Maybe, Craig's time as Bond is in a way to tell his back story ? Mixing his
New mythology/background for a new century, so setting up the groundwork
For " The next Fella"
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
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.
Not to be contentious ) , but the back story started with Vesper using her powers of female intuition to suss out that Bond was an orphan and grew up depending partly on the charity of others. This was reinforced by M's comment that orphan's make the best spies. In "Skyfall" Bond takes M to his family home because he figures the remote location will nullify Silva's technological advantages and make sure no more civilians will get killed in the crossfire. Now some effects have turned up from the ruins that are in some manner a plot generator for SPECTRE.
This seems to be different than a NYC cop repeatedly stumbling upon terrorist plots that don't even have anything to do with his job (I'm talking about the first two Die Hard movies, not the last two).
Maybe, Craig's time as Bond is in a way to tell his back story ? Mixing his
New mythology/background for a new century, so setting up the groundwork
For " The next Fella"
I figured out how this should work. Craig's Bond dies at the end of Bond 25. He's last seen floating face down in a dirty polluted river after being betrayed one last time.
Then Bond 26 starts with a 6'2" 180 pound black-haired, blue-eyed Bond with a cleft chin waking up from a dream that he's drowning. The beautiful blonde in bed with him says, "James, what's wrong?"
Bond: "I had the most awful nightmare. I was five foot eight and I looked like Vladamir Putin."
Blonde: (stroking Bond's thick hair): "James, you poor thing."
Bond: "Do be a dear and make me a vodka martini. Shaken not stirred."
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.
She was also responsible for the first 4 Brosnan movies - which to some of us were a return to the less vulnerable type of Bond.
Also, I like the Craig Bond films - it has direction.Casino Royale and Craig gave us a different Bond.And, no, men and women do not think about such things - a good film is a good film
Let alone who makes it.
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
I feel like Craig taking over as Bond, and them getting the rights to Casino Royale and therefore the chance to start again and then Mendes getting on board were all influential in this new approach to Bond.
Bab's might be the driving force behind it, but I think it's only because of a certain set of conditions that the franchise has been able to do it.
"You are about to wake when you dream that you are dreaming"
really SPECTRE will be the first time the movie has featured heavily on his backstory. Skyfall just gave us a hint, and that his parents died which we already knew.
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.
I'm rather intrigued with Bond's 'baggage' - although I don't see it as such. I think we got a taste of what Bond was about, with the set up of Vesper's observation of 'orphan' and 'charity of others' (mentioned by another member on here) and now we are interlacing that with his tenure.
We were left with questions after QoS, (who is Quantum, and White's provocative 'we have people everywhere') - and I for one want to see all of this explained. It left a gaping hole, just waiting to be filled. We then got a detailed insight to Bond's past with his reaction of the word 'Skyfall' and we know that Bond cannot leave M's death unavenged, he's just not that sort of guy, is he? Surely this perfectly placed lob of a ball with Bond's home, can then set us up for introducing his known relationship with Obenhauser (direct from Fleming himself - whether it was meant as a story in itself or not) so why not have a little fun with it.
I don't think they started CR with the intention of being so back story heavy, BUT it's working. Let's give Bond the full colour version of his background. It's not somewhere we've been before, and Mendes is really good at filling in blanks - heck, making the blanks appear out of nowhere - or making links with bits and pieces from the last few films. After all, isn't that what Bond showed us in CR, with his 'seat of his pants' Vesper Martini? He isn't about the traditional methods (he didn't care if the martini was shaken or stirred) and I LOVE the parallels that this rebellious streak is showing us.
I don't think it's a secret that it's not all finished up nicely either, at the end of SPECTRE... so we've got room for one more story, to give it the full 'wrap, package and bow treatment' - and by that time, after Bond 25, Craig will be ready to move on. Leaving the path for a new Bond, no doubt younger and fresher faced, to go back to the way things were....
