72 replies to this topic

[B5Erik]

Isn't anyone tired of the same old same old with Daniel Craig? Bond is tortured (metaphorically), Bond is conflicted, Bond is unhappy, Bond questions himself and everyone else. Get over it, James! Every single movie now it's the whole tortured soul thing. Deeply unhappy and conflicted and lacking in confidence. That's not BOND.

They can continue with Craig's acting style, but they need to make Bond BOND. He needs to be comfortable in his own skin. He has to be confident to the point of being slightly arrogant. That doesn't make him a Superman, just the best at what he does (someone's got to be the best, and it's supposed to be James Bond - you know, nobody does it better).

[EyesOnly]

Isn't anyone tired of the same old same old with Daniel Craig? Bond is tortured (metaphorically), Bond is conflicted, Bond is unhappy, Bond questions himself and everyone else. Get over it, James! Every single movie now it's the whole tortured soul thing. Deeply unhappy and conflicted and lacking in confidence. That's not BOND.

They can continue with Craig's acting style, but they need to make Bond BOND. He needs to be comfortable in his own skin. He has to be confident to the point of being slightly arrogant. That doesn't make him a Superman, just the best at what he does (someone's got to be the best, and it's supposed to be James Bond - you know, nobody does it better).

I completely understand where you're coming from. I don't mind some conflicted emotions if they make the next film a straight forward bond adventure. I love what Craig has done with Bond, and the films are killer. However, they need to lighten up the themes a bit and introduce some variety to his Bond films.

[Tarl_Cabot]

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.

excellent points..you nailed it. Generic, cliche ridden Bond became a bore.


but to answer the thread's question: The end of Skyfall has Bond in the classic office with a male M again, Q and Moneypenny delivered....How much more authentic can it get...



ah ha!...The Rolex!! Yes, we need the rolex again.

[jamie00007]

Isn't anyone tired of the same old same old with Daniel Craig? Bond is tortured (metaphorically), Bond is conflicted, Bond is unhappy, Bond questions himself and everyone else. Get over it, James! Every single movie now it's the whole tortured soul thing. Deeply unhappy and conflicted and lacking in confidence. That's not BOND.

They can continue with Craig's acting style, but they need to make Bond BOND. He needs to be comfortable in his own skin. He has to be confident to the point of being slightly arrogant. That doesn't make him a Superman, just the best at what he does (someone's got to be the best, and it's supposed to be James Bond - you know, nobody does it better).

Funny, that doesnt sound anything like the three films I've seen. Sure, they had a few themes going on and some introspection and character development and have explored Bond's psyche a little, but for 95% of the films run times he's being James Bond the way James Bond always has been. "tortured soul"? "Deeply unhappy and conflicted and lacking in confidence"?? Not in the films I watched.

[Major Tallon]

Isn't anyone tired of the same old same old with Daniel Craig? Bond is tortured (metaphorically), Bond is conflicted, Bond is unhappy, Bond questions himself and everyone else. Get over it, James! Every single movie now it's the whole tortured soul thing. Deeply unhappy and conflicted and lacking in confidence. That's not BOND.

They can continue with Craig's acting style, but they need to make Bond BOND. He needs to be comfortable in his own skin. He has to be confident to the point of being slightly arrogant. That doesn't make him a Superman, just the best at what he does (someone's got to be the best, and it's supposed to be James Bond - you know, nobody does it better).

Funny, that doesnt sound anything like the three films I've seen. Sure, they had a few themes going on and some introspection and character development and have explored Bond's psyche a little, but for 95% of the films run times he's being James Bond the way James Bond always has been. "tortured soul"? "Deeply unhappy and conflicted and lacking in confidence"?? Not in the films I watched.

Nor in mine. The "Skyfall" Bond who betrayes his cover upon arriving at the Montenegro hotel (and earning a rebuke for his arrogance), who flies into the desert knowing that his coming will have been betrayed, and who plans to take on Silva essentially alone is not a tortured soul and is hardly lacking in self confidence.

[Turn]

Isn't anyone tired of the same old same old with Daniel Craig? Bond is tortured (metaphorically), Bond is conflicted, Bond is unhappy, Bond questions himself and everyone else. Get over it, James! Every single movie now it's the whole tortured soul thing. Deeply unhappy and conflicted and lacking in confidence. That's not BOND.

