Is Craig reviving Connery's Golden-age of Bond?

2

Comments

  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,243
    The_Reaper wrote:
    I can understand the sentiment and I agree for the most part. It feels that way, much more than Brosnan's run. I don't think you can even compare the two with any fairness, not even with the passage of time factor coming into play. The 6 year gap was bigger, Dalton was less popular than Brosnan became when Craig took over... CR was a reboot, the odds were stacked higher againt Craig. He's blonde, people wanted Brosnan back, there was that danielcraigisnotbond website, etc.

    People wanted to embrace Brosnan way more back in the day and he rode that wave hard, even when the scripts and films were by-the-numbers. The acclaim Craig and SF are getting now is far superior to what Brosnan got at the time of hsi film's releases. Look at RT's numbers and IMDB. They don't mean everything but we can look and compare.

    Brosnan:
    GE-81% Fresh
    TND- 56% Rotten
    TWINE- 51% Rotten
    DAD- 57% Rotten

    Craig:
    CR- 95% Fresh
    QoS- 64% Fresh
    SF- currently 95% Fresh

    Craig has one less film, true but it's not even close. He crushes Brosnan (who has three Rotten films to one Fresh) and it compares to Connery's first three very well considering there aren't as many reviews for 60's films and critics are much more likely to look back on them with nostalgia's fuzzy eye. What's happening with Craig's run is real and right here in front of us; massive success on every level.

    Popularity is not always a barometer of quality in general. Craig's films though different prove what Dalton said to the producers years ago is correct. Parodying James Bond will always weaken the series. We are back now to an era where Bond films are not dumbed down and depth has returned.

    What they are doing for Craig in terms of scripts and supporting cast is what they should have done for Dalton. If Craig's first film was a hand me down unused Brosnan script then he would have had to compromise down his intentions.

    I thought Goldeneye was Brosnan's best though I rolled my eyes at the tacky Aston/Ferrari race scenes. They were out of place with the serious narrative of the movie.

    Also the Brosnan era proves that your legacy as Bond is not alone dependent on how many films you have done. An actor should have the his/her part defined from the outset. I think some fans assume that the third film milestone automatically transforms the actor into the ultimate Bond.

    And I will give Dalton credit. Though he did two films, he made the role his own and added new layers to the character. Whether we like it or not, he was his own man. That is James Bond. His Bond is controversial that to this day fans are talking about it like it was yesterday. Even hate of Dalton is an emotion that has worked to his advantage. If Moore's Bond was Duran Duran, then Dalton's was Marilyn Manson. He was in some ways too different yet ironically true to the real character. Some prefer the red pill and some prefer the blue as The Matrix film points out. Those who prefer the fantastical will always despise the real.

    And Craig's era was made possible by real world events where his Bond interpretation would be in line with where modern style film making and acting is going.

    Had 9/11 not happened, I may be wrong, but Brosnan would have continued as Bond. But as we all know, the world changed forever on that day and things would never be the same.

    Craig's Bond almost comes across like he did do a tour of duty in Iraq as well as Afghanistan. Not that it is implied but he has an ex-special forces style about him. And this is the Bond for the modern age that is necessary to protect the world.

  • The old series are DONE. Craig is someone other than Bond. Fantastic, but not what we grew up with. As for Specter and Blofield, please.... Those where the sixties, lets not be copycats
  • Posts: 1,092
    acoppola wrote:
    The_Reaper wrote:
    I can understand the sentiment and I agree for the most part. It feels that way, much more than Brosnan's run. I don't think you can even compare the two with any fairness, not even with the passage of time factor coming into play. The 6 year gap was bigger, Dalton was less popular than Brosnan became when Craig took over... CR was a reboot, the odds were stacked higher againt Craig. He's blonde, people wanted Brosnan back, there was that danielcraigisnotbond website, etc.

    People wanted to embrace Brosnan way more back in the day and he rode that wave hard, even when the scripts and films were by-the-numbers. The acclaim Craig and SF are getting now is far superior to what Brosnan got at the time of hsi film's releases. Look at RT's numbers and IMDB. They don't mean everything but we can look and compare.

