Rating Craig's first 3 against other Bonds
Halcon
Zen TemplePosts: 487MI6 Agent
We have -
CR -
Pros - Eva Green (top three Bond Girl), great story, great villian, great ending
Cons - Bond's suits
QOS-
Pros - great action, Bond's suits, good story, great ending
cons - weak Bond Girls, locations a little boring, handling of Mathis
SF-
Pros - classic feel, great locations, good ending, new M, aston martin
cons - lame death of Silva somewhat anticlimatic
Connery's obviously still beats everyong out, DN, FRWL, GF
but Craig's comes in second, CR, QOS, SF
3d is Dalton, TLD, LTK (both excellent films)
4th is Lazenby, OHMSS (his one film is great)
5th is Moore, LALD, TMTGG, TSWLM (by virtue of TSWLM alone)
6th is Brosnan, GE, TND, TWINE (TND and TWINE are not as good as Moore's first two)
CR -
Pros - Eva Green (top three Bond Girl), great story, great villian, great ending
Cons - Bond's suits
QOS-
Pros - great action, Bond's suits, good story, great ending
cons - weak Bond Girls, locations a little boring, handling of Mathis
SF-
Pros - classic feel, great locations, good ending, new M, aston martin
cons - lame death of Silva somewhat anticlimatic
Connery's obviously still beats everyong out, DN, FRWL, GF
but Craig's comes in second, CR, QOS, SF
3d is Dalton, TLD, LTK (both excellent films)
4th is Lazenby, OHMSS (his one film is great)
5th is Moore, LALD, TMTGG, TSWLM (by virtue of TSWLM alone)
6th is Brosnan, GE, TND, TWINE (TND and TWINE are not as good as Moore's first two)
Comments
1. GoldenEye 2. Goldfinger 3. Skyfall 4. OHMSS 5. TWINE
both had strong first films followed by a weaker second, then a
huge hit with their third outing.
2. Brosnan- GE, TND, TWINE (My favorite consecutive 3 films in the series)
3. Moore- LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM (as Halcon mentioned, TSWLM really carries this one)
4. Craig- CR, QoS, SF (would rank higher if Skyfall lived up to the hype)
Lazenby- n/a
Dalton n/a
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I don't recall Dalton being in Goldeneye.
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
With each actor who has done at least three films, my favorites of theirs all happen to be the third -- GF, TSWLM, TWINE, SF. Coincidence? Maybe, but perhaps it takes three before the writing, direction and acting all coalesce. To my liking, at least!
So, in fantasyland would Lazenby's & Dalton's thirds have rocked our worlds do you think? ?:)
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Craig's first three have just been SO strong...barely missing a beat....I prefer CR - just - from QoS then Skyfall....so a downward trend
Craig seems a nice cold Bond, violent and mean but I still prefer Connery. Hes too cool.
2)Connery falling behind because I find DR. No stunningly Boring. DR. NO, FR,GF
3)Craig just edging out Dalton. I dislike Skyfall for than LTK, but I love QoS CR, QoS, SF
4)Dalton TLD, LTK
5) Lazenby OHMSS
6) Moore, while I do enjoy TMWTGG quite a bit, Live and Let die fell far down in my favor after reading the book, and I can't stand TSWLM.
OHMSS. Followed the novel and Lazenby was charming and tough. He may have not had
the acting chops of the others, but he did it well enough for me.
CR. Even though only the casino/Bond recovery scenes were Fleming, they did a good
job of updated the novel, and Craig nailed the character for me. No more smug
playboy, just a tough, cold spy with a side of the sardonic.
FRWL. Followed the novel and though Connery was still bringing the smug/playboy
factor from DR, he stayed steely in the scenes he needed to be. Just wished they
had deleted SPECTRE and kept SMERSH.
SF. Wow, above GF? Yes, because even though it's not a Fleming original, it plays to me
as if it were since they based it on TMWTGG/YOLT. It's also modern and continues
to treat the characters as real and not cartoons. I think Fleming would have loved it.
