Pierce and Daniel much more similar than we thought

13»

Comments

  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,185
    this ones also pretty good:
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    AccordionForehead looks jealous. So am I.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    bondjames wrote: »
    Watching these mash-ups, anyone still think they are similat?
    It's apparent in these fabricated combination scenes that DC brings a far more immediate energy, perceived strength, and vigour to all the action scenes, while PB looks cooler, and more refined, in a suit imho.

    That first casino one is a riot by the way.

    thier approach to the character is different and their acting styles are different its just their films which are quite similar.

    But like you said Pierce is a more refined guy much more comfortable in rhe Taux while Craig is better in action and bringing the more brutal Bond.

    I love both especially after Spectre where Daniel went from a fourth place to possible third to definitive third place in my ranking and getting a spot in my top 3

    Pierce Brosnan
    Sean Connery
    Daniel Craig





  • I think inherently Pierce's Bond is much more of a gentleman than Craig's. Bond works best to me when he is a cleaned-up thug. The more suave the Bond is, the less interesting he is, to me.
  • Posts: 5,767
    Apart from Craig seeming effortless and Brosnan seeming full of effort, in SP Craig had a lot of situations that reminded me a lot of Brosnan´s films.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I think inherently Pierce's Bond is much more of a gentleman than Craig's. Bond works best to me when he is a cleaned-up thug. The more suave the Bond is, the less interesting he is, to me.

    I never got the idea of Bond as a thug, cleaned up or not. That is not something I've ever taken from Fleming. He's a troubled, indulgent man.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Apart from Craig seeming effortless and Brosnan seeming full of effort, in SP Craig had a lot of situations that reminded me a lot of Brosnan´s films.
    I agree, and moreover, I'm probably in the minority in thinking there was a similar affectation to the performance (trying to be, rather than actually being) which came through.
  • Posts: 5,767
    bondjames wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Apart from Craig seeming effortless and Brosnan seeming full of effort, in SP Craig had a lot of situations that reminded me a lot of Brosnan´s films.
    I agree, and moreover, I'm probably in the minority in thinking there was a similar affectation to the performance (trying to be, rather than actually being) which came through.
    I never contemplated that idea, but now that you mention it, I can´t really disagree.

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    RC7 wrote: »
    I think inherently Pierce's Bond is much more of a gentleman than Craig's. Bond works best to me when he is a cleaned-up thug. The more suave the Bond is, the less interesting he is, to me.

    I never got the idea of Bond as a thug, cleaned up or not. That is not something I've ever taken from Fleming. He's a troubled, indulgent man.
    I share the sentiment.
  • Brosnan surely is the nicest Bond, and Craig one of the toughest.
  • I don't think that the interpretations of Bond's character between the two actors is similar - though in general, Bond has become more emotional throughout the years - but rather I think that the general structure of their respective eras are.

    That is, one good film (GE for Brosnan, CR for Craig) being followed by three bad or decent films (DAD and QOS being the bad, TND, TWINE, SF and SP being the decent).
  • Posts: 4,325
    I don't think that the interpretations of Bond's character between the two actors is similar - though in general, Bond has become more emotional throughout the years - but rather I think that the general structure of their respective eras are.

    That is, one good film (GE for Brosnan, CR for Craig) being followed by three bad or decent films (DAD and QOS being the bad, TND, TWINE, SF and SP being the decent).

    Hmm, Bond's emotion in the last few films seems to be a bit divisive, some liking it others not. Fleming's Bond is quite emotional but it's all internal, on the outside he's not, which is easy to convey in writing but harder to do on film. One of Fleming's friends said in an interview about the death of Muriel Wright - 'That's the trouble with Ian, you have to get yourself killed before his emotions are involved.' That to me is Bond. It's not that he's unemotional he just doesn't show it, stiff upper lip and all that.
  • @tanaka123
    Well, when I meant that Bond was becoming more emotional over the years I didn't mean just across the last few films (although that was where it was most evident) but across the entirety of the franchise, Bond has slowly but surely grown more outwardly emotional.

    Connery wasn't ever very emotional, he was just cool, suave and classy. Lazenby was the first emotional bond, but we only really see that towards the end. Moore wasn't overly emotional either, but he was definitely more of a lover than Connery's Bond and there are more emotional scenes (Bond admitting he killed Anya's lover, Bond warning Melina about the consequences of revenge) and he also got angry about a lot of his allies getting killed (kills Locque to avenge Luigi and gets angry when Tibbett is killed).

    But the second half of actors is where we saw a real shift, the point where Bond's emotions really drove Bond. In TLD, Bond got really angry when Saunders was killed, and the whole plot of LTK is based around Bond's inner emotional desire for revenge. Going from Dalton to Brosnan, we saw much more emotion than anything from the Connery or Moore days starting with GE, where Brosnan has emotional ties to the main villain. In TND he would mourn Paris's death, and in TWINE he would mourn his cold killing of Elektra.

    Nothing was ever on the level of Craig, but you see how Bond has slowly become more and more emotional over the years.

    What you say about internalising emotion is interesting. I actually think Craig at the end of CR and most of QOS is probably that. He is visibly affected momentarily when she's dead, but then he internalises that anger and uses it as a driving force throughout QOS. Or maybe that's not what you mean.
Sign In or Register to comment.