Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Is Craig reviving Connery's Golden-age of Bond?
While there are certainly many differences between the films of 50 years ago and the films of today, to what extent is this modern, post-reboot Bond era trying to mimic the magic of Connery's early films? If it is, is this a good thing, and if it isn't, how is it different? Personally I think that Craig's movies are subtly shadowing the progression of Connery's films, and I'm happy about this because the bonds of the 60's are all at the top of my favorites list. Sean's films had a magic sparkle to them that none of the other films have ever quite managed to capture, save perhaps CR. I myself haven't seen SF yet but from what I'm hearing, it has a very similar 60's Bond feel, and that by it's end SF sets up a very traditional Connery-era Bond framework going forward into Bond 24. I'm really excited about this direction and I can clearly see a progression in Craig's films that is similar to Sean's. Thoughts anybody?
^ 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
This is definately an exciting time for Bond fans...
These kind of franchises are ten a penny now, so Bond can't be different in 2012. They can of course still be relevent.
Allthough I really think, the Bond producers should revive SPECTRE and Blofeld again. At the moment 'Skyfall's negative reviews are about being too Dark Knight-ish, like QOS was too Jason Bourne-ish. So why not revive SPECTRE and Blofeld....in a modern day situation. I can already think of the SPECTRE meeting in 'Thunderball', this time set in a big Dennis Gassner designed board room of the Sears Tower in Chicago for Bond 24.
I also understood the Brocolli's own the rights for SPECTRE and Blofeld again. So why not bringing back our OWN great villains and crime syndicates that made OUR Bond franchise back? If this happens, NO one can make claims of the Bond producers stealing the look and feel from other franchises.
The next one will be Bond-ish.
Fantastic topic BTW ;-). I was really thinking the same!
Why do you say that sweetheart :-).
Despite being a classic and arguably the best in the series and one of the best spy thrillers ever, I don't think a film like FRWL would wholly go down so well with today's audience. The likes of CR and SF IMO have taken a variety of elements from the movies in the series.
Putting aside the novels, I watch CR and can see elements of OHMSS, TB and a bit of GF.
With SF, there are a whole bunch of favourable elements taken from the maority of the previous 22 movies, the one's that spring to mind the most are, The first 5 Connery movies, LALD, TMWTGG, OP, AVTAK, GE, TND and TWINE.
=D> Couldn't agree with you more man, I feel the same way about everything. I even had the same thought the other day about having that boardroom scene from TB in Bond 24, except that instead of Largo it would be Mr. White who we see making his way to the secret meeting. I like the idea with the Sears Tower but maybe a city like Beijing or Dubai. The Burj Khalifa tower perhaps! I really hope that Logan does something like this and makes Bond 24 very much like TB, because that is, along with Goldfinger, my favorite Bond film and I cannot wait to see Quantum become the modern Specter, and watch a new Blofeld get re-imagined in Bond 24.
You are spot on. I was around in the 60s. In no way is DC reviving the Connery "golden age" of Bond. I prefer the Roger Moore-type Bond. Yet, if EON turned the clock back to a 1967-1985 style Bond, it still wouldn't be the same to me. The excitement that Bond created in the early to mid-60s can never be replicated. You can't go home again.
What about simply saying a 'Second Era'...like I mentioned?
I'm with you Graves, I think that a new era has begun after the re-boot and it is paralleling the golden-age Sean created.
we've had that.. Moore '73 - '85
there are 2 established "Eras" in the Bond film cannon IMO... that's Connery's ('62 - '67, '71) and Moore...
Craig is on his way to establishing his own as we speak..
IMO, while these recent Craig films have been some of the best since the days of Connery - they aren't a second golden age (yet)... i think a moniker like that is earned with time, and shouldn't just be thrown around at whim.... there were/are many who thought Brosnan's run back in the day was the second 'golden age' as well - looking back, maybe not so much... time will be the ultimate judge on how well these films will hold up - if they can hold up as well in 50 years as Connery's still do after 50, then i'd agree with you....
right now, i'm not concerned about all of that - i'm just enjoying the ride :-bd
The passage of time will reveal. Bond films like a fine wine, are better with the passage of time. Moonraker was a mega hit and Bond mania was huge too. But the passage of time takes away the opiate of hype and we see them for what they really were.
