Pre Craig vs Post Craig
JohnBarry
Posts: 11MI6 Agent
I was watching Skyfall recently and this line by M caught my attention:
"I'll be damned if I'm going to leave the department in worse shape than I found it"
It got me thinking if Craig has left the series in worse, or better, shape than when he was announced as Bond.
I've been a Bond fan since 1997 although I must confess that I didn't keep up to date on the franchise between the releases of DAD and CR so I don't remember what the post-DAD era was like for the fandom.
I know DAD is considered a weak point by many but it did decent box office, and it certainly didn't contain as many contentious plot developments as NTTD. On the other hand, critics and the general public think very highly of Craig in general and his films were also very successful financially (the first Billion dollar Bond).
So do you think the franchise is in a better or worse state now compared to the post DAD / pre CR years?
Comments
If you’d asked me after CR I would have said the franchise was in rude health. After NTTD it needs something special to get back on track.
JohnBarry said:
I've been a Bond fan since 1997 although I must confess that I didn't keep up to date on the franchise between the releases of DAD and CR so I don't remember what the post-DAD era was like for the fandom.
I know DAD is considered a weak point by many but it did decent box office, and it certainly didn't contain as many contentious plot developments as NTTD. On the other hand, critics and the general public think very highly of Craig in general and his films were also very successful financially (the first Billion dollar Bond).
_____________________________________
others here were indoobitably paying more attention than me. But during that break, I was surprised that there would be a new actor as Bond (but not upset, as I didnt much like Brosnan) and that they would be going back to Fleming and actually adapting the first novel. I learned both these things about a year before the new movie came out.
But even more than those two surprises, once I finally saw that new movie, I was shocked by how little it resembled a classic Bond film. Very bold that they dared do something genuinely new, yet it wasnt really what I wanted. I was hoping for something that looked precisely like it could have been a prequel to Dr No
but as I say, I didnt really like Brosnan and thought his four films were stale, so they had to do something to keep me interested. So yes, Craig and Babs successfully reinvented a flagging franchise that had begun to look obsolete.
counting those four years between DAD and CR. this Craig era has now lasted over 20 years. and I dont expect Michael Wilson will really be involved in whatever comes next, and maybe even Barbara will be less involved. they might be making very secret plans what to do next, but from what we see, it looks like they dont know what to do. it seems as if twenty years of Craig has painted them into a corner: they cant go back to what I enjoyed in the classic films, I'm sure they don't want a Craig lookalike after killing off Craig's Bond, so instead they have to do something as shockingly different from Craig as Craig was from Brosnan. How can they possibly outdo that contrast?
I cant really say thats leaving the franchise in a better state than it was in 2002. More like they successfully kept something afloat that seemed to have outlived its time, and for twenty years yet. but does the franchise have anywhere to go from here?
thinking more about what Craig has done with the character these last twenty years, I'm reminded of the series of posts @Gassy Man made after No Time to Die came out. (EDIT: see this thread for example) Gassy's coming at it from a bit more of an academic angle, he sees subtext that the rest of might say isnt there at all. But his argument was that throughout his five films, Craig portrayed Bond as a serial loser, and that his version of the character was a takedown of the toxic straight white male. M and the British Secret Service also came out looking pretty bad in each of those films.
that might sound extreme, and all in Gassy's imagination. but I've read interviews with Craig where it seems Craig never did like the character, or that type of ostentatious heterosexuality. and we know it was Craig who insisted on killing the character off. so Gassy may have been right
thing is. twenty years is a generation. A generation has passed that only knows Craig's version of Bond, who think of the old films as outdated nostalgia no more relevant than silent cinema. I think the current generation sees Bond as specifically that character Craig was playing, and whatever happens next has to work with that negative portrayal and all its baggage.
I'd say the series is in better shape. While the early Brosnan movies saved the Bond movies, the Bond movies were slowly turning a bit stale. I said a bit! DAD was clearly made by a director who didn't understand the character or the series, but the producers hired him and let him make the movie the way it turned out. Luckily the producers realized this and re-booted the series with Craig in CR in a fantastic way. The following movies did some things right and some things wrong. Like DAD, NTTD was a box office success. I suspect I'll debate myself if the unorthodox choices made in NTTD were good, but I've never questioned if NTTD is a good movie. The Bond movies are now sought after by the best actors, directors and crew members around. More options are open when making Bond movies than there were twenty years ago. This is both a good thing and a bad thing, but unlike Bond himself the series is very much alive.
