Producer says Daniel Craig's tenure may end when it peaks

Grinderman

VeryBond wrote:

Grinderman wrote:

VeryBond wrote:

ColonelSun wrote:

U mean u have such a fixed idea of how Bond should "look" that you simply will not or cannot be open to a fresh perspective on the "classic" Bond look? Is that what u mean?

Craig's Bond is, for me, completely compelling. He exudes danger and innate confidence, but also brilliantly reveals the (deep) flaws in Bond's armour. I believe in his flesh and blood Bond, and as such, he's by far the best Bond since Connery. No question about it IMO.

And I respect your opinion, CS.

We just have different views of the character, I guess.

As I said, it's the look combined with the attitude. I don't want a flawed, tormented - or worst of all, according to Mendes, "bored" - 007. I want Bond to be so cool and at ease with his abilities that he doesn't have to constantly be grim and tough. I want Bond to ENJOY his life of danger, booze and sex. And I want him to be the best.

But isn't the problem with that is that you can also take that attitude too far? I mean, a Bond that is too cool, too at ease and too much 'the best', is pretty boring. If we as audience members don't feel that Bond is ever in any real peril, then we don't get invested in the story or the character of Bond. And the way we see that Bond is indeed in real peril, is how the actor portrays him.

So there's a balance to be struck there, between the cool, competent, unflappable Bond, and a Bond that knows, and feels, the danger he is in.

This is the best post in the whole thread.

You make a solid point.

I understand what you're saying, but I felt we got that balance with Brosnan. He was very human, I thought, and put into real peril - but he had that inherent coolness and wit. The scripts were never as good as he deserved, but that wasn't his fault. I don't mind a more physical or younger Bond, but Craig is just way too grim for me. He was actually much more Bondian in QOS, I thought. So I was hoping he would keep on that slight (very slight) trajectory in the right direction. However, the clips so far do not make me feel better. Just the psych test alone...

But hey - I've seen about 1/1000th of the film.

I would absolutely agree that Brosnan did a good to excellent job at striking that balance. I also totally agree that he never got the scripts he deserved. That, in fact, is my biggest regret of the Brosnan era. I would've loved to see what he could do with a script like Casino Royale.

doubleoego

VeryBond wrote:

doubleoego wrote:

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

Seeing Dan trapse around in his tux in CR shows how refined and suave he can be. His moments at the table and off are very cool, calm, and collected.

The way Craig walked through the casino in CR was with such swagger and that little smirk on his face as he approached the metal detectors was just absolutely cool on the most Bondian way.

Nope. Because there was no real enjoyment. No cool, relaxed ease.

He never seems to stop gritting his teeth.

Sorry but you fail. You were obviously watching something else or your dislike for Craig has impaured your vision as you're seeing things that aren't there because I described the scene exactly how it was in the film. Nice try but as per usual, no.

VeryBond

SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:

" People judged Brosnan for being too thin or not having enough muscle, so what's the difference?".

Ahhh, but I wouldn't be one of them. I don't think his lack of physical presence was a major problem and I never judged his tenure on that. I appreciate Craig much more because he's trying to establish his own version and not trying to be a caricature of previous Bonds, in particular Roger Moore, which is pretty much what we got in the Brosnan era. I certainly couldn't understand where he was trying to differentiate himself. Pierce admits he struggled with where to go with the character that would make him stand out from the others. It's an open book. But if you'd prefer a caricature, well...

You still haven't addressed your erroneous and half baked claim that Craig never changes his facial expressions. I gave you quite a few examples to refute that theory, as have others. I guess it doesn't happen often enough for you. Maybe it's you who needs the oculist ;)

Can't wait to hear your thoughts on enjoying danger, booze, and sex come November. Looked like he was at least enjoying the latter two in Turkey. Maybe he'll even smile some more for you :D

Like I just said, I think Brosnan brought his own texture to the part - and had all the ingredients anyway to be the perfect Bond.

(Nobody will ever match Connery - that goes without saying)

But yeah, I do think he's very inexpressive. I guess you and I have different ideas of what constitutes expression. To me, he is always the same in every scene. He looks pissed-off and exudes EFFORT. He's tough! Get it? This guy is really really tough! And deep! His lines all come out in this joyless monotone, so nothing ever feels like it has any punch or wryness to it. Even when he does humor, it feels kind of leaden. That exchange with Q, he just stares and says the line way too grimly. The same goes for his flirting with women. It's muted to the point of passivity, or indifference.