The Beatles were the biggest thing in music. And Bond was the biggest thing in cinema at the time. People nowadays do not see a film as something as special. Yes they are popular but far more disposable. It is all about the latest thing.
I think why the Craig era has worked so well is because Craig wants them to be fine films first and foremost. He knows that if it becomes too self-consciously trying to match the golden age, it usually ends in disaster. That was a part of the mistake the Brosnan era made because they were aiming for that and over shot with DAD.
for example I hold no preference over the portrayal of Sherlock Holmes by Rathbone, Bret, Baker, Moore, Caine, Downey.(the list could go on here).
My point is I think as long as the overall production is good and there is a hunger for the character we will perceive a golden age, a fine line between money collected and reviews and write ups. so I don't think Dan Craig is the fertilizer that has made the character grow. if anything he is lucky to have become so well received. when he first stepped in there was a lot of doubt and he was seen as cold and hard, much like Dalton(some say was his downfall, but then how come we all flock to him now citing him as a great actor with poor stories)
If we look at Quantum of Solace its evident Marc Forester takes alot of heat for the failure of that film though DC came out and proposed he was largely responsible for that as well, the statement washed away from him and business carried on as usual.
What I mean by that is I think sometimes there is too much praise put on Daniel Craig's tenour as bond. With Skyfall i felt we moved into the light of detective work and amazing lighting and camera set ups. only time will tell if this can be continued.
I have to agree. Sometimes this media created who is the Best Bond is childish. Rarely. do they appraise each film on what was the producers intentions on where to take the character. Of course the Connery era is incredibly important as it created the interest and as a result James Bond has a huge following.
As for Daniel Craig's reception in the role. Had he replaced Pierce immediately after DAD it would have been impossible. The actors were too sharply contrasted and the mass audience saw no one but Pierce, especially in the USA market. He benefitted from the 4 year gap between him and Pierce. So far two actors were consecutively accepted Brosnan and Craig. So that breaks the stereotype that one Bond succeeds and the next fails.
Plus in some ways the internet is a tool that enormously helped Daniel Craig get accepted. People liked what they saw and gave him the chance he deserves.
But I have little respect for a mainstream media who purposefully tried to derail his Bond tenure and then praise him when it succeeded way beyond what their early predictions were.
Money won the day. Had Craig's film flopped despite being well made and performed, the media would have spared no expense in hammering home how they were right all along.
I take everything I read with a barrel of salt.
the money worked. yeah I agree. I see people on here utterly trash Dalton at some points unsoundly. box office records for him show he was very good indeed at selling bonds I just think by the time they got to make three he was tied up with other things and they couldn't match his price to untie himself.
perhaps the return to the ppk is to blame for the return to the golden age or the office of M or... this is an equation we can only make assumptions on 5 years down the line, for right now enjoy the fact everyone seems to be happy with the meal.
Not sure if this mean that this is a golden age for everyone but after the just ok Brosnan era Craig really beefed up my interest in Fact I wouldn't be on this board had it not been for Craig and the sort of choices the producers made.
People wanted to embrace Brosnan way more back in the day and he rode that wave hard, even when the scripts and films were by-the-numbers. The acclaim Craig and SF are getting now is far superior to what Brosnan got at the time of hsi film's releases. Look at RT's numbers and IMDB. They don't mean everything but we can look and compare.
Brosnan:
GE-81% Fresh
TND- 56% Rotten
TWINE- 51% Rotten
DAD- 57% Rotten
Craig:
CR- 95% Fresh
QoS- 64% Fresh
SF- currently 95% Fresh
Craig has one less film, true but it's not even close. He crushes Brosnan (who has three Rotten films to one Fresh) and it compares to Connery's first three very well considering there aren't as many reviews for 60's films and critics are much more likely to look back on them with nostalgia's fuzzy eye. What's happening with Craig's run is real and right here in front of us; massive success on every level.