84 replies to this topic

[Eddie Burns]

Hello everyone,

 

The thread title is not meant to shock. It is just my honest opinion as to why I cannot wait till the Craig era is done. I shall try to explain my reasons below.

 

First let me start by saying I am a DC fan. I liked Layer Cake and had no doubt as to his capability of portraying 007. I loved CR, and enjoyed his performances in Defiance and GWTDT. Going by his success on the stage, he seems like a great stage actor as well. However....

 

Ever since his performance in CR, I've grown numb to his take on Bond. I could possibly be the only one that sees this, but he just seems to be going through the motions now, for lack of a better way to describe it. That is not to say his professionalism is in question (especially in the action scenes), or that he's reached a Connery YOLT level of performance, but I get the feeling that he's just doing it for the paycheck. Like he doesn't really believe in the character or material. It's strange. I could be very wrong of course, but has Craig ever really talked about his Bond character with enthusiasm? Like, where he would like to take him and what legacy he wants to leave behind. I look and search through articles and interviews and there is really nothing, except promoting the latest film or when it does come to the character, it all appears rather shallow. Now Bond isn't Shakespeare, but considering the more serious direction the films have taken, and all the hullabaloo about going back to Fleming, it doesn't really look like Craig even cares for Fleming. Logan does mention that he's read Fleming, but I'm assuming every writer on the Bond movies has done that. The main issue is whether and how it transferred on screen. I feel with each passing movie since CR, we are getting further and further away.   

 

I cannot fault his performance in CR, it was by far one of the top 3 Bond performances so far. I felt he was directed well by Campbell. I hated QoS so I'll skip that. Skyfall was just....meh. And what I mean by 'meh' was that it all felt forced. It is a good movie technically speaking, but I find so many things wrong with it, things that go beyond plot holes. For example, his interaction with Silva when first meeting him was a damp squid. No wit, delivery was dry and the whole scene just looked pointless. I don't think Bardem and Craig really bought into what they were saying and it all felt as if they were reading their lines on cue. Bardem at least tried to come across interesting but the dialogue lacked power and conviction. Compare to when Bond met Dr. No, or the dialogue with Red Grant after being knocked out, or Bond and Mr. Big, Goldfinger at the golf course etc.. All those scenes heightened the tension, and the dialogue was sharp. Craig, with the exception of Le Chiffre to a small extent, doesn't seem to be able to build a good chemistry with the villains. However, i will admit that I am not sure whether that is the fault of the delivery or script.

 

Craig also doesn't embody, at least physically, what Bond is. A tall refined cat/panther like human cold blooded killer, with a knowing smirk and a little rough around the edges. Craig is just a short rough battering ram, though he did get Bond's fighting style spot on. However I'd love to see the brawler style that Craig has pretty much perfected on a cat/panther like Bond. I believe such a juxtaposition would make Bond a more interesting character. Also I dislike his running style. Lazenby ran like a man, Connery did, and Craig did in CR (Madagascar). However in some running scenes, Craig runs like he's in a marching band, SF being the culprit that brought this to light for me. 

 

Overall, I don't find his Bond interesting, and i feel I am backed up by the evidence of giving supporting characters more screen time. If people haven't already noticed, but the Bond movies are slowly becoming MI6 movies or Spooks movies. There is no need for M, Moneypenny, Q to all have 'time in the field'. The actors playing those roles should be thankful that they have pretty much been immortalized in the film world by appearing in a Bond movie as those characters. Craig was pretty much playing second fiddle to Dench in SF. I recently watched SF again, and my favorite bit lasted from when Bond met M and Mallory, till the point where Bond returned Silva to MI6. It was like a mini classic Bond movie with a Craig twist and it worked. Bond flirted with Moneypenny, got his briefing, met Q, bedded the girl, killed the henchman, and captured the baddie. All this with no Judi Dench or MI6 in his ear. Though Moneypenny seemed to be shoehorned in while in Macau. 

 

Unless Bond 24 focuses on just Bond, the villain and a great plot, coupled with great dialogue and the effort in making Bond interesting again, I think I'll be counting down the clock till the next Bond is hired. Craig has yet to top his performance in CR, and I find myself wondering if he ever will. Forster had no idea about the character, and Mendes just copied Nolan. Message to Eon, the lack of Bond theme is annoying, and please put the bloody gun barrel at the beginning or just not use it at all. If you really want to wink at the audience, introduce the John Barry's heroic 007 theme, let us see Bond sleep with a gun under his pillow and actually use it, let us see his snobbishness with food and drink and clothes. Get creative. Let us give Bond another definitive car, confine the DB9  to the 20th Century, Give Craig authority through his dialogue, not just the action scenes and scowls. Get creative, creative creative. The Bond universe is the most uninhibited one in all of cinema, it should really be paving roads. I never bought into how restrictive most directors say it is, and for that matter, Peter Morgan. Just focus on the character, villain, throw in an interesting Bond girl, a great plot and dialogue, and great action and viola! No formula, play around with that.

 

Ok, i guess Mendes wouldn't be coming back if he didn't think he could top SF. Yes the paycheck must have been tempting, but creatively he must think there things he could do better. Fingers crossed  

[Jim]

Lots to think about there, thanks. Is Bond meant to be inherently interesting? If his creator had found him that interesting would we have had such absurd additional characters surrounding him? Depends what one finds interesting and that's too subjective to argue about.

