Who Still Has a Difficult Time Getting Into Craig?

1235

Comments

  • edited October 21 Posts: 2,704
    I have to admit the more I look at Craig’s version - the more I ask myself just what it was that was “new” that he brought to the role. The “brutishness” was already seen in Connery - the ability to humanize the character was already seen in glimpses through Lazenby and Dalton’s portrayals - and the cold blooded ruthlessness was already on display in the Dalton films. It’s much easier to say that Craig was the first Bond to successfully blend those elements together but I don’t see how he revolutionized the part the way other people do.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 21 Posts: 19,434
    I don’t think he totally revolutionised it, no; for example he’s very much keeping up the tradition of the swaggering screen Bond, which Dalton dumped to his peril. He used a lot which had worked previously and added his own flavour and talent to it, and also did allow us to see a new side to Bond, that of the slightly more fallible and human one, who, as 007HallY pointed out, actually grows and matures across his films. It’s not a revolution, but it is an evolution, and cinema goers loved it.

    It's possible the next guy is more of a revolution, as time and society have moved on a little more, and hopefully the nostalgia which the last few films had a little too much of perhaps won't be playing such a big part.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    edited October 21 Posts: 4,845
    mtm wrote: »
    I think Craig's arc held merit until after Skyfall, and then when Craig entered M's old office again it seemed to suggest what many fans wanted could come true and we would be returning to simple mission-based adventures now that Bond had fully undergone his process of rejuvenation and finally left the past behind. The question is now that Craig has left can the new film finally deliver on that promise?

    A very simple fix to Spectre could have been that the mission to Mexico City was sanctioned by M. Even going as far as the folder given to Bond by M at the end of SF was to track Marco Sciarra.

    Now M could have been still upset about how it went, especially with the building destruction. However, M could ask Bond what he found out and he just takes the ring out of his pocket.

    Too many trust issues between Craig Bond and Fiennes's M between the start of SPECTRE until the bridge meeting in NTTD. That definitely hamstrung the last two movies.
    I must admit that sounds less interesting to me though. Lots of nice little moments gone if that happens, from Bond's flat right up to C confronting M with his surveillance on Moneypenny. Why would it make it stronger?

    The trouble with M scenes is that you have to have conflict in there, otherwise it's just boring exposition. With the Roger movies they added that conflict with Bond being a bit childish and popping some gags in there, but that doesn't work forever.

    The issue is that there seems to be a full on hatred for each other. Rather than some conflict but still have a sense of mutual respect for each other. Everything with C, Moneypenny, surveillance etc could remain.

    I know that there was some conflict between Bond and Mallory in Skyfall but that worked well in the context of the story. When he becomes the new M, its almost a given that mutual respect must take place.

    It all goes away when he grounds Bond like he's a child and has him tracked. Even goes further in NTTD during the phone call before going to Cuba and then the office scene back in London where they just trade verbal jabs with each other and each is disrespected in their own ways. Once trust is re-established towards the back half of the film, its way too late.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    edited October 21 Posts: 4,845
    Double post edit

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 21 Posts: 19,434
    mtm wrote: »
    I must admit that sounds less interesting to me though. Lots of nice little moments gone if that happens, from Bond's flat right up to C confronting M with his surveillance on Moneypenny. Why would it make it stronger?

    The trouble with M scenes is that you have to have conflict in there, otherwise it's just boring exposition. With the Roger movies they added that conflict with Bond being a bit childish and popping some gags in there, but that doesn't work forever.

    The issue is that there seems to be a full on hatred for each other. Rather than some conflict but still have a sense of mutual respect for each other. Everything with C, Moneypenny, surveillance etc could remain.

    I know that there was some conflict between Bond and Mallory in Skyfall but that worked well in the context of the story. When he becomes the new M, its almost a given that mutual respect must take place.

