› ›

The DANIEL CRAIG Appreciation thread - Discuss His Life, His Career, His Bond Films

1…177178179180181183»

Comments

  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,520
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    While I loved the Craig era (except QoS worst Bond film of all time) I felt like there was no middle to his story arc. You had the beginning of Bonds career with CR and QoS then they immediately went right to the end of his career with SF, SP, NTTD. If there was a movie in between QoS and SF that showed Bond in the prime of his career not nearing the end or being burned out then I felt the story arc would have made more sense.

    I don't think the producers really thought it through as to a story arc.

    The idea to have Bond a washed up wreck in SF was an odd one 3 films in, but it suited the story they wanted to do.

    SP tried to tie all the previous films together with Blofeld being behind everything, which was a ridiculously contrived concept. NTTD at least followed on logically from SP as a story arc.

    Personally i think QoS is a cracking Bond film..

    SF was a great film and it was my favorite of the Craigs but it was odd to have him as a washed up wreck 3 films in. If QoS wasn't a direct sequel to CR maybe it would have made more sense.

    SF should have been Craigs GF where it sanded alone and didn't tie into the other films.

    I do consider SF the only 'standalone' Craig film. Retroactively connecting a later film with SF means nothing to me. Silva wasn't working for SPECTRE when it was made. It would be like Goldfinger being mentioned as an agent in the SPECTRE meeting in Thunderball. It doesn't wash.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 19,369
    Why do folks need the films to not be connected to the others? Does Number1 mentioning Dr No in FRWL make it a bad film or something?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited 4:15pm Posts: 9,299
    mtm wrote: »
    Why do folks need the films to not be connected to the others? Does Number1 mentioning Dr No in FRWL make it a bad film or something?

    Well, if the connection is that small, no, I doubt many would have a problem. A little wink reference is probably fine TBH.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited 4:27pm Posts: 6,114
    I mean, Silva being a SPECTRE agent is arguably smaller than the Dr No thing in FRWL. At least from what I remember. Although it feels a lot more purposeful in FRWL just because No explicitly said he was a SPECTRE agent, and SPECTRE enact their plan in part to avenge him.

    I don't care too much. Silva always felt more a lone wolf, and I agree if they were retrospectively making him a SPECTRE agent they could have more neatly integrated it into the story.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 19,369
    But what's the problem if it's more than that?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited 4:46pm Posts: 9,299
    mtm wrote: »
    But what's the problem if it's more than that?

    If you mean more than that then why not use an example of what you actually mean?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited 5:16pm Posts: 19,369
    I'm asking what the problem is. It's fine if you don't have an answer.

    Anyway, I like these things:

  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    edited 5:23pm Posts: 12,877
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    While I loved the Craig era (except QoS worst Bond film of all time) I felt like there was no middle to his story arc. You had the beginning of Bonds career with CR and QoS then they immediately went right to the end of his career with SF, SP, NTTD. If there was a movie in between QoS and SF that showed Bond in the prime of his career not nearing the end or being burned out then I felt the story arc would have made more sense.

    I don't think the producers really thought it through as to a story arc.

    The idea to have Bond a washed up wreck in SF was an odd one 3 films in, but it suited the story they wanted to do.

    SP tried to tie all the previous films together with Blofeld being behind everything, which was a ridiculously contrived concept. NTTD at least followed on logically from SP as a story arc.

    Personally i think QoS is a cracking Bond film..

    SF was a great film and it was my favorite of the Craigs but it was odd to have him as a washed up wreck 3 films in. If QoS wasn't a direct sequel to CR maybe it would have made more sense.

    SF should have been Craigs GF where it sanded alone and didn't tie into the other films.

    I do consider SF the only 'standalone' Craig film. Retroactively connecting a later film with SF means nothing to me. Silva wasn't working for SPECTRE when it was made. It would be like Goldfinger being mentioned as an agent in the SPECTRE meeting in Thunderball. It doesn't wash.

