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
@Mendes4Lyfe, a bold statement there, and nothing something we can readily predict with any accuracy. As you yourself just said, "It's a case of not jumping the gun and having the patience." Well, let's be patient and wait and see, then, 'cause I don't think Danny is done yet.
The vulnerability and sensitivity, coupled with the very rough and tumble action.
The difference is, mine's built on predictable patterns that are readily identifiable, if one cares to look. Brosnan and Craig are both amlagams, so it makes sense that that trend continues. Imagine it like puzzle with one piece missing - you know the exact shape of the missing peice based on the shape of the ones surrounding it. Brosnan and Craig are the only ones yet to be combined.
Who said 'reinvented the franchise'? Because I didn't. I said, 'redefined the role'. Which is exactly what he did post-Brosnan. You're doing some incredible bullshit gymnastics to stiff Craig out of the kudos he completely deserves.
I'm not the one arguing semantics. My argument still stands - Brosnan and Dalton would've killed to get the script and direction of Casino when they were Bond. It's exactly what they were hoping for and never got. If Craig did reinvent the role, it was because an actor was finally afforded the opportunity.
And that fact remains, Craig 'was' afforded that opportunity. This is the old, 'If only me auntie 'ad bollocks, she'd be me uncle' argument. Flaccid and agenda driven.
@Mendes4Lyfe, I didn't say Craig and Craig alone redefined things. It's why I explicitly mentioned him and his team that backed him up to give the films the feeling they did. Barbara and Michael at the top, Arnold, Campbell, Lamont, Gassner, Mendes, Forster, Deakins, Hoytema, etc all the way down. Filmmaking is always a team effort, obviously, and any great actor needs a good cast and crew to support him. It's never a one man show. Which is partially why I feel the way I do about the Craig era and see it as a return to how things were done, as no teams since 1969 have shown me such results across the board.
Dan's ability to do what he did is no doubt down to what EON want, and they were able to compromise. I don't think that invalidates anything he's done, though. He and Barbara had meetings right at the start to talk about where they could take his movies, as he wanted to experiment and do a Bond film that hadn't been seen in a long time with a different angle on Bond. It wasn't just Dan working to do what EON wanted, they built it all around what he wanted. Dan is involved in all parts of the process of making his films for a reason, and works like an actual producer (of which he's now credited in the series) to take the vision where he and the team all want it to go. So his decisions and his views do have a dramatic impact on what his movies are at the end of the day. He controls what Bond wears, he's had input on all the scripts (and even helped write here and there), he's gotten cast and crew like Bardem and Mendes to join the team, and so many more examples on top of essentially being a stuntman and member of the costume department. He's more responsible for crafting his version of Bond than any other before, easily, and the team backing him knew how to support him and really push his strengths. His dramatic ability, his physicality, his dry wit, etc. It was never about him being a slave like Brosnan was. His voice was heard the moment they auditioned him, and the era has always gone where he wanted. It's why some people get so sassy about EON these days. They're upset about all the control he has, and the unending power he's had to make his films what they are, as Cubby preferred a tighter leash.
I also don't think it's fair to say Dan just stumbled into his position. He has the advantage he has, sure, but nobody will ever have the advantage Sean did at his beginning. He had the best composer we've had in Barry, the best directors in Young and Hunt, the best writer in Maibaum, some of the best cinematographers in Freddie Young and Ted Moore, the best tailor in Anthony Sinclair, the best set designer in Ken Adam, the definitive M, Moneypenny and Q, the most iconic Bond girls, and on and on and on. Almost everything about Connery's films and OHMSS have a team working on them where all the major players are either the far and away best person who ever worked in their department in the series, or who would easily be in the top 3 in the entire 50 years of the series. That 60s team is unlike anything we'll ever see, and they accomplished films that will never be surpassed as iconic pieces. Sean had the advantage of a perfect team, and the films came at the perfect time. Being the first in the door, EON in the 60s could do anything they wanted without the movies being called rip-offs or unoriginal, as nothing existed before them.
Dan has had nothing similar to that despite his strong team. And despite the massive luck, perfect timing and perfect team Sean had that supported him and framed the most influential films of the series, I don't use all those unending advantages to say that he as a Bond actor doesn't deserve his acclaim or argue that he wasn't all that. If Connery came at the wrong time like Dan could've he wouldn't be in those iconic films, and wouldn't be given the massive advantage he had either. Timing works both ways. Dan arrives when EON don't want to risk anything, maybe films like CR and SF don't get made. If Sean missed out on the 60s and came in the 70s, he'd never have gotten the iconic and trend-setting films he had.
