›

Has and/or is the Daniel Craig era living up to your expectations

2456789

Comments

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Lol, not likely, as I have also heard, its a blink and miss moment in almost dark. So, if anything, this gets my rating down. ;)

    Regarding negativity, it offten seems to me, that someone is enthusiased in his first review, but after a while, he starts following those,vwho have their teeth in it. Almost as if being positive is not cool.

    I have seen this a lot here and its not, because they have suddenly seen the light, but because...it the tone. And lets not forget, that negativity is always louder.
    I am really looking forward to make up my own mind. My 30 year old son totally disliked SF. Lets see, what he makes of this.

    True your pause button might wear out when you get your hands on the DVD!
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    Not likely. After all, the bod is just an extra bonus on a otherwise gorgeous man. So I will fest my eyes on what is on the plate. :x
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    I wouldn't the Craig era is a disappointment. It's not, but I do wish they had done some things differently.

    The soft reboot of SF kinda through me off a bit. Craig's Bond in that regard is worse than my laptop always needing to be debugged and rebooted. I really wanted to keep pursuing the CR Bond.

    I am very excited about SP despite the complaints.

    Craig though and this era for me has been very successful and set a new standard which is amazing for a fifty year franchise.

    Only major complaint... and this directed at you Mendes :( ..is the gunbarrel!!! CR made sense ..QS ok that's fine I get it BUT SF screamed for a proper gb and we got that cheesy LTK like mess at the end.

    Booooo...



  • CowleyCowley
    Posts: 486
    jobo wrote: »
    Do I understand the premise of this thread correctly? That Craig's tenure could be viewed as a disappointment because they have yet to top Casino Royale? That's rather thin isn't it? Connery was never able to top FRWL. Was his era a disappointment? Seems like a strange way of angling it...

    I was just going to make the same point.

    If you consider that people regard FRWL as the best Bond film ever (let alone Connery's best) does this mean EON shouldn't have bothered since 1963?

    Same for Brosnan. I don't particularly like GE but accept that it's regarded as Brosnan's best so all downhill again.

    None of the Moore films made more than his debut (inflation adjusted) either.

    This just smacks of another disingenuous excuse to bash the Craig era.

  • tigers99tigers99
    Posts: 582
    FourDot wrote: »
    I'd say it's the most intriguing tenure and probably the most important since the 60s. Each of the films has a totally distinct flavour - I would say that in future when doing a Bond marathon it wouldn't be an eye-rolling chore in the way that late Moore/post GE Brozzer is. Even QoS is enhanced by this latest film so I think it's a real triumph overall.

    I quite agree, the DC era has been quite a ride, so far (hoping he does at least one more!)
  • tigers99tigers99
    Posts: 582
    I'm far from saying that DC era is a disappointment, CR is just so immense :)
  • tigers99tigers99
    Posts: 582
    I started this thread and did not start it to bash Craig, he is my favourite Bond and when everyone, including Sam Mendes,at the time was saying he was wrong for Bond I was saying he was completely right. All that Blond Bond nonsense was ridiculous.
  • tigers99tigers99
    Posts: 582
    I started this thread and did not start it to bash Craig, he is my favourite Bond and when everyone, including Sam Mendes,at the time was saying he was wrong for Bond I was saying he was completely right. All that Blond Bond nonsense was ridiculous.
  • tigers99tigers99
    Posts: 582
    I started this thread and did not start it to bash Craig, he is my favourite Bond and when everyone, including Sam Mendes,at the time was saying he was wrong for Bond I was saying he was completely right. All that Blond Bond nonsense was ridiculous.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    As I said in my first post on this thread, all the actors (bar Moore and perhaps Dalton) have declined (in terms of the quality of their portrayal and in terms of the quality of their films) since their first or second outing, imho.

    So Craig's tenure has been no different, although it's certainly of a much higher calibre than what we've seen for some time from this franchise.

    Should it have been different? Perhaps......yes, of course, it would have been nice.

