Is enthusiasm for Daniel Craig as Bond waning?

13

Comments

  • Posts: 1,162
    Dan was just as interested in becoming an A lister as any other actor in hollywood, he just failed at it. He made Golden Compass and Cowboys and Aliens straight after getting Bond, and both films disappointed. So it's not a case of him being too good for that sort of thing, but not good enough. He probably realizes now that he's older that he isn't suited to that, and so has given up on it. Dragon Tattoo was the last time he went for a franchise play, with the added incentive of working with Fincher. We'll see if his fortunes can turn around with Kings, as he establishes himself for a career after Bond.
    I honestly don't think one could get this impression while watching interviews with Dan where he dispels a lot of these presumptions about fame and being an A-lister. I hate the A-lister terminology anyway, as that seldom means what it should, actual talent. It goes more on popularity and how a performer forces their name out there, which I don't think equates a lick to actual skill in the craft. The actor's actors have waned, leaving in their place those who are only serviceable in blockbusters that don't demand a deep relationship with the craft. We talk on here a lot about Hollywood not really having icons anymore, and this for me is a big part of it. You can find a lot of actors to throw a punch into the camera, but few that truly transcend their work to become something more.

    People seem to want to base Dan's "trending" nature on his films, but it's quite clear to see that he's not that interested in just jumping from movie to movie. Since he's been Bond he's been far more active on the stage, the thing he really loves and is excited by, so rating him by only his film work doesn't seem fair since he's often purposefully held back from doing more projects. Bond has been his biggest focus film wise, and to cleanse he's done more theater. Theater is more niche and less well know than filmmaking, sadly, but for my money is much more interesting for an actor like Dan who just wants to act. It's not a shock to see him heading to the stage instead of the set more gradually over time.
    This discussion about Dan and his "buzz" as an actor seems to come along regularly, and I still hold that he doesn't really give a damn about having the kind of career people seem to presume he should have. I don't think he cares to be trending or the "it" thing, he just wants to take on interesting parts no matter how big or small they may be. He's a character actor, and doesn't seem keen on doing films just because they'll make him rich or increase his profile. Doing the Bond films has actually helped him, by his own admission, because the big paychecks secure him and his family so comfortably that he can take risks and do jobs that aren't going to pay well because he wants to play the part and likes the script. He's simply a different kind of actor, and is as comfortable, if not more so, on the stage where he'll have more of an exclusive profile but a lauded one nonetheless. His recent turn in Othello was all gold stars across the board, and that's what seems to get Dan excited, the actual work in new and exciting projects that challenge him as a performer. Stuff being popular for the sake of it, or jamming himself into the same old roles that you see so many popular actors doing now.

    I think Dan's career will be a very vivid and colorful one when all is said and done, or rather, it will continue to be. He can play all sorts of characters and like all great character actors, I'm sure he'll slip in and out of a great range of parts that fit all kinds of personality traits. He can do high drama, quiet character studies, full blown comedy, and I think he'll find a lot of great work because his work speaks for itself. From how Villeneuve talked about him when he was negotiating for Bond 25 I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Dan was cast in Dune or a future film by the director. Because it's clear that his love for the work, his passion and enthusiasm as well as his heavy commitment (he has a reputation for knowing his lines and those of everyone else) will make sure he's never starving for work. And that's why he has attracted such big talents, has directors interested in collaborating with him and can motivate people like Bardem or Mendes to work on the Bond films simply because he's involved and excited to have them.
    It's all good and well saying "oh Daniel isn't interested in becoming a big star, he is more interested in smaller roles", but he isn't even making those smaller films. I am not clueless about his career, I might not think of him that highly as an actor, but when he was cast, I did my research on his career. So he isn't interested in any more work like Cowboys & Aliens? Ok, but he hardly even making things like Enduring Love, Layer Cake, Archangel, Sword Of Honor and The Mother. I imagine, for his fans, it must be frustrating to see him not even act in things that used to be his bread and butter as an actor.
    I'm beating a dead horse here, but there's more to acting than doing films. Dan has been more focused and interested on doing theater, and has been lauded across the board for his efforts on every production he's done. Clearly that's where he's feeling most alive right now, and I wouldn't want him to sign up for random films just so he can have some Hollywood branded distortion of popularity to appease fans and non-fans alike. I don't want to see him turn into someone like so many other actors who used to be in it for the work who just sign on for a paycheck or as a PR stunt. That doesn't fit the kind of actor he is, who would rather do a part that excites him for a penny than one that'd get him millions that's garbage and doesn't interest or challenge him.

