Is Craig reviving Connery's Golden-age of Bond?

edited November 2012 in Bond 26 & Beyond Posts: 2,189
While there are certainly many differences between the films of 50 years ago and the films of today, to what extent is this modern, post-reboot Bond era trying to mimic the magic of Connery's early films? If it is, is this a good thing, and if it isn't, how is it different? Personally I think that Craig's movies are subtly shadowing the progression of Connery's films, and I'm happy about this because the bonds of the 60's are all at the top of my favorites list. Sean's films had a magic sparkle to them that none of the other films have ever quite managed to capture, save perhaps CR. I myself haven't seen SF yet but from what I'm hearing, it has a very similar 60's Bond feel, and that by it's end SF sets up a very traditional Connery-era Bond framework going forward into Bond 24. I'm really excited about this direction and I can clearly see a progression in Craig's films that is similar to Sean's. Thoughts anybody?
«13

Comments

  • I would definately say that with SF we are indeed entering into a new golden age of Bond.
    This is definately an exciting time for Bond fans...
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,572
    It won't revive the 60s golden age because that was Bondmania time. Bond had no competition in the action/adventure genre. The films took everyone by surprise because they were violent, glamorous and exciting.

    These kind of franchises are ten a penny now, so Bond can't be different in 2012. They can of course still be relevent.
  • edited October 2012 Posts: 11,119
    Well, I posted this earlier on this board:
    acoppola wrote:
    JamesCraig wrote:
    Yes, but it's not like it's the first time a director admits being influenced by others. So I don't understand all this moaning.

    Moaning is one thing, but constructive criticism is another. Bond has a diverse history and it is understandable that some fans will have preferences. Me personally, I prefer the charm of the older series though appreciate the realism of the modern Bond and why it had to adapt to modern audiences.

    I think the Daniel Craig Bond films really kicked off an entire new era of Bond films, set in its own timeline/timeframe.

    --> I seriously think we finished the 'First Era', which ran from 1962 till 2002. Those are the Bond films that have more or less a formularic approach. From gunbarrel to Q, from Moneypenny to some cheesiness, from a rather solid MI6 to very predictable villain plots. Perhaps the first three, four Bond films, DN, FRWL, GF and TB were really groundbreaking and set some important blockbuster standards.

    --> The 'Second Renaissance Era' just kicked off with 'Casino Royale' in 2006. It's like our own 'Dr. No'. The start of James Bond really and even more so how he got his 00-classification and how he got his Aston Martin DB5. This film sadly wasn't done in 1962, due to legal issues. So Cubby and Harry had to kick of straight away with a novel of which the events where set after 'Casino Royale'. What follows is a revenge movie, called 'Quantum Of Solace'. And now we have a look at Bond's childhood. Something that Fleming already did in 'You Only Live Twice' and that we now get to see in 'Skyfall'. I think Bond 24 and Bond 25 will be a little 'plain solid work' in which MI6 has become stable again and in which QUANTUM really becomes our current day SPECTRE. And maybe a revived Blofeld? Or another more 'straightforward' mission for Bond.


    Allthough I really think, the Bond producers should revive SPECTRE and Blofeld again. At the moment 'Skyfall's negative reviews are about being too Dark Knight-ish, like QOS was too Jason Bourne-ish. So why not revive SPECTRE and Blofeld....in a modern day situation. I can already think of the SPECTRE meeting in 'Thunderball', this time set in a big Dennis Gassner designed board room of the Sears Tower in Chicago for Bond 24.

    I also understood the Brocolli's own the rights for SPECTRE and Blofeld again. So why not bringing back our OWN great villains and crime syndicates that made OUR Bond franchise back? If this happens, NO one can make claims of the Bond producers stealing the look and feel from other franchises.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,050
    It looks to be a new golden age, although I don't think this question can truly be answered until after Craig's tenure, when we look at his 5+ films in retrospect. Very exciting times, indeed...
  • The next one will be Avengersish
  • edited October 2012 Posts: 11,119
    craigrules wrote:
    The next one will be Avengersish

    The next one will be Bond-ish.
    While there are certainly many differences between the films of 50 years ago and the films of today, to what extent is this modern, post-reboot Bond era trying to mimic the magic of Connery's early films? If it is, is this a good thing, and if it isn't, how is it different? Personally I think that Craig's movies are subtly shadowing the progression of Connery's films, and I'm happy about this because the bonds of the 60's are all at the top of my favorites list. Sean's films had a magic sparkle to them that none of the other films have ever quite managed to capture, save perhaps CR. I myself haven't seen SF yet but from what I'm hearing, it has a very similar 60's Bond feel, and that by it's end SF sets up a very traditional Connery-era Bond framework going forward into Bond 24. I'm really excited about this direction and I can clearly see a progression in Craig's films that is similar to Sean's. Thoughts anybody?

