Where does Bond go after Craig?

1735736737739741

Comments

  • edited March 29 Posts: 4,920
    I'd probably use the term 'fatalistic' rather than 'nihilistic' to describe these aspects of the Craig films. There's more than a tinge of it in Fleming and many of the previous Bond films too (I guess it's kinda vital to these stories - the villains will always be evil and get defeated, Bond will always be drawn back into the line of duty etc). That in itself probably has nuances but I think that's the distinction. I don't think Bond is inherently a nihilistic character - even his 'live for the moment' mentality is framed through this idea of 'The proper function of man is to live, not to exist' as the beginning of his epithet goes, and he certainly has a higher duty to his country and displays a sense of morality, even if his job involves killing people (although worth saying they're always framed as 'bad people' in these stories, even with their nuances).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 29 Posts: 17,594
    Yes, Bond is not nihilistic, in the books or films. He may veer towards the downbeat and slightly gloomy at times, but he's loyal and moralistic, which is the opposite of nihilism. The films themselves aren't nihilistic either: he dies for the most important thing in his life.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited March 29 Posts: 8,778

    On a larger note, I’ve noticed a lot of push-back against any attempts to criticize Craig’s tenure by fans of his era - most of which is done with a sort of “smugness” to imply that the people criticizing those films don’t know what they’re talking about. I can understand being annoyed at hearing your favorite films criticized - but the Craig era is 4 years behind us. If some folks are unable to accept that some people had issues with the films then they’re truly lost - as it paints them as people who are unable to accept that other people have differing opinions than they do - and ultimately kind of makes them look like jerks in the end when they have to resort to acting smug to get their point across.

    Post of the year. =D>

    Nobody is smug whilst defending Rogers use of stuntdoubles, or Brosnans pain face, either you are able to poke fun at those aspects, or they just don't bother you. It can be aggravating when it seems that absolute everything to be with Craigs entries, including some of the dodgy performance moments are retroactively viewed as some kind of bold, inspired choice by the filmmakers. Sometimes filmmakers just make gaffes, there's a lot of risk that goes along with creativity, and no one gets it right all the time. If SPECTRE had returned for Die Another Day and it turned out Bond and Blofeld were brothers I know many diehard Bond fans would be citing it as poor parody level writing, but because it happened during the Craig era it's suddenly a interesting take that perhaps wasn't given enough time in the oven to reach its potential? People lambast the love scene dialogue between Bond and Elektra/Paris for how hammy and melodramatic it is played, and call it poor, trite, soap opera level, but then legitimately become emotional over Craig's and Madelines soppy dialogue in B25 that sounds like a teenager wrote it.
  • edited March 29 Posts: 4,920
    To be fair I'm pretty sure a lot of people here who like the Craig films still criticise things like the Blofeld subplot in SP and aspects of NTTD. As well as a number of other things. I do certainly. It's also worth saying that certain ideas can be done better or worse (insofar as it depends on the viewer's opinion/reaction to the film) in different films. And we can all disagree about the reasoning behind what we like/don't like in Bond movies. This nihilism topic is an example! It's not the fact that it's an argument critiquing the Craig films but that the logic of the argument is one that some other people here don't see as being the case or fully convincing when presented. It's definitely the sort of point that can have counter view points - regardless of how any of us feel about the Craig films - and I'd say justifiably so. It's a nuanced point of disagreement when discussing these films. But I understand that we can all get a bit too invested in these arguments sometimes! That's the nature of spending time on these forums.
  • NoTimeToLiveNoTimeToLive Jamaica
    edited March 29 Posts: 135
    If SPECTRE had returned for Die Another Day and it turned out Bond and Blofeld were brothers I know many diehard Bond fans would be citing it as poor parody level writing, but because it happened during the Craig era it's suddenly a interesting take that perhaps wasn't given enough time in the oven to reach its potential?

