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

1679111215

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I really wish they could've held back with ESB on SP rather than spunking their entire wad the moment they got their hands on Mcclory's rights. Spectre need to be dealt with in at least a trilogy. Now it seems unlikely to me (given that Craig will probably only do one more) that Blofeld won't survive the next film.

    Plan it all out properly:

    In SP we reveal the shadowy organisation Spectre with Blowers just shown in silhouette and have C as the main villain in a sort of Largo role (perhaps with Blofeld overseeing and ordering Hinx about but not crucially in this film not actually meeting Bond).

    In B25 if Craig leaves the new actor already had the building blocks in place and you can cast Christoph Waltz as Blofeld then. If Craig stays you have a YOLT (film) type story where Bond comes face to face with Blofeld (and gives him the scar if you like) finally.

    B26 it all comes together. Madeline (who you introduce in B25 is killed) and then we have a final showdown a la YOLT (novel).

    The problem with where are now and the trilogy outlined above is that Craig would not do all three so personally I'd have held back with even mentioning Spectre until the new guy starts in the role or at least make sure the first mention of Spectre is at the end of Craig's final film. Then the new actor gets time for a full trilogy battling Spectre.

    In their hastiness to use their newly acquired rights they have spunked all their Spectre and Blofeld reveals in one go and don't really have anywhere to go but kill Blofeld in the next film.

    It took Sean 4 films to come face to face with him. But here he goes from 'never having heard of him' to 'nicked' in the space of one film.
    This is my feeling too. There is a lot of premature ejaculate all over this thing at present. Mendes no doubt had a say in this, wanting to be the one to do the 'Blofeld story'. That may have been the hook to pull him in....who knows.

    They should have taken their time. To continue the analogy, a little more 'foreplay' with the audience, a'la Connery's time, wouldn't have been amiss.

    I like your idea about a trilogy.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    I really wish they could've held back with ESB on SP rather than spunking their entire wad the moment they got their hands on Mcclory's rights. Spectre need to be dealt with in at least a trilogy. Now it seems unlikely to me (given that Craig will probably only do one more) that Blofeld won't survive the next film.

    Plan it all out properly:

    In SP we reveal the shadowy organisation Spectre with Blowers just shown in silhouette and have C as the main villain in a sort of Largo role (perhaps with Blofeld overseeing and ordering Hinx about but not crucially in this film not actually meeting Bond).

    In B25 if Craig leaves the new actor already had the building blocks in place and you can cast Christoph Waltz as Blofeld then. If Craig stays you have a YOLT (film) type story where Bond comes face to face with Blofeld (and gives him the scar if you like) finally.

    B26 it all comes together. Madeline (who you introduce in B25 is killed) and then we have a final showdown a la YOLT (novel).

    The problem with where are now and the trilogy outlined above is that Craig would not do all three so personally I'd have held back with even mentioning Spectre until the new guy starts in the role or at least make sure the first mention of Spectre is at the end of Craig's final film. Then the new actor gets time for a full trilogy battling Spectre.

    In their hastiness to use their newly acquired rights they have spunked all their Spectre and Blofeld reveals in one go and don't really have anywhere to go but kill Blofeld in the next film.

    It took Sean 4 films to come face to face with him. But here he goes from 'never having heard of him' to 'nicked' in the space of one film.
    This is my feeling too. There is a lot of premature ejaculate all over this thing at present. Mendes no doubt had a say in this, wanting to be the one to do the 'Blofeld story'. That may have been the hook to pull him in....who knows.

    They should have taken their time. To continue the analogy, a little more 'foreplay' with the audience, a'la Connery's time, wouldn't have been amiss.

    I like your idea about a trilogy.

    No time to look back. Let's come up with a workable and plausible solution :-). I think my option C) (see above) is a good step in the right direction.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    No time to look back. Let's come up with a workable and plausible solution :-). I think my option C) (see above) is a good step in the right direction.
    C) is not a bad idea, but I also am in favour of a hypothetical D), which is to soft reboot right now with a new, younger actor.

    Do not follow the Blofeld story in B25, but bring him back (with a new actor) down the road and reintroduce him slowly and in a more menacing fashion over several films this time (just ignore the stupid Mendes backstory going forward.......it meant nothing to almost everyone the way it was done in SP anyway).