    It all goes away when he grounds Bond like he's a child and has him tracked. Even goes further in NTTD during the phone call before going to Cuba and then the office scene back in London where they just trade verbal jabs with each other and each is disrespected in their own ways. Once trust is re-established towards the back half of the film, its way too late.

    Not for me, I like that bit in the restaurant where it becomes clear that M trusts Bond to be doing his thing out in the desert, it's kind of rousing.
    And if Bond hadn't been doing his own thing in Mexico you couldn't still have C ambush M with it, no.
    He's still the new M and Bond is clearly still loyal to the late M; I think that adds an interesting dynamic in Spectre. And honestly, I thought when they had a full-on argument in NTTD, stripped of the niceties of rank, it was pretty electric stuff.
  • Posts: 2,485
    CR is pretty Bond-esque in my opinion, almost a prequel to Dr. No. The problem with Craig's Bond is that they tried to repeat the Casino Royale formula.

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 9,324
    CR is pretty Bond-esque in my opinion, almost a prequel to Dr. No. The problem with Craig's Bond is that they tried to repeat the Casino Royale formula.

    Yep.
  • Posts: 6,168
    mtm wrote: »
    I don’t think he totally revolutionised it, no; for example he’s very much keeping up the tradition of the swaggering screen Bond, which Dalton dumped to his peril. He used a lot which had worked previously and added his own flavour and talent to it, and also did allow us to see a new side to Bond, that of the slightly more fallible and human one, who, as 007HallY pointed out, actually grows and matures across his films. It’s not a revolution, but it is an evolution, and cinema goers loved it.

    It's possible the next guy is more of a revolution, as time and society have moved on a little more, and hopefully the nostalgia which the last few films had a little too much of perhaps won't be playing such a big part.

    Oh yeah, it’s all an evolution, but I think Craig’s Bond/era was a very significant shift from what came before.
  • When you look at the filmmaking techniques/style and the critical reception to the movies - yeah there is no doubt Craig’s era was a huge shift from what came before and I don’t think anyone will deny that - but from a storytelling point of view it was very much influenced as a whole by the likes of OHMSS and the Dalton flicks and you don’t need to look any further than the reappraisal of Dalton in recent years post Craig.

    I think the advantage that Craig’s era had over the likes of Lazenby and Dalton’s time in the role was more to do with timing and getting top tier talent in front of and behind the camera - and at least in the case of Lazenby - being a far better actor.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 6,172
    The Craig era was a success on many levels. It brought the gravitas and seriousness back to the series. The humour was used sparingly and was rather dry. Craig himself portrayed the character as a brutish person who eventually learned tact and stopped being a blunt instrument.

    The problem as I see it was that EON didn't have an arc in mind for the character. So Craig's Bond was often "stuck" on Vesper. In fact Vesper looms large in the movies starring Craig.

    QOS the movie was released while a writers strike had ground the script to a less than satisfactory place. This resulted in on set re-writes by Craig and Forester and was by their own admission not great.

    SF attempted to bring things back, but again we are faced with a Bond at a crossroads. This film seemed to be suggesting that Craig's Bond had aged out and was no longer capable.

    Once the rights to Blofeld and SP were retrieved it was decided to rush SP back into the Craig era AND to ham fit and retcon the previous films into an arc about SP and Blofeld. This being the time of personal stakes someone thought it was a good idea to have Bond and Blofeld linked in childhood.

    By the time of NTTD we now had quite a bit to work through and tie up including Vesper some 15 years on, or was it longer? Either way Craig's Bond never really showed an emotional arc.

    Did I have trouble with Craig's Bond and era? On the whole I would say no, however I do think the films are dotted with missed opportunities and wasted chances to show something great. I think EON attempted to do too much and with very little planning it didn't end well.

    Would I say the Craig films are my favourites? No, I can't say that. To me the films are uneven, I would argue that from CR it was downhill. Though I do enjoy SF and parts of NTTD.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 9,324
    I just hope Bond 26 doesn't follow the trend of going continuity heavy and try another origin story plotline. None of the aspects that make Bond appealing needed to be explained in much detail, it's part of what makes the character so enduring.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,870
    Did they really cast a blond bloke to play Bond??! That’s absolutely bonkers! I heard he can’t drive a stick shift either. Looks more like a henchman anyway.