    First time I hear this. Even SP's biggest fans criticise the Brofield reveal, I've never seen anyone defend it ever since the movie came out.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,594
    Also, don't plenty of people think that DAD also had quite a few elements which didn't come off that well but could have been interesting/more successful with a different treatment? Nothing wrong with thinking that either, why are we trying to police which opinions are acceptable and which aren't? Just because someone doesn't like the Craig doesn't mean everyone else has to agree.
  • edited March 29 Posts: 2,466
    You can disagree about something and be civil about it. The discourse surrounding Craig’s tenure is a bit more extreme than that - so much so to where I actively despise talking about these movies sometimes because I don’t want to trigger someone who likes those films! It doesn’t help that no longer do people say “Well I disagree for these reasons but I can see where you’re coming from and can respect your opinion.” Instead most criticism is met with “You’re fundamentally misinterpreting the themes and ideas of the film so therefore your opinion is wrong” as if to put an objective meaning to art, which is utterly pointless.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,594
    Is this about the nihilism thing? I'm not seeing where anyone wasn't civil about it. I mean, you accused BMB of looking for a gotcha moment, but apart from that everyone is just talking about the assertion.
  • mtm wrote: »
    Is this about the nihilism thing? I'm not seeing where anyone wasn't civil about it. I mean, you accused BMB of looking for a gotcha moment, but apart from that everyone is just talking about the assertion.

    Because he was looking for a “gotcha” moment. Otherwise he wouldn’t felt the need to single out my opinion and continue pushing back against it. So yeah I called that out.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 29 Posts: 17,594
    Well, in your opinion. I don't see that at all: you raised a point and someone disagreed with it, it's what happens on forums.
    For me a 'gotcha moment' is where person 1 is sort of lured into saying something by person 2, then person 2 reveals they'd set a bit of a trap for person 1 and person 1 has said something which undermines or contradicts their original point and made them look a bit silly. But that didn't happen here at all: BMB just said they disagreed with the idea that Bond films are nihilistic and then explained why, and there was no attempt made to make you contradict yourself- BMB didn't even ask you anything. No 'gotcha' at all.
  • If that’s what you want to think then fine. But I know when someone isn’t approaching an argument in good faith and I’m not going to keep wasting my time arguing over points I’ve made earlier.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,594
    I think maybe you've misinterpreted though. I can't see any bad faith in the conversation, and I even just googled 'gotcha moment' and the general definition does seem to align with how I just described it.
  • Posts: 631
    007HallY wrote: »
    I'd probably use the term 'fatalistic' rather than 'nihilistic' to describe these aspects of the Craig films. There's more than a tinge of it in Fleming and many of the previous Bond films too (I guess it's kinda vital to these stories - the villains will always be evil and get defeated, Bond will always be drawn back into the line of duty etc). That in itself probably has nuances but I think that's the distinction. I don't think Bond is inherently a nihilistic character - even his 'live for the moment' mentality is framed through this idea of 'The proper function of man is to live, not to exist' as the beginning of his epithet goes, and he certainly has a higher duty to his country and displays a sense of morality, even if his job involves killing people (although worth saying they're always framed as 'bad people' in these stories, even with their nuances).

    Fatalism is 100% correct, yes. The character is so fatalistic. It's the crux of "The Spy Who Loved Me" (novel).
  • NoTimeToLiveNoTimeToLive Jamaica
    Posts: 135
    mtm wrote: »
    Also, don't plenty of people think that DAD also had quite a few elements which didn't come off that well but could have been interesting/more successful with a different treatment?

    Good point. But Mendes4Lyfe won't answer, as he never does when he is proven wrong.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,622
    mtm wrote: »
    Also, don't plenty of people think that DAD also had quite a few elements which didn't come off that well but could have been interesting/more successful with a different treatment?

    Good point. But Mendes4Lyfe won't answer, as he never does when he is proven wrong.

    Pretty sure the interesting parts of DAD are...MR.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited March 30 Posts: 8,778
    mtm wrote: »
    Also, don't plenty of people think that DAD also had quite a few elements which didn't come off that well but could have been interesting/more successful with a different treatment?

    Good point. But Mendes4Lyfe won't answer, as he never does when he is proven wrong.