She's worth whatever chaos she brings to the table and you know it. ~ Mark Anthony
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.
Not to be contentious ) , but the back story started with Vesper using her powers of female intuition to suss out that Bond was an orphan and grew up depending partly on the charity of others. This was reinforced by M's comment that orphan's make the best spies. In "Skyfall" Bond takes M to his family home because he figures the remote location will nullify Silva's technological advantages and make sure no more civilians will get killed in the crossfire. Now some effects have turned up from the ruins that are in some manner a plot generator for SPECTRE.
This seems to be different than a NYC cop repeatedly stumbling upon terrorist plots that don't even have anything to do with his job (I'm talking about the first two Die Hard movies, not the last two).
Yes, but the whole reason McClane was at the Nakatomi Plaza in the first place was to meet with his wife, who not only would coincidentally become one of the hostages but also be a key motivation for McClane to do battle -- it wasn't enough that he was a cop and they were the bad guys, the story had to create an additional level of rationale for him to fight. Then, in the same manner, she's on one of the planes that will be crashed if McClane doesn't stop the bad guys in the second movie. In the third movie, they switched things up, making the family angle not his but the villains -- but there is still the concept of McClane's troubled marriage linked to the story. In the ones that follow, his daughter and then his son get involved, if I recall correctly, as they were forgettable compared to the previous films. The funny thing is, none of these contrivances are really necessary to tell the stories, with the possible exception of the villain's brother angle in the third one.
As I said, it's awfully convenient in the Craig Bonds that his missions line up so well with his personal story, not unlike McClane's.
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.
I think they're staying with what works -- at this point, they are making record profits, in part by imitating other franchises that have worked, so they are returning on investment for their backers and making a lot of money.
The funny thing is Craig's Bond is more one-dimensional than Connery's. In particular in the early Bonds, Connery was called upon to play a range of emotions -- angry, charming, petulant, scared, lustful, threatening, humorous, insubordinate, curious, anxious, wistful, resolute, sadistic (much like Ian Fleming's literary James Bond). That's why as the series continued and Bond was written with fewer scenes to demonstrate such, Connery got bored.
Craig's Bond, by contrast, seems to play on two emotions: Brooding and wounded. Each of the three films so far has required little more than this, though the first gave him much more to do that the ones that followed. The role as defined by the contemporary filmmakers doesn't call for much more -- he's essentially Bruce Wayne from the Nolan Batman films -- and Craig does those emotions quite well.
Craig has also correctly brought the physical dimension back to the character, in very much a Connery-esque sort of way, to the degree that in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, he walks and stands like Connery in many scenes. By Skyfall, though, I noticed he stopped doing that as much.
Craig could play those other emotions, too, but the scripts don't require it. In this sense, Craig is far less realistic Bond, as few people go through their day, their weeks, their years, only feeling two or three emotions. This a reductive Bond, more like a comic character than a flesh-and-blood human being. So, instead of two hours with a range of emotions and scenes to show Bond in a variety of lights, we essentially get a brooding Bond from start to finish, and that has carried over for three films now, and most likely a fourth.
Comments
New mythology/background for a new century, so setting up the groundwork
For " The next Fella"
Not to be contentious
This seems to be different than a NYC cop repeatedly stumbling upon terrorist plots that don't even have anything to do with his job (I'm talking about the first two Die Hard movies, not the last two).
I figured out how this should work. Craig's Bond dies at the end of Bond 25. He's last seen floating face down in a dirty polluted river after being betrayed one last time.
Then Bond 26 starts with a 6'2" 180 pound black-haired, blue-eyed Bond with a cleft chin waking up from a dream that he's drowning. The beautiful blonde in bed with him says, "James, what's wrong?"
Bond: "I had the most awful nightmare. I was five foot eight and I looked like Vladamir Putin."
Blonde: (stroking Bond's thick hair): "James, you poor thing."
Bond: "Do be a dear and make me a vodka martini. Shaken not stirred."
