Jump to content

Recommended Posts

What's funny is Brosnan wanted to be a more gritty Bond but they didn't allow him to. He ended up getting closer to what he wanted to be in The Matador.

 

Also- Dalton is very underrated as Bond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

55 minutes ago, Dynaman said:

Craig's Bond (not HIM as such, but the character and universe) was a direct response to 9/11.  Very quickly the old Bond was no longer considered viable.  What with the Newspaper guy trying to take over the world shtick.  So Bond had to be more "grounded" and "gritty".  I think they missed a beat there, give the franchise another year or two off and the charming bit of silly would have been welcome again.

Ironically, "grounded" and "gritty" Bond is a pretty reasonable fit for the first few actual James Bond novels... but the movies always had more of a post-Doctor No dramatic flair to them under Connery, Moore, and Brosnan.  Craig's Bond just kind of comes off as a dumb thug half the time, which isn't even a good fit for novel Bond who was disdainful of mindless violence and disliked killing.

 

6 minutes ago, vladykins said:

What's funny is Brosnan wanted to be a more gritty Bond but they didn't allow him to. He ended up getting closer to what he wanted to be in The Matador.

Lucky they stopped him, he had the perfect dry wit for the role in the mold of previous iconic movie Bonds.  His movies wouldn't have been nearly as good if he'd been playing them razor straight.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, vladykins said:

Also- Dalton is very underrated as Bond.

I liked him as Bond though the movies themselves were not that good - I think the same way about Brosnan as well however.  Craig I agree with Seto, his Bond is not very movie Bond like - I've never read the books so have no way to compare with those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/5/2021 at 5:33 PM, Seto Kaiba said:

Craig's Bond just kind of comes off as a dumb thug half the time, which isn't even a good fit for novel Bond who was disdainful of mindless violence and disliked killing.

Craig's bond seems more like he's reacting to the situation around him rather than acting on his own volition. While the other Bonds do react to the events and incidents around them, they also take the initiative to come up with some creative strategy and even counter-plan. Craig's just seems to be a ping pong ball getting knocked around, getting kills only because the opportunity came up and he got lucky.

Combine that with your mention of Craig's rendition being a dumb thug and he just doesn't seem like Bond to me.

At this rate, Ja Rule would be a better fit...

Edited by pengbuzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, pengbuzz said:

Craig's bond seems more like he's reacting to the situation around him rather than acting on his own volition. While the other Bonds do react to the events and incidents around them, they also take the initiative to come up with some creative strategy and even counter-plan. Craig's just seems to be a ping pong ball getting knocked around, getting kills only because the opportunity came up and he got lucky.

Combine that with your mention of Craig's rendition being a dumb thug and he just doesn't seem like Bond to me.

To be fair, Bond does spend a lot of time in Casino Royale being reactive rather than proactive... though the revenge quest that drives the next few of Craig's Bond movies is about the most un-Bond thing ever.

 

4 hours ago, pengbuzz said:

At this rate, Ja Rule would be a better fit...

I was kind of hoping Idris Elba would be picked to be the next Bond after Craig's time was up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, pengbuzz said:

Craig's bond seems more like he's reacting to the situation around him rather than acting on his own volition. While the other Bonds do react to the events and incidents around them, they also take the initiative to come up with some creative strategy and even counter-plan. Craig's just seems to be a ping pong ball getting knocked around, getting kills only because the opportunity came up and he got lucky.

Combine that with your mention of Craig's rendition being a dumb thug and he just doesn't seem like Bond to me.

At this rate, Ja Rule would be a better fit...

Interestingly, this is actually closer to the novel Bond in a way. Bond definitely gets into situations in the books that he didn't plan on at all. Then he ends up reacting to things and trying to pull something out of it or he gets off a message somewhere and you get the deux ex machina.

 

And I don't see him as a "dumb thug", but I do see him as flexing that license to kill. Novel Bond, as Seto mentions, hates killing if he doesn't have to. So this is a switch up.

4 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

To be fair, Bond does spend a lot of time in Casino Royale being reactive rather than proactive... though the revenge quest that drives the next few of Craig's Bond movies is about the most un-Bond thing ever.

Except it isn't *really* a revenge thing- that's what it was played out for everyone to think he was focusing on, but the classic line at the end of Quantum of Solace indicates that's never what it was about ("I never left.". I think the DC movies do a better job of using the "rogue 00" theme than some of the prior movies. Probably one of my favorite scenes is in QoS when Bond takes out the guards on him in the hotel, slips back over to M, and then M says "He's my agent and I trust him", quickly followed by Felix helping him in the bar stay just ahead of the US troops gunning for him.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, vladykins said:

And I don't see him as a "dumb thug", but I do see him as flexing that license to kill. Novel Bond, as Seto mentions, hates killing if he doesn't have to. So this is a switch up.

