Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Daniel Craig as James Bond: Will his 4th movie be over-the-top?


48 replies to this topic

#1 quantumofsolace

quantumofsolace

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1563 posts

Posted 29 June 2013 - 01:00 AM

As Daniel Craig prepares for his fourth turn as 007, we note the tendency for each Bond actor’s fourth film to be a bit on the silly side… http://uk.movies.yah...-195800850.html

In the wake of 'Skyfall' enjoying the highest financial returns and critical plaudits of any Bond film to date, it seems hard to fathom now that many fans were outraged when Daniel Craig landed the role. Craig's casting in 2006's 'Casino Royale' was pivotal to the direction change the series has taken of late, restoring a hard edge to the character that arguably hadn't been seen since Sean Connery. However, while 'Skyfall' matched Craig's first two films for character-based drama, it also revived some of the series staples, reintroducing Q, Miss Moneypenny, and a male M, all of which implies a willingness to re-embrace some of 007's more outlandish elements.

This is a moot point considering Craig will be the fourth actor to reach four films in the role. It's worth noting that a not-so-great precedent has been set by the films of his predecessors. As each successive film seeks to outdo the last, the fourth outing is when things tend to push credibility that bit too far, lapsing into outright absurdity.

Consider 1965's 'Thunderball.' Connery's fourth Bond came a year after what many still regard the definitive 007, 'Goldfinger.' Eager to go one better for gizmos and surprise reveals, the first five minutes alone of 'Thunderball' see Bond punch a grieving widow in the face, revealing 'her' to in fact be the supposedly dead husband, who Bond ensures is truly dead soon thereafter - before making a hasty exit via rocket pack. Still, even with its subsequent shark brawls and climactic underwater battle, 'Thunderball' is less excessive overall than its follow-up 'You Only Live Twice,' so we can't be too hard on it.

However, we definitely can't say the same for Roger Moore's fourth 007. While the end credits of 1977's 'The Spy Who Loved Me' promised Bond would return in 'For Your Eyes Only,' the success of 'Star Wars' prompted a rethink: if audiences loved space, that was where Bond had to go. Hence 1979's 'Moonraker,' which took little from Ian Fleming's novel but the title and sent the superspy on a rocket to an orbiting space station on surely his barmiest mission, to foil a plot to literally exterminate all humanity; a bit extreme, I'm sure we'll agree. And while Bond girls have always had a touch of innuendo to their names, Holly Goodhead really takes the biscuit.

Then there's Pierce Brosnan's fourth and final 007, 2002's 'Die Another Day,' which surely stands shoulder-to-shoulder with 'Moonraker' as the most oddball Bond movie yet. Its weirdness is compounded by its schizophrenic structure: the first act is genuinely unlike any Bond film, as 007 is captured, tortured, and perhaps most surprisingly bearded and long-haired once finally freed. It all seems to point toward a darker, more character-based film, much as Craig's have been. Yet it spectacularly changes direction midway, introducing ridiculous sci-fi elements like genetic reconstruction, invisible cars and giant laser guns; piling on double entendres which are painfully unsubtle even by series standards (Halle Berry's Jinx reports to have "got the thrust" of "Mr Bond's big bang theory"); and set pieces that are just plain goofy. Never before had we seen Bond in a swordfight, or on a surfboard; hopefully we never will again.

As 'Skyfall' has re-established much of the traditional 007 set-up, can we expect Craig's fourth film to follow suit and pile on the craziness? We might hope otherwise, given the largely grounded nature of his existing three; but let's not forget 'Skyfall' saw a villain devoured by a komodo dragon, clearly indicating there's room yet for Craig's Bond to get a bit silly…

 

 



#2 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 29 June 2013 - 01:15 AM

I sure hope so!



#3 007jamesbond

007jamesbond

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1371 posts
  • Location:Vancouver

Posted 29 June 2013 - 01:43 AM

Please no moonraker diamond are forever or Die another day.........there are not even a Bond movie....no over the top 



#4 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 29 June 2013 - 01:46 AM

I don't see Bond 24 going in a similar direction.  Skyfall's box office success proved that the general audience likes the current, more serious direction they've been going in with the franchise, so I would expect that to continue.



