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

1235789

Comments

  • But you still can't get away from the fact that Lazenby was offered more bond films, whatever Michael Wilson said.

    All the films have been financial successes. The reason both Lazenby and Dalton didn't make more is nothing to do with the US market.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    But you still can't get away from the fact that Lazenby was offered more bond films, whatever Michael Wilson said.

    All the films have been financial successes. The reason both Lazenby and Dalton didn't make more is nothing to do with the US market.

    Lazenby yes, he blew it.

    Dalton, I don't think so. The US market was instrumental in his stepping down (also the time lapse) because what he wanted to do with the role did not catch on with what that market wanted at that time. He just didn't catch fire and MGM did not want him. They wanted Brosnan and always did.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Plus although a great film. .LTK.....disappointed at the US box office.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Plus although a great film. .LTK.....disappointed at the US box office.
  • Posts: 7,653
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Plus although a great film. .LTK.....disappointed at the US box office.

    Yep, Keatons opening weekend US BO for Batman was better than the whole US BO for LTK.
    And the movie did offer very little in innovation compared with the hugely successful and very original Miami Vice which had a strong leading man in Don Johnson.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited November 2015 Posts: 4,512
    No. I whant Brosnan for a fift movie.

    But i also defending Daniel Craig when anti Daniel Craig starting / Blond Bond discussion. Stil i think CR whas to violence introduction. I whas still in after shock of Brosnan era and almoost missing CR in the cinema. Skyfall i whas very disappointed, mabey even more then with CR in 2007!.

    QOS didn't disappoint me at when i left the cinema very happy. Suprised about all the lies media wrote about movie like no humor. QOS creatief movie from both sides. Higher/difrent expections after QOs (I expect there buld on the creatief created with QOS) and to much spoiled. People/media misunderstand QOS. That's also why i am very carefull now with same media saying now about Specte has a lot of humor.. So far i feel mixed with my exspectreions (exspections) of Specre on this moment. Not so much hate as with CR. But this is because iam worried about new background of Bond. But highlight already for me is to man with golden tongue/Wolf in sheep clothes is back in Spectre. For me it is part 2 out of 4 after letting Dench M. Now it is time to bring back Camile and Felix.

    Pierce Brosnan vs Daniel Craig Bond

    Twine 9.5/10
    TMND 9/10
    GE 9/10
    QOS 8.5/10
    (Spectre ??)
    SF 7.5/10
    DAD 6.5/10
    CR 6/10 (First view 4/10)

    Movies:
    GE
    TWINE
    TMND
    QOS
    DAD
    CR
    SF

    My top 23:

    1. Goldeneye
    2. Twine
    3. TMND
    16. QOS. Because it need CR/Bond 25.
    20. DAD
    21. CR
    22. Skyfall


    Bondgirls:
    Goldeneye
    QOS
    Twine
    TMND
    (Spectre ??) Already like Lea more then Eva Green, also like it that there are 3 Bondgirls.
    Skyfall. The only real Bondgirl has to short time. For rest movie is about M.
    CR. Then i mean Blondgirl and Lechiefre girl.
    DAD

    Casting:
    Goldeneye. Everbody is good!.
    Twine
    Casino Royale. Don't like Eva Green.
    QOS
    TMND
    Spectre
    Skyfall. Movie is lacking a real Bondgirl and don't like Naomi Harris. Before i have seen it i whas worried about Fienes.
    DAD

    Story:
    Goldeneye
    TMND.
    QOS. Hide, against the grain but refreshing. Best thing is that people are naief like Dench M and Tanner in movie and not learn from past (Tomorrow Never Dies). Worse thing is that it take time before we see Mr White, Camile and Felix back.
    Twine
    DAD
    CR
    (Spectre ??)
    Skyfall. Card where you don't know where it, Story about M and another Mi6 traiter.

    Goldeneye and QOS are refreshing for me. GE because it was my first movie and QOS because after 6 years a finaly found some pleasure back in Bond and it is very creatief movie. Also Skyfall has his moments with way introduction of Q and QOS lefts overs.

