Anyone love Craig as an actor, but can't buy him as James Bond?

1235

Comments

  • acoppola wrote:
    But I like Craig for not making Bond look like a character that is in love with himself. He captures that tarnish Dalton had. Though Dalton is playing a Bond who has had enough and is seriously jaded.
    One thing I truly enjoy about both men's interpretations is how they bring to the forefront Bond's sense of professionalism and commitment to his trade craft.

  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,243
    acoppola wrote:
    But I like Craig for not making Bond look like a character that is in love with himself. He captures that tarnish Dalton had. Though Dalton is playing a Bond who has had enough and is seriously jaded.
    One thing I truly enjoy about both men's interpretations is how they bring to the forefront Bond's sense of professionalism and commitment to his trade craft.

    They also bring a true depth to the role. Both are professionals and we see Dalton in LTK in the scene as he is preparing to lay the dentonite explosive on Sanchez's window. It is a beautiful scene showing how Bond is way more than an attractive man in a nice outifit. It proves he does dirty work too and probably killed people before using such methods.

    Being an LTK fan, I did not mind Craig being moody in QOS. I got it straight away.Like when he drinks the whisky in a desperate way just after he delivers Mr White to M.

    I think making Bond too perfect is not the most interesting scope for the character/

  • acoppola wrote:
    I think making Bond too perfect is not the most interesting scope for the character.
    Very much agreed.

  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    acoppola wrote:
    I think making Bond too perfect is not the most interesting scope for the character.
    Very much agreed.

    It's great to see Craig doing well with his 3rd film. I still wish that Dalton had the same opportunity because I am so curious what they would have done.

    I remember when they cancelled Bond 23 in 2010 and I thought another Dalton scenario is unfolding.

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    As long as the series is being treated with respect and you have the best people around providing a quality support structure, substantiated by a worthwhile script, the actor playing Bond won't become bored. Connery became bored with the role because the scripts were becoming weaker and becoming reliant on gadgets and with intrusive press tours occurring, it simply wasn't worth it to him and the fact that he thought he wasn't getting paid enough (hahaha)

    I've read a lot of what ifs about Craig being given scripts from a different era and tge such like but if one has followed closely to what Craig had always said from day one, it's a point not even worth arguing because the fact is, the man had no desire to be Bond. When he was cast for CR he even turned it down because looking at how the series had become, it's just not the sort of acting gig Craig had any interest in. To put it bluntly, Craig as an actor is too good for what Bond had become and that sort of role was beneath him. After much begging from Babs abd reassurance of a new and mire serious direction did Craig take on the role as opposed to getting a call, being told he got the job and blindly accepting it and just going along for the ride.

    Craig takes the role seriously and wants to make sure that his legacy as Bond can be looked at with acclaim and of course to restore the series to it's earlier glory days. The talent wholly involved in the Craig era is a testament to this and EoN are preparing themselves at least for the next 2 Bond outings to make sure the standard at the very least is maintained and firstly, every movie starts off with a script abd they've locked in Logan to do the next 2. Everything else will fall into place and with the major success of SF one can expect things to be somewhat consistent in terms of passion, enthusiasm and overall quality good film making to continue. The Craig era isn't just trying to roll out Bond films, they're trying and for the most part making great movies in general, elevating itself from being looked at as just a Bond film.
    One of the reasons why Nolan's batman film's are so highly regarded and receive the acclaim it gets is because his bat-movies elevate themselves as much more than comic book movies.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,243
    doubleoego wrote:
    As long as the series is being treated with respect and you have the best people around providing a quality support structure, substantiated by a worthwhile script, the actor playing Bond won't become bored. Connery became bored with the role because the scripts were becoming weaker and becoming reliant on gadgets and with intrusive press tours occurring, it simply wasn't worth it to him and the fact that he thought he wasn't getting paid enough (hahaha)

    I've read a lot of what ifs about Craig being given scripts from a different era and tge such like but if one has followed closely to what Craig had always said from day one, it's a point not even worth arguing because the fact is, the man had no desire to be Bond. When he was cast for CR he even turned it down because looking at how the series had become, it's just not the sort of acting gig Craig had any interest in. To put it bluntly, Craig as an actor is too good for what Bond had become and that sort of role was beneath him. After much begging from Babs abd reassurance of a new and mire serious direction did Craig take on the role as opposed to getting a call, being told he got the job and blindly accepting it and just going along for the ride.

