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
Have a great one, we all have one string in common, we're big fans, of whichever actor we choose as our favorite.
Wholly agreed. One of the most sensible and well thought out posts in this thread.
Quoted for Truth.
So let me get this straight. You find the rest of the Bond films (which includes Brozza's and Moore's comedy fests) more plausible and realistic than Craig's 3 films??
:))
Finally some sanity and intelligence on this thread.
After enduring years of ridiculous OTT impausible storylines, ridiculous gadgets, Bond driving invisible cars, flying and fighting in the air without parachutes, dodging lasers, ice surfing, duplicate Blofeld's, remote controlled BMW's, double-taking pigeons, Tarzan yells, faking heartbeats and beating every guy up in a hospital bed after months of torture, Bond in space, underwater tie-straightening, landing on boats in the middle of the ocean with a beautiful woman on board after crashing off the edge of the rock in Gibraltar......
and suddenly Bond getting his gonads whacked, screaming out in pain and recovering in hospital is highly implausible and pure Superman II fantasy.
Utterly outstanding!! @-)
They weren't all ridiculous.
Again, not all of them were ridiculous.
That was done for real. Not impossible.
I agree it was OTT but he punched a doctor or two. It's not like he fought of highly trained assassins or anything. Anyway I never had a problem with that bit, not sure why so many hate it
No more unrealistic than some of the other Bond cars.
Cmon, that's a classic moment.
This. Fair enough they were slightly different but Dalton owns the whole darker Bond thing.
I think Craig was at his best in SF, where he was more light hearted and more of an all rounder. Leave the dark Bond to Dalts.
This post was really aimed at chrisisall, who made the bizarre statement that none of Craig's films were anything remotely realistic, and bordered on Superman II fantasy, so I pointed out there are just as many outrageous elements in all the other Bond films too, so why is heightened realism an issue now, if it never was before?
Also, I find Craig's 3 films to be grounded in a sense of gritty realism not found in the majority of Bond flicks. Only a few can claim this - Connery's first 2 films, OHMSS, FYEO, TLD, LTK, CR and SF (QoS almost does, if it wasn't for that damn freefall scene).
I find chrisisall's statement utterly bizarre, with no logical sense to it.
Some of you need to understand that these movies don't have to be one thing or another, there is clearly room for a dynamic that combines multiple elements. Get it into your heads, Bond movies will always have OTT action and will always have a degree of fantastical elements, irrespective of how "realistic" or "grounded in reality" they're supposed to be. To think otherwise is silly. That being said, with the physical shape Craig is in and how he looks doing the action, as far as I'm concerned he brings credibility and even a certain degree of believability that all the other 5 actors that came before him could actually do all the remarkable things he and they have done, as they're playing the same man. Bond is and has always been portrayed as some sort of expert when it comes to navigating any type of vehicle or executing some daring stunt. With Craig I can believe Bond can do these things not because the story tells me to believe it but because looking at Craig I can believe he can.
As for Dalton, he's a great Bond and as disappointing as it is he only did 2 movies, I'm somewhat glad he didn't do more after LTK because with the corroding quality of scripts and overall direction the movies were heading in, I fear we all may have wished that Dalton stopped and got out after LTK. If anything I wish Dalton had either taken over the role from FYEO or OP.
What I also love about Dalton is, it's with great conviction that he approached the role the way he did, knowing the risks and it was great to hear him as recent as 2002 for the DAD premiere show with parkinson, talking about how he had planted the seeds for a more darker take, which is more in line with Fleming's tone of the novels. I couldn't help bit feel embarrassed for Brosnan because he had done nothing with what Dalton had set up and when it was time for him to talk, he just lacked any real knowledge of the character where as Dalton when he was speaking knew what the hell he was talking about. This brings me to both Dalton and Craig. Both are very similar but still play the character differently. Both took incredible risks in that with Dalton he made a complete tonal shift from the Moore era abd with Craig, he himself just by his appearance alone was a risk and again, like Dalton it was a case of making a complete tonal shift from the cartoony Brosnan era. Both are great actors but having to choose one, I'd easily declare Craig as the better actor in general abd subsequently the better Bond.
