I told someone I knew about Spectre, and they said they don't really care about James Bond anymore because it's the same old plot almost every time, Bond stopping a villain with a mega-weapon. I can't really disagree.
With films like DAF, TMWTGG, MR, AVTAK, TND, and DAD, for all the leaps and bounds they make in terms of action, they really hurt the quality of the IP in terms of storytelling.
It has been 13 years since a Bond villain had a mega weapon. Have you and your friends not seen the Craig films yet?
I agree with everything you say. This really helps me better understand why I don't care for the Craig films. I always just thought Craig's Bond lacked personality, but I see that it's more that his Bond just has a very limited range of emotion.
The thing is, it's not exactly Craig's fault, though he has chosen to play the character a certain way. The writers just keep writing scenes and scripts that cover the same ground over and over. Spectre will do much the same, though it may have enough action and romance to distract. We'll see. But the writing is far, far more limiting.
I disagree with everything you say. Connery displaying more emotional range than Craig is particularly funny, and Bond "being a full-blooded human being again" by "swallowing his trauma and growing up". Hopefully scriptwriters will continue exploring the dark side of the heroes for years to come and not fall in the trap of giving audiences the same old, same old. I'm pretty sure the Bond franchise would be dead by now (and Batman, Superman, Spiderman,...).
"Dark" is the same-old, same-old and has been for at least ten years. Here we are three films and a decade later, and Craig's Bond is just the same as he was before. The only thing that's changed is he's dark instead of light.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I disagree with everything you say. Connery displaying more emotional range than Craig is particularly funny, and Bond "being a full-blooded human being again" by "swallowing his trauma and growing up". Hopefully scriptwriters will continue exploring the dark side of the heroes for years to come and not fall in the trap of giving audiences the same old, same old. I'm pretty sure the Bond franchise would be dead by now (and Batman, Superman, Spiderman,...).
"Dark" is the same-old, same-old and has been for at least ten years. Here we are three films and a decade later, and Craig's Bond is just the same as he was before. The only thing that's changed is he's dark instead of light.
Doesn't seem to be the case in SPECTRE, according to some reviews I've read.
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
^ Bond films are like mainstream, well-known wineries. They have to produce a consistent, high-quality product that will sell to the masses for what it's known for.
I disagree with everything you say. Connery displaying more emotional range than Craig is particularly funny, and Bond "being a full-blooded human being again" by "swallowing his trauma and growing up". Hopefully scriptwriters will continue exploring the dark side of the heroes for years to come and not fall in the trap of giving audiences the same old, same old. I'm pretty sure the Bond franchise would be dead by now (and Batman, Superman, Spiderman,...).
"Dark" is the same-old, same-old and has been for at least ten years. Here we are three films and a decade later, and Craig's Bond is just the same as he was before. The only thing that's changed is he's dark instead of light.
Doesn't seem to be the case in SPECTRE, according to some reviews I've read.
I think it will have lighter moments and will be much closer to a traditional Bond movie in most ways. I expect to like it better than Skyfall. But we seem to be covering the same ground yet again -- why is Bond damaged? So far, we've been told more than once because he is an orphan who learned to close off his feelings. Thus, he is also insolent, rebellious, angry, guarded, etc. Now, a significant element of Spectre's plot will once again focus on this element of his history. By now, after four films, there should be a lot more about Bond to explore, but so far, we've seen the same ideas just rehashed. That makes the writing rather weak. The writers keep mining the same vein. That's why it's a one-trick pony. I don't mind character development, but in many ways, this is like watching an old fashion strip tease where the dancer has 100 veils and we've only gotten to 44. When she drops the 45th, I'm not going to cheer and say, "Wow, didn't see that coming" or "That was so different than the last veil," even if it was a different color and made by a different manufacturer. Let's move on with Bond already.
Though I think the coverage about Daniel Craig not wanting to do another Bond is both overblown and misreported, I could get it from an actor's point of view. Over the past 10 years, he's essentially played the same guy the same way. There's been little to no forward momentum, other than the elements of plot and biography. It does seem tedious. And the shame of it, is that although he lacks Connery's range, Craig is probably the best actor since Connery to play the part. He could do so much more. Heck, the Bond in the Heineken commercial has more range than the one in the films. And that's mostly the writers.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Well...I'll concur that it's time to move on from Bond's orphan status. I think they'd be better, going forward, to spend a minute or two of screen time to explore other areas of his personality: fastidiousness, etc., as I think Bond isn't ultimately designed to have his past further plundered to any great degree.