GF. First EON film that really solidified the Bond Rules Playbook for making a
JB - EON film. Took Fleming's character and made him into the superspy that saves
western civilization. Audiences and critics ate it up. Perfect marriage of book/film.
TBALL. Except for a few changes, followed the novel closely. Connery still doing the
smug playboy, but that's what audiences wanted.
DN. Followed the novel and Connery makes a charismatic smug/playboy spy - even
though it's EON's version and not Fleming's
TLD. Dalton bring's Fleming's Bond to the screen for the first
time. To bad EON forced Moore's bad puns in his mouth, but he looks like Bond
for me more than the toupee wearing bodybuilder. It has only Fleming's short
story to build on, but I think he would have written a plot similar to how it was
padded out - jus t with a better villain.
LTK. It's here on my list because it's Dalton - again. Also, they used TMWTGG novel
as a framework to build the plot around. I didn't like the Bouvier character.
Fleming would have made him a man and left out the romance. Using scenes
and a character from Fleming's Hildebrand Rarity was also a nice touch.
FYEO. Another use of Fleming's writing and Moore at his most serious.
I have a hard time placing QOS in the rest of the films. Craig was still doing a good
job, but the story was a weak revenge/political intrigue plot and the editing was
horrendous. It's still better than some of the sillier EON entries, but it just too limp.
I won't list the other films as they don't have enough of Flemng's style in them and
this is about comparing Craig's films to the others.
I think the Craig Bonds are serious contenders in the series in terms of over-the-top action. The question to ask, therefore, is where action ranks in a good Bond film. Another consideration is that the latest movies will always have the hindsight of the ones that have gone before, so action (and any other factor) should be judged in its own context.
With all that said, and despite how much I immensely enjoyed Craig's 3 Bond outings, he still falls short (forgive the pun) in the area of Bond being the uber, suave, tall and handsome British secret agent, so sorry, I wouldn't rank him that high despite the usual due deference to Connery
I like Dan's movies a lot, but serious Bond to me is Tim or early Sean, or even (to stretch it some) Pierce's first three...
Dan's movies suffer a bit from The Bourne Syndrome, but done way better IMO. -{
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
But back on topic, I think Skyfall and Casino Royale are in the top 3 of the entire series. They're just so good.
Because it's still what the worldwide audience expect in an EON vehicle. Once they blew up No's lair there was no going back. EON rebooted the series to get rid of the sillier sci-fi
and goofy quip laden aspects of the older entries, but they still have to compete with other action films. At least they limited the explosions now, but (as we've seen in the last act of SF) they still are following the old rule of "need gigantic explosions in third act". I don't
ever foresee them getting away from that.
Then why the sweeping dismissal of the pre-Craig Bond series as being inferior, block-buster nonsense (my summary of popular opinion) that pales in comparision with the "grittier," more serious, more realistic (which means not like his ridiculously good looking predecessors) films of Craig? It all seems like a Trojan horse to me, seemingly breaking the Bond formula with CR, though that film and the next 2 smacked of the EON staples in high-octane spades.
Contrary to popular sentiment, QoS actually holds a soft spot in my heart because IMO it actually realized the promise that was implied to the world with CR, for a "grittier," stripped-down veneer version of Bond; also, this was the movie that allowed Craig and IMO all that he represents, e.g., a lethal, no-nonsense, kick-a$$ thug to realize his full potential.
Let's all admit it to ourselves, the moment Craig was signed what EON fully intended was to deconstruct James Bond as the world new him and have their own Jason Bourne, albeit with the resources of his government at his disposal, more or less (and please, for the detractors, the abundance of production information from EON itself cannot be refuted) ...and for that, I am extremely appreciative because it resulted in a radically different version of Bond that I could actually enjoy, with relish. But whenever I see a mimicking of the old Bond staples in the supposed post-reboot period like the obligatory tuxedo scenes and action sequences in expensive tailored suits, the said explosives, posh and brightly lit nightclubs and the like, I can't help but see weak posturing and that the production is pathetically attempting to ape the Bond image.
