SPECTRE: Official Critics Review Topic (accumulative topic, NO SPOILERS, just links)

1246717

Comments

  • Posts: 1,082
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    shaigh1991 wrote: »
    I'm not liking the comparisons to the Roger Moore films at all @bondjames haha. I agree @tigers99, i don't think he has topped CR or come close tbh.

    I think we need to compare the reign of Craig entirely with Sean Connery and his first 4/5 Bond films.

    I second that

    Let's face it. Sean Connery does "DN", a rather gritty, but still suave and exotic spy movie. I think "CR" is like that too, although it has a nice "FRWL"esque flavour to it as well.

    Sean Connery's 2nd outing is perhaps his most gritty, violent Bond film. "FRWL" is a true Fleming-esque/Hitchcock-ian spy thriller. Devoid of lush casinos, palm trees. And we all know "QOS" is Craig's most violent Bond film.

    Craig's outing in "SF" in a way has a gripping spy story, with a FRWL-esque McGuffin (the harddrive), but it does explore the emotional debts we saw in "OHMSS", and perhaps also in Connery's "GF".

    Then Connery returned in his 4th Bond outing "TB", which was celebrated as the biggest Bond of all, but already getting some mild critiques that "FRWL" and "GF" didn't receive. But obviously Connery was at his funniest in this film. Completely devoid of angst or fear. I think we'll get that from Daniel Craig in "SP". With a "YOLT"-esque volcano.

    Off course some comparisons are a bit farfetched, and there are a lot of differences between Connery's first 4 films and Craig's first four films. "QOS" wasn't as good as we hoped for. But in return we did get better chronology and movies that are better knitted together with continuity and plot.

    But bottomline is: I really try to think that Daniel Craig kicked off an entire new timeline, that leaves the door wide open for perhaps a 5th or 6th outing with Craig. Or what about one single outing with Tom Hardy in Bond #25, and then Craig returns for one final time?
    So please no reboots anymore. Now go on with the flow. We already had some tense, gritty, Oscar-heavy Bond films. Don't try to top that. Just bring in some more 'fun', like I mentioned this topic:

    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/13322/realistic-serious-story-ideas-for-bond-25-to-be-used-by-eon-productions-ltd#latest

    With Daniel Craig? I sincerely hope so. Without Craig? Then the next Bond-actor need to be a good follow-up of Craig. But he can't enjoy the same wishes for a big reboot molded around his wishes. He needs to be Bond in the timeline that Craig kicked off.

    I agree ..except I'm a bit more ambivalent to Craig returning.

    I'm a big Craig fan though.

    I also want Craig to return. But.....hearing recent interviews. Also those of yesterday and today...Daniel Craig is talking with so many sigh's in his voice :-(.

    Not a big deal, though. I'm sure he's just a bit worn out from the long shoot and now all these interviews will people asking the same stupid questions over and over... it would make anyone sigh from time to time. It must be exhausting.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    Especially when journalists are asking moronic questions or news anchors get your damn name wrong.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited October 2015 Posts: 2,138
    bondjames wrote: »
    shaigh1991 wrote: »
    I'm not liking the comparisons to the Roger Moore films at all @bondjames haha. I agree @tigers99, i don't think he has topped CR or come close tbh.

    I think we need to compare the reign of Craig entirely with Sean Connery and his first 4/5 Bond films.

    I second that

    Let's face it. Sean Connery does "DN", a rather gritty, but still suave and exotic spy movie. I think "CR" is like that too, although it has a nice "FRWL"esque flavour to it as well.

    Sean Connery's 2nd outing is perhaps his most gritty, violent Bond film. "FRWL" is a true Fleming-esque/Hitchcock-ian spy thriller. Devoid of lush casinos, palm trees. And we all know "QOS" is Craig's most violent Bond film.

    Craig's outing in "SF" in a way has a gripping spy story, with a FRWL-esque McGuffin (the harddrive), but it does explore the emotional debts we saw in "OHMSS", and perhaps also in Connery's "GF".

    Then Connery returned in his 4th Bond outing "TB", which was celebrated as the biggest Bond of all, but already getting some mild critiques that "FRWL" and "GF" didn't receive. But obviously Connery was at his funniest in this film. Completely devoid of angst or fear. I think we'll get that from Daniel Craig in "SP". With a "YOLT"-esque volcano.

    Off course some comparisons are a bit farfetched, and there are a lot of differences between Connery's first 4 films and Craig's first four films. "QOS" wasn't as good as we hoped for. But in return we did get better chronology and movies that are better knitted together with continuity and plot.

    But bottomline is: I really try to think that Daniel Craig kicked off an entire new timeline, that leaves the door wide open for perhaps a 5th or 6th outing with Craig. Or what about one single outing with Tom Hardy in Bond #25, and then Craig returns for one final time?
    So please no reboots anymore. Now go on with the flow. We already had some tense, gritty, Oscar-heavy Bond films. Don't try to top that. Just bring in some more 'fun', like I mentioned this topic:

    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/13322/realistic-serious-story-ideas-for-bond-25-to-be-used-by-eon-productions-ltd#latest

    With Daniel Craig? I sincerely hope so. Without Craig? Then the next Bond-actor need to be a good follow-up of Craig. But he can't enjoy the same wishes for a big reboot molded around his wishes. He needs to be Bond in the timeline that Craig kicked off.

    The future success on the next actor, is dependant on who that actor is. Because Daniel Craig bought in to this. He has made sure his voice was heard and had input on everything from Script, to clothes, to the cars and the casting. He has used his status to draw in Oscar winning actors and directors.

    Your right Craig was allowed a blank canvas. The next will not be giving the same, the films are successful and it has to be about continuity on this new timeline.

    The next Bond would need to deliver the same, for any actor it is a it a red herring.

    I used to say Connery 1st then Craig. But now I can't separate them, they are the golden age Bonds and for the very reason they were the first of their kinds.

    On the evidence to date (pre-SP) I don't personally feel that DC is up to the same level as SC. Not by a long shot.

    He was given an 'actor's role in an actor's film' in CR. He delivered, magnificently, because that is what he should have done. That is what he was hired for. There was enough meat on that bone for him to delve into.

    However, if one subtracts that one film and performance, I don't feel that he has been as good a Bond as Connery, or even Moore (that is, just counting his performances in QoS & SF).

    SP will be the real test for me to determine if he can play Bond convincingly in a 'pure Bond film'.

    I don't think they will have a problem replacing him if he decides to move on, especially if they are going to a more formulaic approach, which is possible. There are several good actors out there who can take this franchise forward. As long as they don't pander to the 'in thing' or 'flavour of the year' as they did with the title song artist, we should be good.

    Can't agree. Craig said in a recent interview when he and Barbs discussed Bond at the time of casting he could not do it if he was coming in to act as someone else. I.e Dalton in to Brosnan where one actor is attempting to play the character the same way. Because that in his eyes offers nothing creative it's just script reading. I think that's the key to recent success is that it was originality rather than following formula. You will also struggle to cast a an actor of calibre if you just hand them a script and say read it. Actors of any merit will want a creative input and want to be original. I am sure EON know the difference now in casting based on a look and following formula than casting a really creative actor to do something original with the role. Formula is stagnant and the films historically get silly when that happens.

    Craig's films and the way they have been filmed will age well, and when Bond turns 100 people will look back at his tenure with the same fondness we have of Connery's films. But unlike Connery's tenure Craig's films merge together and will tell one big story rather than a mish mash. The fact you hold Moore as higher regard of actor and Bond than Craig all I can say is I'm flabergasted. Moore was a paradoy of Flemings Bond beyond LALD.
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 1,082
    I feel like defending Moore now. He was awesome as Bond, a suave smooth operator and exactly what the franchise needed at the time. Like him or loathe him, he proved Bond could go on with another actor after Connery and if not for him we would be talking about 6 spy films from the 60s and nothing else. The series would have died and Bond would be nothing but a relic.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    shaigh1991 wrote: »
    I'm not liking the comparisons to the Roger Moore films at all @bondjames haha. I agree @tigers99, i don't think he has topped CR or come close tbh.

    I think we need to compare the reign of Craig entirely with Sean Connery and his first 4/5 Bond films.

    I second that

    Let's face it. Sean Connery does "DN", a rather gritty, but still suave and exotic spy movie. I think "CR" is like that too, although it has a nice "FRWL"esque flavour to it as well.

    Sean Connery's 2nd outing is perhaps his most gritty, violent Bond film. "FRWL" is a true Fleming-esque/Hitchcock-ian spy thriller. Devoid of lush casinos, palm trees. And we all know "QOS" is Craig's most violent Bond film.

    Craig's outing in "SF" in a way has a gripping spy story, with a FRWL-esque McGuffin (the harddrive), but it does explore the emotional debts we saw in "OHMSS", and perhaps also in Connery's "GF".

    Then Connery returned in his 4th Bond outing "TB", which was celebrated as the biggest Bond of all, but already getting some mild critiques that "FRWL" and "GF" didn't receive. But obviously Connery was at his funniest in this film. Completely devoid of angst or fear. I think we'll get that from Daniel Craig in "SP". With a "YOLT"-esque volcano.

    Off course some comparisons are a bit farfetched, and there are a lot of differences between Connery's first 4 films and Craig's first four films. "QOS" wasn't as good as we hoped for. But in return we did get better chronology and movies that are better knitted together with continuity and plot.

    But bottomline is: I really try to think that Daniel Craig kicked off an entire new timeline, that leaves the door wide open for perhaps a 5th or 6th outing with Craig. Or what about one single outing with Tom Hardy in Bond #25, and then Craig returns for one final time?
    So please no reboots anymore. Now go on with the flow. We already had some tense, gritty, Oscar-heavy Bond films. Don't try to top that. Just bring in some more 'fun', like I mentioned this topic:

    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/13322/realistic-serious-story-ideas-for-bond-25-to-be-used-by-eon-productions-ltd#latest

    With Daniel Craig? I sincerely hope so. Without Craig? Then the next Bond-actor need to be a good follow-up of Craig. But he can't enjoy the same wishes for a big reboot molded around his wishes. He needs to be Bond in the timeline that Craig kicked off.

    The future success on the next actor, is dependant on who that actor is. Because Daniel Craig bought in to this. He has made sure his voice was heard and had input on everything from Script, to clothes, to the cars and the casting. He has used his status to draw in Oscar winning actors and directors.

    Your right Craig was allowed a blank canvas. The next will not be giving the same, the films are successful and it has to be about continuity on this new timeline.

    The next Bond would need to deliver the same, for any actor it is a it a red herring.

    I used to say Connery 1st then Craig. But now I can't separate them, they are the golden age Bonds and for the very reason they were the first of their kinds.

    On the evidence to date (pre-SP) I don't personally feel that DC is up to the same level as SC. Not by a long shot.

    He was given an 'actor's role in an actor's film' in CR. He delivered, magnificently, because that is what he should have done. That is what he was hired for. There was enough meat on that bone for him to delve into.

    However, if one subtracts that one film and performance, I don't feel that he has been as good a Bond as Connery, or even Moore (that is, just counting his performances in QoS & SF).

    SP will be the real test for me to determine if he can play Bond convincingly in a 'pure Bond film'.

    I don't think they will have a problem replacing him if he decides to move on, especially if they are going to a more formulaic approach, which is possible. There are several good actors out there who can take this franchise forward. As long as they don't pander to the 'in thing' or 'flavour of the year' as they did with the title song artist, we should be good.

    Can't agree. Craig said in a recent interview when he and Barbs discussed Bond at the time of casting he could not do it if he was coming in to act as someone else. I.e Dalton in to Brosnan where one actor is attempting to play the character the same way. Because that in his eyes offers nothing creative it's just script reading. I think that's the key to recent success is that it was originality rather than following formula. You will also struggle to cast a an actor of calibre if you just hand them a script and say read it. Actors of any merit will want a creative input and want to be original. I am sure EON know the difference now in casting based on a look and following formula than casting a really creative actor to do something original with the role. Formula is stagnant and the films historically get silly when that happens.

    Craig's films and the way they have been filmed will age well, and when Bond turns 100 people will look back at his tenure with the same fondness we have of Connery's films. But unlike Connery's tenure Craig's films merge together and will tell one big story rather than a mish mash. The fact you hold Moore as higher regard of actor and Bond than Craig all I can say is I'm flabergasted. Moore was a paradoy of Flemings Bond beyond LALD.