They can continue with Craig's acting style, but they need to make Bond BOND. He needs to be comfortable in his own skin. He has to be confident to the point of being slightly arrogant. That doesn't make him a Superman, just the best at what he does (someone's got to be the best, and it's supposed to be James Bond - you know, nobody does it better).

And where do the Craig films fall short of his not being the best at what he does? Because people close to him died? You honestly want the return to the happy ending with Bond and the girl intertwined in some exotic spot and a tawdry comeback for every occasion. I had enough of those bad puns in DAD to last the rest of the series.

I considered it much less interesting and successful when they had a less intresting actor in the role, threw in some tease he's like he's injured, he's captured, he's abandoned, etc. only to revert to the same old same old by the end. They took great lengths to emphasize Bond wasn't 100 percent after being injured in TWINE and by the end he's miraculously healed

A Bond who is dogged in pursuing his target like in the Parkour chase or the footchase at the beginning of QoS or the pretitles of Skyfall, that's Bond to me. The guy risking life and limb is Bond to me. People praise the moment in TND with Brosnan sitting in his hotel room with a drink in hand, and I do as well. Also Moore kicking Locque off the side of the cliff in FYEO. But those are the exceptions rather than the norm, but always stand out in fans' minds. With the Craig Bond, those are the norm and I'd hate to see those types of things jettisoned in favor of a guy who is about the quips and in a tuxedo the whole film not getting dirty or sweating.

[Judo chop]

Isn't anyone tired of the same old same old with Daniel Craig? Bond is tortured (metaphorically), Bond is conflicted, Bond is unhappy, Bond questions himself and everyone else. Get over it, James! Every single movie now it's the whole tortured soul thing. Deeply unhappy and conflicted and lacking in confidence. That's not BOND.

They can continue with Craig's acting style, but they need to make Bond BOND. He needs to be comfortable in his own skin. He has to be confident to the point of being slightly arrogant. That doesn't make him a Superman, just the best at what he does (someone's got to be the best, and it's supposed to be James Bond - you know, nobody does it better).

And where do the Craig films fall short of his not being the best at what he does? Because people close to him died? You honestly want the return to the happy ending with Bond and the girl intertwined in some exotic spot and a tawdry comeback for every occasion. I had enough of those bad puns in DAD to last the rest of the series.

I considered it much less interesting and successful when they had a less intresting actor in the role, threw in some tease he's like he's injured, he's captured, he's abandoned, etc. only to revert to the same old same old by the end. They took great lengths to emphasize Bond wasn't 100 percent after being injured in TWINE and by the end he's miraculously healed

A Bond who is dogged in pursuing his target like in the Parkour chase or the footchase at the beginning of QoS or the pretitles of Skyfall, that's Bond to me. The guy risking life and limb is Bond to me. People praise the moment in TND with Brosnan sitting in his hotel room with a drink in hand, and I do as well. Also Moore kicking Locque off the side of the cliff in FYEO. But those are the exceptions rather than the norm, but always stand out in fans' minds. With the Craig Bond, those are the norm and I'd hate to see those types of things jettisoned in favor of a guy who is about the quips and in a tuxedo the whole film not getting dirty or sweating.

I feel like the points trying to be made in here aren’t really coming across. I would propose that the next story doesn't end with a woman close to him dying in his arms. I would ask that in the next film Bond doesn't have to wrestle with loyalty issues. I think this is the kind of ‘confidence’ that the OP is talking about (and not whether Bond is brave enough to do something like run into an erupting volcano full of exploding acid ninjas).

I don’t think anybody has asked for Bond to go back to the days of Bond “keeping the British end up” in a raft. I would agree with the OP that Craig’s tenure has been heavy themed (which is fine), but that it shouldn’t continue in that vein, or at least not to the degree that it has been so far. Is there any harm in moving forward where the threats are less… internal?

[plankattack]

I do think the OP has something in wondering whether the next the story has to hang around Bond's "angst" (for want of a better word).

I don't think anyone on this thread is advocating a return to bad puns and general mucking about - and by extension an indestructible superhero who is ultimately a parody of the very character he purports to be. I for one don't want to lose the three-dimensional character that TD and DC especially have brought to the screen, but it's about degrees, no? Bond can still be impulsive, make some mistakes, in general be human - without it having to be about his childhood etc.

