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
I would like to clarify something though.
I think you and I both think that Sean was the best (correct me if I'm wrong). I think most wouldn't dispute that.
Where you and I differ is whether Craig is the #2. I used to think he could be, and that's where SP has forever changed my perception. For me, it's Moore because he brought something different (like Craig) to the role while still being that uber cool Bond which I love. For you it's Craig and there's nothing wrong with that.
As I said on the Production thread, Connery was definitive. The others bring their own strengths to the role (as they should) and also showcase attributes that recall the first (and most memorable) cinematic interpretation. We all gravitate to elements which reflect our own personalities and psychological preferences. I like 'cool' calm characters for instance, which is why I prefer Moore as #2, and also why I like Tom Cruise's new found confidence and unflappability in MI:4 and MI:5 in comparison to his relatively emotional & 'real' interpretation of Hunt in MI:3.
Again, as I said before on the other thread, Sean Connery is James Bond. All the others are just visiting.
I think that's why I can sometimes get upset listening to people talk about Bond who only know the films in a very casual way and lack a true knowledge of the character's cinematic history and films. They just think Bond is a guy who shoots things and sleeps with women, and that the films are just two hours of time to turn your brain off. It depresses me that people aren't able to see the Bond that I do when I sit and watch Sean play at his best, in films that defy the pop culture that, in a roundabout way, generalizes and dilutes their importance. They're true art, with rich scripts of theme and motif, and some of the best sets, action, villains and all the rest that we'll ever see brought to celluloid. The stories were intelligent and adult, the women full of life and depth beyond their looks, the villains iconic and trend-setting.
So when I say Dan is my #2, it's because I essentially felt the same watching him in CR as I did seeing Sean in DN for the first time: I fell in love. His Bond gave me a hero to look up to and model myself after in a way Sean had, but in different ways. I also respected the attention to character, story, depth and all the rest that I saw in the films that stayed true to the greatness the early Bond films were. Without Dan's tenure I probably wouldn't be here, and if I was, I'd only be talking about Connery because most of the others don't speak to me in an equal way. I like Dalton and appreciate George, but those feelings aren't the same. It's Sean and Dan that keep me coming back for more, and so those are the two I ride with. They also fit my ideal version of Bond: bold, mischievous, dry witted, dutiful and deep interpretations that reach all the levels I wish for a Bond actor to fill.
Some people only see cinematic Bond at surface level & that is why they misunderstand the character and all that he encompasses.
There are many who only understand cinematic Bond superficially. Many don't see the subtleties behind the interpretations that have come before. It's that inability which results in poorly made superficial Bond films too imho.
I can appreciate that you saw depth in Craig's Bond characterization in CR. Indeed, it had that in spades, as an essentially novel based film. I did too, and that's why it's a top 4 entry of mine and for so many others on this forum. Personally, I also saw depth in Dalton, Moore and Brosnan at various stages of their Bond careers (particularly TSWLM, GE & LTK). Some may be surprised that I said TSWLM, which many know as a high class formula film. Well, it's the little moments that reflect Bond's character in that film which I love, and I have already mentioned them on this page. The same goes for GE. There is more insight into Bond with "Kill her. She means nothing to me" followed by his quick saving of Natalya than all the whining inserted in Baku in TWINE by those idiots, P&W.
Subtlety is what I like in my Bond interpretation.
Spectre would be a better film for removing the entire 9-Eyes subplot.
You'd lose C, who's a good actor and a nice foil for M, but you'd gain much more. A tighter running time, or more room for the plot to breathe a bit. More lingering on 'local colour' in some of the great locations (especially considering the money spent on cinematography!) or more time for exposition about Spectre - the desert backstory, their work around the world, and so on.
For Pleasence the scar was there to give a menace he did not have while for Waltz it adds to his creepily menacing demeanor.
I'd argue the opposite. More Nine Eyes. Flesh it out more, have it as an actual presence in the movie that hinders Bond's progression.
But where do you flesh it out? I feel like the movie's too long already.
Alternatively, make the entire movie about the 9-Eyes plot, and C the villian, and cut out Blofeld entirely except for a brief cat-stroking moment as 'the man behind it all.'
Wow - interesting point. I'd never thought of it that way, but you may be right. Brosnan was already Bond in the popular imagination - comb his hair and put him in a tux and he's done.
Maybe Moore comes in a #2, since he already had gone some way to establishing a TV and film persona as a debonair Englishman.
Laz has to lose this one - they literally ran ad campaigns trying to convince the public he was Bond.
Interestingly, though, I'd say Craig is probably second-from worst on this. He encountered a lot of resistance to his casting from day 1, and really needed to deliver a cracking performance to convince people he was Bond.
It wasn't so much that line but when he met up with Strangways' pals and he was asking questions about Crab Key. The speed and the high volume at which he spoke was hilarious. It was as if Connery was trying to do his best impression of a turkey that barks. God bless 'im.
Some OHMSS ads covered Laz's face entirely on posters, so as to avoid the public knowing Sean wasn't in the film. Now that is rough.
He was Moore's heir apparent and there was lots of projection when he was cast. I dare say that Dalton fans were an endangered species then (other controversial opinion).
SHATHAND
Hmm, no that doesn't quite work. Questionable title anyway.
It would also be perfect for what we both want out of the film. The creepiness of the garden is perfect for the Craig era.
That's something I really miss from the Brosnan era. It would be nice to see it return.
Find a way to use the classic Richards-Jagger song, maybe even for the titles.
I guess not. Even seems redundant, somehow. And yes, I regret my original suggestion at this point.
You may be on to something...
It's a flawed movie for a lot of reasons but there's a lot to love in there.
I agree. I criticize a lot about it, but I also really appreciate it. When I first saw it, I felt very unsure of it, but it's improved in my mind with each viewing.
It was just Craig's era doing a bit of what I didn't like past eras for doing, living off past glories and all the rest. Obviously people don't know Fleming's Blofeld (I don't think they really know the cinematic one either, though), so I guess they just wanted to put something in there some would recognize. It was just too shoe-horned to me, though.
Even the producers don't know! The only consistency has been the cat.
Maybe, but the scar itself fitted his face better than Donald Pleasence's. Who I always thought was a more suitable good guy.