 

The concept of a damp squid as opposed to a damp squib is amusing. I'd have thought squid have a tendency towards the moist.

Can't help thinking the demands for creativity are undermined by seeking Bond theme, 007 theme and gun barrel. They are being creative with those things at the moment. Might not be in an appealing direction for some/many but again that's too subjective to actually worry about. Interesting list of desired elements - was there ever that much of a viola in previous Bonds? I seem to remember a cello. Voila!

 

Seems a bit unrealistic that one would hire those of the calibre / cvs of Ms. Harris and Messrs. Wishaw and Feinnes, or Dame Judi Dench, and not use them, or expect them to be "thankful".

 

Do you consider that the current handling of the films will actually end with "Craig"? I doubt it. They've set out their stall pretty bluntly now and it has been financially successful. Tonally, we've got years to come of drafting in name directors rather than slapping a gun barrel on five cottage-industry diminishments, barely bean-tin distinct from each other, delivered unto us by in-house John. There are different production aspirations now. "Better" is again too subjective.

 

Bond spending a third of the adventure hanging around with M at his Working Men's Club / Bond having Christmas dinner with M / Bond not appearing in nearly half of the story (twice) - time to go back to Fleming. Come to think of it, did you mean a giant squid rather than a damp one?

 

Sorry; am not meaning to be dismissive - I think you raise many sound points about the direction of the series. I'm perhaps more confident than you that variety will allow it to persist.

[Guy Haines]

Agreed, interesting views. Craig doesn't physically conform to the stereotype Bond, but for me he's made Bond interesting in all three films, and I don't think he's just going through the motions for the paycheck. These films represent Bond in the early stages of his Double O career - he's not going to be the tuxedo-martini-shaken-not-stirred type yet. What is interesting is seeing this Bond develop, from recruit to the OO-section in CR to hardened but temporarily disillusioned agent in SF. I've no complaints with the way Craig puts over this.

 

I'm not quite sure what is meant by the Bond team being "creative, creative, creative". In playing with the expectations of the audience in the last three films, I'd say the Bond team has been, to an extent.  The thrust of the lead post in this thread seems, to me at least, to be that Bond isn't, at the moment, conforming to the typical pre-reboot structure and style of a Bond story. Too much screen time for M, etc. Bond not sleeping with a gun under his pillow - although I do think that Craig's Bond hasn't yet been successful in sleeping with a woman and then ensuring she lasts until the final reel. That is something that should be put right in future Craig movies, and I'll be surprised if it isn't.

 

The lead post here seems to call for a return to certain elements as before - Bond as a "cat like" character with a knowing smirk, although the Bond of the Fleming novels was never quite the same as the Bond of the films. Supporting characters like M, Q, Moneypenny relegated to traditional and predictable cameos. Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw and Naomie Harris might be willing to pick up a decent pay check for five minutes total on screen, but I doubt they've been hired for that. We'll see how it works out in Bond 24, but I can't see it just being M handing Bond the assignment, Q handing Bond the gadgets and Moneypenny pining for 007 from behind her laptop.

 

Lack of chemistry with the villains? Villainy has been a weak point in the Bond movies for years, before Craig. I got the impression, at times, that the screenwriters didn't want to build up the bad guy, or girl, so as not to overshadow whoever was playing Bond. But I think there was a chemistry between Daniel Craig and Mads Mikklesen in CR - particularly in the torture scene. QoS - I don't think so. Greene was "the bad guy", but he was a device used by Bond to get to the "real bad guy" he wanted, Kabira. SF is different. Silva permeates the movie even though we don't see him until the second half. It reminded me of the way the film "Silence Of The Lambs" was dominated by Anthony Hopkins' Lecter, even though he's on for, at most, thirty minutes total screen time. (I suppose it's just a co-incidence that we have a scene in SF where Silva is in a toughened glass cage in prison garb!) Besides, with Silva, the chemistry is as much with M as Bond.

 

And the use of the traditional "gunbarrel". I don't think we will see it back at the start of a Bond film in future, not during the Craig era, possibly not thereafter. I'd like to see it's restoration, but I think the producers and successive directors have settled on relegating it to the end, and the reason  may be as simple as to distinguish the films from CR 2006 onwards from what went before. Not that they aren't proud of what was in the past, just to remind the audience that this is now a new era of Bond, no matter who plays him.

 

As for Daniel Craig not showing "enthusiasm" for Bond - how does he compare with his predecessors? Sean Connery played the part with enthusiasm but came to resent it. George Lazenby definitely wanted the part and went to unusual lengths to get it, but  by his own admission was persuaded that Bond was old hat by the time he'd finished OHMSS and dropped out. Roger Moore threw himself into the role but in an interview I recall said that, so far as the character was concerned, he didn't think there was much to go on. I got the impression from that interview that if Bond was a real person Sir Roger might not take to him. Timothy Dalton was enthusiastic about the Bond of the books, but took the part at a time when the direction he wanted for Bond didn't fit completely with the general tone of the films. His reward was just two, albeit memorable movies and years waiting to do a third one or to be replaced.  Pierce Brosnan  was enthusiastic also  but he very carefully made sure he had a Hollywood career going on outside the series - just as well in the circumstances. I don't think Daniel Craig is displaying any more, or less, enthusiasm for Bond than those who came before. Craig has had a distinguished career outside the Bond films, and I think he's now in a position where if he didn't want to continue he could say no, bumper pay check or not. The fact that he's on board for the next two tells me he's enthusiastic, although maybe not about expounding at length about Bond. In the end, Bond is a film role, not a way of life.

