72 replies to this topic

[B5Erik]

When Casino Royale came out I had my criticisms of Daniel Craig's take on James Bond, but after multiple viewings I saw the potential for him to become, "James Bond," the Bond we've all known and loved for 50 years now. The set up sure seemed to be there, and it was supposed to be that by the end of QOS we'd recognize him as, "James Bond."

Well, QOS didn't deliver that, and neither has Skyfall (as great as Craig is and as great as the movie is, that isn't the classic James Bond).

BUT the ending of Skyfall sure did indicate that the producers know it's time to bring JAMES BOND back. It's time for Daniel Craig's bond to fully develop into, "James Bond," or at least his take on that character. Much like Timothy Dalton's Bond, Craig's got a chance to take the iconic character and put his spin on it. So far we've gotten a character under development (a development time that has taken longer than most of us expected, probably due to the disappionting nature of QOS and the need EON may have felt to re-reboot the series in a way with Skyfall).

I'm certainly hoping for more of the classier, smoother Bond in the next one. I'm definitely not looking for Roger Moore's Bond, but something with shades of Connery, Dalton, and Brosnan. I think Craig can deliver that given the right script.

Edited by B5Erik, 18 November 2012 - 07:12 PM.

[Aisforauric]

Couldn't agree more. Well said.

[peejnyc007]

Well, by the way Skyfall ended, all the elements are in place for the next film to be the "formula Bond" that so many fans have missed. (I totally flipped when M handed him his next mission brief with For Your Eyes Only stamped on it!) Gunbarrel at the beginning for Bond 24!

[delfloria]

Q better start repairing the DB5. So 007 can put it in his personal storage once again.

Time for a truly classic Bond adventure. Maybe even a Thunderball styled Blofeld.

[JimmyBond]

Craig was James Bond for me the second he stepped onscreen in Casino Royale. I think what you're looking for is for Craig to be more like the other actors take on James Bond. That won't happen, Craig is playing Bond in his own way, and I think Skyfall was a great example of how his Bond will be in future films.

[Henry-Jones-Sr]

I think it's not so much Craig as the films themselves. His three have made a point of removing all the elements that make a Bond film a Bond film, rather than conventional spy thrillers. If they throw all that lovely Bond goodness into the next one, Craig will be top of the pops.

[B5Erik]

Craig was James Bond for me the second he stepped onscreen in Casino Royale. I think what you're looking for is for Craig to be more like the other actors take on James Bond. That won't happen, Craig is playing Bond in his own way, and I think Skyfall was a great example of how his Bond will be in future films.

I completely disagree.

Sure, PART of it is Daniel Craig, just like Timothy Dalton was different from Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan was different from Dalton. But just as much is how the character is written. They haven't been writing him as the suave, confident, smooth, charming Bond that we had seen in the previous movies. He's been angry, cynical, and cold. That's not all Craig. That's the writers and directors, too.

They need to write a script where Bond is comfortable in his skin again. They need to write dialogue where Bond is a confident smartass again. They need to put him in the tux a little more often. They need to have him smile a little more often. Bond should actually have fun on occasion like he always has.

That's all behind the camera stuff. Producer, writers, director. And I expect to see that change next time out.

[byline]

Craig was James Bond for me the second he stepped onscreen in Casino Royale. I think what you're looking for is for Craig to be more like the other actors take on James Bond. That won't happen, Craig is playing Bond in his own way, and I think Skyfall was a great example of how his Bond will be in future films.

I agree with this. I also like Timothy Dalton and the way he played the role, but wish he could have had more written into the character to enable him to make this change into a more believable Bond. With Craig, everyone in front of and behind the camera is on the same page, with regard to how the character was presented. Unfortunately for Dalton, that wasn't true. And maybe the public would not have been ready for a more Fleming-esque Bond. Who's to say. For me, Craig is much closer to what someone in his field would be like, someone I can truly believe onscreen. Being a hired assassin for your government isn't "fun" ... and I never much cared for previous Bond films' attempts to make it appear so.

[JimmyBond]

Craig was James Bond for me the second he stepped onscreen in Casino Royale. I think what you're looking for is for Craig to be more like the other actors take on James Bond. That won't happen, Craig is playing Bond in his own way, and I think Skyfall was a great example of how his Bond will be in future films.

