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

1235715

Comments

  • Posts: 322
    CrabKey wrote: »
    All in all, I'm good with DC stepping away, as long as they can find an actor with
    SC's qualities and a director like TY.

    Wow.

    :-S
  • StrelikStrelik Spectre Island
    Posts: 108
    Craig should stay. Purvis & Wade should go.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,313
    Strelik wrote: »
    Craig should stay. Purvis & Wade should go.
    And Newman.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Birdleson wrote: »
    And Mendes.
    Agreed on Mendes. Thanks for the memories.
  • Posts: 1,098
    Craig needs to stay for the next film.........as i want to see if the next film is like a sort of round 2 against Spectre. I hope there is a story which continues with Waltz as the villian, who some how escapes justice in London, and rebuilds his organisation, with a dastardly plan to strike back! :)
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 870
    mepal1 wrote: »
    Craig needs to stay for the next film.........as i want to see if the next film is like a sort of round 2 against Spectre. I hope there is a story which continues with Waltz as the villian, who some how escapes justice in London, and rebuilds his organisation, with a dastardly plan to strike back! :)

    The worst possible scenario. Something similar is likely to happen, though.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,843
    Getafix wrote: »
    I'd say that SP makes me more relaxed about Craig returning.

    I think the Craig era is a little bit overrated, but that's to be expected. Remember All those people who said Brosnan was the best since Connery. Now we have people saying Craig has equalled or topped Connery. Total nonsense IMO, but he's a decent Bond and infinitely better than Brosnan.

    I'm resigned to him doing another. The films are not quite my cup of tea but I am very conscious that they could be a lot worse as well, so I'm happy for Craig to do one more. He probably deserves it.

    Am I alone in feeling that with SF and SP that Bond has drifted back to that Moore-light territory that Brosnan had already explored? I mean the films are still a lot better than with Brosnan, but there's an underlying current of cheese that I find slightly off putting.

    More than ever I feel they had it right with Dalton.

    Dalton's films are without a underlying current of cheese? cello chase anyone?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,843
    Birdleson wrote: »
    The bar fight is worse.

    Don't forget Dalton filmed a scene when he sailed on a magic carpet.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Bouvier herself is the definition of cheese. Don't get me started on Lupe.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Yeah Dalton fans think he was the gritty messiah, his films were full of far more cheese than any of Craig's plus DC never looks awkward and has slipped into a northern accent during his tenure.

    Dalton couldn't play the full package, his limited range would have ran out of steam in no time, Craig has actually shown some variety, Dalton would have just played serious and gritty for is whole tenure had he continued The more I see Craig the more I think that Dalton is getting more overrated as time goes by.

    I really don't think he would have evolved into anything past what he gave us.
  • Posts: 1,092
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Yeah Dalton fans think he was the gritty messiah, his films were full of far more cheese than any of Craig's plus DC never looks awkward and has slipped into a northern accent during his tenure.

    Dalton couldn't play the full package, his limited range would have ran out of steam in no time, Craig has actually shown some variety, Dalton would have just played serious and gritty for is whole tenure had he continued The more I see Craig the more I think that Dalton is getting more overrated as time goes by.

    I really don't think he would have evolved into anything past what he gave us.

    I'm a huge Dalton fan but there is some truth to this. He was almost to slavish to the books. He simply had to play it that way. Those theater actors sometimes have a bug up their bums about acting. (I know this because my wife is a lifelong theater actress). :))
  • Posts: 1,411
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    Crabkey, sorry but you need to move on.

    What do you need from the next Bond? Do tell.
  • Posts: 582
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Yeah Dalton fans think he was the gritty messiah, his films were full of far more cheese than any of Craig's plus DC never looks awkward and has slipped into a northern accent during his tenure.

    Dalton couldn't play the full package, his limited range would have ran out of steam in no time, Craig has actually shown some variety, Dalton would have just played serious and gritty for is whole tenure had he continued The more I see Craig the more I think that Dalton is getting more overrated as time goes by.

    I really don't think he would have evolved into anything past what he gave us.

