The James Bond Debate Thread - 336 Craig looks positively younger in SP than he does in SF.

1168169171173174190

Comments

  • Posts: 11,425
    actually wrong. as I've stated countless times, I don't hate Brosnan, but I do think his movies were a major disappointment. My issue with @chrisisall is that I think Brosnan takes a lot more responsibility for his performances and ultimately for the direction of the films than he acknowledges. his point about some actors pushing for a specific direction and others just going with the flow is precisely my point and rather backs up what I have been saying. how can you say Brosnan was just doing what he was told to do and then in the same breath say he had nothing to do with the direction his films took? if the actor brings nothing to the table, then of course the producers and director will hold more sway, but the actor has effectively abdicated all responsibility if that's the attitude they take. Whether an actor is proactive or passive, their approach contributes to the quality of the film, and the producers will respond to the actor's approach. if Brosnan really was as passive as @chrisisall is saying then it is no wonder his films are as bland as they are, as the producers and director didn't have much to work with.

    Brosnan did give good performances in other roles but I disagree that he can do anything as an actor. His strength is actually playing slippery morally dubious characters, which is why I think Tarantino wanted to keep him for his CR. he wanted to do a totally sleazy Bond with Brosnan as a corrupted and morally compromised man. At least that's what I reckon he saw in him.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    Getafix wrote: »
    if Brosnan really was as passive as @chrisisall is saying then it is no wonder his films are as bland as they are, as the producers and director didn't have much to work with.
    Yes, I did use the word passive didn't I, Mr. Strawman?
    :)) I'm sorry, the torrential flood of illogic here is forcing me to lose interest in this particular debate. 8->
  • edited October 2014 Posts: 11,425
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    if Brosnan really was as passive as @chrisisall is saying then it is no wonder his films are as bland as they are, as the producers and director didn't have much to work with.
    Yes, I did use the word passive didn't I, Mr. Strawman?
    :)) I'm sorry, the torrential flood of illogic here is forcing me to lose interest in this particular debate. 8->

    Not sure I get your point at all then. Does Brosnan bear any responsibility for his performances and his films or not?

  • KerimKerim Istanbul Not Constantinople
    Posts: 2,629
    I don't think a 5th PB film would have been worse than DAD, but if the plan was for him to do CR, it would have been a huge mistake.

    But yes, it would have had to have been stripped back.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,159
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 313</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>The jump from novice agent in CR/QOS to old-timer agent in SF came at least one film too soon.</b></font>

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Agreed.
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    Agreed. The ageing theme should have been left until Craig's last Bond film.
  • Posts: 11,189
    Agreed, but to be honest it never really bothered me much.

    I just thought "ok obviously some time has passed and he's a more experienced agent". Lets enjoy the film.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    It was a bit disconcerting at the beginning. Aging in a Bond film is something quite unusual. We should have got a Bond film in 2010, showing Bond at his absolute best, without any of Dench's trust issues. But no, we got MGM and its bankruptcy thing instead.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited October 2014 Posts: 6,277
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    @chrisisall, I just enjoyed reading your fine Thesis. Bravo for earning Post of the Day. =D>

    Well thank you!
    Here's my thing: Moore is not my absolute favourite Bond, but I would never blame him solely for some of the nonsense in MR. In fact, I like Moore a great deal.
    I just don't understand the severe dislike for ANY particular Bond actor. They all gave us their best under the circumstances IMO. None of them failed us.

    One exception: Connery in YOLT.
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 313</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>The jump from novice agent in CR/QOS to old-timer agent in SF came at least one film too soon.</b></font>

    Agreed. It was too soon a leap. SF could still have had Bond having "lost a step," but more due to "enjoying death" than to age (the reference to the warship painting, etc.). Plus, there was already enough of the aging theme in the film with M and her impending retirement.
  • Posts: 15,106
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 313</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>The jump from novice agent in CR/QOS to old-timer agent in SF came at least one film too soon.</b></font>

    Agreed, and regardless of the intrinsic qualities of the movie. My (sort of) explanation: an lot of Bond from the previous continuity happened in between.
  • My explanation is that, between QOS and SF, Bond went on a lot of the other missions we've seen in the other films. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny but I don't buy into the code name theory so the way I see it: CR, QOS - then in whatever order you'd like the other 20 films or so - then SF. It helps ME explain the world weariness/old dog/lost a step bits in Skyfall.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Totally agree.
  • Posts: 12,526
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 313</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>The jump from novice agent in CR/QOS to old-timer agent in SF came at least one film too soon.</b></font>

    Have to say i disagree. I didn't see Bond as an old timer of an agent in Skyfall? I saw someone still haunted about adapting to the role he has chosen for himself. Now i am curious to see where he goes in the next film? Personally i think he will still make mistakes especially after the loss of M? But either way i am highly looking forward to Bond 24! :-bd
  • Posts: 11,425
    It's not the ageing theme per se - rather the fact that they chose to do this while Craig was still relatively young (ish). He has aged a lot in 9 years. It would have been nice if they'd use Bond 23 to show Bond post Vesper, in his prime. Then done the older guy struggling with a changing era thing in B25.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Difficult to disagree with this.

    I would've preferred at least one more standard 'Bond gets mission, Bond saves the world, Bond shags girl' Bond film before The Seventh Seal facing up to your mortality vibe of SF. Without doubt it should've been DC's last film and it almost feels like the new actor could've taken over the mantle Doctor Who style in the final scenes on the rooftop and in M's office to prepare us for his tenure.

    As it is we have had 3 films of rebooting and only now are we ready to get back to business as usual but with DC's reign likely to come to an end after B25 they seem to have wasted far too much of his tenure setting things up.

    And what will happen after DC goes? Will we have another reboot or just carry on and pretend nothing has changed as we used to do? Do audiences these days expect you to address the ageing thing rather than just accepting the jump from Rog to Tim as they did in the past?

    Personally I would love DC's last film to end with the Vladivostok cliffhanger from YOLT and the PTS of the next film to be Bond's assassination attempt on M. But I accept this is rather wishful thinking on my part and pretty unlikely to happen.
  • Yes, definitely. With the Bond timeline being as malleable as it is, one way out is to presume that the rest of the Bond series took place in between QoS and SF. I do disagree with the idea that SF should have been Craig's last film, as the end sets him up for at least one regular Bond adventure (which we might be getting in Bond 24).
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,195
    I saw Skyfall as a tale of disillusion rather than aging; although perhaps one comes with the other. I've always thought it would have effective to have Bond's appearance in the PTS look closer to that in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. His hair would have been a bit longer as in those two films. Following his "death" we see him living a Spartan life; his hair is shorn, cut by a guy who owns a pair of clippers and frequents the same seedy bar as Bond. The disillusionment would be reflected in his rougher, unshaven appearance.

    In the end his sense of purpose is revived and he can return to his "pre-death" self; that includes his re-honed physical skills

  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    Personally I would love DC's last film to end with the Vladivostok cliffhanger from YOLT and the PTS of the next film to be Bond's assassination attempt on M. But I accept this is rather wishful thinking on my part and pretty unlikely to happen.

    That's my wish too.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    I agree with the thesis but the aging/rebirth theme worked so well in SF that I can look past it.

    It's probably a little jolting to watch QoS and SF back to back. It really does make one think that Bond must have had plenty of missions in between. If we think of QoS as a continuation of the events of CR then we've really only had two different Bond stories in the past eight years. Will we ever learn what happened in those crucial intermediate years?

    The series has obviously faced a lot of criticism for keeping Moore in the role for too long so perhaps they wanted to bring the age factor out in the open this time? After all, it wasn't so much the fact that Moore was 57 in AVTAK that bothered me but rather that they were pretending or somehow hoping that we wouldn't notice it. Craig did noticeably age in four years.

    Most likely that didn't have anything to do with it though. Mendes wanted a film about Bond resurrecting himself and so we go from rookie Bond to old man Bond in one film. It's kind of irritating but it certainly isn't a deal breaker for me.
  • Posts: 5,767
    Walecs wrote: »
    Personally I would love DC's last film to end with the Vladivostok cliffhanger from YOLT and the PTS of the next film to be Bond's assassination attempt on M. But I accept this is rather wishful thinking on my part and pretty unlikely to happen.

    That's my wish too.
    Me three. I would even accept flat jokes about Bond having got chirurgically a new face.

    In a way, SF mirrored CR, so in the end I don´t have too much of a problem with what they did, seeking out extremes and balancing out the film with silly nonsense (meant in a positve way).
    In CR, the viewer could easily go, "wtf, why is he so old when he´s supposed to be new to the game", after all Fleming´s Bond was probably in his early 30s when he joined the 00 section, and movie-goers became accustomed to heros being in their 20s in their origin films.
    In SF it´s the other way round, there are hints at Bond being old and done, yet at the same time he is built up for the future.
    In CR Bond is said to be new in his field, yet the dramatical content of the film picks up where the Brosnan films left, making Bond´s first romance as a 00 Agent his most severe one.
    In SF there is talk of Bond having an unresolved childhood trauma, yet Bond shows no sign of that in anything he does.
    It seems to me that the producers always try to find some kind of polarity, be it being a rookie, or ageing, or personal trauma, and then they try to balance the film by going into opposite directions, e.g. CR: rookie vs dramatical continuation, SF: most untraditional Bond film to date vs constant mention of old values.
    I like that as a continuation of the traditional mix of hard-boiled and wtf moments.

  • edited October 2014 Posts: 940
    In SF there is talk of Bond having an unresolved childhood trauma, yet Bond shows no sign of that in anything he does.''

    It's a little thin but for me that's in reference to Bond walking out and not being able to respond to his family home in the word association game. We learn why from Kincade later.

    I'm intrigued to see the direction Bond 24 will take though. I assume we will get a back-to-basics Bond at his resurrected best.

    But will M truly back him? The last scene in SF suggests maybe but realistically Bond did little to win him over last time (good intentions yes, but effectively kidnapping his boss and being unable to save her life!) There's no reason for the new M to be ''sentimental'' of him either like his predecessor.

    In regards to age, I imagine it won't focus on Bond's stamina or fitness this time around but we'll still get the natural age related mockery between Bond and Q, which should be entertaining.
  • KerimKerim Istanbul Not Constantinople
    Posts: 2,629
    Disagree. It was 6 years between CR and SF. That should be enough time to be an established seasoned agent.
  • edited October 2014 Posts: 11,425
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Me three. I would even accept flat jokes about Bond having got chirurgically a new face.


    In SF there is talk of Bond having an unresolved childhood trauma, yet Bond shows no sign of that in anything he does.


    That was one of my main gripes with SF. It sets up all the context but IMO never uses it an interesting way. But any way, it's not the themes of SF that bother me, so much as the fact we lost those 4 years to MGM's internal issues and there is a feeling that there's almost a 'missing' Craig Bond movie between QoS and SF. And now he looks too old to 'go back' and make that movie.
  • edited October 2014 Posts: 5,767
    slyfox wrote: »
    In SF there is talk of Bond having an unresolved childhood trauma, yet Bond shows no sign of that in anything he does.''

    It's a little thin but for me that's in reference to Bond walking out and not being able to respond to his family home in the word association game. We learn why from Kincade later.
    That and Bond having problems shooting with his gun (the Walther one, with the other one there seemed to be no issues). But I find it more logical and fitting to see those two instances as Bond being basically immensely p***ed off because M didn´t trust him, thus having difficulty to define his function as an agent. Camille´s death somehow snapped him awake, because when he shoots Silva´s goons, he doesn´t seem to have any trouble with his marksmanship.
    slyfox wrote: »
    But will M truly back him? The last scene in SF suggests maybe but realistically Bond did little to win him over last time (good intentions yes, but effectively kidnapping his boss and being unable to save her life!) There's no reason for the new M to be ''sentimental'' of him either like his predecessor.
    True, but he reminds me of the MoD from FYEO (I think it was, when M was on leave), so there would be a feeling of familiarity ;-).



    Getafix wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Me three. I would even accept flat jokes about Bond having got chirurgically a new face.


    In SF there is talk of Bond having an unresolved childhood trauma, yet Bond shows no sign of that in anything he does.


    That was one of my main gripes with SF. It sets up all the context but IMO never uses it an interesting way. But any way, it's not the themes of SF that bother me, so much as the fact we lost those 4 years to MGM's internal issues and there is a feeling that there's almost a 'missing' Craig Bond movie between QoS and SF. And now he looks too old to 'go back' and make that movie.
    Looking at the afore-mentioned gaps in logic, I think they can go anywhere anytime. I admit that sometimes it seriously bothers me that SF completely ignores the two previous films, but the more I think about it, the more I come to terms with it. As long as they stick with that kind of silliness ;-).

  • Campbell2Campbell2 Epsilon Rho Rho house, Bending State University
    Posts: 299
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    it's not the themes of SF that bother me, so much as the fact we lost those 4 years to MGM's internal issues and there is a feeling that there's almost a 'missing' Craig Bond movie between QoS and SF. And now he looks too old to 'go back' and make that movie.

    Yes, that is very disappointing.


    Just my thoughts, the MGM disaster cost at least one year. And for what? It's still the same uninspired, unoriginal studio, only now it's more of a garage op. And of course some guys made a nice profit on the action while others lost their jobs. And MGM is still just Bond and the catalogue.

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Agree, but it does not bother me either.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Murdock wrote: »
    Agreed.

    I have nothing to add.

    Craig himself has aged a lot since CR, I guess with these longer pauses between the movies that is inevitable.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,244
    When we get to know Bond in Dr. No, he already is a seasoned agent. In CR he gets the job. For me this means they take the stories and place them in the current time, in a practical but not historical order. So first there's CR/QoS, then there's a lot of missions and somewhere in there is SF as well.

    Bond isn't necesserily 'old' in SF, but his methods are. This is part of an ongoing discussion in the intelligence community on the use of HumInt and SigInt, or, in laymans terms, do we just use technology or do we need humans infiltrating as well. That discussion is clearly part of it when Q and Bond discuss their methods. So 'old'is meant not as age, but as ussed methods. Even more so when M has to defend herself to the committee.

    So, SF does what all Bond films do: tell a 'regular' story about this character named Bond, and then connect it to real world events and discussions, permanently disrupting any form of subsequency logic.

    This means they can go any way they want with Bond 24. thankfully.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,244
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Agreed.

    I have nothing to add.

    Craig himself has aged a lot since CR, I guess with these longer pauses between the movies that is inevitable.

    Well he isn't Graves, now is he? ;-)
Sign In or Register to comment.