› ›

The DANIEL CRAIG Appreciation thread - Discuss His Life, His Career, His Bond Films

1…7879818384…169

Comments

  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 15,818
    Enduring Love is pretty intense. Great character work by Craig there. I love the delivery of "It wasn't the f***ing WIND!!!!"
    Also the birthday scene as they're having a small birthday dinner for Craig and his preoccupation with the balloon event ruins the whole night.
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    Bondjames, almost all of your names, most notably Depp have their stinkers. Or Baywatch and Johnson. Hank was having misfits before he came back to glory. Etc. My closest to a star is RDJ, but even he outside of .... Pratt is just starting. Put him in a standalone whatever film and one has yet to see what happens. Its a tricky game.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @Germanlady, of course all those actors have unsuccessful films as well. Nobody can have a clean run forever. My point is more that all of those names have been able to successfully deliver in multiple films (and sometimes franchises). They are as good as it gets when it comes to 'stars'. Depp is undoubtedly one, even though he has lost some lustre recently (even Cruise lost it for a while, after the couch jumping incident, before making a comeback).

    RDJ may have been the most expensive actor at one point (I believe Johnson has surpassed him now), and there's no doubt that he has been very successful for Marvel as Iron Man/Stark. However, he has yet to show such box office star power in a franchise or film outside of that character. That is why I did not mention him in the same breath, irrespective of what Marvel/Disney chooses to pay him for playing that character. The same goes for the actor for which this thread exists.
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    My point as well with RDJ for example. If someone gets known and famous in a franchise, he will have a hard time to succeed in other films. And thing is, some are really loved and still - people are not standing in line to see them in something else other then that special beloved part. Must be frustrating for them at times.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Unless you're a typecast actor, that's the alternative for franchise successes.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,571
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    @NicNac

    The Appreciation threads are important because without them actors and films like Brosnan, Dalton, MR, DAD, AVTAK would just get destroyed by the same folks over and over again like they already do in every other thread available.

    If this is the former Appreciation thread and it has been renamed for more diversity then I have to say some people are not tolerating diversity at all in here.

    Good point. Thank you Jason.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Germanlady wrote: »
    My point as well with RDJ for example. If someone gets known and famous in a franchise, he will have a hard time to succeed in other films. And thing is, some are really loved and still - people are not standing in line to see them in something else other then that special beloved part. Must be frustrating for them at times.
    I agree. Sometimes it's not a good thing to be so recognized for one iconic role for too long. That particularly applies to a Bond actor imho. Connery was lucky to start and leave young, and so he had time to rebrand himself as an actor outside of Bond. Roger Moore didn't have the same luxury, since he started later and by the time he left, there were more limited roles available to him.
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    http://thekit.ca/fashion/daniel-craig-is-keeping-this-special-omega-item-in-a-safe/
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Germanlady wrote: »
    http://thekit.ca/fashion/daniel-craig-is-keeping-this-special-omega-item-in-a-safe/

    Our Dan does love his watches,bless him.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    We share the same expensive hobby.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Do you ?
    Nice one....I would but my divorce etc and child maintenance takes a lot atm.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,490
    @TripAces, I don't believe I've ever even heard of 'The Mother,' I'll have to check that one out since I enjoyed 'Enduring Love' so much.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Its where Craig has an affair with his girlfriends mother...played by Ann Margaret IIRC.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,894
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Its where Craig has an affair with his girlfriends mother...played by Ann Margaret IIRC.

    Ann-Margret? He wishes. It was Anne Reid, if it is the film that i'm thinking of.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Aaah of course...Anne Reid !
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    Yes, Anne Reid. Its really worth checking out.
    Creasy, have you seen Copenhagen?
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Sometime after QoS came out, I happened to catch Sword of Honour on TV. And it was Daniel Craig so I was eager to see it. I have to say, despite the slow pacing of the film, I did quite enjoy it. Great cast.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,490
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Yes, Anne Reid. Its really worth checking out.
    Creasy, have you seen Copenhagen?

    I have not. It's this TV movie with Craig from 2002, yeah? He looks so young in it. I'll have to add that one to the list, as well.

    I could use a rewatch of 'Defiance,' as well. Haven't seen it in years now, but I loved that movie. Was happy to catch it in theaters.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited June 2017 Posts: 4,554
    DC is also really good as Ted Hughes in Sylvia.

  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    How about Archangel as a TV series and The Ice House?

    ..and then this little gem

  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    I have Archangel but I haven't watched it yet.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,490
    "Tell me how this works?"
    "If you give me a cigarette."

    Now that's how it's done!
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    Archangel is an interesting bit about Stalin. Worth giving it a try.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Archangel is an interesting bit about Stalin. Worth giving it a try.

