Hard Adjusting to New Bond ?

Ging

I gew up with seeing Moore on TV in the role and then the following Bond's in the cinema

Has anyone else had trouble adjusting to the new style bond ? I watched Casino Royale again for the first time on DVD since seeing it at the cinema. I can't put my finger on what exactly whaat isn't pushign the right buttons for me.I felt he was 'holding back' in some way. I do think Daniel Craig is an excellent actor and wonder if he should have played Bond similar to his acting style in Layer Cake. I'm hoping his second outing will be more assured.

ant007uk

Hi Ging, and welcome to the forum.

My two penneth for what it is worth: I think you answered your question yourself there. I think people get use to watching a particular actor or style and it becomes ingrained into their pysche. Therefore when a change happens, the transition is not as easy as some people seem to think it is.

However, times do and will always change no matter what. Froma personal point of view, I dont have a problem with the new style, I actually think it is better than the old Brozzer style. Long may it continue I say!!!!

Keep happy.

Ant.

cpoulos62

Ging wrote:

I gew up with seeing Moore on TV in the role and then the following Bond's in the cinema

Has anyone else had trouble adjusting to the new style bond ? I watched Casino Royale again for the first time on DVD since seeing it at the cinema. I can't put my finger on what exactly whaat isn't pushign the right buttons for me.I felt he was 'holding back' in some way. I do think Daniel Craig is an excellent actor and wonder if he should have played Bond similar to his acting style in Layer Cake. I'm hoping his second outing will be more assured.

I agree that Daniel Craig is holding back in CR but I think it is a good thing as he should be even better in QoS. He may be holding back because of Bonds just coming a 00 and may be threading water softly and adjusting to his new rank. Remember being a 00 is a huge thing.

Fitzochris

Craig is playing Bond as Ian Fleming wrote him. I've absolutely no problems with him in the role at all.

Shame he's a Liverpool fan )

Can't wait to see his traditional gunbarrel when QoS comes out. :007)

sharpshooter

No, not at all. I love that he is similar to Connery with Dalton's hard ege. Certainly an excellent mix.

darenhat

Ging wrote:

I gew up with seeing Moore on TV in the role and then the following Bond's in the cinema

Has anyone else had trouble adjusting to the new style bond ? I watched Casino Royale again for the first time on DVD since seeing it at the cinema. I can't put my finger on what exactly whaat isn't pushign the right buttons for me.I felt he was 'holding back' in some way. I do think Daniel Craig is an excellent actor and wonder if he should have played Bond similar to his acting style in Layer Cake. I'm hoping his second outing will be more assured.

I never had a problem switching actors, having grown up through the transition of Moore to Dalton to Brosnan. The challenge with CR 'not pushing the right buttons' is not so much switching the actor (Craig is certainly a capable performer), but the fact that they changed the character. I know there are some who say that it's the way Fleming wrote him, but I disagree. Fleming's Bond was never an amatuer with a chip on his shoulder like he was in CR - this is a fabrication of the producers, just as the more exaggerated camp and 'unflappable' versions were also. In that regard, neither portrayals are accurate depictions of Fleming, but in my case, the CR version of the character being an undisciplined upstart is not as enjoyable for me to watch.

Fitzochris

But he was an amateur in CR.

He had to carry out two assinations to get his double-o status just like in the film.

OK, so it was two different assinations than those depicted in the film, but they happened nonetheless.

Loeffelholz

I think 'amateur' is overstating it a bit; in CR Bond is 38 years old, with years of extensive special forces and espionage experience around the world. It's only in his '00' status where he's inexperienced, and IMO he does faily well, even though he essentially fails this first mission!

As for his being an undisciplined upstart, I'd agree that this is mostly the doing of the producers...but I'd disagree that it doesn't work. It's given the character a pulse; a new breadth and depth. Bond's ability to instantly adapt to situations, and take action to address them, is one of the cornerstones of his character. Basically, they've taken this independence and willingness to push the rules to the limit from the Fleming novels, and simply amped it up for modern film audiences.

By the time Craig gets to the point where he's simply breezing through his Bond pictures---and I fear that time will come---it'll be time for him to go, and time for the series to get another transfusion of fresh blood.

I fully realize that there are pockets of loyal Bond fandom who would simply prefer Bond to wink at the audience and be absolutely unflappable throughout every adventure, but I'd argue that such a thing has been amply depicted in the 20 films leading up to the current era, and that the shakeup was not only warranted, but has also revitalized the franchise and found it a new audience.

No problems adjusting at all---it's James Bond to me :007)

darenhat

Fitzochris wrote:

But he was an amateur in CR.

He had to carry out two assinations to get his double-o status just like in the film.

OK, so it was two different assinations than those depicted in the film, but they happened nonetheless.

The assassinations were mentioned in the novel, but they were not recent history, and not part of the story. Fleming mentioned them only as an explanation as to what Bond's already-existing '00' status meant. Bond was already a seasoned professional during the events of CR and Fleming refers to Bond's handling in previous missions.

Loeffelholz

darenhat wrote:

Bond was already a seasoned professional during the events of CR

Still, it's noteworthy that this seasoned professional made a number of critical errors during the events of the CR novel---errors for which he cursed himself as the situation deteriorated. This was the Bond of the Fleming novels---Fleming himself said [paraphrasing] that his character was a man who "got himself into bad situations and then had to fight his way out of them."

In my opinion, this is on faithful display in the film.

Dan Same

Like Darenhat, I too didn't love the way this Bond was depicted. He came across to me as consistently aggressive, annoying, far too in-your-face and a little creepy as well (the shower scene). I've been teased about this in the past, but I honestly can not imagine a Bond from the previous films breaking into M's apartment and getting away with it.

Loeffelholz wrote:

I fully realize that there are pockets of loyal Bond fandom who would simply prefer Bond to wink at the audience and be absolutely unflappable throughout every adventure, but I'd argue that such a thing has been amply depicted in the 20 films leading up to the current era

Alot of people say this, but to be honest (and this may be a minority view), but I don't think Bond was ever depicted this way. Did Bond go through periods in which he was less hard than others? Of course, but even when he was less hard, he still got into scrapes and he still got into situations in which his life was at risk. Often, he would follow the situation with a quip (many of which I loved), but I don't think it detracted from the life-and-death situation that preceded it. (An example being the python scene in MR.) In fact, a quip is a great way of allowing the audience to come down from the horrifying high that was the life-and-death situation, as well as allowing an interesting insight into Bond's character. Plus, it's fun.

Obviously this comes down to how one perceives Moore, as well as Brosnan. I think that Moore, whilst not as hard as the other Bonds, was still convincingly hard, while Brosnan was IMO as tough as they come. Additionally, I don't believe that Bond ever 'winked' at the audience in the sense that Bond has always taken himself seriously and so have I. So, I don't believe that we have ever had an unflappable Bond who winks at the audiences, which I would not be a fan of at all.

Loeffelholz

I'm remembering the scene from TSWLM where Sir Rog rolls down the window of the Lotus, just after it emerges on the beach, gives the crowd that "I'm taking myself seriously, here!" look, holds up a tiny fish by the tail, and tosses it out )

Roger Moore will be the first to say that he didn't take it seriously, and to me this is starkly evident throughout that period, in particular. True, he had his moments: kicking the car off the cliff in FYEO, his reaction after the escape from the centrifuge in MR, etc...but clearly the overall tone is obvious.

Even Timothy Dalton, the so-called 'serious' Bond, looked like a clown when he gave a bug-eyed reaction to a sworfish snout coming through a table during the bar fight in 'LTK'...the examples are endless.

Bond has quite often not been serious, IMRO---hence the marked distinction with the Craig era, which has once again left a percentage of fandom feeling disenfranchised and disappointed. Thankfully, (this time!) I'm not one of them.

As ever, this all comes down to personal taste, of course. It's a manifestation of Fleming's (and Broccoli/Saltzman's!) genius that the Bond palette is diverse enough to give us such a tasty variety of filmgoing experiences within this framework.

Dan Same

Loeffelholz wrote:

I'm remembering the scene from TSWLM where Sir Rog rolls down the window of the Lotus, just after it emerges on the beach, gives the crowd that "I'm taking myself seriously, here!" look, holds up a tiny fish by the tail, and tosses it out )

Roger Moore will be the first to say that he didn't take it seriously, and to me this is starkly evident throughout that period, in particular. True, he had his moments: kicking the car off the cliff in FYEO, his reaction after the escape from the centrifuge in MR, etc...but clearly the overall tone is obvious.

Even Timothy Dalton, the so-called 'serious' Bond, looked like a clown when he gave a bug-eyed reaction to a sworfish snout coming through a table during the bar fight in 'LTK'...the examples are endless.

Bond has quite often not been serious, IMRO---hence the marked distinction with the Craig era, which has left a percentage of fandom feeling disenfranchised and disappointed.

I guess what I mean is that when I see an Austin Powers film, I know that the last thing I should do is take it seriously. With Bond, it's different. Yes, there were moments (such as the ones you mentioned) in which the films didn't take themselves too seriously, but whenever I watch a Bond film (whether it's an early 60's film, a 70's Moore film or CR), I always go in taking it seriously. Will I sit there with a thoughtful expression on my face? Of course not; I will delight in the fun. Rather, like with Superman I will accept it on its terms, and enjoy it for what it is, rather than laughing at it ala Austin Powers.

In fact, it's like Superman and Batman Begins. The latter takes itself much more seriously than the former, but I accept both for what they are.

Loeffelholz wrote:

Thankfully, (this time!) I'm not one of them.

{[] You never stop reminding us of this. )

Loeffelholz wrote:

As ever, this all comes down to personal taste, of course. It's a manifestation of Fleming's (and Broccoli/Saltzman's!) genius that the Bond palette is diverse enough to give us such a tasty variety of filmgoing experiences within this framework.

And what a wonderful meal it is. -{

Loeffelholz

Dan Same wrote:

Rather, like with Superman I will accept it on its terms, and enjoy it for what it is, rather than laughing at it ala Austin Powers.

In fact, it's like Superman and Batman Begins. The latter takes itself much more seriously than the former, but I accept both for what they are.

