Craig: stay or go? has SPECTRE changed any opinions?

17810121315

Comments

  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    edited December 2015 Posts: 1,756
    I love Craig, I always have, I'm a die-hard fan of his. I love his suave behavior in SP. But I prefer the way he was in CR, in fact I wish he was more of a hardass. Watching "24" recently, I wish we could have Craig in a position of aggressive control, and leaning more towards using the physicality and "ballsiness" of being a weathered spy rather than having every single resolution being due to luck or deus ex machina. There should be less killing, less action, and more suspense and hand to hand combat.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I love Craig, I always have, I'm a die-hard fan of his. I love his suave behavior in SP. But I prefer the way he was in CR, in fact I wish he was more of a hardass. Watching "24" recently, I wish we could have Craig in a position of aggressive control, and leaning more towards using the physicality and "ballsiness" of being a weathered spy rather than having every single resolution being due to luck or deus ex machina. There should be less killing, less action, and more suspense and hand to hand combat.
    I agree with you and think that suits Craig best personally. Every actor should play to their strengths imho.....that's when we have magic on screen.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I love Craig, I always have, I'm a die-hard fan of his. I love his suave behavior in SP. But I prefer the way he was in CR, in fact I wish he was more of a hardass. Watching "24" recently, I wish we could have Craig in a position of aggressive control, and leaning more towards using the physicality and "ballsiness" of being a weathered spy rather than having every single resolution being due to luck or deus ex machina. There should be less killing, less action, and more suspense and hand to hand combat.

    I agree and interestingly enough you've just described what makes Damon's Bourne movies so great.
  • Thunderball007Thunderball007 United States
    Posts: 306
    Dani Craig's performance in SPECTRE is just FUN!Love it!!!
  • bondjames wrote: »
    I love Craig, I always have, I'm a die-hard fan of his. I love his suave behavior in SP. But I prefer the way he was in CR, in fact I wish he was more of a hardass. Watching "24" recently, I wish we could have Craig in a position of aggressive control, and leaning more towards using the physicality and "ballsiness" of being a weathered spy rather than having every single resolution being due to luck or deus ex machina. There should be less killing, less action, and more suspense and hand to hand combat.
    I agree with you and think that suits Craig best personally. Every actor should play to their strengths imho.....that's when we have magic on screen.

    Fully disagree here. A good actor convinces in every kind of portrayal of Bond..........starting off as an agressive, lone, blunt instrument and ending into a more self-assured, funny, suave Bond. Craig can really do it all. Unless many of the previous Bond actors. And yes, for them the adage "Every actor should play to their strengths" counts. Not for Craig IMO. He convinces in every Bond film if you ask me. And I seriously mean that.

    Frankly, I find it a bit...disrespectful to say that an actor can only play one type of Bond. Daniel Craig has shown us all various character traits of the person....slowly developing from a blunt rogue instrument into the 'Bond' we all know. The problem IMO really is the public. They are not opening up their minds for this unique development of the character.
  • Posts: 6,601
    Agreed, but I don't think, the general public is going that deep. They either like a portrayal or they don't. Here it went both ways, because it was such a departure from the other DC Bonds.
  • Germanlady wrote: »
    Agreed, but I don't think, the general public is going that deep. They either like a portrayal or they don't. Here it went both ways, because it was such a departure from the other DC Bonds.

    You think so?

    I love "Skyfall" too, and at least during the PTS, at the very end of the film (when Bond enters 'M's new office) and during certain humorous scenes ("Health and Safety, carry on!" & "Ooowh come on and eject me! See if I care!"), we already got prepared for a Bond whose emotions are in better check and who occasionally is very funny.

    People say that Craig's Bond in "SF" was too suddenly made "old". But I always found that notion a bit exaggerated. Bond in "SF" was way more a victim of 'M's stupid decisions. And how would you feel if you're left dead in Turkey and if your 'company' doesn't do a proper check on Bond's body? And combined with that many bullet fragments in your chest, you certainly aren't a fit spy anymore. I always saw the period between the end of the PTS when Bond was shot and the return of Bond in M's house.....as a period of only a few months...perhaps 5 or 6 months. Not 3 or 4 years. So never forget, during the PTS, which is set 4 years after the events of "QOS", Bond is already a more experienced spy.
  • Posts: 6,601
    I believe, its easier then that (talking about general audiences).
    SF was better liked, because it had more emotion, more soul. But people were used to that from DC. Suddenly all that is missing for the sake of giving them the lighter version of the films as well as the character. That must have been ??? for many.

