Concept of recency?

A lot of people have been saying that this might be the best Bond movie ever and that Daniel Craig might be the best Bond ever.

But I wonder if this might just be due to the fact that it's the 'latest' Bond?

For example, if Tomorrow Never Dies or Goldeneye came out after this, would we be saying the same about them?

Comments

  • glidroseglidrose Posts: 138MI6 Agent
    dimch wrote:
    A lot of people have been saying that this might be the best Bond movie ever and that Daniel Craig might be the best Bond ever.

    But I wonder if this might just be due to the fact that it's the 'latest' Bond?

    For example, if Tomorrow Never Dies or Goldeneye came out after this, would we be saying the same about them?

    I certainly didn't say the same after DAD, that's for sure.....
  • BarbelBarbel ScotlandPosts: 37,854Chief of Staff
    When I saw the title of this thread, I thought someone was suggesting it for the next Bond film title. Well, "Concept Of Recency" isn't a million miles from "Quantum Of Solace"!
  • spectre7spectre7 LondonPosts: 118MI6 Agent
    Casino Royale is clearly better than any of the Brosnan films for a start, so for once the adulation is deserved. As for best Bond film, I don't know, but Craig is certainly very good.
  • Moore Not LessMoore Not Less Posts: 1,095MI6 Agent
    Yes, there is an element of "recency" regards Daniel Craig and Casino Royale. But the same thing applied to the other Bond actors and films. In the fullness of time both Craig and CR will find their rightful place. I suspect a good majority of Bond fans will always regard them highly.
  • Gassy ManGassy Man USAPosts: 2,972MI6 Agent
    It's not the best Bond film, but it is superior to what we've gotten for decades.

    I think you're right, though, that for some people, the latest thing is always the best. That's one of the reasons scholars study things over time -- art and the pereception of it is influenced by many factors, and standing the test of time is a measurement of its true impact. I suspect that "Casino Royale" will be perceived as a grwat Bond film 20 years from now, but I hope that the next Bond film is even better.
  • delliott101delliott101 Posts: 115MI6 Agent
    Gassy Man wrote:
    It's not the best Bond film, but it is superior to what we've gotten for decades.

    I agree... most Fleming content since FYEO.. I think CR will be regarded on par with OHMSS. Let's hope Bond 22 doesn't equal DAF
  • spectre7spectre7 LondonPosts: 118MI6 Agent
    Gassy Man wrote:
    It's not the best Bond film, but it is superior to what we've gotten for decades.

    I think you're right, though, that for some people, the latest thing is always the best. That's one of the reasons scholars study things over time -- art and the pereception of it is influenced by many factors, and standing the test of time is a measurement of its true impact. I suspect that "Casino Royale" will be perceived as a grwat Bond film 20 years from now, but I hope that the next Bond film is even better.
    Yes this is very true. A lot of teenagers especially get sucked in by hype and soon as they see the latest blockbuster they proclaim it to be the best film 'eva' on the IMDb message boards.
  • wordswords Buckinghamshire, EnglandPosts: 249MI6 Agent
    spectre7 wrote:
    Gassy Man wrote:
    It's not the best Bond film, but it is superior to what we've gotten for decades.

    I think you're right, though, that for some people, the latest thing is always the best. That's one of the reasons scholars study things over time -- art and the pereception of it is influenced by many factors, and standing the test of time is a measurement of its true impact. I suspect that "Casino Royale" will be perceived as a grwat Bond film 20 years from now, but I hope that the next Bond film is even better.
    Yes this is very true. A lot of teenagers especially get sucked in by hype and soon as they see the latest blockbuster they proclaim it to be the best film 'eva' on the IMDb message boards.

    Not on sites like this though. Alot of us put the boot in on DAD as soon as it came out despite its success at the Box Office. The good thing about this site is that people discuss the merits of the quality of a film and aren't just swept away by hype.

    I do think CR is just a genuinely good movie and history will judge it as such!
  • John DrakeJohn Drake On assignmentPosts: 2,564MI6 Agent
    I can remember liking films at the cinema then seeing them later on DVD and wondering what I was thinking. I thought TND was great the first time I saw it, but think less of it now ten years have passed. It just to have dated very quickly. I hope the same doesn't happen to CR.
  • highhopeshighhopes Posts: 1,358MI6 Agent
    I think regency plays into a film's success if it's part of a series -- although less so with CR, I think. I don't think any Bond film or actor was greeted more negatively than CR and Craig. CR didn't just have to please the faithful, it had to overcome a lot hysterical criticism. So regency was likely less of a factor with CR than with other films in the series. At best it was a wash, with as many people praising the film because it's new as there were people complaining it wasn't the same old thing.
  • Slyguy3129Slyguy3129 Posts: 58MI6 Agent
    I can definatly tell the differance. unfortunatly for me (due to my young age) the only bond films I have seen in theater have been TND TWINE and DAD. None of those movies having gone to the theater and watched them left me like CR left me.

