›

Controversial opinions about Bond films

1…227228230232233…710

Comments

  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited January 2017 Posts: 1,243
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I enjoy Dalton's performances and his films, he's obviously a talented actor, but I do think he is caught 'acting' at times. If you play the scene of Bond finding Della followed by Bond cradling Vesper it's evident that Craig brings an extra level of screen acting class.

    I see the point, but in fairness we are talking about acting styles, with one being from 1989 and one from 2006. I think Craig had great backing and a director in Campbell who refined better than Glen.

    Those subtle performances that Craig achieved would have been harder, had he been for instance doing LTK. That is why a series has survived. It forges new paths of expression. And it took the disaster that was DAD, for a serious reappraisal to take place in the minds of the producers. Bourne also paved the way for that.

    I'm talking about ability, though, not style. Actors have been delivering all manner of performances for decades.

    As others have said, Dalton was guilty over egging it at times, this being a reasonable example.

    That is where a strong director would have ironed that out. Glen held the power, as this was his fifth film and all his films have dodgy takes.

    I think also the producers wanted to show off Dalton's abilities more. Why? Because Bond was ridiculed before as being an easy role that no serious actor wanted. Of course, untrue. Bond is a complex role and let's give Dalton credit for giving the best he could at the time and in the circumstances.

    Cubby was also not involved due to illness. Cubby being around helped for sure. He would have seen the dailies and perhaps asked for a retake.

    All you say might be true, but by that logic we can absolve anyone of any misdemeanour and put it down to extraneous circumstances. Pain face: directors fault, etc.

    Dalts is brilliant in parts, especially opposite Davi, but the point I was making is that I feel Craig is the superior actor. QoS was made in shambolic circumstances and he still pulled out a fantastic performance, in fact I don't recall him hitting a bum note. Dalton on the other hand has these little theatrical flourishes peppered through his films that don't quite fly.

    Comes to my earlier point. Dalton needed better backing like Craig. In Dalton's time, the production team was pulling in different directions.

    With Craig, they were all on the same page. That helps.

    We're talking at cross purposes here. The production circumstances (which were dire for QoS) are irrelevant. This is down to innate ability and screen craft.

    No one was acting like Craig back in 1989. Connery changed accent as Bond. So what. That is a reference to other posts nitpicking about accents.

    Craig is shit in the Q introduction scene in SF. He is appalling. Yet, we know he is a superbly capable actor. Do I focus on that or the whole of his acting ability?

    Him and Dalton are different acting styles. Craig could not do as well as Dalton in the Sanchez office scene. The facial expressions for one.

    QOS is a written for Craig film. It is a new style for the series.

    And Dalton has changed his acting style with the times. He is less intense than before.

    Craig may not be my favourite Bond, but I would never say he is not a talented actor.


    Forgive my writing, but I am on a shaky London tube train.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,213
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I enjoy Dalton's performances and his films, he's obviously a talented actor, but I do think he is caught 'acting' at times. If you play the scene of Bond finding Della followed by Bond cradling Vesper it's evident that Craig brings an extra level of screen acting class.

    I see the point, but in fairness we are talking about acting styles, with one being from 1989 and one from 2006. I think Craig had great backing and a director in Campbell who refined better than Glen.

    Those subtle performances that Craig achieved would have been harder, had he been for instance doing LTK. That is why a series has survived. It forges new paths of expression. And it took the disaster that was DAD, for a serious reappraisal to take place in the minds of the producers. Bourne also paved the way for that.

    I'm talking about ability, though, not style. Actors have been delivering all manner of performances for decades.

    As others have said, Dalton was guilty over egging it at times, this being a reasonable example.

    That is where a strong director would have ironed that out. Glen held the power, as this was his fifth film and all his films have dodgy takes.

    I think also the producers wanted to show off Dalton's abilities more. Why? Because Bond was ridiculed before as being an easy role that no serious actor wanted. Of course, untrue. Bond is a complex role and let's give Dalton credit for giving the best he could at the time and in the circumstances.

    Cubby was also not involved due to illness. Cubby being around helped for sure. He would have seen the dailies and perhaps asked for a retake.

    All you say might be true, but by that logic we can absolve anyone of any misdemeanour and put it down to extraneous circumstances. Pain face: directors fault, etc.

    Dalts is brilliant in parts, especially opposite Davi, but the point I was making is that I feel Craig is the superior actor. QoS was made in shambolic circumstances and he still pulled out a fantastic performance, in fact I don't recall him hitting a bum note. Dalton on the other hand has these little theatrical flourishes peppered through his films that don't quite fly.

