Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.fan.james-bond » A Female's P.O.V. of Craig
A Female's P.O.V. of Craig [message #283790] Di, 13 Juni 2006 07:35
WQ  
Geez, you'd almost think she was me who wrote this:

http://www.mi6.co.uk/sections/articles/opinion_03_not_worth_ the_gamble.php3?t=&s=articles
Re: A Female's P.O.V. of Craig [message #283798 ] Di, 13 Juni 2006 15:05
phil.gerrard1  
WQ wrote:

> Geez, you'd almost think she was me who wrote this:
>
> http://www.mi6.co.uk/sections/articles/opinion_03_not_worth_ the_gamble.php3?t=&s=articles

I'd hope not, given her disparaging remarks about DN, FRWL, OHMSS, and
the whole of the Fleming oeuvre. In addition, as is made clear by the
CR website, Bond is intended to be in his late 30s as per Fleming's
originals, so the criticism of casting an actor who's 'nearly 40' is
misplaced. Also, I kind of find it hard to square Giblin's love of the
invisible car in DAD with her agreement that EON should quit using CGI.

Giblin clearly wants to see more Bond films in the fantastical vein of
DAD, and regards any attempt to bring Bond down to earth or to attempt
to recapture the spirit of Fleming's originals or the early EON films
as a mistake, and one which is likely to drive audiences away. It's a
legitimate point of view, but not one I suspect you share, WQ.

Best

Phil
Re: A Female's P.O.V. of Craig [message #283806 ] Di, 13 Juni 2006 18:27
WQ  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > Geez, you'd almost think she was me who wrote this:
> >
> > http://www.mi6.co.uk/sections/articles/opinion_03_not_worth_ the_gamble.php3?t=&s=articles
>
> I'd hope not, given her disparaging remarks about DN, FRWL, OHMSS, and
> the whole of the Fleming oeuvre. In addition, as is made clear by the
> CR website, Bond is intended to be in his late 30s as per Fleming's
> originals, so the criticism of casting an actor who's 'nearly 40' is
> misplaced. Also, I kind of find it hard to square Giblin's love of the
> invisible car in DAD with her agreement that EON should quit using CGI.
>
> Giblin clearly wants to see more Bond films in the fantastical vein of
> DAD, and regards any attempt to bring Bond down to earth or to attempt
> to recapture the spirit of Fleming's originals or the early EON films
> as a mistake, and one which is likely to drive audiences away. It's a
> legitimate point of view, but not one I suspect you share, WQ.

--- The only part I really agreed with was in her view of Craig's
mismatched looks for Bond. I liked the way she compared him to someone
who just came out of a football game and not as a winner either. I got
a chuckle out of that one. But the rest of it was, yeah, kind of
off-base for me.


>
> Best
>
> Phil
Re: A Female's P.O.V. of Craig [message #283812 ] Mi, 14 Juni 2006 01:41
phil.gerrard1  
WQ wrote:

> --- The only part I really agreed with was in her view of Craig's
> mismatched looks for Bond. I liked the way she compared him to someone
> who just came out of a football game and not as a winner either. I got
> a chuckle out of that one. But the rest of it was, yeah, kind of
> off-base for me.

Fair enough - but I have to say that I think you're in a no-win
situation here, WQ. If CR bombs, and EON/Sony get twitched* as a
result and ditch both Craig and their purported new direction, what
happens next? At the risk of repeating myself, I think the most likely
scenario is what I'd call DAF '08: the films go back over-the-top with
a vengeance and continue to do so, and there's even a distinct
possibility that pride gets swallowed by both parties and a distinctly
over-the-hill Brosnan is tempted back by a big paycheque.

I'd like to make it clear at this point that I liked DAD as a Bond film
and thought Brosnan was one of the best Bonds to date. However, even
at the time DAD was released I said that this was as fantastical as the
Bond films could or should be, and that the next few releases should
scale things back down again. I'd like to have seen Brosnan return to
the role for one, maybe two more films, which would most likely have
meant he would be retiring either now or next year. Beyond that we'd
be entering AVTAK territory, and while, yes, Brosnan looks damn good
for his age (as do all the former Bonds) that doesn't mean he should
still be playing the character at this time in his life. I think it's
verifiable that I've held these attitudes for a while if you check back
through my earlier posts.

The problem is that as far as I can see most of the anti-Craig /
anti-CR crowd actively favour the DAF '08 scenario, which IMHO would be
a disaster for the films in artistic terms and could herald a return to
the dark ages of the '70s. WQ, since I'm sure you feel as horrified
about such an outcome as I am, have you got a realistic answer as to
what you *do* want to happen? Personally, I think the best case
scenario is for CR to succeed, whether the film is a little flawed or
not. The alternative strikes me as being far worse.

Best

Phil

*A 'Sandbaggers' term for which I'd been dying to find a context.
Thanks again, Mac.
Re: A Female's P.O.V. of Craig [message #283814 ] Mi, 14 Juni 2006 04:13
WQ  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- The only part I really agreed with was in her view of Craig's
> > mismatched looks for Bond. I liked the way she compared him to someone
> > who just came out of a football game and not as a winner either. I got
> > a chuckle out of that one. But the rest of it was, yeah, kind of
> > off-base for me.
>
> Fair enough - but I have to say that I think you're in a no-win
> situation here, WQ. If CR bombs, and EON/Sony get twitched* as a
> result and ditch both Craig and their purported new direction, what
> happens next? At the risk of repeating myself, I think the most likely
> scenario is what I'd call DAF '08: the films go back over-the-top with
> a vengeance and continue to do so, and there's even a distinct
> possibility that pride gets swallowed by both parties and a distinctly
> over-the-hill Brosnan is tempted back by a big paycheque.

--- Yes, history may repeat itself and perhaps Brosnan's first line
after killing someone in the PCS would be, as he stares at the
sprawled-on-the-floor dead figure straight in the face, but it's
actually directly into the low-angle camera, saying it with a gleeful
vengeful sneer, "...And you thought I was bitter." He's baa-a-aack!
Intro graphics and instrumental lead to the theme song of "Calling the
Shots."

But if he did return for one more, then that would definitely be the
last one for him, just long enough for the producers to bide their time
in trying to find their next Bond and next direction. Would Brosnan's
5th go over the top? I'm not so sure. I think it would go lighter in
tone but still remain more grounded than DAD, perhaps throw itself back
to the style of TWINE or GE - but lighter. There's been a dearth of
real comedy and even lightweight comedy in films and on TV for quite a
while now and I think within a couple of years the pendulum might just
swing back to a re-emergence of lighter fare and audiences will
probably be receptive to a Bond-lite by that time. I think every 10 or
15 years EON just likes to get its serious kicks in for one film and
then they're done, especially after they see the B.O. receipts.

> I'd like to make it clear at this point that I liked DAD as a Bond film
> and thought Brosnan was one of the best Bonds to date. However, even
> at the time DAD was released I said that this was as fantastical as the
> Bond films could or should be, and that the next few releases should
> scale things back down again. I'd like to have seen Brosnan return to
> the role for one, maybe two more films, which would most likely have
> meant he would be retiring either now or next year. Beyond that we'd
> be entering AVTAK territory, and while, yes, Brosnan looks damn good
> for his age (as do all the former Bonds) that doesn't mean he should
> still be playing the character at this time in his life. I think it's
> verifiable that I've held these attitudes for a while if you check back
> through my earlier posts.

--- Well, DAD ranks pretty well among my 5 least favoured Bonds, to put
it mildly. It's old hat of me saying this, but it was the same problem
with that film as with TWINE. It had a decent first half, or almost
first half, but then you could just see where the tipping point was for
each of the films that made them suddenly go 180 degrees in the
opposite direction. It's as if the writers and producers weren't
confident of the material they began with, so to insure a hefty return
on their investment, they decided to go ballistic and weird and only
really ended up creating a bit of a schizoid mess in the process.

> The problem is that as far as I can see most of the anti-Craig /
> anti-CR crowd actively favour the DAF '08 scenario, which IMHO would be
> a disaster for the films in artistic terms and could herald a return to
> the dark ages of the '70s. WQ, since I'm sure you feel as horrified
> about such an outcome as I am, have you got a realistic answer as to
> what you *do* want to happen? Personally, I think the best case
> scenario is for CR to succeed, whether the film is a little flawed or
> not. The alternative strikes me as being far worse.

