long to find his feet in the role or make it his own (which he should have done much sooner - I have been critical of him in this respect). They were also cliche ridden, sickeningly so. If these attributes had been better, his era would be better remembered, although not up to Connery's standards because Connery was, as you say, the first.
One just needs good Bondian plots (and as I said, MI is doing a bang up job of this at the moment) a very charismatic actor with skills, and excellent direction/score/casting. That is ultimately what people want from Bond. EON sometimes misunderstands that this means 'cliches' and 'tropes'. It doesn't. On the contrary
That's just my view.
I think your viewing it from an old skool hardcore fans point of view. Craig's tenure has pulled in a new audience because it doesn't follow a constant formula and will alienate a mass new audience who have bought in to Craig's tenure who want the films to remain different, fresh with variety. Your right Brosnan GE got everything right and your right he did not make it his own until it was too late. This was my point the next actor has to come in and buy in to it, rather just have the right look and wants to turn up read a script and go home. Craig has made Bond his own because he did not want to turn up and do an impersonation of someone else's interpretation. The next actor had to be high calibre and the role needs to offer the chance for that actor to put their own stamp on it if it is to be successful beyond one film.
Definitely agree. I just don't think it needs to be an indepth character study or character actor for that to happen. That is something which started not with Bond, but actually with Nolan's Bat, and which carried over to Bond.
The right actor can make a quality plot driven Bond film/series of films very entertaining and successful. I felt Moore, for the most part, did that, for 12 long years (give or take a few stinkers) and Connery definitely did, including in DAF. Both of these two could make even a crummy film worth watching, at least from my perspective. They were also successful with lousy films and with excellent films.
Tom Cruise is doing it with MI as well, right now, so it can in fact still be done.
Mounting new bond films has had to become harder and harder. I would be amazed if EON didn't try to diminish some of the pressure and huge risks by making sure their next Bond had demonstrated acting ability and screen presence. A pretty boy is not going to be enough for Bond 7 and creating something original is just the beginning of EONs current problems for their upcoming films.
I agree.
It has to do with execution in my view however.
They can find the right actor. They just need to look hard enough. Babs has proven she has an eye for it. They can find the right director. They just need to look properly and give a clear brief. They can also find the right cast and they can get the right score.
It's a matter of finesse and execution. A matter of attention to detail and understanding who/what Bond is, and what the public expects of him. They don't need a new fancy Aston with gadgets in each film, or a new Omega, or a 'Bond James Bond'. There is more to Bond than that.
No one will match Connery (not even Craig imho.....that is where I disagree with his fans..). No one can match Barry (as has, sadly, been proven). No one will match Bassey (not least the current incumbent), and no one will match Adam.
That doesn't mean they can't consistently deliver quality product like TLD, TSWLM, GE, SF, CR, FYEO etc. etc. If they can do that, I'll be happy and I think a lot of the audience out there will be as well.
http://www.sfgate.com/movies/article/Skyfall-review-M-is-for-mommy-figure-4020528.php
;-). Will LaSalle's wishes be heard with "SPECTRE"?
I agree they don't need to tred over back story any further. Spectre appears to finish off this aspect. It's clear die hards feel Skyfall was a detached film from the Bond norm and did not appreciate it. But it's just part of a greater story being told across all of Dan's tenure. I judge Dan's tenure on it as collective body of work and from what I have seen from Spectre I feel it offers 1. Something for everyone, and 2. The foundations for something great to build on.
Just my opinion and bear in mind Connery was always my favorite Bond, Casino Royale is a better Bond movie than YOLT and TB IMO FRWL is the greatest, GF then Casino.
And I appreciate some don't like the fact Dan's tenure decided to tell the story of why Bond is the way he is. As some preferred the mystery. But for me I feel it has created a better understanding of the character Fleming created. Bond bleeds, feels and is more Human in the novels than any actor sincerely portrayed on screen prior to Craig. The back story IMO was required to get people to see Bond contrary to pre Dan misconception that Bond was a brute with a gun who slept with women, said Corney lines and killed bad guys with Gadgets. We can now leave that up to MI, Bourne and Statham movies and break free from the bracket of "action movie".
http://www.telegraaf.nl/filmenuitgaan/film/filmrecensies/24651800/__Filmrecensie__Spectre__.html
'De Telegraaf' also gave 4 stars to "Skyfall" and "Casino Royale":
http://www.telegraaf.nl/filmenuitgaan/film/21013151/__Skyfall__James_Bond_herrijst__.html
I also look at Daniel's Bond as a collective body of work which is what the previous age of Bond movies failed to do not that they were trying. I really love that with this Bond we have a beginning of our favorite agent, a story on what shaped him to be 007 we all love. Something tells me that SPECTRE could be the perfect ending to Craig's tenure. If he indeed comes back for a 5th one, which I hope, I hope it either explores an official MI6 mission type of movie with maybe the final chapter to the SPECTRE organization and the final chapter to Daniel Craig's Bond or just a movie with Bond on a mission to save a city/country/world from an evil madman like the traditional Bond movies.
Nope, Algemeen Dagblad (AD) was earlier. That was the first Dutch review. Also 4 stars.
Yes, and on top of it all three of these 'dramatic one-off' events happened in the Craig-era (I'm counting "OHMSS", "CR" and "SF").
Thanks @JWpepper! Great review. And I love the tagline of the article:
"Daniel Craig has to stay as 007!"
Why can't there be more positive-spirited reviewers like this guy from 'Algemeen Dagblad'. And he doesn't give "SPECTRE" full 5 stars, but it's still a wonderful 4 out of 5 stars.
http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1023/Film/article/detail/4168786/2015/10/23/AD-ziet-Spectre-Daniel-Craig-moet-blijven-als-James-Bond.dhtml
Spectre is being touted for its classical heritage and application of the Bond formula, which makes it more open to criticism. The formula is too vast to apply in its entirety to any one film. Generally, every one of us has our own idea of what the Bond formula is and ought to be. Within those constraints, there has to be room for expansion in addition to making sure each of those elements work within a congruent pattern so as not to discredit any other element. This is one mention of note in some of the negative reviews. Overall, it seems to be successful in applying and re-inventing the formula. It's just that this kind of a hit has difficulty matching a film critically that has its own planned theme.
Do you have some links perhaps?