    Brosnan:
    GE-81% Fresh
    TND- 56% Rotten
    TWINE- 51% Rotten
    DAD- 57% Rotten

    Craig:
    CR- 95% Fresh
    QoS- 64% Fresh
    SF- currently 95% Fresh

    Craig has one less film, true but it's not even close. He crushes Brosnan (who has three Rotten films to one Fresh) and it compares to Connery's first three very well considering there aren't as many reviews for 60's films and critics are much more likely to look back on them with nostalgia's fuzzy eye. What's happening with Craig's run is real and right here in front of us; massive success on every level.

    Had 9/11 not happened, I may be wrong, but Brosnan would have continued as Bond. But as we all know, the world changed forever on that day and things would never be the same.

    Craig's Bond almost comes across like he did do a tour of duty in Iraq as well as Afghanistan. Not that it is implied but he has an ex-special forces style about him. And this is the Bond for the modern age that is necessary to protect the world.

    Disagree about the 9/11 thing. DAD happened in 2002, after the fact. The huge success of Batman Begins and EON securing the rights to Casino Royale is why we got the reboot with Craig.

  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,243
    The_Reaper wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    The_Reaper wrote:
    I can understand the sentiment and I agree for the most part. It feels that way, much more than Brosnan's run. I don't think you can even compare the two with any fairness, not even with the passage of time factor coming into play. The 6 year gap was bigger, Dalton was less popular than Brosnan became when Craig took over... CR was a reboot, the odds were stacked higher againt Craig. He's blonde, people wanted Brosnan back, there was that danielcraigisnotbond website, etc.

    People wanted to embrace Brosnan way more back in the day and he rode that wave hard, even when the scripts and films were by-the-numbers. The acclaim Craig and SF are getting now is far superior to what Brosnan got at the time of hsi film's releases. Look at RT's numbers and IMDB. They don't mean everything but we can look and compare.

    Brosnan:
    GE-81% Fresh
    TND- 56% Rotten
    TWINE- 51% Rotten
    DAD- 57% Rotten

    Craig:
    CR- 95% Fresh
    QoS- 64% Fresh
    SF- currently 95% Fresh

    Craig has one less film, true but it's not even close. He crushes Brosnan (who has three Rotten films to one Fresh) and it compares to Connery's first three very well considering there aren't as many reviews for 60's films and critics are much more likely to look back on them with nostalgia's fuzzy eye. What's happening with Craig's run is real and right here in front of us; massive success on every level.

    Had 9/11 not happened, I may be wrong, but Brosnan would have continued as Bond. But as we all know, the world changed forever on that day and things would never be the same.

    Craig's Bond almost comes across like he did do a tour of duty in Iraq as well as Afghanistan. Not that it is implied but he has an ex-special forces style about him. And this is the Bond for the modern age that is necessary to protect the world.

    Disagree about the 9/11 thing. DAD happened in 2002, after the fact. The huge success of Batman Begins and EON securing the rights to Casino Royale is why we got the reboot with Craig.

    DAD was already in production so there was no time to change course despite 9/11 happening and the film was too out of step with real world events. They were also very focused on hitting the 40th anniversary deadline so production could not be delayed.

    But the film's negative reaction by fans had an impact on Eon's direction. Also Eon would never let go of a successful actor in the part that easily and Brosnan was established in the part no question. Something was up for sure.Moore was not replaced after Moonraker but given a better down to earth film to balance things out.

    Bourne also had an impact on the franchise which was before Batman. Audiences were tired of the fantastical which at the time was touted as classic Bond in terms of outlandish plots.
  • Posts: 1,092
    acoppola wrote:
    The_Reaper wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    The_Reaper wrote:
    I can understand the sentiment and I agree for the most part. It feels that way, much mo

    Had 9/11 not happened, I may be wrong, but Brosnan would have continued as Bond. But as we all know, the world changed forever on that day and things would never be the same.