    Proven wrong? No, I've made my point, anyone's got a right to have an opinion and they can express it. Sometimes I think people willfully misinterpret the point I'm making, and I'd rather not be drawn in by that. There's are sections to bad Bond films which removed from the context could have potential to be expanded upon. The opening to DAD is generally accepted as being one of these, as is the Cuba sequence in B25, especially the character of Paloma. However this has nothing to do with the point I was making, and is an attempt to pivot off-topic. What I'm saying is if you were to take Blofeld being Bond's brother or the character of Madeline Swann or Nomi and put them in a Brosnan film, diehard Bond fans would be able to point from a mile off and tell you that it's amateurish writing and a silly, stupid idea. Filmmaking is hard, often gaffes or errors of judgement are made, silly things get included that shouldn't etc. If Blofeld returned in DAD and was revealed to be Bond's brother and a little bit of piano music played as Brosnan said "huh?" Then even to this day we would all be howling and rolling about, saying how they could possibly include such an outragous nonesensical idea. It's just made me realise that people care much more about presentation than they do about the ideas themselves. People will tell you that they dislike the Moore and Brosnan (or, again, certain films) eras because they have amatuerish writing etc. But if they genuinely thought that then it would have just the same effect when it happens in the Craig era. In actual fact what bothers people and causes them to look down on one film and not the other is the presentation. Peirces films are presented as broad romps for the people in the cheap seats, whereas the Craig films are presented as sophisticated, artistic, explorations of character, (in other words, they have the right window-dressing) so people are more willing to overlook or get on board with bad writing even though the meat in the sausage is more or less the same stuff. I now realise its more about the form than the content for alot of people, and bad writing or sloppy storytelling isn't an issue as long as its presented under the right guise.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,261
    Tbf, didn't most Bond fans react with a disbelieving groan and some blush of inner shame when the Brofeld malarkey became public? I know I did. Genuinely couldn't believe they'd go there, especially after Goldmember had Austin Powers and Dr. Evil as brothers.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,778
    Venutius wrote: »
    Tbf, didn't most Bond fans react with a disbelieving groan and some blush of inner shame when the Brofeld malarkey became public? I know I did. Genuinely couldn't believe they'd go there, especially after Goldmember had Austin Powers and Dr. Evil as brothers.

    I suspect so but they'd never admit it.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,545
    Venutius wrote: »
    Tbf, didn't most Bond fans react with a disbelieving groan and some blush of inner shame when the Brofeld malarkey became public? I know I did. Genuinely couldn't believe they'd go there, especially after Goldmember had Austin Powers and Dr. Evil as brothers.

    I suspect so but they'd never admit it.

    Do you always turn your back on reality so it fits the narrative you're trying to pedal?

    There are pages and pages and pages and pages devoted to the dislike of Brofeld from fans of Spectre and from non-fans; from fans of Craig, and non-fans. That's a fact. That's a reality. It's on this very site. It's all over the internet. It's arguably one of the biggest errors in the Craig era that's been discussed and largely agreed on amongst the Bond community (where even defenders will say that perhaps it wasn't executed in the best way).

    It must be a pretty stressful life when one has to bend reality so one can feel "right".

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited March 30 Posts: 6,622
    Pascal is, cautiously, a good choice for Bond 26 because of her history with Bond, from CR through SF. She was critical of many creative decisions in SP's script, before she was fired because of the Sony hacks (which happened because of The Interview and its criticism of North Korea).

    SP was collateral damage and just might have turned out better had Pascal not been fired.

    I think that Amazon chose Pascal to convince Barbara and Michael to sell. She is someone that they have trusted in the past. They probably also said, "Don't worry about Salke. We'll never let her anywhere near Bond."

    If you were Pascal, where would you start? You'd look at CR and why that worked. I still think there's a good chance we get another version of MR for Bond 26. Its "enemy within" themes and wealthy industrialist plot might be tricky to pull off with Bezos, but they also speak to the times we are in.

    CinemaCon starts tomorrow and I think we might get more Bond updates, maybe even a projected release date. At the very least some sort of thrown-together teaser.
  • echo wrote: »
    Its "enemy within" themes and wealthy industrialist plot might be tricky to pull off with Bezos, but they also speak to the times we are in.

    Wouldn’t be so difficult to pull off if the heavy were based more off of Musk though - with his self landing rockets and the fact that he essentially bought his way into our government.
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    edited March 30 Posts: 769
    echo wrote: »
    Its "enemy within" themes and wealthy industrialist plot might be tricky to pull off with Bezos, but they also speak to the times we are in.