    Craig takes the role seriously and wants to make sure that his legacy as Bond can be looked at with acclaim and of course to restore the series to it's earlier glory days. The talent wholly involved in the Craig era is a testament to this and EoN are preparing themselves at least for the next 2 Bond outings to make sure the standard at the very least is maintained and firstly, every movie starts off with a script abd they've locked in Logan to do the next 2. Everything else will fall into place and with the major success of SF one can expect things to be somewhat consistent in terms of passion, enthusiasm and overall quality good film making to continue. The Craig era isn't just trying to roll out Bond films, they're trying and for the most part making great movies in general, elevating itself from being looked at as just a Bond film.
    One of the reasons why Nolan's batman film's are so highly regarded and receive the acclaim it gets is because his bat-movies elevate themselves as much more than comic book movies.

    I can see that too! Finally a general audience can accept a good actor in the part. In Dalton's days they wanted a simplified Bond which did not require much thinking from them.

    In fact it had been noted by even critics that Dalton was too good of an actor for the way they perceived the part and it would be better served by someone where acting was not at the forefront. In Dalton's days, the Bond role was not seen as a serious part for an actor.

    And needless to say the series went way off course.

    The Craig films work on many levels. They are thought provoking and less throw away. And Dalton himself says that the Craig films is what he wanted to do and respects the return of integrity to the character.

    I think Dalton is the most enthusiastic of the Craig era. It is in the way he describes it and gets excited talking about it. I know Moore likes Skyfall, but Dalton's analysis is better in detail.

  • Dalton and Craig may also be the two most thoughtful, insightful actors to play Bond.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    Dalton and Craig may also be the two most thoughtful, insightful actors to play Bond.

    Yes, neither took it as an easy gig. They had their work cut out and by no means is Craig unanimously appreciated. He is a controversial figure for some which is a good thing. How many people in this world would like another DAD if they were asked?

    I am sure there are many.

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 1,661
    I can't stand Craig as James Bond. I think he's totally miscast (looks, the way his Bond behaves, etc). The last James Bond film I paid to see at the cinema was Die Another Day. I just can't pay to see someone I don't want as Bond. I've seen CR and QOS on video and I'll get round to seeing SK on Bluray but I will never pay to see a Daniel Craig Bond film at the cinema (and let's not even mention the gun barrels being moved!!!!)

    I've seen Craig in other films like Layer Cake, Invasion and quite liked him. He did wear a nice white suit in Layer Cake. :) He seems a decent actor but as Bond, no thanks. It's just personal preference. Daniel Craig does not embody my idea of what the film version of James Bond is like.
  • acoppola wrote:
    Yes, neither took it as an easy gig. They had their work cut out and by no means is Craig unanimously appreciated. He is a controversial figure for some which is a good thing. How many people in this world would like another DAD if they were asked?

    I am sure there are many.
    Seems you are correct:

    fanbond123 wrote: "I can't stand Craig as James Bond. I think he's totally miscast (looks, the way his Bond behaves, etc). The last James Bond film I paid to see at the cinema was Die Another Day. I just can't pay to see someone I don't want as Bond. I've seen Craig in other films like Layer Cake, Invasion and quite liked him. He did wear a nice white suit in Layer Cake. He seems a decent actor but as Bond, no thanks. It's just personal preference. Daniel Craig does not embody my idea of what the film version of James Bond is like. "

  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,243
    acoppola wrote:
    Yes, neither took it as an easy gig. They had their work cut out and by no means is Craig unanimously appreciated. He is a controversial figure for some which is a good thing. How many people in this world would like another DAD if they were asked?

    I am sure there are many.
    Seems you are correct:

    fanbond123 wrote: "I can't stand Craig as James Bond. I think he's totally miscast (looks, the way his Bond behaves, etc). The last James Bond film I paid to see at the cinema was Die Another Day. I just can't pay to see someone I don't want as Bond. I've seen Craig in other films like Layer Cake, Invasion and quite liked him. He did wear a nice white suit in Layer Cake. He seems a decent actor but as Bond, no thanks. It's just personal preference. Daniel Craig does not embody my idea of what the film version of James Bond is like. "

    Thanks @JimThompson45 But I respect his decision. After Craig's tenure ends we will see more of this.

    Kind of like "Craig was good, but he never looked as good as the others" and the like. I am willing to bet on this. Not that it is my opinion but how the world works.

