Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
The Craig era - sullied for some?
The cinematic death of James Bond (or ‘CraigBond’) was one of the most contentious things to happen in the franchise. I know many members here applauded the decision and were on board with it, and that’s great, but I’m creating this thread to ask a question to the people who specifically didn’t like the death of cinematic Bond.
Before I elaborate - the last thing I want is a back and forth on whether they should have killed off of Bond. We’ve all done that many times and I’m sure we’re all bored by it by now.
No, the question I’d like to ask – specifically to the people who didn’t like the ending of NTTD – is -has NTTD, or rather its ending, affected your enjoyment of the other Craig Bond films?
Have you found that you’re less inclined to watch the previous four, after the events of No Time to Die? Are they less appealing to you?
I remember in the maelstrom of comments after NTTD came out, a member here, who disliked the ending of NTTD, said “I don’t want to watch the others now, because I know how it all ends”. And I must admit, that struck a chord with me.
I was on board with the Craig era. I’ll happily admit wasn’t thrilled with his casting, but the man has such great acting talent and great screen presence, that I enjoyed watching all the first four Craig Bond films, (CR and SF especially). Only a fool would deny Craig’s talent and his commitment to the role.
Yet since NTTD and its dramatic final scene, (NTTD is the only Bond film EON have released that I don’t like, so they’re not doing bad, really. . .), I haven’t sat and enjoyed any of the first four CraigBonds in the same way, because I know how it all ends.
And that must be a failing on my part, because if I don’t like NTTD, then I should just deny its existence and enjoy the other four movies, like I did before NTTD existed. I don't even own the movie on DVD or anything. But I can’t get round the fact that, well, there’s some kind of shadow been cast on the ‘reboot era’ (for want of a better expression).
That promise of further adventures and romance, hinted at at the end of all the other Bond movies, is now denied in all the films of the Craig era. Because we know how it all ends.
Has No Time to Die sullied the other Daniel Craig movies?
I’d respectfully ask the moderators – if you decide this topic belongs on another thread, and isn’t deserving of its own thread, I’d very much appreciate it if you’d move this post to the appropriate thread instead of just closing it and telling me I shouldn’t have created a new discussion. Cheers!
Before I elaborate - the last thing I want is a back and forth on whether they should have killed off of Bond. We’ve all done that many times and I’m sure we’re all bored by it by now.
No, the question I’d like to ask – specifically to the people who didn’t like the ending of NTTD – is -has NTTD, or rather its ending, affected your enjoyment of the other Craig Bond films?
Have you found that you’re less inclined to watch the previous four, after the events of No Time to Die? Are they less appealing to you?
I remember in the maelstrom of comments after NTTD came out, a member here, who disliked the ending of NTTD, said “I don’t want to watch the others now, because I know how it all ends”. And I must admit, that struck a chord with me.
I was on board with the Craig era. I’ll happily admit wasn’t thrilled with his casting, but the man has such great acting talent and great screen presence, that I enjoyed watching all the first four Craig Bond films, (CR and SF especially). Only a fool would deny Craig’s talent and his commitment to the role.
Yet since NTTD and its dramatic final scene, (NTTD is the only Bond film EON have released that I don’t like, so they’re not doing bad, really. . .), I haven’t sat and enjoyed any of the first four CraigBonds in the same way, because I know how it all ends.
And that must be a failing on my part, because if I don’t like NTTD, then I should just deny its existence and enjoy the other four movies, like I did before NTTD existed. I don't even own the movie on DVD or anything. But I can’t get round the fact that, well, there’s some kind of shadow been cast on the ‘reboot era’ (for want of a better expression).
That promise of further adventures and romance, hinted at at the end of all the other Bond movies, is now denied in all the films of the Craig era. Because we know how it all ends.
Has No Time to Die sullied the other Daniel Craig movies?
I’d respectfully ask the moderators – if you decide this topic belongs on another thread, and isn’t deserving of its own thread, I’d very much appreciate it if you’d move this post to the appropriate thread instead of just closing it and telling me I shouldn’t have created a new discussion. Cheers!
^ 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
Therein lies the danger of connecting Bond film stories together in an arc. The increasingly complex nature of making modern Bond films (and the delays they engender) tends to get in the way of the story and so it has to jump forward in time at the expense of the continuity of the story arc. Story arcs and connected narratives between films can lead to writing yourself into a corner. I think this happened a few times with the Craig Bond films, notably Skyfall, Spectre and No Time to Die. Traditionally, Bond films have worked better as standalone narratives with little to no connections between them apart from Bond himself, the MI6 crew, Leiter etc.
So the answer to the question is no, it doesn't cast a pall on Craig's era for me, because NTTD is non-existent to me. CR, QOS, & SP I can still enjoy just fine (I happen to have watched QOS & SP last month, in fact).
Although I haven't watched NTTD in probably two years now. Perhaps if the ending had been less definitive, there'd be more reason for me to rewatch it
I think I made the point here ages ago that the cinematic Bond had changed from the 'man all men want to be', to 'the man they're glad they're not'. Of course, me saying that was a little tongue in cheek, but you get my drift. I think you're saying much the same thing here.
I suppose I'm really asking is, do some people now, view the first four Craig films differently, even less favourably, now they now how it all ends. We've never had Bond's professional life story before, from his fledgling days as a 00, to his demise. There was always a future at the end of every film. The Craig era delivered his complete 007 nstory in a package of five films. A proper story arc. But in giving 'CraigBond' such a definite dramatic ending, has it changed the enjoyment of the journey? Even OHMSS ended with a 007 that was able to have more adventures, more women and more martinis.
I wish I could do this. I thought Casino Royale was so cool. Now I can't watch it without the nagging thought that 'he eventually gets killed by Freddy Mercury'.
NTTD wasn't that and I hated it. Yeah I can pretend it doesn't exist but it already tainted the Craig era for me. If I could erase my memory of watching that movie I would.
I still love the original 20 Bond movies and can watch them instantly. But I feel less inclined to revisit Craig's. The decision to kill Bond off is just so stupid to me. Just because it was a new idea doesn't mean it was a good one.
I don't know what the future of Bond films will be but after NTTD I'm not sure if I care anymore. They barely get them out anymore and the writing of the last few have been less than stellar. The only thing that keeps me around these days are the expanded soundtracks of the older films.
Perhaps i should take that same approach. Craig's Bond dying doesn't sully anything prior and even most of NTTD.
I love the all the Craig films except Spectre.
They're my go to Bond films.
So no, it doesn’t tarnish the Craig era for me, nor the future of the series. Plenty of film series I love have had weaker entries, but those never diminish my enjoyment of the stronger ones. I recently rewatched Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, Skyfall, and Spectre in quick succession and loved every second. Whatever my thoughts on No Time to Die, those films came first, and they remain as good today as I thought they were when they were released.
I remain pretty optimistic. I believe the Bond film series is strong enough to recover from any slip-up. It's not the first time that an actor's final Bond film is also his most contentious one; the next actor's debut film may as well be a whole lot more respected again.
It's not my place to tell others what they will feel when a new film lands, but I have confidence that all it takes is a good teaser for many who struggle with NTTD to bury the past. A new Bond, in no way tied to the Craig era, with the promise of a fresh take on the material, may very well solve many concerns voiced in this thread. I haven't the gift of clairvoyance, but I see no reason why it shouldn't be.
Just kidding man, we all like what we like, it's all good.
That I agree here does not change my preferences.
Many fans feel the same, EON have got A LOT of work to do to win over peoples goodwill with the next one.
As for NTTD's ending, yes, it was a cynical move on the part of filmmakers who had become too indulgent of their star. I still think Casino Royale is one of the best in the series, though admittedly it's a bit less enjoyable now.
Yep.
Craig rules, though, and his films mostly do as well. He and CR saved the Bond film series for me. I was generally fine with NTTD and Bond's death at the end. It wasn't my preffered way to close out Craig's era, I suppose, but for what it was, it turned out fine.
But, for me personally, the only disappointment is that the Craig-era committed to a particular way of telling a story in SP that was so awkwardly done that it not only fell flat on its own, but it left the writers with limited wiggle room to get to where they wanted to go by the end of NTTD.
The last two films are impeccably made, fabulously acted, and impressively staged, but I can never shake the feeling of how hard they're working to make their stories flow and function when simplicity would have been a superior option and led to a greater emotional payoff akin to what they clearly hoped I would feel at the end of NTTD.
This might be completely against the nature of a fan site, but to some extent I think after each viewing/that catharsis we all feel as audiences, each Bond adventure kinda has to be left at the door, even when going into another that’s connected by story threads. I’m not sure if I’d personally be able to truly enjoy, say, OHMSS while obsessing over the fact Bond and Blofeld had met in YOLT. They’re different films. It’s tempting to overrationalise and get into intellectual knots trying to justify why a portion of films are ruined for whatever reasons because of story choices (and the same can be said for praising other films in the series which should be ruined by similar logic - I’m pre-empting the typical ‘but continuity didn’t matter in the 60s films’ to defend OHMSS in this case which is nonsense as any regular viewer making their way chronologically through the early films will tell you). At the end of the day we can only react the way we do instinctually to each Bond adventure. If one or two films ‘sullied’ the Craig era, why wouldn’t it do the same for any subsequent Bond film simply because in film terms there are now different ‘timelines’ or interpretations of the character? That’d be silly of course. Why wouldn’t, say, MR ruin your enjoyment of Moore’s later, comparatively more grounded films because Bond had an outlandish adventure and went to space? Again, that’d be silly, but I suspect there’d be some fans who’ve said both at some point. I’m personally not sure how useful that is to enjoying these movies. And ultimately that’s the point in watching Bond films… right?
Your own words.
:))