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

2456710

Comments

  • Posts: 3,279
    peter wrote: »
    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.

    Yes, there were low points under both reigns, that's for sure. Cubby gets a free pass from me because of Connery's first 3 films, OHMSS, and Tim's 2 films.

    Babs and Mickey's reign only produced 1 movie that I really love, that can stand shoulder to shoulder alongside the likes of GF or FRWL, and that film is CR.

    So Cubby's reign - 6 out of 16
    B & M's reign - 1 out of 9

    The `quite like' category -

    Cubby's reign - TB, DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, FYEO, OP - 6 out of 16
    Babs reign - TND, QoS, SF - 3 out of 9

    Not sure what the ratio works out there. but I think Cubby's reign edges it. Also, the films I dislike the most are AVTAK, DAD, TWINE and NTTD, and we all know whose reign the majority of these films fall under.
  • M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
    Posts: 538
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Cubby made 16 movies in roughly 30 years, with 9 or so being regarded as bonafide classics (DN-OHMSS, LALD, TSWLM, FYEO)

    9 is generous. FYEO is not even close. But how do we define classic? By how it impacted the franchise, or cinema in general.

    To an extent, I feel like any decent (but not necessarily great) Bond movie that came out in the 60's would've been seen as a classic.

    YOLT benefited from being early in the franchise. The story, characters and acting weren't really up to the heights of the previous movies, but it was still a part of that era, and evokes nostalgia. But as a standalone movie, a classic?

    LALD is 50-50. It's a classic by Bond standards and it significantly shaped the franchise. But critics and serious movie buffs would probably consider it a decent but not extraordinary.

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,487
    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.

    Excellent and sobering post.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited August 2022 Posts: 5,973
    slide_99 wrote: »
    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.

    I think you're being overly generous to Cubby. I count DN-GF, half a point each for the iconic-but-seriously-flawed TB and YOLT, OHMSS, TSWLM, and maybe TLD. That's 6 or 7 out of 16.

    I'd give BB and MGW GE, CR, .5 for QoS, SF, and .5 for NTTD. That's 4 out of 9.

    Pretty close.
    peter wrote: »
    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.

    Agreed. We're already seeing the strip mining of the Star Wars, Star Trek, Superman, and Batman legacies.

    I hope the Broccolis stay in control.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,028
    peter wrote: »
    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.

    Excellent and sobering post.

    I would add as well that every decision is made with optimism for the series in the long term (whether people feel it is right or wrong) and not the cynical need for short term gain.

    I already know what the responses to that statement will be "but the killed Bond! It doesn't get any more cynical than that!". However, on the flipside....

    They can literally go anywhere they want now. The slate is clean. They can do anything they want.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 651
    By classic I mean a Bond movie that's revered by critics, fans, and general audiences alike. I think those 9 qualify. It doesn't mean they're necessarily great or even good movies, but for whatever reason they have become iconic and have stuck in the popular consciousness.
    I would add as well that every decision is made with optimism for the series in the long term (whether people feel it is right or wrong) and not the cynical need for short term gain.

    I already know what the responses to that statement will be "but the killed Bond! It doesn't get any more cynical than that!". However, on the flipside....

    They can literally go anywhere they want now. The slate is clean. They can do anything they want.

    I really don't understand this sentiment. If Bond 26 was always going to be a reboot it wouldn't have mattered how NTTD ended. They could have had Bond living out the rest of his days with his family and B26 would still have been a "let's reintroduce Bond again" deal.

    After all they didn't need to kill off Brosnan's Bond in DAD to make CR happen.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited August 2022 Posts: 8,028
    But they clearly felt that Bond dying at the end of NTTD made sense for that story as opposed to him having a happy ending with a family.

    The difference with DAD is that it was a self-contained story, and not the end of a narrative arc. So your feelings towards a narrative arc as opposed to standalone stories will play into how you feel about that ending.

    (I wasn't keen - as I said, I consider the era an admirable creative failure overall.)
  • SatoriousSatorious Brushing up on a little Danish
    Posts: 231
    I'd mostly throw everything out - we need a fresh take with some new talent. I might keep a couple of key members on - I thought Mark Tildesley did a fantastic job. What I definitely want to see gone: Purvis and Wade, the Scooby gang, the excess run-times, all of the personal family rubbish. Also I'd return back to a self contained story each time (which means we can ditch the baggage which plagued many of the Craig movies). There is a reason Casino Royale and Skyfall are the most loved entries in the Craig era.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited August 2022 Posts: 651
    But they clearly felt that Bond dying at the end of NTTD made sense for that story as opposed to him having a happy ending with a family.

    The difference with DAD is that it was a self-contained story, and not the end of a narrative arc. So your feelings towards a narrative arc as opposed to standalone stories will play into how you feel about that ending.

    (I wasn't keen - as I said, I consider the era an admirable creative failure overall.)

    Craig's price tag for returning for Bond 25 was that they kill off his character, so anything the producers say about the ending apart from that is just post-hoc rationalization.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,487
    @slide_99 … but everyone was on board with this ending.

    MGM and Universal, as distributors, HAD TO AGREE. If they didn’t think this was a fitting end, and if they couldn’t market this film, they’d have asked for changes to the script, or they would have walked (after all, these are the guys in the hook for P&A).

    For the producers, distributors and creatives, they agreed this was a fitting end to Craig’s arc— so whether it came from the actor, or no, all the Big Guns had to be on board!!

    Sigh…
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited August 2022 Posts: 8,028
    slide_99 wrote: »
    But they clearly felt that Bond dying at the end of NTTD made sense for that story as opposed to him having a happy ending with a family.

    The difference with DAD is that it was a self-contained story, and not the end of a narrative arc. So your feelings towards a narrative arc as opposed to standalone stories will play into how you feel about that ending.

    (I wasn't keen - as I said, I consider the era an admirable creative failure overall.)

    Craig's price tag for returning for Bond 25 was that they kill off his character, so anything the producers say about the ending apart from that is just post-hoct rationalization.

    No it's not, unless they had no other choice but to agree to this so-called "price tag". Which, of course, they didn't have to.
    peter wrote: »
    @slide_99 … but everyone was on board with this ending.

    MGM and Universal, as distributors, HAD TO AGREE. If they didn’t think this was a fitting end, and if they couldn’t market this film, they’d have asked for changes to the script, or they would have walked (after all, these are the guys in the hook for P&A).

    For the producers, distributors and creatives, they agreed this was a fitting end to Craig’s arc— so whether it came from the actor, or no, all the Big Guns had to be on board!!

    Sigh…

    This is it. You don't have to like the ending, but there's some pretty cynical justifications for the dislike floating around.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,925
    It's true that everyone was on board with Bond dying in NTTD. But they didn't really have much of a choice if they wanted the film to be made - because Craig wouldn't have come back without Bond's death. So how much of the agreement was down to viewing it as an artistic choice, a fitting end to Craig's tenure, and how much of it was the relevant parties going along with it just to get another Craig Bond movie and the income that'd generate? 🤔
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,461
    Is there confirmation that it was absolutely planned from the start to kill off Bond during Craig's tenure? Because this has been an era of mediocre retroactive tweaks so I find it hard to believe that's the case when he seemed all but ready to call it quits after SP, where Bond doesn't die.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited August 2022 Posts: 7,526
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Is there confirmation that it was absolutely planned from the start to kill off Bond during Craig's tenure? Because this has been an era of mediocre retroactive tweaks so I find it hard to believe that's the case when he seemed all but ready to call it quits after SP, where Bond doesn't die.

    I don't think such a confirmation exists, and like you say probably wasn't the case. The decision to end NTTD that way, as with probably all things, is a big mix of reasons.
    Venutius wrote: »
    It's true that everyone was on board with Bond dying in NTTD. But they didn't really have much of a choice if they wanted the film to be made - because Craig wouldn't have come back without Bond's death. So how much of the agreement was down to viewing it as an artistic choice, a fitting end to Craig's tenure, and how much of it was the relevant parties going along with it just to get another Craig Bond movie and the income that'd generate? 🤔

    I feel like they just would have rebooted Bond for B25 and not done NTTD, if they didn't get Craig. I'm sure the revenue generated from a Bond film with a new actor wouldn't be significantly worse than a fifth Craig Bond film.

    Everyone seems to think MGM and all were just at the mercy of Daniel Craig, and I really don't think that was the likely case.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,105
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    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.

    Getting back on topic here. I have one more on the fence idea:
    Letting the man playing James Bond have how much power. Daniel Craig seemed to get WAY too much of final say on things, it seems. Sean Connery didn’t get much power and that why Cubby and Harry lost him. Another flaw of Cubby’s part. George Lazenby pretty much screwed himself, with the acceptance of doing his own stunts. Roger Moore did Bond mostly for fun. Timothy Dalton got his main request in thankfully: more human approach to the movies. Pierce Brosnan kind of got what Connery got and EON was arguably worse to PB. He had a few ideas that they used, like Paris being a past lover. But they should have been more fair to PB, as he doesn’t seem to look at his Bond time that positively. My point: EON, should give a fair amount of creative control to the person playing Bond. Keep it within fairness, though. Don’t bow down to the actor the way EON did for Craig. Long waits for average movies can drive the biggest supporters away.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited August 2022 Posts: 2,925
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Is there confirmation that it was absolutely planned from the start to kill off Bond during Craig's tenure? Because this has been an era of mediocre retroactive tweaks so I find it hard to believe that's the case when he seemed all but ready to call it quits after SP, where Bond doesn't die.
    Yes, your instincts about SP are right, Creasy - because there's confirmation that it wasn't planned from the start. In that Variety piece from the end of last year, Craig said that it was after the Berlin premiere of CR (in November 2006) that he first raised the idea of him dying in his final Bond film. So he'd been Bond for over a year before he even mentioned the idea. And it never went any further at that time. The Variety piece says that BB initially agreed, but then she 'had to go and tell Michael' what she'd agreed to. MGW appears to have vetoed the idea because, as Craig put it, 'the answer was 'no' for a long time. I thought it was forgotten about, put it that way.'
    When it comes to the discussions about making NTTD, I was never sure if Dan had brought up the 'long forgotten' idea of Bond's death as his deal-breaker for coming back or if BB raised it first as the lure to get him interested in doing one more. But in Variety, Craig said 'I didn’t bring it back up again until this one', which suggests that Craig raised it first.

    https://variety.com/2021/film/news/no-time-to-die-ending-james-bond-death-daniel-craig-1235144941/
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,973
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Is there confirmation that it was absolutely planned from the start to kill off Bond during Craig's tenure? Because this has been an era of mediocre retroactive tweaks so I find it hard to believe that's the case when he seemed all but ready to call it quits after SP, where Bond doesn't die.

    This feels right. I think Craig would have walked after SP if it had been better received.
  • Posts: 3,279
    echo wrote: »

    I'd give BB and MGW GE, CR, .5 for QoS, SF, and .5 for NTTD. That's 4 out of 9.

    Pretty close.

    .
    I think you are being generous there too. Classics defined by the critics and fans alike, you would say GE, CR and SF.

    That's 3 out of 9. QoS and NTTD are not deemed classics, if anything they are very polarising to the fan base (particularly NTTD).
  • Posts: 3,279
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Is there confirmation that it was absolutely planned from the start to kill off Bond during Craig's tenure? Because this has been an era of mediocre retroactive tweaks so I find it hard to believe that's the case when he seemed all but ready to call it quits after SP, where Bond doesn't die.

    It appears as though this was the deal breaker to get Craig back for NTTD, even though it was apparently casually suggested at the start of Craig's tenure that he once said to Babs he would like Bond to be killed off during his tenure.

    I doubt that early casual conversation stuck around for each movie (including SP), but it appears as though this was the deal to get him back one final time.

    I get the impression Babs (more than anyone else) fought for him to come back at any cost for this last film, so ultimately it was her decision.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    edited August 2022 Posts: 1,689
    I think Barbara and Michael have done brilliantly and should go on doing things just as they'd like, really. But if it were up to me...

    KEEP
    1. Most of the tone of the last two movies (well, save the last section of NTTD). Spectre is where EON finally stopped being afraid to make a James Bond movie. Ejector seats, crater bases, bionic eyes, all wonderfully whimsically stuff mixed into slightly serious films. Just what I love.

    2. The A-list directors and cinematography. The last four Bond movies are easily among the best-looking blockbusters I've ever seen, and I would not want to return to the bland, generic look of Martin Campbell or Roger Spottiswoode-type stuff.

    3. Disregarding fan opinion. The Bond fan community is full of lovely folks who have some terrible ideas about what James Bond films should be like, and many only really like 10-30% of the incredibly successful films released in the last 30 years. It seems clear to me that the producers have not been listening to these people, and they should continue in that fashion.

    GET RID OF
    1. Multi-film arcs. I liked the one they did with Craig, but they don't need to do another one. Let this be an anthology they did once.

    2. Ballads as theme songs. Again, the last three movies all had pretty decent songs, but it's enough of that flavor now. Don't need rock either. Duran Duran are as great as ever, why not go pop?

    3. Bad guys being connected to MI6. This has happened to some degree in every movie since Goldeneye. It was lame in the Brosnan era, and more organic in the Craig era, and not really bad at all, but it's enough for now.
    I think you are being generous there too. Classics defined by the critics and fans alike, you would say GE, CR and SF.

    That's 3 out of 9. QoS and NTTD are not deemed classics, if anything they are very polarising to the fan base (particularly NTTD).

    I don't know that Goldeneye was any kind of critical darling, and I think it's generous to assume that the early classics were considered incredible films upon release, or that their current status is somehow related to the writing/direction/producers/etc.
  • Posts: 199
    I think Barbara and Michael have done brilliantly and should go on doing things just as they'd like, really. But if it were up to me...

    KEEP
    1. Most of the tone of the last two movies (well, save the last section of NTTD). Spectre is where EON finally stopped being afraid to make a James Bond movie. Ejector seats, crater bases, bionic eyes, all wonderfully whimsically stuff mixed into slightly serious films. Just what I love.

    2. The A-list directors and cinematography. The last four Bond movies are easily among the best-looking blockbusters I've ever seen, and I would not want to return to the bland, generic look of Martin Campbell or Roger Spottiswoode-type stuff.

    3. Disregarding fan opinion. The Bond fan community is full of lovely folks who have some terrible ideas about what James Bond films should be like, and many only really like 10-30% of the incredibly successful films released in the last 30 years. It seems clear to me that the producers have not been listening to these people, and they should continue in that fashion.

    GET RID OF
    1. Multi-film arcs. I liked the one they did with Craig, but they don't need to do another one. Let this be an anthology they did once.

    2. Ballads as theme songs. Again, the last three movies all had pretty decent songs, but it's enough of that flavor now. Don't need rock either. Duran Duran are as great as ever, why not go pop?

    3. Bad guys being connected to MI6. This has happened to some degree in every movie since Goldeneye. It was lame in the Brosnan era, and more organic in the Craig era, and not really bad at all, but it's enough for now.
    I think you are being generous there too. Classics defined by the critics and fans alike, you would say GE, CR and SF.

    That's 3 out of 9. QoS and NTTD are not deemed classics, if anything they are very polarising to the fan base (particularly NTTD).

    I don't know that Goldeneye was any kind of critical darling, and I think it's generous to assume that the early classics were considered incredible films upon release, or that their current status is somehow related to the writing/direction/producers/etc.

    Goldeneye was met with large enthusiasm from most quarters. There was real hype for the film because it was the first Bond film for 6 years (the longest gap at that time), and it was a "perceived" return to form (or formula). Lighter tone, sexier, quippier, great action set pieces. It was also timely as it was released at the time of "Cool Britannia".

    As for what I'd keep from the Craig era...hard to say. Not much to be honest.
    I would much prefer EON film the 3 Anthony Horowitz. Those 3 books are the best stories since Ian Fleming.
    I prefer my Bond in the 1950's and 60's.
    I would hire Quentin Tarantino (watching Once Upon A Time In Hollywood was like stepping in a time machine to a different - and cooler - age), get Henry Cavill on a 3 picture deal and shoot these 3 books back-to-back.
    That would make me happier than happy hour in Bangkok!


  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited August 2022 Posts: 3,390
    I think Barbara and Michael have done brilliantly and should go on doing things just as they'd like, really. But if it were up to me...

    KEEP
    1. Most of the tone of the last two movies (well, save the last section of NTTD). Spectre is where EON finally stopped being afraid to make a James Bond movie. Ejector seats, crater bases, bionic eyes, all wonderfully whimsically stuff mixed into slightly serious films. Just what I love.

    2. The A-list directors and cinematography. The last four Bond movies are easily among the best-looking blockbusters I've ever seen, and I would not want to return to the bland, generic look of Martin Campbell or Roger Spottiswoode-type stuff.

    3. Disregarding fan opinion. The Bond fan community is full of lovely folks who have some terrible ideas about what James Bond films should be like, and many only really like 10-30% of the incredibly successful films released in the last 30 years. It seems clear to me that the producers have not been listening to these people, and they should continue in that fashion.

    GET RID OF
    1. Multi-film arcs. I liked the one they did with Craig, but they don't need to do another one. Let this be an anthology they did once.

    2. Ballads as theme songs. Again, the last three movies all had pretty decent songs, but it's enough of that flavor now. Don't need rock either. Duran Duran are as great as ever, why not go pop?

    3. Bad guys being connected to MI6. This has happened to some degree in every movie since Goldeneye. It was lame in the Brosnan era, and more organic in the Craig era, and not really bad at all, but it's enough for now.
    I think you are being generous there too. Classics defined by the critics and fans alike, you would say GE, CR and SF.

    That's 3 out of 9. QoS and NTTD are not deemed classics, if anything they are very polarising to the fan base (particularly NTTD).

    I don't know that Goldeneye was any kind of critical darling, and I think it's generous to assume that the early classics were considered incredible films upon release, or that their current status is somehow related to the writing/direction/producers/etc.

    I would add: A Bond Girl actress with different nationality, don't know, I'm just tired of French actresses being cast as Bond Girls, and it happened consistently in the Craig Era:

    1. Eva Green - Pure French
    2. Olga Kurylenko - Half French
    3. Berenice Marlohe - Half French
    4. Lea Seydoux - Pure French

    I would liked to see maybe an Irish one? Australian? Brazilian? Croatian? German (Maria Freudenstein, anyone?), Quebecois (Vivienne Michel?)

    Many here shouting for Marion Cotillard, another French Actress again?

    Let's give some French actresses a rest for a while.

    Same for the locations as well, have Bond travel outside of Europe.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    echo wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Is there confirmation that it was absolutely planned from the start to kill off Bond during Craig's tenure? Because this has been an era of mediocre retroactive tweaks so I find it hard to believe that's the case when he seemed all but ready to call it quits after SP, where Bond doesn't die.

    This feels right. I think Craig would have walked after SP if it had been better received.

    I agree with this.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited August 2022 Posts: 2,925
    Doubt I'll ever get tired of French women. Not that I've ever met any, obvs. ;) Eva Green's only a quarter French, though - her dad's half-Swedish and her mam's from Algeria.
  • edited August 2022 Posts: 3,279

    I don't know that Goldeneye was any kind of critical darling, and I think it's generous to assume that the early classics were considered incredible films upon release, or that their current status is somehow related to the writing/direction/producers/etc.

    I was trying to show willing and unbiasedness on Babs reign by sticking GE in there too, but no, you are probably right. Just 2 classic movies in the Babs/Mickey era.

    Not sure what the early classics were thought of on initial release (I wasn't born then), but judging by Bondmania of 1964, I'm guessing Bond was quite popular.

    And who else would you acknowledge as being responsible for the success of those early pictures, if not for the writers/producers/direction? Sean Connery alone?

  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,028
    GoldenEye is definitely revered as a classic Bond film amongst the general public. It always has been.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    GoldenEye is definitely revered as a classic Bond film amongst the general public. It always has been.

    Yeah, and always will be.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,487
    @jetsetwilly …. By the time the 80s hit, James Bond was showing diminishing box office numbers; there was a real undercurrent that we were seeing the end of Bond as a cinematic figure.

    Dalton also voiced that he thought LTK may be the last Bond film.

    James Bond was becoming irrelevant and the producers seemingly didn’t know how to recreate themselves.

    James Bond almost became no more under Cubby’s watch and he considered selling at this point.

    Since Barbara and Michael took over, they’ve not only made this character a competitor in a more crowded film market, they’ve reinvented the character making him relevant again (and how many franchises are they competing against today? Whereas in ‘89 Cubby failed to even register against BM, LW and Indiana Jones. And I say all of this as someone who loves the Glen Era).

    Say what you want about your displeasure with the films since they took over (and I’m not especially a fan of the Brosnan years), but they have not only saved the series, but they’ve brought in new fans in the international market. Sixty years later, this character is still as appealing as ever with everyone curious about who the new Bond will be and when the next film will be released; the directions in which Cubby was taking the franchise in the 80s was skating very close to the fringes of pop culture. He seemed creatively tapped-out after 17 years in the James Bond biz.

    MGW and BB have been at this since ‘95 and they actually continued to improved artistically and creatively in making these blockbuster films (although they’re not to your tastes, there’s no escaping that the last era is critically and financially the Silver Era behind Connery’s Golden Era— and they didn’t have the benefit of untouched Fleming novels to help create the next film, and they have a far more crowded market to compete in).
  • edited August 2022 Posts: 3,279
    peter wrote: »
    @jetsetwilly …. By the time the 80s hit, James Bond was showing diminishing box office numbers; there was a real undercurrent that we were seeing the end of Bond as a cinematic figure.

    Dalton also voiced that he thought LTK may be the last Bond film.

    James Bond was becoming irrelevant and the producers seemingly didn’t know how to recreate themselves.

    James Bond almost became no more under Cubby’s watch and he considered selling at this point.

    Since Barbara and Michael took over, they’ve not only made this character a competitor in a more crowded film market, they’ve reinvented the character making him relevant again (and how many franchises are they competing against today? Whereas in ‘89 Cubby failed to even register against BM, LW and Indiana Jones. And I say all of this as someone who loves the Glen Era).

    Say what you want about your displeasure with the films since they took over (and I’m not especially a fan of the Brosnan years), but they have not only saved the series, but they’ve brought in new fans in the international market. Sixty years later, this character is still as appealing as ever with everyone curious about who the new Bond will be and when the next film will be released; the directions in which Cubby was taking the franchise in the 80s was skating very close to the fringes of pop culture. He seemed creatively tapped-out after 17 years in the James Bond biz.

    MGW and BB have been at this since ‘95 and they actually continued to improved artistically and creatively in making these blockbuster films (although they’re not to your tastes, there’s no escaping that the last era is critically and financially the Silver Era behind Connery’s Golden Era— and they didn’t have the benefit of untouched Fleming novels to help create the next film, and they have a far more crowded market to compete in).

    Yes fair enough. I accept that, even though CR is the only film I really love from their era.

    I just wished they had followed down the CR path for the rest of Craig's tenure.
  • Posts: 2,880
    I've always said that as much as I criticise MGW and BB, I'm glad they're in charge. GE, CR, and SF are all excellent films to have around.

    Heck, even TND and QOS now have more fans than they did previously. I'm very much a fan of TND nowadays personally. I dislike almost everything about TWINE (although I can acknowledge that many of the ideas within it were adapted far better in later instalments). I can even acknowledge that while I don't like SP, DAD, and to a lesser extent NTTD there are moments of brilliance within them.
Sign In or Register to comment.