152 replies to this topic

[Zorin Industries]

Everyone remembers those films but who talks about Annie Hall and Chariots of Fire these days?

Maybe it's just me but I think you've picked two pretty bad examples. Annie Hall is Woody Allen's most famous movie and I can't think there are many people who wouldn't have a particular image come into their head whenever Chariots of Fire is mentioned. True, slow motion running and Vangelis' famous tune are probably all most people know of the film, but that's surely more than can be said of most movies that are more than a quarter-century old.

The reason I mentioned Annie Hall and Chariots of Fire is because those were the two movies that won Best Picture up against Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark. Two "popcorn" films that happen to be two of the most significant films ever made and influenced a change in the way movies were made. A similar case can be made for Forest Gump winning over Pulp Fiction.

ANNIE HALL was as influential to 1970's American cinema and the movement that developed from that as STAR WARS was. CHARIOTS OF FIRE is also a classic British film (and there haven't been many of them in recent times). Re PULP FICTION - whilst I have grown to respect what it stands for and the era of cinema it typifies, I originally found it a tad dull and far too sure of itself - a typical Roger Avery trait. Also, FORREST GUMP is a darker, subtler film than its' press allowed then and now. It has great dark streaks running through it. Granted, not quite as dark as PULP FICTION, but it deserved it's Best Film nod too.

The only film in my recent memory that completely didn't deserve the Best Picture award was A BEAUTIFUL MIND which is a terribly glib, alienating film that plays like a TV movie with steadicam.

[jaguar007]

Of course what is considered a great film to a certain degree is all a matter of personal preference. While I liked The Departed and thought it was a really good film, I actually think Casino Royale is not only a more entertaining film, but a better one as well. That is not just Bond fandom saying that because I won't say that about 98% of the Bond films out there in comparason to Best Picture winners.

Titanic was a technical masterpiece and a real "epic" movie, however the story was one of the most unoriginal films ever to win Best Picture. It was full of chiches from just about every tragic love story to be filmed before it. Many of the scenes during the sinking of the ship were filmed shot by shot just like of 1958's A Night to Remember.

Personally for 1997 I thought LA Confidential was a more creative piece of filmmaking.

[tdalton]

Casino Royale was fantastic, but even though we are Bond fans, not Oscar worthy. It is an action movie.

Well what is particularly Oscar worthy about The Fugitive, Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Towering Inferno, Star Wars, or The Sixth Sense, all of which were up for Best Picture? In 2006 Casino Royale was one of the most critically acclaimed movies of the year and was a popular international blockbuster, but they passed it over for the likes of Little Miss Sunshine and the glorified BBC tv movie The Queen!!! Does anyone remember either of those two even a couple of years later? Bah. Same with The Dark Knight. Who is going to remember The Reader in two years? Hell, who remembers it right now, other than Kate Winslet?

I know that, at the time, I certainly didn't think that Casino Royale deserved a Best Picture nomination (although I have maintained every since the film's release that both Daniel Craig and Eva Green should have been nominated in the lead acting categories), but after a couple of years have passed, my opinion of the film has gone up considerably, and after having finally seen a significant amount of The Queen (I haven't seen the whole thing, but I've seen enough to come to the conclusion that it wasn't good enough for a Best Picture nomination) I think that perhaps the Academy should have nominated Casino Royale for Best Picture. I do think that Little Miss Sunshine should have been nominated, but I think that Casino Royale should have snuck into that last spot instead of The Queen in the same way that many thought that The Dark Knight would sneak into the spot occupied by The Reader in this year's nominations.

[Turn]

Everyone remembers those films but who talks about Annie Hall and Chariots of Fire these days?

Maybe it's just me but I think you've picked two pretty bad examples. Annie Hall is Woody Allen's most famous movie and I can't think there are many people who wouldn't have a particular image come into their head whenever Chariots of Fire is mentioned.

Exactly. But here's a forgotten Best Picture winner: ORDINARY PEOPLE (the first Best Picture of the '80s). And how many people remember the Best Picture wins for TERMS OF ENDEARMENT and OUT OF AFRICA?

Ordinary People's reputation these days is being the film that somehow beat out what many considered the finest film of the '80s, Raging Bull, for Best Picture. People point to that, or the previous year's Kramer vs. Kramer over Apocalypse Now as examples of pictures that haven't maintained their reputations while others' rose.

From the '90s there's the infamous Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan and Dances With Wolves over Goodfellas. Although its competition wasn't great, Driving Miss Daisy isn't exactly a memorable Best Picture winner either.

[kneelbeforezod]

Some people are talking like Casino Royale received some kind of huge snub from the Academy... but I bet if you talked to most members they would say they loved it. Maybe it was their number 6 film of the year, who knows? They just didn't think it was quite in the top 5.

Casino Royale is not a timeless classic the way other academy award nominated "popcorn" films were. It's great, but not in the same league as E.T. or Raiders. Bond fans, of course, will delude themselves otherwise.

From the '90s there's the infamous Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan

I'm torn over this one... because Shakespeare in love is a beautifully written romance/comedy that works on a number of levels. It works perfectly on it's own terms. Now of course, action junkies on a Bond forum are going to prefer Saving Private Ryan, but that film has a number of flaws, cliched and phoney moments.... and yet it also contains one of the greatest pieces of cinema ever committed to film. So... a tricky one that.

[jaguar007]

I'm not so sure that many people are really stating that CR should have been a Best Picture nominee. I said that if any Bond movie deserved a nomination for Best Picture, CR is that movie.