    Craig's Bond almost comes across like he did do a tour of duty in Iraq as well as Afghanistan. Not that it is implied but he has an ex-special forces style about him. And this is the Bond for the modern age that is necessary to protect the world.

    Disagree about the 9/11 thing. DAD happened in 2002, after the fact. The huge success of Batman Begins and EON securing the rights to Casino Royale is why we got the reboot with Craig.

    DAD was already in production so there was no time to change course despite 9/11 happening and the film was too out of step with real world events. They were also very focused on hitting the 40th anniversary deadline so production could not be delayed.

    But the film's negative reaction by fans had an impact on Eon's direction. Also Eon would never let go of a successful actor in the part that easily and Brosnan was established in the part no question. Something was up for sure.Moore was not replaced after Moonraker but given a better down to earth film to balance things out.

    Bourne also had an impact on the franchise which was before Batman. Audiences were tired of the fantastical which at the time was touted as classic Bond in terms of outlandish plots.


    No doubt there are a lot of factors that contributed to the switch but I don't see the 9/11 thing at all.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,350
    It's also worth noting Casino Royale and it's direction was announced before Batman Begins was even released.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    edited November 2012 Posts: 4,417
    Looking at the box-office results, the Craig-era is the most successful since the seventies...
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,243
    The_Reaper wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    The_Reaper wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    The_Reaper wrote:
    I can understand the sentiment and I agree for the most part. It feels that way, much mo

    Had 9/11 not happened, I may be wrong, but Brosnan would have continued as Bond. But as we all know, the world changed forever on that day and things would never be the same.

    Craig's Bond almost comes across like he did do a tour of duty in Iraq as well as Afghanistan. Not that it is implied but he has an ex-special forces style about him. And this is the Bond for the modern age that is necessary to protect the world.

    Disagree about the 9/11 thing. DAD happened in 2002, after the fact. The huge success of Batman Begins and EON securing the rights to Casino Royale is why we got the reboot with Craig.

    DAD was already in production so there was no time to change course despite 9/11 happening and the film was too out of step with real world events. They were also very focused on hitting the 40th anniversary deadline so production could not be delayed.

    But the film's negative reaction by fans had an impact on Eon's direction. Also Eon would never let go of a successful actor in the part that easily and Brosnan was established in the part no question. Something was up for sure.Moore was not replaced after Moonraker but given a better down to earth film to balance things out.

    Bourne also had an impact on the franchise which was before Batman. Audiences were tired of the fantastical which at the time was touted as classic Bond in terms of outlandish plots.


    No doubt there are a lot of factors that contributed to the switch but I don't see the 9/11 thing at all.

    Watch the Everything Or Nothing documentary that came out recently. Barbara Broccoli even mentions the tragic event of 9/11 and how a flippant Bond would no longer be appropriate. And then she talks about the re-casting of Bond.

    Craig is blatantly a real world Bond adjusted to the realities of today. He suits the socio-political climate we have. His Bond is bleaker and suffers way more in the line of duty. I am not saying 9/11 is the only reason Craig was cast, but with the after effects of that event and the wars that are still going on, it makes sense.




  • Posts: 1,092
    I think people throw in 9/11 a lot to look important. Not saying you do but people think it makes them or their discussion relevant somehow. I'm sick of hearing about it. A wound never heals if you keep picking at it. Let's move on.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    The_Reaper wrote:
    I think people throw in 9/11 a lot to look important. Not saying you do but people think it makes them or their discussion relevant somehow. I'm sick of hearing about it. A wound never heals if you keep picking at it. Let's move on.

    It has nothing to do with opening a wound or to look important. But I know a lot of Americans and we talk about it. In fact, they always tell me to never forget. And it was a mega tragedy that cannot be ignored. I cannot pretend it never happened because then I can equally be seen as uncaring.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    acoppola wrote:
    I know a lot of Americans and we talk about it. In fact, they always tell me to never forget. And it was a mega tragedy that cannot be ignored. I cannot pretend it never happened because then I can equally be seen as uncaring.
    I'm American, I was 26 miles from it when it happened, my Brother in law was there on the spot to SEE it, and all I have to say is, it brought us into the world club... we can never forget, but that doesn't make us special. Yes it made the silly movie stuff less palatable, and yes, picking at it helps no one. Just my opinion.
  • DRESSED_TO_KILLDRESSED_TO_KILL Suspended
    Posts: 260
    CR had the magic because it followed the book and Flemings formula. It was realistic,serious. gritty and was to the point.

    It's really quite simple, follow Fleming's material and philosophy, add a few modern day necessities that go along with the current society and culture, and there ya go. A great bond film.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,119
    The_Reaper wrote:
    I think people throw in 9/11 a lot to look important. Not saying you do but people think it makes them or their discussion relevant somehow. I'm sick of hearing about it. A wound never heals if you keep picking at it. Let's move on.

    You can be sick about it, but 9/11 indeed had an influence on every element of western society, including movies. For about ten years, my country The Netherlands has had a far right wing government, supported by xenophobic, populist far right (and left) wing elements of society.

    Shortly after 9/11, Pim Fortuyn and his anti-muslim party LPF became big. He was on the rise and was tipped at becoming the new prime minister. A week before election day he got killed. It was the first political murder since William of Orange got killed in 1584. You see him on this portrait:

    Antonio_Moro_-_Willem_I_van_Nassau.jpg

    And it didn't stop there. Theo van Gogh got killed and other parties like Geert Wilders anti-muslim party PVV came on the rise. 10 years long, until the important re-allignment elections of September (Finally right-wing party VVD and left-wing party PvdA are forming a government, reminiscent of the liberal, compromise-government in Holland of the 1990's), The Netherlands was kidnapped by xenophobic and populist ideas about western society.

    So 9/11 had a profound effect on Dutch society. And I think my Norwegian, English and Spanish Bond fans know exactly what I am talking about.

    After seeing the documentary 'Everything Or Nothing' I know Barbara Broccoli is an emotional, but moreover an empathic human being. She understood that the Bond films had to re-adjust in order to look and feel credible and necessary. A 9/11-like terrorist attack on a big airliner on Miami Airport, a Bolivian dictator partially helped into power by the CIA and Dominic Greene, a Wikileaks-scandal of proportions initiated by Silva: I am happy we saw this happening in Craig's last three Bond films.

    James Bond is especially now more necessary than ever. Barbara and Michael know that. And I am happy we saw this kind of realism in the Bond films as well. It's really an exciting, but also more uncertain period in our lifetime, reminiscent of the Cold War period during the Connery-Bond films ('From Russia With Love', 'Thunderball', 'You Only Live Twice'...if only Ian Fleming was alive now).

    And indeed, I do think we need to move on. And we will exactly do that. But there's nothing wrong with realizing what history has done to us, to western society. The implications of 9/11 are profound, but it has made us more responsible about ourselves and others.

  • DRESSED_TO_KILLDRESSED_TO_KILL Suspended
    Posts: 260
    9/11 was a big inside job. The CIA is filthy and is insanely corrupt. John F Kennedy was planning on disbanding the entire CIA. Monthes before Kennedy's assassination he fired head director of CIA "Allen Dulles" and was going to completely bring the CIA to its knees. The united states government has been completely highjacked.

    If I am debating with someone over the
    "official" story of 9/11, and I ask them to
    explain how WTC 7 fell when no plane at all
    hit it and they dismiss that question, like I
    didn't even say it, is it wrong if I open hand
    slap them to bring them out of their cognitive
    dissonance?
  • Posts: 7,653
    Gustav that was a great comment, you did fail to mention, imho, the fact that there was a financial crisis that added to the blaming and like before even the Dutch are easy to point fingers to group they consider not quite up their ethnicity. So lets blame the foreigners especially those that want to keep their own culture and religion somewhat protected.

    9/11 was a wake-up call that the West you be aware that certain actions have consequences. As a result we went into the east and started some more unnessary wars that has even more destabilised a large region of the world. Most folks have little knowledge of a a large Islamitic part of Asia of which Afghanistan is not even a part.

    I think that the financial crisis in wake of 9/11 has far more devestating consequences, the fighting of a double war is for a lot of countries a big drain on resources that we very much need in our own part of the world.

    Imho Connery is the Golden century of 007ness, Sir Moore is the Glorious anything goes era of 007ness, Brosnan is the return to greatness of the 007ness, DC's era will be the new era until we get another 007 at work in which case we can accurately name his part in the franchise history.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 2,189
    As much as I'd like to move on from this 9/11 tangent, I'll first add my 2-cents.

    What happened on 9/11 didn't just change America, it changed the world and it's a very significant milestone in human history. That said, life goes on and we must try to live normal lives in spite of overwhelming adversity. As daunting as reality may seem to be in the wake of such events, culture shelters us and helps us move on with a healthy dose of escapism. For me, Bond has never been about exploring the reality of spying so much as he has been about providing a romanticized, ideological representation of what the spying business should be like.

    The Bourne films are similar because they illustrate a world where intelligence agencies are extraordinarily competent and thus make us feel safer in a post 9/11 world, but the fundamental different is that they fully embrace the gritty realism of that fateful day by channeling that angst into the film stile, the plot and above all the action.

    Bond films should always be fun, classy, sexy films which tackle the larger than life schemes of fictitious villains. As far as Bond is concerned, 9/11 is something which should be tied to a larger conspiracy through fictional groups like Quantum, because to admit that a small band of terrorists could pull off something so terrifying so easily cuts through the romantic zeitgeist of a Bond film. The main issue that we're facing here is that Bond has become obsolete in the post-Cold War world, and in order for him to seem relevant, larger fictional factions like Quantum and Specter must be created to keep him from becoming Jason Bourne.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,119
    I'd like to add some facts to the conclusion that ever since Craig was introduced as the new James Bond 007, a whole new era started. One that closed the timeline that was created in 1962 ('Dr. No') until 2002 ('Die Another Day') and that started a whole new timeline in 2006 ('Casino Royale'). Have a look!:

    During the Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan years certainly a new 'M', 'Q' or Moneypenny showed up without a clear introduction.

    THE FIRST BOND ERA (TIMELINE 1962 TILL 2002):

    Q was played by three actors from 1962 till 2002:
    --> Peter Burton ('Dr. No'),
    --> Desmond Llewelyn ('From Russia With Love' till 'The World Is Not Enough'...'Live And Let Die' excluded) and
    --> John Cleese (Weirdo 'R' in 'The World Is Not Enough' but properly Q in 'Die Another Day').

    Moneypenny was played by three actors from 1962 till 2002:
    --> Lois Maxwell ('Dr. No' till 'A View To A Kill')
    --> Caroline Bliss ('The Living Daylights' and 'Licence To Kill')
    --> Samantha Bond ('GoldenEye' till 'Die Another Day')

    M was played by three actors from 1962 till 2002:
    --> Bernard Lee ('Dr. No' till 'Moonraker')
    --> Robert Brown (Admiral Hargreaves in 'The Spy Who Loved Me' and 'M' from 'Octopussy' till 'Licence To Kill')
    --> Judi Dench ('GoldenEye' till 'Die Another Day')

    Then I'd like to point out that indeed the Craig-era is set in an entire new timeline, initiated by 'Casino Royale'. Even Judi Dench as 'M' must have forgotten about his own events in the Brosnan movies, as Bond is completely re-introduced. You see him being promoted to 007 as well.

    In that sense, both 'Casino Royale' and 'Skyfall' are unique, regarding the characters of James Bond, 'M', 'Q' and Miss Moneypenny.