    Shouldn’t CR count as standalone as well by default as the first? I see that and SF as the Craig films that work 100% well as standalones - and not coincidentally my favorite ones. I’m not totally opposed to more heavy continuity (DN to FRWL does not constitute that IMO), but when it’s applied retroactively it irks me. Regardless, fully standalone films are more audience-friendly for newcomers and typically make for more rewatchable flicks.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 9,299
    mtm wrote: »
    I'm asking what the problem is. It's fine if you don't have an answer.

    Anyway, I like these things:


    Well, no, I don't have an answer because I don't know what you're asking. No worries.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited 6:04pm Posts: 19,369
    FoxRox wrote: »
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    While I loved the Craig era (except QoS worst Bond film of all time) I felt like there was no middle to his story arc. You had the beginning of Bonds career with CR and QoS then they immediately went right to the end of his career with SF, SP, NTTD. If there was a movie in between QoS and SF that showed Bond in the prime of his career not nearing the end or being burned out then I felt the story arc would have made more sense.

    I don't think the producers really thought it through as to a story arc.

    The idea to have Bond a washed up wreck in SF was an odd one 3 films in, but it suited the story they wanted to do.

    SP tried to tie all the previous films together with Blofeld being behind everything, which was a ridiculously contrived concept. NTTD at least followed on logically from SP as a story arc.

    Personally i think QoS is a cracking Bond film..

    SF was a great film and it was my favorite of the Craigs but it was odd to have him as a washed up wreck 3 films in. If QoS wasn't a direct sequel to CR maybe it would have made more sense.

    SF should have been Craigs GF where it sanded alone and didn't tie into the other films.

    I do consider SF the only 'standalone' Craig film. Retroactively connecting a later film with SF means nothing to me. Silva wasn't working for SPECTRE when it was made. It would be like Goldfinger being mentioned as an agent in the SPECTRE meeting in Thunderball. It doesn't wash.

    Shouldn’t CR count as standalone as well by default as the first? I see that and SF as the Craig films that work 100% well as standalones - and not coincidentally my favorite ones. I’m not totally opposed to more heavy continuity (DN to FRWL does not constitute that IMO), but when it’s applied retroactively it irks me. Regardless, fully standalone films are more audience-friendly for newcomers and typically make for more rewatchable flicks.

    I guess so, no one seems to complain about the rewatchability of Empire Strikes Back or the like though.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 9,299
    I guess so.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited 6:05pm Posts: 19,369
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I'm asking what the problem is. It's fine if you don't have an answer.

    Anyway, I like these things:


    Well, no, I don't have an answer because I don't know what you're asking. No worries.

    I don't get why you're being so aggressive and weird about it; you literally said that people wouldn't have a problem if it were only a little wink, so you must have had something bigger than that in mind that they do have a problem with. So the question was: what is the problem with that larger-than-a-wink thing you were thinking of?
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 6,114
    mtm wrote: »
    I'm asking what the problem is. It's fine if you don't have an answer.

    Anyway, I like these things:


    That transition from Bond falling during the Cuba sequence to the one in QOS was smooth. That's a nicely edited montage.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,898
    mtm wrote: »
    Something to make you feel old- 20 years ago today:

    Daniel Craig confirmed as 006th screen Bond

    God that makes me feel old, it feels like just yesterday. He was a brilliant Bond

    It's crazy to think in the last 20 years we've only had 5 Bond films
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 6,114
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Something to make you feel old- 20 years ago today:

    Daniel Craig confirmed as 006th screen Bond

    God that makes me feel old, it feels like just yesterday. He was a brilliant Bond

    It's crazy to think in the last 20 years we've only had 5 Bond films

    Yep. Blame MGM, Amazon, Covid, and Danny Boyle for that I suppose.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,783
    mtm wrote: »
    I'm asking what the problem is. It's fine if you don't have an answer.

    Anyway, I like these things:


    Thanks @mtm , now I feel like an old fart, 😂.

    Thanks for posting. Love these things too. Reminds us of all the history this series has.
Sign In or Register to comment.