In a better state for one general reason - the Bond franchise now incorporates so many different aspects, including a character that dies - so in the long run it's almost what kills you makes you stronger. For instance, both Poirot and Holmes have died at some point and irrespective of the finality of that, it does cement the characters' longevity. Craig not looking like a male model also assists in broadening the character's appeal just as Moore not looking like Connery helped generally.
A recent AI simulation of Bond had him looking like Aaron Johnson, said to have impressed the producers with a recent screen test. It may be a fix - you see nothing of Connery, Lazenby or Dalton there - but he looked young, smooth and charming, frankly all the things Craig was not.
I agree that the producers didn't seem to like Bond much and as @Gassy Man suggested had Bond as a serial loser in most of his films. If this continues I don't fancy buying into it and in any case the whole woke thing may put Bond on ice fora few years, just as Die Hard did for the suited spy in the late 80s (all the villains and creeps in Die Hard wear suits, the good guys wear a vest or a cop uniform).
No Time To Die is regarded more highly than Die Another Day, though not by me.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Good in the sense that it has picked up a bunch of new fans. Craig is popular in North America. Casino Royale and Skyfall are often named as the top Bond films (by certain audiences). So a whole bunch of folks will be pumped for the next period in the franchise.
Bad in the sense that I believe the Bond series has lost fans like me. I hated NTTD, hated Spectre, really dislike how Skyfall plays on repeat viewings (way too Nolan Batman-esque + Home Alone) and Casino Royale annoys me these days (but I admit it's in the cannon of objectively great Bond films). QoS isn't amazing but it's unapologetic, fast paced and gets on with the job - it's probably my most watched Craig Bond because it has the least of the soppy, "Bond has issues" stuff.
I am not a fan of the Craig era. It started well and we've had some really well made Bond films. They just on balance now they're all said and done...suck? (IMO!!!)
"Better make that two."
Yep, agree that it's in better health. I suppose the only negative is that Craig was so good, and the series was taken in an interesting dramatic direction, that the problem is where does it go from here and how does it follow that up. Not a bad problem to have in a way as it means they succeeded, but a tough one nonetheless.
There's a couple of other problems too, I think. The Code Name crowd can see what happens as confirmation that they are right. And second, the expectation that the next James Bond won't be a straight white man is stronger. This is mainly because of changes in society in general. But the "not the first time" line in SF and Nomi as 007 in NTTD has strengthened those ideas. Personally I'm willing to give a non-white Bond a fair chance like I did with Craig back in 2006, but I won't accept a female or gay "James Bond". CraigBond gave the producers more options, and that's largely (but not exclusively) a good thing.
TwoFour said: I won't accept a female or gay "James Bond"
__________________________________________
you wont "accept" it, but will you still go see the film?
I may sound cynical, but I'm quite sure I'll be going to see whatever they give us next, both to stay informed, and because I enjoy the ritual even if the new films are never as good as they were when as I was 12 years old
the point was made a few times upthread: the Craig films were not only hugely successful, they also had a lot of critical/artistic credibility, even rumours of Oscar nominations. The Brosnan films never really had that sort of respectability, after Goldeneye there was once again the reaction from normal folks of "I didnt know they still made those films". Craigs Bond films definitely did not have that problem, so in that sense Craig did leave the series in a better place (but I still get the sense theyve painted themselves into a corner it will be difficult to get out of, and I dont just mean Bond is now dead.)
I fear you are right @caractacus potts in that - death of the central character aside - the mood of the films has altered. As much as I would prefer a quickie shoot-em-sleep-with-em-chase-em two hours of rumble and tumble helmed by a fledgling or half-baked director, the franchise has moved beyond this phase and into the realm of quality prestige production. IMO it should never have gone there, but here we are and I guess here we'll stay. The fact we have had no news of cast, plot, director, etc etc, just tells me the movie will attempt to be a significant event - for movies in general as well as for Bond fans. I never want a Bond film to boost its own ego, that's my job, butvI am certain that's what will happen. Yawn. Yawn.
^ "As much as I would prefer a quickie shoot-em-sleep-with-em-chase-em two hours of rumble and tumble helmed by a fledgling or half-baked director, the franchise has moved beyond this phase and into the realm of quality prestige production. IMO it should never have gone there"
This quality prestige production sentiment is not the first time I've heard it. On The Ringer's Rewatchables podcast (on Spotify) for Mission Impossible Fallout they talked about how Bond had become auteur in comparison with other franchises and was less about major stunts and action set pieces that other films have now stolen from Bond (MI in particular).
The issue with going "auteur" outside any flashy tricks with production, cinematography or tinkering with the plot formula - which let's be honest has been attempted before by EON and they've always had HUGE budgets - relies heavily on having a Bond which is more heartfelt, woke, modern, self-aware or whatever you want to call it (Goldeneye had touches of this ultra self-awareness).
My biggest issue is that Craig's tenure got bogged down by the Vesper storyline, retirement, self-reflection, sadness, fooling around with Q being gay and the idea of a black female 00 in NTTD. Perhaps the worst example was the opportunity for Judi Dench's M finishing up was a chance to just roll M's role back to being at the start and end of the movie....but no...still majorly present.
"Better make that two."
I don't entirely get this idea: the appeal of Bond to me was always that it's hokum but made by people far too over-qualified to be doing it. A brilliant lead actor up against top actors as villains, a superb luxurious score, lush sets designed by a genius.. that most of them went on to win Oscars wasn't a surprise. That they've continued this tradition and returned Bond to being the cinematic equivalent of a Savile Row suit, after the films arguably got a little trashy and High Street in the 90s, seems perfectly fitting to me. That's pretty much what the books were: the same old adventure plots gilded in gorgeous luxury prose- even mentioning lots of luxury items along the way!
Wanting a 'half baked director' just seems weird to me: why would you want someone not very good?
My biggest issue is that Craig's tenure got bogged down by the Vesper storyline, retirement, self-reflection, sadness, fooling around with Q being gay and the idea of a black female 00 in NTTD.
Having a black woman and a gay man in it 'bogged it down'? How so exactly? Because I recall the gender of Q's dinner date taking up all of one word. And you're saying that one word helped to bog down five films?
^ and the Vesper storyline, retirement, self-reflection and sadness.
I'm not against any of that stuff I just wish the series didn't try and tease the audience. If they're gonna do a female 00 then get on with it. Don't tease the prospect of it. I felt that much of what went on in Craig's tenure (particularly the latter part) became manipulative.
"Better make that two."
Yep, saw those; that's why I said 'helped to bog down'. But I'm more interested in the negative effect you felt those things in particular brought.
I suspect the tone of future Bond films will depend somewhat on the actor. Craig is no comedian. Even in the Knives Out movies, he's essentially the straight man.
Personally, I was glad to see the series take a darker approach. That was what drew me back to Bond (I had hopes for Pierce but he lost me after GE, and I always felt he was "playing" Bond rather than embodying him). I have always preferred the tougher, more physical 007s. The sadistic joy on Connery's face when he electrocutes Oddjob is how I see the character. Or Craig waiting for Mr. Slate to bleed out in QoS. I don't want the wisecracking male model who can't perform a single one of his own stunts convincingly. I know many if not most people here venerate Moore, but the lowest point in the series for me was the Tarzan swing in OP. You didn't need Austin Powers when the Bond films themselves felt like stale popcorn.
There were plenty of elements of the Craig stories that didn't work for me. But I expect that the box office and critical success of the franchise will mean that Eon will continue to make "prestige Bond" pictures, which might be an oxymoron but it sums up the past five movies. (And there weren't just "rumors" of Oscars; Adele actually won one for SF.) I'd prefer not to wait years and years between films. But I prefer the popular conception of Bond that Craig is leaving behind.
Craig may only do one or two jokes per movie (eg the valet scene in Casino Royale) but he is a the funniest Bond since Moore.
anecdotally, Octopussy was the last Bond film I saw until Goldeneye, and elements like the Tarzan yell were exactly why. also I was in my late teens and starting to get snobby, believing I'd outgrown such childish interests, especially after being so pleased with the change in direction in the previous film. Upon getting the dvd, I realised its a mixed bag: the much maligned clown sequence is actually pure Hitchcockian suspense! (peril in a crowded theatre, and hero wrongfully pursued by the police are both Hitchcock tropes). if the whole film'd been like that itd be much better. But then the closing scenes look like something out of the Batman tv series, and final shot is Bond in full body cast nonetheless shagging the leading lady: the closing impression negates all the good thats come before!
I suspect the tone of future Bond films will depend somewhat on the actor. Craig is no comedian. Even in the Knives Out movies, he's essentially the straight man.
That's a curious observation: I would say there are plenty of gags he plays perfectly in the Bond films. And he is properly funny in the Knives Out films, not to mention stuff like Logan Lucky.
At its heart, DN had a B movie quality to it, elevated to something special by the technical ingenuity of everyone involved. FRWL's Hitchcockian ploys aside, the original cycle of Bond movies built on that B movie ethos, aestheticising it in specific ways which captured the imagination of audiences across the world; negotiating the limitations of genre and the extravagances of style.
From as early as DN there had always been some sense of remove between the particular Bond seen on screen and a notion of some prior Bond. Initially, the antecedent was the Bond on Fleming's printed page. More recently Craig's Bond movies 'quoted' classic cinematic OO7 (as well as Fleming's 'Casino Royale') but evolved into a different kind of experience, a fashioning of purportedly more 'human' stories. It remains an interesting question which sectors of the audience appreciated the Craig films more for their 'tribute act' elements - how they traded on Bond's legacy - and which favoured the 'humanising' transformations of Craig's Bond and his world. Imho, any new Bond shouldn't have to be radically transformative all over again. Take that too far and the character might as well bear a different name altogether.
"Imho, any new Bond shouldn't have to be radically transformative all over again. Take that too far and the character and film series might as well bear a different name."
100% - and people don't want to go and see something different they want to see the same old stuff over and over!!
"Better make that two."
I should have been clearer. I think Craig is capable of being quite funny if given the material (or in the case of GLASS ONION, the silly hats and swim suits), but he himself has admitted comedy doesn't come easily to him.
My point was that Eon will undoubtedly lean in to the talents of the next actor who plays Bond. Taylor-Johnson, for instance, has won a lot of kudos for his comedic performances. Cavill, not so much.
I think a comparison to the other tenures ending is worth being hashed out:
Connery: as the first Bond him leaving was always going to be a major. Coming back for DAF muddied the waters. But perhaps the Connery leaving, Lazenby does one, Connery returns for one helped audiences accept Moore?
Moore: got way too old and the series looked fairly stale by 85. Series left in a worse state.
T-Dalts: LTK was a trainwreck, series basically goes into oblivion for 6 years. Series left in a bad state.
Brosnan: Die Another Day is a horrific Bond movie and the series needed one helluva reboot. Series left in a bad state.
Craig: NTTD (opinions aside on how good or bad the film is) leaves the door wide open for whatever happens with the next actor and storyline - which I guess leaves the series in a good and opportunistic state.
"Better make that two."
I don't entirely get this idea: the appeal of Bond to me was always that it's hokum but made by people far too over-qualified to be doing it.
I don't entirely agree with this. I used the terms fledgling and half-baked because all the Bond film directors, while they had a certain pedigree and critical success, were in no way ground breakers. They were competent. Guy Hamilton's work on GF is assured and sprightly, but it isn't very special; the hard work was done in the editing suite and the scripting and by the second unit. He's positively laid back in his approach to his 70s Bond's. Terence Young lost interest; he too had a decent, but not outstanding career pre- and post- Bond. Peter Hunt? John Glen? Michael Campbell? I forget the others. All decent, pretty good, probably making the best film of their lives, but reliant on - as rightly pointed out - the input of others, in particular for the sixties and seventies the photographers, designers and editors. The films came out fast, like a production line car. The recent Craig films have been more akin to personalised, precision built, rather dull but superb looking Aston Martin's [aha] and I'm not sure that is what Bond is about. Fleming's writing regime was a production line itself, let's remember. The missions were a production line, albeit with differences. It is recycling of the most mechanical, familiar and pleasing. Attempting to create something grand and significant doesn't always work. To go back to cars, the classic sixties sports was an E-Type Jag, essentially a production line sports car: it looked great, functioned great, didn't cost the earth and everyone knew what it was. For Bond, that's all been lost now, heading as it were to the exclusive higher end market. The landscape is hopelessly confused and I'm just not sure where the franchise is going. As @heartbroken_mr_drax says, other franchises have stolen the ability to plan, telegraph and present their films effectively and swiftly. Fast and the Furious, Taken, MI, The Expendables, are all coming thick and fast and Bond is nowhere. The producers seem to want to make that prestige production every time [following on from the relative failure of QOS] but that both raises expectations and makes the fall very hard. The beauty of the earlier Bond films was their ability to be as throwaway as the quips from Sean or Roger's lips, despite the obvious excellent production values. The producers were looking at quantity not the extent of quality. Let's remember, no Bond film is a bad film, although some are a mite shoddy, but I question whether it should be aiming at the quality, prestige, award-winning market and not simply understanding who and what its audience is or could be. The franchises I've mentioned cottoned onto their fanbase and deliver to expectations, with flurries of excellence along the way, and some pitfalls; why should Bond not do the same? It doesn't take award winners to make these productions - that was proved by the Bonds of the sixties.