    Yeah I always thought he said 'considerably' in quite a posh way in CR, but doesn't really speak like that across the board.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 582
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Yeah Dalton fans think he was the gritty messiah, his films were full of far more cheese than any of Craig's plus DC never looks awkward and has slipped into a northern accent during his tenure.

    Dalton couldn't play the full package, his limited range would have ran out of steam in no time, Craig has actually shown some variety, Dalton would have just played serious and gritty for is whole tenure had he continued The more I see Craig the more I think that Dalton is getting more overrated as time goes by.

    I really don't think he would have evolved into anything past what he gave us.

    I'm a huge Dalton fan but there is some truth to this. He was almost to slavish to the books. He simply had to play it that way. Those theater actors sometimes have a bug up their bums about acting. (I know this because my wife is a lifelong theater actress). :))

    Dalton perfectly caught the gritty introspective brooding Bond of the books, but for me whilst that is Fleming to a tee, his 2 films missed the fantastical and the bizarre which is also absolutely Fleming - which they've brought back in Spectre. The villains in the Dalton films for example miss the bizarre and outlandish of a Blofeld, a Goldfinger or an Oddjob - all Fleming creations.
  • Posts: 1,092
    CrabKey wrote: »
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    Crabkey, sorry but you need to move on.

    What do you need from the next Bond? Do tell.

    I just want a good movie. Look, the series has changed, along with audiences, and adhering to the Connery formula simply won't cut it anymore. SP was pretty darn close IMO to the "classic" Bond without being too cliched and fake seeming like Brosnan's films. They have built a new mythology with Craig and it works. The fact that his 4 films will total over 3 billion dollars is quite insane. This series has lasted this long because they know how to adapt yet stay true to what Fleming wrote. That's a tough job. It can't be exactly like Fleming because it's not 1954 anymore. Espionage has changed. James Bond must change as well. That's the only way this franchise can stay relevant.
  • Posts: 1,092
    tigers99 wrote: »
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Yeah Dalton fans think he was the gritty messiah, his films were full of far more cheese than any of Craig's plus DC never looks awkward and has slipped into a northern accent during his tenure.

    Dalton couldn't play the full package, his limited range would have ran out of steam in no time, Craig has actually shown some variety, Dalton would have just played serious and gritty for is whole tenure had he continued The more I see Craig the more I think that Dalton is getting more overrated as time goes by.

    I really don't think he would have evolved into anything past what he gave us.

    I'm a huge Dalton fan but there is some truth to this. He was almost to slavish to the books. He simply had to play it that way. Those theater actors sometimes have a bug up their bums about acting. (I know this because my wife is a lifelong theater actress). :))

    Dalton perfectly caught the gritty introspective brooding Bond of the books, but for me whilst that is Fleming to a tee, his 2 films missed the fantastical and the bizarre which is also absolutely Fleming - which they've brought back in Spectre. The villains in the Dalton films for example miss the bizarre and outlandish of a Blofeld, a Goldfinger or an Oddjob - all Fleming creations.

    Agreed. Again, I love Dalton and the fact he never made a 3rd is my biggest cinematic disappointment ever. But it's like they toned it down too far, swung the pendulum too much the other way and swept away the remnants that had anything to do with that OTT stuff. They did the same with CR and QoS but were lucky enough to swing it back for Craig's last two. They've been smart about trickling back in the weirder stuff slowly; Silva's mouth, crazy big henchman in Hinx with his thumbs, Blofeld's scar and cat, etc. It's too bad Dalton never got a chance to play that way a little more. I've read the treatment for his 3rd (the alternate 17th film in the series to be released in 1991/2), and it had some elements of that. I think they would have swung things back a bit more down the line had he stayed.
  • Posts: 582
    I'd also like Craig to have more of Fleming's Bond's fastidiousness when it comes to food and drink - obviously you can't quite transcribe what Fleming did in writing to the screen - but I would like Bond to come across as knowledegable about these things again.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    Getafix wrote: »
    I'd say that SP makes me more relaxed about Craig returning.

