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
Though this would be fine with me, my gut tells me that audiences today want serialized stories over several films when they are following a continuing character.
I mean that Craig's last 3 movies were meta commentaries on the creation of Bond movies rather than canonical Bond movies. Not a popular opinion, but it's mine.
Blofeld is Michael Wilson?
Apparently, it was his idea to make him and Bond stepbrothers.
From deconstructive satires to meta commentaries? Which is it?
In the end, the era is done. Take some solace in that. Plus, lumping a film you didn't even see with the others and you're a bit of a cheat aren't you? I mean, when one goes full on, sulking and complaining about Craig and his films, shouldn't you see the entire collection to be a real expert in your dislike of this era?
In the end, I feel your pain, but at least I saw all of the Brosnan films, 😂
Right...? It was John Barry's idea to put a slide whistle in TMWTGG, what does that make him? Rosa Klebb? :))
Yes it doesn't really make sense, does it.
I honestly can see how it makes sense. They took the basis of the story from Fleming: his Octopussy has Bond going after the murderer of his childhood mentor Oberhauser, and then they decided to combine that with bringing back Blofeld. So they made Blofeld Oberhauser's son who commited patricide... I mean, as a story it makes sense.
But what they didn't seem to do is take a step back and realise they'd just made James Bond and Blofeld foster brothers. And that somehow these two kids had somehow both grown up to be players in the world of international spies. Even in a Bond film it's a bit tough to swallow that sort of thing (but then again I guess Fleming does have Bond and Blofeld just bump into each other by sheer chance in Japan!). But I can totally see how, on one level, it's a story which added up.
I have viewed Skyfall and Spectre in the same light as George Lucas' prequel trilogy since they came out. Pandering, breaks the logic established in the canon, and lazy plots full of holes with bits of retreaded familiar Bond beats mangled into a very pretty, loud soap opera. If it was MGW's idea for Spectre's Blofeld plot, maybe he has the same depleted story well as George Lucas.
I'm saying that because the producers were so obsessed with continually deconstructing Craig's Bond- by asking questions about his legitimacy, being irrelevant in the modern world, questioning his masculinity and purpose, etc- that the movies became satires unintentionally. Every one of Craig's entries was about him having to get over some personal issue to really "become" Bond at the end, only for the next movie to knock him back to square one and have him repeat the process over again, meaning it feels like he never actually got the chance to just be James Bond, but was always the guy becoming James Bond. It became farcical. I don't mean in a funny sense, but it felt like that the producers had such a big hit with CR's origin story that they did it 5 times in a row even though it didn't make sense.
I'm not saying that they set out to do this, I'm saying they had no clear idea of what to do with Craig's Bond after CR, and it just turned out this way. It was a combination of different things coming together- neurosis over Bond being seen as too old-fashioned by sensitive modern audiences, worrying too much about what other franchises are doing, letting Craig have too much creative control, and maybe some unwarranted embarrassment over previous Bond eras and going too hard in the other direction. An odd combination of disdain for past Bonds and reverence for them.
Ultimately I just think they made a ton of bad decisions and the fact that all of Craig's movies had a strict continuity only made it worse, because then you couldn't really ignore the retcons each new movie made.
The Craig films are pretty monumental in the sense that they can effectively serve as an entry point into both the cinematic and literary worlds of Bond. The latter is quite the achievement because the team managed to do the one thing Fleming didn’t get a chance to, which is actually construct an ending to his story. Regardless of how we feel about them now, we’ll be looking back on the past 5 films as some of the most important in the history of Bond.
Absolutely…. Thank you.
Beautifully said. Thank you.
Only GE and DAD did, and only in one brief scene in each, both involving M. Neither movie was molded around questioning Bond's place the way the last 3 Craig movies were. The best way to justify Bond's character is to simply make good Bond movies. If you keep raising the question of Bond's relevancy pretty soon audiences are going to start to think he's irrelevant because the produces keep bringing it up. But ultimately that's not my main beef with the Craigverse, the overall storytelling is.
@slide_99 … you didn’t watch the last film of the era- I can’t even take what you say seriously. Why don’t you just enjoy the previous 20 films and forget Craig? Forget it! It was a success with most Bond fans and was a hit with general audiences. But not to you— fine. But this is a series and more films with other actors are on the way.
So leave it. Never watch another Craig film. Pick up with the next guy. Move on. All your pissing and moaning won’t change the fact that Bond died in NTTD. So, better to move on, enjoy the other films and hope that the next guy, and his journey, is more to your liking.
How old are you?
Yes, I understand that. But Slide_99 has at least offered up a reasoned argument, and still continues to do so, despite the majority here trying to tear him apart.
He's so obviously not a troll, yet I think he gets treated like one. I think that's a shame.
It’s difficult to take someone seriously when they haven’t seen the thing they are ripping into.
Seeing NTTD may never change @slide_99 and their opinion: but at least they can continue criticism based off of observations. Their criticisms thus far are based on what? Wikipedia and the angry babies on Mi6? Watch the film and discuss like an adult.
I think the best entry point into both the cinematic and literary worlds of Bond is still the first three Bond films. I grant that modern viewers who dislike watching old movies are better off with the Craig Bonds, but even those still take their cues from the founding trio of Bond films, which were also faithful to Fleming.
I don't think Fleming ultimately wanted to do that. He flirted with ending Bond in FRWL, threatened to kill him off on several more occasions but desisted, and then stated repeatedly that TMWTGG would be the final Bond novel. He lived long enough to revise parts of the book, including the final paragraph--and that intentionally left the series open-ended.
Isn't every era of Bond important though? One can say that the Craig era stands out because the series enjoyed greater-than-ever critical and popular success during it.