#5 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24459 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 29 June 2013 - 02:43 AM

I agree. I don't think the producers will take that much of a risk and completely change the tone. Hopefully Mendes will be back for Bond 24 and 25, and deliver a two part finale for Daniel Craigs serious, and character driven James Bond. However, I do expect a lot more campness and fun. Skyfall stayed just on the right side of camp in some places, and I expect that to continue. I think we'll get a more Thunderball style adventure, rather than Moonraker or Die Another Day. 



#6 Hockey Mask

Hockey Mask

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1027 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 29 June 2013 - 03:35 AM

It will no doubt be "bigger". Hopefully it still has its feet firmly on the ground while doing so. With Mendes back I like our chances.

#7 FlemingBond

FlemingBond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 610 posts
  • Location:Phoenix, Az U.S.

Posted 30 June 2013 - 03:01 AM

No I don't believe that will happen.



#8 seawolfnyy

seawolfnyy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4763 posts
  • Location:La Rioja

Posted 13 July 2013 - 06:09 PM

With Mendes back, no it won't.



#9 S K Y F A L L

S K Y F A L L

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6889 posts
  • Location:CANADA

Posted 14 July 2013 - 07:01 AM

I can't imagine the 4th film being over the top when they know that Bond 25 will likely be Craig's last, they might hold out for that film instead.



#10 AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän

AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 493 posts
  • Location:Oulu, Finland

Posted 18 July 2013 - 05:57 AM

I don't think it will be as OTT as Moonraker or Diarrhoea Another Day, it certaily will be bigger in scope than Skyfall though, which was very "intimate" film.


Edited by AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän, 18 July 2013 - 05:59 AM.


#11 RMc2

RMc2

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 607 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 08:58 AM

I don't think it will be as OTT as Moonraker or Diarrhoea Another Day, it certaily will be bigger in scope than Skyfall though, which was very "intimate" film.

 

Excellent point. I hope Bond 24 is bigger than SF - let's return to a more traditional big adventure-assignment format, but without the excesses of YOLT, MR, DAD, etc.



#12 S K Y F A L L

S K Y F A L L

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6889 posts
  • Location:CANADA

Posted 18 July 2013 - 02:54 PM

I can't imagine the film being longer then SF but I agree it was sort of 'intimate.' Without Judi Dench weighting down the franchise LOL, hopefully and most likely it will be a return to a straight forward mission maybe with even a race against time. 



#13 Iceskater101

Iceskater101

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2398 posts
  • Location:Midwest, MN

Posted 25 July 2013 - 02:45 AM

I don't think we will ever get anything as bad as Diamonds are Forever or Never Say Never Again, I actually enjoy Die Another Day every once in a while.



#14 JohnnyWalker

JohnnyWalker

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 272 posts

Posted 25 July 2013 - 09:10 AM

I don't think we will ever get anything as bad as Diamonds are Forever or Never Say Never Again, I actually enjoy Die Another Day every once in a while.

Is NSNA over the top? I just thought amateurish and bland.


Edited by JohnnyWalker, 25 July 2013 - 09:10 AM.


#15 Ace Roberts

Ace Roberts

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 433 posts
  • Location:Ft. Worth, Texas US

Posted 25 July 2013 - 04:31 PM

I really don't get this comparison to other films and Bond actors' prior achievments that has everyone sidetracked here. I'm convinced that Mendes, the producers, and John Logan came up with a powerful story-arch (while filming Skyfall) that they feel is the natural evolution for the series. We already know from Logan himself that it will involve peeling more layers back of Bond's persona. I would be highly surprised whether any thought has been given to whether its "over-the-top" or Craig's "Thunderball" (Or Moore's or Brosnan's 4th film) as has been mentioned elsewhere. I would expect it to be a stand-alone, compelling adventure that won't be like anything that we have seen before. I'm still convinced - also - that it will be a film that introduces (reintroduces) a villain that will span the remainder of Craig's portrayal as Bond. 