    I think the Craig era is a little bit overrated, but that's to be expected. Remember All those people who said Brosnan was the best since Connery. Now we have people saying Craig has equalled or topped Connery. Total nonsense IMO, but he's a decent Bond and infinitely better than Brosnan.

    I'm resigned to him doing another. The films are not quite my cup of tea but I am very conscious that they could be a lot worse as well, so I'm happy for Craig to do one more. He probably deserves it.

    Am I alone in feeling that with SF and SP that Bond has drifted back to that Moore-light territory that Brosnan had already explored? I mean the films are still a lot better than with Brosnan, but there's an underlying current of cheese that I find slightly off putting.

    More than ever I feel they had it right with Dalton.


    If Dalton had taken the role in 1980 (if I remember correctly he was offered it in 1968 and '80 before actually taking it in '86) he would undoubtedly have become the defining interpretation of 007. The series would not have gone through the hiatus after '89 and we probably would have quite a few more quality entries than we currently do...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    AceHole wrote: »
    If Dalton had taken the role in 1980 (if I remember correctly he was offered it in 1968 and '80 before actually taking it in '86) he would undoubtedly have become the defining interpretation of 007. The series would not have gone through the hiatus after '89 and we probably would have quite a few more quality entries than we currently do...
    What makes you so assuredly say this?

    There is no evidence that Dalton would have been any more accepted commercially in 1980 than he was in 1987. Replacing an 'in-form' and young Moore post_MR (a massive financial success) would have been more of a challenge than replacing an 'out of form' and old Moore post-AVTAK.

    Critically he may have been good. Commercially, he wasn't though.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    tigers99 wrote: »
    I'd also like Craig to have more of Fleming's Bond's fastidiousness when it comes to food and drink - obviously you can't quite transcribe what Fleming did in writing to the screen - but I would like Bond to come across as knowledegable about these things again.

    Agreed. The almost ridiculous knowledge of fine drink & food was one of the hallmarks of Fleming's Bond, and to a lesser extent early Connery.
    The sequence about the '...rather disappointing brandy' in GF is one of the best comedic moments int he series :>
  • Posts: 582
    AceHole wrote: »
    tigers99 wrote: »
    I'd also like Craig to have more of Fleming's Bond's fastidiousness when it comes to food and drink - obviously you can't quite transcribe what Fleming did in writing to the screen - but I would like Bond to come across as knowledegable about these things again.

    Agreed. The almost ridiculous knowledge of fine drink & food was one of the hallmarks of Fleming's Bond, and to a lesser extent early Connery.
    The sequence about the '...rather disappointing brandy' in GF is one of the best comedic moments int he series :>
    AceHole wrote: »
    tigers99 wrote: »
    I'd also like Craig to have more of Fleming's Bond's fastidiousness when it comes to food and drink - obviously you can't quite transcribe what Fleming did in writing to the screen - but I would like Bond to come across as knowledegable about these things again.

    Agreed. The almost ridiculous knowledge of fine drink & food was one of the hallmarks of Fleming's Bond, and to a lesser extent early Connery.
    The sequence about the '...rather disappointing brandy' in GF is one of the best comedic moments int he series :>

    I believe Craig wanted to smoke as well but wasn't allowed to. He so should, he's Bond, he smokes.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    AceHole wrote: »
    tigers99 wrote: »
    I'd also like Craig to have more of Fleming's Bond's fastidiousness when it comes to food and drink - obviously you can't quite transcribe what Fleming did in writing to the screen - but I would like Bond to come across as knowledegable about these things again.

    Agreed. The almost ridiculous knowledge of fine drink & food was one of the hallmarks of Fleming's Bond, and to a lesser extent early Connery.
    The sequence about the '...rather disappointing brandy' in GF is one of the best comedic moments int he series :>
    Agreed. It's a shame that refinement & fine taste (including in properly tailored suits) is no longer seen as a requirement. The closest we've got to it recently was his ability to name the model of that car which pulled up to pick them up in Morocco in SP.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited November 2015 Posts: 1,727
    bondjames wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    If Dalton had taken the role in 1980 (if I remember correctly he was offered it in 1968 and '80 before actually taking it in '86) he would undoubtedly have become the defining interpretation of 007. The series would not have gone through the hiatus after '89 and we probably would have quite a few more quality entries than we currently do...
    What makes you so assuredly say this?