    I just don't really know how to navigate these discussions of actor's careers, as at the end of the day they should be able to do what they want and all this talk of what they should do doesn't seem very logical. People just assume that Dan wants to be a Hollywood guy without listening to his actual thoughts on why he picks the parts he does or shies away from Hollywood productions, so it's very hard to debate a topic like this because of that. If you're speaking with someone who doesn't make the connection between Dan doing theater and that being something he's more interested in that set bound films, the discussion can't go anywhere because why he's made the choices he has should be apparent. It's okay to not like that he's doing more theater than films, but people seem to think that if you're an actor you can only do movies and aren't allowed to do anything else. Just because theater isn't a million dollar marketing monster like those Hollywood peddles out doesn't mean they are any less satisfying for the actor, who may not like the artificiality of Hollywood and is more drawn to the art for art's sake mentality of theater and the very unique feeling of acting live in front of a tangible crowd. If I were an actor I think I'd make the same choice Dan is making, as the theater model is more suited to what kind of actor he is, what he wants to get out of his career and his overall personality (an honest and abrupt man in a sycophantic and fake Hollywood doesn't compute).

    Personally I give a damn about just any of his interviews. He's one of those guys who says it this way this day and makes 180° the other day ( just the things alone he said about the quality of Skyfalls script ). Still, deeds say more than words and his deeds say he wanted to star in blockbuster movies but for whatever reason whatever he touched whithered and died (somehow).
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Dan is very comparable to Dalton, in that he was never really a "movie star" in the strictest sense. Undeniably talented and can anchor big films with the best of them, absolutely, but has a keen interest in theatre and other forms of drama. Dalton, being a classically trained Shakespearean actor, was very similar.
    @CraigMooreOHMSS, that's exactly as I see it too. Dalton and Craig are very similar in that way, in what they wanted for their careers. Not interested in stealing the spotlight, and simply wanted to do the work that lit their fires. On just Bond, their sheer commitment is admirable, with Dalton really working hard to bring a Fleming touch to the role (and carrying around the novels for a reference to study and nail the character on set) and Dan for also reading the books again to gleam from them the spirit of the character while also investing himself in major parts of the production, including in the costume and stunt departments while also working with EON to produce it, something we've never seen to such a degree.

    I think Dan's attitude will only make him more satisfied with himself and his career at the end of the road. Because if you're just motivated to do the job for the money or awards, even if you have talent, you are charting a very hollow existence and legacy. We've seen the Bruce Willis types of the word waste their talent and fall to their worst qualities, harming their reputation and legacy because they aren't pursuing the work for the right reasons. Dan's indifference to fame and glory will serve him well, since he won't be pushed and pulled by those forces, nor will he feel a need to do anything to get them. Just like, in a political sense, the person with a distaste and discomfort for power are often those who wield it best; when you don't want it, you are more centered of mind.

    FoxRox wrote: »
    I want to sort of rant about this stuff because it’s an interesting topic.

    The bottom line is that no one actor can be Bond forever, and as time goes on, enthusiasm does tend to drop - no matter who is playing Bond. For me, Craig is the second best actor to play 007 after Connery, and they have the two best runs the series has seen of 3+ films. SP has taken my enthusiasm down a notch, but even though aspects of that entry are disappointing, I know Craig could make another great Bond film given the right circumstances. I’m glad he wants to do one more, and I’m eager to see what they can come up with.

    I think they strayed a little too far from CR’s tone with SP, which became too silly for Craig’s Bond. SF had something of a happy middle betwen CR/QOS’s darkness and SP’s silliness. People weren’t so high on Bond once QOS hit, even though CR was very beloved right before it. History basically repeated itself when Bond return in SF, and people were ready and happy to see him again. SP though was no fan favorite and enthusiasm for the Bond brand and Craig died down again. Between the hiatus from SP to Bond 25 and the excitement of just seeing James Bond again, I have a good feeling Bond 25 will be a hyped movie event sort of like CR and SF - the odd-numbered ones in Craig’s era. All they have to do is make a good film out of it for success!