    Comes to my earlier point. Dalton needed better backing like Craig. In Dalton's time, the production team was pulling in different directions.

    With Craig, they were all on the same page. That helps.

    We're talking at cross purposes here. The production circumstances (which were dire for QoS) are irrelevant. This is down to innate ability and screen craft.

    No one was acting like Craig back in 1989. Connery changed accent as Bond. So what. That is a reference to other posts nitpicking about accents.

    Craig is shit in the Q introduction scene in SF. He is appalling.

    Craig's good in that scene.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I enjoy Dalton's performances and his films, he's obviously a talented actor, but I do think he is caught 'acting' at times. If you play the scene of Bond finding Della followed by Bond cradling Vesper it's evident that Craig brings an extra level of screen acting class.

    I see the point, but in fairness we are talking about acting styles, with one being from 1989 and one from 2006. I think Craig had great backing and a director in Campbell who refined better than Glen.

    Those subtle performances that Craig achieved would have been harder, had he been for instance doing LTK. That is why a series has survived. It forges new paths of expression. And it took the disaster that was DAD, for a serious reappraisal to take place in the minds of the producers. Bourne also paved the way for that.

    I'm talking about ability, though, not style. Actors have been delivering all manner of performances for decades.

    As others have said, Dalton was guilty over egging it at times, this being a reasonable example.

    That is where a strong director would have ironed that out. Glen held the power, as this was his fifth film and all his films have dodgy takes.

    I think also the producers wanted to show off Dalton's abilities more. Why? Because Bond was ridiculed before as being an easy role that no serious actor wanted. Of course, untrue. Bond is a complex role and let's give Dalton credit for giving the best he could at the time and in the circumstances.

    Cubby was also not involved due to illness. Cubby being around helped for sure. He would have seen the dailies and perhaps asked for a retake.

    All you say might be true, but by that logic we can absolve anyone of any misdemeanour and put it down to extraneous circumstances. Pain face: directors fault, etc.

    Dalts is brilliant in parts, especially opposite Davi, but the point I was making is that I feel Craig is the superior actor. QoS was made in shambolic circumstances and he still pulled out a fantastic performance, in fact I don't recall him hitting a bum note. Dalton on the other hand has these little theatrical flourishes peppered through his films that don't quite fly.

    Comes to my earlier point. Dalton needed better backing like Craig. In Dalton's time, the production team was pulling in different directions.

    With Craig, they were all on the same page. That helps.

    We're talking at cross purposes here. The production circumstances (which were dire for QoS) are irrelevant. This is down to innate ability and screen craft.

    No one was acting like Craig back in 1989. Connery changed accent as Bond. So what. That is a reference to other posts nitpicking about accents.

    Craig is shit in the Q introduction scene in SF. He is appalling.

    Craig's good in that scene.

    Exactly,Craig is brilliant in that scene...

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2017 Posts: 23,883
    They've all had their moments, some more than others. I personally like Connery, Moore and Craig the best, for their consistency and interpretation. The others are sort of hit and miss for me, but there's no denying they've all been reasonably decent. I just don't like Bond actors overplaying it. I think Bond is best when underplayed, and that isn't as easy to do as some may believe. That's where screen charisma & subtlety goes a long way.

    EDIT: I quite like Craig in the Q intro scene as well. Very acerbic.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I enjoy Dalton's performances and his films, he's obviously a talented actor, but I do think he is caught 'acting' at times. If you play the scene of Bond finding Della followed by Bond cradling Vesper it's evident that Craig brings an extra level of screen acting class.

    I see the point, but in fairness we are talking about acting styles, with one being from 1989 and one from 2006. I think Craig had great backing and a director in Campbell who refined better than Glen.

    Those subtle performances that Craig achieved would have been harder, had he been for instance doing LTK. That is why a series has survived. It forges new paths of expression. And it took the disaster that was DAD, for a serious reappraisal to take place in the minds of the producers. Bourne also paved the way for that.

    I'm talking about ability, though, not style. Actors have been delivering all manner of performances for decades.

    As others have said, Dalton was guilty over egging it at times, this being a reasonable example.

    That is where a strong director would have ironed that out. Glen held the power, as this was his fifth film and all his films have dodgy takes.

    I think also the producers wanted to show off Dalton's abilities more. Why? Because Bond was ridiculed before as being an easy role that no serious actor wanted. Of course, untrue. Bond is a complex role and let's give Dalton credit for giving the best he could at the time and in the circumstances.

    Cubby was also not involved due to illness. Cubby being around helped for sure. He would have seen the dailies and perhaps asked for a retake.

    All you say might be true, but by that logic we can absolve anyone of any misdemeanour and put it down to extraneous circumstances. Pain face: directors fault, etc.

