›

The Craig era - sullied for some?

135

Comments

  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,653
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    I wouldn’t go so far as to say that Craig suddenly ages Brosnan’s era; not when the plots of some of those films begin aging far better than some of us would’ve expected. That and I generally find GE on a whole a better a better viewing experience than CR, and TND a better watch than SF.

    And for how stupid DAD is at times, I’d always go for that one as opposed to the likes of QOS and SP purely on the basis that I can have fun with it.

    That depends on your idea of 'fun..' ;)

    (Dr. Evil voice) Mr Kil with a frickin laser beam attached to his head.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,218
    Last_Rat_Standing wrote: »
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    I wouldn’t go so far as to say that Craig suddenly ages Brosnan’s era; not when the plots of some of those films begin aging far better than some of us would’ve expected. That and I generally find GE on a whole a better a better viewing experience than CR, and TND a better watch than SF.

    And for how stupid DAD is at times, I’d always go for that one as opposed to the likes of QOS and SP purely on the basis that I can have fun with it.

    That depends on your idea of 'fun..' ;)

    (Dr. Evil voice) Mr Kil with a frickin laser beam attached to his head.

    :))
  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    edited February 17 Posts: 2,363
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    I wouldn’t go so far as to say that Craig suddenly ages Brosnan’s era; not when the plots of some of those films begin aging far better than some of us would’ve expected. That and I generally find GE on a whole a better a better viewing experience than CR, and TND a better watch than SF.

    And for how stupid DAD is at times, I’d always go for that one as opposed to the likes of QOS and SP purely on the basis that I can have fun with it.

    That depends on your idea of 'fun..' ;)

    Invisible Cars and CGI Kite Surfing >>> Elvis and Foster Bros XD
  • Reflsin2bourbonsReflsin2bourbons
    Posts: 327
    Well yes, the Craig era is worsened in my eyes for having a bad film. And in attempts to tie all the Craig films together, bad films do kind of bring down the rest of the films. But I don't think the ending of NTTD is why the Craig era, or even the film doesn't work.

    Make no mistake, the death of Bond in NTTD doesn't work for me. I still don't understand why Bond was sent alone to take out the base, and not both him and Nomi (and if only one would go, surely it'd be Nomi and Bond takes his family to safety!) But Bond dying could work in principle, if a very specific set of principles.

    Craig is mostly hurt by having 2 really bad back to back films in Spectre and NTTD. Not since Connery's TB/YOLT duo have films that poor been put next to each other. I mean the last time I watched Spectre I couldn't deal with how stupid it was and I can't really bring myself to watch NTTD: so I suppose because of that Craig goes from one of the best Bonds to about the middle of the pack.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 17 Posts: 17,078
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    Thunderball wrote: »
    I love the Daniel Craig era of films. One of them, Casino Royale, is my #1 favorite James Bond film. If any era of Bond films got "sullied" for me was the Pierce Brosnan era. It started off quite promisingly with GoldenEye, but then got progressively worse as the films went on, his era ending with the absolute nadir of the series, Die Another Day, which is one of the most godawful films ever foisted on the poor viewing public. I'm probably exaggerating a tad. I just... really hate that film. The only Bond film I can say that about. Sure, there are entries that I'm not too keen on like TMWTGG or AVTAK or MR, but those are at least watchable and have an element or two about them that is at least enjoyable. Not so with DAD. Now that is a sullied era. A shame.

    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.

    Yeah, That's interesting. I think i could say Casino Royale 'sullied' the Brosnan era for me.

    Because after being blown away by Craig's performance and the film itself, the Brosnan era just seemed so lightweight..

    Yes, agreed, especially in those moments where it tried to add a bit of drama; it sort of feels like lip service to the idea. Like Bond and Paris in TND- we'll do a quick scene of 'deep' stuff then get back to the explosions. It feels a bit flimsy now.
    To some extent I feel the same about that scene in Goldfinger where Bond gets a bit tetchy about Jill having been murdered, M threatens to replace him with 008, and then it's all forgotten. Bond nearly has a dramatic moment, but it's over as soon as it's begun.