--- Again, I don't think that a DAF '08 would turn out to be as
outrageous or over-the-top as you think. If EON would be desperate
enough to get Brosnan back for one more, Brosnan may find himself in an
enviable position of wanting to call some creative shots this time
around, having already expressed his dissatisfaction with how the films
have turned out for him. How much he'd be able to get away with is
uncertain, but if Connery got his million for DAF, then anything's
possible and Brosnan may get his way so that he can be happy capping
off his Bond career with a winner, or as pretty close to a winner as
possible, even if the film turns out to be in a lighter vein. After
all, one could hardly call Goldfinger a dark and heavy Bond film and
look at how successful its lighter approach turned out to be, so it's
possible that something more tongue-in-cheek or campy instead of
over-the-top can work, and should be used. I think everybody would end
up happy if Brosnan managed to capture the same feel and tone of
Goldfinger with his last one. It'd all really depend on how desperate
EON would want Brosnan back to begin with before we can even begin to
hope to see another Goldfinger-type film, though.

Will CR succeed? That's anyone's guess and an early indication of
where it'll be headed will be opening weekend. If it does only half of
what Brosnan pulled in with DAD in the first weekend, then it's
curtains Mr. Craig. Unless Barb really does have the hots for him and
is willing to risk her entire empire for the guy on a second go-round.
That'd be interesting to see, for sure. Who'd I really want to get for
DAF '08 if Craig tanks? I don't know at this point. There's the
possibility of still going for Clive Owen and maintaining a serious or
credible Bond instead of going light, but at least with him it would be
with someone who would look more readily familiar and accessible to
audiences as a Bond figure than Craig. The feeling is that audiences
may get a little tense watching Craig, so using Owen afterwards just
may be a way of telling them that they can relax again with Bond.
Maybe that's the secret to a successful Bond: the relax factor. One
felt very relaxed with Connery, somewhat uncertain with Lazenby
initially, relaxed again - maybe too much so - with Moore, a bit tense
with Dalton, and ... Brosnan I still can't put a finger on. I wouldn't
call him relaxed, though he does go through the motions, but they seem
more feigned than natural. There's also an uptightness about him as
well that makes one feel a bit edgy sometimes. I think overall,
however, synthetic is the only word I can come up with for Brosnan,
since he always struck me as kind of too surface level. But then we
live in such a synthetic age right now so maybe that's why he was
popular with audiences during his tenure. I guess the key to Craig's
success or failure will be in how he projects himself as Bond - relaxed
or otherwise. I don't know about you, but I don't sense a relaxed
nature with Craig. Intense, perhaps, and that could possibly put off a
fair number of people. Owen, on the other hand, can come across as
looking fairly relaxed, or certainly at ease, and could be viewed as an
antidote to the "toxicity" of Craig. Then again, if not Owen, there's
always looking for a new face, whoever that may be in the next year or
two - but definitely one with a "relax factor". Guess we'll see when
the time comes what will actually transpire.

>
> Best
>
> Phil
>
> *A 'Sandbaggers' term for which I'd been dying to find a context.
> Thanks again, Mac.
Re: A Female's P.O.V. of Craig [message #283817 ] Mi, 14 Juni 2006 13:31
phil.gerrard1  
WQ wrote:

> --- Again, I don't think that a DAF '08 would turn out to be as
> outrageous or over-the-top as you think. If EON would be desperate
> enough to get Brosnan back for one more, Brosnan may find himself in an
> enviable position of wanting to call some creative shots this time
> around, having already expressed his dissatisfaction with how the films
> have turned out for him. How much he'd be able to get away with is
> uncertain, but if Connery got his million for DAF, then anything's
> possible and Brosnan may get his way so that he can be happy capping
> off his Bond career with a winner, or as pretty close to a winner as
> possible, even if the film turns out to be in a lighter vein.

If Brosnan was tempted back for one or even two more I have serious
doubts that he'd be in a position to call the shots creatively, given
the direction in which he's said he wanted to take the films: in fact,
I think it's be more likely that he'd be offered s**tloads of money to
reprise the role on the tacit understanding that he wasn't to rock the
boat. See, one of the cruel ironies of Brosnan's departure from the
series is that CR appears to be the kind of Bond movie he was pressing
EON to make. Now, if CR bombs and Brosnan is asked back, are Sony and
EON really going to be prepared to let him make the darker, more
violent, less humourous Bond film he always wanted to make, or are they
going to ask him to trade his vision of a Scorsese/Tarantino-esque
flick for a small fortune? My money would certainly be on the latter.

> There's the
> possibility of still going for Clive Owen and maintaining a serious or
> credible Bond instead of going light, but at least with him it would be
> with someone who would look more readily familiar and accessible to
> audiences as a Bond figure than Craig.

Even if Craig does get the boot, Owen put himself out of the frame last
time, and I don't see any reason for him to change his mind. If his
career continues the way it's going, Bond would likely be a step
backwards in that it would limit his options severely when it came to
choosing other projects. Bond films are pretty time-consuming affairs,
so even leaving aside the question of typecasting, Owen would have to
think seriously about what he might be turning down in order to do the
job. Unless his career starts nosediving, the reasons that he gave for
not chasing the role last time around will still apply.

> The feeling is that audiences
> may get a little tense watching Craig, so using Owen afterwards just
> may be a way of telling them that they can relax again with Bond.
> Maybe that's the secret to a successful Bond: the relax factor. One
> felt very relaxed with Connery, somewhat uncertain with Lazenby
> initially, relaxed again - maybe too much so - with Moore, a bit tense
> with Dalton, and ... Brosnan I still can't put a finger on.

See, I think you're conflating your point of view with the audience's
here. While I'd agree that it seems that the majority of the movie
audience didn't feel relaxed with Lazenby or Dalton, I don't think they
felt any of the ambivalence towards Brosnan that you do.

But yeah, maybe the extent to which audiences feel relaxed with the
actor playing Bond is a factor here. So what advantages did Moore and
Brosnan have that Lazenby and Dalton didn't? Here's one: the public
had already had several years in which to become familiar with them in
Bond-like roles, and their stepping into the series seemed like a
perfectly natural progression. Lazenby and Dalton never really got the
chance to get past the 'who the hell is this guy' reaction which is
affecting Craig at the moment. (With Connery it was a different
matter, since there weren't any invidious comparisons to be drawn
between him and any previous occupants of the role.)

Audiences feel comfortable with what's familiar, and I think the
box-office history of the Bond films tends to demonstrate that.
However, many of the Bond films which are least well-regarded by fans
have been those which have deliberately tried to serve up more of what
the public wants, and a few of the best-regarded have been attempts to
change direction which haven't necessarily played well with the general
public.

> I don't know about you, but I don't sense a relaxed
> nature with Craig. Intense, perhaps, and that could possibly put off a
> fair number of people.

Personally, I think the image of Bond as a glib, unshakeable smoothie
is one which needs to be kicked around a bit, partly because it's got
nothing to do with the character as Fleming wrote him. Note how
visceral Fleming's action scenes are, how tense they feel, and how
vividly Fleming describes Bond's physical and emotional reactions:
intense is precisely the word I'd use to describe character in those
moments. To me, Connery, Dalton, and Brosnan have all managed to
convey that intensity (did any action star ever look so fierce and
driven as Connery in his fight scenes?) and Moore's great flaw was that
he hardly ever got to grips with that side of the character.

But I guess what you're asking is whether Craig can pull of the suave
stuff when it's needed, and my answer would be simply that we haven't
yet seen any material on which to be able to judge that. So far, the
clips we've been presented with have been action, action, action, with
little indication as to how Craig will handle the dialogue scenes which
delineate that part of Bond's personality. I suspect he'll do fine:
he's more than capable as an actor, he can do humour, confidence, and
panache (watch 'Sword of Honour' or 'Our Friends in the North' for
indications of his sheer range in these respects).

Now I'm sure some would argue that it doesn't matter whether he can act
suave or not, he just has an intense *look* about him. That's true
enough (I'd say it was also true of Dalton) but to me it would be a
damn shame to see Craig kicked out and some bland pretty-boy hustled
into the part on that basis alone. I'd rather Bond looked like a
hardass than a knitwear model.

> Owen, on the other hand, can come across as
> looking fairly relaxed, or certainly at ease,

I'd have said 'comatose'...

