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
Bourne>QOS
Batman>SF
M:I>SP
Endgame>NTTD
The Craig era was very much stuck in the tropes of its time, not ahead of them. That's why some fans pulled away from it as it went on. It's why Casino Royale is still the overwhelming favorite, because it's the only one that's confident in just being a James Bond movie.
So CR had nothing to do with Bourne? Or anything other to do with its time?
Personally I think that’s nonsense my friend.
I know nothing about Ethan Hunt and Jason Bourne. I now know quite a bit about James Bond. That's the difference. They moved Bond from one-dimensional action hero to well-rounded character. So, no, I would argue that it was not at all stuck in the traditional tropes of the action hero or previous Bonds. The Craig era was the most Jungian; and this made sense given Fleming's relationship with Jung, an overlooked aspect of the character that Craig flushed out.
Ah like Dr No/FRWL followed North By Northwest, got you.
It's a bit rich to say that Bond as a well-rounded character was born in 2006.
As for NTTD being ahead of its time, I don't really think so. It's a film that did pretty well with the general public. High on Rotten Tomatoes (audience has it 3rd behind GF and CR, reviewers have it 7th ahead of films like GE and OHMSS). I would say it's only dislikers of the film are passionate fans: this forum ranked it 17th.
And while I wasn't around in '69 to see I suspect that the general public disliked Majesty's and the only supporters were passionate (Fleming-versed) Bond fans.
Let's see:
DN and FRWL were inspired by the spy craze of the late 1950s and early 1960s, itself influenced by Cold War tensions and films like North by Northwest. GF played into the glamorous, gadget-filled heist genre, which was already popular at the time. LALD was clearly influenced by the Blaxploitation genre while TMWTGG capitalized on the popularity of kung fu movies. MR was a clear attempt to cash in on the sci-fi boom following Star Wars. LTK took cues from Miami Vice and the harder-edged action films of the late 1980s, such as Lethal Weapon and Die Hard, moving away from the more fantastical elements of earlier Bond films.
Bond films have always taken inspiration from contemporary cinema while also pioneering their own style. The gadgets, villain lairs, and exotic locations of Bond films influenced countless action films, but Bond itself has evolved in response to changing cinematic trends. It’s part of why Bond in particular has remained relevant for over 60 years.
Very few films have ever fared in cultural isolation. It's a myth that older films were "purely original" while modern ones aren’t, most likely the result of a proximity bias.
I'd like to add some more cinematic crazes that Bond followed. OHMSS followed the New Wave cinema's unhappy or unresolved endings of the time (think Easy Rider or The Graduate for examples). DAF followed campy TV shows of the time, I think that's one of the reasons that Adam West was looked at for Bond. OP was a reaction to Raiders of the Lost Ark, arguably. I view SP actually as copying the MCU when connecting all the previous DC movies. So, Bond is always looking at other sources for influences. It happens in art forms more than you think.
Yes, excellent points. Certain arthouse films may try to be completely original in every possible regard, but Bond films rarely take that risk.
Hitchcock.
Ocean's Eleven.
Thunderball, by Ian Fleming
What's Up, Tiger Lily?
Carry on Spying.
Ocean's Eleven.
Blaxploitation.
Kung Fu.
You Only Live Twice.
Star Wars.
The Spy Who Loved Me.
Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Superman.
Scarface.
Yojimbo. Miami Vice.
What are the similarities between Bond in Skyfall and Bruce Wayne?
A more-rounded version of the character was produced during the course of Craig's tenure, yes. I don't think it's debatable. Now, whether or not that a wise decision by EON is another question, worthy of debate.
Not that I’m taking sides here, but I find the opinion of James Bond being some “one dimensional” character before Craig’s interpretation to be disingenuous. I’ll give Craig credit where it’s due, but not at the expense of dismissing the other 5 actors and all of those involved with the production of their films in favor of propping Craig up as if he’s the only Bond worth of value. Plenty of the films prior have presented Bond as a fully well rounded, and developed character with multiple layers to his appeal; I mean there’s a reason why Craig’s era looked to OHMSS for influence.
Everything is debatable.
I remember when Craig's movies were God's gift. Now, thankfully, they are being regarded as just another set of enjoyable Bond films with the usual flaws.
Well I think it’s important to recognize what Craig’s era brought to the table; just like with any of the other Bonds. But a habit that I’ve noticed amongst some of Craig’s defenders is that they sometimes throw the older films under a bus to support their defenses of Craig’s era overall; judging the films by the standards of today rather than the standards of yesterday. I think that’s partially why the people who aren’t fans of Craig tend to be so loud and vocal about it; it’s just the continual back and forth between both sides.
I think that seems to be the issue in this thread. Craig's iteration follows more of the traits of the "round" character: He has a back story, deeper psychological flaws and scars, complexity, vulnerabilities, and motivations that are more understandable. In essence, across the five films, Craig's Bond gave us a fuller view of the man. Few previous Bond films offered such views, and even so they were slight glimpses. That's not a complaint; it's just an observation.
What multiple layers? Bond getting married in OHMSS and showing true emotion over Tracy's death? His visit to Tracy's gravesite in FYEO? His joy and then rage in LTK? What development of character took place? How was Bond a different character in DN than in YOLT? How was he a different character in LALD than in AVTAK? How was he a different character in GE than in DAD?
I'm not trying to be disingenuous. But Bond is and was an action hero, and we knew him through his actions on the job; his behaviors had always been rather static and predictable. Not all the time. But with Bond we knew what we were getting. That's not a complaint. Yes, he had personality, but that alone doesn't create dimension.
Craig's version brought something entirely different to the table. And we knew it as soon as we saw that scene in the bathroom, following the stairwell fight: Bond, fighting tears, trying to gather himself, washing his face. Then has a drink, looks at himself in the mirror, and steadies himself. It was a masterclass in acting...and it gave us a glimpse of vulnerability we had never seen before.
I'm not trying to do that.
Given that I rank TB and GF ahead of CR suggests that these things don't matter all that much to my enjoyment of Bond. So don't misunderstand what I am saying. I love what every Bond actor brought to the table. I cherish every Bond film (except for maybe MR LOL). Craig was no different: his Bond adds to the legacy. But he definitely went deeper into the character than the others. I'm not trying to say it's "better" or "worse." If anything, I'd say it was daring.
Well I would say that Bond’s marriage to Tracy was ultimately all that was needed to create that extra dimension to the character if we are to consider the Bond of 62-02 to be the same character. Its impact so large that it loomed over several different Bond actors following Lazenby. So yes I’d say that definitely added a layer of emotional vulnerability long before Craig’s era had. We see echoes of said vulnerability in Moore, Dalton and Brosnan throughout their tenures - particularly with the latter two. Because you may not like the execution of that on, doesn’t make it any less valid because I could hardly call the James Bond of FRWL, OHMSS, LTK, and GE a “one dimensional character.” But on a whole - to suggest that they’re Bond’s haven’t changed much over the course of their films is a bit inaccurate. Look no further than the attempts to darken Moore’s portrayal in TMWTGG and FYEO. No Bond is ever the same in his last film as he is in his first (except Lazenby of course.)
To be honest I’ve never found that Craig had given a full view of James Bond because the writing of his films is all over the place, and times during his final two films - so is his performance. What attempts the filmmakers do bring to flesh out the character come across as rather superficial, and too revealing. You may find a strength of Craig’s era being how continuity driven it is - but as others have commented here - that’s a bit of an issue. I’ve never found Craig gets to fully portray James Bond in all of his glory because he and the films are too busy trying to subvert the image of Bond to mixed effect. I’m okay with subverting expectations once in a while - the only trick that Craig era had was to subvert expectations and that got old quick. I don’t need to see Bond’s deep psychological trauma - I don’t need to see his scars - I don’t need to have it shoved in my face how deep and complex he is. I’ll say that I don’t mind these elements as they appear in Casino Royale and Skyfall - but they actively hinder my enjoyment of the rest of his era. So I must conclude that I don’t find Craig’s Bond era deep or anymore thought-provoking than previous Bond’s. It’s just nihilistic on a whole and it’s not to my tastes in Bond.
But I appreciate your reasoning and opinion on this subject. Hopefully I’ve managed to get mine across.
A film isn’t just its plot, it’s a tonal work, and a book can be adapted in different ways and tones. Even choosing to adapt one can be influenced by which movies have been successful prior, and don’t forget Eon had the choice of nearly all of the novels at that point, and they went with the one set on trains etc. and decided to add in a blonde and a crop duster scene. Nothing exists in a vacuum, it’s not a failing.
I have a good feeling people are only going to like and respect it more now...
I came to this thread to post exactly this! I fear that the overall sentiment on this forum will be a prevailing sense of foreboding instead of the excitement that we all shared. Tragic that the current turn in U.S. politics now also finds an equivalent in our small fan-universe. At least, current events inject fresh life into this forum.
Jeez. I just read this. Babs truly couldn't go on without Daniel, could she? It's heartbreaking and pathetic at the same time.
He's just one of many, many actors. A good actor, but hardly irreplaceable.