Has Daniel Craig left the series in better shape than when he found it?

Craig has suggested this a few times throughout his time as Bond and it's now his advice to the next Bond actor, as outlined in his Jimmy Fallon interview at the bottom of this thread (clicky).

Perhaps it's a thread to revisit after No Time To Die but with what we know right now, do you think he has achieved this?

Of course this will come as a surprise to no one but my own stance is a firm 'no'.

From an average of a film every two years to the longest gaps the series had to ever endure, purely on a quantitative scale he's failed on that part.

From a creative standpoint, only Skyfall has resonated for me.

From a financial perspective, well, Bond's always going to make money, and there's always been an upward trend with grosses. Further, perhaps a more enthusiastic actor would deliver even more box office takings because there'd be a greater desire to jump into the next film.

Critically, he's so far had a 50% strike rate (though it's only 25% for me).

It remains to be seen if time will be kind to Craig's era. How NTTD is received will play a part in that, too.

It shouldn't be that difficult making a better film than DAD.

I think they swung the pendulum in the right direction with CR, but have perhaps held on to it for too long.

This is a difficult question to answer. I do think two of Craig's films have been very good and they've at least tried to shake things up tonally (with mixed success).

While I hated DAD when it came out, I was somewhat optimistic that the powers-that-be would go in a different direction for the next one, particularly when it was announced that Casino Royale would be adapted.

I'm now perhaps older and more cynical, but I'm less optimistic about the future of the series now than I was in that 2002-2005 period. It's not so much Craig's fault as the massive cultural shift that's occurred in film and everywhere else.

I happened to watch a random YouTube on Bush era protest music. Though I'm not American, I do remember the zeitgeist around that time of it being "unpatriotic" to criticise the POTUS, the backlash against the Dixie Chicks etc. This zeitgeist was more or less supported by the corporate world and to some extent even liberal-leaning media which still wanted to be seen as balanced and respectable. Michael Moore was booed by the Oscars audience for having a go at Bush... can you imagine?

We've since had a total 180 from that post-9/11 era and now it's the Left, with complete support from big business  and fuelled by the sort of social media that wasn't around then who are doing the cancelling and setting the agenda about what is and isn't permissible. Now the Dixie Chicks have to de-Dixify, not because of right-wing rednecks, but because they're afraid that a horde of woke zombies might bay for their blood.

I do not see Bond lasting in this environment. It will eventually just be too socially embarrassing for the producers, studios et al to be associated with a character even more problematic than the Uncle Ben rice man.

So basically, I don't think the series is in better shape, but it's not Craig's fault as such.

Dunno if that answered the question.

Newsflash: Leftists actually enjoy Bond. Just because some moron writes a hit piece on Bond every now and then on some website begging for clickbaits isn't exactly reflective of how today's culture perceives Bond. Heck, I discovered on social media that there's a pretty substantial group of gay Bond fans who genuinely enjoy the books and films like any other fans, in spite of how Fleming claims he only wrote the books for warm blooded heterosexuals, as KKBB loves to point out. Bond's audience is much broader. Lisa Funnell is as big of a feminist as she gets, but she explicitly loves Bond and proudly wears that on her sleeves.

So this conceit that Bond can't survive outside of the mid-20th century conservative/right-leaning world is a lot of poppycock.

Of course individual leftists - particularly those born in the last millennium - can like James Bond.

I'm talking about the big picture and that next generation who big business is intent on pandering to. The people who think Friends is "problematic" and that a children's novelist should be run out of town for suggesting women are women.

The Academy Awards now have racial and gender identity quotas. What place does Bond have if this is now the mainstream of cinema? How will Babs feel at dinner parties?

British children spit on statues of Churchill and desecrate the Cenotaph. Bond, on the other hand, may be fictional, but what does he represent exactly?

George Lazenby predicted Bond wouldn't outlast the cultural coups of the 60's, but kids grew up faster in those days and there was less pandering to the most extreme elements. Moreover, the institutional capture we see today had only just begun.

I'll be genuinely surprised if 10 years from now we're still seeing movies about a white heterosexual male named James Bond killing people on the orders of the British government.  Not unless he's the villain of the piece, anyway.

I'm reminded of what Sarah Silverman said once of being a fan of 24 - 'I'm a liberal, but the heart wants what it wants. And sometimes that's torture.'

Makeshift Python wrote:

It shouldn't be that difficult making a better film than DAD.

And yet...

CJB wrote:

I think they swung the pendulum in the right direction with CR, but have perhaps held on to it for too long.

