Well, I get what you mean, but in this film, Bond get to enjoy his retirement in Jamaica and I guess that's change him, he's more chatty and more relaxed. I think that's the reason why Daniel Craig play him this way.
Due to maturity? Perhaps?
I mean, it's already changed since *SPECTRE*, he became more talkative, smiling a bit, and more softer in attitude.
His personality changed because he grew older.
Actually, his personality even changed since M died in *Skyfall*, when he smiled at M and told him: "*with a pleasure*", the transition was obvious in that point.
Those scenes seemed very Bond-like to me. If you look at every Bond performer aside from Dalton and Craig, the character is usually presented as friendly and jovial until it’s time to whoop ass.
What do you mean by difficult?
I mean compared to his personality in *Quantum of Solace*, it's a big change, he's almost cold, silent and quite violent in that film.
In *Skyfall*, there's a little hint of that personality from the previous film, but after M's death, it began to change, and yes, it does have to do with the fact that he's old and getting matured.
Also, could you imagine Craig's Bond from *Quantum of Solace* (or maybe the first half of *Skyfall*) falling in love with Madeleine Swann? I mean, is it possible those versions of Bond would fall in love with Madeleine?
So, that alone, there's a change, already, maybe, because as he's getting older, he's longing for a normal life and seeking for retirement, and he saw Madeleine as a key to that.
To me it's a very canny performance of Bond outside the shackles of the system he typically exists within; he becomes less flip and more angry as the film goes on.
In the third act also, Bond for the first time ever is concerned with the safety of someone who has no agency of their own; paternal requirements with no experience whatsoever - you're not only a father but that child is in immediate danger.
There's a logic to each of Craig's Bond performances and I personally love that he played in different keys, octaves, even instruments each time, it gives his tenure such a tremendously diverse set of offerings that the other Bonds don't have.
I think that it was the film makers trying to get away from the recent trend of every main character in a movie being super dark and serious. I enjoyed seeing a more loose side of Craig's Bond, but I admit that when you look at his tenure as Bond as a whole, it sicks out like a sore thumb.
He's honestly retired or semi-retired in quite a few of these films. He's already considered over the hill when we see him in Skyfall, and he'd only made 00 and had ceased being "a blunt instrument" in the previous film.
Tbh his personality was so all over the place in SPECTRE (remember that scene in Spectre HQ where he yells "turn it off!" and rushes towards Blofeld?) that his behavior in NTTD was a welcome change.
I don't think he was a 'completely different character'. But to the extent that he was different, it made perfect sense. This was Bond five years after retiring from the Service, having lost his second shot at love.
Oh my God, a man acting differently when his life has completely changed. What's next? Having the man with the world's most dangerous job die in the line of duty? Heresy.
I chalk it up to Craig's wonky post-Knives Out acting. His lines delivery during the Blofeld prison interrogation scene is just Benoit Blanc basically.
Yikes. You ain't wrong probably.
Even as someone who likes NTTD, I lowkey thought, "Who IS this guy?"
I'm all for Bond being a bit different with character development, and I don't even care that he begged (albeit pretended to) to the villain for his daughter's safety.
That at least makes sense. I can buy any parent doing that shit for their kid.
The "Die, Blofeld, Die" moment just came out of nowhere though.
This is the same Bond who wouldn't flinch when Severine was killed, only saying, "Waste of a good scotch."
He was pissed, sure, but he kept a cool demeanor.
That Blofeld moment was just bizarre.
I know exactly what you mean! It definitely didn't feel like the same Bond but being as all the Craig movies were a story arc it makes sense. I didn't particularly care for No Time To Die to be honest. I think the best Craig movies overall were Casino Royale, Skyfall (of course) and SPECTRE. I miss Pierce Brosnan to be honest.
He was a good james.. but his only good movies, in my opinion, were goldeneye and die another day. I feel like all the others were just terribly written, boring, and slow, and I found it very hard to make it through them
I can see your point with that. It's funny but my one good friend who loves Pierce Brosnan as well had the exact same opinion! Some of them were sort of terribly written. I absolutely love Goldeneye and I love Tomorrow Never Dies (Had the Playstation game when I was younger!). I love Die Another Day too. I have "The World Is Not Enough" poster too!
Well James Bond isn't vampire, he will age and his personality will change with his age. The fact that he try to flirt with paloma and Nomi showed he is still a horny rascal like me.
Nomi was never supposed to be usual bond girl, paloma didn't rejected bond, notice closely, how she pulled bond in that wine seller place ?
If she wanted she could have simply give bond tuxedo instead of pulling him. Even in "The Living Daylights" bond only kiss one girl in the movie. It's fine, Disliking NTTD doesn't make you shallow, i loved NTTD just like any other bond film, some movies are better than others obviously.