I think I'd disagree that Craig's range lacks when compared to Connery---at least as manifest in Connery's Bond films, since Bond probably wasn't his most challenging work in terms of craft, given the era in which he played him and the nature of the films in those days. I have solid faith in Craig's acting chops.
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
This is completely off-topic, I know, but I agree with this much as I feel he's miscast. He's a better actor than Brosnan, but Anthony Hopkins can knock spots off either and he'd be miscast as Bond even when he was the right age.
(Hopkins got a lot of offers for horror movies after his success as Hannibal Lector, but either he or his producers realised he'd be wrong as Dracula so he played Van Helsing, or as the Wolfman so he played his father- avoiding the miscasting)
Back on-topic- I'm thoroughly enjoying this thread with its superb posts by Gassy Man and Loeffelholz, two gents who know what they're talking about.
I liked in GE when Alec casually mentioned them both being orphans.
But A WHOLE MOVIE with that at the forefront?
Now I know why QOS is my favourite Craig Bond so far... the editing gave no time for drawn-out angst. )
I liked in GE when Alec casually mentioned them both being orphans.
But A WHOLE MOVIE with that at the forefront?
Now I know why QOS is my favourite Craig Bond so far... the editing gave no time for drawn-out angst. )
True...but from what I understand, it's not really being excessively dwelt upon in the new one, for which I'm grateful
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
Hopkins got a lot of offers for horror movies after his success as Hannibal Lector, but either he or his producers realised he'd be wrong as Dracula so he played Van Helsing, or as the Wolfman so he played his father- avoiding the miscasting
Hardly the same case as Craig and Bond. I don't think Hopkins was ever offered Dracula, which was always intended as a young romantic lead (Coppola's). Same with Wolfman.
This is completely off-topic, I know, but I agree with this much as I feel he's miscast. He's a better actor than Brosnan, but Anthony Hopkins can knock spots off either and he'd be miscast as Bond even when he was the right age.
(Hopkins got a lot of offers for horror movies after his success as Hannibal Lector, but either he or his producers realised he'd be wrong as Dracula so he played Van Helsing, or as the Wolfman so he played his father- avoiding the miscasting)
Back on-topic- I'm thoroughly enjoying this thread with its superb posts by Gassy Man and Loeffelholz, two gents who know what they're talking about.
I try to keep up, but it ain't easy with you guys! {[]
You and many others are doing fine if not better, at least so far as I am concerned. -{
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Well, let me just say I'm humbled to be in the company of you all.
Now, if only they'd give us a script assignment B-)
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
Now, if only they'd give us a script assignment B-)
Our script-by-committee would be better than theirs I'm guessing!
{[] Those would be fun sessions.
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
Hopkins got a lot of offers for horror movies after his success as Hannibal Lector, but either he or his producers realised he'd be wrong as Dracula so he played Van Helsing, or as the Wolfman so he played his father- avoiding the miscasting
Hardly the same case as Craig and Bond. I don't think Hopkins was ever offered Dracula, which was always intended as a young romantic lead (Coppola's). Same with Wolfman.
You're right, of course, it's not the same case, but there's no doubt that he'd have the acting ability to play those parts but be the wrong man for the job.
I told someone I knew about Spectre, and they said they don't really care about James Bond anymore because it's the same old plot almost every time, Bond stopping a villain with a mega-weapon. I can't really disagree.
With films like DAF, TMWTGG, MR, AVTAK, TND, and DAD, for all the leaps and bounds they make in terms of action, they really hurt the quality of the IP in terms of storytelling.
Same thing in kung fu films , just slight variation from film to film.......in the end the hero wins.
I told someone I knew about Spectre, and they said they don't really care about James Bond anymore because it's the same old plot almost every time, Bond stopping a villain with a mega-weapon. I can't really disagree.
With films like DAF, TMWTGG, MR, AVTAK, TND, and DAD, for all the leaps and bounds they make in terms of action, they really hurt the quality of the IP in terms of storytelling.
Same thing in kung fu films , just slight variation from film to film.......in the end the hero wins.
Believe it or not,this is why great writers are needed. The Bond films, like most action films, are formulaic. It takes a great writer to turn them into something more and only a mediocre writer to fill in the blanks.