This is a difficult question to answer. I do think two of Craig's films have been very good and they've at least tried to shake things up tonally (with mixed success).

While I hated DAD when it came out, I was somewhat optimistic that the powers-that-be would go in a different direction for the next one, particularly when it was announced that Casino Royale would be adapted.

I'm now perhaps older and more cynical, but I'm less optimistic about the future of the series now than I was in that 2002-2005 period. It's not so much Craig's fault as the massive cultural shift that's occurred in film and everywhere else.

I happened to watch a random YouTube on Bush era protest music. Though I'm not American, I do remember the zeitgeist around that time of it being "unpatriotic" to criticise the POTUS, the backlash against the Dixie Chicks etc. This zeitgeist was more or less supported by the corporate world and to some extent even liberal-leaning media which still wanted to be seen as balanced and respectable. Michael Moore was booed by the Oscars audience for having a go at Bush... can you imagine?

We've since had a total 180 from that post-9/11 era and now it's the Left, with complete support from big business  and fuelled by the sort of social media that wasn't around then who are doing the cancelling and setting the agenda about what is and isn't permissible. Now the Dixie Chicks have to de-Dixify, not because of right-wing rednecks, but because they're afraid that a horde of woke zombies might bay for their blood.

I do not see Bond lasting in this environment. It will eventually just be too socially embarrassing for the producers, studios et al to be associated with a character even more problematic than the Uncle Ben rice man.

So basically, I don't think the series is in better shape, but it's not Craig's fault as such.

Dunno if that answered the question.

It's definitely worth considering how the world has shifted in the last 20 years. You're right, the success or failure of Bond is not all attributed to Craig himself; in my opening post I legitimately didn't want this to be another excuse for me to criticise his era.

So there's an incongruity with the progressive social politics of the day and the essence of James Bond and his world. That's certainly something that's become quite overt in the films since 2006. It probably will get worse as time goes by. But in terms of the series' political identity, it's not what it once was... and maybe for the worse. In that regard Craig (directly or indirectly) hasn't left it in better shape.

MP wrote:

Newsflash: Leftists actually enjoy Bond. Just because some moron writes a hit piece on Bond every now and then on some website begging for clickbaits isn't exactly reflective of how today's culture perceives Bond. Heck, I discovered on social media that there's a pretty substantial group of gay Bond fans who genuinely enjoy the books and films like any other fans, in spite of how Fleming claims he only wrote the books for warm blooded heterosexuals, as KKBB loves to point out. Bond's audience is much broader. Lisa Funnell is as big of a feminist as she gets, but she explicitly loves Bond and proudly wears that on her sleeves.

So this conceit that Bond can't survive outside of the mid-20th century conservative/right-leaning world is a lot of poppycock.

The point is the target audience was always clear. No one's suggesting leftists can't enjoy Bond, but it doesn't change the fact that originally it was intended by the author and filmmakers for the group I supposedly love to point out. Problems arise when you try to appeal to everyone. Because you can't. The script gets muddled and the characters become diluted/unrecognisable. When creative projects, not just in film but across all arts, are proposed/pitched, there's always time dedicated to a well researched target audience demonstrating the appetite for it. In the case of film it doesn't mean they'll all go and watch it and it also doesn't exclude those who don't fit the demographic.

But if the target audience is clear from the get go and while working with like-minded people (i.e. in Eon's case, not socialist Danny Boyle and Marc Forster), the focus is on embracing the product to make it the best it can be for that group to enjoy. It becomes a strong production and naturally resonate with others even outside that targeted demographic.

EON has been trying to appeal to larger audiences since day one. That’s why you never had the Russians portrayed as villains unless they were rogues Orumov. Bond is and always should be for everyone.

I’m willing to wager that you guys will be as dead wrong as Lazenby was back in 69 in assuming that Bond will not survive the next decade because of your exaggerated fear of the left canceling Bond.

My own feelings to paraphrase Craig's Fallon interview:

You (all, because major fingers pointed at a lot of folks) indeed f***ed it up.


Post DAD in 2002 while the backlash was coming in-we had had four successful films reestablish 007 in the public's eye and Brozzer had enjoyed a successful tenure to date even if there was uneven qualities particularly in the writing and no clear sense of the direction EON wanted to head in.
DAD was extremely successful and then came the pause and secret dealings which resulted in dumping Pierce in favor of changing course. At some point this became hitting the reset button, then Sony came into the picture and then came the CR rights finally coming to EON. By this point there had been a significant gap and cooling off period which of course would become something to drive fans mad later on.

When CR06 finally arrived it did have fresh energy which general audiences reacted to. the ultimate irony is that boxoffice wise it made nearly the same as DAD for the US domestic. Only with the expansion of blockbusters into foreign territories did it make a 120 mil improvement.  Combining the slight staleness of where the Brosnan era ended with the four year gap I think compounded people's interest with the idea of the "new Bond" but in actuality CR06 borrows so heavily form current trends and other films of the time that it began a cycle that each successive film has carried on to increasing degrees while completely jettisoning the entire series identity.


Bond exists, Bond is still an icon but there is a distance between the series and the audience that grows ever more. There is the shift in what EON's course is but also important is the ever increasing gaps which cause the series to go dormant and wane form people's minds. In many ways the Mission Impossible franchise has been allowed to steal some of what should be Bond's thunder with each new entry.


And I don't dislike Craig as an actor or bloke at all. In fact I get the sense he'd be a fine fellow to have a chat and commiserate with...then I'd have to get it off my chest by being like: "mate you're a really nice guy really but you absolutely stabbed me in the heart for years with your "characterization"."

Indeed, HTTB ... I reckon a few pints of Guinness (he's on record as liking it, if I recall) and a yarn with him would be great fun. As someone only 3 years younger than him though, I think I agree with him about 9 AM Martinis .

Makeshift Python wrote:

EON has been trying to appeal to larger audiences since day one. That’s why you never had the Russians portrayed as villains unless they were rogues Orumov. Bond is and always should be for everyone.

I read that using SPECTRE over SMERSH was Fleming's ideas and was about not having the film(s) be too reliant on contemporaneous politics, thus potentially making them dated on arrival, i.e. if there was rapprochement with the USSR while the movie was still in production.

I think there's merit to that. You wouldn't be writing a Bond movie centred around, say, Armenia and Azerbaijan fighting over Nagorno-Karabakh for release two years from now.

It certainly wasn't a decision to appeal to audiences in the Communist world - who would never have been permitted to see the films anyway - or domestic Communists, who were still a stigmatised and negligible chunk of the population in the early 60's (as opposed to what the polls say Millennial/Gen-Z support for Marxism is these days).

Quote :

I’m willing to wager that you guys will be as dead wrong as Lazenby was back in 69 in assuming that Bond will not survive the next decade because of your exaggerated fear of the left canceling Bond.

It's not so much 'the Left' per se that I think will cancel Bond, the studios themselves will divorce themselves from the franchise out of fear of looking unfashionable and promoting wrongthink.

I think he has. While not all the films were perfect, he has done a good job. I don't think studios will toss Bond. Like Waller-Bridge said, I think Bond can essentially stay as he is... a little sexist...a little tastless...as long as the other characters are treated with respect. The days of Mary Goodnights/dumb bimbo are over. Which isn't a bad thing.

Sitting here thinking about Craig's era, it has certainly been a wild one. A lot of firsts & fun facts, some of these may not be correct or I may be misremembering but just a few I can think of off the top of my head:

First time bond is shown without a 00 status (CR)

First full black and white scene in a Bond movie (CR) – not counting the brief flashbacks in DAD

Gunbarrel doesn’t start at beginning – in pre-titles (CR)

First time blood covers the entire screen during a gun barrel (CR)

First direct sequel from a previous Bond film (QOS)

First gunbarrel at end of film (QOS)

First time Bond walks away after shooting in gunbarrel (QOS)

First time Moneypenny and Q don’t appear & for consecutive films (CR/QOS)

Shortest Bond film (QOS) and longest film in Bond history (NTTD)

First Bond to use more than two filmed gun barrels and a different one for every entry

First time Felix Leiter played by same actor three times

First Bond to sever under a female and male M

First time a figure from Bond’s past, pre-007 life is shown (SF)

Longest serving Bond & first Bond to serve in three decades (official films)

Least amount of films in one decade (SF and SPECTRE)

First repeat director/back to back since 1987/1989

First American Director

First major Bond girl to return in following film (not counting Sylvia Trench/minor role)

Second most composers used for tenure (3) vs. Roger’s (4)

First time Bond doesn’t say Bond James Bond since 1967/YOLT (QoS)

Only time BJB is said at the very end of the movie

With NTTD run time Craig should equal or tie Connery’s total runtime for Bond, still well behind Roger

First Bond to whore himself out for the Italian film tax credits

First time we see Bond’s living quarter since Live and Let Die & first time Moneypenny is in Bond’s
living quarters since LALD

First Bond actor with a co-producer credit

In recalling these I just realized SPECTRE is only FIVE MINUTES LONGER THAN SKYFALL. HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE!? IT FELT LIKE A LIFETIME!