    This D) allows EON to forget about SP and its continuity for a while (a good thing, since many appear to be having a mixed reaction to it) and establish a new Bond actor. They can bring back SPECTRE later (I'm not in agreement with Logan that Bond should always battle SPECTRE).
  • DrShatterhandDrShatterhand Garden of Death, near Belfast
    edited November 2015 Posts: 805
    talos7 wrote: »
    I see it a bit differently. I see the first universe from 62 to 85. The Bond in Dr. No is the Bond in AVTAK. the next universe is from 87 to 02; the Bond in LD is the same Bond as in DAD, even with the nods to past films. Finally we have the third universe started with Daniel.

    EON stopped worrying about any attempt at continuation the moment they decided to film YOLT before OHMSS. The way I look at it is that the Bond universe has been rebooted, to some degree, every time, Lazenby aside, they've case a new actor.

    RM's introduction in LALD was deliberately done with as little connection to what had gone before (e.g. no briefing scene in M's office or appearance of Q). The only specific reference in the whole of RM's run to the previous incarnation is the FYEO PTS, which was only ever intended for audience purpose if (as planned) a new Bond was being introduced. There's that single reference in Dalton's reign in LTK of him being married before but I've always taken this to be just as much about adding weight to his revenge mission for what happened on Felix's own wedding day. Brosnan is presented as an end-of-Cold war era operative and another new reiteration of the same character.

    I agree though (as I posted in one of the other threads) that this time around could in fact be the trickiest transitional of all. The emotional baggage and rather shoddy retconned connection of DC's movies will make it quite tricky for audiences to accept a new guy take this on. If DC does go now, than I think they should leave him and Madeline to ride off into the sunset and begin the new guys reign with a completely fresh stand-alone non-SPECTRE story and perhaps pick up with Blofeld in captivity in Bond 26.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    The only specific reference in the whole of RM's run to the previous incarnation is the FYEO PTS, which was only ever intended for audience purpose if (as planned) a new Bond was being introduced.
    And in TSWLM, during a discussion with Anya at the Mojaba club.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    No time to look back. Let's come up with a workable and plausible solution :-). I think my option C) (see above) is a good step in the right direction.
    C) is not a bad idea, but I also am in favour of a hypothetical D), which is to soft reboot right now with a new, younger actor.

    Do not follow the Blofeld story in B25, but bring him back (with a new actor) down the road and reintroduce him slowly and in a more menacing fashion over several films this time (just ignore the stupid Mendes backstory going forward.......it meant nothing to almost everyone the way it was done in SP anyway).

    This D) allows EON to forget about SP and its continuity for a while (a good thing, since many appear to be having a mixed reaction to it) and establish a new Bond actor. They can bring back SPECTRE later (I'm not in agreement with Logan that Bond should always battle SPECTRE).

    This option D) in essence a mixture of option A) & B), thus hasn't got my approval.

    Moreover, you bring in some personal opinionated arguments regarding "SPECTRE" that you didn't like, and that you want to fully 'erase'. The backstory has been done now. Finished. Closed. So it's equally possible, and way more desirable, to softly 'touching' the continuity from the previous four films as opposed to your "nullifying SPECTRE" argument.

    C) is the best I think.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    No time to look back. Let's come up with a workable and plausible solution :-). I think my option C) (see above) is a good step in the right direction.
    C) is not a bad idea, but I also am in favour of a hypothetical D), which is to soft reboot right now with a new, younger actor.

    Do not follow the Blofeld story in B25, but bring him back (with a new actor) down the road and reintroduce him slowly and in a more menacing fashion over several films this time (just ignore the stupid Mendes backstory going forward.......it meant nothing to almost everyone the way it was done in SP anyway).

    This D) allows EON to forget about SP and its continuity for a while (a good thing, since many appear to be having a mixed reaction to it) and establish a new Bond actor. They can bring back SPECTRE later (I'm not in agreement with Logan that Bond should always battle SPECTRE).

    This option D) in essence a mixture of option A) & B), thus hasn't got my approval.

    Moreover, you bring in some personal opinionated arguments regarding "SPECTRE" that you didn't like, and that you want to fully 'erase'. The backstory has been done now. Finished. Closed. So it's equally possible, and way more desirable, to softly 'touching' the continuity from the previous four films as opposed to your "nullifying SPECTRE" argument.