These are my opinions based on the two films so far.

doubleoego

thelivingroyale wrote:

If Brosnan is Roger Moore light like lots of people say, by that logic, Craig is Dalton light. Since he was a serious Bond first like Moore was a light hearted one first. OR, since people are saying Craig is so close to Connery, he's Connery light.

I think both took past Bond traits (Brosnan had Connery's charm and Moore's jokes, Craig had Daltons darkness and Lazenbys fighting skills), and mixed them up to make their own Bond.

And I don't get how every single actor can make it completely his own without any past Bond traits, there are only so many versions of a character you can do.

Problem with Brosnan was that instead of acting he was too busy imitating Connery and Moore most of the time and not doing a convincing enough job at that. There were times he'd shine but they were on very rare occasions and even Brisnan himself conceded that he never ever nailed the role and I'd have to agree with him but to be fair he's a good actor and it's not all his fault the way his movies turned out.

VeryBond

doubleoego wrote:

Sorry but you fail. You were obviously watching something else or your dislike for Craig has impaured your vision as you're seeing things that aren't there because I described the scene exactly how it was in the film. Nice try but as per usual, no.

There's no failing in opinions. Just people too insecure to accept that.

VeryBond

doubleoego wrote:

thelivingroyale wrote:

If Brosnan is Roger Moore light like lots of people say, by that logic, Craig is Dalton light. Since he was a serious Bond first like Moore was a light hearted one first. OR, since people are saying Craig is so close to Connery, he's Connery light.

I think both took past Bond traits (Brosnan had Connery's charm and Moore's jokes, Craig had Daltons darkness and Lazenbys fighting skills), and mixed them up to make their own Bond.

And I don't get how every single actor can make it completely his own without any past Bond traits, there are only so many versions of a character you can do.

Problem with Brosnan was that instead of acting he was too busy imitating Connery and Moore most of the time and not doing a convincing enough job at that. There were times he'd shine but they were on very rare occasions and even Brisnan himself conceded that he never ever nailed the role and I'd have to agree with him but to be fair he's a good actor and it's not all his fault the way his movies turned out.

You keep saying that, haha. Using his self-deprecating remarks against him. As was said upthread, very accurately - Craig could be said to be "imitating" Dalton's dry take on the role. Unfortunately.

doubleoego

VeryBond wrote:

doubleoego wrote:

Sorry but you fail. You were obviously watching something else or your dislike for Craig has impaured your vision as you're seeing things that aren't there because I described the scene exactly how it was in the film. Nice try but as per usual, no.

There's no failing in opinions. Just people too insecure to accept that.

Again you fail for not knowing what an opinion is. I described a scene from CR. Craig walks through the casino with a slight smirk on his face. Fact. You made a ludicrously contrary statement which is not evidenced at all within the scene I was talking about do like I said, you fail.

SirHenryLeeChaChing

I'd have to say that Craig has a physical presence that cannot be matched by anyone short of Lazenby and occasionally Connery. Dalton's strongest point, the one I loved best, is the look in his eyes. He'll kill you straight up, no remorse, nothing. We see that in early Connery and in Craig. They have that edge that made you not want to be in a dark alley somewhere with them as a bad guy they want to speak to. They would beat the hell out of you and you knew it. Moore and Brosnan, once in awhile, but generally no.

It's impossible not to invite comparisons at this point. I see Connery, Dalton, and Craig in a certain type of group, but with differences. Connery took direction from Terence Young, Dalton went back to the books, Craig is trying to modernize and be his own guy. Sir Roger was his own original Bond and endlessly entertaining even if he was on the light side, at least he established something there. Pierce lacked Moore's charm and likability in comparison and wasn't physical or scary enough to join the big 3. I can understand that some of his scripts were complete turkeys, but Moore would have managed to provide more memorable moments with the same material. And George, well, he never got much of a chance to show where he may have fit in.

doubleoego

VeryBond wrote:

doubleoego wrote:

thelivingroyale wrote:

If Brosnan is Roger Moore light like lots of people say, by that logic, Craig is Dalton light. Since he was a serious Bond first like Moore was a light hearted one first. OR, since people are saying Craig is so close to Connery, he's Connery light.

I think both took past Bond traits (Brosnan had Connery's charm and Moore's jokes, Craig had Daltons darkness and Lazenbys fighting skills), and mixed them up to make their own Bond.

And I don't get how every single actor can make it completely his own without any past Bond traits, there are only so many versions of a character you can do.

Problem with Brosnan was that instead of acting he was too busy imitating Connery and Moore most of the time and not doing a convincing enough job at that. There were times he'd shine but they were on very rare occasions and even Brisnan himself conceded that he never ever nailed the role and I'd have to agree with him but to be fair he's a good actor and it's not all his fault the way his movies turned out.