#16 Hansen

Hansen

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 431 posts
  • Location:Paris

Posted 25 July 2013 - 09:39 PM

At least, it can't be worse than Skyfall.
Well... I hope so...

#17 Hockey Mask

Hockey Mask

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1027 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 25 July 2013 - 10:14 PM

I really don't get this comparison to other films and Bond actors' prior achievments that has everyone sidetracked here. I'm convinced that Mendes, the producers, and John Logan came up with a powerful story-arch (while filming Skyfall) that they feel is the natural evolution for the series. We already know from Logan himself that it will involve peeling more layers back of Bond's persona. I would be highly surprised whether any thought has been given to whether its "over-the-top" or Craig's "Thunderball" (Or Moore's or Brosnan's 4th film) as has been mentioned elsewhere. I would expect it to be a stand-alone, compelling adventure that won't be like anything that we have seen before. I'm still convinced - also - that it will be a film that introduces (reintroduces) a villain that will span the remainder of Craig's portrayal as Bond.

I think you can definitely read something into it. Having a movie released after an actor's charter has six hours of existing screen time has an impact. Producers know what hits, what misses, strengths, weaknesses. How much weight should be given is up to debate.

#18 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14266 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 24 July 2015 - 12:07 PM

It does look a bit daft, to be honest.



#19 Tarl_Cabot

Tarl_Cabot

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10505 posts
  • Location:The Galaxy of Pleasure

Posted 24 July 2015 - 06:30 PM

My concern is the Blofeld character having a much too intimate relationship with Bond, kinda like in star Wars how Anakin is revealed as the creator of C3P0 or Chewbacca getting aquainted with Yoda for no apparent reason(awful ideas George!). Bond was never supposed to be any villian's teen rival-he's just a thorn in their side. It's always been cool that no one truly knows who they're dealing with when they meet Mr. Bond....taking that element of surprise away doesn't work for me.

 

Otherwise the movie looks like it has the right kind of crazy. The trailer is the best Bond trailer ever.



#20 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 24 July 2015 - 07:40 PM

I think it's trying to invert the usual angle in that it tries to make it personal for the villain. Which could be an interesting variation. But trying to make Bond and the villain old 'buddies' - after a fashion - is a tricky thing. I didn't buy the supposed friendship of Bond and 006 in GE at the time. Pulling more of Bond's past into the present by making it somehow relevant for the plot results in Bond becoming one big focus of destiny, a Homerian figure of fate instead of the simple 007. Such overdeveloped background has become fashionable for certain genres; I'm not sure Bond is really a fitting target for it.

#21 Mr_Wint

Mr_Wint

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2406 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 24 July 2015 - 08:33 PM

It seems like they will take the "personal elements" to a new extreme. So in that way it will be over-the-top.



#22 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 25 July 2015 - 07:30 AM

I´ve always said that I would love a simple mission-movie, no personal stakes, just plain spy business.

 

Then again, maybe that is also something that I have carried over from the pre-Craig era in which there were lots of elements to Bond films that were supposed to be mandatory.  Maybe I have to let go of that, too, in order to enjoy a more varied approach to Bond films.

 

So far, I did enjoy the Craig era´s personal motivation.  And I do applaud the idea to tie all Craig films together, with the mastermind of SPECTRE involved in the villainous actions Craig-Bond had to fight.  

 

Consequently, I am open to the revelations that SPECTRE might offer.  And even open to the repercussions of that in the next film.



#23 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 25 July 2015 - 08:04 AM

I think if - in 20, 30 years - we look back on the Craig era, we will see it as its own series within the franchise, the way many already look at the Brosnan films, albeit with one overreaching storyline.

The difficult part will be to follow up on this with something different; a mere by-the-numbers approach won't be enough in the future, even if they choose a 'simple mission' story again. Directors will be challenged to make their own entries stand out against what probably will take on 'epic' proportions. It's both amazing and a bit threatening to see this series evolve into territory it didn't - up till 2006 - claim.

#24 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 25 July 2015 - 09:45 AM

Yes, absolutely.  Whatever and whoever comes after the Craig-era will have his/her work cut out for them.

 

It probably depends on whether the universe-building will still be in fashion then.  

 

I find it rather amusing that it will be Daniel Craig - who got such strong negative reactions before CR was released - who will define (or has already done so) what Bond on film is supposed to be.

 

I wonder whether EON will try to match the style and the narrative of the Craig era with the next actor taking over, really maintaining that it is the same guy only looking differently, with Fiennes´ M, Harris´  Moneypenny and Whishaw´s Q continuing in their roles - or whether EON will deliberately shake things up again, with new personel all around.



#25 Hansen

Hansen

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 431 posts
  • Location:Paris

Posted 25 July 2015 - 02:28 PM


I find it rather amusing that it will be Daniel Craig - who got such strong negative reactions before CR was released - who will define (or has already done so) what Bond on film is supposed to be.

.

It is one version of Bond (which is far from flawless IMO)
And I am not sure it will age so well. Probably because it is here highly charaterized, which is not a bad thing

#26 Matt_13

Matt_13

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5969 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 25 July 2015 - 02:35 PM

I agree. The Craig era has already defined what a modern, avant garde Bond film should look and feel like. These are definitely the golden days for this franchise. And I too absolutely love the fact that Craig has so completely dominated this role following the kick back he got from the press almost 10(!!!) years ago. I have no idea how the filmmakers are going to go about following up this series of films.

As far as the film being over the top, it looks as though it will have the scope of the Gilbert Bond's but with the new intimacy and stakes that have come to define Craig's era. I am very, very excited for SPECTRE.

#27 univex

univex

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2310 posts

Posted 25 July 2015 - 06:04 PM

As far as the film being over the top, it looks as though it will have the scope of the Gilbert Bond's but with the new intimacy and stakes that have come to define Craig's era. I am very, very excited for SPECTRE.

 

Couldn´t have put it better myself Matt. Well said.



#28 CasinoKiller

CasinoKiller

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 145 posts

Posted 26 July 2015 - 11:34 AM

Well, yes and no.

 

It WILL be 'over-the-top', albeit not in a 'Die Another Day' or 'Moonraker' sense. Rather, it will be an escalation in the context of the evolution of the Craig era.

 

The way I look at it (and I'm sure this is how EON looks at it as well), Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace were Bond's 'origin story'. Skyfall skips ahead to a more established Bond, and serves as a coda of sorts to the origin with the introduction of a more 'classic' M, not to mention Moneypenny and Q. With SPECTRE, Bond has now finally reached the point he was in the Connery films.  So I see SPECTRE as being basically a modern reinvention of the Connery era, mixed in with the sensibilities and character depth of preceding Craig films. So expect explosions, one-liners, and the stylistic excess of Thunderball and YOLT, albeit tempered with the seriousness and depth of Casino Royale and Skyfall.



#29 sharpshooter

sharpshooter

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8996 posts

Posted 26 July 2015 - 01:10 PM

Casino Royale started Craig's run with a bang. However I do think Skyfall's success was crucial to his era, much like The Spy Who Loved Me reinvigorating the Moore era following TMWTGG. I like it myself, but for the general public Quantum of Solace was a misfire and didn't meet their high expectations. Meeting those again was important, and with Mendes in the chair again I'm confident we're in safe hands.

#30 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 26 July 2015 - 01:54 PM

It´s been said again and again - but really, QOS, was a huge success, worldwide audiences flocked to it almost as much as to CR.  For the general public, QOS has never been a misfire at all.  It´s only some journalists picking up some discontent on message boards who created this myth.

 

But I agree with you: SKYFALL cemented Craig´s success as TSWLM did with Moore´s era.