Perhaps, but for me Bond is too important to compromise on, merely to get more box office by being a near-Bourne clone.
I just don't see CR and Skyfall as Bourne clones. QOS on the other hand, with the herky, jerky, camera work and editing does IMO have a "Bourne" feeling to it. I actually believe that the Bourne films owe much more to the Bond films.
Perhaps, but for me Bond is too important to compromise on, merely to get more box office by being a near-Bourne clone.
I just don't see CR and Skyfall as Bourne clones. QOS on the other hand, with the herky, jerky, camera work and editing does IMO have a "Bourne" feeling to it. I actually believe that the Bourne films owe much more to the Bond films.
I agree. I think Casino Royale has such a lush, Bond vision that it is easily distinguishable from Bourne. SkyFall was very clearly intended to fit many of the standards and expectations of classic Bond films, making it also separate from Bourne.
QoS was the one that most seemed to have that identity crises where it adopted the conventions of the Bourne action megahits instead of hinging on dialogue, characters, and so much more that people associate with Bond tradition. Not a bad thing, but it was definitely more similar to Bourne than any other Bond film in many scenes.
Roger Moore is a first class gentleman, humanitarian, and humble.
One of my favorite Moore anecdotes was when Moore's own son learned that his father was to be the new Bond:
"But Daddy, isn't Uncle Sean James Bond?" and Moore's reply was "Son, I'm just playing James Bond, Uncle Sean is James Bond".
Roger Moore is a first class gentleman, humanitarian, and humble.
One of my favorite Moore anecdotes was when Moore's own son learned that his father was to be the new Bond:
"But Daddy, isn't Uncle Sean James Bond?" and Moore's reply was "Son, I'm just playing James Bond, Uncle Sean is James Bond".
Roger Moore is a first class gentleman, humanitarian, and humble.
One of my favorite Moore anecdotes was when Moore's own son learned that his father was to be the new Bond:
"But Daddy, isn't Uncle Sean James Bond?" and Moore's reply was "Son, I'm just playing James Bond, Uncle Sean is James Bond".
Utterly charming and very magnanimous. What a gentlemen.
Again referring to the opening sequence of CR, practically a foretaste of what to expect with DC's Bond, zeroing in on those indelibly lingering seconds of Bond's grimmacing face as he tries to violently drown some guy...who comes closer to mind, Sean Connery ( Lazenby, Moore, etc.) or Vinnie Jones?
I see your point here, but I thought Connery’s strangling of Grant in FRWL was similar. In such a situation, I don’t think any one would be smiling.
But then again as I've said, the bathroom scene in CR served to introduce us to DC as JB, practically the very first sequence in the movie apart from the Czech station chief's office sequence. On the other hand regarding FRWL, by the time we saw the train fight scene, we've already been indoctrinated into Connery's metrosexual Bond and that scene was neatly framed with 007 foiling Grant's ruse with the "fish and red wine" observation, keeping a stoic expression and perfect poise even while on his knees, then Connery tidying himself up after the fight to again look the gentleman; the grimmace didn't define him unlike DC's intro. Conversely, as you've pointed out in another post of you quoting me, Connery's DN intro effectively defined his Bond as the suave and sophisticated Bond, and one who was capable of physically besting thugs on occassion without becoming one himself.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Perhaps, but for me Bond is too important to compromise on, merely to get more box office by being a near-Bourne clone.
I just don't see CR and Skyfall as Bourne clones. QOS on the other hand, with the herky, jerky, camera work and editing does IMO have a "Bourne" feeling to it. I actually believe that the Bourne films owe much more to the Bond films.
Hiring the Bourne stunt coordinator Dan Bradley and using the exact "go car" stunt vehicle rig used in Bourne Supremacy for QoS is a pretty strong indicator; the QoS car chase scene and rooftop foot chase are definitely Bourne inspired. Likewise, seeing the fights and stunt sequences in CR, it's hard to deny that there wasn't a Bourne influence; arguably, Bond became a "super soldier" only in CR, whereas Bourne, unlike Bond or even the likes of Ethan Hunt, was cinematically defined as a super soldier from the beginning. As far as movies go, the 1st Bourne movie definitely made its own mark and style, though on the written page it's another story, in which there are too many parallels in the Bourne Identity novel with the James Bond books to chalk off as coincidence.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
It seems that the graceful and fashionable thing to do nowadays as a former Bond lead, co-star, crew-member, etc. is for that person to give the highest praise for whoever is the current Bond, with exceptions of course.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
I like Clive Owen, but I do think in comparison to actors who have played Bond, he does have a bit more of a thuggish boom than a sharp bite. He would have made for a very different Bond, in my opinion.
