48 replies to this topic

[Pierceuhhh]

QOS is an unmitigated disaster. The wider public don't remember it at all ("Is that the one where he goes to all those places?"), and to fans like me it's simply a waste of a Bond movie. They spent two years on... on THAT? That nothing of a movie? That goes nowhere and does nothing that Casino Royale didn't do? And then we had to wait four years for another?

IMO it's the least significant Bond movie. And in a series that includes placeholders like Octopussy and A View to a Kill, that's quite an achievement!

It'll be interesting in 20 years to see what people look back on as "the Craig era". I'm guessing it will be mostly Skyfall and SPECTRE that people remember. Mendes was the first director to let Craig breathe in the role and be his own man.

[Guy Haines]

Judging from the recent trailer, I think CasinoKiller may be right. The Craig era has been a self contained "how Bond became Bond" series, with little nods and winks in the general direction of the past, but really in its own world.

And with Spectre, it looks as if the producers, writers, director and Craig himself are going for a one (possibly two?) film reworking of the classic era of Bond set in the twenty-teens. For all the modern look of the trailer it has a retro feel at times.

By the end of this self contained era, Craig's Bond will have earned his spurs, loved, lost (possibly more than once?) and learned, discovered "the author of all his pain", taken down one, possibly two villainous organisations and possibly in Bond 25 heads for a final showdown with that very same "author".

These films weren't remakes, though as I've remarked here before CR 2006 had the feel of a superior remake of a sixties Bond film to me. Rather they are new films in a new series which nonetheless revisited and reworked old themes from the Bond of the books and the earlier films.

[tdalton]

Judging from the recent trailer, I think CasinoKiller may be right. The Craig era has been a self contained "how Bond became Bond" series, with little nods and winks in the general direction of the past, but really in its own world.

And with Spectre, it looks as if the producers, writers, director and Craig himself are going for a one (possibly two?) film reworking of the classic era of Bond set in the twenty-teens. For all the modern look of the trailer it has a retro feel at times.

By the end of this self contained era, Craig's Bond will have earned his spurs, loved, lost (possibly more than once?) and learned, discovered "the author of all his pain", taken down one, possibly two villainous organisations and possibly in Bond 25 heads for a final showdown with that very same "author".

These films weren't remakes, though as I've remarked here before CR 2006 had the feel of a superior remake of a sixties Bond film to me. Rather they are new films in a new series which nonetheless revisited and reworked old themes from the Bond of the books and the earlier films.

 

I agree, but IMO it's a shame that this is the direction that they've decided to take with Craig's films.  Instead of doing something brand new with the character and something that's unlike anything we've seen from the films before, they've instead opted for this strange combination of trying to be everything to everyone.  Craig is the best thing about the films, but on the whole, the films haven't lived up to what they should have been.  All three of the films, and from the look of it SPECTRE will be included in this, are packed to the brim with Die Another Day-type references, undercutting the originality of each of the films.  Mendes is the biggest culprit on that front.  While there are moments in the SPECTRE trailer that look truly great, the trailer has mostly become a "spot the reference" reel with nods to films from virtually every era of the Bond franchise.  Then you have the ditching of the one truly original aspect of the Craig films (Quantum) to drag Blofeld and SPECTRE out of the 1960s and into the present.

 

While Craig will probably go down as the best Bond in the history of the franchise when it's all said and done (I don't think that there's any question that he's surpassed Connery, which is the biggest hurdle in the way of claiming the title of the best Bond with the general public), his tenure will also go down as a missed opportunity to do something new with the character.  They've spent so much time with nods and references towards the first 20 films that they've really forgotten to make any moments that are truly memorable or iconic in and of themselves, and that's a shame.

[thecasinoroyale]

I have to say you make some very valid points there tdalton, away from the rose-tinted glasses of the super-duper Craig era. From hints of the Bond theme to staggered quotes and nods to the past, it's as if Craig's films are one HUGE prequel to getting something we clarify as real James Bond (I think 'Spectre' could be the payoff).