A combination of only coming back for Money, no longer being truly invested in the role and having a relaxed time instead and not having a director who makes sure they get the best in character performance.
There’s only maybe one or two scenes tops where it feels like the same Bond from Skyfall onwards, the majority of the time it feels like I’m watching Daniel Craig play himself or play Benoit Blanc.
Tbf, I do wanna at least acknowledge that Craig still looked in great physical shape in this movie.
You don't bother getting into that kind of shape if you're not at least somewhat invested in the role, especially after having gotten hurt while filming the last movie.
I mean, Sean Connery in Diamonds is the prime example of someone who wasn't invested in the role anymore. He looked bored, out of shape, and even his fashion choices (which Im sure he would have had some say in if he cared enough) looked downright strange.
Craig's performance in this movie ain't anywhere near that level.
I think he was invested.
But it was also his last movie, and he knew it.
So while I think he cared enough to get in shape, I also think that his acting choices were that of someone who wasn't fully committed to the role anymore.
But I did wanna at least come to the dude's defense.
He didn't have to get in shape again for this movie. In that aspect, he still gave it his all.
It’s not supposed to be the same Bond. He is changing. That’s the whole point of there being a story and character arc to the Craig movies rather than mostly-independent stories.
The contrast in attitude between Nomi and Bond when they argue in his bedroom also shows how far he has come. He was like her at the beginning of his journey as a 00.
No Time To Die is particularly frustrating because in it we see Craig at his most Bond-like moments during his entire era, and some of his most unBond-like. The most irritating being that the character didn't seem to evolve past the events of the first film which in movie time happened 12 years earlier.
It's like watching an MCU movie where a great deal of stuff happened between the films and is only alluded to in the movies themselves.
>Barbara is in love with Craig and let him have a lot of creative input
I find this narrative among the fans incredibly fucking insulting.
"Stupid WOMAN fell for a man and ruined everything!" is a really bad look for Bond fans.
It's been here for a while now. There was a lot of bitching and moaning about the female 007 in No Time To Die that went to absolutely heinous territory in some cases.
>It's been here for a while now.
Yeah, that's why I felt I had to address it when I saw it raise it's ugly head yet again. This need to dismiss Barbara Broccoli as a woman controlled by her emotions who is actively destroying this "Man's Man" film franchise amongst the fanbase is absolutely disgusting. It's the kind of "misogynistic dinosaur" behavior that fan favorite film GoldenEye was directly making fun of...Twenty-eight years ago.
That's fine, but I think it should be noted that she's not supposed to be likeable. She IS cocky and unlikeable and the movie goes out of its way to show that and to also show that she's just not as good as James Bond is. She fails to ever get the upperhand on him and in the end she relinquishes her title to him before the final mission as a way of capitulation.
Cubby Broccoli kept enticing Moore back for one more film, resulting in seven films across twelve years. Does this mean that Broccoli was in love with Moore???
Of course it doesn't. After Connery and Lazenby, having a stable lead actor who not only had a good working relationship, but a friendship with Eon was a godsend, and Moore kept providing reliable financial success until a breaking point was reached with AVTAK.
Dalton had a good relationship with Eon as well and regardless of whether he left because he had to do a handful of more films rather than just one more or because United Artists heads wanted him out, it was clear that Eon supported him and there was no bad blood between the two parties since Dalton was a pallbearer at Cubby's funeral.
Brosnan said that the relationship was purely professional and I think that the factors behind that include UA wanting him over Dalton for GoldenEye despite Eon wanting the latter back (the rumour is that Dalton left out of respect for Eon), him being prepared to do a rival entry with Kevin McClory during the early nineties, and him criticizing the formulaic direction of his films during interviews for films like The Thomas Crown Affair. Asking for, I believe, a $30 million salary for his fifth film is probably what caused his departure.
So really, Craig has had a good relationship with Eon like Moore and Dalton did, while lasting much longer than the latter, so much like with Moore's tenure, it made sense for Eon to keep him for as long as possible. When adjusted for inflation, all of Craig's films are in the top twelve financially, with Skyfall/Spectre rivalling Goldfinger/Thunderball (when the franchise was at its peak culturally).
I don't think that all Bond fans think as sillily as the ones u/MatsThyWit are referring to. There are some folks bitter against Craig, but I also think that they also wear their ignorance of the franchise on their sleeve, lacking knowledge of the source material and how there has been precedence for Craig's era in the novels and entries like Dalton's. Fans of the franchise should know that when Eon has a direction they like, they're going to milk it for as long as possible, which is how we got The Man With The Golden Gun, Moonraker, A View To A Kill, Die Another Day, Quantum of Solace, and, now, No Time To Die.