You keep saying that, haha. Using his self-deprecating remarks against him. As was said upthread, very accurately - Craig could be said to be "imitating" Dalton's dry take on the role. Unfortunately.

I don't keep saying anything. It's all in your head mate and as for Craig imitating Dalton, really? How so? What because both actors are taking the role seriously?? Alright then, if you say so.

VeryBond

doubleoego wrote:

VeryBond wrote:

doubleoego wrote:

Sorry but you fail. You were obviously watching something else or your dislike for Craig has impaured your vision as you're seeing things that aren't there because I described the scene exactly how it was in the film. Nice try but as per usual, no.

There's no failing in opinions. Just people too insecure to accept that.

Again you fail for not knowing what an opinion is. I described a scene from CR. Craig walks through the casino with a slight smirk on his face. Fact. You made a ludicrously contrary statement which is not evidenced at all within the scene I was talking about do like I said, you fail.

No. YOU fail. Your description of HOW YOU PERCEIVED a scene is an OPINION, not a fact. You're really something else.

VeryBond

You have used that exact line about Brosnan saying he didn't quite nail the role so many times I know it by heart. I just think it's hilarious that you use that to bolster your bashing of him. I should scour Craig's comments for something I can use, LOL.

doubleoego

VeryBond wrote:

doubleoego wrote:

VeryBond wrote:

doubleoego wrote:

Sorry but you fail. You were obviously watching something else or your dislike for Craig has impaured your vision as you're seeing things that aren't there because I described the scene exactly how it was in the film. Nice try but as per usual, no.

There's no failing in opinions. Just people too insecure to accept that.

Again you fail for not knowing what an opinion is. I described a scene from CR. Craig walks through the casino with a slight smirk on his face. Fact. You made a ludicrously contrary statement which is not evidenced at all within the scene I was talking about do like I said, you fail.

No. YOU fail. Your description of HOW YOU PERCEIVED a scene is an OPINION, not a fact. You're really something else.

Now you're just outfailing yourself abd with such spectacular fashion too. I'm not focusing on how cool or what other opinion I had of the scene that I mentioned but you'd do well to acknowledge that I was focusing on what was actually taking place in that particular scene in which you submitted a contrary statement to the factual description I gave. Wake up.

doubleoego

VeryBond wrote:

You have used that exact line about Brosnan saying he didn't quite nail the role so many times I know it by heart. I just think it's hilarious that you use that to bolster your bashing of him. I should scour Craig's comments for something I can use, LOL.

Maybe you've been online too long. You must have me confused with countless others who have made such comments. Go out and get some fresh air or something. I think you've had enough excitement for one day.

SirHenryLeeChaChing

doubleoego wrote:

VeryBond wrote:

You have used that exact line about Brosnan saying he didn't quite nail the role so many times I know it by heart. I just think it's hilarious that you use that to bolster your bashing of him. I should scour Craig's comments for something I can use, LOL.

Maybe you've been online too long. You must have me confused with countless others who have made such comments. Go out and get some fresh air or something. I think you've had enough excitement for one day.

Awwww, just when we had him all wound up and using caps :))

timmer

Bond has an iconic look. It's tall dark and handsome. Not complicated. 5 actors over 20 films brought that look. 2 of the 5 IMO were not terribly convincing in the role (Rog and Broz) even if their films were quite watchable and worked as good Bondian entertainment, but still they looked the part. That should be the minimum requirement when casting.
Anyone ever seen a casting call sheet. It always identifies a look, including, height weight, age, build, ethnicity. You either have it or you don't. Craig doesn't have it. He's simply too short.
Even Fleming identified Bond as 6' for crying out loud and that was in the 50's, when men were shorter on average. Minimum Bond height now should be at least 6'2'', which happens also to be Connery's 1962 height.
While its wonderful that many of you love Craig and like the movies for what they are, and all the power to you, please understand that many of us demand that the Bond actor actually have the classic Bond look, and we all know what that is. Its not an unreasonable requirement.

doubleoego

Connery was rejected by Fleming himself at first and big Tam is by and large regarded as the definitive Bond.

As for Craig, wasn't he approached and sought out. He didn't even want the role at first so what does that say? That the producers are running the series into the ground? That they're destroying the Bond legacy? Hardly. Bond's popularity hasn't been this big in decades.

VeryBond

doubleego - Congratulations. You are the biggest a**hole on the internet. Well done. You must be so proud. I will leave you to your little fascist cyberkingdom that must compensate for your utter failure as a human being.

