This is not me having a go at Daniel's acting ability at all or the film itself, both are great. I just think that Skyfall's narrative revolves around the idea of Bond being a bit older and more experienced. The last time we saw Craig on screen he had only just finished his becoming cinematic Bond arc. The jump Skyfall implicitly makes doesn't work for me and I can't buy it. I feel like there's been a significant gap between the end of Quantum and the start of Skyfall, a gap I can't just brush over (for me such harms the characterisation they put all that effort into). The film also requires me to be really invested in the Judi Dench M relationship. They have only had two films together so far, and in those films I felt that what they achieved was the establishment of some great groundwork for that relationship, ready to be pushed even further in later installments. It really felt like it was too early to tear what they had built up down. Why Pierce would have been better is that he always portrayed Bond as a weathered character who is tortured, and out of his time somewhat (Skyfall tries to do this but it doesn't gel with how Craig acted in the last two). Plus his relationship with Judi Dench's M was even more developed, and the two had much better chemistry in my opinion. Craig crying at the end for her felt un-earned and completely out of character for this Bond. To me this film felt like Pervis and Wade were writing for the Brosnan character again.
What do you lot think?
Comments
This is funny. I needed that.
Your wife says no
Life is hard.
Here's mine: you are sealioning. Thank you. Goodbye.
Oh wait...that's The World Is Not Enough...
I was wondering myself sometimes if Skyfall could have been made with Brosnan.
First of all, Skyfall is a blatant rip-off of TWINE and GE (Alec Trevelyan character).
The relationship with M and Bond is the same for Brosnan and Craig.
Brosnan would have been fine in Skyfall.
Skyfall may have lush production values compared to TWINE but then it was made in 2012 and TWINE in 1999 which makes all the difference, just look at the budget difference.
Of course you will make no friends here with such theories.
Truth be told, the biggest difference between CR and SF (and now Spectre) to the Brosnan era is the budget and production value on all levels.
If GoldenEye or TND would have had the same budget as QOS or SF, they would have looked quite different.
Also never forget that the exact same Purvis and Wade are responsible for every script since TND.
The second biggest difference between those eras is QOS, that movie can only be imagined with Craig, it is unique.
Also the realism was brought back and the humour more or less abandoned. Otherwise the Dalton era resembles the Craig era also quite a lot if you consider the budget difference and the vast period of time that lies between those two eras.
Brozzer's hair was the highlight of his movies, that barnet was just ludicrously charismatic. I'm surprised they didn't give it's own tv show.
Books and movies are not the same.
SF recycled the former/rogue agent with a grudge towards M totally.
No, no, no
Just for laughs, you know.
"M, I'm taking you to a safe place. Let's go, toots."
Books and movies may not be the same, but in this instance we talk about a series of novels that actually inspired the movies, directly or indirectly. Silva has a lot from the novel's Drax, so do Trevelyan and Gustav Graves. MR might have been the most adapted novel of all of Fleming's work!
Frankly I'd sign him for another 4 films and get him to redo the lot of them no matter how old he gets. Brosnan, the man with the golden grimace as one critic said, for me killed the bond franchise and the love i had for the films from a child. Thank god for DC. He made it credible and acceptable again to admit to being a James Bond fan.
TWISNE
Bond: I can protect you
Hot air balloon chick: Not from him.
Skyfall -
Severine: How much do you know about evil?
Bond: All there is.
Severine: Not like him.