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

1182183185187188190

Comments

  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited June 2015 Posts: 13,978
    I have never been a big supporter of his era. But as the years have passed, I have looked back at his films, and thought that actually, his era wasn't a complete shambles. I have enjoyed Tomorrow Never Dies since the day it was released (that's the full film, not just the usually praised first half). Even Die Another Day has it's moments.

    And if I am being honest, i think the last 3 films have played some part in this, too.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    A mosquito hellhole can have its moments.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I haven't seen TND for a while, and I will soon. I'm sure I'll enjoy it, and I always have like you @Major. I like GE too. However, I more like the movies than I actually like Brosnan in them. He was ok in them as far as I was concerned.

    For me, he was best in GE (in the sense that he fit into the movie best). His best performance likely was in DAD, but the film was a comedic joke. His TWINE performance was his worst by far, imho.

    I am in agreement with @Thunderfinger that on the whole, much as I like Brosnan, he was not suited for Bond. I think he acknowledges that too now, since the years have passed and he's not so bitter about it.
  • Posts: 15,124
    bondjames wrote: »
    I haven't seen TND for a while, and I will soon. I'm sure I'll enjoy it, and I always have like you @Major. I like GE too. However, I more like the movies than I actually like Brosnan in them. He was ok in them as far as I was concerned.

    For me, he was best in GE (in the sense that he fit into the movie best). His best performance likely was in DAD, but the film was a comedic joke. His TWINE performance was his worst by far, imho.

    I am in agreement with @Thunderfinger that on the whole, much as I like Brosnan, he was not suited for Bond. I think he acknowledges that too now, since the years have passed and he's not so bitter about it.

    I think Brosnan was suited and maybe even ideal for what they wanted to do at the time. GE I'm sure would have been a success without him but not as much. The franchise needed someone more superficial for Bond (for lack of a better term). However his tenure was by the number and unimaginative and he was partially responsible for it. He had no control over the scripts but if they were by the numbers he did not have to play by the number.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Played by the number zero zero, but no seven.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    bondjames wrote: »
    I haven't seen TND for a while, and I will soon. I'm sure I'll enjoy it, and I always have like you @Major. I like GE too. However, I more like the movies than I actually like Brosnan in them. He was ok in them as far as I was concerned.

    I understand where you're coming from, that's exactly how I feel towards Brosnan and his Bond films. But make no mistake, as much as my opinion of Brosnan has softened over time, I would still replace him with Dalton. Dalton lacked Brosnans pull with the public, but he could have done so much more, even with the same material as Brosnan.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,266
    I guess there's a Bond for everyone, and in those 50 odd years the films have been made we've seen all sorts of adaptations. Tim was the more intelligent, Roger the absolute gentleman, Connery the rough playboy, with Lazenby in the same, shall we say intention? Brosnan was something inbetween the Connery playboy and the Moore Gentleman, but with less gravitas, if you can call it that. I think Craig is by far the most 'blunt instrument' Fleming envisioned. Handsome in a rough kind of way. He may himself have thought of Hoagy Carmigael, but personally I feel that he hardly added up to Fleming's descriptions, as Hoagy was far more classicly handsome.

    And then there's the acting, of course. I think Craig is by far the best when compared to Brosnan. So any judgement on Brosnan looking back is blurred by the fact that Craig outperforms him, which isn't really fair.
  • Posts: 4,622
    I do think Fleming intended, described Bond as full on tall dark handsome.
    matinee idols such as Cary Grant, Rock Hudson etc had nothing on Bond in the looks department.
    But Bond was also blunt instrument.
    Tough and dangerous.

    Best Bond is the rough playboy ie Connery and Laz.
    The other 4; nice try but not quite.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I guess there's a Bond for everyone, and in those 50 odd years the films have been made we've seen all sorts of adaptations. Tim was the more intelligent, Roger the absolute gentleman, Connery the rough playboy, with Lazenby in the same, shall we say intention? Brosnan was something inbetween the Connery playboy and the Moore Gentleman, but with less gravitas, if you can call it that. I think Craig is by far the most 'blunt instrument' Fleming envisioned. Handsome in a rough kind of way. He may himself have thought of Hoagy Carmigael, but personally I feel that he hardly added up to Fleming's descriptions, as Hoagy was far more classicly handsome.

    And then there's the acting, of course. I think Craig is by far the best when compared to Brosnan. So any judgement on Brosnan looking back is blurred by the fact that Craig outperforms him, which isn't really fair.

    Well said @CommanderRoss. This sums it up for me perfectly. Brosnan will always be compared with his immediate successor, who is a far superior actor (to possibly all the Bonds.....). So any retrospective comparison will not be favourable to Brosnan as a result, and that is somewhat unfair to him.

    However, the lack of gravitas description you mention is something I felt during his tenure (from the get-go) in comparison with all his predecessors.....not just in comparison to Craig. This was further compounded by the somewhat indestructible, superhuman aspect that characterized his era (number of machine gun kills, explosions etc.), which was not his fault at all, but rather, that of the producers. The two impressions were in direct conflict with one another for me, and so strained credibility.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,266
    @bondjames I agree on the fact that Brosnan's Bond was a lighter, super-human kind of Bond. But he fitted his day and age. Don't forget that Fukuyama's 'The End Of History' was a bestseller in those days! Bond would be light entertainment in the future, as all would be better, no wars anymore, etc. I think DAD's misfire is also due to the fact that they started working on it before the 2001 attacks, which not only hit home while the West was sleeping, but also ended an era of lacklustre 'we've all made the hard times, it will all be milk and honey from now on' attitude.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 331</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>SF restored the Secret Service crew (Q, M, MP) in its old glory but for modern times.</b></font>
  • Posts: 12,526
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 331</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>SF restored the Secret Service crew (Q, M, MP) in its old glory but for modern times.</b></font>

    Possibly? I think we would need to see Spectre before we could answer that accurately I think?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2015 Posts: 23,883
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 331</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>SF restored the Secret Service crew (Q, M, MP) in its old glory but for modern times.</b></font>

    I agree that we need to see SP to be sure.

    Definitely it seems that way for both M (strong, intelligent, resourceful, trusting) and Q (funny, thinks highly of his work and his abilities, condescending and unappreciative of 007's talents, geeky).

    For me, the jury is still out on MP. During the great Lois Maxwell's day, she was resourceful, intelligent, accomodating, and with a huge crush on Bond. Since Lois, we've had several iterations and permutations, each not even close to being on par with the original imho. I reserve judgement on Naomi's MP. She appeared to be an incompetent in SF, which to me wasn't appealing, which had unfortunate subliminal (and probably unintended) racial stereotype overtones, and which is not customary for this character. Hopefully my concerns can be put to rest with a positive showing by her character in SP.
  • Disagree. This new cast may prove themselves worthy of comparison with Lee, Maxwell, and Llewelyn in future outings, and the restoration and casting of these beloved characters was certainly a step in a good direction, but Skyfall didn't deliver "the Secret Service crew in its old glory but for modern times" in my opinion.

    Ralph Fiennes is just about the most perfect M I can imagine. When I first heard of his casting in Skyfall I was hoping beyond hope he would ultimately become the next M. Now, we only saw Fiennes officially as M for a single scene and just one or two lines—more of a preview of future things than anything—but I can tell already he's going to do Bernard Lee proud and will have fantastic chemistry with Craig's Bond.

    Whishaw and Harris are another matter, however...

    I'm fully onboard with the reinvention of Q as a young, sassy hipster-techie, and I like Ben Whishaw's casting. There's a lot of potential behind the idea of reversing the age dynamic between Bond and Q yet keeping their friendly head-butting at play. That said, the Q scenes in Skyfall fell short for me on account of what felt like forced dialogue and an overly theatrical staging. None of the banter felt natural. This is, however, an issue I had with many of the performances/scenes in Skyfall so I chalk it up to Mendes's direction. With Mendes at the helm again for Spectre, I feel we're likely to get the same stilted deliveries from Bond and Q in their scenes together, but there's definitely potential for a really interesting and fun dynamic to develop between Whishaw and Craig (or whoever assumes the role next) in the future—maybe even with Spectre...we'll see.