I completely disagree.

Sure, PART of it is Daniel Craig, just like Timothy Dalton was different from Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan was different from Dalton. But just as much is how the character is written. They haven't been writing him as the suave, confident, smooth, charming Bond that we had seen in the previous movies. He's been angry, cynical, and cold. That's not all Craig. That's the writers and directors, too.

They need to write a script where Bond is comfortable in his skin again. They need to write dialogue where Bond is a confident smartass again. They need to put him in the tux a little more often. They need to have him smile a little more often. Bond should actually have fun on occasion like he always has.

That's all behind the camera stuff. Producer, writers, director. And I expect to see that change next time out.

OK, this I do agree with you. But what's wrong with Bond being written this way? I'm certainly enjoying it, and several others are as well.

[The Shark]

I think it's not so much Craig as the films themselves. His three have made a point of removing all the elements that make a Bond film a Bond film, rather than conventional spy thrillers.

What are the elements?

[plankattack]

They need to write a script where Bond is comfortable in his skin again. They need to write dialogue where Bond is a confident smartass again.

B5, I'm not sure you're going to get that with DC as the lead. He/EON have stated that they're trying to look at the novels more than they did for the longest time, and while I've read all Fleming's novels, I'm far from an expert, but I don't think Bond was ever written as a "confident smartass."

Now that has been the way he's appeared on-screen, but I don't think DC/EON are looking at their own cinematic history to draw on as they move forward.

That being said, I definitely agree that DC could pull off a SC in GF/TB performance, and I think that amount of swagger would be a joy to watch with him as the lead. But the Bond of OP or TND just isn't going to appear with this actor; and I don't think the audience would buy it. For better or for worse, we're in an age where the infallible, unflappable superhero isn't selling. Even the comic-strip characters are that way (Spiderman, Batman, Ironman etc).

[tdalton]

They need to write a script where Bond is comfortable in his skin again. They need to write dialogue where Bond is a confident smartass again.

B5, I'm not sure you're going to get that with DC as the lead. He/EON have stated that they're trying to look at the novels more than they did for the longest time, and while I've read all Fleming's novels, I'm far from an expert, but I don't think Bond was ever written as a "confident smartass."

Now that has been the way he's appeared on-screen, but I don't think DC/EON are looking at their own cinematic history to draw on as they move forward.

Hopefully they continue down that route in terms of the portrayal of Craig's Bond. The Bond of the novels is a much more interesting character than the superman that the films have portrayed more often than not, and it's a good thing that they're finally moving back in that direction again rather than continuing on with Bond as, more or less, a static character.

[B5Erik]

They need to write a script where Bond is comfortable in his skin again. They need to write dialogue where Bond is a confident smartass again.

B5, I'm not sure you're going to get that with DC as the lead. He/EON have stated that they're trying to look at the novels more than they did for the longest time, and while I've read all Fleming's novels, I'm far from an expert, but I don't think Bond was ever written as a "confident smartass."

Now that has been the way he's appeared on-screen, but I don't think DC/EON are looking at their own cinematic history to draw on as they move forward.

That being said, I definitely agree that DC could pull off a SC in GF/TB performance, and I think that amount of swagger would be a joy to watch with him as the lead. But the Bond of OP or TND just isn't going to appear with this actor; and I don't think the audience would buy it. For better or for worse, we're in an age where the infallible, unflappable superhero isn't selling. Even the comic-strip characters are that way (Spiderman, Batman, Ironman etc).

OK, I may have overstated the whole, "Confident smartass," thing. Well, maybe not. What I'm talking about is what you saw from Connery in Dr. No, FRWL, GF, and Thunderball with Dalton's edge. We don't need a fourth movie in a row where Bond is a tortured soul, not sure of how he fits into things, not as confident, and not comfortable in his own skin. We've had enough of that soul searching stuff to last the next 3 or 4 movies. It's time for Bond to be BOND. Confident. A bit arrogant. And that's where the smartass part comes in - his one liners should be the way Connery, and to a lesser degree Dalton, delivered them - halfway mocking somone (usually his enemies).