    Music:
    Twine
    QOS
    TMND
    Goldeneye
    DAD
    CR. To much repeat of DAD, to violence.
    Skyfall. Some great parts, but TDK music is unforgivable!.

    Title song:
    Twine
    GE
    Skyfall
    DAD
    QOS
    Spectre
    CR

    Production Design:

    Goldeneye (Derk Meddings satelite. RIP.)
    QOS
    Twine/CR
    (Spectre ??)
    TMND
    Skyfall. Skyfall house best production design of end Bond movie since GE.
    DAD

    Best End (With QOS twice in list because it have 2 endings):
    Goldeneye (Satelite)
    QOS (I Never left)
    Skyfall (Skyfall house)
    Twine (Submarine)
    TMND (Stealboath)
    QOS (Hotel)
    DAD (Going down together)
    CR (Sinking House)

    Cinematopgraphy:

    Twine (RIP Adrian Bidle)
    QOS
    GE
    TMND
    (Spectre??)
    CR
    DAD/Skyfall. Some it is to much like DAD or don't work me. Inspecialy Macau outside of Casino and Shangai/things with elevator :-q. Skyfall house is great, very Twine devil's breath/Jar Head.
  • the wait for skyfall though worth it interrupted the flow of the era
    it's a wasted opportunity if ever there was one to truly give us the best bits from fleming with a new cinematic spin
    but they have tried and they thereby rushed the closure in spectre
    on the whole though amazing just shame we did not get more
  • Posts: 2,491
    What's great in this franchise is that you can learn a lot about the era in the world from Bond's movies.

    From the product placements, the dark tone in the movies, the black monneypenny, the hacking plot and the "you're a relic of the past Mr.Bond" plot points, and maybe even the nostalgia moments you can learn a lot about this era in the world from Craig's movies.

    So I think the Craig's era is pretty damn good.

    He has a good record with his movies.
  • Honestly for me, no.

    CR is my favorite film in the franchise and I liked the decision to follow up CR with an emotional film where Bond was out to go after the organization behind Le Chiffre and Vesper's death in CR. Then QoS just felt muddled down in a plot that got too complicated and in the end didn't even feel like a follow up to CR. SF came along and was a fine film, but it wiped the slate clean (which I was a huge fan of). But then SP came along and tried to tie everything up and ended up backing them into a corner with the ending.

    I just wish they'd make a normal stand alone Bond film rather than trying to tie in past films, backstories between characters, etc. That is what I was hoping we'd get after Skyfall.
  • Posts: 582
    bondboy007 wrote: »
    Honestly for me, no.

    CR is my favorite film in the franchise and I liked the decision to follow up CR with an emotional film where Bond was out to go after the organization behind Le Chiffre and Vesper's death in CR. Then QoS just felt muddled down in a plot that got too complicated and in the end didn't even feel like a follow up to CR. SF came along and was a fine film, but it wiped the slate clean (which I was a huge fan of). But then SP came along and tried to tie everything up and ended up backing them into a corner with the ending.

    I just wish they'd make a normal stand alone Bond film rather than trying to tie in past films, backstories between characters, etc. That is what I was hoping we'd get after Skyfall.

    Honestly I think SP's ending leaves it quite open.
    There are various possibilities - Blofeld to come back, Bond to marry Madeleine, Madeleine to die, We see Bond again and in M's office as he return back to work he comments on how it didn't work out, life Tiffany Case in the novels. etc.
  • Posts: 582
    the wait for skyfall though worth it interrupted the flow of the era
    it's a wasted opportunity if ever there was one to truly give us the best bits from fleming with a new cinematic spin
    but they have tried and they thereby rushed the closure in spectre
    on the whole though amazing just shame we did not get more