    However, maybe it's not possible. Maybe there is an inevitable laziness that sets in with time. Perhaps only with the undue pressure of taking over the coveted role can the best (from actor, producer, scriptwriter, director) really come out.
  • tigers99tigers99
    Posts: 582
    oops my computer did something there, 3 of the same post!
  • TuuliaTuulia
    edited November 2015 Posts: 2,081
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    The negativity over SP comes from frustration that with both SF and SP we are inches from two truly great films.

    This doesn't mean, as a lot of others have said, that we don't appreciate that we are living in a golden age of Bond.

    I think those are very good points.

    I haven't seen excessive negativity, I don't understand what people mean by that. Has there really been a vast number of people saying the movie was crap and I just missed them somehow? A lot of people loved it, but also many did not and are indeed frustrated because there's so much great stuff in it, and it had potential to be much better. That's not some crazy negativity that's somehow unfair to other people and I don't understand why people read other people's opinions before seeing the movie anyway. Surely with any Bond movie opinions will differ? What's wrong with that?
    jobo wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Dont be surprised. In a way, it was no different with SF. There are always flawy and many like to jump on them its the way people are.
    I stopped reading the reviews, as I havent seen it myself. On a whole, the films selems to have evetything from best ever to worst ever. Theydidsomething different on purpose and not everybody is gonna like that. Imo, from what I read, cutting a bit from the length might have been good.


    I read that too, but after seeing the film I don't agree. I could hardly notice that two and an half hour was gone by the end. If I have any complaints, its not with the pacing. If anything they needed more time to explore some of the major themes in more depth.

    I had some issues with it (definitely not blown away) but I agree with you, it didn't feel long at all to me, and I had no problems with pacing. It might indeed have been improved with a bit more time rather than less, though I'd say the problems were with the writing more than anything. I hope to enjoy it more when I see it the second time - that wouldn't be a rare occurrence at all.
  • tigers99tigers99
    Posts: 582
    Tuulia wrote: »
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    The negativity over SP comes from frustration that with both SF and SP we are inches from two truly great films.

    This doesn't mean, as a lot of others have said, that we don't appreciate that we are living in a golden age of Bond.

    I think those are very good points.

    I haven't seen excessive negativity, I don't understand what people mean by that. Has there really been a vast number of people saying the movie was crap and I just missed them somehow? A lot of people loved it, but also many did not and are indeed frustrated because there's so much great stuff in it, and it had potential to be much better. That's not some crazy negativity that's somehow unfair to other people and I don't understand why people read other people's opinions before seeing the movie anyway. Surely with any Bond movie opinions will differ? What's wrong with that?
    jobo wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Dont be surprised. In a way, it was no different with SF. There are always flawy and many like to jump on them its the way people are.
    I stopped reading the reviews, as I havent seen it myself. On a whole, the films selems to have evetything from best ever to worst ever. Theydidsomething different on purpose and not everybody is gonna like that. Imo, from what I read, cutting a bit from the length might have been good.


    I read that too, but after seeing the film I don't agree. I could hardly notice that two and an half hour was gone by the end. If I have any complaints, its not with the pacing. If anything they needed more time to explore some of the major themes in more depth.

    I had some issues with it (definitely not blown away) but I agree with you, it didn't feel long at all to me, and I had no problems with pacing. It might indeed have been improved with a bit more time rather than less, though I'd say the problems were with the writing more than anything. I hope to enjoy it more when I see it the second time - that wouldn't be a rare occurrence at all.

