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

1234579

Comments

  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited November 2015 Posts: 9,020
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Dalton would have never delivered SPECTRE as confident and sure footed as Craig. Dalton fans need to accept it wasn't just the public that wasn't ready for him, he couldn't deliver the full package and at times tried to hard.

    Dalton never showed the confidence Craig did even CR he was running rings around him.

    Huge Dalton fan here, but this is sadly true.

    This is rubbish.
    He was brilliant in both movies and from the very first scene (PTS TLD) he was Bond.

    Furthermore if he had gotten the third movie he would have steadily build up the same fan-base as Moore did. Remember Moore wasn't really accepted until his third movie.

    Imagine Moore had stopped with TMWTGG.
    Imagine Dalton had made 5 Bond movies.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Jason, fair points. But have you read what they wanted to do with TPOAL?

    Robot army. Not so sure.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Jason, fair points. But have you read what they wanted to do with TPOAL?

    Robot army. Not so sure.

    Oh dear, robot army...well depends on the execution I guess ;) We'll never know, sadly (I think :)) )
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Dalton would have never delivered SPECTRE as confident and sure footed as Craig. Dalton fans need to accept it wasn't just the public that wasn't ready for him, he couldn't deliver the full package and at times tried to hard.

    Dalton never showed the confidence Craig did even CR he was running rings around him.

    Huge Dalton fan here, but this is sadly true.

    I wish he was given the chance to do it though. He could have proved us wrong.

    The early parts of TLD in Austria/Bratislava suggest Dalton could have delivered something incredible (if he had been kept in the movie-Bond cage by Cubby) in a larger than life context. Those early scenes (apart from the Bond James Bond line pretitles) are up there with the best the franchise has offered before or since.
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    Something that's been nagging at me since I've seen SP. I hope I get some responses or I'll make a new thread about this because it might warrant one by itself…

    Many people have been (quite rightly so) ragging on SP for not delivering what they expect for Craig or the series in general. The script could definitely have used some polishing up in the final act and maybe that's all it takes int he long run, kind of from a top down approach.

    But what exactly do the naysayers want? SP pretty much went as far as I can foresee in terms of comical Bond mixed in with the more brooding aspects of Craig's portrayal (although the brother angle might be pushing it too far, I think most can agree here). Trying to go back to Moore's era might result in mixed results akin to the Brosnan era, like Craig being forced to say dumb quips. Moore worked for the '70's, but stayed on too long and became complacent. Craig's style is more dry and sophisticated (for lack of a better term). If Bond is "too gritty", people complain (SF). If it adds some more humour, it's too much (SP).

    Writing, producing, and editing a cogent work that stands up to the '60's heyday is kind of a pipe dream and not really realistic with so many intermediates being involved in the creative process now. Everyone has different perceptions of Bond as a character and tone that it's impossible to please everyone. I just don't see how trying to appeal to one era or the next would be beneficial to the franchise as whole. I'm rambling now but I'm not sure what the strongest opponents of SP would suggest to remedy the perceived problems of SP or Craig's era at large. Writing? Sure, but the writing can always be better and tighter. I don't think it's that simple. We lucked out in the '60's with pretty much every conceivable interpretation of the character (pulpy, detective movie; espionage thriller; comic book escapades; epic; grandiose, ridiculous space epic; finally, avant garde, epic romance action movie with elements of surrealism).

    It's a weird time to be a Bond fan. The horizon is certainly not bleak or uncertain, but I feel a precipice moment is coming depending on what they do for B25. I want Craig to stay on if just to give some sense of constancy and familiarity. No more Mendes and personal anguish. I want a down to earth spy thriller that doesn't need to rely on homages and winking (and I enjoyed SP).
  • Seven_Point_Six_FiveSeven_Point_Six_Five Southern California
    Posts: 1,257
    Something that's been nagging at me since I've seen SP. I hope I get some responses or I'll make a new thread about this because it might warrant one by itself…

    Many people have been (quite rightly so) ragging on SP for not delivering what they expect for Craig or the series in general. The script could definitely have used some polishing up in the final act and maybe that's all it takes int he long run, kind of from a top down approach.

    But what exactly do the naysayers want? SP pretty much went as far as I can foresee in terms of comical Bond mixed in with the more brooding aspects of Craig's portrayal (although the brother angle might be pushing it too far, I think most can agree here). Trying to go back to Moore's era might result in mixed results akin to the Brosnan era, like Craig being forced to say dumb quips. Moore worked for the '70's, but stayed on too long and became complacent. Craig's style is more dry and sophisticated (for lack of a better term). If Bond is "too gritty", people complain (SF). If it adds some more humour, it's too much (SP).

    Writing, producing, and editing a cogent work that stands up to the '60's heyday is kind of a pipe dream and not really realistic with so many intermediates being involved in the creative process now. Everyone has different perceptions of Bond as a character and tone that it's impossible to please everyone. I just don't see how trying to appeal to one era or the next would be beneficial to the franchise as whole. I'm rambling now but I'm not sure what the strongest opponents of SP would suggest to remedy the perceived problems of SP or Craig's era at large. Writing? Sure, but the writing can always be better and tighter. I don't think it's that simple. We lucked out in the '60's with pretty much every conceivable interpretation of the character (pulpy, detective movie; espionage thriller; comic book escapades; epic; grandiose, ridiculous space epic; finally, avant garde, epic romance action movie with elements of surrealism).

