Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
If the Craig era is over, do you think it will stand the test of time?
I was wondering about this. Regardless of your personal opinions (I loved SP but I'm not going to pretend that it'll be thought of as a masterpiece in a few years, it's extremely divisive now), do you think that if Craig is gone, his era will hold up in the eyes of future viewing audiences.
Brosnan was a very popular Bond at the time, saw a lot of "best since Connery" comments, and even though the reviews got worse his films still seemed to remain pretty popular with audiences, but then after CR came out there seemed to be a turn around in public opinion. Could the same happen to DC? I feel like Spectre's reception may have tainted his era as a whole. When Skyfall came out, his run was generally held in extremely high regard. Quantum was just seen as a minor blip, a slight misstep before they got back on course. But now he's 2 for 2 in terms of how well received his films were. QoS is generally thought of as one of the worst, even Skyfall (as praised as it was on release) has developed its fair share of vocal detractors, and Spectre was much too divisive to really be seen as a success in terms of reception.
And I'm not just talking about the critics either. Spectre seems to have attracted a lot of harsh criticism from viewers particularly online, and it's not just the film itself, a lot of people also seem to think that Craig was sleepwalking his way through the film (I didn't think he seemed bored at all, but it's been bought up enough times for it to be notable imo). His comments to the media, meant as jokes but taken out of context, have also resulted in a quick turn around on the man himself. My wife told me she'd gone off him because of how ungrateful he seemed, and the friends I've talked to about it felt similar. Obviously we all know that they were offhand comments taken out of context, but the media have spun it so he looks like a dick who's been slagging off the franchise that made him a household name and earned him a ridiculous amount of money (most people I've spoken to seem to have accepted the turning town £68 million deal as fact because of how much it was reported). EON and Craig's silence on all this hasn't helped either. They should have been publicly refuting stuff like this.
So sadly, if this is it for him, and the next actor is a success, then I can't see people being too kind to the Craig era. I'm sure peoples feelings will mellow over time and the films will be reassessed but I reckon that over the next few years, his run is going to be viewed more and more negatively by many. CR will still be held in high regard but I think that for a lot of people the sequels will be seen as never living up to that great promising start, except maybe Skyfall depending on who you ask.
Brosnan was a very popular Bond at the time, saw a lot of "best since Connery" comments, and even though the reviews got worse his films still seemed to remain pretty popular with audiences, but then after CR came out there seemed to be a turn around in public opinion. Could the same happen to DC? I feel like Spectre's reception may have tainted his era as a whole. When Skyfall came out, his run was generally held in extremely high regard. Quantum was just seen as a minor blip, a slight misstep before they got back on course. But now he's 2 for 2 in terms of how well received his films were. QoS is generally thought of as one of the worst, even Skyfall (as praised as it was on release) has developed its fair share of vocal detractors, and Spectre was much too divisive to really be seen as a success in terms of reception.
And I'm not just talking about the critics either. Spectre seems to have attracted a lot of harsh criticism from viewers particularly online, and it's not just the film itself, a lot of people also seem to think that Craig was sleepwalking his way through the film (I didn't think he seemed bored at all, but it's been bought up enough times for it to be notable imo). His comments to the media, meant as jokes but taken out of context, have also resulted in a quick turn around on the man himself. My wife told me she'd gone off him because of how ungrateful he seemed, and the friends I've talked to about it felt similar. Obviously we all know that they were offhand comments taken out of context, but the media have spun it so he looks like a dick who's been slagging off the franchise that made him a household name and earned him a ridiculous amount of money (most people I've spoken to seem to have accepted the turning town £68 million deal as fact because of how much it was reported). EON and Craig's silence on all this hasn't helped either. They should have been publicly refuting stuff like this.
So sadly, if this is it for him, and the next actor is a success, then I can't see people being too kind to the Craig era. I'm sure peoples feelings will mellow over time and the films will be reassessed but I reckon that over the next few years, his run is going to be viewed more and more negatively by many. CR will still be held in high regard but I think that for a lot of people the sequels will be seen as never living up to that great promising start, except maybe Skyfall depending on who you ask.
^ 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
Craig had an absolutely magnificent start, but to a degree it's not lived up to that promise since then. His films have certainly been very successful, and much deeper than what came before, but CR is and will always be the high water mark of his tenure. SF was an exceptional product too, but more on account of it being a visually stunning film with great character performances, rather than on account of it being a great Bond film imho.