There.
She was also responsible for the first 4 Brosnan movies - which to some of us were a return to the less vulnerable type of Bond.
Also, I like the Craig Bond films - it has direction.Casino Royale and Craig gave us a different Bond.And, no, men and women do not think about such things - a good film is a good film
Let alone who makes it.
Bab's might be the driving force behind it, but I think it's only because of a certain set of conditions that the franchise has been able to do it.
I'm rather intrigued with Bond's 'baggage' - although I don't see it as such. I think we got a taste of what Bond was about, with the set up of Vesper's observation of 'orphan' and 'charity of others' (mentioned by another member on here) and now we are interlacing that with his tenure.
We were left with questions after QoS, (who is Quantum, and White's provocative 'we have people everywhere') - and I for one want to see all of this explained. It left a gaping hole, just waiting to be filled. We then got a detailed insight to Bond's past with his reaction of the word 'Skyfall' and we know that Bond cannot leave M's death unavenged, he's just not that sort of guy, is he? Surely this perfectly placed lob of a ball with Bond's home, can then set us up for introducing his known relationship with Obenhauser (direct from Fleming himself - whether it was meant as a story in itself or not) so why not have a little fun with it.
I don't think they started CR with the intention of being so back story heavy, BUT it's working. Let's give Bond the full colour version of his background. It's not somewhere we've been before, and Mendes is really good at filling in blanks - heck, making the blanks appear out of nowhere - or making links with bits and pieces from the last few films. After all, isn't that what Bond showed us in CR, with his 'seat of his pants' Vesper Martini? He isn't about the traditional methods (he didn't care if the martini was shaken or stirred) and I LOVE the parallels that this rebellious streak is showing us.
I don't think it's a secret that it's not all finished up nicely either, at the end of SPECTRE... so we've got room for one more story, to give it the full 'wrap, package and bow treatment' - and by that time, after Bond 25, Craig will be ready to move on. Leaving the path for a new Bond, no doubt younger and fresher faced, to go back to the way things were....
In Casino, all we learn is he was adopted by the grace of someone's charity, and his schoolmates gave him hell for it, hence the chip on his shoulder.
Quantum had nothing i recall
Skyfall, we just see his ancestral home and the graves of his parents, we still no thing just that they died.
They really haven't been shoving it down our throats at all like people say
Craig will do at least one more, but i actually think he can do 2 more (Risico and Hildebrand Rarity)
As I said, it's awfully convenient in the Craig Bonds that his missions line up so well with his personal story, not unlike McClane's.
The funny thing is Craig's Bond is more one-dimensional than Connery's. In particular in the early Bonds, Connery was called upon to play a range of emotions -- angry, charming, petulant, scared, lustful, threatening, humorous, insubordinate, curious, anxious, wistful, resolute, sadistic (much like Ian Fleming's literary James Bond). That's why as the series continued and Bond was written with fewer scenes to demonstrate such, Connery got bored.
Craig's Bond, by contrast, seems to play on two emotions: Brooding and wounded. Each of the three films so far has required little more than this, though the first gave him much more to do that the ones that followed. The role as defined by the contemporary filmmakers doesn't call for much more -- he's essentially Bruce Wayne from the Nolan Batman films -- and Craig does those emotions quite well.
Craig has also correctly brought the physical dimension back to the character, in very much a Connery-esque sort of way, to the degree that in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, he walks and stands like Connery in many scenes. By Skyfall, though, I noticed he stopped doing that as much.
Craig could play those other emotions, too, but the scripts don't require it. In this sense, Craig is far less realistic Bond, as few people go through their day, their weeks, their years, only feeling two or three emotions. This a reductive Bond, more like a comic character than a flesh-and-blood human being. So, instead of two hours with a range of emotions and scenes to show Bond in a variety of lights, we essentially get a brooding Bond from start to finish, and that has carried over for three films now, and most likely a fourth.