    THE SECOND BOND ERA (TIMELINE 2006 ONWARDS):

    M re-introduced in a new timeline:
    --> Judi Dench (New 'M' introduced in 'Casino Royale', was 'M' till her death in 'Skyfall')
    --> Ralph Fiennes (New 'M' introduced in 'Skyfall')

    Moneypenny re-introduced in a new timeline:
    --> Naomie Harris (New Moneypenny re-introduced in 'Skyfall')

    Q re-introduced in a new timeline:
    --> Ben Whishaw (New 'Q' introduced in 'Skyfall')
  • Posts: 479
    I was initally very pessimistic about skyfall, but after seing it I fell in love with it. but i would like them to stop making MI6 staff so important in the storyline, we've had all that make it more of a bond film. He goes into M's office, gets mission briefing, flirts with moneypenny and recieves gadgets from Q, he goes off and does mission, that being said I would love for a three (or two) story arc to be made for Blofeld, leading to his final demise, but not every film having Blofeld as the main antagonist in and changing his appearance everytime as well (which means changing actor). We should end the character developmental stuff and I think that is what Mendes tried to do in Skyfall. I would love for some of the great actors of our time (Tom Hardy, Benedict Cumberbatch and Kevin Spacey) to play villains. just my opinion.
  • Now that I’ve seen Skyfall this question about the Craig-era reviving Sean’s Golden Age of Bond becomes a lot more interesting. By the end of the film we have the classic Bond set-up, Moneypenny as a playful secretary, M in a wooden office with leather padded doors, and Q giving Bond gadgets, albeit simple ones at first but at least it’s a start. This is what Bond always looked like, and we’ve finally gotten back to that essence structurally. What Skyfall also does however is set up a psychological template for returning to the old-style plots as well.

    When M is at the internal affairs meeting in SF, a government oversight board is questioning the need for the 00-section and criticizing M for still thinking we need human intelligence in the tech-heavy 21 Century methods of spying. The oversight board is taking the place of a critical viewer and saying that Bond is obsolete in today’s world. Then M counters with the notion that only someone like her who sees the raw intelligence actually knows what’s going on. That in the post-cold war era we’re not safer we’re more vulnerable because now our enemies are not nations and their armies but individuals and their ideas. People who live in the shadows are what are to be feared, people like Quantum, people like Blofeld. After SF, organizations like Quantum and Specter seem much more plausible and likely as Bond’s new enemy going forward, and that is the essence of the Golden Age of Bond.
  • Posts: 2,341
    In a word:NO.
    There is only one Golden age and that would be the 1960's. the first six films. When Bondmania was begun and at its height. Bond set the stage and ushered in new type of action film. Skyfall is very very good but unless you lived thru the 1960's you will never understand what it was like. That era will never be back.
  • OHMSS69 wrote:
    In a word:NO.
    There is only one Golden age and that would be the 1960's. the first six films. When Bondmania was begun and at its height. Bond set the stage and ushered in new type of action film. Skyfall is very very good but unless you lived thru the 1960's you will never understand what it was like. That era will never be back.

    Agreed, answer to question is NO. It's a good time for Bond but it'll never echo the original 60's releases.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 1,092
    After seeing SF there is no doubt in my mind this is another Golden Age or at least very close to one. I got chills when he stepped into M's office after flirting with Moneypenny and seeing Fiennes standing there, telling him "lots of work to do." So freaking awesome.

    What more do you want?

    They spent three full films, 6.5 hours of screen time and six years setting up this REINVENTION of the franchise; it's unprecedented for us, and impresses the hell out of me that they had to guts to do it this way. They were patient and exacting, even in the wake of the MGM mess and they knocked it outta the park IMO. Just wow all around. I've never been more excited to be a Bond fan.

    And looking at the BO numbers, SF is killing all around the world. The Grand total will beat TB by a lot I think, adjusted for inflation it has to top 900 mil and it should. If that isn't a 2nd Golden Age, I can't imagine what would be.
  • Personally, I think Craig is bringing back more of Fleming's Bond than anything else.
  • Posts: 1,092
    Personally, I think Craig is bringing back more of Fleming's Bond than anything else.

