This seems to be something that even dedicated Bond fans seem to overlook sometimes. But most of the ‘‘unique’’ core elements of the Craig era were already very much present during Dalton’s and Brosnan’s tenures. And I would argue that those eras did it mostly better, while the Craig era overdid it. Some examples:
-Revenge story (QOS and also SP to a degree) - LTK did it first, and much better.
-Bond going rogue (QOS, SP, NTTD) - OHMSS did it first, and did it best in my opinion. LTK also of course. DAD also has Bond going rogue in a pretty interesting way. It was still an interesting fresh concept until it became the new normal during the Craig era.
-Villain with personal backstory connected to M (SF) - TWINE did it first, and much better in my opinion. I’ve always felt Silva kind of overdoes it with his strange obsession with Bond and calling M ‘‘mother’’. Plus, Silva’s scheme is completely tossed aside for his ‘‘personal mission’’. It’s mostly Javier Bardem’s great performance who lifts up an otherwise poorly written character. Renard, and especially Elektra King I find much more compelling. And their scheme and motvations don’t suddenly dissapear to focus only on the personal connections with M.
-Bond reflecting on his life as a 00-agent (every Craig film) - It’s much more subtle yet effective in the Brosnan era. Take the beach scene in GE or the love scene with Paris Carver in TND. Unlike the Craig era, the Brosnan era doesn’t hit you over the head with Bond’s psychological report and wants you to constantly feel bad for the poor guy. Or take for example that masterful ‘‘stuff my orders’’ scene from TLD, that’s how you give the character interesting depth.
-A villain with a personal backstory connected to Bond (SP) - GE does this much more effectively, showing us 006 and 007 go on a mission to establish their relationship, their interactions are actually well written and the idea of a former 00 agent as a traitor is much more plausible than Bond’s long lost forster brother who just so happens to be the leader of SPECTRE. Plus, the concept was completely new and original for the series back in 1995.
-On the topic of characters with personal connections. In the case of Silva, Blofeld/Oberhauser and Safin. The stories almost soley focus on their personal problems with some of the recurring protagonists (M, Bond, Madeline) and they all have this obsession with Bond himself. Their schemes, their end goals so to speak, are hardly focused on at all. It’s as if the Craig era exists in this small world where Bond is at the centre of the universe. Compare this to characters like Trevelyan, Elektra or even someone like Carver whose wife of course had an history with Bond. Their personal feelings towards Bond don’t take complete centre stage. And Trevelyan’s or Elektra’s obsession about Bond don’t feel out of place or shoehorned in, but are actually well build up.
-Bond being injured and not as strong as normal (SF) - TWINE did it first and didn’t suddenly make Bond quit after essentially failing the mission, unlike he did in SF.
-Bond being out of the game and needing to get back (SF and NTTD) - DAD did it first, but not necessarily better than SF though. Still, at least Brosnan’s Bond wasn’t quiting his job by himself every other film but was determined to finish the job once he was able to do so. One of the reasons I really like the first half of DAD.
The thing that the Craig era did very well is, again, CR. It’s a very fresh interesting take on the character and films as a whole. And the tragic love story is a great aspect of it. Yes, OHMSS did it first (and wonderfully), but the one of CR is very different and unique on itself. Plus it had been quite some time since OHMSS. Though it has to be said as well, this was mostly lifted from Fleming’s original novel.