    The reinvention of Moneypenny is a bit rockier for me. I wasn't sure how I would feel about a field-tested, gun-saavy Moneypenny, and I'm still not entirely sure how I feel about it. It's okay, I guess. It opened up the possibility of this sort of sparring office interplay we got to see between Harris's Moneypenny and Craig's Bond, which worked pretty well. Again, however, I had a similar problem with Harris's performance as I did with Whishaw's: stilted, unnatural line deliveries. If these kinks can be worked out, and perhaps with some sharper dialogue, I don't see why Harris and Craig couldn't recapture some of that "old glory." I like Harris as an actress.

    So, in summary: Skyfall promises a new M who will indeed recapture the old glory of the early days, yet reveals that with Q and Moneypenny there is much work to do.
  • Posts: 15,124
    bondjames wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 331</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>SF restored the Secret Service crew (Q, M, MP) in its old glory but for modern times.</b></font>

    I agree that we need to see SP to be sure.

    Definitely it seems that way for both M (strong, intelligent, resourceful, trusting) and Q (funny, thinks highly of his work and his abilities, condescending and unappreciative of 007's talents, geeky).

    For me, the jury is still out on MP. During the great Lois Maxwell's day, she was resourceful, intelligent, accomodating, and with a huge crush on Bond. Since Lois, we've had several iterations and permutations, each not even close to being on par with the original imho. I reserve judgement on Naomi's MP. She appeared to be an incompetent in SF, which to me wasn't appealing, which had unfortunate subliminal (and probably unintended) racial stereotype overtones, and which is not customary for this character. Hopefully my concerns can be put to rest with a positive showing by her character in SP.

    I don't think Eve was incompetent. She seems to hold herself very well, she only made to take a difficult shot when she was ordered to do so. What bothered me more is that I find it difficult to believe Moneypenny was at any time a field agent, talented or not. And that she was too sexy, but that is another matter entirely.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Absolutely agree. Only thing that makes me a bit skeptic, is that M, Q, Moneypenny and Tanner is used as some sort of Fantastic Four out in the field. The old guys were out in the field too, but didn t see much action.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    Well, they are there. It's just none of the current lineup are the best in each character.
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    True, Desmond, Bernard and Lois are hard to beat. But I'd be happy to settle for second best. And I think they're comfortably that, if only because lack of competition. Look at when we last had the whole crew: John Cleese, Samantha Bond and Judi Dench. Even if you were a fan of Dench's M (I'm not) you'd have to admit the other two are stinkers.
  • Posts: 832

    I liked Samantha Bond
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    Why? is all I can say.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    I have good hopes for this crew. MP and Q, for example, were found outside our comfort zone, which IMO is a good thing. By hiring a very talented black actress, Naomi Harris, who we are shown has at least some field experience, the image of the bureaucratic secretary who couldn't tell a gun from a crossbow, is somewhat gone. As for Q, a young computer hipster is anything but old faithful uncle Q.

    There are two alternatives to this: either no Q and MP at all, or trying desperately to mimic our beloved friends from the old days. We need to accept that sometimes the best approach is to restore these characters in their original function, but looking different, more adjusted to our modern times, and slightly spiced up in their attitude.

    As for M, I think Ralph Fiennes is going to be a stunningly good M. We can already say for sure he's a very good actor and that is worth a lot. His interactions with Bond are no doubt going to have some spark and I'm glad, though I loved Dame Judy as M, that the motherly lectures are finished for some time. ;-)
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    Ottofuse8 wrote: »
    I liked Samantha Bond

    So did I. But no one can compare to the original lineup.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    I'm on board with M and Q but still not sold on MP. Admittedly, having her be a field agent in SF was an absolute deal breaker for me. I'm hoping that things will be back to normal in SP and we can see a more traditional MP. I believe that this group showed the potential for some great chemistry between them and here's to hoping they can achieve that come November. Just leave them out of the field please. Partner Bond up with Felix if he needs some help.
  • RC7RC7
    edited July 2015 Posts: 10,512
    Sark wrote: »
    John Cleese, Samantha Bond and Judi Dench. Even if you were a fan of Dench's M (I'm not) you'd have to admit the other two are stinkers.