SirHenryLeeChaChing

Timmer, good to see you back.

Honestly, I have to ask this. Assuming Craig was the best available actor for the role in 2005, and you had a vote, would you have rather had the best candidate to put asses in the seats and be believable, or an inferior, second best choice and a riskier option just because he looked the part? No right or wrong answer, but to me Brosnan was an example that looking the part and being the part can be two very different things. And I must also point out that Sir Roger's light brown hair didn't fit the stereotype either. Was he not the best candidate then regardless?

We'll have to make sure Craig gets some special shoes next time out that assist him with his height issues ;)

Are you looking forward to Skyfall, or assuming the worst? Haven't heard your take on that.

thelivingroyale

doubleoego wrote:

thelivingroyale wrote:

If Brosnan is Roger Moore light like lots of people say, by that logic, Craig is Dalton light. Since he was a serious Bond first like Moore was a light hearted one first. OR, since people are saying Craig is so close to Connery, he's Connery light.

I think both took past Bond traits (Brosnan had Connery's charm and Moore's jokes, Craig had Daltons darkness and Lazenbys fighting skills), and mixed them up to make their own Bond.

And I don't get how every single actor can make it completely his own without any past Bond traits, there are only so many versions of a character you can do.

Problem with Brosnan was that instead of acting he was too busy imitating Connery and Moore most of the time and not doing a convincing enough job at that. There were times he'd shine but they were on very rare occasions and even Brisnan himself conceded that he never ever nailed the role and I'd have to agree with him but to be fair he's a good actor and it's not all his fault the way his movies turned out.

Well, I disagree with him and you then, sorry. I'd say he nailed it, even when his films weren't great (cough, DAD, coug), he was one of the good things about them. Brosnan shouldn't put himself down, it's like Moore saying that he (himself) is a bad actor.

doubleoego wrote:

and as for Craig imitating Dalton, really? How so? What because both actors are taking the role seriously?? Alright then, if you say so.

Well Craig and Dalton were both serious, Moore and Brosnan were both more light hearted. I think, if Brosnan was doing nothing but imitating Connery and Moore like lots of people (including you) say, by that logic, Craig was/is imitating Dalton and Lazenby (and you could even throw Connery in there if you think he's close to him).

I don't think either are coyping past Bonds, they just have the same traits as some of them, but they mix it up to make the part their own.

DarthDimi

This thread, in previous pages mostly, has come close to meeting the Lock. It's still in danger, so please keep things serious and on track.

doubleoego

VeryBond wrote:

doubleego - Congratulations. You are the biggest a**hole on the internet. Well done. You must be so proud. I will leave you to your little fascist cyberkingdom that must compensate for your utter failure as a human being.

4EverBonded

Thank you, DarthDimi. Acrimonious name calling, foul language, and boorish behavior ... yeah it happens, but let's get it back under control. I don't appreciate it when threads run away with that kind of stuff. This thread's topic is interesting enough without all the meanspirited interaction.

I strongly agree with thelivingroyale's comments re Dalton and Brosnan, as well as SirHenry's last comment. And for me personally, Craig does not come across as short. At all. It is not a factor for me in regards to his Bond. Would anyone rather have a cardboard cutout who typifies the traditional from Fleming look Bond (and is taller) instead of a really good actor who gives us a fully dimensional Bond ? No, I didn't think so. I strongly disagree about Craig being of one emotion or having one face. Anyway, let's get back to MGW's comments a bit, or has that run the gamut? Apprarently they were taken out of context and blown out of proportion, nothing new in that happening.

timmer

SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:

Timmer, good to see you back.

Honestly, I have to ask this. Assuming Craig was the best available actor for the role in 2005, and you had a vote, would you have rather had the best candidate to put asses in the seats and be believable, or an inferior, second best choice and a riskier option just because he looked the part? No right or wrong answer, but to me Brosnan was an example that looking the part and being the part can be two very different things. And I must also point out that Sir Roger's light brown hair didn't fit the stereotype either. Was he not the best candidate then regardless?

We'll have to make sure Craig gets some special shoes next time out that assist him with his height issues ;)

Are you looking forward to Skyfall, or assuming the worst? Haven't heard your take on that.