But this is true of anything in a genre. All rollercoasters are essentially the same. So are all beaches, seafood restaurants, and pick up trucks. The concept does not really change much, but the details are significant.
It's one of the reasons I haven't been too impressed with the current stable of writers. The details have been relatively the same about Bond in each film. That was fine in Casino Royale, but it doesn't feel like things have moved forward much. I wouldn't complain if the Bonds were just trying to be grand entertainments, but now they've taken out this connotation of somehow being "more serious" than the previous films. Not to me. If anything, they're more limiting, covering a lot of the same ground over and over.
Being Bond isn't about being a great actor, but about being able to embody the character's traits as intended for the times.
I wonder how Connery's performances outside Bond compare with his work as 007.
"Hostile takeovers. Shall we?"
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later
Being Bond isn't about being a great actor, but about being able to embody the character's traits as intended for the times.
I wonder how Connery's performances outside Bond compare with his work as 007.
You should see some of his greats, like Marnie, The Man Who Would Be King or The Untouchables. Since Marnie was made at the time he was Bond, it's more like Bond. After Bond he did much different roles and settled into playing the same character every time. The only film I've seen where he was similar to Bond was in Never Say Never Again, but that was almost a James Bond film. Moore, by contrast, is almost always the same as he is as Bond, which I really like.
Being Bond isn't about being a great actor, but about being able to embody the character's traits as intended for the times.
I wonder how Connery's performances outside Bond compare with his work as 007.
No, that's not true or else Lazenby, who had all of the physical qualities necessary, would have been a tremendous Bond, equal to all the others in people's eyes.
It actually takes a better actor to play an iconic or "limited" role in a way that is satisfying They have to somehow make due with the confines of how the character is defined. Scene chewers like Al Pacino or Marlon Brando or chameleons like Daniel Day Lewis or Meryl Streep rarely have the burden of living up to previous expectations for a character, so they can make it up from scratch (though usually what they do is imitate someone they know or studied, as Lewis did actor/director John Huston for There Will Be Blood). The problem for them is they are so good at it, people assume they're just being themselves and it is easy.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Moore, by contrast, is almost always the same as he is as Bond, which I really like.
Have you seen The Wild Geese? That's my favourite Moore film, in terms of acting. I'll always wish he'd played Bond that way.
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
You should see some of his greats, like Marnie, The Man Who Would Be King or The Untouchables.
And don't forget the films with perhaps his greatest performances: Robin and Marian and The Offence (which is almost a deconstruction of his Bondian persona). Sidney Lumet, who directed Connery in The Offence and The Hill, made a very wise statement about him:
When you look at the Bond characterization, everybody says, ‘Oh, well he’s just charming.’ Well s***, that’s like saying Cary Grant was just charming. There is more acting skill in playing that kind of character. What he’s doing, stylistically, is playing high comedy. And that is extremely difficult to do, which is why there are so few of those actors, so few Cary Grants and Sean Connerys. But it’s acting, don’t kid yourself.
Moore, by contrast, is almost always the same as he is as Bond, which I really like.
Have you seen The Wild Geese? That's my favourite Moore film, in terms of acting. I'll always wish he'd played Bond that way.
Yes, I've seen it. Moore is excellent with the little he does in the film. He didn't want to do much in the film because he didn't feel he was as good as Richard Burton and Richard Harris. Moore's first scene shows how tough he can be, but we did get some of that in Bond. His scene with Orlov is very similar.
You should see some of his greats, like Marnie, The Man Who Would Be King or The Untouchables.
And don't forget the films with perhaps his greatest performances: Robin and Marian and The Offence (which is almost a deconstruction of his Bondian persona). Sidney Lumet, who directed Connery in The Offence and The Hill, made a very wise statement about him:
When you look at the Bond characterization, everybody says, ‘Oh, well he’s just charming.’ Well s***, that’s like saying Cary Grant was just charming. There is more acting skill in playing that kind of character. What he’s doing, stylistically, is playing high comedy. And that is extremely difficult to do, which is why there are so few of those actors, so few Cary Grants and Sean Connerys. But it’s acting, don’t kid yourself.
And Sidney Lumet knew a thing or two about acting...He was totally right. It takes a great actor to do what Connery or Cary Grant did.
Objectively Craig may be a great actor, but I'm not a big fan of his 007.
"Hostile takeovers. Shall we?"
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later
Comments
It has been 13 years since a Bond villain had a mega weapon. Have you and your friends not seen the Craig films yet?
