› ›

Who Still Has a Difficult Time Getting Into Craig?

12345679»

Comments

  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited November 3 Posts: 3,386
    slide_99 wrote: »
    I still feel that Craig's tenure is actually two different ones, CR-QOS and SF-NTTD. Even with SP's retcons, I cannot reconcile the character we see in CR/QOS with the one in SF-NTTD. Not only does Bond seem like a completely different person, but the world he inhabits also seems completely different. CR/QOS seems like Bond in the "real world' whereas SF-NTTD feels more like a "what if" fantasy.
    Agree, completely. With hindsight, 007HallY's right that SF sort of bridges the gap in a way, but it's far closer to SP than it is to QOS. The gulf between QOS and SF is so stark that slide's comment about Bond seeming like a different person is bang on the money (IMO, obvs). He doesn't seem like the Bond of QOS with four years' additional experience, he seems like a different man. Even if there was an unspoken time jump in SF that's much longer than the four years between the actual films, I'm still not convinced that I'm looking at an older QOSBond in the SF PTS. Not sure how it would've been 'superfluous' to make more films where the character of Bond is as great as he is in CR and QOS either, tbf - the more great Bond films, the better, no? I'll always regret that EON stepped back onto a safer path after QOS.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited November 3 Posts: 8,940
    I’ll never understand folks that equate CR with QOS as if they’re so similar. They’re not. They’re stylistically opposed to each other in so many ways it’s why I cannot accept QOS as a continuation of CR. One feels like a Bond film, the other feels like a trashy actioner that wouldn’t be out of place in Gerard Butler’s filmography.

    If the films kept going in the faux gritty Bourne style after QOS I probably would have dropped out.
    Venutius wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    I still feel that Craig's tenure is actually two different ones, CR-QOS and SF-NTTD. Even with SP's retcons, I cannot reconcile the character we see in CR/QOS with the one in SF-NTTD. Not only does Bond seem like a completely different person, but the world he inhabits also seems completely different. CR/QOS seems like Bond in the "real world' whereas SF-NTTD feels more like a "what if" fantasy.
    Agree, completely. With hindsight, 007HallY's right that SF sort of bridges the gap in a way, but it's far closer to SP than it is to QOS. The gulf between QOS and SF is so stark that slide's comment about Bond seeming like a different person is bang on the money (IMO, obvs). He doesn't seem like the Bond of QOS with four years' additional experience, he seems like a different man. Even if there was an unspoken time jump in SF that's much longer than the four years between the actual films, I'm still not convinced that I'm looking at an older QOSBond in the SF PTS. Not sure how it would've been 'superfluous' to make more films as great as CR and QOS either, tbf - the more great Bond films, the better, no? I'll always regret that EON stepped back onto a safer path after QOS.

    Mendes basically gave us the Bond that was promised at the end of CR, rather than the regressed character we saw in QOS. This is especially true of SP, like how Bond shows up at Lucia’s home killing two assassins. THAT right there felt like the Bond promised at the end of CR.

    QOS was rightfully discarded.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited November 3 Posts: 3,386
    Did you have any doubt that you were watching the same character in both CR and QOS, though, Makeshift? And would you really not have wanted, say, three standalone mission films with Bond at the absolute top of his game before we got to the is-Bond-past-it theme of SF?
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited November 3 Posts: 6,261
    Venutius wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    I still feel that Craig's tenure is actually two different ones, CR-QOS and SF-NTTD. Even with SP's retcons, I cannot reconcile the character we see in CR/QOS with the one in SF-NTTD. Not only does Bond seem like a completely different person, but the world he inhabits also seems completely different. CR/QOS seems like Bond in the "real world' whereas SF-NTTD feels more like a "what if" fantasy.
    Agree, completely. With hindsight, 007HallY's right that SF sort of bridges the gap in a way, but it's far closer to SP than it is to QOS. The gulf between QOS and SF is so stark that slide's comment about Bond seeming like a different person is bang on the money (IMO, obvs). He doesn't seem like the Bond of QOS with four years' additional experience, he seems like a different man. Even if there was an unspoken time jump in SF that's much longer than the four years between the actual films, I'm still not convinced that I'm looking at an older QOSBond in the SF PTS. Not sure how it would've been 'superfluous' to make more films as great as CR and QOS either, tbf - the more great Bond films, the better, no? I'll always regret that EON stepped back onto a safer path after QOS.

    I mean superfluous in the sense there would be no point in retreading what came before with a different story. QOS was very different to CR, and what followed later had to be different too. I think if we'd gotten a Bond film along the lines of the Blood Stone video game it wouldn't have reaped the most creative or financial rewards. At any rate I'd prefer one great Bond film - SF in this case - over two extra middling entries in Craig's era.

    I wouldn't describe SF as 'safe' either. It's not unlike CR in the sense it slowly reintroduced those classic 'Bond' elements I guess, albeit in a recontextualised way. But a lot of the story/character choices are quite brave for a Bond film.

    Genuinely interested, why don't you believe Bond in SF's PTS is a slightly older version of the one in QOS or CR? I don't see any major differences personally beyond what he goes through. It's an argument I've never been convinced by as no one seems to give specifics!