Not entirely a bad move for the franchise at this point in time IMO. But for Fleming purists (and partial purists like me), we get to wait for another closer orbit to the Bond from the novels.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Yes, it's not all that different from a pitcher's strategies and tactics up his sleeve; they've already done "ridiculous" and "best of Bond," so the current strategy is deconstuctionist Bond...but believe me, if they are convinced that at some point, whether sooner or later, it would be economically advantageous to turn the dial back to "ridiculous," they will do it in a heartbeat. Creative integrity at best takes second place behind business viability, which is why at that point in time they've decided to emulate the Bourne movies, which have demonstrated a liking among the throngs of the ticket-purchasing movie population...McDonald's and Burger King do it to each other all the time since they know that a portion of fans of the McRib may also likely enjoy faux-McRib...it's a business reality. Why can't some fans accept that this happened with the Bond series?
Yes, there are critics who do a "sweeping dismissal" of the pre-Craig series for the reasons you state. One should just dismiss those critics assertions outright and don't give them any serious consideration. The Craig era films still maintain some of the old series rules (tuxedo, casino scene, Aston (and now Q and Moneypenny again), exotic locales and beautiful women and those explosive third acts. However, I don't consider the inclusion of these old rules to be hiding trojan soldiers. They are just the necessary traits that EON used to form the Bond series formula from the beginning and they knew that chucking all these out as well as starting the series over with a new actor would be too hard for audiences to swallow (and thus not be good for the box office). That's why they kept Dench in, even though it didn't make logical sense (as well as it may be she still was under contract to do a few more), and why Bond still seduced more than one woman (even if he didn't actually get to third base) and why he still got an Aston (both the original and the new) and why they still had the third act action scene in the sinking palazzo.
I see your point about your feelings about QOS. Outside the required big explosion third act, it did delete most of those "trojan soldiers" from the old series. My overall dislike of the story itself stems from it not being very Fleming like in it's narrative outside the third act - which I think the writers got the inspiration from the end of TSWLM novel with Vivienne and the burning cabins - as well as the in your face, confusing and just down right bad editing in the action scenes. As I've mentioned in other posts, the films work best when they take at least a few scenes from his novels that haven't been covered and develop from there. If any of Fleming's work is totally absent, I think it shows. I'm can't fault the writers that much. There's just no one in my opinion who can replace Fleming. It also didn't help the entire script was rushed and changed at the last minute - never a good thing when trying to get a quality piece of work put out. However, I agree, it was closest to grittier spirit of the
novels than the other two because of the missing EON formula rules.
Being a Fleming fan, I understand your dislike how EON is still keeping in the obligatory scenes and action sequences, casino, tuxedo, etc, while claiming this is the new Bond and saying it's closer to the novel character. That being said, I'm thankful that they are
at least trying to let the modern audience see more of a real character as oppose to the old superspy who never gets hurt emotionally or physically. However having made films myself, I can see how difficult a balancing act they are doing by trying to keep the series modern without losing the nostalgic touches of the old. SF is now one of my favorites in the series and though I don't see EON abandoning the whole formula outright, I'll look forward to future Bond installments. I only hope they'll cover some unfilmed Fleming material. We will never see a fully deconstructed EON Bond - I get that, but I still want to see him in high priced exotic locales (and I don't need a casino/tux scene) and given new gadgets - just as long as they're not invisible or give him an easy escape. I only hope I get to see a filming of Fleming's novels in the next thirty or more years I may have left that are done in the time frame they written and that follow the them as close as possible. I've a feeling this is going to be done for cable TV as it allows more freedom that theatrical film does.