    His hair colour never bothered me in the slightest :)
    mtm wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Edit: that's perhaps a bit severe, CR has various very Bondian moments. Probably what I don't really like about it is the brutish incarnation of Bond. The way he arrogantly orders the "Vesper", how he approaches Vesper during the game, it's not the elegant fellow I came to appreciate as the protagonist in my favourite film series.

    I completely see Bond there.

    Fair enough, mate. To each their own :)
    I just hope Bond 26 doesn't follow the trend of going continuity heavy and try another origin story plotline. None of the aspects that make Bond appealing needed to be explained in much detail, it's part of what makes the character so enduring.

    I agree. I've never been too crazy about origin stories. It demystifies the character(s) in question.
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited October 21 Posts: 789
    thedove wrote: »
    The problem as I see it was that EON didn't have an arc in mind for the character.

    You've hit the nail on the head there

    Although I do think they developed a desire to have some form of story arc fairly early on, the problem was that they never sat down together to map it out ahead, through to a conclusion, instead creating it piecemeal as they went along, which meant it was never very consistent or convincing.

    Although I can enjoy Craig-Bond movies, he will never be a favourite, because his personal issues always come to overshadow the mission, so for me the balance is wrong.
  • edited October 21 Posts: 1,205
    Daniel Craig is my least favourite actor to portray Bond, and NTTD is the only Bond movie I actually dislike, and QoS was a mess.
    And yet, all that said, I think the Craig era was a success, and he was actually magic on the screen. Weird, huh?
    People called the producers 'brave' for killing Bond off in NTTD. I don't think that was brave. I think the bravest thing they did was kick the franchise up the arse with Casino Royale, which is easily the best Craig Bond and one of the best in the series. I still say no two consecutive Bond films are as tonally diverse as DaD and CR.
    They played a blinder there. And I think they followed it up pretty admirably with Skyfall and SPECTRE, to a lesser extent.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 14,810
    Did they really cast a blond bloke to play Bond??! That’s absolutely bonkers! I heard he can’t drive a stick shift either. Looks more like a henchman anyway.
    And he can't fight.
  • Posts: 2,246
    I
    I just hope Bond 26 doesn't follow the trend of going continuity heavy and try another origin story plotline. None of the aspects that make Bond appealing needed to be explained in much detail, it's part of what makes the character so enduring.

    Agree. Going forward forget about the previous Bond actors and films. The only thing that needs to be established is he's a secret agent with a license to kill. I don't want to pretend he will one day become Sean Connery and all who follow. Or that he will eventually be blown up on an island. Nor do I want to see more bits and pieces of previous Bond stories. If you're going to do new, then do new.

    I liked Craig as Bond better than the stories. CR was great, but the films after were not as good.

    As I have said many times, an actor either is Bond or he is playing Bond. Anyone can look good in a tux. But not everyone owns it.
  • Posts: 6,168
    I honestly couldn’t care less about the next film having some sense of continuity (the early Connery films did) and I don’t think CR gave us ‘an origin story’. I’d also prefer if they developed each film individually even if it expands on something from the previous one. I prefer Bond to be written in an interesting way and have obstacles that keep me watching.

