41 replies to this topic

[IcedCamaro]

Uh, no.

[L4YRCAKE]

Are you seriously saying that films like FRWL or GF do not have timeless classic quality?

You're right, you're right. They in their own way have a timeless quality in retrospect, I just think that the Craig movies do it knowingly.

But let's put it this way: I really think Daniel Craig cares more about Bond than Connery did. It could be argued that Fleming created Bond and Connery's contribution was bringing Connery to Bond. If Sean Connery had followed Thunderball with OHMSS and done as good a job or better than Lazenby and co. and followed it with a faithful adaptation of Fleming's You Only Live Twice I think I would ultimately have more respect for the entirety of his run and it would've been an unbeatable exit from the series. Connery's first four films, while all incredible and iconic, have none of the emotion of either the books, or OHMSS or even Casino Royale, and I think if Connery had cared more he would've seen that as an important element to bring to Bond since it was already there in the books. I mean, it's not Shakespeare, but I do think there's room for improvement and if Craig continues to explore Bond's character I do think more people will ultimately find his portrayal definitive. Maybe.

Wouldn't it have been interesting, however, if Connery had done a faithful job on YOLT and it ended with him having the plastic surgery and the amnesia, and then they follow it with Diamonds Are Forever or Live And Let Die and when they go to reconstruct his face we find Roger Moore under all the bandages?

Just a thought...

[graric]

Are you seriously saying that films like FRWL or GF do not have timeless classic quality?

You're right, you're right. They in their own way have a timeless quality in retrospect, I just think that the Craig movies do it knowingly.

But let's put it this way: I really think Daniel Craig cares more about Bond than Connery did. It could be argued that Fleming created Bond and Connery's contribution was bringing Connery to Bond. If Sean Connery had followed Thunderball with OHMSS and done as good a job or better than Lazenby and co. and followed it with a faithful adaptation of Fleming's You Only Live Twice I think I would ultimately have more respect for the entirety of his run and it would've been an unbeatable exit from the series. Connery's first four films, while all incredible and iconic, have none of the emotion of either the books, or OHMSS or even Casino Royale, and I think if Connery had cared more he would've seen that as an important element to bring to Bond since it was already there in the books. I mean, it's not Shakespeare, but I do think there's room for improvement and if Craig continues to explore Bond's character I do think more people will ultimately find his portrayal definitive. Maybe.

Wouldn't it have been interesting, however, if Connery had done a faithful job on YOLT and it ended with him having the plastic surgery and the amnesia, and then they follow it with Diamonds Are Forever or Live And Let Die and when they go to reconstruct his face we find Roger Moore under all the bandages?

Just a thought...

The problem with this is you are looking at this all in retrospect and saying how these films could be 'improved', would the series have lasted if they had put Flemings Bond exactly from the page to the screen?
No emotion? Watch Connery's reactions to the deaths of Quarrel and Kerim Bay in Dr No and From Russia With Love, his emotions are not explored to the degree they are in Craig's run but he still lets the bubble up from under the surface when necessary. Remember Fleming himself said that he would've re-written his earlier novels so Bond was less of a blunt instrument and more like Connery's Bond.
As for improving Connery's run by doing the proper 'SPECTRE trilogy' how is it Connery's fault that this did not happen? He was just an actor he didn't make these choices, OHMSS was delayed because the filming dates wouldn't have lined up properly to film at the Swiss Alps, YOLT was changed around because they simply couldn't find a Castle on the Coast so even if it came after OHMSS it wouldn't have been a direct adaptation of Fleming.

It is easy to look back at the early films and suggest they might've been closer to Fleming or delved deeper into Bond's character or actually gave the Bond girls reasonably developed motivations, but to suggest that they are not classic films because they are not consciously trying to be classics is ridiculous! Daniel Craig has a 50 year legacy to live up to because of these films, the early ones did not have that kind of pressure they were just focused on making films for that year (not for 50 years time.)

As for Craig becoming the definitive Bond? It is far too early to judge that, they said the same about Pierce Brosnan in the 90's now his films are looked at as being to 'cliche Bond' and as a small misstep. Maybe in two actor's time they will be talking about how these new Bond films are good, but not as good as a Classic Craig, but we don't know how tastes will change (only Connery has remained relatively definitive for 50 years as the Bond who all others are judged against.)

How definitive can Craig really be if his series has so far built to him gaining Connery's car and stepping into an office identical to the original one with a male M at the desk? (How can you overtake a man if your latest film is all about pushing you directly into his shadow)

[crheath]

Sean Connery was always my favorite Bond. But I have to admit, I like Craig just as much. I can't say which one is better and I'd rather not.

But look at it this way: If Daniel Craig wanted to, could he do FRWL or DrNo like Connery? Probably yes. Could Connery do CR (including the torture scene) or SF like Craig? I don't think so.

Still much of the credit goes to Connery for starting the character and series and making it so successful.

[L4YRCAKE]

If I implied Connery's first four films weren't classics, that wasn't what I meant. I guess I don't know as much about the details about why the films were chosen in their particular order, but it does seem even by Thunderball that Connery seems bored by the character and wanted out. Seems like he would've had the star power and clout to go out on a higher note than he did, instead of ending with two more Bonds that are fun but contribute to a lot of the cliches and bad habits that continue to dog the series when the producers panic and retreat to what they feel is safe commercial territory (with Die Another Day as a result, for instance).

But yeah, it is too early to say he's surpassed Connery but I think Craig's run is his to screw up. I don't see his back to basics approach as being in anyone's shadow and I think in two more films, probably more, we're going to see Daniel Craig, despite 23 previous films, continue to take the character into new territory while keeping true to Bond's intrinsics.

[SecretAgentFan]

I guess I don't know as much about the details about why the films were chosen in their particular order, but it does seem even by Thunderball that Connery seems bored by the character and wanted out. Seems like he would've had the star power and clout to go out on a higher note than he did, instead of ending with two more Bonds that are fun but contribute to a lot of the cliches and bad habits that continue to dog the series when the producers panic and retreat to what they feel is safe commercial territory (with Die Another Day as a result, for instance).

I get the feeling that you confuse the fanboy´s hindsight idea of what a Bond film should be like with the actual impact the films had during their release.

The "cliches and bad habits" were fresh ideas at the time, working magnificently and delighting audiences around the world. And a safe commercial territory is exactly where any responsible producer wants to land their product in. That does not mean that they do not take chances. In fact, EON is probably one of the most daring production companies around. But they also know when to risk something and when to consolidate something.

The idea to use an unproven actor/model as the new Bond after the iconic Connery in the most tragic Bond story of them all, OHMSS, was the first huge gamble.

It did not work as planned, so they got Connery back AND opened up Bond to the changed marketplace, allowing for more comedy.

It worked beautifully. But now they had to recast again. And instead of doing just another DAF with the new actor they changed everything around him. And the risk paid off!

TMWTGG was an attempt at consolidating Moore´s Bond but did not work as well anymore. So they went all in for TSWLM, which IMO saved the franchise at that time. They went even further and reacted wisely to the Sci-Fi boom and got even bigger box office results with MR.

The reasonable thing would have been to give the audience another huge extravaganza - at least that´s what other producers would have gone for.

Instead, EON downsized and went back to a down-to-earth spy story with FYEO. And again, the gamble paid off.

OP went further down this road, having to compete with Connery´s return in the adversary film NSNA - and again, EON won.

AVTAK consolidated probably more than it should have - and this time they lost. But they got back into the saddle again, re-casting Bond, without retreating to a fun-filled-extravaganza like MR (which definitely would have been the choice of studio heads), and delivering another great spy picture with TLD.

This time, they tried to consolidate the new Bond not by giving the audience more of the same, but they risked alienating the viewer with a very hard-edged, brutal story. And they lost again.

To start anew with Brosnan, unproven in films, at a time when nobody seemed to care for Bond anymore, was another huge gamble - and this time EON won again.

Consolidating Brosnan, they gave action the front seat in TND - and succeeded. As much as they did when they gave Bond more emotions in TWINE.

After that they did NOT panic and retreat to "safe commercial territory". They just had fun with pushing everything over the edge with DAD in the anniversary year. And although people love to ignore this - DAD was a HUGE box office winner, bigger than Brosnan´s previous Bonds.

They could have gone down that route again - but they chose to reboot with Craig.

Did I prove my point?

Edited by SecretAgentFan, 21 November 2012 - 09:58 AM.

[Yellow Pinky]

Did I prove my point?

Beautifully and articulately!

[L4YRCAKE]

Did I prove my point?

Beautifully and articulately!

Sorry for the late response, holidays and all that.