I think the point is that CR was a better than many films that do walk away with Oscar nominations or wins. I will defend to my dying day that Casino Royale is a much better movie than Titanic (see my opinion of Titanic in an earlier post).

[Safari Suit]

It's great, but not in the same league as E.T. or Raiders. Bond fans, of course, will delude themselves otherwise.

That's a sweeping generalisation.

[Zorin Industries]

Of course what is considered a great film to a certain degree is all a matter of personal preference. While I liked The Departed and thought it was a really good film, I actually think Casino Royale is not only a more entertaining film, but a better one as well. That is not just Bond fandom saying that because I won't say that about 98% of the Bond films out there in comparason to Best Picture winners.

Titanic was a technical masterpiece and a real "epic" movie, however the story was one of the most unoriginal films ever to win Best Picture. It was full of chiches from just about every tragic love story to be filmed before it. Many of the scenes during the sinking of the ship were filmed shot by shot just like of 1958's A Night to Remember.

Personally for 1997 I thought LA Confidential was a more creative piece of filmmaking.

TITANIC is an odd one. It won Oscars because it was a studio film that made money for Hollywood in the older fashioned way when there was a great deal of concern and dismay that indie films and indie-minded studio fare was almost becoming the norm. TITANIC was old school epic and reaped the rewards. As for its tally of Oscars - it is one of the luckiest films too. The acting, special effects, direction, music and writing is a tad below par, but put together under the umbrella of history and notoriety that is that disaster the film sort of works very well.

LA CONFIDENTIAL should have won Best Picture that year. But the Golden Age Striked Back that year.

I will have to sorely disagree and say that CASINO ROYALE is superior to its Bond siblings, but it is not a Scorsese movie and would never be nominated for Best Picture Oscar.

Casino Royale was fantastic, but even though we are Bond fans, not Oscar worthy. It is an action movie.

Well what is particularly Oscar worthy about The Fugitive, Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Towering Inferno, Star Wars, or The Sixth Sense, all of which were up for Best Picture? In 2006 Casino Royale was one of the most critically acclaimed movies of the year and was a popular international blockbuster, but they passed it over for the likes of Little Miss Sunshine and the glorified BBC tv movie The Queen!!! Does anyone remember either of those two even a couple of years later? Bah. Same with The Dark Knight. Who is going to remember The Reader in two years? Hell, who remembers it right now, other than Kate Winslet?

I know that, at the time, I certainly didn't think that Casino Royale deserved a Best Picture nomination (although I have maintained every since the film's release that both Daniel Craig and Eva Green should have been nominated in the lead acting categories), but after a couple of years have passed, my opinion of the film has gone up considerably, and after having finally seen a significant amount of The Queen (I haven't seen the whole thing, but I've seen enough to come to the conclusion that it wasn't good enough for a Best Picture nomination) I think that perhaps the Academy should have nominated Casino Royale for Best Picture. I do think that Little Miss Sunshine should have been nominated, but I think that Casino Royale should have snuck into that last spot instead of The Queen in the same way that many thought that The Dark Knight would sneak into the spot occupied by The Reader in this year's nominations.

CASINO ROYALE is not an Oscar worthy film. Sorry. But it doesn't work like that. And Eva Green and Daniel Craig did not deserve Oscar nominations for their work. As sterling and nuanced as it was for a Bond film, they were not Oscar waving performances and actors - who vote in that category - would know that.

Everyone remembers those films but who talks about Annie Hall and Chariots of Fire these days?

Maybe it's just me but I think you've picked two pretty bad examples. Annie Hall is Woody Allen's most famous movie and I can't think there are many people who wouldn't have a particular image come into their head whenever Chariots of Fire is mentioned.

Exactly. But here's a forgotten Best Picture winner: ORDINARY PEOPLE (the first Best Picture of the '80s). And how many people remember the Best Picture wins for TERMS OF ENDEARMENT and OUT OF AFRICA?

Ordinary People's reputation these days is being the film that somehow beat out what many considered the finest film of the '80s, Raging Bull, for Best Picture. People point to that, or the previous year's Kramer vs. Kramer over Apocalypse Now as examples of pictures that haven't maintained their reputations while others' rose.

From the '90s there's the infamous Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan and Dances With Wolves over Goodfellas. Although its competition wasn't great, Driving Miss Daisy isn't exactly a memorable Best Picture winner either.

We really need to look at these things in their cinematic context.

ORDINARY PEOPLE won because it was a well made and honest family-centred drama emerging from an America that was still getting its cultural head around the new decade, the end of the Vietnam war and the transition into a new era of Reaganite cinema that centred wholly on the family and the possibilities of drama within that (look at ET, ON GOLDEN POND, POLTERGEIST, THE KARATE KID...even THE WRATH OF KHAN...they all feature the family unit as the starting point for their stories and drama).

RAGING BULL didn't win because - actually - it's a bit dull.

Creatively SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE is a better screenplay and film that SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. Its screenplay soared above everything that was knocking about at the time. PRIVATE RYAN is a great film, but - aside from the first twenty minutes - is actually a very linear, obvious testimony to WWII (almost too much so - but that was the intent).

It's great, but not in the same league as E.T. or Raiders. Bond fans, of course, will delude themselves otherwise.

That's a sweeping generalisation.

