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
With the benefit of much hindsight though, the Rog films IMO all hold up quite well. As much as I didn't like it, Rog was guilty only of infusing some of his own lighter, Saint/Brett Sinclair personality into the character. He did what came naturally, as soon as he was afforded opportunity, which came with his 3rd film and a fresh director - fresh for Rog that it is. He was also emboldened by now being established in the role, so with hindsight the evolution of Rog as Bond was almost predictable. But otherwise Rog played Bond much the way Sean did, or at least as best he could. He wasn't doing anything dramatically different with the character, than what Sean had established.
With the darker Craig films, I see more than just an actor bringing a different personality to the character. I see a whole different way of doing Bond, and quite frankly I don't like it. I don't like the direction that Craig is trying to take the franchise in. I don't like the kind of Bond film that Craig is trying to make. Rather I simply make due and digest them for what they are.
But preference aside, and here I will try to address some of the points raised by @commanderRoss and @dramaticsceneofQOS, I do think Craig has a case of actor ego and not a healthy one.
I do think, and maybe this is just IMHO, that Craig does want to be recognized as doing a superior take on the Bond mythos than even Connery managed - not just a worthy take, which is a healthy ambition, but a superior take, which I think considering the iconic film legacy that this franchise enjoys and that was established before Craig was even born, is not a healthy ambition but one derived more from actor ego. Just my opinion. There is no actual proof unless DC were to say as much, but I do think there is plenty of evidence, all of which has been spilled on these boards and others over the last 17 months
George Roy Hill expounds on the actor ego matter, in his commentary to Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid. He says he particularly enjoyed working with Newman and Redford as they made effort to work together and not upstage the other. He said otherwise actors can be a real pain in the ass with their jelousies of each other.
As for the Bond legacy, I will compare it to the UNCLE legacy. Henry Cavill will star in the upcoming Uncle film. The Uncle legacy is similar to the Bond film legacy. Robert Vaughn is iconic as Napoleon Solo. He established and defined the character much the way Patrick MacNee defined the John Steed character. Neither Cavill as Solo nor Ralph Fiennes, years later as Steed, can hope to surpass what the originals established. Rather they can attempt efforts worthy of the originals.
The same I would suggest follows with regards to the original 5 film legacy and global cultural phenomenon established by Connery's iconic Bond.
This is where I take Craig to task. Fiennes did not challenge what Steed and company had established with the Avengers. Nor really have any of the first 4 actors to follow Connery. The other four have all infused elements of themselves into the character but the basic film template has not been dramatically toyed with. All of the Rog, Dalts and Broz movies are immediately recognizable as Bond films.
And all indications are that Guy Ritchie and Cavill are attempting to do a new Uncle film,very much in the spirit of the original series.
Not so with the Craig Bond films. These films are a radical re-envisioning of the iconic screen character. This in itself wouldn't be so bad if the filmmakers, or more to the point Craig, would simply take full ownership of this approach. And I do think Craig is driving this bus more than anyone else. Babs and MGW are enabling and facilitating him but I do believe what we are seeing on screen is Craig's attempts via Mendes, Forster and others to separate himself from the original Bond series as inspired by the original Connery filmmakers.
But the Craig approach isn't a bold and daring reinvention of the franchise, rather its a schizophrenic, disjointed, maddeningly uneven, almost weasal approach, which seems to attempt to mask what it is trying to do. In one sense it is overt, in that the gun barrel opening was stubbornly removed from the last two films, despite Bond being fully realized as 007 at the conclusion of CR, at least thats what we were led to believe, based on the triumphal feel-good ending.
The refusal to trumpet the JB music theme within the films is very telling and helps achieve separation. This is all very overt. We only get the full JB Theme treatment in SF, in a compartmentalized, full blown isolated homage to the GF car. The theme is juxtaposed as something from the past and homaged accordingly. It does not "taint" the broader dramatic film landscape.
And then of course within the Craig body of work, there are scores of examples, where jibes are taken at the old films - some darts more obvious than others.
Shaken not stirred? Do I look like I give a damn!? Was that dialgoue needed!? Well yes, if you are trying to make a statement.
Otherwise the answer is yes, you do give a damn because you are James Bond and James Bond does in fact give a damn about such things.
We don't much go in for exploding pens. Obvious jibe. Didn't have to be included but it was, and as @suivez I think it was noted, clearly scripted for purpose. The message is clear. GE pen frivolous, LTK palm-reader gun ok. Does this statement really need to be made. No it doesn't. You could simply introduce the new gun, minus the pen jibe, unless of course there is a broader theme of superior filmmaking that one is trying to promote.
QoS was critiqued for having a too heavy tone. No fear, hamfisted attempts at jamming in what comes across as forced humour will be included in SF, just to placate those that might cling to the old ways, just to ease the transition to the new superior Bond brand.
And with SF, we get a similar ending to the previous two films. ie just in case you diehards didn't swallow what we were serving up here, lets pretend that it was all an aberration of sorts, and that old familiar Bond really never went anywhere (that is until the next film). We'll finish CR with the familiar salutation and go out triumphantly with the familiar old theme.
For QoS- hey " I never left." And cue the reassuring all-is-well look. And lookie here, its the gunbarrel and theme right in your face as you leave the theatre, but appropriately left apart from the broader dramatic narrative.
Oh and SF. In case you diehards are a little discombulated by what you've just sat through. Hark, its the old familiar office layout, and kind of the old MP, but nevertheless that sure looks like the old M. And that Bond - he is going back to work, on a regular mission too it looks like, and "with pleasure too" Giddiness abounds. Cue that gunbarrel. Blast that theme. Its OK, its safe now, our movie is over.
Time to lob the real juicy bones. Hit them over the head hard. If we're lucky, they'll think they just watched TB, and come mouthbreathing back for more, and we'll do it to them all over again next time. Still more drama Bond, still more jibes at the old series, followed by the usual, "I never left" sendoff. Genius.
OK very well, I see what is going on. Have your fun, you rascally DC filmakers........... but what might be real refreshing...... is if the great Craig, would once and for all, just take full ownership and do the Bond films that he actually wants to do, without being hamstrung by lacklustre, uninspired deference to the original series.
Let the great thespian loose Babs. You created this monster. Drop the pretenses. Enough with the cheesy homages and tepid uninspired, even hostile references to the old films.
If the new and superior rebooted Bond is that intent on outdoing the original screen legacy, then go all-in please. Enough with the digs and shots.
Just give us the martini-indifferent, new broody Bond wonderkind, in all his unfettered dark and edgy, blue-speedoed glory!
Free the great Craig, from the Sean shackles that bind.
Off soapbox. ~O)
:D
He was quite good in Layer Cake though, and the Lara Croft film. I also liked his work in Dream House, although I think I may be the only person that saw that film. Damn, I might have to join the fan club. :D
With Bond though, I think it is finally time to set Craig free. Let him shed the cocoon of what came before. Let this butterfly truly soar.
A really excellent analysis!
Very well put together post. I didn't agree with all of it but I do think you have a point with this bit. CR, QOS and SF all essentially have the same ending. "Look, reboot over, the Bond we all know is back!" but he never really is.
Everybody's saying "now for Bond 24 we're going to get a traditional Bond on a mission film but I think that we probably won't. It's pretty clear now that the Craig films are doing their own thing, and I like that. I love what they've done so far. But I wish they'd stop pretending that this is all a big set up for "classic" Bond. Just embrace the new direction.
My prediction: Bond 24 will be another film that analyses Bond's character and M, Moneypenny and probably Q will get more screentime than in the old films. I'm alright with this, just please don't stick a piss poor gunbarrel and the Bond theme at the end and pretend that it's all been a build up to the return of old school Bond.
@dramaticscenesofQOS Yes, as far as the franchise goes I have no problems with the current direction the films are going and I completely understand the reasoning in reinventing the on-screen Bond we're all used to, BUT, I would love to revisit some of the old style of Bond films to say without going into details. (gadgets, campy but not too campy, and witty jokes, less Dalton.)
And to @Creasy47 you'll have to forgive me, I have a tough time with cross-continent terminology and slang as well. I've learned so many words and phrases (from this forum) that mean either the opposite or mean nothing at all here to us in the states. What I mean by a grunge feel (in film), in short is referring to the hyper-realistic and a bit dark, Jason Bourne type of action movies. Very typical in US for most action films now. I don't dislike it, in either action movies in general or the current Bond flicks, but I would like to see another direction after DC with some familiar roots is all.
"a massive personal grudge against Craig" :-O Sheesh. I said I liked Dream House didn't I. How many others will go on the record with that statement!?
My Craig-love credentials are rock solid, if I do say so myself.
I just don't get this angle you're running, that he's somehow an egotist who has no respect for the past and wants to outdo Connery. There's nothing I've seen or read to suggest this, anywhere. He's such a private bloke that it would difficult at the best of times. If he was a Jose Mourinho type (I'm not sure if you'll know that reference) I could understand a little hostility. As it is, I'm at a loss.
Correct. I don't get that reference. And if you don't get the angle I'm running, no problem there either. Just put out what you got to say.
Still no evidence? Case closed.
I've no case to make. I've asked for evidence of Craig's egotism. You haven't got any, because it's fabricated. Don't worry, your arguments are gossamer thin and those with a modicum of intelligence see straight through them.
Out of all of the films Daniel Craig has done, the one you like is arguably the worst one he's ever done? Unless you're saying that you enjoy Craig so much (which it doesn't seem that way in your previous 'analysis') that you even enjoyed 'Dream House.'
I actually do like Dream House the film. Its a great little psychological mystery drama. I've seen it twice. I want to see it again. It does lend itself to repeat viewing, if only to suss out what's actually going on. Good cast too. Naomi Watts and Rachel Weisz. Craig is very convincing in the lead role. I won't spoil but it's a rather "interesting" character that he plays.