    But: I like Bond films. I like all of the Bond films. I can find issues here and there with them, but I like all of them (which for some reason feels an oddly controversial thing to say on this Bond film fan page) and what happens in one doesn't make any of the others worse for me. Him shacking up with another hundred women doesn't undermine his falling in love with Tracy.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,218
    mtm wrote: »
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    Thunderball wrote: »
    I love the Daniel Craig era of films. One of them, Casino Royale, is my #1 favorite James Bond film. If any era of Bond films got "sullied" for me was the Pierce Brosnan era. It started off quite promisingly with GoldenEye, but then got progressively worse as the films went on, his era ending with the absolute nadir of the series, Die Another Day, which is one of the most godawful films ever foisted on the poor viewing public. I'm probably exaggerating a tad. I just... really hate that film. The only Bond film I can say that about. Sure, there are entries that I'm not too keen on like TMWTGG or AVTAK or MR, but those are at least watchable and have an element or two about them that is at least enjoyable. Not so with DAD. Now that is a sullied era. A shame.

    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.

    Yeah, That's interesting. I think i could say Casino Royale 'sullied' the Brosnan era for me.

    Because after being blown away by Craig's performance and the film itself, the Brosnan era just seemed so lightweight..

    Yes, agreed, especially in those moments where it tried to add a bit of drama; it sort of feels like lip service to the idea. Like Bond and Paris in TND- we'll do a quick scene of 'deep' stuff then get back to the explosions. It feels a bit flimsy now.
    To some extent I feel the same about that scene in Goldfinger where Bond gets a bit tetchy about Jill having been murdered, M threatens to replace him with 008, and then it's all forgotten. Bond nearly has a dramatic moment, but it's over as soon as it's begun.

    But: I like Bond films. I like all of the Bond films. I can find issues here and there with them, but I like all of them (which for some reason feels an oddly controversial thing to say on this Bond film fan page) and what happens in one doesn't make any of the others worse for me. Him shacking up with another hundred women doesn't undermine his falling in love with Tracy.

    I'm with you on that. I too like all the Bond films and all the actors who have played 007.

    And to nick a quote from Bond youtuber, Joe Darlington "Bond films are like Pizza. Even when they're bad, they're good.."
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,649
    I will take the scene between Bond and Paris over Madeline suddenly stopping and saying "I can't go back to that life" in the middle of the street. Now that was terrible.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,078
    Yes that was a bad moment. I don't think this thread is about listing occasional bad moments in the Bond films though.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,281
    I think it's only us (ardent Bond fans) that can pinpoint the wrongs in Bond films. But for the general public, all 25 Bond films are impeccable and that's a good thing.
  • BT3366BT3366
    Posts: 1,948
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    @007HallY - I’m not sure if he insisted on it as much as it was thought to be the best route to go creatively. If they didn’t think so the producers wouldn’t have made the film at all.

    Are you surmising their only reason for making the film was to kill Bond? Killing an iconic character was the best route to go creatively?

    Rocky, Wick, Indy, The Equalizer, Hunt, Bourne for whatever reasons haven't gone that creative route. Because it doesn't feel creative.

    Sure, we can move on and enjoy a new Bond. But I do think the end of NTTD will always hang over the series for those who've been with the series for a couple of or more Bonds.

    From what I can tell from interviews and behind-the-scenes anecdotes, the producers wanted to make another movie with Craig and his price tag for returning was to kill him off. He wouldn't have done the movie at all without the ending, which is why the whole movie feels reverse-engineered. For some reason the producers agreed to Craig's terms instead of telling him to take a hike and finding a replacement actor, which is what Cubby would've done.

    Do you not think the 'for some reason' there might be an indication that the producers might have actually agreed that this decision was best (whether or not it actually originated with Craig)?