    The irony is for all the fan criticisms (which are a bit boring/shallow sometimes in my opinion, often with muddled memories of these films/what they contain) I can imagine the current team looking at Craig’s films for some inspiration, and they’ll be the closest reference for modern films. It won’t be the same, but I don’t think they’ll creatively shun what came before. It’s why I’ve predicted that quite a few here may not actually enjoy Bond 26 when it finally comes out, regardless of how successful it is.
  • Posts: 870
    mtm wrote: »
    It's possible the next guy is more of a revolution, as time and society have moved on a little more

    More of a revolution in what sense?
  • Posts: 750
    007HallY wrote: »
    The irony is for all the fan criticisms (which are a bit boring/shallow sometimes in my opinion, often with muddled memories of these films/what they contain) I can imagine the current team looking at Craig’s films for some inspiration, and they’ll be the closest reference for modern films. It won’t be the same, but I don’t think they’ll creatively shun what came before. It’s why I’ve predicted that quite a few here may not actually enjoy Bond 26 when it finally comes out, regardless of how successful it is.
    I mean, despite how much of a broken record some people can definitely be, I think there are valid weaknesses that I would hope the series doesn't repeat. I feel like we deal too much in absolutes here, it's either scrap everything that was done last 20 years and make Moonraker 2, or everything about Craig era was good and they should just do Skyfall 3, when I feel what will really happen is somewhere in between. My hope is that it feels fresh and yet still scratching that itch of the familiar, which IS the feeling movies like Casino Royale and Skyfall achieved for me (but not so much the rest).
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,870
    007HallY wrote: »
    The irony is for all the fan criticisms (which are a bit boring/shallow sometimes in my opinion, often with muddled memories of these films/what they contain) I can imagine the current team looking at Craig’s films for some inspiration, and they’ll be the closest reference for modern films. It won’t be the same, but I don’t think they’ll creatively shun what came before. It’s why I’ve predicted that quite a few here may not actually enjoy Bond 26 when it finally comes out, regardless of how successful it is.
    I mean, despite how much of a broken record some people can definitely be, I think there are valid weaknesses that I would hope the series doesn't repeat. I feel like we deal too much in absolutes here, it's either scrap everything that was done last 20 years and make Moonraker 2, or everything about Craig era was good and they should just do Skyfall 3, when I feel what will really happen is somewhere in between. My hope is that it feels fresh and yet still scratching that itch of the familiar, which IS the feeling movies like Casino Royale and Skyfall achieved for me (but not so much the rest).

    This is a comment I really appreciate. As much as I may not be the biggest fan of the latest era (and that's all relative anyway, I love SP and I think CR and QOS are both excellent), I think there are several things that have certainly been done very well. That doesn't mean we can't point out valid criticisms either. I'd say finding that middle ground would be a fairly good approach to go forward. Which is a tricky thing for sure.

    Finally, I'd like to point out there's also the question of whether or not some directions may appeal to some people's tastes or not, these matters do not have rights or wrongs as far as I'm concerned. I will never state my personal preferences as the only way to go, though that doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to express them.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 19,434
    I think the advantage that Craig’s era had over the likes of Lazenby and Dalton’s time in the role was more to do with timing and getting top tier talent in front of and behind the camera - and at least in the case of Lazenby - being a far better actor.

    Yes that's fair, almost everyone involved was more talented and the results showed that. I'd probably say Craig is a better actor than Dalton too to be honest
    mtm wrote: »
    It's possible the next guy is more of a revolution, as time and society have moved on a little more

    More of a revolution in what sense?

    I don’t know, I haven’t seen it yet! :)
  • Posts: 2,704
    mtm wrote: »
    I think the advantage that Craig’s era had over the likes of Lazenby and Dalton’s time in the role was more to do with timing and getting top tier talent in front of and behind the camera - and at least in the case of Lazenby - being a far better actor.

    Yes that's fair, almost everyone involved was more talented and the results showed that. I'd probably say Craig is a better actor than Dalton too to be honest

    Yeah perhaps when you consider work outside the series - but imo Dalton is the better Bond than Craig.
  • Posts: 6,168
    007HallY wrote: »
    The irony is for all the fan criticisms (which are a bit boring/shallow sometimes in my opinion, often with muddled memories of these films/what they contain) I can imagine the current team looking at Craig’s films for some inspiration, and they’ll be the closest reference for modern films. It won’t be the same, but I don’t think they’ll creatively shun what came before. It’s why I’ve predicted that quite a few here may not actually enjoy Bond 26 when it finally comes out, regardless of how successful it is.
    I mean, despite how much of a broken record some people can definitely be, I think there are valid weaknesses that I would hope the series doesn't repeat. I feel like we deal too much in absolutes here, it's either scrap everything that was done last 20 years and make Moonraker 2, or everything about Craig era was good and they should just do Skyfall 3, when I feel what will really happen is somewhere in between. My hope is that it feels fresh and yet still scratching that itch of the familiar, which IS the feeling movies like Casino Royale and Skyfall achieved for me (but not so much the rest).

