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
Variety is the spice of life and not repetition. My criticism of the Craig era is that it was supposed to be a total new approach for the series, and live within its own timeline.
Yes, the Connery and Moore era had tonal shifts, but the characterisation of Bond does not change that much. You see a development.
I will hand it to you that with SF they tried something radically different and it stands out like a sore thumb. But it is not a Bond film to me and the image of Bond, which is important, is more like an ordinary bloke.
SF is the dividing line between the fans of the old school and fans of the new. SF ironically in trying to be so different, lost that magic that made Bond films such a joy.
Craig is a very fine actor, but like Anthony Horowitz, the Bond author said, he is miscast as Bond and SF proved that to me in no uncertain terms.
Watch this video of Craig
And I rest my case why he is miscast as the handsome British agent.
He looks like my car mechanic and that is the Bond of SF style.
It would be nice to see him play the later version under another director though, to see if that changes things.
I agree @bondjames. Where the proverbial shit hit the fan was when they tried to make him into classic Bond.
Unfortunately the Bond series is about superficial beauty and glamour. And that was ingrained in my childhood consciousness. Not my creation.
For me, I have returned to my original archetypal preference. You can have a serious actor, but he has to have that internationally accepted handsomeness.
And if we applied the same rules to Bond girls, by using ordinary looking women, then this forum would be awash with criticisms of how they are below expectation.
EDIT: He needs to be handled with precise care as he doesn't naturally come across as smooth imho.
That is going to stir the hornets nest with some. I would love to see the reaction of Cubby if Craig was presented to him as a serious contender for Bond : "He looks like a God-damned KGB agent!!!!"
But I admit that the films between Connery and Dalton had the in-house team working on them and the link existed from the very first film Dr No . Broccoli would promote editors to direct, as they had a great understanding of the character. John Glen did a great job with Moore and Dalton. He found something new to explore with each actor. The pre-1995 teams were more like a family affair. The new films have lost that spirit.
However, Brosnan at least had the prerequisite look Broccoli was looking for. Wasn't enough as history proved. Brosnan underestimated how hard a role Bond is!
Image is just one aspect of it. But you have to know what you want to do with the role!
I give you...
I can respect your idea good sir. Have you ever seen Croupier with Clive Owen? The same director who did Get Carter with Caine and Flash Gordon with Dalton. Superb British film.
I wish they had cast Owen. I would be in Bond heaven. He is a serious actor, with the roughness and the right look for Bond. There are 3 billion men in the world to choose from and Craig is Babs fantasy.
They initially went in one direction with an empty suit, and then arguably overcompensated with a thug in a suit. Some like the former, and others love the latter. Few admire both.
@acoppola, yes, I've seen Croupier many years back. Great little film. I've been a fan of Owen's since I saw him in Chancer as a kid. He was excellent in that too. If you haven't seen The International, I highly recommend it.
The International is outstanding! Believe me, knowing Broccoli's tastes-Cubby that is-he would have hunted Owen down to take the part. Owen has that perfect mans man quality. He is just cool without trying.
Also Owen does not pose as much like Craig. I feel with Craig like he is over-compensating. Connery, Moore or Dalton did not pose that they were tough or cool. Brosnan did with his over-exaggerated gun movements. Take for instance in SP, where Moneypenny visits Bond at his apartment. Craig sits on the chair like he is God's gift to women. And it achieves the opposite efffect.
Craig worked too hard on his image, and it shows with his suits. The video I posted here a few post back proves that he spent too much time with Tom Ford. The old Bonds went to the Saville Row tailor, who took their measurements and that was it.
Vladimir Putin?
I often use Bond in my lecture and the young guys who have only seen Daniel Craig as Bond are always surprised to see Brosnan and Dalton and often notice how different they look in general to Craig.
I think for the mainstream young audience it doesn't matter if Bond is tall dark haired handsome or medium height blonde and very muscular, they would accept Jason Statham as Bond. With time Bonds identity will be lost if next actor is again totally different to Mr Fleming's vision!
They would accept Jason Statham. I agree with the passage of time, Bond will be watered down to nothing like what Fleming intended.
The way things are going and how they are adding in aspects that were never there before, perhaps in 30 years time we will have a Bond wrestling with his sexuality and how he wanted to be a girl. Not as far fetched when Blofeld is now his step-brother!
I must say that with the excessive introspection, I choose to ignore the add ons. I will not use the Craig era explorations to redefine Connery, Moore or Dalton.
The Smith song lyrics (if sung from Bond's perspective) and delivery took things very close to the edge for me. Thankfully, there will always be another film and song.
Goodness me, I forgot about the song by Smith. It has that Walking In The Air from The Snowman vocal vibe.
I recall Martin Campbell commenting on how they agonized about the Vesper final few acts in CR, and how far they could push it, so they are aware that there are limits.
But, as others have said, the film simply would not have done as well as it did if it were not for positive word of mouth.
And $1 billion is not about UK takings. That's around the globe where sentimental love for Britain simply can't be relied on. Does a nice speech by David Cameron about James Bond really guarantee good box office?
Critical reception? So what? Plenty of films have been praised by critics and bombed at the box office. Bond films ride the wave of criticism anyway. His name alone guarantees success at the BO.
And even if Skyfall was over-hyped, it's nothing compared to the 60s during Bondmania. Everything then was about Bond.
It's ok for you to hate the film and not be able to watch it again after 4 viewings. We are all different. I find it one of the easiest to re-watch, more so than any other Craig film. But that's me, and it doesn't make me right either.
But trying to explain away the success of the film by drawing on every possible reason apart from the film's quality, is a bit like those who try to explain why Licence To Kill faired (comparatively) poorly at the Box Office for every conceivable reason apart from the fact it simply wasn't very good. (my view point only btw)
I appreciate the question you also raise about the limits. Hollywood is not he same system it was in Cubby and Harry's days. Not that it was a utopia in the past. We are a more fragmented society with what makes one person happy, offends another. It is a confusing time for the creative industry that always has to approach timidly and over-calculate risks of offending. That kills spontaneity, the very thing that gave birth to classic cinema Bond.
And sadly, I think they will continue to redefine Bond to not be accused of being non-PC. And with the proposed banning of certain classic literature because of racist words that were commonplace in the time of writing, I lament that there will be someone who starts a campaign to ban the books of Fleming. The novel To Kill A Mockingbird comes to mind. Someone has started a campaign with that one.
On the above note, I see a time when the Fleming benchmark of the novels will be vanquished by Hollywood. Look at modern and divided America.
This article underscores my observations of what is to come http://www.gq.com/story/why-i-quit-james-bond
Part of what drew me to Bond in the first place was his anti-PC character traits. It's part of what makes the man interesting in comparison to his more sanitized contemporaries. A rebel without being a rebel, if that makes any sense. Independent of spirit. Hopefully Brexit and even Trump help to ensure that those anti-PC elements that are left today remain intact, or at least delay their deletion for a little while longer.
As you note, we are more fragmented these days. Moreover, we have 50+ years of film character interpretation to draw from (and we all have our favourites) in addition to the novels. How to please everyone? Nearly impossible perhaps? Maybe we can never find an actor or interpretation that can satisfy the majority any more as a result, and some of us fans will have to take turns suffering quietly while a particular iteration and characterization is in play. In that case, maybe shorter Bond actor cycles should be encouraged, to shorten the pain.
Some fine points there. Some Bond fans refuse to accept that the film industry is changing. The film industry will go along with whatever fad is trending. You mentioned Trump, the Daniel Craig of politics in terms of initial unpopularity when he got the presidency.
And on the above note, look at the climate in Hollywood where any actor/actress who supports Trump is sidelined. Hollywood is far more PC and politicised than in the past. We live in a culture of positive discrimination, where for instance the media were far more delicate on Obama, despite him starting more wars after receiving The Nobel Peace Prize. Intelligent political discourse is almost eliminated now. You can choose any colour as long as it is red. If you criticise Obama's policies you get labelled racist. But Trump is open season. How is that equality?
I wish our society was less race focused, but it is sad that to get more clicks, there is race baiting. Very sad in 2017.
Trump is certainly spectacular political theatre, and how he is going to take the USA by the proverbial balls. And this falsehood that he hates Latino's is a lie, which my wife initially believed by watching political spin in her country. I explained to my wife that her Colombian media want her to focus on Trump, to divert attention away from how her country is being robbed of its natural resources like oil, and yet is poor. She now sees it for what it is, and was happy Trump won.
Any naturally, I have not said Trump is perfect. We will have to wait and see.
Regarding Bond, I'm quite surprised to read comments that some younger casual fans don't rate Connery or haven't even watched his films. Imagine the growing action oriented Asian markets. I can bet many there won't be too enthralled with 'talky' FRWL.
You're right that EON will follow the political and cultural trends to an extent. Bond is one of the most bankable franchises after all (perhaps only behind SW, and with Batman close on its tails) and money talks. MGM's possible future IPO could possibly make growing box office even more of an imperative going forward, which could lead to further watering down of the elements some of us like to appease the masses.
EDIT: I was never happy with what I saw as a creeping Americanization of Bond during the Brosnan years (I consider an over-reliance on action as part of that). Bond is unique enough of a character that he can retain his essential Britishness while still embracing the global market. In fact, I think it's imperative that he does, as a cultural icon.
Well said sir! The video I supplied of Craig earlier today, underlines your point about the new generation not rating Connery. There is a comment, where someone writes that until Craig came along, they did not care for Bond.
And make no mistake, due to family politics between the Broccoli family and Connery, Babs wants Craig to dethrone Connery. Her passion for Craig borders on obsessive. The professional crossing into the personal. By overselling Craig, she opens the door for a backlash of resentment. It is telling that Connery refused to participate in the Everything Or Nothing documentary.
I'm still surprised that there are some here who despise Brosnan's era so much that they refuse to watch his films, but then again, I'm not rushing to put the two Mendes movies in my blu-ray player, so I suppose I understand.
@acoppola, all my fears aside, I don't see Craig ever dethroning King Sean. He's only got one more in him most likely. I think his legacy will also depend on how cooperative he is post-Bond tenure in terms of participating and supporting the franchise.