I'm not saying that Craig should become Roger Moore (I thought I made that part clear before), or even Pierce Brosnan, but he should be playing the same character that the other guys played (primarily Connery, Dalton, and Brosnan, which, up to now, he really hasn't been). The series got a reboot, so there's been good reason for the difference in the character, but now he's become Bond, so we should see more of that classic character on screen again.

Edited by B5Erik, 19 November 2012 - 05:46 AM.

[jamie00007]

I think people have been brainwashed by the gazillion reboots and superhero origin movies of the last decade that they're now programmed to think that any character development is all some kind of cause and effect to create "the character we know". Everything is some step to becoming some static, non-changing character. And I dont think thats ever been the case with the Craig films at all, as far as Im concerned he was Bond from the beginning of CR.

[Morgan]

Craig's strength is the dark troubled side of Fleming's Bond which should always be the for front of his perfromance with a just a sprinkle of humour and sophistication. This is Craig's gift to the role and I hope EON doesn't change this. It's the proper way to play Bond...period!

[Guy Haines]

I agree with Morgan above. Craig has now created his own very convincing interpretation of Bond, influenced a lot by the Bond of the books. While he can be put into a more traditional type of adventure it would be wrong to have him change his way of portraying Bond simply to make him more like Connery or any other predecessors in the role, or to fit into some idealised version of the cinematic Bond.

Sir Roger Moore has compared playing 007 with playing Hamlet - not that Bond is the same as Shakespeare, but that different actors have different interpretations of a role.

[00 Brosnan]

Craig just needs to keep doing what he's doing with the character. The added bit of humor in SF is what I was waiting for and he seemed pretty James Bond to me. SF itself I consider to be a top 5 film. I would like to see the next one take a less emotional approach, but still focus foremost on the characters.

I think like most of you that the ending of SF along with a new M, Moneypenny, & Q indicate a more traditionally structured Bond film.

[plankattack]

Craig just needs to keep doing what he's doing with the character. The added bit of humor in SF is what I was waiting for and he seemed pretty James Bond to me. SF itself I consider to be a top 5 film. I would like to see the next one take a less emotional approach, but still focus foremost on the characters.

Yes - I think there is a difference between a story that deals with how James Bond is who he is, and a story that depends on who James Bond is. With DC involved, we are definitely going to continue to see films that hinge on Bond's decisions as a character, but I agree with many who say that the back-story will probably take a backseat.

Too many Bond films have a plot that rolls along without any regard to what the lead character is doing - he is another passenger in the story. For example, in YOLT, Bond just rolls around, stuff happens, he's there; in TLD, there is a sense that Bond is making decisions - who to trust, how to act, which influence how the story unfolds.

I think we're in a time where we're going to get the latter rather than the former. And DC will still be charming, cruel, clever, and physical, but his actions will influence proceedings.

[Miles Miservy]

Q better start repairing the DB5. So 007 can put it in his personal storage once again.

Time for a truly classic Bond adventure. Maybe even a Thunderball styled Blofeld.

My son was more upset about the death of the Aston Martin than the death of M. (Okay... he's only 7).

[Miles Miservy]

Each of Daniel Craig's films offer a glimpse into his interpretation of Bond and I agree that his Dalton-esque approach was timed quite well because Pierce Brosnan WAS well... getting a bit predictably stale.

There WAS one scene in SKYFALL, however that was thoughoughly UN-Bondlike. It was Severine's "William Tell" scene . It wasn't Craig's fault. I've no idea why the writers chose to write it that way (maybe a glimpse into Silva's character, not Bond's). Either way, it was difficult, if not downright uncomfortable to watch and I came away from it thinking, There's no way in hell, any of the other 5 guys would've let the scene end the way it did. It was then that I knew that this was going to be the darkest film ever in the series.

[byline]

Each of Daniel Craig's films offer a glimpse into his interpretation of Bond and I agree that his Dalton-esque approach was timed quite well because Pierce Brosnan WAS well... getting a bit predictably stale.

There WAS one scene in SKYFALL, however that was thoughoughly UN-Bondlike. It was Severine's "William Tell" scene . It wasn't Craig's fault. I've no idea why the writers chose to write it that way (maybe a glimpse into Silva's character, not Bond's). Either way, it was difficult, if not downright uncomfortable to watch and I came away from it thinking, There's no way in hell, any of the other 5 guys would've let the scene end the way it did. It was then that I knew that this was going to be the darkest film ever in the series.

You're right about that. However, I think that some folks look at that scene, and Bond's quip, and conclude that he is completely heartless. I disagree. On second viewing, I made a point of really watching Craig as he uttered that line. First of all, Bond doesn't say it straightaway. There's a pause, almost as if he's gathering his internal strength to hold himself together. And then he utters that line, but with his jaw clenched, as if it's still quite difficult for him. But it's also shot not as a closeup, so that we in the audience automatically get it, but from a distance. So it's a very minimalist approach to showing what's going on inside of Bond, and I think it's a significant tribute to Craig that he's able to pull it off. But I admit that I had to pay attention to catch it.

[B5Erik]

Craig's strength is the dark troubled side of Fleming's Bond which should always be the for front of his perfromance with a just a sprinkle of humour and sophistication. This is Craig's gift to the role and I hope EON doesn't change this. It's the proper way to play Bond...period!

I don't think so, not to the extent that we've seen it for the last three movies, anywaty.

I like that to a point, but we really don't need to see the, "Bond as tortured soul," thing four movies in a row. It's getting old and tired. If he was really that screwed up they wouldn't assign him to such sensitive assignments as he could snap at any time.

We need to see THIS Bond coming to grips with who and what he is and feeling comfortable with that. No more agonizing over what to do with the rest of his life, no more self doubts and self pity. Enough of that. He should be something in between Connery's Bond and Dalton's Bond. Nobody does it better - and he knows it. Confidence and even arrogance needs to creep in a bit where all that tortured soul stuff used to be.

[SecretAgentFan]

Each of Daniel Craig's films offer a glimpse into his interpretation of Bond and I agree that his Dalton-esque approach was timed quite well because Pierce Brosnan WAS well... getting a bit predictably stale.

There WAS one scene in SKYFALL, however that was thoughoughly UN-Bondlike. It was Severine's "William Tell" scene . It wasn't Craig's fault. I've no idea why the writers chose to write it that way (maybe a glimpse into Silva's character, not Bond's). Either way, it was difficult, if not downright uncomfortable to watch and I came away from it thinking, There's no way in hell, any of the other 5 guys would've let the scene end the way it did. It was then that I knew that this was going to be the darkest film ever in the series.

You're right about that. However, I think that some folks look at that scene, and Bond's quip, and conclude that he is completely heartless. I disagree. On second viewing, I made a point of really watching Craig as he uttered that line. First of all, Bond doesn't say it straightaway. There's a pause, almost as if he's gathering his internal strength to hold himself together. And then he utters that line, but with his jaw clenched, as if it's still quite difficult for him. But it's also shot not as a closeup, so that we in the audience automatically get it, but from a distance. So it's a very minimalist approach to showing what's going on inside of Bond, and I think it's a significant tribute to Craig that he's able to pull it off. But I admit that I had to pay attention to catch it.

Same here - and I do think that this is exactly the right reaction to the SPOILER. What should he have said instead? "Mr. Silva, I am utterly shocked by your cruelty! A human life is nothing to be gambled with! I am hurt now and unable to perform my duties. You really managed to put me off. I shall be led to my quarters immediately to regain my composure."

Edited by SecretAgentFan, 20 November 2012 - 07:39 AM.

[THX-007]

There WAS one scene in SKYFALL, however that was thoughoughly UN-Bondlike. It was Severine's "William Tell" scene . It wasn't Craig's fault. I've no idea why the writers chose to write it that way (maybe a glimpse into Silva's character, not Bond's). Either way, it was difficult, if not downright uncomfortable to watch and I came away from it thinking, There's no way in hell, any of the other 5 guys would've let the scene end the way it did. It was then that I knew that this was going to be the darkest film ever in the series.

I had no problem with the William Tell scene. I don't think its un-Bondlike. Okay, sure, maybe its not Connery-like or whoever (except Dalton. I could see him say that line). Really I see the line the same way I saw the line "What makes you think this is my first time." Bond is trying not to let Silva get the upper hand.
Oh remember this colorful line: "The bitch is dead." Straight from the pen of Mr. Fleming so I don't know how you could look at that line and say "That's un-Bondlike!"

t was then that I knew that this was going to be the darkest film ever in the series.

Nope, LTK still has it beat.

[jsteed]

They need to write a script where Bond is comfortable in his skin again. They need to write dialogue where Bond is a confident smartass again.

B5, I'm not sure you're going to get that with DC as the lead. He/EON have stated that they're trying to look at the novels more than they did for the longest time, and while I've read all Fleming's novels, I'm far from an expert, but I don't think Bond was ever written as a "confident smartass."

Now that has been the way he's appeared on-screen, but I don't think DC/EON are looking at their own cinematic history to draw on as they move forward.

Hopefully they continue down that route in terms of the portrayal of Craig's Bond. The Bond of the novels is a much more interesting character than the superman that the films have portrayed more often than not, and it's a good thing that they're finally moving back in that direction again rather than continuing on with Bond as, more or less, a static character.

Exactly, I've loved the way Craig's Bond has been portrayed. Much more influenced by the Bond novels than the films. The way the screen character has been portrayed in previous non-Craig films has been done in slight variations of the Connery iconic interpretation, with the exception of Dalton films. It's good to see fresh take on the character. From the first second of CR, I never questioned Daniel Craig as James Bond.

[THX-007]

From the first second of CR, I never questioned Daniel Craig as James Bond.

Same here. I don't get this "he's not James Bond yet." I would think Skyfall would be the end of that because of the whole 3rd film thing (Goldfinger, TSWLM), but no he's "still not James Bond." He had a gadget-filled DB5 in Skyfall, what more do you want? And the whole thing about confidence remember this, "Sir, I have the honour to request if you´II accept my resignation, ...effective forthwith." Or "Go ahead. Tell M what you want. If he fires me, I'll thank him for it."

[Judo chop]

I'm certainly hoping for more of the classier, smoother Bond in the next one. I'm definitely not looking for Roger Moore's Bond, but something with shades of Connery, Dalton, and Brosnan. I think Craig can deliver that given the right script.

Not sure if you are expecting the films to become WAKALBOND (Bond We All Know And Love) or if you are expecting something out of Craig particularly.

I’ll give you the films. All 3 have been heavy-themed, and I expect (and hope) that the next one(s) will be made of lighter material.

But I don’t think we should expect anything different from Craig. He’s not going to give us anything radically different from what we’ve already seen. Craig’s interpretation of the classier/smoother Bond you say you hope to see, HAS been seen, where appropriate. This is especially the case with the advent of SKYFALL.

[Turn]

The last thing I want right now is a character whose every line and move is telegraphed in advance. Looking back at the series from 30 years ago or so it was certainly on autopilot; particularly with Moore. One of the refreshing things I found in Skyfall was there were moments when I was expecting a quip and it wasn't there, nor some clever comeback line. That coupled with Craig being possibly the most watchable Bond actor makes me want to see what he'll come up with next, as opposed to I just want another James Bond film. You get a James Bond film with a fantastic lead, which creates an even greater anticipation, at least for me, which I couldn't say 10 years ago.

[Yellow Pinky]

You get a James Bond film with a fantastic lead, which creates an even greater anticipation, at least for me, which I couldn't say 10 years ago.

My sentiments exactly, Turn! For me personally, each of the successive Brosnan Bond movies had diminishing returns from the one that preceded it. My love for the character of Bond kept me interested, but the anticipation factor from TND onward (I quite liked GE, and still do) was never what I am currently experiencing in the Craig era.

[jamie00007]

Agreed 100% with the last two posts.

I went and watched each and every Brosnan film because I was a Bond fan and it was automatic. I didnt dislike them (except DAD) but at the same time I never went in expecting much and never came out surprised. But ever since CR I go do go in with a sense of excitement that the film could be really something special and with a sense of anticipation of not knowing what to expect and just dying to find out. Its never been more exciting or interesting to be a Bond fan.