    IMO, had they done both - the fun left where it is, but with more depth along the line.
    Plus Bond still bleeding - we would have had another billion plus movie.

    As it is, DC has proven, he can do lighter Bond and has perfect timing again with the fun. Maybe with the next, they can do what I suggested. Have it both.
  • Germanlady wrote: »
    I believe, its easier then that (talking about general audiences).
    SF was better liked, because it had more emotion, more soul. But people were used to that from DC. Suddenly all that is missing for the sake of giving them the lighter version of the films as well as the character. That must have been ??? for many.

    IMO, had they done both - the fun left where it is, but with more depth along the line.
    Plus Bond still bleeding - we would have had another billion plus movie.

    As it is, DC has proven, he can do lighter Bond and has perfect timing again with the fun. Maybe with the next, they can do what I suggested. Have it both.

    But in all honesty......SF mainly had more "soul" because of the intercation between 'M' and Silva. The film was much more about them than about Bond. Bond in SF was way more the 'logical instrument of the circumstances' in this film.

    IMO SP has way more 'soul' as compared to, let's say, DAD, GE and TND. And SP is much more about Bond himself as compared to SF.

    The odd thing really is: People don't like 'Bond' anymore. At least not the.....'Bond' we Bond fans are used to. In CR and SF people liked the emotional characters. But to say that SP u-turns on this is IMO a sheer exaggeration. It shows how much the public got used to the darker and more emotional drama, and less interested in the humor and playfulness of the character. "Rogue Nation" and other "M:I"-films are now walking away with this, because those films really don't have that 'darker emotion'.

    Therefore I think Bond 25 should not necessarily become a more 'deeper' film. On the contrary, I think the public needs to get used to our 'typical Bond' a bit more. And we have to 'drag' that fun and playfulness again even more fiercefully from those "Mission: Impossible" films.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2015 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    I love Craig, I always have, I'm a die-hard fan of his. I love his suave behavior in SP. But I prefer the way he was in CR, in fact I wish he was more of a hardass. Watching "24" recently, I wish we could have Craig in a position of aggressive control, and leaning more towards using the physicality and "ballsiness" of being a weathered spy rather than having every single resolution being due to luck or deus ex machina. There should be less killing, less action, and more suspense and hand to hand combat.
    I agree with you and think that suits Craig best personally. Every actor should play to their strengths imho.....that's when we have magic on screen.

    Fully disagree here. A good actor convinces in every kind of portrayal of Bond..........starting off as an agressive, lone, blunt instrument and ending into a more self-assured, funny, suave Bond. Craig can really do it all. Unless many of the previous Bond actors. And yes, for them the adage "Every actor should play to their strengths" counts. Not for Craig IMO. He convinces in every Bond film if you ask me. And I seriously mean that.They are not opening up their minds for this unique development of the character.
    Thanks for your input. I fully disagree with you on this because your statement indicates a lack of understanding of the nuance in my statement and those of others in the above posts. Every actor can try to do everything, but not every actor can do it as well as every other actor. If they could, then they would all be able to play all parts just as well. Meryl Streep is no Arnold Schwarzenegger and vice versa. That's just a simple fact. I went into SP with an open mind......I'm not sure who you're referring to as 'they are not opening their minds for this unique development of the character'. Are you suggesting that most people who watch SP are closed minded? A broad statement if I ever heard one.

    I stand by my view that when an actor plays to his relative strengths, that is when magic happens.

    In the opinion of some members of the public and some members here, that was CR & QoS for DC.
    Frankly, I find it a bit...disrespectful to say that an actor can only play one type of Bond.
    Do you now? Well that's unfortunate. I am not being disrespectful at all. Just pointing out an opinion which I stand by. Again, my comment didn't suggest that one actor can play one type of Bond. Suggesting that implies a lack of understanding of the nuance in my statement. Again, to repeat it, my view is that when an actor plays to his relative strength, that is when magic happens. Otherwise, you just get a good performance. Nothing to write home about.
    The problem IMO really is the public. They are not opening up their minds for this unique development of the character.
    I disagree. The public have accepted the film. It is making tons of money. They are not ecstatic about it for the most part, and that is due to the film making and the performance within the film. That is not the public's fault. We can't put the blame for this on them.
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Agreed, but I don't think, the general public is going that deep. They either like a portrayal or they don't. Here it went both ways, because it was such a departure from the other DC Bonds.
    Precisely right. As I said elsewhere, we needed one more transition film (at least I did) before going to this kind of Bond performance, especially in a film that is a direct follow on from SF. It's interesting to note that those who invested in SF and the performances are less praising for the most part of SP, and vice versa. One needs to almost detach from SF to enjoy SP fully as a standalone, but they link everything together plot wise, making such detachment more difficult.
    Germanlady wrote: »
    I believe, its easier then that (talking about general audiences).
    SF was better liked, because it had more emotion, more soul. But people were used to that from DC. Suddenly all that is missing for the sake of giving them the lighter version of the films as well as the character. That must have been ??? for many.

    IMO, had they done both - the fun left where it is, but with more depth along the line.
    Plus Bond still bleeding - we would have had another billion plus movie.

    As it is, DC has proven, he can do lighter Bond and has perfect timing again with the fun. Maybe with the next, they can do what I suggested. Have it both.
    I agree again. This was a film making decision that didn't quite pay off for some fans and some audiences. The break was too jarring for many (including myself). The film lacked 'soul' as you said. That is a key ingredient to stir passions. SF had it in spades, no matter what one may think of it, which is why it was so passionately defended on these forums by many members. Whatever one may think of it, they executed their chosen direction in that film very well. It delivered what it set out to do perfectly (even if what it set out to do was not liked by some or even many). I noted that in the SP rank thread. SF did what it set out to do better than SP did imho.
    The odd thing really is: People don't like 'Bond' anymore. At least not the.....'Bond' we Bond fans are used to. fun and playfulness again even more fiercefully from those "Mission: Impossible" films.
    I don't think so. The public will accept anything that is well executed. It can be lighter, or it can be darker. It just needs to be done well. That's why the last two MI's have critical acclaim as well as being relatively popular. They were executed well. The tropes were done in inventive fashion and with style. The call backs to Bond and other spy films were subtle and not in your face. Execution is everything.
    But in all honesty......SF mainly had more "soul" because of the intercation between 'M' and Silva.
    That's certainly true, but the comments that started this discussion were focused on CR & QoS, which certainly have 'soul' and are still Bond films through and through, one ranked extremely high by a lot of members here, myself included.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Excellent points made @bondjames.
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 11,119
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Excellent points made @bondjames.
    He has excellently articulated and well argumented points yes :-).
  • Posts: 11,425
    I had no problem detaching from the snore-fest that was SF!

    SP was just what the doctor ordered.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,443
    Getafix wrote: »
    I had no problem detaching from the snore-fest that was SF!

    SP was just what the doctor ordered.

    Couldn't agree more. After SF, SP was exactly what the doctor ordered, and I honestly didn't think Mendes would be able to deliver a film such as that.
  • Posts: 11,425
    It's odd but SP is much more the film I exspectred from Mendes. SF was so awful IMO. SF to me felt like the first draft of a potentially good movie - lots of good ideas really poorly executed.
  • Getafix wrote: »
    It's odd but SP is much more the film I exspectred from Mendes. SF was so awful IMO. SF to me felt like the first draft of a potentially good movie - lots of good ideas really poorly executed.

    What about: SP, SF and CR are all magnificent :-D!?!? And perhaps in hindsight, QOS is quite good too :-D?
  • Posts: 11,425
    No.

    CR was a massive relief after Brosnan but not quite as good as some people make out (Campbell's rather plodding direction may be the culprit).

    QOS was the first Bond movie I actually really enjoyed in the cinema since TLD.

    SF is jam packed full of great ideas that somehow fail to coalesce into a descent movie. 4 out of 10.

    SP, a highly derivative and largely unoriginal nostalgia fest that somehow just works. 8 out of 10.
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 725
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I had no problem detaching from the snore-fest that was SF!

    SP was just what the doctor ordered.

    Couldn't agree more. After SF, SP was exactly what the doctor ordered, and I honestly didn't think Mendes would be able to deliver a film such as that.

    Totally agree. I thought we'd get another doom and gloom drama fest.

  • Posts: 11,425
    SP is really a very different movie from SF - Thank God!
  • Why "Thank God"? Did you also say that when "DAF" followed up "OHMSS"?

    You know what? Back in 1971 I actually think critics welcomed DAF with open arms! But here we are...45 years later :-).
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 4,622
    Although I am thrilled with Craig's capturing of the Bond persona in SP, I am not saying he was terrible in the other three films, rather he was quite good.
    Its just that the stories required he be saddled with baggage and issues and stuff that I personally could do without, so that detracted from appreciation for his work...but when let loose in SP minus the encumbrances....I think he nailed Bond better than anyone has since Connery. In fact I don't think any of Rog Dalts or Broz even come close.

    I think SP is a trumph of Bond over Mendes.
    Good job Dan!! Bond is back!

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    I think Craig should leave on this incredibly high note. He's paid his dues, done his time, and f**ked up his knee. I'm frankly scared to see another with him, as I couldn't possibly like it as much as SPECTRE. But.... should they prove me wrong, I'd be entirely game.
  • I want Daniel Craig to do 10 more Bond movies
  • Posts: 12,506
    adiman93 wrote: »
    I want Daniel Craig to do 10 more Bond movies

    Well sadly that's not gonna happen! :))
  • Posts: 6,601
    I wonder, what his other 5 posts are like
  • Posts: 45
    I'm pretty mixed on this. I absolutely love Craig and think he is very likely the best bond there has been, but SPECTRE just seemed like such a perfect send off for him.

    If he came back and did another movie, and it was just a standalone that wasn't connected to the other 4, it'd be kinda strange, and I think there is virtually no chance of a 6th from him.

    So that mean's they'd have to connect his 5th one to SPECTRE and the rest. How do you really do that? Go the OHMSS route and have blofeld or one of his henchmen kill of Madeline after the wedding, sending bond on a LTK type revenge story? That would kinda piss me off as we finally get to see bond settle down with "the only one who could have understood him" so killing her off when he's retired and happy, especially after his attempt to do that in CR would just be kinda wrong.

    I guess if you could spin the story of Blofeld being broken out of prison and them needing bond's help to track him down again or something, it could work, but I seriously doubt they'll get Waltz back, so how do you even do that?
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 2,598
    I would like Craig to stay but I don't really care if Mendes stays or leaves. I'm pleased with what Mendes has done in many parts like the sets - the villains headquarters and M's old school office for example, and I hope that another director wouldn't change this but he got the humour wrong in Skyfall and in parts in Spectre. The way Craig waves to one of the bodyguards after talking to Bellucci at the funeral is one example.

    Overall, I was happy with most of the humour in Spectre though. I would have preferred though for Spectre that it had been more serious. It would be good if Craig/Bond made a serious mistake at the beginning of Bond 25 and M explained to him that he's become too relaxed and complacent and we then see a more serious portrayal of the character again like in Craig's first three films. I don't think Craig should have phoned Moneypenny during that chase scene. Also, Mendes shouldn't have gone forward with Spectre until a better script had been composed.

    The stuff in London at the end should have been omitted and instead Bond should have spent more time at the villain's lair.

    That part with the photos of previous people from Bond's past in those different rooms was so cheesy.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Bounine wrote: »

    That part with the photos of previous people from Bond's past in those different rooms was so cheesy.

    Agreed, that was one of the few things that bothered me.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    Bounine wrote: »

    That part with the photos of previous people from Bond's past in those different rooms was so cheesy.

    Agreed, that was one of the few things that bothered me.

    That was awful, truly poor. Not sure who's idea it was, but whomever let that make it into the final cut should be fired.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Maybe (maybe) it wouldn't have been so quite so bad if we hadn't already run through that set of faces/names three times in the film already (beginning with the Tittle Sequence). It came off as forced an unnecessary. The point had been more than made already.

    Yes. This is what bothered me the most.

    And the lack of socks, now that it has been pointed out. Ad infinitum.
Sign In or Register to comment.