You're preaching to the choir, you've posted very good points. The problem that is QoS, as I've stated on AJB, is the clashing, schizophrenic strands of book and movie Bond coming to a head and this movie took an even bolder deconstructionist step than CR, IMO. I really thought the tuxedo scene was a nice compromise of the deconstructionist approach in meeting that obligatory staple, yet winking at us in how Bond acquired the tuxedo that was stolen from the waiters' quarters! IMO, that was the same deconstructionist message attempted by TD in LTK, but was perfected in SF. There were a lot of other unique factors in SF that I felt were more literary than cinematic Bond; the casual clothing, the remorseful taking of a life, the uncomsumated team-up with the Bond girl, the seedy locales, the non-spectacular death of the main villain, and so on. I even found the ruins used as a party venue in Bolivia to be refreshing and a nice break from the obligatory posh places that were present even in this movie. Well, that's my take on QoS and it's not always my favorite Craig film, but one that is a guilty pleasure and surprising even to me, an nth degree fanatic of Fleming, this movie by virtue of being so un-EON (even more than NSNA!), perhaps come closest to capturing the OVERALL spirit and feel of the world of Bond as created by Fleming.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
GE and CR are both excellent and helped to kick start the franchise again.
TND and QOS arrived on a wave of high expectations and were disappointments, especially QOS.
TWINE and SF regained the ground lost by TND and QOS but not quite as good as GE or CR.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
As far as TND goes, TND was a disappointment to me, but not in the conventional sense. As I type this, calling the movie a disappointment would be harsh, though calling its timing a disappointment would be fair. After GE (great start to Brosnan's tenure), we were promised over and over again that we'd get Bond's character examined. GE was leading in that direction, but what immediately followed it had to follow up on the hints that were dropped. Yet, TND was a traditional, formulaic Bond. Was it a good one? Yes. But was it a good follow-up to GE in particular? No.
To be a good follow-up to GE, TND would have had to have essentially been a character development film, which we sorta got with TWINE. But the problem was that TWINE was (I know I've used this a million times to describe it and should probably come up with a new phrase) a stunted hybrid of what clearly began as a character development film with a bunch of action sequences shoehorned in and plenty of character development taken out.
Had TWINE followed up GE, it probably would not have needed so many cues to remind us it's trying to focus on Bond's backstory. Bond is still in the former Soviet Union, Bond still maintains contact with Zukovsky, Bond is still fighting the remnants of the Cold War, etc. It actually dovetails in a bit nicer, timeline-wise, and you can safely omit some of the overly long stuff to focus on the character development aspect. THEN you release your formulaic with Bond transitioning into a new age with a then-infant superpower with an uncertain future ahead of it in China.
Really, I think they could have made TND any time. What they did do was release the intro film, then a formulaic, then the obligatory "expand on the character" film. With the obvious exception of Lazenby, everyone else has looked like this...
-Connery: DN (Intro), FRWL (Further Explores Character), GF (Formulaic)
-Moore: LALD (Intro to Moore), TMWTGG (Further expands on Moore's character), TSWLM (Big-Budget Formulaic)
-Dalton: TLD (Intro to Dalton), LTK (Further expands on Dalton's character), and we know that had TPOAL been made, not only would it have been a formulaic, Bond would have been fighting robots (say the words "Bond fighting robots" aloud with a straight face as you imagine Timothy Dalton death-grappling with something that looks like it's been stolen from Robocop...just try it...and I'm a fan of Dalton's Bond!).
-Brosnan: GE (Intro to Brosnan's Bond), TND (Formulaic), TWINE (Further expands on the character...huh?)
-Craig: Although all three films focus intensely on character development, we again get what amounts to the intro (CR), the expansion of the character (QoS, but then, Bond had been developed so well in CR that it didn't quite have the same impact the previous films did), and the near-formulaic (SF isn't a formulaic, but it's the closest of any of the Craig films to a formulaic/traditional, classic Bond film).
I admit I'm driving the point home a little hard, but "which one of these things does not resemble the rest?"
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS