84 replies to this topic

[SecretAgentFan]

You have too much time on your hands, buddy.

[thecasinoroyale]

I NEVER thought I'd read worries/doubts about Daniel Craig's age, due to his eyes closing up!

 

Yes, he's aging, but everyone does! He's not had work done, which Tom Cruise OBVIOUSLY has, and his portrayal of James Bond is one that lends to his acting, not just his looks, which I think are real, they are the looks of a true seret agent, world weary but hard-skinned.

 

He looks very suave when he has to in scenes, but that's not called for 100% of the time he is on screen, so that's accepted. He's not a poster boy for the franchise, he's the leading man surrounded by other talent that all lend to make it so successful. As the reception to 'Skyfall' has shown, audiences and critics love Daniel Craig's Bond and certainly want more of this.

 

Tom Cruise is helped along by a Hollywood background, cutting edge CGI in his films that place him in the action more than ever but it's all smoke and mirrors for someone getting older with 30 years of star appeal. To be fair, Craig only has about 10 years in the limelight, if that? 6 direct from Bond, and he's all natural, all man. Just like Bond.

 

I agree he's not typically "conventionally" handsome, but who the hell is? He's a good looking man, a very rugged mans man who I look forward to seeing more of in future Bonds.

[supernova]

You have too much time on your hands, buddy.

I have made only 208 posts -- really not that much spare time at all.

Edited by supernova, 04 January 2013 - 04:17 PM.

[FOX MULDER]

Connery was 52 in Never Say Never Again.

Moore was 57 in A View To A Kill.

Brosnan was 50 in Die Another Day.

 

Daniel Craig is a baby!

[Odd Jobbies]

You have too much time on your hands, buddy.

 

Lol, very good    

[Iceskater101]

 

Yes, he's aging, but everyone does! He's not had work done, which Tom Cruise OBVIOUSLY has, and his portrayal of James Bond is one that lends to his acting, not just his looks, which I think are real, they are the looks of a true seret agent, world weary but hard-skinned.

 

He looks very suave when he has to in scenes, but that's not called for 100% of the time he is on screen, so that's accepted. He's not a poster boy for the franchise, he's the leading man surrounded by other talent that all lend to make it so successful. As the reception to 'Skyfall' has shown, audiences and critics love Daniel Craig's Bond and certainly want more of this.

 

I agree he's not typically "conventionally" handsome, but who the hell is? He's a good looking man, a very rugged mans man who I look forward to seeing more of in future Bonds.

 

Agreed, I mean everyone ages. I think it says a lot when I am watching Skyfall, and I still find Daniel Craig attractive. Plus let's be honest he is old but look at his body he has really really good arms.

He is still charming and he is still Bond, and Tom Cruise has had work done for sure. I respect actors and actresses that age normally, it looks better in my opinion.

[seawolfnyy]

I think we've gotten WAY off topic here.

[Invincible1958]

Connery was 52 in Never Say Never Again.

Moore was 57 in A View To A Kill.

Brosnan was 50 in Die Another Day.

 

Daniel Craig is a baby!

 

Actually Connery was 51 in NSNA, Moore was 56 turning 57 in AVTAK and Brosnan was 48 turning 49 in DAD.

Don't make them older, than they were. ;-)

[When In Egypt]

 

You have too much time on your hands, buddy.

I have made only 208 posts -- really not that much spare time at all.

 

Oof!

[Double-0-Seven]

 

Connery was 52 in Never Say Never Again.

Moore was 57 in A View To A Kill.

Brosnan was 50 in Die Another Day.

 

Daniel Craig is a baby!

 

Actually Connery was 51 in NSNA, Moore was 56 turning 57 in AVTAK and Brosnan was 48 turning 49 in DAD.

Don't make them older, than they were. ;-)

 

 

Connery was born in 1930, so by the time NSNA was released he was actually 53. During filming he was 52.

 

Moore was born in 1927. A View To A Kill had a summer release and Roger's birthday is in the fall so he was just shy of turning 58, which puts him at 57 during filming.

 

Brosnan was born in 1953, so you were right about his age.

[Dan Gale]

Let's remember Bond looks older after his death than the rest of the movie as he's 'lost a few pounds' (M's quote). Craig buffed up for Bond in 2006 and has obviously lost a bit of weight for 2012 as the story demanded it. You can't lose weight aged 44 without it showing on your face. By the end of the movie and in the press photos, he looks fine again. It's called method acting! He even - gasp - grew his own stubble...

Edited by Dan Gale, 09 January 2013 - 09:01 AM.

[Vauxhall]

Connery was 52 in Never Say Never Again.
Moore was 57 in A View To A Kill.
Brosnan was 50 in Die Another Day.
 
Daniel Craig is a baby!

Plus Craig is still younger than Roger Moore was in LIVE AND LET DIE. He's still got a good few years in him.

[S K Y F A L L]

I'm sure with the right price Mendes would be willing to return. I wonder if and what other projects he has been offered, Stat Wars maybe...

[Dan Gale]

I'm sure with the right price Mendes would be willing to return. I wonder if and what other projects he has been offered, Stat Wars maybe...

'Stat Wars'?
With everyone listing and correcting actor's ages and dates of birth, that's what this thread is quickly becoming...

[thecasinoroyale]

OK! Final word on the age debate:

 

Daniel Craig is perfect for Bond at this age. 'Skyfall' proved it. End.

 

 

Now, I hope that EON could bring Mendes back if the future award season shows big wins for 'Skyfall'. Not that this is a decisive factor to return, but it must add to the power that the team in 'Skyfall' have had to make it so successful, they'd want to continue the winning team in Bond 24.

 

As I've said in the past, I loved the "family feel" of the older films where it was the same cast and crew that made a few films so you'd know what to expect, you'd feel comfortable knowing you're in familiar ground and this is what I want after 'Skyfall'. To go see Bond 24 and feel comfortable I know we're in good hands once more with a dedicated cast and crew that we can experience a few films with, rather than every film being a gamble with new directors, new casting of characters etc...Bond films aren't a one-off chance to direct it your way with your fan-boy incorporations and homages and then hand over after for the next one to pick up and fix (Forster, looking at you here!), it should be taken on for at least 2-3 films to craft a fine story arc and move the series forward which I hope Mendes continue to do for one more, maybe even two?

[When In Egypt]

OK! Final word on the age debate:

 

Daniel Craig is perfect for Bond at this age. 'Skyfall' proved it. End.

 

 

Now, I hope that EON could bring Mendes back if the future award season shows big wins for 'Skyfall'. Not that this is a decisive factor to return, but it must add to the power that the team in 'Skyfall' have had to make it so successful, they'd want to continue the winning team in Bond 24.

 

As I've said in the past, I loved the "family feel" of the older films where it was the same cast and crew that made a few films so you'd know what to expect, you'd feel comfortable knowing you're in familiar ground and this is what I want after 'Skyfall'. To go see Bond 24 and feel comfortable I know we're in good hands once more with a dedicated cast and crew that we can experience a few films with, rather than every film being a gamble with new directors, new casting of characters etc...Bond films aren't a one-off chance to direct it your way with your fan-boy incorporations and homages and then hand over after for the next one to pick up and fix (Forster, looking at you here!), it should be taken on for at least 2-3 films to craft a fine story arc and move the series forward which I hope Mendes continue to do for one more, maybe even two?

I don't really want to see a Bond film knowing that the next two or three films are going to be just like that one.  

[thecasinoroyale]

I didn't mean the same as in what's on film, but the team behind and in front of the camera will be the same. The same cast to continue the stories of the characters rather than them leaving after one, in this case I hope Fiennes and Harris stick out their characters now we have been introduced to them for a few films rather then bin them.

 

And the technical crew who have the right imagination, expereince and skills used in 'Skyfall' to return for bigger and more ingenius creativity for Bond 24.

 

The story can be as different as it wants from 'Skyfall', but I want the same team so I know what to expect rather than the gamble of 'Quantum Of Solace' syndrome following the powerful 'Casino Royale'.

[When In Egypt]

I agree about returning actors in recurring roles and all that good stuff, but I was referring more to your point about story arcs.  I'm not terribly interested in that, to be honest.  I'd like each Bond film to offer something completely different to the last.  

 

One of the things I didn't like about Skyfall is that the Craig movies are really starting to feel samey.  Introducing another multi-film story arc isn't really going to shake it up very much!   But that's just me!

 

One of the negative things about a returning team, though, is the 'John Glen Syndrome'.  He made a couple of great Bond movies but his tenure is when they started to feel churned out, and they all sort of lost their edge a bit.

Edited by When In Egypt, 09 January 2013 - 11:57 AM.

[Hockey Mask]

I like how we have Bond-age discussions; that guy is too young, that guy is too old.  If we tried to please everyone we would have a three year window where we could only squeeze out two movies per actor.

 

History will decide when we're rewatching the movies and all we can think is..."Boy, he looks too old."

[thecasinoroyale]

As long as that winning Bond formula is present with a cast and crew dedicated, passionate and and technical enough to bring it to the big screen, and even with a different adventure each film without making them all linked, I'll be happy over the future years.

[danielcraig007casinoroyale]

Would love Mendes to return for Bond 24,but just can't see it.It's too much of a time commitment.All the pre production planning,filming,attending premieres.Probably well in excess of a year.

Am sure he has other projects he would like to start.Don't think throwing money at him is a factor.

Craig IMO is easily the best Bond,he has not aged well between C.R. and Skyfall. But this doesn't disqualify him for a few more.

Look at the visual difference in Sean Connery in YOLW  to DAF.

[SecretAgentFan]

I guess Mendes would not want to do another Bond directly after SKYFALL just because the chance of the next one not being as successful is just too high.

 

If Mendes did Bond 24 and it would not fare as well with the audience and the critics, people would blame him (oooh, he should have stopped when he was ahead, obviously he gave everything to 007 on SKYFALL already...)

 

Only if they tempt him with a ridiculous amount of money he will come back, I believe.

[Stavro]

I guess Mendes would not want to do another Bond directly after SKYFALL just because the chance of the next one not being as successful is just too high.

 

If Mendes did Bond 24 and it would not fare as well with the audience and the critics, people would blame him (oooh, he should have stopped when he was ahead, obviously he gave everything to 007 on SKYFALL already...)

 

Only if they tempt him with a ridiculous amount of money he will come back, I believe.

This has always happened, with directors and actors. And everything turned out all right in the end, at least I don't know any case where that wasn't true. He shouldn't be repulsed by what might happen if he's paid twice than what he was for Skyfall.

[SecretAgentFan]

"Everything turned out all right in the end"?

 

Well, for Coppola on "The Godfather II" maybe. But apart from that?

[bondjames]

I don't see what the big deal is about Mendes - Skyfall, while interesting - had way too many plot holes and Mendes should have fixed them..

 

I think the real contribution Mendes made to the movie was getting the great cast and the superb supporting team.

 

I'd much rather have Deakins back than Mendes - he made Skyfall with his wonderful cinematography - absolutely outstanding work.

 

In terms of directors - I want Martin Campbell - he's the only one from the recent past who knows how to nail a James Bond movie.

 

I agree with the comments about back to back shooting almost never working out - it's better to concentrate on one movie - make it a success - and then move on to the next one. Craig will still look good 5 years from now as long as he stays in shape. Viewers don't go to see a Daniel Craig movie because of his looks. It's his acting that clinches the deal.

[Hockey Mask]

In terms of directors - I want Martin Campbell - he's the only one from the recent past who knows how to nail a James Bond movie.

Except for the one who...

 

...made a Bond movie that is 92% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes.

...made a Bond movie that made more money than any other in the UK.

...made a Bond movie that will soon break $300 million in the US.

...made a Bond movie that has made more than a BILLION dollars around the world.

...made a movie that had strong whispers of being nominated for a Best Picture Oscar.

 

I undersand if Skyfall wasn't your cup of tea but don't reinvent history.  Mendes was under pressure to deliver for the 50th anniversary and he nailed it.

[bondjames]

Thank you for your comments. I'm not reinventing history. Just expressing my opinion, which is what a site like this is for is it not?

 

I am aware that Skyfall has made tons of money. So did Die Another Day. Your point?

 

It was not nominated for a best picture oscar, rumours until yesterday nothwithstanding.

 

I never said it was not entertaining. It was very entertaining. However, it had several plot holes that the director should have fixed. These plot holes have been documented ad nauseum on this website and on others. You should take a look at those comments.

 

So while it was a very entertaining movie with excellent cinematography (absolutely a class act here and it should win an oscar for it) and superb acting (all were well above par), it had flaws, and they were, for the most part, directorial flaws. Ignoring and/or glossing over this is short sighted, and will not result in a better Bond movie next time around. Highlighting it might.

Edited by bondjames, 12 January 2013 - 01:59 AM.

[Hockey Mask]

I respect you opinion but to say that Martin Campbell is the only recent director to "nail it" seems off.  Campbell makes a good Bond movie but I think, considering the results, Mendes "nailed it" on a whole new level.

[bondjames]

Your point is well taken and perhaps I am too effusive in my praise of Campbell.

 

Here's my point - distilled:

 

The world was waiting for an above average Bond movie (one that captured what a Bond movie should be - cinematographically, style wise and which had coherently viewable action) after Quantum of Solace, which while very inventive, was too different in many ways to satisfy. Skyfall delivered on this score and this was why it was a massive success. Its success is deserved. I'm not doubting or denigrating it but financial success/popularity is not a reflection of quality - not at all (If it were so, Justin Bieber would be considered a classic).

 

However, it's too early to judge it fairly in the context of 50 years of Bond. Give it a few more years - give it 10 - and then come back and judge it. Your opinion might be different. It had many plot points similar to one of the worst (in my opinion) Bond movies of the recent past - The World is Not Enough - I'm not going to go over it here but if you review that movie you'll see what I mean. Skyfall is therefore not as inventive as many are saying.

 

People just wanted a real Bond movie since it felt like so long since Casino Royale. Quantum was a disappointment to many - in my mind unfairly since it's one of the easiest Bond movies to get through if you just want a quick Bond fix - Marc Forster said he wanted the movie to feel like a speeding bullet and it really does - not one boring or slow moment  (just unexpectedly obscure - for Bond - cinematography that you can't really make out due to the speed of the editing).

 

Both Goldeneye (on the shoe-string budget that they had for that movie because they did not know if Bond was tenable in the 90's) and Casino Royale (a masterstroke that re-invented the franchise and which Skyfall has capitalized on and built off of) were superb and they are both standing the test of time to date - Goldeneye as Brosnan's best work and Casino Royale as having brought Bond back in a big and re-invented way. Campbell understands pacing, Bond's history, the romance of Bond, how to cast a Bond film properly (particularly the women - the casting for M, Onatopp, Simonova, Lynd and Solange were beyond reproach) and the action (1. the opening scenes of Casino Royale in Africa on the crane are as good if not better than anything that has come before or afterwards in any action franchise in my opinion - particularly the parkour; 2. the staircase fight in Casino Royale was up there with the best in terms of real hardcore contact - you felt it when Bond's head hit that wall, 3. the Trevalyn/Bond fight on top of the transmitter in Goldeneye was very visceral and up there with the seminal Grant/Bond fight in From Russia with Love).

 

Time is the true judge of quality and we are not there yet with Skyfall. I will stand corrected if it's judged as a classic 10 years from now. And remember, I still think it is a very entertaining movie and obviously exceptionally successful - just that directorially it has flaws. Cinematograpically it is brilliant (better than Campbell's work due primarily to Deakin's visual genius) and that is clouding people's judgement.

Edited by bondjames, 12 January 2013 - 04:52 AM.

[Hockey Mask]

Well said and I now understand where you are coming from,  Moonraker was a huge success that didn't age well while OHMSS did quite the opposite.  I have heard your Justin Bieber argument before and it isn't completely fair.  Skyfall has had financial success, positive audience reaction and critical praise.  it is this critical praise that seperates Skyfall from Justin Bieber, Die Another Day, and Moonraker.  I'm not sure how long a movie must "age" before it proves itself.  Ten years (Casino Royale) doesn't seem long enough,  Maybe I am just getting old but 20 years seems more appropriate.  I will agree that "time" is the last hurdle Skyfall has to pass but I think you would probably agree that Skyfall and Casino Royale seem to have a quality about them that should keep them from degrading over time.

 

No hard feelings.  Maybe we can agree that we want Campbell and Mendes should alternate directing the next few movies.