Well, consistency of tone counts for a lot, to be sure. Both the Superman and Batman movies know what they're about; they stick to it and succeed admirably. Arguably this is the case with the best of the Moore films, such as TSWLM and LALD...but it's when they try to be both 'dinner-theatre' funny and gritty and hard-boiled that I feel a bit let down. Many fans don't mind a Tarzan yell ( ) being dropped into the middle of what might otherwise be a tense and exciting 'Most Dangerous Game'-style safari hunt of Bond in the jungle...but to me, it lets the air out of the scene's tires.

This, to me, is what works so well for the Craig Era. Like the overall tone or not, it knows what it's about, and it accomplishes the mission.

Dan Same wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

Thankfully, (this time!) I'm not one of them.

{[] You never stop reminding us of this. )

And, rest assured, I never will B-)

darenhat

I always felt that the humor that developed through the series (significantly so during the Moore era, of which echoes remained during the Dalton and Brosnan era) were the direct result of recognizing the relative outlandishness that emerged in the Bond novels. CR itself was a fairly tame plot, but subsequent novels began to embrace some fantastic elements, ranging from an office that adjoined a missile silo in Moonraker to a Blofeld that traipses around his mansion in Japanese armor - a mansion that has a 'sitting' room connected to a volcanic chamber. The 70's began to see the rise of more counter-culture heroes in more gritty environments - a setting Bond as a cinematic hero was not finding a pulse. The fantastic elements were themselves becoming comedic, and I feel Moore's films would have been tough to take if he didn't have the keen sense to play along. I couldn't imagine Craig's Bond driving a submersible Lotus without a look on his face that said "What the %$#@ am I doing in this thing!"

Anyway, I recognize the level of reality being necessary in today's manifestation of Bond. The pendulum has swung the other way, with IMO Moore's interpretation and Craig's being on either side. For me Connery and Dalton's pendulum was somewhere in the middle.

As to the topic of this thread, I don't have a problem adjusting to new actors playing Bond, but adjusting to a new character is more of a challenge. I enjoyed the other side of the pendulum because, to me, that was something unique. In my opinion, today's Bond as a character is nothing special and I have seen it before in other films. I foresee my interest in Bond films waning if this arc of the pendulum lasts as long as Moore's did.

blueman

DH, I think Bond could have survived the 70s by going another way: mostly losing the quips that had crept in, embracing the darker elements like we've gotten in a few Bond films - and which Fleming fully embraced in pretty much every novel IMO. There were raw, gritty thrillers being made in the 70s (some with even a touch of gallows humor, very DN Bondian), don't see why Bond films couldn't have followed that particular vein, except that Cubby was calling the shots and his bottom line was money. Can't argue that Cubby went with the most profitable way for Bond in the 70s. But best for Bond? Not IMHO, we're just now getting out from under that way of doing Bond, and about time too. IMO. Making Bond "unique" and fantastic in the 70s took away his Bondness IMO, much prefer a Bond where the differences are subtle yet no less profound, as Fleming wrote them (crazy idea, I know). Otherwise it's not Bond, just some very appealing actor pressing magic buttons and raising an eyebrow or two.

Adjustment isn't what this Bond fan is doing - backflips is more like.

As for Bond being a rookie, I can't remember a novel wherein Bond doesn't make at least one - and usually fatal, for another man - mistake, it's almost what makes him Bond in Fleming's eyes: he doesn't always do what he should, but instead acts on how he feels in the moment and suffers the consequences. In that sense he's always a "rookie" in that Bond always has that odd chivalrous way about him that's not quite in touch with reality about some things, yet he's also damn good at being a spy (when he's not making "calculated" mistakes) so he comes out alive in the end. Fleming never wrote Bond as a superman, never, so having a Bond who gets kicked around, bleeds, makes mistakes in his work, etc. is completely welcome (to this fan at least).

dougie007

I've mentioned before on these posts as I grew up with Roger's films I have an affection for them. When I heard that Timothy Dalton was to take over, I thought the films could never be the same again, but I still went to see them. After the lenghty gap GE came along, I still went to see PB. Although I think DC is great in the role and brings alot of different touches, when he goes I will keep coming back.

Maybe this is a very simplistic way to view these films - but I love them for what they are - pure entertainment with the same elements we all expect and keep coming back for.

darenhat

dougie007 wrote:

I've mentioned before on these posts as I grew up with Roger's films I have an affection for them. When I heard that Timothy Dalton was to take over, I thought the films could never be the same again, but I still went to see them. After the lenghty gap GE came along, I still went to see PB. Although I think DC is great in the role and brings alot of different touches, when he goes I will keep coming back.

Maybe this is a very simplistic way to view these films - but I love them for what they are - pure entertainment with the same elements we all expect and keep coming back for.

It's not a simplistic view at all. The films are entertainment, but as we know, different films appeal to different people. There are some Bond films I'll watch over and over, and there are others which I'll only watch occasionally. I will say one thing about the Moore era: he could be considered to be the only Bond actor to see a 're-boot' during his tenure, when the films moved from TSWLM and MR territory to FYEO. Connery would have probably been the only other Bond actor to be able to pull that one off!