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
And a lot of times the filmmakers intentionally made a joke out of that aspect, most notably Hamilton, Gilbert, Mankiewicz. Lines like...
Bond: “I like sake. *sips* Especially when it’s served at the correct temperature. 98.4 degrees like this is.”
Bond: “‘51, I believe.”
M: “There is no year for sherry.”
Bond: “I was referring to the original vintage in which the sherry is based... 1851, unmistakable.”
I love lines like these, but only for those type of films. They stepped away from that since Moore’s remark on a rare plant in MR. I don’t think even Dalton and Brosnan were shown to have insane knowledge of obscure facts and accurate taste buds.
Which really is a shame. I always loved that aspect of it. They should do it more with Craig. It suits his Bond better than the one liners. Vesper set it straight, he's got a chip on the shoulder, and so he likes to know these obscure pedantic facts to gain instant power over snobbish people, or even to set them off, depending on his objective.
Knowing what Bond knew at the start would have cocked it all up.
Absolutely. It's like a trend whenever an actor is Bond. I just know that I'll never have the true appreciation for Craig, even when he leaves. I feel that his casting was based on Barbara Broccoli alone and to me that's not enough. I cannot agree more that even at their worst, Connery, Moore and Brosnan possessed more pizzaz than Craig could only dream of. The only true credit I give to Craig -as Bond- is when he made his debut in 'CR,' but even then, you had the best modern Bond director and a classic novel to go from. So, the material that was already there was stronger than Craig, Purvis and Wade combined.
As a Bond fan, it irritates me to know that there's an instance from EON to keep Craig around as long as possible -though I'm not losing any sleep over it (hehe). It bothers me even more to know that Craig is over the role, yet accepting a 5th film because he could get as much money as he wants. On top of that, he has no humility and says he wishes that he could afford a DB5. Really? Not very funny, even if he meant it to be humorous.
Maybe it's good that Craig is getting a 5th film, because perhaps after him, there will be a proper facelift and rejuvenation of the series; or, Barbara Broccoli will make another famous judgment call and we'll get Tom Hiddleston or Carrot Top as the next Bond, Purvis and Wade will come back, yet again, and we'll just continue to get a lackluster entry, perfect for millennials.
We had enough lacklustre entries between 97 - 2002 thanks. Maybe the next guy will be more to your liking. This exactly how I felt during that time period. Also what is this millennials bollocks?
I'm 47 and bar SPECTRE I love this era and plenty my age group do.
It all comes down to this: fear. When old men are facing their mortality and worry that the next generation will screw it all up. This is a trend that has been a part of humanity since its birth. I have no doubt Millennials years down the line will complain about how scary it will be when their children come of age.
Dalton has a few of them in TLD, most notably changing champagnes for Koskov's food basket. Then again, TLD might be the last of the classic Bonds in many regards.
You seem to dislike BB above all else.
Clearly she’s mad, and now the franchise is in worse shape than it’s ever been.
Still, I think it was extremely hard to transition Bond into our times, it was never going to be trauma-free in my opinion. I give Craig credit for getting the job done, he did as well as he could have done.
QoS's main shortcoming for me is Craig's acting-- my least favorite Bond performance in any Bond film. Alright, he is meant to be stoic and with a heart that's partially turned into stone, as he is still healing from Vesper's death, but even so, he plays too much of the role on the same note. Everything appears to be happening inside of the man, and on his impassive face I see too little to hold on to. There is no character like Vesper around either, someone to bring out a warmer side of him. This stands in dramatic contrast to the three films I mentioned before, as I very much enjoy watching him in those. If Craig's acting was different, my appreciation for QoS would be much higher-- it's the most significant flaw of the film.
And SF is my least favorite Bond film. I find it a bit sterile, a bit clinical, despite enjoying several aspects of it. Craig himself is much more engaging to me than in QoS, despite not reaching the heights of the three films I prefer the most of his era.
In my eyes, 'Casino Royale' was his peek and everything else weak in general. I felt that in each successive film he started to look less Bond-like, especially in 'Skyfall' and 'Spectre.'
Yeah agreed.
When Craig was announced back in 2005 I was all for him. I liked how aloof he was at the press conference, not letting the media hype get to him, and I hated the CraigNotBond people. When CR was finally released it was the first Bond movie I watched twice in theaters.
QOS was a massive disappointment at first, but it stayed with me, and upon subsequent viewings it became a personal favorite of mine. I had criticisms of it, but I was fully on-board with the "Bond in the real world" aesthetic.