    Dalts is brilliant in parts, especially opposite Davi, but the point I was making is that I feel Craig is the superior actor. QoS was made in shambolic circumstances and he still pulled out a fantastic performance, in fact I don't recall him hitting a bum note. Dalton on the other hand has these little theatrical flourishes peppered through his films that don't quite fly.

    Comes to my earlier point. Dalton needed better backing like Craig. In Dalton's time, the production team was pulling in different directions.

    With Craig, they were all on the same page. That helps.

    We're talking at cross purposes here. The production circumstances (which were dire for QoS) are irrelevant. This is down to innate ability and screen craft.

    No one was acting like Craig back in 1989. Connery changed accent as Bond. So what. That is a reference to other posts nitpicking about accents.

    Craig is shit in the Q introduction scene in SF. He is appalling.

    Craig's good in that scene.

    As good as he was with the Queen at Buckingham Palace. That was embarrassing.

    James Bland.

  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    barryt007 wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I enjoy Dalton's performances and his films, he's obviously a talented actor, but I do think he is caught 'acting' at times. If you play the scene of Bond finding Della followed by Bond cradling Vesper it's evident that Craig brings an extra level of screen acting class.

    I see the point, but in fairness we are talking about acting styles, with one being from 1989 and one from 2006. I think Craig had great backing and a director in Campbell who refined better than Glen.

    Those subtle performances that Craig achieved would have been harder, had he been for instance doing LTK. That is why a series has survived. It forges new paths of expression. And it took the disaster that was DAD, for a serious reappraisal to take place in the minds of the producers. Bourne also paved the way for that.

    I'm talking about ability, though, not style. Actors have been delivering all manner of performances for decades.

    As others have said, Dalton was guilty over egging it at times, this being a reasonable example.

    That is where a strong director would have ironed that out. Glen held the power, as this was his fifth film and all his films have dodgy takes.

    I think also the producers wanted to show off Dalton's abilities more. Why? Because Bond was ridiculed before as being an easy role that no serious actor wanted. Of course, untrue. Bond is a complex role and let's give Dalton credit for giving the best he could at the time and in the circumstances.

    Cubby was also not involved due to illness. Cubby being around helped for sure. He would have seen the dailies and perhaps asked for a retake.

    All you say might be true, but by that logic we can absolve anyone of any misdemeanour and put it down to extraneous circumstances. Pain face: directors fault, etc.

    Dalts is brilliant in parts, especially opposite Davi, but the point I was making is that I feel Craig is the superior actor. QoS was made in shambolic circumstances and he still pulled out a fantastic performance, in fact I don't recall him hitting a bum note. Dalton on the other hand has these little theatrical flourishes peppered through his films that don't quite fly.

    Comes to my earlier point. Dalton needed better backing like Craig. In Dalton's time, the production team was pulling in different directions.

    With Craig, they were all on the same page. That helps.

    We're talking at cross purposes here. The production circumstances (which were dire for QoS) are irrelevant. This is down to innate ability and screen craft.

    No one was acting like Craig back in 1989. Connery changed accent as Bond. So what. That is a reference to other posts nitpicking about accents.

    Craig is shit in the Q introduction scene in SF. He is appalling.

    Craig's good in that scene.

    Exactly,Craig is brilliant in that scene...


    He looks so uncomfortable and like an ordinary bloke. Could have been Simon Pegg in slimmer form.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    acoppola wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I enjoy Dalton's performances and his films, he's obviously a talented actor, but I do think he is caught 'acting' at times. If you play the scene of Bond finding Della followed by Bond cradling Vesper it's evident that Craig brings an extra level of screen acting class.

    I see the point, but in fairness we are talking about acting styles, with one being from 1989 and one from 2006. I think Craig had great backing and a director in Campbell who refined better than Glen.

    Those subtle performances that Craig achieved would have been harder, had he been for instance doing LTK. That is why a series has survived. It forges new paths of expression. And it took the disaster that was DAD, for a serious reappraisal to take place in the minds of the producers. Bourne also paved the way for that.

    I'm talking about ability, though, not style. Actors have been delivering all manner of performances for decades.

    As others have said, Dalton was guilty over egging it at times, this being a reasonable example.

    That is where a strong director would have ironed that out. Glen held the power, as this was his fifth film and all his films have dodgy takes.

    I think also the producers wanted to show off Dalton's abilities more. Why? Because Bond was ridiculed before as being an easy role that no serious actor wanted. Of course, untrue. Bond is a complex role and let's give Dalton credit for giving the best he could at the time and in the circumstances.

