Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Craig's films will be seen as a fad too
M16_Cart
Craig fanboy?
Craig is a very good Bond. He added a lot of emotional depth to the character and helped break the films out of a certain routine. But it feels like (aside from Connery), Craig is being put on a pedestal above the other Bonds. I do think in time, that Craig's tenure will be subject to parody (in the same way that Moore's and Brosnan's was).
Being intensely violent and lacking a sense of humor and such are all what define a badass secret agent in this era. But 20 years later, we might see that scene of Craig holding a big assault weapon cavalierly as insecure and compensating. And we may poke fun at it much like we do Moore swinging in the jungle like Tarzan.
Being intensely violent and lacking a sense of humor and such are all what define a badass secret agent in this era. But 20 years later, we might see that scene of Craig holding a big assault weapon cavalierly as insecure and compensating. And we may poke fun at it much like we do Moore swinging in the jungle like Tarzan.
^ 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
Early Connery: The Fifties noir with Fleming sensibilities.
Later Connery: The Batman vibe.
Lazenby: 60's Fab Bond.
Early Moore: A Hot Stuff agent.
Later Moore: 80's remix.
Dalton: Fleming with a Moore twist.
Brosnan: Die Hard Bond.
Craig: Bournd.
...and so it goes...
:D
We're all in the mix.
Hopefully, at our next occurrence, we'll be people able to groove to Bond's current escapades, rather than trees or some such. You never know...
Agreed.
Bourne has never not once ever been bigger than Bond.
Look at the critical reception and the box office performance of every single Bond film released after the end of the 60s. The Craig era is special.
I think talent will always be talent and if people are level headed enough to not allow their zealousness of a new actor to blind them from reason then it really shouldn't be a problem. Connery, irrespective of him being tge first was just magnificent and I'm mainly refering to his first 4. That output was and us enough to cement him as THE best. Craig on tge other hand is by far the best actor to take on the role and his portrayal and performances are excellent. I'm just waiting for SP to come out and then see a plethora of fans bumping him upto the number one spot.
My opinion of Connery as the best has not wavered my entire life and the same will go for Craig. He's fantastic as Bond and the new actor whenever he comes along has mighty shoes to fill.
When you're a behemoth such as Bond it's natural that inspiration stems from other pop culture fads. Especially successful new kids on the block. Anyone who refuses to accept that the Craig era is a direct response to Bourne is kidding themselves. It doesn't devalue Bond. The phrase, 'sometimes to beat them you have to join them' springs to mind. Bond has moved back into high gear and is now light years ahead in terms of success, but denying the catalyst for that is disrespectful.
I am really enjoying the Craig era, far more than his predecessor, and see it as a rebirth of sorts and a return to form.
However, I personally do not see anything so significant about his films to date, Casino Royale notwithstanding. That film is seen as one of the best in the series, which is an incredible achievement for a franchise that has been going for 5 decades. It is a truly special film (especially the middle casino part.......due to Fleming). Craig and the rest of the cast are magnificent in it. QoS and SF are just regular but highly enjoyable films to me, despite the latter's incredible box office run as a 50th anniversary film.
With regards to his era in general, I think it will be looked back on by the majority as just one of the 6, but on the higher scale of things. Probably just behind Connery and just above Moore. I realize hardcore fans idolize Dalton and Lazenby, but that is not the prevailing point of view for most. As the incumbent, he obviously has some advantage now......but that will dissipate in time.
With regards to his performances as Bond, I again think people's view of him will drop in estimation over time......but he will always stay above the rest, except for King Connery.
It will not be seen as a fad, but it will not be idolized like it is now. It will be looked back on as a welcome return to form and a renaissance for the series.
I think we have to put Dalton and Laz in a separate category as they did so few. Although I love Dlaton's two, could he have sustained it for four or five films?
What Connery and Moore both showed was that they had staying power. Both probably could have stayed if they'd wanted. Brosnan's films became so appalling that EON has to sack him. Craig has proven probably already he has the staying power and will go down as one of the 'proper', established Bonds along with Sean, Rog and Pierce.
Ultimately the legacy will come down to quality and whether people want to rewatch the films. That's where I wonder if Craig will stand the test of time. IMO he has not and will not challenge Sean - that's almost impossible anyway. But I'm not sure his films have the likeability of Rog's either.
The only thing I dislike is the idea that Connery and Craig were the only great Bonds. Moore, Brosnan and Dalton are every bit as good - just different in their approach. Lazenby is underrated too.
Thank you. Always boggles me when people try to pretend the Bourne films didn't have a massive influence on this era. For me it's nice to see Mendes bringing back a more "James Bond Film" feel than "Spy Thriller with James Bond in it." Again, this is just my personal opinion and what I like from a Bond film. All of this said, CR is one of my absolute favorites.
Totally agree with both of you. Bourne was a game changer. It came along at just the right moment to snap EON out of its lethargy and help get Bond back on track. I actually think QoS owes more to Bourne than CR does, but the impact on the Craig era is undeniable. It's possible that EON would have taken the Henry Cavill route if it hain't been for Bourne and Matt Damon.
Having said all this, I think Things have moved on A lot since QoS. Mendes inspiration is more Nolan's Batman, and the tone of the Craig era changed a lot with SF (not for the better IMO).
So Bourne's influence came and went swiftly, as did Die Hard/Lethal Weapon's (with LTK).
Ditto. It's hard to have that discussion on here, though, because people just bring up Oscars and Box Office and the conversation is shut down. There was a significant fork in the road following QoS and I do think it would have been interesting to see what was lurking down the opposite path. SP looks like it will retcon the entire Craig era, which could have interesting repercussions for the perception of QoS, whether positive or negative.
I agree. The SF fights were useless (particularly the Komodo one) compared to the kinetic scenes in CR & particularly QoS.
In a way, he was. Older......more jaded....."played out". In QoS he was still a rookie. The 4 yr gap between the two films robbed us of a more transitional film I think. SP will likely take us full circle back to traditional Bond of old imho.