    C) is the best I think.
    It can't be erased, sadly, but what's done is done. It doesn't mean we have to dwell on it and remember it at every juncture, which would be the case if we follow with the same cast. That is my point.

    And this is not 'personal opinionated' arguments. Just read the review threads here and elsewhere. One of the primary arguments against this film is the retcon and how it was handled. By respected members here as well.

    Blofeld can exist. Whether Waltz's Blofeld, as realized by Mendes, can as easily remains to be seen.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    No time to look back. Let's come up with a workable and plausible solution :-). I think my option C) (see above) is a good step in the right direction.
    C) is not a bad idea, but I also am in favour of a hypothetical D), which is to soft reboot right now with a new, younger actor.

    Do not follow the Blofeld story in B25, but bring him back (with a new actor) down the road and reintroduce him slowly and in a more menacing fashion over several films this time (just ignore the stupid Mendes backstory going forward.......it meant nothing to almost everyone the way it was done in SP anyway).

    This D) allows EON to forget about SP and its continuity for a while (a good thing, since many appear to be having a mixed reaction to it) and establish a new Bond actor. They can bring back SPECTRE later (I'm not in agreement with Logan that Bond should always battle SPECTRE).

    This option D) in essence a mixture of option A) & B), thus hasn't got my approval.

    Moreover, you bring in some personal opinionated arguments regarding "SPECTRE" that you didn't like, and that you want to fully 'erase'. The backstory has been done now. Finished. Closed. So it's equally possible, and way more desirable, to softly 'touching' the continuity from the previous four films as opposed to your "nullifying SPECTRE" argument.

    C) is the best I think.
    It can't be erased, sadly, but what's done is done. It doesn't mean we have to dwell on it and remember it at every juncture, which would be the case if we follow with the same cast. That is my point.

    And this is not 'personal opinionated' arguments. Just read the review threads here and elsewhere. One of the primary arguments against this film is the retcon and how it was handled. By respected members here as well.

    So let's go for C) then. It's unfounded to say at this stage that bringing back the entire team from "SPECTRE" will result in 'dwelling in the past'. I think it won't happen if you introduce a new director and if the screenplay writers adopt my plan C). You can perfectly exclude more personal background, by writing a screenplay with that in mind :-).

    No need to be too drastic. And casting a new 007 IS a drastic thing.

    Your idea is basically a reboot...soft or not soft. And I'm sorry to say this, but I don't like another DAF following up OHMSS.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    Cowley wrote: »
    It seems odd to persist with clowns like P&W when they still have a bona fide Bond writing legend still on the staff.

    Let Babs do the producing and have MGW put all his efforts into the writing.

    As someone whom loved the Maibaum\MGW scripts I'd heartily endorse that. Get MGW to plot out the new film and someone decent in to provide the dialogue.

    Spot on.

    DC is not the issue, if anything he held SP together (no mean feat). I love the film for it's enthusiasm, but P&W really need to p**s off... they are getting on my nerves.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    No time to look back. Let's come up with a workable and plausible solution :-). I think my option C) (see above) is a good step in the right direction.
    C) is not a bad idea, but I also am in favour of a hypothetical D), which is to soft reboot right now with a new, younger actor.

    Do not follow the Blofeld story in B25, but bring him back (with a new actor) down the road and reintroduce him slowly and in a more menacing fashion over several films this time (just ignore the stupid Mendes backstory going forward.......it meant nothing to almost everyone the way it was done in SP anyway).

    This D) allows EON to forget about SP and its continuity for a while (a good thing, since many appear to be having a mixed reaction to it) and establish a new Bond actor. They can bring back SPECTRE later (I'm not in agreement with Logan that Bond should always battle SPECTRE).

    This option D) in essence a mixture of option A) & B), thus hasn't got my approval.

    Moreover, you bring in some personal opinionated arguments regarding "SPECTRE" that you didn't like, and that you want to fully 'erase'. The backstory has been done now. Finished. Closed. So it's equally possible, and way more desirable, to softly 'touching' the continuity from the previous four films as opposed to your "nullifying SPECTRE" argument.

    C) is the best I think.
    It can't be erased, sadly, but what's done is done. It doesn't mean we have to dwell on it and remember it at every juncture, which would be the case if we follow with the same cast. That is my point.

    And this is not 'personal opinionated' arguments. Just read the review threads here and elsewhere. One of the primary arguments against this film is the retcon and how it was handled. By respected members here as well.

    So let's go for C) then. It's unfounded to say at this stage that bringing back the entire team from "SPECTRE" will result in 'dwelling in the past'. I think it won't happen if you introduce a new director and if the screenplay writers adopt my plan C). You can perfectly exclude more personal background, by writing a screenplay with that in mind :-).

    No need to be too drastic. And casting a new 007 IS a drastic thing.

    Your idea is basically a reboot...soft or not soft. And I'm sorry to say this, but I don't like another DAF following up OHMSS.
    The way you explain it now makes more sense. Yes, it can work with a new director and a new approach, possibly.

    Yes, you can exclude the past with a new screenplay. However, in any 'continuation' story, with the same cast, you can't forget the past. What's done is done, and if it's a continuation story with the same cast, the two will have to be watched together. A new director basically is 'saddled' with Mendes work.

    So yes, if you want that, of course it can be done. It's more complex though, with baggage......unsuccessful baggage in some people's eyes.

    I prefer D), especially since Craig only has one more in him at best so we will have to change it up sooner rather than later, but I can live with C), if executed perfectly.
  • Posts: 11,425
    P+W have been getting on my nerves for close to 20 years now. They're awful.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    No time to look back. Let's come up with a workable and plausible solution :-). I think my option C) (see above) is a good step in the right direction.
    C) is not a bad idea, but I also am in favour of a hypothetical D), which is to soft reboot right now with a new, younger actor.

    Do not follow the Blofeld story in B25, but bring him back (with a new actor) down the road and reintroduce him slowly and in a more menacing fashion over several films this time (just ignore the stupid Mendes backstory going forward.......it meant nothing to almost everyone the way it was done in SP anyway).

    This D) allows EON to forget about SP and its continuity for a while (a good thing, since many appear to be having a mixed reaction to it) and establish a new Bond actor. They can bring back SPECTRE later (I'm not in agreement with Logan that Bond should always battle SPECTRE).

    This option D) in essence a mixture of option A) & B), thus hasn't got my approval.

    Moreover, you bring in some personal opinionated arguments regarding "SPECTRE" that you didn't like, and that you want to fully 'erase'. The backstory has been done now. Finished. Closed. So it's equally possible, and way more desirable, to softly 'touching' the continuity from the previous four films as opposed to your "nullifying SPECTRE" argument.

    C) is the best I think.
    It can't be erased, sadly, but what's done is done. It doesn't mean we have to dwell on it and remember it at every juncture, which would be the case if we follow with the same cast. That is my point.

    And this is not 'personal opinionated' arguments. Just read the review threads here and elsewhere. One of the primary arguments against this film is the retcon and how it was handled. By respected members here as well.

    So let's go for C) then. It's unfounded to say at this stage that bringing back the entire team from "SPECTRE" will result in 'dwelling in the past'. I think it won't happen if you introduce a new director and if the screenplay writers adopt my plan C). You can perfectly exclude more personal background, by writing a screenplay with that in mind :-).

    No need to be too drastic. And casting a new 007 IS a drastic thing.

    Your idea is basically a reboot...soft or not soft. And I'm sorry to say this, but I don't like another DAF following up OHMSS.
    The way you explain it now makes more sense. Yes, it can work with a new director and a new approach, possibly.

    Yes, you can exclude the past with a new screenplay. However, in any 'continuation' story, with the same cast, you can't forget the past. What's done is done, and if it's a continuation story with the same cast, the two will have to be watched together. A new director basically is 'saddled' with Mendes work.

    So yes, if you want that, of course it can be done. It's more complex though, with baggage......unsuccessful baggage in some people's eyes.

    I prefer D), especially since Craig only has one more in him at best so we will have to change it up sooner rather than later, but I can live with C), if executed perfectly.

    The easiest route IMO is usually the less fulfilling one ;-).
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited November 2015 Posts: 5,973
    Ugh, not another reboot.

    I was one who thought they should complete the QoS storyline but I should have been careful what I wished for...CR stripped down the series so well but three films later the series now has a ton of storytelling baggage. I didn't like the soft "reset" at the end of SF (nor the Aston Martin in SF) because it pointlessly tied the two eras together, and I like it even less after SP.

    I think the best solution is to get Craig back for one more. The Bond from the YOLT novel is perfect for Craig to play. Write out Madeleine (death or not) and let him have his final showdown with Blofeld, killing him. I always hated how open-ended the Blofeld arc was from DAF on.

