Craigger as Backstory Bond - Pros/Cons?

Loeffelholz

As a long-standing (albeit lately infrequently visiting) member of AJB---and as a veteran of the dreaded Craig Wars^TM which erupted at the initial news of Daniel Craig's casting (a time when much blood was shed, and more than a few were either banned or fled)---I was among the first on these boards to say that I supported Craig's casting full-heartedly, whilst acknowledging that it was unconventional and bold. For me, Craig's internalization reflects the spirit of Ian Fleming's creation, and his character arc over three films is nothing short of extraordinary, elevated by his clear devotion to his craft.

All the same, it begs the question: are Eon backing themselves up against a cliff with this ongoing unfolding of Bond's backstory--- which Fleming himself withheld until the penultimate full-length novel in his Bond canon, YOLT? How much more navel-gazing should our intrepid Commander endure before he can just be sent off to deal with baddies again? Has the cinematic landscape now changed to the point that the protagonist must have a personal stake in the job at hand?

It can be argued (and has been by some I've talked to) that the very thing that made Bond distinct was that he was a blunt instrument (with interestingly fastidious personality traits) who went in, bedded the ladies, blew things up, killed the baddies and saved the world for Her Majesty...a 'man who is only a silhouette,' as Kingsley Amis once so astutely observed.

Personally, I am conflicted. As a Flemingist, I'm fascinated to see more of this man's workings; I'd love to see his morning workout routine, as Fleming wrote it. I'd love to see May. And, honestly, I'm dying to see what they're going to make out of the Oberhauser connection. But I can't help wonder: is Eon about to become as over-reliant upon Backstory Bond as they did with eyebrow-raising, dinner-theatre comedy Bond?

Gassy Man

Hey, Loeff!

I agree -- it's getting silly now that every single adventure he's been on has been a personal one that coincidentally involves some mission vital to the British government as opposed to the other way around. It also makes the films often more or less seem like the same one, as though we keep getting teased that the actual Bond films will start with the next one. I was actually chatting with someone on the phone about the trailer today and wondered how Bond finds any time to complete a mission given all his attention to personal business.

But, as I've said elsewhere, I think the Craig Bonds are also following the Nolan Batman films in many ways, including that the hero's journey has to be a personal one. Of course, the model might be all of Craig's are essentially backstory (though I think we've actually gotten less on Bond than we think) and the next actor to play Bond will get to do the traditional stories.

Loeffelholz

Gassy Man wrote:

...I think the Craig Bonds are also following the Nolan Batman films in many ways, including that the hero's journey has to be a personal one. Of course, the think might be all of Craig's are essentially backstory (though I think we've actually gotten less on Bond than we think) and the next actor to play Bond will get to do the traditional stories.

Hey Gassy {[]

I've long suspected as much, and it might well be that Babs and Mike coaxed him in with the promise that he'd get to plumb the depths of Bond's motivations a bit. All the same, it's getting to the point that doing a more traditional Bond, in the Precious Classic Formula^TM, and having it build on this era's success, will end up as much of a challenge as the Dreaded Reboot. I'd love to see Craig have one, but perhaps it's just not meant to be. Good luck, Bond Actor #7, whenever you climb aboard...

Gassy Man

Part of the problem was that four-year gap between Quantum of Solace and Skyfall, where we should have had another film. Perhaps they could have worked it out of their system so that by this film -- which would instead have been number 5 -- could have started Bond traditional.

Another factor, which I might call the Star Trek effect, is that we've essentially now had two pairings of films that are direct sequels. While some fans may like that, to me, it pigeon-holes the stories -- in some ways, it's more like having two four-hour movies rather than four two-hour ones. That's more or less what they did with the Star Trek movies in the 1980s, where three films over six years essentially told one long story. It hampered other adventures like what the TV series might have done. In the end, I felt kind of cheated by the experience.

SFPROPS

They've been telling the "missions" for the past 50 years. Part of the problem with the series has been that there are only so many ways you can tell the "catch the bag guy" story without you starting to repeat yourself.

Adding in backstory that we never knew (unless you maybe read the books) ads a new spin on the character. One I like. It gives Bond more depth.

Thunderpussy

We're on DC's fourth film and still learning about Bonds backstory. Who'd have thought it would have
been that interesting. )
Although most films these days the hero has to go on an emotional journey, to discover something
about himself, so I don't solely blame Bond, it seems to be the fashion.
I do hope with spectre that that's the end of it though. Or as with the Taken films comedians will
have a field day pointing out that in the new Bond film, it turns out Bond's childhood dog was a
Soviet spy, killed by the ordesr of ........... May ! )

MANDY1

I do see the point gents and ladies about Craig's Bond telling us the backround of his early stages as a 00-agent and his missions being very personal, but i'd like to add that without better knowledge (or want to spoil anything ) ...I'd say Spectre is TB, OHMSS and LALD re-united in todays world and I'm sure that who ever will be the next after Craigger will continue in "old-fashoned way"

broadshoulder

How else do you keep directors and actors interested in the role if you don't stick with back story

Films without backstory is something belongs in the past - somewhere near 1979

Shatterfang

one film until. and skyfall just had the hunting lodge, there was very little about his backstory and the mission didn't call for his backstory. so its just going to be this one film spectre

Kent007

To be fair, I CR and QoS, we didn't see much backstory. We just saw how he got his 00's licence basically but you couldn't do Casino Royale and not show how he got his 00's licence.

It's only really been Skyfall and now SPECTRE which look at his personal, family life.

Sir Miles

Nothing wrong with how Eon are handling DC in his tenure as Bond...how many of us wanted to see Bond's backstory..?..how he became 007, etc..?..I'm happy for one more 'backstory Bond' after SPECTRE and to then move on...and it will probably be with another actor as Bond...

Absolutely_Cart

http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/45261/is-linear-progression-a-good-thing-for-bond-films/

Kent007

Sir Miles wrote:

Nothing wrong with how Eon are handling DC in his tenure as Bond...how many of us wanted to see Bond's backstory..?..how he became 007, etc..?..I'm happy for one more 'backstory Bond' after SPECTRE and to then move on...and it will probably be with another actor as Bond...

+1

AlphaOmegaSin

Sir Miles wrote:

Nothing wrong with how Eon are handling DC in his tenure as Bond...how many of us wanted to see Bond's backstory..?..how he became 007, etc..?..I'm happy for one more 'backstory Bond' after SPECTRE and to then move on...and it will probably be with another actor as Bond...

Agreed -{

MANDY1

Sir Miles wrote:

Nothing wrong with how Eon are handling DC in his tenure as Bond...how many of us wanted to see Bond's backstory..?..how he became 007, etc..?..I'm happy for one more 'backstory Bond' after SPECTRE and to then move on...and it will probably be with another actor as Bond...

Paul.. I mean Sir Miles, In a nutshell VERY WELL put-ted, thanks!

Sir Miles

Teppo wrote:

Sir Miles wrote:

Nothing wrong with how Eon are handling DC in his tenure as Bond...how many of us wanted to see Bond's backstory..?..how he became 007, etc..?..I'm happy for one more 'backstory Bond' after SPECTRE and to then move on...and it will probably be with another actor as Bond...

Paul.. I mean Sir Miles, In a nutshell VERY WELL put-ted, thanks!

A pleasure...but I'm not used to people agreeing with me...makes me wonder if I'm wrong )

Oh...and great to see you back here -{

MANDY1

Sir Miles wrote:

Teppo wrote:

Sir Miles wrote:

Nothing wrong with how Eon are handling DC in his tenure as Bond...how many of us wanted to see Bond's backstory..?..how he became 007, etc..?..I'm happy for one more 'backstory Bond' after SPECTRE and to then move on...and it will probably be with another actor as Bond...

Paul.. I mean Sir Miles, In a nutshell VERY WELL put-ted, thanks!

