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

13468916

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    AceHole wrote: »
    But seriously - I feel that Dalton would have had time to establish himself as the renaissance-Bond of the more austere 1980's
    That is quite possible. Moore was much better suited to the 70's style Bond films arguably, although I am grateful we got FYEO & OP personally.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 1,482
    bondjames wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    But seriously - I feel that Dalton would have had time to establish himself as the renaissance-Bond of the more austere 1980's
    That is quite possible. Moore was much better suited to the 70's style Bond films arguably, although I am grateful we got FYEO & OP personally.

    I re-watched OP yesterday. What struck me was how there is a real attempt at gritty, FYEO style realism in the way the Berlin opening scene (009 being hunted down) is filmed and tonally presented. There is a Dalton-film lurking in OP that just couldn't fully get out, imho... it has the feel of TLD in some parts.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    AceHole wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    But seriously - I feel that Dalton would have had time to establish himself as the renaissance-Bond of the more austere 1980's
    That is quite possible. Moore was much better suited to the 70's style Bond films arguably, although I am grateful we got FYEO & OP personally.

    I re-watched OP yesterday. What struck me was how there is a real attempt at gritty, FYEO style realism in the way the Berlin opening scene (009 being hunted down) is filmed and tonally presented. There is a Dalton-film lurking in OP that just couldn't fully get out, imho... it has the feel of TLD in some parts.
    I agree. OP has some really fine thriller moments. They threw in a little too much silly humour and that is what most people remember. However, the darker elements are superb imho. Even the killing of Mishka (or is that Grishka) is excellent. "And that's for 009!"
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    bondjames wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    tigers99 wrote: »
    I'd also like Craig to have more of Fleming's Bond's fastidiousness when it comes to food and drink - obviously you can't quite transcribe what Fleming did in writing to the screen - but I would like Bond to come across as knowledegable about these things again.

    Agreed. The almost ridiculous knowledge of fine drink & food was one of the hallmarks of Fleming's Bond, and to a lesser extent early Connery.
    The sequence about the '...rather disappointing brandy' in GF is one of the best comedic moments int he series :>
    Agreed. It's a shame that refinement & fine taste (including in properly tailored suits) is no longer seen as a requirement. The closest we've got to it recently was his ability to name the model of that car which pulled up to pick them up in Morocco in SP.

    Yes, that should have been part of him from the get go. Bond's a snob and snobbery generally is something you're born to, though it can be acquired, his knowledge of wine and food etc would have been something passed on from generations and upbringing.
  • Posts: 1,482
    bondjames wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    tigers99 wrote: »
    I'd also like Craig to have more of Fleming's Bond's fastidiousness when it comes to food and drink - obviously you can't quite transcribe what Fleming did in writing to the screen - but I would like Bond to come across as knowledegable about these things again.

    Agreed. The almost ridiculous knowledge of fine drink & food was one of the hallmarks of Fleming's Bond, and to a lesser extent early Connery.
    The sequence about the '...rather disappointing brandy' in GF is one of the best comedic moments int he series :>
    Agreed. It's a shame that refinement & fine taste (including in properly tailored suits) is no longer seen as a requirement. The closest we've got to it recently was his ability to name the model of that car which pulled up to pick them up in Morocco in SP.

    Yes, that should have been part of him from the get go. Bond's a snob and snobbery generally is something you're born to, though it can be acquired, his knowledge of wine and food etc would have been something passed on from generations and upbringing.

    I don't actually think Bond is portrayed as a true snob by Fleming - he comes across as enjoying these finer things but never really buying into the idea of 'the elite'.
    He despises the idle upper classes and almost hates himself for coming from a well-to-do background... hence the chip on his shoulder.
  • Posts: 532
    Reaper said, I just want a good movie.

    I don't regard Connery's Bond as old school. Craig comes as close as any actor: a little rougher around the edges, but less droll. DC probably owes as much to Jason Bourne as Bond. He's not as good with the wit and sophistication. The box-office and the superior film techniques do not interest me. Neither can be compared meaningfully to films made in the 60s. But the style, tone, and attitude can be.

    What we are concerned with here is the next Bond. If we assume the DC series is a reboot, erasing all previous films by previous actors, will the next Bond begin a series unto himself, or will we simply carry on with the "same" Bond, only with a new face?

    I am ready for the new Bond to evolve into the original Bond. Rough hewn DC type Bond finally becomes the Connery Bond. Suave, witty, masculine. Qualities that seem to me never to go out of date.

    I like both SF and SP, but both are saddled with parent-child issues. Silva is upset because M likes James better, and ESB is upset because his own father liked James more than Franz, and Bond's past is in play. It should be noted that in the YOLT commentary, Lewis Gilbert in discussing a direction for the film says they didn't want to get caught up in Bond's childhood and psychological problems. Too bad later writers didn't take that hint. Linking ESB to Bond's childhood was one of the biggest mistakes in the entire film series.

    Neither SF or SP are bad films, but they are burdened by a story line quite unnecessary.
    The superiority of CR is that LeChiffre is motivated by money--not personal revenge.

    I never want to see the series return to silliness of RM and PB. I am ready for a Bond of style, wit, culture, sophistication, and charm. I want to see villains with big plans but on a realistic scale. I don't want to see more Bourne or Batman influenced sequences. I hated the Silva teeth segment in SF. ESB's makeup in SP was as silly looking as the ESB of YOLT.

    The qualities as an actor that SC brought to Bond never go out style.





  • Posts: 1,482
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Reaper said, I just want a good movie.

    I don't regard Connery's Bond as old school. Craig comes as close as any actor: a little rougher around the edges, but less droll. DC probably owes as much to Jason Bourne as Bond. He's not as good with the wit and sophistication. The box-office and the superior film techniques do not interest me. Neither can be compared meaningfully to films made in the 60s. But the style, tone, and attitude can be.

    What we are concerned with here is the next Bond. If we assume the DC series is a reboot, erasing all previous films by previous actors, will the next Bond begin a series unto himself, or will we simply carry on with the "same" Bond, only with a new face?

    I am ready for the new Bond to evolve into the original Bond. Rough hewn DC type Bond finally becomes the Connery Bond. Suave, witty, masculine. Qualities that seem to me never to go out of date.

    I like both SF and SP, but both are saddled with parent-child issues. Silva is upset because M likes James better, and ESB is upset because his own father liked James more than Franz, and Bond's past is in play. It should be noted that in the YOLT commentary, Lewis Gilbert in discussing a direction for the film says they didn't want to get caught up in Bond's childhood and psychological problems. Too bad later writers didn't take that hint. Linking ESB to Bond's childhood was one of the biggest mistakes in the entire film series.

    Neither SF or SP are bad films, but they are burdened by a story line quite unnecessary.
    The superiority of CR is that LeChiffre is motivated by money--not personal revenge.

    I never want to see the series return to silliness of RM and PB. I am ready for a Bond of style, wit, culture, sophistication, and charm. I want to see villains with big plans but on a realistic scale. I don't want to see more Bourne or Batman influenced sequences. I hated the Silva teeth segment in SF. ESB's makeup in SP was as silly looking as the ESB of YOLT.

    The qualities as an actor that SC brought to Bond never go out style.


    Head of nail hit.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,312
    bondjames wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    If Dalton had taken the role in 1980 (if I remember correctly he was offered it in 1968 and '80 before actually taking it in '86) he would undoubtedly have become the defining interpretation of 007. The series would not have gone through the hiatus after '89 and we probably would have quite a few more quality entries than we currently do...
    What makes you so assuredly say this?

    There is no evidence that Dalton would have been any more accepted commercially in 1980 than he was in 1987. Replacing an 'in-form' and young Moore post_MR (a massive financial success) would have been more of a challenge than replacing an 'out of form' and old Moore post-AVTAK.

    Critically he may have been good. Commercially, he wasn't though.

    Commercially he was fine, apart from one movie in one (admittedly very important) market - the US. LTK was pretty successful everywhere else, and if you read the reviews from the time there is a lot of positivity about Dalton and the films, even from US reviewers.

    These days no film is as dependent on the US as films were back then. And the failure to do well in the US in 89 was at least partly down to the marketing campaign which was one of the worst in he history of the series.

    There is every reason to believe that a more conventional, OTT and humourous Dalton Bond movie in '91 would have restored the commercial success in the US market.
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,416
    STAY. Hands down he NEEDS to stay. He deserves one more Bond film seeing how he has now fully embodied Bond. I want to see DC in this role forever but I know that is obviously unrealistic...

    One more and I'll be satisfied. If he does more than one more I'll be extremely satisfied! He's the best.
  • Posts: 11,312
    I'm fine with Craig doing one more. He deserves it. SP has restored some of my confidence in him after the disappointment of SF.

    I would prefer Mendes to leave though. I've seen what he can do and think he's exhausted his back of tricks. We need some fresh thinking. Also, let's have a new writing team please.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe JK ROFLing
    edited November 2015 Posts: 7,081
    Getafix wrote: »
    I'm fine with Craig doing one more. He deserves it. SP has restored some of my confidence in him after the disappointment of SF.

    I would prefer Mendes to leave though. I've seen what he can do and think he's exhausted his back of tricks. We need some fresh thinking. Also, let's have a new writing team please.

    I used to love Thunderball, I don't anymore. But I DO admit that TB has the greatest portrayal of Bond ever. Danny Boy in SPECTRE comes in at number two, for me.

    IMO, the eighties gave us two truly classic Bond outings, those being The Living Daylights and Octopussy. LTK is decidedly NOT a classic, again IMO.

    I would argue that SAM MENDES is needed to lure Craig back for one more. Those two are thick as theives nowadays. If you want you're dessert I'm afraid you'll have to eat up those veggies, in other words.

  • Posts: 11,312
    Getafix wrote: »
    I'm fine with Craig doing one more. He deserves it. SP has restored some of my confidence in him after the disappointment of SF.

    I would prefer Mendes to leave though. I've seen what he can do and think he's exhausted his back of tricks. We need some fresh thinking. Also, let's have a new writing team please.

    I used to love Thunderball, I don't anymore. But I DO admit that TB has the greatest portrayal of Bond ever. Danny Boy in SPECTRE comes in at number two, for me.

    IMO, the eighties gave us two truly classic Bond outings, those being The Living Daylights and Octopussy. LTK is decidedly NOT a classic, again IMO.

    I would argue that SAM MENDES is needed to lure Craig back for one more. Those two are thick as theives nowadays. If you want you're dessert I'm afraid you'll have to eat up those veggies, in other words.

    Has there been any noise from EoN or Mendes on whether he might do another?

    Agree with you about OP and TLD - love both of them. OP is one of my absolute favourites in the series.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe JK ROFLing
    edited November 2015 Posts: 7,081
    Getafix wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I'm fine with Craig doing one more. He deserves it. SP has restored some of my confidence in him after the disappointment of SF.

    I would prefer Mendes to leave though. I've seen what he can do and think he's exhausted his back of tricks. We need some fresh thinking. Also, let's have a new writing team please.

    I used to love Thunderball, I don't anymore. But I DO admit that TB has the greatest portrayal of Bond ever. Danny Boy in SPECTRE comes in at number two, for me.

    IMO, the eighties gave us two truly classic Bond outings, those being The Living Daylights and Octopussy. LTK is decidedly NOT a classic, again IMO.

    I would argue that SAM MENDES is needed to lure Craig back for one more. Those two are thick as theives nowadays. If you want you're dessert I'm afraid you'll have to eat up those veggies, in other words.

    Has there been any noise from EoN or Mendes on whether he might do another?

    Agree with you about OP and TLD - love both of them. OP is one of my absolute favourites in the series.

    I watched it today. Consistently enjoyable from start to finish. And thrilling too. That ending goes on forever and never sags. The suspense just keeps on ramping up! IMO Moore's finest. :)
  • Posts: 11,312
    Getafix wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I'm fine with Craig doing one more. He deserves it. SP has restored some of my confidence in him after the disappointment of SF.

    I would prefer Mendes to leave though. I've seen what he can do and think he's exhausted his back of tricks. We need some fresh thinking. Also, let's have a new writing team please.

    I used to love Thunderball, I don't anymore. But I DO admit that TB has the greatest portrayal of Bond ever. Danny Boy in SPECTRE comes in at number two, for me.

    IMO, the eighties gave us two truly classic Bond outings, those being The Living Daylights and Octopussy. LTK is decidedly NOT a classic, again IMO.

    I would argue that SAM MENDES is needed to lure Craig back for one more. Those two are thick as theives nowadays. If you want you're dessert I'm afraid you'll have to eat up those veggies, in other words.

    Has there been any noise from EoN or Mendes on whether he might do another?

    Agree with you about OP and TLD - love both of them. OP is one of my absolute favourites in the series.

    I watched it today. Consistently enjoyable from start to finish. And thrilling too. That ending goes on forever and never sags. The suspense just keeps on ramping up! IMO Moore's finest. :)

    100% agree. It's Moore's best IMO as well, although I love TSWLM.

    The bomb defusing scene is marvellous. I've read with total bemusement comments about how the clown costume ruins it, whereas IMO thats what makes it so great - and Sir Rog carries it off with peerless style.