    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    I’ll never understand folks that equate CR with QOS as if they’re so similar. They’re not. They’re stylistically opposed to each other in so many ways it’s why I cannot accept QOS as a continuation of CR. One feels like a Bond film, the other feels like a trashy actioner that wouldn’t be out of place in Gerard Butler’s filmography.

    If the films kept going in the faux gritty Bourne style after QOS I probably would have dropped out.
    Venutius wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    I still feel that Craig's tenure is actually two different ones, CR-QOS and SF-NTTD. Even with SP's retcons, I cannot reconcile the character we see in CR/QOS with the one in SF-NTTD. Not only does Bond seem like a completely different person, but the world he inhabits also seems completely different. CR/QOS seems like Bond in the "real world' whereas SF-NTTD feels more like a "what if" fantasy.
    Agree, completely. With hindsight, 007HallY's right that SF sort of bridges the gap in a way, but it's far closer to SP than it is to QOS. The gulf between QOS and SF is so stark that slide's comment about Bond seeming like a different person is bang on the money (IMO, obvs). He doesn't seem like the Bond of QOS with four years' additional experience, he seems like a different man. Even if there was an unspoken time jump in SF that's much longer than the four years between the actual films, I'm still not convinced that I'm looking at an older QOSBond in the SF PTS. Not sure how it would've been 'superfluous' to make more films as great as CR and QOS either, tbf - the more great Bond films, the better, no? I'll always regret that EON stepped back onto a safer path after QOS.

    Mendes basically gave us the Bond that was promised at the end of CR, rather than the regressed character we saw in QOS. This is especially true of SP, like how Bond shows up at Lucia’s home killing two assassins. THAT right there felt like the Bond promised at the end of CR.

    QOS was rightfully discarded.

    I'm not as harsh on QOS, but I can understand it's this strange outlier in Craig's films. For all the complaints that it's too 'gritty' it never feels as real as CR for me. In that film we saw Bond cleaning himself up after fight, drowning whiskey, wincing to the point of tears while patching his wounds, and of course winding up in hospital. There are some genuinely great moments in QOS which show Bond as human, but action sequence wise the guy's a terminator! It nullifies a bit of tension that could have been there with this film unfortunately. At least SP leans into the idea that Bond is back on top form after his experiences in SF.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,940
    Venutius wrote: »
    Did you have any doubt that you were watching the same character in both films, though, Makeshift?

    CR ended with Bond standing victoriously over White with strong assuredness and satisfaction. That’s completely done away with in the beginning of QOS. So no, I don’t really see QOS being all that compatible with CR in terms of style or character.
    And would you really not have wanted, say, three standalone mission films with Bond at the absolute top of his game before we got to the is-Bond-past-it theme of SF?

    Maybe one standalone instead of QOS would have been nice, but there had been six years between CR and SF, and the latter is SO bloody good that I’m perfectly fine with jumping ahead. Besides, the whole point of SF is that he is NOT past it. That’s something M, Mallory, and Silva each ask (for different reasons), but the answer is Bond is still on top of it, and SP plays that up even more.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited November 3 Posts: 6,261
    I like that they continued the story of Bond investigating 'Quantum'. To me it feels like Fleming where he vows to return and take on SMERSH after Vesper's death. I can also understand the creative instinct to wrap up the plot thread of Vesper's boyfriend. For better or worse CR has a lot of unanswered questions in its final act (not that QOS always gives answers to them in a satisfactory way!) In QOS's defence I like that they didn't make it a revenge story either, or have Bond be emotionally incapacitated by Vesper's death. At any rate I've never much seen CR, or the Craig era in general, films about Bond 'becoming Bond' as much as they were an overview of his life. So I can take the end of CR for what it is without anything in QOS jarring with that character-wise. Stylistically is another story though.

    I think it would have been worth putting some distance between CR and QOS. Have it be a few months later and give us a better PTS with Bond investigating some sort of lead on Quantum (ironically maybe something a bit more like SP's PTS! the car chase we get in QOS isn't great). I think there's a great Bond film in there, but it's struggling to get out. Anyway, if QOS's creative shortcomings gave us SF, I suppose I can't complain.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 19,523
    Venutius wrote: »
    Did you have any doubt that you were watching the same character in both CR and QOS, though, Makeshift? And would you really not have wanted, say, three standalone mission films with Bond at the absolute top of his game before we got to the is-Bond-past-it theme of SF?

    I've never felt that Bond is a different character in SF to CR; can I ask what makes you feel that? He seems to react to things in a very similar way to me. He's maturing certainly, by SP he's more comfortable in his own skin, playful at times even, but I don't see that as being a different person.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited November 3 Posts: 6,261
    I always see similarities in SF’s PTS to the Madagascar chase in CR. You’ve got Bond going against a skilled opponent he can just about keep up with, but uses brute force and his instincts to navigate things (ie. in both chases we see him commandeering construction vehicles to try and gain the upper hand). The only difference is Bond gets shot twice in SF’s PTS, and yet is still able to take on Patrice, even punching him to the ground with his bad/wounded arm.

    The major difference I suppose is Bond’s reactions to his fellow agents. He seemed much fonder of Robson than Carter.
Sign In or Register to comment.