61 replies to this topic

[Colossus]

It appears , based purely on hunches, craig could reach his apex with 4 why? because a lot of what these movies have been doing were breaking new ground and slipping away from the previous series , in order for the series to survive (and this is coming from a brozlover)… connery's best was 2, moore's best was 3, brosnan's best was 1- this is regular public opinion, plus the polls here.

 

tell me now… why should not craig still not achieve his best? just because it has not happened for the other bonds at 4 doesn't mean it still cannot. his three now are good, but it appears to be really coming together for the 4th, subtle signs here and there. cr-qos were this thing  which they were trying to replicate dn-frwl, sky fall was probably his most "traditional" one to appease others -- but this is the first time since the 80s in which the actor will continue with the same director. this is the first M to be purely his own finally as well. 

[saint mark]

Or not as SF was such a disappointment for me.

[Bourbon Woman]

The principle of regression toward the mean suggests that the film after SF will be a relative disappointment. (https://en.wikipedia...ion_to_the_mean)

 

In terms of critical and commercial success, SF was an outlier among the Bond films. So even if Bond 24 is an above-average Bond film, it will still probably fall short of the spike that was SF, and this will lead it to be (unfairly) perceived as sub-par. The same thing happened with QOS. It wasn't a bad film, but it followed the remarkable success of CR, and suffered from the comparison.

 

My hope is that Bond 24 takes a very different approach from SF, so that it won't invite direct comparisons. Something with a different tone, a different kind of villain, and a more triumphant story arc.  

[Turn]

I always hope the new Bond will be the best, which is why CR was such a revelation. The nice thing with Craig is I don't think he's burned out or coasting with the character. He's been afforded more input and time between Bond films for other projects, and they surround him with some high-caliber talent on both sides of the camera, so there's no reason not to think Bond 24 could be his best. It's not on autopilot as it had been for many years.

[Janus Assassin]

I always hope the new Bond will be the best, which is why CR was such a revelation. The nice thing with Craig is I don't think he's burned out or coasting with the character. He's been afforded more input and time between Bond films for other projects, and they surround him with some high-caliber talent on both sides of the camera, so there's no reason not to think Bond 24 could be his best. It's not on autopilot as it had been for many years.

 

Agreed. I don't see Craig pulling a Sean and phoning in 24 and possibly 25. As much as I loved Skyfall, I would love them to veer off the course slightly and give us a fun film.

[Zen Razor]

Kinda odd that lot's of people are talking about this being Craig's best film. Honestly it can go either way it all depends on the work of Mendes and how he can showcase new skills. SF sold an incredible amount I just hope that Bond 24 end's up making another billion the Box Office. As a Bond fan I'm always glad to see Bond getting so attention.

[Walecs]

I don't know. Casino Royale and Skyfall are two of my favourites in the whole series, so it's gonna be hard to top them.

[Iceskater101]

I think it will be hard because Casino Royale and Skyfall were so well liked by a lot of Bond fans that this film has a lot of expectation. Plus even though Quantum of Solace wasn't as good (in my opinion..) as Skyfall and Casino Royale, it was still an enjoyable film to watch, so who knows? I hope that each Bond film gets better and better and doesn't disappoint me. 

[Monsieur Scaramanga]

Or not as SF was such a disappointment for me.

 

I agree with you.

[LKane]

I think the best way for EON to top CR and SF is to return to the Bond Formula while maintaining some grit. And for the love of God please give the Bond Girls something substantial to do....

Edited by LKane, 02 July 2014 - 04:51 PM.

[tdalton]

I'd like to think that Craig could make his best Bond film this time around.  To do that, I think that they need to get away from the formula (something that really bogs down Casino Royale in places) and craft a story that holds up to more than the slightest amount of scrutiny (something which really bogs down Skyfall). 

 

If EON can craft a film that doesn't rely on numerous and never-ending action sequences and features a story that isn't riddled with plot-holes, then they'll stand a very good chance to make Craig's best film.  The parts of Craig's films that have been good have been really good, but both Casino Royale and Skyfall are somewhat disjointed affairs that never really reach the heights that they should have. 

[SecretAgentFan]

I´d actually settle for Craig´s most FUN Bond picture next time.

 

The doom and gloom and personal demons-stuff have really been overdone in his era.  Time to really lighten up.

