The DANIEL CRAIG Appreciation thread - Discuss His Life, His Career, His Bond Films

1151152154156157176

Comments

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    I think the directors should have had a clearer vision

    The hired directors have to work with the talent they have.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,383
    Brosnan was really at his best in DAD where they wrote his Bond to be more cynical and cheeky. I think Eon realized that the most after Brosnan tried to give a more dramatic flair in TWINE. Heck, even in one scene in DAD he’s still trying to play up the dramatics like in the frigate. “I’m going ahftah him!!” Thankfully that’s brushed aside.

    Yes I do think he makes DAD work; it needs a star at the centre and he’s good value in it.
  • You also need to have producers who have a clear sense of what direction they want to take Bond in, and with the Brosnan era, I get the overall impression that Barbara and Michael had little to no idea how they wanted to approach his Bond/the films he was in. He was torn between trying to be in “Classic Bond Films”, and trying to be in Bond films that pushed the envelope for the franchise, and sadly you can’t have it both ways all the time.
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 482
    I can understand the flack that Purvis and Wade get (and often deserve), but they've been able to put together satisfying plots rather than repeating the same formula, which Richard Maibaum, when he was out of material by Ian Fleming, and Michael Wilson tended to do (AVTAK is 90% Goldfinger but with the Silicon Valley instead of Fort Knox). There was a lot of interesting ideas in TWINE, even if the execution, including the script itself, sometimes lacked the chutzpa that was needed to make it really work.
  • edited October 2022 Posts: 2,266
    I can understand the flack that Purvis and Wade get (and often deserve), but they've been able to put together satisfying plots rather than repeating the same formula, which Richard Maibaum, when he was out of material by Ian Fleming, and Michael Wilson tended to do (AVTAK is 90% Goldfinger but with the Silicon Valley instead of Fort Knox). There was a lot of interesting ideas in TWINE, even if the execution, including the script itself, sometimes lacked the chutzpa that was needed to make it really work.

    Which brings us to the “backlash” to their return for B26. I’m not too big on some of their ideas, but they also have a huge knowledge of Fleming and the literary Bond. To lose them during this period of uncertainty wouldn’t be the best of ideas.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,547
    Keeping them doesn't/wouldn't bother me at all. Personally I think Spectre was the biggest letdown of their era (moreso than DAD purely because of what could have been), but there was a lot at play with that one. A lot of the films they write turn out to be great, so.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    You also need to have producers who have a clear sense of what direction they want to take Bond in, and with the Brosnan era, I get the overall impression that Barbara and Michael had little to no idea how they wanted to approach his Bond/the films he was in. He was torn between trying to be in “Classic Bond Films”, and trying to be in Bond films that pushed the envelope for the franchise, and sadly you can’t have it both ways all the time.

    The truth is that they wanted to keep going with Dalton, but the studio wanted Brosnan because American audiences liked him and didn’t warm to Dalton’s take. They were essentially forced to bring in Brosnan. It’s telling how eager they were to drop him after he finished his four film contract. He served his purpose.
  • You also need to have producers who have a clear sense of what direction they want to take Bond in, and with the Brosnan era, I get the overall impression that Barbara and Michael had little to no idea how they wanted to approach his Bond/the films he was in. He was torn between trying to be in “Classic Bond Films”, and trying to be in Bond films that pushed the envelope for the franchise, and sadly you can’t have it both ways all the time.

    The truth is that they wanted to keep going with Dalton, but the studio wanted Brosnan because American audiences liked him and didn’t warm to Dalton’s take. They were essentially forced to bring in Brosnan. It’s telling how eager they were to drop him after he finished his four film contract. He served his purpose.

    Brosnan did more than serve his purpose. He practically brought much needed energy to a franchise that was all but dead. I don’t think any other actor would’ve worked for Goldeneye besides Brosnan quite frankly, and he was a large part as to why those films were so successful. So I don’t buy their “eagerness” to drop him from the role. Not when it’s been said just as much that parting ways with Pierce was one of the hardest things both Broccoli and Wilson had to do. In fact I can recall Pierce mentioning Barbara crying when speaking to him. What I really think happened was they saw how much they dropped the ball with Die Another Day, and felt they had no choice but to hit the restart button. I mean how are you going to follow a film where the lead character stops his heart 20 minutes in, and catches some CGI Waves. Like I’ve always said, Brosnan’s Bond had to stumble for Craig’s Bond to really shine.
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 482
    Martin Campbell didn’t like Dalton and wouldn’t have signed as the director of Goldeneye if he had still played the part.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    edited October 2022 Posts: 1,711
    Martin Campbell didn’t like Dalton and wouldn’t have signed as the director of Goldeneye if he had still played the part.

