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
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.
At this point Craig already has as much money as he'll ever need to be happy and has much fame as he'll ever get. He's also probably bored of the role by now and he's not excited to commit several months to a laborious job that he may not find as creative and fulfilling as he used to.
But by 2012 he was everyone's darling, lauded by Hollywood, star of the biggest of all Bonds etc.
Then, he just went sort of quiet. Yes he went to Broadway for a while and did well, but that was it until Spectre. He didn't push home his position as Britain's biggest movie star (and he was by 2012). Now, his body of work seems to have become very diluted, out of choice. No way would he not be getting the scripts. He just seems to be happy taking his big Bond paychecks, and treading water.
Added to this, that RM seemed to have infinite amounts of charm. It's amazing how this charm and self depreciation can pull your though situations when others would struggle. RM treated the whole thing as an adventurous joke and we all enjoyed the ride with him, we were all in on the joke. Utterly charming.
I think even the biggest DC would agree that he lacks this charm and, sometimes, can come over as short tempered. So this reflects on how we interpret him. I think he will not be given the benefit of the doubt when RM was. He is simply not loved in the same way that RM was and is.
Now, especially since his death the tide has turned and everyone remembers him with misty eyed fondness.
On the flip side Craig by comparison has often received the accolade as the 'best since Connery'. But I don't think that he will be as well loved and well remembered as Roger is now, when the next generation look back on his time as Bond.
To me, he is not loved but respected the same way as Sean Connery. Connery as well as Craig can be charming - but imagine a dinner party with Roger, Sean and Daniel attending and what kind of behaviour in maybe a heated discussion would you expect? Roger would charmingly disarm the aggressor, Sean shooting him and sipping a Martini and Daniel would likely beat him up and have a beer afterwards. All that while George Lazenby took the time to shag the party host's wife :-D
In interviews, Sean and Daniel sometimes let you feel they're annoyed by the questions where Roger was always charming and supernice. In Connerys later interviews you could often sense the fear some of the interviewers had of him and his temper. Daniel does not go that far but if he's annoyed, you see and hear it, too.
What I am trying to say is that I think in some ways this defines the way how we appreciate or adore them ... and their Bond interpretation.
Don't know - to me he is exactly like you wrote: The best since Connery. And since it's already 12 years now I am fondly looking back to CR (and QoS) and for myself I am sure he will remain the best next to King Sean. I am open to a new Bond, will remain a Bond fan for the rest of my life I am sure but right now since I have seen Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan in the role whom I all liked in the role nobody came close to Connery. So therefore I am sure the next Bond will pull it off quite good, too but Connery and Craig will remain "my" James Bond interpretations I like the most.
@SeanCraig spot on with Cary Grant also. To be fair, PB also has his share of smooth charm.
Hindsight will always be the true telling - Brosnan also had the 'best since Connery' label when he was doing Bond.
His credits have been limited and not particularly exciting.
- The Golden Compass: Clearly a post-Bond boom meant Craig could take a small supporting role in a would-be franchise. However, it ended up flopping. This was the first sign that his new “stardom” wasn’t all it was cracked up to be.
- Defiance: This was Craig’s very concerted effort to get an Oscar nomination. Sometimes a film smells so heavily like Oscar-bait that even the Academy get turned off. It’s one of his better performances, but the film is mediocre (still the Academy love mediocre).
- Tintin: A lark with an esteemed director.
- Cowboys and Aliens: Spielberg, Howard, Grazer, Ford and Favreau? I’m not sure why this failed, but I think Craig is great in it. Should have been more.
- Dragon Tattoo: Genuinely terrific. I never saw it as a franchise-start but an auteur project. Probably the best film Craig has done. However, it’s not *his* film, it’s Rooney Mara’s. Perhaps outside of Bond, Craig just isn't a leading man.
- Logan Lucky: Genius performance and he totally steals it. Craig needs to keep doing these type of films! He’s versatile but keeps it to himself.
- Kings: An example of Craig trying to be edgy by finding an interesting director and unusual material. However, this looks like a misfire (which is shame).
Personally, I think his performances as Bond have been terrific. He’s fantastic in CR – bringing pathos, vulnerability and grit to the role. It’s a brutal and emotional performance. Craig has never been more hungry and determined than in CR. It’s his best performance and probably the best acting turn in the 007 series.
He’s terrific in SF – portraying the ‘coolness’ of Bond with ease but adding an emotional texture. In SP, he gives his most “Bondian” performance and the whole thing feels effortless. It’s the moment he came full-circle and fully inhabited the role as we know it and he did it with aplomb.
He’s underused and underwritten in QOS and comes across as a humourless bore.
Craig needs to be getting the roles that folk such as Bradley Cooper, Joel Edgerton, Ben Affleck, Idris Elba, Tom Hardy are getting. He’s lost his stock.
Considering the current climate, he needs a great lead role in a TV series to relaunch himself.
'Should have' - says who?
Sometimes, DC gives the impression it's a burden. There is a certain joy lacking.
I guess the long gap between his last few films - three to four year gap - doesn't help some people maintain excitement - but once the trailers hit and the hype builds I'm sure most film goers will get interested in another Craig Bond film. Skyfall and SPECTRE had huge UK box office openings and I'm sure it will be the same for his last Bond film. I suppose you could argue is there anything new/different in store? People are hyping up Danny Boyle as the new director but I doubt he'll offer anything radical. The Bond films are a franchise with a defined set of rules and I can't see EON allowing Craig and Boyle to shake things up (and some might argue there is no need to shake things up).
A new James Bond actor is the best way to update the franchise. I think Craig should continue his style for one last film and if the producers feel change is necessary, wait for the next actor to come along.
Apparently Eon were wanting people to pitch something that had never been done before in Bond - so presumably the idea Boyle/Hodge have is in that vein.
Too honest. No one negotiated as ruthlessly as Roger Moore. As good an ambassador as he has been he still did it for the money.
I believe Cubby and Rog left it to their agents whilst they played backgammon.
I suppose if you're going to take a creative risk with a Craig Bond film then it makes sense to do it with his last film. If it doesn't work out the next Bond actor/Bond film can revert back to a more conventional storyline.
That is not exactly true. What made him hesitate about doing Bond was being catapulted into stardom, something he wanted to avoid -- he is on record as saying this. Craig saw himself (and still does) as an ACTOR, not a MOVIE STAR. He is intensely private and is much happier at home, with family, than he is on a movie set.
Same thing happened with Brosnan. When he was Bond he was a megastar and I remember the "best since Connery" comments being thrown around a lot too.
Connery and Moore both defined the role so I think they'll always be the big two. Craig will probably be remembered as a decent third for now, depending on how well the next guy goes down. He'll always be more popular than Dalton and Lazenby and the tide has turned enough since the 90s that he'll sit comfortably ahead of Brosnan in any polls but once he's done I think he'll be back in Connery and Moore's shadow along with the others.
Only on the internet.
I think all the Bond actors have expressed similar hesitations.
And yet, then there's Tom Cruise. They keep a partially rotating team in the M:I films but even after 20+ years, people still mainly want to see Cruise as Ethan Hunt. Cruise has that "thing" that can charm us, despite his off-screen life and whatnot.
And now Craig. He's neither the pop idol that Downey is nor the slightly controversial character that Cruise is. James Bond is pretty huge though -- still is, will always be -- and I guess people will continue to see Bond films, regardless of who plays the lead part (provided a reasonable choice was made of course.) CASINO ROYALE benefited greatly from the fact that Craig blew us away against many unfavorable expectations; QUANTUM OF SOLACE confirmed Craig's pure awesomeness. By the time we got to SKYFALL and SPECTRE, however, Craig had done a few films besides James Bond but was mostly 'just' James Bond. It's natural for things to work out that way. You can "re-invent" Bond only once with a new actor I think. Connery, Moore, Brosnan, ... After a while, they had all become the evident choice to play Bond in their respective decades. "Evident", as in "not special", just "normal", "logical". But people didn't like them any less for it.
So while I cannot imagine that people will see B25 for Craig rather than for James Bond, I cannot imagine his casting to be any hindrance either. In fact, those who have been keeping track of Craig's rather clumsy statements post SPECTRE, may be a tad intrigued by his return. If his Bond is furthermore allowed to explore a few different avenues -- i.e. if they finally give him his GF or TB for example -- and if he handles the change of tone with grace and dignity, who knows, word-of-mouth and critics may praise his swan song even more. Those are things that he must aim towards anyway. The 'cool' factor (as in "new") is essentially lost; but we can still very much enjoy his performance. It can happen. People have good things to say about Vin Diesel as Toretto in the F&F films, despite the evident cash grab these films are for Diesel. Reduced enthusiasm doesn't necessarily lead to a poor BO performance.
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. 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).
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.
Bond has made him incredibly wealthy, and he has since married and settled down. He really doesn't need to work. He seems more content with who he is, and what he is in acting quarters. I think he has realised he already has the job every actor wants, rather than see the Bond label as a burden to his name within his industry. And he already has the respect of his Peers.
I see him post Bond do the Connery thing of semi retiring and only picking bits to do that he will find personally rewarding. He and Rachel recently moved back to Manhattan so I can see him puting on his own Theatre Productions one day.
When Craig Walks out in the Gun barrel on Bond 25 the excitement will come.