Daniel Craig's Stuntwork Hangups.

hcantrell

I was perusing the old IMDB looking at reports and rumors for Bond 25 and I reminded myself of the sourced quote about Craig and his wife not wanting to push too far with the stunts. He's been injured in multiple places and had a couple surgeries to repair his knee and shoulder from injuries sustained doing Bond stunts. Is anyone else worried that Bond 25 might be light on great action stunts? We're spoiled by the incredible stunt pieces of the Mission Impossible movies and I'm concerned that Craig is going to be cautious with what he's open to doing and not doing. I wish Craig was as driven to do all of his stunts and up the stakes like Tom Cruise does. I don't think he should have an excuse because Tom Cruise is older than Craig as well. Just some thoughts...curious to hear what you guys think.

Chriscoop

I think DC has acquited himself well with his stunt work, he's been very physical and committed to learning the skills needed. It's a bit unfair to compare him with Tom Cruise who is a phenomenon and who also has the luxury of being one of the bosses of the mi films. A lot of actors "action film" actors do very little in the way of their own stunts. DC has overcome a dislike of heights and opted to do stunts in place of the stunt man, mendes mentions the train in the pts of skyfall where he tried it out for himself to make sure he was happy then asked for the train to go faster. His injury may slow him down a bit but only the most critical eye will notice in the finished film.

zaphod99

Chriscoop wrote:

I think DC has acquited himself well with his stunt work, he's been very physical and committed to learning the skills needed. It's a bit unfair to compare him with Tom Cruise who is a phenomenon and who also has the luxury of being one of the bosses of the mi films. A lot of actors "action film" actors do very little in the way of their own stunts. DC has overcome a dislike of heights and opted to do stunts in place of the stunt man, mendes mentions the train in the pts of skyfall where he tried it out for himself to make sure he was happy then asked for the train to go faster. His injury may slow him down a bit but only the most critical eye will notice in the finished film.

I think DC has equitted himself admirably in the stunt/action department. Cruise is indeed a phenomenon and possibly borderline insane in terms of the risks he takes. This was discussed a lot when MI was released and it did indeed up the anti. I'm sure that DC will be fine and convincing. I have mentioned before that how much he does or does not do is not as important as believing that it's possible that he could.

HowardB

Chriscoop wrote:

I think DC has acquited himself well with his stunt work, he's been very physical and committed to learning the skills needed. It's a bit unfair to compare him with Tom Cruise who is a phenomenon and who also has the luxury of being one of the bosses of the mi films. A lot of actors "action film" actors do very little in the way of their own stunts. DC has overcome a dislike of heights and opted to do stunts in place of the stunt man, mendes mentions the train in the pts of skyfall where he tried it out for himself to make sure he was happy then asked for the train to go faster. His injury may slow him down a bit but only the most critical eye will notice in the finished film.

Well put. -{

Number24

We can't expect actors to do stunts like Tom Cruise does. Even when the actor wants to do more stunts the insurance companies won't let them. Cruise is i a special situation, perhaps even unique. He has the will and ability to do these fantastic stunts. At the same time he is a superstar who carriers the whole franchise, so the film company and insurance company can't say no to him.

Matt S

I'm always hoping that there are going to be less opportunities for Craig to show off his physicality. I'd be happy to go back to the Connery-style Bond films where there was substance rather than stunts to keep our interest.

Arbogast 777

Bond films to me are not action films, they are espionage films. I agree with Matt the I’d love a more Connery era film. I want suspense, not stunts and explosions.

walther p99

I also agree that Bond should be less set piece/stunt work oriented and return to its more espionage roots. Especially since I just cant imagine anything they do could top Fallout anyway.

Number24

While I too would like more focus on suspense and espionage, the Bond movies have always had first rate stunts. I think they can do both. Make a suspenseful story about espionage, but throw in about three major action scenes with amazing stunts. CR did just that.
In MI they go from one action set piece to the next at breakneck speed tied together by a flimys story and hardly any characterization, and they do it brilliiantly. Bond movies should use action and stunts more sparingly, but when they do it it should be top-notch.

zaphod99

Matt S wrote:

I'm always hoping that there are going to be less opportunities for Craig to show off his physicality. I'd be happy to go back to the Connery-style Bond films where there was substance rather than stunts to keep our interest.

Agreed, but it needed not be either or. Connery combined Leonine physicality with substance and charm. I see no reason why Daniel could not do likewise. If pushed to choose I'd go for substance.

Arbogast 777

My greatest fear with EON looking at Fallout rather than doing its own thing is that we go down the path that gave us Moonraker then Die Another Day. I don’t want kite surfing tsunami Bond ever again. He’s an agent who occasionally gets into danger, not a superhero.

emtiem

I love what Cruise is doing with the MI and appreciate it immensely, but I'm not going to expect or be disappointed by someone refusing to risk their life or injury for my entertainment!

Thunderpussy

Let the Stuntpeople do the stunts and let the actors, act.

Gala Brand

hcantrell wrote:

I was perusing the old IMDB looking at reports and rumors for Bond 25 and I reminded myself of the sourced quote about Craig and his wife not wanting to push too far with the stunts. He's been injured in multiple places and had a couple surgeries to repair his knee and shoulder from injuries sustained doing Bond stunts. Is anyone else worried that Bond 25 might be light on great action stunts? We're spoiled by the incredible stunt pieces of the Mission Impossible movies and I'm concerned that Craig is going to be cautious with what he's open to doing and not doing. I wish Craig was as driven to do all of his stunts and up the stakes like Tom Cruise does. I don't think he should have an excuse because Tom Cruise is older than Craig as well. Just some thoughts...curious to hear what you guys think.

In addition to the injuries that required surgeries, Craig also lost a part of finger during the filming of QOS. I'm not sure if it was the important finger.

Red_Snow

hcantrell wrote:

I was perusing the old IMDB looking at reports and rumors for Bond 25 and I reminded myself of the sourced quote about Craig and his wife not wanting to push too far with the stunts. He's been injured in multiple places and had a couple surgeries to repair his knee and shoulder from injuries sustained doing Bond stunts. Is anyone else worried that Bond 25 might be light on great action stunts? We're spoiled by the incredible stunt pieces of the Mission Impossible movies and I'm concerned that Craig is going to be cautious with what he's open to doing and not doing. I wish Craig was as driven to do all of his stunts and up the stakes like Tom Cruise does. I don't think he should have an excuse because Tom Cruise is older than Craig as well. Just some thoughts...curious to hear what you guys think.

You know that "quote" is fabricated tabloid bs, right?

HowardB

I guess now Craig is not only the homely, short, blond Bond, but the "too chicken to do all his own stunts" Bond.

zaphod99

Thunderpussy wrote:

Let the Stuntpeople do the stunts and let the actors, act.

Up to a point...caught some of The Spy Who Loved Me on tele box last Noche...the stunt people were so obvious even in relatively simple looking running and jumping stuff.It undermines credibility. The lead actor has to do some of it, and has as a minimum be plausible,plus the joins need to be seamless.Standards and techniques have improved but audience expectations have increased also. Bourne MI as well as Bond with Daniel have raised the bar.

HowardB

The days of a stuntman running around in a tux and Roger wig wouldn't cut it anymore. It's all about credibility and if there is illusion involved it's got to be perfect and believable. I'm sure Connery did his fair share, but there are times in those classic films that you can tell it's a stunt double. It helped that Connery had a stunt double that resembled him a bit.

Number24

I just watched DN with the commentary. Connery was athletic and wanted to do a lot, but he understood that an injured could lead to very costly delays.

Solaris

I second the idea that Craig should not be held up to the level that Cruise is in regards to stunts. Cruise has a completely different relarionship with his films and the people that make and insure them.

If Craig does have any hang ups about types of stunts then fine, write around them, I would much rather have a Bond film with a few less stunts and a feeling that is unique than a Bond film that is attempting to replicate the stunts of MI and then a massive dose of CGI to try and make it look like Craig is doing it. The digital face replacement used in Skyfall and Spectre is just not good enough.

Is it true that Craig got the sequence at the Hofla Clinic changed because he couldn't Ski? Whilst, if true, this could be looked at as Craig being controlling, it can also be looked at as an Actor who only wants to have stunts that he can actually be involved in, rather than doing a Roger and relying on the stunt team and Craig being comped in.

caractacus potts

hcantrell wrote:

Is anyone else worried that Bond 25 might be light on great action stunts?

that is precisely the last thing I worry about for Bond25.
I worry Bond25 will be light on coherent plot, and that once again they will be making the script up as they go along once they start filming.
I worry that the folks making this next film may themselves have no interest or understanding in the film series they are charged with continuing.
How many "great action stunts" were there in From Russia With Love? lets see, I think I count … zero?
So that would be the ideal number to aim for in this next one, if they want to make a good James Bond film.

For those of you who aren't interested in good James Bond films, and really wish to see yet another Mission Impossible film, I know as a fact they have a new one out and it is still in the theatres.

Number24

I don't think the general audience today would accept a Bond movie with no stunts or major action scenes. Neither will many hard-core Bond fans, I think. I'm all for a suspenseful movie with a strong story, but there should be action and stunts.

Cam008

Depends how bad the lingering effects of his past injuries on whether he'll be able to as much stuntwork as he'd like to.

always shaken

I don't think DC has gone chicken on doing his own stunts heaven forbid , it's just the human body can take so much , I gave up playing rugger at 40 , to many black eyes , knocks and bruises that just seem to take forever to heel my knees feel it and my ankle now keeps going ( a police injury on top of falling of a military assault course) so if there's a younger fitter guy willing to step in for Dan , good luck to him , I hope he lives to have a pain free old age , The Micheal Caine /Harry Palmer series was a very basic but gritty old fashioned spy intelligence work , no bombs or explosions etc and they was great

Number24

..... but they are neither recent nor Bond.

emtiem

HowardB wrote:

The days of a stuntman running around in a tux and Roger wig wouldn't cut it anymore. It's all about credibility and if there is illusion involved it's got to be perfect and believable. I'm sure Connery did his fair share, but there are times in those classic films that you can tell it's a stunt double. It helped that Connery had a stunt double that resembled him a bit.

I always thought Bob Simmons wasn't a terribly convincing double. He had a bit of a stoop and looked a lot shorter and stockier than Connery. He had a bit of an odd run too.

HowardB

emtiem wrote:

HowardB wrote:

The days of a stuntman running around in a tux and Roger wig wouldn't cut it anymore. It's all about credibility and if there is illusion involved it's got to be perfect and believable. I'm sure Connery did his fair share, but there are times in those classic films that you can tell it's a stunt double. It helped that Connery had a stunt double that resembled him a bit.

I always thought Bob Simmons wasn't a terribly convincing double. He had a bit of a stoop and looked a lot shorter and stockier than Connery. He had a bit of an odd run too.

Good enough for the 60's . Pierce's stunt doubles had a pretty good physical resemblance (especially body type) and DC's (especially the guy who did the cycle stuff in the SF) PTS look pretty close also.

PPK 7.65mm

I am sure that Bond 25 will have some great stunt work in it. As for Daniel Craig's participation, I am sure that he will be able to do what he wants to. As far as I understand, he is good health at the moment and as HowardB pointed out he has some great doubles that look like him to handle the more riskier jobs.

HowardB

The only reason this appears to even be a topic is because of all the hype MI: Fallout got with Cruise doing all of his stunt work. At this point in his career, Cruise doing his own stunts has become the measure of his stardom (which is kind of a shame because IMO he has actually had some very good performances over his career). IMO, it's unfair to judge Daniel Craig by what Cruise does. Craig has done more than his share of stunts in the Bond films and has paid a physical price for it also.

emtiem

HowardB wrote:

emtiem wrote:

HowardB wrote:

The days of a stuntman running around in a tux and Roger wig wouldn't cut it anymore. It's all about credibility and if there is illusion involved it's got to be perfect and believable. I'm sure Connery did his fair share, but there are times in those classic films that you can tell it's a stunt double. It helped that Connery had a stunt double that resembled him a bit.

I always thought Bob Simmons wasn't a terribly convincing double. He had a bit of a stoop and looked a lot shorter and stockier than Connery. He had a bit of an odd run too.

Good enough for the 60's . Pierce's stunt doubles had a pretty good physical resemblance (especially body type) and DC's (especially the guy who did the cycle stuff in the SF) PTS look pretty close also.

I always thought that the key thing they rarely got right with Pierce's doubles was to get the hairline the same. I always thought just that detail would help so much in long shot.
With DC's they've started putting rubber masks on the stuntmen with replicas of his face. It's terrifying!

Looks like Mickey Rourke here

Number24

Very few movie stars have been willing, allowed and able to do crazy stunts comparable to Tom Cruise. In fact I can only think of Buster Keaton and Jackie Chan. It's a rare thing and not to be expected.