    There's a win-win situation! ;)

    But really, Martin Campbell's opinion wouldn't have meant anything.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2022 Posts: 16,383
    You also need to have producers who have a clear sense of what direction they want to take Bond in, and with the Brosnan era, I get the overall impression that Barbara and Michael had little to no idea how they wanted to approach his Bond/the films he was in. He was torn between trying to be in “Classic Bond Films”, and trying to be in Bond films that pushed the envelope for the franchise, and sadly you can’t have it both ways all the time.

    I think they kind of proved that you can though; they remained massive hits.

    Then they decided it was more interesting to push more into the dramatic direction, so they did. Result: massive hits.
    You also need to have producers who have a clear sense of what direction they want to take Bond in, and with the Brosnan era, I get the overall impression that Barbara and Michael had little to no idea how they wanted to approach his Bond/the films he was in. He was torn between trying to be in “Classic Bond Films”, and trying to be in Bond films that pushed the envelope for the franchise, and sadly you can’t have it both ways all the time.

    The truth is that they wanted to keep going with Dalton, but the studio wanted Brosnan because American audiences liked him and didn’t warm to Dalton’s take. They were essentially forced to bring in Brosnan. It’s telling how eager they were to drop him after he finished his four film contract. He served his purpose.

    Brosnan did more than serve his purpose. He practically brought much needed energy to a franchise that was all but dead. I don’t think any other actor would’ve worked for Goldeneye besides Brosnan quite frankly, and he was a large part as to why those films were so successful. So I don’t buy their “eagerness” to drop him from the role.

    Yeah, agreed. You just wouldn't have got a relaunch with Dalton back in the lead, audiences wouldn't have been as interested or engaged, and Brosnan did a great job.
    What I really think happened was they saw how much they dropped the ball with Die Another Day, and felt they had no choice but to hit the restart button. I mean how are you going to follow a film where the lead character stops his heart 20 minutes in, and catches some CGI Waves. Like I’ve always said, Brosnan’s Bond had to stumble for Craig’s Bond to really shine.

    To an extent, but I think it is just how it looks: they wanted to go in a fresher artistic direction with it, and Brosnan didn't fit. It's a business, you hire the right people for the job you want doing.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,016
    It's funny to think now that Bond simply walking into M's office, getting his mission, taking a plane into the mission territory would now be seen as too simplistic or somewhat shallow for Bond. But then again, watching Top Gun: Maverick, it's a very straightforward film. Nothing complex, yet it was a critical and commercial hit. So I'm thinking Bond 26 doesn't really needs to be complex to succeed. Even if I would like something complex and entertaining for Bond 26.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    edited October 2022 Posts: 2,641
    There were some great ideas with the Brosnan era

    GE : 007 vs 006, Bond having to hunt a former friend, who knows MI6 as well as him. Also a female henchman.
    TND : A former flame comes back into Bond's life and is married to a villain
    TWINE : Bond falls for a woman, who turns out to be a villain
    DAD : Bond is captured and tortured.

    On the surface all these ideas are new and exciting, the problem was they weren't explored enough in DAD's case or poorly executed in TND's case. GE was great maybe the beach scene with Natalya could have been better, but that's a minor gripe.

    I think had some of these been used in the Daniel era it would have been better utilized and probably been even more memorable.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2022 Posts: 16,383
    It's funny to think now that Bond simply walking into M's office, getting his mission, taking a plane into the mission territory would now be seen as too simplistic or somewhat shallow for Bond. But then again, watching Top Gun: Maverick, it's a very straightforward film. Nothing complex, yet it was a critical and commercial hit. So I'm thinking Bond 26 doesn't really needs to be complex to succeed. Even if I would like something complex and entertaining for Bond 26.

