Pluto007 wrote: Thu Jul 18, 2024 4:13 pm
Thanks for sharing, Acid.
I do believe, no matter my feelings about Brosnan, Goldeneye would not have been the success it was with anyone else cast in the role. Not Dalton. Not Neeson or Fiennes (two actors I heard were looked at.
Bottom line, no matter my feelings, the right man was chosen for the role, to kick-start Bond in a new era.
The scripts seems to suffer with each film he did. And I am in a minority here: I don't blame P and W. There were a multitude of script doctors brought on board and wacky directors like Tamahori that drove the original scripts into the ground. And the tacked-on pseudo drama. It was horrible.
Saying that, there's no denying that these were box office successes. These Bond films weren't for me. Bits and pieces had quick flashes that appealed to me, but no, these felt more and more like 90s action pastiche. And I didn't want that. I wanted Bond.
But worldwide audiences ate these flicks up. And I got it. I understood why. Unfortunately, it just wasn't to my tastes.
Which doubly frustrates me about the damned Craig films. For the most part, I thought the scripts were, generally, very good (Spectre's not included in this assessment). From a storytelling and character perspective, they were very good.
But ultimately, the final product just didn't click. And I think that apart from the scripts, everything else that came after, didn't build off of story, it built off something entirely external: prestige.
When you're chasing awards, or attention from the awards-crowd, then, ultimately, the project fails in authenticity; every choice made, outside of the script, was to garner attention. And I felt that, so these films never fully clicked. I liked them, generally, better than the Brosnan period, but I didn't LOVE them as I did the Connery era, some of Moore, and Dalton.
But again, I hate to be a broken record: box office doesn't lie. Worldwide audiences ate these films up. And in some cases, these audiences believed that Bond was being elevated (my wife being one of them!! She humours me, watches the Bond films once in a while, but she was all in on Craig and those five films, with her bawling at the end of the last one).
Now, production wise, I have no complaints: they're big, beautifully executed films, candy for the eyes, in most cases. But as a whole... It never came together.
I saw great Bond films in each of the Craig scripts... It just never bubbled to the surface.
I also think Craig has been a spectacular actor, and I enjoyed his energy in the first two films, if not quite convinced this was truly James Bond.
But by SF, he took a nose dive and landed on his face.
It's a frustrating period for me to discuss. I saw potential greatness, but it never came to fruition. And in the whole, I've felt I haven't seen a genuine James Bond film since Daylights (I love License to Kill, but the production quality just didn't have that sexiness of past Bond films).
I haven't lost hope. I am still a fan. I can still see unique things in the Craig period that I did almost love, but as an experiment, for me, it failed.
I'll try and write more about my frustrations at another date. I could probably write a book on the subject.