What to keep and what to get rid of from the Craig era.

With all this talk of reinvention I am curious what do bond fans want to keep from the Craig era moving forward into the new era and what do we want to get rid of

I am sure I will think of 200 more lol but here is my short list

Get rid of
Lack of sex: I don’t need to go to deep into this but Craig’s bond was basically a monk in the last three films I don’t need the movies to be pornos but my god 2 girls a film again would be nice brosnan was getting 3-4 in his tenure

Lack of fun: you know why the Cuba stuff was so highly regarded in no time to die if was the most fun Craig’s 007 had since Casino Royale if I am being honest I mean I guess the pts of spectre was funnish but not fun enough in my opinion


Keep

Fleming’s bond: I like that 007 was not just some action hero in the Craig films but really felt like Fleming’s bond if we can get the bond specifically from Royale and Solace I will be happy
Fleming titles: 3 out of the last 5 bond films had Fleming titles and honestly I want them to be bolder in the next actors era don’t be afraid of The property of a lady The death collector a whisper of hate etc


I did 2 for each though I can think of more but yeah how about you guys

«134

Comments

  • MI6HQMI6HQ SIS Building, London, United Kingdom
    edited July 1 Posts: 1,659
    What to keep:

    1. Grounded plots
    2. A complex Bond
    3. Tough Bond Girls, modernized women
    4. Great and beautiful title sequences, the title sequences in the Craig Era were all great.
    5. As @DarthDimi said, just gratuitous sex but not making it pornographic or too much sex like in the Moore or Brosnan where we always seeing Bond in the bed with someone, it should only happen when necessary.
    6. The fight scenes

    What to get rid of:

    1. Too personal angles (involving family connections, something about pasts, and etc.)
    2. A Bond Girl who looks young enough to be Bond's daughter or the large age gap between the two leads.
    3. Lack of Chemistry between the two leads
    4. French Actresses (almost all of Craig's Bond Girls had been French, some full like Green and Seydoux and some half, Berenice and Olga), it's time for a different nationality for a change.
    5. Italy as the location, please find a new location, Italy have been always featured in the Craig Era, I'm tired of Italy, please use a different location for a change.
    6. Unrealistic action sequences
    7. Another Bond Girl being the love of Bond's life (Tracy and Vesper was enough, I don't want another copy of them, I don't bought the one with Madeleine, no need for replication, it seems like Bond's falling in love have been done to death this time, it's time for it to take a rest for a while), I have no problem with Bond being romantic, but to the point of him seriously falling in love in every film should be low down a bit.
    8. Uniform palettes (the palettes in the Craig Era have been quite uniform, SPECTRE was yellow, NTTD was dark blueish green something like that).
    9. Unrealistic action sequences, since Skyfall, the Action scenes in the Craig Era have been quite a bit unrealistic like explosions here, Bond machine gunning down the villains, him dodging the bullets).
    10. Unnecessary callbacks to the previous films.
    11. Aston Martin DB5, please give it a rest.
    12. M being some sort of antagonist to Bond, it should be no personal, M should act like Bond's boss and not this overly insecure, jealous something that's arguing with Bond when it comes to his decisions, that's one of my problems with the scenes between Fiennes' M and Bond.
    13. The melodrama and soap opera writing of the films.
    14. Characters with brief screentime, both Paloma and Monica Bellucci suffered this, I liked that the Minor Bond Girls in the classic films had been given more screentime to shine, not just there, please get rid of this and give those minor characters (not just Bond Girls) a lot more screentime.
    15. Poor writing when it comes to the villains' motivations.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 21,735
    I'm always interested in some gratuitous sex and violence. ;-) They can easily inject a little sex without turning the film pornographic. Shouldn't end up a lost art despite "the climate" becoming more prudish every day. Time for Bond to teach the wee ones to have fun. ;-)

    Regarding fun, I never had any issues with the "serious" tone in the Craigs, but yes, a bit more fun is most welcome. I agree, @Risico007.