  • acoppola wrote:
    Thanks@jimThompson But I respect his decision. After Craig's tenure ends we will see more of this.

    And why I say that because of how Brosnan despite being loved, was later criticized for being exactly what people had once wanted.
    Oh, I'm sure there will be folks who do just that.

  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    acoppola wrote:
    Thanks@jimThompson But I respect his decision. After Craig's tenure ends we will see more of this.

    And why I say that because of how Brosnan despite being loved, was later criticized for being exactly what people had once wanted.
    Oh, I'm sure there will be folks who do just that.

    Craig is aware of this. The better the actor in terms of skill, the higher the criticism. There is plenty audience for a one dimensional eyebrow raising Bond. Good things never last.

  • acoppola wrote:
    Craig is aware of this. The better the actor in terms of skill, the higher the criticism. There is plenty audience for a one dimensional eyebrow raising Bond. Good things never last.
    Well, again, different strokes, and all that. I've been very happy with Craig's run, and am not looked forward to when it ends.

  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,243
    acoppola wrote:
    Craig is aware of this. The better the actor in terms of skill, the higher the criticism. There is plenty audience for a one dimensional eyebrow raising Bond. Good things never last.
    Well, again, different strokes, and all that. I've been very happy with Craig's run, and am not looked forward to when it ends.

    Ironically it is fan expectation that could destroy the Bond franchise. Because unlike a franchise like Mission Impossible where they can move in any direction, Bond is so straight jacketed in terms of what he can and cannot do. Just the way I see it.


    Christopher Nolan took on Batman as a blank canvas and was not worrying if fans of Batman Forever or Batman And Robin were happy.

    But with Bond, all fan types are accounted for and that is a balancing act. I felt there should have been no apology for QOS. It was value for money at the cinema and an interesting film.

    The Dark Knight was a bleak film too, so I never understood why so hard on QOS?

    Or should Bond have used a one liner when he puts Matthis in the dumpster?:)



  • Posts: 11,189
    acoppola wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    Craig is aware of this. The better the actor in terms of skill, the higher the criticism. There is plenty audience for a one dimensional eyebrow raising Bond. Good things never last.
    Well, again, different strokes, and all that. I've been very happy with Craig's run, and am not looked forward to when it ends.

    Ironically it is fan expectation that could destroy the franchise.

    Christopher Nolan took on Batman as a blank canvas and was not worrying if fans of Batman Forever or Batman And Robin were happy.

    But with Bond, all fan types are accounted for and that is a balancing act. I felt there should have been no apology for QOS. It was value for money at the cinema and an interesting film.

    The Dark Knight was a bleak film too, so I never understood why so hard on QOS?


    Because TDK is better made and better crafted. Simple.
  • acoppola wrote:
    Ironically it is fan expectation that could destroy the franchise.

    Christopher Nolan took on Batman as a blank canvas and was not worrying if fans of Batman Forever or Batman And Robin were happy.

    But with Bond, all fan types are accounted for and that is a balancing act. I felt there should have been no apology for QOS. It was value for money at the cinema and an interesting film.

    The Dark Knight was a bleak film too, so I never understood why so hard on QOS?
    Well, you're conversing with a fellow who enjoyed Quantum of Solace, and re-watches it periodically.

    That said, I tend to agree, the "fans" are sometimes a franchises worst enemy, because they get so locked into a particular viewpoint they start talking casual consumers out of giving the product a chance. The Star Trek franchise nearly got sunk because the fan base so bashed what was being done.

  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,243
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    Craig is aware of this. The better the actor in terms of skill, the higher the criticism. There is plenty audience for a one dimensional eyebrow raising Bond. Good things never last.
    Well, again, different strokes, and all that. I've been very happy with Craig's run, and am not looked forward to when it ends.

    Ironically it is fan expectation that could destroy the franchise.

    Christopher Nolan took on Batman as a blank canvas and was not worrying if fans of Batman Forever or Batman And Robin were happy.

    But with Bond, all fan types are accounted for and that is a balancing act. I felt there should have been no apology for QOS. It was value for money at the cinema and an interesting film.

    The Dark Knight was a bleak film too, so I never understood why so hard on QOS?


    Because TDK is better made and better crafted. Simple.

    No way dude! QOS looked expensive and was not trying to be self-conscious or too self aware which some Bond films of the last 15 years were.

    I actually preferred it to TDK. It was fresh and no winky, winky to the camera. Or how is my hair in the mirror Bond.

