Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,817MI6 Agent
Oh crikey, this is a well analysed topic judging by the size of the postings!
There are three factors that affect an actors physicality in Bond. 1) If they are a physical actor. Sir Sean and Mr Craig easily lead in this regard. 2) Dependence on gadgetry. Most prevalent in the Sir Roger films, virtually non existant in the Craig films so far. 3) The nature of the script / characterisation of the character, and how he's played.
For me Mr Craig's Bond is the most vulnerable in the fact as noted by others, we have seen him patching himself up after punch ups, left with scars and other marks after what he has been through. Its a contrast to the other versions of Bond who were always unmarked, unruffled and unblemished. Craig's Bond always reminds me I am always reminded of this pic of Batman by Alex Ross - http://www.alexrossart.com/wallpapers/batmanscars_1024.jpg. Seeing Bond do a Batman by reminding us he is human and can be hurt is a great trait to have in the films.
However, I do have a issue when Bond seemingly survives a situation when he should, categorically be dead! - This is down to very bad writing. CR-06 starts this off with the poisoned martini. Bond should get the medical once over. He goes back to the table instead. I shrugged that one off as a once off, because it does fit in with the gung ho nature of the character, and is quite funny. However in QoS he manages to survive a suicidal parachute drop, at least it looks that way and in Skyfall he should have been killed three if not four times.
1) The viaduct bridge plunge. Hitting the water like that from that height should have broken his neck, and possibly his spine.
2) He gets shot twice, first by Patrice who is using Radioactive bullets, then again by EMP. - The radiation poisoning should have had fatal consequences, esp since the shrapnel was stuck in his chest for 3 months. I also question how much blood loss he suffered from having two bullets in him for an undiosclosed period of time.
3) Plunging into an ice cold loch should have shocked his system into cardiac arrest, resulting in drowning.
4) Immediately after that, the cold of the environment - there appears to be ground frost due to temperatures dropping at night, he should have died from exposure, wet clothes and not enough layers don't help the case. On top of all of this, Silva makes out Bond has a problem with the bottle - both types. The fact that these almost-but-not-dead encounters happen in pairs only makes them more obvious to those of us watching what is going on.
Sir Roger is great in TSWLM and FYEO, because we get two almost throwaway references to Tracy, and he does a good job of emoting those moments. Mr Craig handles the scenes of Vesper's loss beautifully in CR-06, but becomes a little robotic in QoS. In Skyfall its all about M-Manf and he is still colder in the film but manages to eek out a couple of nice scenes with M-Manf, EMP and Q2. it conveys a man who has been through a hell of a lot of crap, and has learned to compartmentalise it a bit. That however, is not an invincible trait, and he still shows how pissed off and angry he can get.
Craig's Bond is not invincible per sae, but careless writing has had him survive things that should have outright killed him!
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
I don't get the Superman references...maybe because of the outrageous stunts with planes and parachutes? I think Moore and Dalton looked pretty vulnerable often enough, so that when they're hanging on for dear life, you'd believe they can actually fall. But not so with Brosnan or Craig so that you feel confident enough that they know what they're doing in similar situations maybe because some of their action scenes look so choreographed. Examples are the TWINE caviar factory sequence and the CR construction site chase.
My Superman reference is only an allegory to the character being physically invincible (well, save for the Kryptonite).
Oh crikey, this is a well analysed topic judging by the size of the postings!
There are three factors that affect an actors physicality in Bond. 1) If they are a physical actor. Sir Sean and Mr Craig easily lead in this regard. 2) Dependence on gadgetry. Most prevalent in the Sir Roger films, virtually non existant in the Craig films so far. 3) The nature of the script / characterisation of the character, and how he's played.
For me Mr Craig's Bond is the most vulnerable in the fact as noted by others, we have seen him patching himself up after punch ups, left with scars and other marks after what he has been through. Its a contrast to the other versions of Bond who were always unmarked, unruffled and unblemished. Craig's Bond always reminds me I am always reminded of this pic of Batman by Alex Ross - http://www.alexrossart.com/wallpapers/batmanscars_1024.jpg. Seeing Bond do a Batman by reminding us he is human and can be hurt is a great trait to have in the films.