Best

Phil
Re: A Female's P.O.V. of Craig [message #283829 ] Mi, 14 Juni 2006 21:34
WQ  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- Again, I don't think that a DAF '08 would turn out to be as
> > outrageous or over-the-top as you think. If EON would be desperate
> > enough to get Brosnan back for one more, Brosnan may find himself in an
> > enviable position of wanting to call some creative shots this time
> > around, having already expressed his dissatisfaction with how the films
> > have turned out for him. How much he'd be able to get away with is
> > uncertain, but if Connery got his million for DAF, then anything's
> > possible and Brosnan may get his way so that he can be happy capping
> > off his Bond career with a winner, or as pretty close to a winner as
> > possible, even if the film turns out to be in a lighter vein.
>
> If Brosnan was tempted back for one or even two more I have serious
> doubts that he'd be in a position to call the shots creatively, given
> the direction in which he's said he wanted to take the films: in fact,
>
> I think it's be more likely that he'd be offered s**tloads of money to
> reprise the role on the tacit understanding that he wasn't to rock the
> boat. See, one of the cruel ironies of Brosnan's departure from the
> series is that CR appears to be the kind of Bond movie he was pressing
> EON to make. Now, if CR bombs and Brosnan is asked back, are Sony and
> EON really going to be prepared to let him make the darker, more
> violent, less humourous Bond film he always wanted to make, or are they
> going to ask him to trade his vision of a Scorsese/Tarantino-esque
> flick for a small fortune? My money would certainly be on the latter.

--- Yes, but if the serious, dark Bond flops with CR, I don't think
Brosnan would be dumb enough to stick with that tone, it certainly
won't win him any points with EON, especially if they'd be intent on
going lighter. It's in going lighter that Brosnan might use his clout,
and if he was smart, he'd point his last film into a
tongue-in-cheek/campy Goldfinger direction, but still keeping it
grounded enough without veering off into total carnage and invisible
human beings. Doing another GF-like film would be a fitting finale for
Brosnan as Bond as he'd sort of come full circle with the character
[he has claimed that GF was the first Bond he saw when he was a kid].
And Goldfinger's tongue-in-cheek/campy quality worked because it didn't
stray too far from still being real world-like. Sure, there were a few
impossible things about it, but they weren't anywhere near as
outlandish as a lot of what Brosnan did in his four outings. I could
believe Pussy Galore and her team flying over the Fort Knox area to gas
it; I just couldn't believe Brosnan flying through the air trying to
catch up with a diving plane so he can climb aboard it. So this is
where I think Brosnan would carry clout. If EON was really desperate
to have him back and Brosnan played it as if he'd only agree to do it
if he had certain script approval rights to his satisfaction or he
couldn't care less about returning, then if it all worked out between
them, then I can see the chances of a GF '08, instead of a DAF '08, as
being pretty good. Just make sure Purvis & Wade aren't writting the
script, that's all.

> > There's the
> > possibility of still going for Clive Owen and maintaining a serious or
> > credible Bond instead of going light, but at least with him it would be
> > with someone who would look more readily familiar and accessible to
> > audiences as a Bond figure than Craig.
>
> Even if Craig does get the boot, Owen put himself out of the frame last
> time, and I don't see any reason for him to change his mind. If his
> career continues the way it's going, Bond would likely be a step
> backwards in that it would limit his options severely when it came to
> choosing other projects. Bond films are pretty time-consuming affairs,
> so even leaving aside the question of typecasting, Owen would have to
> think seriously about what he might be turning down in order to do the
> job. Unless his career starts nosediving, the reasons that he gave for
> not chasing the role last time around will still apply.

--- I'm not even sure Owen's career is really going anywhere that's
creating any real sort of impact with audiences. He may be getting
work and maybe that's all that counts for him, but I don't think he's
getting any real stature or riches out of what he's doing. I see him
as just coasting from one film to the next and that may be fine with
him. But in a couple of years, if he feels like he should want to move
on to another level, Bond may be worthy of consideration - while he'll
still be the right age for the part.

> > The feeling is that audiences
> > may get a little tense watching Craig, so using Owen afterwards just
> > may be a way of telling them that they can relax again with Bond.
> > Maybe that's the secret to a successful Bond: the relax factor. One
> > felt very relaxed with Connery, somewhat uncertain with Lazenby
> > initially, relaxed again - maybe too much so - with Moore, a bit tense
> > with Dalton, and ... Brosnan I still can't put a finger on.
>
> See, I think you're conflating your point of view with the audience's
> here. While I'd agree that it seems that the majority of the movie
> audience didn't feel relaxed with Lazenby or Dalton, I don't think they
> felt any of the ambivalence towards Brosnan that you do.
>
> But yeah, maybe the extent to which audiences feel relaxed with the
> actor playing Bond is a factor here. So what advantages did Moore and
> Brosnan have that Lazenby and Dalton didn't? Here's one: the public
> had already had several years in which to become familiar with them in
> Bond-like roles, and their stepping into the series seemed like a
> perfectly natural progression. Lazenby and Dalton never really got the
> chance to get past the 'who the hell is this guy' reaction which is
> affecting Craig at the moment. (With Connery it was a different
> matter, since there weren't any invidious comparisons to be drawn
> between him and any previous occupants of the role.)
>
> Audiences feel comfortable with what's familiar, and I think the
> box-office history of the Bond films tends to demonstrate that.
> However, many of the Bond films which are least well-regarded by fans
> have been those which have deliberately tried to serve up more of what
> the public wants, and a few of the best-regarded have been attempts to
> change direction which haven't necessarily played well with the general
> public.
>
> > I don't know about you, but I don't sense a relaxed
> > nature with Craig. Intense, perhaps, and that could possibly put off a
> > fair number of people.
>
> Personally, I think the image of Bond as a glib, unshakeable smoothie
> is one which needs to be kicked around a bit, partly because it's got
> nothing to do with the character as Fleming wrote him. Note how
> visceral Fleming's action scenes are, how tense they feel, and how
> vividly Fleming describes Bond's physical and emotional reactions:
> intense is precisely the word I'd use to describe character in those
> moments. To me, Connery, Dalton, and Brosnan have all managed to
> convey that intensity (did any action star ever look so fierce and
> driven as Connery in his fight scenes?) and Moore's great flaw was that
> he hardly ever got to grips with that side of the character.
>
> But I guess what you're asking is whether Craig can pull of the suave
> stuff when it's needed, and my answer would be simply that we haven't
> yet seen any material on which to be able to judge that. So far, the
> clips we've been presented with have been action, action, action, with
> little indication as to how Craig will handle the dialogue scenes which
> delineate that part of Bond's personality. I suspect he'll do fine:
> he's more than capable as an actor, he can do humour, confidence, and
> panache (watch 'Sword of Honour' or 'Our Friends in the North' for
> indications of his sheer range in these respects).
>
> Now I'm sure some would argue that it doesn't matter whether he can act
> suave or not, he just has an intense *look* about him. That's true
> enough (I'd say it was also true of Dalton) but to me it would be a
> damn shame to see Craig kicked out and some bland pretty-boy hustled
> into the part on that basis alone. I'd rather Bond looked like a
> hardass than a knitwear model.

--- Yes, but remember what that Lisa Giblin wrote in that link I
provided before. She also said that Craig may be a fine actor, but so
is Anthony Hopkins, yet she wouldn't want him to do Bond either. It
seems from her p.o.v., as with mine, it's not about getting a fine
actor for the job, it's about getting an actor who looks and feels
right for the part. That's the Bond audiences want to see more than
anything else because then, it seems, they'll buy just about anything
else the character dishes out.

> > Owen, on the other hand, can come across as
> > looking fairly relaxed, or certainly at ease,
>
> I'd have said 'comatose'...

--- Okay, maybe a little too relaxed at times, but I've seen a genuine
Bond relaxed side of him as well as a Bond zest to him, too.

>
> Best
>
> Phil
Re: A Female's P.O.V. of Craig [message #283830 ] Mi, 14 Juni 2006 22:26
phil.gerrard1  
WQ wrote:

> --- Yes, but remember what that Lisa Giblin wrote in that link I
> provided before. She also said that Craig may be a fine actor, but so
> is Anthony Hopkins, yet she wouldn't want him to do Bond either. It
> seems from her p.o.v., as with mine, it's not about getting a fine
> actor for the job, it's about getting an actor who looks and feels
> right for the part. That's the Bond audiences want to see more than
> anything else because then, it seems, they'll buy just about anything
> else the character dishes out.

I'm not at all sure what you mean by 'feels right' here. Surely that's
something which can only be judged on the basis of Craig's performance
in the role? Or do you mean that from the photos and all-too-brief
clips we've seen he's giving off the wrong vibe, which, when you get
right down to it, is really just another way of saying he doesn't look
right?

What underlies every objection I've ever seen to Craig's casting is the
way he looks: that's been the starting point for every complaint, and
everything else has been incidental. I don't think there can be much
argument that if he resembled Pierce Brosnan / Hugh Jackman / whoever
none of this would ever have kicked off, and that nobody would be
looking for other (often frankly trivial) reasons to attack EON's
decision to cast him.

