It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
For some reason, I thought he looked either very tired and ragged in SP, or strangely 'made up' (especially in the PTS when he's tracking Sciarra and also when he's with Blofeld and Madeline).
I hear this conflicting opinion with Dan often, @bondjames, like no other Bond actor really. In some shots with certain lighting he looks entirely different from scene to scene. I guess it's down to his very unusual looks that don't fit the expected attractiveness of a leading man. He's got a more ragged and rough appeal, and his face can then be viewed as youthful or aged in moment to moment depending on what he's doing and how he's lit.
It becomes obvious how important dressing and coloring an actor accordingly can be on a film set. If the colors or lighting are wrong, things feel off. This is especially true for Bond, where each actor has to be tailored in suits that match their body type and the fabric colors must accentuate their unique features. It's why Dan is often in blue, to pop out his eyes, and why the same thing was done to Sean for his brown hair and eyes.
In some scenes in TB for example, heavy blues make Sean youthful and vibrant, while the tailoring of a suit later on shows his age more. It's fascinating how color choices and lines on a suit's cut can play with our eyes and make us perceive different things about how a person looks and feels on the screen. As an artist, I find it especially fascinating.
His swagger was exaggerated in SP, it wasn't like that in previous films.
It was totally unnecessary, Craig naturally walks and moves great.
He's always been a peacock flaunting his feathers. Felt natural and expected to me.
I thought that as well,especially in the PTS and at Lucia's house after shooting the SPECTRE men.
Perhaps a thread can be started on how much DC sucks? How he was a terrible Bond, too short, too much swagger, etc., ect., but; this thread is an appreciation of...
The same could be said of Connery. They both have that panther walk/swagger. It's very much a cinematic "I know the camera is on me" walk, but that's part of what makes it so cool. It makes Bond the prowling predator he's intended to be, always slinking to the next threat.
I could get into more details, but given the appreciation police are knocking at the door, I'll sign off.
IMHO he looked best in QoS. He was less bulky than in CR, more ripped and that gave him additional agility - and it suited him well. I am not sure if he could still look like that if he would become as slim and defined as he was in QoS - but I bet it would help the action scenes.
I agree with this assessment. Connery made everything he did seem natural. The way he walked...that was an art form in itself. Craig's swagger I had no complaints with...until SP. It was most definitely exaggerated a few times in the movie and it was just so distracting to watch and as you said, Craig looked self conscious about it. He doesn't need to employ such an exaggerated and poorly realised gimmick of a walk; he's more than able to pull off that natural swagger.
In the past I've often said SP was the first Bond film where I felt Craig looked as though he was teying to act like James Bond instead of being him and this is one of many examples.
I don't go on the Dalton or Moore or Brosnan appreciation threads because, although I can enjoy them, I know I can be awfully critical of them as well, and that's not the forum to vent.
However, I have expressed my opinions about them on relevant threads, as many have expressed their dislike for Craig as well (to little or no response from me); on the other threads it's all fair in love and war, but on this thread, it's like the Church in HIGHLANDER: a no battle zone
For the record, we were not discussing Craig as a person, but rather something specific about his performance in SP, where opinions can legitimately differ.
Having said that, I respected your wishes, and that should be the end of that. Moving on.
PS Craig does exaggerate his swagger in SP.
I don't think it's as big a deal as you've made out, with all due respect. I wish the kind of "haters" we have to deal with here were more like @bondjames, so I don't think he's someone anyone would have to worry about. We have differing opinions, but you can't ever accuse him of talking out the other end, and he wasn't arguing disparagingly.
If a discussion about Dan's great work spirals into his performances, I don't see why we can't compare and contrast his acting in different films, as positives and negatives would be balanced. I was genuinely curious about people's thoughts, and it wasn't like he or @doubleoego were causing a raucous. Again, you've got the wrong boys for that kind of behavior. It's a far different thing to state a small thought about Dan's performance in SP as being less that stellar to before, than what you see in Brosnan threads where people pop in to say he sucks before leaving on a random note.
I just sometimes get a little peeved by some of these threads being almost safe spaces, which I've never been a fan of online. I'm all for open discussion no matter where it is, because it's difficult to stop a conversation which begins organically in mid stream and take it to another 'appropriate' thread. The flow tends to die.
So it's a bit of a catch 22, but I agree that this was perhaps not the place for our discussion.
If people are upset about this, we can discuss our points elsewhere, though.
However, there's been so much DC bashing since SP, and I can understand why, but, when I come to an "appreciation " thread, that's what I expect to read: an appreciation of...
I have no problem with reading criticisms of DC on other threads- after all, it's an open dialogue but; this "appreciation " thread was a sanctuary: to read about the positives of the man, his career, and, obviously, the positives he brings to Bond.
Like I have stated: I have never been on the appreciation threads of Moore, Dalton or Pierce, so if it got nasty, I wouldn't know, but;
Since it did, I find it wholly unnecessary, since, no matter what I think of the actor, that thread is a place for fans to go and celebrate. To do otherwise, in such a setting, would be the equivalent of the uninvited, and drunken, person at a wedding.
There are plenty of other open forums to argue for or against a particular Bond actor. Let's leave the appreciation thread to do just that, or... change its title.
It wasn't primarily aimed at Craig, more at Mendes. I believe the swagger was Mendes' idea for the purpose of making Bond look more heroic and badass. Unnecessary, IMO.
As I said, Craig walks and moves perfectly, he is probably the best since Connery in that regard.