It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ 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
I don't see the Craig films as dark or depressing at all, and I've never gotten this contention. It's a grounded world, our world. People do bad things, as they always have. The movies aren't wrist-slashing in this portrayal, they just realistically present what organizations like Quantum and SPECTRE would do in that world, which isn't far removed from our own. There's a lot of depraved stuff in Connery's films too, with FRWL being jam-packed with very mature and "dark" acts, and Thunderball's whole plot revolves around a scheme involving nuclear weapons for crying out loud. It doesn't get more dire. This isn't even to mention the most mature and "darkest" of all, OHMSS. LTK reaches similar moments of maturity, and is probably the most adult Bond ever, in regards to what we see versus what is implied. It doesn't hold back. I don't label any of them as dark though, they are just more grounded. If those films depress you, I'd hate to see what is classed as cheery.
About worrying of a post-Craig Bond, I really can't help it. Two major eras of these films have never spoken to me, one of them being super recent, and the other era just behind it, only broken up by Dalton. It's not hard to imagine the series slipping back into superman Bond with a wide grin and enough quips to make me drink antifreeze. It's not an equivalency thing, as personally I never would've counted Craig out when he was cast. They casted a professional with talent, they got a professional with talent.
I will say that Barbara and Michael's leadership make me feel better than if Cubby were still in charge. They're much better collaborators, though Craig could just be an exception, and they seem more willing to allow other people to have a voice and to take risks. You wouldn't see what happened with Cubby and Sean happen with this team, as their camaraderie is high, and at this point in time I also don't think you'd see Barbara and Michael make the same films over and over just to appease the public. On this front, I am more reassured.
As for the mediocrity of the Bond films, I'll make a clarification. There's the masterpieces, those being DN, FRWL, TB, OHMSS and CR. There's the stellar movies that are rich and amazing, including TLD, LTK, QoS and SF, and the good like GF and SP. Everything else stacks accordingly. When I say the Moore and Brosnan films can't play ball with the likes of Sean, Dan and Tim, I mean it. But that's also because those three Bonds are just too good, almost to the point that it's a little unfair. No films from either Moore or Brosnan's era, and I mean any film, is even a third as powerful or clever or impressive as FRWL from Sean and CR from Dan. Add all the other great films both did, and it's starting to get embarrassing.
This isn't to disparage the Moore and Brosnan films, though. Some movies and actors have to come last, and that's where they are for me. I can't say I "get" them, but it's nice to see they have fans. It's just that more often than not they are films I tolerate, not ones I enjoy. Sometimes, they have my respect. Why I don't care for most of them is down to many reasons, but everyone knows what they are from my perspective so I won't go on.
There's no point in repeating negative things ad nauseam, but if I'm asked, I respond.
Not doing real math, it was just a joke. (Really gotta stop trying to make those)
In my opinion, and I've been a fan a long, long time, Licence To Kill is neither rich nor amazing. It's dull and generic at best. But that's just my opinion!
So now we disagree on one point, how many more of your facts are to be challenged?
Thunderball a masterpiece? No, it isn't. Connery is superb in it, but it's muddled, poorly edited and dubbed, and slowed up by lengthy underwater scenes. I love the film, but I recognise it's many short comings.
Again, my opinion.
I don't need you to explain how I am wrong, I just need you to accept my opinion is different.
@NicNac, as someone who has participated in debates at the collegiate level and who has written for publications, yes, I think I am familiar with the concept of an opinion and what having one means.
Nowhere in my posts do I ever say, "You need to think this way, if you don't you're daft." I argue my points and give MY perspective. In the above post you're reacting to, I listed how I-and I alone-viewed the series and where I thought the different movies stacked in quality. Not because I wanted to, but because I was misinterpreted and needed to clarify myself.
If you look at my post closely there's no disclaimer in between the lines of text that says, "This is fact and you must believe it," in 10 point font. I simply trust that grown adults who read an opinion passionately argued on a forum by me would realize that I am speaking for myself and nobody else, hence why I don't put "in my opinion" after every single sentence I write. I waste enough time on here at intervals explaining obvious things to people and if I had to copy and paste "in my opinion" a good twenty times for each post I'd not be saving on any of that lost time.