    I will...I forgot I even had it !! *headslap*

  • TuuliaTuulia
    Posts: 2,081
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Daniel Craig never broke character during the production of 'Logan Lucky':

    http://www.businessinsider.com/daniel-craig-logan-lucky-character-2017-6

    Character is not the same thing as mere voice. Keeping the voice and accent throughout a shoot (even off camera) doesn't mean not breaking character. Whether or not he never broke character on this shoot I don't know (GL probably does - does he ever actually do that complete staying in character thing?), but this article only actually talks about the voice - apart from its headline. My guess would be he most likely did break character, pretty much everyone does, and why wouldn't they. Usually when actors supposedly "don't break character" they actually just keep the accent, because they find it easier than switching back and forth. It's a way to serve energy, and then one doesn't need to think about the accent while filming - they just talk like a person normally doesn't think about their accent when they talk. Or maybe keep some mannerisms, so that those, too, are just natural when the cameras are rolling. Most actors don't behave like the character all the time, though, which is how I understand "being in character" - they talk as themselves even if they use the character's accent, joke between takes even on deadly serious movies, and so on.
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    I also assume, just the voice. Its not THAT hard a character to play. They socialised more then usual during this movie, so obviously they had fun together.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,490
    Tuulia wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Daniel Craig never broke character during the production of 'Logan Lucky':

    http://www.businessinsider.com/daniel-craig-logan-lucky-character-2017-6

    Character is not the same thing as mere voice. Keeping the voice and accent throughout a shoot (even off camera) doesn't mean not breaking character. Whether or not he never broke character on this shoot I don't know (GL probably does - does he ever actually do that complete staying in character thing?), but this article only actually talks about the voice - apart from its headline. My guess would be he most likely did break character, pretty much everyone does, and why wouldn't they. Usually when actors supposedly "don't break character" they actually just keep the accent, because they find it easier than switching back and forth. It's a way to serve energy, and then one doesn't need to think about the accent while filming - they just talk like a person normally doesn't think about their accent when they talk. Or maybe keep some mannerisms, so that those, too, are just natural when the cameras are rolling. Most actors don't behave like the character all the time, though, which is how I understand "being in character" - they talk as themselves even if they use the character's accent, joke between takes even on deadly serious movies, and so on.

    Unless you're Daniel Day Lewis, of course. Even still, as serious as he takes the roles he does, he breaks character like all of the others eventually. He'd run a sickness on the set of 'Gangs of New York' because he refused to bundle up with coats and whatnot that were made after the time era, while subsequently using Eminem's music (of all things) to pump himself up and get into character.
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    Probably because he is doing so few films. You cant go through this ordeal a couple of times a year.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,490
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Probably because he is doing so few films. You cant go through this ordeal a couple of times a year.

    Definitely not, it'd certainly take its toll. Regardless of how the article's titled, I'm sure the length that Craig went to "keep in character" was, like you two said, maintaining the voice and perhaps a bit of that personality. No way he took a role like this as seriously as, say, some major Oscar contending role.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    edited June 2017 Posts: 1,756
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    This is an interesting discussion, if completely unbefitting of Lord Craig's thread (I love the bastard).

    I think the factors that contribute to a lack of star power are partly down to a lack of young stars and aging old stars, and also the industry and where it's at now. We're in the period of remakes and reboots, and it's no surprise why so many films sink now, like Cruise's Mummy film that is one of those wretched things. I think that, no matter who is in a film, audiences are speaking with their wallets more than ever (and rising cinema prices won't help get people out to the screens) and it doesn't matter who the big star is. Just because Tom Cruise is in a film is no guarantee of its quality, and it isn't a motivator for many to see it like it once was.

    In a way audiences are being more critical about movies and what they see. They want to be told good stories and seem to get more offended when a movie is just mindless or doesn't add up to an interesting narrative. I feel like audiences of the past were much more likely to see a film, shut off their brains and accept flaws. In the age of the internet where everyone is a critic, people now have a more harsh outlook on how their money is being spent and that correlates with the rising costs of movies and the climate the industry is in where originality is often unrewarded and rehashing old ideas is the running motto. In some ways, it's nice to see, as people should be smarter about how they spend their time and money. It's also great that no actor can just sail by doing mediocre work and expect to get paid for it. It's a more level-playing field on the whole, where quality is the true qualifier for a good legacy.

    This. Also the rise of Rotten Tomatoes has assured you can't get away with making a bad film anymore. RT has become gospel for movie goers nowadays, for better or for worse.

    At the end of the day, the studios will "give the people what they want". This whole reboot crap is not what people want, and because of this I'll wager they slow down on them in the near future.

    And also to be fair, SF had a lot of flaws but it was publically praised. Even non-James Bond fans think that movie was great, even if they haven't remembered it or not.
Sign In or Register to comment.