    Yes, they’ll want something fresh, but at the same time I don’t think this is a full on course correction film.

    There are definitely valid criticisms of Craig’s films (I have many), but they can be very broken record-y and a bit shallow I feel sometimes. As you said we’re not getting a Moonraker 2 (or indeed a repeat of any film/era) and like any other franchise Bond is always evolving and reinventing itself. If fundamentally someone has issues with Bond films having even minor continuity or the character personal obstacles, then there is a risk the next film/era might go against those ‘rules’ unfortunately. Same for very basic story beats like Bond going rogue or the past returning.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited 9:51am Posts: 19,434
    mtm wrote: »
    I think the advantage that Craig’s era had over the likes of Lazenby and Dalton’s time in the role was more to do with timing and getting top tier talent in front of and behind the camera - and at least in the case of Lazenby - being a far better actor.

    Yes that's fair, almost everyone involved was more talented and the results showed that. I'd probably say Craig is a better actor than Dalton too to be honest

    Yeah perhaps when you consider work outside the series - but imo Dalton is the better Bond than Craig.

    I'd go the other way around, not least because he took some of what worked before as you were mentioning, and used it to make his version even stronger, whereas Dalton tried to reinvent it and it fell a bit flat, but it's all subjective.
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    The irony is for all the fan criticisms (which are a bit boring/shallow sometimes in my opinion, often with muddled memories of these films/what they contain) I can imagine the current team looking at Craig’s films for some inspiration, and they’ll be the closest reference for modern films. It won’t be the same, but I don’t think they’ll creatively shun what came before. It’s why I’ve predicted that quite a few here may not actually enjoy Bond 26 when it finally comes out, regardless of how successful it is.
    I mean, despite how much of a broken record some people can definitely be, I think there are valid weaknesses that I would hope the series doesn't repeat. I feel like we deal too much in absolutes here, it's either scrap everything that was done last 20 years and make Moonraker 2, or everything about Craig era was good and they should just do Skyfall 3, when I feel what will really happen is somewhere in between. My hope is that it feels fresh and yet still scratching that itch of the familiar, which IS the feeling movies like Casino Royale and Skyfall achieved for me (but not so much the rest).

    Yes, they’ll want something fresh, but at the same time I don’t think this is a full on course correction film.

    There are definitely valid criticisms of Craig’s films (I have many), but they can be very broken record-y and a bit shallow I feel sometimes. As you said we’re not getting a Moonraker 2 (or indeed a repeat of any film/era) and like any other franchise Bond is always evolving and reinventing itself. If fundamentally someone has issues with Bond films having even minor continuity or the character personal obstacles, then there is a risk the next film/era might go against those ‘rules’ unfortunately. Same for very basic story beats like Bond going rogue or the past returning.

    Yeah, I don't think we'll be looking at a film which is utterly unlike the last five or so tonally, but it can still feel fresh.
    I know it's not the same thing, but I think First Light is already an example of that. Tonally it looks to be in the same sort of more-or-less 'realistic' world that the Craig films were in and with pretty much the same sensibilities, and yet with a totally new approach to the main character and supporting cast. I feel like Villeneuve is likely to be even more bold in some ways with a more distinctive voice, and yet probably still recognisably in the same world.
    In terms of story beats, 'spectres from the past returning' is probably a little unlikely to be used as that has been used up a bit, but more general ones like Bond being headstrong and doing his own thing, or him being doublecrossed or betrayed, are pretty likely to turn up just because they're pretty much part of him as a character. He is his own man and does what he wants (that's why we like him!!!); he's also a spy and spies get betrayed every now and then, it's just the genre.
  • edited 10:16am Posts: 6,168
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I think the advantage that Craig’s era had over the likes of Lazenby and Dalton’s time in the role was more to do with timing and getting top tier talent in front of and behind the camera - and at least in the case of Lazenby - being a far better actor.

