Where does Bond go after Craig?

1376377379381382543

Comments

  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,130
    Don't think it's mentioned so far, believe the filmmakers commented Moore couldn't believably run on screen.

    They worked around that with editing of 007 escaping on foot in the airport scene of LALD. And the use of the stairs in FYEO.



  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,114
    I think Roger himself surrendered that bit of information to them! Hence you don't see him doing his own running very often, but Bond still runs.
  • Posts: 1,568
    Craig grunted a lot in his films.
  • Posts: 3,054
    Don't think it's mentioned so far, believe the filmmakers commented Moore couldn't believably run on screen.

    They worked around that with editing of 007 escaping on foot in the airport scene of LALD. And the use of the stairs in FYEO.



    I always say I feel a bit sorry for Moore in this area. I get the sense he himself wasn’t very athletic compared to the other Bond actors, and I think he was just one of those people who suffered from various health issues his whole life (I know kidney stones was a problem for him during points in his Bond tenure).

    I think the stunt doubles and the lack of believability is only really prominent during AVTAK, and I’d argue it’s worst during the PTS. I actually think that OP does a good job of blending Moore and his stunt men during action sequences, and it doesn’t seem like what he’s doing defies his physical abilities as Bond. I’d even say the fight scene in the dance club in TMWTGG is pretty believable.
  • TMWTGG has Moore in his prime.

    In Octopussy you can see the suntmen everywhere.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,153
    TMWTGG has Moore in his prime.

    In Octopussy you can see the suntmen everywhere.

    True, but TMWTGG doesn’t have a lot of Bond in action. Roger Moore could pull it off, in that time.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited October 2023 Posts: 2,943
    Sir Rog would've run more but he didn't want to spill his martini, so...
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,114
    007HallY wrote: »
    Don't think it's mentioned so far, believe the filmmakers commented Moore couldn't believably run on screen.

    They worked around that with editing of 007 escaping on foot in the airport scene of LALD. And the use of the stairs in FYEO.



    I always say I feel a bit sorry for Moore in this area. I get the sense he himself wasn’t very athletic compared to the other Bond actors, and I think he was just one of those people who suffered from various health issues his whole life (I know kidney stones was a problem for him during points in his Bond tenure).

    I think the stunt doubles and the lack of believability is only really prominent during AVTAK, and I’d argue it’s worst during the PTS. I actually think that OP does a good job of blending Moore and his stunt men during action sequences, and it doesn’t seem like what he’s doing defies his physical abilities as Bond. I’d even say the fight scene in the dance club in TMWTGG is pretty believable.

    Yeah I think that's his best fight scene, maybe up alongside the fight in Octopussy's bedroom- there's some good choreography there and he's actually acting his way through it pretty well. In the OP fight he looks quite professional and even a touch angry.

    What always makes me laugh is that I agree that he wasn't the most athletically gifted, but when it comes to fight scenes he probably took part in at least double the amount of fight scenes of all of the other Bond actors combined: what with hundreds of episodes of his various TV shows like Ivanhoe, Maverick, The Saint, The Persuaders etc., each of which invariably had about two fight scenes an episode, on average!

  • Posts: 1,723
    Yes, i know that the Connery and Moore Bond's ran occasionally but certainly nothing like the later Bond films where he is running a lot to solve a problem. In the early films Bond usually found a way to get around these same kind of problems without having to exert himself so much. Early Bond would have just stolen a car as opposed to running half the way through London. I'd just like to see him go back to being more clever about solving problems.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,114
    delfloria wrote: »
    Yes, i know that the Connery and Moore Bond's ran occasionally but certainly nothing like the later Bond films where he is running a lot to solve a problem.

    You said they "never" had to run, which is hyperbolic.
    delfloria wrote: »
    In the early films Bond usually found a way to get around these same kind of problems without having to exert himself so much. Early Bond would have just stolen a car as opposed to running half the way through London. I'd just like to see him go back to being more clever about solving problems.

    Personally I want an action hero who exerts himself; it seems kind of contrary to the point to have a lazy one. The idea that CraigBond didn't steal any cars or bikes or planes or JCBs to get around is kind of ludicrous, as is the idea that he wasn't clever about solving problems. The CR car valet/alarm bit for example is a classic bit of Bond thinking.
  • Posts: 335
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Craig grunted a lot in his films.

    Did he? I don't remember that at all.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,645
    M_Blaise wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Craig grunted a lot in his films.

    Did he? I don't remember that at all.

    He snarled a little, but I don't remember grunts.
  • Posts: 1,568
    Listen for it when he hits the beams in CR and other times when he hits the ground.
  • Posts: 3,054
    He probably does, but it doesn’t immediately come to mind…

    Roger Moore’s ‘ooofs’ during his fight scenes, however….
  • Posts: 1,723
    mtm wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    Yes, i know that the Connery and Moore Bond's ran occasionally but certainly nothing like the later Bond films where he is running a lot to solve a problem.

    You said they "never" had to run, which is hyperbolic.
    delfloria wrote: »
    In the early films Bond usually found a way to get around these same kind of problems without having to exert himself so much. Early Bond would have just stolen a car as opposed to running half the way through London. I'd just like to see him go back to being more clever about solving problems.

    Personally I want an action hero who exerts himself; it seems kind of contrary to the point to have a lazy one. The idea that CraigBond didn't steal any cars or bikes or planes or JCBs to get around is kind of ludicrous, as is the idea that he wasn't clever about solving problems. The CR car valet/alarm bit for example is a classic bit of Bond thinking.

    Guilty of being hyperbolic. I guess I still don't think of Bond as a "action hero" but as a "gentleman spy".
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,899
    delfloria wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    Yes, i know that the Connery and Moore Bond's ran occasionally but certainly nothing like the later Bond films where he is running a lot to solve a problem.

    You said they "never" had to run, which is hyperbolic.
    delfloria wrote: »
    In the early films Bond usually found a way to get around these same kind of problems without having to exert himself so much. Early Bond would have just stolen a car as opposed to running half the way through London. I'd just like to see him go back to being more clever about solving problems.

    Personally I want an action hero who exerts himself; it seems kind of contrary to the point to have a lazy one. The idea that CraigBond didn't steal any cars or bikes or planes or JCBs to get around is kind of ludicrous, as is the idea that he wasn't clever about solving problems. The CR car valet/alarm bit for example is a classic bit of Bond thinking.

    Guilty of being hyperbolic. I guess I still don't think of Bond as a "action hero" but as a "gentleman spy".

    Totally agree @delfloria
    When I think action hero I think John Wick, John McClaine, etc.
    James Bond is a spy and for the most part a gentleman. It’s his Britishness and snobbery that keeps him from being an action hero.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2023 Posts: 15,114
    delfloria wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    Yes, i know that the Connery and Moore Bond's ran occasionally but certainly nothing like the later Bond films where he is running a lot to solve a problem.

    You said they "never" had to run, which is hyperbolic.
    delfloria wrote: »
    In the early films Bond usually found a way to get around these same kind of problems without having to exert himself so much. Early Bond would have just stolen a car as opposed to running half the way through London. I'd just like to see him go back to being more clever about solving problems.

    Personally I want an action hero who exerts himself; it seems kind of contrary to the point to have a lazy one. The idea that CraigBond didn't steal any cars or bikes or planes or JCBs to get around is kind of ludicrous, as is the idea that he wasn't clever about solving problems. The CR car valet/alarm bit for example is a classic bit of Bond thinking.

    Guilty of being hyperbolic. I guess I still don't think of Bond as a "action hero" but as a "gentleman spy".

    That’s his disguise; he’s not really a gentleman. TMWTGG is probably the best example of that, with Goodnight seeing through his attempts to get her into bed and then shoving her into a cupboard so he can shag Andrea instead. Or accepting Tracy’s payment of her body for helping her out in the casino etc.
    I see him as someone who knows how to use good manners etc. to his advantage, but gleefully turns any situation so he can win and we vicariously enjoy the often quite outrageous things he does.

    He’s not even really a spy…

    They’re all action adventure films. He runs, he shoots, he jumps, he fights, and he always has. To complain about that seems odd to me.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Not a red herring
    edited October 2023 Posts: 567
    mtm wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    Yes, i know that the Connery and Moore Bond's ran occasionally but certainly nothing like the later Bond films where he is running a lot to solve a problem.

    You said they "never" had to run, which is hyperbolic.
    delfloria wrote: »
    In the early films Bond usually found a way to get around these same kind of problems without having to exert himself so much. Early Bond would have just stolen a car as opposed to running half the way through London. I'd just like to see him go back to being more clever about solving problems.

    Personally I want an action hero who exerts himself; it seems kind of contrary to the point to have a lazy one. The idea that CraigBond didn't steal any cars or bikes or planes or JCBs to get around is kind of ludicrous, as is the idea that he wasn't clever about solving problems. The CR car valet/alarm bit for example is a classic bit of Bond thinking.

    Guilty of being hyperbolic. I guess I still don't think of Bond as a "action hero" but as a "gentleman spy".

    That’s his disguise; he’s not really a gentleman. TMWTGG is probably the best example of that, with Goodnight seeing through his attempts to get her into bed and then shoving her into a cupboard so he can shag Andrea instead. Or accepting Tracy’s payment of her body for helping her out in the casino etc.
    I see him as someone who knows how to use good manners etc. to his advantage, but gleefully turns any situation so he can win and we vicariously enjoy the often quite outrageous things he does.

    He’s not even really a spy…

    They’re all action adventure films. He runs, he shoots, he jumps, he fights, and he always has. To complain about that seems odd to me.

    Not to mention killing unarmed men. Now that's certainly not cricket!
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,899
    mtm wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    Yes, i know that the Connery and Moore Bond's ran occasionally but certainly nothing like the later Bond films where he is running a lot to solve a problem.

    You said they "never" had to run, which is hyperbolic.
    delfloria wrote: »
    In the early films Bond usually found a way to get around these same kind of problems without having to exert himself so much. Early Bond would have just stolen a car as opposed to running half the way through London. I'd just like to see him go back to being more clever about solving problems.

    Personally I want an action hero who exerts himself; it seems kind of contrary to the point to have a lazy one. The idea that CraigBond didn't steal any cars or bikes or planes or JCBs to get around is kind of ludicrous, as is the idea that he wasn't clever about solving problems. The CR car valet/alarm bit for example is a classic bit of Bond thinking.

    Guilty of being hyperbolic. I guess I still don't think of Bond as a "action hero" but as a "gentleman spy".

    That’s his disguise; he’s not really a gentleman. TMWTGG is probably the best example of that, with Goodnight seeing through his attempts to get her into bed and then shoving her into a cupboard so he can shag Andrea instead. Or accepting Tracy’s payment of her body for helping her out in the casino etc.
    I see him as someone who knows how to use good manners etc. to his advantage, but gleefully turns any situation so he can win and we vicariously enjoy the often quite outrageous things he does.

    He’s not even really a spy…

    They’re all action adventure films. He runs, he shoots, he jumps, he fights, and he always has. To complain about that seems odd to me.

    I don’t think anyone is complaining about it @mtm
    You seem to be the only one making something out of nothing.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2023 Posts: 15,114
    mtm wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    Yes, i know that the Connery and Moore Bond's ran occasionally but certainly nothing like the later Bond films where he is running a lot to solve a problem.

    You said they "never" had to run, which is hyperbolic.
    delfloria wrote: »
    In the early films Bond usually found a way to get around these same kind of problems without having to exert himself so much. Early Bond would have just stolen a car as opposed to running half the way through London. I'd just like to see him go back to being more clever about solving problems.

    Personally I want an action hero who exerts himself; it seems kind of contrary to the point to have a lazy one. The idea that CraigBond didn't steal any cars or bikes or planes or JCBs to get around is kind of ludicrous, as is the idea that he wasn't clever about solving problems. The CR car valet/alarm bit for example is a classic bit of Bond thinking.

    Guilty of being hyperbolic. I guess I still don't think of Bond as a "action hero" but as a "gentleman spy".

    That’s his disguise; he’s not really a gentleman. TMWTGG is probably the best example of that, with Goodnight seeing through his attempts to get her into bed and then shoving her into a cupboard so he can shag Andrea instead. Or accepting Tracy’s payment of her body for helping her out in the casino etc.
    I see him as someone who knows how to use good manners etc. to his advantage, but gleefully turns any situation so he can win and we vicariously enjoy the often quite outrageous things he does.

    He’s not even really a spy…

    They’re all action adventure films. He runs, he shoots, he jumps, he fights, and he always has. To complain about that seems odd to me.

    Not to mention killing unarmed men. Now that's certainly not cricket!

    Yeah, he shoots men in cold blood when they’ve “had their six”! :D And then makes callous jokes about someone having died! He’s not a gentleman, he’s a selfish bastard who we find very charming, and who happens to be on the side of the angels. And that’s how it was right from Dr No, and it’s certainly why I enjoy him.
  • Posts: 3,279
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    Yes, i know that the Connery and Moore Bond's ran occasionally but certainly nothing like the later Bond films where he is running a lot to solve a problem.

    You said they "never" had to run, which is hyperbolic.
    delfloria wrote: »
    In the early films Bond usually found a way to get around these same kind of problems without having to exert himself so much. Early Bond would have just stolen a car as opposed to running half the way through London. I'd just like to see him go back to being more clever about solving problems.

    Personally I want an action hero who exerts himself; it seems kind of contrary to the point to have a lazy one. The idea that CraigBond didn't steal any cars or bikes or planes or JCBs to get around is kind of ludicrous, as is the idea that he wasn't clever about solving problems. The CR car valet/alarm bit for example is a classic bit of Bond thinking.

    Guilty of being hyperbolic. I guess I still don't think of Bond as a "action hero" but as a "gentleman spy".

    That’s his disguise; he’s not really a gentleman. TMWTGG is probably the best example of that, with Goodnight seeing through his attempts to get her into bed and then shoving her into a cupboard so he can shag Andrea instead. Or accepting Tracy’s payment of her body for helping her out in the casino etc.
    I see him as someone who knows how to use good manners etc. to his advantage, but gleefully turns any situation so he can win and we vicariously enjoy the often quite outrageous things he does.

    He’s not even really a spy…

    They’re all action adventure films. He runs, he shoots, he jumps, he fights, and he always has. To complain about that seems odd to me.

    Not to mention killing unarmed men. Now that's certainly not cricket!

    Yeah, he shoots men in cold blood when they’ve “had their six”! :D And then makes callous jokes about someone having died! He’s not a gentleman, he’s a selfish bastard who we find very charming, and who happens to be on the side of the angels. And that’s how it was right from Dr No, and it’s certainly why I enjoy him.

    I definitely want more `badass Bond' in the next film. Craig smiling when the bomber blows himself up at the airport, Moore knocking someone off to their death by swiping his tie, Connery's `you've had your six', Dalton's `you earned it, you keep it, old buddy', etc.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,004
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    Yes, i know that the Connery and Moore Bond's ran occasionally but certainly nothing like the later Bond films where he is running a lot to solve a problem.

    You said they "never" had to run, which is hyperbolic.
    delfloria wrote: »
    In the early films Bond usually found a way to get around these same kind of problems without having to exert himself so much. Early Bond would have just stolen a car as opposed to running half the way through London. I'd just like to see him go back to being more clever about solving problems.

    Personally I want an action hero who exerts himself; it seems kind of contrary to the point to have a lazy one. The idea that CraigBond didn't steal any cars or bikes or planes or JCBs to get around is kind of ludicrous, as is the idea that he wasn't clever about solving problems. The CR car valet/alarm bit for example is a classic bit of Bond thinking.

    Guilty of being hyperbolic. I guess I still don't think of Bond as a "action hero" but as a "gentleman spy".

    That’s his disguise; he’s not really a gentleman. TMWTGG is probably the best example of that, with Goodnight seeing through his attempts to get her into bed and then shoving her into a cupboard so he can shag Andrea instead. Or accepting Tracy’s payment of her body for helping her out in the casino etc.
    I see him as someone who knows how to use good manners etc. to his advantage, but gleefully turns any situation so he can win and we vicariously enjoy the often quite outrageous things he does.

    He’s not even really a spy…

    They’re all action adventure films. He runs, he shoots, he jumps, he fights, and he always has. To complain about that seems odd to me.

    Not to mention killing unarmed men. Now that's certainly not cricket!

    Yeah, he shoots men in cold blood when they’ve “had their six”! :D And then makes callous jokes about someone having died! He’s not a gentleman, he’s a selfish bastard who we find very charming, and who happens to be on the side of the angels. And that’s how it was right from Dr No, and it’s certainly why I enjoy him.

    I definitely want more `badass Bond' in the next film. Craig smiling when the bomber blows himself up at the airport, Moore knocking someone off to their death by swiping his tie, Connery's `you've had your six', Dalton's `you earned it, you keep it, old buddy', etc.

    I do love the "old buddy" retort. I guess that's why he has a license to kill. He gets to decide who lives and who dies.

    Bond as revenge fantasy. Discuss.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,393
    echo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    Yes, i know that the Connery and Moore Bond's ran occasionally but certainly nothing like the later Bond films where he is running a lot to solve a problem.

    You said they "never" had to run, which is hyperbolic.
    delfloria wrote: »
    In the early films Bond usually found a way to get around these same kind of problems without having to exert himself so much. Early Bond would have just stolen a car as opposed to running half the way through London. I'd just like to see him go back to being more clever about solving problems.

    Personally I want an action hero who exerts himself; it seems kind of contrary to the point to have a lazy one. The idea that CraigBond didn't steal any cars or bikes or planes or JCBs to get around is kind of ludicrous, as is the idea that he wasn't clever about solving problems. The CR car valet/alarm bit for example is a classic bit of Bond thinking.

    Guilty of being hyperbolic. I guess I still don't think of Bond as a "action hero" but as a "gentleman spy".

    That’s his disguise; he’s not really a gentleman. TMWTGG is probably the best example of that, with Goodnight seeing through his attempts to get her into bed and then shoving her into a cupboard so he can shag Andrea instead. Or accepting Tracy’s payment of her body for helping her out in the casino etc.
    I see him as someone who knows how to use good manners etc. to his advantage, but gleefully turns any situation so he can win and we vicariously enjoy the often quite outrageous things he does.

    He’s not even really a spy…

    They’re all action adventure films. He runs, he shoots, he jumps, he fights, and he always has. To complain about that seems odd to me.

    Not to mention killing unarmed men. Now that's certainly not cricket!

    Yeah, he shoots men in cold blood when they’ve “had their six”! :D And then makes callous jokes about someone having died! He’s not a gentleman, he’s a selfish bastard who we find very charming, and who happens to be on the side of the angels. And that’s how it was right from Dr No, and it’s certainly why I enjoy him.

    I definitely want more `badass Bond' in the next film. Craig smiling when the bomber blows himself up at the airport, Moore knocking someone off to their death by swiping his tie, Connery's `you've had your six', Dalton's `you earned it, you keep it, old buddy', etc.

    I do love the "old buddy" retort. I guess that's why he has a license to kill. He gets to decide who lives and who dies.

    Bond as revenge fantasy. Discuss.

    Licence To Kill has its limits.
    It could've been revoked if it's used in wrong and bad intentions.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited October 2023 Posts: 8,159
    What frustrates me about fan sites is that it seems a lot of people have the impression that EON will carry on making more grounded, dramatic films forever in the mold of Craig, and sometimes it warrants pointing out that the series takes on a new form with each new actor and changing things to keep it fresh and relevant is not only important, its necessary. We are going to reach the point where Craigs brooding reinterpretation just doesn't hold much relevance anymore, and it will be something completely different and modern that comes in to replace. I fully anticipate the next era to lean into the humour far more that Craig did, and that's basically out of necessity. It they don't it's very hard to see how things don't start to feel repetitive and dull. The series needs new directions to explore and new courses to take, that's literally how it survives. We've seen bond without the mask on for 15 years, watch his whole career as a double 00 play out, including his demise, and now I think its time to see him back as the legend he is known as. That doesn't mean he won't have depth, or that they will immediately jump back into 70's self parody, but I do fully expect more scenes to be played with a sardonic edge to them and more witty interplay between the characters, like we saw with paloma and bond in that scene. There was a sense of style and swagger to bond films like TND that the Craig films just don't have due to the commitment to realism and staying grounded. I'm old enough to remember when people were saying Bond could never be done gritty and dramatic, that you needed the gadgets, the oneliners, the ludicrous villains lairs, and then EON took everyone by surprise and completely rewrote the book of what a Bond film could be. Nowadays we're in the opposite scenario, where everyone's convinced that dark and gritty is the only way, that modern audiences won't accept a lighter Bond (which is a common point thats made with ZERO evidence to back it up) and I fully expect EON will surprises us again, because they understand that the series needs to adapt to survive, even if fans don't.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited October 2023 Posts: 8,049
    Equally frustrating is the repeated notion that the Craig films didn't have humour, style or swagger. There was plenty of it throughout, even if the films themselves often left me unsatisfied.
    I do fully expect more scenes to be played with a sardonic edge to them and more witty interplay between the characters, like we saw with Paloma and Bond in that scene. There was a sense of style and swagger to bond films like TND that the Craig films just don't have due to the commitment to realism and staying grounded.

    .....

    But anyway, it won't just be what the Craig era did or didn't do that will factor into EON's thinking. It's been an oft-maligned element of many big blockbusters since Marvel came knocking that humour was shoehorned in for the sake of it and ruining dramatic stakes. Meanwhile other films go the other route and become too dour and dark for the sake of it, too.

    Funnily enough, the Craig era would probably land somewhere in the middle ground of those two notions for me. And, save for a handful of misjudged moments, I'd argue the Brosnan era wouldn't be too far off that middle ground either. They weren't as light and silly as many claim them to be.

    I really don't think the tone is the issue - the writing of consistently good scripts is.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited October 2023 Posts: 8,159
    Equally frustrating is the repeated notion that the Craig films didn't have humour, style or swagger. There was plenty of it throughout

    If only that were true. :-<
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,114
    Equally frustrating is the repeated notion that the Craig films didn't have humour, style or swagger. There was plenty of it throughout

    If only that were true. :-<

    It's perfectly true, CraigMooreOHMSS is completely correct.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited October 2023 Posts: 8,159
    @mtm I've seen the films many times - there isn't. Craig films are most noted for when they do away with style altogether, such as the skyfall scotland scenes or the funeral of the dead agents. Nothing in Craig films matches Brosnans little dart across the street in hamburg with Arnold's score behind him in terms of flair.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,393
    For me, the Craig Era at least had a bit humor (compared to Dalton who's much more dour than Craig), and Craig had style (actually, some scenes where he's kinda the Classic Bond in that he's too confident, and forgetting the vulnerable Bond that he's meant to play, this was more obvious in the last three films, think of how he fixed his cufflinks in Skyfall).

    If there's anything, at least for me that he's lacking (though, as I've felt, personally), it's the charisma and sophistication), I personally don't think he's sophisticated like the past Bond actors, he's hard all the time (I know he had the style, but the way Craig carried them, it's a bit hard, no doubt many people are comparing him to Red Grant, because he lacked that particular sophistication), and yes, charisma, I also personally don't think he has charisma, he's not charismatic, because again of his hard personality, I know what they're trying to play with Craig, but those are lacking, really.

    I don't see him as a debonair like the past Bond actors, he's like a hard rock being glamoured.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited October 2023 Posts: 2,943
    CraigBond leaned into the blunt instrument aspect over the gentleman and into the assassin over the spy. Have to say, I loved them taking that route. I much preferred the black humour and wry wit over the lame gags and silliness too. Will they maintain that for the next guy's run? Dunno - they were already leavening it with more traditional elements in SP and NTTD. It'll depend largely on the actor they choose to play Bond, I guess. No point hiring Sope if they want a lighter, more Brozza or Mooresque tone - Hoult is probably the man for that job. I suspect that Bond 26 will be a mixed bag with elements of both and EON will see which aspect audiences respond to the most and then put more emphasis on that in Bond 27. The actor that's most capable of playing both dramatic storylines and lighter comedy? On the current evidence, probably ATJ.
Sign In or Register to comment.