No, it's an obvious truth. ROYALE is not up there with STAR WARS, RAIDERS or ET. Those films reframed popular cinema consumption, they were tight adventure stories (the last act of ROYALE makes it far from 'tight') and they were brilliantly directed. ROYALE is a better directed Martin Campbell film (and when you compare it to the lacklustre middling direction of GOLDENEYE it is not hard to claim that one) but it is not the 007 equivalent of Spielberg or Lucas being at the absolute top of their craft.

Also, RAIDERS, ET and STAR WARS were cultural events. They were phenomenoms (spell check?!). ROYALE may have been seen as that amongst the fan community, but it didn't become a cultural and decade defining film. The last time Bond achieved that was probably in 1965.

[Safari Suit]

It's great, but not in the same league as E.T. or Raiders. Bond fans, of course, will delude themselves otherwise.

That's a sweeping generalisation.

No, it's an obvious truth.

So you really think all Bond fans believe CR to be in the same league as Raiders, including yourself?

[Zorin Industries]

It's great, but not in the same league as E.T. or Raiders. Bond fans, of course, will delude themselves otherwise.

That's a sweeping generalisation.

No, it's an obvious truth.

So you really think all Bond fans believe CR to be in the same league as Raiders, including yourself?

I am saying that CASINO ROYALE is not in the same league as RAIDERS by any stretch. Sorry. And I am someone who loves and admires ROYALE. But it is no RAIDERS. I was just agreeing with KneelBeforeZod.

Some Bond fans will believe that ROYALE is better than RAIDERS or ET and that is fine. That is their viewpoint. We all hold films in a different light in our mental memory banks - as we should. But to suggest that ROYALE should have been nominated for Best Picture Oscar is ludicrous, misguided and - dare I say it - a tad fan-boy.

[Loomis]

I actually think CASINO ROYALE is a much better film than RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, but then I've always found RAIDERS (and THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK) incredibly overrated. That's a subjective opinion, obviously, but, objectively, I'd find it hard to argue that RAIDERS has more dramatic or emotional power than CR.

And I guess this is a fanboyish thing to type (sorry, Zorin! ), but I do think Craig deserved an Oscar nomination for CR. BAFTA decided that his performance was worthy of a nod, so would the world really have ended if the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences had done likewise?

[Safari Suit]

It's great, but not in the same league as E.T. or Raiders. Bond fans, of course, will delude themselves otherwise.

That's a sweeping generalisation.

No, it's an obvious truth.

So you really think all Bond fans believe CR to be in the same league as Raiders, including yourself?

I am saying that CASINO ROYALE is not in the same league as RAIDERS by any stretch. Sorry. And I am someone who loves and admires ROYALE. But it is no RAIDERS. I was just agreeing with KneelBeforeZod.

Some Bond fans will believe that ROYALE is better than RAIDERS or ET and that is fine. That is their viewpoint. We all hold films in a different light in our mental memory banks - as we should. But to suggest that ROYALE should have been nominated for Best Picture Oscar is ludicrous, misguided and - dare I say it - a tad fan-boy.

But I would agree, and frankly from my post it should have been fairly obvious that I was not suggesting that Royale was in the same league as Raiders. I was objecting to Zod's implication that all Bond fans believe Royale to be in the same league as such films. And to be honest I didn't appreciate your post "educating" me on something I already know, and have never questioned. Admittedly I'm probably being oversensitive.

[Zorin Industries]

It's great, but not in the same league as E.T. or Raiders. Bond fans, of course, will delude themselves otherwise.

That's a sweeping generalisation.

No, it's an obvious truth.

So you really think all Bond fans believe CR to be in the same league as Raiders, including yourself?

I am saying that CASINO ROYALE is not in the same league as RAIDERS by any stretch. Sorry. And I am someone who loves and admires ROYALE. But it is no RAIDERS. I was just agreeing with KneelBeforeZod.

Some Bond fans will believe that ROYALE is better than RAIDERS or ET and that is fine. That is their viewpoint. We all hold films in a different light in our mental memory banks - as we should. But to suggest that ROYALE should have been nominated for Best Picture Oscar is ludicrous, misguided and - dare I say it - a tad fan-boy.

But I would agree, and frankly from my post it should have been fairly obvious that I was not suggesting that Royale was in the same league as Raiders. I was objecting to Zod's implication that all Bond fans believe Royale to be in the same league as such films. And to be honest I didn't appreciate your post "educating" me on something I already know, and have never questioned.

I stand corrected.

[Safari Suit]

Perhaps I was being oversensitive, I'll try to make myself clearer in the past.

[Zorin Industries]

I actually think CASINO ROYALE is a much better film than RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, but then I've always found RAIDERS (and THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK) incredibly overrated. That's a subjective opinion, obviously, but, objectively, I'd find it hard to argue that RAIDERS has more dramatic or emotional power than CR.

And I guess this is a fanboyish thing to type (sorry, Zorin! ), but I do think Craig deserved an Oscar nomination for CR. BAFTA decided that his performance was worthy of a nod, so would the world really have ended if the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences had done likewise?

BAFTA and AMPAS are completely different entities with differing politics, agendas and voters. I would say Craig got a BAFTA nomination for ROYALE because it was Daniel Craig the actor in a Bond film that was actually quite good. It threw everyone that he and the film were good. But that doesn't have to translate into an Oscar nom for a film that is not all that taxing for a talented actor. Also it was probably just as much an indicator that Sony and Columbia have better advertising revenue at their disposal than the likes of VENUS.

Let's look at who did get noticed for the 2006 Oscar actor contenders...

