Anyone love Craig as an actor, but can't buy him as James Bond?

2456

Comments

  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,243
    Germanlady wrote:
    Would you feel the same way, if all this praise would have gone to Dalton? This is meant as a sincere question, not insult.

    Yes indeed. I am no fool and though I love Dalton's take, it would be insulting. I know that Connery is the reason Bond took off and he did a phenomenal job as Bond. No Connery means no Dalton.

    I also give credit to Roger Moore for at least giving the series a new flavour. And it was fine for the era it was set in.

    I do appreciate Daniel Craig, but even he I doubt would balls out say he is the best. He is great with his interpretation and should be valued in that context.

    But there seems to be so much revisionism. I actually think Roger Moore is too modest about his contribution to the series. He certainly added something special.



  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,425
    acoppola wrote:
    Germanlady wrote:
    Would you feel the same way, if all this praise would have gone to Dalton? This is meant as a sincere question, not insult.

    Yes indeed. I am no fool and though I love Dalton's take, it would be insulting. I know that Connery is the reason Bond took off and he is did a phenomenal job as Bond. No Connery means no Dalton.

    I also give credit to Roger Moore for at giving the series a new flavour. And it was fine for the era it was set in.

    I do appreciate Daniel Craig, but even he I doubt would balls out say he is the best. He is great with his interpretation and should be valued in that context.

    But there seems to be so much revisionism. I actually think Roger Moore is too modest about his contribution to the series. He certainly added something special.



    Rog takes way too much criticism. His era is unfairly maligned as a non-stop, eyebrow-raising cheese-fest, when IMO, it gave us many of the most memorable, tension-filled and simply enjoyable entries in the series. I get so bored of people slagging off the Moore era or using it as lazy short-hand for 'dumb and campy'. Rog rocked. He's firmly ensconsed at No.2 in my hall of fame, just behind Sir Sean. The Daltinator sits is in a solid bronze medal position, with DC and Laz in 4th and 5th and right at the back, poor old Brozza bringing up the rear.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 6,601
    DC would be the last to say anyting even close to this. He is more known to put himself down.

    On a whole, I always felt the love for Connery was a bit over the top. He defined the character yes, but that doesn't make anybody else following him inferior and I mean ALL of them.
    If those others hadn't followed, who would talk about Bond anymore? Nobody. Sean Connery? He woud be far less known or praised. So - in this way - his importance relays as much on those, who followed and made the character their own, as its the other way around. Its a circle.

    IMO - ALL of them were successful enough to make it to 50 years and that in its own answers the question. There is no BEST really, more and less successful, yes, but each ensured the legacy.
    So - is DC the best? No, as there is no BEST in my mind. Just different actors, who were almost all hugely popular during their run. DC just is - too.

    Sir Roger certainbly made a terrific Bond, whom I still can enjoy. The Connery films to me are not very enjoyable anymore, for example.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    I haven't seen him for sale.

    If they put Eva Green up for auction, I'd be there.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,425
    Glad to see you're following me around again GL!

    Have to say that I disagree (predictably) about Sir Sean. I think if the films had ended with YOLT, Bond would still be remembered (and copied) to this very day. Those 5 films were epoch-defining in terms of style, design, fashion, music and helped confirm the status of the 60s as one of the most important in the history of popular culture. Connery's performances are incredible and, for me at least, still immensely enjoyable. I very much doubt that had Sir Rog been in those films that they would hold the same status that they do today. Sean was perfect for that era, just as Sir Rog seemed better suited to the 70s and 80s.

    I very much doubt that had ANY of the other 4 actors been around and cast at the time that the series would have enjoyed anything like the success it has done. None of them (IMO) has the same superstar screen presence of Connery, or even of Sir Rog. That's not to say they're not good actors, just that there was something about the leading men of that era that doesn't seem to exist these days. Connery in particular and Moore to a lesser extent are old school screen idols.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited November 2012 Posts: 3,497
    She's not following you around, she's voicing her opinion.

    As much as I like most of sir Sean's outings as Bond, not everyone sees them as the ultimate Bondfilms. Which is another reason this series has survived for 50 years.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,425
    JamesCraig wrote:
    She's not follow you around, she's voicing her opinion.

    As much as I like most of sir Sean's outings as Bond, not everyone sees them as the ultimate Bondfilms. Which is another reason this series has survived for 50 years.

