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

17778808283176

Comments

  • Posts: 19,339
    NicNac wrote: »
    GL renamed it to reflect more diverse criticism. I was going to rename the others and pull them back in line, just haven't got round to it

    Aaah ok Nackers,just checking me olde pal .

  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    I may just remove the word 'Appreciation' from all of them to allow for some more colourful criticism :)
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    I think it was unconsciously agreed upon years back that, 'Appreciation' in the title or not, the threads are open to all sorts of comments. Not much fun or diversity if we're all just agreeing with one another endlessly.
  • Posts: 19,339
    NicNac wrote: »
    I may just remove the word 'Appreciation' from all of them to allow for some more colourful criticism :)

    He he nice one ;)


    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I think it was unconsciously agreed upon years back that, 'Appreciation' in the title or not, the threads are open to all sorts of comments. Not much fun or diversity if we're all just agreeing with one another endlessly.

    Oh I totally agree, the Craig one has become feisty and interesting,with some good points as well.

  • edited June 2017 Posts: 6,601
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Just out of interest peeps,why is this thread called the 'Daniel Craig discussion thread' ,while the Moore,Brosnan and Dalton ones which are trending at the moment are called 'appreciation ' threads ?

    Seems a bit unfair on Craig,shouldnt they all be the same ?

    I thought it would make for a more interesting discussion and since he is the current one why not give people the chance to have their word pro and con. I am not against con, as I have proven with this step, just against badmouthing the man with silly remarks. Opinion or not. It should always remain fair. And Jason, you have said numeroustimes now, you will leave the Craig threads. Nobody forced you to say that. But you are here and moan, that your constant nagging isn't welcomed with open arms by everybody. So IMO, either stop saying you leave or do it.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    I think there's a sense of "popularity" on the forums regarding bashing of the actors, and everyone seems to have their time in the spotlight, so to speak. Not every actor will be loved and hailed across the boards.
  • Posts: 6,601
    Just the "he can't carry a movie" post - take RDJ. Outside of his franchise films, he has had no success either and imo, he is the most beloved of them all. So, what does this Prove? He can't carry a movie or is victim to what they all are. If people are not interested in the film, they won't go OR if the film is not good. C /A had a tremendous PR and would have been a summer hit, had it not been the disaster it was. Nothing to do with DC.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    To be fair, there's not a single movie star that exists today that can carry any movie. Tom Cruise comes close, and while 'The Mummy's box office as of late isn't a total trainwreck, it's definitely not as good as it could've been, either. The days of "stars" are gone, and like you said, if a movie looks good, people will see it. If not, they won't.

    Could've put anyone in 'Cowboys & Aliens' and it would've fared the same way it did, I'd say.
  • Posts: 6,601
    Out of interest - who would you say is the most successful movie star outside of franchises.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited August 2017 Posts: 9,020
    .
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Out of interest - who would you say is the most successful movie star outside of franchises.
    Well, it's harder to think of a star who's successful outside of movie franchises nowadays, but Tom Cruise comes to mind when I think of a star. Actresses more so than actors. But, the days when stars were the highlight and the movies were their vehicles are long gone. The Stallone & Schwarzenegger days are over.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Out of interest - who would you say is the most successful movie star outside of franchises.
    Historically, Harrison Ford probably. He had quite a run in his prime. Of the legends still going strong, it's probably Cruise due to his longevity.

    Top dog at the moment is Dwayne Johnson I think.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited August 2017 Posts: 9,020
    .
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Liam Neeson has some star power.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    To be fair, there's not a single movie star that exists today that can carry any movie. Tom Cruise comes close, and while 'The Mummy's box office as of late isn't a total trainwreck, it's definitely not as good as it could've been, either. The days of "stars" are gone, and like you said, if a movie looks good, people will see it. If not, they won't.

    Could've put anyone in 'Cowboys & Aliens' and it would've fared the same way it did, I'd say.

    So, Keanu Reeves doesn't carry John Wick?? And I can give you at least 10 other examples easily.

    Jason Statham?? Just saying.

    You misread what I said. Obviously Keanu can carry that movie, but I'm talking ANY movie, and with that, being a film star, which there's so few of these days. Keanu's 'Knock Knock' was a huge dud.

    That's the point I'm making.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    To be fair, there's not a single movie star that exists today that can carry any movie. Tom Cruise comes close, and while 'The Mummy's box office as of late isn't a total trainwreck, it's definitely not as good as it could've been, either. The days of "stars" are gone, and like you said, if a movie looks good, people will see it. If not, they won't.

    Could've put anyone in 'Cowboys & Aliens' and it would've fared the same way it did, I'd say.

    So, Keanu Reeves doesn't carry John Wick?? And I can give you at least 10 other examples easily.

    Jason Statham?? Just saying.

    He's not saying actors can't carry movies he's saying we don't have stars these days that can carry 'every' film they're in.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited August 2017 Posts: 9,020
    .
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Sasha Baron Cohen carries his movies. Jim Carrey a few years ago.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited August 2017 Posts: 9,020
    .
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    To be fair, there's not a single movie star that exists today that can carry any movie. Tom Cruise comes close, and while 'The Mummy's box office as of late isn't a total trainwreck, it's definitely not as good as it could've been, either. The days of "stars" are gone, and like you said, if a movie looks good, people will see it. If not, they won't.