  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited July 1 Posts: 497
    1. No serial-style continuity. Just make the movies one at a time as best you can.
    2. No more villains motivated by revenge. As we've had this practically non-stop since TWINE, I'd say this is a Purvis and Wade trope.
    3. No more villains with parental issues. Ditto P&W.
    4. No more MI6 traitors. Again this mainly seems to be a P&W trope.
    5. No more villains or missions that are personal to Bond.
    6. Stop digging into Bond's psychology. It's not interesting or relevant. Bond shouldn't be the center of everything in these movies.
    7. Stop taking ideas and plot beats from other franchises. Let the Bond franchise be itself instead of Batman, Bourne, or whatever else is popular at the time.
    8. No more questioning Bond's relevancy. Bond stays relevant with good movies.
    9. Less CG. Keep the films tactile.
    10. Action sequences need far more imagination. Do things that haven't been done before. Simple shootouts and chases don't really it cut it for Bond, there needs to be something clever in them. Think Bond skiing down a luge in FYEO or the bike chase in TND.
    11. Get rid of the Oscar bait directors and writers and hire people who actually specialize in making action movies.
    12. No Bond going rogue.
    13. More romance and jauntiness, but not Moore-style camp.
    14. Bring back David Arnold.
    15. More espionage and mingling with important people. Maybe a dinner sequence between Bond and the villain.
    16. Bond should be someone who comes off as intelligent and romantic, not a generic action movie hero.
    17. An American villain. So far we've only had Kananga, Zorin, and Whitaker.
    18. All-new locations. Poland. Australia. The Baltics. Canada. Former Yugoslavia. South Africa. Some parts of America. Let's give Italy, the Bahamas, and Britain a rest.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,162
    Bond went rogue in OHMSS. Just saying. ;)
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited July 1 Posts: 4,153
    Get rid of:

    Longer then 3 years between movies. Having next Bond 3th movie after 2 years mabey be more inportent then rush his second.
    Other then Mi6-CIA, Blofeld no red lines
    To young Bondgirls
    24/TDK-TDKR style (Skyfall/Spectre)
    Trater thing, see C in Spectre.

    Predict maintitle. This was very welcome in DC era, but it is time to return to more standalone movies. See redline comment. DC era is more difficult and also since QOS turn in to a analyze franchise. That's very good but also a weakness. It made me and a lot of fans very creative, but now time for a couple of movies who asking less from us. If NTTD was realy the end, if not i hope will after Bond 26.

    Hold:

    Italy as location and over use of England. Time for Ireland or Wales.
    French actress
    DB5
    Pervis and Wade
    Famale solo artist for title song. Time for a group! or instrumental track.

    Keep:
    Production design / locations-sets in connection with some of cinematography and creativity remember of old days. Strongest point of DC thanks to QOS inspecialy. Overall in my opnion Skyfall is moost distence from that, whyle movie have his moments. Keep people from NTTD in first place.
    Strong acting. Whyle SF and Spectre proof we need stronger chacter development, Lucia and C are wasted.
    QOS, Spectre and NTTD humor.
  • Posts: 1,153
    Interesting question. I guess broadly...

    Keep

    - The quality of the cinematography, editing, and production design from the last three films.

    - The focus on Bond as a character. I'll specify what I don't want to see, but I like the fact that Craig's Bond felt like a genuinely rounded character - flawed, perhaps even tragic, but ultimately human.

    - The tendency to use elements of the novels. Ok, it's not always been done well (I have 'die Blofeld, die' in mind from NTTD) but I like the fact that they incorporated the Garden of Death into NTTD, despite my problems with how it was done in practice. Same for the torture scene dialogue from Colonel Sun in SP. Just a bit more focus on the script/how everything is brought together and this deference to the literary material would be great to see more of going forward.

    - The elements of fantasy/horror, particularly in NTTD. Personally, I love the opening in Norway of NTTD, as well as the 'nanoboting' of the SPECTRE agents in Cuba in the film. It feels like something from a horror film. Personally, one of the things I love about the Fleming novels is that Bond is a man who gets caught up in these nightmarish, surreal scenarios - ie. Dr No's lair, the Garden of Death etc. Bond shouldn't just be a grounded thriller but a series in which the fantastical, horror and escapism can be combined. For all the Craig era's darker moments, the later ones certainly seemed to lean more towards that otherworldly, more fantastical feel.

    - The quality of acting talent. Not necessarily the fame of said talent.


    Get Rid Of

    - The nostalgia/references to the previous films. No more DB5, aesthetic nods, and ideally no references to the 60s Bond films beyond the bare bone elements (the gun barrel, the theme etc.) No SPECTRE, no Blofeld.

    - The entire MI6 cast of the Craig era. I love Wishaw and Harris, but the fact is the next Bond needs to reinvent the series. Bond's relationship with M, Tanner need to be re-thought and re-established with different actors.

    - No exploring of Bond's past. The Craig era did it well in SF (less so in SP) but I feel Bond needs to be more enigmatic in the next one. He needs to feel human and have flaws, perhaps change, but this can be done without referencing his past or at least making it part of the main narrative.

    - No more Bond going rogue. It's a bit worn out.

    - Ideally not another villain with a revenge motive, as it's been done in the last three films.

    - I'd like to see less of Bond being depicted as 'indestructible'. For all the character elements of the Craig era, the later films did seem to depict him as almost superhuman during the action scenes. The guy could tackle a man after getting shot multiple times, easy disarm three henchmen while handcuffed, go commando and take down an entire base. Even in CR the fact that Bond could blow up an embassy or easily catch a gun while on a crane negated the more 'human' approach they went with. I'd like to see fight sequences which are more grounded, Bond taking a few hits etc. Less 'polished' fight choreography could help this I think.



    Other


    - Sex... to be honest, this is a bit misunderstood. I don't think it matters how many women Bond sleeps with in a single film (Fleming's Bond would often sleep with only one in a single story). It's the level of erotism and chemistry Bond has with the women that matters. The later Craig films had sex, but little erotism (more romance if anything), and of course Craig didn't have the best chemistry with Seydoux in SP. This can be done in a number of ways, and doesn't have to be leery or pornographic.

    - Gadgets. I'm fine with Bond having gadgets but I'd like them to be grounded/be the sort of thing an actual secret agent would need in his day to day duties.
  • M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
    Posts: 534
    As a Craig fan, I'd be happy to see the next Bond actor take a totally new direction. But we should keep the kind of storytelling and character development we've seen in Casino Royale and Skyfall.

    The gadgets and other tropes can come back. But they should be implemented carefully, and in a way that fits the story. And not just forced for the sake of it.

    We shouldn't have a checklist-Bond where everything is added just for the sake of checking a box without any concern to how all the individual elements congeal together. If a trope can fit well in the story, fine. If it can't, maybe save that idea for the next movie.

    More humor is good, but it should be clever and at least somewhat original. Not just a rehash of what's been done in the past films. Sex jokes and stupid names for female characters aren't going to cut it anymore.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,162
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    As a Craig fan, I'd be happy to see the next Bond actor take a totally new direction. But we should keep the kind of storytelling and character development we've seen in Casino Royale and Skyfall.

    The gadgets and other tropes can come back. But they should be implemented carefully, and in a way that fits the story. And not just forced for the sake of it.

    We shouldn't have a checklist-Bond where everything is added just for the sake of checking a box without any concern to how all the individual elements congeal together. If a trope can fit well in the story, fine. If it can't, maybe save that idea for the next movie.

    More humor is good, but it should be clever and at least somewhat original. Not just a rehash of what's been done in the past films. Sex jokes and stupid names for female characters aren't going to cut it anymore.

    Good post.

    I'd like the next Bond era to stand on its own two legs and have the conviction of its storytelling so that it doesn't need to rely on old indicators (the DB5, please get rid of that old man's car) or tired meta-commentary (even CR has the cringeworthy "Stephanie Broadchest," which feels like a joke held over from the Brosnan era).

    Just tell a cracking good story, and the Bond and M, and maybe Moneypenny and Q, of it all will fall into place.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,262
    Keep the high quality filmmaking, recast the Whitehall Brigade.
  • edited August 2 Posts: 1,267
    echo wrote: »
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    As a Craig fan, I'd be happy to see the next Bond actor take a totally new direction. But we should keep the kind of storytelling and character development we've seen in Casino Royale and Skyfall.

    The gadgets and other tropes can come back. But they should be implemented carefully, and in a way that fits the story. And not just forced for the sake of it.

    We shouldn't have a checklist-Bond where everything is added just for the sake of checking a box without any concern to how all the individual elements congeal together. If a trope can fit well in the story, fine. If it can't, maybe save that idea for the next movie.

    More humor is good, but it should be clever and at least somewhat original. Not just a rehash of what's been done in the past films. Sex jokes and stupid names for female characters aren't going to cut it anymore.

    Good post.

    I'd like the next Bond era to stand on its own two legs and have the conviction of its storytelling so that it doesn't need to rely on old indicators (the DB5, please get rid of that old man's car) or tired meta-commentary (even CR has the cringeworthy "Stephanie Broadchest," which feels like a joke held over from the Brosnan era).

    Just tell a cracking good story, and the Bond and M, and maybe Moneypenny and Q, of it all will fall into place.

    To be fair, I do find that the “Broadchest” moment is another nice bit of chemistry between Bond and Vesper. It’s Vesper calling out the absurdity of a name like that, so I’m okay with stuff like that being kept, so long as it’s acknowledged that it’s a ridiculous name.

    I like the idea of another interconnected era, but I’ve said it time and time again, just more planning done ahead of time and a clear direction.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,262
    echo wrote: »
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    As a Craig fan, I'd be happy to see the next Bond actor take a totally new direction. But we should keep the kind of storytelling and character development we've seen in Casino Royale and Skyfall.

    The gadgets and other tropes can come back. But they should be implemented carefully, and in a way that fits the story. And not just forced for the sake of it.

    We shouldn't have a checklist-Bond where everything is added just for the sake of checking a box without any concern to how all the individual elements congeal together. If a trope can fit well in the story, fine. If it can't, maybe save that idea for the next movie.

    More humor is good, but it should be clever and at least somewhat original. Not just a rehash of what's been done in the past films. Sex jokes and stupid names for female characters aren't going to cut it anymore.

    Good post.

    I'd like the next Bond era to stand on its own two legs and have the conviction of its storytelling so that it doesn't need to rely on old indicators (the DB5, please get rid of that old man's car) or tired meta-commentary (even CR has the cringeworthy "Stephanie Broadchest," which feels like a joke held over from the Brosnan era).

    Just tell a cracking good story, and the Bond and M, and maybe Moneypenny and Q, of it all will fall into place.

    Yes. Not even a hint towards Bond’s origins, just standalone missions. I don’t mind an older Bond, as part of the character is that he’s outlived his life expectancy. And yes, the DB5 was used in GF because it was bleeding edge, so they should keep using bleeding edge Aston’s. The DB10 was a perfect homage to the DB5 in this way.
  • echo wrote: »
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    As a Craig fan, I'd be happy to see the next Bond actor take a totally new direction. But we should keep the kind of storytelling and character development we've seen in Casino Royale and Skyfall.

    The gadgets and other tropes can come back. But they should be implemented carefully, and in a way that fits the story. And not just forced for the sake of it.

    We shouldn't have a checklist-Bond where everything is added just for the sake of checking a box without any concern to how all the individual elements congeal together. If a trope can fit well in the story, fine. If it can't, maybe save that idea for the next movie.

    More humor is good, but it should be clever and at least somewhat original. Not just a rehash of what's been done in the past films. Sex jokes and stupid names for female characters aren't going to cut it anymore.

    Good post.

    I'd like the next Bond era to stand on its own two legs and have the conviction of its storytelling so that it doesn't need to rely on old indicators (the DB5, please get rid of that old man's car) or tired meta-commentary (even CR has the cringeworthy "Stephanie Broadchest," which feels like a joke held over from the Brosnan era).

    Just tell a cracking good story, and the Bond and M, and maybe Moneypenny and Q, of it all will fall into place.

    Yes. Not even a hint towards Bond’s origins, just standalone missions. I don’t mind an older Bond, as part of the character is that he’s outlived his life expectancy. And yes, the DB5 was used in GF because it was bleeding edge, so they should keep using bleeding edge Aston’s. The DB10 was a perfect homage to the DB5 in this way.

    I wouldn’t be opposed to giving Bond a different car than an Aston Martin. They did it for Moore and Brosnan, and it’ll be a nice way to differentiate the next actor from Craig, who seemed to only drive Astons.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,262
    Personally I’d prefer if they kept the Astons. Whatever the latest model DB is. I wouldn’t mind seeing him in a Bentley Continental GT though.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 7,460
    I like the idea of the Aston being Bond's personal car and then he gets something more suitable for a secret agent for his actual mission.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,262
    I think I’m the opposite! :) I’d want the Aston’s to be the company cars, what Bond drives personally isn’t much of an issue with me.
    IMO, the Aston is just as suitable for a secret agent as the tuxedo is; it allows him to infiltrate decadent society where avarice and malice live. And it goes fast. ;)
  • edited August 2 Posts: 707
    To be fair, I do find that the “Broadchest” moment is another nice bit of chemistry between Bond and Vesper. It’s Vesper calling out the absurdity of a name like that, so I’m okay with stuff like that being kept, so long as it’s acknowledged that it’s a ridiculous name.

    I thought that was a great exchange in the cab. I took the 'Broadchest' name to be a little bit of an in-joke towards previous Bond girls names, in a good natured way. Bond and Vesper worked so well together in that movie.

  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,262
    To be fair, I do find that the “Broadchest” moment is another nice bit of chemistry between Bond and Vesper. It’s Vesper calling out the absurdity of a name like that, so I’m okay with stuff like that being kept, so long as it’s acknowledged that it’s a ridiculous name.

    I thought that was a great exchange in the cab. I took the 'Broadchest' name to be a little bit of an in-joke towards previous Bond girls names, in a good natured way. Bond and Vesper worked so well together in that movie.

    100% agree.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 2,928
    Keep:
    familiar character actors in background roles, without them being too famous.
    Globe trotting, but give us great visuals in the background.
    Great cinematography. Bond has been more hit than miss with this category, in the last 30 years.
    One MI6 regular, particularly Ralph Fiennes as M. EON uses actors for different roles multiple times, Ralph can play Sir Miles, with a new actor as Bond. Judi Dench worked this way fine.
    Get rid of:
    Purvis and Wade writing in ANY way, shape or form. BB talked about reinventing Bond, the best way to start is the writing. Seriously, this is the number one thing that must change: the writing.
    Betrayal. It’s becoming more stale. If EON keeps doing it, they’ll pass John Gardener for most stories with double crossing in them.
    Bond resigning, or leaving MI6. Again, becoming stale. Take a film or two off from it.
    M’s past coming back to haunt them. It makes the character less sympathetic, which is why I wasn’t sad that M died in Skyfall.
    No more family drama from any of the characters. Everyone since LTK had this problem.
    On the fence about:
    More art house directors. Most haven’t worked, but some elements of them did. EON should always look for someone who is a general fan or can respect the character and his legacy.
    Blofeld and Spectre being reoccurring villains. Now that EON fully has the rights back, we can expect to see them more often. I would almost expect Goldfinger or Trevelyan to be included in this category, considering how many classic movie villains are being redone now.
    Michael G Wilson continuing to produce full time. He’s getting too old, and let’s be honest, he isn’t the best ideas man. It may be time for Gregg Wilson to start moving up for the top producer spots.
    Interconnected stories. An ok idea, EON needs to better plan it out. Keep more directors with passion to connect them together.
    Look more into:
    Adapting continuation novels and writing ahead. With Amazon more or less involved now, EON should look at Anthony Horowitz or a writer with previous Bond experience to give them some ideas about how to move forward. I would rather see a continuation novel get a chance to be adapted than a P & W original screenplay.
    My personal opinions.
  • edited August 3 Posts: 2,878
    Keep -
    David Arnold
    More serious tone
    Use more Fleming adapted scenes (like Maibaum did in the 80's)
    More Bond getting bloody and bruised


    Get rid of -
    Family angst
    Retcon crap
    P&W
    1964 Aston Martin DB5 and other old references
    Crappy trendy songs (the worst songs are all under Babs & Micky's reign)



  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited August 3 Posts: 6,462
    Why does it seem when there is a real dislike of something, it usually gets highlighted as it was "Bab"'s reign?

    She's pretty much been in equal partnership with... Oh... What's-his-name???
  • M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
    Posts: 534
    BB somehow manages to get a lot of criticism for things her father did equally bad or worse.

    The overall batting average of the series is similar under BB as it was under CB. There's great, average and bad decisions under both of them.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 6,462
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    BB somehow manages to get a lot of criticism for things her father did equally bad or worse.

    The overall batting average of the series is similar under BB as it was under CB. There's great, average and bad decisions under both of them.

    I don’t think anything matches the following:

    Trying to cast an American as Bond several times, then; not only casting an American, but that American was James Brolin!
  • peter wrote: »
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    BB somehow manages to get a lot of criticism for things her father did equally bad or worse.

    The overall batting average of the series is similar under BB as it was under CB. There's great, average and bad decisions under both of them.

    I don’t think anything matches the following:

    Trying to cast an American as Bond several times, then; not only casting an American, but that American was James Brolin!

    Don’t forget about John Gavin!
  • Posts: 2,878
    peter wrote: »
    Why does it seem when there is a real dislike of something, it usually gets highlighted as it was "Bab"'s reign?

    She's pretty much been in equal partnership with... Oh... What's-his-name???

    Apologies. Now fixed.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 6,462
    peter wrote: »
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    BB somehow manages to get a lot of criticism for things her father did equally bad or worse.

    The overall batting average of the series is similar under BB as it was under CB. There's great, average and bad decisions under both of them.

    I don’t think anything matches the following:

    Trying to cast an American as Bond several times, then; not only casting an American, but that American was James Brolin!

    Don’t forget about John Gavin!

    But he’s so forgettable, 😂 … What was this fascination with casting an American, and then outside the quality ones (Reynolds and Eastwood), there are the head shaking choices (Gavin, Adam West and James Brolin)!
  • Posts: 2,878
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    BB somehow manages to get a lot of criticism for things her father did equally bad or worse.

    The overall batting average of the series is similar under BB as it was under CB. There's great, average and bad decisions under both of them.

    I don’t think anything matches the following:

    Trying to cast an American as Bond several times, then; not only casting an American, but that American was James Brolin!

    Don’t forget about John Gavin!

    But he’s so forgettable, 😂 … What was this fascination with casting an American, and then outside the quality ones (Reynolds and Eastwood), there are the head shaking choices (Gavin, Adam West and James Brolin)!

    I guess they are no better than an Australian who was not even an established actor.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 6,462
    Exactly @jetsetwilly . That’s kind of my point. And this all primarily fell under Cubby’s reign.

    In the end, the producers of these films had great highs, but each suffered low-lows.

    They didn’t intend for the low-lows (no one ever tries to make their film “bad”), but after sixty years in the James Bond business, you’re going to experience a roller coaster.

    Saying that, I don’t want this series to find its way into anyone else’s hands. It won’t be in their blood, and, for better or worse, EoN still know how to marry much from books written seventy years ago, while keeping their man relevant in the 2020s, in a crowded film marketplace.

    That’s bloody admirable.
  • DragonpolDragonpol Writer @ http://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 16,121
    peter wrote: »
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    BB somehow manages to get a lot of criticism for things her father did equally bad or worse.

    The overall batting average of the series is similar under BB as it was under CB. There's great, average and bad decisions under both of them.

    I don’t think anything matches the following:

    Trying to cast an American as Bond several times, then; not only casting an American, but that American was James Brolin!

    Strange too that they thought of going down that route considering Cubby always said that Bond had to be played by a British actor. Thankfully, they saw sense in the end as an American Bond would be a disaster in my opinion. No point in doing it if he's not kept British.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 497
    Cubby made 16 movies in roughly 30 years, with 9 or so being regarded as bonafide classics (DN-OHMSS, LALD, TSWLM, FYEO) by mainstream audiences, maybe 10 if we include TLD.

    BB&MGW have made 9 Bond movies with only 3 being generally regarded as great (GE, CR, SF) in that same time period. Maybe it's unfair to compare the two eras since Cubby had the benefit of adapting the Fleming novels, but in my opinion Babs and Michael haven't even come close.

    And Cubby would never have made as many awful narrative decisions as their successors have in the last two Craig entries.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 7,460
    I would ask of anyone who feels affronted by the decision making made since 1997 to ask yourselves....

    What would you do if you inherited a 60 year old series? Would you make the same film over and over? Would you always be able to resist the temptation to do something new with it? Would you infuse the old with sprinkles of the new? Would you take something new and sprinkle it with the old? Would you be happy to accept the criticism that pretty much every decision you make would bring, regardless of your intentions? All the while juggling the legions of contracts, paperwork, legal, sponsorships etc that have to be taken into consideration for so many of these creative decisions to work on top of that.

    These are the questions that bounce around the boardroom every time they sit down and say "okay, what next?"

    I personally think the Craig era was a creative failure overall, but I fully appreciate and admire the intent behind the decisions they made. Some of them worked, some of them didn't. That's life. It's always been that way and the pressure ramps up when you're brainstorming a new Bond.
Sign In or Register to comment.