I was one who was against Owen during that time and still think he is thuggish; with that said, I think he definitely falls into the same category or "type" as DC. Just take that movie "Killer Elite" that had Owen and Stratham, I could have easily seen DC playing a part in that movie, maybe even in the Stratham role. That movie had its high share of Brit tough guy staples like retro mercs, the SAS and even a London underworld vibe (though the underworld per se was not featured). Ironically to me, the Ranulph Fiennes character (who in real life was an adventurer) was Bond and Fleming like.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Personally, I think Craig has done wonders for the Bond franchise. He portrays the guy as a burnout--mush as Fleming wrote the character in his novels. In Fleming's books, Bond is a cold, hard killer. And that's how Craig portrays him. I grew up watching the Roger Moore films--and while I always enjoyed them, I never believed Moore's Bond to be an assassin. Connery was, of course, excellent . . . but even he was far more debonair than the character in the books. I think Craig nails it.
Personally, I think Craig has done wonders for the Bond franchise. He portrays the guy as a burnout--mush as Fleming wrote the character in his novels. In Fleming's books, Bond is a cold, hard killer. And that's how Craig portrays him. I grew up watching the Roger Moore films--and while I always enjoyed them, I never believed Moore's Bond to be an assassin. Connery was, of course, excellent . . . but even he was far more debonair than the character in the books. I think Craig nails it.
I don't disagree about Craig's contribution to the series, but what I try to figure out is how people make the jump that Craig=Literary Bond. When considering "cold-blooded assassin," I think of the SMERSH killer at the end of CR, or Grant in FRWL. Bond on the other hand is an agent of the state who is licensed to kill, yes, but one who does so on occassion; at least one time in GF Bond does contemplate with a measure of remorse for having to kill someone. In experiencing burn-out, the literary Bond suffered from the condition, yes, but more towards the end of the series and accentuated with the events of OHMSS and YOLT. I don't remember Bond consistently being sharp, rude or visibly contemptuous with people he encountered, even in the presence of characters he didn't like. I don't remember Bond being as crass and overconfident in his banter with women he just met like Vesper in CR (the movie). I also don't remember Bond ever displaying near the same level of disrespect as the movie Bond has done to M; in fairness to DC, Dalton was the one who started that "bit" and it's been done w/Brosnan, then Craig. My theory why people make such assumptions that Craig=Literary Bond, is because Craig is not "traditional-EON" Bond, but that doesn't automatically make Craig=Literary Bond.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
He is sort of literary Bond as far as the first novel is concerned, he was more of an assassin cum sniper, the sort of bloke Craig is. But Fleming's Bond mellowed or became more humane as he went on, in particular in Thunderball, where he seems a bit Cary Grant, cos Fleming hoped it would be a film, he was maybe trying to broaden the appeal.
Fleming's Bond might be inadvertently a bit rude, no, not like Craig's Wayne Rooney-style churlishness.
But the producers have played up Bond's neo-con, assassin status since the pts of GE imo. And he falls out with his bosses because he doesn't generate much credible personality conflict with the actual villains, who seem to be way down in the list of priorities.
I think all the Bond actors have reflected bits and pieces of the literary Bond, some more than others, some more convincingly than others. From Connery on, EON has adapted the character for what they believe will work best on the screen, reflect the times, and have broad audience appeal. I've read some of the books, but I'm not as well versed as others when it comes to literary Bond. I do find myself preferring the "harder edged" Bond portrayals. The reality is, we will probably never get the pure literary Bond. I don't have a problem with that but I understand others who do.
Superado's points are very well taken. I do get the feeling based upon the last scene in "Skyfall" that the lack of respect for authority that Craig's Bond has displayed will be toned down considerably in the next film. The dynamic of the relationship between DC's Bond and Dench's M being removed from the mix will help considerably to that end.
I think your point about the literary Bond vs the cinematic Bond is very well-taken, and frankly I don't believe that a literal presenation of the Bond from the novels would have worked as well on screen as what got instead.