    TG:M is a drama though, not just about some faceless fighter pilots on a mission. They're all emotionally involved with each other and have history and that is the main thing the film is about, it's the sort of thing some Bond fans would write-off as 'soap opera'.
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    There were some great ideas with the Brosnan era

    GE : 007 vs 006, Bond having to hunt a former friend, who knows MI6 as well as him. Also a female henchman.
    TND : A former flame comes back into Bond's life and is married to a villain
    TWINE : Bond falls for a woman, who turns out to be a villain
    DAD : Bond is captured and tortured.

    On the surface all these ideas are new and exciting, the problem was they weren't explored enough in DAD's case or poorly executed in TND's case. GE was great maybe the beach scene with Natalya could have been better, but that's a minor gripe.

    I think had some of these been used in the Daniel era it would have been better utilized and probably been even more memorable.

    I think as Hildebrand mentions above, TWINE was pretty much packed with new ideas. MI6 being attacked, action in London, Bond being injured, M being involved with the history of the baddie, and then later being kidnapped... as well as the Bond woman turning out to be the main baddie these were all real formula-breaking ideas and felt very fresh and exciting at the time.
    As you say, his capture and imprisonment in DAD was much the same- it felt pretty big.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,016
    Well, @mtm let's hope everything is planned out properly this time...whatever direction they want to go. Although, one thing that's always certain is, the first film of a Bond actor is always stellar.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,547
    Stylish MFer.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,383
    The costume designer on that film was having an absolute ball.
  • edited October 2022 Posts: 4,139
    It's funny to think now that Bond simply walking into M's office, getting his mission, taking a plane into the mission territory would now be seen as too simplistic or somewhat shallow for Bond. But then again, watching Top Gun: Maverick, it's a very straightforward film. Nothing complex, yet it was a critical and commercial hit. So I'm thinking Bond 26 doesn't really needs to be complex to succeed. Even if I would like something complex and entertaining for Bond 26.

    TG:M is an interesting one in the sense that while I think some Bond fans outwardly yearn for the next Bond film to be more like it in terms of tone (which I think is questionable or at least simplistic in itself), in practice I doubt it'll have much, if any influence on producers. Maybe the stunt work (a big maybe) but it's not a particularly Bondian film. Much of it is about the drama between the characters, there's not even an onscreen antagonist, and the tone generally leans more towards 'flag waving' if that makes sense. Ideally a Bond film should centre on Bond predominately, there must always be an onscreen antagonist for Bond to engage, and the ideas behind these films are often much more cynical or at least less 'black and white' in terms of morality, regardless of whether it's a more 'escapist' Bond film or not (even in a film like TSWLM you get this sense with the fact that Bond kills Anya's lover at the beginning).
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    MAVERICK will have as much influence on the new Bond films as much as the original TOP GUN had on the Dalton films. Let’s not kid ourselves.
  • Posts: 4,139
    MAVERICK will have as much influence on the new Bond films as much as the original TOP GUN had on the Dalton films. Let’s not kid ourselves.

    Good point. Bond and Top Gun are simply different beasts with often fundamentally different ideas. I mean, it's just as well. Neither Top Gun films do much for me personally and I think Bond is more interesting.

    Anyway, drifted away from Craig again... I'm actually excited for Glass Onion.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,383
    MAVERICK will have as much influence on the new Bond films as much as the original TOP GUN had on the Dalton films. Let’s not kid ourselves.

    Yeah, and the original Top Gun is also a drama, about a slightly arrogant kid having a bit of trouble at a school. I don't mind the idea of the next Bond film telling a story about a man in a similar way, but I don't think it's what the people who ask for the next Bond to be like it think that they're quite asking for.
    If it's as dramatically satisfying and well-written, I'm all for it.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    I think it’s absolutely bizarre some want the next film to be like TOP GUN: MAVERICK and in the same breath demand the next film go back to the older films that had little to no interpersonal relationships. Like, huh? Both TOP GUN films were mostly about interpersonal relationships!

    “I will not make the same mistake my father made in trusting you!”

