It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
But that's not overplaying though. That's just wooden though, right?
Not a big fan of Taylor-Johnson, but speaking of him, didn't he just get some nominations for 'Nocturnal Animals'?
He over uses the coldness and is unaffected. He is more terminator-like. Bond is machine-like in Craig's portrayal.
I'll take Brosnan in GE over Craig. Not my idea of Bond. SF was the nail in the coffin. I Always wanted Clive Owen for the part.
Craig reminds me of that Red Grant coldness. You see that old Bond feels, whilst Grant follows orders with no signs of remorse.
Craig would have been perfect as a modern Red Grant.
That said I really liked Craig in SF for the most part and I loved his performance in Ms death scene.
I really liked Craig's acting in the canyon with Camille. You could sense his compassion towards her.
He does show coldness in CR. When the girl is found dead on the hammock, he was emotionless. I am reading the novels again. What Craig does adhere to from Fleming is how Bond gulps down alcohol after a tense moment.
How he disposes of Mathhis in QOS is akin to rubbish and not a person.
Craig is far more thuggish than any past Bond. More braun than brain. Bond survives not just by his physical abilities.
Wouldn't bother, mate.
I have the right to disagree with you. Not manly to interfere with someone else's reply. to me. That tells me I got to you.
We are debating and I see differently to you. Think politics. I have a preference for Dalton and that will not change overnight.
Where? Scene over and it is not mentioned again.
That's more of an issue with Severine's death (who was set up as a character we would see for longer than we did).
In terms of Craig's reaction I think it was again a case of not showing emotion infront of his company (in this case Silva).
I do agree though that Severine certainly deserved another mention in the film given her traumatic backstory.
Solange's early death though wasn't exactly a surprise due to her close link to the enemy and the fact that she gave into Bond and told him what he needed to know. Her role in the film was technically over.
I see what you mean. However, he is a more introverted Bond than the others. He can be very expressionless. It is a pattern with him. I mentioned the Red Grant similarity back in 2012.
That's his choice and right. Like Dalton he didn't clone until SP. I respect him as an actor though. He certainly is believable.
I think he lost something by SF. My opinion, but QOS was for me his best film. I am in a minority.
That scene with White and M was outstanding. I agree. Craig is right for that film.
I have no issue with you having a preference for Dalton, why would I? You clearly have an issue with Craig's look, which is your prerogative, my mum feels the same way - however, I do think you're being belligerent and deliberately obtuse when it comes to critiquing him as an actor, hence why I told @BAIN123 to not bother. Your assertions about Craig being expressionless just don't hold water, I'm afraid.
You are right. The director has the last say and an actor does not have a say in the editing room. Plus if a director is in a hurry to do other scenes, that can compromise a performance.
Mendes had more time to explore than Glen. Glen in his book, forbade crew seeing dailies, as Dalton wanted to redo scenes based on crew feedback. Dalton would ask the crew what they thought and Glen didn't like it.
Glen had more power than Dalton on deciding what was acceptable for a take. LTK also had budget reductions, where more takes would raise costs.
Dalton got the script ten days before shooting. How is that collaborative? Dalton said it was not good in terms of preparing. He did great under the circumstances.
I am not being deliberately obtuse. I thought Dalton gave a fine performance in LTK. I have had that opinion for more than 20 years. I believed in his Bond portrayal.
All I said, is that hindsight is a wonderful thing and unfair to compare acting style between, 1989 and, 2008. Dalton if he was Craig's age in, 2008 would have played different.
And QOS is a totally different film,director and post 9/11. What is obtuse about that?
You would have to then by extension say that Craig is acting better than Connery.
Also Craig had the benefit of seeing what four actors had done with the role and pick his favourite ideas from them all.
And Matt Damon, who also changed the game for spy films. And I see elements of Bourne in QOS. How Craig fights for one. So he is not as original as you say.
Craig did not come from a blank canvass. Look at the writer he got for CR.
What about change of director adding to change in performance? Craig is different with Forster. So director does have an undeniable influence.
Craig definitely benefited from a far superior team to get him on his way (including Haggis on writing duties) and EON was committed to this vision by 2006. They were still on the fence in 1987 (especially since Brosnan was supposed to have the role) and it showed.
EON & Craig also benefited from seeing Damon deliver Bourne. There's no question about that in my mind. They also saw Nolan and Bale deliver an outstanding inception product with Batman Begins in the prior year. So lots of quality to draw inspiration from, along with Bond's illustrious past, and all of that helped.
I agree with your well argued points. Had Dalton had the same backing, he would have been seen differently. Many Dalton fans know Dalton was given little to work with.
Your on the fence point regarding EON, made it harder for Dalton. He said he would have killed for a script like CR. But that at the time was a no no for EON. Dalton had the hangover of the Moore era. Those elements were present in both his films.
Bear in mind Dalton was my first Bond at the cinema and like Mark Gatiss, it was a breath of fresh air.
Dalton did not get a chance to reveal his full potential in the role. A waste, because with the right team, he is dynamite.
Imagine if Moore stopped at TMWTGG. Almost happened had Cubby not bought out Saltzman. Even back then, the franchise was in danger.
Dalton was brave for trying something different. And LTK was the film that EON thought would succeed commercially. It scored the highest with test audiences.
Reading the novels, Dalton prepared well in so little time.
Craig started when conditions for a new start were bursting with ripeness. It was built from the ground up.
EON did what the market was begging for. Risk my arse. Sony would not have gambled and Bourne was burning the box office. Kill or be killed.
Imagine Craig in a post-Moore Glen film. Would sink faster than a led zeppelin. Lazenby 2.0