    Mendes could have learned a thing or two about storytelling and tension from John Glen.

    People get sniffy on here about about Glen, but give me a hack journeyman like Glen who knows his trade inside out over Mendes any day. Wasn't Glen also an editor and second unit director before? It all comes across in his films - they're so well put together - beautifully crafted.

  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    @Getafix

    I must tell you, your view on SF, OP and Glen is practically congruent with mine.

    Needless to say I always enjoy reading your posts.

    Done buttering you up :))

    I mean it sincerely of course :)
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Bouvier is one of my least favorite Bond girls. Lupe is s lousy actress,but I can't stop staring at her.

    Bouvier's short hair look....

    =P~
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Bouvier is one of my least favorite Bond girls. Lupe is s lousy actress,but I can't stop staring at her.

    Bouvier's short hair look....

    =P~

    And THAT dress...
    ...and with removable part...
    I love that scene B-)
  • Posts: 2,433
    Love that scene too. Especially since she could have just given Bond the gun that was in her handbag, but she wanted to flirt and see the look on Bonds face when she removed the bottom half of the dress, the cheeky minx! Carey Lowell, one of my favourite Bond girls!
    Also love the admiration here for OP, great Bond movie and much overlooked, mainly because of the humour, but it has brilliant moments, And wasn't Tim Dalton approached to play 007, when Roger was doing his 'leave them waiting' bit with his contract?
    Daltons the main man, but I think I prefer Roger in OP.
  • Posts: 2,433
    Sorry, went off topic! Definitely Craig should stay!
  • JNOJNO Finland
    Posts: 135
    Stay. Period.
  • Posts: 11,312
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Love that scene too. Especially since she could have just given Bond the gun that was in her handbag, but she wanted to flirt and see the look on Bonds face when she removed the bottom half of the dress, the cheeky minx! Carey Lowell, one of my favourite Bond girls!
    Also love the admiration here for OP, great Bond movie and much overlooked, mainly because of the humour, but it has brilliant moments, And wasn't Tim Dalton approached to play 007, when Roger was doing his 'leave them waiting' bit with his contract?
    Daltons the main man, but I think I prefer Roger in OP.

    I agree. I am a big Dalton fan but there's no touching Sir Rog when he's firing on all cylinders.
  • Posts: 5,730
    Getafix wrote: »
    Mendes could have learned a thing or two about storytelling and tension from John Glen.

    People get sniffy on here about about Glen, but give me a hack journeyman like Glen who knows his trade inside out over Mendes any day. Wasn't Glen also an editor and second unit director before? It all comes across in his films - they're so well put together - beautifully crafted.
    This. Absolutely.

  • Posts: 1,055
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Mendes could have learned a thing or two about storytelling and tension from John Glen.

    People get sniffy on here about about Glen, but give me a hack journeyman like Glen who knows his trade inside out over Mendes any day. Wasn't Glen also an editor and second unit director before? It all comes across in his films - they're so well put together - beautifully crafted.
    This. Absolutely.

    John Glen filmed the bob-sleigh action sequence in OHMSS

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    mepal1 wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Mendes could have learned a thing or two about storytelling and tension from John Glen.

    People get sniffy on here about about Glen, but give me a hack journeyman like Glen who knows his trade inside out over Mendes any day. Wasn't Glen also an editor and second unit director before? It all comes across in his films - they're so well put together - beautifully crafted.
    This. Absolutely.

    John Glen filmed the bob-sleigh action sequence in OHMSS
    And the ridiculously excellent (to this day) plane pretitles in MR.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    John Glen is a genius, it's that simple.
  • Wasn't Bond 24 and Bond 25 meant to be conceived as two parts of the same story? Or was that before they got the rights to SPECTRE back?

    That idea was kicking around. It still seems the case to me now, having seen SP - the ending pretty much cries out for a follow-on/ESB return if you ask me....I don't get people saying it seems a perfect wrap-up for DC.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 4,622
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Sounds like he wants to.come back for sure, but groan, it also sounds like he wants Mendes back too.
    Maybe he is just being politic. I do hope so.
    I thought Sam wanted to focus on his theatre work.
    I hope. Please


  • Posts: 6,601
    It doesnt necessarely mean, he wants Sam back, just because he speaks family. There are so many others, he has worked with for years now. I dont think, Sam will be back this time around or will be begged quite as hard.
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 15,925
    Maybe Craig could try to reel in Steven Spielberg. :D
Sign In or Register to comment.