However, I do have a issue when Bond seemingly survives a situation when he should, categorically be dead! - This is down to very bad writing. CR-06 starts this off with the poisoned martini. Bond should get the medical once over. He goes back to the table instead. I shrugged that one off as a once off, because it does fit in with the gung ho nature of the character, and is quite funny. However in QoS he manages to survive a suicidal parachute drop, at least it looks that way and in Skyfall he should have been killed three if not four times.
1) The viaduct bridge plunge. Hitting the water like that from that height should have broken his neck, and possibly his spine.
2) He gets shot twice, first by Patrice who is using Radioactive bullets, then again by EMP. - The radiation poisoning should have had fatal consequences, esp since the shrapnel was stuck in his chest for 3 months. I also question how much blood loss he suffered from having two bullets in him for an undiosclosed period of time.
3) Plunging into an ice cold loch should have shocked his system into cardiac arrest, resulting in drowning.
4) Immediately after that, the cold of the environment - there appears to be ground frost due to temperatures dropping at night, he should have died from exposure, wet clothes and not enough layers don't help the case. On top of all of this, Silva makes out Bond has a problem with the bottle - both types. The fact that these almost-but-not-dead encounters happen in pairs only makes them more obvious to those of us watching what is going on.
Sir Roger is great in TSWLM and FYEO, because we get two almost throwaway references to Tracy, and he does a good job of emoting those moments. Mr Craig handles the scenes of Vesper's loss beautifully in CR-06, but becomes a little robotic in QoS. In Skyfall its all about M-Manf and he is still colder in the film but manages to eek out a couple of nice scenes with M-Manf, EMP and Q2. it conveys a man who has been through a hell of a lot of crap, and has learned to compartmentalise it a bit. That however, is not an invincible trait, and he still shows how pissed off and angry he can get.
Craig's Bond is not invincible per sae, but careless writing has had him survive things that should have outright killed him!
The EON Bond's cartoonish survivability rate has been covered in other postings extensively. It's done in the same manner as other action heroes in cinema. The concern of this post from what I understand is how each actor behaves in any particular scene during an action sequence. Some members feel Craig behaves robotic and unconcerned in most of his stunt scenes. I think I understand that impression but my interpretation on initial viewings was not that he believes he is invulnerable to the danger but that in most instances he is reacting in a cold and calculating manner. The only time he feels he does need to show some type of fear or uncertainty is when the scenes actually allow him a moment to do it. Most of his action scenes seem to involve him so quickly and are so fast they leave little time for emotional reactions. They remind me of the FRWL train fight, which leaves little time for the actor to show any anxiety. Granted, Connery was given the moment when Grant had him on his knees to show his feeling of trepidation of the possibility of being killed, but the only place Craig has been given anything similar is when he's tortured by Le Chiffre. Some may say he could have reacted with fear when Silva had him tied to that chair on their first encounter in SF, but I'm not sure that would have worked for me. I preferred how Craig played it - curious at first as to what Silva was like, then upon sizing him up, giving him no fear and despite Silva's taunting, stopping short of spitting in his face. Some may feel Craig shows no emotion in such scenes, but for me I get the feeling he's just not going to buy into playing verbal games with his adversaries. It's why the writers have him say little in these scenes, because while the villains are blithering away, he's calculating on his next step.
Many of the action scenes in the old series allowed the actors to have emotive reaction shots during a battle (Connery's pause and attack scene with Odd Job as an example), and I think that's why Harrison Ford's take on Indian Jones was so appealing. Spielberg had him fighting in the old round house punch outs that were standard scenes in the old Hollywood serials, but added in the nice reaction shots of Ford's emotions during the sequences. That fit in with the old films of yore but in today's high octane action sequences that are being used now they would seem out of place. Perhaps that will change a bit in the new film when he tangles with Mr. Hinx, but not so much in the Mexico City sequence which looks like non stop action.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited October 2015
I'm quite looking forward to the inevitable Craig/Bautista battle, BTW :007)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
{[] , From the clips in the trailer, It's going to be one of the
Highlights.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Craig's first super-henchman fight! Now only Dalton is left out.
"...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.....
For me, Craig comes across as the least invincible, despite his always surviving the over the top stunts and heading into them almost with abandon. I have to forgive them as they are standard Bond/action film fare created to entertain a worldwide audience. If these were straight spy stories they would not do as well at the box office.
Though Craig's stunts are faster and involve a lot of wire work (jumping bikes off bridges and running and jumping over rooftops, etc.) he always ends up looking like he actually suffered through these sequences, unlike the actors from before, though I recall Dalton looking worse for wear in some scenes (such as when he kills Sanchez at the end of LTK). His clothes are really mucked up and he gets cuts, abrasions and bleeds. Most of the others rarely got there hair mussed (though there were exceptions, such as Connery surviving Dr. No's tunnels).
I agree stunt work seem to follow trends and they try to feed the audiences with whatever they crave at any given period. As much as I enjoyed the telegraphed round house punches of the old days, they seem almost silly and dated now - especially when they used to go on forever (thank you Hollywood westerns). Mel Brooks sent that up pretty well in the third act of Blazing Saddles.
As far as Bond's invincibility, it went into Superman mode when GF came out. The first three more or less gave us the more human Bond from the novels since they followed them so closely (as they also did in OHMSS). The rest just kept increasing the complexity of the stunts and firepower which Bond kept escaping from or initiated and usually came out of without a scratch.
I'm glad with the reboot EON brought the films closer to the original three where Bond is more involved in personal combat or has to use his wits and stamina to get out of a battle rather than rely on a Q trick or machine guns that never empty. It's why I liked the end of SF - though it irked many that he ended up with little firepower to defend his home, I enjoyed the fact he used his ingenuity in using the Aston in a sneak attack and then demolishing his home to try and wipe out all the bad guys in one big punch. In the old films he would have had a lot of sci-fi Q tricks and did some death defying stunts and probably would not have even destroyed SF.
Craig's Bond from Casino Royale is vulnerable and human. The one from Skyfall is very different - can survive falls into deep water, freezing lakes, jump up lift shafts, ride bikes on rooftops, and almost single-handedly defeat a group of villains equipped with a military helicopter and other weapons. You wonder what the producers were thinking!
Craig's Bond from Casino Royale is vulnerable and human. The one from Skyfall is very different - can survive falls into deep water, freezing lakes, jump up lift shafts, ride bikes on rooftops, and almost single-handedly defeat a group of villains equipped with a military helicopter and other weapons. You wonder what the producers were thinking!
But while makes it though all that, he still looses in the end. He can survive, but he can't beat the bad guy.
I think also part of the problem with the Craig fight scenes is that there is much use of what looks like the Krav Maga technique—a fighting style which is quite minimalist and focuses on the use of forearms and elbows, compared to the traditional wartime unarmed combat and judo styles used in the older Bond films. Krav Maga may be the most effective fight in real life situations, in that it’s purpose is to knock out an opponent quickly, but in terms of watching it in a film for dramatic purposes, it’s not as visually interesting as the wartime unarmed combat and judo styles, where the whole body is used. Good examples of this are Connery’s fight with Colonel Bouvar in TB, and his fight with the man who killed Dikko Henderson in YOLT. The YOLT fight could have been taken directly out of a World War 2 unarmed combat manual
Craig's Bond from Casino Royale is vulnerable and human. The one from Skyfall is very different - can survive falls into deep water, freezing lakes, jump up lift shafts, ride bikes on rooftops, and almost single-handedly defeat a group of villains equipped with a military helicopter and other weapons. You wonder what the producers were thinking!
Not the producers, but more than likely Craig and Mendes. Being the 50th anniversary, I think they put in these action scenes as part of the nostalgic nod to the old series, just as they dressed Craig in the closer fitted suits of the sixties and brought back the Aston. After QOS, they wanted to return somewhat to the old format - which is why they brought back Q and Moneypenny and had a villain like Silva. Yes, Craig is human in CR, but I thought he also was in SF, since he was severely injured and was going to quit and spent some of the film showing the miles he had on him. In CR he also did a lot of over the top action scenes as in SF - not a great deal of difference from the stunts of the old series. The main thing they changed was showing Bond sweating and his physical injuries from suffering through the stunts which was mostly absent in the prior films.