Forest Whitaker, The Last King of Scotland
Leonardo DiCaprio, Blood Diamond
Ryan Gosling, Half Nelson
Peter O'Toole, Venus
Will Smith, The Pursuit of Happiness

These are all better roles than James Bond 007. People mustn't confuse the best actor in the part as 007 for the calibre of acting as seen in THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND or HALF NELSON. It may be better than what we are used to, but Daniel Craig had no business being in that list for his work on CASINO ROYALE.

[HH007]

I actually think CASINO ROYALE is a much better film than RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, but then I've always found RAIDERS (and THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK) incredibly overrated. That's a subjective opinion, obviously, but, objectively, I'd find it hard to argue that RAIDERS has more dramatic or emotional power than CR.

And I guess this is a fanboyish thing to type (sorry, Zorin! ), but I do think Craig deserved an Oscar nomination for CR. BAFTA decided that his performance was worthy of a nod, so would the world really have ended if the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences had done likewise?

BAFTA and AMPAS are completely different entities with differing politics, agendas and voters. I would say Craig got a BAFTA nomination for ROYALE because it was Daniel Craig the actor in a Bond film that was actually quite good. It threw everyone that he and the film were good. But that doesn't have to translate into an Oscar nom for a film that is not all that taxing for a talented actor. Also it was probably just as much an indicator that Sony and Columbia have better advertising revenue at their disposal than the likes of VENUS.

Let's look at who did get noticed for the 2006 Oscar actor contenders...

Forest Whitaker, The Last King of Scotland
Leonardo DiCaprio, Blood Diamond
Ryan Gosling, Half Nelson
Peter O'Toole, Venus
Will Smith, The Pursuit of Happiness

Not one of those roles offers any actor a better role than playing James Bond. People mustn't confuse the best actor in the part as 007 for the calibre of acting as seen in THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND or HALF NELSON. It may be better than what we are used to, but Daniel Craig had no business being in that list for his work on CASINO ROYALE.

Neither did DiCaprio for "Blood Diamond" if you ask me. If anything, he should have been nominated for "The Departed" that year. I think Craig's work in CR would've been worth a nomination in a slower year, like 2004.

[Safari Suit]

Will Smith didn't exactly blow me away either. Though I suppose that film was more or less put together specifically to give Mr. Smith an Oscar, so it might have been a bit churlish not to have noticed their efforts.

[Loomis]

I actually think CASINO ROYALE is a much better film than RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, but then I've always found RAIDERS (and THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK) incredibly overrated. That's a subjective opinion, obviously, but, objectively, I'd find it hard to argue that RAIDERS has more dramatic or emotional power than CR.

And I guess this is a fanboyish thing to type (sorry, Zorin! ), but I do think Craig deserved an Oscar nomination for CR. BAFTA decided that his performance was worthy of a nod, so would the world really have ended if the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences had done likewise?

BAFTA and AMPAS are completely different entities with differing politics, agendas and voters. I would say Craig got a BAFTA nomination for ROYALE because it was Daniel Craig the actor in a Bond film that was actually quite good. It threw everyone that he and the film were good. But that doesn't have to translate into an Oscar nom for a film that is not all that taxing for a talented actor. Also it was probably just as much an indicator that Sony and Columbia have better advertising revenue at their disposal than the likes of VENUS.

Let's look at who did get noticed for the 2006 Oscar actor contenders...

Forest Whitaker, The Last King of Scotland
Leonardo DiCaprio, Blood Diamond
Ryan Gosling, Half Nelson
Peter O'Toole, Venus
Will Smith, The Pursuit of Happiness

Not one of those roles offers any actor a better role than playing James Bond. People mustn't confuse the best actor in the part as 007 for the calibre of acting as seen in THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND or HALF NELSON. It may be better than what we are used to, but Daniel Craig had no business being in that list for his work on CASINO ROYALE.

I completely disagree.

I just fail to see how, for instance, Forest Whitaker's turn as Idi Amin was any more taxing than Craig's as Bond. Neither do I see how Leonardo DiCaprio or Peter O'Toole, good though they were in those films, managed to do a kind of Real Acting™ that was leagues ahead of what Craig was able to do in CASINO ROYALE.

Why should a Bond performance be shunted into a separate category of Not Real Work™? I'm sure that Craig approached 007 like any other role and gave it his all. The results are plain to see: he brought a depth and subtlety to the part that no one else has ever come close to, not even Lazenby at the end of OHMSS or Dalton at his best. Listen, I love every single last one of the Bond films (with the sole exception of TWINE), but until Craig came along I'd never felt that any actor had been able to make Bond a real human being.

But Craig didn't just "humanise" 007 - he also perfectly embodied every trait we all know and love and expect from the character: the athleticism (few roles that year could have been more physically demanding, given what Craig managed to develop his body into thanks to hard work in the gym), the sex appeal, the ruthlessness, the humour.... he simply knocked the role (and a very well-worn, cliched role to boot) outta the park in every possible way.

Not only all that, but he had to do it all against the huge psychological bullying from the Craignotbonders and internet naysayers. Not only was his job enormously difficult (reinventing an icon, following a popular Bond actor, bringing humanity and depth to a "popcorn" role, and being both believable and charming across a huge range of very different script requirements, e.g. being tortured, chasing after the bombmaker, declaring his love for Vesper, trying to revive her, flirting with Solange, etc.), but as he was doing it a lot of people were actively trying to make him take his eye off the ball.

All things considered, it was an astonishing achievement for Craig. Oscar-worthy? Well, yes, why not? I ask again: why should Bond be ineligible for consideration? Assuming, of course, that it's done to a sufficiently impressive standard, which in my book does describe Craig's work in CR.

[Zorin Industries]

I actually think CASINO ROYALE is a much better film than RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, but then I've always found RAIDERS (and THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK) incredibly overrated. That's a subjective opinion, obviously, but, objectively, I'd find it hard to argue that RAIDERS has more dramatic or emotional power than CR.

And I guess this is a fanboyish thing to type (sorry, Zorin! ), but I do think Craig deserved an Oscar nomination for CR. BAFTA decided that his performance was worthy of a nod, so would the world really have ended if the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences had done likewise?

BAFTA and AMPAS are completely different entities with differing politics, agendas and voters. I would say Craig got a BAFTA nomination for ROYALE because it was Daniel Craig the actor in a Bond film that was actually quite good. It threw everyone that he and the film were good. But that doesn't have to translate into an Oscar nom for a film that is not all that taxing for a talented actor. Also it was probably just as much an indicator that Sony and Columbia have better advertising revenue at their disposal than the likes of VENUS.

Let's look at who did get noticed for the 2006 Oscar actor contenders...

Forest Whitaker, The Last King of Scotland
Leonardo DiCaprio, Blood Diamond
Ryan Gosling, Half Nelson
Peter O'Toole, Venus
Will Smith, The Pursuit of Happiness

Not one of those roles offers any actor a better role than playing James Bond. People mustn't confuse the best actor in the part as 007 for the calibre of acting as seen in THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND or HALF NELSON. It may be better than what we are used to, but Daniel Craig had no business being in that list for his work on CASINO ROYALE.

I completely disagree.

I just fail to see how, for instance, Forest Whitaker's turn as Idi Amin was any more taxing than Craig's as Bond. Neither do I see how Leonardo DiCaprio or Peter O'Toole, good though they were in those films, managed to do a kind of Real Acting™ that was leagues ahead of what Craig was able to do in CASINO ROYALE.

Why should a Bond performance be shunted into a separate category of Not Real Work™? I'm sure that Craig approached 007 like any other role and gave it his all. The results are plain to see: he brought a depth and subtlety to the part that no one else has ever come close to, not even Lazenby at the end of OHMSS or Dalton at his best. Listen, I love every single last one of the Bond films (with the sole exception of TWINE), but until Craig came along I'd never felt that any actor had been able to make Bond a real human being.

But Craig didn't just "humanise" 007 - he also perfectly embodied every trait we all know and love and expect from the character: the athleticism (few roles that year could have been more physically demanding, given what Craig managed to develop his body into thanks to hard work in the gym), the sex appeal, the ruthlessness, the humour.... he simply knocked the role (and a very well-worn, cliched role to boot) outta the park in every possible way.

Not only all that, but he had to do it all against the huge psychological bullying from the Craignotbonders and internet naysayers. Not only was his job enormously difficult (reinventing an icon, following a popular Bond actor, bringing humanity and depth to a "popcorn" role, and being both believable and charming across a huge range of very different script requirements, e.g. being tortured, chasing after the bombmaker, declaring his love for Vesper, trying to revive her, flirting with Solange, etc.), but as he was doing it a lot of people were actively trying to make him take his eye off the ball.

All things considered, it was an astonishing achievement for Craig. Oscar-worthy? Well, yes, why not? I ask again: why should Bond be ineligible for consideration? Assuming, of course, that it's done to a sufficiently impressive standard, which in my book does describe Craig's work in CR.

Have you seen THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND? If you had you would be able to answer that one yourself.

Daniel Craig would no doubt have prepared for the role, but a shower scene with VESPER or a naked torture scene is hardly very taxing for an intelligent actor like Craig. But he is hardly pushing the boundaries of screen acting or taking the craft of film acting onto another plateau.

"Real acting" is not always about powerhouse performances. Forrest Whitaker blows his top as Idi Amen but he also shows what the man was like when he calmed down and reflected on his lot, was vulnerable, scared, out of his depth and in mortal danger.

It is about what an actor does with a role when his character is doing nothing. THAT is why the likes of Peter O'Toole got nominated for VENUS. Yes Daniel Craig has every chance of doing that and getting Oscar nominated. But not for Bond. Bond films do not - rightly so - provide roles for actors that get awards. That is not their function.

Good and great actors know that you act between your lines. Bond films don't facilitate that. ROYALE is all about the exposition. Daniel Craig is not going to get an Oscar for one great tender scene in a shower. Did you learn anything different from the character in ROYALE? Did you go on a journey? Did you think differently of 007 at the end of the film than at the beginning? I didn't. Nor do I want to.

Daniel Craig's skill with Bond is that he doesn't knock the role out of any park. He knows to play it the way it has always been played. The difference is that he plays it better than some of those before because he is the most versatile actor to ever grace the part.

And people do not win Oscars because they were better than internet forums said they would be.

[Loomis]

Have you seen THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND? If you had you would be able to answer that one yourself.

I have seen THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND twice. Good film, and Whitaker is good in it. But my answer is that there's nothing intrinsically more taxing about the role of Idi Amin than there is about James Bond. What, are we now dividing roles into "quality roles" and "non-quality roles"? To do so would be to do the acting profession a huge disservice and to be snobbish to no apparent end. The only thing that matters, the only thing that separates quality from non-quality, is not the role as such but how it's played. And every role ever written can be tackled in any number of ways.