    Wouldn’t be so difficult to pull off if the heavy were based more off of Musk though - with his self landing rockets and the fact that he essentially bought his way into our government.

    Musk is getting getting rid of unnecessary bureaucracy and wasteful spending.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited March 30 Posts: 6,622
    Musk is making billions off SpaceX and Tesla charging stations--and is not slashing his own contracts with the government. Classic bait and switch.

    https://www.lemonde.fr/en/economy/article/2025/02/27/elon-musk-s-empire-has-benefited-from-38-billion-in-contracts-and-government-aid_6738618_19.html

    He'd make a good Drax. He certainly has the face for it.
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    edited March 30 Posts: 769
    echo wrote: »
    Musk is making millions off SpaceX and Tesla charging stations--and is not slashing his own contracts with the government. Classic bait and switch.

    He'd make a good Drax. He certainly has the face for it.

    Are you seriously suggesting The President should cancel all Space X contracts and basically put it out of business because Elon is helping out? Wow, if you think Musk entering the government is boosting Tesla I have a bridge to sell you.

    I don't think you know what bait and switch means.
  • edited March 30 Posts: 631
    echo wrote: »
    Its "enemy within" themes and wealthy industrialist plot might be tricky to pull off with Bezos, but they also speak to the times we are in.

    Wouldn’t be so difficult to pull off if the heavy were based more off of Musk though - with his self landing rockets and the fact that he essentially bought his way into our government.

    Musk is getting getting rid of unnecessary bureaucracy and wasteful spending.

    Regardless of one's opinions on governments spending is — the power of the purse lies in the Congress, and impoundment is not something the executive can do. Just because a bunch of sycophants in the legislature are willing to give up their power does not make it right. The basis of English law is the treasury in the hands of the legislature and not a mad king.

    Debates about anything else are irrelevant. This is the widest subversion of the Republic since ratification. The foundation of the Constitution is gone.
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    edited March 30 Posts: 769
    BMB007 wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Its "enemy within" themes and wealthy industrialist plot might be tricky to pull off with Bezos, but they also speak to the times we are in.

    Wouldn’t be so difficult to pull off if the heavy were based more off of Musk though - with his self landing rockets and the fact that he essentially bought his way into our government.

    Musk is getting getting rid of unnecessary bureaucracy and wasteful spending.

    Regardless of one's opinions on governments spending is — the power of the purse lies in the Congress, and impoundment is not something the executive can do. Just because a bunch of sycophants in the legislature are willing to give up their power does not make it right. The basis of English law is the treasury in the hands of the legislature and not a mad king.

    Debates about anything else are irrelevant. This is the widest subversion of the Republic since ratification. The foundation of the Constitution is gone.

    Congress still handles the budget. This isn't hard. The executive branch controls the executive branch. He can decide how big each department needs to be and what they do. It's amazing how some of you have no Idea what you're talking about.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    edited March 30 Posts: 4,902
    echo wrote: »
    Its "enemy within" themes and wealthy industrialist plot might be tricky to pull off with Bezos, but they also speak to the times we are in.

    Wouldn’t be so difficult to pull off if the heavy were based more off of Musk though - with his self landing rockets and the fact that he essentially bought his way into our government.

    Musk is one of the reasons that BB called Amazon F*cking idiots. They basically told her to make a Bond movie with Musk. She told them she already had: it was called Tomorrow Never Dies. She also said she was somewhat sad about TND somewhat predicting the future. In today's crazy media world, I won't be surprised if Elliot Carver came back under Amazon's control.
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    Posts: 769
    Still waiting to here what Elon has done that is so terrible. Anyone?
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,622
    echo wrote: »
    Musk is making millions off SpaceX and Tesla charging stations--and is not slashing his own contracts with the government. Classic bait and switch.

    He'd make a good Drax. He certainly has the face for it.

    Are you seriously suggesting The President should cancel all Space X contracts and basically put it out of business because Elon is helping out? Wow, if you think Musk entering the government is boosting Tesla I have a bridge to sell you.

    I don't think you know what bait and switch means.

    Try again.

  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited March 30 Posts: 10,596
    Keep the discussion relevant to the franchise and less politically-charged. There’s always X.com for that, which is a short click away.
Sign In or Register to comment.