    It's not like EON haven't said no to actors returning in the past or gone in different creative directions. And honestly, the whole 'Cubby would've done this' idea is very boring. The man sent Bond into space because he thought it'd be a) a good adventure and b) it'd be profitable. Both of which it was. Don't tell me he wouldn't have done something out of the box for Bond and simultaneously in line with the mainstream of movies. At any rate we have no idea what he would have thought as he's long dead and the closest we have to his business process is, in fact, his daughter and step son who actually run the franchise, and from what I understand actually follow in his example, if not his exact lessons in the film business! Oh, and not only have they made money but have garnered critical praise and, second hand, kept a fan base going (more than Cubby managed to do over a long term, especially during the latter parts of his tenure, good as he was). It really is such a stupid argument, the whole 'Cubby would have done this'. We as fans know nothing about what he'd do one way or the other, and shouldn't use that idea to justify our biases or personal opinions in an online post.

    @007HallY
    This is an excellent post. "Cubby would never have" and "Fleming would never have" are empty arguments. Both men have been dead for decades.

    There is always a context and a "zeitgeist" within which new Bond films are fabricated. MR is a perfect example—people can scoff at it now, but in '79, with Star Wars mania in full swing and space exploration being a hot topic, it made financial sense. Just like how the Craig era reflected post-9/11 sensibilities with a grittier, more grounded approach. EON has always adapted Bond to fit the zeitgeist, and any speculation about what Fleming or Cubby would have done is just that—speculation.

    We can't truly know how Cubby or Fleming would feel about the Craig era in today's world. Nor can we predict how Cubby would have steered EON through the challenges it faced after CR, or where Fleming might have positioned Bond on the shifting chessboard of 21st-century geopolitics.

    Bond has always evolved with the times, whether for better or worse. The idea that there’s a "pure" version of Bond that must be adhered to ignores how much the series has shifted over the decades. Fleming’s Bond was already different from the cinematic Bond that emerged under Cubby Broccoli, and every era since has been shaped by cultural shifts, audience expectations, and industry trends.

    As fans, we may hope for our beloved series to defy trends—or better yet, to set new ones—but even Bond films exist within Hollywood conventions, influenced by what has made other films successful. No matter how much I want to defend NTTD, I don’t like that Bond was killed. But I’m not the least bit surprised that it happened eventually.

    Was it the Fleming-thing-to-do? We don't know.
    Was it the 2020s-thing-to-do? Sadly, I think so, yes.
    Did it have to happen? Evidently, no.
    Do I wish it didn't happen? Absolutely!
    Can I come to terms with the fact that it happened? Easily.
    Has it tainted my Bond fandom, sullied the Craig era for me, or rendered my expectations of future Bond films cynical? As 'M' would have said, "No, that would be unprofessional."

    Thanks to you both for saying this. If I had a nickel for each time somebody brings up the "Cubby wouldn't have let it happen" excuse or "Cubby would've made sure we had a film every two years" claim, I'd be pretty well off. Not so much here but on other boards I've been on.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,078
    Especially as the whole reason there's a hiatus right now can be traced back to Broccoli and Saltzman falling out and Saltzman refusing to sell his half of the rights to Broccoli.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 1,615
    mtm wrote: »
    Especially as the whole reason there's a hiatus right now can be traced back to Broccoli and Saltzman falling out and Saltzman refusing to sell his half of the rights to Broccoli.

    Nobody is stopping Barbara from making films, she is the one who doesn't want to.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,281
    I have to say, we're even lucky Barbara & Michael became Bond fans and continued the films. So I think it would be unfair to compare their passion for Bond to Cubby. I think just like us, Bond fans...Cubby thought about James Bond every single second. So that made him make Bond films speedily. It's why there was always the title of the next Bond film at the end of every Bond film, during his era. He couldn't wait to do the next one.
  • Reflsin2bourbonsReflsin2bourbons
    Posts: 327
    mtm wrote: »
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    Thunderball wrote: »
    I love the Daniel Craig era of films. One of them, Casino Royale, is my #1 favorite James Bond film. If any era of Bond films got "sullied" for me was the Pierce Brosnan era. It started off quite promisingly with GoldenEye, but then got progressively worse as the films went on, his era ending with the absolute nadir of the series, Die Another Day, which is one of the most godawful films ever foisted on the poor viewing public. I'm probably exaggerating a tad. I just... really hate that film. The only Bond film I can say that about. Sure, there are entries that I'm not too keen on like TMWTGG or AVTAK or MR, but those are at least watchable and have an element or two about them that is at least enjoyable. Not so with DAD. Now that is a sullied era. A shame.