Though to be fair, IMHO it's only been two films where this has been backstory/motivation (QoS and SF - I don't see too much emotional baggage through CR - I see a confident, slightly impulsive 007).

The challenge is to make Bond a "real" person and on-screen, rather than in the written word, that can be a tough task for a writer/actor, when exposition's main task is to keep the plot moving. EON have missed as often as they've hit, in this regard - for every OHMSS and TLD, there's TND and DAD where any characterization (Paris, betrayal) is introduced and then never really carried through with any conviction.

Even SF - the idea of Bond off-his-game seems to disappear in a hurry; Bond has the shakes when aiming at the shot-glass, and then within about 20 seconds, he's effortlessly shooting everyone while lying on his back, side, etc.

I see FYEO (and it's no MacBeth!)as an interesting example to follow - Sir Rog is still playing his Bond, but there is an underlying sense of age and the motivation of revenge which make the lead just a little more interesting as a character, rather than the Bond of say YOLT, who's just strolling through proceedings without breaking a sweat, nothing more than another plot device. That film because of SC's presence - if it had been a first-time Bond with that script, we'd have been left with very little bar the spectacle.

[Judo chop]

I do think the OP has something in wondering whether the next the story has to hang around Bond's "angst" (for want of a better word).

I do too.

…it's about degrees, no?

Yes it is. I think that is being overlooked in this conversation.

Bond can still be impulsive, make some mistakes, in general be human - without it having to be about his childhood etc.

Absolutely. And I think with the end of SKYFALL, we’ve closed the door on the childhood matter. Of course Craig’s Bond can still ice-over when someone mentions his childhood or other sensitive parts of his past, as Moore’s Bond did in TSWLM. These kinds of exposed nerves can even be leveraged by a villain in a final spin in the 3^rd act, for example. It just doesn’t need to be the primary driver of the films anymore.

Though to be fair, IMHO it's only been two films where this has been backstory/motivation (QoS and SF - I don't see too much emotional baggage through CR - I see a confident, slightly impulsive 007).

Yes, but CR was still about Bond’s parts coming together and forming a whole. And it was welcomed. QOS was about more formation (whether or not one thinks it was done well). SF, less so, but it does continue the loyalty issues evident in its two predecessors even further (and who would argue it wasn’t done more successfully). None of this is a complaint. It’s all good, but it’s got to end at some point or the good will get old, which I think is the OP’s general point.

Even SF - the idea of Bond off-his-game seems to disappear in a hurry; Bond has the shakes when aiming at the shot-glass, and then within about 20 seconds, he's effortlessly shooting everyone while lying on his back, side, etc.

I just remembered there’s the moment where Bond is hanging onto the elevator shaft and struggling with his grip. I’m wondering if we’re meant to believe this would normally have been an easier task, but b/c of his hiatus, his grip ain’t as kung-fu as it used to be.

[Guy Haines]

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.

When Silva starts challenging Bond's sexuality, what does our man reply? "What makes you think this is my first time?" I didn't take that as Bond admitting to a homosexual fling, but letting the villain know that he wasn't the least bit impressed with his attempt at unsettling him. Or when Silva boasts about what he can do with a computer, Bond chips in "Or how about a gas explosion in London?". That's not a Bond who is a tortured soul but one who is cool and unflappable. That's Bond being Bond.

Daniel Craig's Bond owes much to the films but also much to the novels. And in the novels Bond does have moments of self doubt - more than once he seriously considers why he does the job he does and thinks about packing it in. Or why, between missions, his life becomes jaded. Then M sends for him, and of course, "Bond becomes Bond". It is all part of the character rather than the cliche. And for me, Daniel Craig has become Bond on screen.

[00 Brosnan]

I've seen confidence and arrogance in Craig's Bond at many points. But, there's more to his Bond than that. It would be a shame if they turned his Bond into a modern day Connery/Lazenby/Moore/Brosnan interpretation of pure confidence (not that I don't enjoy those actors obviously).

[col_007]

I don't understand what the OP is trying to say

[B5Erik]

I don't understand what the OP is trying to say

That's a common issue. A lot of what I post flies over peoples' heads.

What I'm saying is that the way they've written Bond over the last 3 movies makes him seem like a different character in some respects. He's conflicted. He's constantly grumpy and unhappy. He lacks the joy that Bond's always gotten in doing his job well. That's fine in context of the scripts in question, but what I'm saying is that it's time to write a story that lets Bond become more comfortable being Bond. He doens't have to be as conflicted. He can question his orders (as most Bond movies have him acting outside his orders), but he doesn't need to be written as the dour character that we've seen for much of the last 3 movies. Let him have some fun for crying out loud!

There are a number of people who have responded to this thread who clearly don't, "Get it." It doesn't have to be one EXTREME or the other. You can have a serious Bond with character development and still have fun. He can still deliver one liners. He can still be more smooth and suave and charming without being the near parody that Roger Moore often became. You can balance out the dark character moments with more of the lighter stuff. BALANCE. Skyfall is great, but DAMN it's dark and unpleasant most of the time. I'd like to see something like Tomorrow Never Dies with more brains next time out (in other words a fun movie, but with better characters and dialogue and a better, more intelligently crafted plot).

BALANCE. I don't want to see Bond movies swing too far in either direction. DAD was ridiculously over the top and campy. Skyfall was ridiculously dark and serious (but a MUCH better movie than DAD, so I'm still happy with it overall). Find a middle ground, or a middle range, really. From TND to CR is probably a good range to fit the Bond movies in. Try not to get more silly and over the top than TND, but try to avoid getting darker or more serious than CR. Of course, job #1 should be to make a great movie, period, but style-wise I sure would like to see more of the Bond we saw from the first two Connery movies and the two Timothy Dalton movies.

That's really the character balance I think they should be looking at - right in between the Bond of Dr. No & FRWL and the Bond of TLD & LTK. All written with quality that we've seen in CR and Skyfall.

I just feel like the Bond movies are getting too heavy thematically to continue this way, and I would like to see Bond focused less on personal stuff and more on the assignment next time out.

Here's a great way to put it - I LOVE the way Dalton's Bond was clearly irritated at having to follow orders & protocol after helping Koskov escape ("If he fires me I'll thank him for it.") but then he clearly takes joy (and has a beaming smile) about having, "Scared the living daylights out of her." That is a great balanced moment. Bond isn't just a happy go lucky guy. He's clearly world weary and irritated, but he can still have fun and enjoy certain aspects of what he does at the same time. I'd like to see Craig allowed to do more of that than he has up to this point.

And I think he will be given the opportunity to do that next time out.

Edited by B5Erik, 22 November 2012 - 05:25 AM.

[Zographos]

He's constantly grumpy and unhappy.

He lacks the joy that Bond's always gotten in doing his job well.

Skyfall is great, but DAMN it's dark and unpleasant most of the time.

I just don't see it.

I mean, I follow the argument. But it just doesn't pertain to the reality I'm seeing on screen. Sorry. And I'm sincerely sorry you found Skyfall to be unpleasant.

There are a number of people who have responded to this thread who clearly don't, "Get it." It doesn't have to be one EXTREME or the other.

Sure, agreed. 100%. I think you've hit the nail on the head on what makes a great Bond movie. I don't find the latest movies extreme though. For me, they're largely struck the balance that you're talking about. I hope they continue that way.

[jamie00007]

While I can agree with that when it comes to QoS, I dont see that at all in CR and SF outside a handful of scenes. Outside of Vespers death, where was he so dark and grumpy in CR? He even jokes when being tortured and after being poisoned. In Skyfall after he comes back from the "dead" its pretty much business as usual, I see no darkness or dourness besides a moment of reflection as he arrives at Skyfall, at least certainly no more than a Dalton film.

Edit: Agreed 100% with Zographos. I understand your argument but it just in no way matches the movies I've seen. And judging by the amount of laughs and cheers in the audience I saw SF in its hard to imagine they were watching this "dark, grumpy dour" character either.

Edited by jamie00007, 22 November 2012 - 06:41 AM.

[perdogg]

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.

I agree. He looks like Putin and cannot utter his lines, he mumbles. I prefer a Lazenby Bond.