[SecretAgentFan]

Eddie Burns is absolutely right: filmmakers should be creative, creative creative.

[Odd Jobbies]

...Timothy Dalton was enthusiastic about the Bond of the books, but took the part at a time when the direction he wanted for Bond didn't fit completely with the general tone of the films....

 

It was odd, as i too recall him being enthusiastic about Fleming's literary Bond, but at the same time there was the big political correction of what the male cinematic hero was supposed to be. Thus Bond shouldn't smoke and should not do so much womanising  - something daft like one bond girl per movie was talked about. This was also partly due to HIV - that Bond should not encourage it's spread!

 

Sadly i recall Dalton endorsing this misguided direction for Bond, which is totally add odds with Fleming's vision of a man living constantly on the edge of life, taking the more enjoyable excesses wherever he found them. Thus Dalton's Bond became a bit of a goody-two shoes bore. 10 years earlier, or 10 years later he would've been fantastic.

 

However, these are indeed vague recollections, so do correct me if in fact Dalton decried the damage this PC revision of Bond was doing.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 15 March 2014 - 11:58 AM.

[Secret007]

I had a hard time trying to accept Daniel Craig as James Bond. I have watched Casino Royale (2006) and Quantum of Solace (2008) over and over again waiting for Skyfall.  I did see Skyfall in the movie theater under the IMAX one-day-early special. I still have not bought Skyfall (2012) on DVD.  I have gotten use to him, but...

 I will be honest. Daniel Craig as James Bond would not have been my choice. I would like to see a new actor play James Bond.

 With all the interruptions, they have had with getting a Bond movie into production and Daniel Craig only has 3 James Bond movies under his belt, of course they want to let him do more.

  The problem is we are used to having a James Bond movie every 2 years and that is the way it should stay, but now EON producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli gave us the slip and went for 3 years later instead. They keep on spreading the Bond movies further apart. It drives me crazy as I am getting older and I want to see as many more new James Bond movies as I can.

 I do like the fact that Daniel Craig has made Bond more 3-deminsional making him stronger and faster, even doing his own stunts. But I am still used to the Roger Moore type of James Bond. suave, classy, serious, finds the humor, debonair. Always a gentleman.

  You are right that Daniel Craig does not show emotion very well. I disliked the scene in Skyfall when Lady M died. Their was no emotional build-up to her death. The scene was so bland. Daniel Craig holding her and the tear down his face looked like it was created by CGI-effects.  Timothy Dalton probably could have done the death and crying scene better with real tears.

  You make a point about Daniel Craig playing Bond, as if he just shows up and says the line.

  I think the young movie viewers that do not know the work of Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton don't even know what James Bond is all about. I think Roger Moore was the perfect James Bond  and I liked Sean Conney and Timothy Dalton as well.  While I really enjoyed the Pierce Brosnan-Bond movies, he seemed kind of cold sometimes, without expression.

  Yes, I am ready for a new actor to play James Bond and its not going to happen until 2019-2021. I think they keep spreading the James Bond movies out longer because they want Daniel Craig to be James Bond the longest beating Roger Moore's record  of 14 years. Daniel Craig would have to play Bond to 2021.  UGH!

I do not see Daniel Craig doing 7 Bond movies, not if they continue this gruelling 3 years apart for a movie.

Sean Connery had a short reign as James Bond from 1962-67, returning in 1971 and 1985, but we have 7 great James Bond movies to enjoy of him.

  Daniel Craig has Bond 24 (2015) and Bond 25 (2017 or 2018) to do and that should be the last of it, unless Michael G. Wilson has his way and extends his contract into the 2020's and for one movie every 3 years. I will need a pacemaker by then.  It will be an effort to try and lift my leg up the stairs of the movie theater.

  Thanks for reading my ranting and raving.

[SecretAgentFan]

I´m pretty sure that EON and/or SONY would rather have a 2-year pause between Bond films.  And if SKYFALL had not turned out to be such a monster hit, everybody involved would have looked for another director and we would have gotten a new Bond film this year.

 

But the financial success of SKYFALL has scared potential directors away - nobody wanted to become the guy who could not make a Bond film that was not as successful as SKYFALL.

 

I can imagine BOND 24 to become less successful (law of diminishing returns, no anniversary, not the kind of event SKYFALL was after all the legal difficulties and the danger of further delays). 

 

I can also imagine BOND 24 to become even more successful (an even bigger built-in audience, easier marketing because of SKYFALL´s success).

 

But I doubt that Mendes will return for BOND 25.  And everybody involved, most of all Craig himself, are absolutely aware that the lead actor´s increasing age will not work in favor of the whole enterprise.  So I predict they will want to shorten the window between Bond films again.  If they really can make three more films or even for, they will come much quicker.