    Craig himself turned in what I consider the best Bond performance ever in CR. He was very good in QOS as well. SF was a bit different but still a great performance; all 3 were very comfortable, mostly serious/dry humor style. Then with SP, his Bond could be a little too Mooreish. It lost his trademark style. He had some good moments but it was his weakest outing; not enough grit. The key is recapturing the dangerous yet vulnerable Bond of CR/QOS I think. SF Bond was good but I’d prefer that as a one time thing. Anyway - I still love Craig’s Bond and want him to stay for Bond 25, but I do think it should he his final entry whether it’s good or not. 5 is a great number to finish on.
    I agree with much of this, @FoxRox. Given the right ingredients, Dan could give us a performance to the level of CR again, which I also think is far and away the best Bond performance we've ever seen. If we ever see another actor in the role who can pull of Dan's range as seen in that film, we should consider ourselves stupidly blessed.

    When it comes to Bond 25 and the last Craig era film, I want what you do. Basically, a through line performance that feels in touch with how Dan has played Bond from the start (tough, but vulnerable, dry and troubled). The last film should echo the strengths of Dan's performances, pack in what he excels at and feel like the natural conclusion to the Bond story that started in CR. Because we saw his Bond go from a reckless and uncontrollable man to an in control and professional agent, I think the opportunity for exploring the character in one last film is interesting and very promising.

    What will EON test him with? I think the movie will need some larger impact, some special conflict, as that is part of every Craig Bond film and drives each on as a sort of subplot to the larger mission. CR is about him finding himself and love while facing Le Chiffre, QoS has him trying to work while always grieving for Vesper, SF has him on the job while facing his limitations and SP has his past coming back to him all while MI6 is crumbling, figuratively and literally. I would personally like for Bond 25 to address the need this Bond has to be an agent, and show him as a man who can't retire to calm because that doesn't suit him. Craig's Bond deciding to stay on the job with finality and dedicating himself to spying until his dying breath (or forced retirement) would be a nice Fleming touch but would also be powerful for how Bond is truly making his own choice, for nobody but himself.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    The fact Craig can't do anything noteworthy other than Bond is concerning, imo. He can't pick a decent script outside of Bond to act in for **** but he's calling creative shots. TGWTDT being the one exception.

    I used to be a big fan of his, I still love him as Bond. But my appetite for his Bond has disappeared, much like a lunch you had way too many times that you would much rather avoid than eat again.

    Craig has overstayed his welcome and what once made him cool just makes me feel indifferent.

    However, knowing B25 is (hopefully) his last might make the whole thing more emotional, so I have that to look forward to.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    The fact Craig can't do anything noteworthy other than Bond is concerning, imo. He can't pick a decent script outside of Bond to act in for **** but he's calling creative shots. TGWTDT being the one exception.

    I used to be a big fan of his, I still love him as Bond. But my appetite for his Bond has disappeared, much like a lunch you had way too many times that you would much rather avoid than eat again.

    Craig has overstayed his welcome and what once made him cool just makes me feel indifferent.

    However, knowing B25 is (hopefully) his last might make the whole thing more emotional, so I have that to look forward to.

    What did any of the Bond actors do that was noteworthy during their tenure as Bond?

    Connery: Marnie?
    Moore: anything at all?
    Dalton: again, anything?
    Brosnan: The Thomas Crown Affair?

    I'd argue that DC's role in TGWTDT was the best ever for a Bond actor, in the midst of his tenure. That's saying something. You say it's the one exception, but the track record for Bond actors is not good at all.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I should interject that Pierce did get good reviews for THE TAILOR OF PANAMA (2001).

    No doubt. And DC received rave reviews for Defiance and Logan Lucky. But they were small films, as was Tailor. PB also had a nice little supporting role in The Mirror Has Two Faces.
  • edited March 2018 Posts: 19,339
    Sir Roger did The Wild Geese,Gold and Shout at the Devil to name at least three good films he did while Bond,plus others.
  • Posts: 16,162
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Sir Roger did The Wild Geese,Gold and Shout at the Devil to name at least three good films he did while Bond,plus others.

    As well as NORTH SEA HIJACK aka FFOLKES. I also liked ESCAPE TO ATHENA.
    Pierce had several non-Bond films during his era: MARS ATTACKS, DANTE'S PEAK, MIRROR HAS TWO FACES to name a few. He launched Irish Dream Time with THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR, GREY OWL, and THE NEPHEW.
    Some of the roles were supporting in reasonably successful films.
    As far as enthusiasm for Daniel himself waning- for me not really. However my enthusiasm for his overall era has dropped astonishingly. Right now it's without hesitation my least favorite era due to the incredible amount of years being wasted in which we could have gotten a few more films. The disregard for tradition- gunbarrel, Bond theme, as well as the Scooby Gang, the absolute mandatory need for his films to be personal Oscar bait has made me embrace and appreciate some of the other Bonds that used to be lower in my rankings.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    edited March 2018 Posts: 7,118
    Well more than any of the others, Craig had time on his hands to do something else.

    Connery had a two year gap between TB and YOLT, the first four were in consecutive years.

    Moore also had a film every two year with the exception of TMWTGG and TSWLM, which were separated by only three years.

    Dalton’s whole Bond career regretfully lasted only three years.

    Brosnan’s biggest gap was three years on one ocassion. GE-TWINE was also a period of one Bond films every two years.

    Craig on the other hand had four years between QOS and SF, another three between SF and SP and now after two years since the last one filming hasn’t started on the next Bond.

  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    w2bond wrote: »
    People are more excited about Marvel and start wars at this moment

    People are starting wars because of Marvel films? :-)
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 755
    It does appear like Craig picks bad films, but that's easier said as an audience member then being in his position and being on receiving end of what's being offered. I mean on paper a lot of the films seem like good ideas and with talented filmmakers...

    If I had one critique it would be a wish that he'd taken supporting roles in better films rather than just going the route of headliner (which is normal, I get). But he was so good in Munich as an example. A few more of those would be better on his resume than a lot of his starring roles.

    His career, like his Bond's films, haven't lived up to his abilities and promise, but few things do in life, so you know... he will undoubtedly have other movies in the future that deliver.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    It does appear like Craig picks bad films, but that's easier said as an audience member then being in his position and being on receiving end of what's being offered. I mean on paper a lot of the films seem like good ideas and with talented filmmakers...

    If I had one critique it would be a wish that he'd taken supporting roles in better films rather than just going the route of headliner (which is normal, I get). But he was so good in Munich as an example. A few more of those would be better on his resume than a lot of his starring roles.

    His career, like his Bond's films, haven't lived up to his abilities and promise, but few things do in life, so you know... he will undoubtedly have other movies in the future that deliver.

    Logan Lucky was just that.
  • Posts: 1,162
    I found it boring as hell and completely unworthy of a brilliant fellow like Soderbergh. Craig looks as unsuave as it gets. He truly reminds me of the guy pictured on the Pringles rolls.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    Are you going to watch Kings with Craig and Halle Berry?

    That's another supporting role.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    edited March 2018 Posts: 7,021
    Actually, I think @dominicgreene 's point had more to do with film quality than success or acclaim.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    Are you going to watch Kings with Craig and Halle Berry?

    That's another supporting role.

    I'd like to see it eventually. Don't think it got terribly great reviews or word of mouth but the trailer did seem interesting. Probably not the worst thing I'll ever see, but likely won't make my 'Best Of 2018' list, either.
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 755
    TripAces wrote: »
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    It does appear like Craig picks bad films, but that's easier said as an audience member then being in his position and being on receiving end of what's being offered. I mean on paper a lot of the films seem like good ideas and with talented filmmakers...

    If I had one critique it would be a wish that he'd taken supporting roles in better films rather than just going the route of headliner (which is normal, I get). But he was so good in Munich as an example. A few more of those would be better on his resume than a lot of his starring roles.

    His career, like his Bond's films, haven't lived up to his abilities and promise, but few things do in life, so you know... he will undoubtedly have other movies in the future that deliver.

    Logan Lucky was just that.

    Sure, it was a supporting role and he just took it after all these years which he could’ve done all along. Still, Logan Lucky is no Munich. Soderbergh, while accurately considered not top shelf, is still overrated imo
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    I found it boring as hell and completely unworthy of a brilliant fellow like Soderbergh. Craig looks as unsuave as it gets. He truly reminds me of the guy pictured on the Pringles rolls.

    I agree, @nosolace-- I was incredibly disappointed in the film. Great set-up. Heist films are, and should be fun (this was not); it's a terrific looking film, with an amazing cast (minus Hillary Swank, who I thought was in a different film all together).

    It had a great set-up, but this did not feel like a completed script. It felt like Soderbergh had the idea, drafted some scenes, and let the actors take over from there. A shame.

    But, and I say this knowing your dislike for Craig, but why was he supposed to be suave, in your eyes? He's playing a hick called Joe Bang, and along with Driver, stole the show from a very good ensemble of actors. That's like saying Connery looked like a s*** in IN THE NAME OF THE ROSE.

    And, correct me if I'm thinking of a different Pringles caricature, but, doesn't that guy have a long, brown moustache? With brown hair parted down the middle a la the style in the 1800s? Black circles for eyes? With a red bow tie?... Although you've expressed disdain for this Bond, I still can't see the resemblance of DC and the Pringles Guy.

    Other than that, we certainly agree on the failure of Soderbergh to bring to life LL.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    81Ah34qocBL._SX522_.jpg

    This is Gregg Beam, not Joe Bang.

    But agree the movie was really boring.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I bailed out on the film halfway, actually. Couldn't watch it furthermore.

    Let's just say I'm not interested in a redneck version of Ocean's Eleven.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,795
    I think Dan's attitude will only make him more satisfied with himself and his career at the end of the road. Because if you're just motivated to do the job for the money or awards, even if you have talent, you are charting a very hollow existence and legacy. We've seen the Bruce Willis types of the word waste their talent and fall to their worst qualities, harming their reputation and legacy because they aren't pursuing the work for the right reasons. Dan's indifference to fame and glory will serve him well, since he won't be pushed and pulled by those forces, nor will he feel a need to do anything to get them. Just like, in a political sense, the person with a distaste and discomfort for power are often those who wield it best; when you don't want it, you are more centered of mind.
    Nicely stated Brady.
  • edited March 2018 Posts: 727
    After Bond, Craig needs to haul himself to a Marvel production. Should he choose to remain relevant in the movie business. He can play Doom.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I bailed out on the film halfway, actually. Couldn't watch it furthermore.

    Let's just say I'm not interested in a redneck version of Ocean's Eleven.

    Yes, me too. Life is too short. It was just painful.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    Critics liked LL and they really liked Craig's performance. I liked the film OK, would give it a B-. It is not a film that will much be remembered at all. But the point of our discussion, here, is that it was DC taking a supporting role, and it allowed him to expand his acting repertoire. Moreover, it provided an opportunity to announce his return for Bond 25.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    81Ah34qocBL._SX522_.jpg

    This is Gregg Beam, not Joe Bang.

    But agree the movie was really boring.

    Yes, @Thunderfinger -- more Beam than Bang. Sometimes I hafta believe ppl just write what first comes in their brains.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    Beam was a great character in QoS - number 3 on my „QoS cameos“ wishlist
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Yes, @SeanCraig, Beam was a properly slimy SOB.
  • Posts: 7,417
    Would love to see Greg Beam return. Great character. For the few scenes he was in he made a great impression!
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,118
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Would love to see Greg Beam return. Great character. For the few scenes he was in he made a great impression!

    I agree, I am not QOS’s biggest fan but Mathis and Beam are amongst my favourite characters from the Craig years.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited March 2018 Posts: 15,423
    Can't understand this sudden uprising appeal of Beam, really. He was a hideous nobody in my eyes.
  • Posts: 12,526
    In a word? No!!! But the gap between movies is though!
Sign In or Register to comment.