[SecretAgentFan]

I agree. He looks like Putin and cannot utter his lines, he mumbles. I prefer a Lazenby Bond.

There was no Putin and no mumbling in my SKYFALL screening. Maybe you should ask your theatre owner which film you have seen?

[Turn]

I don't understand what the OP is trying to say

That's a common issue. A lot of what I post flies over peoples' heads.

What I'm saying is that the way they've written Bond over the last 3 movies makes him seem like a different character in some respects. He's conflicted. He's constantly grumpy and unhappy. He lacks the joy that Bond's always gotten in doing his job well. That's fine in context of the scripts in question, but what I'm saying is that it's time to write a story that lets Bond become more comfortable being Bond. He doens't have to be as conflicted. He can question his orders (as most Bond movies have him acting outside his orders), but he doesn't need to be written as the dour character that we've seen for much of the last 3 movies. Let him have some fun for crying out loud!

There are a number of people who have responded to this thread who clearly don't, "Get it." It doesn't have to be one EXTREME or the other. You can have a serious Bond with character development and still have fun. He can still deliver one liners. He can still be more smooth and suave and charming without being the near parody that Roger Moore often became. You can balance out the dark character moments with more of the lighter stuff. BALANCE. Skyfall is great, but DAMN it's dark and unpleasant most of the time. I'd like to see something like Tomorrow Never Dies with more brains next time out (in other words a fun movie, but with better characters and dialogue and a better, more intelligently crafted plot).

BALANCE. I don't want to see Bond movies swing too far in either direction. DAD was ridiculously over the top and campy. Skyfall was ridiculously dark and serious (but a MUCH better movie than DAD, so I'm still happy with it overall). Find a middle ground, or a middle range, really. From TND to CR is probably a good range to fit the Bond movies in. Try not to get more silly and over the top than TND, but try to avoid getting darker or more serious than CR. Of course, job #1 should be to make a great movie, period, but style-wise I sure would like to see more of the Bond we saw from the first two Connery movies and the two Timothy Dalton movies.

That's really the character balance I think they should be looking at - right in between the Bond of Dr. No & FRWL and the Bond of TLD & LTK. All written with quality that we've seen in CR and Skyfall.

I just feel like the Bond movies are getting too heavy thematically to continue this way, and I would like to see Bond focused less on personal stuff and more on the assignment next time out.

Here's a great way to put it - I LOVE the way Dalton's Bond was clearly irritated at having to follow orders & protocol after helping Koskov escape ("If he fires me I'll thank him for it.") but then he clearly takes joy (and has a beaming smile) about having, "Scared the living daylights out of her." That is a great balanced moment. Bond isn't just a happy go lucky guy. He's clearly world weary and irritated, but he can still have fun and enjoy certain aspects of what he does at the same time. I'd like to see Craig allowed to do more of that than he has up to this point.

And I think he will be given the opportunity to do that next time out.

With this post it makes it more clear that we are closer to what we would like out of future Bond films. I've said in various threads over the years that every film since LTK has had some type of personal thing attached to it. I would just like a mission film with some of the aspects we've seen that have made the Craig era unique. No stupid puns just for the sake of it, no gadgets just for the sake of it, no casino scene just for the sake of it, no bizarre henchman or things that were automatically expected in the past.

Also, no more traitors within Mi6 or past girlfriends or any of that.

In short, isn't it great to be able to discuss these as our possibilities rather than thinking more of the same?

[B5Erik]

While I can agree with that when it comes to QoS, I dont see that at all in CR and SF outside a handful of scenes. Outside of Vespers death, where was he so dark and grumpy in CR? He even jokes when being tortured and after being poisoned. In Skyfall after he comes back from the "dead" its pretty much business as usual, I see no darkness or dourness besides a moment of reflection as he arrives at Skyfall, at least certainly no more than a Dalton film.

Edit: Agreed 100% with Zographos. I understand your argument but it just in no way matches the movies I've seen. And judging by the amount of laughs and cheers in the audience I saw SF in its hard to imagine they were watching this "dark, grumpy dour" character either.

Well, OK, in CR he was rough around the edges and wasn't a fully developed, "James Bond," but that was by design of the reboot.

In QOS and much of Skyfall he's not a happy camper and isn't all that smooth or suave. He's bitter, angry, and cynical.