    Could've put anyone in 'Cowboys & Aliens' and it would've fared the same way it did, I'd say.

    So, Keanu Reeves doesn't carry John Wick?? And I can give you at least 10 other examples easily.

    Jason Statham?? Just saying.

    You misread what I said. Obviously Keanu can carry that movie, but I'm talking ANY movie, and with that, being a film star, which there's so few of these days. Keanu's 'Knock Knock' was a huge dud.

    That's the point I'm making.

    Ok, but still sounds like an excuse to defend Craig.

    Craig doesn't need defending. His work speaks for itself. The guy is a superb actor, the best we've had in the series. Roger is my favourite Bond, I'd say Connery is the best Bond and Craig is the best actor of the lot. For me this isn't about Craig being untouchable as Bond, it's about realising and appreciating his abilities. He's left a very indelible and unique mark.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    To be fair, there's not a single movie star that exists today that can carry any movie. Tom Cruise comes close, and while 'The Mummy's box office as of late isn't a total trainwreck, it's definitely not as good as it could've been, either. The days of "stars" are gone, and like you said, if a movie looks good, people will see it. If not, they won't.

    Could've put anyone in 'Cowboys & Aliens' and it would've fared the same way it did, I'd say.

    So, Keanu Reeves doesn't carry John Wick?? And I can give you at least 10 other examples easily.

    Jason Statham?? Just saying.

    You misread what I said. Obviously Keanu can carry that movie, but I'm talking ANY movie, and with that, being a film star, which there's so few of these days. Keanu's 'Knock Knock' was a huge dud.

    That's the point I'm making.

    Ok, but still sounds like an excuse to defend Craig.

    No one actor has ever carried all his movies so to speak. Maybe some did for a number of years.
    And such actors still exist today and it's just not true to say otherwise.

    Which actors are those, then? Would be easier just to list them. Just ensure there's not one dud in their filmography, lest you negate your argument. Some actors come close these days, like Tom Cruise, but it's nowhere near as consistent and easy to find as it was decades prior.
  • edited June 2017 Posts: 6,601
    Carry a movie means brining it to success at the BO. IMO the days more then ever before, the actor is always just one part of it all. Everything else, the audiences expect these days has to work to make the film work. The actor - any actor - is just there to transport all this. To move it from to B. He can deserve 10 Oscars - if the rest isn't up to par in the mind of the audiences, it will flop.

    Of all the Chrisses for example, who all came to stardom through franchises (unlike Tom Cruise), what success did they had outside of their franchises?
  • Posts: 19,339
    De Niro and Pacino had and still have the power to carry a film.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    barryt007 wrote: »
    De Niro and Pacino had and still have the power to carry a film.

    Depends on the film.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    Clooney or Damon are our closest things to Stars today.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Apart from the living legends like Cruise, Washington & Hanks, there are quite a few others who can pull in an audience globally. These include Damon, Neeson, Johnson, Jackman, Pratt, McConaughey, DiCaprio, Hardy, Depp, Clooney & Wahlberg,
  • Posts: 1,162
    bondjames wrote: »
    Apart from the living legends like Cruise, Washington & Hanks, there are quite a few others who can pull in an audience globally. These include Damon, Neeson, Johnson, Jackman, Pratt, McConaughey, DiCaprio, Hardy, Depp, Clooney & Wahlberg,

    I very much would doubt Hardy and Wahlberg, but otherwise I would say you're spot on.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    This is an interesting discussion, if completely unbefitting of Lord Craig's thread (I love the bastard).

    I think the factors that contribute to a lack of star power are partly down to a lack of young stars and aging old stars, and also the industry and where it's at now. We're in the period of remakes and reboots, and it's no surprise why so many films sink now, like Cruise's Mummy film that is one of those wretched things. I think that, no matter who is in a film, audiences are speaking with their wallets more than ever (and rising cinema prices won't help get people out to the screens) and it doesn't matter who the big star is. Just because Tom Cruise is in a film is no guarantee of its quality, and it isn't a motivator for many to see it like it once was.

    In a way audiences are being more critical about movies and what they see. They want to be told good stories and seem to get more offended when a movie is just mindless or doesn't add up to an interesting narrative. I feel like audiences of the past were much more likely to see a film, shut off their brains and accept flaws. In the age of the internet where everyone is a critic, people now have a more harsh outlook on how their money is being spent and that correlates with the rising costs of movies and the climate the industry is in where originality is often unrewarded and rehashing old ideas is the running motto. In some ways, it's nice to see, as people should be smarter about how they spend their time and money. It's also great that no actor can just sail by doing mediocre work and expect to get paid for it. It's a more level-playing field on the whole, where quality is the true qualifier for a good legacy.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Craig is a great actor, end of story. He has intelligence in his performances, he's charismatic and he draws the viewers in... no matter how much the "haters want to hate", that's what made him such a popular Bond, in such a saturated market
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    Don't forget DC's two Roger Michell films, Enduring Love and The Mother. He was superb in both. And there was no indication that he would ever become James Bond, not from THOSE two films.

    The man is one hell of an actor.
Sign In or Register to comment.