As for the oft-argued point that acting ability is secondary to
'looking right' for the part (and I'd argue that Craig is looking more
right for the role with every picture I see), that's an argument which
seriously underrates the abilities of the guys who've played Bond so
far. There hasn't been a bad actor in the role yet, and the fact that
they've all 'looked right' in most people's eyes has been a happy
coincidence. If Connery had moved like a klutz, Moore hadn't been able
to deliver a snappy one-liner, Dalton had played the role with all the
emotion of the speaking clock, or Brosnan hadn't been able to combine
the strengths of the Bonds who'd preceded him - ie if an actor had been
cast in the role for looks *without* any consideration being given to
his performing skills - the fans would damn well have noticed it. All
those guys are very skilled at what they do, and it's way too
simplistic to suggest that audiences bought it merely because they
looked good. They *sold* their various interpretations of the role,
and just because it looks easy and natural on screen doesn't mean it's
effortless or unskilful. IMHO the only borderline-mediocre actor to
have played the part was Lazenby, and although he acquited himself well
despite his lack of experience, he had the advantage of possibly the
strongest film in the series to help him along.

I've seen plenty of stuff where an actor has been cast for his looks
above his talent, and believe me, you *never* buy it if the guy's
skills aren't up to scratch.

Best

Phil
Re: A Female's P.O.V. of Craig [message #283831 ] Mi, 14 Juni 2006 22:56
WQ  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- Yes, but remember what that Lisa Giblin wrote in that link I
> > provided before. She also said that Craig may be a fine actor, but so
> > is Anthony Hopkins, yet she wouldn't want him to do Bond either. It
> > seems from her p.o.v., as with mine, it's not about getting a fine
> > actor for the job, it's about getting an actor who looks and feels
> > right for the part. That's the Bond audiences want to see more than
> > anything else because then, it seems, they'll buy just about anything
> > else the character dishes out.
>
> I'm not at all sure what you mean by 'feels right' here. Surely that's
> something which can only be judged on the basis of Craig's performance
> in the role? Or do you mean that from the photos and all-too-brief
> clips we've seen he's giving off the wrong vibe, which, when you get
> right down to it, is really just another way of saying he doesn't look
> right?

--- Feels right as in relaxed, in a way that puts the audience at ease
with Bond, as with Connery of course.

> What underlies every objection I've ever seen to Craig's casting is the
> way he looks: that's been the starting point for every complaint, and
> everything else has been incidental. I don't think there can be much
> argument that if he resembled Pierce Brosnan / Hugh Jackman / whoever
> none of this would ever have kicked off, and that nobody would be
> looking for other (often frankly trivial) reasons to attack EON's
> decision to cast him.

--- Well, I do believe Brosnan had his ribbing when they picked him for
GE. Too young and skinny or sleight of build, they said. Even I
thought so at the time.

> As for the oft-argued point that acting ability is secondary to
> 'looking right' for the part (and I'd argue that Craig is looking more
> right for the role with every picture I see), that's an argument which
> seriously underrates the abilities of the guys who've played Bond so
> far. There hasn't been a bad actor in the role yet, and the fact that
> they've all 'looked right' in most people's eyes has been a happy
> coincidence. If Connery had moved like a klutz, Moore hadn't been able
> to deliver a snappy one-liner, Dalton had played the role with all the
> emotion of the speaking clock, or Brosnan hadn't been able to combine
> the strengths of the Bonds who'd preceded him - ie if an actor had been
> cast in the role for looks *without* any consideration being given to
> his performing skills - the fans would damn well have noticed it. All
> those guys are very skilled at what they do, and it's way too
> simplistic to suggest that audiences bought it merely because they
> looked good. They *sold* their various interpretations of the role,
> and just because it looks easy and natural on screen doesn't mean it's
> effortless or unskilful. IMHO the only borderline-mediocre actor to
> have played the part was Lazenby, and although he acquited himself well
> despite his lack of experience, he had the advantage of possibly the
> strongest film in the series to help him along.
>
> I've seen plenty of stuff where an actor has been cast for his looks
> above his talent, and believe me, you *never* buy it if the guy's
> skills aren't up to scratch.

--- Yes, but Craig's looks transcend all of those fundamentals. His
looks are a stark deviation of the accepted 4-plus decade "norm" of
Bond. Prior to Craig, Moore was probably the only other actor to be a
deviation, if only because of his lighter colored hair. But Moore was
still within the confines of a Bond-like image in that he had already
played a troubleshooter in The Saint series and another troubleshooter
in The Persuaders series, which gave him 007-like credentials right
there to play the part,along with having the physicality of a Connery
in terms of height and breadth. Not only does Craig's looks clash with
the "norm" of previous Bonds, but he also comes with nothing
identifiable to which audiences can anchor themselves, like an earlier
troubleshooting TV series or memorable film or series of films, as a
launching pad for them to readily accept him as Bond. That's two big
things he's got going against him, three if you want to count his
height, and there's some question now as to whether it's actually 6 ft
or 5'11". It doesn't matter anyway because he still films small - or
at least smaller than the others, unless he's standing next to a short
woman. So, Craig is going into this Bond thing real cold and totally
starting from scratch. This may work to his benefit and possibly the
film's retooled approach as well or, no matter how well a job he does,
audiences still might not end up buying him because of his stark
deviation from the "norm" and the absence of any "relax factor".

Now in the case of Lazenby, there's someone who's acting skills weren't
exactly up to snuff. Interestingly, though, you could almost see him
getting better at it throughout OHMSS as he starts off kind of weak but
gradually seems to adopt a more confident air about him by midway
through the film and finally he works out just fine as a cruel-etched
Bond towards the end, i.e. when he kills one of Blofeld's henchman
skiers by strangling him with one of his skis to effectively silence
him from alerting the other pursuers. So I think Lazenby learned his
role on the job and came out quite well by the end of it. Still
would've liked to have seen him in a few more after that, he probably
would've fit into Bond as easily and comfortably as Connery did.


>
> Best
>
> Phil
Re: A Female's P.O.V. of Craig [message #283834 ] Do, 15 Juni 2006 02:02
phil.gerrard1  
WQ wrote:

> --- Feels right as in relaxed, in a way that puts the audience at ease
> with Bond, as with Connery of course.

Again, without wanting to disparage his abilities in the slightest,
Connery had the considerable advantage of being the first movie Bond.
Only a small proportion of the audience who went to see DN were
familiar with the character at all: Fleming's novels sold well, but
we're talking tens of thousands rather than millions here. The vast
majority of the moviegoing audience would have been asking themselves
what they thought of this character on first viewing rather than
measuring Connery against an established yardstick. It's an entirely
different battle to taking over a well-known role.

> That's two big
> things he's got going against him, three if you want to count his
> height, and there's some question now as to whether it's actually 6 ft
> or 5'11". It doesn't matter anyway because he still films small - or
> at least smaller than the others, unless he's standing next to a short
> woman.

Actually, some people have been claiming he's really 5'2". No joke,
and a sign of how low certain people are prepared to stoop to disparage
him.

As for 'filming small', what exactly do you mean by this? It's an
expression I've not heard in twenty-odd years of reading about and
analysing movies. If you mean that in, say, 'Road to Perdition', you
came away with the impression that Craig was shorter than his real
height, that's partly a function of the character he's playing.
Witness 'Mad Dog and Glory', where Bill Murray appears to be twice the
size of Robert De Niro, or 'Heat', where Al Pacino beats the crap out
of the built-like-a-brick-s**thouse Henry Rollins, or for that matter
any movie featuring Alan Ladd, Tom Cruise, Steve McQueen, etc. If a
slightly-above-average-height guy like Craig can't be made to look a
mere inch taller than he really is, then either he's a freak of nature
or Martin Campbell is one of the most incompetent filmmakers currently
working.

> So, Craig is going into this Bond thing real cold and totally
> starting from scratch. This may work to his benefit and possibly the
> film's retooled approach as well or, no matter how well a job he does,
> audiences still might not end up buying him because of his stark
> deviation from the "norm" and the absence of any "relax factor".

Well, now we're back to where we started, aren't we? The 'norm' and
'relax factor', judged solely from box-office returns - a hugely
unreliable basis on which to decide what audiences might want in the
future, but the only starting point we have - would dictate that rather
than Craig in CR we'd have had Brosnan in DAD II. It would also have
dictated that OHMSS and TLD, to choose two obvious examples, would
never have been made.

