I like to pretend NSNA is the real ending for Connery, despite the fact it’s not under the official EON catalogue. But for the sake of this DAF debate, it’s still not a bad way to end things.
We can potentially assume his arch nemesis Blofeld is killed in the bathosub, which would give this Bond a lot of points, and wrap up his quest for revenge which began in the PTS. Afterwards he seems to be at peace with things. It’s never stated anywhere in the film that he would retire, but the smile indicates he’s happy with himself and whatever he chooses to do next.
I would argue that MooreBond does have an arc, albeit, a small one (one that even carries over to Dalton and one could argue even Brosnan). MooreBond is where we got the most Cold War stories with Bond continuing to go against General Gogol (and occasionally allying with him). Gogol appears in TSWLM, MR, FYEO, OP, AVTAK, and gets a definitive end in TLD. Although, it’s clear Walter Gotell’s health prevented the proper storyline from occurring as Pushkin’s arc was clearly meant for, and would have been more impactful, with Gogol. There is also evidence that Defense Minister Miskin in GE is just another stand-in for General Gogol. The overarching arc in MooreBond’s tenure is about aging and tenuous grip of Detente during the Cold War. Looking back, it was handled rather well.
This is an 8 month old thread and, as you can see, even the people who loved No Time To Die and what Craig did in the role* don’t think he should be doing a 6th.
Around the time of CR, Craig apparently asked if he could kill off Bond at the end of his tenure. For a variety of reasons it really did seem like Craig was comfortable with SPECTRE being his swan song, and thus seemingly okay with the original request remaining unfulfilled, despite it being the exact opposite of what was envisioned. If the original idea was for Bond to die, then that really is the pure Craig era as it should be, and all Bond 25 scripts had to include that plot point. I’m sure Craig would have been very insistent on that. They all knew going in this was the last time, rather than after the fact like Brosnan.
The new vodka commercial with Craig solidified the idea that the character really is a seperate entity that will live on longer than any one actor. People involved in the movies come and go but the beat goes on.
If I was ready to let Roger go, then it’s safe to say just about everyone was.
As far as Craig goes, however one feels about his films, they undebiably tell a story with a clear beginning and end. Arguably everything in the middle can get turned around, contradictory and muddled up with retroactive attempts at connecting the dots, but we do seem him debut in the double-oh section and shuffle off this mortal coil. Even if one found his exit underwhelming, surely we can agree that the one move guaranteed to make it weaker and not stronger would be to weasel out of it and have him somehow survive.
I’m ready for a change if for no other reason that by the time we see another entry, Craig and I will be in a heated battle to see who gets the rocking chair.
As much as I love Craig as Bond (the quality of the films themselves is quite varied and open to much debate), there is absolutely no reason to bring him back at this point. I had at one point put forward the idea of him returning for BOND 26 as a stop gap due to MGM needing a guaranteed success in a potentially lean post-COVID box office landscape, but that was only if they didn’t definitively kill him off in NTTD. Given that he’s shot multiple times, infected with a nanomachine virus, and then takes a rocket to the face, I think it’s pretty safe to say that the dude’s dead.
What we should be looking at, however, moving forward is what the creative crew for the next film will look like. Craig was a brilliant Bond, but he was, especially late in his tenure, let down by those crafting these films. It’s just unacceptable for a Bond as great as Craig to have exited on entries like SP and NTTD. We’ve seen great, or potentially great, Bonds let down before by things outside of their control. Brosnan had material even worse than Craig did in his final two outings over the course of his entire tenure (with the exception of GE, a film arguably written for someone else). They need to shore up the creative team and make it so that each film the next actor makes gets the same treatment that an actor’s first film as Bond gets. An actor’s first film is usually one of his stronger ones (I think the only first film that can’t at least be argued as an actor’s best is LALD), so my hope is we get a strong new creative team working on BOND 26 and that they can find some kind of sustained creative success.
That is not true. Star actors, and especially Craig as Bond, have tremendous influence on their films.
The reason the first films in a Bond actor’s tenure are often so well regarded is the lack of baggage these actors bring. They are a perfect medium to project one‘s personal preferences on. Then, when subjectivity and reality diverge, fans like to blame the others, never the actor they love and still consider able to fulfill their own expectations… if only the others let them.
Craig did exactly what he wanted with Bond.
So did the others, but they all had different perspectives on Bond.
Connery was overwhelmed by the attention and stopped caring when he felt he was not paid enough.
Lazenby listened to his agent and thought he was clever leaving Bond because he was a star now.
Moore was happy to be Bond but did not take the role as seriously as some fans began to do.
Dalton took the role seriously and fell victim to the MGM problems.
And Brosnan enjoyed the boost to his career and the money but did not take the role as seriously and even sided with critics ridiculing the films, just because he wanted to appear as above that drivel himself.
I’m not sure about Brosnan. I remembered that he ridiculed the films only after he was out, not when he was Bond and made the movies. Also he stated more than once that he wanted more depth in the role and more character development, but he didn’t really get it, not the way Craig got it a few years later.
Make no mistake, I loved Brosnan as Bond. I even think he can be a very good actor. But he is going for the paycheck rather than the story. Which is fine. Sir Roger did the same. But he never complained to the press that the others were responsible.
It’s been a while so maybe my memory’s suspect, but it always felt to me like Brosnan would dutifully praise whichever film he was promoting at the time, while admitting the one before it was daft. But of course when he was promoting that earlier film, it was “great” as well, and when it came time to promote another one two years down the road, the one he’s promoting today will be “daft.”
Which is to say, at least Roger was consistent with his attitude of “they’re all ridiculous, but aren’t they fun?” or even Sean with his attitude of “For God’s sake, ANOTHER press tour?” I agree Brosnan was in it for the paycheck, including the part of the job that involves shilling for the Bond product du jour, but in the long run it made it hard to trust anything that came out of his mouth. I mean, if he knew a film was crummy a year after it left the cinema, then surely he knew it was crummy back when he was encouraging me to buy a ticket. Or maybe he genuinely has no personal idea of what makes a good film and relies on group consensus. Much of his career would support that theory, too…
Craig was an incredible Bond and I stand by Purvis and Wade because of the quality of the crafting of Craig’s five arc film.
His worst is superior to Brosnans best.
Purvis and Wade tried to address a changing world in Brosnans movies but he wasn’t a good enough actor to carry off the balance. EON were brave enough to get rid and go in a new direction.
Breaking down Craig’s tenure:
Casino Royale - cracking script balanced by Craig’s phenomenal performance.
QOS - brave brave brave, let down slightly by an unfinished script but thematically fantastic, prescient and propulsive.
Skyfall - greatest hits package and a culmination of Bonds greatest hits. Not to my taste, but perfectly crafted.
Spectre - Bloofhauser is a miss step, but doesn’t detract from the overall quality of the movie. It is very similar in tone to Moonraker, time will be kind to it.
No Time To Die - Perfect send off and a perfect encapsulation of Craig’s performance as Bond. Open, emotional, drily humourous and human.
I would argue that he was cast because he was popular and had the classic Bond look - but that stopped him from being the kind of Bond EON needed in the post 9-11 era.
The previous Bond actors, minus Dalton, would have been let go at that point for the same reason, too.