Craig's Bond from Casino Royale is vulnerable and human. The one from Skyfall is very different - can survive falls into deep water, freezing lakes, jump up lift shafts, ride bikes on rooftops, and almost single-handedly defeat a group of villains equipped with a military helicopter and other weapons. You wonder what the producers were thinking!
Not the producers, but more than likely Craig and Mendes. Being the 50th anniversary, I think they put in these action scenes as part of the nostalgic nod to the old series, just as they dressed Craig in the closer fitted suits of the sixties and brought back the Aston. After QOS, they wanted to return somewhat to the old format - which is why they brought back Q and Moneypenny and had a villain like Silva. Yes, Craig is human in CR, but I thought he also was in SF, since he was severely injured and was going to quit and spent some of the film showing the miles he had on him. In CR he also did a lot of over the top action scenes as in SF - not a great deal of difference from the stunts of the old series. The main thing they changed was showing Bond sweating and his physical injuries from suffering through the stunts which was mostly absent in the prior films.
Have to correct you on this, since Connery's suits had a very full cut. Lazenby's suits were close fitting but still had a full chest. The close-fitting suit trend in the 1960s didn't really make it to Bond. The costume designer for SF was actually more intent on making Bond look "iconic for 2012" and disregarded many of the established Bond conventions for wearing suits.
Skyfall overtly harked back to the older era- almost like an 'anniversary special' with lots of Bondian tropes used (and inverted in some cases). Casual viewers or even complete newbies may view Bond more along the lines of a 'superman' and Skyfall very much played to that.
Bond is a professional killer so we'd expect him to be much smoother and seem more invincible than the average man. Being invincible is pretty much his job. Craig's Bond is more of a liability Bond, going rogue, faking his death, letting himself go and mainly driven by emotions. He may be invincible but only in the sense that if he were real, we'd expect him to have been beaten ages ago.
Of course, the OP is completely correct, right up until he absolves Daniel Craig of any culpability for this nonsensical travesty.
Yes, the blame doesn't lay SOLELY with Daniel Craig, but it does lie MOSTLY with him, exposing him for the terrible actor that he actually is.
Daniel Craig is just a thug. A low life thug. His acting has none of the class and polish required to portray James Bond. He was horribly miscast, although he overcame that in Casino Royale (in combination with a good script) by really throwing his raw heart and soul into the film.
But since then he has absolutely sucked. He was so bad in QoS and SF, so so bad, and he just needs to be dropped so we can all move on to bigger and better things.
I really hope Spectre is an enjoyable film, but objectively speaking, its long odds.
Honestly, Daniel Craig?! Its a joke. He would have made an excellent thuggish enemy henchman in a Bond film, or even a villain version of Vladimir Putin the same way that the Elliot Carver character was a villain version of Rupert Murdoch in TND.
But he is not up to playing the main character: Bond, James Bond, not at all.
And honestly, I would rather he actually did slit his own wrists rather than ever playing James Bond in film ever again. I can't stand the traitorous little git.
Daniel Craig is just a thug. A low life thug. His acting has none of the class and polish required to portray James Bond. He was horribly miscast, although he overcame that in Casino Royale (in combination with a good script) by really throwing his raw heart and soul into the film.
But since then he has absolutely sucked. He was so bad in QoS and SF, so so bad, and he just needs to be dropped so we can all move on to bigger and better things.
I really hope Spectre is an enjoyable film, but objectively speaking, its long odds.
Honestly, Daniel Craig?! Its a joke. He would have made an excellent thuggish enemy henchman in a Bond film, or even a villain version of Vladimir Putin the same way that the Elliot Carver character was a villain version of Rupert Murdoch in TND.
But he is not up to playing the main character: Bond, James Bond, not at all.
And honestly, I would rather he actually did slit his own wrists rather than ever playing James Bond in film ever again. I can't stand the traitorous little git.
You've quite a few anger issues you need to work out there )
Daniel Craig is just a thug. A low life thug. His acting has none of the class and polish required to portray James Bond. He was horribly miscast, although he overcame that in Casino Royale (in combination with a good script) by really throwing his raw heart and soul into the film.
But since then he has absolutely sucked. He was so bad in QoS and SF, so so bad, and he just needs to be dropped so we can all move on to bigger and better things.
I really hope Spectre is an enjoyable film, but objectively speaking, its long odds.
Honestly, Daniel Craig?! Its a joke. He would have made an excellent thuggish enemy henchman in a Bond film, or even a villain version of Vladimir Putin the same way that the Elliot Carver character was a villain version of Rupert Murdoch in TND.
But he is not up to playing the main character: Bond, James Bond, not at all.
And honestly, I would rather he actually did slit his own wrists rather than ever playing James Bond in film ever again. I can't stand the traitorous little git.
You've quite a few anger issues you need to work out there )
Oh dear hahaha.
"Sic Parvis Magna"
"Greatness From Small Beginnings."
Daniel Craig is just a thug. A low life thug. His acting has none of the class and polish required to portray James Bond. He was horribly miscast, although he overcame that in Casino Royale (in combination with a good script) by really throwing his raw heart and soul into the film.
But since then he has absolutely sucked. He was so bad in QoS and SF, so so bad, and he just needs to be dropped so we can all move on to bigger and better things.
I really hope Spectre is an enjoyable film, but objectively speaking, its long odds.
Honestly, Daniel Craig?! Its a joke. He would have made an excellent thuggish enemy henchman in a Bond film, or even a villain version of Vladimir Putin the same way that the Elliot Carver character was a villain version of Rupert Murdoch in TND.
But he is not up to playing the main character: Bond, James Bond, not at all.
And honestly, I would rather he actually did slit his own wrists rather than ever playing James Bond in film ever again. I can't stand the traitorous little git.
You've quite a few anger issues you need to work out there )
X-( I don't like Daniel Craig as Bond either, but I try to be a little more reasonable.
Of course, the OP is completely correct, right up until he absolves Daniel Craig of any culpability for this nonsensical travesty.
Yes, the blame doesn't lay SOLELY with Daniel Craig, but it does lie MOSTLY with him, exposing him for the terrible actor that he actually is.
Daniel Craig is just a thug. A low life thug. His acting has none of the class and polish required to portray James Bond. He was horribly miscast, although he overcame that in Casino Royale (in combination with a good script) by really throwing his raw heart and soul into the film.
But since then he has absolutely sucked. He was so bad in QoS and SF, so so bad, and he just needs to be dropped so we can all move on to bigger and better things.
I really hope Spectre is an enjoyable film, but objectively speaking, its long odds.
Honestly, Daniel Craig?! Its a joke. He would have made an excellent thuggish enemy henchman in a Bond film, or even a villain version of Vladimir Putin the same way that the Elliot Carver character was a villain version of Rupert Murdoch in TND.
But he is not up to playing the main character: Bond, James Bond, not at all.
And honestly, I would rather he actually did slit his own wrists rather than ever playing James Bond in film ever again. I can't stand the traitorous little git.
Well, well! ) Welcome to AJB! It's been a while since we've had someone from danielcraigsfaceonamonkeysbody.com stop by and say hello -{
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Of course, the OP is completely correct, right up until he absolves Daniel Craig of any culpability for this nonsensical travesty.
Yes, the blame doesn't lay SOLELY with Daniel Craig, but it does lie MOSTLY with him, exposing him for the terrible actor that he actually is.
Daniel Craig is just a thug. A low life thug. His acting has none of the class and polish required to portray James Bond. He was horribly miscast, although he overcame that in Casino Royale (in combination with a good script) by really throwing his raw heart and soul into the film.
But since then he has absolutely sucked. He was so bad in QoS and SF, so so bad, and he just needs to be dropped so we can all move on to bigger and better things.
I really hope Spectre is an enjoyable film, but objectively speaking, its long odds.
Honestly, Daniel Craig?! Its a joke. He would have made an excellent thuggish enemy henchman in a Bond film, or even a villain version of Vladimir Putin the same way that the Elliot Carver character was a villain version of Rupert Murdoch in TND.
But he is not up to playing the main character: Bond, James Bond, not at all.
And honestly, I would rather he actually did slit his own wrists rather than ever playing James Bond in film ever again. I can't stand the traitorous little git.
Bit harsh. For me, Daniel Craig lacks sex appeal and is looking quite craggy in Spectre but he doesn't particularly look like a thug.
Comments
There are three factors that affect an actors physicality in Bond. 1) If they are a physical actor. Sir Sean and Mr Craig easily lead in this regard. 2) Dependence on gadgetry. Most prevalent in the Sir Roger films, virtually non existant in the Craig films so far. 3) The nature of the script / characterisation of the character, and how he's played.
For me Mr Craig's Bond is the most vulnerable in the fact as noted by others, we have seen him patching himself up after punch ups, left with scars and other marks after what he has been through. Its a contrast to the other versions of Bond who were always unmarked, unruffled and unblemished. Craig's Bond always reminds me I am always reminded of this pic of Batman by Alex Ross - http://www.alexrossart.com/wallpapers/batmanscars_1024.jpg. Seeing Bond do a Batman by reminding us he is human and can be hurt is a great trait to have in the films.
However, I do have a issue when Bond seemingly survives a situation when he should, categorically be dead! - This is down to very bad writing. CR-06 starts this off with the poisoned martini. Bond should get the medical once over. He goes back to the table instead. I shrugged that one off as a once off, because it does fit in with the gung ho nature of the character, and is quite funny. However in QoS he manages to survive a suicidal parachute drop, at least it looks that way and in Skyfall he should have been killed three if not four times.
1) The viaduct bridge plunge. Hitting the water like that from that height should have broken his neck, and possibly his spine.
2) He gets shot twice, first by Patrice who is using Radioactive bullets, then again by EMP. - The radiation poisoning should have had fatal consequences, esp since the shrapnel was stuck in his chest for 3 months. I also question how much blood loss he suffered from having two bullets in him for an undiosclosed period of time.
3) Plunging into an ice cold loch should have shocked his system into cardiac arrest, resulting in drowning.
4) Immediately after that, the cold of the environment - there appears to be ground frost due to temperatures dropping at night, he should have died from exposure, wet clothes and not enough layers don't help the case. On top of all of this, Silva makes out Bond has a problem with the bottle - both types. The fact that these almost-but-not-dead encounters happen in pairs only makes them more obvious to those of us watching what is going on.
Sir Roger is great in TSWLM and FYEO, because we get two almost throwaway references to Tracy, and he does a good job of emoting those moments. Mr Craig handles the scenes of Vesper's loss beautifully in CR-06, but becomes a little robotic in QoS. In Skyfall its all about M-Manf and he is still colder in the film but manages to eek out a couple of nice scenes with M-Manf, EMP and Q2. it conveys a man who has been through a hell of a lot of crap, and has learned to compartmentalise it a bit. That however, is not an invincible trait, and he still shows how pissed off and angry he can get.
Craig's Bond is not invincible per sae, but careless writing has had him survive things that should have outright killed him!
My Superman reference is only an allegory to the character being physically invincible (well, save for the Kryptonite).
This is more or less what I'm saying. This, and Craig's robotic approach to jumping off high places etc.
The EON Bond's cartoonish survivability rate has been covered in other postings extensively. It's done in the same manner as other action heroes in cinema. The concern of this post from what I understand is how each actor behaves in any particular scene during an action sequence. Some members feel Craig behaves robotic and unconcerned in most of his stunt scenes. I think I understand that impression but my interpretation on initial viewings was not that he believes he is invulnerable to the danger but that in most instances he is reacting in a cold and calculating manner. The only time he feels he does need to show some type of fear or uncertainty is when the scenes actually allow him a moment to do it. Most of his action scenes seem to involve him so quickly and are so fast they leave little time for emotional reactions. They remind me of the FRWL train fight, which leaves little time for the actor to show any anxiety. Granted, Connery was given the moment when Grant had him on his knees to show his feeling of trepidation of the possibility of being killed, but the only place Craig has been given anything similar is when he's tortured by Le Chiffre. Some may say he could have reacted with fear when Silva had him tied to that chair on their first encounter in SF, but I'm not sure that would have worked for me. I preferred how Craig played it - curious at first as to what Silva was like, then upon sizing him up, giving him no fear and despite Silva's taunting, stopping short of spitting in his face. Some may feel Craig shows no emotion in such scenes, but for me I get the feeling he's just not going to buy into playing verbal games with his adversaries. It's why the writers have him say little in these scenes, because while the villains are blithering away, he's calculating on his next step.
