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
Disagree with the thesis
<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.
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.
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.
LOL I know this isn't what the debate meant, literally, but just picture a movie with someone trying to talk like Connery!
Thesis 94: Agreed.
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.
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.
There are only a certain number of 'new ways' to play one character, after all.
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.
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.
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.)
I don't think Lazenby intentionally brought anything to the role, he showed up and read the lines and then they dubbed him!
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.
<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.