    I agree, we went from rookie Bond, to past it and ancient Bond. And who's to say we won't get more Craig era? When I talked about disappointment in my initial post it was precisely that, that I wanted/expected more excellent bits still remaining in Fleming's novels - which we did get in Skyfall I felt, it felt quite inspired by the novels Thunderball, YOLT and TMWTGG. But it's been a fantastic era!
  • Posts: 3,333
    I won't wade too deep into whether OHMSS was a flop in the US markets or not. However, it beat both Where Eagles Dare and the Wild Bunch at the American Box Office that year, so those films must also be flops too, right? T'was a strange year mostly for movies that year. The Top 10 were mostly comedies or comedy musicals, with the exception of OHMSS, Easy Rider and Midnight Cowboy. Even the biggest earner that year, quite considerably in fact (Butch Cassidy) was a rather light-hearted affair. I think the abundance of comedies in the US Box Office of '69 tells us more about the American mindset than it truly does about Bond. I think with all that was going on in the States that year, the good citizens just needed something to cheer themselves up wth, hence the reason why Bond dropped in sales and comedies performed better. Oh, and the fact that it had a new 007 who had very publicly told eveyone he was quitting before the movie had even been released didn't help too much either. But Top 10 ain't too shabby.
  • M_Balje wrote: »

    My top 23:

    1. Goldeneye
    2. Twine
    3. TMND
    16. QOS. Because it need CR/Bond 25.
    20. DAD
    21. CR
    22. Skyfall

    If you rank CR that low, I think Bond films are not for you.
  • bondjames wrote: »

    As I said, Lazenby was given a gift with the OHMSS script and all the other things that were provided for that film. He just needed to show up, just like Brosnan just needed to show up for GE imho..

    Couldn't disagree any more. That's like saying Connery just needed to turn up for FRWL because it was a great script.
  • Posts: 1,548
    doubleoego wrote: »
    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.

    I double concur!
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    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.

    I double concur!

    Triple concur.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    suavejmf wrote: »
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    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.

    I double concur!

    Triple concur.

    If you throw in GE I concur as well.

    OHMSS
    GE
    CR

    the best three (since 1968 ;) )
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    You love GE so much!!!
  • suavejmf wrote: »
    You love GE so much!!!

    lol, though he's liable to ditch it for TND given a bit of persuasion.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »

    As I said, Lazenby was given a gift with the OHMSS script and all the other things that were provided for that film. He just needed to show up, just like Brosnan just needed to show up for GE imho..

    Couldn't disagree any more. That's like saying Connery just needed to turn up for FRWL because it was a great script.

    No, actually it's not. Connery made FRWL imho. Just like DC made CR (this is not in question). Their performances were definitive and elevated the respective films and narratives.

    Lazenby existed in OHMSS, didn't screw up admittedly, and showed some vulnerability which everyone goes on about. That's it. The film was far superior to his performance in it (I think all the other actors would have fought to get a narrative that good with other actors that good, a score that good, and cinematography that good).

    My view is actually generous when one looks at the totality of opinions on him, outside of obsessive fan forums like ours.
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    Most definitely yes. I'm seeing SP tonight and feel that Craig's era is the most cogent and consistent era since Connery (Moore was inconsistent as hell, Dalton was shortchanged and only did two great films) and Broz's was just average at best.

  • bondjames wrote: »
    No, actually it's not. Connery made FRWL imho. Just like DC made CR (this is not in question). Their performances were definitive and elevated the respective films and narratives.

    DC didn't make CR (why this is not in question?).
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    No, actually it's not. Connery made FRWL imho. Just like DC made CR (this is not in question). Their performances were definitive and elevated the respective films and narratives.
    DC didn't make CR (why this is not in question?).
    Yes, you're correct. Some may not like his performance in this film. That was poorly stated by me.

    It's just my opinion that he elevated CR (not fact). The story required a superior acting performance, and I think he delivered just that. Nuanced, dangerous, vulnerable, confident, insecure, egotistical, arrogant, tender etc. etc. He was able to project all of that in this film & still be a likable character.

    Something I don't think he has done since so convincingly, because successor scripts did not give him this opportunity. There have been flashes of CR brilliance here and there since, but nothing so complete.