    Spectre can always come back in some form (Largo, Bunt, Blofeld's son or daughter--whatever they want). I like the idea of a continuing villainous organization. It worked in the '60s. It worked in CR and the Mr. White interrogation in QoS. But clear out the underbrush (SF and SP) first.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,119
    echo wrote: »
    Ugh, not another reboot.

    I was one who thought they should complete the QoS storyline but I should have been careful what I wished for...CR stripped down the series so well but three films later the series now has a ton of storytelling baggage. I didn't like the soft "reset" at the end of SF (nor the Aston Martin in SF) because it pointlessly tied the two eras together, and I like it even less after SP.

    I think the best solution is to get Craig back for one more. The Bond from the YOLT novel is perfect for Craig to play. Write out Madeleine (death or not) and let him have his final showdown with Blofeld, killing him. I always hated how open-ended the Blofeld arc was from DAF on.

    Spectre can always come back in some form (Largo, Bunt, Blofeld's son or daughter--whatever they want). I like the idea of a continuing villainous organization. It worked in the '60s. It worked in CR and the Mr. White interrogation in QoS. But clear out the underbrush (SF and SP) first.

    Option C) then as well :P. In any case, Barbara Broccoli shed some light on Bond #25!
    http://www.thebondbulletin.com/work-on-bond25-could-begin-spring-2016
    Keep the damn basterd Barbara! ;-)
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    @Gustav_Graves Nice find! I hope they can keep him for one more. I'll be so let down if he walks now. But it's interesting that they may already be planning stuff in the Spring. Hopefully by then we'll have word on if Crag will stay or not.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,973
    Basically, except I think Craig's Bond works best with a bittersweet ending.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,330
    This is great news!
    giphy.gif
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 4,622
    He can stay as long as he wants. He is now Connery worthy.
    I've been advocating for him to leave for 3 straight films, due to his Bond always having to deal with tedious personal drama.
    However with his tour de force performance in SP, he has revived the authentic Bond persona.
    Best we've seen since Sean.
    I have elevated Craig to Laz level as worthy successor to Sean.
    That is a distinguished honor indeed.
  • Posts: 6,601
    Yes timmer, I can hardly believe my eyes. But great, his performance could change your mind and great, you are not holding back on it. Class..
  • Posts: 4,622
    @germanlady the best part of SP IMO is Craig's performance as Bond. It is pretty much flawless in all respects.
    Blows anything Dalts Rog or Broz did out of the water.
    That is authentic Bond we are seeing up on screen in SP, and all the way through, unlike the previous 3 films.
    Now Craig did have some very strong moments in each of his 3 other films, but the character's scripted personal journey drama kept dragging things down. At least IMO. I realize some might have liked that stuff, but I didn't.

    But with SP this is Bond in all his glory.And Craig looks real good too.
    Really should.win the Oscar for best actor.
    Playing Bond convincingly is not easy to do.
    Like I said elsewhere, if I ran into Craig I'd haul him into the nearest pub, buy him a couple of Heineken or dirty martinis or whatever, and spend 30 minutes telling him what a great job he did as Bond in SP, and then send him on his way.
    Craig's awesome Bond in SP is why I keep skipping back to the cinema for more.
    I'll have 10 cinema viewings by the time I am done.
    Half way there
    Best capturing of the Bond persona since Sean hung up the holster over 40 years ago.
    Not counting NSNA as Sean purposely played a semi-retired Bond in that film which is the only reason he agreed to do the film, if he could play Bond as older, which is one of the reasons I found old dog Bond in SF so tedious, as Sean had already done it, as an alternative take on the character in NSNA