 

And if not, Craig will leave after BOND 25.

Edited by SecretAgentFan, 15 March 2014 - 04:41 PM.

[FlemingBond]

I don't know what to say to this other than I was skeptical when Craig was cast, but he won me over . I didn't feel him going through the motions in Skyfall, and I'm sorry that he has only two more films probably.

[Hansen]

Fully agree, Eddy. Bond has become a man of his time in films of his time and it is boring.

CR was great become Fleming and a terrific adaptation. QoS was Bourne-like and SF was Nolan-like. I am prettty convinced that this era will be seen as one of the 'blandest' (not sure if this word exists - forgive my french -) of th Franchise.

I was a Craig believer. He started great and disappointed twice in a row.

Worst thing is that it seems that producers themselves do not know Bond any more.

[Simon]

If creativity is the subject in question, I would submit this is a period exemplifying the most creativity in the series' duration.

 

Gun barrels at the end of the movie, non-conformist looking Bond, Bond unfit, little use of the Bond / 007 theme, and personal opinion that QoS really did try something different in so many ways (short film duration, sequel, location name titles, no end title relationship with the girl)

 

Irrelevantly, and perhaps irreverently, all three of Craig's movies have showcased rain.  Not sure where that thoughts goes but, yuh know... Rain.

 

Damp cephalopods and musical intrument intrusions notwithstanding, the initial post offered some reasonable thoughts but I do feel that the 'creativity' is actually more in evidence than ever before.  Whether this actually accentuates or allows the 'feel' of a Bond film or not is down to the viewer and perhaps their knowlege or awareness of source material...

 

For my part, Skyfall, as the most recent entry, fell only because of the sequential reliance on the most preposterous of coincidental plot devices.

 

Onwards,

[Colossus]

Great topic which i admittedly haven't read though the OP yes, i agree and also agree that they can still improve. Seems it's a process and takes a couple films to get the marbles right

[Eddie Burns]

All good responses and nice to see a reasonable debate.

 

I guess what I mean by creativity goes beyond having the gun barrel at the end, choppy Bourne-like editing, and playing the Bond theme as rarely as possible. CR got it spot on in the creativity department. So spot on that it's basically regarded as the best reboot in the history of reboots. The subsequent two movies just copied and pasted from other franchises. They both gave me the 'where have I seen this before?' feeling and I immediately just lost interest. Yes in the realm of Bond movies they are very creative, but saying that about a series that was in a straight jacket for the best part of 4 decades is not saying much. I guess I want more. The producers/writers/directors are clearly struggling with creating new iconography while at the same time blending it with the old one. A poster above said that it appears that the producers do not seem to know the character anymore, and I am inclined to agree. It seems they have lost faith in the sole strength of the character. Let us not forget, Terence Young is the one who deserves credit for transferring the Bond of the books to the big screen. He made him interesting, a character that stood out. It was a ballsy move then, but since that golden era, Bond has just shrunk deeper into his shell. 

 

Where is Bond's intelligence? Now he's just a battering ram. When has Craig's Bond shown any guile, his ability to think himself out of any dangerous situations? He makes stupid decisions after stupid decisions, resulting in shootouts. Its all rather dull. Look at how Bond outmaneuvers Grant, his *operation grand slam, for instance?* line, even something as small as *you fools! He's got you all shooting at each other!* is just typical James Bond. I don't see any creativity with these new films.

 

This era, like the Brosnan one, is considered great while we are in the midst of it, with constant pointing at box office returns as proof of this, but I do not think it will be looked at all that fondly in the future. At least outside CR, which is a classic. They can rectify that with B24, so there is still hope. The hope largely stems from Logan given sole script duties, and he happens to be a Fleming fan, and Mendes having no Nolan movie to copy from. They can not shoehorn in the Aston as that's finally been rid of, and Newman may well actually try and score the movie appropriately with a central theme. Craig is getting older so i expect him to use his head more than fists. Give us a straight forward Bond movie, but keep the serious tone, give us fresh characters, excellent dialogue and plot. The real challenge now is creating something interesting within that frame, something new and exciting. Make Bond central to the story, put him in situations that need all his cunning to get out of. Have Bond have a scene with the Bond girl with plausible seduction and dialogue. The Solange pick up was great in CR, because it told us a lot about the character of Bond that was consistent with Fleming and previous cinematic Bond. Dumping your friend in a dumpster, or joking when a Bond girl gets shot in front of his eyes is not consistent with his character, so I hope they stop with all the confusion. And the last thing that gives me hope, Mendes would not be coming back if he didn't think Skyfall could be improved on or to do more of the same.

 

As for MI6, I don't really care who plays who outside of M, and it shouldn't determine how much screen time each actor gets. As long as the characters do what they do and do it well is all i care. Lois Maxwell or Lleweyn were not angling for larger roles. They knew their roles and played them well enough to form a connection with movie goers spanning generations. I'm here to watch James Bond, not the Harris and Winshaw supporting cast show. Fiennes is fine, in fact he's great and I think he'll be the best M we have ever had. 

 

A little background on me....I'm 30yo, grew up on SC and RM from my dad's vhs collection, but my first Bond in the cinema was PB. I have read all Fleming. I understand the senior Bond fans and get the junior ones. Give GL a crash course in acting and he'd be my favorite, but as it stands SC is the best by miles. Connery was the total package, he brought a gravitas to the role but also a lightness of touch that all came to him naturally on screen. The subsequent actors, as much as I love all of them, could only bring one of the two. Worst Bond movie...QoS. My top 5 in no particular order...DN, FRWL, TB, CR, OHMSS. 

[Zen Razor]

It looks like you are just suffering from nostalgia. It looks like you just miss some of the old Bond films. I don't really think Marching Bands really run but Daniel is really good at what he does I'm sure that Daniel doesn't feel like he's doing it for just a check. Logan along with Mendes still feel enthusiasm not long ago Logan talked about how making these films are some of most fun he had from writing films and that means a lot from todays business. If Daniel wasn't dedicated to Bond he would have left long ago he signed for more films even with the accidents he had in Casino and QOS he came back the same afternoon to film some more. The fight scene on the train in SF was no double, Daniel told Sam he was willing to give the stunt a try even considering how dangerous it is so surely Daniel isn't tired I just think he found his right feel for Bond so it makes him look original. Sure the Old Bond was taller and what not but lets look at the positives about Daniel and what he did for Bond. Long ago Bond wasn't much of a fighter ever since Daniel he became a really amazing fighter not some pushover. Daniel made Bond look like the badass he is now. Not that it didn't happen before more now it's more visual. Skyfall was a really important film for M that's why she was featured a lot and I'm glad the cast is getting some screen time rather than before it was just talk and you don't see them at all. Moneypenny would always sit at her desk but never really did anything. Q is now providing Bond with the info he needs. It just sounds like you miss some of the old Bond. We won't know about Daniels legacy until he stops being Bond. When Pierce was Bond it was okay but when he wasn't anymore it was easier to see the legacy he left behind. Trust me Daniel is truly putting his time into Bond and he's great just like the ones before.

[Hansen]

Stating that before was better is not automatically nostalgia, sometimes it is fact ;-)

in regards of the role of the supporting cast in SF, remember that Moneypenny shoots Bond and Q makes Silva escape.

It seems that his colleagues  are his most dangerous ennemies these days. It is strange character development.

I'd rather have them sitting at their desk but doing their job properly

[Jim]

So the proposition is about the creativity of the Bond character himself and the creativity of the production of the series generally?

 

Interesting.  

 

Insofar as the initial post (and the title of the thread) seemed to suggest that your disquiet on both could come to an end once Mr Craig leaves the part, one of them may happen, depending on whoever is cast and whoever writes the scripts, but I'm not totally sold on the other idea. I suspect this is their holding pattern for some time to come and won't alter as radically as it did on the last change of actor.

[Walecs]

Logan does mention that he's read Fleming, but I'm assuming every writer on the Bond movies has done that. 

 

I highly doubt this. Whoever wrote the screenplay for YOLT, DAF, most of Moore movies and DAD cannot have read the Bond movies.

Edited by Walecs, 16 March 2014 - 10:43 AM.

[SecretAgentFan]

All good responses and nice to see a reasonable debate.

 

I guess what I mean by creativity goes beyond having the gun barrel at the end, choppy Bourne-like editing, and playing the Bond theme as rarely as possible. CR got it spot on in the creativity department. So spot on that it's basically regarded as the best reboot in the history of reboots. The subsequent two movies just copied and pasted from other franchises. They both gave me the 'where have I seen this before?' feeling and I immediately just lost interest. Yes in the realm of Bond movies they are very creative, but saying that about a series that was in a straight jacket for the best part of 4 decades is not saying much. I guess I want more. The producers/writers/directors are clearly struggling with creating new iconography while at the same time blending it with the old one. A poster above said that it appears that the producers do not seem to know the character anymore, and I am inclined to agree. It seems they have lost faith in the sole strength of the character. Let us not forget, Terence Young is the one who deserves credit for transferring the Bond of the books to the big screen. He made him interesting, a character that stood out. It was a ballsy move then, but since that golden era, Bond has just shrunk deeper into his shell. 

 

Where is Bond's intelligence? Now he's just a battering ram. When has Craig's Bond shown any guile, his ability to think himself out of any dangerous situations? He makes stupid decisions after stupid decisions, resulting in shootouts. Its all rather dull. Look at how Bond outmaneuvers Grant, his *operation grand slam, for instance?* line, even something as small as *you fools! He's got you all shooting at each other!* is just typical James Bond. I don't see any creativity with these new films.

 

This era, like the Brosnan one, is considered great while we are in the midst of it, with constant pointing at box office returns as proof of this, but I do not think it will be looked at all that fondly in the future. At least outside CR, which is a classic. They can rectify that with B24, so there is still hope. The hope largely stems from Logan given sole script duties, and he happens to be a Fleming fan, and Mendes having no Nolan movie to copy from. They can not shoehorn in the Aston as that's finally been rid of, and Newman may well actually try and score the movie appropriately with a central theme. Craig is getting older so i expect him to use his head more than fists. Give us a straight forward Bond movie, but keep the serious tone, give us fresh characters, excellent dialogue and plot. The real challenge now is creating something interesting within that frame, something new and exciting. Make Bond central to the story, put him in situations that need all his cunning to get out of. Have Bond have a scene with the Bond girl with plausible seduction and dialogue. The Solange pick up was great in CR, because it told us a lot about the character of Bond that was consistent with Fleming and previous cinematic Bond. Dumping your friend in a dumpster, or joking when a Bond girl gets shot in front of his eyes is not consistent with his character, so I hope they stop with all the confusion. And the last thing that gives me hope, Mendes would not be coming back if he didn't think Skyfall could be improved on or to do more of the same.