    That is why I think he elevated this film, which had some slow moments in the middle which a poorer actor could have had difficulty with.
  • I agree with you he gave his best ( and a very good) performance in CR.
  • Posts: 582
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    No, actually it's not. Connery made FRWL imho. Just like DC made CR (this is not in question). Their performances were definitive and elevated the respective films and narratives.
    DC didn't make CR (why this is not in question?).
    Yes, you're correct. Some may not like his performance in this film. That was poorly stated by me.

    It's just my opinion that he elevated CR (not fact). The story required a superior acting performance, and I think he delivered just that. Nuanced, dangerous, vulnerable, confident, insecure, egotistical, arrogant, tender etc. etc. He was able to project all of that in this film. Something I don't think he has done since so convincingly. That is why I think he elevated this film, which had some slow moments in the middle which a poorer actor could have had difficulty with.

    I agree, his acting in CR is great, his best performance for me. I think he's given slightly different performances each time, not saying his characterisation has been inconsistent, and obviously the arc of his era has been his development as Bond. CR - great acting performance, bringing the emotion to the fore, thinking of the scenes with Vesper- QoS - a brutal performance, with touches of quietness too and resolution 'I don't think the dead care about vengeance'), Skyfall - haunted, reliving past childhood trauma, facing death - SP - an assured performance.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Craig moves smoothly and cool and with ease through Spectre as Brosnan did in DAD or Moore in OP for instance.
  • Posts: 486
    Craig moves smoothly and cool and with ease through Spectre as Brosnan did in DAD or Moore in OP for instance.

    He indeed does. This is no Bond begins anymore, he is recognizably Bond.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Cowley wrote: »
    Craig moves smoothly and cool and with ease through Spectre as Brosnan did in DAD or Moore in OP for instance.

    He indeed does. This is no Bond begins anymore, he is recognizably Bond.

    And that's character development. At least by Bond standards.

    Thanks in large part to Haggis, Bond is very well written in CR. Very few films do we actually learn something new about the character.

    The attempt was made in SF but I really didn't recognize that Bond. I didn't know him. Now I enjoyed the film a great deal not saying that.



  • ^ I'd agree with that. Haggis wrote the character extremely well in that one.

    What I don't get though is why so many people feel like Bond was so different than what we'd seen before and that we'd have to wait to truly see Craig play the same type of character that we'd seen from 1962-2002. His Bond was deeper and more emotional, but he wasn't devoid of all charm and sophistication. I really dislike this whole notion that they've continued to run with since QoS that Bond had to keep developing and 'growing' each movie in which Craig played him. Give me that same character from CR in each of the last 3 films as well and I feel like they'd immediately be better films.

    So far we've had him finally "become Bond" at the end of CR, the end of QoS and the end of SF. Only to have the next film say "nope, not yet, but it's coming". And then top everything off, Craig's Bond has effectively quit 3 times now in 4 different films. I was really hoping at the end of SF we were finally just going to see a stand alone Bond adventure in Bond 24 where we didn't have all this extra baggage. I'm not sure we ever get that from Craig and I think that's a huge misstep they've made post-CR.
  • Posts: 582
    bondboy007 wrote: »
    ^ I'd agree with that. Haggis wrote the character extremely well in that one.

    What I don't get though is why so many people feel like Bond was so different than what we'd seen before and that we'd have to wait to truly see Craig play the same type of character that we'd seen from 1962-2002. His Bond was deeper and more emotional, but he wasn't devoid of all charm and sophistication. I really dislike this whole notion that they've continued to run with since QoS that Bond had to keep developing and 'growing' each movie in which Craig played him. Give me that same character from CR in each of the last 3 films as well and I feel like they'd immediately be better films.

    So far we've had him finally "become Bond" at the end of CR, the end of QoS and the end of SF. Only to have the next film say "nope, not yet, but it's coming". And then top everything off, Craig's Bond has effectively quit 3 times now in 4 different films. I was really hoping at the end of SF we were finally just going to see a stand alone Bond adventure in Bond 24 where we didn't have all this extra baggage. I'm not sure we ever get that from Craig and I think that's a huge misstep they've made post-CR.

    To me he's being Bond all the way thru, well maybe a bit Bourne in QoS, probably more Bond at times than his predecessors.
Sign In or Register to comment.