this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
69 points (97.3% liked)

movies

1769 readers
202 users here now

Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.

🔎 Find discussion threads

A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome

Related communities:

Show communities:

Discussion communities:

RULES

Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.

Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title’s subject matter.

Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.

2024 discussion threads

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I watched them roughly once every night or two. And I'd previously seen them all.

And I was rather surprised at how I felt about the films afterwards. It seemed really clear that the quality of the films went continuously down after Casino Royal.

I thought Skyfall would stand out as the best followed by Casino Royal. But, in sequence, nah. Despite having clearly positive qualities, it seemed bloated and empty by comparison.

I also thought Quantum of Solace would rank pretty low as I recall thinking little of it at the time it came out. Instead, I thought it paired really well with Casino as a great follow up.

In fact, it felt like the Craig-era was basically Casino + Quantum and "other things". And yea, the "post-Skyfall" films just didn't feel like they were worth the effort. I thought they'd be more passable than they were, but after Casino + Quantum, which, for me, had a real punch and through-line, Spectre + No-Time-to-Die just felt like they were going through the motions and taking up space. At times, they really seemed to be badly flawed. And that's where my impression of Skyfall really hit ... it seemed that was the "what do we do now with this character?" moment and that Skyfall belonged with Spectre etc not the other way round.

Is this common among Bond fans or am I off base here?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Yea after watching through the Craig-era, and being disappointed with it overall (apart from Casino + Quantum), this was what I wondered too. I'd be really interested now to see if the Brosnan era stands up. I have suspicion it might, at more than I and many others expect.

[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 10 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The problem with the new Bond is it takes itself too seriously.

The old ones were tongue-in-cheek, with a wink and a nod.

Archer is more of a successor to the original Bond than the Craig stuff.

[–] aStonedSanta@lemm.ee 4 points 4 months ago

Damn. That’s so true. I hadn’t out that together myself as I haven’t gone back to watch an older bond in ages.

[–] Tower@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago

As someone else said, Austin Powers really kneecapped 007 by dialing up every trope to 11, leaving seriousness as the remaining option.

[–] Nakoichi@hexbear.net 6 points 4 months ago

As an aside, that one PS2 game was really fucking good.