I think where Bond needs to be very careful with the auteur angle is that it doesn't try too hard down a soulless, charmless and humourless path that some of Nolan's films have had. This path will mean the films need to be taken too seriously that will turn audiences off, and when they try and be fun and breezy will be criticised for being off-tone.
The Bond franchises' ongoing identity crisis, caused by other franchise competition and internal "what should Bond be?" (which it has been plagued with since AVTAK) is more recently exacerbated by the death of the cinema experience. The episodic, quick, mission based films that we used to see now probably belong on Netflix.
"Better make that two."
I find it very odd to see fans wanting the films to be dashed off quickly by people with less talent than is available. The mind boggles slightly.
Connery was too good an actor perhaps? Barry was too good a composer? The idea they should have been worse… I can’t get behind that.
chirsno1 said;
The producers seem to want to make that prestige production every time [following on from the relative failure of QOS] but that both raises expectations and makes the fall very hard.
____________________________________________________
I've never seen this cause and effect argued before but maybe you have something there
Quantum did come out very quick after Casino, the classic two year schedule I'd like to see them return to. I remember being disappointed with Quantum after all the positive feeling toward Casino, and regular folk didnt talk about the new one so much. I dont think its problems were that it was made in two years though, there were other problems behind the scenes.
but yes the followup to that was an ever increasing gap between films, and starting with SkyFall each one did get a lot of mainstream attention and hype and Oscar rumours. And as good as they looked, none of them were as perfect as they should have been given the time invested and the hype they were getting. Like there were always some radical new ideas and some very beautiful shots, but then there were huge stretches in each film where they seemed to have lost the plot.
putting out the films quickly theres going to inevitably be good films and bad films, but at least the good films can be viewed on their own and enjoyed 100%. Maybe taking four or five years to make one film they end up combining the good and bad bits in one film so we get these deeply flawed wannabe masterpieces where I'm tempted to skip whole hourlong chunks.
Yeah although the writers strike obviously had a huge impact, I think Quantum sort of showed that the two-year thing didn't really work any more. When we have the likes of Marvel bashing out their ever more bland rubbish and the Star Wars films getting hamstrung by their overly ambitious quick production schedule, I'm pleased that Bond is becoming more of an event.
but do ay of these actually take more than two years to make?
part of the five years between SPECTRE and NTtD was Craig swearing he'd rather slit his wrists, then another year and half was after the film was already complete but theatres were closed cuz of Covid. Then there was the specific problem of Boyle quitting and them starting from scratch.
I think once they quit fooling round and actually committed to making a fifth CraigBond film it did not take more than two years.
Just looking quickly at Some Kind of Hero at Skyfall for an example, and it looks like Purvis & Wade say they worked with Mendes on a draft for 'nearly a year' which was delivered in December 2010; this is after the previous draft by Peter Morgan. So yeah, it seems to take longer than two years.
Plus they are working on these constantly in a very hands on way, as we know. Maybe they do want a pause afterwards and to enjoy their many millions. I know I would.
What did I mean by "won't accept"? Good question. Thinking of it I'll probably watch the first movie. Mostly because what the series is to me, but also to have a qualified opinion. But I think a female or gay Bond would be straying too far from the character. There can be variations: does he smoke? How comedic can he be? How brutal should Bond be? etc.
But if they change Bond too much it's not the character any more, and those two are examples of this. I'm not against female or gay action heroes, not at all. But to see a female and/or gay spy in an action adventure movie one needs to create that character and make the movies, not "hijack" James Bond and make him into something he isn't.