    Cubby was also not involved due to illness. Cubby being around helped for sure. He would have seen the dailies and perhaps asked for a retake.

    All you say might be true, but by that logic we can absolve anyone of any misdemeanour and put it down to extraneous circumstances. Pain face: directors fault, etc.

    Dalts is brilliant in parts, especially opposite Davi, but the point I was making is that I feel Craig is the superior actor. QoS was made in shambolic circumstances and he still pulled out a fantastic performance, in fact I don't recall him hitting a bum note. Dalton on the other hand has these little theatrical flourishes peppered through his films that don't quite fly.

    Comes to my earlier point. Dalton needed better backing like Craig. In Dalton's time, the production team was pulling in different directions.

    With Craig, they were all on the same page. That helps.

    We're talking at cross purposes here. The production circumstances (which were dire for QoS) are irrelevant. This is down to innate ability and screen craft.

    No one was acting like Craig back in 1989. Connery changed accent as Bond. So what. That is a reference to other posts nitpicking about accents.

    Craig is shit in the Q introduction scene in SF. He is appalling.

    Craig's good in that scene.

    As good as he was with the Queen at Buckingham Palace. That was embarrassing.

    James Bland.

    Wow,you really dont like Craig do you ?

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    acoppola wrote: »
    As good as he was with the Queen at Buckingham Palace. That was embarrassing.

    James Bland.
    I'll admit that I wasn't impressed here either. Perhaps he was somewhat overwhelmed or didn't want to upstage Her Majesty.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,213
    bondjames wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    As good as he was with the Queen at Buckingham Palace. That was embarrassing.

    James Bland.
    I'll admit that I wasn't impressed here either. Perhaps he was somewhat overwhelmed or didn't want to upstage Her Majesty.

    That was certainly more her moment than his.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Er,he was acting along side Queen Elizabeth II chaps....i think he did a sterling job,as my whole country did in 2012.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I enjoy Dalton's performances and his films, he's obviously a talented actor, but I do think he is caught 'acting' at times. If you play the scene of Bond finding Della followed by Bond cradling Vesper it's evident that Craig brings an extra level of screen acting class.

    I see the point, but in fairness we are talking about acting styles, with one being from 1989 and one from 2006. I think Craig had great backing and a director in Campbell who refined better than Glen.

    Those subtle performances that Craig achieved would have been harder, had he been for instance doing LTK. That is why a series has survived. It forges new path
    s of expression. And it took the disaster that was DAD, for a serious reappraisal to take place in the minds of the producers. Bourne also paved the way for that.

    I'm talking about ability, though, not style. Actors have been delivering all manner of performances for decades.

    As others have said, Dalton was guilty over egging it at times, this being a reasonable example.

    That is where a strong director would have ironed that out. Glen held the power, as this was his fifth film and all his films have dodgy takes.

    I think also the producers wanted to show off Dalton's abilities more. Why? Because Bond was ridiculed before as being an easy role that no serious actor wanted. Of course, untrue. Bond is a complex role and let's give Dalton credit for giving the best he could at the time and in the circumstances.

    Cubby was also not involved due to illness. Cubby being around helped for sure. He would have seen the dailies and perhaps asked for a retake.

    All you say might be true, but by that logic we can absolve anyone of any misdemeanour and put it down to extraneous circumstances. Pain face: directors fault, etc.

    Dalts is brilliant in parts, especially opposite Davi, but the point I was making is that I feel Craig is the superior actor. QoS was made in shambolic circumstances and he still pulled out a fantastic performance, in fact I don't recall him hitting a bum note. Dalton on the other hand has these little theatrical flourishes peppered through his films that don't quite fly.

    Comes to my earlier point. Dalton needed better backing like Craig. In Dalton's time, the production team was pulling in different directions.

    With Craig, they were all on the same page. That helps.

    We're talking at cross purposes here. The production circumstances (which were dire for QoS) are irrelevant. This is down to innate ability and screen craft.

    No one was acting like Craig back in 1989. Connery changed accent as Bond. So what. That is a reference to other posts nitpicking about accents.

    Craig is shit in the Q introduction scene in SF. He is appalling. Yet, we know he is a superbly capable actor. Do I focus on that or the whole of his acting ability?

    Him and Dalton are different acting styles. Craig could not do as well as Dalton in the Sanchez office scene. The facial expressions for one.

    QOS is a written for Craig film. It is a new style for the series.

    And Dalton has changed his acting style with the times. He is less intense than before.

    Craig may not be my favourite Bond, but I would never say he is not a talented actor.


    Forgive my writing, but I am on a shaky London tube train.

    Doth protest too much, methinks.