    There is no evidence that Dalton would have been any more accepted commercially in 1980 than he was in 1987. Replacing an 'in-form' and young Moore post_MR (a massive financial success) would have been more of a challenge than replacing an 'out of form' and old Moore post-AVTAK.

    Critically he may have been good. Commercially, he wasn't though.

    I so assuredly say this because I checked my crystal ball only just this morningsome :D

    But seriously - I feel that Dalton would have had time to establish himself as the renaissance-Bond of the more austere 1980's (MR was a product of it's past, the glitzy, indulgent late 1970's), having the time to prove & establish himself much like DC did, before the landscape of cinema & blockbusters changed in the late 80's. He would have left the series 'naturally', and we wouldn't have had the rather reactionary Brosnan era.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    AceHole wrote: »
    But seriously - I feel that Dalton would have had time to establish himself as the renaissance-Bond of the more austere 1980's
    That is quite possible. Moore was much better suited to the 70's style Bond films arguably, although I am grateful we got FYEO & OP personally.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited November 2015 Posts: 1,727
    bondjames wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    But seriously - I feel that Dalton would have had time to establish himself as the renaissance-Bond of the more austere 1980's
    That is quite possible. Moore was much better suited to the 70's style Bond films arguably, although I am grateful we got FYEO & OP personally.

    I re-watched OP yesterday. What struck me was how there is a real attempt at gritty, FYEO style realism in the way the Berlin opening scene (009 being hunted down) is filmed and tonally presented. There is a Dalton-film lurking in OP that just couldn't fully get out, imho... it has the feel of TLD in some parts.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    AceHole wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    But seriously - I feel that Dalton would have had time to establish himself as the renaissance-Bond of the more austere 1980's
    That is quite possible. Moore was much better suited to the 70's style Bond films arguably, although I am grateful we got FYEO & OP personally.

    I re-watched OP yesterday. What struck me was how there is a real attempt at gritty, FYEO style realism in the way the Berlin opening scene (009 being hunted down) is filmed and tonally presented. There is a Dalton-film lurking in OP that just couldn't fully get out, imho... it has the feel of TLD in some parts.
    I agree. OP has some really fine thriller moments. They threw in a little too much silly humour and that is what most people remember. However, the darker elements are superb imho. Even the killing of Mishka (or is that Grishka) is excellent. "And that's for 009!"
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    bondjames wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    tigers99 wrote: »
    I'd also like Craig to have more of Fleming's Bond's fastidiousness when it comes to food and drink - obviously you can't quite transcribe what Fleming did in writing to the screen - but I would like Bond to come across as knowledegable about these things again.

    Agreed. The almost ridiculous knowledge of fine drink & food was one of the hallmarks of Fleming's Bond, and to a lesser extent early Connery.
    The sequence about the '...rather disappointing brandy' in GF is one of the best comedic moments int he series :>
    Agreed. It's a shame that refinement & fine taste (including in properly tailored suits) is no longer seen as a requirement. The closest we've got to it recently was his ability to name the model of that car which pulled up to pick them up in Morocco in SP.

    Yes, that should have been part of him from the get go. Bond's a snob and snobbery generally is something you're born to, though it can be acquired, his knowledge of wine and food etc would have been something passed on from generations and upbringing.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    bondjames wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    tigers99 wrote: »
    I'd also like Craig to have more of Fleming's Bond's fastidiousness when it comes to food and drink - obviously you can't quite transcribe what Fleming did in writing to the screen - but I would like Bond to come across as knowledegable about these things again.

    Agreed. The almost ridiculous knowledge of fine drink & food was one of the hallmarks of Fleming's Bond, and to a lesser extent early Connery.
    The sequence about the '...rather disappointing brandy' in GF is one of the best comedic moments int he series :>
    Agreed. It's a shame that refinement & fine taste (including in properly tailored suits) is no longer seen as a requirement. The closest we've got to it recently was his ability to name the model of that car which pulled up to pick them up in Morocco in SP.