It was me who said that Craig's Bond felt more like a "dumb thug".

That's the impression I got of him right from the outset when I saw Casino Royale in a little Minnesota theater during the winter break in '06.  Prior incarnations of James Bond, novels included, had always been rather hands-off about killing and either explicitly or implicitly found hand-to-hand combat distasteful.  Those moments when the situation compels him to throw hands are usually the moments where he's up against The Heavy (e.g. Jaws, Odd Job, etc.) and he wins by guile rather than skill.  We're introduced to Daniel Craig's rendition of James Bond with a black and white scene of him in the men's room brutally beating a man half to death before attempting to drown him in the sink... about the most un-James Bond thing imaginable.  (A close second being that he's later shown driving a Ford Mondeo, of all the insane things, later in the same film.  He manages to trade up later, but it's still James Bond driving a lower mid-level rental fleet queen of a car.)

So much of the class that you expect from Bond is just missing from Craig's version.  

 

20 minutes ago, vladykins said:

Except it isn't *really* a revenge thing- that's what it was played out for everyone to think he was focusing on, but the classic line at the end of Quantum of Solace indicates that's never what it was about ("I never left.". I think the DC movies do a better job of using the "rogue 00" theme than some of the prior movies. Probably one of my favorite scenes is in QoS when Bond takes out the guards on him in the hotel, slips back over to M, and then M says "He's my agent and I trust him", quickly followed by Felix helping him in the bar stay just ahead of the US troops gunning for him.

TBH, I don't quite buy the idea that it wasn't a revenge thing... it was pretty clear even from the ending of Casino Royale that taking revenge for Vesper's death was something personal even if it was also business.  It struck me more as him saying he had nowhere else to go rather than that he never left, since without 00 status he's just a spree killer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Seto Kaiba said:

So much of the class that you expect from Bond is just missing from Craig's version.  

It's been a while since I've seen any of the Brosnan films, but the biggest difference I remember in his portrayal is that Brosnan's Bond always seemed to have a plan or clever gadget to get him out of every conceivable situation, whereas Craig is more likely to just fight his way out of a bind. I haven't read any of the books or seen enough of the films to have much of an opinion over which one is better or worse, they're just different, to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/5/2021 at 5:26 PM, vladykins said:

Also- Dalton is very underrated as Bond.

License to Kill is in the top 5 of my favorite BOND films. What made it so good was a great story. The writers should be thinking outside the box when it comes to BOND films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/7/2021 at 9:52 AM, snakerbot said:

It's been a while since I've seen any of the Brosnan films, but the biggest difference I remember in his portrayal is that Brosnan's Bond always seemed to have a plan or clever gadget to get him out of every conceivable situation, whereas Craig is more likely to just fight his way out of a bind. I haven't read any of the books or seen enough of the films to have much of an opinion over which one is better or worse, they're just different, to me.

I think that's a fair-ish summation?  Craig's version of Bond is definitely much more... amenable... to the idea of just Leeroy Jenkins-ing his way out of situations with his fists.

That said, I definitely feel like Craig's Bond was done something of a disservice by modernizing the setting of Casino Royale.  Quantum's not just as compelling an antagonist as the KGB, and Vesper's punny name no longer scans now that there isn't a West Berlin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/7/2021 at 9:52 AM, snakerbot said:

It's been a while since I've seen any of the Brosnan films, but the biggest difference I remember in his portrayal is that Brosnan's Bond always seemed to have a plan or clever gadget to get him out of every conceivable situation, whereas Craig is more likely to just fight his way out of a bind. I haven't read any of the books or seen enough of the films to have much of an opinion over which one is better or worse, they're just different, to me.

That's what I mean by "act rather than react". Having a plan requires at least a little bit of forethought and initiative; I don't see that in Craig's version of Bond really.

 

4 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

I think that's a fair-ish summation?  Craig's version of Bond is definitely much more... amenable... to the idea of just Leeroy Jenkins-ing his way out of situations with his fists.

That said, I definitely feel like Craig's Bond was done something of a disservice by modernizing the setting of Casino Royale.  Quantum's not just as compelling an antagonist as the KGB, and Vesper's punny name no longer scans now that there isn't a West Berlin.

But at least he's got chicken...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLyOj_QD4a4

(WARNING: NSFW!!!!)

