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
The old school moulded the part to themselves whereas post Method it has been felt necessary for the actor to mould themselves to the part. I guess its a matter of personal taste which style you prefer and perhaps a direct comparison is not really possible.
One thing to remember is that Sean Connery had box office flop after box office flop for many years in the 60s and 70s (regardless of the films' qualities). Craig has proven himself to be a leading actor by the nature of his casting since Bond came along, so no one can argue his success.
Roger Moore, of all the actors, was the one whose non-Bon films of the 70s were box office successes.
Best actor? Craig is a great actor, but it's subjective. Most here agree that Dalton is a great actor, but I don't think he is. :-\"
I know people pick apart Dalton's career, but Craig hasn't exacly had an interesting career, even with his films making it throgh cinemas.
I'm not expecting an invite to DTD. ;)
Craig is however an accepted lead actor in the industry whether we like it or not, witnessing some of his films (Dragon Tattoo, C&As). These are major productions. And it was TV (Our Friends In The North) which secured his reputation. A superb drama, and Craig was the one who everyone remembered, (and he was co-starring with Christopher Eccleston and Mark Strong!)
Dalton's career is less about being a Hollywood lead, more about it's overall diversity. I'm no fan but the last time I wanted to go to the theatre it was to see Dalton as Lord Asriel in the West End production of His Dark Materials.
Now, when it was filmed (The Golden Compass) Craig won the role. Having read the books it was Dalton who was more like the character, but with CR in the cinemas Craig was I suppose a better bet. In the west end Dalton probably has no equal amonst the Bond actors. Shame he doesn't do more.
[/quote]
Nope - as some Dalton fan has said - some never see the light ;)
DC is a trained stage actor, so it would be interesting to see him with Dalton. Given the right project, new and fresh, he will be back on stage at a point. Off Broadway, as he said.
Speaking about BO success - we compare with actors many years his senior, with way more roles to their name. Its too early for that. One thing I know - these days, its not the actor, who can save a bad film anymore (There are enough examples of mega stars, who had flops and not long ago.) If the film stinks, it will fail,. never mind, who is in it.
Golden Compass, for example made 300 + worldwide, but was considered a flop,. bacause the US was flagging the film and New Line, stupidly, had sold the international rights.
Dream House was a troubled production, that was messed up to the extend, that even the stars wouldn't make promotion.
C&A - OMG - all that talent really messed it up, I thought, it was a terrible film. Had it been good, it would have been a huge success for him (In a way - with him or with somebody else. The same goes visa versa.). It was trending for 3 days straight, which shows, that people had a huge interest in the film and were very disappointed. Rightly so, I might add.
Tattoo - bad timing, which screwed up the opening weekend, performing well afterwards, but with not enough of the bigger awards, it didn't make the 300 mill, Sony wanted. (Thanksfully, now it looks good for the sequels). Had another actor then Daniel made it a bigger suuccess? I have no idea...
I have a long time tried to figure out, what makes a film successful and came to the conclusion - its not mainly the actor, its the film. A small film, with unknown actors can do incredibly well (just recently with that little French film) or actors, who are long forgotten or not that popular have BO hits.
Like Ted - nobody can tell me, that Mark Wallberg is a hugely popular actor all by himself. But the film must have been great and he was lucky enough to be in it.(or produce it). I believe, its all a game of luck and often has nothing to do with the quality of a film alone, but with the mood, the timing etc etc.
IMO all this talking of "can someone carry a film" is nonsense. Its the film and the film alone, that makes or breaks it. A popular or hot actor is just the topping on the filmcake.
As far as I remember it, the Sir wasn't all that keen on the more brutal Bond under Dalton AND under DC. What he said here IMO was, that he thinks, he is the best actor, not the best Bond.
On the The Spy Who Loved Me commentary Moore mentions both Dalton and Brosnan are very good and talented actors and comes across as a fan of both of them, even mentioning them both to Cubby as candidates for taking over from him.
I think its fair to say that Rog wouldn't have been a fan of LTK though. He has often voiced his opinions on the levels of violence in Bond. I remember him saying he felt Bond had become too violent by the end of AVTAK.
You've clearly not see Our friends In The North or no anything about Craig's acting career he's had plenty of diversity, he did have a career before Bond you know and he's shown more variety before he was Bond than Connery & Moore put together.
I agree, much I respect my fellow Daltonite he clearly doesn't have an opinion on Craig's abilities that makes sense to many people here, let alone the industry at large. I see a lot of the very same solid acting skills in Craig that I see in Dalton, not to mention some strong similarities in how they approached the character. His argument makes no sense to hardly anyone except the CNB bunch. I've already submitted my candidate for the CNB presidency, but perhaps he can use a running mate :))
Sword Of Honour
Tomb Raider
Trench
Road To Perdition
The Mother
Archangel
Enduring Love
Layer Cake
The Jacket
Munich
Renaissance
The Invasion
Cowboys & Aliens
Defiance
What do those films have in common? Hhmm, let me think... that's it, those are the films of that Craig has appeared in (in different sized roles) which I have seen. :-B
I would prefer the DCFC presidency.
Can't you wait to see Skyfall before declaring Craig can't do Bond? You seem too intelligent to have formed a half assed opinion already based on two films that only touched on a few of Bond's characteristics and didn't show the complete package. If you still feel that way after Skyfall, so be it for you or anyone else, I won't rule out myself being disappointed in something or other with him or the movie, but I really do question why some people have made up their minds so prematurely.
So do I, except Dalton was much better at it than Craig is ;)
To be fair, I do think Craig is a decent actor. Loved Our Friends In The North and Layer Cake. I'm not really a fan of his recent non Bond films though, Cowboys and Aliens was just a big missed opportunity and Dragon Tattoo had a story that nearly bored me to death.
And I don't mind him as Bond, I think he's good so far, but he's only played the rookie Bond, and his films have been a bit mixed so far to me (I think CR was good, QOS was just average) I don't think I can fully judge him until I've seen SF.
What's DTD?
DTD - <a href="http://www.dedicatedtodaniel.com"/>Dedicated To Daniel</a>
It was torture just going to the front page. ;)
As for SF, i'll see it first showing (same as every Bond for the last 15 years), but my expectations are very low. I am more excited for the 50th Anniversary celebration(s),
Why does this website exist?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
That's where I disagree with my fellow Daltonites regarding a fair comparison. Let's see, Tim gets two films to be traditional Bond with all the trimmings, Daniel gets two films to be rookie Bond without the trimmings. Well, that's certainly a fair comparison considering the odds are as completely stacked in favor of Tim as they were for Bond when he seduced Solitaire.
I appreciate you and anyone else who doesn't care for Craig as Bond having an open mind regarding Skyfall. Personal expectations for the movie itself are something you can't really argue about, they are individual and can't be challenged until it's been seen, but if those of this mindset that he can't be a good Bond can't put that to the side in consideration of my first statement, then that is patently unfair and an irrational way of thinking totally alien to mine. People who holler about Brosnan getting bashed (and he is unfairly at times and I agree with them when that happens), or Dalton not getting his just due from the critics all the while complaining Craig is getting a pass don't see the big picture. Let the man do Bond before you criticize his tenure for more than his blond hair and plantain nose, which I do get although to me his acting thus far as Bond has transcended that.
That doesn't make much sense. So because he's playing the rookie Bond, we can't compare him to any of the other Bonds? We compare Lazenby when he only had one film.
Craig has still been playing James Bond, and so far, I think Daltons James Bond has been much better than Craig.
Wen SF comes out and he plays classic Bond (which he better do, because that's what they've been promising), I can judge him more fairly and I might even think he's better (although that's unlikely.
But for now, Dalton has been a much better Bond than Craig imo.
You really don't get my posts sometimes. I gave you credit for having an open mind towards Craig and Skyfall, and you've been consistent in that.
Second, I made plenty of sense regarding rookie versus classic Bond and Craig vs Dalton or any other actor thus far in the role. No other Bond actor had to put up with M's level of control, being denied the chance to show a higher level of humor, have Q or his gadgets...do I really need to list 10 more things to prove my point on that? Even George got to do traditional Bond. Craig's scripts has been watered down in this sense, showing how "Bond became Bond" rather than the finished product. So as a fan of both of these Bond actors and their movies, I feel I have more than amply demonstrated why a full and complete comparison of Craig to the other Bonds is still a bit premature until Skyfall is released and we see if EON gave us the classic Bond they claim and how Craig does with it. After that, if someone can give logical reasons why Craig is unfit for the role past hair and nose, because even a blind man with a glass eye can tell his facial expressions do change, then I'm fine with it because at least the playing field is even.
I know he hasn't played classic Bond yet but he is still playing Bond, even if he's a rookie, and so I think it is fair to compare how he's done so far with the other actors. It'll be fairer if he plays classic Bond for SF sure, but I don't think anything is wrong with comparing him now either.
On some levels such as physicality as an example, yes you can compare, but not fully classic and I see you recognize that. Others though, can't see past the first two films and have formed an unfair opinion. Those folks say what we have gotten from Craig thus far is an actor playing a guy named James Bond, but not the James Bond they want with the elements they expect that differentiate CR and QOS from standard action hero fare. So they don't feel like Bond movies to them and some barely consider them as such and slate them below such gems as MR and DAD, which to me feel like Helm/Powers fare and not Bondian at all. I get that's why they haven't been able to embrace this era fully, but in fairness most of them are willing to see otherwise this fall. It's those who persist regarding all the irrational things I've spoken out against where I am going to defend Craig, and although they are entitled to their opinion, I will continue to be on them like a horde of swamp flies in July and point out the error of their opinion.
Hey royale, I was just starting to like you. We have existed for 6 years now and I am sorry, that we cannot turn it into a Daltonite side. :))
@SirHenry - I think, its useless to debate with the Major. His opinion will never change - to be fair, such as mine won't on certain subjects.
But if he has seen all those films and still thinks, DC is a poor actor - it doesn't matter, because almost everybody else, even those, who dislike him, think he is - at least - good. Most that he is great and certainly the induustrie does.
IMO its going into detail too much, if you separate DC's rockie Bond and the other classic ones. Bond is Bond and if they cannot accept him in the last two, its their loss. But surely, SF WILL be more classic. I have no worries here or that he will do great wit it.
I joined the original forum on July 30th 2005, before Craig was even cast in October. When he was announced as the 6th Bond, I was sceptical, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt (unlike those who were against him from even that point) as I am not an unfair man. I went to see CR on the first day possible, and again with QOS. Initialy I did like Craig as Bond, my opinion has only changed now that I have had 6 years to digest both films, and not be swept away in all the hooha of new Bond films. I can look at the films with a clear perspective and they are just not my cup of tea. I dislike Craig as Bond, but as I have done for the last 15 years of being a Bond fanatic, I will still be there on opening day for SF.
As for my opinion never changing, look at my Bond ranking. Both OHMSS (which my opinion has gone up and down on over the years as well as my opinion on Lazenby) and FYEO (a Moore film no less) have both re entered my top 10.
It's funny. As I've said before to you for me it's being the other way round. When I first heard Craig was cast in 2006 I, like you, thought he was a somewhat "unusual" choice and clearly remember all the flack the press were giving him.
After watching Layer Cake I actually began to see where the producers were coming from and vividly remember thinking "they hate him now but I bet he's going to suprise everyone" - it's the nature of our fickle public.
After watching CR in the cinema tbh I didn't know what to make of it. I knew it was good but I wasn't sure how good - in fact my first reaction was to go home and stick GE on. It was only after seeing it more times that I thought "actually this is good - and so is Craig".
It's good to see someone who's not afraid to consider, or be scared to change their opinions. I had an argument with a friend the other day over peoples reluctance to consider alternative points of view. It's my favourtie thing about using the forum, seeing different perspectives and actually embracing them, not just point blank refusal because I have some pre-determined philosophy on Bond.
Should've known you were behind all this! Nah I'm only joking.