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
Reminds me of this scene from Naked Gun 47 secs in...
Ive got all the Naked Guns and Police Squad on DVD but i never tire of it...thanks for that wee treat Benster my old friend...brilliant haha !!!
Well, I took the figures from our forum :-). Given the fact how critical we all are, I think it's a wonderful percentage.
In fact Craig is viewed still, by many, as a mistake. Brosnan was universally loved, even before he was finally officially Bond, people wanted him badly.
All that Craig is the best since Connery is rubbish. Bond actor 7 will be popular too if the movies will be good.
Had CR been a mediocre movie Craig might even have been cut short in his tenure.
In general the actor that plays Bond is overrated in importance. If the movie sucks even the best actor will not save it and get the blame.
If the movie is an instant classic like CR, anyone could have played Bond.
I am not bashing Craig here, just saying. You can cast whomever for Bond 25 or 26 if Craig stays.
If the film is great, even Jamie bloody Bell would work probably.
If someone like Aidan Turner gets a great Bond film, he'll immediately be branded the best thing since Connery.
Absolute, categorical bollocks.
Brosnan was universally loved as Bond?
Count me out of that theory.
Pretty much every current bond is "the best Bond since Connery".
I once joked that hypothetically if country singer Kenny Rogers was cast as 007, and the promotion team marketed him as the closest to Fleming's Bond, there's enough gullible people out there to buy it and he would also be labeled "the best Bond since Connery".
Whenever there is a news article about Spectre, or Skyfall or something Bond in general the reader's comments speak volumes.
At least in the German-language region.
So it's not categorical bollocks.
Every rule has its exception.
Press the picture icon above the post and insert the url in between.
Who are these 'many' you speak of?
The millions of people who log into CraignotBond.com every day?
Craig as far as the general public is concerned and not the fanbase is the most significant actor since Connery, he changed the way the character is perceived.
EON never had the faith that Brosnan could take the character anywhere new, Craig they did, no his tenure has not been all successful but I would argue it's had more hits than misses than Brosnan which got rapidly worse after GE.
Craig's contribution to Bond will be recognised far more than Brosnan's I guarantee, only the fanbase element that have a hard on over Craig's acceptance and can't except he's something different and not just the next guy, that was Brosnan, Craig was new start and a significant one at that.
Of course Craig plays his part in all of this. But I refuse to believe he will be viewed upon any different than Brosnan or Moore in the future, once there is a new established actor.
Craig gets overrated in importance.
That's how the cycle seems to play- whatever is current usually considered the best by general cinema goers.
I agree, @RC7. Some comments instantly sound sensational for its own sake to the ear, but it could just be me.
Maybe some forget that Craig was an instrumental part of just why CR was a hit, and he was far and away the best thing about each of his other films, especially QoS, which people always shortchange. Saying otherwise does your statement little favors.
People that say otherwise also shortchange Connery just the same, remarking that anyone in the Bond role in the 60s would've thrived just as much as him, missing the fact that Connery was a massive part of why those films were big enough hits to be able to be continued, and why to this day he remains the defining face of Bond. That wasn't luck or timing, for Christ's sake, he was just that good.
I think Daniel has been massively loved and encouraged by the public, and thrived better than some of his past Bond actors from the past while facing astounding backlash from some of the public and media who were angry that his image didn't at first scream Bond. Then CR came and well, most of those mouths were shut up. Since then he's always gotten a majority vote in polls about him returning, including all those I've seen since SP came out, to a staggering degree.
Throw in his amazing work from behind the camera and he's far and away the most productive and involved Bond actor we've had in terms of getting each of his Bond films off the ground and building them from the ground up, from getting directors and actors involved, deciding on costume design, working with scripting, doing amazing stunts and selecting/influencing the art design and look of each film as well as the promotional materials. Dan has truly done it all, such that it's almost an insult to simply call him a Bond actor.
Examining Dan just for his acting talents as Bond in front of the camera completely fails to address the other aspects of the production he balances every day of shooting from behind it.
But this shouldn't be news to many here.
Mate, I'd appreciate an edit to remove my name from this ridiculous comment.
The other week you were telling us how SP was regarded as one the greatest films of all time in Switzerland. Slightly at odds with your new concept that Craig is 'still' seen as a mistake.
Craig did his part in CR. But it was really the movie itself that saved Craig from the constant negativity towards him before CR hit the theaters.
Just take away Eva Green from CR and imagine what would happen to the movie. If anyting SHE was what made CR a success acting wise. She plays Dan right to the wall in each and every scene and don't forget Mads Mikkelsen. Dan got lucky with his supporting cast which elevated him to a better level.
Again, I'm not bashing Craig. I love CR, I love QoS and I love SP, but I try to look at the bigger picture.
The reality is Craig will fast take Brosnan's place once the new actor has two movies in his portfolio.
CR and QoS I think play to DC's strengh, his last two films departed from that and highlighted DC's weaknesses.
I think it's pretty apparent that Dan's performance was what stopped him from facing negative backlash from critics and the collective audience, and reactions from that time will tell you that, as he's praised to high heaven, deservedly so. It was, after all, Dan who commanded the action, the poker scenes, filled out the suits better than any since Sean and he who was 1/2 the reason the film worked in the romance department alongside Eva. It wasn't just a one-sided acting situation like it can so often be with a Bond actor and his Bond girl, especially when the actresses they pick are only chosen for their looks and nothing else. It's a huge part of the reason why Vesper has made such an impression too, not just for what Eva did, but for how Dan acted and reacted beside her.
Personally I couldn't be happier with how much EON have moved away from the Cubby method. The films feel now more than ever a true team effort between the cast and crew, and not just a few higher-ups telling everyone else what to do without much communication or suggestions for improvement in between. This approach in Dan's hands has been executed quite successfully, and it shows in how bankable he has remained as Bond, and why he is always hunted after to return.
But he's still not a crucial part of the puzzle at all, no, no, no.
That will not happen. The franchise will do well without him once a new actor has taken his place.
Are you pissed? It's almost as if you're not actually reading posts.
Let's not get asinine here, for Christ's sake. We all know the character is bigger than the actor at this point, and Bond will always go on. Dan is a special Bond, just as Sean was special, but time moved on and the series had to move on, because the actors moved on.
Just because that inevitability exists doesn't mean a Bond actor is any less crucial during their time as Bond. Sean was instrumental in why the 60s was such a hit decade, just as Dan is a crucial part of why his era has been received the way he has, and why his interpretation of the character has captivated so many. When Sean left, his effect was still felt, as crucial as he was, though the series obviously had to go on and should've. But the fact that the franchise moved on never lessened his impact, even to this day.
Nobody says the series ends when Dan's tenure does-that'd be an imbecilic notion that I can't believe was mentioned-but stating that the continuation of the franchise seemingly proves that an actor means jack squat to the series is just...foolish.
It was Dan all the way that was what got the most headlines, that was what definded the praise for the film.
Jason you my friend are clutch at straws with those comments, I remember when it came out and the media did a complete U-turn on their neagativity as soon as the evidence was on the screen.
CR's greatest success was Daniel Craig period and none of your revisionism is going to change that.
Craig won't be perceived like Brosnan is now when the next Bond arrives. Craig's contribution will figure a great deal in who gets the role next and it won't be someone with the dramatic capabilities of Brosnan in 1995.
Babs has had too much of what an actor like Craig has bought to the role to hand this to some pretty boy with little acting talent.