    @SirHilaryBray, when I make comments I try to be as clear as possible, so that my intentions and opinions are not misconstrued. I also like to be specific in the way I make my statements, so as not to paint actors and eras with too broad a stroke. Only the early Connery era is worthy of effusive praise imho.

    In this period of possible/notable unbridled Craig fanboyism and revisionist history of the past, let me clarify my above statements:

    ----
    Roger Moore was an exceptional James Bond, for the most part, imho. The films headed in a larger, formulaic, more comedic direction before he came on board. Elements of the Moore era were already apparent in YOLT and certainly in DAF, with only OHMSS (as a true to the novel film) being an exception.

    Nobody did those 'larger than life' Bonds better than Roger Moore. The press recognizes that, and most of the public does too. Not Brosnan, not even the great Connery. He grounded those crazy (MR?) films with his laid back, not too serious performances.

    His performance in the benchmark TSWLM is as good as it gets for James Bond, again imho. I recently completed a Bondathon and was impressed with his tenure as much as Connery's. Even FYEO (8 years after he started as Bond) gave us a very good Flemingesque performance. He was able to vary his performance to suit the changing nature of his films (including in the extremely well paced but over-comedic OP) while still being credible within the universe he was occupying.

    He is an excellent actor as well. Watch The Man Who Haunted Himself or Ffolkes to see what I mean.

    More than anything else, he was and remains a great spokesperson for the James Bond franchise, unlike most of his predecessors and successors.
    ----

    My remarks about the Craig era stand. His best performance was CR (I have yet to see SP) because he had a meaty script worthy of his considerable acting talents. He did not have such a script in QoS and his performance, while excellent, was not as good (in terms of it portraying a holistic character). In that instance it was not his fault of course, but it still is what it is. I did not feel it was as good in SF either, where he seemed somewhat wooden in certain cases, and like a bystander in much of the film. To some extent, he was overshadowed (charisma and acting wise) by Dench's M and by Bardem's Silva, in contrast to CR where he shone very bright.

    So, I never said RM was a better actor than DC. Just that his performances on the whole were better than DC in SF/QoS imho. I stand by that opinion. DC in CR is a completely different ballgame however......one of the best if not the best James Bond portrayals outside of DN/FRWL/TB.

    It takes a very special charisma to act credibly in a 'formulaic' Bond film which doesn't have a meaty story and which doesn't have character depth. That is actually (imho) a more difficult thing to do than to act in a 'character driven' film. Roger Moore and Sean Connery proved they could do that, time and time again, and that is why I hold them in high regard.

    As I said above, it is in SP where I will be able to tell if DC can hold together a formulaic Bond film like Connery and Moore were able to do (if SP is indeed one of these films, as is reportedly the case).

    Many here idolize Lazenby's one performance in OHMSS, not recognizing/downplaying the fact that this film had the best score, the best cinematography, one of the best actresses to play off of, and the most close to Fleming adaptation. It was a gift to any actor, or even a model, and certainly to him. Moore and Connery never had such a luxury and they still delivered, time and time again.
    ----

    I don't think replacing DC will be a problem when the time comes. He has been an excellent Bond, but as I said above, depending on the direction they choose to go in, there are several superb actors who can bring something new to the table and take this franchise forward. Only Dalton and perhaps Lazenby were not embraced at the beginning. So that bodes well for the new guy, whenever he may take over.
  • This happens because movies are subjective. There will never be the same opinion about a particular movie. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It is truly hard for everyone in the world to think a certain movie is the best movie ever made in the history of the world lol. It's an impossible feat, so the fact that there is MOSTLY positive but still has some mixed and negative reactions to it is not a bad thing. It is safe to say that MOST PEOPLE find SPECTRE to be an extremely entertaining film, not as deep as Skyfall, but rather a Bond movie you can enjoy for being just that....a Bond movie. And that's OK!! Us Bond fans for the most part are going to enjoy the shit out of this movie because it has been forever since we got the traditional Bond film that we've been craving. I loved Skyfall, and Casino Royale, I'm still not sure which one is my favorite and I think I lean towards Skyfall, because I personally think it is not just a good Bond film but a good film. SPECTRE is going to be a GREAT Bond film, and I personally will be able to enjoy it as a film too, some others won't but like I repeatedly say that is just fine.
  • Posts: 4,430
    Does every thread drift off topic and end up in a discussion about who was the best Bond? it seems that way
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    patb wrote: »
    Does every thread drift off topic and end up in a discussion about who was the best Bond? it seems that way

    We are passionate fanboys after all.....and in the absence of real news (until SP drops on Monday) it's only to be expected......as such passions reach boiling point.
  • Posts: 4,430
    Passion can be focused on the topic of the thread? I am itching to share my thoughts on Moore in response to your thoughts but its not what the thread is about
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    patb wrote: »
    Passion can be focused on the topic of the thread? I am itching to share my thoughts on Moore in response to your thoughts but its not what the thread is about

    I hear you. Point taken. No one posted any more reviews yet though (likely we'll have to wait for state-side reviews to start coming through in dribs and drabs....and to be honest these are the ones I am most interested in because if they're good, SP is going to make some serious coin.....if they're not so good, then we're in for an interesting time over the next few weeks).

    I admire your restraint.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited October 2015 Posts: 2,138
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    shaigh1991 wrote: »
    I'm not liking the comparisons to the Roger Moore films at all @bondjames haha. I agree @tigers99, i don't think he has topped CR or come close tbh.

    I think we need to compare the reign of Craig entirely with Sean Connery and his first 4/5 Bond films.

    I second that

    Let's face it. Sean Connery does "DN", a rather gritty, but still suave and exotic spy movie. I think "CR" is like that too, although it has a nice "FRWL"esque flavour to it as well.

    Sean Connery's 2nd outing is perhaps his most gritty, violent Bond film. "FRWL" is a true Fleming-esque/Hitchcock-ian spy thriller. Devoid of lush casinos, palm trees. And we all know "QOS" is Craig's most violent Bond film.

    Craig's outing in "SF" in a way has a gripping spy story, with a FRWL-esque McGuffin (the harddrive), but it does explore the emotional debts we saw in "OHMSS", and perhaps also in Connery's "GF".

    Then Connery returned in his 4th Bond outing "TB", which was celebrated as the biggest Bond of all, but already getting some mild critiques that "FRWL" and "GF" didn't receive. But obviously Connery was at his funniest in this film. Completely devoid of angst or fear. I think we'll get that from Daniel Craig in "SP". With a "YOLT"-esque volcano.

    Off course some comparisons are a bit farfetched, and there are a lot of differences between Connery's first 4 films and Craig's first four films. "QOS" wasn't as good as we hoped for. But in return we did get better chronology and movies that are better knitted together with continuity and plot.

    But bottomline is: I really try to think that Daniel Craig kicked off an entire new timeline, that leaves the door wide open for perhaps a 5th or 6th outing with Craig. Or what about one single outing with Tom Hardy in Bond #25, and then Craig returns for one final time?
    So please no reboots anymore. Now go on with the flow. We already had some tense, gritty, Oscar-heavy Bond films. Don't try to top that. Just bring in some more 'fun', like I mentioned this topic:

    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/13322/realistic-serious-story-ideas-for-bond-25-to-be-used-by-eon-productions-ltd#latest

    With Daniel Craig? I sincerely hope so. Without Craig? Then the next Bond-actor need to be a good follow-up of Craig. But he can't enjoy the same wishes for a big reboot molded around his wishes. He needs to be Bond in the timeline that Craig kicked off.

    The future success on the next actor, is dependant on who that actor is. Because Daniel Craig bought in to this. He has made sure his voice was heard and had input on everything from Script, to clothes, to the cars and the casting. He has used his status to draw in Oscar winning actors and directors.

    Your right Craig was allowed a blank canvas. The next will not be giving the same, the films are successful and it has to be about continuity on this new timeline.

    The next Bond would need to deliver the same, for any actor it is a it a red herring.

    I used to say Connery 1st then Craig. But now I can't separate them, they are the golden age Bonds and for the very reason they were the first of their kinds.

    On the evidence to date (pre-SP) I don't personally feel that DC is up to the same level as SC. Not by a long shot.

    He was given an 'actor's role in an actor's film' in CR. He delivered, magnificently, because that is what he should have done. That is what he was hired for. There was enough meat on that bone for him to delve into.

    However, if one subtracts that one film and performance, I don't feel that he has been as good a Bond as Connery, or even Moore (that is, just counting his performances in QoS & SF).

    SP will be the real test for me to determine if he can play Bond convincingly in a 'pure Bond film'.

    I don't think they will have a problem replacing him if he decides to move on, especially if they are going to a more formulaic approach, which is possible. There are several good actors out there who can take this franchise forward. As long as they don't pander to the 'in thing' or 'flavour of the year' as they did with the title song artist, we should be good.

    Can't agree. Craig said in a recent interview when he and Barbs discussed Bond at the time of casting he could not do it if he was coming in to act as someone else. I.e Dalton in to Brosnan where one actor is attempting to play the character the same way. Because that in his eyes offers nothing creative it's just script reading. I think that's the key to recent success is that it was originality rather than following formula. You will also struggle to cast a an actor of calibre if you just hand them a script and say read it. Actors of any merit will want a creative input and want to be original. I am sure EON know the difference now in casting based on a look and following formula than casting a really creative actor to do something original with the role. Formula is stagnant and the films historically get silly when that happens.

    Craig's films and the way they have been filmed will age well, and when Bond turns 100 people will look back at his tenure with the same fondness we have of Connery's films. But unlike Connery's tenure Craig's films merge together and will tell one big story rather than a mish mash. The fact you hold Moore as higher regard of actor and Bond than Craig all I can say is I'm flabergasted. Moore was a paradoy of Flemings Bond beyond LALD.

    @SirHilaryBray, when I make comments I try to be as clear as possible, so that my intentions and opinions are not misconstrued. I also like to be specific in the way I make my statements, so as not to paint actors and eras with too broad a stroke. Only the early Connery era is worthy of effusive praise imho.

    In this period of possible/notable unbridled Craig fanboyism and revisionist history of the past, let me clarify my above statements:

    ----
    Roger Moore was an exceptional James Bond, for the most part, imho. The films headed in a larger, formulaic, more comedic direction before he came on board. Elements of the Moore era were already apparent in YOLT and certainly in DAF, with only OHMSS (as a true to the novel film) being an exception.

    Nobody did those 'larger than life' Bonds better than Roger Moore. The press recognizes that, and most of the public does too. Not Brosnan, not even the great Connery. He grounded those crazy (MR?) films with his laid back, not too serious performances.

    His performance in the benchmark TSWLM is as good as it gets for James Bond, again imho. I recently completed a Bondathon and was impressed with his tenure as much as Connery's. Even FYEO (8 years after he started as Bond) gave us a very good Flemingesque performance. He was able to vary his performance to suit the changing nature of his films (including in the extremely well paced but over-comedic OP) while still being credible within the universe he was occupying.

    He is an excellent actor as well. Watch The Man Who Haunted Himself or Ffolkes to see what I mean.

    More than anything else, he was and remains a great spokesperson for the James Bond franchise, unlike most of his predecessors and successors.
    ----

    My remarks about the Craig era stand. His best performance was CR (I have yet to see SP) because he had a meaty script worthy of his considerable acting talents. He did not have such a script in QoS and his performance, while excellent, was not as good (in terms of it portraying a holistic character). In that instance it was not his fault of course, but it still is what it is. I did not feel it was as good in SF either, where he seemed somewhat wooden in certain cases, and like a bystander in much of the film. To some extent, he was overshadowed (charisma and acting wise) by Dench's M and by Bardem's Silva, in contrast to CR where he shone very bright.

    So, I never said RM was a better actor than DC. Just that his performances on the whole were better than DC in SF/QoS imho. I stand by that opinion. DC in CR is a completely different ballgame however......one of the best if not the best James Bond portrayals outside of DN/FRWL/TB.

    It takes a very special charisma to act credibly in a 'formulaic' Bond film which doesn't have a meaty story and which doesn't have character depth. That is actually (imho) a more difficult thing to do than to act in a 'character driven' film. Roger Moore and Sean Connery proved they could do that, time and time again, and that is why I hold them in high regard.

    As I said above, it is in SP where I will be able to tell if DC can hold together a formulaic Bond film like Connery and Moore were able to do (if SP is indeed one of these films, as is reportedly the case).

    Many here idolize Lazenby's one performance in OHMSS, not recognizing/downplaying the fact that this film had the best score, the best cinematography, one of the best actresses to play off of, and the most close to Fleming adaptation. It was a gift to any actor, or even a model, and certainly to him. Moore and Connery never had such a luxury and they still delivered, time and time again.
    ----

    I don't think replacing DC will be a problem when the time comes. He has been an excellent Bond, but as I said above, depending on the direction they choose to go in, there are several superb actors who can bring something new to the table and take this franchise forward. Only Dalton and perhaps Lazenby were not embraced at the beginning. So that bodes well for the new guy, whenever he may take over.

    All that typing just for me to respond cods wallop. I can not agree that replacing Dan will be easy. History will tell us how good a Bond Craig is. He will be remembered as a great top 2 because his films like Connery offer more serious element and are not a victim of the fashion of their times.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    shaigh1991 wrote: »
    I'm not liking the comparisons to the Roger Moore films at all @bondjames haha. I agree @tigers99, i don't think he has topped CR or come close tbh.

    I think we need to compare the reign of Craig entirely with Sean Connery and his first 4/5 Bond films.

    I second that

    Let's face it. Sean Connery does "DN", a rather gritty, but still suave and exotic spy movie. I think "CR" is like that too, although it has a nice "FRWL"esque flavour to it as well.

    Sean Connery's 2nd outing is perhaps his most gritty, violent Bond film. "FRWL" is a true Fleming-esque/Hitchcock-ian spy thriller. Devoid of lush casinos, palm trees. And we all know "QOS" is Craig's most violent Bond film.

    Craig's outing in "SF" in a way has a gripping spy story, with a FRWL-esque McGuffin (the harddrive), but it does explore the emotional debts we saw in "OHMSS", and perhaps also in Connery's "GF".

    Then Connery returned in his 4th Bond outing "TB", which was celebrated as the biggest Bond of all, but already getting some mild critiques that "FRWL" and "GF" didn't receive. But obviously Connery was at his funniest in this film. Completely devoid of angst or fear. I think we'll get that from Daniel Craig in "SP". With a "YOLT"-esque volcano.

    Off course some comparisons are a bit farfetched, and there are a lot of differences between Connery's first 4 films and Craig's first four films. "QOS" wasn't as good as we hoped for. But in return we did get better chronology and movies that are better knitted together with continuity and plot.

    But bottomline is: I really try to think that Daniel Craig kicked off an entire new timeline, that leaves the door wide open for perhaps a 5th or 6th outing with Craig. Or what about one single outing with Tom Hardy in Bond #25, and then Craig returns for one final time?
    So please no reboots anymore. Now go on with the flow. We already had some tense, gritty, Oscar-heavy Bond films. Don't try to top that. Just bring in some more 'fun', like I mentioned this topic:

    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/13322/realistic-serious-story-ideas-for-bond-25-to-be-used-by-eon-productions-ltd#latest

    With Daniel Craig? I sincerely hope so. Without Craig? Then the next Bond-actor need to be a good follow-up of Craig. But he can't enjoy the same wishes for a big reboot molded around his wishes. He needs to be Bond in the timeline that Craig kicked off.

    The future success on the next actor, is dependant on who that actor is. Because Daniel Craig bought in to this. He has made sure his voice was heard and had input on everything from Script, to clothes, to the cars and the casting. He has used his status to draw in Oscar winning actors and directors.

    Your right Craig was allowed a blank canvas. The next will not be giving the same, the films are successful and it has to be about continuity on this new timeline.

    The next Bond would need to deliver the same, for any actor it is a it a red herring.

    I used to say Connery 1st then Craig. But now I can't separate them, they are the golden age Bonds and for the very reason they were the first of their kinds.

    On the evidence to date (pre-SP) I don't personally feel that DC is up to the same level as SC. Not by a long shot.

    He was given an 'actor's role in an actor's film' in CR. He delivered, magnificently, because that is what he should have done. That is what he was hired for. There was enough meat on that bone for him to delve into.

    However, if one subtracts that one film and performance, I don't feel that he has been as good a Bond as Connery, or even Moore (that is, just counting his performances in QoS & SF).

    SP will be the real test for me to determine if he can play Bond convincingly in a 'pure Bond film'.

    I don't think they will have a problem replacing him if he decides to move on, especially if they are going to a more formulaic approach, which is possible. There are several good actors out there who can take this franchise forward. As long as they don't pander to the 'in thing' or 'flavour of the year' as they did with the title song artist, we should be good.

    Can't agree. Craig said in a recent interview when he and Barbs discussed Bond at the time of casting he could not do it if he was coming in to act as someone else. I.e Dalton in to Brosnan where one actor is attempting to play the character the same way. Because that in his eyes offers nothing creative it's just script reading. I think that's the key to recent success is that it was originality rather than following formula. You will also struggle to cast a an actor of calibre if you just hand them a script and say read it. Actors of any merit will want a creative input and want to be original. I am sure EON know the difference now in casting based on a look and following formula than casting a really creative actor to do something original with the role. Formula is stagnant and the films historically get silly when that happens.

    Craig's films and the way they have been filmed will age well, and when Bond turns 100 people will look back at his tenure with the same fondness we have of Connery's films. But unlike Connery's tenure Craig's films merge together and will tell one big story rather than a mish mash. The fact you hold Moore as higher regard of actor and Bond than Craig all I can say is I'm flabergasted. Moore was a paradoy of Flemings Bond beyond LALD.

    @SirHilaryBray, when I make comments I try to be as clear as possible, so that my intentions and opinions are not misconstrued. I also like to be specific in the way I make my statements, so as not to paint actors and eras with too broad a stroke. Only the early Connery era is worthy of effusive praise imho.

    In this period of possible/notable unbridled Craig fanboyism and revisionist history of the past, let me clarify my above statements:

    ----
    Roger Moore was an exceptional James Bond, for the most part, imho. The films headed in a larger, formulaic, more comedic direction before he came on board. Elements of the Moore era were already apparent in YOLT and certainly in DAF, with only OHMSS (as a true to the novel film) being an exception.

    Nobody did those 'larger than life' Bonds better than Roger Moore. The press recognizes that, and most of the public does too. Not Brosnan, not even the great Connery. He grounded those crazy (MR?) films with his laid back, not too serious performances.

    His performance in the benchmark TSWLM is as good as it gets for James Bond, again imho. I recently completed a Bondathon and was impressed with his tenure as much as Connery's. Even FYEO (8 years after he started as Bond) gave us a very good Flemingesque performance. He was able to vary his performance to suit the changing nature of his films (including in the extremely well paced but over-comedic OP) while still being credible within the universe he was occupying.

    He is an excellent actor as well. Watch The Man Who Haunted Himself or Ffolkes to see what I mean.

    More than anything else, he was and remains a great spokesperson for the James Bond franchise, unlike most of his predecessors and successors.
    ----

    My remarks about the Craig era stand. His best performance was CR (I have yet to see SP) because he had a meaty script worthy of his considerable acting talents. He did not have such a script in QoS and his performance, while excellent, was not as good (in terms of it portraying a holistic character). In that instance it was not his fault of course, but it still is what it is. I did not feel it was as good in SF either, where he seemed somewhat wooden in certain cases, and like a bystander in much of the film. To some extent, he was overshadowed (charisma and acting wise) by Dench's M and by Bardem's Silva, in contrast to CR where he shone very bright.

    So, I never said RM was a better actor than DC. Just that his performances on the whole were better than DC in SF/QoS imho. I stand by that opinion. DC in CR is a completely different ballgame however......one of the best if not the best James Bond portrayals outside of DN/FRWL/TB.

    It takes a very special charisma to act credibly in a 'formulaic' Bond film which doesn't have a meaty story and which doesn't have character depth. That is actually (imho) a more difficult thing to do than to act in a 'character driven' film. Roger Moore and Sean Connery proved they could do that, time and time again, and that is why I hold them in high regard.

    As I said above, it is in SP where I will be able to tell if DC can hold together a formulaic Bond film like Connery and Moore were able to do (if SP is indeed one of these films, as is reportedly the case).

    Many here idolize Lazenby's one performance in OHMSS, not recognizing/downplaying the fact that this film had the best score, the best cinematography, one of the best actresses to play off of, and the most close to Fleming adaptation. It was a gift to any actor, or even a model, and certainly to him. Moore and Connery never had such a luxury and they still delivered, time and time again.
    ----

    I don't think replacing DC will be a problem when the time comes. He has been an excellent Bond, but as I said above, depending on the direction they choose to go in, there are several superb actors who can bring something new to the table and take this franchise forward. Only Dalton and perhaps Lazenby were not embraced at the beginning. So that bodes well for the new guy, whenever he may take over.

    All that typing just for me to respond cods wallop. I can not agree that replacing Dan will be easy. History will tell us how good a Bond Craig is. He will be remembered as a great top 2 because his films like Connery offer more serious element and are not a victim of the fashion of their times.

    Then don't respond.

    I disagree with you about Craig being difficult to replace. No actor is irreplaceable in this role.

    All actors have played their part and done their bit for this franchise, as has he.

    If EON executes well, and maintains calibre productions with good directors, the films will be successful, as will the actor, as long as he can act.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited October 2015 Posts: 2,138
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    shaigh1991 wrote: »
    I'm not liking the comparisons to the Roger Moore films at all @bondjames haha. I agree @tigers99, i don't think he has topped CR or come close tbh.

    I think we need to compare the reign of Craig entirely with Sean Connery and his first 4/5 Bond films.

    I second that

    Let's face it. Sean Connery does "DN", a rather gritty, but still suave and exotic spy movie. I think "CR" is like that too, although it has a nice "FRWL"esque flavour to it as well.

    Sean Connery's 2nd outing is perhaps his most gritty, violent Bond film. "FRWL" is a true Fleming-esque/Hitchcock-ian spy thriller. Devoid of lush casinos, palm trees. And we all know "QOS" is Craig's most violent Bond film.

    Craig's outing in "SF" in a way has a gripping spy story, with a FRWL-esque McGuffin (the harddrive), but it does explore the emotional debts we saw in "OHMSS", and perhaps also in Connery's "GF".

    Then Connery returned in his 4th Bond outing "TB", which was celebrated as the biggest Bond of all, but already getting some mild critiques that "FRWL" and "GF" didn't receive. But obviously Connery was at his funniest in this film. Completely devoid of angst or fear. I think we'll get that from Daniel Craig in "SP". With a "YOLT"-esque volcano.

    Off course some comparisons are a bit farfetched, and there are a lot of differences between Connery's first 4 films and Craig's first four films. "QOS" wasn't as good as we hoped for. But in return we did get better chronology and movies that are better knitted together with continuity and plot.

    But bottomline is: I really try to think that Daniel Craig kicked off an entire new timeline, that leaves the door wide open for perhaps a 5th or 6th outing with Craig. Or what about one single outing with Tom Hardy in Bond #25, and then Craig returns for one final time?
    So please no reboots anymore. Now go on with the flow. We already had some tense, gritty, Oscar-heavy Bond films. Don't try to top that. Just bring in some more 'fun', like I mentioned this topic:

    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/13322/realistic-serious-story-ideas-for-bond-25-to-be-used-by-eon-productions-ltd#latest

    With Daniel Craig? I sincerely hope so. Without Craig? Then the next Bond-actor need to be a good follow-up of Craig. But he can't enjoy the same wishes for a big reboot molded around his wishes. He needs to be Bond in the timeline that Craig kicked off.

    The future success on the next actor, is dependant on who that actor is. Because Daniel Craig bought in to this. He has made sure his voice was heard and had input on everything from Script, to clothes, to the cars and the casting. He has used his status to draw in Oscar winning actors and directors.

    Your right Craig was allowed a blank canvas. The next will not be giving the same, the films are successful and it has to be about continuity on this new timeline.

    The next Bond would need to deliver the same, for any actor it is a it a red herring.