I do recommend this film moreso than Cowboys and Aliens and other Craig films of the post CR era.
The knock on Dream House, if I understand correctly is that the filmmakers, including Craig, weren't happy with the finished product and so they all kind of disowned it, so it got no promotion, but still it works well enough, I think.
As for Craig, I am pretty sure I've seen every major release that he has been in, barring some of the lesser known stuff he did pre CR.
He's quite good in Flashbacks of a Fool, Defiance, Invasion. Those are the films that jump out. I didn't like Cowboys and Aliens though. I actually don't mind his Bond movies as stand alone entertainment. But I truly don't like them as Bond offerings.
Asfor the thread title question re SF having lost gloss and appeal?
I can honestly say that SF, surpirse surprise, after initial viewing, never had any gloss or real appeal for me, other than the novelty of being the new Bond film, therefore it hasn't lost anything.
If anything I've grown to appreciate what it manages to do well and thus enjoy it more than when I first saw it. Thus I vote no. It's lost nothing.
And to me, Craig is equal (but VERY different) to Moore in that I fully appreciate him & his Bond, but I *do* like the other four a bit better.
YES! We need to start a club. =D>
Sign me up!
As for the topic at hand, in brutal honesty, I really didn't like SF at all once it was released. It was very underwhelming and I had complaints about many issues with it, but having waited four years for another Bond film, coupled with the fact that everyone else seemed to love it, I watched it more and more in theaters and felt like I was subconsciously forcing myself to love it. It came out on blu-ray, so I bought myself a copy and everytime I watch it, it has its good moments and its bad ones. It's my least favorite in this Craig trilogy we currently have, and I hope B24 is better.
SF has some very excellent scenes, and some bad ones. It has some hilarious lines, and some cheesy, shoe-horned lines. It's got some great fight scenes and some terribly poor ones. It has clever moments and plot holes (but what film doesn't come with its fair share of plot holes and bloopers?) Overall, it's a good Bond film: not great, but not terrible, either.
Mine is Serenity, but that's OT.
So, SF is still my #3 Craig film, and a middling one in terms of the franchise.
:-/
Will it start to slip down members Bond film lists ?
God, I hope so. I really disliked this film.
so, does Skyfall's fate lean to it probably being knocked down a peg or two?.... maybe... but in this and other Bond communities it's near impossible to find that 1 Bond film that everyone will universally agree is the best - everyone has their own unique way of looking at the series... no matter how many polls are conducted, there will always be a few that will say "that poll is rubbish.".......... no matter what we think here, it's the opinions of the other 99% of the movie going population that matter most - to them Skyfall delivered - and many of them maybe wont watch the movie but a handful of times in their lifetime... as Bond fans, we watch the movies so regularly that they get over-scrutinized on every little ounce of detail..... but what Skyfall proved is that Bond is as popular as ever with it's record breaking box office - and in a franchise that (lets face it) has very few critical high water marks, it set a new bench mark in that regards as well.... and as it stands right now, Skyfall might very well be this generation's Goldfinger or Thunderball - but time will tell whether it can hold that spot or not..
I very much love the film still to this day - yes the plot is a bit contrived, and certain things are a little far fetched - but it was masterfully directed, beautifully shot, and the acting was outstanding - and it had very good trademark moments (for myself anyway) - like Bond stalking Patrice in Shanghai.. The Scotch duel between Bond and Silva.. and of course the final battle at Skyfall Lodge.. these will live on as classic moments for me..
You claim DC is taking Bond in a harder and grittier direction, and he mayagree to a certain point that this is partly his doing, but the schitzofrenic winks at films past are by far his idea. I know for a fact that it was Mendes who made the Aston Martin DB5 into the Bond-one, fittet with guns, etc. Otherwise it would've been just th Aston Bond won in the Bahama's in CR.
You think the dialogue between Q and Bond is a statement that GE (pen) is bad and LTK (gun) is good. I don'see why. For me the whole scene is just made to introduce a new Q, whom tells us he's less of a gadget man but still delivers the more practical devices.
The film scoring is definately not Craigs doing, he has nothing to say about that, that would be very strange indeed. Same goes for the editing. Again, the GB at the end of SF is Mendes's choice.
Perhaps they've been trying too hard to connect with the older films. Perhaps. but with a series this long it's hard to keep old fans of, what is it by now? five (!) generations happy AND appeal to a new one I think they're doing a splendid job, and they've got a really good actor who's giving his own interpretation of a character created 60 years ago.
I find it astonishing how little people understand the creative control a director has... whatever is shown within that frame is either Mendes' vision, or he approved it... that goes from the script, lighting, sets, editing, and music.... nothing is ever done without his approval first...... Directors are control freaks - I should know, I've worked on a couple films sets and i've directed 3 of my own short films and i'm in the middle of writing my 4th..