    I didn't resort to calling Dalton, 'shit', because he isn't, neither is Craig and looking at the responses I think you're in a minority with that one. I just find Craig to be superior as a screen actor. I won't labour the point any further.
  • Some_Kind_Of_HeroSome_Kind_Of_Hero
    Posts: 6,844
    Sigh. All you guys, haha. The truth of it is we haven't had a bad actor in the role. They've all been great. Dalton is as good as Craig is as good as Brosnan is as good as Connery is as good as Moore is as good as Lazenby. They've all brought their own approach and have all excelled in their own ways and truly no two are alike.

    (None of your opinions are controversial by the way: people have been hating on Dalton, Brosnan and Craig since the beginning of time ;) )
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Er,he was acting along side Queen Elizabeth II chaps....i think he did a sterling job,as my whole country did in 2012.

    Knock yourself out. He looked like an Eastern European builder with The Queen., "You must be joking," if you think he looks like Bond.

  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    acoppola wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Er,he was acting along side Queen Elizabeth II chaps....i think he did a sterling job,as my whole country did in 2012.

    Knock yourself out. He looked like an Eastern European builder with The Queen., "You must be joking," if you think he looks like Bond.

    I never joke when i mean what i say...and i mean what i say.

  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited January 2017 Posts: 1,243
    bondjames wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    As good as he was with the Queen at Buckingham Palace. That was embarrassing.

    James Bland.
    I'll admit that I wasn't impressed here either. Perhaps he was somewhat overwhelmed or didn't want to upstage Her Majesty.

    He was in a bad mood that day, as he admitted. But he looks like the blandest Bond ever. A fine actor, but I will take the past Bonds over him.

    Then laughed in Colombia, and said Bond is supposed to be very handsome.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    acoppola wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    As good as he was with the Queen at Buckingham Palace. That was embarrassing.

    James Bland.
    I'll admit that I wasn't impressed here either. Perhaps he was somewhat overwhelmed or didn't want to upstage Her Majesty.

    He was in a bad mood that day, as he admitted. But he looks like the blandest Bond ever. A fine actor, but I will take the past Bonds over him.
    I'll just say I wasn't impressed. However, it was cool to have the Queen with Bond, and that made it worthwhile. As long as she had a good time, I'm ok with it.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    bondjames wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    As good as he was with the Queen at Buckingham Palace. That was embarrassing.

    James Bland.
    I'll admit that I wasn't impressed here either. Perhaps he was somewhat overwhelmed or didn't want to upstage Her Majesty.

    He was in a bad mood that day, as he admitted. But he looks like the blandest Bond ever. A fine actor, but I will take the past Bonds over him.
    I'll just say I wasn't impressed. However, it was cool to have the Queen with Bond, and that made it worthwhile. As long as she had a good time, I'm ok with it.

    And what is wasted opportunity. Once in a lifetime. Could you imagine Moore in that?
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    Some_Kind_Of_Hero wrote: »
    Sigh. All you guys, haha. The truth of it is we haven't had a bad actor in the role. They've all been great. Dalton is as good as Craig is as good as Brosnan is as good as Connery is as good as Moore is as good as Lazenby. They've all brought their own approach and have all excelled in their own ways and truly no two are alike.

    (None of your opinions are controversial by the way: people have been hating on Dalton, Brosnan and Craig since the beginning of time ;) )

    All of their time. It comes down to personal taste. If all Bond actors were the same, the series would have died.
  • GetCarterGetCarter
    Posts: 386
    Goldfinger, though immensely enjoyable, isn't a great vehicle for bond himself.

    He seems to spend a lot of the movie with his hands in his pockets, strolling around under Auric's watchful eye.

    The most passive, inert bond in the series.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    GetCarter wrote: »
    Goldfinger, though immensely enjoyable, isn't a great vehicle for bond himself.

    He seems to spend a lot of the movie with his hands in his pockets, strolling around under Auric's watchful eye.

    The most passive, inert bond in the series.

    Oh well said ,i have been saying the same thing for the last God knows how many years !!...welcome to MI6 !!

  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Thats what makes all the films brilliant..
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    He looks cool with his hands in his pockets though, and that suit is outstanding. Still a very dull entry for me as well, even if it is legendary and iconic, particularly stateside where it is probably the film that really put Bond on the map.
  • GetCarterGetCarter
    Posts: 386
    It's very good, no doubt.

    I like bond to be more proactive is all.

    I have FRWL and DN above it.



  • GetCarterGetCarter
    Posts: 386
    barryt007 wrote: »

    Oh well said ,i have been saying the same thing for the last God knows how many years !!...welcome to MI6 !!