I'd just like to see a James Bond movie where it isn't about his personal angst for a change. Let James be James. Not the punny Roger Moore James, but closer to Connery and Dalton (and even some of what Brosnan did). Not a carbon copy, but just closer to that.

[JimmyBond]

We'll just agree to disagree then. Because I saw the James Bond you describe in Skyfall.

[freemo]

I think Bond seemed in good humour in a number of moments in SKYFALL and I think SKYFALL is "vintage" Bond in many ways (albiet perhaps not in the basic story, but certainly in execution). Craig was, to quote Loomis, "the Bond we know and love" by the end of SOLACE (or even by the end of ROYALE. Hell, for me Craig has been "James Bond" from the beginning). By the end of SKYFALL we know have "the MI6 we know and love" too.

I do think you can tell stories that allow for character development and examination of the character's thoughts and philosophies and world view without the caper itself being THIS TIME IT'S PERSONAL!. Though SKYFALL is personal, it's for the most part personal without being PERSONAL!! It doesn't wallow in it's angst and nor is it heavy-handed about it all.

[Guy Haines]

I think Bond seemed in good humour in a number of moments in SKYFALL and I think SKYFALL is "vintage" Bond in many ways (albiet perhaps not in the basic story, but certainly in execution). Craig was, to quote Loomis, "the Bond we know and love" by the end of SOLACE (or even by the end of ROYALE. Hell, for me Craig has been "James Bond" from the beginning). By the end of SKYFALL we know have "the MI6 we know and love" too.

I do think you can tell stories that allow for character development and examination of the character's thoughts and philosophies and world view without the caper itself being THIS TIME IT'S PERSONAL!. Though SKYFALL is personal, it's for the most part personal without being PERSONAL!! It doesn't wallow in it's angst and nor is it heavy-handed about it all.

Actually, "this time it's personal", which I agree is getting a bit tiresome as a tag line, could be properly assigned to the villain's motives rather than Bond's. I'd say Bond is, rightly, annoyed in one scene in SF when he returns and meets M and challenges her judgement over the Turkey mission. Why wouldn't he? - Bond almost ended up dead and so far as MI6 was concerned almost certainly was. After that scene though, he's a man trying to sort himself out and by the time he gets to China we can see that he's largely succeeded, in spite of failing the tests back at HQ - only when he's challenged by Silva to fire a flintlock at the whisky glass perched on Severine's head do we see him flinch slightly.

[jamie00007]

We'll just agree to disagree then. Because I saw the James Bond you describe in Skyfall.

As do I. In spades.

It's interesting, B5Erik uses Dalton as an example of a "balanced" Bond the Craig films should aspire to. As far as I can see the general consensus is that Dalton was too grim and humorless whilst Craig explores a similar direction but brings more humor and humanity to the role. I love Dalton, but that's certainly how I see it too.

[B5Erik]

We'll just agree to disagree then. Because I saw the James Bond you describe in Skyfall.

As do I. In spades.

It's interesting, B5Erik uses Dalton as an example of a "balanced" Bond the Craig films should aspire to. As far as I can see the general consensus is that Dalton was too grim and humorless whilst Craig explores a similar direction but brings more humor and humanity to the role. I love Dalton, but that's certainly how I see it too.

Dalton just seemed more BOND-like than Craig does. He was classier. He came across as more refined, while a little rough around the edges. Craig comes across as rough and street level through and through with the refinement just being a facade. There's just something about Craig's Bond that doesn't quite ring true even with the Bond we saw from Connery or Dalton.

Dalton gets a rap as grim and angry and dour in LTK, but that's only true once he finds Della's body. After having the exact same thing happen to his own wife that was a raw nerve that was aggravated and sent him into a rage that only killing Sanchez could cure. It was real. It was natural and made sense. Before that, though, he's charming, full of smiles and has a great sense of humor. In just that 12 or 15 minutes he smiles and shows more of an upbeat nature than Craig does in the entirety of Skyfall (which, again, I think is a great movie).

I'd just like to see Craig's bond become a little more refined - like Dalton and Connery's Bond. He's refined and classy, but only to a point. With their Bond you can tell it's a learned thing from life experience more than from upbringing.