Many of the action scenes in the old series allowed the actors to have emotive reaction shots during a battle (Connery's pause and attack scene with Odd Job as an example), and I think that's why Harrison Ford's take on Indian Jones was so appealing. Spielberg had him fighting in the old round house punch outs that were standard scenes in the old Hollywood serials, but added in the nice reaction shots of Ford's emotions during the sequences. That fit in with the old films of yore but in today's high octane action sequences that are being used now they would seem out of place. Perhaps that will change a bit in the new film when he tangles with Mr. Hinx, but not so much in the Mexico City sequence which looks like non stop action.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Highlights.
"Greatness From Small Beginnings."
{[]
But while makes it though all that, he still looses in the end. He can survive, but he can't beat the bad guy.
Not the producers, but more than likely Craig and Mendes. Being the 50th anniversary, I think they put in these action scenes as part of the nostalgic nod to the old series, just as they dressed Craig in the closer fitted suits of the sixties and brought back the Aston. After QOS, they wanted to return somewhat to the old format - which is why they brought back Q and Moneypenny and had a villain like Silva. Yes, Craig is human in CR, but I thought he also was in SF, since he was severely injured and was going to quit and spent some of the film showing the miles he had on him. In CR he also did a lot of over the top action scenes as in SF - not a great deal of difference from the stunts of the old series. The main thing they changed was showing Bond sweating and his physical injuries from suffering through the stunts which was mostly absent in the prior films.
Have to correct you on this, since Connery's suits had a very full cut. Lazenby's suits were close fitting but still had a full chest. The close-fitting suit trend in the 1960s didn't really make it to Bond. The costume designer for SF was actually more intent on making Bond look "iconic for 2012" and disregarded many of the established Bond conventions for wearing suits.
Bond is a professional killer so we'd expect him to be much smoother and seem more invincible than the average man. Being invincible is pretty much his job. Craig's Bond is more of a liability Bond, going rogue, faking his death, letting himself go and mainly driven by emotions. He may be invincible but only in the sense that if he were real, we'd expect him to have been beaten ages ago.
Yes, the blame doesn't lay SOLELY with Daniel Craig, but it does lie MOSTLY with him, exposing him for the terrible actor that he actually is.
Daniel Craig is just a thug. A low life thug. His acting has none of the class and polish required to portray James Bond. He was horribly miscast, although he overcame that in Casino Royale (in combination with a good script) by really throwing his raw heart and soul into the film.
But since then he has absolutely sucked. He was so bad in QoS and SF, so so bad, and he just needs to be dropped so we can all move on to bigger and better things.
I really hope Spectre is an enjoyable film, but objectively speaking, its long odds.
Honestly, Daniel Craig?! Its a joke. He would have made an excellent thuggish enemy henchman in a Bond film, or even a villain version of Vladimir Putin the same way that the Elliot Carver character was a villain version of Rupert Murdoch in TND.
But he is not up to playing the main character: Bond, James Bond, not at all.
And honestly, I would rather he actually did slit his own wrists rather than ever playing James Bond in film ever again. I can't stand the traitorous little git.
You've quite a few anger issues you need to work out there
Oh dear hahaha.
"Greatness From Small Beginnings."
X-( I don't like Daniel Craig as Bond either, but I try to be a little more reasonable.
Well, well!
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
Bit harsh. For me, Daniel Craig lacks sex appeal and is looking quite craggy in Spectre but he doesn't particularly look like a thug.