Sony Magazine
SiCo
EnglandPosts: 1,371M
This months Sony Magazine (which I think you can get for free through many deals Sony promote) is jam packed with Bond.
The magazine features specials on Quantum of Solace as well as looking back at previous films, with lots of nice photos and of course sexy Sony kit!
-- Edit --
I've just noticed there's an interview with Craig on the website here: http://www.sonymagazine.co.uk/film-and-tv/daniel-craig
--
The website is here: http://www.sonymagazine.co.uk/
I just thought it would interest a few people, this isn't a promotion and the site is in no way connected to the magazine, I just received it this morning.
The magazine features specials on Quantum of Solace as well as looking back at previous films, with lots of nice photos and of course sexy Sony kit!
-- Edit --
I've just noticed there's an interview with Craig on the website here: http://www.sonymagazine.co.uk/film-and-tv/daniel-craig
--
The website is here: http://www.sonymagazine.co.uk/
I just thought it would interest a few people, this isn't a promotion and the site is in no way connected to the magazine, I just received it this morning.
Simon
Comments
That is by far one of the more interesting reads on Craig that I have seen. Craig's description about how he sees the literary Bond gives me some real enthusiasm that this guy might actually get it.
I think he sees Bond as a darker character than I do. However, I'll take a bit darker, than a Brosnan Bond any day of the week.
Great find again SiCo, and thanks for sharing.
Same here. I'm very glad to hear he's re-reading the originals. It looks like there's a steady hand on the throttle for the near future B-)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
"He’s genuinely grumpy and unhappy when he’s not killing people"
makes me a bit uneasy. It seems more a description of a serial killer than any character Ian Fleming ever created. Bond sometimes longed for action, sure, but not for killing. Hopefully, this is yet another example of Craig's supposedly great deadpan sense of humour that doesn't come across too well in written words.
I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I just feel like I need to say something in Brosnan's defense, since it seems that in this era, he is frequently attacked by Craig fans who don't really know the real deal about Brosnan and the way he wanted to play Bond.
Craig is not the only Bond actor to spend the time reading Fleming's novels and trying to understand the character that he created in order to better portray him in the films. Brosnan did this too. In fact, he always pushed for the permission to more deeply explore Bond's inner feelings and emotions, and also to play a darker Bond. During TND's filming, Brosnan was the one who got Bruce Feirstein to introduce the character of Paris Carver into the script, as a way to explore Bond's emotions toward a woman who actually means something to him since he once loved her. Bruce Feirstein had this to say about PB: "Pierce always wanted to have a closer look at the character's inner life - the brooding that's so much a part of the Fleming novels".
Brosnan himself wanted to show more fear and vulnerability in Bond. This is a quote from an interview that he did: "When you read the books, Bond conceals so much fear. But he's the ultimate hero. But to see the crack, to see the flaw, and to let the audience in just for that brief moment, then that's what I find exciting about doing it."
However, what an actor wants, and what he actually gets to do in front of a camera, are often two completely different things. Brosnan was held back by the producers, especially when he wanted to explore a darker side of Bond. After the relative lack of success of the grim LTK and the long hiatus, they wanted to return Bond to a more mainstream characterization. They wanted to "swing the pendulum" back a bit more toward the Moore era (which is really not a bad goal; the cinematic Bond had some of his best moments in that period) while adding some modern toughness. Brosnan gave them exactly that. It's difficult to say they made the wrong move, since Brosnan's era turned out to be one of the most lucrative periods in the franchise's history. However, in return, the producers didn't really accommodate Brosnan's desire to go deeper with Bond. It's widely known that Brosnan wanted to be a part of a hard-edged CR, but Wilson & Broccoli turned him down. IMO, Brosnan would have done fine in the back-to-basics, gritty film that CR turned out to be, but I also understand why the producers decided to go with another lead. Brosnan's age at the time ruled him out as a candidate to play a Bond who is just starting out as an 00. Also, audiences worldwide have seen him in 4 films as the fully developed 007, so he could never be accepted in a "beginning of" movie.
Brosnan's legacy is bringing the franchise back from near extinction and seeing it through the following decade in high style. Craig has taken over the helm and done a very commendable job with it. However, without Brosnan, there might not have been any ship for Craig to be the captain of.
I semi-trashed Brosnan when I said something to the effect of, "I'd take a darker Bond over a Brosnan Bond any day of the week." I truly had no idea that Brosnan longed to create a darker version of the character. If a film like Casino Royale was Brosnan's first Bond film I have no doubt that PB could have pulled it off with ease.
It's just that I knew that Brosnan wanted to bring more elements from the literary Bond to the screen, but he was not able to do so due to the scripts that he was given. I guess that I'm also still unhappy about PB getting stuck with the silly second half of DAD, which turned out to be his farewell to Bond. I'm sure that he didn't want the last images that audiences have of him as Bond are his driving around in an invisible car and surfing down a glacier, but unfortunately, that's what Purvis and Wade gave him, and it might have overshadowed his better moments (like the first half of DAD, for example), and kind of tainted his legacy a bit.
PB is my favourite Bond, but that doesn't stop me from saying that Craig has really earned my respect with the job that he did in CR (even if I still wish he had done a few things a bit differently). I still remember walking out of the theater after watching that film feeling quite impressed, and regretting some of the things that I had previously said about DC's suitability for the role. I just watched CR again a couple of days ago, and it has made me quite excited to see QoS. I suppose that's the best compliment one can pay to any movie.