Daniel Craig would no doubt have prepared for the role, but a shower scene with VESPER or a naked torture scene is hardly very taxing for an intelligent actor like Craig. But he is hardly pushing the boundaries of screen acting or taking the craft of film acting onto another plateau.

I never said otherwise. However, I still fail to understand why Idi Amin is, for want of a better expression, a "better" (i.e. more "serious" and more "quality") role than James Bond. And I fail to see how Whitaker's acting is any better than Craig's. It's apples and oranges, yet you're holding up the orange that is Amin as being superior to the apple that is Bond. Why?

"Real acting" is not always about powerhouse performances. Forrest Whitaker blows his top as Idi Amen but he also shows what the man was like when he calmed down and reflected on his lot, was vulnerable, scared, out of his depth and in mortal danger.

It is about what an actor does with a role when his character is doing nothing.

Which you'll also see plenty of in Craig's CR performance. It's when Bond is "doing nothing" that Craig does some of his most remarkable and powerful work. BTW, thanks for the lecture, but I've never felt that "real acting" is purely about top-blowing and "showy" stuff.

Did you learn anything different from the character in ROYALE? Did you go on a journey? Did you think differently of 007 at the end of the film than at the beginning?

Yes, yes and yes.

And people do not win Oscars because they were better than internet forums said they would be.

Ah, yes, yet another dig at "fans", eh?

[jaguar007]

I never expected CR or Daniel Craig to get an Oscar nom and to be honest was very surprised when it did get a BAFTA nom. Craig could have given the best performance of any actor that year, but nominating him for best actor for playing James Bond is like the Academy officially saying "Craig is the best Bond ever, even better than Connery".

The Academy is not going to recognize a Bond film. To be honest, had Heath Ledger not died, I'm not so sure he would have gotten a nom for playing The Joker. I'm not saying that Ledger did not do a brilliant job, but it would have been because he played "The Joker"

As someone who did a little acting 20+ years ago, I think it is easier to play an over the top character (that also gets more attention) than playing a more subtle type role and nail it so perfectly like Craig did in CR.

[Zorin Industries]

Have you seen THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND? If you had you would be able to answer that one yourself.

I have seen THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND twice. Good film, and Whitaker is good in it. But my answer is that there's nothing intrinsically more taxing about the role of Idi Amin than there is about James Bond. What, are we now dividing roles into "quality roles" and "non-quality roles"? To do so would be to do the acting profession a huge disservice and to be snobbish to no apparent end. The only thing that matters, the only thing that separates quality from non-quality, is not the role as such but how it's played. And every role ever written can be tackled in any number of ways.

Daniel Craig would no doubt have prepared for the role, but a shower scene with VESPER or a naked torture scene is hardly very taxing for an intelligent actor like Craig. But he is hardly pushing the boundaries of screen acting or taking the craft of film acting onto another plateau.

I never said otherwise. However, I still fail to understand why Idi Amin is, for want of a better expression, a "better" (i.e. more "serious" and more "quality") role than James Bond. And I fail to see how Whitaker's acting is any better than Craig's. It's apples and oranges, yet you're holding up the orange that is Amin as being superior to the apple that is Bond. Why?

"Real acting" is not always about powerhouse performances. Forrest Whitaker blows his top as Idi Amen but he also shows what the man was like when he calmed down and reflected on his lot, was vulnerable, scared, out of his depth and in mortal danger.

It is about what an actor does with a role when his character is doing nothing.

Which you'll also see plenty of in Craig's CR performance. It's when Bond is "doing nothing" that Craig does some of his most remarkable and powerful work. BTW, thanks for the lecture, but I've never felt that "real acting" is purely about top-blowing and "showy" stuff.

Did you learn anything different from the character in ROYALE? Did you go on a journey? Did you think differently of 007 at the end of the film than at the beginning?

Yes, yes and yes.

And people do not win Oscars because they were better than internet forums said they would be.

Ah, yes, yet another dig at "fans", eh?

No digs. Just common sense sprinkled from the can marked "experience". And part of that tells me that Eon Productions do not court awards in the industry. Have you stopped to think that that might not actually be their agenda. And the reality is they don't need them. If I was wrong Daniel Craig would have been nominated for a Best Actor Oscar twice by now. The truth and reality is that he has not.

And if you have really seen THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND twice then you wouldn't need to have someone explain why Whitaker and Amin are in a different league to Craig and James Bond. It is about gravitas. It is about the writing. And it is about a role giving a blank canvas to a professional creative. James Bond on screen has a very limited canvas. Die hard fans will think otherwise, but it ain't Chekov and never has been. That doesn't mean 007 films cannot shine with an actor like Daniel Craig. He's not expecting Oscars for the part. And it bemuses me why some fans are.



But I'm not wanting to fall out about it. Horses for courses and all that....

[jaguar007]

It is about gravitas. It is about the writing. And it is about a role giving a blank canvas to a professional creative. James Bond on screen has a very limited canvas. Die hard fans will think otherwise, but it ain't Chekov and never has been. That doesn't mean 007 films cannot shine with an actor like Daniel Craig. He's not expecting Oscars for the part. And it bemuses me why some fans are.

True, but there have been plenty of movies and performances that did gather Oscar noms that are not Chekov either.

