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
I'm surprised I was first to post it. I'm used to it always being someone who's really fast at keeping us informed of any new content here : )
Wellllll... :P
I certainly expect he'll go back to smaller films after Bond (I'd be surprised if he didn't), and I'd imagine that's what he'd want to do anyway. Smaller films can be a good place to be for many reasons, and he won't be needing the money, either, of course.
I don't think it's unfortunate people know he's not actually Bond-like himself. Nobody should think actors are like their characters, anyway. It's called acting for a reason.
@Tuulia, I didn't mean he's not like Bond himself (that's true though), but rather that the Bond role is so not his style......in the sense that he is an actor who would probably naturally gravitate to so many other roles rather than Bond.
He's sort of acting against type with the James Bond role in a big way (in relation to the kind of roles he normally takes). It's also very high profile and he's generally a low profile sort of actor.....yet he has been extraordinarily successful with it to date (both critically and financially). An oxymoron in a way.
The recent interviews.....actually all of them over time.....have sort of drawn attention to this....i.e. that he is basically an indie style character actor in a movie star's role.
That's not a bad thing, but the paparazzi are unforgiving because they probably want a 'movie star' type in this role who plays to their vanities and courts the press......particularly the US media.
Not much of a Broz or Rog fan. They both move like farm animals (Rog like slow Ox, and Broz like smaller more nimble beast, like fox running around in henhouse), but I do like their films, especially the Rog films.
But with SP looking to be a potentially great Bond film, I may be coming around.
That's all I've asked that he cut back the angst and just enjoy playing 007.
We may get that with SP.
If the movie is smash hit, which I'm sure it will be then Dan will be amped to come back.
I figure he's good for one more film, more likely two.
Hamilton didn't threaten to cut wrists if he had to direct another Bond.
Dalton is my favorite. I thought he captured Fleming's Bond more than any other actor. SirHilary, you are one serious dude. Lighten up.
Ah, ok, yes, I see...
Well, I'd say actors should do very different kinds of roles and challenge themselves in many other kinds of ways with their jobs. He has done that by taking the Bond role in the first place as well and doing with it what he has done. The major difference with this role compared to others he has done is the size - with which comes the amount of time it takes - one could do several smaller movies in the time it takes to do one Bond movie - so the long, exhausting shoots. And with the size also comes far more promotional work, more media attention, more fan attention, paparazzi, etc. The role in itself is just a role, and he approaches is as he would other roles. The difference is all the other stuff.
I don't think he's acting against type at all - not in the sense that I understand that expression and have seen it used before, anyway. He didn't have a certain "type" before this he'd now be acting against. The size of the beast is vastly different, of course, and that has been tough on him, apparently. Like I said before, actors react differently to changed circumstances, and he has been sort of fighting against the beast all the way, which doesn't really help his situation, but he doesn't seem to be able to relax about it. Like I also said before I suppose the Bond beast might be tougher than other big ones, so he may have more to handle than other actors in big franchise leading roles, I don't really know.
I agree with your description of him as "an indie style character actor in a movie star's role". He has simply refused the movie star bit, really, like some others have, and remained the actor and person he was before - which, I think, is how it should be. Losing oneself is just the stupidest and most unfortunate thing that can happen to anyone who becomes rich and famous.
Of course, paparazzi and tabloids and the internet are unforgiving. As unpleasant and unfortunate as that might be... ultimately it is unimportant.
LOL!!! =))
I didn't like Lazenby or Dalton in the role. They have their moments. But I love all the films. I don't not like any Bond era
Dalton 's theatre background meant he over acted on screen. In his films I think he also had the weakest supporting cast l. I don't dislike anyone's tenure. Connery is regarded by many as the greatest Bond. Craig however is the best actor who took on the role.
What annoys me is the spoilt brat mentality when people criticise EON and Dan when really they have brought in Oscar winning or nominated directors. Turned Bond from what had become a cliché joke to serious darks spy thrillers. And that's why Bond has its greatest ever global audience. I come across so many new fans who love Dan in the role, but have no time for what became before. The films story stands up on there own without flooding them with Gadgets, cheesy puns and cramming in as many trophy women for Bond. But you confirmed my point. You came on here having a go at Craig over a quote said in humour and taken out of context. You let the tabloid headlines drive your opinion. If you read back, you can see a video from Time Out and what was said and the tone. I have never known a Bond actor who's whole tenure has been about who will be the next Bond. Elba, Damien Lewis, Hardy and everyone linked to the role by the press have spoken to the press expressing a desire to take over. When really they should have shown a bit more respect by saying "Dan is Bond, he does a great job it would be wrong to comment". And I agree that Dan doesn't make it easy by not commiting to a return after each film, however to do so compromises your ability to negotiate terms, It's clear Dan also wants to ensure the correct director on each project is someone he wants to work with so it's not possible to commit right after a film.
Although I don't entirely agree he overacted, this is something many don't realize - on stage you have to overemphasize otherwise your performance will be missed by those viewing it from anywhere between 10-40 metres away.
A camera is often right up-close, so a performance needs to be far more nuanced.
Having said that I do agree that DC is the best pure cinema actor to be 007 - he never overacts or underplays the role - quite simply the guy is just pure quality and many don't notice it because he makes it look SO easy.
Bond fans don't know how good they have it with Dan in the role... I remember thinking 10 years ago when he was announced - "Thank goodness we have a quality actor now"
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/10843/bond-25-production-diary-will-daniel-craig-return-for-bond-25#latest
That way we haven't got two identical discussions going on.