I just find it funny that, but misinterpreting me and demanding I don't tell people what movies are great and what ones aren't, you follow up that sentence by explaining to me what movies are great and what ones aren't. Thankfully, I'm sensible enough to realize that it is your perspective, and so I won't waste a few more paragraphs throwing a diatribe at you about how you don't speak for the Bond fandom with your opinions. Neither of us should lose more time going through these motions.
As you say, we move on. See you at the Bondathon
The Craig era was an experiment they had to finish, that's all. Quantum needed to be wrapped up in my mind, as that was one large hanging thread they never cut. With SF and SP, they're started to do so, and with a final film they could end it all and leave the next Bond actor a fresh era to start with so everyone can be happy. I don't think we'll see heavy continuity again, but the talent they had since 2006 made it so it was a leap they could take to try something that'd never been done since the 1960s, with the connected plots (obviously taking it up to eleven in comparison). Let's not forget that the first Bond sequel was actually FRWL, not QoS.
I foresee a standalone future, and as much as I love the Craig era, that's probably best. Audiences won't be angry that they have to know a whole trilogy of films going in as I think the issue was with SP for some, and the movies can keep a sort of minor connectivity through the people Bond surrounds himself with film to film, instead of making all his villains connected in a larger conspiracy. I don't want to see the SPECTRE card being played again, to be honest. Blofeld just doesn't work as well as an unrelated villain would, who doesn't have the baggage of the past incarnations on them.
In short, going simple should be best. Keep the plots isolated, but still keep the strong character work, visual life and vintage style of the Craig films, and how serious they treated Bond as a man.
If Craig chooses to come back, he should try to recapture a bit of what he had in this film, where he balanced the raw energy of his earlier portrayals with a little more nonchalance and weathered cynicism nicely.
Maybe they should have left SF independent but you knew if Mendes was coming back that wouldn't be the case and when the title was revealed and that Jesper was coming back to reprise White you knew the tying together the films was inevitable.
If only they'd done it with more class.
I think this era has taught us as much as I've embraced it bar SPECTRE that stringing the films together is not a good idea.
Hopefully the next actor they'll revert to standalone entries but I wouldn't count on it.
I agree. A simple standalone will suffice.
@Mendes4Lyfe, it'll be key for EON to move away from the Craig approach, in order to freshen things up. As it has been said by many, the "old way" will feel fresh after over a decade of connected films. The emphasis on standalones will allow them to do more original villains, without worry of them having to connect the character to other schemes later, and less heavy planning would need to happen to make sure an arc was finished from an earlier film. We saw this with the 7 year gap between QoS and SP, for example, where I think the response to the latter was partly due to the fact that audiences had to see the least liked Craig film to know some of what was going on. There comes a point where you expect too much from audiences, and that aspect has sometimes been hard for me to understand. As an encyclopedia of the Craig era, it's difficult for me to see how hard it must be for people to watch films like SP without my knowledge of the characters and themes the movies have played with. I get excited, while they get confused, and I see what that is now. Marvel have this same issue with their films, I'd say.
The standalones won't have these kinds of issues, and will also stop a lot of expectation from soiling things down the line for the Bond films coming. The connected 60s films led to what I see as a disappointing reveal of Blofeld after four "hits," just as the connected nature of OHMSS led to what people see as the disappointing DAF because EON didn't go all the way with their connected plots to finish the Blofeld arc in a satisfying way through a revenge film. When you set out to do connected films and fail to follow that through successfully, you can get bit hard. Both the 60s and Craig films ran into this, with varying degrees for people.
I think the Craig era has largely hit on the connected style, far more than the 60s films, but I agree that a break, perhaps permanently, is needed from this approach. It worked for the great cast that Craig has had to support him, who play characters you can see develop over time because the performers are so first class, and that means a lot can be forgiven. It helps that I find the stories strong too, like Bond's grieving from CR to QoS, for example, that are so compelling to me. That can't be the method of every era, however, as the connected model would get old and the negative effects of relying on connectivity put you in a weird place where you risk confusing your audience with too much going on.
I think EON understand this, but want to milk Craig for what he's worth now, as his talents fit perfectly with the idea of an ever-evolving Bond. I do think they will realize it can't be the direction of the films every time, however, and will shake it up for Bond #7.