A pleasure...but I'm not used to people agreeing with me...makes me wonder if I'm wrong )

Oh...and great to see you back here -{

Oh why Thank You SIR, it's good to be back (and I do mean it - and feel it)

Anyway Thanks Sir Miles, always a pleasure :007) :x

Loeffelholz

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/45261/is-linear-progression-a-good-thing-for-bond-films/

Understood, but it's not the linear thing to which I was referring, but rather the use of Bond's personal baggage as plot points. To my mind, SF stands well apart from the CR-QoS arc.

Generally I agree with you, Sir Miles, but (as with everything in these films) it can be overdone. The
next step will be to see what they do with #7 I suppose.

AlphaOmegaSin

I have a Feeling that Bond 7 Could be more in line with Brosnan.

MANDY1

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

I have a Feeling that Bond 7 Could be more in line with Brosnan.

Well it's too early to speculate who will fill Craig's shoes, but I personally would like IF Bond's personal matters are/will take of the FINAL script and screenplay. Thanks

Jarvio

As I see it, DC is the backstory bond. I'm willing to bet that bond 25 will be one more backstory bond, and then bond 26 (with a new actor) will be back to the traditional missions.

Dutchfinger

It's a good point Loeffeholz, I think to me having Backstory Bond has all the pros: it dives deeper into Bond's character, thus it moves a way from relying on the standard Bond formula and ultimately brings out a different Bond movie. I think the real cons of this are mainly there for the casual Bond fans. For example, when the trailer was released this past night, I was super hyped, my girlfriend (who got more into Bond over the months as we're watching the movies in order) didn't really get the trailer at first viewing, she's a casual fan. She doesn't remember Mr. White, she doesn't know who oberhauser is, she didn't immediatly recognize Chris Waltz as the possible Blofeld, which is fine. But that raises the thought:

Could this movie suffer from being to much like Quantum of Solace?

I meant that in the sense that Quantum of Solace was a movie that heavily relied on you having watched Casino Royale. If you didn't watch that one, or simply forgot to much about it, you wouldn't know who Mr. White was, you didn't know which people Bond were after, who Vesper is etc etc. This movie obviously is going to have elements from Skyfall, and with Mr. White there elements from Craig's first two movies as well. To me, that's all pros, but to a casual fan, that could be very confusing. I think a casual fan wouldn't be half as hyped by seeing the trailer as we (most of us) were.

Just my two cents on this.

AlphaOmegaSin

The Film might prompt the more Casual Fans to watch SF in order to fill in the Gaps -{

Kent007

I watched a trailer reaction video on Youtube and that person said that it might be a bit jarring to go from the heavy-backstory Bond of Craig, to a more traditional Bond with the next actor who just goes on basic missions.

It's a good point which I haven't really thought of before. They'll have to handle the transition carefully to prevent the next Bond feeling like a complete and utter shift from DC. And I know you could say that it's been done before with Dalton and Moore etc.

AlphaOmegaSin

Kent007 wrote:

I watched a trailer reaction video on Youtube and that person said that it might be a bit jarring to go from the heavy-backstory Bond of Craig, to a more traditional Bond with the next actor who just goes on basic missions.

It's a good point which I haven't really thought of before. They'll have to handle the transition carefully to prevent the next Bond feeling like a complete and utter shift from DC. And I know you could say that it's been done before with Dalton and Moore etc.

Hopefully the next Transition is received better -{

Absolutely_Cart

I think by Bond 25, people are going to hail Craig's run as the best since Connery's but they're also not going to want a super-serious introspective soul-searching Bond for the 6th time in a row.

Likely, we are going to get a Bond akin to Moore or Brosnan, but it will be a welcome shift by then. At least in my book.

broadshoulder

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

I think by Bond 25, people are going to hail Craig's run as the best since Connery's but they're also not going to want a super-serious introspective soul-searching Bond for the 6th time in a row.