I think all the Bond actors have reflected bits and pieces of the literary Bond, some more than others, some more convincingly than others. From Connery on, EON has adapted the character for what they believe will work best on the screen, reflect the times, and have broad audience appeal. I've read some of the books, but I'm not as well versed as others when it comes to literary Bond. I do find myself preferring the "harder edged" Bond portrayals. The reality is, we will probably never get the pure literary Bond. I don't have a problem with that but I understand others who do.
Superado's points are very well taken. I do get the feeling based upon the last scene in "Skyfall" that the lack of respect for authority that Craig's Bond has displayed will be toned down considerably in the next film. The dynamic of the relationship between DC's Bond and Dench's M being removed from the mix will help considerably to that end.
I love that real Bond die hards can't take to Craig cause he doesn't look like their vision of Bond 8-)
Lets get the facts straight without Craig...
1. We be stuck with the sheer campery of Brosnan's Bond.
2. They wouldn't get the cast, crew or Directors like Mendes without Craig.
3. He's made Bond human which in turn has made him likable again and giving the character depth which no actor hs done (Dalton tried).
4. He's actually gets himself stuck in with stunts, by building himself up for the part and training to look like he kill someone unlike Moore and Brosnan
5. He's made Bond an A-list Blockbuster again after years of lagging behind other spy franchises.
6. He's given the best Bond performances from any actor playing Bond. FACT.
Anyone disliking this guy need to be thanking this guy for making their beloved Bond important again.
I love that real Bond die hards can't take to Craig cause he doesn't look like their vision of Bond 8-)
Lets get the facts straight without Craig...
1. We be stuck with the sheer campery of Brosnan's Bond.
2. They wouldn't get the cast, crew or Directors like Mendes without Craig.
3. He's made Bond human which in turn has made him likable again and giving the character depth which no actor hs done (Dalton tried).
4. He's actually gets himself stuck in with stunts, by building himself up for the part and training to look like he kill someone unlike Moore and Brosnan
5. He's made Bond an A-list Blockbuster again after years of lagging behind other spy franchises.
6. He's given the best Bond performances from any actor playing Bond. FACT.
Anyone disliking this guy need to be thanking this guy for making their beloved Bond important again.
I agree. As much as I am a die hard Fleming/Bond fan, the audience will never take to the pure literary interpretation because the series has been around for fifty years now, and most ticket buyers are used to how the producers and directors, as well as the actors who played Bond have put him on the screen. Some Fleming/Bond fans will never be totally satisfied with the cinematic product, even though it will continue to run and make gazillions. They rebooted the series with a blond, muscled actor who seems to be a bit of Steve McQueen reincarnated, but at least they did it with one who is believable and who can act and with him they were able to take the series back to the darker road Fleming road on. As long as they never return to the villain in the the sci-fi lairs, buffoon humor and laser wristwatches, I'll be satisfied with the cinematic version for now. Perhaps one day in the far future someone will be able to do an actual remake of the novels as period pieces as they did with the Granada Sherlock Holmes series. Aside from that, we who are among the Fleming/Bond fans will have to be satisfied with the novels until then.
I love that real Bond die hards can't take to Craig cause he doesn't look like their vision of Bond 8-)
Lets get the facts straight without Craig...
1. We be stuck with the sheer campery of Brosnan's Bond.
2. They wouldn't get the cast, crew or Directors like Mendes without Craig.
3. He's made Bond human which in turn has made him likable again and giving the character depth which no actor hs done (Dalton tried).
4. He's actually gets himself stuck in with stunts, by building himself up for the part and training to look like he kill someone unlike Moore and Brosnan
5. He's made Bond an A-list Blockbuster again after years of lagging behind other spy franchises.
6. He's given the best Bond performances from any actor playing Bond. FACT.
Anyone disliking this guy need to be thanking this guy for making their beloved Bond important again.
Whilst I agree with much of what you say, putting 'fact' in capitals does not make it so.
I love that real Bond die hards can't take to Craig cause he doesn't look like their vision of Bond 8-)
Lets get the facts straight without Craig...
1. We be stuck with the sheer campery of Brosnan's Bond.
2. They wouldn't get the cast, crew or Directors like Mendes without Craig.
3. He's made Bond human which in turn has made him likable again and giving the character depth which no actor hs done (Dalton tried).
4. He's actually gets himself stuck in with stunts, by building himself up for the part and training to look like he kill someone unlike Moore and Brosnan
5. He's made Bond an A-list Blockbuster again after years of lagging behind other spy franchises.
6. He's given the best Bond performances from any actor playing Bond. FACT.
Anyone disliking this guy need to be thanking this guy for making their beloved Bond important again.