 

As for MI6, I don't really care who plays who outside of M, and it shouldn't determine how much screen time each actor gets. As long as the characters do what they do and do it well is all i care. Lois Maxwell or Lleweyn were not angling for larger roles. They knew their roles and played them well enough to form a connection with movie goers spanning generations. I'm here to watch James Bond, not the Harris and Winshaw supporting cast show. Fiennes is fine, in fact he's great and I think he'll be the best M we have ever had. 

 

A little background on me....I'm 30yo, grew up on SC and RM from my dad's vhs collection, but my first Bond in the cinema was PB. I have read all Fleming. I understand the senior Bond fans and get the junior ones. Give GL a crash course in acting and he'd be my favorite, but as it stands SC is the best by miles. Connery was the total package, he brought a gravitas to the role but also a lightness of touch that all came to him naturally on screen. The subsequent actors, as much as I love all of them, could only bring one of the two. Worst Bond movie...QoS. My top 5 in no particular order...DN, FRWL, TB, CR, OHMSS. 

 

I probably should not - but I can´t help myself.

 

Mr. Burns, you´re raising a not too original topic - which is, of course, perfectly fine on a message board.  But I welcome you welcoming a reasonable debate.

 

I only think that you do not offer many reasonable arguments.  Let me try to show why.

 

1)  Terence Young definitely deserves credit for helping Sean Connery grow into the role - but even this and his direction, of course, was guided by Broccoli and Saltzman.  The Movie-Bond is EON´s creation.  And despite the usual fights between two creative people, Broccoli & Saltzman remained responsible for every change Movie-Bond went through.  One can safely say that Albert R. Broccoli was even more important since he actually managed to help Movie-Bond survive successfully until "Goldeneye", bringing in his stepson and daughter to guide the franchise not only through difficult times but to keep on re-inventing it.  It would have been impossible to yield results that everybody loved.  Some experiments worked, some not, but in the end, they all worked well enough to still line up people at the box office, wanting to see the next Bond film.  A gigantic feat.

 

2)  James Bond as a character is mostly a cipher.  We know very little of him, and he always reacts the same way.  This character does not grow, he is what he is, like a sitcom character.  And that´s perfectly fine.  Turning him into something else would destroy everything - because Bond is not meant to change.  Every new actor impersonating Bond brings his own qualities to the role, but only highlighting what is already there.  Craig´s forte: determination, quiet resolve, strength and sardonic humor.  Now, you might not like him because he is not as handsome as the previous actors or as funny or as emotional or whatever.  But he certainly helped to change the narrow corset of expectations about what Bond should look like. And he was accepted as Bond by the majority of the audience.  That cannot be explained away.

 

3) You question that Craig-Bond is not intelligent anymore, that he is only making mistakes resulting in shootouts. 

 

Here are just a few examples to prove you wrong: Bond outsmarts his superiors at every turn in QOS;  Bond persuades M to send him back into the field in SKYFALL;  Bond impersonates the killer to gain access to Silva;  Bond uses the Komodo dragons to get out of his predicament;  Bond outsmarts Silva and his goons so that he does not have to kill Severine;  Bond saves M during the shootout at the hearing, helping Fiennes-M to support him.

 

Sure, he makes mistakes along the way - but he always made them.  And your example of Bond mentioning Operation Grand Slam to Goldfinger is not proving his intelligence but only his desperation, as Goldfinger explicitly notices.

 

4)  You just slam the recent films by stating that you do not see any creativity in them.  I would go out on a limb here by saying that you do not want to see the creativity or that you just are not able to.  There are numerous examples how creative the films actually treat the Bond formula, i.e.  the visual ideas of QOS (the opera sequence), reversing the "Bond invades the villain´s lair"-idea in the SKYFALL-finale.

 

5)  You dismiss Newman´s score because you missed a central theme?  If you listen to the score you will notice how many great themes he actually uses AND orchestrates in a very Barry-esque way (i.e. Severine´s theme, the arrival at Skyfall, M´s death)

 

6)  You wish for EON to make Bond central to the story again.  What else did they do in CR, QOS and SKYFALL?  You long for fresh characters and excellent dialogue - well, QOS and SKYFALL offered plenty of that. A plausible seduction?  Severine, check!

 

7) "Dumping your friend in a dumpster - or joking when a Bond girl is shot in front of his eyes is not consistent with his character"

I think you completely misunderstood the intent of these scenes.  Getting rid of Mathis (after having him die in Bond´s arms, another unusual and wonderfully creative way to show Bond, by the way) was not disrespectful but a clear - and very Flemingesque - nod to the expendability of secret agents.  Also, Bond needed to gain time to escape the authorities.  And to have Bond make a sardonic joke about the Scotch after Silva has shot Severine is so typical for Bond that I wonder why you did not understand that: he deflects fear because he does not want to show Silva how affected he is.