[Colossus]

yea

[Hansen]

Amen

[LKane]

I agree. I like CR more than SKYFALL, which honestly isn't a true Bond film for me. It's more like an overrated special episode of the franchise. There were parts on SKYFALL that came across more as posturing than actual organic genuine Bond moments. What annoys me about the casting of stars like Fiennes and Harris in what should be minor supporting roles is EON Will start focusing more and more on them instead of keeping them on the sidelines where they belong... I hope that Bond 24 just sends Bond out on a normal mission that stills manages to be atypical without inappropriate overuse of M Q and Moneypenny....

Edited by LKane, 04 July 2014 - 03:33 PM.

[FlemingBond]

how could we know this beforehand?

 

it's going to be hard to top Casino Royale 

[Janus Assassin]

Well, the last time we got a "fun" Bond film, we got Pierce driving an ice dragster being chased by a solar death ray, then proceeded to parasurf around cgi glaciers. People don't forget.

[sharpshooter]

Well, the last time we got a "fun" Bond film, we got Pierce driving an ice dragster being chased by a solar death ray, then proceeded to parasurf around cgi glaciers. People don't forget.

The best outcome would be a balance. 'Fun' doesn't always have to equate to the far end of the spectrum, ala those days. 

Edited by sharpshooter, 05 July 2014 - 12:35 AM.

[SecretAgentFan]

Well, the last time we got a "fun" Bond film, we got Pierce driving an ice dragster being chased by a solar death ray, then proceeded to parasurf around cgi glaciers. People don't forget.

 

I disagree.  The last time we got a "fun" Bond film was, IMO, "The Living Daylights".  "Fun" meaning "adventure, suspense, but not taken too seriously".  The Brosnan era took itself seriously, sometimes too much, and Craig´s films were all very serious affairs (which does not mean, by the way, that I could not enjoy them. I did.)

Edited by SecretAgentFan, 05 July 2014 - 06:44 AM.

[Janus Assassin]

True, we need a good balance between fun and seriousness. Die Another Day failed to do that by going from super serious to super cheesy in a blink. If we can get a grand film such as TSWLM, one that's fun, but also a little serious,I'd be happy. But the problem would be, can Craigs Bond be a little fun?

[tdalton]

I think that they went about as far in the "fun" direction that I'd like to see them go with Skyfall.  There was some humor there, albeit most of it was poorly done, but that's about as far as I'd want them to go with it.  The serious Bond is finally popular with the general public, and I'd like to see them continue to go with that direction of film for a while longer.

[jrriddle]

^ agreed. I would like to see the serious Bond continue as well. Craig is my favourite Bond since Connery but the man can not do humour. Remember his SNL appearance ? Cringe worthy.

[tdalton]

Welcome to the forum.  

 

I can't judge Craig too harshly with regards to his appearance on Saturday Night Live.  SNL has become just a shell of its former self and is consistently awful.  It only manages to make itself relevant every four years when there's a presidential election in the U.S.  That's the one thing that they have the ability to successfully satire.  

 

I think that Craig does handle some humor well.  There are some moments in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace that he handles quite well.  I wasn't the least bit impressed with the humor in Skyfall, but when given good, subtle attempts at humor, I think that Craig has been able to deliver for the most part.  

[jrriddle]

Thanks for the welcome. Agreed about SNL not being as good as it once was. Still that one sketch where he was playing a construction worker...the less said about that the better..

[Janus Assassin]

If we do get a good caper-style Bond film such as TLD, TB, TSWLM, would it be appreciated and praised such as SF? Or would the critics go off by saying that Craig's Bond is out of his element and those style of Bond films aren't fit for him?

[dtuba]

If we do get a good caper-style Bond film such as TLD, TB, TSWLM, would it be appreciated and praised such as SF? Or would the critics go off by saying that Craig's Bond is out of his element and those style of Bond films aren't fit for him?

I'm willing to take that chance. 

[Guy Haines]

Although I like all the Bond actors, when it comes to the films it's no secret on this forum that I'm not into cheesy humour or daft visual gags. The nearest we got to that in SF was Bond leaping onto the tube train, and that was over in seconds.

 

I think Daniel Craig can handle humour - the most striking example in my opinion being in CR when Bond's being tortured by Le Chiffre and yet, battered and bruised beyond belief, still finds time to invite the villain to scratch his nether regions! At one showing I went to, the audience erupted at that!

 

If we want a "fun" or "caper" Bond film I think we need to look at the Connery era as the template -a straight storyline, very serious action but the odd wry quip dropped in when appropriate to leaven the tension. The visual gag stuff worked best for Moore, although I'd have liked a lot less of it. Dalton never looked entirely comfortable delivering one liners imho. I think Brosnan tried to bring back the wry humour, though I agree with others that things got a little bit daft in the second half of DAD - though, and I imagine I'm in a minority here, I preferred DAD to MR.