 

But I think Craig's run has given some iconic Bond moments for the series and in society in general; the parkour chase and Craig's emergence from the waves stand out already. in 'CR'.

 

The others...less so, even with their top calibre cast (more to 'SF' than 'QOS).

[tdalton]

I have to say you make some very valid points there tdalton, away from the rose-tinted glasses of the super-duper Craig era. From hints of the Bond theme to staggered quotes and nods to the past, it's as if Craig's films are one HUGE prequel to getting something we clarify as real James Bond (I think 'Spectre' could be the payoff).
 
But I think Craig's run has given some iconic Bond moments for the series and in society in general; the parkour chase and Craig's emergence from the waves stand out already. in 'CR'.
 
The others...less so, even with their top calibre cast (more to 'SF' than 'QOS).

IMO, the parkour chase (as mediocre as it is) is really the only truly iconic moment to come from Casino Royale. Craig's emergence from the sea is, just like a lot of things in the Craig films, a riff on an iconic moment that came before it (in this case, Ursula Andress' introduction in Dr. No.

I love the Craig films, Quantum of Solace especially, but at the same time I do feel as though they've missed a great opportunity to truly move the franchise into the realm of greatness that they seem to aspire to, considering the talent that they've hired for the films both in front of and behind the camera.

[Dustin]

I have to say you make some very valid points there tdalton, away from the rose-tinted glasses of the super-duper Craig era. From hints of the Bond theme to staggered quotes and nods to the past, it's as if Craig's films are one HUGE prequel to getting something we clarify as real James Bond (I think 'Spectre' could be the payoff).

But I think Craig's run has given some iconic Bond moments for the series and in society in general; the parkour chase and Craig's emergence from the waves stand out already. in 'CR'.

The others...less so, even with their top calibre cast (more to 'SF' than 'QOS).

IMO, the parkour chase (as mediocre as it is) is really the only truly iconic moment to come from Casino Royale. Craig's emergence from the sea is, just like a lot of things in the Craig films, a riff on an iconic moment that came before it (in this case, Ursula Andress' introduction in Dr. No.

I love the Craig films, Quantum of Solace especially, but at the same time I do feel as though they've missed a great opportunity to truly move the franchise into the realm of greatness that they seem to aspire to, considering the talent that they've hired for the films both in front of and behind the camera.

Don't we forget a truly unique moment in Casino Royale there? I refer of course to Craig getting the shakes after the stairwell fight, to me a defining moment of his tenure and showing Bond in a way never before seen* on screen.

*Seen. In Dr No we came close with Bond being sick after smashing the spider. But he was sick in the bathroom, with the door closed (IIRC), so we didn't actually get to see Bond in a weak moment.

[SecretAgentFan]

Absolutely!

 

Maybe I´ve grown too soft on pop culture (then again, considering my "Terminator: Genisys"-review, not at all) - but there will always be a distance between what one thinks a perfect Bond film should be like and how perfect a Bond film can actually become, since this is a big budget enterprise that has to satisfy a world wide mass audience.

 

Considering those realities of filmmaking, the Craig era has consistently proven to be magnificent, offering so many new facets of the Bond persona while not destroying its classic aspects.  Of course, one can always wish for more.  But if one looks at other movie franchises (and yes, "Terminator: Genisys" is a perfect example for that) it is astounding that the Bond films actually managed to not only stay around but to shrug off the huge success of the Brosnan era and take so many risks with the Craig era.

 

IMO, there is nothing mediocre about it at all.

[Guy Haines]

The Bond film producers, even in this reboot reworked era, have always been conservative with a small "c". They've been that way throughout unless circumstances have forced their hand, and even then what's followed hasn't been too radical.

Examples - Lazenby left after one movie. Get another actor as Bond? No, bring back Connery one more time and hope he sticks around.