No, you didn't prove your point because a huge commercial success isn't the same as a solid hit. Moonraker and Die Another Day (and Quantum Of Solace) may have made tons of money but they were also typical Bond critical disasters, and since Bond has such a shelf life they dog the series in the producer's minds. By your logic, Quantum Of Solace should be a model Bond film. But the producers knew that as much money as a commercially safe Bond would rake in, they'd prefer to have a film that everyone would flock to see because it was Bond but wasn't the butt of jokes five years later because it caved to the disco craze (nothing against disco) or bad cgi just because they could or were too lazy to resist.

My point is that Craig has the opportunity and precedence to set a standard of both commercial and critically successful Bond films, which I believe is new territory for Bond and the key to stepping out of Connery's shadow, if he has not already.

[graric]

Did I prove my point?

Beautifully and articulately!

Sorry for the late response, holidays and all that.

No, you didn't prove your point because a huge commercial success isn't the same as a solid hit. Moonraker and Die Another Day (and Quantum Of Solace) may have made tons of money but they were also typical Bond critical disasters, and since Bond has such a shelf life they dog the series in the producer's minds. By your logic, Quantum Of Solace should be a model Bond film. But the producers knew that as much money as a commercially safe Bond would rake in, they'd prefer to have a film that everyone would flock to see because it was Bond but wasn't the butt of jokes five years later because it caved to the disco craze (nothing against disco) or bad cgi just because they could or were too lazy to resist.

My point is that Craig has the opportunity and precedence to set a standard of both commercial and critically successful Bond films, which I believe is new territory for Bond and the key to stepping out of Connery's shadow, if he has not already.

Yes and he acknowledged Moonraker and Die Another Day as films that Bond moved against in their immediate successor's (FYEO and CR, which both went for the darker approach and received critical acclaim.)
As for Craig setting a standard for commercial and critically successful Bond films, this is just you looking back in hindsight and saying these earlier films were not critically successful because they did not go as deep into Bond's character as Craig does. The early Connery films were all enormously successful both critically and commercially (Connery is doing even better than Craig as his first three are widely considered the benchmark of the series and consistently named in the top films of the franchise, while Craig's first 3 already includes one film that is regarded, perhaps unfairly, as one of the weakest in the series.)

His point was you cannot look at those old films from today's perspective and suggest they could have been better films if they had done things differently in the 60's Bond was setting the trends in film, not following them (compare that with the way Craig's films get compared to Bourne and Nolan's Batman, this is a series that is no longer two steps in front of everyone else.)

The point is that critical and commercial success is not new territory for Bond films (if it was the series would not have lasted for 50 years) whether you believe it to be or not. As for Daniel Craig stepping out of Sean Connery's shadow, it is too early to judge this (they said the same thing about Pierce Brosnan in the 90's now he is viewed as not serious enough by some in the media that used to praise him.) In anycase look at the audience, and critic, reactions in Skyfall to the re-introduction of Connery era staples, how far out of Connery's shadow can Craig really get when his films have been more about his journey to becoming the 'classic' Bond (not just letting him be his own Bond.)

[DaveBond21]

I love all the actors who have played Bond. To me, they are all 007.

It's an interesting question, because an 18 year old watching Daniel Craig's dynamic version of Bond may find Connery quite sedate in comparison. Having said that, an Australian TV show during the week said that he hadn't eclipsed Brosnan, and the women on the show expressed their love of the Broz.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[Flint72001]

For me, its' Connery. No contest. I really like Daniel Craig a lot and think he is a tremendous actor. But that is just it: when I see Craig up on the screen, I see him acting -- doing a brilliant job, but acting none the less. WIth Connery, he so effortessly inhabits the character of Bond that I never get the sense of him consciously making choices -- just BEING in the moment. I would say Lazenby and Dalton fall into this same camp for me as well, but to a much lesser extent. Bronson I think does a solid job, but, like Craig, I see him pulling the strings, as it were. Moore falls somewhere in between. I get a great, relaxed vibe from him, but perhaps because his films are so much more theatrical and outlandish, there remains a synthetic aura about him. 

 

Can anyone beat out Connery? I'm sure one day, if the series continues, someone will come along that is able to combine the iconic, effortless charisma of Connery and bring with it additional elements that elevate the performance beyond what Connery did. It just won't be Craig.

[glidrose]

Has Craig eclipsed Connery?

 

No. Especially not on the basis of SF which I think is Craig's weakest performance so far. I can't imagine Connery in SF nor Connery acting the way Craig does in this film, though I admit that's the fault of the script and not Craig.

 

Do we have a thread where we rate Craig's Bond performances from best to worst (or least best)?