    I was agast the first time I saw CR. I couldn't believe what I saw (agast in a very good way mind you). It took me a while to finaly realize what I had seen. Yes I know some of you don't proclaim it has the "Greatest Bond eva", I don't either, but its damn close. once all of it finally set in, I went and watched it again, and again, and again, and again. I can't get enough of it. I can't wait for the DVD to come out. I wonder what little goodies we'll get with it?
  • MrsDallowayMrsDalloway Posts: 79MI6 Agent
    edited January 2007
    Concept of Recency

    What a lovely combination of words, and a theory I hadn't come across before. The ever-faithful/fallible Wikipedia even has a page devoted to the subject:

    The recency effect, in psychology, is a cognitive bias that results from disproportionate salience of recent stimuli or observations. For example, if a driver sees an equal total number of red cars as blue cars during a long journey, but there happens to be a glut of red cars at the end of the journey, he or she is likely to conclude that there were more red cars than blue cars throughout the drive.
    The inverse of this effect is the primacy effect. The recency effect is compatible with the peak-end rule.



    All fascinating stuff. But as one of AJB's more senior members (if only chronologically) I'd have to disagree with the principle in this case. I've been lucky enough to be aware of all seven Bonds introductions, and none of them have been received with the same acclaim as Our Man Craig. Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan were generally greeted with scepticism that they could fill the shoes of uber-Bond Connery, and a grudging acknowledgement that they might 'grow into the role' after a couple of films.

    Only Connery himself seems to bear comparison with Craig's introduction: initial press resistance that either men were good-looking or sophisticated enough to fulfil Fleming's ambitions, then a mixture of relief and acclaim as both defied their detractors and created an image that exceeded expectations.

    Craig-rapture, while not a completely new phenomena, does seem to be something we haven't seen since 1962.
  • MrsDallowayMrsDalloway Posts: 79MI6 Agent
    Apologies for the successive post, but I've just come across a link through Wikipedia to the inverse of the Recency Effect: The Primacy Effect.

    This would presumably explain why many fans can accept no one but Connery in the role.

    ... unless of course he really was better than everyone else.
  • MrsDallowayMrsDalloway Posts: 79MI6 Agent
    Well, I was being ironic, based on the very mention of Our Lord Sean's name sending many a member into palpitations of delight.

    But if you're an advocate of the Primacy Effect, yes.
  • Dan SameDan Same Victoria, AustraliaPosts: 6,054MI6 Agent
    edited January 2007
    Apologies for the successive post, but I've just come across a link through Wikipedia to the inverse of the Recency Effect: The Primacy Effect.

    This would presumably explain why many fans can accept no one but Connery in the role.

    ... unless of course he really was better than everyone else.
    I believe that Connery was better than anyone else, but not because of The Primacy Effect. The reason being that the first Bond I ever encountered was Moore. Connery was probably the second (followed by Dalton, Brosnan, Lazenby and Craig.) I consider Connery to be the best simply because I believe that he truly was the best. -{
    "He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
  • Lady RoseLady Rose London,UKPosts: 2,667MI6 Agent
    Yes, there is an element of "recency" regards Daniel Craig and Casino Royale. But the same thing applied to the other Bond actors and films. In the fullness of time both Craig and CR will find their rightful place. I suspect a good majority of Bond fans will always regard them highly.

    My feelings exactly MNL. I do feel a little uneasy with the whole 'Craig is the best', 'CR is the the best film ever' concept. It is all slightly reminicent of the whole Brosnan/GE era when PB was the saviour of the franchise.

    Time will tell and CR and Craig will find their rightful place in the pecking order.
  • Moore Not LessMoore Not Less Posts: 1,095MI6 Agent
    Lady Rose wrote:
    Yes, there is an element of "recency" regards Daniel Craig and Casino Royale. But the same thing applied to the other Bond actors and films. In the fullness of time both Craig and CR will find their rightful place. I suspect a good majority of Bond fans will always regard them highly.

    My feelings exactly MNL. I do feel a little uneasy with the whole 'Craig is the best', 'CR is the the best film ever' concept. It is all slightly reminicent of the whole Brosnan/GE era when PB was the saviour of the franchise.

    Time will tell and CR and Craig will find their rightful place in the pecking order.

    I also feel a little uneasy with the whole 'Craig is the best', 'CR is the best film ever' concept. I wonder whether at least part of it is an overreaction to all the anti-Craig controversy, CnB nonsense etc.

    Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Craig and CR very much and found little to criticise about either. But is Craig really that good? Is Casino Royale really that good? Maybe they are, judging by the nine BAFTA nomination's.
Sign In or Register to comment.