 

Wow, seven points.  Didn´t even do that intentionally. 

Edited by SecretAgentFan, 16 March 2014 - 01:54 PM.

[Professor Pi]

I think his "waste of Scotch" quote also represents two other things: 

 

1)  it reflects the hardening of his character toward the female sex.  Whether this sets up the casual womanizing of the traditional Bond character or his squashing of painful emotions from Vesper's suicide is consistent with the remark.

 

2)  It is also symbolic of the waste of people women like Severin find themselves in.  Were it not for her past in the sex industry, were it not for her getting involved with Silva, her life as a person need not have been wasted.

 

And this ties in the 'dumpster' scene from QoS too.  Mathis' life, once ended, is now a waste.  It sets up the later line "the dead don't care about vengeance."   Indeed, Bond tells Camille to educate people about Greene's water theft and corruption, to which she says, "not a bad idea."

 

However, what all these scenes need, especially in QoS, is Mathis' speech to Bond from the CR novel about the nature of evil.  He advises Bond to surround himself with people that care for him and mean something to him.  That sentiment leads to Tracy in OHMSS, and I'm looking forward to how EON may incorporate something similar for Craig's final Bond film.

Edited by Professor Pi, 16 March 2014 - 04:40 PM.

[tdalton]

If creativity is the subject in question, I would submit this is a period exemplifying the most creativity in the series' duration.

 

 

Exactly.  The films today are showing infinitely more creativity than they have since the end of the Connery Era.  They're actually going out and hiring top notch creative talent to come in and make these films, rather than simply churning out a new film every year or every other year with the same in-house production team that, let's be honest, had a tendency to churn out films that were often times very similar to each other (YOLT/TSWLM/TND being a prime example).  They're taking some risks with the character, and the films, now.  Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't, but it's ridiculous to say that they're not being creative, especially when a major complain presented is that there is a lack of the kind of iconography that stifles creativity.  Then there's the fact that these films follow the era of Bond films that were so wildly non-creative that it's very difficult to level the charge against the Craig films that they are lacking in creativity.  

Edited by tdalton, 16 March 2014 - 07:09 PM.

[Hansen]

Hey Tim,

I agree that the issue is not specific to Craig but at the time of Connery and even Moore, Bond was a reference.

Now it is a copycat and it is even more obvious with Craig (Bourne, Nolan...)

For me, it mostly the lack of Fleming material and the lack of talent of the scriptwriters Eon hires.

A proof ? When they go back to Fleming, it is perfect. See CR

[glidrose]

Logan does mention that he's read Fleming, but I'm assuming every writer on the Bond movies has done that. 

 
I highly doubt this. Whoever wrote the screenplay for YOLT, DAF, most of Moore movies and DAD cannot have read the Bond movies.

Dahl, Mankiewicz, Wood, Maibaum, Wilson, and Purvis & Wade read the novels.

[Turn]

First, this is one of the better debates I've seen on here in a while. I'm open to hearing other views as long as they don't fall into the craigisnotbond variety or using the standard too short, blond, etc. debates. Bond is about attitude and what an actor brings to the table more than just being tall and having dark hair. That's where Craig has reenergized the series for me.

 

One of the points Eddie Burns brought up was how the Connery Bond stood out. At the time that's not surprising as there weren't the tons of action heroes there are today. Back in 1962 the big macho hero was, who, John Wayne? Bond blended the rugged action hero with the suave of a Cary Grant or David Niven. This is where Craig really works in that he brought new possibilities. Conflicted and physically imposing.

 

For me that certainly beats the overconfident, which billionaire will threaten the world this time feel of the Moore years. Sure some of those were fun, but having lived through that era I can tell you there was a safeness that made it pretty stagnant until Dalton came on the scene. I felt much of the same in the Brosnan years. He was lauded as the best Bond since Connery, I suspect mostly because he fit the general idea of what Bond should look like for the general public.

 

It hasn't been until Craig that the series has really hit new levels of freshness and excitement and I dread when he leaves to see who replaces him. I'll hope for the best but to say he hasn't revolutionized what James Bond could be and where the series could grow is to be turning a blind eye.

[freemo]

I think it's always a mistake to assume that the most recent film represents the permanent or even medium-term future direction of the series. But...

 

I found SKYFALL to be beautifully made, but also annoying and superficially "profound" (and why do Bond movies nowadays always seem to be about the Bond series? Seems a little bit, um, hopelessly deriviative and self-obsessed to me.). I too prefer the joy and those subtleties of the older films that Eddie Burns mentioned. But then, all through the Brosnan years when they were making imitiation "classic Bond", I urged for them to break free of the formula and all that "continuing the legacy" guff, and instead do their own thing. Not more "the same, but different", but rather "different, but the same". Revoltion instead of evolution. And that's what they've done. Be careful what you wish for? Nah. If I'm not into SKYFALL and all the MI6 stuff, and if some of the style and some of these "dang new fangled" ideas aren't what I'm really up for, then that's cool. Sometimes your revolution moves on without you.

 

It's not them, Eddie. It's us. You and me. We got old.