It seems that Craig's most ardent supporters are not willing to accept that others don't find him to be the, "Perfect Bond." It's funny, re-reading that thread with the review of DAD from 2002 I saw that I ripped that movie for being too ridiculous, and I got ripped by some people for criticizing it so harshly. I said then that Bond needed to come back down to earth and have a more realistic, grittier SPY movie the next time out. I noted that I wanted a balanced approach with Bond, balancing the larger than life aspects of the movie Bond with the realism of the Bond of the original novels. Casino Royale just went slightly farther than I wanted, as did Skyfall (but I love both of them). QOS was flawed enough that I wasn't as concerned about the stylistic issues...

[The Shark]

Craig is pure Bond in SKYFALL's Macau casino sequence. Refined, witty, irreverent, and bloody cool. Everything from his to-and-fro with Eve, his reaction to the barmaid shaking his Martini (no innuendo needed), to toasting the three bodyguards. It's the small touches.

[sharpshooter]

Craig is pure Bond in SKYFALL's Macau casino sequence. Refined, witty, irreverent, and bloody cool. Everything from his to-and-fro with Eve, his reaction to the barmaid shaking his Martini (no innuendo needed), to toasting the three bodyguards. It's the small touches.

Oh yes, I agree. Toasting the body guards was priceless. Pure confidence and in your face competitive spirit. Craig has brought humanity, toughness and a keen wit to the role, especially in Skyfall.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

I had to go to a second viewing to confirm it, but this is definitely one of the best Bond films, and Craig is 100% pure Bond from start to end. I feel this is a high point for the series and hope they can maintain it for as long as possible.

[Gothamite]

It's regrettable that one of the finest (possibly THE finest) James Bond actors ever is consistently beaten down with this criticism.

For me, Daniel Craig was James Bond from the moment he shot the the gunbarrel-assailant in CASINO ROYALE. At the end of the amazing Kleinman title sequence of that film, there's a moment where a silhouetted Craig walks into frame accompanied by the words 'Based on the novel by Ian Fleming'. We see the cold blue in his eyes and he's unquestionably Bond.

"Stop touching your ear," "Good evening, Ms. Lynd." "You know what I can do with my little finger," "Wouldn't think of it!" "That last hand...nearly killed me." Craig effortlessly combines humour and menace in a way that beats even Timothy Dalton (who leaned more towards anger and frustration).

Even the manner in which he walks and the clothing he wears in each scene dominates every frame in which he appears (something that hasn't been the case since the Connery era). He's Bond and beyond.

While there's certainly some merit to the argument that the Craig films are pushing their luck a small bit with Bond having to prove himself in each instalment capped off by a triumphant finale where he 'becomes' the "Bond we all know and love" with the theme tune blaring, it's been handled so well in each film (even QoS) that I don't mind too much, and Daniel Craig's performance has been second-to-none in each film so far that it's carried the weaker moments of each of the films.

While Craig will never quite be Fleming's Bond (a character from another time with outdated sensibilities), his is the most interesting and the most intriguing update of the character there has been so far. He embodies so much of what I love about the Fleming character AND the EON character that his interpretation interests me as much as the original. For my money, he's the best James Bond ever and I'm delighted that he has two more performances locked in.

Edited by Gothamite, 24 November 2012 - 03:13 PM.

[B5Erik]

It's regrettable that one of the finest (possibly THE finest) James Bond actors ever is consistently beaten down with this criticism.

Yes, because Craig is above criticism.

For me, Daniel Craig was James Bond from the moment he shot the the gunbarrel-assailant in CASINO ROYALE. At the end of the amazing Kleinman title sequence of that film, there's a moment where a silhouetted Craig walks into frame accompanied by the words 'Based on the novel by Ian Fleming'. We see the cold blue in his eyes and he's unquestionably Bond.

"Stop touching your ear," "Good evening, Ms. Lynd." "You know what I can do with my little finger," "Wouldn't think of it!" "That last hand...nearly killed me." Craig effortlessly combines humour and menace in a way that beats even Timothy Dalton (who leaned more towards anger and frustration).

Even the manner in which he walks and the clothing he wears in each scene dominates every frame in which he appears (something that hasn't been the case since the Connery era). He's Bond and beyond.

It's that beyond part that doesn't sit right with me. And from what I'm reading from both fans and critics there are a lot of others who feel the same way. Craig is great, but the character isn't coming across purely as Bond. There's something different about him.

While there's certainly some merit to the argument that the Craig films are pushing their luck a small bit with Bond having to prove himself in each instalment capped off by a triumphant finale where he 'becomes' the "Bond we all know and love" with the theme tune blaring, it's been handled so well in each film (even QoS) that I don't mind too much..

Personally, I'm sick of the new formula. It's gotten old and tired after three movies. He becomes the Bond we all know and love, but then regresses in the next movie and reverts to the other character. Unhappy, moody, and less sure of his place in the world. Enough already. Three times in a row is ridiculous. Yes, Bond has MOMENTS in Skyfall that show confidence, but he never seems completely there. He's angry, unhappy, and unsure if he really wants to be a double-0 (that's the undercurrent of the way the part is written, and Craig emphasizes that in his performance because he is a great actor).

While Craig will never quite be Fleming's Bond (a character from another time with outdated sensibilities), his is the most interesting and the most intriguing update of the character there has been so far. He embodies so much of what I love about the Fleming character AND the EON character that his interpretation interests me as much as the original. For my money, he's the best James Bond ever and I'm delighted that he has two more performances locked in.

I've got no problem with Craig in the role. My problem is how they're writing the character. All this angst and self-doubt has gotten tiresome. (Does Bond really want to keep the job, or does he want to move back to some island and live out his life in a much simpler way?) How about a Bond movie where Bond KNOWS that this is where he belongs and ENJOYS doing it? What a concept! How about a Bond movie where Bond's inner demons aren't a main part of the story? A Bond movie about the actual job/case at hand? (You know, where he does detective work and then utilizes his licence to kill to stop the bad guy.) You can still write the character as more complex than what we saw in previous decades, but Bond - JAMES MOTHERBLEEPING BOND - is beyond angst and beyond doubting his place in the world. He's a grown-up. He may have inner demons, but he keeps that under control.

It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other with Bond movies.

I was ripped by fans of DAD when it came out because I was critical of that movie. Now EON took the Bond series just a little too far in the other direction and I'm noting what I think about that and I'm getting ripped by the Craig followers. It's like Craig is some cult leader and his followers feel the need to defend him to the death or something. I've always said that I want the Bond movies to show a better BALANCE between the hard edged personal stuff and the wild, over the top camp stuff that we've seen too often in previous movies. Licence To Kill is about as far in one direction as I'd like to go, with Tomorrow Never Dies being as far the other way as I'd like the series to go. I'd prefer that the movies find a happy medium between those points most of the time. But that's just crazy talk, apparently...

[plankattack]

While Craig will never quite be Fleming's Bond (a character from another time with outdated sensibilities), his is the most interesting and the most intriguing update of the character there has been so far. He embodies so much of what I love about the Fleming character AND the EON character that his interpretation interests me as much as the original. For my money, he's the best James Bond ever and I'm delighted that he has two more performances locked in.

This is a great point. I don't think we'll ever see "Fleming's Bond" on-screen as the various cinematic variations have added/emphasized various aspects that the public won't accept Bond without.

DC has highlighted aspects of Fleming's creation, literally taking the notion of blunt instrument to almost thuggish extremes - audiences have become so accustomed over the decades to Bond on-screen dispatching of villains effortlessly that DC's very physical interpretation of the brutality and untidyness of murder can be jarring for some.

Ever the diplomat, I do get the gist of B5's argument. Perhaps if DC had an opportunity to solve a situation purely on his smarts this might assuage things? Take LTK - TD is still the assassin trading in violence, but the whole concept of infiltrating Sanchez's organization is a cerebral exercise. Obviously at some moment he will be using his gun and his fists, but there is a sense that Bond succeeds because he's outsmarting the villain. (contrast with Sir Rog's portrayal, where the proportions are reversed).

DC has to the most part, punched his way through situations, not too dissimilar to Brozza's Bond for whom machine-gunning everyone was ultimately the defining tactic.

I do think that DC is capable of an TB-type Bond. Sure, the action part is taken care of, but some of the major plot points hang on Bond "using" Domino, playing off her love for her brother.

B5 - would that answer your "sophistication" request?