Craig's films will be seen as a fad too

M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
in Bond Movies Posts: 538
Craig is a very good Bond. He added a lot of emotional depth to the character and helped break the films out of a certain routine. But it feels like (aside from Connery), Craig is being put on a pedestal above the other Bonds. I do think in time, that Craig's tenure will be subject to parody (in the same way that Moore's and Brosnan's was).

Being intensely violent and lacking a sense of humor and such are all what define a badass secret agent in this era. But 20 years later, we might see that scene of Craig holding a big assault weapon cavalierly as insecure and compensating. And we may poke fun at it much like we do Moore swinging in the jungle like Tarzan.
«134

Comments

  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    Doubt it
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    IMO, Craig's era will be seen like any other; a product of the times.

    Early Connery: The Fifties noir with Fleming sensibilities.
    Later Connery: The Batman vibe.
    Lazenby: 60's Fab Bond.
    Early Moore: A Hot Stuff agent.
    Later Moore: 80's remix.
    Dalton: Fleming with a Moore twist.
    Brosnan: Die Hard Bond.
    Craig: Bournd.

    ...and so it goes...
  • Posts: 709
    In a way, yes. Eventually the films and their styles/attitudes will be seen as old hat. What's cool now is not going to be cool in 20 years. But Craig's actual portrayal of Bond will still be highly regarded.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    But Craig's actual portrayal of Bond will still be highly regarded.
    Always, just as all the others IMHO.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Birdleson wrote: »
    This Craig Era is special. I believe that in another thirty years these films will be pointed to as a high watermark in the franchise's history.
    I've been around these films as long as you, and I feel that, with the exception of the first three, ALL the Bond movies will be seen as "too this" or "too that" in some way or another.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Or both.
    But, then we'll be reborn & start our fandom all over again, with fresh eyes. And then the 2055 Bond will be the one we grew up on, so THAT will be our favourite!
    :D
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Birdleson wrote: »
    No, we'll just be dead if I have anything to say about it.
    Nothing that was anything ceases to exist. It just changes the recognized venue of energy, and basically gets 'recycled'.
    We're all in the mix.
    Hopefully, at our next occurrence, we'll be people able to groove to Bond's current escapades, rather than trees or some such. You never know...
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I don't agree with the conceit of the post. I think this is an instance where we recognize a special moment as it's happening. I've been around since almost the start of these films and, though they had their fans, the general vibe was not that the Moore, Dalton and Brosnan works were a match for the originals, or as significant. Not just critically, but among fans (granted, no internet, but general talk among peers and in the media).

    This Craig Era is special. I believe that in another thirty years these films will be pointed to as a high watermark in the franchise's history.

    Agreed.
  • Posts: 4,619
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Craig: Bournd.
    Come on! The Craig era is now far bigger than the Bourne series.

  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,882
    I don't think Craig will be as worshipped as he is now, when the next Bond takes over. At the very least, the 'Best Bond since Connery' tag, that was attached to Brosnan, now Craig, could possibly be attached to the next actor.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Craig: Bournd.
    Come on! The Craig era is now far bigger than the Bourne series.

    Bourne has never not once ever been bigger than Bond.
  • Posts: 4,619
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I've been around these films as long as you, and I feel that, with the exception of the first three, ALL the Bond movies will be seen as "too this" or "too that" in some way or another.

    Look at the critical reception and the box office performance of every single Bond film released after the end of the 60s. The Craig era is special.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I don't think Craig will be as worshipped as he is now, when the next Bond takes over. At the very least, the 'Best Bond since Connery' tag, that was attached to Brosnan, now Craig, could possibly be attached to the next actor.

    I think talent will always be talent and if people are level headed enough to not allow their zealousness of a new actor to blind them from reason then it really shouldn't be a problem. Connery, irrespective of him being tge first was just magnificent and I'm mainly refering to his first 4. That output was and us enough to cement him as THE best. Craig on tge other hand is by far the best actor to take on the role and his portrayal and performances are excellent. I'm just waiting for SP to come out and then see a plethora of fans bumping him upto the number one spot.