In the case of the great Bond films of the '60s - the big four, to use
Tom Z's excellent phrase - you're harking back to one of those
relatively rare instances where IMHO what was popular and what was good
coincided exactly. Now, if you've liked Bond films which didn't do so
well at the box office, OHMSS being the great example, it seems to me
that you have to decide which side you're on. You can say about an
actor or film that you don't like them on a personal level no matter
what others say, or you can take the position that the audience is
always right, but I don't see that you can do both simultaneously.

You don't like the current EON team, and you didn't particularly like
Brosnan, in which case the moviegoing audience must be wrong, since
they've been happy with the last four films. However, you're now
claiming that the moviegoing audience must be right if they decide to
reject Craig, because that happens to concur with your personal
opinion. Isn't there a contradiction here?

> Now in the case of Lazenby, there's someone who's acting skills weren't
> exactly up to snuff. Interestingly, though, you could almost see him
> getting better at it throughout OHMSS as he starts off kind of weak but
> gradually seems to adopt a more confident air about him by midway
> through the film and finally he works out just fine as a cruel-etched
> Bond towards the end, i.e. when he kills one of Blofeld's henchman
> skiers by strangling him with one of his skis to effectively silence
> him from alerting the other pursuers.

Midway through the film is, in fact, where they started shooting. The
first shot Lazenby did for the film is, I believe, where he ascends the
stairs of Piz Gloria wearing a kilt. Films are almost always shot out
of sequence, with a few notable exceptions ('High Plains Drifter'
springs to mind) so any notion of an actor getting better and more
confident with a role as a film goes on is almost certainly an
illusion. A far more likely scenario is that you, as a viewer, get
more used to the idea of an unfamiliar face in a familiar role.

Best

Phil
Re: A Female's P.O.V. of Craig [message #283836 ] Do, 15 Juni 2006 03:47
WQ  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- Feels right as in relaxed, in a way that puts the audience at ease
> > with Bond, as with Connery of course.
>
> Again, without wanting to disparage his abilities in the slightest,
> Connery had the considerable advantage of being the first movie Bond.
> Only a small proportion of the audience who went to see DN were
> familiar with the character at all: Fleming's novels sold well, but
> we're talking tens of thousands rather than millions here. The vast
> majority of the moviegoing audience would have been asking themselves
> what they thought of this character on first viewing rather than
> measuring Connery against an established yardstick. It's an entirely
> different battle to taking over a well-known role.

--- I don't think people were instantly comfortable with Connery in DN.
After all, he did have that funny foreign accent and what were
Americans, in particular, to make of that? I think everybody involved
in DN was feeling out how to project Connery as Bond. In FRWL I
noticed he was much more relaxed with himself in the role already, I
guess maybe because he and everyone else were confident about the
direction they were heading, especially after the success of DN. By
GF, Connery definitely owned the Bond role and people just knew it and
the template was permanently set.

> > That's two big
> > things he's got going against him, three if you want to count his
> > height, and there's some question now as to whether it's actually 6 ft
> > or 5'11". It doesn't matter anyway because he still films small - or
> > at least smaller than the others, unless he's standing next to a short
> > woman.
>
> Actually, some people have been claiming he's really 5'2". No joke,
> and a sign of how low certain people are prepared to stoop to disparage
> him.
>
> As for 'filming small', what exactly do you mean by this? It's an
> expression I've not heard in twenty-odd years of reading about and
> analysing movies. If you mean that in, say, 'Road to Perdition', you
> came away with the impression that Craig was shorter than his real
> height, that's partly a function of the character he's playing.
> Witness 'Mad Dog and Glory', where Bill Murray appears to be twice the
> size of Robert De Niro, or 'Heat', where Al Pacino beats the crap out
> of the built-like-a-brick-s**thouse Henry Rollins, or for that matter
> any movie featuring Alan Ladd, Tom Cruise, Steve McQueen, etc. If a
> slightly-above-average-height guy like Craig can't be made to look a
> mere inch taller than he really is, then either he's a freak of nature
> or Martin Campbell is one of the most incompetent filmmakers currently
> working.

--- He simply does not appear big or broad enough on screen in a way as
to physically dominate it, if only by illusion. Connery, Lazenby and
Moore did, for sure. Dalton and Brosnan not so much. Yet, each of the
actors were at least 6'2", if I'm correct, and if Craig is only 2
inches shorter, it really sure seems to make a hell of a difference.
He actually looks like he's of normal average height of about 5'10",
and with that illusion, then there's a 4" difference, if you look at it
that way. The point is this: physically, the best Bond is one who
looks like he commands a presence and can pose a real threat to his
enemies. Connery was that to a T, Lazenby less so, Moore looked like
he really didn't want to mess up his hair much, Dalton looked like he
could be a threat but didn't seem to command a presence, and Brosnan
may've had some presence but I never saw a threat in him. We'll see
how Craig will ultimately fare in several months.

> > So, Craig is going into this Bond thing real cold and totally
> > starting from scratch. This may work to his benefit and possibly the
> > film's retooled approach as well or, no matter how well a job he does,
> > audiences still might not end up buying him because of his stark
> > deviation from the "norm" and the absence of any "relax factor".
>
> Well, now we're back to where we started, aren't we? The 'norm' and
> 'relax factor', judged solely from box-office returns - a hugely
> unreliable basis on which to decide what audiences might want in the
> future, but the only starting point we have - would dictate that rather
> than Craig in CR we'd have had Brosnan in DAD II. It would also have
> dictated that OHMSS and TLD, to choose two obvious examples, would
> never have been made.

--- I don't think it's judging solely on box-office terms, I think the
normal and relax factor are qualities that can also be viewed as
subliminal intangibles for audiences. And then I guess you can say
that if the subliminal intangibles stroked the audiences all in the
right places, box office success results.

> In the case of the great Bond films of the '60s - the big four, to use
> Tom Z's excellent phrase - you're harking back to one of those
> relatively rare instances where IMHO what was popular and what was good
> coincided exactly. Now, if you've liked Bond films which didn't do so
> well at the box office, OHMSS being the great example, it seems to me
> that you have to decide which side you're on. You can say about an
> actor or film that you don't like them on a personal level no matter
> what others say, or you can take the position that the audience is
> always right, but I don't see that you can do both simultaneously.

--- Well, in some cases one can view it both ways, understand it from
both points of view, but of course, the bottom line for me would be
what I ultimately think and not what the audience thinks. Sometimes
it's a happy union of views and I'm glad for humanity that they see see
it my way, and sometimes it's a great and irreconcilable divide.

> You don't like the current EON team, and you didn't particularly like
> Brosnan, in which case the moviegoing audience must be wrong, since
> they've been happy with the last four films. However, you're now
> claiming that the moviegoing audience must be right if they decide to
> reject Craig, because that happens to concur with your personal
> opinion. Isn't there a contradiction here?

--- Movie audiences change. Some or a lot of those who went to see
Brosnan may end up boycotting Craig. What will Craig be left with?
Die-hards, both rookie and veteran, and a new segment of audience that
may take to his Bond slant in a way they couldn't with Brosnan. The
number of people who've seen Bond films from the beginning and still
see them, through good and bad, probably amount to somewhere between
10-20% of the original Connery Bond moviegoer population in the 60s -
and I'm only suggesting that as a possible figure because I don't know
for sure. The remainder would be those who grew up on Moore and the
others and whatever other new audiences are always emerging for the
films. So there's no constant with Bond audiences and because there's
no constant, that's why it's quite possible that the audience that
welcomed Brosnan might not be the same audience in significant numbers
to welcome Craig. He just may have the bum luck of getting the wrong
kind of audience or not enough of an audience interested in his 007
re-interpretation and a retooling of the series. On the other hand,
after 4 years since the last film, he just might get enough of an
audience with the help of a new generation of them that would lend
credence to him as Bond. Who knows.

> > Now in the case of Lazenby, there's someone who's acting skills weren't
> > exactly up to snuff. Interestingly, though, you could almost see him
> > getting better at it throughout OHMSS as he starts off kind of weak but
> > gradually seems to adopt a more confident air about him by midway
> > through the film and finally he works out just fine as a cruel-etched
> > Bond towards the end, i.e. when he kills one of Blofeld's henchman
> > skiers by strangling him with one of his skis to effectively silence
> > him from alerting the other pursuers.
>
> Midway through the film is, in fact, where they started shooting. The
> first shot Lazenby did for the film is, I believe, where he ascends the
> stairs of Piz Gloria wearing a kilt. Films are almost always shot out
> of sequence, with a few notable exceptions ('High Plains Drifter'
> springs to mind) so any notion of an actor getting better and more
> confident with a role as a film goes on is almost certainly an
> illusion. A far more likely scenario is that you, as a viewer, get
> more used to the idea of an unfamiliar face in a familiar role.