    Yes that's fair, almost everyone involved was more talented and the results showed that. I'd probably say Craig is a better actor than Dalton too to be honest

    Yeah perhaps when you consider work outside the series - but imo Dalton is the better Bond than Craig.

    I'd go the other way around, not least because he took some of what worked before as you were mentioning, and used it to make his version even stronger, whereas Dalton tried to reinvent it and it fell a bit flat, but it's all subjective.
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    The irony is for all the fan criticisms (which are a bit boring/shallow sometimes in my opinion, often with muddled memories of these films/what they contain) I can imagine the current team looking at Craig’s films for some inspiration, and they’ll be the closest reference for modern films. It won’t be the same, but I don’t think they’ll creatively shun what came before. It’s why I’ve predicted that quite a few here may not actually enjoy Bond 26 when it finally comes out, regardless of how successful it is.
    I mean, despite how much of a broken record some people can definitely be, I think there are valid weaknesses that I would hope the series doesn't repeat. I feel like we deal too much in absolutes here, it's either scrap everything that was done last 20 years and make Moonraker 2, or everything about Craig era was good and they should just do Skyfall 3, when I feel what will really happen is somewhere in between. My hope is that it feels fresh and yet still scratching that itch of the familiar, which IS the feeling movies like Casino Royale and Skyfall achieved for me (but not so much the rest).

    Yes, they’ll want something fresh, but at the same time I don’t think this is a full on course correction film.

    There are definitely valid criticisms of Craig’s films (I have many), but they can be very broken record-y and a bit shallow I feel sometimes. As you said we’re not getting a Moonraker 2 (or indeed a repeat of any film/era) and like any other franchise Bond is always evolving and reinventing itself. If fundamentally someone has issues with Bond films having even minor continuity or the character personal obstacles, then there is a risk the next film/era might go against those ‘rules’ unfortunately. Same for very basic story beats like Bond going rogue or the past returning.

    Yeah, I don't think we'll be looking at a film which is utterly unlike the last five or so tonally, but it can still feel fresh.
    I know it's not the same thing, but I think First Light is already an example of that. Tonally it looks to be in the same sort of more-or-less 'realistic' world that the Craig films were in and with pretty much the same sensibilities, and yet with a totally new approach to the main character and supporting cast. I feel like Villeneuve is likely to be even more bold in some ways with a more distinctive voice, and yet probably still recognisably in the same world.
    In terms of story beats, 'spectres from the past returning' is probably a little unlikely to be used as that has been used up a bit, but more general ones like Bond being headstrong and doing his own thing, or him being doublecrossed or betrayed, are pretty likely to turn up just because they're pretty much part of him as a character. He is his own man and does what he wants (that's why we like him!!!); he's also a spy and spies get betrayed every now and then, it's just the genre.

    I’d say something or someone from the past returning is quite a general story beat too, and it’s been there in GE, TND, TWINE, DAD, SF, SP, and NTTD in some form (obviously not in the same ways, but the theme is there, often with the spin of ‘ghosts’ or someone thought dead returning. It’s such a big theme it can be done in countless ways).

    Otherwise I agree. First Light to me looks influenced by the recent films to some extent. They even go further in detailing Bond’s past, and it seems to be about a headstrong version of Bond much like the one in CR. May even be something about spectres returning in there!

