Article: Craig's James Bond Movies Are So Boring

[Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry]

A mildly interesting article because it has a light snipe at Craig.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/43qp4d/daniel-craig-james-bond-boring

Daniel Craig’s the most screen-accurate Bond to date, and he’s been considered one of the best actors to play the role. So why have most of his films seemed so unmemorable? Despite a successful reboot of what had become a stale franchise, maybe audiences underestimated how much they would miss the over-the-top villains, the odd henchmen, the whimsical gadgets, and world-ending plots. All that cheese lended itself to a fantasy world of espionage that made the character so iconic. Basically, everything that made Bond… well, Bond....

Over the decades, the James Bond movies have gotten a lot wrong, from a troubling legacy of racism, sexism, misogyny, stereotypes, and xenophobia to the fact that when women aren’t having sex with Bond, they’re getting tortured and killed. These are the sorts of plot devices that deserve to die a slow death and be left in the past, but at the franchise’s core—and what separates the Bond franchise from countless other mindless action spectacles—is a sense of adventure, danger, elegance, and fun. It’s about the high-tech gadgets and sports cars, the beautiful locations and exciting action sequences, the martinis and witty quips, the unhinged maniacal supervillains and whatever strange method they’re planning on using to take over the world. It’s about hearing James Bond tell people his name and seeing him blow up enemies and escape secret lairs—all while wearing a perfectly pressed tuxedo.

That’s what we want in our Bond films—because as much as Daniel Craig has brought to the character, his movies have left many of the cool parts at the door. Hopefully, the powers that be will remember going forward that that a sense of fun is what makes these films memorable. After all, the man we’ve paid for tickets to see isn’t Jason Bourne or John McClane—the name’s Bond. James Bond.

[Kristatos]

We were saying this in 2006. I think it's good for Bond to go back to basics once in a while, but they shouldn't try to make it permanent.

[Omega]

Just going to quote myself.
Although this guy has a long and rambling review of each Craig film make a few points not in previous posts. He seems to love CR as a much needed reboot and tries to compare Craig to Connery. But seems to hate every thing else, so I ask was Craig actually any good in Cr? Was he even playing James Bond ? Was a reboot really necessary?

Ok good assessment of what made bond work and fair point about where the franchise is today. Essentially this guy says it’s time for a smart reboot with a plan to recapture the essence of bond while leaving the over played aspects that are sexist and raciest behind, and I would agree with that.

But I would challenge what did Craig bring to the series and where was he ever Ian Fleming’s James Bond? Craig is a list of negatives, things he is not more than things he is. For 12 years I’ve seen people ascribe attributes to Craig that were not witnessed on the screen in his performance. Somehow his dower lack of personality, one facial expression and duck lips meant he had depth and brought meaning to the role with a blank performance.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[dirtybenny]

As I said before Big O, well said. Everyone treats these tropes about Craig as if it's common knowledge (best actor, most "flemingesq") yet never offer any convincing evidence. This line Omega offered sums it up perfectly, "people ascribe attributes to Craig that were not witnessed on the screen in his performance."

As I said elsewhere (and Kris says above), this article is a backhanded, noncommittal version of what we've been saying for years. It seems one can't be critical of Craig's work without first apologizing for it by building him (and CR) up and pointing out the foibles of Bond films past. Hopefully this will all change once we've finally seen the back of Craig for good, people will feel free to give unvarnished opinions of this sorry decade in Bond without fear of backlash from the rabid "Craigheads".

[dirtybenny]

Reading through the article some more it seems this fellow simply gleaned from this site then took some time to white wash the actors (Craig, Bardem and Waltz). Ironically it's people like himself who have made these films so boring by demanding "gritty" realism and films devoid of "double taking pigeons" as well as none of that "toxic machismo and sexism." Now these same people are starting to lash back but of course the must remain "woke" while doing so.

[Omega]

Reading through the article some more it seems this fellow simply gleaned from this site then took some time to white wash the actors (Craig, Bardem and Waltz). Ironically it's people like himself who have made these films so boring by demanding "gritty" realism and films devoid of "double taking pigeons" as well as none of that "toxic machismo and sexism." Now these same people are starting to lash back but of course the must remain "woke" while doing so.

One thing is new to Hollywood Batman vs Superman fan reaction leading to the failure of Justice league (BTW Jumanji beats in worldwide BO), IMO Last Jedi and Spectre are warning signs for careless franchises.
I saw a review on YouTube that I think sums it up, fans have learned thanks the the DCEU that they can take down a franchise and force it to change direction. They no longer feel as if they have to support franchises making bad movie just because they like the characters. This is what this website was trying to realize 12 years ago.


Just think if fans had reacted to CR like they did to JL Craig would be gone and we’d have a decade of better bond movies.
Craig would probably be revered in a Lazenby like status as so good by a click of bond fans but the rest of the world would be grateful.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro