› ›

MGW - "Daniel Craig plays Bond like Connery"

slyfoxslyfox
edited February 2012 in Actors Posts: 940
Pretty useless article, where Michael G Wilson elaborates a little about the different Bond actors:

Sean was a tough guy; he set the tone," Wilson said. “[Roger] played it more comic. Roger was lighthearted. Timothy brought it down to earth and Pierce brought a touch of charm and touchiness.

“[Daniel] is a great actor who takes it back to the Sean days.”


No mention of poor ol' Lazzer!

http://www.film-news.co.uk/show-news.asp?H=Daniel-Craig-‘plays-Bond-like-Connery’&nItemID=9568
«13456

Comments

  • fire_and_icefire_and_ice
    Posts: 6,432
    Touchiness, think that pretty much sum's up brosnan.
  • actonsteveactonsteve
    Posts: 1,492
    Touchiness? In what way?

    Abit over sensitive? Or no one was safe on set from his groping.
  • Dr_MetzDr_Metz
    edited February 2012 Posts: 401
    “[Daniel] is a great actor who takes it back to the Sean days.”

    Not even close.

    "[Roger] played it more comic."

    It would have helped if he was actually funny. Dalton's humor in his two Bond films was actually well done.



  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Craig 'has' showed on occasion certain Fleming like qualities that were reminiscent of Connery's early days, I can't argue that
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    he makes Brosnan sound like creeper lol....


    touchiness... lol
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Nice to see he wishes Bourne well - I do too!
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    And Lazzers gets the snub again. When is a guy gonna get a break??
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited February 2012 Posts: 13,355
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    And Lazzers gets the snub again. When is a guy gonna get a break??

    Never. As more actors play Bond and do multiple films he will be forgotten. Thankfully, it was a Fleming novel adaptation he starred in, so there's hope he won't be. By some anyway.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited February 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Dr_Metz wrote:
    “[Daniel] is a great actor."

    It would have helped if he was actually funny. Dalton's humor in his two Bond films was actually well done.



    Not always. The "looks like he came to a dead end" line in LTK falls flat and feels forced in.
  • timmertimmer
    Posts: 4,622
    Craig brings the Sean toughness. No doubt about that. But he hasn't found the Sean mix of menace and charm. Sean as Bond was very much at ease.
    Babs and MGW seem determined that nu-Bond always have issues.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited February 2012 Posts: 13,355
    timmer wrote:
    Babs and MGW seem determined that nu-Bond always have issues.

    I think that is Craig to an extent. Though this needn't mean Craig can't bring the suave cool to Bond that Connery did, as it's the plan to do just that with Skyfall. Craig has even said as much.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    I can see where Mikey G is coming from but Im not sure I agree fully. There's a few great Connery-esque moments in CR but where he tries to mimic Connery's style in QOS it falls flat.

    Example: the "of course you are" line. When connery says it it's dry yet clear and authoritative. In other words witty. When Craig says it in Quantum he pretty much mumbles.
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,778
    Even Wilsonn admits that Craig is the closest to Connery. These are great days we're living gentlemen. The Bond series is financially in the best shape it's been since the 70s and quality-wise the best shape it's been in since the 60s. I wish November would just get here already.
  • actonsteveactonsteve
    Posts: 1,492
    DoubleOhhSeven wrote:
    Even Wilsonn admits that Craig is the closest to Connery. These are great days we're living gentlemen. The Bond series is financially in the best shape it's been since the 70s and quality-wise the best shape it's been in since the 60s. I wish November would just get here already.

    =D> =D> =D>

    Agreed sir, these are great days to be a Bond fan.
  • timmertimmer
    edited February 2012 Posts: 4,622
    DoubleOhhSeven wrote:
    Even Wilsonn admits that Craig is the closest to Connery. These are great days we're living gentlemen.
    :) Your enthusiasm is laudable....but IMO nah, only Laz and Rog were close to Connery, in different ways. These are very different Bond days we are living in, but at least we have Bond days....so yay for that =D> .
  • 00130013
    Posts: 1,817
    Craig is close to Connery in terms of toughness but not in snobbery, which is more a problem of the script than of the actor. Connery's Bond was way much snob (eg "I'd say it was a 30-year-old fine, indifferently blended, sir... with an overdose of bon-bois"). In CR they had Vesper telling him how to dress properly!
    Don't get me wrong, I like Craig's Bond, but it lacks the snobbish element to be closer to Connery and Fleming's Bond.
    Anyway, that's how I feel about it.
  • timmertimmer
    edited February 2012 Posts: 4,622
    Yes Sean-Bond had a relaxed arrogance, confidence about him. He was very comfortable in his skin. Will the Bond powers-that-be, ever let Craig find similar swagger, or will Craig let himself?
    It might be that Craig can't pull it off. Connery was/is a great actor. With guidance from Terence Young, Sean created and perfected the on-screen character.
  • KennonKennon
    Posts: 297
    Never saw much Connery in Craig. He's close in his overall character setup but I hardly think "Connery" each time I see Craig. And it's better this way, Craig must have his own thing instead of blending all sorts of previous acts into the role. THAT'S what seems closest to Connery to me, the fact he goes his own direction and doesn't care at all about the sounds from off-screen.

    Perfect, just as it should be.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited February 2012 Posts: 11,189
    DoubleOhhSeven wrote:
    and quality-wise the best shape it's been in since the 60s. I .

    This guy (a lover of Craig) doesn't think so :)) :))



    (I know Ive posted this review several times on here but its just SOOO epic :D ).

  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    edited February 2012 Posts: 1,778
    That's one man's opinion. The fact of the matter is that QOS still recieved better reviews and more acclaim than all of Brosnan's films except GE and sure as hell outgrossed them, something Craig haters still won't admit. If QOS sucked than TND, TWINE, and DAD were all abominations. And Craig's films are easily more popular than the films of the 80s, which were probably he toughest decade for the Bond series. When you combine the grosses with the critical acclaim than yes this era is indeed the best one the series has had since the 70s or maybe even the 60s.

    I think that alot of the Brosnan fans are still bitter about the fact that everyone was so sure Craig would fail big time and EON would come crawling back to the metrosexual middle-aged Brosnan. But the exact opposite happened. CR blew anything Brosnan did out of the water. Better reviews, higher grosses, and an overall renewed sense of interest in a stale series for many people. One can argue GE did the same thing only CR did it much bigger.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited February 2012 Posts: 11,189
    If QOS sucked than TND, TWINE, and DAD were all abominations.

    I would actually re-watch TND or TWINE (watching TND as we speak) True they aren't as "deep" but they are more entertaining. Its really strange, I remember a hardcore fan saying that some of the "worse" entries had more of a re-watch value and...you know what...I agree.

    I'm no Craig hater. Im growing to like him more and more BUT he isn't immune to making a weak film - something the Craig worshippers won't admit.

    http://www.darkhorizons.com/reviews/622/Quantum-of-Solace
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,778
    BAIN123 wrote:
    If QOS sucked than TND, TWINE, and DAD were all abominations.

    I would actually re-watch TND or TWINE (watching TND as we speak) True they aren't as "deep" but they are more entertaining. Its really strange, I remember a hardcore fan saying that some of the "worse" entries had more of a re-watch value and...you know what...I agree.

    I'm no Craig hater. Im growing to like him more and more BUT he isn't immune to making a weak film - something the Craig worshippers won't admit.

    Certainly not for me. I think the worst films have the least re-watch value. I'll re-watch the likes of CR, FRWL, DN, and OHMSS but rarely ever go back to watch DAD, TWINE, TMWTGG, etc.
  • 002002
    Posts: 581
    TND, TWINE and DAD Were NOT abominations

    they are entertaning they paid off sure they arent the strongest storywise but atleast they made F$((ng sense Qantum is utterly a mess i cant believe people defend it.. i enjoyed Daniel in Casino Royale because it had a clear story and made sense and i hope to god that Skyfall doesnt end up a Skyfail
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited February 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Royale worked not only because of Craig but because of Campbell and a strong second unit team. I've always felt this but something about Quantum always seemed...off.

    I thought that when I left the cinema in 2008 and still think it now. I don't consider it the worst but its certainly very underwelming.

    Though Kermode is perhaps a bit harsh I can completely see where he's coming from. His review is more fun than the entire film. In the preperation for SF it seems that Quantum is now being seen as a "blip", not only by the public and by fans but by the people actually involved in making it.

    I guarantee that Quantum will be considered a relitively forgettable entry in the future.
  • JR_747JR_747
    Posts: 192
    timmer wrote:
    Craig brings the Sean toughness. No doubt about that. But he hasn't found the Sean mix of menace and charm. Sean as Bond was very much at ease.
    Babs and MGW seem determined that nu-Bond always have issues.

    That's exactly how I think about it!
    Samuel001 wrote:
    I think that is Craig to an extent. Though this needn't mean Craig can't bring the suave cool to Bond that Connery did, as it's the plan to do just that with Skyfall. Craig has even said as much.

    Therefore I really do hope, that those rumours about Bond quitting the service - again - are not true. I don't want to see him in a troubled state of mind again, having lost his faith - or guts or whatever! This is why I'm not so happy about this first photo, as Craig looks rather dark and gloomy, again.

  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Kennon wrote:
    Never saw much Connery in Craig. He's close in his overall character setup but I hardly think "Connery" each time I see Craig. And it's better this way, Craig must have his own thing instead of blending all sorts of previous acts into the role. THAT'S what seems closest to Connery to me, the fact he goes his own direction and doesn't care at all about the sounds from off-screen.
    Perfect, just as it should be.

    Well, you stated that very succinctly for me, too, Kennon. I totally think that way.

  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    timmer wrote:
    Yes Sean-Bond had a relaxed arrogance, confidence about him. He was very comfortable in his skin. Will the Bond powers-that-be, ever let Craig find similar swagger, or will Craig let himself?
    It might be that Craig can't pull it off. Connery was/is a great actor. With guidance from Terrence Young, Sean created and perfected the on-screen character.

    I'm of the opinion that Craig does capture that relaxed arrogance, and he does look comfortable in his skin. Which is why MW makes these comments.

    Dalton and Brosnan tended to play Bond with the weight of expectation on their shoulders. You could see it in their eyes that this was a big part and a tough ask. The history of the part was always shadowing them. Dalton tried to be different but tried too hard. Every movement of his face and body was calculated and actorish. It was like watching a stage play of a Bond adventure. Brosnan simply played Bond four different ways, looking for the way that suited him best.

    Roger Moore succeeded in part because he couldn't care less about the history of Bond and Connery's part in it. The same to a degree with Lazenby.

    Now Craig has clearly thought it through, and tried to develop Bond in a way that addresses the usual problem with making a film ie scenes are shot out of sequence and sometimes (Brosnan especially) Bond's actions in one scene don't somehow represent the happenings from the previous scene. Craig never falls in to that trap and neither did Connery. Great screen actors both of them.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    I think Craig does, to a degree, have a "relaxed confidence" about him BUT, as I said in my earlier post, needs to work on the charm.

    A scene which demonstrates the "relaxed confidence" perfectly is the PTS of Royale.
  • JR_747JR_747
    Posts: 192
    NicNac wrote:
    timmer wrote:
    Yes Sean-Bond had a relaxed arrogance, confidence about him. He was very comfortable in his skin. Will the Bond powers-that-be, ever let Craig find similar swagger, or will Craig let himself?
    It might be that Craig can't pull it off. Connery was/is a great actor. With guidance from Terrence Young, Sean created and perfected the on-screen character.

    I'm of the opinion that Craig does capture that relaxed arrogance, and he does look comfortable in his skin. Which is why MW makes these comments.

    Dalton and Brosnan tended to play Bond with the weight of expectation on their shoulders. You could see it in their eyes that this was a big part and a tough ask. The history of the part was always shadowing them. Dalton tried to be different but tried too hard. Every movement of his face and body was calculated and actorish. It was like watching a stage play of a Bond adventure. Brosnan simply played Bond four different ways, looking for the way that suited him best.

    Roger Moore succeeded in part because he couldn't care less about the history of Bond and Connery's part in it. The same to a degree with Lazenby.

    Now Craig has clearly thought it through, and tried to develop Bond in a way that addresses the usual problem with making a film ie scenes are shot out of sequence and sometimes (Brosnan especially) Bond's actions in one scene don't somehow represent the happenings from the previous scene. Craig never falls in to that trap and neither did Connery. Great screen actors both of them.

    I agree with both being great actors. And I agree with Craig looking comfortable in his skin, as well. The problem - or merely the point, as it's actually not a "problem" - is not about Craig but about how the script describes Bond. We could see Bond's "relaxed arrogance", this certain light-heartedness in maybe the first half of CR. But then again he had not fully grown into beeing a double-0. During the course of CR he did grow into being 007, but at the same time the events that made him become 007 made things personal for him and he let these things get to him. That's why the connery-esque light-heartedness got lost, in parts at least. And it never returned in Qos.
    This is nothing I blame the writers for! Actually I like the way the character developed a lot, as this is completely different and more credible than anything we have seen in ages before Craig!
    But, what I wanted to say is, that we are yet to see Craig being his closest to Connery in the way mentioned above. And I am looking forward to that!

  • identigraphidentigraph
    Posts: 1,052
    The comments from MGW are just part of the hype machine, the usual PR stuff.
Sign In or Register to comment.