Looking at critical reviews off RT comparing CR to the 5 Oscar nominated films:

CR - 94

Departed - 92
Babel - 68
Letter To Iwo Jima - 91
Little Miss Sunshine - 92
The Queen - 96

The only movie to get better reviews that year than CR was The Queen.

Again, I never expected CR to get an Oscar nom, my point is that CR is better than many movies that have received noms or awards (not just 06, but other years as well).

[Santa]

It's apples and oranges, yet you're holding up the orange that is Amin as being superior to the apple that is Bond. Why?

More vitamin C.

To be honest, had Heath Ledger not died, I'm not so sure he would have gotten a nom for playing The Joker.

I have to admit this is something that bothers me. Did he do a wonderful job? Yes, but I'm sure he wouldn't have got the nod if he were still alive. Same as Scorsese the other year - does he deserve an Oscar for a good body of work in his career? Absolutely, but was The Departed that good? Unlike Loomis I enjoyed it, but I don't think that Oscar was given for the best film of the year, I think it was given to acknowledge Scorsese's output and previous lack of recognition. I agree with recognising quality output over a period of time, by all means, but the point of the individual Oscars is not that, it's to recognise that at that point in time, that performance/event was the absolute best. I think over time that has become a little lost in Hollywood politics.

Oh, and don't even get me started on the grotesque Michael Clayton being nominated for anything.

[Zorin Industries]

It is about gravitas. It is about the writing. And it is about a role giving a blank canvas to a professional creative. James Bond on screen has a very limited canvas. Die hard fans will think otherwise, but it ain't Chekov and never has been. That doesn't mean 007 films cannot shine with an actor like Daniel Craig. He's not expecting Oscars for the part. And it bemuses me why some fans are.

True, but there have been plenty of movies and performances that did gather Oscar noms that are not Chekov either.

Looking at critical reviews off RT comparing CR to the 5 Oscar nominated films:

CR - 94

Departed - 92
Babel - 68
Letter To Iwo Jima - 91
Little Miss Sunshine - 92
The Queen - 96

The only movie to get better reviews that year than CR was The Queen.

Again, I never expected CR to get an Oscar nom, my point is that CR is better than many movies that have received noms or awards (not just 06, but other years as well).

I would advise against using anything like Rotten Tomatoes to judge or gauge anything. It's about as much use as IMDB.

It's apples and oranges, yet you're holding up the orange that is Amin as being superior to the apple that is Bond. Why?

More vitamin C.

To be honest, had Heath Ledger not died, I'm not so sure he would have gotten a nom for playing The Joker.

I have to admit this is something that bothers me. Did he do a wonderful job? Yes, but I'm sure he wouldn't have got the nod if he were still alive. Same as Scorsese the other year - does he deserve an Oscar for a good body of work in his career? Absolutely, but was The Departed that good? Unlike Loomis I enjoyed it, but I don't think that Oscar was given for the best film of the year, I think it was given to acknowledge Scorsese's output and previous lack of recognition. I agree with recognising quality output over a period of time, by all means, but the point of the individual Oscars is not that, it's to recognise that at that point in time, that performance/event was the absolute best. I think over time that has become a little lost in Hollywood politics.

I agree. Heath Ledger got the Oscar for the wrong reasons - one being that Nicholson didn't get a nomination for a role that Ledger only equalled and certainly didn't better. And I felt that at the time when watching THE DARK KNIGHT. Also - Ledger gave a far better, nuanced, sad and honest performance in BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN and didn't get a shiny award.

[jaguar007]

I would advise against using anything like Rotten Tomatoes to judge or gauge anything. It's about as much use as IMDB.

Except that RT is a sampling of credited professional film critics and IMDB is voting by fanboys with multiple accounts voting over and over again for their favorite film.

[jaguar007]

I agree. Heath Ledger got the Oscar for the wrong reasons - one being that Nicholson didn't get a nomination for a role that Ledger only equalled and certainly didn't better. And I felt that at the time when watching THE DARK KNIGHT. Also - Ledger gave a far better, nuanced, sad and honest performance in BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN and didn't get a shiny award.

So do you disagree with the points I am trying to make? I'm not saying that CR is Best Picture material, but it is far better movie than some of the films that have been nominated (and won). Same goes for the acting category. Was Russel Crow in Gladiator that much better than Criag in CR? Was Kevin Spacey in American Beauty really that much better than Craig in CR? While I enjoyed both Gladiator and American Beauty, when I saw the films before the nominations came out, I never looked at those performances and though it was Oscar material. I also didn't think I saw an Oscar performance when I saw CR. What I did think when I saw CR is how amazing the character development was for a Bond movie and that Craig may actually give Connery a run for his money.

[Loomis]

Eon Productions do not court awards in the industry. Have you stopped to think that that might not actually be their agenda.

Erm, where did I state otherwise? Saying that Craig's performance is Oscar-worthy is not the same thing as saying that Eon are actively courting awards.

And the reality is they don't need them.

Never said they did.

If I was wrong Daniel Craig would have been nominated for a Best Actor Oscar twice by now. The truth and reality is that he has not.

By that logic, there are never any Oscar-worthy Best Actor performances other than those four (or is it five?) per year that actually do get nominations. Which is obviously an absurd idea.

And if you have really seen THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND twice then you wouldn't need to have someone explain why Whitaker and Amin are in a different league to Craig and James Bond.

I don't need someone to explain why they're in different leagues because they're not in different leagues. Any more, anyway. This isn't the Moore or Brosnan era, y'know.