    Thanks!

  • GetCarterGetCarter
    Posts: 386
    bondjames wrote: »
    He looks cool with his hands in his pockets though, and that suit is outstanding. Still a very dull entry for me as well, even if it is legendary and iconic, particularly stateside where it is probably the film that really put Bond on the map.

    Very true indeed.

  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited January 2017 Posts: 1,243
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I enjoy Dalton's performances and his films, he's obviously a talented actor, but I do think he is caught 'acting' at times. If you play the scene of Bond finding Della followed by Bond cradling Vesper it's evident that Craig brings an extra level of screen acting class.

    I see the point, but in fairness we are talking about acting styles, with one being from 1989 and one from 2006. I think Craig had great backing and a director in Campbell who refined better than Glen.

    Those subtle performances that Craig achieved would have been harder, had he been for instance doing LTK. That is why a series has survived. It forges new path
    s of expression. And it took the disaster that was DAD, for a serious reappraisal to take place in the minds of the producers. Bourne also paved the way for that.

    I'm talking about ability, though, not style. Actors have been delivering all manner of performances for decades.

    As others have said, Dalton was guilty over egging it at times, this being a reasonable example.

    That is where a strong director would have ironed that out. Glen held the power, as this was his fifth film and all his films have dodgy takes.

    I think also the producers wanted to show off Dalton's abilities more. Why? Because Bond was ridiculed before as being an easy role that no serious actor wanted. Of course, untrue. Bond is a complex role and let's give Dalton credit for giving the best he could at the time and in the circumstances.

    Cubby was also not involved due to illness. Cubby being around helped for sure. He would have seen the dailies and perhaps asked for a retake.

    All you say might be true, but by that logic we can absolve anyone of any misdemeanour and put it down to extraneous circumstances. Pain face: directors fault, etc.

    Dalts is brilliant in parts, especially opposite Davi, but the point I was making is that I feel Craig is the superior actor. QoS was made in shambolic circumstances and he still pulled out a fantastic performance, in fact I don't recall him hitting a bum note. Dalton on the other hand has these little theatrical flourishes peppered through his films that don't quite fly.

    Comes to my earlier point. Dalton needed better backing like Craig. In Dalton's time, the production team was pulling in different directions.

    With Craig, they were all on the same page. That helps.

    We're talking at cross purposes here. The production circumstances (which were dire for QoS) are irrelevant. This is down to innate ability and screen craft.

    No one was acting like Craig back in 1989. Connery changed accent as Bond. So what. That is a reference to other posts nitpicking about accents.

    Craig is shit in the Q introduction scene in SF. He is appalling. Yet, we know he is a superbly capable actor. Do I focus on that or the whole of his acting ability?

    Him and Dalton are different acting styles. Craig could not do as well as Dalton in the Sanchez office scene. The facial expressions for one.

    QOS is a written for Craig film. It is a new style for the series.

    And Dalton has changed his acting style with the times. He is less intense than before.

    Craig may not be my favourite Bond, but I would never say he is not a talented actor.


    Forgive my writing, but I am on a shaky London tube train.

    Doth protest too much, methinks.

    I didn't resort to calling Dalton, 'shit', because he isn't, neither is Craig and looking at the responses I think you're in a minority with that one. I just find Craig to be superior as a screen actor. I won't labour the point any further.

    And the tallest Bond. All I was saying, is that it is grossly unfair to compare the acting between LTK and QOS. The stories and times are different..

    You have your opinion and I have mine. As actors they could not be more different. Craig overplays being emotionless and unlike Fleming's Bond, he is not affected by all the killing.


  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I enjoy Dalton's performances and his films, he's obviously a talented actor, but I do think he is caught 'acting' at times. If you play the scene of Bond finding Della followed by Bond cradling Vesper it's evident that Craig brings an extra level of screen acting class.

    I see the point, but in fairness we are talking about acting styles, with one being from 1989 and one from 2006. I think Craig had great backing and a director in Campbell who refined better than Glen.

    Those subtle performances that Craig achieved would have been harder, had he been for instance doing LTK. That is why a series has survived. It forges new path
    s of expression. And it took the disaster that was DAD, for a serious reappraisal to take place in the minds of the producers. Bourne also paved the way for that.

    I'm talking about ability, though, not style. Actors have been delivering all manner of performances for decades.

    As others have said, Dalton was guilty over egging it at times, this being a reasonable example.

    That is where a strong director would have ironed that out. Glen held the power, as this was his fifth film and all his films have dodgy takes.

    I think also the producers wanted to show off Dalton's abilities more. Why? Because Bond was ridiculed before as being an easy role that no serious actor wanted. Of course, untrue. Bond is a complex role and let's give Dalton credit for giving the best he could at the time and in the circumstances.

    Cubby was also not involved due to illness. Cubby being around helped for sure. He would have seen the dailies and perhaps asked for a retake.

    All you say might be true, but by that logic we can absolve anyone of any misdemeanour and put it down to extraneous circumstances. Pain face: directors fault, etc.

    Dalts is brilliant in parts, especially opposite Davi, but the point I was making is that I feel Craig is the superior actor. QoS was made in shambolic circumstances and he still pulled out a fantastic performance, in fact I don't recall him hitting a bum note. Dalton on the other hand has these little theatrical flourishes peppered through his films that don't quite fly.

    Comes to my earlier point. Dalton needed better backing like Craig. In Dalton's time, the production team was pulling in different directions.

    With Craig, they were all on the same page. That helps.

    We're talking at cross purposes here. The production circumstances (which were dire for QoS) are irrelevant. This is down to innate ability and screen craft.

    No one was acting like Craig back in 1989. Connery changed accent as Bond. So what. That is a reference to other posts nitpicking about accents.

    Craig is shit in the Q introduction scene in SF. He is appalling. Yet, we know he is a superbly capable actor. Do I focus on that or the whole of his acting ability?

    Him and Dalton are different acting styles. Craig could not do as well as Dalton in the Sanchez office scene. The facial expressions for one.

    QOS is a written for Craig film. It is a new style for the series.

    And Dalton has changed his acting style with the times. He is less intense than before.

    Craig may not be my favourite Bond, but I would never say he is not a talented actor.


    Forgive my writing, but I am on a shaky London tube train.

    Doth protest too much, methinks.

    I didn't resort to calling Dalton, 'shit', because he isn't, neither is Craig and looking at the responses I think you're in a minority with that one. I just find Craig to be superior as a screen actor. I won't labour the point any further.

    And the tallest Bond. All I was saying, is that it is grossly unfair to compare the acting between LTK and QOS. The stories and times are different..

    You have your opinion and I have mine. As actors they could not be more different. Craig overplays being emotionless and unlike Fleming's Bond, he is not affected by all the killing.


    And the total accent change in only 2 films ?

  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    barryt007 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I enjoy Dalton's performances and his films, he's obviously a talented actor, but I do think he is caught 'acting' at times. If you play the scene of Bond finding Della followed by Bond cradling Vesper it's evident that Craig brings an extra level of screen acting class.

    I see the point, but in fairness we are talking about acting styles, with one being from 1989 and one from 2006. I think Craig had great backing and a director in Campbell who refined better than Glen.

    Those subtle performances that Craig achieved would have been harder, had he been for instance doing LTK. That is why a series has survived. It forges new path
    s of expression. And it took the disaster that was DAD, for a serious reappraisal to take place in the minds of the producers. Bourne also paved the way for that.

    I'm talking about ability, though, not style. Actors have been delivering all manner of performances for decades.

    As others have said, Dalton was guilty over egging it at times, this being a reasonable example.

    That is where a strong director would have ironed that out. Glen held the power, as this was his fifth film and all his films have dodgy takes.

    I think also the producers wanted to show off Dalton's abilities more. Why? Because Bond was ridiculed before as being an easy role that no serious actor wanted. Of course, untrue. Bond is a complex role and let's give Dalton credit for giving the best he could at the time and in the circumstances.

    Cubby was also not involved due to illness. Cubby being around helped for sure. He would have seen the dailies and perhaps asked for a retake.

    All you say might be true, but by that logic we can absolve anyone of any misdemeanour and put it down to extraneous circumstances. Pain face: directors fault, etc.

    Dalts is brilliant in parts, especially opposite Davi, but the point I was making is that I feel Craig is the superior actor. QoS was made in shambolic circumstances and he still pulled out a fantastic performance, in fact I don't recall him hitting a bum note. Dalton on the other hand has these little theatrical flourishes peppered through his films that don't quite fly.

    Comes to my earlier point. Dalton needed better backing like Craig. In Dalton's time, the production team was pulling in different directions.

    With Craig, they were all on the same page. That helps.

    We're talking at cross purposes here. The production circumstances (which were dire for QoS) are irrelevant. This is down to innate ability and screen craft.

    No one was acting like Craig back in 1989. Connery changed accent as Bond. So what. That is a reference to other posts nitpicking about accents.

    Craig is shit in the Q introduction scene in SF. He is appalling. Yet, we know he is a superbly capable actor. Do I focus on that or the whole of his acting ability?