Likely, we are going to get a Bond akin to Moore or Brosnan, but it will be a welcome shift by then. At least in my book.

Actually the one taking on the role after Craig is on hiding to death. i can't see them going back to Brosnan anytime soon..

Loeffelholz

In a sense it's gratifying that much of Bond fandom was initially dragged, kicking and screaming, into the Craig Era's backstory-heavy internalized Bond...and now that it has brought Eon such huge financial success, it's a bit difficult to imagine them returning to the status-quo of the franchise's first forty years. But surely that's the self-generating challenge of this most unique of cinematic enterprises: staying profitable---and relevant---as tastes shift over time like continental plates.

Dutchfinger

Loeffelholz wrote:

In a sense it's gratifying that much of Bond fandom was initially dragged, kicking and screaming, into the Craig Era's backstory-heavy internalized Bond...and now that it has brought Eon such huge financial success, it's a bit difficult to imagine them returning to the status-quo of the franchise's first forty years. But surely that's the self-generating challenge of this most unique of cinematic enterprises: staying profitable---and relevant---as tastes shift over time like continental plates.

Well put! I always get the feeling EON is thinking in present time- only anyway. Of course they are aware they will eventually have to replace Craig and they probably would have atleast thought about possible follow ups. But still, by that time we'll probably be around 2020 or something, different things will be relevant in the world and they will take it into whatever direction seems to fit the audiences of that time. Maybe they will indeed go with a black Bond? Maybe they will indeed make it more lighthearted again? I'm pretty sure not even EON themselves can anwser that at this stage... For now, backstory Bond, greedy, personal and heavy stories seem to fit the times of today, so I guess that's what we'll get.

Gassy Man

The thing is, at the rate they're going, when they finally do reach the point where they think they've explored Bond's backstory enough -- and I"m not sure they really have done all that much so much as dragged what little they've done over four films -- Craig may be too old to continue to play the part.

It reminds me a bit, too, of the Die Hard franchise. The first film, as extreme as it was, created a plausible, if not probable, scenario of a cop being in the wrong place at the right time. Then the sequel basically told the same story again, with the wife even to the credit of the writers wondering to McClane "Why does this keep happening to us?" at the improbability of the same sort of event happening again. The third film built a framework that, while also improbable, provided plausibility. But the films after that just decided there was no point in even acknowledging how or why the hero seemed to keep finding himself in the same situation nor why it kept involving his family.

Craig's Bonds have drifted into that territory. How fortuitous, or perhaps unbelievable, that Bond's professional missions would so neatly align with his personal life -- or, more like the other way around. It has the feel of a comic book in this regard, which is odd given that Craig arguably has played Bond more realistically than the previous actors while at the same time having his character get involved in stories that in their own way are increasingly outlandish in their contrived coincidences.

bonded123

The approach may change when Barbara Broccoli is no longer a producer. She values character-driven plots over Bond on a mission to save the world plots. Although Cubby Broccoli did venture into the "personal mission" territory with Licence to Kill, Barbara Broccoli has fully embraced it. She sees the character of Bond as a flawed vulnerable agent of the state. Sean Connery in Doctor No was the complete opposite. He wasn't flawed or vulnerable. He just got on with the job.

Men think differently to women. Men tend to be less emotional, more logic-driven. This mindset will mean future non-Barbara Broccoli produced Bond films will see the return of the less vulnerable type of Bond.

Another key point is Craig is not a Connery or Moore type of Bond. He's not naturally charming or stoical. Craig acting one dimensional as Bond was never going to happen despite MG Wilson and others often hyping each new Craig Bond as a return to Goldfinger era type Bond. With respect to Mr Craig, he's never been a Goldfinger type era James Bond. And Connery would never play a Daniel Craig Skyfall type Bond. Craig's style of Bond is 100 percent how Barbara Broccoli perceives the character of James Bond. I can't see her changing the format.

For better or worse, Barbara Broccoli has made the franchise in her own image. She has full control over it.