›

If the Craig era is over, do you think it will stand the test of time?

2»

Comments

  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,617
    Just my 2p worth, SC and RM created their versions of Bond as a standalone character beyond any individual movie. Members of the public can watch them in any of the movies, not know which movie they are watching but clearly identify the character: The character of Bond they created transcends any individual movie. Especially with RM. When you went to see one of his Bond movies, you pretty much know what you would get from his Bond, and audiences like that common theme.

    I dont think you can say this of DC. There are no clear character traits of the DC Bond running clearly through his efforts. I think this is partly down to him and partly down to the scripts which have very different tones and styles. He really has failed (so far IMHO) in stamping his own individuality on the character.

  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    I think that the middle three movie will keep the fans divided simply because they look good does not make them them good movies, QoS was an hommage to the Bourne series who did better story wise, SF was a movie about the death of M and if 007 had or hadn't interfered she would have died his involvement was moot, SP looked good but felt empty (expensive action scenes and sets with no people as extra's and with an excitement-factor of zero) together with the Blofeld debacle. If Craig goes out on high we might give him more credits but the years in between CR & Bond 25 will be remembered as the MI - Bourne years as they delivered better material.
  • fanbond123fanbond123
    edited June 2018 Posts: 1,661

    I think Craig's era will be remembered for redefining James Bond. A Bond for the 21st century. I can't see that perception changing in the medium term. Craig's casting was a significant new chapter in the franchise. Die Another Day did feel like the franchise had run out of creative steam and along came Craig (with the help of Ian Fleming's Casino Royale material) and the franchise had a new lease of life. Perhaps the Bond Begins aspect was a little underused. I didn't get a great sense Craig's Bond was a rookie 00 in Casino Royale. He seemed competent and confident enough.

    Craig's comments about not wanting to return - just for money - yeah, I guess that did him no favours but people may forget about that when Bond 25 is released. Had Craig gone further and made a Roseanne Barr type career-suicide comment he would have ruined his era but he didn't go that far. He was tired after making SPECTRE. He spoke out of turn but I don't think it has ruined his era. If Danny Boyle delivers a good Bond 25, Craig will leave on a high note.

    I tend to think Connery and Moore's era as the definitive Bond. Connery's Bond a product of the 1960s - which was the ideal time to launch the Bond films - and Moore's Bond taking the franchise though the 70s and into the 80s. Their eras stand the tallest. Craig's era not as iconic but that's to be expected when the franchise has lasted so long. Craig did reinvent much of Bond and that is quite an achievement. He didn't try to be like Brosnan or the other Bonds.

  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,860
    In my opinion Craig has two eras His Bond begins era which I include
    Casino Royale
    Quantum of solace (both game and film)
    Blood Stone (game)
    Goldeneye Reloaded (game)

    And his tired bond which I include the following
    Happy and glorious (the Olympic short)
    That weird video he did for men’s pay vs women’s pay
    Skyfall
    007 legends
    Spectre
    And I assume Bond 25

    The difference is pre 2012 he seems hungry for he part he seems to really be enjoying himself and he seems to be more alive

    2012 on he seems full of himself less humble and more yeah full of himself (he didn’t even bother voicing the character in legends)

    Over all I loved all of his stuff pre 2012 2012 and beyond however I like some of it but don’t love it.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    SaintMark wrote: »
    I think that the middle three movie will keep the fans divided simply because they look good does not make them them good movies, QoS was an hommage to the Bourne series who did better story wise, SF was a movie about the death of M and if 007 had or hadn't interfered she would have died his involvement was moot, SP looked good but felt empty (expensive action scenes and sets with no people as extra's and with an excitement-factor of zero) together with the Blofeld debacle. If Craig goes out on high we might give him more credits but the years in between CR & Bond 25 will be remembered as the MI - Bourne years as they delivered better material.

    harsh but perhaps fair
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Good points raised here by all. I'm broadly in agreement.

    The Connery/Moore era will always be the benchmark for me personally.

    In terms of the Craig era, I think his films have benefited generally from excellent production values and casting. The directors have also brought their own spin to the table, far more so than in the past. This 'experimental' reboot period (and that is really what I think it is) has been marked by more variation than prior eras. It's been a time when EON has let its hair down, so to speak. Taken risks. Some have worked, and others really haven't.

    All I can say is despite the above, I don't see myself revisiting the Craig films very much after he's gone (Bond 25 notwithstanding as of now). I find them a bit heavy going to get through as a whole due to the undercurrent of melodrama and angst which pervades. Ironically, I find SF the most recurringly watchable, perhaps because the emotion comes from the Silva/M dynamic more than from Bond, who is essentially an observer.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,830
    It ALL depends on the next actor. If he's phenomenal, the public at large will sort of forget Craig the way they've sort of forgotten Brosnan. If he's just okay, Craig will be remembered a bit more fondly IMHO.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    I am 100% sure at least CR will stand the test of time. For myself I know CR, QoS and SF will keep themselves high in my rankings ... even a new actor‘s tenure may kick around one or two of Craig‘s films
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,226
    chrisisall wrote: »
    It ALL depends on the next actor. If he's phenomenal, the public at large will sort of forget Craig the way they've sort of forgotten Brosnan. If he's just okay, Craig will be remembered a bit more fondly IMHO.

    That how I've been feeling, especially if B25 is no better than SPECTRE. I do think of all the Craig films, CR will probably be the one that remains a classic, with SF a close second.
    If the series continues this trend of long spaces in between films, the next actor only gets 2 films in say a 10 year period and the series dwindles down, the Craig era would be remembered as the beginning of the end.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    Good points raised here by all. I'm broadly in agreement.

    The Connery/Moore era will always be the benchmark for me personally.

    In terms of the Craig era, I think his films have benefited generally from excellent production values and casting. The directors have also brought their own spin to the table, far more so than in the past. This 'experimental' reboot period (and that is really what I think it is) has been marked by more variation than prior eras. It's been a time when EON has let its hair down, so to speak. Taken risks. Some have worked, and others really haven't.

    All I can say is despite the above, I don't see myself revisiting the Craig films very much after he's gone (Bond 25 notwithstanding as of now). I find them a bit heavy going to get through as a whole due to the undercurrent of melodrama and angst which pervades. Ironically, I find SF the most recurringly watchable, perhaps because the emotion comes from the Silva/M dynamic more than from Bond, who is essentially an observer.

    Same here. the Craig films simply don't have the rewatch value of the Connery and Moore films. QOS is actually the more throw away light hearted entry that I find easiest to sit through. the others drag for me.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,454
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Good points raised here by all. I'm broadly in agreement.

    The Connery/Moore era will always be the benchmark for me personally.

    In terms of the Craig era, I think his films have benefited generally from excellent production values and casting. The directors have also brought their own spin to the table, far more so than in the past. This 'experimental' reboot period (and that is really what I think it is) has been marked by more variation than prior eras. It's been a time when EON has let its hair down, so to speak. Taken risks. Some have worked, and others really haven't.

    All I can say is despite the above, I don't see myself revisiting the Craig films very much after he's gone (Bond 25 notwithstanding as of now). I find them a bit heavy going to get through as a whole due to the undercurrent of melodrama and angst which pervades. Ironically, I find SF the most recurringly watchable, perhaps because the emotion comes from the Silva/M dynamic more than from Bond, who is essentially an observer.

    Same here. the Craig films simply don't have the rewatch value of the Connery and Moore films. QOS is actually the more throw away light hearted entry that I find easiest to sit through. the others drag for me.

    Yeah, no way near. I wouldn't call Quantum light-hearted though. In fact, probably the most cheerless of any of Craig's films. It was easier to sit through though, since it is about 40 minutes shorter than the rest.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    May be the wrong description. I just feel because it's less weighed down by the baggage of the past that QOS is more palatable and refreshing. not saying it's remotely as good in terms of quality but in it's brevity and pacing it feels closer to the early Connery films to me.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,220
    I think it largely depends on how well B25 turns out. If it's as well regarded as CR and SF, his tenure may be as fondly remembered as Connery and Moore's being a very solid run that put a big mark on the franchise.

    If not, well, it's better than Brosnan's run at the very least.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,232
    Even if B25 is a turkey and unpopular, Craig will still have CR and SF (and I like his other too but I understand they are controversial movies) and given the number of movies he made and length of his tenure. So I say his "era" will stand far better than most Bond actors, except Connery and Moore.
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre
    Posts: 1,548
    Craig is best Bond ever imo so without doubt. But I'm sure others disagree. He's certainly the best actor to play Bond. Dalton obviously can act but didn't quite bring the sparkle to the role that the American audience craves. Craig in my opinion plays the part as Fleming would have liked and the right level of humour. Tom Hardy will have a hard act to follow!
Sign In or Register to comment.