    It's a weird time to be a Bond fan. The horizon is certainly not bleak or uncertain, but I feel a precipice moment is coming depending on what they do for B25. I want Craig to stay on if just to give some sense of constancy and familiarity. No more Mendes and personal anguish. I want a down to earth spy thriller that doesn't need to rely on homages and winking (and I enjoyed SP).

    I wasn't clamoring for the return of quips, gadgets, and OTT villains/lairs, at least not for the remainder of the Craig era. I wanted the grounded edginess of CR and QOS. Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike those familiar aspects of classic Bond films, but EON chose a certain path when Craig came on board and I was hoping they would stay the course. Once Craig left, his successor could return the franchise to the more recognizable cinematic Bond that we all know. That's typically how it went in the past anyway, the pendulum swung between "serious/grounded/dark" to "campy/comical/fantastical" with each new actor to take on the role.

    What really disheartened me was when Mendes came on board and tried to mix Craig's cold, grounded version of Bond with the more fantastical traits of classic Bond. They are like water and oil. They do not mix but Mendes tried anyway. Mendes forced the Craig era to be something it's not and his two films suffer because of it.

    So to answer the question posed in the OP, no, the Craig era hasn't lived up to my expectations.
  • Posts: 6,601
    People were asking for more humour for some time now. But the direction was pretty much there from the beginning, if I remember DC saying, they just wiped the page clean in order to bring back the old elements. Slowly bit they were definitely planned. So now, he went full forcevwith it, giving people th
  • Posts: 2,341
    Craig Era?
    Out of a total score of ten I rank the films:
    CR 9.5
    QoS 5.5
    SF 9.0
    SP 8.0
    total score 32= avg 8.0
    So I would say Craig has more than distinguished himself.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,425
    Like every extended run by a Bond actor, there are ups and downs, but Craig has had three good to decent films out of four I'd say, and even the less good entries have good moments.

    On balance he hasn't quite lived up to my highest expectations, but he's done pretty well. All things considered he deserves a pretty big congratulations.
  • Posts: 486
    I'm not sure Craig personally has done anything to disappoint. He's always been the best and strongest aspect of his four films.

    The best run of four successive Bond films since TSWLM to OP.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Cowley wrote: »
    I'm not sure Craig personally has done anything to disappoint. He's always been the best and strongest aspect of his four films.

    The best run of four successive Bond films since TSWLM to OP.

    I think you forgot QOS.
    :))

    But that's a matter of opinion of course.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 582
    Is it me or do things happen quickly in DC's Bond world? He's a rookie in CR, then 6 years later in SF he's supposed to be over the hill. In SF he says to M 'with pleasure' about receiving his next assignment and then in SP he wants to jack it all in.

    Maybe he just grows up quickly and is incredibly impulsive!

    Still the best Bond, CR no. 1 in my rankings, SF - no. 6, SP - no. 5
  • Posts: 11,425
    There isn't much consistency, but Bond has never been too hung up on continuity between films.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Cowley wrote: »
    I'm not sure Craig personally has done anything to disappoint. He's always been the best and strongest aspect of his four films.
    I agree fully. Craig has never been a problem in any of his films.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Yes top performances.....presence and talent.
  • Posts: 1,031
    Yes, he is. CR-SF anyway. Hopefully back on form in Bond 25.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Apart from the stupid gaps between films and the blip (hopefully) that is SP we have 3 very good films thus far.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    Cowley wrote: »
    I'm not sure Craig personally has done anything to disappoint. He's always been the best and strongest aspect of his four films.
    I agree fully. Craig has never been a problem in any of his films.
    I can't believe I wrote this. It either was before I saw SP or shortly thereafter when I had not had time to process the film and the performances properly. I wouldn't say this today, unfortunately. Goes to show how my opinion has changed with time.
  • Posts: 19,339
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Cowley wrote: »
    I'm not sure Craig personally has done anything to disappoint. He's always been the best and strongest aspect of his four films.
    I agree fully. Craig has never been a problem in any of his films.
    I can't believe I wrote this. It either was before I saw SP or shortly thereafter when I had not had time to process the film and the performances properly. I wouldn't say this today, unfortunately. Goes to show how my opinion has changed with time.

    I thought SP was really good after I saw it for the 1st time..it took a few viewings for me to think 'hang on'...

  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 755
    When I finish CR, I have the same feeling I originally had when it ended, I can’t wait for another one... unfortunately, I have to check my expectations at the door and watch one of three films that all fail to live up to those expectations to varying degrees. Yes, his era had disappointed. I blame EON completely for that. Connery is the only one with multiple great films. Here’s hoping for B25.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    To me, there was always the first 4 Connery Bond films and then the rest. I enjoyed every actor in the role and all of the movies - but those first 4 movies starring Connery made and kept me the big Bond fan I am throughout 2002. Then came CR and I did not expect that there would ever be any Bond movie again that could really compete with those "magnificent" ones that, to me, defined James Bond.