--- My midway point in the film is when he broke into that office to
crack open the safe. Actually, that was maybe a third to 4/10ths of
the way through. For me, that's when he looked like he began to assume
control. But it's interesting you say that about the Piz Gloria scene
because that whole sequence with the kilt and the girls and his trying
to make out with one of them always struck me as being out of kilter,
so to speak, with how things were progressing with him to that point.
It seemed like he suffered a poor acting relapse.

>
> Best
>
> Phil
Re: A Female's P.O.V. of Craig [message #283838 ] Do, 15 Juni 2006 08:59
phil.gerrard1  
WQ wrote:

> --- He simply does not appear big or broad enough on screen in a way as
> to physically dominate it, if only by illusion. Connery, Lazenby and
> Moore did, for sure. Dalton and Brosnan not so much. Yet, each of the
> actors were at least 6'2", if I'm correct, and if Craig is only 2
> inches shorter, it really sure seems to make a hell of a difference.
> He actually looks like he's of normal average height of about 5'10",
> and with that illusion, then there's a 4" difference, if you look at it
> that way. The point is this: physically, the best Bond is one who
> looks like he commands a presence and can pose a real threat to his
> enemies.

Herewith some shots of this guy who is not big or broad enough to
physically dominate the screen, cannot command a presence, and doesn't
look like he could pose a real threat to his enemies:

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v112/Agentsands77/This%20a nd%20That/
http://movies.aol.com/movie-exclusive-casino-royale-james-bo nd

If you think that, say, Roger Moore appeared more dominant or
physically threatening, then I'm really lost for words here.

Best

Phil
Re: A Female's P.O.V. of Craig [message #283839 ] Do, 15 Juni 2006 09:35
WQ  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- He simply does not appear big or broad enough on screen in a way as
> > to physically dominate it, if only by illusion. Connery, Lazenby and
> > Moore did, for sure. Dalton and Brosnan not so much. Yet, each of the
> > actors were at least 6'2", if I'm correct, and if Craig is only 2
> > inches shorter, it really sure seems to make a hell of a difference.
> > He actually looks like he's of normal average height of about 5'10",
> > and with that illusion, then there's a 4" difference, if you look at it
> > that way. The point is this: physically, the best Bond is one who
> > looks like he commands a presence and can pose a real threat to his
> > enemies.
>
> Herewith some shots of this guy who is not big or broad enough to
> physically dominate the screen, cannot command a presence, and doesn't
> look like he could pose a real threat to his enemies:
>
> http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v112/Agentsands77/This%20a nd%20That/
> http://movies.aol.com/movie-exclusive-casino-royale-james-bo nd
>
> If you think that, say, Roger Moore appeared more dominant or
> physically threatening, then I'm really lost for words here.

--- I've seen most of those same pix before and the problem I have with
the action shots in particular is that his attitude is too
"in-your-face" for a Bond. He spews bravado when he should be exuding
it. Some of the more sedate pix, like the one with him in a blue
overcoat and wearing shades, do project a natty, spyish look about him,
but does he convey any physically threatening quality? Maybe more
menacing than threatening. What's the difference? Menacing has a more
overt aspect to it, threatening is more implied. Bond is best when
he's implied than overt, that way he keeps his villains guessing as to
what he could possibly do to them instead of the villains being well
aware that he's out to get them, which is kind of boring and takes all
the fun out of the guessing game. I'm still not sold on Craig and pix
are only pix and preview teasers are only preview teasers. It's the
movie itself that's going to convince me if Craig is right or not for
the part and if he "spans" well across the screen, coupled with the
direction [hopefully we won't be subjected to jerkycam overkill] and in
concert with David Arnold's scoring, which I dread will be as bland,
milquetoast and formless as all his other Bond work. As for Moore, he
did have a dominant presence but as I said, he also looked more like he
didn't want to get his hair messed up than threatening in any way.

>
> Best
>
> Phil
Re: A Female's P.O.V. of Craig [message #283843 ] Do, 15 Juni 2006 16:07
Paul Clarke  
These photos, and some behind the scenes footage with him walking
panther-like from a helicopter, convinced me that Craig has the goods to
do Bond. I think we'll all have to leave some pre-conceived notions of
what the movie-Bond is at the theatre door for CR. Damn, it's refreshing
to have to say that about a 007 movie again.

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
>
>>--- He simply does not appear big or broad enough on screen in a way as
>>to physically dominate it, if only by illusion. Connery, Lazenby and
>>Moore did, for sure. Dalton and Brosnan not so much. Yet, each of the
>>actors were at least 6'2", if I'm correct, and if Craig is only 2
>>inches shorter, it really sure seems to make a hell of a difference.
>>He actually looks like he's of normal average height of about 5'10",
>>and with that illusion, then there's a 4" difference, if you look at it
>>that way. The point is this: physically, the best Bond is one who
>>looks like he commands a presence and can pose a real threat to his
>>enemies.
>
>
> Herewith some shots of this guy who is not big or broad enough to
> physically dominate the screen, cannot command a presence, and doesn't
> look like he could pose a real threat to his enemies:
>
> http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v112/Agentsands77/This%20a nd%20That/
> http://movies.aol.com/movie-exclusive-casino-royale-james-bo nd
>
> If you think that, say, Roger Moore appeared more dominant or
> physically threatening, then I'm really lost for words here.
>
> Best
>
> Phil
>

--
==007===
"My dear girl, there are some things that just aren't done, such as
drinking Dom Perignon '53 above a temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit.
That's as bad as
Re: A Female's P.O.V. of Craig [message #283856 ] Do, 15 Juni 2006 20:18
Tom Zielinski  
"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1150329733.146860.137890 [at] y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> WQ wrote:
>
>> --- Feels right as in relaxed, in a way that puts the audience at ease
>> with Bond, as with Connery of course.
>
> Again, without wanting to disparage his abilities in the slightest,
> Connery had the considerable advantage of being the first movie Bond.
> Only a small proportion of the audience who went to see DN were
> familiar with the character at all: Fleming's novels sold well, but
> we're talking tens of thousands rather than millions here. The vast
> majority of the moviegoing audience would have been asking themselves
> what they thought of this character on first viewing rather than
> measuring Connery against an established yardstick. It's an entirely
> different battle to taking over a well-known role.
>
>> That's two big
>> things he's got going against him, three if you want to count his
>> height, and there's some question now as to whether it's actually 6 ft
>> or 5'11". It doesn't matter anyway because he still films small - or
>> at least smaller than the others, unless he's standing next to a short
>> woman.
>
> Actually, some people have been claiming he's really 5'2". No joke,
> and a sign of how low certain people are prepared to stoop to disparage
> him.
>
> As for 'filming small', what exactly do you mean by this? It's an
> expression I've not heard in twenty-odd years of reading about and
> analysing movies. If you mean that in, say, 'Road to Perdition', you
> came away with the impression that Craig was shorter than his real
> height, that's partly a function of the character he's playing.
> Witness 'Mad Dog and Glory', where Bill Murray appears to be twice the
> size of Robert De Niro, or 'Heat', where Al Pacino beats the crap out
> of the built-like-a-brick-s**thouse Henry Rollins, or for that matter
> any movie featuring Alan Ladd, Tom Cruise, Steve McQueen, etc. If a
> slightly-above-average-height guy like Craig can't be made to look a
> mere inch taller than he really is, then either he's a freak of nature
> or Martin Campbell is one of the most incompetent filmmakers currently
> working.
>
>> So, Craig is going into this Bond thing real cold and totally
>> starting from scratch. This may work to his benefit and possibly the
>> film's retooled approach as well or, no matter how well a job he does,
>> audiences still might not end up buying him because of his stark
>> deviation from the "norm" and the absence of any "relax factor".
>
> Well, now we're back to where we started, aren't we? The 'norm' and
> 'relax factor', judged solely from box-office returns - a hugely
> unreliable basis on which to decide what audiences might want in the
> future, but the only starting point we have - would dictate that rather
> than Craig in CR we'd have had Brosnan in DAD II. It would also have
> dictated that OHMSS and TLD, to choose two obvious examples, would
> never have been made.
>
> In the case of the great Bond films of the '60s - the big four, to use
> Tom Z's excellent phrase - you're harking back to one of those
> relatively rare instances where IMHO what was popular and what was good
> coincided exactly. Now, if you've liked Bond films which didn't do so
> well at the box office, OHMSS being the great example, it seems to me
> that you have to decide which side you're on. You can say about an
> actor or film that you don't like them on a personal level no matter
> what others say, or you can take the position that the audience is
> always right, but I don't see that you can do both simultaneously.
>
> You don't like the current EON team, and you didn't particularly like
> Brosnan, in which case the moviegoing audience must be wrong, since
> they've been happy with the last four films. However, you're now
> claiming that the moviegoing audience must be right if they decide to
> reject Craig, because that happens to concur with your personal
> opinion. Isn't there a contradiction here?
>
>> Now in the case of Lazenby, there's someone who's acting skills weren't
>> exactly up to snuff. Interestingly, though, you could almost see him
>> getting better at it throughout OHMSS as he starts off kind of weak but
>> gradually seems to adopt a more confident air about him by midway
>> through the film and finally he works out just fine as a cruel-etched
>> Bond towards the end, i.e. when he kills one of Blofeld's henchman
>> skiers by strangling him with one of his skis to effectively silence
>> him from alerting the other pursuers.
>
> Midway through the film is, in fact, where they started shooting. The
> first shot Lazenby did for the film is, I believe, where he ascends the
> stairs of Piz Gloria wearing a kilt. Films are almost always shot out
> of sequence, with a few notable exceptions ('High Plains Drifter'
> springs to mind) so any notion of an actor getting better and more
> confident with a role as a film goes on is almost certainly an
> illusion. A far more likely scenario is that you, as a viewer, get
> more used to the idea of an unfamiliar face in a familiar role.