    Well, she was telling me to avoid her yesterday. Then I bump an 18 month old thread and up she pops. But don't worry, it was actually meant as a joke.
  • Posts: 6,601
    I should have quoted accopola, because I was answering to his post, which is quite noticeable actually.
  • I'll say this. I think Casino Royale and now Skyfall are two of the best Bond films ever made because they have great plots, great action, and great acting. Daniel does a great job acting because he is clearly the best actor to ever play the role of James Bond. However, even considering all that I just don't think he looks quite right. Daniel has never looked the way I would imagine Bond in my head, unlike Sean or Pierce do, and I'm afrae he never will. I still think Fassbender would look more like a proper James Bond. That said, I still love Daniel's movies and will enjoy watching him in at least two more because while he may not be the best Bond, he's in some of the best Bond films.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,243
    Germanlady wrote:
    DC would be the last to say anyting even close to this. He is more known to put himself down.

    On a whole, I always felt the love for Connery was a bit over the top. He defined the character yes, but that doesn't make anybody else following him inferior and I mean ALL of them.
    If those others hadn't followed, who would talk about Bond anymore? Nobody. Sean Connery? He woud be far less known or praised. So - in this way - his importance relays as much on those, who followed and made the character their own, as its the other way around. Its a circle.

    IMO - ALL of them were successful enough to make it to 50 years and that in its own answers the question. There is no BEST really, more and less successful, yes, but each ensured the legacy.
    So - is DC the best? No, as there is no BEST in my mind. Just different actors, who were almost all hugely popular during their run. DC just is - too.

    Sir Roger certainbly made a terrific Bond, whom I still can enjoy. The Connery films to me are not very enjoyable anymore, for example.


    I have to agree here @Germanlady. To me there is no best. Whilst I respect Connery hugely, he is not the one and only. Cubby Broccoli proved that after Sean left the franchise. There is something about each one I really enjoy. I used to hate George Lazenby for years, but one day on watching OHMSS, I really liked him.

    One thing about any Bond film, even Moonraker is that so much work goes into making that film and I always bear that in mind. Each Bond is a labour of love. Even DAD, which is not my favourite has some moments I appreciate.

    I also came back full circle to appreciating Roger Moore.As much as I like realistic and true to Fleming, I do love his light touch. It certainly suited his personality and therefore was believable in the context. He is the funniest Bond. Better than many comedians I see these days.

  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    Getafix wrote:
    Glad to see you're following me around again GL!

    Have to say that I disagree (predictably) about Sir Sean. I think if the films had ended with YOLT, Bond would still be remembered (and copied) to this very day. Those 5 films were epoch-defining in terms of style, design, fashion, music and helped confirm the status of the 60s as one of the most important in the history of popular culture. Connery's performances are incredible and, for me at least, still immensely enjoyable. I very much doubt that had Sir Rog been in those films that they would hold the same status that they do today. Sean was perfect for that era, just as Sir Rog seemed better suited to the 70s and 80s.

    I very much doubt that had ANY of the other 4 actors been around and cast at the time that the series would have enjoyed anything like the success it has done. None of them (IMO) has the same superstar screen presence of Connery, or even of Sir Rog. That's not to say they're not good actors, just that there was something about the leading men of that era that doesn't seem to exist these days. Connery in particular and Moore to a lesser extent are old school screen idols.

    With Connery, his director Terence Young had a lot to do with making Connery come across as smooth and suave. Sean was actually very rough and they needed to make him get used to wearing a suit. Terence would take him out to learn about the finer things in life. Even how Sean moved was influenced by Terence who saw himself as a James Bond type and added those attributes to Connery.



    I think with modern style film making, there is a different approach. In the old days, most shots would be set up to flatter the lead actor. But nowadays they try to make characters more believable by not making them jump off the screen.

    The old style would not work in today's modern cinema. Acting standards have changed dramatically pardon the pun.

    An example is someone like Christian Bale. He is a brilliant actor and a star, but he is more subdued and less camera conscious. But he holds your attention in a different way to a Cary Grant.

    Do I think Bond would have been a success if an actor other than Sean played the part first. I could be wrong, but if Cary Grant was Bond for a few films and used Terence's guidance then who knows. It is almost the reverse of asking if Bond could be successful without Sean Connery after he left the franchise.

    The actor is a factor and a major one. But then so is the director and the other people on board who have to make sure it looks good and is exciting. It takes more than one person to make a Bond.

  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    Great posts @Germanlady and @acoppola, I agree completely.
  • Posts: 12,526
    I like Craig as a person all round. What you see is what you get and no nonsense. I think he is a great actor and an absolute bonus that he has played 007 in the last three movies which once again has rejuvenated the series.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,243
    Sandy wrote:
    Great posts @Germanlady and @acoppola, I agree completely.

    Thanks @Sandy Actually, this post made me think about something. I used to make the mistake of going to see a Bond film in the cinema and instead of enjoying it as it's own movie, I would sit through the screening comparing the other actors to the actor I was watching. And I ruined the film for myself. It was silly looking back what I would do.

