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
Dan has had certain advantages, yes, but I wouldn't let that take away from his contributions just because Cubby's oft-used strategy was to do very little reinvention or innovation for decades. Barbara supported her man, and I applaud her for it.
Agreed again, @Shardlake. It seems a trend to bash Craig via Connery these days. I worship Sean's Bond-I wouldn't have him as my profile on accident-but many seem incapable of admitting that even the big man had his errors. One issue I never see with Dan is consistency and commitment. He always gives it his all, no matter the material, and is the first to sign up for all the stunts he's allowed to do, which is a lot. Sean in his first four was genius, but that man wasn't there in YOLT or DAF, and his mood was very detracting. Cantankerous, complacent, unwilling to perform at times or commit to at least looking the part. By DAF there was no mistaking that Bond was nothing more to him than a means to an end: a fat check. Sean's Bond in many ways died with TB, as I think that's where his willingness to play ball ended and therefore, only dollar signs remained. After 1965, the golden performances were gone and the shine had dulled.
I still feel the same about Dan as I did at the start, and I've never seen his love of the job or his commitment wane. It's 100% or nothing at all. That quality, a love of the job for the job's sake, is something Sean never had, and while that isn't a pre-requisite, his lack of interest shows and hampers his performances. If Dan wanted to leave he'd go, and he wouldn't stand for not looking the part at any point like Sean did for the last third of his tenure. Fans can debate Dan's performances all they want, but I think it's disingenuous for some to rub him through the ground in light of what he pushes himself to do. As you say, he showed everyone he could be what they said he couldn't, pushed the boundaries between actor and stuntman, and cares as much, if not more, about the job than he did in '06 over a decade on. That's a rarity for this series and for all that and more he has my respect.
Craig has his fans, naturally. But so does Brosnan, there is not much of a difference.
When the new guy has arrived he will have fans as well. Even if it's freaking Jamie Bell.
Dan's tenure was not even any special ticket sales wise until SF. That's about all that can be said of this era. SF elevated the BO to new heights which undoubtably had only so much to do with the actor himself.
Again, Dan is great in the role as have been his five predecessors. Even if he doesn't look like Bond should look.
But he has brought nothing new to the franchise. EON did with the scripts. It could as well have been any other of the contenders that were around in 2005 for the role.
There is too much emphasis put on the actor. Especially in this era.
Bond actor 007 will have easy play. He won't be compared to Dan for long, that shadow is only so big and easy to escape.
But Connery is the ultimate Bond and always will be and there is a reason for it, it has to do with him being the first but that's not the main thing.
Look at the Batman franchise. Michael Keaton has his die-hard fans and rightfully so. But I think it's fair to say that Christian Bale is widely regarded as the better Batman.
To stay with the Batman/Bond comparison.
Craig to the Batman franchise would be Clooney or maybe, maybe Kilmer at best.
Dalton is Keaton for sure.
Connery is Bale.
Brosnan is Affleck.
Lazenby is Kilmer.
Those days are gone.
He has certain advantages and disadvantages, but he is not the complete Bond Connery was in my view. Not by a long shot.
EDIT: I pretty much agree with you @BondJasonBond006. Nice Batman comparisons as well. I'd say early Craig has a bit of Dalton/Keaton intensity in him. That's what I liked the best about his performances.
Jason you are just baiting now, that has no grounding your assessment whatsoever at all.
Look just say it you hate Craig like the Major because he wasn't afforded what little Timmy wasn't, your contempt isn't even hidden.
Some Dalton fans are so bitter that Craig got the keys to the castle and Dalton didn't even get the draw bridge up.
Please don't bring up your love of SPECTRE, you are a big Brosnan film and that film is closest to his era they've got, tick the box hijinks, the only reason you love it.
It certainly not Daniel Craig, at least I'm up front about my dislike of Brosnan, you try seem like this guy who likes everyone but really you have it in for Craig big time.
I agree on that Craig showed great potential at the beginning. I think no other Bond actor had such a downward spiral than Craig.
As you know I love his performance in Spectre, but it's the whole package of the film which suits Craig imitating Brosnan and Moore very well.
I think a lot of the change is just down to age. People lose their intensity as they age. That's a privilege of relative youth. Additionally, he didn't do a film between SF & SP.
Some of it could be Mendes though, since he has done the last two and has been the only director in the past nine years.
We will only know what Craig has to bring if he comes back with some other new director, & we will be able to see some clues in his upcoming films.
Bond didn't look unflappable on the rack in TB, or the table in GF. Sure, in the same situation, i'd be acting in the same way, but that isn't unflappable. Like William Hartnell as The Doctor, Connery didn't do everything best, but he did provide a foundation for those that followed to build on.
@MajorDSmythe, I think you confuse the meaning. It's possible to show fear without letting that fear stop you from doing your job. Bond felt out of sorts being chased and shot by Fiona and her gang in TB, or in front of Grant's gun in FRWL, but he didn't allow his fear and the statistical chance of his death from making him crumble. He settled himself, focused his mind, used his adrenaline, his smarts and his brawn to get out alive. There's never an absence of fear for deep Bonds like Sean and Dan's, as they're inherently human. It's how they deal with that fear to survive another day that means the most. That's being unflappable.
The trick is the ability to be subtle. As I said, Dalton didn't quite do it as well imho. Brosnan could, if he just underplayed a bit more.
But now you are moving the goal posts, so to speak. What you are saying there, doesn't fall under the definition of unflappable. I am not saying that I would have handled the TB rack situation any better, because I wouldn't, but he was (understandably) in the throes of hysterics in that scene. The only Bond who could rightfully be called unflappable, is Moore.
Don't get me wrong, I like Connery in his first two Bonds, but I don't believe that he had all the bases covered.
I wouldn't call a man having an honest reaction someone who can't be unflappable. If Bond didn't show fear in certain moments, he wouldn't be a credible character, as his humanity is so much of him. It's the true mark of an unflappable man to make people think he's got it all under control even when facing death. Bond didn't lay down and die when he was down and out, he got through it via discipline despite his obvious biology.
We can argue semantics all day, but it isn't the place for it, and we've all contributed in derailing this thread for over an hour anyway.
Moore's is still the most successful reinvention IMO. I personally also prefer Dalton - take some of the best scenes from TLD and LTK and they trump Craig in my view.
I might even go so far as saying I prefer Laz. I much prefer watching OHMSS to any of the Craig era films
Don't see how that's relevant. Being a 00 doesn't make one suddenly into fine tailoring. You'd think there are more important things for one to concern themselves with after being given a license to kill.
I would say the intensity change in Craig has more to do with the direction Mendez took his films (since the reviews he got for OTHELLO stated his masculinity and intensity).
Still, it's more difficult to capture when one ages, and none of the long running actors have gotten more so with time. Rather, the opposite.
I was not able to catch Othello, but I look forward to his new output to see what kind of Craig we will see going forward. It's amazing that there's been nothing since SP & before that, SF.
Laughable. If you were a new poster I'd be torn between whether you were trolling or straight up stupid.
Anyone who thinks Craig brought nothing to Bond is simply wrong. Pure and simple. @Shardlake already summed up the key points, so I won't bother reiterating as I'm sure it'll just be met with the usual posturing about criticising opinions.
Craig = Lazenby + Dalton
I hate Craig? Yes I do. I guess that is why I have given Craig some praise in SP, saying that it is his most Bondian performance, and that when Craig walked across the rooftops in SP, I couldn't believe that I was finally seeing the Bond that I expected back in 2006. When I hate people, I tend to praise them. Obviously that makes complete sense.
And if the Craig films were made exactly the same way, but with Dalton, I would still call them out for their lack of Bondian feeling, for the erratic editing of QOS, for the arty farty pertentions of SF and SP, the moronic "The dead are alive" at the start of SP, Bond having such in immense chip on his should RE:authority and still be inducted in the 00 section. So no, I would still have my gripes, however big or small, no matter who the Bond actor was.
You know, having an opinion on another Bond, doesn't make one bitter. And how come it's Craig centric. I have said negative things about Brosnan, how come I am not bitter at Brosnan's success with the public, there? Surely by this logic, any criticism of Dalton must mean bitterness on behalf of the person.