One each from the Craig era:
Bond shooting the gas bottle, causing a massive explosion to escape authorities in Madagascar. Impossible, but looks good.
The QoS freefall feels out of place, but I roll with it anyway.
Bond and Silva sliding down the middle of the escalators, which is an impossibility in reality given the obstructions in place.
A building collapsing in the middle of Mexico City and the carnival continues obliviously.
I never even noticed that one - and I’m not known for being soft on SPECTRE.
Well, if you have ever experienced people at a carnival… 
This is a world that never noticed a rocket going in and out of a volcano in a fishing village. Observation is not their strong suit.
I suppose that’s what one can observe with Trek and Star Wars and any kind of long-running franchise: older fans often struggle while newcomers happily embrace whatever happens to be en vogue when they come aboard. The care of time cuts it all back to size.
In the greater scheme of things a slogan like ‘Craig is not Bond’ is culturally entirely irrelevant - our train passed that station in 2006 and will not return to it. The trick is to realise it’s a journey and either enjoy the run or getting off. These things are meant to be entertainment, not a chore.
Or a space station that had to have taken years to build, each stage requiring multiple shuttle launches. Sure there’s a “cloaking device” when it’s done, but what about all that time it was under construction?
Again I’m helped here by the very definitive line drawn by CR. I can enjoy “Classic Bond” as an artifact of a bygone era; it’s over and done and will never get any better or worse than it was when it stopped: it’s over. And I can enjoy “New Bond” as a whole different thing ( if nothing else, as a celebration for having lived long enough for EON to finally finish another one). This had the potential to work for Trek, too, if they hadn’t squandered their fresh start by immediately revisiting old storylines. ( “Permission to take things in a bold new direction?” “Granted.” “Cool, so we’ll remake Wrath of Khan.”)
Fans can be a drag, for sure. Either you give them what they say they liked before and get accused of a lack of originality, or you try something new and get accused of betrayal and “not getting it.” For instance, I know that on paper Star Wars is a valuable property, but honestly the fans have made it impossible to move forward at all.
I also find interesting the ownership stake some fans take in their favored franchise(s). It may be a consequence of the hyper-individualization of our culture that this stake emerges, but the need to defend–and aggressively so–seems to be on the rise all across society.
Alfred Hitchcock complained that he was trapped into making “Hitchcock pictures,” and was not allowed to do anything else. His talent, success, and different times allowed him to change. The times now are more rigid and unforgiving.
Given Lazenby’s great crime was not being Connery, I think this attitude has long been there, it’s merely the internet has given that sort of fan an immediate soap box.
I’d say so, too. When I came to Bond the fans were divided into Connery/Moore camps, with the Connery fans largely having turned their backs on 007; they only came back every two years to watch the new film and complain that Moore was not Connery - evidently true! - which became an ever more obscure observation the longer Moore had the role. Nobody in the audience seemed to care.
Funnily, legend has it that Connery too had to overcome initial aversion of the hardcore Fleming readership - until events in the wider world made it hard to imagine someone else in the role.
There are various other examples of this phenomenon: Star Trek The Next Generation met with a furious backlash from fans of the original series. Deep Space Nine ‘was not Star Trek’ to some fans - until it was. And so on, and so forth.
What has really changed is that this initial refusal has a - theoretically unlimited - resonance on the net today. Had we had the net 50 years earlier, there likely would never have been a Bond film with somebody else than Connery. Maybe they’d just start doing them again with an avatar of him…
Famously, Star Trek was saved from cancellation after its second season by a letter-writing campaign. Fans were rewarded with the worst season ever. Less famously, the whole campaign was orchestrated by Gene Roddemberry, who feigned ignorance. Years later when he was marginalized in the filmmaking process after the so-so reception to “The Motion Picture,” Gene leaked news of Spock’s scripted death in what would become The Wrath of Khan and encouraged fans to protest. They did, to no avail, and ended up with what’s widely regarded as the best entry in the series, in spite of themselves.
I don’t know if fandom’s sense of entitlement began with Star Trek, but it was certainly perfected there. Only now the internet makes fan tantrums faster, bigger and more easily broadcast, with even less real thought put into anything.
What hard-core fans of Trek, or Star Wars, or superheroes or Bond need to realize is that at the end of the day, the owners of those properties really can get along without them. It wasn’t hard-core Fleming fans that made MR or DAD huge box office hits, and if every robe-wearing member of the Church of Jedi sits out Star Wars Episode 9, it’ll still make enough cash to run a small country.
Basically, fans need to appreciate how important they ain’t.
Yeah, that’s interesting. In the current day there are six individual Bonds and each played it a different way. But back then Connery was Bond, and the idea someone else could build an era rivalling him was sacrilege. I’m a Connery man, but being so hardcore about it to the point of dismissing the overall franchise is backward. Connery is great, but there’s so much Moore to enjoy.
Fans who are stuck with one actor playing Bond disregard the fact that there would not be any Bond films anymore if it only had been THE ONE actor. Also, the films would have become stale and boring. The most important ingredient really is the main actor. He can make the set formula feel fresh for a certain amount of time. Then he has to go. Change is what keeps these films alive.
Yes change and regeneration, alongside a commitment to keep spending money.
Bond works precisely for the reasons secretagentfan has mentioned. Bond fans in general are understanding of this and to pick up on another couple of points in this thread, as I remember it was more the press that were anti Moore, the public voted with their feet and went to see the movies. Similarly Craig was hammered by the press and aided by those on the internet who felt they could campaign against his tenure before it started because of his physiognomy! Something that no one would have dared criticize during Moore’s time. The attacks on Craig being infinitely more personal.
Somewhere in the meandering above is the point , that, that’s the difference , criticism is so much more personal and about the surface now and somehow that seems, to me anyway, cruel and therefore irrelevant.
Anyway…
Had Bond stuck with Connery into the 70s , it would have become like a Rocky or Indiana Jones - tied to one actor and therefore finite.
Had Bond followed the Tarzan model and hired cheaper spent less on the product , each movie would have diminished returns and again would have finished by the 70s again.
I am very happy that change is embedded into Bond and it continues at full strength into its 6th decade.
To bring this thread back on topic, I’ve always hated the infamous “stainless steel delicatessen” line in FYEO. Not just because it’s nonsensical, but also because it’s delivered with a sense of , “Hey everyone, isn’t this funny?” when it’s just confusing and unwelcome.
I choose to view the chimney drop as a symbolic dumping not just of “Blofeld” but of the farcical, facile approach of the DAF-MR era. After this last goodbye to goofiness, we will roll up our sleeves and get to serious work in the rest of the film.
After all, the guy in the chair is never officially given a name. Maybe it’s Mankiewicz.
Until Thatcher talks to a Parrot
A parrot who earlier saved the mission by telling Bond where to find the ATAC.
Hey, I didn’t say they achieved total freedom from nonsense, only that the chimney bit works for me as a declaration of intent. After all, if there was no silliness at all, it wouldn’t be Bond.
I believe that silliness is part of the whole Bond universe. I embrace it and consider genre fare which advertises itself as „realistic“ silly in itself.
After all, it’s all playacting like one used to do as a kid. That was so enjoyable, losing oneself in a make believe fantasy world. Another major component of Bond films.
I’ve always seen the pts as a middle finger to McClory. FYEO is a very good, taught thriller, it’s only issue is…just…that…damn…parrot.
Totally its a pantomime at its heart, even the more serious ones have that silliness in them