    And I realised something. If Sean was the best, then what would be the point of me watching the other films in the series? I always go to see every Bond film because they always provide great bang for the buck. It is a quality brand even during the worst times for the franchise. Give me DAD over the XXX franchise any day!

    As for best Bond. Depends on my mood. On some days I will watch a Bond film with the actor that suits my mood. If I feel down, I watch Roger for instance. He fits the bill. If I want deeply psychological and modern then Craig is the man. They all cover something that is like an aspirin to the headache that is life.

    Bond is like food. If you watch the same actor over and over ignoring the others, then you will get bored of that actor after a while. Who likes eating the same thing every day?

    Bond has a great menu of six actors so far who add not detract from my enjoyment.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    I can find enjoyment in every Bond film, of course my least favourite is DAD and made myself watch it again this year because otherwise it's not something I would pick up spontaneously. But even in that mess of a film I can find a few scenes that I like. When people over-analyse and become obsessed about a certain idea they have about what should be a Bond (or other) film they stop enjoying and that is the worst thing that could happen to them, because they will never be satisfied.
    For example, I probably watched OP more than any other Bond film. It's not the best Bond film, not my favourite, it's not even my favourite Moore Bond. I prefer the more serious ones however, when I want to have some fun, it's the one I pick up.
  • Posts: 1,548
    I wonder if those muppets who started the "Craig Is not Bond" website have been released from the asylum yet?
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,243
    Sandy wrote:
    I can find enjoyment in every Bond film, of course my least favourite is DAD and made myself watch it again this year because otherwise it's not something I would pick up spontaneously. But even in that mess of a film I can find a few scenes that I like. When people over-analyse and become obsessed about a certain idea they have about what should be a Bond (or other) film they stop enjoying and that is the worst thing that could happen to them, because they will never be satisfied.
    For example, I probably watched OP more than any other Bond film. It's not the best Bond film, not my favourite, it's not even my favourite Moore Bond. I prefer the more serious ones however, when I want to have some fun, it's the one I pick up.

    Yeah they all have their merits. Having seen so many people review Bond films on Youtube, it is glaringly obvious that audiences are so cynical and more so than I remember. What one person loves the other one hates. And that must make it a fine balancing act for the Bond makers these days.

    A film that takes 2 years to get made can be destroyed by someone on Youtube in 3 minutes.

    The Bond producers have to move with the times whilst keeping a foot in the past. Take QOS. I liked it in the cinema and understood why Bond was how he was in that film. But then others said he was not Bondy enough. But I am someone who does not mind slight departures if it suits the story.

    But I am also someone who prefers a serious Bond film to stay true to it's intention. You cannot please everyone and sometimes Bond films suffer when they attempt that.

    Roger Moore's era in a way had less interference than say Daniel Craig. What I mean is that if I was the producer and went on the internet, I would be damn confused as to what people want and cannot avoid all the conflicting views people have.

    In Roger's or Sean's days, only people close to the industry would have an input and maybe the occasional fan that they met. And perhaps that is why those films left a huge mark on the series because the hands were less tied in terms of freedom to just get on with it without reading "do this" or "do that".

    And audiences I feel were more grateful back then than they are now. I mean sometimes films are so disposable these days. Someone like my mum was amazed at LALD when she saw it in the cinema. It was like nothing else and she was not polluted by others negativity. In a way, I envy her.

  • Posts: 173
    Sandy wrote:
    Great posts @Germanlady and @acoppola, I agree completely.

    ... and so do I. This is why I don't particularly enjoy the ranking obsession with Bond actors (as though it were a competition). Like Ebert, I've ceased caring or entering into that pointless debate. I think people can very well come up with their favorite Bond, which is completely different and totally valid, as is trying to explain what it is about that particular Bond or his interpretation that makes him your own personal favorite. That is an enjoyable debate when it doesn't descend into insulting and slagging off your least favorites in a totally unfair dismissal of their contribution. In all honesty, as Bond fans, I think we can pretty much find something enjoyable in even our least favorite Bonds or the movies they starred in.
  • All the Bond actors have had great moments in the role, some just more than others depending on personal taste. But it seems, as many others have noted and agree with, that the Bond actor you most prefer is the one you were first exposed to. Not a hard and fast rule but generally it seems to be true. As an original fan, Connery was still Bond (well not technically in 1968 but then there was no OHMSS at that point) and I tend to prefer those actors such as Dalton and Craig who play the role closer to what he did. I enjoy Sir Roger for exactly how Dalton described him, for his "peerless ability to send himself up". That's the difference between him and Brosnan, he tried much the same but no one can duplicate Roger for his charm and style. Even if you dislike his style of Bond, it's impossible for me to not like him. MR is the only film of his 7 that I find to have little to no value.