Hello to you too, Sir Henry. To answer your question, if I was casting Bond in 2005 or anytime, I would simply insist on the right look. Craig never would have got in the door. Broz would have got in the door, but then I would have tossed him after he failed the audition. Rog wouldn't have passed either. I'd be holding them all to the Connery standard, which of course is unreachable, but I'd try my damnest to see how close I could get. And here, I am talking finding the Connery Bond-persona. We are past the look thing by this point. All eligible candidates by this point have the look.
You are right about Rog's light locks. I didn't like that either. They should have forced the dye on him, but hair colour or lack of hair (Connery) can be corrected. Height and the general Bond handsomeness though can't be corrected. Now I realize that handsomeness is somewhat relative,but I think we know what I'm getting at -- a classic handsomeness in the Cary Grant, Rock Hudson, Roger Moore mold, but there is wiggle room here. Moore was always touted as a potential Bond because he seemed to have the perfect look, but the actor doesn't have to be held to quite the Moore standard.
In the meantime Craig is Bond. I'll take the movies for what they are, but next time around I would really like to see an insistence on tall dark and handsome. Get back to basics.
As for SF, it should be a damn good movie. Its not quite what I want though. I weary of Craig's dour persona. He's not my cup of Bond but I'll make due.
Enjoying the new Steve Hackett album btw. Looking forward to picking up Squackett too.
:)

Shardlake

It just shows how much certain individuals are hung up over this so called classic look, I would say PB's was just a caricature, nothing new just amplified to near comical proportions. Yes Brozzer showed some promise in GE but by the time we got to TND it was the Roger Moore tribute act all the way, TND is his SWLM but nowhere near as good.

As for Craig's so called monotone delivery, I'll take his English voice over a transatlantic drawl or even Dalton's which was all over the place in LTK (" it was about to turn nasty") as for god Connery, he was fine till after TB then during the end of YOLT he turned into a Glaswegian brickie. (they're's an exploder button up in the control room we've gotta get up there")

I would say the only other actor was Moore when it came to the voice but Craig actually sounds English unlike all the others bar Rog monotone or not.

Craig for the record has displayed the most diverse of emotions of any actor it's just his detractors will always call him stone faced. Connery is incredibly charismatic but I don't see a great deal of range to his Bond, Moore is just one note with the odd exception and Tim tried very hard but couldn't convince in all departments, he had deadly side down pat but being romantic and humour not really. As for Pierce I don't need to go into my thoughts on him I think it's clear, Lazenby sounds more like Bond than him.

Craig for me delivers far range than any actor to date but if you want a limited clothes horse in the role be my guest!

THEREAL007

The books the movies the games. Obviously everything Bond has a price. Bond may
prove to be so priceless that Broccoli and Wilson are left with no Bond at all.

007RogerMoore

Shardlake wrote:

Brozzer showed some promise in GE but by the time we got to TND it was the Roger Moore tribute act all the way.

This is probably what I like most about Brosnan, even though I think he had his own style in a way. But the Moore-stuff that he showed in TND & DAD especially elevated him to near actor-god status for me. I think he was brilliant and since my opinion is that Moore's Bond is the real Bond, this "tribute act" was very much the way I want to see the role of 007 portrayed. The difference between Moore and Brosnan for me is that Brosnan feels more human and also more hard-edged. IMO you could say that he sometimes had some Connery and Dalton in his portrayal.

About "the classic look", it doesn't bother me very much that Craig looks so...rough. I think it's more important how he acts. Of course a Bond actor must look good to an extent but I'd rather have a Moore-esque Bond looking like Craig, than a Craig style Bond looking like Moore.

SAM

For Goodness Sake ! Michael G Wilson should realise that Daniel Craig has been an absolute godsend to this franchise.

This franchise was dwindling in 2001 ( It was Embarrassing how The Bourne Identity was Light Years ahead of Die Another Day ).

This is a Bond we can sincerely be proud of and should be encouringing him to continue ...

007RogerMoore

I don't think MGW is planning to let Craig go yet. But we should be prepared that this could happen if he senses that they aren't "ahead of the curve" any longer. As he seems to like changes, I don't see Craig or anyone else staying for too long in the role. Connery's and Moore's record of 7 movies will probably never be beaten.

001

When i think about dc as bond in cr has was very good in most of the film except a bit of mumbling of dialogue when his voice should be heard clearly.
In qos he acted like steve mcqueen, not suitable for bond in a film, and there was more mumbling of his lines. He was robotic at times and not very suave at other times.
It all depends how he and the film go (not financially) but as a film. And for dc, how he acts in the role of bond, more cool,calm and hopefully better than in qos.

I don't know if he has had a falling out with producers or the producers aren't that happy with the robotic acting in qos or what they have seen in sf and prefer someone more suave or a better actor or maybe something else.
They might be impressed with some other actor who they think would be a better bond.

FromCanadaWithLove

Ignore this. (Can you delete posts?)