Why did Casini Royale represent the peak rather than the start of the Craig era?
-
coolslowhand — 9 years ago(October 10, 2016 09:53 PM)
I enjoyed your post. Thats a very good point about the first 4 films. By the time you get to Thunderball you go from masterpieces to a film that has parts of it which have the magic and greatness, but is much too flabby and indulgent. I think you are spot-on with the evolution of the series.
Its also interesting to note that Connery and Moore not only had long runs but actually grew and improved in the role before becoming played out. On the other hand, the Brosnan, Craig, and Dalton eras came out with their best stuff and never took another step up.
QOS attempted something no other Bond movie had ever attempted to continue an old story. Even after Bonds wife is murdered in OHMSS its not really carried over to the next movie (yeah, he kills at the beginning, but we dont know why, because its a different actor playing both men.
I hate to compare Bond to a comic book character, but I think a little bit of Batmans history. Batman is the drawing card of that franchise. Sometimes, however, movies, comics, etc. have involved too much of the bat family and given them so much screen time or book time that Batman ends up weaker as a result. At the end of the day, Batman is the strongest character they have, after all I see a similar thing with Bond
Looking at the original M it was a fun relationship with Bond he was sort of an annoyed father figure with the son who was so talented but sometimes a little irresponsible He showed up once or twice per film and it was enjoyable. Same thing with Q and Moneypenny. The writers knew their role and kept them at that. No one really cares about them that much - they are plot devices and nostalgia, not suddenly co-stars.
What do you think will be the next direction the franchise takes? -
mariakelly-04164 — 9 years ago(December 20, 2016 07:14 PM)
Casino Royale was the first James Bond novel, and since it describes his first mission, the producers may have thought it would be a good way to introduce Daniel Craig.
Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy! -
Melton1 — 3 months ago(December 27, 2025 10:26 PM)
Because Craig was new and hungry, and the film was based on Flemming material.
As time went on Craig became more powerful and had more of a say in the films, so he lazily dialled back the fight scenes and obnoxiously dialled up the woke.
At the same time, they had no more Flemming material to provide a solid foundation, so Barbara Broccoli’s worst creative instincts were unmoored. She allowed Craig to dictate terms, and as a woman leaned into the emotion-relationship-family storylines which are anti-Bond (Blofeld is Bond’s long lost step-brother? Really?)
By No Time To Die Bond was a loser who got dominated by tough women instead of ****ing them, and lost and died. Cubby Broccoli is spinning in his grave
️ -
CountJohn — 2 months ago(January 29, 2026 11:11 PM)
Most Bonds peak early on, within the first 3 films. Eventually you need new blood to change it up. Don't see what the big deal is. Connery's first three are clearly better than the next three. TSWLM for Moore, GoldenEye for Brosnan, and then Casino Royale and Skyfall for Craig. If they'd waited a year for the writers strike to end I think QoS could have been up there as well, good basic concept but they needed to smooth the script out.