One if the issues I have with Dalton is, he could appear to be overly theatrical in his delivery of acting. As an actor one of the key skills you need to have is to be able to adjust and adapt and there were a few times where he couldn't quite find that right level of where he needed to be, which adversely affected his performance, making some of his scenes somewhat clumsy. Dalton is also an actor that has presense but for some reason, even with the theatrical acting he sometimes employed, he rarely ever lot up the screen with any real commanding presense for me. There was never that constant there that i could see but when it was there, he was great.
As for Craig, for me, he's the total package and I could go on all day about how such a superb actor and great Bond he is but I'll do that another time. For me in a nut shell, Craig joins the ranks of Connery and Moore as being iconic and offering definitive portrayals of the character and once again making the Bond movies an A-list franchise once again. He is by far the best actor cast as Bond and conveys his performances with an undeniable brutal conviction. In my eyes, we're incredibly lucky to have this man as Bond.
Well said. More sanity at last!!
There was never anything more stretching the realms of possibility than seeing an ageing Moore in his last few films performing miraculous stunts. It started to border on Austin Powers territory, with a close-up face of Grandad Moore, then quickly cutting to a body double with a brown wig doing some hair-raising stunt.
With Craig, you actually can believe he is the man doing the stunt, and not a stunt man double standing in. Because of his hard edged performance too, he lends an air of credibility to the whole thing. You believe this man really is a killer, and not an actor reading his lines with a knowing smile and wink to the camera.
The most indestructible? He's shed more blood than any other Bond and has the cuts, bruises abd physical trauma to show for it.
As for the balance of fantasy and reality, I personally feel they've done a great job thus far and as long as the Craig era can make film's in the mould if CR abd SF, we're locked in for winning Bond movies.
Very well written! That clearly took effort and I like that. I don't necessarily agree with everything but overall I do. I will say my worst scene for Dalton is where he meets Leiter in TLD. I think Glen thought it was good enough but I would have re-shot it again.
I do remember Glen in his book mentioning him not showing Tim all the dailies after a while as Dalton would find a fault in a lot of shots and demand a reshoot. Tim would even question the kissing scenes by asking women on the set.
Like you say, Dalton was a great Bond but took over at a time when the franchise was penny pinching thanks to studio pressure. I could not imagine Craig being happy to be in such a scenario where you have no real idea where things stand and can sense the opposition to what you are doing.
I can say with full confidence that watching SF and Mendes work, I feel Dalton needed an A-list director to bring his full qualities out. But I still love his performances all the more knowing the history.
Personally, I thought Dalton had in some scenes an overpowering in a good way presence. He just underplayed the Bondisms many were too familiar with. But he is an actor that was capable of doing the spoofier type Bond but him and Cubby wanted to go more serious and for that to work, the familiar elements were cut down.
As the saying goes "You don't know until you try." Dalton took incredible risk being the first to jump in the deep end of uncertainty. That takes guts.
I also think Brosnan's biggest mistake was running a mile from what Dalton had started. I never believed the depth in his films as a parodying moment was not far away. I really felt Brosnan could have played so well a straighter Bond like Craig does now.
Brosnan in The Fourth Protocol shows he has the qualities to play the depth to a tee. And he would have been accepted in the role even if he was more serious. But I suspect EON wanting to make sure his films did big in the USA were tailoring his scripts more to his Remington Steele persona because that is why he was popular in the running for the role in the 1980's.
The Fourth Protocol was not a hit but a damn fine film about secret agencies. Brosnan was great in that! And Brosnan to me has a greater image than Craig as far as Bond look goes. I never met one woman who did not find him incredibly handsome. And he had the right height which was a Cubby inistence as his book vividly states.
I am sure Brosnan looks back now and sees where he needed to make alterations. But that can be said of any actor who has been in the part. Dalton included.
Exactly! I get confused reading Getafix's comments regarding Craig, because clearly he hates the Brozza films like I do, he loves the dark gritty ones like LTK (like I do), yet shows a stubborn reluctance to accept the new Craig films, even though they are in the exact style that he loves.
No Bond has shed more blood, tears and bruises than Craig's Bond. The only Bond that comes close is Dalton in LTK.
I don't have an issue with CR or QoS. They're not my favourite films but I'm fine with them. It's just SF that I was really disappointed with. I think @Baltimore007 makes the point either in this thread or somewhere else that the death of Bond at the start of SF just takes things that little bit too far. Bond becomes invincible and the director didn't feel any need to explain how he survives - it's just a given that Bond survives shot, falling from a great height and drowning. The plausibility is stretched beyond breaking limit and that's not a good thing. I'm not the only one to make that point.
Someone mentioned how silly Dalton landing on the boat at the start of TLD is. I actually see those kinds of scenes as vital to getting the mix right in Bond. The PTS in TLD is action packed and sets-up Dalton as the new Bond perfectly. But it ends with a little knowing wink (the boat scene) which tells the audience to lighten up a little and not treat it too seriously. The SF PTS ends with Bond's death and there is little or no humour in the film until later on, when the film slowly morphs into something more like an old-fashioned OTT Bond movie. I just found that change jarring and unconvincing, especially as CR and QoS felt so different and like they'd taken Bond in a new direction. It's just a tonal and directoral thing I think. To me John Glen, for all his double taking pigeons, had a real grasp on how you balance the action, drama and humour of a Bond film. I don't personally feel that any director has successfully done that since LTK.
Also, I'm not actually a massive fan of LTK. I like Dalton as Bond but I agree with the man himself in that he felt that the tone in his second film was not quite right. There are some great things about it but I am not one of those that see it as one of the best in the series.When I watch it though it does still feel like a proper Bond movie.
The second half of the movie was nothing remotely like an old-fashioned OTT Bond movie. The final act has no huge villains lair blowing up, with colour co-ordinated men in boiler suits battling it out and Bond fighting with a henchman over a pond of killer fish.
It was the most downplayed final act since FYEO, but far, far superior, so again I don't understand where you are coming from.
I don't think that's entirely true. They might not be in boiler suits but there are plenty of goons for Bond to take on and the lake scene is the modern version of the henchman fight (less enjoyable though because we have never seen the guy before, unlike say an Oddjob, with whom Bond has history). It's an inversion of the traditional set-up, in that the villain comes to Bond's gaffe, but from the moment they leave London the film is intentionally a throw back to the old school movies. All the hi tech stuff is out the window and we are for all intents and purposes back in the 60s. There is an undeniably theatrical and OTT aspect to Silva's assault on Skyfall, with waves of goons, helicopter assault, booming speakers etc. Plus everything gets blown up and goes down in flames. It's consciously emulating a lot the older films.
The death of M might put a downer on it for some people (I was just glad to see the back of her), but even then it doesn't come close to the end of OHMSS for emotional impact.
I don't think you can really say the final act is down played either. It's highly theatrical. I don't mind that at all actually. I just didn't find the story very interesting and because I didn't care about M and Bond never really seemed in much danger (he just casually walks around Skyfall while the place is strafed with heavy machine gun fire and grenades) I was bored by the end of it.
I actually found the concept behind the final scenes was quite good but didn't think it was very well directed. Just lacked danger and real drama for me.
Can't agree with that. They spent lots of time preparing for the big battle.
I agree. I liked the climax in SF very much but the one in FYEO was much lower key. SF's showdown has a lot of great cinematography on the moore's but also a lot of explosions and gunfire. I don't know if I'd describe it as "low key". Less cheesey? Probably.
I also think the FYEO final act was more lower key, but that wasn't the point I was making. I was stating this is the most downplayed ending since FYEO.
TWINE had a lower key finale. The evil plan was big but it wasn't really a big battle like SF.
Surely CR and QoS have equally, if not slightly more low-key endings?
SF marks a return to a more traditional 'big battle' ending. I think it's hard to argue that point. I actually liked that Mendes chose to do this, but didn't think he handled the sequence very well.
In CR we have a collapsing building in the centre of Venice, and in QoS a hotel in the middle of the desert going up in blazes.
I suppose looking at it from that perspective, SF is no different. It has a building going up in blazes, with Bond fighting lots of baddies.
I don't know, maybe its just me then, but I felt the ending in SF to be relatively low key for a Bond movie. Maybe its because the ending is set in Scotland, and there was no big evil grand master plan from the villain that needed stopping. He was just out to murder M.
I think QoS has a slightly lower key ending than both CR and SF.
True there is still a final explosive battle but unlike the other two QoS's very last scene doesn't scream "Bond is back!"
It was the final act I was referring to, rather than the final scene itself.