    My opinion of Connery as the best has not wavered my entire life and the same will go for Craig. He's fantastic as Bond and the new actor whenever he comes along has mighty shoes to fill.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Craig: Bournd.
    Come on! The Craig era is now far bigger than the Bourne series.

    When you're a behemoth such as Bond it's natural that inspiration stems from other pop culture fads. Especially successful new kids on the block. Anyone who refuses to accept that the Craig era is a direct response to Bourne is kidding themselves. It doesn't devalue Bond. The phrase, 'sometimes to beat them you have to join them' springs to mind. Bond has moved back into high gear and is now light years ahead in terms of success, but denying the catalyst for that is disrespectful.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I haven't been around since the start of the series, but have followed it quite closely since I was a kid.

    I am really enjoying the Craig era, far more than his predecessor, and see it as a rebirth of sorts and a return to form.

    However, I personally do not see anything so significant about his films to date, Casino Royale notwithstanding. That film is seen as one of the best in the series, which is an incredible achievement for a franchise that has been going for 5 decades. It is a truly special film (especially the middle casino part.......due to Fleming). Craig and the rest of the cast are magnificent in it. QoS and SF are just regular but highly enjoyable films to me, despite the latter's incredible box office run as a 50th anniversary film.

    With regards to his era in general, I think it will be looked back on by the majority as just one of the 6, but on the higher scale of things. Probably just behind Connery and just above Moore. I realize hardcore fans idolize Dalton and Lazenby, but that is not the prevailing point of view for most. As the incumbent, he obviously has some advantage now......but that will dissipate in time.

    With regards to his performances as Bond, I again think people's view of him will drop in estimation over time......but he will always stay above the rest, except for King Connery.

    It will not be seen as a fad, but it will not be idolized like it is now. It will be looked back on as a welcome return to form and a renaissance for the series.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Some good points being made here.

    I think we have to put Dalton and Laz in a separate category as they did so few. Although I love Dlaton's two, could he have sustained it for four or five films?

    What Connery and Moore both showed was that they had staying power. Both probably could have stayed if they'd wanted. Brosnan's films became so appalling that EON has to sack him. Craig has proven probably already he has the staying power and will go down as one of the 'proper', established Bonds along with Sean, Rog and Pierce.

    Ultimately the legacy will come down to quality and whether people want to rewatch the films. That's where I wonder if Craig will stand the test of time. IMO he has not and will not challenge Sean - that's almost impossible anyway. But I'm not sure his films have the likeability of Rog's either.

  • MisterDanDMisterDanD London
    Posts: 6
    I agree with a lot of the comments here, of course we are missing something critical. EON's producers won't be around in 20 - 30 yrs and therefore the style of the franchise, if indeed it gets carried on after that will be very different. I do hope it does, I have lived and breathed 007 all my life.
  • M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
    edited July 2015 Posts: 538
    I agree entirely with ChrisIsAll's analysis. And that was the point I was trying to make. Not that Craig's interpretation will be seen as bad, but rather it will be seen as a product of its time.

    The only thing I dislike is the idea that Connery and Craig were the only great Bonds. Moore, Brosnan and Dalton are every bit as good - just different in their approach. Lazenby is underrated too.
  • Posts: 1,595
    RC7 wrote: »
    When you're a behemoth such as Bond it's natural that inspiration stems from other pop culture fads. Especially successful new kids on the block. Anyone who refuses to accept that the Craig era is a direct response to Bourne is kidding themselves. It doesn't devalue Bond. The phrase, 'sometimes to beat them you have to join them' springs to mind. Bond has moved back into high gear and is now light years ahead in terms of success, but denying the catalyst for that is disrespectful.