I can relate to your wife's perspective. I'll admit that my view of him has changed to a degree on account of the 'wrist slash' and other comments he's made over the years, although I know full well that they have been taken out of context and manipulated by the media. I'm a person who knows better, and yet this perception exists in my mind, so I can fully imagine how others who don't follow everything so closely may feel.
In summary, I think the Craig era will always be seen as the reboot era. Self contained. Separate. Somewhat like how Nolan's Bat films are viewed, but not quite the same. There was a tonal consistency to Nolan's work (same director and grand vision) that is missing from the Craig era, which appears a bit disjointed in comparison. However, what they share is their artistic ambition, which is commendable. The Craig era has given us 4 distinct films (in terms of tone, pace, visuals, performances & style) even as all 4 films are connected. An impressive achievement.
I was giving a little thought to this a few days back, on account of all this discussion about Craig here over the past few weeks. In a way, I think his era may have been looked upon better if he had stopped after SF, since that film took us full circle and brought us back to the Bond we all know and love at the end. It would have been a perfect hand off point for a new man. Even stopping after the brilliant CR would have been fine, and he would have been looked at as Connery's equal - a man who proved everyone wrong and brought integrity back to the Bond universe.
I'm sure that his contributions will always be looked upon positively, and I think ultimately he will sit either at #3 (which he does for me, behind long running Connery/Moore) for many, or at #2 in the Bond actor pantheon.
A lot of how his period is viewed will of course depend on who his successor is, what direction EON takes with the films, and how good the new man's debut film is (based on the past, it's going to be bloody brilliant).
Wrapped up ( Not brilliantly) in SP.
We got one of every type of Bond film:
Casino Royale, the best and a timeless classic to most.
Quantum of Solace, an action romp that's an enjoyable low point or flat out a bad film to some.
Skyfall, a big, sweeping film with a dark, dramatic take that tilts to the "good" side.
and
Spectre, a relatively light-hearted attempt at swinging the franchise back into camp territory while still holding it (just barely) together.
I think CR will be Craig's FRWL, QoS his LTK, Skyfall his GE, and SPECTRE his DAF, and we'll all have one we go to.
Out of four films 3 had Fleming titles
Two had Fleming villains (though arguably I could argue the other two had Fleming Inspiried villains)
Two had a male ally from Fleming beyond the usual mi6 regular
One had two Fleming Bond girls (Solange from casino Royale and of course Vesper Lynd though honestly I could argue the girls and the other three films had Fleming counterparts)
And I love it my issue now of course is post Craig where will they go?
For me there is still a lot of Fleming to explore and re-explore (Moonraker has been adapted three times and yet people still want a fourth. Why not a readapation of For Your Eyes Only or Risico or Diamonds are forever...)
As for where will it go my big fear is if Turner is Bond that like Brosnan it will be more film Bond then book bond. but like I said we shall see what the future holds.
I see this happening if the producers return to the classic formula with a classic Bond a'la Pierce in GE, and the film is done so well it re-introduces new audiences to what made Bond so loved and great the previous decades prior to Craig. Then when that actor is finished after 3 or four films in about 12 years, there will be a nostalgia and appreciation for Daniel when the 8th actor arrives and carries similar traits to Daniel.
On the other hand, if the next Bond actor is foolishly cast (Gillian Anderson, Justin Beiber, Miley Cyrus, Screech from Saved By The Bell, etc etc etc) and the filmmakers cave in to Hollywood peer-pressure to change the character dramatically to the point there's really no reason to call it a James Bond film, then the Craig era will be regarded as the last great handful of films before the series met it's demise.
And in all honesty, we haven't had such a complex James Bond ever. Not even Connery enjoyed such wonderful caharcter-driven writing (And Sir Connery is a big fan of Daniel Craig). The four films of Craig will stand the test of times way better than the four films from Pierce Brosnan. For the very simple reason that it is a quadrilogy. You can dissect each and every film, but CR, QOS, SF and SP will always be seen in comparison with the other parts of this quadrilogy. Much more than all the Bond films that preceded this quadrilogy.
-By comparison, Brosnan's movies gradually diminished in renown, yet even now people praise GE and overall for all its flaws (and it had many) the Brosnan era made Bond cool again after a six years hiatus when people were wondering about the series' relevance.