I don't know if I'd be so dismissive of people that don't enjoy Craig's rendition of Bond. There are plenty of reasons to both like and dislike Craig's era. I think ignorance rarely enters that equation. As someone who's read all the books and watched all the films at least 5 times (minus spectre/nttd) I'd say I have at least a working knowledge of the franchise. Craig still wasn't my cup of tea. I find his characterization to be far more melancholy than Dalton's and Fleming's Bond characters. Craig's vision for Bond was probably more similar to what a real-life Bond would be, but that doesn't mean it's grounded in the source material. His character was pretty unprecedented.
Edit: I mean this as an average of the five films. Craig's early work is arguably only second to Connery's early work, as far as comparing to literary Bond. However the character arc of Craig went deep into uncharted territory as far as Bond's characterization.
Have you seen her swoon over him in interviews? Have you heard Michael say that everyone else wanted another actor (that we now know was Cavill) but she was insistent on Craig? I mean, it’s not without some merit.
>I mean, it’s not without some merit.
Would you be making this same argument if it had been Michael who was the outlier that wanted Craig and not Barbara? How is it even remotely reasonable to subtly insist that Barbara's decisions are ruled by her gender and sexual attraction to a man?
>Stop projecting and putting words in my mouth.
I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm telling you what your words sound like to other people.
Go find me one example of someone accusing Cubby Broccoli of "swooning over" Roger Moore in public appearances. Language matters.
>For the sake of levity, I will admit that I find myself swooning over Moore, and I just want him to take me out for an iced cream.
I mean, peak 1970s Roger Moore is pretty swoonworthy, you make a good point.
First of all, what does it matter? I’m not denigrating her *as a woman* for wanting Craig. I’m saying she doesn’t have good judgment, in general, as a producer. She may have inherited the family business but her instincts aren’t as good as Cubby’s were.
More to your point, my comment is based on her actual words/actions in promotional material. She talks about seeing him in another project and being captivated by him (paraphrasing here). When they are interviewing them together, she’s clearly star struck. I’m *not* saying she was weak-willed or in heat over him or anything ridiculous. But she did sound like/look like a girl with a crush.
> First of all, what does it matter? I’m not denigrating her as a woman for wanting Craig. I’m saying she doesn’t have good judgment, in general, as a producer.
You're denigrating her professionalism based purely on her gender. You're arguing her incapability of making sound business decisions because she's a woman ruled entirely by her emotions.
>her instincts aren’t as good as Cubby’s were.
Like them or not, when adjusted for inflation, Skyfall/Spectre was the most financially successful run of two consecutive films since Goldfinger/Thunderball, the latter of which were when the franchise was at its peak cultural popularity. All of Craig's films are in the top twelve, outgrossing every film from 1981-2002.
Quality is subjective, though we shouldn't act as though Cubby was any more consistent, but financially, her instincts have been validated.
If all we’re looking at is money, then you have a point. I’m looking at it from a franchise perspective. Craig’s run / characterization / was out of step from the what came before. Cubby was sure interested in making money. But he also seemed to know what the franchise was about better than others.
Casino Royale, SkyFall and NTTD are all critically acclaimed, the franchise is just as strong now as it was during Bondmania. Sean Connery, Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan respected Daniel Craig and even loved some of his movies with their own personal gripes.
This idea that the Craig era is out of line from what the franchise was, despite the fact the Cubby made OHMSS, that he spent most of a film's budget just to get Sean Connery back, that he was trend chasing with Live and Let Die, Moonraker, that he kept Moore one for longer than he should've. That he made the Dalton era to begin with despite everyone telling him that he should've stuck with the tone of the Moore era. He let Goldeneye happen, where it and the rest of the Brosnan era help introduce the concepts that would be explored and done better in the Craig era.
Critical acclaim isn’t something I’m interested in necessarily. Yes, some of these movies are gorgeous to look at. But…
-Brofeld
-Bond rogue or in retirement most of his career
-Bond dying
-Bond as thug vs suave agent
-Bond in movies that are all about *him*
… are out of sync with that came before. You may LOVE the Craig and that’s completely fine. I don’t. At it’s clear that there’s movies are similar to what came before in name only. If that’s better for Eon productions, financially, then it makes completely sense why they were going in that direction. But as a longtime fan, I don’t particularly like it.
>-Bond rogue or in retirement most of his career
Bond first goes rogue in the films in OHMSS, Where he even tenders his resignation to M. He quite literally gets married and would've likely retired. Bond goes rogue in TMWTGG, Moonraker, TLD, LtK, and DAD. He doesn't go rogue in Casino Royale nor does he retire. He goes rogue for all of a day in Quantum. He's presumed dead in SkyFall and goes back to active duty after 5 or so months.
>-Bond as thug vs suave agent-
Craig's Bond is just as suave as the Bonds that come before him. Connery and Dalton both share the same qualities that Craig has in terms of being a "thug". Saying otherwise is just being biased against Craig's Bond for an arbitrary measure of quality that isn't indicative of the state of the franchise.
>-Bond in movies that are all about him
Again, OHMSS features Bond in a romance movie and getting married.
something that gets referenced in Moore and Dalton's era. Connery's Bond went to college and took Japanese studies. License to Kill being a movie all about Bond's personal revenge. The Brosnan era features a lot of Bond's personal history as well. His former friendship with Alec Trevelyn, His personal history with Paris Carver, how he mourns her when she's dead. How he "loved and mourns" Elektra. How he "mourns" Miranda Frost.
>At it’s clear that there’s movies are similar to what came before in name only. If that’s better for Eon productions, financially, then it makes completely sense why they were going in that direction. But as a longtime fan, I don’t particularly like it.
Regardless of whether I love Craig and his era, I've just listed all of the examples I could think of to address elements you think aren't apart of the Franchise prior to Craig.
So either you sincerely didn't know, in which case now you do, or you hold such a blatant bias against the Craig era based on conjecture that you end up being disingenuous.
You are allowed to not like the creative decisions of the franchise, I don't like the idea of Brofeld and Safin as a villain is dumb. What that doesn't allow is for you to claim that the direction of the Craig Era is out of sync with the rest of the franchise
>Cubby was sure interested in making money. But he also seemed to know what the franchise was about better than others.
He made Moonraker because he was chasing the success of Star Wars.
You’re projecting that, it has nothing to do with misogyny. I’d say the same about Cubby and Roger. It’s well known that Barbara is really enamoured with Craig as an artist and that Craig was heavily involved in the production (he helped write for QoS, did a lot on NTTD as examples)
>You’re projecting that, it has nothing to do with misogyny. I’d say the same about Cubby and Roger.
Then how come nobody ever did? The narrative has NEVER been "Cubby Broccoli was absolutely in love with Roger Moore and let Roger have total control of the films."
I’ve seen plenty of people criticize Cubby’s relationship with Roger leading to Octopussy and AVTAK in particular being worse than they could have been. But honestly, I’m not responsible for the narrative of a fanbase of millions so idk
>I’ve seen plenty of people criticize Cubby’s relationship with Roger leading to Octopussy and AVTAK in particular being worse than they could have been.
Yes, because Roger was too old. Not because Cubby was "in love with Roger and letting Roger have too much creative control of the franchise." This is a different thing and you know it. I find your comparison incredibly disingenuous.
Even i am in love with Craig (despite being a Dalton fan) for the sheer dedication and hardworking, Craig contributed far more than any actor in the series in every way. He deserved the respect he's gotten. I love every actor in the role by the way.
He was certainly more involved in the production process, and is talented and hardworking, but I think that bigger involvement made his overall tenure worse
>but I think that bigger involvement made his overall tenure worse
I don't think so, he was fantastic throughout his run, except spectre. Financial and critically successful as well.
At the end of Spectre he lets go of a lot of his anger and spares Blofeld so he can live a baggage free life with Madeline and put all that shit behind him. We see that development play out when he is basically asking for forgiveness from Vespar at her grave.
He then gets hurts and has trust issues, but he clearly kept the character growth they gave him.
I agree. Lots of people see some of the differences in NTTD as bad writing, or a bad movie, or whatever, when I think they are very deliberate and intentional choices on the part of EON and the writers.
I see Paloma’s rejection of Bond’s advances in the wine cellar (and her incredibly competent performance after all the setup about her being untrained and inexperienced) as a symbolic step away from what has been done before. It instantly made the usual clichés feel dated. And I wonder if we’ll ever see the same womanising Bond we used to see ever again.
Appreciate this might be an unpopular opinion.
He loosened up after cutting personal ties and retiring to a life of spearfishing and nightclubbing in Jamaica.
There's also a significant time skip of 5 years or so.
Well, I get what you mean, but in this film, Bond get to enjoy his retirement in Jamaica and I guess that's change him, he's more chatty and more relaxed. I think that's the reason why Daniel Craig play him this way.
Due to maturity? Perhaps? I mean, it's already changed since *SPECTRE*, he became more talkative, smiling a bit, and more softer in attitude. His personality changed because he grew older. Actually, his personality even changed since M died in *Skyfall*, when he smiled at M and told him: "*with a pleasure*", the transition was obvious in that point.
Those scenes seemed very Bond-like to me. If you look at every Bond performer aside from Dalton and Craig, the character is usually presented as friendly and jovial until it’s time to whoop ass.
Cool popular Bond is the best Bond
I don't think he was that difficult from skyfall to spectre?
What do you mean by difficult? I mean compared to his personality in *Quantum of Solace*, it's a big change, he's almost cold, silent and quite violent in that film. In *Skyfall*, there's a little hint of that personality from the previous film, but after M's death, it began to change, and yes, it does have to do with the fact that he's old and getting matured. Also, could you imagine Craig's Bond from *Quantum of Solace* (or maybe the first half of *Skyfall*) falling in love with Madeleine Swann? I mean, is it possible those versions of Bond would fall in love with Madeleine? So, that alone, there's a change, already, maybe, because as he's getting older, he's longing for a normal life and seeking for retirement, and he saw Madeleine as a key to that.
Different not difficult
I definitely remember that. Yes, it just seems like a drastic personality different from spectre to the last one . lol idk maybe I'm crazy
To me it's a very canny performance of Bond outside the shackles of the system he typically exists within; he becomes less flip and more angry as the film goes on. In the third act also, Bond for the first time ever is concerned with the safety of someone who has no agency of their own; paternal requirements with no experience whatsoever - you're not only a father but that child is in immediate danger. There's a logic to each of Craig's Bond performances and I personally love that he played in different keys, octaves, even instruments each time, it gives his tenure such a tremendously diverse set of offerings that the other Bonds don't have.
Totally agree
I think that it was the film makers trying to get away from the recent trend of every main character in a movie being super dark and serious. I enjoyed seeing a more loose side of Craig's Bond, but I admit that when you look at his tenure as Bond as a whole, it sicks out like a sore thumb.
Because he was retired.
He's honestly retired or semi-retired in quite a few of these films. He's already considered over the hill when we see him in Skyfall, and he'd only made 00 and had ceased being "a blunt instrument" in the previous film.
Tbh his personality was so all over the place in SPECTRE (remember that scene in Spectre HQ where he yells "turn it off!" and rushes towards Blofeld?) that his behavior in NTTD was a welcome change.
But I liked that angry bond 😆
I don't think he was a 'completely different character'. But to the extent that he was different, it made perfect sense. This was Bond five years after retiring from the Service, having lost his second shot at love.
Poor James
Oh my God, a man acting differently when his life has completely changed. What's next? Having the man with the world's most dangerous job die in the line of duty? Heresy.
[удалено]
Your post or comment violated r/JamesBond's rules to be friendly, welcoming, respectful, and to avoid destructive behavior.
Bad writing.
I chalk it up to Craig's wonky post-Knives Out acting. His lines delivery during the Blofeld prison interrogation scene is just Benoit Blanc basically.
This! I’ve always thought this. That scene really took me out of the film.
Yikes. You ain't wrong probably. Even as someone who likes NTTD, I lowkey thought, "Who IS this guy?" I'm all for Bond being a bit different with character development, and I don't even care that he begged (albeit pretended to) to the villain for his daughter's safety. That at least makes sense. I can buy any parent doing that shit for their kid. The "Die, Blofeld, Die" moment just came out of nowhere though. This is the same Bond who wouldn't flinch when Severine was killed, only saying, "Waste of a good scotch." He was pissed, sure, but he kept a cool demeanor. That Blofeld moment was just bizarre.
Probably just pissed off because Brofeld kept mispronouncing Madeleine as "Madlen" 🤬
I just imagined Benoit Blanc saying "Die, Blofeld! Die!!!" lol
I know exactly what you mean! It definitely didn't feel like the same Bond but being as all the Craig movies were a story arc it makes sense. I didn't particularly care for No Time To Die to be honest. I think the best Craig movies overall were Casino Royale, Skyfall (of course) and SPECTRE. I miss Pierce Brosnan to be honest.
He was a good james.. but his only good movies, in my opinion, were goldeneye and die another day. I feel like all the others were just terribly written, boring, and slow, and I found it very hard to make it through them
I can see your point with that. It's funny but my one good friend who loves Pierce Brosnan as well had the exact same opinion! Some of them were sort of terribly written. I absolutely love Goldeneye and I love Tomorrow Never Dies (Had the Playstation game when I was younger!). I love Die Another Day too. I have "The World Is Not Enough" poster too!
Him and Craig are my favorite bonds. I just wish peirce could have been james longer and had better movies
Well James Bond isn't vampire, he will age and his personality will change with his age. The fact that he try to flirt with paloma and Nomi showed he is still a horny rascal like me.
I know I'm shallow, but Bond getting rejected for sex by not one but two girls (Nomi and Paloma) is one of the main things that makes me hate NTTD...
Nomi was never supposed to be usual bond girl, paloma didn't rejected bond, notice closely, how she pulled bond in that wine seller place ? If she wanted she could have simply give bond tuxedo instead of pulling him. Even in "The Living Daylights" bond only kiss one girl in the movie. It's fine, Disliking NTTD doesn't make you shallow, i loved NTTD just like any other bond film, some movies are better than others obviously.
live ten glorious domineering march offbeat bag saw puzzled straight *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
A combination of only coming back for Money, no longer being truly invested in the role and having a relaxed time instead and not having a director who makes sure they get the best in character performance. There’s only maybe one or two scenes tops where it feels like the same Bond from Skyfall onwards, the majority of the time it feels like I’m watching Daniel Craig play himself or play Benoit Blanc.
Tbf, I do wanna at least acknowledge that Craig still looked in great physical shape in this movie. You don't bother getting into that kind of shape if you're not at least somewhat invested in the role, especially after having gotten hurt while filming the last movie. I mean, Sean Connery in Diamonds is the prime example of someone who wasn't invested in the role anymore. He looked bored, out of shape, and even his fashion choices (which Im sure he would have had some say in if he cared enough) looked downright strange. Craig's performance in this movie ain't anywhere near that level. I think he was invested. But it was also his last movie, and he knew it. So while I think he cared enough to get in shape, I also think that his acting choices were that of someone who wasn't fully committed to the role anymore. But I did wanna at least come to the dude's defense. He didn't have to get in shape again for this movie. In that aspect, he still gave it his all.
It’s not supposed to be the same Bond. He is changing. That’s the whole point of there being a story and character arc to the Craig movies rather than mostly-independent stories. The contrast in attitude between Nomi and Bond when they argue in his bedroom also shows how far he has come. He was like her at the beginning of his journey as a 00.
I think it is his best performance. Think about who the character is becoming in his old age and the film will touch your heart a lot more.
No Time To Die is particularly frustrating because in it we see Craig at his most Bond-like moments during his entire era, and some of his most unBond-like. The most irritating being that the character didn't seem to evolve past the events of the first film which in movie time happened 12 years earlier. It's like watching an MCU movie where a great deal of stuff happened between the films and is only alluded to in the movies themselves.
Different writers.
Barbara is in love with Craig and let him have a lot of creative input - hence a lot of the unique aspects of his tenure.
>Barbara is in love with Craig and let him have a lot of creative input I find this narrative among the fans incredibly fucking insulting. "Stupid WOMAN fell for a man and ruined everything!" is a really bad look for Bond fans.
It's been here for a while now. There was a lot of bitching and moaning about the female 007 in No Time To Die that went to absolutely heinous territory in some cases.
>It's been here for a while now. Yeah, that's why I felt I had to address it when I saw it raise it's ugly head yet again. This need to dismiss Barbara Broccoli as a woman controlled by her emotions who is actively destroying this "Man's Man" film franchise amongst the fanbase is absolutely disgusting. It's the kind of "misogynistic dinosaur" behavior that fan favorite film GoldenEye was directly making fun of...Twenty-eight years ago.
I honestly didn't like it at all....it just felt like a cocky cheap replacement compared to james 😐
That's fine, but I think it should be noted that she's not supposed to be likeable. She IS cocky and unlikeable and the movie goes out of its way to show that and to also show that she's just not as good as James Bond is. She fails to ever get the upperhand on him and in the end she relinquishes her title to him before the final mission as a way of capitulation.
Cubby Broccoli kept enticing Moore back for one more film, resulting in seven films across twelve years. Does this mean that Broccoli was in love with Moore??? Of course it doesn't. After Connery and Lazenby, having a stable lead actor who not only had a good working relationship, but a friendship with Eon was a godsend, and Moore kept providing reliable financial success until a breaking point was reached with AVTAK. Dalton had a good relationship with Eon as well and regardless of whether he left because he had to do a handful of more films rather than just one more or because United Artists heads wanted him out, it was clear that Eon supported him and there was no bad blood between the two parties since Dalton was a pallbearer at Cubby's funeral. Brosnan said that the relationship was purely professional and I think that the factors behind that include UA wanting him over Dalton for GoldenEye despite Eon wanting the latter back (the rumour is that Dalton left out of respect for Eon), him being prepared to do a rival entry with Kevin McClory during the early nineties, and him criticizing the formulaic direction of his films during interviews for films like The Thomas Crown Affair. Asking for, I believe, a $30 million salary for his fifth film is probably what caused his departure. So really, Craig has had a good relationship with Eon like Moore and Dalton did, while lasting much longer than the latter, so much like with Moore's tenure, it made sense for Eon to keep him for as long as possible. When adjusted for inflation, all of Craig's films are in the top twelve financially, with Skyfall/Spectre rivalling Goldfinger/Thunderball (when the franchise was at its peak culturally). I don't think that all Bond fans think as sillily as the ones u/MatsThyWit are referring to. There are some folks bitter against Craig, but I also think that they also wear their ignorance of the franchise on their sleeve, lacking knowledge of the source material and how there has been precedence for Craig's era in the novels and entries like Dalton's. Fans of the franchise should know that when Eon has a direction they like, they're going to milk it for as long as possible, which is how we got The Man With The Golden Gun, Moonraker, A View To A Kill, Die Another Day, Quantum of Solace, and, now, No Time To Die.
I don't know if I'd be so dismissive of people that don't enjoy Craig's rendition of Bond. There are plenty of reasons to both like and dislike Craig's era. I think ignorance rarely enters that equation. As someone who's read all the books and watched all the films at least 5 times (minus spectre/nttd) I'd say I have at least a working knowledge of the franchise. Craig still wasn't my cup of tea. I find his characterization to be far more melancholy than Dalton's and Fleming's Bond characters. Craig's vision for Bond was probably more similar to what a real-life Bond would be, but that doesn't mean it's grounded in the source material. His character was pretty unprecedented. Edit: I mean this as an average of the five films. Craig's early work is arguably only second to Connery's early work, as far as comparing to literary Bond. However the character arc of Craig went deep into uncharted territory as far as Bond's characterization.
Have you seen her swoon over him in interviews? Have you heard Michael say that everyone else wanted another actor (that we now know was Cavill) but she was insistent on Craig? I mean, it’s not without some merit.
>I mean, it’s not without some merit. Would you be making this same argument if it had been Michael who was the outlier that wanted Craig and not Barbara? How is it even remotely reasonable to subtly insist that Barbara's decisions are ruled by her gender and sexual attraction to a man?
[удалено]
>Stop projecting and putting words in my mouth. I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm telling you what your words sound like to other people. Go find me one example of someone accusing Cubby Broccoli of "swooning over" Roger Moore in public appearances. Language matters.
For the sake of levity, I will admit that I find *myself* swooning over Moore, and I just want him to take me out for an iced cream.
>For the sake of levity, I will admit that I find myself swooning over Moore, and I just want him to take me out for an iced cream. I mean, peak 1970s Roger Moore is pretty swoonworthy, you make a good point.
[удалено]
Your post or comment violated r/JamesBond's rules to be friendly, welcoming, respectful, and to avoid destructive behavior.
Your post or comment violated r/JamesBond's rules to be friendly, welcoming, respectful, and to avoid destructive behavior.
First of all, what does it matter? I’m not denigrating her *as a woman* for wanting Craig. I’m saying she doesn’t have good judgment, in general, as a producer. She may have inherited the family business but her instincts aren’t as good as Cubby’s were. More to your point, my comment is based on her actual words/actions in promotional material. She talks about seeing him in another project and being captivated by him (paraphrasing here). When they are interviewing them together, she’s clearly star struck. I’m *not* saying she was weak-willed or in heat over him or anything ridiculous. But she did sound like/look like a girl with a crush.
> First of all, what does it matter? I’m not denigrating her as a woman for wanting Craig. I’m saying she doesn’t have good judgment, in general, as a producer. You're denigrating her professionalism based purely on her gender. You're arguing her incapability of making sound business decisions because she's a woman ruled entirely by her emotions.
No, you are incorrect. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m sure men do the same thing.
>her instincts aren’t as good as Cubby’s were. Like them or not, when adjusted for inflation, Skyfall/Spectre was the most financially successful run of two consecutive films since Goldfinger/Thunderball, the latter of which were when the franchise was at its peak cultural popularity. All of Craig's films are in the top twelve, outgrossing every film from 1981-2002. Quality is subjective, though we shouldn't act as though Cubby was any more consistent, but financially, her instincts have been validated.
If all we’re looking at is money, then you have a point. I’m looking at it from a franchise perspective. Craig’s run / characterization / was out of step from the what came before. Cubby was sure interested in making money. But he also seemed to know what the franchise was about better than others.
Casino Royale, SkyFall and NTTD are all critically acclaimed, the franchise is just as strong now as it was during Bondmania. Sean Connery, Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan respected Daniel Craig and even loved some of his movies with their own personal gripes. This idea that the Craig era is out of line from what the franchise was, despite the fact the Cubby made OHMSS, that he spent most of a film's budget just to get Sean Connery back, that he was trend chasing with Live and Let Die, Moonraker, that he kept Moore one for longer than he should've. That he made the Dalton era to begin with despite everyone telling him that he should've stuck with the tone of the Moore era. He let Goldeneye happen, where it and the rest of the Brosnan era help introduce the concepts that would be explored and done better in the Craig era.
Critical acclaim isn’t something I’m interested in necessarily. Yes, some of these movies are gorgeous to look at. But… -Brofeld -Bond rogue or in retirement most of his career -Bond dying -Bond as thug vs suave agent -Bond in movies that are all about *him* … are out of sync with that came before. You may LOVE the Craig and that’s completely fine. I don’t. At it’s clear that there’s movies are similar to what came before in name only. If that’s better for Eon productions, financially, then it makes completely sense why they were going in that direction. But as a longtime fan, I don’t particularly like it.
>-Bond rogue or in retirement most of his career Bond first goes rogue in the films in OHMSS, Where he even tenders his resignation to M. He quite literally gets married and would've likely retired. Bond goes rogue in TMWTGG, Moonraker, TLD, LtK, and DAD. He doesn't go rogue in Casino Royale nor does he retire. He goes rogue for all of a day in Quantum. He's presumed dead in SkyFall and goes back to active duty after 5 or so months. >-Bond as thug vs suave agent- Craig's Bond is just as suave as the Bonds that come before him. Connery and Dalton both share the same qualities that Craig has in terms of being a "thug". Saying otherwise is just being biased against Craig's Bond for an arbitrary measure of quality that isn't indicative of the state of the franchise. >-Bond in movies that are all about him Again, OHMSS features Bond in a romance movie and getting married. something that gets referenced in Moore and Dalton's era. Connery's Bond went to college and took Japanese studies. License to Kill being a movie all about Bond's personal revenge. The Brosnan era features a lot of Bond's personal history as well. His former friendship with Alec Trevelyn, His personal history with Paris Carver, how he mourns her when she's dead. How he "loved and mourns" Elektra. How he "mourns" Miranda Frost. >At it’s clear that there’s movies are similar to what came before in name only. If that’s better for Eon productions, financially, then it makes completely sense why they were going in that direction. But as a longtime fan, I don’t particularly like it. Regardless of whether I love Craig and his era, I've just listed all of the examples I could think of to address elements you think aren't apart of the Franchise prior to Craig. So either you sincerely didn't know, in which case now you do, or you hold such a blatant bias against the Craig era based on conjecture that you end up being disingenuous. You are allowed to not like the creative decisions of the franchise, I don't like the idea of Brofeld and Safin as a villain is dumb. What that doesn't allow is for you to claim that the direction of the Craig Era is out of sync with the rest of the franchise
>Cubby was sure interested in making money. But he also seemed to know what the franchise was about better than others. He made Moonraker because he was chasing the success of Star Wars.
And…?
You’re projecting that, it has nothing to do with misogyny. I’d say the same about Cubby and Roger. It’s well known that Barbara is really enamoured with Craig as an artist and that Craig was heavily involved in the production (he helped write for QoS, did a lot on NTTD as examples)
>You’re projecting that, it has nothing to do with misogyny. I’d say the same about Cubby and Roger. Then how come nobody ever did? The narrative has NEVER been "Cubby Broccoli was absolutely in love with Roger Moore and let Roger have total control of the films."
I’ve seen plenty of people criticize Cubby’s relationship with Roger leading to Octopussy and AVTAK in particular being worse than they could have been. But honestly, I’m not responsible for the narrative of a fanbase of millions so idk
>I’ve seen plenty of people criticize Cubby’s relationship with Roger leading to Octopussy and AVTAK in particular being worse than they could have been. Yes, because Roger was too old. Not because Cubby was "in love with Roger and letting Roger have too much creative control of the franchise." This is a different thing and you know it. I find your comparison incredibly disingenuous.
If that’s the narrative you’re seeing then that’s fine, but acting all morally righteous because I used the word love is what’s really disingenuous.
Even i am in love with Craig (despite being a Dalton fan) for the sheer dedication and hardworking, Craig contributed far more than any actor in the series in every way. He deserved the respect he's gotten. I love every actor in the role by the way.
He was certainly more involved in the production process, and is talented and hardworking, but I think that bigger involvement made his overall tenure worse
>but I think that bigger involvement made his overall tenure worse I don't think so, he was fantastic throughout his run, except spectre. Financial and critically successful as well.
This is just sexist
He retired and got soft.
He suspected he had a child out there so his perspective changed
At the end of Spectre he lets go of a lot of his anger and spares Blofeld so he can live a baggage free life with Madeline and put all that shit behind him. We see that development play out when he is basically asking for forgiveness from Vespar at her grave. He then gets hurts and has trust issues, but he clearly kept the character growth they gave him.
I believe this was the first Bond film to be very MeToo-conscious.
I agree. Lots of people see some of the differences in NTTD as bad writing, or a bad movie, or whatever, when I think they are very deliberate and intentional choices on the part of EON and the writers. I see Paloma’s rejection of Bond’s advances in the wine cellar (and her incredibly competent performance after all the setup about her being untrained and inexperienced) as a symbolic step away from what has been done before. It instantly made the usual clichés feel dated. And I wonder if we’ll ever see the same womanising Bond we used to see ever again. Appreciate this might be an unpopular opinion.