    Him and Dalton are different acting styles. Craig could not do as well as Dalton in the Sanchez office scene. The facial expressions for one.

    QOS is a written for Craig film. It is a new style for the series.

    And Dalton has changed his acting style with the times. He is less intense than before.

    Craig may not be my favourite Bond, but I would never say he is not a talented actor.


    Forgive my writing, but I am on a shaky London tube train.

    Doth protest too much, methinks.

    I didn't resort to calling Dalton, 'shit', because he isn't, neither is Craig and looking at the responses I think you're in a minority with that one. I just find Craig to be superior as a screen actor. I won't labour the point any further.

    And the tallest Bond. All I was saying, is that it is grossly unfair to compare the acting between LTK and QOS. The stories and times are different..

    You have your opinion and I have mine. As actors they could not be more different. Craig overplays being emotionless and unlike Fleming's Bond, he is not affected by all the killing.


    And the total accent change in only 2 films ?

    So. Connery had an accent change. And where does it take away from the story?

  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    acoppola wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I enjoy Dalton's performances and his films, he's obviously a talented actor, but I do think he is caught 'acting' at times. If you play the scene of Bond finding Della followed by Bond cradling Vesper it's evident that Craig brings an extra level of screen acting class.

    I see the point, but in fairness we are talking about acting styles, with one being from 1989 and one from 2006. I think Craig had great backing and a director in Campbell who refined better than Glen.

    Those subtle performances that Craig achieved would have been harder, had he been for instance doing LTK. That is why a series has survived. It forges new path
    s of expression. And it took the disaster that was DAD, for a serious reappraisal to take place in the minds of the producers. Bourne also paved the way for that.

    I'm talking about ability, though, not style. Actors have been delivering all manner of performances for decades.

    As others have said, Dalton was guilty over egging it at times, this being a reasonable example.

    That is where a strong director would have ironed that out. Glen held the power, as this was his fifth film and all his films have dodgy takes.

    I think also the producers wanted to show off Dalton's abilities more. Why? Because Bond was ridiculed before as being an easy role that no serious actor wanted. Of course, untrue. Bond is a complex role and let's give Dalton credit for giving the best he could at the time and in the circumstances.

    Cubby was also not involved due to illness. Cubby being around helped for sure. He would have seen the dailies and perhaps asked for a retake.

    All you say might be true, but by that logic we can absolve anyone of any misdemeanour and put it down to extraneous circumstances. Pain face: directors fault, etc.

    Dalts is brilliant in parts, especially opposite Davi, but the point I was making is that I feel Craig is the superior actor. QoS was made in shambolic circumstances and he still pulled out a fantastic performance, in fact I don't recall him hitting a bum note. Dalton on the other hand has these little theatrical flourishes peppered through his films that don't quite fly.

    Comes to my earlier point. Dalton needed better backing like Craig. In Dalton's time, the production team was pulling in different directions.

    With Craig, they were all on the same page. That helps.

    We're talking at cross purposes here. The production circumstances (which were dire for QoS) are irrelevant. This is down to innate ability and screen craft.

    No one was acting like Craig back in 1989. Connery changed accent as Bond. So what. That is a reference to other posts nitpicking about accents.

    Craig is shit in the Q introduction scene in SF. He is appalling. Yet, we know he is a superbly capable actor. Do I focus on that or the whole of his acting ability?

    Him and Dalton are different acting styles. Craig could not do as well as Dalton in the Sanchez office scene. The facial expressions for one.

    QOS is a written for Craig film. It is a new style for the series.

    And Dalton has changed his acting style with the times. He is less intense than before.

    Craig may not be my favourite Bond, but I would never say he is not a talented actor.


    Forgive my writing, but I am on a shaky London tube train.

    Doth protest too much, methinks.

    I didn't resort to calling Dalton, 'shit', because he isn't, neither is Craig and looking at the responses I think you're in a minority with that one. I just find Craig to be superior as a screen actor. I won't labour the point any further.

    And the tallest Bond. All I was saying, is that it is grossly unfair to compare the acting between LTK and QOS. The stories and times are different..

    You have your opinion and I have mine. As actors they could not be more different. Craig overplays being emotionless and unlike Fleming's Bond, he is not affected by all the killing.


    And the total accent change in only 2 films ?

    So. Connery had an accent change. And where does it take away from the story?

    Connerys accent was gradual and not in his first 2 films...it takes it away because its not consistant..its blatant.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,213


    You have your opinion and I have mine. As actors they could not be more different. Craig overplays being emotionless and unlike Fleming's Bond, he is not affected by all the killing.


    I'm obviously not an actor but I don't quite get how you can overplay being emotionless?
Sign In or Register to comment.