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
When you turn 64 you may look upon such photos with a different eye.
Don't we all?
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/04/29/19/2824E75300000578-3061332-image-a-2_1430332811350.jpg
It's all a matter of opinion. I personally think that for all of Daniel Craig's four films the writers (John Logan, Jezz Butterworth, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Paul Haggis) wisely avoided writing campy 'one liners'. But I also ask myself the question now: How would you write a good one liner then, if all we can do these days is complain about them?
I also disagree with you saying "that others before him have done it far better". In my personal opinion, the acting skills of Pierce Brosnan made his one liners sound way more a pastiche of the past than with Daniel Craig. Badly written or not, Craig knows how to act, even in the two Bond movies that didn't receive universal aclaim.
I especially disagree with you calling Daniel Craig a "reboot Bond in every way". I find that actually a bit belittling and it ignores his wonderful acting skills. He portrayed a fully rounded Bond character from the start of "Casino Royale" until the end credits of "SPECTRE". To me he started off as a rogue, blunt instrument, became even more angry and vengeful in QOS, together with his emotions. Then he got his character more in check during the PTS of SF, he resurrected once more and was chasing perhaps the most influential villain of his reign, and then in SP he actually showed the swagger, style and bits of believable and credible humour that we eventually know the Bond character for.
That's how I see it. And regardless of the stories, Daniel Craig so far gave us a Bond that truly evolved. By letting him be himself on set, by not writing too many one liners ("Yes Maam", "Right Sir", "Will do Sir"), by adding a bit more grunchy one liners, instead of cheesy ones ("Io sono Topolino!"), letting the environment create some humour for him (falling on a sofa, and his subsequent funny, yet natural smirk) he was very much the 'Daniel Craig James Bond', and certainly not a 'Reboot Bond'.
So what do I expect Daniel Craig to do in Bond #25? Dear Daniel? Take the humour again a bit further. If you can have fun in "Logan Lucky", man you sure can have more fun in simply 'living' your mission :-). I'm ccertainly not afraid that it won't work, because Daniel actually can act. Give us a better story than SP, more riveting, trendsetting and unique action sequences, and your wonderful smirky smile! Do your mission this time, let the story be entirely 'capsuled' around a proper mission in which you....follow orders this time.....and I am sure Bond #25 will be another fine, wonderful entry in the franchise :-).
Bond 25, Pick it up 2 years after Spectre, no mention of what happened in Spectre. Quite simply Bond does not wish to discuss or bring up the past. Just have MI6 operational, and Bond in service and on a mission. No back story, no Team MI6 to give high profile supporting cast their time on screen, just give us a CR type adventure and drop a bombshell twist at the end of it. Thanks.
Kind Regards
Sir Hils.
I'm into that.
I was thinking yesterday, of course, totally out of the blue. WHAT IF, Nicolas Winding Refn's "The Avenging Silence", written by P&W, turns out to be BOND 25 working/secret title? We haven't heard anything from this movie...that would blown our minds. :D
Haha, so you also came up with that Jake? I haven't seen it. Anyway, I'm joking too, of course. But would be amazing.
As good as 71 and his other shows may be, I'm slightly confused how he's a candidate to be director of a multi million if not billion dollar franchise. Villeneuve is a 1000x better choice.
I've been saying this since it was first mentioned!
B) Madeline gets kidnapped or killed and Blofeld escapes prison. Huge twist at the ending maybe Madeline was bad all a long or something crazy.
Keep in mind this is not traditional James Bond anymore this is a rebooted series so they need to go out with a bang. I rank the movies entertaining wise as CR, SP, Qos and then SF. CR and SP had a lot of great cinematography and every scene was to the point. I don't like when they make the movie boring and drag it on. Love when they just make everything to the point and simple. James Bond is a pretty simple character no need for a backstory or anything, kinda like Dr who. You can have a new actor and keep the story rolling with no problems. Just my take.. I think Craig is back but for one more then we get a younger Bond.
This is a discussion forum @bondjames :-). No need to be grumpy. Always curious what others think...
You're right on the latter, Glad to see you haven't changed over the years :)
Yes, indeed. He's pretty amazing and getting better with each film he directs. I'm looking forward to Blade Runner 2049.
I'm always curious to hear your thoughts as well, even if I usually disagree with them.
so, who are you then? What's was your last name on here?
I don't think for a second he's still qualified for the part, just that he's exceptionally fit for a man his age.
:))
Of course, the actor and the character are normally very different things. He definitely isn't playing himself as Bond. Like many actors who may do many serious roles/characters he seems to be a fun dude. But the real people and what they are interested in or good at in acting are a different matter. He might not even be interested in doing quite a Moore-ish Bond, or might not be very good at it if he did. He does have comedy chops, too (not at all surprisingly), but there must also be good reasons why the more "serious" actors (role/character/movie choice-wise, not their personalities) rarely do comedy stuff. How one is as a person and how they work are such different things that I'm not convinced he could do Moore "with relative ease". I suspect it looks easier than it actually is.
If only...
I sure hope not, sounds very off-putting to me.
"Logan Lucky reviewers did not receive a press kit, which typically highlights the back story of key participants in a project, and only were given a bare-bones list of credits as they appear in the film. Also unusual, there is no press junket planned, despite the fact that the film is receiving a wide release on Aug. 18 and features a high-profile cast of movie stars that also includes Katherine Waterston, Riley Keough, Katie Holmes, Seth MacFarlane and Hilary Swank.
A representative for Bleecker Street, the company that is releasing the film, declined comment.
If that's the case, then presumably he wont be promoting 'Kings' either.