    I like how Bond is cut up in it and stays in character in the movie's context throughout. Very much a Dalton style of acting and I was a happy camper!:)

    The villain was a nasty git but got criticised for being too subtle. Well in the real world, villains do not draw attention to themselves. You cannot use pantomine villains these days.

  • BAIN123 wrote:
    Because TDK is better made and better crafted. Simple.
    Define "better".

  • Posts: 11,189
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Because TDK is better made and better crafted. Simple.
    Define "better".

    Err more memorable characters, better action set pieces, a screenplay that wasn't rushed into production (though in fairness that wasn't entirely EON's fault) and a director at the helm who was in control.
  • BAIN123 wrote:
    Err more memorable characters, better action set pieces, a screenplay that wasn't rushed into production (though in fairness that wasn't entirely EON's fault) and a director at the helm who was in control.
    You think Batman is more "memorable" than James Bond?

  • Posts: 11,189
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Err more memorable characters, better action set pieces, a screenplay that wasn't rushed into production (though in fairness that wasn't entirely EON's fault) and a director at the helm who was in control.
    You think Batman is more "memorable" than James Bond?

    If its a case of TDK vs QoS then...YES!!!
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,189
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    Craig is aware of this. The better the actor in terms of skill, the higher the criticism. There is plenty audience for a one dimensional eyebrow raising Bond. Good things never last.
    Well, again, different strokes, and all that. I've been very happy with Craig's run, and am not looked forward to when it ends.

    Ironically it is fan expectation that could destroy the franchise.

    Christopher Nolan took on Batman as a blank canvas and was not worrying if fans of Batman Forever or Batman And Robin were happy.

    But with Bond, all fan types are accounted for and that is a balancing act. I felt there should have been no apology for QOS. It was value for money at the cinema and an interesting film.

    The Dark Knight was a bleak film too, so I never understood why so hard on QOS?


    Because TDK is better made and better crafted. Simple.

    No way dude! QOS looked expensive and was not trying to be self-conscious or too self aware which some Bond films of the last 15 years were.
    I actually preferred it to TDK. It was fresh and no winky, winky to the camera. Or how is my hair in the mirror Bond.

    I like how Bond is cut up in it and stays in character in the movie's context throughout. Very much a Dalton style of acting and I was a happy camper!:)

    The villain was a nasty git but got criticised for being too subtle. Well in the real world, villains do not draw attention to themselves. You cannot use pantomine villains these days.

    Shame it ended up being erratically paced and messy then ;)

    If you thought don't like panto, "camp" villains you may not like SF then :p
  • Posts: 229
    The only memorable character in TDK is the Joker.
    Batman in Nolan's films is just James Bond with a batsuit.
  • BAIN123 wrote:
    If its a case of TDK vs QoS then...YES!!!
    Yowsa! Are you ever on the wrong site.

  • maxcraig wrote:
    The only memorable character in TDK is the Joker.
    Batman in Nolan's films is just James Bond with a batsuit.
    Ah, I wouldn't go that far. I quite enjoyed Nolan's take on Batman/Bruce Wayne.

  • Posts: 176
    It doesn't have to be Bond or nothing. Me, I enjoy Bond, Bourne, Batman, the Jack Ryan movies, etc.
  • Posts: 229
    Ah, I wouldn't go that far. I quite enjoyed Nolan's take on Batman/Bruce Wayne.
    So do I.
  • BAIN123 wrote:
    If its a case of TDK vs QoS then...YES!!!
    Yowsa! Are you ever on the wrong site.

    Not every Bond film has to be above all other films.

    TDK blows QOS out of the water imo. The only thing QOS did better was locations, but then they couldn't help that, Bond is a globe trotting secret agent, Batman stays in one city.
    marymoss wrote:
    It doesn't have to be Bond or nothing. Me, I enjoy Bond, Bourne, Batman, the Jack Ryan movies, etc.

    THANK YOU! I've been saying this for a while. Some people act like you can't be a fan of two franchises. To be honest I wonder what some people on here actually watch other than Bond.
  • marymoss wrote:
    It doesn't have to be Bond or nothing. Me, I enjoy Bond, Bourne, Batman, the Jack Ryan movies, etc.
    I very much agree. I'll even take it a step further, in that I can enjoy different interpretations of the same character. For example, I enjoy both Benedict Cumberbatch's and Robert Downey Jr.'s take on Sherlock Holmes even though the two are very different.

Sign In or Register to comment.