    Thanks @Tuulia, i agree I don't think this is excess negativity. You know it's just like I prefer the 'Naked' version of The Beatles' Let it Be album, because I prefer that vision of the album better than alll the production by Phil Spektor, but I still love listening to the Phil Spektor produced album. I like world cinema and films that are considered to have more artistic merit than any of the James Bond films, but being a James Bond fan whilst I agree with that I probably enjoy the Bond films more :)
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    Hopefully SP is good, but based on what I know it should be. And based on that, the DC era is doing tremendously well thus far.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I'm enjoying Craig as Bond. Hope he stays for a few more. :)
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I think SP has elevated the era as a whole.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    The franchise is better off than it has been for half a century, both artistically and financially.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Agreed, Bond is box office gold at the moment. =D>
  • tigers99tigers99
    Posts: 582
    I agree.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    DC has been outstanding in the role!
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    I think CR was such a high water mark for the series, and Craig's performance in it, that one feels slightly disappointed. Then one looks at the series objectively, and one sees that the entirety of the Craig era is amongst the top half of any Bond films, and not to mention the plaudits and box office clout that Craig et al has brought to the venerable franchise.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    edited November 2015 Posts: 7,582
    The only disappointment with Craig's tenure (for me) was the 4 year delay between QOS and SF where he aged from new 00 to seasoned veteran and we saw none of it happen. I simply wish that SP had been his 5th film and we saw another adventure between the two films I mentioned.

    Otherwise I think he has been terrific. CR was sumptuous and so elegant and romantic. But it suffered from multiple endings.
    QOS was enjoyable enough, but was never allowed to breath.
    SF I loved regardless of negative reviews on here. It was pacey and daring and larger than life.
    SP is just a blast.

    Overall his 4 have given us more than we could have hoped for, because let's face it back in 2005 our 'expectations' were at best worrying and at worst shot to ribbons. I knew Craig's work and was already a fan of his in 2005, but like others I did have my reservations about him being Bond after he was announced. Then I saw Layer Cake.....

    So, yes he has lived up to, exceeded and blown out of the water my expectations. Here's to a 5th.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    Yes good point about the four year wait between QoS and SF. I would have loved to see a Bond at the height of his powers. C'est la vie.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited November 2015 Posts: 2,138
    I think Craigs era considering the writers strike, changings of director he has delivered the best performances he could. He plays an A game. I think the way he delivers his witty dead pan lines are the best since Connery.

    He has had some amazing moment so far, and some great lines.

    CR: Dryden: Made you feel it, did he? Well, you needn't worry. The second is...
    [Bond pulls his gun and kills Dryden]
    James Bond: Yes... considerably

    CR "now the whole world gonna know you died scratching my balls"
    QOS "Can I offer an opinion? I really think you people should find a better place to meet".

    PEOPLE WHO HAVE SEEN SPECTRE
    To MP about Dame Judi M "You didn't think death would stop her from doing her job, did you?" or his reaction to Q tell him the new Aston Martin is for 009 is tremendous

    I am pretty sure many years from now DC will be held in an even higher regard than he is in present day he is one of the greats.
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre
    Posts: 1,548
    Golden Age Bond. Let's just enjoy it while it lasts. QOS was obviously the weak link but still enjoyable. I really don't envy the next guy taking over. I still say EON should mothball the series for 5-6 years post- Craig.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    RC7 wrote: »
    So much fucking negativity on this forum.

    Craig is the best Bond since Connery and CR was the best film since 1969. Spectre is a top 10 Bond film. Full stop.
  • JNOJNO Finland
    Posts: 137
    suavejmf wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    So much fucking negativity on this forum.

    Craig is the best Bond since Connery and CR was the best film since 1969. Spectre is a top 10 Bond film. Full stop.

    Word.

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    I haven't seen SPECTRE yet but from my first viewing of Casino Royale to my last viewing of Skyfall, it's lived up to my expectations exceedingly.
  • WillyGaloreWillyGalore
    Posts: 6,396
    Yes, only I've only been disappointed (an understatement) with QoS so the fact that I really enjoy 3 out of his 4 films is a pretty decent return.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    suavejmf wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    So much fucking negativity on this forum.

    Craig is the best Bond since Connery and CR was the best film since 1969. Spectre is a top 10 Bond film. Full stop.

    I concur.
Sign In or Register to comment.