    I think Craig is JB and then some at this point after having seen SF. I rate and value him as highly as I ever did Dalton, who I loved right off in 1987. He was just what the series needed, just like when Craig came along. Both replaced lighter versions of Bond and brought depth of character, while the scripts brought storyline over mindless action and sight/sound gags.
  • Posts: 232
    As much as I enjoy all of Craig's Bond films, I'm not sure I'd be that bummed if they replaced him for the next film. I think Craig brings a very interesting interpretation of Bond, that is a little from the books and a little from modern action hero movies. But unfortunately, it seems inescapable that Craig will never fit comfortably in the filmic Bond role that has been established through the years. It seems to show a sort of Production insecurity to be constantly skirting the Bond of old, to present the Craig version. The first two Craig films establishes a rough around the edges Bond that is learning to become the Bond we know, and now Skyfall presents a Bond that seems to be a bit tired with one foot near retirement. We never get the bona fide Bond with Craig, which leaves me to suspect, that he's not believable for that mold. As much as I'm charmed by Craig, I'm not sure where they can take his version of Bond after Skyfall.
  • Posts: 6,601
    I think, we will get the most "normal" Bond film with 24. Its all established now...
  • Germanlady wrote:
    I think, we will get the most "normal" Bond film with 24. Its all established now...

    Exactly. It's all been set up now for just that with the usual supporting cast now established.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Hmmm. Isn't that what we were all saying after QoS though...?

    I think Jarrod's got a point. Although where they take Bond from here, I'm not sure.

    Therapy?
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    Getafix wrote:
    Hmmm. Isn't that what we were all saying after QoS though...?

    I think Jarrod's got a point. Although where they take Bond from here, I'm not sure.

    Therapy?

    Actually, we already had three Bondfilms. Changing some details, making a direct sequel and exploring his origin doesn't change that fact.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Your point being...?
  • Getafix wrote:
    Hmmm. Isn't that what we were all saying after QoS though...?

    I think Jarrod's got a point. Although where they take Bond from here, I'm not sure.

    Therapy?

    Therapy? That was funny.

    Point taken about QOS. But instead of a normal adventure, the focus was on a farewell to M and establishing the new regulars. It was good though to see Craig's Bond more polished and looking much closer to what we generally expect of the character. Just would have liked a little more cliche in the way of the girl in the end. But the end scene, well, I believe the impression of normalcy was delivered as strongly as possible and I feel good that next time all the cliches will be there start to finish.
  • Getafix wrote:
    Hmmm. Isn't that what we were all saying after QoS though...?

    It is. People were saying it after CR too. And now we're still saying it. Before it was "Look at the end, he becomes Bond" then it was "the Vesper arc is finished and there's a gunbarrel" now it's "Q, Ms office and Moneypenny are there and there's a gunbarrel"

    I can give SF a pass since I loved it anyway but I really am hoping for a normal Bond with Bond 24.

    But that's hoping, not expecting. I've learned my lesson about that.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Getafix wrote:
    Hmmm. Isn't that what we were all saying after QoS though...?

    I think Jarrod's got a point. Although where they take Bond from here, I'm not sure.

    Therapy?

    Therapy? That was funny.

    Point taken about QOS. But instead of a normal adventure, the focus was on a farewell to M and establishing the new regulars. It was good though to see Craig's Bond more polished and looking much closer to what we generally expect of the character. Just would have liked a little more cliche in the way of the girl in the end. But the end scene, well, I believe the impression of normalcy was delivered as strongly as possible and I feel good that next time all the cliches will be there start to finish.

    And best of all, unlike last time, we shouldn't have to wait four years to see this. It's all good.
  • Posts: 232
    Maybe, it is all set up for Bond 24. But it doesn't change the fact that maybe the cliche Bond is not Craig's strongest suit. For example, I think Lazenby is awesome in O.H.M.S.S. playing a lesser confident (than Connery) Bond. But would he have worked for Goldfinger, probably not. I feel the same way about Craig, who I believe is best when emotionally conflicted. But maybe he wouldn't be as interesting or successful as the overly charming hero type.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Jarrod wrote:
    Maybe, it is all set up for Bond 24. But it doesn't change the fact that maybe the cliche Bond is not Craig's strongest suit. For example, I think Lazenby is awesome in O.H.M.S.S. playing a lesser confident (than Connery) Bond. But would he have worked for Goldfinger, probably not. I feel the same way about Craig, who I believe is best when emotionally conflicted. But maybe he wouldn't be as interesting or successful as the overly charming hero type.

    I don't think he wants to play that character.
Sign In or Register to comment.