    So, in regards to the thread's title: The Craig era surpassed my expectations by a wide margin and his first 3 movies live up there with Sean's first 4 for me and I hope B25 will join them. I will always go and see a new Bond movie at the movies not matter who will be starring (unless they make ridiculus changes like making Bond a woman or such) but I am not sure a new actor will be able to now compete with DN, FRWL, GF, TB, CR, QoS, SF. I know I will enjoy all of those like I enjoyed all the other entries (minus CR'67) but doubt they will have such an impact on me ever again. But ... if so I would not mind - quite the opposite.

    I am extremely satisfied with the course they had chosen since 2006 with just one misstep in form of SP. I wished for Craig's TB and got his DAD. But he will get one more shot and I have high hopes.
  • edited March 2018 Posts: 19,339
    I think i'm ok in saying that NO Bond film in the future will be able to compete with the iconic films that are DN,FRWL,GF,TB ,even in 50 years time.

    They were the first 4 and established the character we have now.

    Craig needs B25 to be exceptional or I personally don't think the popularity of CR and SF will be enough to save his tenure .
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @SeanCraig , you mirror my own thoughts exactly. The original 60s films, then the others; always enjoyed, to varying degrees, the other Bonds...

    DAD was the lowest point. I left the cinema cringing...

    But DC's debut knocked everything out of the park, and continued strongly through to SF.

    I too am hoping for a strong exit.

    And I will continue to enjoy Bond into the future, but as I said to another forum member, good luck in casting once DC takes his final bow.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    Whatever happens, we know that SP works as a spend off, so no need to worry about leaving doors open and unanswered questions.
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 814
    *Nod Nod Nod* Oh yes. Yes. Very much yes. I've overall enjoyed each movie Craig has done thus far (even my least favorite, QOS, I still really really like) and am really looking forward to Bond 25. Craig's Bond is, for me, the best since Connery, the gold standard. I'm sad it's coming to an end but I understand an I am very satisfied customer.
  • Posts: 1,916
    barryt007 wrote: »
    I think i'm ok in saying that NO Bond film in the future will be able to compete with the iconic films that are DN,FRWL,GF,TB ,even in 50 years time.

    They were the first 4 and established the character we have now.

    Craig needs B25 to be exceptional or I personally don't think the popularity of CR and SF will be enough to save his tenure .
    Not to stray off topic, but given these current anti-Connery era beliefs from Millennials, will future generations not see those films for the classics we view them as?

    Back on topic, I disagree and think the popularity of CR and SF will make Craig stand out. Either way, it will be interesting to watch how it's viewed in the future.
  • Posts: 1,031
    BT3366 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    I think i'm ok in saying that NO Bond film in the future will be able to compete with the iconic films that are DN,FRWL,GF,TB ,even in 50 years time.

    They were the first 4 and established the character we have now.

    Craig needs B25 to be exceptional or I personally don't think the popularity of CR and SF will be enough to save his tenure .
    Not to stray off topic, but given these current anti-Connery era beliefs from Millennials, will future generations not see those films for the classics we view them as?

    Back on topic, I disagree and think the popularity of CR and SF will make Craig stand out. Either way, it will be interesting to watch how it's viewed in the future.

    'Millenials' are anti-Connery?
  • Posts: 1,916
    Dennison wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    I think i'm ok in saying that NO Bond film in the future will be able to compete with the iconic films that are DN,FRWL,GF,TB ,even in 50 years time.

    They were the first 4 and established the character we have now.

    Craig needs B25 to be exceptional or I personally don't think the popularity of CR and SF will be enough to save his tenure .
    Not to stray off topic, but given these current anti-Connery era beliefs from Millennials, will future generations not see those films for the classics we view them as?

    Back on topic, I disagree and think the popularity of CR and SF will make Craig stand out. Either way, it will be interesting to watch how it's viewed in the future.

    'Millenials' are anti-Connery?

    It was big news a few weeks ago they view his Bond as a something of a rapist due to his seductions of Pat Fearing in TB and other instances. I believe there was a thread about it.
  • Posts: 19,339
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    I think i'm ok in saying that NO Bond film in the future will be able to compete with the iconic films that are DN,FRWL,GF,TB ,even in 50 years time.

    They were the first 4 and established the character we have now.

    Craig needs B25 to be exceptional or I personally don't think the popularity of CR and SF will be enough to save his tenure .
    Not to stray off topic, but given these current anti-Connery era beliefs from Millennials, will future generations not see those films for the classics we view them as?

    Back on topic, I disagree and think the popularity of CR and SF will make Craig stand out. Either way, it will be interesting to watch how it's viewed in the future.

    'Millenials' are anti-Connery?

    It was big news a few weeks ago they view his Bond as a something of a rapist due to his seductions of Pat Fearing in TB and other instances. I believe there was a thread about it.

    I must have missed that thread or I would have got involved in that to defend ConneryBond against such PC shit.
Sign In or Register to comment.