Or; the numbers sagged after TMWTGG. Strike out in a whole new direction with a relatively new actor? No, create a storyline which has a little bit of past Bonds but on an epic scale, and bring in the "epic Bond movie" director Lewis Gilbert to helm it. Result; TSWLM and the financial numbers zoom back up again. (And while we're on the safe side, try and repeat the exercise with the follow up, MR.)

The most radical aspect of the Craig era at the outset was Daniel Craig himself, as the initial reaction to his casting showed. We then ad the whole "reboot" issue. But CR 2006 worked brilliantly imho, and whether intentionally or not started this whole, not only "Bond becomes Bond" idea but the reworking of themes and aspects from the original classic movies without the films being outright remakes. ("Bond re-set" lent itself to a series of remakes, but I suppose it's understandable why they've been avoided - inevitable comparisons. Say they remade FRWL or GF - for every critic or fan who said "bravo" there might be one or more inresponse saying "nowhere near as good as the original".)

I guess, to borrow two words from my new line of part time pre-occupation since 7th May, the producers go for "what works" and stick with it until they find it doesn't. The "focus groups" are the audiences, initially the test audiences before release. Thus far they've responded positively to Craig and the reboot era.

These films have to make a massive profit, and these producers - whilst a bit more daring than the "Harry & Cubby" era, in casting Craig for a start - will stick with "what works" but obviously try to improve on it. One thing at least - they haven't gone the old "bigger and better" route but have brought in some class acts - actors and directors - to make those improvements.

"Realm of greatness". I'd like to see it. But keeping a long running series going means meeting the expectations of the paying public who are not Bond fans like us, which I guess means still playing safe in some respects whilst being daring in others.

[sharpshooter]

Don't we forget a truly unique moment in Casino Royale there? I refer of course to Craig getting the shakes after the stairwell fight, to me a defining moment of his tenure and showing Bond in a way never before seen* on screen.

*Seen. In Dr No came close with Bond being sick after smashing the spider. But he was sick in the bathroom, with the door closed (IIRC), so we didn't actually get to see Bond in a weak moment.

That's one of the main things I like about Craig's Bond. He's one of the most human interpretations we've ever seen, but he never comes across as weak. For example when he collapses to the floor only after Tanner leaves the room in Skyfall. That's one of my favourite moments of his era so far, and I think it says a lot about his portrayal. 

[tdalton]

Absolutely!
 
Maybe I´ve grown too soft on pop culture (then again, considering my "Terminator: Genisys"-review, not at all) - but there will always be a distance between what one thinks a perfect Bond film should be like and how perfect a Bond film can actually become, since this is a big budget enterprise that has to satisfy a world wide mass audience.
 
Considering those realities of filmmaking, the Craig era has consistently proven to be magnificent, offering so many new facets of the Bond persona while not destroying its classic aspects.  Of course, one can always wish for more.  But if one looks at other movie franchises (and yes, "Terminator: Genisys" is a perfect example for that) it is astounding that the Bond films actually managed to not only stay around but to shrug off the huge success of the Brosnan era and take so many risks with the Craig era.
 
IMO, there is nothing mediocre about it at all.

I think that it could be reasonably argued that the casting of Craig is the only real risk that EON has taken in this new era. Everything else has been rather reactive, as EON always is, to the current trends. The films are now significantly longer than the average Bond film and are now much more serious in tone because that's what audiences want now from their action franchises, mostly in the wake of Christopher Nolan's Batman franchise. You also have to have a director who is more from the auteur school of filmmaking rather than the more mid-level directors that Bond is typically known for, again a requirement thanks to Nolan's success, so in steps Sam Mendes.

I really hope that SPECTRE takes some risks, because this is exactly the time when the franchise should be trying something new. I very much doubt that they will, given that it seems to be another self-referential love letter to the history of the franchise yet again (seemingly now a Mendes hallmark), but when you're coming off the wild success of a film like Skyfall, you should take the opportunity to use the goodwill that you've built up with the audience to try something new. If it doesn't work, then you go back to doing what you did before that worked so well, but if it does work, then you're on the way to being a trailblazing franchise once again rather than one that is reactionary every step of the way.

[Robinson]

 

Absolutely!
 
Maybe I´ve grown too soft on pop culture (then again, considering my "Terminator: Genisys"-review, not at all) - but there will always be a distance between what one thinks a perfect Bond film should be like and how perfect a Bond film can actually become, since this is a big budget enterprise that has to satisfy a world wide mass audience.
 
Considering those realities of filmmaking, the Craig era has consistently proven to be magnificent, offering so many new facets of the Bond persona while not destroying its classic aspects.  Of course, one can always wish for more.  But if one looks at other movie franchises (and yes, "Terminator: Genisys" is a perfect example for that) it is astounding that the Bond films actually managed to not only stay around but to shrug off the huge success of the Brosnan era and take so many risks with the Craig era.
 
IMO, there is nothing mediocre about it at all.

I think that it could be reasonably argued that the casting of Craig is the only real risk that EON has taken in this new era. Everything else has been rather reactive, as EON always is, to the current trends. The films are now significantly longer than the average Bond film and are now much more serious in tone because that's what audiences want now from their action franchises, mostly in the wake of Christopher Nolan's Batman franchise. You also have to have a director who is more from the auteur school of filmmaking rather than the more mid-level directors that Bond is typically known for, again a requirement thanks to Nolan's success, so in steps Sam Mendes.

I really hope that SPECTRE takes some risks, because this is exactly the time when the franchise should be trying something new. I very much doubt that they will, given that it seems to be another self-referential love letter to the history of the franchise yet again (seemingly now a Mendes hallmark), but when you're coming off the wild success of a film like Skyfall, you should take the opportunity to use the goodwill that you've built up with the audience to try something new. If it doesn't work, then you go back to doing what you did before that worked so well, but if it does work, then you're on the way to being a trailblazing franchise once again rather than one that is reactionary every step of the way.

 

 

Those last two sentences got me thinking about the "even numbered Trek films" and how they always managed to right the ship- so to speak for Paramount and Star Trek fans.

 

I do agree that EONs been reactionary but the environment is right for them to be trailblazing again. How many sequels, comic book movies, reboots, remakes and re-casts do we see each year that underwhelm and disappoint? QOS was a step in the right direction, being a direct sequel but an unfinished script and too much editing frustrated many and left the mainstream audience cold. 

 

Does EON go the route of having each movie build off the events of the previous one? It worked for the Harry Potter and the Hunger Games franchises. Do they up the ante and give us hard and uncompromising action scenes like "The Raid?" Do they push the envelop and offer a political slant that may offend some? Do they totally go the auteur route and let the likes of Guy Ritchie, Christopher Nolan and Wes Anderson direct with more creative control?

 

I truly believe that the way they blaze any trail, moving forward, is with the story. Bond's character and history has now been established with the modern film-going audience, now let's put him in some compelling and provocative situations beyond having his shirt unbuttoned by Javier Bardem.

[SecretAgentFan]

Are we talking about the same franchise here?

 

Bond films have never meant to be provocative or uncompromising.  They have endured because they could entertain a mass audience.  I think that´s what they will be tailored to do in the future - to ensure they have a future.

 

Anything else would make some people happy but drive a stake through this enterprise.

[CasinoKiller]

deleted post 

Edited by CasinoKiller, 31 July 2015 - 10:41 AM.

[CasinoKiller]

 

Judging from the recent trailer, I think CasinoKiller may be right. The Craig era has been a self contained "how Bond became Bond" series, with little nods and winks in the general direction of the past, but really in its own world.

And with Spectre, it looks as if the producers, writers, director and Craig himself are going for a one (possibly two?) film reworking of the classic era of Bond set in the twenty-teens. For all the modern look of the trailer it has a retro feel at times.

By the end of this self contained era, Craig's Bond will have earned his spurs, loved, lost (possibly more than once?) and learned, discovered "the author of all his pain", taken down one, possibly two villainous organisations and possibly in Bond 25 heads for a final showdown with that very same "author".

These films weren't remakes, though as I've remarked here before CR 2006 had the feel of a superior remake of a sixties Bond film to me. Rather they are new films in a new series which nonetheless revisited and reworked old themes from the Bond of the books and the earlier films.

 

I agree, but IMO it's a shame that this is the direction that they've decided to take with Craig's films.  Instead of doing something brand new with the character and something that's unlike anything we've seen from the films before, they've instead opted for this strange combination of trying to be everything to everyone.  Craig is the best thing about the films, but on the whole, the films haven't lived up to what they should have been.  All three of the films, and from the look of it SPECTRE will be included in this, are packed to the brim with Die Another Day-type references, undercutting the originality of each of the films.  Mendes is the biggest culprit on that front.  While there are moments in the SPECTRE trailer that look truly great, the trailer has mostly become a "spot the reference" reel with nods to films from virtually every era of the Bond franchise.  Then you have the ditching of the one truly original aspect of the Craig films (Quantum) to drag Blofeld and SPECTRE out of the 1960s and into the present.

 

While Craig will probably go down as the best Bond in the history of the franchise when it's all said and done (I don't think that there's any question that he's surpassed Connery, which is the biggest hurdle in the way of claiming the title of the best Bond with the general public), his tenure will also go down as a missed opportunity to do something new with the character.  They've spent so much time with nods and references towards the first 20 films that they've really forgotten to make any moments that are truly memorable or iconic in and of themselves, and that's a shame.

 

 

The Bond films always have been a nostalgia trip on some level. They are a genre unto themselves, formulaic to the core. In that context, the Craig era is truly revolutionary. It fleshed out James Bond and explored his psyche and his backstory, treating him like a character and not just an action-hero.

 

At some point though, we were bound to get to a stage where Craig's Bond mirrored the classic Bond of old. After all, the whole point of the origin story was the expectation that some day, we would get a 'finished' 007. And we sort off got him in Skyfall, and most definitely have him in SPECTRE. The new age Connery is here! And I think for a franchise that is fond of looking back to the past, there is no better era to look back to than the 'golden age' of the franchise!

[Bondage007]

Just like Glen films are comprised of pigeons and family trips being disrupted by a Bond chase (ltk, tld), and recurrences of Victor the man with the beer, (space)ship eating ship (YOLT, TSWLM), ally getting killed mid movie (Luigi, Vijay, Chuck Lee, Saunders), revenge/personal plots (GE-now), etc etc, after the 60's the Bond films have largely played it safe in terms of content and become more of the same. They've been following rather than setting the trends which the producers are always proud of but has stifled innovation and has caused some missteps which are often criticised (solex, space, kung fu, Bourne, Batman), but have kept the Bond films relevant to the current audiences's tastes.

 

And increasingly films are heading towards the safe side (Avengers 2, Cars 3, Toy Story 3, Monsters University, Remakes of remakes, remakes of remakes of remakes, reboots of remakes).

 

Craig's casting and CR was the first true refresh of the series and we are all the better for it whether you like his films or not. It has made Bond relevant to the public rather than "the guy with the bad puns, guns and girls". Like Gilbert and Glen doing their style of Bond films, Mendes is creating his own type of Bond in moving his character forward while looking to the past for inspiration and putting a new spin on things.

[tdalton]

Are we talking about the same franchise here?

 

Bond films have never meant to be provocative or uncompromising.  They have endured because they could entertain a mass audience.  I think that´s what they will be tailored to do in the future - to ensure they have a future.

 

Anything else would make some people happy but drive a stake through this enterprise.

 

They like to make a big deal about how the franchise's portrayal of sex and sexuality was provocative and edgy back when Dr. No was released, so there was a time when the films were meant to be that.

 

It is possible for them to make films that will entertain the masses while also being more original than what they currently are.  A big step towards that would be to stop the never-ending parade of self references the films, especially the Craig films, have become known for.  Stop that altogether and the films will feel much fresher even if nothing else changes.  We're going to reach a point in the future where we'll have one of those anniversary films that we expect to see such references in, where the references will actually be callbacks to other references.  I could very well be sitting in a theater in 30 years time going "wow, did you see that, they just referenced Quantum of Solace's reference of Goldfinger."  

[rubixcub]

 

Absolutely!
 
Maybe I´ve grown too soft on pop culture (then again, considering my "Terminator: Genisys"-review, not at all) - but there will always be a distance between what one thinks a perfect Bond film should be like and how perfect a Bond film can actually become, since this is a big budget enterprise that has to satisfy a world wide mass audience.
 
Considering those realities of filmmaking, the Craig era has consistently proven to be magnificent, offering so many new facets of the Bond persona while not destroying its classic aspects.  Of course, one can always wish for more.  But if one looks at other movie franchises (and yes, "Terminator: Genisys" is a perfect example for that) it is astounding that the Bond films actually managed to not only stay around but to shrug off the huge success of the Brosnan era and take so many risks with the Craig era.
 
IMO, there is nothing mediocre about it at all.

I think that it could be reasonably argued that the casting of Craig is the only real risk that EON has taken in this new era. Everything else has been rather reactive, as EON always is, to the current trends. The films are now significantly longer than the average Bond film and are now much more serious in tone because that's what audiences want now from their action franchises, mostly in the wake of Christopher Nolan's Batman franchise. You also have to have a director who is more from the auteur school of filmmaking rather than the more mid-level directors that Bond is typically known for, again a requirement thanks to Nolan's success, so in steps Sam Mendes.

I really hope that SPECTRE takes some risks, because this is exactly the time when the franchise should be trying something new. I very much doubt that they will, given that it seems to be another self-referential love letter to the history of the franchise yet again (seemingly now a Mendes hallmark), but when you're coming off the wild success of a film like Skyfall, you should take the opportunity to use the goodwill that you've built up with the audience to try something new. If it doesn't work, then you go back to doing what you did before that worked so well, but if it does work, then you're on the way to being a trailblazing franchise once again rather than one that is reactionary every step of the way.

 

 

I agree with your logic regarding Nolan and the Batman franchise, but by the same token, it could be argued that QOS was a reaction to the Bourne series: dirty, gritty, fast-cut edited so as to be deliberately disorienting & confusing, and morally gray.  Likewise, as I posted in a thread in the Bond 25 & Beyond forum, the series record shortest running time for QOS could be seen as reactionary in view of those who criticized CR for its (series record) running time.

 

For what it's worth, and so you know where I'm coming from, my best friend & I almost walked out of QOS; I found the action sequences more hard-to-follow than entertaining, the whole rather dull, the characters woefully underdeveloped, the GF Shirley Eaton reference unnecessary & distracting, and the villains' ultimate motive (price fixing) perhaps the weakest of the series.  It didn't feel like a Bond movie to me.

 

CR & SF, whatever their flaws, at least felt like Bond movies, and yet at the same time, they didn't.  This is because of their chief innovation: to have Craig play the part like an actor and not like an action star.

 

Take the Brosnan era, for example: its attempts to further the character were, IMO, unsuccessful because they were still too rooted in formula.  GE was probably the most successful of these, building on a backstory & relationship between Bond & the villain that goes right to the end of the picture.  TND having the villain's wife (a first to have a married villain, btw) be a former flame of Bond's (also the first time we see him knowingly sleeping with a married woman, btw) was a throwaway.  Once Purvis & Wade entered the picture, Bond getting injured & failing in his mission at the beginning of TWINE is basically forgotten, save a few cheap hits to his shoulder, once he enters the field.  Being a POW in DAD is similarly discarded & unimportant once he arrives at MI6 HQ.

 

Now come to CR: Craig is giving a real performance and the character is actually pliable rather than fixed.  Near the end, he's willing to chuck his job & leave with the girl -- something that'd only been seen once before, in OHMSS.  It does get a bit tiring that he's quit, been suspended, been out of action, etc. in each of Craig's films, to the point it feels repetitive, but it does help reinforce Bond as an actual character and not just a cartoonishly indestructible action hero that an actor can sleepwalk through.