    Anyway, Craig in SP I think is very much Fleming's Bond. It's all there, even the look. The wit and smartass streak is there. The aura of menace and danger, tempered by wit and charm.
    Pretty much perfect. The film is even shot in such a way that you don't realize he's not actually tall enough.
  • QsAssistantQsAssistant All those moments lost in time... like tears in rain
    Posts: 1,812
    I've always liked Craig as Bond but I never felt like his Bond was a true Bond. His stories were always personal and sad. Had SF been his last I would've been okay with that but now that he has done SP, and proven himself to be a classic Bond that we all know, I would like to see Craig do one more like SP.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,870
    I've been a fan of Craig's since the beginning. Had of course to see CR first in order to see what the man could do, and I wasn't disappointed. QOS was not quite the follow up I was hoping for, but it's grown on me slightly. Still not a big fan though. SF was a mediocre entry for me. Has lots to praise and enjoy. Also has lots to think about and feel a little let down. SP falls just behind CR for me. I've enjoyed it a lot with every viewing, and front and centre of my enjoyment is Daniel Craig. As with CR, SP is Craig's movie. He's at his most relaxed here and it reminds me of Connery in GF or TB. This is a Bond film for Bond fans, it's a very enjoyable film to me, and harks back to the 60's movies not only in the obvious elements.
    I really hope Daniel Craig returns for Bond 25 and then we'll see. But easily another Bond film in him on the result of Spectre.
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    timmer wrote: »
    @germanlady the best part of SP IMO is Craig's performance as Bond. It is pretty much flawless in all respects.
    Blows anything Dalts Rog or Broz did out of the water.
    That is authentic Bond we are seeing up on screen in SP, and all the way through, unlike the previous 3 films.
    Now Craig did have some very strong moments in each of his 3 other films, but the character's scripted personal journey drama kept dragging things down. At least IMO. I realize some might have liked that stuff, but I didn't.

    But with SP this is Bond in all his glory.And Craig looks real good too.
    Really should.win the Oscar for best actor.
    Playing Bond convincingly is not easy to do.
    Like I said elsewhere, if I ran into Craig I'd haul him into the nearest pub, buy him a couple of Heineken or dirty martinis or whatever, and spend 30 minutes telling him what a great job he did as Bond in SP, and then send him on his way.
    Craig's awesome Bond in SP is why I keep skipping back to the cinema for more.
    I'll have 10 cinema viewings by the time I am done.
    Half way there
    Best capturing of the Bond persona since Sean hung up the holster over 40 years ago.
    Not counting NSNA as Sean purposely played a semi-retired Bond in that film which is the only reason he agreed to do the film, if he could play Bond as older, which is one of the reasons I found old dog Bond in SF so tedious, as Sean had already done it, as an alternative take on the character in NSNA

    Anyway, Craig in SP I think is very much Fleming's Bond. It's all there, even the look. The wit and smartass streak is there. The aura of menace and danger, tempered by wit and charm.
    Pretty much perfect. The film is even shot in such a way that you don't realize he's not actually tall enough.

    This is the best post I've ever seen describing how great Craig is in this role. So accurate!
  • Posts: 6,601
    I have said before, that I never felt DC's Bond is really Bond. I just liked the films because of him.
    Now here, he IS Bond, but I assume, people now are just not used to that from him. His Bond always was different and many embraced that and now have problems connecting with this take, which goes back to the old films.

    But many said, he couldn't BE that kind of Bond and now can see, like it or not, that he is very well capable of it.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Craig’s performance is definitely one of the best Bond performances in the series; probably a top 6 Bond performance. However, I wouldn't say it's Oscar worthy.
  • Posts: 1,092
    Germanlady wrote: »
    I have said before, that I never felt DC's Bond is really Bond. I just liked the films because of him.
    Now here, he IS Bond, but I assume, people now are just not used to that from him. His Bond always was different and many embraced that and now have problems connecting with this take, which goes back to the old films.

    But many said, he couldn't BE that kind of Bond and now can see, like it or not, that he is very well capable of it.

    Yeah, well said. I think part of the negative reviews for the film are because of this. Later on, when people have a better perspective on the film SP will be looked on in a more favorable light.

    And now we know for sure Craig can be the ultimate Bond and handle every kind of "take" on the role. He can simply do it all. I remember people claiming it was only a thug but that was the young Bond. He's nailed the brutal killer Bond in CR and QoS, nailed the world weary Bond in SF, and now has nailed the fun, more enjoyable, escapism Bond, almost as well as Moore did. I hope he gets another chance to do it again and be even better.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    I was a die hard Craig fan but now it depends on whom would replace him.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Unfortunately we don't get to choose!

    In order to get a new actor Craig has to go first. So be careful what you wish for!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    I was a die hard Craig fan but now it depends on whom would replace him.
    I agree.
  • Posts: 12,506
    Craig i'm sure will do one more, as for who steps in next? Not sure?
Sign In or Register to comment.