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
One thing that I personally find a little annoying about DC though is his physical presence. For me Bond has to have an air of physical vulnerability - this is what gives so many of the classic scenes their high tension. For me DC too often looks like such a bruiser that you never really believe that he's in peril. I've said it before, but there are a lot of sequences in the DC era where you just have to feel sorry for the villain, because you know he doesn't stand a chance.
I have grown to like Dalton more though in the last few years. I just think Craig a. has a more alluring screen presence and b. takes it further than Dalton managed.
I think GE with Dalton would have worked fine and been successful.
Glad we agree.
You are NOT in the minority in general, just within this thread, which is normal. I agree with what you said. IMO he is the weakest of them all as far as charisma is concerned. That is, i think, what you meant with not lighting up the screen. He didnt...
* who says I am not the master of OTT statements?! :D
Funny you mention that - I was thinking last night of how I get that feeling from Tim more than from any of the other Bonds. He just has this air about himself that seems very self-assured, very confident.
That and they smoke. :p
:\">
Well, I see self confidence as different from the physical vibe that DC gives out. But fair enough if that's what you feel. I don't think Dalton looks like someone who is necessarily gone come out on top in every encounter though - just my view. Whereas DC looks every inch the ex-military type who people are going to move out of their way to avoid.
That's a good way of looking at it. But I still don't like how the lead character (a badly conceived one at that) has become a generic action hero, but that's for another thread.
I'm at the point where it's a bit late now. 3 films in and I don't like like what they've done to the character and I don't see it changing until the next actor. It's unlikely that I will see the next one on the big screen, maybe if curiosity gets the better of me, i'll see it on DVD. It brings me no joy to feel this way towards a series that I have had much enjoyment out of since becoming a fan of 18 years ago.
I personally think he has nailed the part in a way no one has since Connery, and the 'man of action' seems more realistic than it did when an elderly Moore was swinging off draw bridges and clinging to the back of planes ( Connery never really had those kind of stunts in his films, so it isn't comparable).
Craig makes the action as believable as is possible.
What we are left with is his look. Under 6 feet, blonde, unconventionally handsome (as opposed to classically handsome Brosnan/Moore/Dalton) and all of that. Is it so wrong for Bond to be represented thus?
So everything about Craig as Bond is wrong...yet so right.
I just happen to think he conveys more emotion in a blank stare than some actors do with all of their grimacing and smirking tricks. It's 'film acting' of the highest quality.
And I apologise for hi-jacking the Daltonite thread and talking about Craig, I really do. Call myself a mod!
With Dench out of the way, who knows where we go from here.
Unfortunately it's a curse of the 21st Century that Bond can be followed every step of his way, and it would be more unrealistic if it wasn't so.
I was watching a drama the other day where the plot progression would have been hampered had a character done the obvious thing and made a call on his mobile. So they just acted as if such a device didn't exist. Can't do that in a Bond anymore..sadly.
I'm not so sure. I don't like the sequence, but wasn't the whole point of the third act of SF that they go off the radar and back to basics? No phones. No back up. I found it absurd that Bond is allowed to take the head of MI6 to her death - on British soil - without so much as the locally Bobby turning up to ask what all the commotion is. Any way, my point is, clearly for many people you can do away with the gadgets and ear pieces and still convince.
I think the Bourne films dealt with the modern technology aspect much better. Yes, people can be tracked, but there are always holes and flaws in the surveillance state that can be exploited. The thing about surveillance technology also is that is does feel oppressive - and that's how it's been used in many films. Yet in recent Bonds, you have this since that Bond is constantly being tracked and the baddies videoed and identified in seconds, but that's supposed to be cool - whereas I feel it increasingly just makes MI6 look and feel like Big Brother.
Despite all the technological developments, Edward Snowden can still blow the lid off of our modern surveillance states by swiping a harddrive (perhaps the only plausible aspect of the SF plot), and from what I understand, a lot of key intelligence is still down to real agents, doing real espionage. So the underlying reality is still that it remains people and human intelligence (or otherwise) that makes the difference. I wish the Bond films would emphasise this a little more and just pretend that ear pieces don't exist. Seriously, don't they make Bond look like an idiot? Only salesmen and security guards use those things, don't they? I mean, it immediately gives him away.
Craig is emotionally vulnerable but in the action scenes he's like the terminator. Sure he bleeds but he doesn't seem hurt and he's quite brutal.
Lazenby was more of an everyman, in and out of the action scenes, and that's what makes him the most vulnerable Bond and the one that's closest to Fleming imo.
I can see what you're saying. Poor old Laz. I liked him as Bond but think he was poorly directed and could have been even better. Didn't Peter Hunt refuse to speak to him? Considering that, I think you have to give Laz even more credit.
Not to say that Hunt didn't do a good job overall though.
And how about a young Daniel Craig as Jonathan Harker, instead of the wretched Keanu Reeves? (Did audiences in the UK burst out laughing at Reeves' godawful "British" accent?)
It's a different time though. Lazenby's Bond was thrown from a high speed bob sleigh, rolled over a few times and made a quip to a dog. I have no issues with that because I believe Bond should be a kind of invincible hero. It's what attracted audiences in the first place. The ante has now been upped, but at least Craig isn't walking away from a fight scene looking immaculate.
Yes Laz was an everyman, but so what? Bond has to evolve and change for new audiences. We can't have Connery and Moore impersonators for ever.