    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.

    Yeah, That's interesting. I think i could say Casino Royale 'sullied' the Brosnan era for me.

    Because after being blown away by Craig's performance and the film itself, the Brosnan era just seemed so lightweight..

    But: I like Bond films. I like all of the Bond films. I can find issues here and there with them, but I like all of them (which for some reason feels an oddly controversial thing to say on this Bond film fan page) and what happens in one doesn't make any of the others worse for me. Him shacking up with another hundred women doesn't undermine his falling in love with Tracy.

    Isn't that a talking point though? That if Connery was in the role it'd be hard to believe him falling in love? I think it's natural that within one interpretation of the character that previous actions will influence future ones. For example, if the Bond-Vesper relationship was poorly done it'd negatively influence callbacks in Spectre and in NTTD.

    This thread really just puts this in retrospect because if the previous films were building up to the finale, it was a wasted build-up. Similar to how YOLT impacted negatively how seriously one could take Blofeld.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,078
    Reflsin2bourbons wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    Thunderball wrote: »
    I love the Daniel Craig era of films. One of them, Casino Royale, is my #1 favorite James Bond film. If any era of Bond films got "sullied" for me was the Pierce Brosnan era. It started off quite promisingly with GoldenEye, but then got progressively worse as the films went on, his era ending with the absolute nadir of the series, Die Another Day, which is one of the most godawful films ever foisted on the poor viewing public. I'm probably exaggerating a tad. I just... really hate that film. The only Bond film I can say that about. Sure, there are entries that I'm not too keen on like TMWTGG or AVTAK or MR, but those are at least watchable and have an element or two about them that is at least enjoyable. Not so with DAD. Now that is a sullied era. A shame.

    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.

    Yeah, That's interesting. I think i could say Casino Royale 'sullied' the Brosnan era for me.

    Because after being blown away by Craig's performance and the film itself, the Brosnan era just seemed so lightweight..

    But: I like Bond films. I like all of the Bond films. I can find issues here and there with them, but I like all of them (which for some reason feels an oddly controversial thing to say on this Bond film fan page) and what happens in one doesn't make any of the others worse for me. Him shacking up with another hundred women doesn't undermine his falling in love with Tracy.

    Isn't that a talking point though? That if Connery was in the role it'd be hard to believe him falling in love? I think it's natural that within one interpretation of the character that previous actions will influence future ones.

    I don't really follow your point, sorry?
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 4,624
    Reflsin2bourbons wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    Thunderball wrote: »
    I love the Daniel Craig era of films. One of them, Casino Royale, is my #1 favorite James Bond film. If any era of Bond films got "sullied" for me was the Pierce Brosnan era. It started off quite promisingly with GoldenEye, but then got progressively worse as the films went on, his era ending with the absolute nadir of the series, Die Another Day, which is one of the most godawful films ever foisted on the poor viewing public. I'm probably exaggerating a tad. I just... really hate that film. The only Bond film I can say that about. Sure, there are entries that I'm not too keen on like TMWTGG or AVTAK or MR, but those are at least watchable and have an element or two about them that is at least enjoyable. Not so with DAD. Now that is a sullied era. A shame.

    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.

    Yeah, That's interesting. I think i could say Casino Royale 'sullied' the Brosnan era for me.

    Because after being blown away by Craig's performance and the film itself, the Brosnan era just seemed so lightweight..

    But: I like Bond films. I like all of the Bond films. I can find issues here and there with them, but I like all of them (which for some reason feels an oddly controversial thing to say on this Bond film fan page) and what happens in one doesn't make any of the others worse for me. Him shacking up with another hundred women doesn't undermine his falling in love with Tracy.

    Isn't that a talking point though? That if Connery was in the role it'd be hard to believe him falling in love? I think it's natural that within one interpretation of the character that previous actions will influence future ones. For example, if the Bond-Vesper relationship was poorly done it'd negatively influence callbacks in Spectre and in NTTD.

    This thread really just puts this in retrospect because if the previous films were building up to the finale, it was a wasted build-up. Similar to how YOLT impacted negatively how seriously one could take Blofeld.

    I don't think I've ever not taken Blofeld seriously in OHMSS due to YOLT... not sure if that's even been the case with DAF frankly!
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited February 17 Posts: 3,220
    Bond's death in NTTD doesn't cast a shadow over Craig's earlier films, IMO. For me, it's not the death that sullied Dan's tenure - it was EON rowing back to more familiar waters after the brilliance they'd achieved with CR and QOS. I still long for what we might've had if they'd carried on down that less charted path.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,218
    Venutius wrote: »
    Bond's death in NTTD doesn't cast a shadow over Craig's earlier films, IMO. For me, it's not the death that sullied Dan's tenure - it was EON rowing back to more familiar waters after the brilliance they'd achieved with CR and QOS. I still long for what we might've had if they'd carried on down that less charted path.

    Yes, I agree @Venutius

    It was disheartening to see the well worn tropes appear in SF after the clean slate provided by Craig's first two. The less charted path would have been intriguing...
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited February 17 Posts: 4,624
    I really don't see what more they could have done in the 'style' of CR and QOS. I'd say even that's a misleading way of putting it - the Bond tropes were all there and being consciously introduced in those films anyway, and CR and QOS are both very different Bond movies. They also didn't really have any story to tell in that part of the Craig era.

    Regardless, I don't think it would have been a clever decision to make another QOS. SF was the most popular film of Craig's era and arguably reinvigorated his tenure.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,078
    I loved it, still do.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited February 17 Posts: 24,466
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Bond's death in NTTD doesn't cast a shadow over Craig's earlier films, IMO. For me, it's not the death that sullied Dan's tenure - it was EON rowing back to more familiar waters after the brilliance they'd achieved with CR and QOS. I still long for what we might've had if they'd carried on down that less charted path.

    Yes, I agree @Venutius

    It was disheartening to see the well worn tropes appear in SF after the clean slate provided by Craig's first two. The less charted path would have been intriguing...

    This is an interesting point. I have a complicated relationship with Skyfall. On one hand, I recognize both its brilliance and its immense critical and financial success. On the other, its more "arthouse" approach essentially forced EON to follow that trajectory, leading to Spectre—a film I love but also one that fractured the Bond fan community.

    I also feel that the jump from Bond Begins to Old Man Bond happened too quickly, as if we were denied Craig’s equivalent of Goldfinger and Thunderball.

    To me, Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace form a cohesive unit, and that unit represents the peak of the Craig era. @LeonardPine, you mention the clean slate—something I completely agree with. These films were constructing something genuinely compelling, with a distinctly Bondian optimism toward the future. With Vesper’s death finally cathartically processed, the Bond we know was ready to emerge.

    Skyfall, however, steered the series deeper into grief, trauma, and themes of death, revenge, and past demons. And while I truly enjoy Skyfall, Spectre, and No Time to Die for what they bring, I sometimes can’t help but feel a little saddened by what they left behind. I truly believe that Craig could have been awesome as Bond in an adventure Bond like Thunderball or The Spy Who Loved Me.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 4,624
    The more I think about it, the more I genuinely don't understand the 'old man Bond' criticism. He's in his late 30s in CR/QOS, so it makes sense he's approaching middle age by SF. He's basically Brosnan Bond's age in GE, and there's a lot of overlap in terms of ideas with both films.

    I'd also argue SF is Craig's GF or TB. It's pretty unashamed in its Bondian-ness, and for me bears more resemblance to those two films than QOS does. I'd also say seeing a jaded, injured Bond come back as the hero we know makes it more compelling than just going through the motions in a QOS style adventure (without the added storyline of Vesper/anything quite as interesting). Anyway, I don't think the point of the Craig era was seeing the character 'become Bond'. He always was Bond.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,962
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I sometimes can’t help but feel a little saddened by what they left behind. I truly believe that Craig could have been awesome as Bond in an adventure Bond like Thunderball or The Spy Who Loved Me.
    I guess that's why I enjoy SP so much- it's the least (for lack of a better word) angsty IMO. Okay, yeah, 'the author of all your pain' crap, but that nonsense aside, it was still an adventure not tied directly to LOSS. No one he loved died in it. Unless you count him not loving himself in NTTD.... (I'm a cheeky monkey here).
    :P
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 14,113
    e5924e37-2e25-488c-9a5d-7897210a1bbd_text.gif
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 860
    RichardTheBruce wrote: »
    e5924e37-2e25-488c-9a5d-7897210a1bbd_text.gif

    6CJ3Y4JDSBEA3GBXB6BAPHZKVM.jpg
    "What, already?"
  • Reflsin2bourbonsReflsin2bourbons
    Posts: 327
    mtm wrote: »
    Reflsin2bourbons wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    Thunderball wrote: »
    I love the Daniel Craig era of films. One of them, Casino Royale, is my #1 favorite James Bond film. If any era of Bond films got "sullied" for me was the Pierce Brosnan era. It started off quite promisingly with GoldenEye, but then got progressively worse as the films went on, his era ending with the absolute nadir of the series, Die Another Day, which is one of the most godawful films ever foisted on the poor viewing public. I'm probably exaggerating a tad. I just... really hate that film. The only Bond film I can say that about. Sure, there are entries that I'm not too keen on like TMWTGG or AVTAK or MR, but those are at least watchable and have an element or two about them that is at least enjoyable. Not so with DAD. Now that is a sullied era. A shame.

    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.

    Yeah, That's interesting. I think i could say Casino Royale 'sullied' the Brosnan era for me.

    Because after being blown away by Craig's performance and the film itself, the Brosnan era just seemed so lightweight..

    But: I like Bond films. I like all of the Bond films. I can find issues here and there with them, but I like all of them (which for some reason feels an oddly controversial thing to say on this Bond film fan page) and what happens in one doesn't make any of the others worse for me. Him shacking up with another hundred women doesn't undermine his falling in love with Tracy.

    Isn't that a talking point though? That if Connery was in the role it'd be hard to believe him falling in love? I think it's natural that within one interpretation of the character that previous actions will influence future ones.

    I don't really follow your point, sorry?

    Right the point is that each film of an actor's run influences the other Bond films by the same actor. That's why often some say we were better off with Lazenby as Bond, because Connery wouldn't be believable as lovestruck.
    007HallY wrote: »
    Reflsin2bourbons wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    Thunderball wrote: »
    I love the Daniel Craig era of films. One of them, Casino Royale, is my #1 favorite James Bond film. If any era of Bond films got "sullied" for me was the Pierce Brosnan era. It started off quite promisingly with GoldenEye, but then got progressively worse as the films went on, his era ending with the absolute nadir of the series, Die Another Day, which is one of the most godawful films ever foisted on the poor viewing public. I'm probably exaggerating a tad. I just... really hate that film. The only Bond film I can say that about. Sure, there are entries that I'm not too keen on like TMWTGG or AVTAK or MR, but those are at least watchable and have an element or two about them that is at least enjoyable. Not so with DAD. Now that is a sullied era. A shame.

    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.

    Yeah, That's interesting. I think i could say Casino Royale 'sullied' the Brosnan era for me.

    Because after being blown away by Craig's performance and the film itself, the Brosnan era just seemed so lightweight..

    But: I like Bond films. I like all of the Bond films. I can find issues here and there with them, but I like all of them (which for some reason feels an oddly controversial thing to say on this Bond film fan page) and what happens in one doesn't make any of the others worse for me. Him shacking up with another hundred women doesn't undermine his falling in love with Tracy.

    Isn't that a talking point though? That if Connery was in the role it'd be hard to believe him falling in love? I think it's natural that within one interpretation of the character that previous actions will influence future ones. For example, if the Bond-Vesper relationship was poorly done it'd negatively influence callbacks in Spectre and in NTTD.

    This thread really just puts this in retrospect because if the previous films were building up to the finale, it was a wasted build-up. Similar to how YOLT impacted negatively how seriously one could take Blofeld.

    I don't think I've ever not taken Blofeld seriously in OHMSS due to YOLT... not sure if that's even been the case with DAF frankly!

    Retroactively, I personally find faceless Blofeld a bit dampened with YOLT
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited February 19 Posts: 4,612
    When OHMSS was released, it was the most thoroughly-panned Bond ever.

    Decades later, it has been reassessed and is now considered a Top 10 (if not Top 5) Bond film.

    Likewise, I really think that NTTD (despite being better received by critics than OHMSS) will eventually be considered a masterpiece. I really do. The film is so daring and ahead of its time. And once we get a couple more new Bonds and all new storylines, we'll really be able to look back on the Craig era as one that challenged fans. (I'm 57 and hope to still be around.) It didn't always work. But the five films will be viewed as trailblazers.
  • CrabKeyCrabKey
    Posts: 2,127
    Despite my irritation with the end, NTTD is not a bad film. But daring? Not in my film experience. Ahead of its time? Nothing about the film fits my definition of the term.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,078
    Reflsin2bourbons wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Reflsin2bourbons wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    Thunderball wrote: »
    I love the Daniel Craig era of films. One of them, Casino Royale, is my #1 favorite James Bond film. If any era of Bond films got "sullied" for me was the Pierce Brosnan era. It started off quite promisingly with GoldenEye, but then got progressively worse as the films went on, his era ending with the absolute nadir of the series, Die Another Day, which is one of the most godawful films ever foisted on the poor viewing public. I'm probably exaggerating a tad. I just... really hate that film. The only Bond film I can say that about. Sure, there are entries that I'm not too keen on like TMWTGG or AVTAK or MR, but those are at least watchable and have an element or two about them that is at least enjoyable. Not so with DAD. Now that is a sullied era. A shame.

    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.

    Yeah, That's interesting. I think i could say Casino Royale 'sullied' the Brosnan era for me.

    Because after being blown away by Craig's performance and the film itself, the Brosnan era just seemed so lightweight..

    But: I like Bond films. I like all of the Bond films. I can find issues here and there with them, but I like all of them (which for some reason feels an oddly controversial thing to say on this Bond film fan page) and what happens in one doesn't make any of the others worse for me. Him shacking up with another hundred women doesn't undermine his falling in love with Tracy.

    Isn't that a talking point though? That if Connery was in the role it'd be hard to believe him falling in love? I think it's natural that within one interpretation of the character that previous actions will influence future ones.

    I don't really follow your point, sorry?

    Right the point is that each film of an actor's run influences the other Bond films by the same actor. That's why often some say we were better off with Lazenby as Bond, because Connery wouldn't be believable as lovestruck.

    No I dint think I agree with that. Roger turning all serious in FYEO doesn’t undermine the jokiness of MR for me, for example.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,612
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Despite my irritation with the end, NTTD is not a bad film. But daring? Not in my film experience. Ahead of its time? Nothing about the film fits my definition of the term.

    NTTD killed off James Bond. It gave Bond a child. And the five films gave us a far more "personal" side of Bond than we ever had before. Given that many viewers/fans were not prepared for it is what makes it ahead of its time. Add to this that SF was a James Bond "film" before such a thing was a thing. Now it will always be a thing, for better or worse.
Sign In or Register to comment.