    Ultimately Bond’s a formulaic series which will use similar story beats from adventure to adventure. It’s more likely we’ll see new twists on these ideas rather than defaulting to some sort of generic by the numbers adventure (even in the Craig era we got SF using similar story beats to TWINE but doing something different with them. Perfectly fine I’d say).
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 742
    I would have go with Cavill in 05 and he still could play the part ten + years.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 6,172
    I do wonder or am curious why the Connery era was called out in the announcement of Denis as the director? I loved some of the continuity in DN-FRWL and then how the SP villains got bigger as the films wore on. The character of Bond remained consistent but the storylines were tied together somewhat. You didn't need to have seen DN to understand FRWL but it added to the enjoyment.

  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,681
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    The irony is for all the fan criticisms (which are a bit boring/shallow sometimes in my opinion, often with muddled memories of these films/what they contain) I can imagine the current team looking at Craig’s films for some inspiration, and they’ll be the closest reference for modern films. It won’t be the same, but I don’t think they’ll creatively shun what came before. It’s why I’ve predicted that quite a few here may not actually enjoy Bond 26 when it finally comes out, regardless of how successful it is.
    I mean, despite how much of a broken record some people can definitely be, I think there are valid weaknesses that I would hope the series doesn't repeat. I feel like we deal too much in absolutes here, it's either scrap everything that was done last 20 years and make Moonraker 2, or everything about Craig era was good and they should just do Skyfall 3, when I feel what will really happen is somewhere in between. My hope is that it feels fresh and yet still scratching that itch of the familiar, which IS the feeling movies like Casino Royale and Skyfall achieved for me (but not so much the rest).

    Yes, they’ll want something fresh, but at the same time I don’t think this is a full on course correction film.

    There are definitely valid criticisms of Craig’s films (I have many), but they can be very broken record-y and a bit shallow I feel sometimes. As you said we’re not getting a Moonraker 2 (or indeed a repeat of any film/era) and like any other franchise Bond is always evolving and reinventing itself. If fundamentally someone has issues with Bond films having even minor continuity or the character personal obstacles, then there is a risk the next film/era might go against those ‘rules’ unfortunately. Same for very basic story beats like Bond going rogue or the past returning.

    I agree.

    What Craig brought to the role might have been similar to Lazenby and Dalton (as had been stated by a previous poster), BUT...neither of them (especially Lazenby) had the acting chops that Craig has. I am still in awe of his performance in CR, especially the scene after the stairwell fight, where Bond is on the verge of tears, trying to gather himself. We've never seen THAT. And Craig doesn't make it corny or sappy; it's so real.

    Furthermore, nobody physically put himself into the role as much as Craig, and I am pretty sure that that will be the new standard for every Bond hereafter.

    I love the fact that Craig's era was most deeply connected to Jungian psychology, something Fleming was actually interested in. For example, the use of mirrors and reflections are widely used in his five films, more so than any others--based on some quick and not quite thorough research I have done. The first kill in the PTS of CR set up this symbolism. And I am also fascinated with how the motif of life/death was handled in these films.

    There was considerable risk-taking in the Craig era. For some that paid off; for others, not so much. It didn't all work. So much of SP and NTTD was contrived. But I have to say, overall, I truly appreciated the effort.


  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,932
    Gotta admit, as we approach the 20th anniversary I think I do have nostalgic feelings for the Craig era, particularly CR and SF being the highlights. I’m excited to see any new Bond film, but those two were next level. Seeing the franchise being reinvigorated in 2006 was quite something. His films are the reasons I became the fan I am today. I’m ready and intrigued to see the next era, but I’ll be surprised if it ever has the same impact on me.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,870
    TripAces wrote: »
    What Craig brought to the role might have been similar to Lazenby and Dalton (as had been stated by a previous poster), BUT...neither of them (especially Lazenby) had the acting chops that Craig has.

    Afraid I can't agree with that, I'd say there is are subtleties in Dalton's performances that few actors I have seen can manage. Not taking anything away from Craig, who I think is also a very good actor. I'd say they are on the same level.

Sign In or Register to comment.