A more erudite and articulate contributor to AFJB is near impossible to
find. Excellent points all around, Phil. Well done.



Tom Zielinski
"That gun, it looks more fitting for a woman"
"Do you know much about guns, Mr. Bond?"
"No, but I know Phil Gerrard should be President of the AFJB secret club..."
Re: A Female's P.O.V. of Craig [message #283861 ] Do, 15 Juni 2006 22:41
JHause  
Yeah. This is the worst kind of editorializing.

1) Bond is aimed at men. I don't really watch an action movie with the
concern of how good-looking the male hero is. Broasnan brought in more
women? Whatever. Now they can lose the cute Remington Steele/Hart to
Hart romantic comedy crap and do Bond stuff again.

2) There's nothing more tiresome than people on fan forums discussing
box office. Who cares.

Every filmmaker in Hollywood would like to make a James Bond movie.
He'll live on no matter what. The only issue should be whether the
movie is good or not. THAT'S what can kill off a franchise -- and for
the first time in maybe 30 years they seem just as concerned with
making a GOOD movie as making a"Bond" movie.
Re: A Female's P.O.V. of Craig [message #283864 ] Do, 15 Juni 2006 23:16
Mike Feeney  
JHause wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> 2) There's nothing more tiresome than people on fan forums discussing
> box office. Who cares.
>
> Every filmmaker in Hollywood would like to make a James Bond movie.
> He'll live on no matter what. The only issue should be whether the
> movie is good or not. THAT'S what can kill off a franchise -- and for
> the first time in maybe 30 years they seem just as concerned with
> making a GOOD movie as making a"Bond" movie.


I don't think it's so black-and-white. Most of us here would probably
agree that OHMSS is a very good Bond film. But it proved disappointing
at the box office. A string of such films in a row -- all being as
good in our view but all being box-office disappointments -- would not
have ensured the survival of the series. So its not enough to simply
make good Bond films. They need to be both good *and* successful at
the box office. The real trick, it would seem, is in accomplishing
both.

Mike
"And certainly you are familiar with this species of fish, aren't you
Mr. Sterling?"
"Of course. That's the Spinycus AngelinaJolie-dactyl. Hated by other
female fish because it's notorious for stealing their mates and
swimming away with them to Namibia to spawn their children. Beautiful,
but slutty."
Re: A Female's P.O.V. of Craig [message #283869 ] Fr, 16 Juni 2006 00:31
JHause  
Mike Feeney wrote:
> I don't think it's so black-and-white. Most of us here would probably
> agree that OHMSS is a very good Bond film. But it proved disappointing
> at the box office. A string of such films in a row -- all being as
> good in our view but all being box-office disappointments -- would not
> have ensured the survival of the series. So its not enough to simply
> make good Bond films. They need to be both good *and* successful at
> the box office. The real trick, it would seem, is in accomplishing
> both.
>

Well, of course they want to make money. How does that affect me?
Personally, I haven't made a dime off DAD or TND, so I couldn't care
less what they made. I was just watching a couple of dissatisfying
movies. If they made more of those, I'd WANT Spielberg or Tarantino or
somebody else to be making Bond movies, so it all works itself out.
Personally I'd rather have a financial failure and a few years off
than a bunch of overblown crap I'm embarrassed about watching every
two years. What's the point?
Re: A Female's P.O.V. of Craig [message #283870 ] Fr, 16 Juni 2006 01:02
phil.gerrard1  
Tom wrote:

> A more erudite and articulate contributor to AFJB is near impossible to
> find. Excellent points all around, Phil. Well done.

As ever, coming from you, Tom - as close to a valued host as anybody
could be on an unomderated list - that means a lot.

> Tom Zielinski
> "That gun, it looks more fitting for a woman"
> "Do you know much about guns, Mr. Bond?"
> "No, but I know Phil Gerrard should be President of the AFJB secret club..."

To quote the last line of one of the greatest movies ever made, "Well,
I don't know - what are the hours?"

Best

Phil

(Always thought 'erudite' was a brand of glue...)
Re: A Female's P.O.V. of Craig [message #283874 ] Fr, 16 Juni 2006 01:49
phil.gerrard1  
Tom wrote:

> A more erudite and articulate contributor to AFJB is near impossible to
> find. Excellent points all around, Phil. Well done.

As ever, coming from you, Tom - as close to a valued host as anybody
could be on an unmoderated list - that means a lot.

> Tom Zielinski
> "That gun, it looks more fitting for a woman"
> "Do you know much about guns, Mr. Bond?"
> "No, but I know Phil Gerrard should be President of the AFJB secret club..."

To quote the last line of one of the greatest movies ever made, "Well,
I don't know - what are the hours?"

Best

Phil

(Always thought 'erudite' was a brand of glue...)
Re: A Female's P.O.V. of Craig [message #283875 ] Fr, 16 Juni 2006 02:02
phil.gerrard1  
Mike wrote:

> I don't think it's so black-and-white. Most of us here would probably
> agree that OHMSS is a very good Bond film. But it proved disappointing
> at the box office. A string of such films in a row -- all being as
> good in our view but all being box-office disappointments -- would not
> have ensured the survival of the series. So its not enough to simply
> make good Bond films. They need to be both good *and* successful at
> the box office. The real trick, it would seem, is in accomplishing
> both.

Absolutely right... but then, just to muddy the waters further, you can
also make an AVTAK in an attempt to give the audience what you think
they want, and what it would seem the box-office would dictate (tried
and trusted Bond formula, a mixture of well-established and currently
hot stars, etc). If OHMSS is the fan-pleaser which failed at the
box-office, then AVTAK seems to me to be the attempt at a surefire hit
which failed.

Best

Phil
Re: A Female's P.O.V. of Craig [message #283876 ] Fr, 16 Juni 2006 02:23
phil.gerrard1  
JHause wrote:

> Personally I'd rather have a financial failure and a few years off
> than a bunch of overblown crap I'm embarrassed about watching every
> two years. What's the point?

To play devil's advocate (cue one of my favourite 'Simpsons' visual
gags), isn't there an argument that in the long term the overblown
crowd-pleasers can pay for the more down-to-earth projects, in the same
way that, say, Scorsese, for a while, got into the routine of doing one
movie for the studios and then one movie for himself? Sometimes you
have to make a hit in order to be able to take a hit, and most of the
greatest actors, directors, and producers in the world have done so on
occasion - made something they didn't care for, but which would give
them the financial security to work on projects which were close to
their hearts.

However, as I just said about AVTAK, blatant attempts at crowd-pleasing
don't guarantee success either. It's one hell of a tighrope to walk,
and it only gets harder with a franchise which has been going for over
forty years, and about whom a lot of people have strong feelings.

Best

Phil
Re: A Female's P.O.V. of Craig [message #283887 ] Fr, 16 Juni 2006 06:31
JHause  
Yeah. That's a good point. What a hit does is give you more money to
make the next film.

Because DAD made a lot, now they can make CR for $120 million. They
could afford the hottest screenwriter in Hollywood and to make the film
the way they wanted. DAD underperformed a little in comparison to what
it cost, so they had to cut back, but not much.

In comparison, after the poor box office of LTK they had to make GE for
about 50 mil, and even faced cuts on the set.

Personally I wouldn't mind watching 50 mil Bond movies, though. It puts
the storytellers more in the forefront. I prefer purer spy movies that
are closer to books like CR than huge blockbuster entertainment Bonds.
I'll take "The Third Man" over MI3 any day. I know I'm in a minority,
but those films don't HAVE to make as much, either.
Re: A Female's P.O.V. of Craig [message #283938 ] Mo, 19 Juni 2006 03:00
Absorb  
Tom Zielinski wrote:

> "That gun, it looks more fitting for a woman"
> "Do you know much about guns, Mr. Bond?"
> "No, but I know Phil Gerrard should be President of the AFJB secret club..."

I'm never going to get promoted, am I?

Absorb
-----------------------------------
JBWFC mail sorter
Re: A Female's P.O.V. of Craig [message #283942 ] Mo, 19 Juni 2006 17:14
Tom Zielinski  
"Absorb" <rubylustre [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1JydnSt-d9vVagjZnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d [at] comcast.com...
> Tom Zielinski wrote:
>
>> "That gun, it looks more fitting for a woman"
>> "Do you know much about guns, Mr. Bond?"
>> "No, but I know Phil Gerrard should be President of the AFJB secret
>> club..."
>
> I'm never going to get promoted, am I?
>
> Absorb
> -----------------------------------
> JBWFC mail sorter



Absorb for Emperor.





Tom Zielinski
"That gun, it looks more fitting for a woman"
"Do you know much about guns, Mr. Bond?"
"No, but I know mail sorter is menial but important work..."
Re: A Female's P.O.V. of Craig [message #283946 ] Di, 20 Juni 2006 00:15
Mike Feeney  
Tom Zielinski wrote:
>
>
> Absorb for Emperor.
>
>

Or Empress ;)

Mike
"That gun, it looks more fitting for a woman."
"Do you know much about guns, Mr. Bond?"
"No, but I can identify the title of any Star Trek episode after seeing
only the first nine seconds."
Re: A Female's P.O.V. of Craig [message #283947 ] Di, 20 Juni 2006 00:29
Tom Zielinski  
"Mike Feeney" <stromberg77 [at] sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1150755356.116057.193550 [at] r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Tom Zielinski wrote:
>>
>>
>> Absorb for Emperor.
>>
>>
>
> Or Empress ;)


LOL! IMMEDIATELY upon pressing "Send", the thought that the correct term is
"Empress" entered my pointy little head. I was wondering if I'd be taken to
task.

I thought it might be you, Mike. Well done old man.

;)

> Mike
> "That gun, it looks more fitting for a woman."
> "Do you know much about guns, Mr. Bond?"
> "No, but I can identify the title of any Star Trek episode after seeing
> only the first nine seconds."


That is SO coincidental. I was away for a golf weekend this past, and
roomed with one of my best of buds, Steve. We got in late on Saturday after
36 holes with a bit of imbibing included, and as he flipped through the
channels in our room I saw maybe 3/4 of a second of "Thunderball", and
immediately identified the film and the year.

Obviously that is not an impressive feat on this forum, but he was fairly
amazed.




Tom Zielinski
"That gun, it looks more fitting for a woman"
"Do you know much about guns, Mr. Bond?"
"No, but I know the feminine reference for most animals..."
Re: A Female's P.O.V. of Craig [message #283963 ] Di, 20 Juni 2006 20:07
Rhino  
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:29:30 -0500, "Tom Zielinski"
<rtomz [at] comcast.net> wrote:

>That is SO coincidental. I was away for a golf weekend this past, and
>roomed with one of my best of buds, Steve. We got in late on Saturday after
>36 holes with a bit of imbibing included, and as he flipped through the
>channels in our room I saw maybe 3/4 of a second of "Thunderball", and
>immediately identified the film and the year.
>
>Obviously that is not an impressive feat on this forum, but he was fairly
>amazed.

I recall the day I had the pleasure to meet Messrs Pollard and
Haynes'ey for the first time, where Mr Pollard was enjoiying himself
playing 007 at an adventure day he'd been given as a present.

To win the grand prize, his team had to name all of the Bond films, in
sequence. As I was standing beside him, I rattled them off immediately
before muuttering, "Shit, I'm not playing, am I? Sorry!" But the team
leader took my answer and they won.

As you say, not impressive on this forum but I think the team were
suitably impressed :)
Re: A Female's P.O.V. of Craig [message #283965 ] Di, 20 Juni 2006 20:50
Mike Feeney  
Rhino wrote:
>
> I recall the day I had the pleasure to meet Messrs Pollard and
> Haynes'ey for the first time, where Mr Pollard was enjoiying himself
> playing 007 at an adventure day he'd been given as a present.
>
> To win the grand prize, his team had to name all of the Bond films, in
> sequence. As I was standing beside him, I rattled them off immediately
> before muuttering, "Shit, I'm not playing, am I? Sorry!" But the team
> leader took my answer and they won.
>
> As you say, not impressive on this forum but I think the team were
> suitably impressed :)


I recall the day I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Rhino. We visited
the 007 theme ride "License To Thrill" in London (along with Mac and
MarionRMS). Prior to the ride itself, participants were given a tour
of Q-branch's workshop. Our 17 year old tour guide pointed to the
white Lotus from TSWLM and asked the crowd to name some of its special
features. Rhino proudly announced his 007 expertise to the crowd by
answering "rear launching mines" to which our tour-guide responded "No,
that's incorrect." LOL!

Mike
"James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of a Rolling
Stone in rehab."
Re: A Female's P.O.V. of Craig [message #283967 ] Di, 20 Juni 2006 23:12
Rhino  
On 20 Jun 2006 11:50:55 -0700, "Mike Feeney"
<stromberg77 [at] sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Rhino wrote:
>>
>> I recall the day I had the pleasure to meet Messrs Pollard and
>> Haynes'ey for the first time, where Mr Pollard was enjoiying himself
>> playing 007 at an adventure day he'd been given as a present.
>>
>> To win the grand prize, his team had to name all of the Bond films, in
>> sequence. As I was standing beside him, I rattled them off immediately
>> before muuttering, "Shit, I'm not playing, am I? Sorry!" But the team
>> leader took my answer and they won.
>>
>> As you say, not impressive on this forum but I think the team were
>> suitably impressed :)
>
>
>I recall the day I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Rhino. We visited
>the 007 theme ride "License To Thrill" in London (along with Mac and
>MarionRMS). Prior to the ride itself, participants were given a tour
>of Q-branch's workshop. Our 17 year old tour guide pointed to the
>white Lotus from TSWLM and asked the crowd to name some of its special
>features. Rhino proudly announced his 007 expertise to the crowd by
>answering "rear launching mines" to which our tour-guide responded "No,
>that's incorrect." LOL!

Well quite. And then I showed you the Texas Embassy... *blush*
Re: A Female's P.O.V. of Craig [message #283976 ] Mi, 21 Juni 2006 04:35
timscurtin  
Rhino wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:29:30 -0500, "Tom Zielinski"
> <rtomz [at] comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >That is SO coincidental. I was away for a golf weekend this past, and
> >roomed with one of my best of buds, Steve. We got in late on Saturday after
> >36 holes with a bit of imbibing included, and as he flipped through the
> >channels in our room I saw maybe 3/4 of a second of "Thunderball", and
> >immediately identified the film and the year.
> >
> >Obviously that is not an impressive feat on this forum, but he was fairly
> >amazed.
>
> I recall the day I had the pleasure to meet Messrs Pollard and
> Haynes'ey for the first time, where Mr Pollard was enjoiying himself
> playing 007 at an adventure day he'd been given as a present.
>
> To win the grand prize, his team had to name all of the Bond films, in
> sequence. As I was standing beside him, I rattled them off immediately
> before muuttering, "Shit, I'm not playing, am I? Sorry!" But the team
> leader took my answer and they won.
>
> As you say, not impressive on this forum but I think the team were
> suitably impressed :)

I always have to resist the urge to quibble in those situations. I was
doing bar trivia one night and the goal of the round was to put all of
the Bond themes in order. They gave the jumbled-up titles to the songs
and the films and we had to match them and put them in order. For
OHMSS, they had provided "We Have All the Time in the World." I was
completely convinced that it was a trick question and in the back of my
fevered mind I imagined I would get extra points and impress girls by
pointing out that the OHMSS theme was an instrumental. Cooler heads
prevailed, thankfully, and I can still show my face in that bar. We
did slaughter every other team that round, so the honor of AFJB has
been upheld.

TC
Vorheriges Thema:Semi-OT: Why marriage is good medicine for men (Bond Mention)
Nächstes Thema:Good stuff from CBN (extremely minor spoilers)
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 09:49:32 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,05195 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered