Daniel Craig Era in Retrospect:What does he mean to you.

12346»

Comments

  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    Craig is solid but unlike brosnan and moore he seems to cater more to feminists and the PC crowd by not shagging more than 1 girl and with all those minorities in bond since skyfall,

    I want a bad boy as bond, Cavill is conservative, 6"1,muscular, good age, the bondian looks, the acting is mediocre but i think it's enough to carry bond. nobody acts anymore anyways those days are long gone!

    Craig is a great bond overall tho!

    Exactly. I love Craig's bond, after Dalton and Connery he is at my 3rd favorite and his film are in top 3 for me but i don't like it whenever he cater to Feminists as well. Sadly that's the world we live in now.
  • Okay, where do I start. I respect Craig as an actor, however his overall era has been very hit and miss with me. Casino Royale was a masterpiece, an absolute 10/10 film for me, while I prefer films like FRWL, OHMSS, and Goldeneye, Casino Royale is something else entirely, and manages to stand on its own outside the series. Quantum of Solace has never been a favorite of mine; I think it’s an interesting idea in concept, but the execution was completely sloppy. Following up Casino Royale was always going to be a challenge, but in a year where films like The Dark Knight, and Iron Man blew everyone away, Quantum felt very underwhelming. I don’t think all the behind the scenes production issues helped as well. It’s a film that I’ve only ever been able to sit down and watch from beginning to end maybe 2x-3x times, that’s not to say I don’t like elements of the film, loved Camille Montes, I thought Craig gave a great performance, but weak villains, poor editing, and a weak villain plot doesn’t do the film any favors. I like Skyfall, I think it’s a tad bit overrated however. I don’t put that film in my Top 10 Bond films list. I’m not too big on the whole “is 007 irrelevant” theme, because 50 years of the franchise has already answered that question. However I liked the M subplot, Silva is a fantastic villain (even if elements of his overall plot seem a bit convoluted), and I love the reintroduction’s of Moneypenny and Q. Ralph Fiennes is a fantastic M as well, even if I’d put Bernard Lee, and Judi Dench above him. The ending is perfect as well. SPECTRE was a film I really loved the first time I saw it, but that opinion quickly changed after I thought more, and more about the film. It now sits near the bottom of my overall rankings for the series. The return of Blofeld was poorly handled (I don’t want/need to go into the Brothers angle), Madeleine is a weak Bond girl, and I don’t buy for a second that Bond fell in love with her, Andrew Scott was alright, as was Dave Bautista, but the climax was such a let down. I also don’t like the bigger role of the MI6 regulars in the film, I think the nickname of the “Scooby Gang” perfectly fits them. I thought Craig was great, probably his best performance as Bond, and I loved the fact they placed the gun barrel where it belongs. I’m also thankful they wrapped up the character of Mr. White. I’m not too interested in No Time To Die, the various behind the scenes troubles/rumors as well as what I’ve seen of the film so far have not done any favors for me. I could be wrong however, but I’m not in much of a rush to see the film to be frank, and I’m worried that it’ll become the latest victim in the whole “Culture Wars” debate that has crept into films these days. To sum up my issues on the Craig era, I’m sick and tired of the need to “drastically shake things up” with this particular era of the franchise. Casino Royale was amazing, there’s no denying that, but the emotional storytelling aspect that Craig’s films feel the need to explore is what drags them down for me. It’s fine to bring serious/emotional stakes into the films, OHMSS, LTK, and Casino Royale proved that, but the Craig era has just overused that aspect so much that it’s become tiring. Every film after Casino Royale has felt the need to add some “personal stakes” to Bond’s character in one way or the other, and if you ask me, the reason the Bond films have gone on for as long as they have was because they were lighthearted fun. You didn’t go into a film like The Spy Who Loved Me or Goldfinger expecting some big personal stakes for Bond. You went in for the pure fantastical lighthearted aspects of it, and that’s why those films work. To go on a tangent, I find it so hilarious that people dismiss Brosnan’s Bond for being held under crappy films, and that’s certainly true to an extent (despite my love for The World is Not Enough), but the difference is you can at least have fun with the Brosnan Bond films because they weren’t pretending to be something else other than what they were. The same can not be said for the Craig era. The Craig era tries so hard to be something more than the typical Bond film, and that’s why half of those films fall flat for me, it’s as if EON feels ashamed that something like Austin Powers came along and made a cliche of the Bond films, when if anything, Austin Powers was made as a love letter to the goofy fantastical nature of the Classic Bond’s. I’m also under the impression that Craig is sick and tired of his association with the Bond franchise. Roger Moore did 7 films back to back, and not once made petty comments about “rather slitting his wrists then play Bond again”, not even Connery, who by all accounts was very much angered and annoyed with his association by the time of YOLT, made idiotic statements like that after that film. The most ironic thing about that was just how much of a bigger stake EON gave Craig in the production of the films, when if you ask me, he doesn’t deserve it, especially after his “slit wrists” comments. Any actor would be lucky to land that role, and with Craig I feel like he thinks he too good for the franchise, when it was the franchise that made him the superstar he is today. Not to mention, if you were going to ask me where I’d rank him alongside the other Bond’s, I’d put him below Connery, Brosnan, and Moore. Hell if Dalton and Lazenby had gotten more films, they’d probably rank above Craig as well, but in the interest of being fair, I won’t do that to Craig. Like I said I think he’s a good actor, but his “I’m too good for this franchise” mentality, as well as the hit and miss quality of his films does not make me look at his era with fondness.
  • iamurospiamurosp Belgrade, Serbia
    edited December 2020 Posts: 12
    Oh, boy...
    Yes, Brosnan's era missed some opportunities, but so did Craig's!
    I LOVE his Bond and I don't mind the rebooted timeline (but I do have a problem with references to exploding pens and ejector seat in Skyfall!), the only thing I don't like about his era is - WHY ONLY FIVE MOVIES IN.. 14-15 YEARS??! He's excellent as Bond and they started well with 2 years between CR and QoS (at a cost, but still..) , but then 4, then 3 and now 5.5 . . . Damn it!
    DAMN IT!!!
    And out of the released four, I'd keep just CR, QoS and Spectre. Skyfall bores me to tears. Spectre has issues, but at least it's not so dramatic. I'd just turn back time to 2011 and not let Sam Mendes direct Bond.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,251
    First three of Craig’s have spots in my top ten. I’ve never had issues with QoS’s villain; Greene is perfectly lizard-like, with what I feel was a small-man complex (he seemed awfully angry with the women in his life, and seemingly jealous of the men he encountered. He can bully the General only because of the organization he works for, not because of the man he is. By the end he’s like a psychotic rat in a corner and wildly dangerous with that axe).

    Spectre was a huge let down with the lead actor functioning on a mangled knee that was given the band-aid treatment during shooting, and a bigger op. after. The script was just a mess with too many chefs in the kitchen.

    I expect NTTD to be a big bounce-back from the last film.

    Personally I find Craig to be a special and unique talent;
    He’s physical, yet can unleash soft and tender moments. Intuitively, I think he “feels” the lone-wolf vibe of James Bond, The Orphan secret agent.

  • He's had a patchy, uneven run. However, he's given nothing but great performances. Casino Royale gave the series the jolt it needed after the disgusting misfire that was Die Another Day. It's a shame we didn't get more films from him; his tenure has been beset with production issues and delays. He's going to be extremely difficult to replace. It would be a crying shame if we got another Brosnan type actor after Craig's portrayal of Bond. He's breathed life into a character very close to my heart.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    He's had a patchy, uneven run. However, he's given nothing but great performances. Casino Royale gave the series the jolt it needed after the disgusting misfire that was Die Another Day. It's a shame we didn't get more films from him; his tenure has been beset with production issues and delays. He's going to be extremely difficult to replace. It would be a crying shame if we got another Brosnan type actor after Craig's portrayal of Bond. He's breathed life into a character very close to my heart.

    I like Craig's bond but he did the same thing Dalton and Lazenby did, played more down to earth, real and vulnerable bond, only difference is, he did it on a much larger scale and worked with more A-listed actor's, cinematographer, directors, and composers which might has given a bigger impact to general audience compare to other two bond's.
  • Posts: 12,506
    A cementing of the Bond franchising for the future. Certainly a tough act to follow!
  • Posts: 9,730
    peter wrote: »
    I know how my Dad felt when Connery resigned the role.

    Devastated.

    I agree Craig's tenure was great though I am not a fan of Skyfall and Spectre I place the blame at Mendes Craig was always great
  • Depending on how NTTD is, Craig’s run will likely be the best since Connery’s in my eyes (though obviously Lazenby and Dalton aren’t fair to compare). Casino is a stone cold classic of course, Quantum of Solace I really enjoy as well and think it gets a bad shake, and Skyfall is very, very good and just has a few flaws that keep it out of my top 5. Spectre however is one of my least favorites of the whole series; dull action (train fight aside), disappointing and silly (in a bad way) plot, and a thick blanket of beige covering all the beautiful locations making them feel like they’re the same place. So right now he’s 3/4, and I have a good feeling that NTTD will be a return to form after Spectre.

    I grew up while Brosnan was Bond, but he never quite felt like “my” Bond since I watched a lot more of the Connery and Moore entries as a kid, and only saw DAD in theaters. With Craig’s tenure I got to join the fun from the beginning of the ride, and vividly and fondly remember seeing Casino Royale in the theaters and being completely blown away. I’ll be a bit sad to see Craig go but I think he’s left a legacy to be proud of and am excited, if a bit nervous, to see how the franchise carries on without him.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Well, first and foremost Craig is an excellent actor, but...I don't know what it is about him, whether it's his voice, the 'cut of his jib' or whatever, I can't say as I have ever taken to him.

    That being said, CR is a classic. SF is very good. QOS was a huge letdown on every level, and SP pretty much the same.

    The good things about his era- It has attracted A list actors for villains, and top quality behind the scenes in terms of directors, DOP's ect. It also seems to have pushed Bond firmly back to the top of pop culture in a way that we haven't seen (apart from a brief jump with Goldeneye) since the middle of Roger Moore's tenure.

    The bad things about his era- Huge delays in production and release schedule, admittedly not all his fault, but he has to shoulder some blame. Some unnecessary melodrama, cleverly disguised as depth. As much as Brosnan's era felt like a lot of box ticking, Craig's has gone the other way, and tried too hard to avoid some of the tropes which a lot of Bond fans expect, such as the Gunbarrel at the beginning..

    Overall, his era gets a thumbs up, but I haven't seen it as some second Golden Age of Bond, as some on here have.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    He's had a patchy, uneven run. However, he's given nothing but great performances. Casino Royale gave the series the jolt it needed after the disgusting misfire that was Die Another Day. It's a shame we didn't get more films from him; his tenure has been beset with production issues and delays. He's going to be extremely difficult to replace. It would be a crying shame if we got another Brosnan type actor after Craig's portrayal of Bond. He's breathed life into a character very close to my heart.

    I like Craig's bond but he did the same thing Dalton and Lazenby did, played more down to earth, real and vulnerable bond, only difference is, he did it on a much larger scale and worked with more A-listed actor's, cinematographer, directors, and composers which might has given a bigger impact to general audience compare to other two bond's.

    @Resurrection I agree with this. It's often a critique levelled at Brosnan, that he was an amalgamation of Moore and Connery, but Craig has essentially done the same. Albeit with the the two 'other fella's'.

    That's not a criticism, mind. There aren't really any fresh angles left, to look at the character. All the next actor can do is try to put a spin on what has gone before, and make it work for himself.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited January 2021 Posts: 4,043
    Craig blows Brosnan out of the water as an actor, also Craig did what Dalton would have liked to have done if he'd been more relaxed as a cinematic actor.

    Dalton has his moments but consistently leaves him standing, apart from not being as convincing in SPECTRE, he looks bored sometimes.

    Though from the moment he says "yes considerably" that was it, here was an actor that carried himself with confidence from the get go, we hadn't seen that since Sean.

    Even Roger had to find his feet and get confident being Bond, it took him his 3rd film to play the Bond that cemented him.

    So I don't buy this idea that Craig was surrounded by more creative types, he is a bloody good actor period and others might have had a go at that tortured lone wolf type but Craig was the one that convinced the most.

    I'll miss his subtlety, I think we'll lose that with the next person and we'll get it played more in your face.

    I don't want to see another Bond tribute act with an actor not feeling confident in the role or by his own admission never nailing the part like Pierce.

    It is all about treating it like a part and not getting awed at the responsibility, Brosnan definitely came across like he was acting and not being natural, Roger could do that idea of Bond, Pierce just looked awkward.

    Craig just treated it like another role and set out to do a good job, the fact he got down to it with all the negative press around him and delivered what he did, is a testament to his era.

    I'll miss Craig a great deal but he is leaving on his terms and I think he'll leave like no other actor in the role has before with a utterly cracking swansong.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,251
    Couldnt have said it better!
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    I'm hoping Craig will have a good swansong. His era, to me, has been a mixed bag just like his predeccessor's time was. I do hope his fifth film tips the scale towards there being more good films than disappointing ones. I like Craig in the part, and I hope he gets a deserved sendoff and we can then move on to something fresh and different.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,370
    I'm hoping Craig will have a good swansong. His era, to me, has been a mixed bag just like his predeccessor's time was. I do hope his fifth film tips the scale towards there being more good films than disappointing ones. I like Craig in the part, and I hope he gets a deserved sendoff and we can then move on to something fresh and different.

    I feel the same way. NTTD is going to be the main deciding factor for me in whether his era was more good than bad or vice versa.
  • Posts: 7,653
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    A cementing of the Bond franchising for the future. Certainly a tough act to follow!

    Which is what most 007 actors did for the future, so he lived up to his peers. :!!
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'm hoping Craig will have a good swansong. His era, to me, has been a mixed bag just like his predeccessor's time was. I do hope his fifth film tips the scale towards there being more good films than disappointing ones. I like Craig in the part, and I hope he gets a deserved sendoff and we can then move on to something fresh and different.

    I feel the same way. NTTD is going to be the main deciding factor for me in whether his era was more good than bad or vice versa.

    Yep. The unavoidable gaps have tainted things somewhat as well, though that is of no fault of Craig or the filmmakers of course. I hope that, with all the experimenting that they have done during the Craig era, that they have learned from any mistakes that were made.

  • MalloryMallory Do mosquitoes have friends?
    Posts: 2,035
    When Casino Royale came out I was 15, and at that precarious time going through teenage-hood and starting to shake out into a more mature teen.

    To see that maturity and seriousness, that comes with going through that age, reflected in my favourite on screen hero, was just fantastic, and has more than shaped the kind of person I am, and the likes and dislikes I now have a as a 29 year old.

    To see a Bond seriously engage in relationships, actions that have consequences, to have serious responsibilities placed upon him. And the films to treat that seriously.

    So to me, DC marks that maturity into adulthood for me.

    I am going to miss him greatly. The films have been inconsistent, but the single through line is him. Whoever follows, has an extremely difficult task.
  • Posts: 1,879
    Mallory wrote: »
    When Casino Royale came out I was 15, and at that precarious time going through teenage-hood and starting to shake out into a more mature teen.

    To see that maturity and seriousness, that comes with going through that age, reflected in my favourite on screen hero, was just fantastic, and has more than shaped the kind of person I am, and the likes and dislikes I now have a as a 29 year old.

    To see a Bond seriously engage in relationships, actions that have consequences, to have serious responsibilities placed upon him. And the films to treat that seriously.

    So to me, DC marks that maturity into adulthood for me.

    I am going to miss him greatly. The films have been inconsistent, but the single through line is him. Whoever follows, has an extremely difficult task.

    Great post. I enjoy reading about how the series has been a part of fans' lives. It will be interesting to see how the future pans out for yourself. Bond is something that can transcend generations.

    My own personal Bond series story is that Moore began filming LALD the same time I began kindergarten and his final film, AVTAK, came out in the U.S. exactly one week before I graduated high school. Although Moore isn't my favorite Bond actor, it's a fun connection to consider he was Bond throughout my school career.
  • edited January 2021 Posts: 3,272
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Well, first and foremost Craig is an excellent actor, but...I don't know what it is about him, whether it's his voice, the 'cut of his jib' or whatever, I can't say as I have ever taken to him.

    That being said, CR is a classic. SF is very good. QOS was a huge letdown on every level, and SP pretty much the same.

    The good things about his era- It has attracted A list actors for villains, and top quality behind the scenes in terms of directors, DOP's ect. It also seems to have pushed Bond firmly back to the top of pop culture in a way that we haven't seen (apart from a brief jump with Goldeneye) since the middle of Roger Moore's tenure.

    The bad things about his era- Huge delays in production and release schedule, admittedly not all his fault, but he has to shoulder some blame. Some unnecessary melodrama, cleverly disguised as depth. As much as Brosnan's era felt like a lot of box ticking, Craig's has gone the other way, and tried too hard to avoid some of the tropes which a lot of Bond fans expect, such as the Gunbarrel at the beginning..

    Overall, his era gets a thumbs up, but I haven't seen it as some second Golden Age of Bond, as some on here have.

    Yes I agree with pretty much all of this. I do think Craig carried a swagger and confidence that we hadn't seen since Connery and Lazenby, and managed to also convey more depths to the character that we hadn't seen since Dalton (although I prefer Dalton's portrayal overall).

    But for me his reign will be decided by NTTD. If it gives him a great swansong, then for me his era will be remembered as having a brilliant start with CR, and a great ending, but with a mixed bag in-between. I don't particularly like what Mendes did with his 2 films, even though I appreciate SF for what he tried to do with that film.

    If NTTD brings us more of the same that we saw in SP, then I'm afraid the Craig era for me will be defined as another missed opportunity, that sadly showed great promise with his debut film but then was a let-down overall.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    Roadphill wrote: »
    He's had a patchy, uneven run. However, he's given nothing but great performances. Casino Royale gave the series the jolt it needed after the disgusting misfire that was Die Another Day. It's a shame we didn't get more films from him; his tenure has been beset with production issues and delays. He's going to be extremely difficult to replace. It would be a crying shame if we got another Brosnan type actor after Craig's portrayal of Bond. He's breathed life into a character very close to my heart.

    I like Craig's bond but he did the same thing Dalton and Lazenby did, played more down to earth, real and vulnerable bond, only difference is, he did it on a much larger scale and worked with more A-listed actor's, cinematographer, directors, and composers which might has given a bigger impact to general audience compare to other two bond's.

    @Resurrection I agree with this. It's often a critique levelled at Brosnan, that he was an amalgamation of Moore and Connery, but Craig has essentially done the same. Albeit with the the two 'other fella's'.

    That's not a criticism, mind. There aren't really any fresh angles left, to look at the character. All the next actor can do is try to put a spin on what has gone before, and make it work for himself.

    Exactly, Craig is a phenomenal actor,i would even say best bond actor of the series, but his portray has a lot of similarities with Lazenby and Dalton, he also had an advantage of getting CR as his first film and making a film on 50th anniversary. That being said, CR is still 3rd in my ranking and SF on 7th position, so if NTTD turned out to be great, Craig will be remembered as someone equals to Connery bond film's.
  • __M____M__ MidwestUSA
    Posts: 9
    What does it mean to me? The first time since Timothy Dalton that the Franchise took Fleming seriously.
  • quantumspectrequantumspectre argentina
    edited October 2021 Posts: 61
    being that even my avatar is from his era, to me daniel craig era was in personal level more dramatic, and the stakes were always high. i dont remember a bad movie of 007 with daniel craig(i am yet to see no time to die) but to me the tone, the action and the style was really good.this comes from someone who started watching pierce brosnan 007 in cinemas, before craig take his time.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited October 2021 Posts: 12,459
    I will write more later. Just to say that Craig's films mean a lot to me.
    He gave us a new world, new Bond that was so real, gritty, vulnerable, and always ALWAYS compelling. I like some of his films more than others, but I do actually like and enjoy all his films. I rate CR and SF very highly and now NTTD has joined that group. I love his portrayal of Bond. I like that his entire tenure really covers his whole story arc. I am so glad his Bond is part of the canon now. We have many different kinds of Bond films. Daniel gave us a lot that was fresh, different, pulsatingly real. I still have other favorite films, but yes Daniel Craig as Bond has been very rewarding and enriching for me, as an older fan (since 1971).
  • Posts: 2,400
    Everything.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Everything.

    Better make that two!
  • EinoRistoSiniahoEinoRistoSiniaho Oulu, Finland
    edited October 2021 Posts: 73
    I became a Bond fan in tender age of 8, when Happy Anniversary 007 special was shown in the Finnish telly during summer 1987. The first Bond movie I saw in its entirety was Goldfinger on my 9th birthday.
    To me Daniel Craig's era was the Second Golden Age - the first being 1962-1969. Craig probably was the greatest actor ever to play the character, and closest to what Ian Fleming wrote. Some say Dalton was, but to me only took the moodiness of Fleming's character without the irony. In my personal ranking Craig shares the notion of being the best Bond with Connery.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Everything.

    And to you, @ShakenNotStirred ? Nothing?
  • My favourite Bond actor by a distance. Great actor. Hope he gets an Oscar nomination at minimum.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 23,102
    NTTD saved the DC era for me.
Sign In or Register to comment.