    I admit Cleese is a stinker, why they did that I'll never know. Fawlty Towers is superb, but he isn't Bond material.

    As for Samantha Bond, I don't get the hate. Her chemistry with Brosnan is absolutely superb. With Bond and Dench, I think they are damn near perfect in GE and TND. Dench was never as good as in these two movies and I include all the Craig movies in that. As for Harris, thus far, she does not trump Bond for me.

  • Posts: 12,837
    I liked John Cleese but Wishaw is without a doubt better. I was skeptical but I actually ended up really liking the new Q.

    I can't get on with Harris as MP though. She just seems wooden in the role, I don't like her new failed field agent backstory and she has no chemistry with Craig. Shame as I was actually quite excited to see her in SF. It's weird because before SF came out we were all certain that Naomi would be great while we were worried about Berenice because of her limited acting experience. But Berenice was brilliant as Severine and stole every scene she was in while Harris was poor as Eve/MP imo.

    Obviously Lois is still the best one but I think Samantha Bond was much better than what we've seen of Naomi Harris so far. She had genuinely great chemistry with Brosnan, the kind you can't force and the kind that Craig/Harris don't seem to have. I'm hoping SP will prove me wrong but I'm not sure.

    Anyway in response to the question, well they've restored them but I'm not sure if it's in its old glory yet. I like Fiennes, good actor and a great fit for M, but so far I prefer Dench. Wishaw is great, but as I said, I'm not a fan of Harris as MP. So we'll see I guess, I think to judge overall we do have to wait until SPECTRE as M and MP hadn't really settled into their roles throughout most of SF.

    I did really like how similar M's office is to the old films though, with the door and everything. That was a really nice touch.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    Hmm, I too was sceptical about the young Q – I thought it may have been like in Die Hard 4, where the old dinosaur (McClane/Bond) with his sidekick geeky partner (Matt/Q). Luckily, my fears were unfounded. I thought Whishaw had good chemistry with Craig, and it will be interesting to see them develop that.

    On the other hand, Craig and Harris do not have chemistry, and their attempts of banter was a slight stain on the otherwise impeccable casting of Skyfall.

    Fiennes is a terrific actor, and is going to be fun to see him and Craig bounce of each other.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 332</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Should SP make more money than SF, it might have more to do with it being a franchise film and less with its quality.</b></font>

  • Exhibit A: Thunderball grossed more than Goldfinger.

    We'll probably have to wait for the movie to come out to make any real headway on this question, though.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Well, not all sequels within it's own franchises make more money than it's predecessor. However, I think with the way things are looking for SP and the intention to make a bigger, more engaging and a conscious effort to make a more classically traditional Bond film; I think from what we can see at the very least the standard of quality hasn't dropped but without being too presumptuous I think SP is looking better than SF and is giving me a feeling that I havn't had since the trailer for CR, which is still Craig's best. SP definitely should and deserves to cross the billion dollar mark at the very least.
  • Posts: 11,119
    I'm fairly convinced SP will gross more money worldwide than SF. Moreover, I think there's room for growth in countries like Mexico, Brazil, United States and especially China. In China, how weird it may sound, SF underperformed.

    I also see that James Bond has grown considerably in the USA as compared to Europe. In the USA James Bond always had stiffer competition from other franchises as compared to Europe: Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, True Lies, Mission Impossible, Fast & Furious, Hancock. With SF that has changed, and I seriously believe SP can outperform on SF's domestic box office share. More than 400 Million is possible. Add to that a more than 100 Million box office take in China, and you only need 500 Million more for the rest of the world = another 1 Billion Dollar. But I think, also looking at the immensely good reactions on this week's trailer, SP can go easily past $1.2 Billion, which is already 100 Million more than SF.
Sign In or Register to comment.