    Hell, even the Mission: Impossible films have been veering towards interpersonal relationships. The last film was practically Tom Cruise’s wish fulfillment dream of his ex wives giving him approval for dating women young enough to be his daughters.
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 482
    There wasn't any Top Gun movie released between 1986 and 2022. And not a lot of films about jet pilots and quasi suicide missions (unless we take Hot Shots into consideration)
    Between The Living Daylights and No Time to Die, there were nine Bond films.

    Maverick was a huge hit because it called back a very precise type of film which hadn't been made in a very long time. If there had been such a long intermission between two Bond films, people would have been even crazier (especially as Bond is more suited to an episodic format than some high concept like Top Gun), and they would have been okay with some straightforward entry. Except that it would be repetitive because we had all these entries to quench our thirst.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,547
    The idea I always come to when thinking about why Maverick was so good was "no nonsense". It was absolutely concise, felt like a 20 minute film in the best way. There were rich interpersonal relationships (mostly with Rooster and Jennifer Connelly, and Hangman played a great pseudo-villain), all of which served the story and created emotional stakes for the jaw dropping plane action. Bond can learn from all of this, but also does these things well already.

    I guess I'm of the opinion that I don't want B26 to be extremely similar to Maverick (I don't think I want B26 to be quite as personal a story), and I don't want B26 to do away with interpersonal relationships altogether (as in Maverick, they do give the story personal stakes, which is important). Even in Dr. No, they made you feel Quarrel's death (spoiler alert! lol) because of the rapport Bond was building with him.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2022 Posts: 16,383
    Well you can’t have an effective action film or tension moments unless you connect to the characters. You’ve got to care about them to want them to not get killed when they’re put in danger. Like, I dunno: Die Hard, which spends a good amount of time ensuring that you find McClaine charming. So a certain amount of personal drama is just required to make the action work.

    Oddly I think Dr No does slightly fall down on making Bond likeable: he’s a real dick in it, and not in the charming way that they reset him as for the next film.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,547
    It's true, comparatively, Felix is a lot more chill than Bond.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    Pretty much like the books where Bond comes off like a stick in the mud most of the time. They really do take off that edge with Cinematic Bond.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited October 2022 Posts: 2,016
    007HallY wrote: »
    It's funny to think now that Bond simply walking into M's office, getting his mission, taking a plane into the mission territory would now be seen as too simplistic or somewhat shallow for Bond. But then again, watching Top Gun: Maverick, it's a very straightforward film. Nothing complex, yet it was a critical and commercial hit. So I'm thinking Bond 26 doesn't really needs to be complex to succeed. Even if I would like something complex and entertaining for Bond 26.

    TG:M is an interesting one in the sense that while I think some Bond fans outwardly yearn for the next Bond film to be more like it in terms of tone (which I think is questionable or at least simplistic in itself), in practice I doubt it'll have much, if any influence on producers. Maybe the stunt work (a big maybe) but it's not a particularly Bondian film. Much of it is about the drama between the characters, there's not even an onscreen antagonist, and the tone generally leans more towards 'flag waving' if that makes sense. Ideally a Bond film should centre on Bond predominately, there must always be an onscreen antagonist for Bond to engage, and the ideas behind these films are often much more cynical or at least less 'black and white' in terms of morality, regardless of whether it's a more 'escapist' Bond film or not (even in a film like TSWLM you get this sense with the fact that Bond kills Anya's lover at the beginning).

    Yeah, not that I want Bond 26 to be exactly Top Gun: Maverick, but I'm just surprised that a film like it, that isn't exactly a cerebral or complex film, got high critical ratings and made good money. So I'm thinking if EON should bring back the technology of Bond, but still make Bond 26 engaging. It definitely won't hurt the plot if Bond 26 had planes, helicopters, trains, scuba gears, gadgets, etc. Even LTK with all its ruthlessness had the familiar Bond style.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    The formula for TOP GUN isn't even that new. It's very much in the tradition of Old Hollywood films like DIVE BOMBER.

    Part of why the original TOP GUN was a hit was because it was riding that wave of Hollywood films like RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART II that made audiences feel good about America after Vietnam demoralized them. In the instance of TOP GUN: MAVERICK, we just fled Afghanistan and I'm sure COVID also factored in.

    Which makes me wonder how the film would have done if it came out in its original 2020 schedule.
Sign In or Register to comment.