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

16364666869190

Comments

  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,249
    No, I don't think any adjustments would've been needed. I think Neill would've been something of a go-between Moore and Dalton, which would be fine for AVTAK. Perhaps they should've hired him at that time...
  • Moore in AVTAK was just fine for me :)

    Disagree with the thesis
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,172
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 094</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Any new Bond actor should always try to be his own Bond, never a copy of a previous actor.</b></font>
  • Posts: 12,526
    Agreed! Else they would just be an inpersonator? They have to put there own stamp on it to keep it fresh.
  • Posts: 1,497
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 094</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Any new Bond actor should always try to be his own Bond, never a copy of a previous actor.</b></font>

    Agreed. They can borrow certain traits, such as Connery's suave ruggedness, Roger Moore's raised eye-brow, or Timothy Dalton's no-nonsense approach, but should make it their own, in fact this should be encouraged.
  • KerimKerim Istanbul Not Constantinople
    Posts: 2,629
    Agreed on the provision that some sort of Fleming element is incorporated. Really don't want to see another Moore or Brosnan Bond.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I agree. All the actors apart from Brosnan really brought something new and different. They stamped their identity on the part and that is what makes their films so enjoyable.
  • Posts: 1,497
    Kerim wrote:
    Agreed on the provision that some sort of Fleming element is incorporated. Really don't want to see another Moore or Brosnan Bond.

    I also agree on the Fleming influence for sure, but I think a Bond actor can learn a thing or two from Moore's take. He brought the Etonian snobbery to the character, which I think Pierce got right, but Dan could use a little more of.

  • edited May 2012 Posts: 11,425
    JBFan626 wrote:
    Kerim wrote:
    Agreed on the provision that some sort of Fleming element is incorporated. Really don't want to see another Moore or Brosnan Bond.

    I also agree on the Fleming influence for sure, but I think a Bond actor can learn a thing or two from Moore's take. He brought the Etonian snobbery to the character, which I think Pierce got right, but Dan could use a little more of.

    Funny, I think Sean's character was more of a snob than Roger. To me Roger's everyman roots (son of a policeman) shine through. Yes, he's a class act, but he's not up himself. It's one of the reasons that he and his Bond are so likeable.

    Brozza came across as an insurance salesman.
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 12,837
    Agreed. I think every Bond so far has bought SOMETHING.

    Connery: Suave but brutal.

    Lasenby: The real human Bond.

    Moore: Playboy, who always finds time for a one liner.

    Dalton: Badass, dark secret agent. ^:)^ The very best.

    Brosnan: A bit smug, playboy with a dark side.

    Craig: Brutal, rugged and a bit reckless. Makes mistakes, Sort of an everyman.
  • Posts: 4,813
    Absolutely-- if ever there was an actor who 'copied' a predecessor, they would go down in Bond history as a farce, and a bad actor who couldn't hold his own.

    LOL I know this isn't what the debate meant, literally, but just picture a movie with someone trying to talk like Connery!
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    To varying results, Connery, Moore and Dalton all took the series into different directions. The other 3 just come off as copies of previous Bonds: Lazenby (Connery), Brosnan (mostly Moore with maybe a tiny bit of Connery) & Craig (mostly Dalton with a bit of Connery). So here's hoping that the next fella can bring a totally fresh take on the role...

    Thesis 94: Agreed.
  • KerimKerim Istanbul Not Constantinople
    edited May 2012 Posts: 2,629
    JBFan626 wrote:
    Kerim wrote:
    Agreed on the provision that some sort of Fleming element is incorporated. Really don't want to see another Moore or Brosnan Bond.

    I also agree on the Fleming influence for sure, but I think a Bond actor can learn a thing or two from Moore's take. He brought the Etonian snobbery to the character, which I think Pierce got right, but Dan could use a little more of.

    I actually like that Craig is more blue collar and less snobbish than his predecessors. With the other five, it was more of a fantasy for men to be like them. With Craig, the average man feels that they can relate more with Craig.

    Yes, Craig does dress up when necessary (Poker Tournament, Greene's Party, Tosca), but, like most men, Craig is more in his element dressing like the average man (African rundown, Miami Airport), where the others were more comfortable in a tux or a nice suit doing their jobs.

    I think Craig is the one Bond who'd prefer steak and beer over caviar and champagne.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Agree. There is nothing wrong with taking influence, but outright copying, no. But please take inspiration from Sean if you must.
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 1,497
    Kerim wrote:
    JBFan626 wrote:
    Kerim wrote:
    Agreed on the provision that some sort of Fleming element is incorporated. Really don't want to see another Moore or Brosnan Bond.

    I also agree on the Fleming influence for sure, but I think a Bond actor can learn a thing or two from Moore's take. He brought the Etonian snobbery to the character, which I think Pierce got right, but Dan could use a little more of.

    I actually like that Craig is more blue collar and less snobbish than his predecessors. With the other five, it was more of a fantasy for men to be like them. With Craig, the average man feels that they can relate more with Craig.

    Yes, Craig does dress up when necessary (Poker Tournament, Greene's Party, Tosca), but, like most men, Craig is more in his element dressing like the average man (African rundown, Miami Airport), where the others were more comfortable in a tux or a nice suit doing their jobs.

    I think Craig is the one Bond who'd prefer steak and beer over caviar and champagne.

    See, those are the fundamental traits that I look for in Bond though: suit dress to the nine, caviar and Dom Perignon. Craig the average man, feels out of place in the high stakes casinos. Didn't Fleming's Bond have these finer tastes in dress, drink, and high living?
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 11,425
    JBFan626 wrote:
    Kerim wrote:
    JBFan626 wrote:
    Kerim wrote:
    Agreed on the provision that some sort of Fleming element is incorporated. Really don't want to see another Moore or Brosnan Bond.

    I also agree on the Fleming influence for sure, but I think a Bond actor can learn a thing or two from Moore's take. He brought the Etonian snobbery to the character, which I think Pierce got right, but Dan could use a little more of.

    I actually like that Craig is more blue collar and less snobbish than his predecessors. With the other five, it was more of a fantasy for men to be like them. With Craig, the average man feels that they can relate more with Craig.

    Yes, Craig does dress up when necessary (Poker Tournament, Greene's Party, Tosca), but, like most men, Craig is more in his element dressing like the average man (African rundown, Miami Airport), where the others were more comfortable in a tux or a nice suit doing their jobs.

    I think Craig is the one Bond who'd prefer steak and beer over caviar and champagne.

    See, those are the fundamental traits that I look for in Bond though: suit dress to the nine, caviar and Dom Perignon. Craig the average man, feels out of place in the high stakes casinos. Didn't Fleming's Bond have these finer tastes in dress, drink, and high living?

    Connery, who had a proper working class background, was 'taught' how to enjoy this stuff by Terence Young. The working classes and upper classes have always got on better with each other than the grasping middle classes.

    May be DC needs some lessons too but I think he is probably too full of bourgeois guilt to enjoy himself too much.
  • Posts: 1,778
    Agreed. Im looking at you Mr. Brosnan.
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 12,837
    I've been thinking about this, and even though I still agree and I don't think any Bond actor has copied a past one so far, you have to wonder what's left to bring. I mean, how many different versions of Bond can there be before you run out? We've had a comedy Bond, a darker Bond, a brutal Bond, an emotional Bond, etc. What's left?
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited May 2012 Posts: 4,515
    A tuff Bond. Atleast that is what i think there try with DC.

    At the moment i see DC as Brosnan/Roger Moore (in the meaning of setting of the movie.) Bond but with les humour then those 2 and more agression then Dalton's LTK. So i disagree with Kerim: With Daniel Craig, they can relate less with Craig, you don't whant to be like him or his Bond.

    But i like Bond for other reasen's and possible i wil hate Bond or DC after Skyfall or Bond 24 so much as i hate the franchise after DAD til QOS.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    I feel each actor should play Bond by using Fleming's books as a guideline. Their personality with come through, that is of course unavoidable but this doesn't mean they should strive to be their "own Bond". What they become will only be compared by Bond fans, who often, want to make comparisons to what's gone before.

    There are only a certain number of 'new ways' to play one character, after all.
  • Agree completely with the thesis.

    Why Lazenby and Brosnan are at the bottom of my Bond actor rankings because they are poor imitations of Connery and Moore, respectively.
  • Posts: 1,497
    Agree completely with the thesis.

    Why Lazenby and Brosnan are at the bottom of my Bond actor rankings because they are poor imitations of Connery and Moore, respectively.

    In fairness, I don't think either Lazenby and Brosnan were simply imitations of Connery and Moore respectively.

    Lazenby had a certain glee-eyed charm that was unique to him. He also captured the emotional side of Bond that was never present in Connery.

    Likewise, Brosnan wasn't quite as smirky as Moore was. He brought a bit of cool reservedness to the role, and perhaps dare I say even a bit of elegance.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,287
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 094</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Any new Bond actor should always try to be his own Bond, never a copy of a previous actor.</b></font>

    Yes. This is why Moore shined and had such a successful tenure...perhaps too successful, leading to the public's rejection of Dalton.

    Lazenby and Brosnan copied, respectively, Connery and Moore, to a certain degree. But Lazenby had more presence, while Brosnan had more acting ability.

  • echo wrote:
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 094</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Any new Bond actor should always try to be his own Bond, never a copy of a previous actor.</b></font>

    Yes. This is why Moore shined and had such a successful tenure...perhaps too successful, leading to the public's rejection of Dalton.

    Lazenby and Brosnan copied, respectively, Connery and Moore, to a certain degree. But Lazenby had more presence, while Brosnan had more acting ability.

    Excellent post Echo, agree with everything. Do you think, intentionally or unintentionally, Craig has copied Dalton? Or is it more that because they are 'Fleming' Bonds, the similarities are more obvious??
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 11,425
    echo wrote:
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 094</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Any new Bond actor should always try to be his own Bond, never a copy of a previous actor.</b></font>

    Yes. This is why Moore shined and had such a successful tenure...perhaps too successful, leading to the public's rejection of Dalton.

    Lazenby and Brosnan copied, respectively, Connery and Moore, to a certain degree. But Lazenby had more presence, while Brosnan had more acting ability.

    Excellent post Echo, agree with everything. Do you think, intentionally or unintentionally, Craig has copied Dalton? Or is it more that because they are 'Fleming' Bonds, the similarities are more obvious??

    Had this discussion on another thread earlier. I don't think Craig copied or was particularly influenced by Dalton, but I do think he is closest to Dalton in terms of past Bonds.

    I don't think any of the actors have actually copied each other tbh. Laz completely did it his own way and was actually very good, especially considering it was his first movie. All Roger really needed to do was be Roger Moore and we (nearly) all loved it. Dalts took his own take and (IMO) is one of the best.

    Despite the fact I don't like Brosnan (or perhaps because of it), I've never understood the idea that he was somehow a combination of Sean and Roger - in his wildest dreams, perhaps! In reality, he is very much Pierce Brosnan, and there is - cough - no one quite like him.

    I also think Craig is doing his own thing. He is actually closest to Dalts in terms of the seriousness he brings, but I feel he suffers a lot from not bringing in enough lightness and humour. I don't mean 'jokes' and one liners, but the sense of fun and enjoyment that all the actors captured up until Brosnan. The classic Bonds have a fluid narrative and visual style that carries you along - a sort of cinematic ride. Perhaps begining with LTK, the films have become (in narrative terms), more stuttery, incoherent and disjointed. Let's hope they bring some of the lightness of touch and fluidity back for SF.
  • Posts: 19,339
    I think all the Bond actors brought their own element to the character,hence we havent seen a flop in the role yet.
    They choose their actors very carefully and i think it shows.Any Bond film that hasnt quite come up to the mark is generally the plot line and script,not the actor (although OHMSS and Lazanby is a slight exception but you cant blame him for that and i think he put a damn good effort into it.)
  • Posts: 1,052
    I agree with this 100%, this is why I have a soft sport for Timbo, he played it his way, if it worked or not is down to personal opinion.

    I don't think Lazenby intentionally brought anything to the role, he showed up and read the lines and then they dubbed him!
  • Posts: 1,497
    Getafix wrote:
    I also think Craig is doing his own thing. He is actually closest to Dalts in terms of the seriousness he brings, but I feel he suffers a lot from not bringing in enough lightness and humour. I don't mean 'jokes' and one liners, but the sense of fun and enjoyment that all the actors captured up until Brosnan. The classic Bonds have a fluid narrative and visual style that carries you along - a sort of cinematic ride. Perhaps begining with LTK, the films have become (in narrative terms), more stuttery, incoherent and disjointed. Let's hope they bring some of the lightness of touch and fluidity back for SF.

    Great post all around. I especially agree with this last paragraph. Craig doesn't necessarily need to go into spoof territory with gags left and right. But he could lighten up and look like he's having a little bit more fun.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,172
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 095</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Q should never perform active field work.</b></font>
  • Posts: 5,745
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 095</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Q should never perform active field work.</b></font>

    I like when he delivers Moore the Lotus in TSWLM. That's about as far as I'm willing to go.

    But disagree.

Sign In or Register to comment.