Hmm, I just wonder about the popular mindset today that for one’s “boy” to be significant, he must own and dominate everyone else. As I’ve said many, many times, I don’t disagree with the success that Craig has brought to the series, but I just don’t get how some extreme fans think that he’s the best things since sliced bread and dogs’ balls; to be fair, this is how it also was with some of Brosnan’s fans in his time.
In terms of campiness being absent, not so fast…just remember that whenever DC utters “Bond, James Bond,” finds himself in the obligatory tuxedo scene, or fixes his cufflinks after leaping onto the moving, sheared-off end of a train car, you got camp and I got the feeling that we'll be seeing more. Also, why does the Bond series need to become “respectable” again in its rank of holiday season blockbusters? Again with this need to best or dominate the competitors or impersonators, why is it so important? Even at the series' lowest popularity in face of the hot thing then, just as long as I got my Bond installment in regular intervals, I was happy. History already shows that the series defined and set the standard for the action block-buster, but reality shows that Bondmania already peaked in the 60’s, but the fact that it already did so gives me comfort about the series’ status in cinema.
This incessant need for some to know how popular DC’s Bond with validation by box office receipts, on the other hand, doesn’t really prove that DC is “the best.” All it proves is that his Bond has been extremely popular and judging from the degenerate, gang-buster and convict wannabe’s in the ticket line and inside the movie house, I’m not really in the best company and I would actually feel better with an unpopular Bond just as long as I have as littlest in common with this current herd.
I don’t understand why the most stalwart DC fanboys need to not only prove, but force other people to concede that DC is the greatest film Bond of all time, the most closest to Ian Fleming’s James Bond, the toughest Bond, the handsomest Bond, etc., etc., LOL, but the one issue where I draw the line is the frequent assertion of DC as the closest Literary Bond; I put the challenge out there to anyone who thinks so, to actually explain how and why this is so…please explain!!!
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I love that real Bond die hards can't take to Craig cause he doesn't look like their vision of Bond 8-)
Lets get the facts straight without Craig...
1. We be stuck with the sheer campery of Brosnan's Bond.
2. They wouldn't get the cast, crew or Directors like Mendes without Craig.
3. He's made Bond human which in turn has made him likable again and giving the character depth which no actor hs done (Dalton tried).
4. He's actually gets himself stuck in with stunts, by building himself up for the part and training to look like he kill someone unlike Moore and Brosnan
5. He's made Bond an A-list Blockbuster again after years of lagging behind other spy franchises.
6. He's given the best Bond performances from any actor playing Bond. FACT.
Anyone disliking this guy need to be thanking this guy for making their beloved Bond important again.
Hmm, I just wonder about the popular mindset today that for one’s “boy” to be significant, he must own and dominate everything else. As I’ve said many, many times, I don’t disagree with the success that Craig has brought to the series, but I just don’t get how some extreme fans think that he’s the best things since sliced bread and dogs’ balls; to be fair, this is how it also was with some of Brosnan’s fans in his time.
In terms of campiness being absent, not so fast…just remember that whenever DC utters “Bond, James Bond,” finds himself in the obligatory tuxedo scene, or fixes his cufflinks after leaping onto the moving, sheared-off end of a train car, you got camp and I got the feeling that we'll be seeing more. Also, why do the Bond series need to become “respectable” again in its rank of holiday season blockbusters? Again with this need to best or dominate the competitors or impersonators, why is it so important? Even at the series' lowest popularity in face of the hot thing then, just so I got my Bond installment in regular intervals, I was happy. History already shows that the series defined and set the standard for the action block-buster, but reality shows that Bondmania already peaked in the 60’s, but the fact that it already did so gives me comfort about the series’ status in cinema.
This incessant need for some to know how popular DC’s Bond with validation by box office receipts, on the other hand, doesn’t really prove that DC is “the best.” All it proves is that his Bond has been extremely popular and judging from the degenerate, gang-buster and convict wannabe’s in the ticket line and inside the movie house, I’m not really in the best company and I would actually feel better with an unpopular Bond just as long as I have as littlest in common with this current herd.
I don’t understand why the most stalwart DC fanboys need to not only prove, but force other people to concede that DC is the greatest film Bond of all time, the most closest to Ian Fleming’s James Bond, the toughest Bond, the handsomest Bond, etc., etc., LOL, but the one issue where I draw the line is the frequent assertion of DC as the closest Literary Bond; I put the challenge out there to anyone who thinks so, to actually explain how and why this is so…please explain!!!