Woah! I like this new Brady. :)
EDIT: I continue to believe SF was the perfect ending to the Craig era. Dench gone and a new beginning set up for a new man to take on Blofeld over multiple films.
I have to agree with you there @bondjames, as much as it excited me to know that Craig was returning for Bond 24, SF would've been the perfect end to his run. The ending of SF setting him up as a "new man" figuratively, and then in Bond 24 he literally is a new man. That would've been cool.
But seeing as Craig did return, I was personally hoping that Bond 24 would be a continuation (not a sequel) of what Skyfall was, it felt they really hit the nail on the head with the story and the tone that I was looking for in a Daniel Craig Bond film, so much so that when I started seeing footage from SP I was actually disappointed but as a huge Bond fan, I naturally just went with it. SP was just a lot darker in tone and the story was weak for me after SF. Don't get me wrong I can still enjoy SP for what it is, I just think following SF, it needed to be consistent in tone and story which didn't happen.
I'm hoping with 25, if Craig returns, they'll realise how much better SF felt to SP :)
Yes, if one is telling a continuation story then the tone should be similar to draw the viewer in. The characterizations similarly should be consistent. As an example, Craig's behaviour in SP is not consistent in places with how I expected him to react, and it was made all the more obvious by the fact that the story links back to past events, so we the viewer can reasonably expect that consistency. Arguments that he is suddenly a fully formed Bond fall flat with me, because I had (emphasize 'had') bought into the continuation narrative up to SP.
That's why I mentioned Nolan. He nailed it with the Bat trilogy over 3 films and 7 years (consistent tone, style & characterizations throughout).
An interesting thought, @bondjames. Hard for someone like me to accept who would want Dan to do twenty Bond films, but the ending with Bond looking out over his "realm" a reignited white knight was powerful and would've served as a conclusion of osrts. I imagine a similar callback to SF's ending in my idea of Bond 25's last scene, so the next film could play off that if Dan returns. If it is the end I would love for the movie to close on a very patriotic statement, as Dan's Bond, especially under Mendes, has been a very patriotic figure in the best sense. No jingoism or poisonous radical nationalism, just pride in his land and a desire to protect it. It would only make sense that the final shot of the last movie he does reflects that sense of who he is as a modern day Lancelot.
I was more referring to the "With pleasure M. With pleasure!". That to me was the perfect send off for Craig. Far better than the DB5 nonsense in SP. Fully formed and ready to be Britain's terrier.
What about it felt like Batman? No scene from Nolan's films registers visually or thematically to me in that way, so I never really got that sense. SF actually started its own trend in a way, as after that film you got heroes looking out over their national homes looking patriotic.
I quite enjoy SP ending, though it obviously wasn't a patriotic thing. People wanted to see Bond happy and going off with a girl, and they got it.
Every Bond first outing has been great so far, and I don't expect that to change with Bond #7. :)
I agree with you, but who knows? Maybe they can pull it off...
Bond has never done that in any of his films and that's not how I see the character. Sure, he's a patriot, but that sort of imagery is what I associate with Batman and not Bond.
Having said that, I didn't have a problem with it, given that SF was an anniversary and jubilee film. It worked in that case. It's a perfect ending for me too, if it really is an ending.
I'm not against Dan coming back at all, but give him a stand-alone last film...and im sure they will pull it off if he does come back,indeed.
As I said elsewhere, I'm quite certain business will drive this, given MGM's ambitions over the next few years. They will want to profit and maximize exposure from B25 for a sale or IPO. Big plans afoot.
Maybe continuity wise it could to a standalone, or standalone-ish, but thematically it could conclude things. I think the reception of SPECTRE has taught EON many lessons. They won't make those mistakes again straight after.
@bondjames, interesting. I thought you were comparing something from Nolan's Batman films to SF, so that was why I was asked. I've talked to some people who tried to compare everything Mendes has done to something Nolan's Batman did, and those talks can get wild.
I think this Bond in particular and the accepted version of Batman are alike in that way: they feign being loners and protectors, but always have a team. At the start in CR Bond was a real maverick and not a team player. His boss was an obstacle in his way and he didn't seem to fully go by any authority but his own ideas of right and wrong. In QoS he shed a lot of people in his life or lied to them, not only to hide his feelings for Vesper but also because he was driven on his mission while all the world was riding on his back. Over time, however, we see how much he is always being supported despite it all. I love the moment in SP where he tells Madeleine, "I'm not alone," for that reason. He was able to see over time that he wasn't a man on an island, but a part of a team that he could play by the rules with. He'd gained what Craig Bond matters most: loyalty and trust. Batman is very much like that: he's the brooding and melancholic figure of tragedy who thinks he can do it all on his own, but he's always got Alfred and the rest of his adopted family (most of whom he's actually adopted) to help him.
I like that shot in SF simply because it underscored the Bond that Mendes was doing so much to feature in the film. The thematic content of a knight's tale, the imagery and connections to Arthurian legends throughout, the idea of a phoenix rising from the ashes and all the rest give SF a very medieval feeling. The climax in Scotland carries this idea through all the more as Bond pulls a William Wallace and fights his enemy on cultural turf using classic weapons that are the antithesis of modern. It only felt right that one of the final shots in the movie would show Bond looking over London ruminating on what'd transpired. The movie really was the London based Bond film where the agent was rooted in his adopted home, where he fought to keep it safe from Silva directly in many scenes. The moment was all about him looking out at what he'd helped to preserve, despite M's death, and all that remained because of their actions: London was standing, and in there he sensed a victory. Silva teased him about his principles and how he lived life in a ruin of beliefs at MI6, but Bond proved the solidarity of the realm and his role as its protector in a suitably Arthurian way. Like a knight, he was overlooking his kingdom in a moment of peacetime, waiting for the moment where he'd have to gallop off and protect it from further harm. Perfect, in a way.
So here I jump...
Skyfall has given the Bond franchise some wonderful things.
The cinematography: technically Bond films have always been "high-end" in my opinion but with Skyfall it entered unknown levels of greatness.
Roger Deakins' masterpiece for sure.
Ben Whishaw and Naomie Harris:
I'm not sure EON has made a better casting decision in the current era than those two, especially in the case of Ben. That may only be rivalled by casting Jeffrey Wright as Felix.
Whishaw unfortunately has only one great scene in SF (in the museum) but in Spectre he shines and is as great as Desmond!
Harris take on MP is great and she was "the only" thing I really loved about SF in the beginning. Again with Spectre she established herself perfectly.
I can only hope both will be kept no matter if there's a new Bond actor.
Ralph Fiennes:
He is already so much better as M than Dench ever could be. And I say this as a huge fan of Dench. It's only that her character got ruined quite a bit in TWINE and then of course in SF.
As soon as Fiennes enters the screen in SF you know great things are coming.
The Macau sequence:
This may well be one of the greatest most Bondian sequences ever and of course it's true for the Craig-era.
Everything is perfect. It is. I never minded the Komodo Dragons. Why would I. They look perfect and add a wonderful mysterious touch to the sequence.
Craig shines as well here, probably the only scene in the film where he does.
It also included one of the best performances ever in a Bond film
Bérénice Marlohe as Severine. It's breathtaking to watch her and one can only wonder why the hell EON/P+W would waste that opportunity to make her immortal, they simply threw her character away. What a crime.
The Skyfall mansion and Scotland:
Many things are very wrong with that sequence but some things are bloody brilliant.
The setting including the most wonderful cinematography are fantastic. And Mendes only time where he succeeded in directing in SF.
Kincade (Albert Finney) is another great casting choice and character. He owns the sequence whenever he is on screen. He surpasses Craig by far and even Dench who is quite weak sadly.
Bardem finally gets to act seriously and it's the only time when he really seems to be dangerous and deranged (not counting the awful acting in the church of course).
If Bardem had portrayed Silva like this in the rest of the movie he could have written history and gone to levels like Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lector.
Skyfall may be my least favourite Bond film overall, but in 2012 it was clearly one of the best films around.
What I also love is the use of London. I can never tire of seeing the town in Bond films and it has almost never been better put in scene than in Skyfall.
I am actually looking forward to watch the film these days for all the above stated reasons :)
And Harris is the first Moneypenny that I get hot under the collar for, so now I actually get jealous of Bond when he starts his flirting game with her.
I think Dan has had great chemistry with both of them in every scene they've shared.