    Thank you. Always boggles me when people try to pretend the Bourne films didn't have a massive influence on this era. For me it's nice to see Mendes bringing back a more "James Bond Film" feel than "Spy Thriller with James Bond in it." Again, this is just my personal opinion and what I like from a Bond film. All of this said, CR is one of my absolute favorites.
  • Posts: 11,425
    RC7 wrote: »
    When you're a behemoth such as Bond it's natural that inspiration stems from other pop culture fads. Especially successful new kids on the block. Anyone who refuses to accept that the Craig era is a direct response to Bourne is kidding themselves. It doesn't devalue Bond. The phrase, 'sometimes to beat them you have to join them' springs to mind. Bond has moved back into high gear and is now light years ahead in terms of success, but denying the catalyst for that is disrespectful.

    Thank you. Always boggles me when people try to pretend the Bourne films didn't have a massive influence on this era. For me it's nice to see Mendes bringing back a more "James Bond Film" feel than "Spy Thriller with James Bond in it." Again, this is just my personal opinion and what I like from a Bond film. All of this said, CR is one of my absolute favorites.

    Totally agree with both of you. Bourne was a game changer. It came along at just the right moment to snap EON out of its lethargy and help get Bond back on track. I actually think QoS owes more to Bourne than CR does, but the impact on the Craig era is undeniable. It's possible that EON would have taken the Henry Cavill route if it hain't been for Bourne and Matt Damon.

    Having said all this, I think Things have moved on A lot since QoS. Mendes inspiration is more Nolan's Batman, and the tone of the Craig era changed a lot with SF (not for the better IMO).
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    @Getafix, I'm right there with you: the feel that CR and QoS had seemed to completely disappear with SF, which was the largest disappointment to me.
  • Posts: 832
    I disagree. The Craig era is certaintly influenced by the bourne films, but not as much as you seem to suggest by saying that there was a massive influence. I would say more of a medium sized influence
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    The Bourne influence is clear. Thankfully EON quickly went overboard with it in QoS and were correctly criticized for it....with SF they appeared to take it back to a traditional Bondian style imho (with sweeping vistas and wide angles shots as well as action that could be followed by the older crowd), and it looks (from the trailers) that SP will be even more so.

    So Bourne's influence came and went swiftly, as did Die Hard/Lethal Weapon's (with LTK).
  • Posts: 11,425
    Yes, Bond has always responded to what's hot and what's not. At least since the Start of the Moore era anyway.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @Getafix, I'm right there with you: the feel that CR and QoS had seemed to completely disappear with SF, which was the largest disappointment to me.

    Ditto. It's hard to have that discussion on here, though, because people just bring up Oscars and Box Office and the conversation is shut down. There was a significant fork in the road following QoS and I do think it would have been interesting to see what was lurking down the opposite path. SP looks like it will retcon the entire Craig era, which could have interesting repercussions for the perception of QoS, whether positive or negative.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I feel (just a hunch) that SP will help rehabilitate QoS as people will see it as this key link between CR and SP.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    I always felt like I was one of the rare few who missed the gritty fight scenes given to us in CR and QoS, because he seemed like a less experienced fighter in SF.
  • Posts: 11,425
    He seems like a different character in many ways in SF
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I always felt like I was one of the rare few who missed the gritty fight scenes given to us in CR and QoS, because he seemed like a less experienced fighter in SF.

    I agree. The SF fights were useless (particularly the Komodo one) compared to the kinetic scenes in CR & particularly QoS.
    Getafix wrote: »
    He seems like a different character in many ways in SF

    In a way, he was. Older......more jaded....."played out". In QoS he was still a rookie. The 4 yr gap between the two films robbed us of a more transitional film I think. SP will likely take us full circle back to traditional Bond of old imho.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Bourne did indeed change the landscape of the genre and had a massive influence on Bond but Bond was and remains bigger. That being said, personally I think the Bond series needs the Bourne movies to keep themselves in check and not go back down that asinine path they were on with the Brosnan era. With Bourne 5 released exactly 1 year away from now and the the growth and birth of new spy franchises Bond constantly has to defend his crown and can't afford to slip up.
Sign In or Register to comment.