 

I think the Connery films got so much right, including how to handle the humorous side of Bond. I've already argued before that Bond 24 ought to be a "Thunderball" type of film, with Bond working against the clock to stop a global disaster. Well, if the film makers revisit TB, and GF and FRWL, they might find the key to making "24" a fun film for Craig as well.

[bondjames]

I have a feeling this will be the best Bond in the Craig era, although it may sadly initially not be perceived as such because it is going to be very difficult to top Skyfall financially. However, I think it will have 'legs' as they say because Eon has been here before and knows they should not screw it up.

 

As long as Eon thinks does the following, I think we are going to be alright:

 

1. tries to craft a truly excellent spy caper with proper plot lines (the return of Purvis and Wade worries me terribly),

2. has excellent cinematography and locations (looks promising so far)

3. has attractive female leads who know how to act, rather than some hack (i.e. Berry or Richards) - I think we're ok here with Seydoux's casting

4. has a sinister villain who delivers menace, rather than some wimp (think Almaric or Carlyle)

5. does not spend too much time on Harris, Fiennes (since they are semi-A listers I have a sad feeling we will get more time spent on these characters, who really should be just fill-in rather than anything more),

6. does not spend time on Bond's childhood or his inner bloody demons (enough with this nonsense already - it's been played to death since the Brosnan era!)

7. does not have a turncoat MI6 Agent or a Bond's equal from another country female agent (again, done to death in Brosnan's time)

8. makes sure the money is up on the screen (no problems here most likely - they're flush after Skyfall)

 

It's the 7 items above that worry me. If they get the above right then they could really craft a classic with Mendes and Craig in top form after Skyfall. Regardless of how it does at the box office (likely to come in short of Skyfall) it could end up being a classic for the ages, like 'Living Daylights', 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service', 'Goldeneye', 'Thunderball', 'Spy Who Loved Me' or 'From Russia With Love'.

 

I think we're in for the 'Thunderball' of the Craig era (a slightly bigger, more ambitious 4th act to follow a very successful 3rd act). The trick is to give us a Thunderball and not a Moonraker (also a 4th act following a absolutely fabulous 3rd act classic) that while very enjoyable, went a little too far towards kitsch

[seawolfnyy]

For me, this is the problem with believing Bond 24 could be Craig's best. It mostly stems from the previous 3 actors who made it to 4 films: the fourth tends to be the worst film in their tenure (obviously Thunderball was NOT Connery's worst by any means, but it is guilty of something that led to Moore's and Brosnan's 4th outings being laughable punchlines on Bond's legacy).

 

Thunderball- By all accounts one of the overall better Bond films and dare I say, a classic. However, this is the film that started the over the top nature of most of the films since and that's where it's legacy gets harmed. Also, that incredibly poor underwater cinematography.

Moonraker- I think he's attempting re-entry sir....ugh enough said.

Die Another Day- The one that killed the franchise for 4 years and made Bond more of a laughing stock than anything.

 

Having said that, I've no reason to believe Bond 24 will join the ranks of Moonraker and Die Another Day. But if it goes further down the dark, Batman Begins-esque path, then who knows?

 

*As an aside, I really do like Thunderball and rank it as my 3rd favorite Connery film behind From Russia With Love and Dr. No.

[bondjames]

I get your point about Thunderball starting the over the top thing, but I also think it's one of Connery's best (most modern or contemporary anyway and the cinematograpy, apart from the mentioned underwater stuff, was outstanding, as was the dreamy score - one of Barry's best).

 

I did not mention DAD because Brosnan sadly did not peak with #3, unlike Connery or Moore, but rather with #1. He was already going downhill fast when TWINE (a tragedy) was made. So DAD was an expected fiasco, exacerbating his decline. The producers were just on a different wavelength during the Brosnan area (an Americanized one). I read somewhere here that someone thought M.W was in charge during that time, while BABs has taken over for the Craig era. There has defeinitely been a shift for the better - which is why I did not include the Brosnan era.

 

They've not let us down so far during Craig's run, apart from the terrible Quantum editing (Quantum was excellent if not for the editing - it's the quintessential quick Bond fix - with it's short run time and fast pace). So I think it's more likely we'll see a Thunderball .... especially since they are going retro more and more .... thank goodness.

 

Here's to hoping.