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
Just in Case.
EDIT: Horowitz may have had Pussy dump him as well, but I can't remember.
I have been mulling over NTTD and was wondering did Craig get bigger than the character in the end?
Wasn't it Cubby who said "No actor is bigger than James Bond.." ? It seems Craig managed it. He seemed to be allowed a lot more input and control than any of the other Bond actors.
I've mostly loved Craig's era but after NTTD I just wondered if it was the case of him overshadowing the character...?
The floor is wide open for the next actor. In a way it's the most unselfish thing they could have done, just IMO, of course.
Yes, a new actor can certainly start with a clean slate so to speak.
They will still have some big shoes to fill regardless, as Craig has been a formidable James Bond.
Perhaps the problem with Craig-Bond is that he was never "Middle" Bond
He was "Beginning" Bond in CR
But after that he was never "Bond who enjoys his work, trusts his superiors (and has superiors who trust him and make correct decisions, so he doesn't feel the need to go rogue) and carries out his mission"
The Bond of DN, FRWL, GF, TB, YOLT... LALD, TSWLM, FYEO
Where is that Bond in Craig's era?
He jumped straight to a version of "End" Bond, disillusioned, betrayed, doubting, reluctant, wanting to get out of the business Bond, for three movies out of five. IMO that Bond should have only been around for one movie out of five
It suggests to me that those running the show don't identify with the character as written or as portrayed in most of the movies in the series. They actually believe those who say "Trad-Bond" is no-longer relevant and have sought to change who Bond is as a result.
James Bond was born out of the 1950's mindset and is a man of the establishment, Craig-Bond is a product of the current environment, where no-one trusts the establishment anymore.
The Craig era raised the stakes it terms of grit and realism. I'd like the series do go in a different direction now, yes. But getting the balance will be tricky. I am hoping they (EON, writers, whoever the new director will be) will find a rather fresh way to give us Bond. Even when ticking the boxes or harkening back to the novels at times. I don't have answers, but just saying that is what I want.
Oh, and do I want a connection between the next Bond's movies? Any sort of ongoing story arc? That is something to think about. Do we ever want them directly connected again? Well, I think I do. Just in some ways. It keeps it more interesting for me.
Bingo.
This is Gen-X Bond rather than Greatest Generation Bond.
Which mean our next Bond will be a Millennial Bond.
Fair enough.I don’t completely dislike the film though as I said before,there is a lot to enjoy in the film but like most of the Craig efforts,it leaves me cold.It’s better than QOS though that’s not saying much.
Sure he has doubts, but he doesn't impulsively act on them every time he has one
Craig-Bond always does, or rather, to be fair, perhaps it's just that his version of the character is written into more extreme positions with regard to those doubts
Fleming never has M say "take the #@$% shot!"
Either way the Producers (and Craig himself) shoulder the responsibility
I love the Craig era and Vesper in particular, but I also love the idea of a clean slate at this point. Basically, it would be as if Tracy were a major plot point in OHMSS, DAF, TMWTGG, *and* TSWLM--frankly, the Bond-Vesper storyline has been exhausted and a reboot is welcome.
Besides, everyone knows Bond's true love is Vijay.
I’m sorry @Seve … In the novel TMWTGG, M knows he’s sending Bond on a suicide mission; although he doesn’t say for Scaramanga to take the bloody shot, he knows that’s exactly the situation he’s sending Bond into.
Yes, but that's after 11 novels, and at a time when the author was tired of the character and feeling his own mortality
By comparison, it's as if Craig-Bond went straight from CR the novel to TMWTGG the novel, with no stops in-between
But, as I mentioned, he doesn't act on them like an impulsive teenager
The novels LALD, MR, DAF, FRWL, DN, GF, TB are missions carried out without excessive angst on Bond's part and with mutual trust between Bond and his employers
Whereas Craig-Bond couldn't give us that even once in five attempts
I’ve got a 20 year old, an 18 year old and an almost 17 year old. And I don’t see a lot of Craig in them, nor vice/versa… But please, I’m curious, how does Craig behave like an impulsive teenager?
Fully agree on DarthDimi. Spot on.
But did they not also demand to bring back Brosnan? He'd be the oldest active Bond in the franchise history by now.
And are we really going down the road, that NTTD is a bad movie. because Bond has only sex with one woman? Seriously? Good old Sir Roger Moore laid four young women in AVTAK who could have been his daughters (at least), and came over as a hornly old man. Apparently they thought, they could compensate Moore looking 60+ in this movie-
I think they had a really good clue. This is a Bond dealing with existential angst, based on choice or lack thereof. And it is a Bond attempting to refine himself, constantly: Carl Jung's theory of "individuation," based on ideas of alchemy, as presented by Paracelsus. Let's not forget, Jung was interested in Paracelsus...and Ian Fleming asked Jung to translate his lecture on Paracelsus into English. There is no doubt that Fleming was very much interested in the writings of Jung and the ways in which they related to/from Paracelsus.
Any discussion of Craig's version of Bond and that character's status as myth and as hero starts right there: with Jung and Paracelsus.
This is the most sophisticated set of Bond films in the franchise's history, by far. There is a lot to unpack.
Very interesting @TripAces …. And I like this idea of Craig-Bond attempting “to refine himself, constantly”…. I always though of this, but never put words to it. That description is wonderful. Thanks for the insightful post….
Yes, this is very interesting information... is there something specific that can be read that has more on this?
Lol, sorry, I'm just imagining what it would be like if someone did have three Craig-Bond like sons!
Dad - "You didn't come home last night, where were you?"
17 year old - "Sorry Dad, that's classified information"
Dad - "And what the hell did you do to your mother's car?"
18 year old - "Sorry Dad, I was being chased by some henchmen, but I'm sure those bullet marks will buff out"
Dad - "And who's legs are those sticking out of the trash can?"
20 year old - "Umm... I'm not sure, some French guy I think"
Perhaps that was an excessive exaggeration on my part?
IMO, he's too emotional, and teenagers are often overly emotional when things don't go their way
But clearly you have done a good job of parenting if you have managed to avoid all that
Here's one interpretation
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/the-inner-life-of-james-bond/309457/
"Was James Bond—neck-snapper, escape artist, serial shagger—the last repudiation of his creator’s cultural pedigree? Take that, fancy books; take that, whiskered shrinks. I, Ian Fleming, give you a hero almost without psychology: a bleak circuit of appetites, sensations, and prejudices, driven by a mechanical imperative called “duty.” In Jungian-alchemical terms, 007 is like lead, the metal associated with the dark god Saturn, lying coldly at the bottom of the crucible and refusing transformation. Boil him, slash him, poison him, flog him with a carpet beater and shoot his woman—Bond will not be altered."
"Fleming’s novels, too, skirt the droning vacuum of Bond’s inner life. Is he human at all? From time to time he slumps, depressively—as, for example, in the opening pages of Thunderball: “Again Bond dabbed with the bloodstained styptic pencil at the cut on his chin and despised the face that stared sullenly back at him from the mirror above the washbasin. Stupid, ignorant bastard!” But this discontent is due to the fact that he has a hangover, he is between missions (traditionally a dangerous moment for Bond), and he has cut himself shaving. An immediate and physical ennui, in other words. He’ll be all right in a minute."