It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
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.
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.
Yep.
Oh yeah, it’s all an evolution, but I think Craig’s Bond/era was a very significant shift from what came before.
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.
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.
His hair colour never bothered me in the slightest :)
Fair enough, mate. To each their own :)
I agree. I've never been too crazy about origin stories. It demystifies the character(s) in question.
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.
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.
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.
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.
More of a revolution in what sense?
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.
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
I don’t know, I haven’t seen it yet! :)
Yeah perhaps when you consider work outside the series - but imo Dalton is the better Bond than Craig.
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'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.
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).
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.
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.