But both are great for how they worked for their teams the way they needed to at the time. It's timing and circumstance, of course, but how the chips fell is how they fell and that's all I care about discussing. The what-is, not what-if, as hypotheticals are meaningless. And what I see is a dramatic return to a Bond I thought was dead via Craig and his team.
@RC7, I was just as confused. As I mentioned in an above post, Sean had the best team of the entire series far and away, but we don't use that as an opportunity to say he wasn't great on his own. It would be a myopic and very blind statement if you argued that Sean was only great because he had the best team there to help him in every department. It's just as uneducated and bonkers to say the same about Craig.
Why piss on the Bond actors and their obvious talents for the great people that helped them at the right time? It's hysterical.
By all means feel free to big up Dan, but these comparisons, similar to ones made when Brosnan were around, tend to ring hollow after a few years.
Give it a couple of decades and then come back and reassess. I'm sure Dan will remain a popular Bond amongst many fans, but by then the dust will have settled and perspective will have allowed for some more sober judgments on his era.
I suspect he will be seen as one of the better Bonds but perhaps not as different or radical as some now feel.
@Getafix, I don't think you're reading the arguments straight. I or no other Craig supporters here are saying his movies overtake Sean's iconic ones; why bother comparing? I simply feel they are the best option since that point and excel in the same mission statement of strong characters, deeper scripts, artistic style, etc. Nowhere in there would anyone claim Craig or his films would take the place of Sean.
I don't think it's a hard point to argue that Dan's era has been refreshing since all this time, as George was one and done, the Moore films were so far their own way they became something else, Dalton's films never had consistency or longevity, Brosnan's had no consistency or much of anything else of notes. It's not hard for Dan to come in second in that case, to me, as the handle of the series was always greasy post-OHMSS. At least in this era the films knew what they were.
I just think you're over egging how amazing Dan is.
But yes I will definitley concede that in 2006 CR was refreshing. Having said that, it's dififcult to see what other direction EON could have taken. If anything they were rather slow to realise that the trajectory they were on previously was utterly tired and dated.
Well, EON could've just done the same thing, without change. Basically like they did from 73 to 2002 in many ways. This isn't a series known for taking risks, as much as I wish it was.
Craig was given more of a blank slate because of the reboot idea to redefine Bond, and he took the baton and ran with it. Kudos to him.
I feel he has done a very good job of it, but he has also boxed himself in because of how good he has been. Attempts to meld his approach with the old school tradition didn't work for me precisely because I bought into his reinterpretation of the role.
Having said that, his interpretation is precisely that. His. Once he is replaced, the next actor will bring his own, as they all have.
In terms of the comparisons to Connery, I find them inappropriate. Sean is what made DN what it was (along with Young and Adam) and created a phenomenon. He stood out and shone bright like no actor before or since in my humble view. When I watched CR recently, I realized it really was a team effort in full flow, just like GE & TSWLM were previously. A case of EON firing on all cylinders as a team (production, direction, casting, score, title track, sets etc. etc. etc.). A statement of intent from the most beloved of long running franchises.
That's what I want for B25. A statement of intent. A throwing down of the guantlet. A staking of territory. So that all pretenders know where they stand. I leave it to others to interpret what that can mean, because everyone will have their own interpretation based on their own preferences and biases, including most of all myself.
For me it's not about over egging Dan's ability, it's about recognising the impact he had. To claim, as was stated here, that DC has no identity of his own as Bond is false.
Fully agreed
Still think period films are one option
I say with complete confidence it would be franchise ending.
The thing is, to criticize Brosnan for being a cross of Moore and Connery is redundant.
By the time Broz got the role, every possible way of portraying Bond had been done.
Connery was the arrogant, cocky Bond. Lazenby was the tough but sensetive Bond. Moore was the smooth, laid back Bond, Dalton was the cold, detached Bond. What else could Brosnan, or for that matter Craig do that hasnt already been done?
Yes, and Bond actor 007 will be an amalgam of Craig and Brosnan, then the triangle will be complete.
His tenure has clearly demonstrated to me the perils of this approach. It's better to find oneself early and deliver a unique take on the character which comes from within. The audience will either like one's interpretation or not, but it will at least ring true and be genuine. This is what Dalton did in his 2nd and what Craig did in his first 2 in particular, imho.
I think had Brosnan played Bond like he played other characters in other movies he's done such as The Thomas Crown Affair, The Maditator, The November Man, etc. he would have been a tough ass Bond. I like his approach to playing Bond, and one could argue the same thing of Craig, he went for the Lazenby/Dalton style performance, then he evolved into the Connery style Bond.
I'm afraid I don't see Craig evolving into any Connery in his later performances. There was more Connery in Craig's work in CR than anything in SP, in my view. He hit it out of the park in his first two.