    Fantastic topic BTW ;-). I was really thinking the same!
  • CR had the magic i don't think SF has it and i seem to be demonised cos i think this lol
  • Posts: 11,119
    craigrules wrote:
    CR had the magic i don't think SF has it and i seem to be demonised cos i think this lol

    Why do you say that sweetheart :-).
  • I'm so sensitive lol
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    What the series seems to be doing and needs to do is, take inspiration of what worked from it's own history and adapt and update those elements that can create a sense of awe, excitement, spectacle and all round adventerous blockbuster for audiences today and I think it's fair to say that post 9/11 CR and SF have achieved this easily.

    Despite being a classic and arguably the best in the series and one of the best spy thrillers ever, I don't think a film like FRWL would wholly go down so well with today's audience. The likes of CR and SF IMO have taken a variety of elements from the movies in the series.
    Putting aside the novels, I watch CR and can see elements of OHMSS, TB and a bit of GF.
    With SF, there are a whole bunch of favourable elements taken from the maority of the previous 22 movies, the one's that spring to mind the most are, The first 5 Connery movies, LALD, TMWTGG, OP, AVTAK, GE, TND and TWINE.
  • Now if the next one is a TB style epic and if Eon are following a pattern it will be. Ok by me.
  • Well, I posted this earlier on this board:
    acoppola wrote:
    JamesCraig wrote:
    Yes, but it's not like it's the first time a director admits being influenced by others. So I don't understand all this moaning.

    Moaning is one thing, but constructive criticism is another. Bond has a diverse history and it is understandable that some fans will have preferences. Me personally, I prefer the charm of the older series though appreciate the realism of the modern Bond and why it had to adapt to modern audiences.

    I think the Daniel Craig Bond films really kicked off an entire new era of Bond films, set in its own timeline/timeframe.

    --> I seriously think we finished the 'First Era', which ran from 1962 till 2002. Those are the Bond films that have more or less a formularic approach. From gunbarrel to Q, from Moneypenny to some cheesiness, from a rather solid MI6 to very predictable villain plots. Perhaps the first three, four Bond films, DN, FRWL, GF and TB were really groundbreaking and set some important blockbuster standards.

    --> The 'Second Renaissance Era' just kicked off with 'Casino Royale' in 2006. It's like our own 'Dr. No'. The start of James Bond really and even more so how he got his 00-classification and how he got his Aston Martin DB5. This film sadly wasn't done in 1962, due to legal issues. So Cubby and Harry had to kick of straight away with a novel of which the events where set after 'Casino Royale'. What follows is a revenge movie, called 'Quantum Of Solace'. And now we have a look at Bond's childhood. Something that Fleming already did in 'You Only Live Twice' and that we now get to see in 'Skyfall'. I think Bond 24 and Bond 25 will be a little 'plain solid work' in which MI6 has become stable again and in which QUANTUM really becomes our current day SPECTRE. And maybe a revived Blofeld? Or another more 'straightforward' mission for Bond.


    Allthough I really think, the Bond producers should revive SPECTRE and Blofeld again. At the moment 'Skyfall's negative reviews are about being too Dark Knight-ish, like QOS was too Jason Bourne-ish. So why not revive SPECTRE and Blofeld....in a modern day situation. I can already think of the SPECTRE meeting in 'Thunderball', this time set in a big Dennis Gassner designed board room of the Sears Tower in Chicago for Bond 24.

    I also understood the Brocolli's own the rights for SPECTRE and Blofeld again. So why not bringing back our OWN great villains and crime syndicates that made OUR Bond franchise back? If this happens, NO one can make claims of the Bond producers stealing the look and feel from other franchises.

    =D> Couldn't agree with you more man, I feel the same way about everything. I even had the same thought the other day about having that boardroom scene from TB in Bond 24, except that instead of Largo it would be Mr. White who we see making his way to the secret meeting. I like the idea with the Sears Tower but maybe a city like Beijing or Dubai. The Burj Khalifa tower perhaps! I really hope that Logan does something like this and makes Bond 24 very much like TB, because that is, along with Goldfinger, my favorite Bond film and I cannot wait to see Quantum become the modern Specter, and watch a new Blofeld get re-imagined in Bond 24.
  • Posts: 12,506
    It is certainly on a high again and deservedly so in my opinion! :D
  • Posts: 224
    NicNac wrote:
    It won't revive the 60s golden age because that was Bondmania time. Bond had no competition in the action/adventure genre. The films took everyone by surprise because they were violent, glamorous and exciting.

    These kind of franchises are ten a penny now, so Bond can't be different in 2012. They can of course still be relevent.

    You are spot on. I was around in the 60s. In no way is DC reviving the Connery "golden age" of Bond. I prefer the Roger Moore-type Bond. Yet, if EON turned the clock back to a 1967-1985 style Bond, it still wouldn't be the same to me. The excitement that Bond created in the early to mid-60s can never be replicated. You can't go home again.

  • Imagine Rocky 24 Matrix 24 Ghostbusters 24 need i go on, we are all wanting groundhog days, months, years, decades.
  • Ok, I will admit that it would be impossible to exactly recreate the Bond-mania that there was back in the 60's in todays modern culture. However, that doesn't mean that some of that sparkle can't be recaptured. Bond's fame is not what I'm talking about here so much as I'm talking about how the films feel. Bond will never be as popular as he was in the 1960's, but as a film institution the Bond movies will always rely on a large die-hard fan base (just look around this forum) to go to the movies and so long as they are good films, plenty of other people will go to see them because such films are already so popular in todays culture. What I mean to get at in this discussion thread is that the post-CR Bond films are the beginning of a new era much like Connery's films, and that given their current trajectory, they are following a similar pattern to the early Bond films. CR is DN, QoS is FRWL, and SF is GF. while the films may be very different, they follow a similar pattern of progression which would seem to suggest that Bond 24 is going to be the next TB. Does anyone else see this?
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    Craig isn't reviving the golden era of 60's Bond - that has come and gone, and can never be replicated or duplicated.... but Craig is in the middle of creating his own impressive era though..

  • Posts: 1,052
    "73 - 89" that's my golden era!
  • HASEROT wrote:
    Craig isn't reviving the golden era of 60's Bond - that has come and gone, and can never be replicated or duplicated.... but Craig is in the middle of creating his own impressive era though..

    What about simply saying a 'Second Era'...like I mentioned?

  • HASEROT wrote:
    Craig isn't reviving the golden era of 60's Bond - that has come and gone, and can never be replicated or duplicated.... but Craig is in the middle of creating his own impressive era though..

    What about simply saying a 'Second Era'...like I mentioned?

    I'm with you Graves, I think that a new era has begun after the re-boot and it is paralleling the golden-age Sean created.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited November 2012 Posts: 4,399
    HASEROT wrote:
    Craig isn't reviving the golden era of 60's Bond - that has come and gone, and can never be replicated or duplicated.... but Craig is in the middle of creating his own impressive era though..

    What about simply saying a 'Second Era'...like I mentioned?

    we've had that.. Moore '73 - '85

    there are 2 established "Eras" in the Bond film cannon IMO... that's Connery's ('62 - '67, '71) and Moore...

    Craig is on his way to establishing his own as we speak..

    IMO, while these recent Craig films have been some of the best since the days of Connery - they aren't a second golden age (yet)... i think a moniker like that is earned with time, and shouldn't just be thrown around at whim.... there were/are many who thought Brosnan's run back in the day was the second 'golden age' as well - looking back, maybe not so much... time will be the ultimate judge on how well these films will hold up - if they can hold up as well in 50 years as Connery's still do after 50, then i'd agree with you....

    right now, i'm not concerned about all of that - i'm just enjoying the ride :-bd
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,243
    Here is the problem. Like an earlier poster said, the same thing was said about Brosnan. Man, the amount of times I heard "Sean is back!" is ridiculous. And I remember at the time Brosnan was playing Bond that it was said often that Sean and Pierce will be the definitive Bonds. And the rest will fall away.

    The passage of time will reveal. Bond films like a fine wine, are better with the passage of time. Moonraker was a mega hit and Bond mania was huge too. But the passage of time takes away the opiate of hype and we see them for what they really were.

    The Beatles were the biggest thing in music. And Bond was the biggest thing in cinema at the time. People nowadays do not see a film as something as special. Yes they are popular but far more disposable. It is all about the latest thing.

    I think why the Craig era has worked so well is because Craig wants them to be fine films first and foremost. He knows that if it becomes too self-consciously trying to match the golden age, it usually ends in disaster. That was a part of the mistake the Brosnan era made because they were aiming for that and over shot with DAD.
  • oo7oo7
    Posts: 1,068
    I find alot of people love to debate about who is better like some game of ongoing top trumps among actors. no doubt in my head though that they are the forefront of a larger picture, of writers cinema photographers, producers, and the time the film is made to name a few things.
    for example I hold no preference over the portrayal of Sherlock Holmes by Rathbone, Bret, Baker, Moore, Caine, Downey.(the list could go on here).
    My point is I think as long as the overall production is good and there is a hunger for the character we will perceive a golden age, a fine line between money collected and reviews and write ups. so I don't think Dan Craig is the fertilizer that has made the character grow. if anything he is lucky to have become so well received. when he first stepped in there was a lot of doubt and he was seen as cold and hard, much like Dalton(some say was his downfall, but then how come we all flock to him now citing him as a great actor with poor stories)
    If we look at Quantum of Solace its evident Marc Forester takes alot of heat for the failure of that film though DC came out and proposed he was largely responsible for that as well, the statement washed away from him and business carried on as usual.
    What I mean by that is I think sometimes there is too much praise put on Daniel Craig's tenour as bond. With Skyfall i felt we moved into the light of detective work and amazing lighting and camera set ups. only time will tell if this can be continued.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,243
    oo7 wrote:
    I find alot of people love to debate about who is better like some game of ongoing top trumps among actors. no doubt in my head though that they are the forefront of a larger picture, of writers cinema photographers, producers, and the time the film is made to name a few things.
    for example I hold no preference over the portrayal of Sherlock Holmes by Rathbone, Bret, Baker, Moore, Caine, Downey.(the list could go on here).
    My point is I think as long as the overall production is good and there is a hunger for the character we will perceive a golden age, a fine line between money collected and reviews and write ups. so I don't think Dan Craig is the fertilizer that has made the character grow. if anything he is lucky to have become so well received. when he first stepped in there was a lot of doubt and he was seen as cold and hard, much like Dalton(some say was his downfall, but then how come we all flock to him now citing him as a great actor with poor stories)
    If we look at Quantum of Solace its evident Marc Forester takes alot of heat for the failure of that film though DC came out and proposed he was largely responsible for that as well, the statement washed away from him and business carried on as usual.
    What I mean by that is I think sometimes there is too much praise put on Daniel Craig's tenour as bond. With Skyfall i felt we moved into the light of detective work and amazing lighting and camera set ups. only time will tell if this can be continued.

    I have to agree. Sometimes this media created who is the Best Bond is childish. Rarely. do they appraise each film on what was the producers intentions on where to take the character. Of course the Connery era is incredibly important as it created the interest and as a result James Bond has a huge following.

    As for Daniel Craig's reception in the role. Had he replaced Pierce immediately after DAD it would have been impossible. The actors were too sharply contrasted and the mass audience saw no one but Pierce, especially in the USA market. He benefitted from the 4 year gap between him and Pierce. So far two actors were consecutively accepted Brosnan and Craig. So that breaks the stereotype that one Bond succeeds and the next fails.

    Plus in some ways the internet is a tool that enormously helped Daniel Craig get accepted. People liked what they saw and gave him the chance he deserves.

    But I have little respect for a mainstream media who purposefully tried to derail his Bond tenure and then praise him when it succeeded way beyond what their early predictions were.

    Money won the day. Had Craig's film flopped despite being well made and performed, the media would have spared no expense in hammering home how they were right all along.

    I take everything I read with a barrel of salt.

  • oo7oo7
    Posts: 1,068
    acoppola wrote:
    oo7 wrote:
    I find alot of people love to debate about who is better like some game of ongoing top trumps among actors. no doubt in my head though that they are the forefront of a larger picture, of writers cinema photographers, producers, and the time the film is made to name a few things.
    for example I hold no preference over the portrayal of Sherlock Holmes by Rathbone, Bret, Baker, Moore, Caine, Downey.(the list could go on here).
    My point is I think as long as the overall production is good and there is a hunger for the character we will perceive a golden age, a fine line between money collected and reviews and write ups. so I don't think Dan Craig is the fertilizer that has made the character grow. if anything he is lucky to have become so well received. when he first stepped in there was a lot of doubt and he was seen as cold and hard, much like Dalton(some say was his downfall, but then how come we all flock to him now citing him as a great actor with poor stories)
    If we look at Quantum of Solace its evident Marc Forester takes alot of heat for the failure of that film though DC came out and proposed he was largely responsible for that as well, the statement washed away from him and business carried on as usual.
    What I mean by that is I think sometimes there is too much praise put on Daniel Craig's tenour as bond. With Skyfall i felt we moved into the light of detective work and amazing lighting and camera set ups. only time will tell if this can be continued.

    I have to agree. Sometimes this media created who is the Best Bond is childish. Rarely. do they appraise each film on what was the producers intentions on where to take the character. Of course the Connery era is incredibly important as it created the interest and as a result James Bond has a huge following.

    As for Daniel Craig's reception in the role. Had he replaced Pierce immediately after DAD it would have been impossible. The actors were too sharply contrasted and the mass audience saw no one but Pierce, especially in the USA market. He benefitted from the 4 year gap between him and Pierce. So far two actors were consecutively accepted Brosnan and Craig. So that breaks the stereotype that one Bond succeeds and the next fails.

    Plus in some ways the internet is a tool that enormously helped Daniel Craig get accepted. People liked what they saw and gave him the chance he deserves.

    But I have little respect for a mainstream media who purposefully tried to derail his Bond tenure and then praise him when it succeeded way beyond what their early predictions were.

    Money won the day. Had Craig's film flopped despite being well made and performed, the media would have spared no expense in hammering home how they were right all along.

    I take everything I read with a barrel of salt.


    the money worked. yeah I agree. I see people on here utterly trash Dalton at some points unsoundly. box office records for him show he was very good indeed at selling bonds I just think by the time they got to make three he was tied up with other things and they couldn't match his price to untie himself.

    perhaps the return to the ppk is to blame for the return to the golden age or the office of M or... this is an equation we can only make assumptions on 5 years down the line, for right now enjoy the fact everyone seems to be happy with the meal.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 9,788
    I loved Casino Royale I loved Quantum of solace I think i will love Skyfall.


    Not sure if this mean that this is a golden age for everyone but after the just ok Brosnan era Craig really beefed up my interest in Fact I wouldn't be on this board had it not been for Craig and the sort of choices the producers made.
  • Posts: 503
    Risico007 wrote:
    I loved Casino Royale I loved Quantum of solace I think i will love Skyfall.


    Not sure if this mean that this is a golden age for everyone but after the just ok Brosnan era Craig really beefed up my interest in Fact I wouldn't be on this board had it not been for Craig and the sort of choices the producers made.
    Agree with this. Great new angle from the 21st century, but not a new golden age by any means.
  • Posts: 1,092
    I can understand the sentiment and I agree for the most part. It feels that way, much more than Brosnan's run. I don't think you can even compare the two with any fairness, not even with the passage of time factor coming into play. The 6 year gap was bigger, Dalton was less popular than Brosnan became when Craig took over... CR was a reboot, the odds were stacked higher againt Craig. He's blonde, people wanted Brosnan back, there was that danielcraigisnotbond website, etc.

    People wanted to embrace Brosnan way more back in the day and he rode that wave hard, even when the scripts and films were by-the-numbers. The acclaim Craig and SF are getting now is far superior to what Brosnan got at the time of hsi film's releases. Look at RT's numbers and IMDB. They don't mean everything but we can look and compare.

    Brosnan:
    GE-81% Fresh
    TND- 56% Rotten
    TWINE- 51% Rotten
    DAD- 57% Rotten

    Craig:
    CR- 95% Fresh
    QoS- 64% Fresh
    SF- currently 95% Fresh

    Craig has one less film, true but it's not even close. He crushes Brosnan (who has three Rotten films to one Fresh) and it compares to Connery's first three very well considering there aren't as many reviews for 60's films and critics are much more likely to look back on them with nostalgia's fuzzy eye. What's happening with Craig's run is real and right here in front of us; massive success on every level.
  • oo7oo7
    Posts: 1,068
    The_Reaper wrote:
    People wanted to embrace Brosnan way more back in the day and he rode that wave hard
    <object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6w6FV8P7HXg?version=3&hl=en_GB"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6w6FV8P7HXg?version=3&hl=en_GB"; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

  • Posts: 1,092
    Lol.
Sign In or Register to comment.