    Yes, that should have been part of him from the get go. Bond's a snob and snobbery generally is something you're born to, though it can be acquired, his knowledge of wine and food etc would have been something passed on from generations and upbringing.

    I don't actually think Bond is portrayed as a true snob by Fleming - he comes across as enjoying these finer things but never really buying into the idea of 'the elite'.
    He despises the idle upper classes and almost hates himself for coming from a well-to-do background... hence the chip on his shoulder.
  • Posts: 1,411
    Reaper said, I just want a good movie.

    I don't regard Connery's Bond as old school. Craig comes as close as any actor: a little rougher around the edges, but less droll. DC probably owes as much to Jason Bourne as Bond. He's not as good with the wit and sophistication. The box-office and the superior film techniques do not interest me. Neither can be compared meaningfully to films made in the 60s. But the style, tone, and attitude can be.

    What we are concerned with here is the next Bond. If we assume the DC series is a reboot, erasing all previous films by previous actors, will the next Bond begin a series unto himself, or will we simply carry on with the "same" Bond, only with a new face?

    I am ready for the new Bond to evolve into the original Bond. Rough hewn DC type Bond finally becomes the Connery Bond. Suave, witty, masculine. Qualities that seem to me never to go out of date.

    I like both SF and SP, but both are saddled with parent-child issues. Silva is upset because M likes James better, and ESB is upset because his own father liked James more than Franz, and Bond's past is in play. It should be noted that in the YOLT commentary, Lewis Gilbert in discussing a direction for the film says they didn't want to get caught up in Bond's childhood and psychological problems. Too bad later writers didn't take that hint. Linking ESB to Bond's childhood was one of the biggest mistakes in the entire film series.

    Neither SF or SP are bad films, but they are burdened by a story line quite unnecessary.
    The superiority of CR is that LeChiffre is motivated by money--not personal revenge.

    I never want to see the series return to silliness of RM and PB. I am ready for a Bond of style, wit, culture, sophistication, and charm. I want to see villains with big plans but on a realistic scale. I don't want to see more Bourne or Batman influenced sequences. I hated the Silva teeth segment in SF. ESB's makeup in SP was as silly looking as the ESB of YOLT.

    The qualities as an actor that SC brought to Bond never go out style.





  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Reaper said, I just want a good movie.

    I don't regard Connery's Bond as old school. Craig comes as close as any actor: a little rougher around the edges, but less droll. DC probably owes as much to Jason Bourne as Bond. He's not as good with the wit and sophistication. The box-office and the superior film techniques do not interest me. Neither can be compared meaningfully to films made in the 60s. But the style, tone, and attitude can be.

    What we are concerned with here is the next Bond. If we assume the DC series is a reboot, erasing all previous films by previous actors, will the next Bond begin a series unto himself, or will we simply carry on with the "same" Bond, only with a new face?

    I am ready for the new Bond to evolve into the original Bond. Rough hewn DC type Bond finally becomes the Connery Bond. Suave, witty, masculine. Qualities that seem to me never to go out of date.

    I like both SF and SP, but both are saddled with parent-child issues. Silva is upset because M likes James better, and ESB is upset because his own father liked James more than Franz, and Bond's past is in play. It should be noted that in the YOLT commentary, Lewis Gilbert in discussing a direction for the film says they didn't want to get caught up in Bond's childhood and psychological problems. Too bad later writers didn't take that hint. Linking ESB to Bond's childhood was one of the biggest mistakes in the entire film series.

    Neither SF or SP are bad films, but they are burdened by a story line quite unnecessary.
    The superiority of CR is that LeChiffre is motivated by money--not personal revenge.

    I never want to see the series return to silliness of RM and PB. I am ready for a Bond of style, wit, culture, sophistication, and charm. I want to see villains with big plans but on a realistic scale. I don't want to see more Bourne or Batman influenced sequences. I hated the Silva teeth segment in SF. ESB's makeup in SP was as silly looking as the ESB of YOLT.

    The qualities as an actor that SC brought to Bond never go out style.


    Head of nail hit.
Sign In or Register to comment.