    And that's certainly a good thing. He's putting together what Dalton did but Craig's even better at it while doing his own thing. He's also got the best of Connery in his portrayal, the brutal, ruthless killer. Craig is amazing, fast becoming the best Bond ever, or at least my favorite. He's #2 right now, just a sliver behind Moore. If his next two are on the same level he will shoot straight to the top.
  • Yeah, Craig won me over with his first movie, and I've never looked back. His take on the character is far and away my favorite.
  • Posts: 1,452
    Yeah, Craig won me over with his first movie, and I've never looked back. His take on the character is far and away my favorite.

    I'm with you. I think Craig has been superb from day one, and seems to be only getting better.

    And no one can deny that his Bond is a huge hit with the general public and the critics.

    The Skyfall reviews, the overall public reaction, and the fantastic box office results, are inescapable proof that Craig has been embraced as Bond.

    If Craig continues on like this, I think his run as Bond (5 films perhaps more) will be the best ever, even surpassing Connery's golden days of DN, FRWL, GF and TB.

  • LicencedToKilt69007LicencedToKilt69007 Belgium, Wallonia
    Posts: 523
    Haha ! James Bond ! The only lonely man who can survive a tsunami ! lol

    To answer the question : Not really. Personally, I don't even think Craig can be compared to Sean, except for their manly side. If it is, it's more like tributing... Craig is closer to Dalton IMO, who reminded some Connery's acts.
  • Posts: 161
    Craig made me a fan from the first second of Casino Royale. It he first time since i was a kid watching Connery Bond's on tv that i wished i was his Bond. The Big Box office and critcal Accliam all land at Craig's feet he made Bond cool again.
  • I think in general Craig is reviving Bond.
  • Now that I’ve seen Skyfall this question about the Craig-era reviving Sean’s Golden Age of Bond becomes a lot more interesting. By the end of the film we have the classic Bond set-up, Moneypenny as a playful secretary, M in a wooden office with leather padded doors, and Q giving Bond gadgets, albeit simple ones at first but at least it’s a start. This is what Bond always looked like, and we’ve finally gotten back to that essence structurally. What Skyfall also does however is set up a psychological template for returning to the old-style plots as well.

    When M is at the internal affairs meeting in SF, a government oversight board is questioning the need for the 00-section and criticizing M for still thinking we need human intelligence in the tech-heavy 21 Century methods of spying. The oversight board is taking the place of a critical viewer and saying that Bond is obsolete in today’s world. Then M counters with the notion that only someone like her who sees the raw intelligence actually knows what’s going on. That in the post-cold war era we’re not safer we’re more vulnerable because now our enemies are not nations and their armies but individuals and their ideas. People who live in the shadows are what are to be feared, people like Quantum, people like Blofeld. After SF, organizations like Quantum and Specter seem much more plausible and likely as Bond’s new enemy going forward, and that is the essence of the Golden Age of Bond.

    I could not have said it better SirSeanIsBond ;-). In a way, 'M's speech in front of the hearing committee reminded me of the late Ian Fleming himself. Truly remarkable.

    Moreover, I think this '2nd Bond era', as we tend to call the Bond films starting with Daniel Craig as Bond, is original and creative too. Remember, when Cubby and Harry wanted to bring Bond to the cinemas, they did not have the creative freedom to slowly introduce agent 007 as we know him since 'Casino Royale'.

    On the contrary, Cubby and Harry had to pick the easiest Bond novel for their first Bond film. The Bond timeline from Fleming's novels was already in shambles back then (Why did Blofeld not recognize Bond in 'OHMSS'?). The first Bond film HAD to be an immediate financial success, otherwise Bond was dead already after 'Dr. No'. So in a way, ever since 1962, we never got the perfect introduction to Bond.

    That changed when 'Casino Royale' got into pre-production in 2004/2005. I was thrilled and excited. I restarted reading all Fleming novels in proper order of publication. And I knew.....Bond was not only reborn as a cinema icon, like back in 1995. No, Bond was reborn as a fully rounded Fleming character too.

    Me loves Bond :-).
Sign In or Register to comment.