[SecretAgentFan]

I think it's always a mistake to assume that the most recent film represents the permanent or even medium-term future direction of the series. But...

 

I found SKYFALL to be beautifully made, but also annoying and superficially "profound" (and why do Bond movies nowadays always seem to be about the Bond series? Seems a little bit, um, hopelessly deriviative and self-obsessed to me.). I too prefer the joy and those subtleties of the older films that Eddie Burns mentioned. But then, all through the Brosnan years when they were making imitiation "classic Bond", I urged for them to break free of the formula and all that "continuing the legacy" guff, and instead do their own thing. Not more "the same, but different", but rather "different, but the same". Revoltion instead of evolution. And that's what they've done. Be careful what you wish for? Nah. If I'm not into SKYFALL and all the MI6 stuff, and if some of the style and some of these "dang new fangled" ideas aren't what I'm really up for, then that's cool. Sometimes your revolution moves on without you.

 

It's not them, Eddie. It's us. You and me. We got old.

 

Excellent insights!

[Hansen]

It's not them, Eddie. It's us. You and me. We got old.

Not us. The franchise and the producers. Bond does not bring anything new to cinéma as he does before.

In the 60s, it was seen as devious, disturbing (sex, violence...). Now it is definitely mainstream. I can leave with that when they do not pretend otherwise and that is what Skyfall did

[Simon]

Slightly off topic, I do find it hilarious that one can discuss the passing of one particular actor and his turn at portraying hero Bond, but in the next breath these same people might in unqualified ways, dictate how utterly impossible it would be to have anyone else play Indiana Jones.

 

And this only because of the precedent now set for rotating Bonds.

[SecretAgentFan]

 

It's not them, Eddie. It's us. You and me. We got old.

Not us. The franchise and the producers. Bond does not bring anything new to cinéma as he does before.

In the 60s, it was seen as devious, disturbing (sex, violence...). Now it is definitely mainstream. I can leave with that when they do not pretend otherwise and that is what Skyfall did

 

 

So, just to get your point: you criticize the Bond films because they do not invent new ways to tell spy stories again?  In that regard, wouldn´t you have to criticize the Bond films since "Thunderball" because at least after that the formula was set?  

 

And might you be asking for something impossible?

 

With your logic, which series of films could reinvent anything or set trends after the first sequel?

Edited by SecretAgentFan, 18 March 2014 - 11:06 AM.

[tdalton]

 

 

It's not them, Eddie. It's us. You and me. We got old.

Not us. The franchise and the producers. Bond does not bring anything new to cinéma as he does before.

In the 60s, it was seen as devious, disturbing (sex, violence...). Now it is definitely mainstream. I can leave with that when they do not pretend otherwise and that is what Skyfall did

 

 

 In that regard, wouldn´t you have to criticize the Bond films since "Thunderball" because at least after that the formula was set?  

 

 

 

 

Not only that, but a good number of the films after Thunderball were very reactionary to the trends that were happening at the time.  Bond hasn't been a trendsetter in decades, so it's not even in the slightest bit fair to criticize Skyfall in that manner when the same can be said for a great number of the films in the franchise.

[SecretAgentFan]

I would go even further and claim that Bond cannot be a trendsetter ever again.  

 

The character has become an institution.  Everybody knows what Bond movies can offer and expects certain things of it.  Sure, one can withhold Q and Moneypenny for a while, but any kind of re-booting would have to include the basic characteristics.  So where does that leave room for something really original?

 

The early Bond films could set trends because they offered something other movies did not.  Of course, as every new trend, the Bondian traits were quickly imitated by others who also tried to surpass them.  

 

And since the arsenal of a Bond film is limited (as every franchise´s is), I don´t see a possibility for setting a new trend.  Or the need, actually.

 

Also, today we have a totally different, oversaturated cinematic landscape in which trendsetting has become nearly impossible, apart from technological inventions (CGI, 3D).

 

Did the Greengrass-"Bourne"-films set a new trend?  No, IMO.  Even if one considers their use of a documentary-like hand-held camera during action sequences, one could easily point to the Bond films doing that already. 

[tdalton]

I would go even further and claim that Bond cannot be a trendsetter ever again.  

 

The character has become an institution.  Everybody knows what Bond movies can offer and expects certain things of it.  Sure, one can withhold Q and Moneypenny for a while, but any kind of re-booting would have to include the basic characteristics.  So where does that leave room for something really original?

 

I agree, in so much as I don't think that the Bond films can ever really set a trend again.  The trend that they set back in the day was primarily for their depiction of sex and violence on the big screen.  That kind of stuff is no longer taboo, and now there are films that push the envelope much more in that department than Bond.

 

I do think that they could do something original with the films, though.  That won't, however, happen until someone else makes their own James Bond film.  So far, we've only seen how the Broccoli family would make a Bond film.  We know what to expect from their type of Bond film, and there's not going to be much that would change from their offerings, aside from some stylistic differences here and there.  The formula is set, and neither of the two currently running EON are inclined to change that.  Putting Bond in someone else's hands, however, someone who isn't bound by the formula, could yield some surprising results.  I'm very much hoping that that day comes at some point in my lifetime, because I'd very much like to see a totally radical take on the Bond character, something that I was hoping to get with Casino Royale.