Edited by pengbuzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Seeing that trailer reminded me exactly what I don't really think of Craig's Bond as Bond.  He looks like a street tough in a suit.  All the other Bonds looked like dangerous upper crust types in a suit.

Trailer looks good though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/31/2021 at 8:01 PM, Dynaman said:

Seeing that trailer reminded me exactly what I don't really think of Craig's Bond as Bond.  He looks like a street tough in a suit.  All the other Bonds looked like dangerous upper crust types in a suit.

Trailer looks good though.

I believe M basically calls him a thug in the first movie. That was the sign that this Bond wasn't like the others. I don't think Bond was ever thuggish in any movie or book.

We'll see how Daniel Craig ends his run. I don't expect anything on the level of the best Bond movies. He hasn't come close yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, JetJockey said:

I believe M basically calls him a thug in the first movie. That was the sign that this Bond wasn't like the others. I don't think Bond was ever thuggish in any movie or book.

We'll see how Daniel Craig ends his run. I don't expect anything on the level of the best Bond movies. He hasn't come close yet.

I don't assign any blame to Craig.  After 9/11 the studio didn't think the old Bond formula would work any longer and they deliberately changed the character.  Even at the time I thought that was a mistake and after 20 years the studio may be thinking it is time to bring more of the old formula back as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Dynaman said:

I don't assign any blame to Craig.  After 9/11 the studio didn't think the old Bond formula would work any longer and they deliberately changed the character.  Even at the time I thought that was a mistake and after 20 years the studio may be thinking it is time to bring more of the old formula back as well.

I do give some blame to Daniel Craig. He's one of those actors similar to some directors that are ok with admitting that a movie is bad even though they collected large paychecks for those bad movies. He admitted Quantum of Solace wasn't good. Same with Spectre.

Also, Die Another Day came out after 9/11. They just used that as a marketing point. Blamed Pierce Brosnan for the silliness of Die Another Day. They acted like he couldn't do a serious Bond. They also thought the Bourne movies were a threat. There are a few scenes in Daniel Craig's movies that are straight out of the Bourne movies.

Who knows what they will do next. They probably need to find a good director that understands the series or wants to make a consistent run of movies. I would bet that even though these movies keep making more money, that Daniel Craig's run will be seen as a low point in the series. My list of best Bond actors right now would be:

1. Connery

2. Dalton

3. Moore

4. Lazenby or Brosnan. I can't decide as I only like the World is not Enough from Pierce Brosnan. Goldeneye is a better videogame than movie. But the World is not Enough has a scene straight out of On Her Majesty's Secret Service which is a good movie just with a downer ending.

5. Craig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I did. I forgot there was a dedicated thread, so I just wrote about it in the General Movies thread. Tl;dr: I found it mildly better than the two worst movies (Quantum of Solace, Spectre), but not nearly as good as the two best ones (Casino Royale, Skyfall). The side characters, especially the new 007, not getting much to do was pretty disappointing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, kajnrig said:

I did. I forgot there was a dedicated thread, so I just wrote about it in the General Movies thread. Tl;dr: I found it mildly better than the two worst movies (Quantum of Solace, Spectre), but not nearly as good as the two best ones (Casino Royale, Skyfall). The side characters, especially the new 007, not getting much to do was pretty disappointing.

I found the talk in that General Movies topic. I guess I should check there from time to time.

We'll see what happens with the reboot. But they definitely need someone in charge to plan these movies better. It's sloppy at times with the story and it shouldn't be at that level. Next year is the anniversary of the series starting with Dr. No so I guess they will announce the new actor then. They have a lot of thinking to do about the direction of the series. You can tell the different production starting with Goldeneye to No Time to Die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all opinion with youtube stuff, forums and the like. You don't know if it's informed opinion or not. But I would say it's not a perfect ending at all. That's coming from someone who has seen all the movies. Read a good amount of all the books. Read a bunch of the comics. And I remember hearing I think Roger Moore talk about what kind of horrible plans the bad guy had for Bond and how he would figure out how to outwit them. That's the blueprint that started from Dr. No (the movie).

Of course, you can say Daniel Craig is a different Bond which is true. But he's also a Bond that is heavily influenced by other series. And is in an alternate type of Bond universe having events (direct or modified) and items from the previous iterations. But probably worse is that Daniel Craig's Bond run was over in Spectre. That's why it ended the way it did with Bond throwing away his gun. Even one of the producers admitted that was it. Daniel Craig coming back is why the ending is the way it is.

Edited by JetJockey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...