    I used to say Connery 1st then Craig. But now I can't separate them, they are the golden age Bonds and for the very reason they were the first of their kinds.

    On the evidence to date (pre-SP) I don't personally feel that DC is up to the same level as SC. Not by a long shot.

    He was given an 'actor's role in an actor's film' in CR. He delivered, magnificently, because that is what he should have done. That is what he was hired for. There was enough meat on that bone for him to delve into.

    However, if one subtracts that one film and performance, I don't feel that he has been as good a Bond as Connery, or even Moore (that is, just counting his performances in QoS & SF).

    SP will be the real test for me to determine if he can play Bond convincingly in a 'pure Bond film'.

    I don't think they will have a problem replacing him if he decides to move on, especially if they are going to a more formulaic approach, which is possible. There are several good actors out there who can take this franchise forward. As long as they don't pander to the 'in thing' or 'flavour of the year' as they did with the title song artist, we should be good.

    Can't agree. Craig said in a recent interview when he and Barbs discussed Bond at the time of casting he could not do it if he was coming in to act as someone else. I.e Dalton in to Brosnan where one actor is attempting to play the character the same way. Because that in his eyes offers nothing creative it's just script reading. I think that's the key to recent success is that it was originality rather than following formula. You will also struggle to cast a an actor of calibre if you just hand them a script and say read it. Actors of any merit will want a creative input and want to be original. I am sure EON know the difference now in casting based on a look and following formula than casting a really creative actor to do something original with the role. Formula is stagnant and the films historically get silly when that happens.

    Craig's films and the way they have been filmed will age well, and when Bond turns 100 people will look back at his tenure with the same fondness we have of Connery's films. But unlike Connery's tenure Craig's films merge together and will tell one big story rather than a mish mash. The fact you hold Moore as higher regard of actor and Bond than Craig all I can say is I'm flabergasted. Moore was a paradoy of Flemings Bond beyond LALD.

    @SirHilaryBray, when I make comments I try to be as clear as possible, so that my intentions and opinions are not misconstrued. I also like to be specific in the way I make my statements, so as not to paint actors and eras with too broad a stroke. Only the early Connery era is worthy of effusive praise imho.

    In this period of possible/notable unbridled Craig fanboyism and revisionist history of the past, let me clarify my above statements:

    ----
    Roger Moore was an exceptional James Bond, for the most part, imho. The films headed in a larger, formulaic, more comedic direction before he came on board. Elements of the Moore era were already apparent in YOLT and certainly in DAF, with only OHMSS (as a true to the novel film) being an exception.

    Nobody did those 'larger than life' Bonds better than Roger Moore. The press recognizes that, and most of the public does too. Not Brosnan, not even the great Connery. He grounded those crazy (MR?) films with his laid back, not too serious performances.

    His performance in the benchmark TSWLM is as good as it gets for James Bond, again imho. I recently completed a Bondathon and was impressed with his tenure as much as Connery's. Even FYEO (8 years after he started as Bond) gave us a very good Flemingesque performance. He was able to vary his performance to suit the changing nature of his films (including in the extremely well paced but over-comedic OP) while still being credible within the universe he was occupying.

    He is an excellent actor as well. Watch The Man Who Haunted Himself or Ffolkes to see what I mean.

    More than anything else, he was and remains a great spokesperson for the James Bond franchise, unlike most of his predecessors and successors.
    ----

    My remarks about the Craig era stand. His best performance was CR (I have yet to see SP) because he had a meaty script worthy of his considerable acting talents. He did not have such a script in QoS and his performance, while excellent, was not as good (in terms of it portraying a holistic character). In that instance it was not his fault of course, but it still is what it is. I did not feel it was as good in SF either, where he seemed somewhat wooden in certain cases, and like a bystander in much of the film. To some extent, he was overshadowed (charisma and acting wise) by Dench's M and by Bardem's Silva, in contrast to CR where he shone very bright.

    So, I never said RM was a better actor than DC. Just that his performances on the whole were better than DC in SF/QoS imho. I stand by that opinion. DC in CR is a completely different ballgame however......one of the best if not the best James Bond portrayals outside of DN/FRWL/TB.

    It takes a very special charisma to act credibly in a 'formulaic' Bond film which doesn't have a meaty story and which doesn't have character depth. That is actually (imho) a more difficult thing to do than to act in a 'character driven' film. Roger Moore and Sean Connery proved they could do that, time and time again, and that is why I hold them in high regard.

    As I said above, it is in SP where I will be able to tell if DC can hold together a formulaic Bond film like Connery and Moore were able to do (if SP is indeed one of these films, as is reportedly the case).

    Many here idolize Lazenby's one performance in OHMSS, not recognizing/downplaying the fact that this film had the best score, the best cinematography, one of the best actresses to play off of, and the most close to Fleming adaptation. It was a gift to any actor, or even a model, and certainly to him. Moore and Connery never had such a luxury and they still delivered, time and time again.
    ----

    I don't think replacing DC will be a problem when the time comes. He has been an excellent Bond, but as I said above, depending on the direction they choose to go in, there are several superb actors who can bring something new to the table and take this franchise forward. Only Dalton and perhaps Lazenby were not embraced at the beginning. So that bodes well for the new guy, whenever he may take over.

    All that typing just for me to respond cods wallop. I can not agree that replacing Dan will be easy. History will tell us how good a Bond Craig is. He will be remembered as a great top 2 because his films like Connery offer more serious element and are not a victim of the fashion of their times.

    Then don't respond.

    I disagree with you about Craig being difficult to replace. No actor is irreplaceable in this role.

    All actors have played their part and done their bit for this franchise, as has he.

    If EON executes well, and maintains calibre productions with good directors, the films will be successful, as will the actor, as long as he can act.

    No your mixing up your own argument. The point being made was Bond hiring an actor to follow formula and still be as successful. My point was that you can not hire an actor to follow a formula and achieve the same success. The next Bond will have to make it their own and do something original again with the role. And that that's is why Connery and Craig's eras are so strong because they are original and first of their kinds. I can't see how you can argue with that. Or how that is so hard to understand.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    shaigh1991 wrote: »
    I'm not liking the comparisons to the Roger Moore films at all @bondjames haha. I agree @tigers99, i don't think he has topped CR or come close tbh.

    I think we need to compare the reign of Craig entirely with Sean Connery and his first 4/5 Bond films.

    I second that

    Let's face it. Sean Connery does "DN", a rather gritty, but still suave and exotic spy movie. I think "CR" is like that too, although it has a nice "FRWL"esque flavour to it as well.

    Sean Connery's 2nd outing is perhaps his most gritty, violent Bond film. "FRWL" is a true Fleming-esque/Hitchcock-ian spy thriller. Devoid of lush casinos, palm trees. And we all know "QOS" is Craig's most violent Bond film.

    Craig's outing in "SF" in a way has a gripping spy story, with a FRWL-esque McGuffin (the harddrive), but it does explore the emotional debts we saw in "OHMSS", and perhaps also in Connery's "GF".

    Then Connery returned in his 4th Bond outing "TB", which was celebrated as the biggest Bond of all, but already getting some mild critiques that "FRWL" and "GF" didn't receive. But obviously Connery was at his funniest in this film. Completely devoid of angst or fear. I think we'll get that from Daniel Craig in "SP". With a "YOLT"-esque volcano.

    Off course some comparisons are a bit farfetched, and there are a lot of differences between Connery's first 4 films and Craig's first four films. "QOS" wasn't as good as we hoped for. But in return we did get better chronology and movies that are better knitted together with continuity and plot.

    But bottomline is: I really try to think that Daniel Craig kicked off an entire new timeline, that leaves the door wide open for perhaps a 5th or 6th outing with Craig. Or what about one single outing with Tom Hardy in Bond #25, and then Craig returns for one final time?
    So please no reboots anymore. Now go on with the flow. We already had some tense, gritty, Oscar-heavy Bond films. Don't try to top that. Just bring in some more 'fun', like I mentioned this topic:

    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/13322/realistic-serious-story-ideas-for-bond-25-to-be-used-by-eon-productions-ltd#latest

    With Daniel Craig? I sincerely hope so. Without Craig? Then the next Bond-actor need to be a good follow-up of Craig. But he can't enjoy the same wishes for a big reboot molded around his wishes. He needs to be Bond in the timeline that Craig kicked off.

    The future success on the next actor, is dependant on who that actor is. Because Daniel Craig bought in to this. He has made sure his voice was heard and had input on everything from Script, to clothes, to the cars and the casting. He has used his status to draw in Oscar winning actors and directors.

    Your right Craig was allowed a blank canvas. The next will not be giving the same, the films are successful and it has to be about continuity on this new timeline.

    The next Bond would need to deliver the same, for any actor it is a it a red herring.

    I used to say Connery 1st then Craig. But now I can't separate them, they are the golden age Bonds and for the very reason they were the first of their kinds.

    On the evidence to date (pre-SP) I don't personally feel that DC is up to the same level as SC. Not by a long shot.

    He was given an 'actor's role in an actor's film' in CR. He delivered, magnificently, because that is what he should have done. That is what he was hired for. There was enough meat on that bone for him to delve into.

    However, if one subtracts that one film and performance, I don't feel that he has been as good a Bond as Connery, or even Moore (that is, just counting his performances in QoS & SF).

    SP will be the real test for me to determine if he can play Bond convincingly in a 'pure Bond film'.

    I don't think they will have a problem replacing him if he decides to move on, especially if they are going to a more formulaic approach, which is possible. There are several good actors out there who can take this franchise forward. As long as they don't pander to the 'in thing' or 'flavour of the year' as they did with the title song artist, we should be good.

    Can't agree. Craig said in a recent interview when he and Barbs discussed Bond at the time of casting he could not do it if he was coming in to act as someone else. I.e Dalton in to Brosnan where one actor is attempting to play the character the same way. Because that in his eyes offers nothing creative it's just script reading. I think that's the key to recent success is that it was originality rather than following formula. You will also struggle to cast a an actor of calibre if you just hand them a script and say read it. Actors of any merit will want a creative input and want to be original. I am sure EON know the difference now in casting based on a look and following formula than casting a really creative actor to do something original with the role. Formula is stagnant and the films historically get silly when that happens.

    Craig's films and the way they have been filmed will age well, and when Bond turns 100 people will look back at his tenure with the same fondness we have of Connery's films. But unlike Connery's tenure Craig's films merge together and will tell one big story rather than a mish mash. The fact you hold Moore as higher regard of actor and Bond than Craig all I can say is I'm flabergasted. Moore was a paradoy of Flemings Bond beyond LALD.

    @SirHilaryBray, when I make comments I try to be as clear as possible, so that my intentions and opinions are not misconstrued. I also like to be specific in the way I make my statements, so as not to paint actors and eras with too broad a stroke. Only the early Connery era is worthy of effusive praise imho.

    In this period of possible/notable unbridled Craig fanboyism and revisionist history of the past, let me clarify my above statements:

    ----
    Roger Moore was an exceptional James Bond, for the most part, imho. The films headed in a larger, formulaic, more comedic direction before he came on board. Elements of the Moore era were already apparent in YOLT and certainly in DAF, with only OHMSS (as a true to the novel film) being an exception.

    Nobody did those 'larger than life' Bonds better than Roger Moore. The press recognizes that, and most of the public does too. Not Brosnan, not even the great Connery. He grounded those crazy (MR?) films with his laid back, not too serious performances.

    His performance in the benchmark TSWLM is as good as it gets for James Bond, again imho. I recently completed a Bondathon and was impressed with his tenure as much as Connery's. Even FYEO (8 years after he started as Bond) gave us a very good Flemingesque performance. He was able to vary his performance to suit the changing nature of his films (including in the extremely well paced but over-comedic OP) while still being credible within the universe he was occupying.

    He is an excellent actor as well. Watch The Man Who Haunted Himself or Ffolkes to see what I mean.

    More than anything else, he was and remains a great spokesperson for the James Bond franchise, unlike most of his predecessors and successors.
    ----

    My remarks about the Craig era stand. His best performance was CR (I have yet to see SP) because he had a meaty script worthy of his considerable acting talents. He did not have such a script in QoS and his performance, while excellent, was not as good (in terms of it portraying a holistic character). In that instance it was not his fault of course, but it still is what it is. I did not feel it was as good in SF either, where he seemed somewhat wooden in certain cases, and like a bystander in much of the film. To some extent, he was overshadowed (charisma and acting wise) by Dench's M and by Bardem's Silva, in contrast to CR where he shone very bright.

    So, I never said RM was a better actor than DC. Just that his performances on the whole were better than DC in SF/QoS imho. I stand by that opinion. DC in CR is a completely different ballgame however......one of the best if not the best James Bond portrayals outside of DN/FRWL/TB.

    It takes a very special charisma to act credibly in a 'formulaic' Bond film which doesn't have a meaty story and which doesn't have character depth. That is actually (imho) a more difficult thing to do than to act in a 'character driven' film. Roger Moore and Sean Connery proved they could do that, time and time again, and that is why I hold them in high regard.

    As I said above, it is in SP where I will be able to tell if DC can hold together a formulaic Bond film like Connery and Moore were able to do (if SP is indeed one of these films, as is reportedly the case).

    Many here idolize Lazenby's one performance in OHMSS, not recognizing/downplaying the fact that this film had the best score, the best cinematography, one of the best actresses to play off of, and the most close to Fleming adaptation. It was a gift to any actor, or even a model, and certainly to him. Moore and Connery never had such a luxury and they still delivered, time and time again.
    ----

    I don't think replacing DC will be a problem when the time comes. He has been an excellent Bond, but as I said above, depending on the direction they choose to go in, there are several superb actors who can bring something new to the table and take this franchise forward. Only Dalton and perhaps Lazenby were not embraced at the beginning. So that bodes well for the new guy, whenever he may take over.

    All that typing just for me to respond cods wallop. I can not agree that replacing Dan will be easy. History will tell us how good a Bond Craig is. He will be remembered as a great top 2 because his films like Connery offer more serious element and are not a victim of the fashion of their times.

    Then don't respond.

    I disagree with you about Craig being difficult to replace. No actor is irreplaceable in this role.

    All actors have played their part and done their bit for this franchise, as has he.

    If EON executes well, and maintains calibre productions with good directors, the films will be successful, as will the actor, as long as he can act.

    No your mixing up your own argument. The point being made was Bond hiring an actor to follow formula and still be as successful. My point was that you can not hire an actor to follow a formula and achieve the same success. The next Bond will have to make it their own and do something original again with the role. And that that's is why Connery and Craig's eras are so strong because they are original and first of their kinds. I can't see how you can argue with that. Or how that is so hard to understand.

    On the contrary. I don't mix up arguments.

    My point is you can have an actor following a formula and still be successful. It depends on the actor. That is my point. That is where I disagree with you.

    For the next actor to be successful, they will indeed have to make the role their own (all successful Bond actors have actually done this) but they don't need to have excessive character depth to do that. They don't have to do something original necessarily imho, but they do have to make the role their own, confidently.

    Some actors can work well within a formulaic premise (Moore, and Connery for sure.....to some extent Brosnan). Others did not get the chance or prefer not to.

    We do not need DC type character studies with every actor and with every film. Many still find the first 3 - 4 Connery films to be the best (or among the best) in the franchise, and they were not in-depth character studies. They were just extremely well executed and coherent spy thriller plots, as are the last 2 Mission Impossible films.

    That is my point.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    shaigh1991 wrote: »
    I'm not liking the comparisons to the Roger Moore films at all @bondjames haha. I agree @tigers99, i don't think he has topped CR or come close tbh.

    I think we need to compare the reign of Craig entirely with Sean Connery and his first 4/5 Bond films.

    I second that

    Let's face it. Sean Connery does "DN", a rather gritty, but still suave and exotic spy movie. I think "CR" is like that too, although it has a nice "FRWL"esque flavour to it as well.

    Sean Connery's 2nd outing is perhaps his most gritty, violent Bond film. "FRWL" is a true Fleming-esque/Hitchcock-ian spy thriller. Devoid of lush casinos, palm trees. And we all know "QOS" is Craig's most violent Bond film.

    Craig's outing in "SF" in a way has a gripping spy story, with a FRWL-esque McGuffin (the harddrive), but it does explore the emotional debts we saw in "OHMSS", and perhaps also in Connery's "GF".

    Then Connery returned in his 4th Bond outing "TB", which was celebrated as the biggest Bond of all, but already getting some mild critiques that "FRWL" and "GF" didn't receive. But obviously Connery was at his funniest in this film. Completely devoid of angst or fear. I think we'll get that from Daniel Craig in "SP". With a "YOLT"-esque volcano.

    Off course some comparisons are a bit farfetched, and there are a lot of differences between Connery's first 4 films and Craig's first four films. "QOS" wasn't as good as we hoped for. But in return we did get better chronology and movies that are better knitted together with continuity and plot.

    But bottomline is: I really try to think that Daniel Craig kicked off an entire new timeline, that leaves the door wide open for perhaps a 5th or 6th outing with Craig. Or what about one single outing with Tom Hardy in Bond #25, and then Craig returns for one final time?
    So please no reboots anymore. Now go on with the flow. We already had some tense, gritty, Oscar-heavy Bond films. Don't try to top that. Just bring in some more 'fun', like I mentioned this topic:

    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/13322/realistic-serious-story-ideas-for-bond-25-to-be-used-by-eon-productions-ltd#latest

    With Daniel Craig? I sincerely hope so. Without Craig? Then the next Bond-actor need to be a good follow-up of Craig. But he can't enjoy the same wishes for a big reboot molded around his wishes. He needs to be Bond in the timeline that Craig kicked off.

    The future success on the next actor, is dependant on who that actor is. Because Daniel Craig bought in to this. He has made sure his voice was heard and had input on everything from Script, to clothes, to the cars and the casting. He has used his status to draw in Oscar winning actors and directors.

    Your right Craig was allowed a blank canvas. The next will not be giving the same, the films are successful and it has to be about continuity on this new timeline.

    The next Bond would need to deliver the same, for any actor it is a it a red herring.

    I used to say Connery 1st then Craig. But now I can't separate them, they are the golden age Bonds and for the very reason they were the first of their kinds.

    On the evidence to date (pre-SP) I don't personally feel that DC is up to the same level as SC. Not by a long shot.

    He was given an 'actor's role in an actor's film' in CR. He delivered, magnificently, because that is what he should have done. That is what he was hired for. There was enough meat on that bone for him to delve into.

    However, if one subtracts that one film and performance, I don't feel that he has been as good a Bond as Connery, or even Moore (that is, just counting his performances in QoS & SF).

    SP will be the real test for me to determine if he can play Bond convincingly in a 'pure Bond film'.

    I don't think they will have a problem replacing him if he decides to move on, especially if they are going to a more formulaic approach, which is possible. There are several good actors out there who can take this franchise forward. As long as they don't pander to the 'in thing' or 'flavour of the year' as they did with the title song artist, we should be good.

    Can't agree. Craig said in a recent interview when he and Barbs discussed Bond at the time of casting he could not do it if he was coming in to act as someone else. I.e Dalton in to Brosnan where one actor is attempting to play the character the same way. Because that in his eyes offers nothing creative it's just script reading. I think that's the key to recent success is that it was originality rather than following formula. You will also struggle to cast a an actor of calibre if you just hand them a script and say read it. Actors of any merit will want a creative input and want to be original. I am sure EON know the difference now in casting based on a look and following formula than casting a really creative actor to do something original with the role. Formula is stagnant and the films historically get silly when that happens.

    Craig's films and the way they have been filmed will age well, and when Bond turns 100 people will look back at his tenure with the same fondness we have of Connery's films. But unlike Connery's tenure Craig's films merge together and will tell one big story rather than a mish mash. The fact you hold Moore as higher regard of actor and Bond than Craig all I can say is I'm flabergasted. Moore was a paradoy of Flemings Bond beyond LALD.

    @SirHilaryBray, when I make comments I try to be as clear as possible, so that my intentions and opinions are not misconstrued. I also like to be specific in the way I make my statements, so as not to paint actors and eras with too broad a stroke. Only the early Connery era is worthy of effusive praise imho.

    In this period of possible/notable unbridled Craig fanboyism and revisionist history of the past, let me clarify my above statements:

    ----
    Roger Moore was an exceptional James Bond, for the most part, imho. The films headed in a larger, formulaic, more comedic direction before he came on board. Elements of the Moore era were already apparent in YOLT and certainly in DAF, with only OHMSS (as a true to the novel film) being an exception.

    Nobody did those 'larger than life' Bonds better than Roger Moore. The press recognizes that, and most of the public does too. Not Brosnan, not even the great Connery. He grounded those crazy (MR?) films with his laid back, not too serious performances.

    His performance in the benchmark TSWLM is as good as it gets for James Bond, again imho. I recently completed a Bondathon and was impressed with his tenure as much as Connery's. Even FYEO (8 years after he started as Bond) gave us a very good Flemingesque performance. He was able to vary his performance to suit the changing nature of his films (including in the extremely well paced but over-comedic OP) while still being credible within the universe he was occupying.

    He is an excellent actor as well. Watch The Man Who Haunted Himself or Ffolkes to see what I mean.

    More than anything else, he was and remains a great spokesperson for the James Bond franchise, unlike most of his predecessors and successors.
    ----

    My remarks about the Craig era stand. His best performance was CR (I have yet to see SP) because he had a meaty script worthy of his considerable acting talents. He did not have such a script in QoS and his performance, while excellent, was not as good (in terms of it portraying a holistic character). In that instance it was not his fault of course, but it still is what it is. I did not feel it was as good in SF either, where he seemed somewhat wooden in certain cases, and like a bystander in much of the film. To some extent, he was overshadowed (charisma and acting wise) by Dench's M and by Bardem's Silva, in contrast to CR where he shone very bright.

    So, I never said RM was a better actor than DC. Just that his performances on the whole were better than DC in SF/QoS imho. I stand by that opinion. DC in CR is a completely different ballgame however......one of the best if not the best James Bond portrayals outside of DN/FRWL/TB.

    It takes a very special charisma to act credibly in a 'formulaic' Bond film which doesn't have a meaty story and which doesn't have character depth. That is actually (imho) a more difficult thing to do than to act in a 'character driven' film. Roger Moore and Sean Connery proved they could do that, time and time again, and that is why I hold them in high regard.

    As I said above, it is in SP where I will be able to tell if DC can hold together a formulaic Bond film like Connery and Moore were able to do (if SP is indeed one of these films, as is reportedly the case).

    Many here idolize Lazenby's one performance in OHMSS, not recognizing/downplaying the fact that this film had the best score, the best cinematography, one of the best actresses to play off of, and the most close to Fleming adaptation. It was a gift to any actor, or even a model, and certainly to him. Moore and Connery never had such a luxury and they still delivered, time and time again.
    ----

    I don't think replacing DC will be a problem when the time comes. He has been an excellent Bond, but as I said above, depending on the direction they choose to go in, there are several superb actors who can bring something new to the table and take this franchise forward. Only Dalton and perhaps Lazenby were not embraced at the beginning. So that bodes well for the new guy, whenever he may take over.

    All that typing just for me to respond cods wallop. I can not agree that replacing Dan will be easy. History will tell us how good a Bond Craig is. He will be remembered as a great top 2 because his films like Connery offer more serious element and are not a victim of the fashion of their times.

    Then don't respond.

    I disagree with you about Craig being difficult to replace. No actor is irreplaceable in this role.

    All actors have played their part and done their bit for this franchise, as has he.

    If EON executes well, and maintains calibre productions with good directors, the films will be successful, as will the actor, as long as he can act.

    No your mixing up your own argument. The point being made was Bond hiring an actor to follow formula and still be as successful. My point was that you can not hire an actor to follow a formula and achieve the same success. The next Bond will have to make it their own and do something original again with the role. And that that's is why Connery and Craig's eras are so strong because they are original and first of their kinds. I can't see how you can argue with that. Or how that is so hard to understand.

    On the contrary. I don't mix up arguments.

    My point is you can have an actor following a formula and still be successful. It depends on the actor. That is my point. That is where I disagree with you.

    For the next actor to be successful, they will indeed have to make the role their own (all successful Bond actors have actually done this) but they don't need to have excessive character depth to do that. They don't have to do something original necessarily imho, but they do have to make the role their own, confidently.

    Some actors can work well within a formulaic premise (Moore, and Connery for sure.....to some extent Brosnan). Others did not get the chance or prefer not to.

    We do not need DC type character studies with every actor and with every film. Many still find the first 3 - 4 Connery films to be the best (or among the best) in the franchise, and they were not in-depth character studies. They were just extremely well executed and coherent spy thriller plots, as are the last 2 Mission Impossible films.

    That is my point.

    That's what they tried with Dalton & Brosnan TLD and GE first outings were fine good scripts, but they had no longevity or made their mark. Therefore their is no evidence to substaciate your opinion that you can hire an actor to simple read a formula script. Connery's Bond was unique there were no other Bond type character films of the same time as his first 4. Everything was new to the audience the cars, gadgets. Showing locations people had never seen before to a generation sexually superseded and uptight. Connery's first 4 were new ground and his character was developed on Flemings original idea with Fleming still alive and having a say. Let's face it nobody wrote Bond like Fleming. It's a smaller world now it's harder to capture an audience's imagination. You need to try something different every time to keep it fresh and interesting so I'm sorry you won't convict me that EON can hire an actor just to turn and read from the screen play based on old formula and deliver what Connery and Craig could do more than on a 1st outing.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    shaigh1991 wrote: »
    I'm not liking the comparisons to the Roger Moore films at all @bondjames haha. I agree @tigers99, i don't think he has topped CR or come close tbh.

    I think we need to compare the reign of Craig entirely with Sean Connery and his first 4/5 Bond films.

    I second that

    Let's face it. Sean Connery does "DN", a rather gritty, but still suave and exotic spy movie. I think "CR" is like that too, although it has a nice "FRWL"esque flavour to it as well.

    Sean Connery's 2nd outing is perhaps his most gritty, violent Bond film. "FRWL" is a true Fleming-esque/Hitchcock-ian spy thriller. Devoid of lush casinos, palm trees. And we all know "QOS" is Craig's most violent Bond film.

    Craig's outing in "SF" in a way has a gripping spy story, with a FRWL-esque McGuffin (the harddrive), but it does explore the emotional debts we saw in "OHMSS", and perhaps also in Connery's "GF".

    Then Connery returned in his 4th Bond outing "TB", which was celebrated as the biggest Bond of all, but already getting some mild critiques that "FRWL" and "GF" didn't receive. But obviously Connery was at his funniest in this film. Completely devoid of angst or fear. I think we'll get that from Daniel Craig in "SP". With a "YOLT"-esque volcano.

    Off course some comparisons are a bit farfetched, and there are a lot of differences between Connery's first 4 films and Craig's first four films. "QOS" wasn't as good as we hoped for. But in return we did get better chronology and movies that are better knitted together with continuity and plot.

    But bottomline is: I really try to think that Daniel Craig kicked off an entire new timeline, that leaves the door wide open for perhaps a 5th or 6th outing with Craig. Or what about one single outing with Tom Hardy in Bond #25, and then Craig returns for one final time?
    So please no reboots anymore. Now go on with the flow. We already had some tense, gritty, Oscar-heavy Bond films. Don't try to top that. Just bring in some more 'fun', like I mentioned this topic:

    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/13322/realistic-serious-story-ideas-for-bond-25-to-be-used-by-eon-productions-ltd#latest

    With Daniel Craig? I sincerely hope so. Without Craig? Then the next Bond-actor need to be a good follow-up of Craig. But he can't enjoy the same wishes for a big reboot molded around his wishes. He needs to be Bond in the timeline that Craig kicked off.

    The future success on the next actor, is dependant on who that actor is. Because Daniel Craig bought in to this. He has made sure his voice was heard and had input on everything from Script, to clothes, to the cars and the casting. He has used his status to draw in Oscar winning actors and directors.

    Your right Craig was allowed a blank canvas. The next will not be giving the same, the films are successful and it has to be about continuity on this new timeline.

    The next Bond would need to deliver the same, for any actor it is a it a red herring.

    I used to say Connery 1st then Craig. But now I can't separate them, they are the golden age Bonds and for the very reason they were the first of their kinds.

    On the evidence to date (pre-SP) I don't personally feel that DC is up to the same level as SC. Not by a long shot.

    He was given an 'actor's role in an actor's film' in CR. He delivered, magnificently, because that is what he should have done. That is what he was hired for. There was enough meat on that bone for him to delve into.

    However, if one subtracts that one film and performance, I don't feel that he has been as good a Bond as Connery, or even Moore (that is, just counting his performances in QoS & SF).

    SP will be the real test for me to determine if he can play Bond convincingly in a 'pure Bond film'.

    I don't think they will have a problem replacing him if he decides to move on, especially if they are going to a more formulaic approach, which is possible. There are several good actors out there who can take this franchise forward. As long as they don't pander to the 'in thing' or 'flavour of the year' as they did with the title song artist, we should be good.

    Can't agree. Craig said in a recent interview when he and Barbs discussed Bond at the time of casting he could not do it if he was coming in to act as someone else. I.e Dalton in to Brosnan where one actor is attempting to play the character the same way. Because that in his eyes offers nothing creative it's just script reading. I think that's the key to recent success is that it was originality rather than following formula. You will also struggle to cast a an actor of calibre if you just hand them a script and say read it. Actors of any merit will want a creative input and want to be original. I am sure EON know the difference now in casting based on a look and following formula than casting a really creative actor to do something original with the role. Formula is stagnant and the films historically get silly when that happens.

    Craig's films and the way they have been filmed will age well, and when Bond turns 100 people will look back at his tenure with the same fondness we have of Connery's films. But unlike Connery's tenure Craig's films merge together and will tell one big story rather than a mish mash. The fact you hold Moore as higher regard of actor and Bond than Craig all I can say is I'm flabergasted. Moore was a paradoy of Flemings Bond beyond LALD.

    @SirHilaryBray, when I make comments I try to be as clear as possible, so that my intentions and opinions are not misconstrued. I also like to be specific in the way I make my statements, so as not to paint actors and eras with too broad a stroke. Only the early Connery era is worthy of effusive praise imho.

    In this period of possible/notable unbridled Craig fanboyism and revisionist history of the past, let me clarify my above statements:

    ----
    Roger Moore was an exceptional James Bond, for the most part, imho. The films headed in a larger, formulaic, more comedic direction before he came on board. Elements of the Moore era were already apparent in YOLT and certainly in DAF, with only OHMSS (as a true to the novel film) being an exception.

    Nobody did those 'larger than life' Bonds better than Roger Moore. The press recognizes that, and most of the public does too. Not Brosnan, not even the great Connery. He grounded those crazy (MR?) films with his laid back, not too serious performances.

    His performance in the benchmark TSWLM is as good as it gets for James Bond, again imho. I recently completed a Bondathon and was impressed with his tenure as much as Connery's. Even FYEO (8 years after he started as Bond) gave us a very good Flemingesque performance. He was able to vary his performance to suit the changing nature of his films (including in the extremely well paced but over-comedic OP) while still being credible within the universe he was occupying.

    He is an excellent actor as well. Watch The Man Who Haunted Himself or Ffolkes to see what I mean.

    More than anything else, he was and remains a great spokesperson for the James Bond franchise, unlike most of his predecessors and successors.
    ----

    My remarks about the Craig era stand. His best performance was CR (I have yet to see SP) because he had a meaty script worthy of his considerable acting talents. He did not have such a script in QoS and his performance, while excellent, was not as good (in terms of it portraying a holistic character). In that instance it was not his fault of course, but it still is what it is. I did not feel it was as good in SF either, where he seemed somewhat wooden in certain cases, and like a bystander in much of the film. To some extent, he was overshadowed (charisma and acting wise) by Dench's M and by Bardem's Silva, in contrast to CR where he shone very bright.

    So, I never said RM was a better actor than DC. Just that his performances on the whole were better than DC in SF/QoS imho. I stand by that opinion. DC in CR is a completely different ballgame however......one of the best if not the best James Bond portrayals outside of DN/FRWL/TB.

    It takes a very special charisma to act credibly in a 'formulaic' Bond film which doesn't have a meaty story and which doesn't have character depth. That is actually (imho) a more difficult thing to do than to act in a 'character driven' film. Roger Moore and Sean Connery proved they could do that, time and time again, and that is why I hold them in high regard.

    As I said above, it is in SP where I will be able to tell if DC can hold together a formulaic Bond film like Connery and Moore were able to do (if SP is indeed one of these films, as is reportedly the case).

    Many here idolize Lazenby's one performance in OHMSS, not recognizing/downplaying the fact that this film had the best score, the best cinematography, one of the best actresses to play off of, and the most close to Fleming adaptation. It was a gift to any actor, or even a model, and certainly to him. Moore and Connery never had such a luxury and they still delivered, time and time again.
    ----

    I don't think replacing DC will be a problem when the time comes. He has been an excellent Bond, but as I said above, depending on the direction they choose to go in, there are several superb actors who can bring something new to the table and take this franchise forward. Only Dalton and perhaps Lazenby were not embraced at the beginning. So that bodes well for the new guy, whenever he may take over.

    All that typing just for me to respond cods wallop. I can not agree that replacing Dan will be easy. History will tell us how good a Bond Craig is. He will be remembered as a great top 2 because his films like Connery offer more serious element and are not a victim of the fashion of their times.

    Then don't respond.

    I disagree with you about Craig being difficult to replace. No actor is irreplaceable in this role.

    All actors have played their part and done their bit for this franchise, as has he.

    If EON executes well, and maintains calibre productions with good directors, the films will be successful, as will the actor, as long as he can act.

    No your mixing up your own argument. The point being made was Bond hiring an actor to follow formula and still be as successful. My point was that you can not hire an actor to follow a formula and achieve the same success. The next Bond will have to make it their own and do something original again with the role. And that that's is why Connery and Craig's eras are so strong because they are original and first of their kinds. I can't see how you can argue with that. Or how that is so hard to understand.

    On the contrary. I don't mix up arguments.

    My point is you can have an actor following a formula and still be successful. It depends on the actor. That is my point. That is where I disagree with you.

    For the next actor to be successful, they will indeed have to make the role their own (all successful Bond actors have actually done this) but they don't need to have excessive character depth to do that. They don't have to do something original necessarily imho, but they do have to make the role their own, confidently.

    Some actors can work well within a formulaic premise (Moore, and Connery for sure.....to some extent Brosnan). Others did not get the chance or prefer not to.

    We do not need DC type character studies with every actor and with every film. Many still find the first 3 - 4 Connery films to be the best (or among the best) in the franchise, and they were not in-depth character studies. They were just extremely well executed and coherent spy thriller plots, as are the last 2 Mission Impossible films.

    That is my point.

    That's what they tried with Dalton & Brosnan TLD and GE first outings were fine good scripts, but they had no longevity or made their mark. Therefore their is no evidence to substaciate your opinion that you can hire an actor to simple read a formula script. Connery's Bond was unique there were no other Bond type character films of the same time as his first 4. Everything was new to the audience the cars, gadgets. Showing locations people had never seen before to a generation sexually superseded and uptight. Connery's first 4 were new ground and his character was developed on Flemings original idea with Fleming still alive and having a say. Let's face it nobody wrote Bond like Fleming. It's a smaller world now it's harder to capture an audience's imagination. You need to try something different every time to keep it fresh and interesting so I'm sorry you won't convict me that EON can hire an actor just to turn and read from the screen play based on old formula and deliver what Connery and Craig could do more than on a 1st outing.

    I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just stating my opinion, which is obviously different from yours.

    Goldeneye was a very successful film, which was very well executed. It was also somewhat formulaic but not excessively so.

    What was different about Brosnan's and Connery's eras was that EON's production, script, and director/casting choices for his last 3 were lousy, and Brosnan himself took too long to find his feet in the role or make it his own (which he should have done much sooner - I have been critical of him in this respect). They were also cliche ridden, sickeningly so. If these attributes had been better, his era would be better remembered, although not up to Connery's standards because Connery was, as you say, the first.

    One just needs good Bondian plots (and as I said, MI is doing a bang up job of this at the moment) a very charismatic actor with skills, and excellent direction/score/casting. That is ultimately what people want from Bond. EON sometimes misunderstands that this means 'cliches' and 'tropes'. It doesn't. On the contrary

    That's just my view.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    shaigh1991 wrote: »
    I'm not liking the comparisons to the Roger Moore films at all @bondjames haha. I agree @tigers99, i don't think he has topped CR or come close tbh.

    I think we need to compare the reign of Craig entirely with Sean Connery and his first 4/5 Bond films.

    I second that

    Let's face it. Sean Connery does "DN", a rather gritty, but still suave and exotic spy movie. I think "CR" is like that too, although it has a nice "FRWL"esque flavour to it as well.

    Sean Connery's 2nd outing is perhaps his most gritty, violent Bond film. "FRWL" is a true Fleming-esque/Hitchcock-ian spy thriller. Devoid of lush casinos, palm trees. And we all know "QOS" is Craig's most violent Bond film.

    Craig's outing in "SF" in a way has a gripping spy story, with a FRWL-esque McGuffin (the harddrive), but it does explore the emotional debts we saw in "OHMSS", and perhaps also in Connery's "GF".

    Then Connery returned in his 4th Bond outing "TB", which was celebrated as the biggest Bond of all, but already getting some mild critiques that "FRWL" and "GF" didn't receive. But obviously Connery was at his funniest in this film. Completely devoid of angst or fear. I think we'll get that from Daniel Craig in "SP". With a "YOLT"-esque volcano.

    Off course some comparisons are a bit farfetched, and there are a lot of differences between Connery's first 4 films and Craig's first four films. "QOS" wasn't as good as we hoped for. But in return we did get better chronology and movies that are better knitted together with continuity and plot.

    But bottomline is: I really try to think that Daniel Craig kicked off an entire new timeline, that leaves the door wide open for perhaps a 5th or 6th outing with Craig. Or what about one single outing with Tom Hardy in Bond #25, and then Craig returns for one final time?
    So please no reboots anymore. Now go on with the flow. We already had some tense, gritty, Oscar-heavy Bond films. Don't try to top that. Just bring in some more 'fun', like I mentioned this topic:

    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/13322/realistic-serious-story-ideas-for-bond-25-to-be-used-by-eon-productions-ltd#latest

    With Daniel Craig? I sincerely hope so. Without Craig? Then the next Bond-actor need to be a good follow-up of Craig. But he can't enjoy the same wishes for a big reboot molded around his wishes. He needs to be Bond in the timeline that Craig kicked off.

    The future success on the next actor, is dependant on who that actor is. Because Daniel Craig bought in to this. He has made sure his voice was heard and had input on everything from Script, to clothes, to the cars and the casting. He has used his status to draw in Oscar winning actors and directors.

    Your right Craig was allowed a blank canvas. The next will not be giving the same, the films are successful and it has to be about continuity on this new timeline.

    The next Bond would need to deliver the same, for any actor it is a it a red herring.

    I used to say Connery 1st then Craig. But now I can't separate them, they are the golden age Bonds and for the very reason they were the first of their kinds.

    On the evidence to date (pre-SP) I don't personally feel that DC is up to the same level as SC. Not by a long shot.

    He was given an 'actor's role in an actor's film' in CR. He delivered, magnificently, because that is what he should have done. That is what he was hired for. There was enough meat on that bone for him to delve into.

    However, if one subtracts that one film and performance, I don't feel that he has been as good a Bond as Connery, or even Moore (that is, just counting his performances in QoS & SF).

    SP will be the real test for me to determine if he can play Bond convincingly in a 'pure Bond film'.

    I don't think they will have a problem replacing him if he decides to move on, especially if they are going to a more formulaic approach, which is possible. There are several good actors out there who can take this franchise forward. As long as they don't pander to the 'in thing' or 'flavour of the year' as they did with the title song artist, we should be good.

    Can't agree. Craig said in a recent interview when he and Barbs discussed Bond at the time of casting he could not do it if he was coming in to act as someone else. I.e Dalton in to Brosnan where one actor is attempting to play the character the same way. Because that in his eyes offers nothing creative it's just script reading. I think that's the key to recent success is that it was originality rather than following formula. You will also struggle to cast a an actor of calibre if you just hand them a script and say read it. Actors of any merit will want a creative input and want to be original. I am sure EON know the difference now in casting based on a look and following formula than casting a really creative actor to do something original with the role. Formula is stagnant and the films historically get silly when that happens.

    Craig's films and the way they have been filmed will age well, and when Bond turns 100 people will look back at his tenure with the same fondness we have of Connery's films. But unlike Connery's tenure Craig's films merge together and will tell one big story rather than a mish mash. The fact you hold Moore as higher regard of actor and Bond than Craig all I can say is I'm flabergasted. Moore was a paradoy of Flemings Bond beyond LALD.

    @SirHilaryBray, when I make comments I try to be as clear as possible, so that my intentions and opinions are not misconstrued. I also like to be specific in the way I make my statements, so as not to paint actors and eras with too broad a stroke. Only the early Connery era is worthy of effusive praise imho.

    In this period of possible/notable unbridled Craig fanboyism and revisionist history of the past, let me clarify my above statements:

    ----
    Roger Moore was an exceptional James Bond, for the most part, imho. The films headed in a larger, formulaic, more comedic direction before he came on board. Elements of the Moore era were already apparent in YOLT and certainly in DAF, with only OHMSS (as a true to the novel film) being an exception.

    Nobody did those 'larger than life' Bonds better than Roger Moore. The press recognizes that, and most of the public does too. Not Brosnan, not even the great Connery. He grounded those crazy (MR?) films with his laid back, not too serious performances.

    His performance in the benchmark TSWLM is as good as it gets for James Bond, again imho. I recently completed a Bondathon and was impressed with his tenure as much as Connery's. Even FYEO (8 years after he started as Bond) gave us a very good Flemingesque performance. He was able to vary his performance to suit the changing nature of his films (including in the extremely well paced but over-comedic OP) while still being credible within the universe he was occupying.

    He is an excellent actor as well. Watch The Man Who Haunted Himself or Ffolkes to see what I mean.

    More than anything else, he was and remains a great spokesperson for the James Bond franchise, unlike most of his predecessors and successors.
    ----

    My remarks about the Craig era stand. His best performance was CR (I have yet to see SP) because he had a meaty script worthy of his considerable acting talents. He did not have such a script in QoS and his performance, while excellent, was not as good (in terms of it portraying a holistic character). In that instance it was not his fault of course, but it still is what it is. I did not feel it was as good in SF either, where he seemed somewhat wooden in certain cases, and like a bystander in much of the film. To some extent, he was overshadowed (charisma and acting wise) by Dench's M and by Bardem's Silva, in contrast to CR where he shone very bright.

    So, I never said RM was a better actor than DC. Just that his performances on the whole were better than DC in SF/QoS imho. I stand by that opinion. DC in CR is a completely different ballgame however......one of the best if not the best James Bond portrayals outside of DN/FRWL/TB.

    It takes a very special charisma to act credibly in a 'formulaic' Bond film which doesn't have a meaty story and which doesn't have character depth. That is actually (imho) a more difficult thing to do than to act in a 'character driven' film. Roger Moore and Sean Connery proved they could do that, time and time again, and that is why I hold them in high regard.

    As I said above, it is in SP where I will be able to tell if DC can hold together a formulaic Bond film like Connery and Moore were able to do (if SP is indeed one of these films, as is reportedly the case).

    Many here idolize Lazenby's one performance in OHMSS, not recognizing/downplaying the fact that this film had the best score, the best cinematography, one of the best actresses to play off of, and the most close to Fleming adaptation. It was a gift to any actor, or even a model, and certainly to him. Moore and Connery never had such a luxury and they still delivered, time and time again.
    ----

    I don't think replacing DC will be a problem when the time comes. He has been an excellent Bond, but as I said above, depending on the direction they choose to go in, there are several superb actors who can bring something new to the table and take this franchise forward. Only Dalton and perhaps Lazenby were not embraced at the beginning. So that bodes well for the new guy, whenever he may take over.

    All that typing just for me to respond cods wallop. I can not agree that replacing Dan will be easy. History will tell us how good a Bond Craig is. He will be remembered as a great top 2 because his films like Connery offer more serious element and are not a victim of the fashion of their times.

    Then don't respond.

    I disagree with you about Craig being difficult to replace. No actor is irreplaceable in this role.

    All actors have played their part and done their bit for this franchise, as has he.

    If EON executes well, and maintains calibre productions with good directors, the films will be successful, as will the actor, as long as he can act.

    No your mixing up your own argument. The point being made was Bond hiring an actor to follow formula and still be as successful. My point was that you can not hire an actor to follow a formula and achieve the same success. The next Bond will have to make it their own and do something original again with the role. And that that's is why Connery and Craig's eras are so strong because they are original and first of their kinds. I can't see how you can argue with that. Or how that is so hard to understand.

    On the contrary. I don't mix up arguments.

    My point is you can have an actor following a formula and still be successful. It depends on the actor. That is my point. That is where I disagree with you.

    For the next actor to be successful, they will indeed have to make the role their own (all successful Bond actors have actually done this) but they don't need to have excessive character depth to do that. They don't have to do something original necessarily imho, but they do have to make the role their own, confidently.

    Some actors can work well within a formulaic premise (Moore, and Connery for sure.....to some extent Brosnan). Others did not get the chance or prefer not to.

    We do not need DC type character studies with every actor and with every film. Many still find the first 3 - 4 Connery films to be the best (or among the best) in the franchise, and they were not in-depth character studies. They were just extremely well executed and coherent spy thriller plots, as are the last 2 Mission Impossible films.

    That is my point.

    That's what they tried with Dalton & Brosnan TLD and GE first outings were fine good scripts, but they had no longevity or made their mark. Therefore their is no evidence to substaciate your opinion that you can hire an actor to simple read a formula script. Connery's Bond was unique there were no other Bond type character films of the same time as his first 4. Everything was new to the audience the cars, gadgets. Showing locations people had never seen before to a generation sexually superseded and uptight. Connery's first 4 were new ground and his character was developed on Flemings original idea with Fleming still alive and having a say. Let's face it nobody wrote Bond like Fleming. It's a smaller world now it's harder to capture an audience's imagination. You need to try something different every time to keep it fresh and interesting so I'm sorry you won't convict me that EON can hire an actor just to turn and read from the screen play based on old formula and deliver what Connery and Craig could do more than on a 1st outing.

    I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just stating my opinion, which is obviously different from yours.

    Goldeneye was a very successful film, which was very well executed. It was also somewhat formulaic but not excessively so.

    What was different about Brosnan's and Connery's eras was that EON's production, script, and director/casting choices for his last 3 were lousy, and Brosnan himself took too long to find his feet in the role or make it his own (which he should have done much sooner - I have been critical of him in this respect). They were also cliche ridden, sickeningly so. If these attributes had been better, his era would be better remembered, although not up to Connery's standards because Connery was, as you say, the first.

    One just needs good Bondian plots (and as I said, MI is doing a bang up job of this at the moment) a very charismatic actor with skills, and excellent direction/score/casting. That is ultimately what people want from Bond. EON sometimes misunderstands that this means 'cliches' and 'tropes'. It doesn't. On the contrary

    That's just my view.

    I think your viewing it from an old skool hardcore fans point of view. Craig's tenure has pulled in a new audience because it doesn't follow a constant formula and will alienate a mass new audience who have bought in to Craig's tenure who want the films to remain different, fresh with variety. Your right Brosnan GE got everything right and your right he did not make it his own until it was too late. This was my point the next actor has to come in and buy in to it, rather just have the right look and wants to turn up read a script and go home. Craig has made Bond his own because he did not want to turn up and do an impersonation of someone else's interpretation. The next actor had to be high calibre and the role needs to offer the chance for that actor to put their own stamp on it if it is to be successful beyond one film.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    The next actor had to be high calibre and the role needs to offer the chance for that actor to put their own stamp on it if it is to be successful beyond one film.

    Definitely agree. I just don't think it needs to be an indepth character study or character actor for that to happen. That is something which started not with Bond, but actually with Nolan's Bat, and which carried over to Bond.

    The right actor can make a quality plot driven Bond film/series of films very entertaining and successful. I felt Moore, for the most part, did that, for 12 long years (give or take a few stinkers) and Connery definitely did, including in DAF. Both of these two could make even a crummy film worth watching, at least from my perspective. They were also successful with lousy films and with excellent films.

    Tom Cruise is doing it with MI as well, right now, so it can in fact still be done.
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 725
    Connery's era had 3 huge advantages. 1) They had all the books to adapt for their screenplays. The later day script and story problems point to what a big advantage that was. 2) Connery had no previous Bonds to be endlessly compared to. 3) the early era Bond films had an open road on creating their Spy films. Over the decades, as other studios drooled over Bonds continuing franchise success, more and more Bond tropes have been endlessly plundered by studios and actors desperate to capture the Bond magic and money.

    Mounting new bond films has had to become harder and harder. I would be amazed if EON didn't try to diminish some of the pressure and huge risks by making sure their next Bond had demonstrated acting ability and screen presence. A pretty boy is not going to be enough for Bond 7 and creating something original is just the beginning of EONs current problems for their upcoming films.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    smitty wrote: »
    Connery's era had 3 huge advantages. 1) They had all the books to adapt for their screenplays. The later day script and story problems point to what a big advantage that was. 2) Connery had no previous Bonds to be endlessly compared to. 3) the early era Bond films had an open road on creating their Spy films. Over the decades, as other studios drooled over Bonds continuing franchise success, more and more Bond tropes have been endlessly plundered by studios and actors desperate to capture the Bond magic and money.

    Mounting new bond films has had to become harder and harder. I would be amazed if EON didn't try to diminish some of the pressure and huge risks by making sure their next Bond had demonstrated acting ability and screen presence. A pretty boy is not going to be enough for Bond 7 and creating something original is just the beginning of EONs current problems for their upcoming films.

    I agree.

    It has to do with execution in my view however.

    They can find the right actor. They just need to look hard enough. Babs has proven she has an eye for it. They can find the right director. They just need to look properly and give a clear brief. They can also find the right cast and they can get the right score.

    It's a matter of finesse and execution. A matter of attention to detail and understanding who/what Bond is, and what the public expects of him. They don't need a new fancy Aston with gadgets in each film, or a new Omega, or a 'Bond James Bond'. There is more to Bond than that.

    No one will match Connery (not even Craig imho.....that is where I disagree with his fans..). No one can match Barry (as has, sadly, been proven). No one will match Bassey (not least the current incumbent), and no one will match Adam.

    That doesn't mean they can't consistently deliver quality product like TLD, TSWLM, GE, SF, CR, FYEO etc. etc. If they can do that, I'll be happy and I think a lot of the audience out there will be as well.
  • Posts: 11,119
    I was re-reading some reviews from "Skyfall". And I especially liked this one from the San Fransisco Chronicle Newspaper (written by Mich LaSalle):

    http://www.sfgate.com/movies/article/Skyfall-review-M-is-for-mommy-figure-4020528.php
    ""Skyfall" is a different kind of Bond movie, one that works just fine on its own terms, but a steady diet of this might kill the franchise. One "Skyfall" is enough."


    ;-). Will LaSalle's wishes be heard with "SPECTRE"?

  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited October 2015 Posts: 2,138
    bondjames wrote: »
    The next actor had to be high calibre and the role needs to offer the chance for that actor to put their own stamp on it if it is to be successful beyond one film.

    Definitely agree. I just don't think it needs to be an indepth character study or character actor for that to happen. That is something which started not with Bond, but actually with Nolan's Bat, and which carried over to Bond.

    The right actor can make a quality plot driven Bond film/series of films very entertaining and successful. I felt Moore, for the most part, did that, for 12 long years (give or take a few stinkers) and Connery definitely did, including in DAF. Both of these two could make even a crummy film worth watching, at least from my perspective. They were also successful with lousy films and with excellent films.

    Tom Cruise is doing it with MI as well, right now, so it can in fact still be done.

    I agree they don't need to tred over back story any further. Spectre appears to finish off this aspect. It's clear die hards feel Skyfall was a detached film from the Bond norm and did not appreciate it. But it's just part of a greater story being told across all of Dan's tenure. I judge Dan's tenure on it as collective body of work and from what I have seen from Spectre I feel it offers 1. Something for everyone, and 2. The foundations for something great to build on.

    Just my opinion and bear in mind Connery was always my favorite Bond, Casino Royale is a better Bond movie than YOLT and TB IMO FRWL is the greatest, GF then Casino.

    And I appreciate some don't like the fact Dan's tenure decided to tell the story of why Bond is the way he is. As some preferred the mystery. But for me I feel it has created a better understanding of the character Fleming created. Bond bleeds, feels and is more Human in the novels than any actor sincerely portrayed on screen prior to Craig. The back story IMO was required to get people to see Bond contrary to pre Dan misconception that Bond was a brute with a gun who slept with women, said Corney lines and killed bad guys with Gadgets. We can now leave that up to MI, Bourne and Statham movies and break free from the bracket of "action movie".
  • Posts: 11,119
    First review of "SPECTRE" in The Netherlands. Full 4 out of 4 stars from newspaper 'De Telegraaf':

    http://www.telegraaf.nl/filmenuitgaan/film/filmrecensies/24651800/__Filmrecensie__Spectre__.html

    'De Telegraaf' also gave 4 stars to "Skyfall" and "Casino Royale":
    http://www.telegraaf.nl/filmenuitgaan/film/21013151/__Skyfall__James_Bond_herrijst__.html
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 39
    bondjames wrote: »
    The next actor had to be high calibre and the role needs to offer the chance for that actor to put their own stamp on it if it is to be successful beyond one film.

    Definitely agree. I just don't think it needs to be an indepth character study or character actor for that to happen. That is something which started not with Bond, but actually with Nolan's Bat, and which carried over to Bond.

    The right actor can make a quality plot driven Bond film/series of films very entertaining and successful. I felt Moore, for the most part, did that, for 12 long years (give or take a few stinkers) and Connery definitely did, including in DAF. Both of these two could make even a crummy film worth watching, at least from my perspective. They were also successful with lousy films and with excellent films.

    Tom Cruise is doing it with MI as well, right now, so it can in fact still be done.

    I agree they don't need to tred over back story any further. Spectre appears to finish off this aspect. It's clear die hards feel Skyfall was a detached film from the Bond norm and did not appreciate it. But it's just part of a greater story being told across all of Dan's tenure. I judge Dan's tenure on it as collective body of work and from what I have seen from Spectre I feel it offers 1. Something for everyone, and 2. The foundations for something great to build on.

    Just my opinion and bear in mind Connery was always my favorite Bond, Casino Royale is a better Bond movie than YOLT and TB IMO FRWL is the greatest, GF then Casino.

    And I appreciate some don't like the fact Dan's tenure decided to tell the story of why Bond is the way he is. As some preferred the mystery. But for me I feel it has created a better understanding of the character Fleming created. Bond bleeds, feels and is more Human in the novels than any actor sincerely portrayed on screen prior to Craig. The back story IMO was required to get people to see Bond contrary to pre Dan misconception that Bond was a brute with a gun who slept with women, said Corney lines and killed bad guys with Gadgets. We can now leave that up to MI, Bourne and Statham movies and break free from the bracket of "action movie".

    I also look at Daniel's Bond as a collective body of work which is what the previous age of Bond movies failed to do not that they were trying. I really love that with this Bond we have a beginning of our favorite agent, a story on what shaped him to be 007 we all love. Something tells me that SPECTRE could be the perfect ending to Craig's tenure. If he indeed comes back for a 5th one, which I hope, I hope it either explores an official MI6 mission type of movie with maybe the final chapter to the SPECTRE organization and the final chapter to Daniel Craig's Bond or just a movie with Bond on a mission to save a city/country/world from an evil madman like the traditional Bond movies.

  • JWPepperJWPepper You sit on it, but you can't take it with you.
    Posts: 511
    First review of "SPECTRE" in The Netherlands. Full 4 out of 4 stars from newspaper 'De Telegraaf':

    http://www.telegraaf.nl/filmenuitgaan/film/filmrecensies/24651800/__Filmrecensie__Spectre__.html

    'De Telegraaf' also gave 4 stars to "Skyfall" and "Casino Royale":
    http://www.telegraaf.nl/filmenuitgaan/film/21013151/__Skyfall__James_Bond_herrijst__.html

    Nope, Algemeen Dagblad (AD) was earlier. That was the first Dutch review. Also 4 stars.
  • Posts: 11,119
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    As they say, 'lightning doesn't strike twice', especially after 53 years and 24 films, so the simple fact that SP is getting decent and some brilliant reviews is a great sign IMO. It was always unlikely it was going to best SF; hitting the cultural zeitgeist twice in a row is the reserve of successful new trilogies, not stalwarts of cinema. If this were after QoS it would be regarded as a masterpiece no doubt. Everything is relative.

    Yeah, I think in some ways, Skyfall is like an albatross around the series' neck. I'm seeing some reviews that say Spectre doesn't match the "emotional stakes" or have the same "impact". Well, how could it? SF had a one off event where they killed a beloved character who'd been a part of the series for 7 films. And people are expecting the followup to match that in terms of impact? Was never possible, was never going to happen, short of actually killing James Bond. And EON knew that chasing that kind of feeling and creating Skyfall II just couldn't work, so it seems like they've focused on doing another style of classic Bond movie.

    Yes, and on top of it all three of these 'dramatic one-off' events happened in the Craig-era (I'm counting "OHMSS", "CR" and "SF").
  • Posts: 11,119
    JWPepper wrote: »
    First review of "SPECTRE" in The Netherlands. Full 4 out of 4 stars from newspaper 'De Telegraaf':

    http://www.telegraaf.nl/filmenuitgaan/film/filmrecensies/24651800/__Filmrecensie__Spectre__.html

    'De Telegraaf' also gave 4 stars to "Skyfall" and "Casino Royale":
    http://www.telegraaf.nl/filmenuitgaan/film/21013151/__Skyfall__James_Bond_herrijst__.html

    Nope, Algemeen Dagblad (AD) was earlier. That was the first Dutch review. Also 4 stars.

    Thanks @JWpepper! Great review. And I love the tagline of the article:
    "Daniel Craig has to stay as 007!"
    Why can't there be more positive-spirited reviewers like this guy from 'Algemeen Dagblad'. And he doesn't give "SPECTRE" full 5 stars, but it's still a wonderful 4 out of 5 stars.
    http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1023/Film/article/detail/4168786/2015/10/23/AD-ziet-Spectre-Daniel-Craig-moet-blijven-als-James-Bond.dhtml
  • Posts: 4,043
    Two of the main newspapers here in Ireland, The Independent and The Herald have given it 4 and 5 stars! Am really stoked by the reviews! God, when is it Tuesday?
  • MansfieldMansfield Where the hell have you been?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 1,262
    I think...what he basically says is this: "SPECTRE" is a masterpiece, but a very different masterpiece as compared to "Skyfall" and "Casino Royale". It's more of a masterpiece when taking into account the Bond-formula. Whereas "Casino Royale" and "Skyfall" were masterpieces outside that typical Bond formula.


    And on the whole, what "SPECTRE" does right is that it doesn't copy "Skyfall". I see many topics in here saying "it isn't as good as "Skyfall" ". But what's the fuzz about that if you do get a different film than "Skyfall" now?
    There's a pretty big difference between those kinds of masterpieces. Skyfall is a masterpiece in that, similar to On Her Majesty's Secret Service, it can be enjoyed outside of the label of Bond. It strayed from the long-established formula to provide a more somber and psychological (in the way of characterization) sense of appeal. The only thing a film like Skyfall can do poorly in a very broad sense is lose the audience, and it only does this for a small minority of the audience.

    Spectre is being touted for its classical heritage and application of the Bond formula, which makes it more open to criticism. The formula is too vast to apply in its entirety to any one film. Generally, every one of us has our own idea of what the Bond formula is and ought to be. Within those constraints, there has to be room for expansion in addition to making sure each of those elements work within a congruent pattern so as not to discredit any other element. This is one mention of note in some of the negative reviews. Overall, it seems to be successful in applying and re-inventing the formula. It's just that this kind of a hit has difficulty matching a film critically that has its own planned theme.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Two of the main newspapers here in Ireland, The Independent and The Herald have given it 4 and 5 stars! Am really stoked by the reviews! God, when is it Tuesday?

    Do you have some links perhaps?
Sign In or Register to comment.