 

SF even had a theme, that of becoming old & irrelevant, and its change of direction was clear from the beginning when M tells Bond to desert a wounded fellow agent in service of the mission (albeit this side of the character had to be outright invented in order to make it work).

 

Yes, much of this is on Craig's shoulders for being able to carry it off, but it's also to the producers' credit that they've been willing to go there despite 40 years of NOT going there.

 

Dave

[tdalton]

The "new vs. old" theme wasn't a new thing for the franchise.  They touched on it in GoldenEye, with Bond spending the first half of the film or so trying to figure out where he stands in a post-Cold War environment where his misogyny was no longer going to be tolerated, or at least not go unchallenged, by a new workforce surrounding him.  

 

While they have put forward some interesting little flourishes, they manage to bury them under an avalanche of self-aware nonsense that ultimately it turns out to be a wash in the end.  The feeling of originality in these new films would go up exponentially if they knocked it off with the references.  We got the whole Bond becoming "Bond" thing in Casino Royale, which was fine, because it was supposed to be the start of a new timeline, but instead they're seemingly trying to dovetail what Craig is doing now into the original timeline.  I was extremely excited when it was announced that they were rebooting because they were finally going to be able to get all of the baggage from the previous 20 films off of their backs and go off and do something interesting and exciting with the character.  Instead, they simply put that baggage into a nicer package and basically said that the supposed "reboot" didn't mean anything and then it was pretty much decided to try to rival Austin Powers in terms of the number of James Bond references.  Heck, they practically remade The World is Not Enough with Skyfall.

 

It seems as though they're trying too hard to be "cool" by going the direction they're going.  They probably throw all of these references in, thinking "wow, that will be cool on screen" when they don't need to.  They're leading man is cool enough on his own, easily the coolest customer to take on the role since Connery created the cinematic Bond with his unique brand of swagger, to need to be surrounded by that kind of stuff.  I say create new and unique potentially iconic moments so that the series can continue on indefinitely.  Eventually, a staleness will set in where they won't be able to overcome it, if they keep calling back to several of the prior films each and every time out.  Eventually you have to do something interesting on your own merits rather than relying on what was done before you.

[Hansen]

This is a great discussion
For me, the Craig era is a promise that has not been delivered.
The cast of Craig was a brilliant idea. To me, it was in line with the voice of Connery at his time.
CR is one my top Bond (2 or 3 depending on my mood). Probably because it one of Fleming's best. Haggis did a great job in adapting the story to modern days and Campbell truly put his talent to the service of the script (it is a pity that this guy has always been underestimated).
QoS was a rush. A rush script due to WGA strike delivered an average action movie to much influenced by Bourne. It felt like that EoN had to release any how a Bond film within 2 years to capitalize on CR success. Profitability over quality.
SF as I already stated in other topics is to me a total disaster. The worst script of all with huge plotholes and very stupid ideas ending with Bond being responsible for the death of M.
I truly feel cheated by this era so far. it has started so well. I can forgive QoS that still has some qualities but SF took a direction that I just dislike : Bond is no Batman or Harry Potter.
Someone said (I think it is SAG) that Bond is not meant to be provokative. I do not agree. Bond having Miss Taro arrested after making love, the killing of Dent in DN, the gipsy fight in FRWL... were provokative.
At these times, Bond was a trendsetter. Today, he is just a follower and a late one I would add. He is a follower and EoN / Mendes want to make us believe that this is something never seen before and totally in line with Fleming Bond (sorry, I never read Flemeing that way)
Now for those who are looking for somekind of coherence on Craig era. To me, it comes after the fact. For each film, they try to connect it with the previous ones, but it has never been seen thought as a total cycle.
EoN never had this long term vision. They start to work on the next script once the film is done.
I do not expect anything from Spectre. But who knows maybe I will get a good surprise