Be careful what you wish for...
We don't yet seem to be able to have a balanced discussion of either Skyfall or Craig. There is plenty that I like about both, but equally I find some elements problematic. I dislike the potential for crude binary camps as they stifle genuine exploration.
No matter who plays Bond or the tone the films take it will always create a polarizing effect among the posters on this forum.
Superado: I would strongly recommend you find a theater in a better part of town
By the way, when I saw the Connery Bond films back in the 60's at the local urban theater I frequented they also attracted a bit of a tough crowd.....they did think Connery was a badass though. -{
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
No matter who plays Bond or the tone the films take it will always create a polarizing effect among the posters on this forum.
Superado: I would strongly recommend you find a theater in a better part of town
By the way, when I saw the Connery Bond films back in the 60's at the local urban theater I frequented they also attracted a bit of a tough crowd.....they did think Connery was a badass though. -{
That's the price I pay for living in the San Francisco area. It wasn't always as bad...I do miss the geek crowd that was when the likes of AVTAK was showing when you must have been a real Bond fan to wait a minute in line for your tickets. You are fortunate to have been around at the peak of Bondmania though the impression I got from viewing the odd featurettes made around the time of GF and TB, were fans (some of them in their teens) who wore coats and ties at the cinema. The first Bond I saw in the theater was TSWLM and the crowds were the same kind of kids I saw when I watched Young Frankenstein and the theatrical re-release of Snow White.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
No matter who plays Bond or the tone the films take it will always create a polarizing effect among the posters on this forum.
Superado: I would strongly recommend you find a theater in a better part of town
By the way, when I saw the Connery Bond films back in the 60's at the local urban theater I frequented they also attracted a bit of a tough crowd.....they did think Connery was a badass though. -{
That's the price I pay for living in the San Francisco area. It wasn't always as bad...I do miss the geek crowd that was when the likes of AVTAK was showing when you must have been a real Bond fan to wait a minute in line for your tickets. You are fortunate to have been around at the peak of Bondmania though the impression I got from viewing the odd featurettes made around the time of GF and TB, were fans (some of them in their teens) who wore coats and ties at the cinema. The first Bond I saw in the theater was TSWLM and the crowds were the same kind of kids I saw when I watched Young Frankenstein and the theatrical re-release of Snow White.
I visited San Fran a few years ago....beautiful city. I live in Philadelphia, not a good city for movie theaters (not many to even go to). I generally drive to the nearby suburbs to go to the movies.
Nothing will ever top sitting in a huge theater in 1965 at the age of 8 with a bunch of my friends watching Connery in Thunderball. We couldn't give a hoot about the novels, the box office take or anything else except being mesmerized at what was happening on that 60 ft wide screen.
That being said, I'd be lying if I didn't admit that I still get pretty bloody excited seeing a new Bond film even in my ahem, maturity (my wife thinks I'm still 8 when it comes to Bond films....IMO 12 or 13 would be more accurate as I am quite sophisticated for my mental age ).
Maybe some day, when EON can't think of anything else to do with Bond or places to stash all the loot they will decide to do the stone cold literary Bond, probably as a mini series on HBO set in the 50's. Then some people will complain "what's with the revolver and that little lady's gun?" )
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Nothing will ever top sitting in a huge theater in 1965 at the age of 8 with a bunch of my friends watching Connery in Thunderball. We couldn't give a hoot about the novels, the box office take or anything else except being mesmerized at what was happening on that 60 ft wide screen.
That’s how it was like when I watched TSWLM, a bunch of little guys who were dropped off at the theater by one of our moms. I’ve always resented how my older sisters got to watch DAF at the theater and they made me eat my heart out with jealousy afterwards telling me about this guy named James Bond.
Maybe some day, when EON can't think of anything else to do with Bond or places to stash all the loot they will decide to do the stone cold literary Bond, probably as a mini series on HBO set in the 50's. Then some people will complain what's with the revolver and that little lady's gun?"
I would love to see the day when that happens. I was (and still would be okay with it) a proponent on this board about ending the Bond series, with the intention of letting the property mellow during a prolonged screen absence, to one day see it again on PBS or even as an animated adaptation faithful to the books. Who knows? Maybe in a couple of decades the series would reach a tipping point in plausibility and relevance and we’ll see the possibility of a true reboot beginning to take shape.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Getting back to the initial question in the first post, Daniel Craig has a real talent for action and stunts. He's a physical actor. He hurls himself into physical challenges like no one else I've seen in the movies.
The action is important in Bond films, but I'm more interested in the story. Plot and characters matter. Good writing matters to me more than action scenes. One should never assume that action scenes are the only things that audiences care about.
But the truth is any reasonably athletic actor can do the same action scenes and stunts if he has the training. It's nothing special or unique. The real distinction is in how he interprets the role and what he brings to it. Craig is a persuasive and compelling actor, but he has failed to display a grasp of James Bond. I don't know who he's playing in the Bond films, but it isn't James Bond. Not really. He's got the name but internally, emotionally, he's playing someone else. In SKYFALL he is morose and dejected. That's not James Bond for any time. I appreciate Craig as an actor but I enjoy his non-Bond films a lot more.
Richard
The top 7 Bond films: 1) Dr No. 2) From Russia With Love. 3) Thunderball. 4) On Her Majesty's Secret Service. 5) For Your Eyes Only. 6) The Living Daylights. 7) Licence to Kill.
Comments
I just don't see CR and Skyfall as Bourne clones. QOS on the other hand, with the herky, jerky, camera work and editing does IMO have a "Bourne" feeling to it. I actually believe that the Bourne films owe much more to the Bond films.
I agree. I think Casino Royale has such a lush, Bond vision that it is easily distinguishable from Bourne. SkyFall was very clearly intended to fit many of the standards and expectations of classic Bond films, making it also separate from Bourne.
QoS was the one that most seemed to have that identity crises where it adopted the conventions of the Bourne action megahits instead of hinging on dialogue, characters, and so much more that people associate with Bond tradition. Not a bad thing, but it was definitely more similar to Bourne than any other Bond film in many scenes.
http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2012/11/roger-moore-thinks-skyfall-star-daniel-craig-is-the-best-james-bond.html
Roger Moore is a first class gentleman, humanitarian, and humble.
One of my favorite Moore anecdotes was when Moore's own son learned that his father was to be the new Bond:
"But Daddy, isn't Uncle Sean James Bond?" and Moore's reply was "Son, I'm just playing James Bond, Uncle Sean is James Bond".
With all due respect to Sir Rog, I can do my own thinking. -{
Utterly charming and very magnanimous. What a gentlemen.
I only posted it to show people what he thinks. I don’t agree with him, by the way.
But then again as I've said, the bathroom scene in CR served to introduce us to DC as JB, practically the very first sequence in the movie apart from the Czech station chief's office sequence. On the other hand regarding FRWL, by the time we saw the train fight scene, we've already been indoctrinated into Connery's metrosexual Bond and that scene was neatly framed with 007 foiling Grant's ruse with the "fish and red wine" observation, keeping a stoic expression and perfect poise even while on his knees, then Connery tidying himself up after the fight to again look the gentleman; the grimmace didn't define him unlike DC's intro. Conversely, as you've pointed out in another post of you quoting me, Connery's DN intro effectively defined his Bond as the suave and sophisticated Bond, and one who was capable of physically besting thugs on occassion without becoming one himself.
Hiring the Bourne stunt coordinator Dan Bradley and using the exact "go car" stunt vehicle rig used in Bourne Supremacy for QoS is a pretty strong indicator; the QoS car chase scene and rooftop foot chase are definitely Bourne inspired. Likewise, seeing the fights and stunt sequences in CR, it's hard to deny that there wasn't a Bourne influence; arguably, Bond became a "super soldier" only in CR, whereas Bourne, unlike Bond or even the likes of Ethan Hunt, was cinematically defined as a super soldier from the beginning. As far as movies go, the 1st Bourne movie definitely made its own mark and style, though on the written page it's another story, in which there are too many parallels in the Bourne Identity novel with the James Bond books to chalk off as coincidence.
It seems that the graceful and fashionable thing to do nowadays as a former Bond lead, co-star, crew-member, etc. is for that person to give the highest praise for whoever is the current Bond, with exceptions of course.
I was one who was against Owen during that time and still think he is thuggish; with that said, I think he definitely falls into the same category or "type" as DC. Just take that movie "Killer Elite" that had Owen and Stratham, I could have easily seen DC playing a part in that movie, maybe even in the Stratham role. That movie had its high share of Brit tough guy staples like retro mercs, the SAS and even a London underworld vibe (though the underworld per se was not featured). Ironically to me, the Ranulph Fiennes character (who in real life was an adventurer) was Bond and Fleming like.
I don't disagree about Craig's contribution to the series, but what I try to figure out is how people make the jump that Craig=Literary Bond. When considering "cold-blooded assassin," I think of the SMERSH killer at the end of CR, or Grant in FRWL. Bond on the other hand is an agent of the state who is licensed to kill, yes, but one who does so on occassion; at least one time in GF Bond does contemplate with a measure of remorse for having to kill someone. In experiencing burn-out, the literary Bond suffered from the condition, yes, but more towards the end of the series and accentuated with the events of OHMSS and YOLT. I don't remember Bond consistently being sharp, rude or visibly contemptuous with people he encountered, even in the presence of characters he didn't like. I don't remember Bond being as crass and overconfident in his banter with women he just met like Vesper in CR (the movie). I also don't remember Bond ever displaying near the same level of disrespect as the movie Bond has done to M; in fairness to DC, Dalton was the one who started that "bit" and it's been done w/Brosnan, then Craig. My theory why people make such assumptions that Craig=Literary Bond, is because Craig is not "traditional-EON" Bond, but that doesn't automatically make Craig=Literary Bond.
Fleming's Bond might be inadvertently a bit rude, no, not like Craig's Wayne Rooney-style churlishness.
But the producers have played up Bond's neo-con, assassin status since the pts of GE imo. And he falls out with his bosses because he doesn't generate much credible personality conflict with the actual villains, who seem to be way down in the list of priorities.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Superado's points are very well taken. I do get the feeling based upon the last scene in "Skyfall" that the lack of respect for authority that Craig's Bond has displayed will be toned down considerably in the next film. The dynamic of the relationship between DC's Bond and Dench's M being removed from the mix will help considerably to that end.
Lets get the facts straight without Craig...
1. We be stuck with the sheer campery of Brosnan's Bond.
2. They wouldn't get the cast, crew or Directors like Mendes without Craig.
3. He's made Bond human which in turn has made him likable again and giving the character depth which no actor hs done (Dalton tried).
4. He's actually gets himself stuck in with stunts, by building himself up for the part and training to look like he kill someone unlike Moore and Brosnan
5. He's made Bond an A-list Blockbuster again after years of lagging behind other spy franchises.
6. He's given the best Bond performances from any actor playing Bond. FACT.
Anyone disliking this guy need to be thanking this guy for making their beloved Bond important again.
I agree. As much as I am a die hard Fleming/Bond fan, the audience will never take to the pure literary interpretation because the series has been around for fifty years now, and most ticket buyers are used to how the producers and directors, as well as the actors who played Bond have put him on the screen. Some Fleming/Bond fans will never be totally satisfied with the cinematic product, even though it will continue to run and make gazillions. They rebooted the series with a blond, muscled actor who seems to be a bit of Steve McQueen reincarnated, but at least they did it with one who is believable and who can act and with him they were able to take the series back to the darker road Fleming road on. As long as they never return to the villain in the the sci-fi lairs, buffoon humor and laser wristwatches, I'll be satisfied with the cinematic version for now. Perhaps one day in the far future someone will be able to do an actual remake of the novels as period pieces as they did with the Granada Sherlock Holmes series. Aside from that, we who are among the Fleming/Bond fans will have to be satisfied with the novels until then.
Whilst I agree with much of what you say, putting 'fact' in capitals does not make it so.
and would like to add,
I'm simply Brilliant , FACT
I'm am stunning to look at, FACT
I could kick Craig's ass, no Problem, FACT
all my Facts are Facts, FACT
and I don't think Craig has made Bond Impotent.
Hmm, I just wonder about the popular mindset today that for one’s “boy” to be significant, he must own and dominate everyone else. As I’ve said many, many times, I don’t disagree with the success that Craig has brought to the series, but I just don’t get how some extreme fans think that he’s the best things since sliced bread and dogs’ balls; to be fair, this is how it also was with some of Brosnan’s fans in his time.
In terms of campiness being absent, not so fast…just remember that whenever DC utters “Bond, James Bond,” finds himself in the obligatory tuxedo scene, or fixes his cufflinks after leaping onto the moving, sheared-off end of a train car, you got camp and I got the feeling that we'll be seeing more. Also, why does the Bond series need to become “respectable” again in its rank of holiday season blockbusters? Again with this need to best or dominate the competitors or impersonators, why is it so important? Even at the series' lowest popularity in face of the hot thing then, just as long as I got my Bond installment in regular intervals, I was happy. History already shows that the series defined and set the standard for the action block-buster, but reality shows that Bondmania already peaked in the 60’s, but the fact that it already did so gives me comfort about the series’ status in cinema.
This incessant need for some to know how popular DC’s Bond with validation by box office receipts, on the other hand, doesn’t really prove that DC is “the best.” All it proves is that his Bond has been extremely popular and judging from the degenerate, gang-buster and convict wannabe’s in the ticket line and inside the movie house, I’m not really in the best company and I would actually feel better with an unpopular Bond just as long as I have as littlest in common with this current herd.
I don’t understand why the most stalwart DC fanboys need to not only prove, but force other people to concede that DC is the greatest film Bond of all time, the most closest to Ian Fleming’s James Bond, the toughest Bond, the handsomest Bond, etc., etc., LOL, but the one issue where I draw the line is the frequent assertion of DC as the closest Literary Bond; I put the challenge out there to anyone who thinks so, to actually explain how and why this is so…please explain!!!
Be careful what you wish for...
We don't yet seem to be able to have a balanced discussion of either Skyfall or Craig. There is plenty that I like about both, but equally I find some elements problematic. I dislike the potential for crude binary camps as they stifle genuine exploration.
I agree with Blackleiter. FACT B-)
Superado: I would strongly recommend you find a theater in a better part of town
By the way, when I saw the Connery Bond films back in the 60's at the local urban theater I frequented they also attracted a bit of a tough crowd.....they did think Connery was a badass though. -{
That's the price I pay for living in the San Francisco area. It wasn't always as bad...I do miss the geek crowd that was when the likes of AVTAK was showing when you must have been a real Bond fan to wait a minute in line for your tickets. You are fortunate to have been around at the peak of Bondmania though the impression I got from viewing the odd featurettes made around the time of GF and TB, were fans (some of them in their teens) who wore coats and ties at the cinema. The first Bond I saw in the theater was TSWLM and the crowds were the same kind of kids I saw when I watched Young Frankenstein and the theatrical re-release of Snow White.
I visited San Fran a few years ago....beautiful city. I live in Philadelphia, not a good city for movie theaters (not many to even go to). I generally drive to the nearby suburbs to go to the movies.
Nothing will ever top sitting in a huge theater in 1965 at the age of 8 with a bunch of my friends watching Connery in Thunderball. We couldn't give a hoot about the novels, the box office take or anything else except being mesmerized at what was happening on that 60 ft wide screen.
That being said, I'd be lying if I didn't admit that I still get pretty bloody excited seeing a new Bond film even in my ahem, maturity (my wife thinks I'm still 8 when it comes to Bond films....IMO 12 or 13 would be more accurate as I am quite sophisticated for my mental age
Maybe some day, when EON can't think of anything else to do with Bond or places to stash all the loot they will decide to do the stone cold literary Bond, probably as a mini series on HBO set in the 50's. Then some people will complain "what's with the revolver and that little lady's gun?"
That’s how it was like when I watched TSWLM, a bunch of little guys who were dropped off at the theater by one of our moms. I’ve always resented how my older sisters got to watch DAF at the theater and they made me eat my heart out with jealousy afterwards telling me about this guy named James Bond.
I would love to see the day when that happens. I was (and still would be okay with it) a proponent on this board about ending the Bond series, with the intention of letting the property mellow during a prolonged screen absence, to one day see it again on PBS or even as an animated adaptation faithful to the books. Who knows? Maybe in a couple of decades the series would reach a tipping point in plausibility and relevance and we’ll see the possibility of a true reboot beginning to take shape.
The action is important in Bond films, but I'm more interested in the story. Plot and characters matter. Good writing matters to me more than action scenes. One should never assume that action scenes are the only things that audiences care about.
But the truth is any reasonably athletic actor can do the same action scenes and stunts if he has the training. It's nothing special or unique. The real distinction is in how he interprets the role and what he brings to it. Craig is a persuasive and compelling actor, but he has failed to display a grasp of James Bond. I don't know who he's playing in the Bond films, but it isn't James Bond. Not really. He's got the name but internally, emotionally, he's playing someone else. In SKYFALL he is morose and dejected. That's not James Bond for any time. I appreciate Craig as an actor but I enjoy his non-Bond films a lot more.
Richard