It is about gravitas. It is about the writing. And it is about a role giving a blank canvas to a professional creative.

Uh huh. All of those things apply to Craig's role in CASINO ROYALE.

James Bond on screen has a very limited canvas. Die hard fans will think otherwise, but it ain't Chekov and never has been.

Well, Idi Amin on screen has a very limited canvas, unless one wishes to take a radically revisionist approach to history. And while James Bond has a very limited canvas in, say, OCTOPUSSY (and indeed 99.9% of all his cinematic, literary, comic book, etc. adventures), such is most definitely not the case in CASINO ROYALE. As you're such a champion of the brave and brilliant new world of risk-taking and quality in the Bond films that is the Craig era, I'm stunned that you don't seem to appreciate this.

He's not expecting Oscars for the part. And it bemuses me why some fans are.

I'm not expecting Oscars for Bond, either. Again, saying something's Oscar-worthy and actually expecting it to get an Oscar are different things.

[Zorin Industries]

I agree. Heath Ledger got the Oscar for the wrong reasons - one being that Nicholson didn't get a nomination for a role that Ledger only equalled and certainly didn't better. And I felt that at the time when watching THE DARK KNIGHT. Also - Ledger gave a far better, nuanced, sad and honest performance in BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN and didn't get a shiny award.

So do you disagree with the points I am trying to make? I'm not saying that CR is Best Picture material, but it is far better movie than some of the films that have been nominated (and won). Same goes for the acting category. Was Russel Crow in Gladiator that much better than Criag in CR? Was Kevin Spacey in American Beauty really that much better than Craig in CR? While I enjoyed both Gladiator and American Beauty, when I saw the films before the nominations came out, I never looked at those performances and though it was Oscar material. I also didn't think I saw an Oscar performance when I saw CR. What I did think when I saw CR is how amazing the character development was for a Bond movie and that Craig may actually give Connery a run for his money.

Of course Russell Crowe and Kevin Spacey are better in those films than Craig was in ROYALE. Why? Because there is greater scope of character, narrative, motivation arcs, exposition, dialogue and performance than any Bond film would allow. It may not be ideal for us Bond fans, but that's just how it is.

And you have summed it up when you say how "amazing" ROYALE's character development is "for a Bond movie". Yes. You are quite right...."for a Bond film". But that does not make it suddenly a darling of the awards circuit. It just makes it a better Bond film.

I will say it now (for the CBN record) .... No actor is ever going to get an Oscar from a Martin Campbell film! Sorry. Sam Mendes and Ridley Scott are master filmmakers. They work with material that actors can get their teeth into. Campbell and ROYALE is not - I'm afraid - in that bracket.

And - this is not something I say glibly or to court annoyance - Daniel Craig and the character development in SOLACE is vastly superior to that of ROYALE. It is not just 007 who goes on a journey in SOLACE. The skill of that film is that it allows M, CAMILLE and GREENE to develop in a way Bond films don't permit. Oh - and QUANTUM OF SOLACE is directed by someone who has already got Oscars for his films.

[Zorin Industries]

Eon Productions do not court awards in the industry. Have you stopped to think that that might not actually be their agenda.

Erm, where did I state otherwise? Saying that Craig's performance is Oscar-worthy is not the same thing as saying that Eon are actively courting awards.

And the reality is they don't need them.

Never said they did.

If I was wrong Daniel Craig would have been nominated for a Best Actor Oscar twice by now. The truth and reality is that he has not.

By that logic, there are never any Oscar-worthy Best Actor performances other than those four (or is it five?) per year that actually do get nominations. Which is obviously an absurd idea.

And if you have really seen THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND twice then you wouldn't need to have someone explain why Whitaker and Amin are in a different league to Craig and James Bond.

I don't need someone to explain why they're in different leagues because they're not in different leagues. Any more, anyway. This isn't the Moore or Brosnan era, y'know.

It is about gravitas. It is about the writing. And it is about a role giving a blank canvas to a professional creative.

Uh huh. All of those things apply to Craig's role in CASINO ROYALE.

No. He was given a role that is far from a blank canvas. The skill he showed was taking on the baton and creating a very intriguing Bond compared to before. But that does not equal Oscar.

James Bond on screen has a very limited canvas. Die hard fans will think otherwise, but it ain't Chekov and never has been.

Well, Idi Amin on screen has a very limited canvas, unless one wishes to take a radically revisionist approach to history. And while James Bond has a very limited canvas in, say, OCTOPUSSY (and indeed 99.9% of all his cinematic, literary, comic book, etc. adventures), such is most definitely not the case in CASINO ROYALE. As you're such a champion of the brave and brilliant new world of risk-taking and quality in the Bond films that is the Craig era, I'm stunned that you don't seem to appreciate this.

Structurally and tonally CASINO ROYALE is very limited (it's set in a card room for most of its dramatic peaks). That is not a criticism. It works well because it tweaks the formula and how it is conveyed, but it doesn't change it. SOLACE does that - i.e. by not adhering to it set piece by set piece.

He's not expecting Oscars for the part. And it bemuses me why some fans are.

I'm not expecting Oscars for Bond, either. Again, saying something's Oscar-worthy and actually expecting it to get an Oscar are different things.

But Craig's work on Bond is NOT Oscar worthy...and that is the last time I am going to say that to you Loomis.

(excuse the red - but it's easier for me to respond that way)



If only there were Oscars for perserverance...

Oh there are - Winslet got this years....

Regards,

Zorin - Acting President Of AMPAS.