Then Skyfall happened. I'd never been so bored watching a Bond movie in theaters. All the vitality and energy of CR and QOS had been replaced by a sterile, lifeless, overly-composed theatricality courtesy of Sam Mendes. The imagery and mood were all wrong. Mendes kept framing Bond as if he were Batman, standing on a roof of London with his black walking coat, etc. Craig didn't look or act like Bond anymore. He wasn't the same character he was in CR and QOS but he also didn't seem like a traditional Bond, either. Spectre only continued this trend.
Mendes derailed the Craig era by obsessing over the trappings of Bond movies- the ivory tuxedo, the Aston Martin, the ejector seat, martinis- instead of getting Bond himself right. Skyfall feels like a Batman movie masquerading as a Bond movie (or vice versa) whereas Spectre feels like a Bond movie without James Bond.
Getting Bond's image and attitude is critical. Bond, like Rambo, Indy, or McLane, should be an instantly-recognizable character. Otherwise you'll end up with this:
I actually like that Bond changes throughout the movies. There’s actual growth with his Bond that we only saw minimally with his predecessors (Connery was probably the most extreme).
If Craig’s three latter films were just repeats of CR and especially the dreadful QOS, I’m not sure I would have been too excited over his run.
I like that in SF he’s a far less impulsive, and more morose and cynical. He’s closer to the latter Fleming novels in that respect. Then with SP it’s basically Craig playing up cinematic Bond that’s cool as a cucumber. Casually walking the rooftops of Mexico City like it’s just another day. No longer having the chip on his shoulder from the first three films. Then with NTTD we cut to him into retirement years later when he’s learned to be more open and not as reserved with his thoughts and feelings like in the first four films, which I understand is a controversial approach.
But I don't think Craig cares what fans think. He's moved on.
Still, I do love CR, QOS, SF, and some bits of SP. And I do like Craig as a person and actor. But he doesn't spring to mind when I think "James Bond".
I said this another thread after rewatching CR this weekend, but for all the talent and money Amazon will pour into it, Bond 26 will have a hell of a time matching up to that debut. I can easily see it falling short for a number of viewers in that sense, even if in the highly likely scenario it's an excellent film. The next Bond will also have big shoes to fill for better or worse (Craig's performance in that film and SF I'd say are excellent and shouldn't be dismissed. They'll need a strong lead who can put their own spin on the role).
A very simple fix to Spectre could have been that the mission to Mexico City was sanctioned by M. Even going as far as the folder given to Bond by M at the end of SF was to track Marco Sciarra.
Now M could have been still upset about how it went, especially with the building destruction. However, M could ask Bond what he found out and he just takes the ring out of his pocket.
Too many trust issues between Craig Bond and Fiennes's M between the start of SPECTRE until the bridge meeting in NTTD. That definitely hamstrung the last two movies.
Yes and too much going rogue and "ghosts" from the past. The ending of Skyfall seemed to symbolise leaving all that angst behind. Hopefully they can come up with some better storytelling moving forward.
I'm not SP's biggest fan though. But I think it had a lot of potential, and I don't think its issues are about going rogue or the past fundamentally (that's just stuff us fans moan about ;) )
Edit: that's perhaps a bit severe, CR has various very Bondian moments. Probably what I don't really like about it is the brutish incarnation of Bond. The way he arrogantly orders the "Vesper", how he approaches Vesper during the game, it's not the elegant fellow I came to appreciate as the protagonist in my favourite film series.
Edit: it was actually my dentist's cousin. And not Putin but Steve McQueen. The actor, not the director.
Edit 2: Sorry, he's playing the director. But it's not Craig, it's Pierce Brosnan.
I vaguely remember reading Sean Connery’s reaction to CR. It’s said Craig was the only other Bond he had fully nice things to say about (although I don’t know how true that is). A major reason was because he put that very different spin on it.
That’s a reason I tend to see Craig and Connery as similar Bonds. Connery wasn’t the English gentleman Fleming wrote about, and he played the role with a wryness that defined the cinematic Bond. Craig and CR I’d say gave the role the biggest reinvention since Connery, although for me he still managed to keep the fundamentals of the character. I think that’s a pretty good achievement.
Again, it’s why I think the next actor will need to find their own angle with Bond.
I must admit that sounds less interesting to me though. Lots of nice little moments gone if that happens, from Bond's flat right up to C confronting M with his surveillance on Moneypenny. Why would it make it stronger?
The trouble with M scenes is that you have to have conflict in there, otherwise it's just boring exposition. With the Roger movies they added that conflict with Bond being a bit childish and popping some gags in there, but that doesn't work forever.
I would still love to see a script doctor expert take Spectre apart and make it work, because although I know it has problems, I still can't entirely figure out what they actually are.
I completely see Bond there.