Doesn't seem to be the case in SPECTRE, according to some reviews I've read.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
"Better make that two."
Though I think the coverage about Daniel Craig not wanting to do another Bond is both overblown and misreported, I could get it from an actor's point of view. Over the past 10 years, he's essentially played the same guy the same way. There's been little to no forward momentum, other than the elements of plot and biography. It does seem tedious. And the shame of it, is that although he lacks Connery's range, Craig is probably the best actor since Connery to play the part. He could do so much more. Heck, the Bond in the Heineken commercial has more range than the one in the films. And that's mostly the writers.
I think I'd disagree that Craig's range lacks when compared to Connery---at least as manifest in Connery's Bond films, since Bond probably wasn't his most challenging work in terms of craft, given the era in which he played him and the nature of the films in those days. I have solid faith in Craig's acting chops.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
This is completely off-topic, I know, but I agree with this much as I feel he's miscast. He's a better actor than Brosnan, but Anthony Hopkins can knock spots off either and he'd be miscast as Bond even when he was the right age.
(Hopkins got a lot of offers for horror movies after his success as Hannibal Lector, but either he or his producers realised he'd be wrong as Dracula so he played Van Helsing, or as the Wolfman so he played his father- avoiding the miscasting)
Back on-topic- I'm thoroughly enjoying this thread with its superb posts by Gassy Man and Loeffelholz, two gents who know what they're talking about.
But A WHOLE MOVIE with that at the forefront?
Now I know why QOS is my favourite Craig Bond so far... the editing gave no time for drawn-out angst.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
True...but from what I understand, it's not really being excessively dwelt upon in the new one, for which I'm grateful
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Hardly the same case as Craig and Bond. I don't think Hopkins was ever offered Dracula, which was always intended as a young romantic lead (Coppola's). Same with Wolfman.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Now, if only they'd give us a script assignment B-)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
{[] Those would be fun sessions.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
You're right, of course, it's not the same case, but there's no doubt that he'd have the acting ability to play those parts but be the wrong man for the job.
Same thing in kung fu films , just slight variation from film to film.......in the end the hero wins.
But this is true of anything in a genre. All rollercoasters are essentially the same. So are all beaches, seafood restaurants, and pick up trucks. The concept does not really change much, but the details are significant.
It's one of the reasons I haven't been too impressed with the current stable of writers. The details have been relatively the same about Bond in each film. That was fine in Casino Royale, but it doesn't feel like things have moved forward much. I wouldn't complain if the Bonds were just trying to be grand entertainments, but now they've taken out this connotation of somehow being "more serious" than the previous films. Not to me. If anything, they're more limiting, covering a lot of the same ground over and over.
I wonder how Connery's performances outside Bond compare with his work as 007.
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later
You should see some of his greats, like Marnie, The Man Who Would Be King or The Untouchables. Since Marnie was made at the time he was Bond, it's more like Bond. After Bond he did much different roles and settled into playing the same character every time. The only film I've seen where he was similar to Bond was in Never Say Never Again, but that was almost a James Bond film. Moore, by contrast, is almost always the same as he is as Bond, which I really like.
It actually takes a better actor to play an iconic or "limited" role in a way that is satisfying They have to somehow make due with the confines of how the character is defined. Scene chewers like Al Pacino or Marlon Brando or chameleons like Daniel Day Lewis or Meryl Streep rarely have the burden of living up to previous expectations for a character, so they can make it up from scratch (though usually what they do is imitate someone they know or studied, as Lewis did actor/director John Huston for There Will Be Blood). The problem for them is they are so good at it, people assume they're just being themselves and it is easy.
Have you seen The Wild Geese? That's my favourite Moore film, in terms of acting. I'll always wish he'd played Bond that way.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
And don't forget the films with perhaps his greatest performances: Robin and Marian and The Offence (which is almost a deconstruction of his Bondian persona). Sidney Lumet, who directed Connery in The Offence and The Hill, made a very wise statement about him:
Yes, I've seen it. Moore is excellent with the little he does in the film. He didn't want to do much in the film because he didn't feel he was as good as Richard Burton and Richard Harris. Moore's first scene shows how tough he can be, but we did get some of that in Bond. His scene with Orlov is very similar.
"On your feet General."
"Better make that two."
And Sidney Lumet knew a thing or two about acting...He was totally right. It takes a great actor to do what Connery or Cary Grant did.
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later