-We know the same thing happened with Craig, only better. CR was both a financial and critical success. So was SF. Yes, QOS and SF had mixed reviews, but both were financially successful. And whatever we say about the films, overall Craig's is generally praised. So my bet is that it will stand the test of time. Yes, we will have people complaining about QOS and SP, and maybe the others too. But if only for CR and for the success they others brought, I believe it will stand the test of time. Heck, even YOLT, which I strongly disliked, is still an iconic Bond film (the hollowed out volcano, Blofeld's appearance, etc.).
The four films are deeper than any other Bond. There's a lot of reference to CR in Spectre, and the 'you don't have to keep doing what you're doing" thing. When he doesn't kill Blofeld at the end, that's the story arc complete, in a way. His (implied?) resignation, and his riding off with the girl towards Big Ben in the DB5, it's all wrapped up nicely for me.
I think the way the 'Craig era' will be regarded, will depend upon the direction the next films take. I doubt they'll just change the actor, and keep the rest of the Bond gang. They were quite brave with what they did with Casino Royale, with the 'Bond begins' thing. It was a gamble that paid off. Will they gamble again, but in a different way?
Anyway, I've enjoyed the Craig era, and if it's over, I'm grateful for a great ride. I'm just a little pissed off that Spectre has the almost the same Rotten Tomatoes rating as the miss-step that was QOS. That's just ridiculous.
I very much enjoyed each of the Craig entries, and there look into the Bond persona. For the first time, we get to see a character arc for Bond. Sure, they have problems, but I feel the good outweighs the bad.
For the general audience, however, who knows. My gut feeling is that they will enjoy the Craig era, certainly compared to the Brosnan era - there are some striking similarities between the two, as others have noticed - the Craig era is superior in their filmmaking.
Casino Royale
Skyfall
Spectre
Tomorrow Never Dies
Goldeneye
The World Is Not Enough
Die Another Day
Quantum
The Craig era has the top three.
Same with me. From the last 8 Bond films.....three of Craig's films are in my TOP 4. I just can't put more of Brosnan's films in it.
01. "Skyfall"
02. "Casino Royale"
03. "SPECTRE"
04. "The World Is Not Enough"
05. "GoldenEye"
06. "Quantum Of Solace"
07. "Tomorrow Never Dies"
08. "Die Another Day"
Not true I think. Brosnan's 3rd film was by far critically acclaimed. Craig's 3rd film however seems to become much more of an evergreen. Together with CR. And that's a huge difference from the Brosnan era. His films basically went dowanwards all the time.
Ditto
As for Craig himself, he'll be allright. Pierce is still considered a good Bond despite his atrocious swansong.
For me, Brosnan was born to be Bond and I consider him a lot more elegant/suave than Craig who is more bruttish. Though I do find it admirable that he was able to make Bond a bit more human again. A good actor without a doubt. Craig also has had the good fortune of superior filmmaking. SF doesn't have the best of plots but it's so beautiful to look at I cannot put it outside my top 10.
My ranking of both era's films:
1. GoldenEye (#5)
2. Casino Royale (#6)
3. Skyfall (#8)
4. The World Is Not Enough (#10)
5. Tomorrow Never Dies (#16)
6. Quantum of Solace (#17)
7. Spectre (#22)
8. Die Another Day (#24)
I agree with a lot of this Tanaka. CR is my favourite bond film after FRWL. Although I think objectively speaking CR is probably the best bond film. It really does everything brilliantly. SF is a clear second favourite for me in the Craig era. Although I admit it does a lot of this with smoke and mirrors. But it has two aces in Silva and M. Both CR and SF have meaningful deaths as their climaxes - deaths that impact on Bond and viewers alike. In Spectre, Craig seems more interested in playing bond as the cool Connery figure - and I love that. It just seems the script works against this and keeps trying to drag him in to emotional waters with Madeline and Blofeld being foster brother. He never gets that opportunity to play the suave, unaffected secret agent like Connery or Moore did. I would love to see a stand alone adventure where he gets a dossier handed to him by M - the only time this has happened in the Craig era was at the end of SF and then they didn't follow through on the promise in Spectre. But to your point on the novels - I agree - YOLT seems like the largest untapped resource. And they could always Frankenstein together unused elements of the novels - DAF, MR, TSWLM (ending), MWTGG and short stories. Messy I agree but i think they could look for inspiration there. The other thing I would like to see is some of the continuation novelists get a run at creating a story treatment (not the actual script) Higson, Horowitz seem like they have a real grip on bond.
No. The thing is or i/we don't know yet or Eon whant to contuned the quistions who are left with another actor. I think there whole bigger story of Daniel Craig era who is not finished yet.
There have creative silver in there hands and should making gold from it.
You don't re-introduce Felix for only two movies and there happend almoost nothing with him. Camile must return. You created new setups in Spectre. Then you stil have symbols in both CR, Skyfall and Spectre too.
Inside the fan community his tenure will wax and wane in estimation, as every other era has, aside from the unassailable 60s.
Fan presence online can be rather self-selecting, I imagine. As @thelivingroyale mentions in the OP, if you'd been online 2003 you'd have seen a lot of people who were quite satisfied, on the whole, with the eight previous years. I've seen a few people here now mention that Craig got them re-invested. I'm sure it did the opposite work on many Brosnan fans.
Shortly after DAD was released, I remember looking online at people's rankings of the films. The 70s films were, as I recall, generally more highly regarded than they are now. The opposite seems true of the 80s films. I'd be interested to hear from long, long time members of MI6 (pre-Craig) and if they can recall any shifts. I've argued elsewhere on here that CR is basically the culmination of John Glen's take on Bond. It doesn't surprise me in the least that the 80s-era stock, hypothetically, could rise in concordance with Craig's era, and that the 70s-era stock could fall as Brosnan's era recedes into memory. And if the next era returns to a light touch (which seems anticipated; the current era having been in place for over a decade, the 70s-era stock quietly begins to creep up once more), then yes I would expect the Craig films to drop a bit in estimation.
But then when Bond #8 is cast and Greg Wilson proclaims a 'return to Fleming,' I'm sure the Craig films will once again be favorably viewed. And the world will go around.
Of course this is all based on my own memory and generalizations, but I do think it's essentially true that eras (as well as particular films) rise and fall in stock, and I can't imagine Craig's will be any different in that regard.
I think if they'd done a better job of capitalising/building on the success of SF then he could have been up there with Connery and Moore (who's a weird one because most of his films aren't that highly regarded but the man himself is such an icon in his own right that that doesn't matter). As it stands I think when he's gone he'll be thought of as a solid third. Better than Brosnan, Dalton and Lazenby, but not on the same level as the two icons (it doesn't help that SF and SP so reliant on the legacy those two left).
That's still very good though. Connery was Bond and Moore redefined it. Escaping from their shadows is pretty much impossible. Lazenby and Dalton didn't, and it's debatable with Brosnan even though he was very popular. So I think Craig deserves credit for managing that.
And no matter what happens with the next one he'll always have CR and SF, films that'll be mentioned in conversations down the line as some of the best in the series. Brosnan only had one of those, and the Dalton movies are so criminally underrated that he probably doesn't have any. OHMSS is highly regarded by those who have actually seen it but it's not one that gets repeated on ITV a lot is it, it's largely forgotten and has an unfair reputation because of Lazenby. So two classics is an achievement and I think there's a good chance that Bond 25 could be in the same league in terms of popularity.
It will always be head and shoulders above Brosnan - every single one of Craig's films is superior to any single Brosnan one.
In terms of performances it's always going to be up for discussion. I've never been a passionate Craig fan. For me he's a solid Bond and I've been generally happy with him. I feel he lacks a warmth or wit I'd like to have seen but it's always good to have a fresh take on the character rather than a stale tribute act.
Sean and Rog will always probably be 1st and 2nd for me. And I get more of a thrill from watching Laz and Dalts than Craig, which leaves him in 5th or 4th place. But as they did so few, Craig's era only really bears comparison with Sean, Rog and Brozza, in which case he ranks third.
Great post. Because of Craig’s first 3 alone, his era is a success to me - regardless of however Bond 25 turns out. CR is to me the best Bond film of the whole franchise, SF is a great unique entry that works well standalone and in Craig’s continuity, and QOS is an imperfect but very underrated gem with a lot of great moments and stuff.
SP has its good parts, but does pale in comparison. Tried too hard to make it too classic. SF struck the right balance for Craig doing it both his style and classic.