First villain – with the exception of Blofeld – to appear in three films (Mr White: CR, QOS, SPECTRE)

Most appearances by Bill Tanner (4)

First time Bill Tanner has appear in consecutive films

Think i prefered Brozzer in spite of DAD but Craig was decent enough ....skyfall...9/10
Casino royale...8/10 ..Spectre...6/10 QOS...6/10

It's quite the list, Moore. Also the first time an actor plays Blofeld twice (excluding Pohlmann and Dawson) and first time Bond doesn't have a sexual relationship with the lead Bond girl (QOS).

However, breaking these kinds of records means nothing, especially if there's no substance in the scripts. Hopefully all it means is that Eon is using this era as an experiment and getting it out of their system before returning to business as usual for Bond actor #7/Bond 26.

Makeshift Python wrote:

EON has been trying to appeal to larger audiences since day one. That’s why you never had the Russians portrayed as villains unless they were rogues Orumov. Bond is and always should be for everyone.

CJB is correct in that they wanted to ensure the films didn't prematurely date. Granted, by the time TSWLM came around, I believe there's a story floating around outlining that Cubby met some Russian official (IIRC) who expressed a wish to Cubby that perhaps a friendly Russian appear to appeal to USSR audiences. Hence the creation of Gogol... But since the Moore era is, to some, weaker than the rest of the series (certainly Rotten Tomatoes demonstrates TMWTGG, OP and AVTAK have the lowest scores in the series by quite a margin) maybe there's a correlation there. In the case of Octopussy, for instance, perhaps there'd be more clarity had Kamal not been created to offset Orlov. As it stands Octopussy is accused of being rather convoluted and it's difficult to keep track of alliances and the logic within them. To reference my above post: scripts get muddled when the target audience isn't clear. On the flip side, FYEO is arguably Moore's best Bond film and it overtly pits 007 against the Russians.

Certainly everyone can enjoy a Bond film even when the target audience is clear. I'm certain Eon didn't set out to cast Margaret Nolan as Dink and dress her in a swimsuit to appeal to heterosexual women, gay men and priests. It doesn't exclude them from enjoying the film though.

MP wrote:

I’m willing to wager that you guys will be as dead wrong as Lazenby was back in 69 in assuming that Bond will not survive the next decade because of your exaggerated fear of the left canceling Bond.

Bond as a franchise will survive, without a doubt. Bond's spirit/DNA, however, is dying. He and his world will become unrecognisable and indistinguishable amongst the standard actioner. It's already started.

It's all the more surprising that SF turned out the way it did.

HGTB wrote:

Bond exists, Bond is still an icon but there is a distance between the series and the audience that grows ever more. There is the shift in what EON's course is but also important is the ever increasing gaps which cause the series to go dormant and wane form people's minds. In many ways the Mission Impossible franchise has been allowed to steal some of what should be Bond's thunder with each new entry.


And I don't dislike Craig as an actor or bloke at all. In fact I get the sense he'd be a fine fellow to have a chat and commiserate with...then I'd have to get it off my chest by being like: "mate you're a really nice guy really but you absolutely stabbed me in the heart for years with your "characterization"."

It makes you wonder what's next. Surely Eon won't want to go down a similar route with connected story arcs and an emotional trajectory for Bond across films - with a 50/50 strike rate, and development hell for QOS, SP and NTTD in the script department, surely it's too much of a headache. I foresee a return to episodic entries. It's hard enough to iron out a self contained story and so I don't think they'd revisit universe building. Besides, what else would there be to do? They show a version of Bond at the start of his 00 career, faking his death and living a quiet life, returning to service and retiring, and returning to service again. The span of a 00s career can only be so long and only incorporate so many things.

silvertoe wrote:

Think i prefered Brozzer in spite of DAD but Craig was decent enough ....skyfall...9/10
Casino royale...8/10 ..Spectre...6/10 QOS...6/10

Out of curiosity what are the numbers for Brosnan's era?

Goldeneye..9/10 , TWINE...8/10 , TND... 6/10, DAD... 5/10

Most damning of all I think is that I have noticed an increase in the dreary looks of audiences coming out of each new film. I've hard some talking dejectedly about how things are so different now-some miss the days of even CR06, some miss the Brosnan era but there is an overall feeling I get each time that it's just not the same series. While this isn't reflected in box office takings or general consensus online I do think it is a feeling inherent in a lot of general audience members whether they are vocal about it or not.


Cubby and Harry always wanted to keep the series non-political but the general idea seems to have begun with the creation of SPECTRE by Fleming/McClory/Whittingham while developing Thunderball.

It was hard to imagine it was the same film series long before Craig came along, compare FRWL and Moonraker...One is an espionage thriller and the other is a Marx bros comedy...wtf?

I disagree. For one, while there were huge shifts tonally, the characterisation of James Bond was never compromised. Now, the character himself could be any generic action hero.

Personally, controversy, it feels that that franchise is in a worst shape than when it started in 2006 (with Craig). 2006, what feels a millennia ago, seemed almost bright and new. Die Another Day was cast aside, it was all about a 'real' and 'gritty' Bond etc. Then QOS happened which flattened what hopes I had but then Skyfall picked it up. It felt the most Bond-esque film in ages. Then Spectre happened and then the never-ending saga of Craig going.

For all it's failings I can't help but feel Brosnan left it in a better shape. It at least in 2002 was a similar vent to 1997-2002.

I agree with that summation, Hilly.

I've never - and likely will never - be as excited for a new Bond film as I was for Casino Royale and it ended up exceeding my expectations. Alas, it was immediately followed by what I judged to be the worst film of the franchise. I was pleasantly surprised by Skyfall, but the hype never really came back for me after 2008 and it was certainly a distant memory by the time we got to SPECTRE, which made QOS look like Goldfinger.

I'm not sure. The series did need a kick up the backside when he took over. But in the end, he only gave us one very good Bond movie. The rest varied from mediocre entries in the series to the plain bad. And then it took a Kings' ransom to make him come back for one last turn, proving that his love for the character had waned considerably (to say the least).

I think I'll remember him as merely an adequate steward of the role, not a truly great Bond.

Salomé wrote:

I think I'll remember him as merely an adequate steward of the role, not a truly great Bond.

Yup.

For all the fanboying of Cregg by the hoi polloi, I'd wager very few could name some great scenes from his films. Aping Ursula on the beach in CR was probably the closet thing to an iconic moment his Bond has had.

CJB wrote:

Salomé wrote:

I think I'll remember him as merely an adequate steward of the role, not a truly great Bond.

Yup.

For all the fanboying of Cregg by the hoi polloi, I'd wager very few could name some great scenes from his films. Aping Ursula on the beach in CR was probably the closet thing to an iconic moment his Bond has had.

Can't log off without touching this one! Really? He couldn't even make it out of the water.

I'd say that, aside from perhaps Tosca, the best moments of Craig's era aren't because of the man himself, i.e. Raoul's introduction, Severine, Mendes' direction overall in Skyfall (Shanghai/Tennyson sequences), etc.

Salomé wrote:

I'm not sure. The series did need a kick up the backside when he took over. But in the end, he only gave us one very good Bond movie. The rest varied from mediocre entries in the series to the plain bad. And then it took a Kings' ransom to make him come back for one last turn, proving that his love for the character had waned considerably (to say the least).

I think I'll remember him as merely an adequate steward of the role, not a truly great Bond.

All that was needed was what FYEO was to MR, which included no change of actor. It has to be said that, Skyfall aside, DAD feels more complete and wholesome than anything in Craig's era.

And I'm fully aware of the implications of that statement.

Craig is a fine Bond, and I like Casino Royale and Spectre best.

He's as good as Timothy Dalton, IMO.

Though many die-hard fans will tell you he's not as good as Pierce Brosnan. I disagree. Dalton and Craig handle the tech and cars and weaponry just great, and I think it's because Pierce is more dashing with the Bond girls that Dalton/Craig often get under-valued. Craig is a good choice...

So whoever follows Craig as the next Bond I think will find he left the series in a shape of cool confidence.

Abishai100 wrote:

Craig is a fine Bond, and I like Casino Royale and Spectre best.

He's as good as Timothy Dalton, IMO.

Though many die-hard fans will tell you he's not as good as Pierce Brosnan. I disagree. Dalton and Craig handle the tech and cars and weaponry just great, and I think it's because Pierce is more dashing with the Bond girls that Dalton/Craig often get under-valued. Craig is a good choice...

So whoever follows Craig as the next Bond I think will find he left the series in a shape of cool confidence.

The filmmakers and Craig felt nothing but shame during Daniel's run, except for SF, whereby they embraced their legacy and provided the best Bond film since TWINE. CR and QOS were knee-jerk reactions to the popularity of the (short-lived) Bourne series and Spectre didn't know whether to honour the series' history or flip it on its head again and so it meanders in this unattractive middle ground. Cool confidence? More like uncool unidentify crisis.