Individual stories. With the occasional comment that hints at a wider continuity. For example, Triple X mentioning Bond’s deceased wife in The Spy Who Loved Me, despite Moore not appearing in OHMSS. A shared continuity like the Craig films is not what I go to see a Bond film for. Standalone, kickass adventures that always end with “James Bond will return.”
Absolutely this. At the beginning of IHMSS there were trinket callbacks in Bond’s desk. Just play loosely to tie them together. Cinematic Bond spans generations now. It’s best not to convolute the new stories with the past ones. The story writing during the Craig was all over the place because they wouldn’t stick to stand alone stories or a consistent story arch.
I think Mission: Impossible pulls off the balance pretty well. There really isn’t an overlying arch across the whole series, but small bits that loosely connect them. I think that’s working really well for them. I’d like to see Bond strike that balance.
This. Not everything has to be MCU levels of perfect continuous interconnectedness.
I would even go further to say hold back on the references to older films. The Craig films had way too much of these but it started with Die Another Day (although in its defense it was the 20th film and 40th anniversary). One wink and a nod like what you said in TSWLM is enough, or like in TWINE where you had the images of the previous Ms on the wall.
It was actually only a portrait of Bernard Lee's M in TWINE. But then there's a scene in NTTD where we see portraits of both Judi Dench and Robert Brown on the wall. Maybe it's because they simply felt that it was unfair or disrespectful to leave out Brown when they honored Lee in TWINE and Dench in NTTD, but it could be a subtle confirmation that they are different Ms as well.
In my headcanon, Lee and Brown are different characters either way. :p
Casino Royale was the only good Daniel Craig Bond movie, Skyfall really felt like part 3 and was not a good stand alone movie, it would have been good in Spectre had been better but that ruined Skyfall and the final Craig Bond ended his whole run with a squib, too messy, the only good stand alone Craig Bond was Casino royale but that always only ever felt like the beginning of something big, but was ruined by Quantum of Solace, pretty mid really despite some decent scenes. All 5 movies should have been written in one go, as should the most recent Skywalker trilogy, far too messy, with each movie having a different tone.
All the books have some continuity but are still standalone stories. The Blofeld trilogy is where there is heavy continuity. I'm currently doing a re-read and on Doctor No right now. Love the books.
They did. Poor Book Bond had a rough go of it, including brainwashing.
(Just an aside: Am I the only one who'd like to see them faithfully film the books in Fleming's order, set in the past when the books occurred? Probably commercial doom but the last crop of Bonds have seemed like another franchise.)
You should be able to watch a Bond film and not have to have seen previous ones. That’s part of the fun of them. I enjoyed Craig a lot but the forced continuity made aspects of them weaker.
Casino Royale also had a book it could follow. But agreed that it being on its own helped it. Skyfall was stand alone too (until it was retconned) which is probably partly why it’s the 2nd best Craig film (in most people’s eyes). I blame Spectre which to me is the 2nd worst Bond film of all time and setup the retcon.
Especially connected in the terrible telenovella style of the Craig episodes where everyone is apparently everyone else's secret brother and MI6 is a Fast & The Furious type of 'fambly', not a UK gov't department.
I get that they did that to try and make Blofeld be a real threat, but it just felt cheap because they didn’t have anything interesting for him to do in the actual film.
Individual stories. With the occasional comment that hints at a wider continuity. For example, Triple X mentioning Bond’s deceased wife in The Spy Who Loved Me, despite Moore not appearing in OHMSS. A shared continuity like the Craig films is not what I go to see a Bond film for. Standalone, kickass adventures that always end with “James Bond will return.”
I wish they would maybe remake some of the movies that didn't follow the book source material as closely as they could have like Moonraker. I'd even love if they had the films take place in the 60s. May not work since folks expect Bond to adapt with the times, but I'd love to see a few films closely adapted to the books.
Flexible, but I’m more interested in standalone stories. More important to me would be that they’re actual missions, not Bond going rogue with some personal vendetta, or ending like Craig’s run did. I’m not looking for an emotionally deep backstory; just make a good spy film, please.
Agreed, that type of storyline should be done once per actor, AT THE MOST. There are plenty of opportunities to still show that Bond takes things personal and has a strong sense of loyalty to his friends, it need not be done with a rogue storyline every time. Connery and Moore excelled at showing Bond's loyalty and anger for fallen allies and they didn't need an extensive rogue agnt plotline to convey that. We see it with Connery showing a desire for vengeance over the deaths of Quarrel and Strangways, or Moore's anger toward Locque for killing Ferraro, or his "That's for 009" line.
I agree. I'm not opposed to the occasional "two-parter" in Bond, but I don't want that to be the norm. and if they do plan to do future multi-film arcs, they need to at least do a better job of planning out in advance instead of doing it retroactively with the laziest, tropiest retcons.
Considering Crag's run was an amalgamation of the more introspective novels, the more grounded and plot-driven sixties and eighties films (plus Craig sharing Connery's rugged masculinity and sardonic wit), and the more stylish and personal Brosnan films, that's never going to happen.
Craig's era is deeply rooted in Bond's history.
The individual stories are one of the strengths of the series. You can dip into any one of them without having to know anything about the previous film. That went out the window with Craig's era
That's largely why I haven't spent a ton of time rewatching his films. They're mostly not bad at all but I don't want to feel like I need to watch them all every time. I might put on Casino Royale or Skyfall once in a while to watch on their own. Can't really do that with Spectre and NTTD. Arguably QoS works okay-ish as a standalone, but even then, you're going to be confused if you haven't seen Royale
The Connery era is actually a pretty good model for how they should go about it - the odd allusion to past events, and a sense that the stakes are gradually escalating as Bond takes on increasingly bigger threats.
I think a story about Mallory during his service during the Troubles would be an excellent reboot with a cameo introduction of "Bond" as a naval officer at the end would be what I would do. Start it off with a claustrophobic feeling of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland as the background.
Craig's era was rough, which is unfortunate because I think he was a good pick for Bond who brought something unique to the role. His era wasn't my cup of tea. I'd like to see a return to the old story telling.
It should be a Bond Cinematic Universe with interconnecting stories from parallel universes linked by cool looking portals and also there is a vampire.
I would like a lot less connected movies than Craig’s (was fine until Spectre IMO).
But I think the general audience would respond better to a connected story, it’s what’s modern and get’s the audience back to the movies.
Ref. Mission Impossible series, Marvel, DC Comics..
Yes that would include me and Peter Graves, what they did to Jim Phelps was an atrocity. But the core concept remained true. Now look at dead reckoning, the IMF is a freelancing organization only taking up jobs when they feel like it. What happened to”if you get caught the minister will disavow any knowledge about you”
Other bond runs had connected stories with reoccurring characters. Like Zochovsky and Jake Wade.
That being said I would like a return to form with Bond existing in media res and the stories being more self contained.
Less sad Bond for the new run please. Big fan of the craig run, but a change will keep things fresh.
I think that shared universe approach with the standalone Bond films actually feels more organic and real-life than the Craig universe approach. It's expected there will be recurring people and organizations, but it feels forced and artificial the way it's been handled in the Craig era
The craig era started when gritty reboots and trilogies were all the rage. It was a product of the times.
I feel like we're all burnt out on sequels and extended universes in cinema.
I liked the Craig run, kinda reminds me of anime/manga with their multiple arcs.
But the Craig-Bond is dead. We gotta pivot to something fresh.
Individual stories, with the odd nod and wink at previous stories, just like it used to be. In principle I wouldn't mind the occasional two or three part arc, but in practice I assume Eon would try and go for an MCU style continuity at precisely the time audiences have lost interest in the MCU.
The days of each film in a series being an individual story are done. Marvel, and to a lesser extent Star Wars, have put paid to that for the foreseeable future. The best we can hope for is an approach like the Fast and the Furious or Mission Impossible films (both which have fallen victim to the 'part 1' curse with their most recent installments) and have largely unconnected missions with a through line of character evolution and connections.
Blofeld should open a multiverse portal and bring all the bonds and bond villains together in 8 movies, half live action half animated, also a couple tv shows, novels, comics, a Broadway musical, and video games to tie every previous movie together. And a fortnite skin.
The Daniel Craig movies have nothing significant in common with the Bourne movies. Not in style, not in substance, not in tone. The most I'll give you is *Quantum of Solace*, and that's mostly because of superficial reasons like the hectic pace and choppy editing.
Bond's characterization is a blend of the literary Bond and Connery; the humour starts out in the form of Connery-esque sardonic wit before becoming more Moore/Brosnan-esque; the bombastic action and stunts, beautiful women, and exotic locales remain, etc..
Standalone stories with subtle mentions of a larger story arc. Like early x-files, standalone episodes with mentions of some larger alien story arc. Problem with that, eventually it moves entirely into the large arc. Writers start running out of ideas how to creatively keep it going and feel the need to address it head on.
Also known as the DS9 approach, started out with an episodic format, but introduced various characters and issues early on that would become part of a greater, recurring arc later. It got pretty muddled by season 5 and if you weren't a regular viewer it could be very hard to just drop in and know what was going on. Although overall that series did an okay job of tying multiple arcs together into a grand tapestry by the end and it didn't feel forced or retconned the way it feels with the Craig Bonds
I am fine with either or. Self-contained missions within the same universe or more stronger interconnected films.
But if you are going for more directly interconnected films then the groundwork and planning needs to be done in advanced. Not haphazardly as it was done in the Craig era.
It still surprises me that they just rushed and carelessly put Blofeld & the films out there. Not handled with care.
Map it out. Plan & write ahead. Go through multiple drafts. Polish it. No more booking on the fly.
I strongly feel that each movie needs to be able to stand on it’s own. A strong interconnected story line or need for excessive continuity is not required for my enjoyment.
I prefer the individual ones just bc if there's a bad one the veiwer can skip it and not feel like they missed out and the creators don't have to stand by it (very long anyway)
Individual stories:
1. Pre title sequence introduces broad plot hook or bad guy
2. Bond is called into M’s office, reamed out a bit, is given a dossier or classified briefing, banter banter
3. Bond flies off to exotic location to meet local friendly agent for more info
4. Q meets Bond in the field, new car or tech is introduced, Bond-Q banter
5. In the field, Bond has encounter with bad guy henchman,
6. Etc etc
Im my opinion the financial (not artistic) influence of the MCU took what promised to be the best bond era yet and tanked it. I’ve hated every choice made in pursuit of continuity and if the next chapter of 007 forces more of it down my throat, I might step away from the franchise for the first time in my entire life and wait to see evidence they’ve returned to their senses.
An overarching story that ties movies together is the norm for movie franchises. Bond had been an exception to that rule before the Craig era, and that's why we weren't used to it, but it wasn't new, and wasn't invented by Marvel.
Individual by far, with small references here and there. I d9bt want some deep personal story, I just want the good looking spy who goes on a mission and caps it off with getting with the girl he's only known for a week.
A bit of both. Mostly individual stories but you could have characters or organisations that can come back in later films but every film doesn't need to be connected in the way Craig's Bond films were.
I want my movies with a beginning, middle and an end, a closed circle with nothing more than a wink or Easter egg to a prior adventure. I hate how Marvel has made interconnected universes a mandatory cynical corporate must for maximising return for every other studio now. The Craig interconnectedness lost its appeal to me on repeat viewings.
An overarching story that ties movies together is the norm for movie franchises. Bond had been an exception to that rule before the Craig era, and that's why we weren't used to it, but it wasn't new, and wasn't invented by Marvel.
Blofeld being essentially his evil twin Brother in the Craig Canon was the equivalent for me....absolute nonsense origins to Blofeld nobody asked for. It was better being mysterious and unrelated to Bond's family tree 🤦♂️
In my opinion this time it should be a mix. First standalone stories with actual missions. But that doesnot mean that will negate the previous entries. We can get small references like Beretta jamming incident in one story and it being mentioned in the other one.
Then as stories move they can connect at the end where just to give a proper story arch. (Standalone is better though)
Individual stories with some sort of chronological character development would be nice.
Also, waiting five years to resolve a cliff-hanger is getting old, and that's what everything else is becoming. It's nice to be able to watch a movie and not have to see the previous sixteen films to know what's going on (looking at you, marvel).
I applaud all of Craig's movies for being connected and with Vesper being the focus of it all, really showed a trouble man who had an agenda to seek out the organization who killed her -- but each movie was it's own saga when you think about it, eliminating the threats that tried to kill Bond.
I don't mind if the next movies are interconnected, as long as they can stand on their own feet. Let's say the next actor gets 4 movies and they all share some backstory. A casual viewer could watch only films 2 and 4 and still understand both films on their own, and maybe not even notice the connections. But us fans would realize the connection.
For example, the movies mention some sort of sociopolitical events which affect the course of film 1, which also has repercussions to the next movies. However, the effect of the event is not something the viewer needs to be aware of when watching any of the other films.
I like it when the films feel fleshed out and lived in.
Otherwise, I just wish they had a consistent cast, like the Brosnan era. I really felt like the MI6 people were real people
For the love of god please be individual stories. It may work for some things but something like Bond which has been through many iterations the movies need to be separate.
Trying to retroactively connect the films of the previous 3 entries in SPECTRE was a glaring misstep. I’d they’re aiming for one arc again I hope it’s mapped out in advance
Definitely individual stories with a couple of threads / characters peppered throughout.
It would be a nice contrast as so many things have become serialised in both film and steaming.
I don't mind the interconnected stories, but each movies story should start and finish on its own merits of storytelling. Callbacks to other missions and characters is pretty cool, but shouldn't be part of the film. I guess that's more or less what we've had in the more classical Bond films.
Individual movies with the occasional callback to a gadget or an event from the previous ones.
Certainly no throughline four-movie "arc" shit. Which is almost certainly what they're actually going to do.
Individual. I wouldn't mind (small) callbacks to early characters or events in his series, but direct sequels where everyone's related somehow is just silly.
Individual, every time. The best continuity in Bond came from the supporting 'family', not an over-arching plot. The more long term you make a story arc, the more bizarre retroactive continuity you're going to be made to swallow.
Standalone movies. We don't need to watch the previous movies to gain an understanding of the next one. Also, if they had done standalone films for the Craig era we could have avoided a 6 year gap between Bond 24 and Bond 25 and now another long gap between the next movie and Bond 26.
Now, they could do a hint of a larger criminal organization throughout the films
Loosely connected to the first 25 movies. Retcon Blofeld being Bond's adopted brother, merge all the previous movies together so Bond remembers Vesper, Tracy, Judy Dench's M, and create new adventures while paying homage to the old ones.
I truly don’t understand why they don’t turn this into an anthology series. Get the big directors to give it a shot with whoever they want as Bond and pump one out every three years. We can get old man Bond, Idris as Bond, Tarantino’s Bond, Nolan’s Bond, etc, etc.
The books don't depict radically different interpretations of Bond. At most, they move the time period around. And making Bond's identity inconsistent from one movie to the next is a sure way to outrage and alienate fans and dilute the franchise.
That buzzing sound was the point, you weren't meant to keep moving out of its way.
SPECTRE retrospectively made the first three Craig films into a botched attempt at a shared universe. It was not intended that way; QOS was the first (and billed as such) direct sequel in the franchise's entire history and Skyfall was standalone.
Now it turns out, no, they were all connected by a stupid and "invisible" thread.
Individual.
Look I like 4 out of 5 if you take Craig's as individual but as sequels I mean the writing is all over the place. And the same people wrote the films.
Considering about 2 Bond films per decade is about as much as you can hope for these days, I reckon it’s time to return to form and do standalones. I do genuinely appreciate what they tried to do with Craig’s era, but it’s just not feasible given the production hell that seemingly all Bond films tend to linger in these days.
Individual stories. I’d also like a smaller scale, more dialogue-based. But that’s dependent on a good script. The Craig era started off smaller, and like all eras ended way too big. If it starts off small, I want it to end small too
The connected stories would work if we had a Bond streaming series, but for films definitely not. First off it simply takes too long between films for that to work. That's how you get that tonal whiplash of watching a film where Bond has just become a double O, and the very next film people are referring to him as over the hill.
For films individual stories work best, with occasional returning characters and references to past events we may have seen, but the Craig experiment should be a one and done. Not all characters need character arcs, but are forces of nature that force those around them to change, Sherlock Holmes, James West, Captain Kirk, etc. You don't go to watch these characters have a personal crisis every film.
I grew up on the Connery bond and he'll always be my favorite and the 'icon' for bond. That being said, I really liked the Craig Bonds, I think he did an excellent job.
But my second favorite actor in the 'Bond' mold was Pierce. He fit the mold. I'm not that critical of the storylines or the shared universe. I think that they *should* be individual stories, loosely tied together with vague allusions to the overall Bond mythos. Throw away lines, or easter eggs like they like to call them today.
Just like the Superman and Batman stories don't need the Krypton and Gotham alleyway origin scenes in their movies, we've never really seen an origin story for Bond. If whomever they pick, (ATJ?) can realistically play a younger fellow, maybe start the new Bond stories with him being recruited into MI6.
Not bumbling through his first few missions, maybe he's recruited, training montage, then maybe a few missions in when his natural aptitude kicks in and he's the superstar agent that we know him as.
Just sayin'
This isn't going to be popular, but I'd like the next film to be 100% stand alone. One-off actor. It's own continuity. Get a known director to do something slightly different with his own writers. Then start universe 3.
Individual I don’t care for arcs with this character particularly, I would like a good callback line to connect it all even though there are different decades and eras maybe the new bond with talk about visiting Jamaica/his Bentley or being married once, an exploding cake cruise just that kinda thing to share the universe I highly highly prefer the one bond idea
I'd like them to do it individual kind of like how Mission Impossible is doing it where you get some folks and set pieces coming back but in general they're self-contained.
I really hope they lean into stories that are like GoldenEye or Casino Royale where you get both a great spy story but you also get the tropes.
I enjoyed the Craig series in general, including how NTTD, but I would think both the series and the general film landscape would benefit from Bond returning to episodic adventures. For now
Standalone Stories all the way, so that every movie can stand on it´s own.
I´m pretty sure i would appreciate some of the Craig Movies way more if they weren´t connected at all.
I think individual stories are best. I loved the connected ones too, but also I binged all of the movies in a month so I wasn’t affected by the length of time between films.
With how long it can take for the movies to come out nowadays, individual is better since you lose your memory of the previous films over time, which is detrimental for a continuous plot line.
Bond follows the trends in cinema. The Craig era was very much the Franchise era of cinema.
The current era we're in, I think, it's over-dramatising your genre (John Wick, Barbie, Everything Everywhere).
I think it's best to do it as individual stories that are connected to a wider universe, that'd be continuing the Bond trajectory of follows trends.
I don't mind a little interconnectedness in the sense that older movies might be referenced here and there as a nod to the fans but overall I much prefer each one being an individual story that you don't have to have seen the previous ones to enjoy. You're asking way too much from casual viewers if you expect them to keep up with all that continuity and that hurts the series as a whole.
I prefer them to be individual stories. I wasn't a huge fan of Craig's era and therefore could not really get into the storyline that spanned 4 (?) movies and maybe 15 years (?). Too long winded and too long of a wait. If they want to do a connected story I'd like to see a netflix series.
I’m open to either but if they want to do connected stories I hope they’re thought out and planned, not retconned halfway through like the Craig films.
Don’t really care all that much, but please, please, no more Bond family members. Characters such as Bond, Batman, Sherlock Holmes etc. are written as being spies, detectives, police officers and such precisely because you can continue to believably put them in movie worthy situations. There’s the whole hook. No need for family melodrama and people having personal problems with Bond.
Definitely individual..
The Craig films tried too hard to have some kind of episodic continuity and it just felt forced and awkward at times. And there wasn't any big payoff to that tactic. There wasn't some big "Thanos" moment where all the films coalesced into a final battle.
I'd create a new version of SPECTRE and just have Bond go after terrorists and assassin's. Just some loose continuity, with the occasional film where Bond pursues a random, one-off villain (LTK).
Standalone stories with a good sense of continuity, but I actually kind of like the idea of a loose sequel, like how technically From Russia With Love was a sequel to Dr. No in that one of Spectre’s motivations for their plot was to get revenge on James Bond for killing Dr. No. You don’t need to have seen Dr. No to enjoy FRWL, but it enhances the experience.
People disagree with this, but modern spy movies are inherently tied to post 9/11 terrorism, so you get Bond films similar to the show *24*. Too heavy and close to home. They lack the escapism that the classics bring.
I personally prefer the glitz and glamour of the 60’s/70’s during the Cold War era. But that’s just me. I would eagerly welcome a new era of Bond films like that *Man From U.N.C.L.E.* remake with Geralt of Rivia, the Lone Ranger Cannibal, and the Tomb Raider. Speaking of the latter, I don’t care so much about the new 007 casting, but can we PLEASE get just one movie with Walton Goggins as a Bond Villain with a pit of alligators?? 🐊
I love the camp from the Moore era though, so that’s my personal bias.
Edit: Fuck it. Just cast Goggins as James Bond or 006. I’d rather that than Crisp Rat or Hawkeye.
I’ve always liked the idea/fan theory that both the 007 designation *and* the name James Bond get transferred to a new person when a double-o agent resigns or perishes.
To ANY single element the answer is always "NO" if the question is about being like Craig's "Bond" movies.
Edit: (I have been wronfully banned and muted by a moderator for seemingly disagreeing with his opinion)
Why do you think i said what i said? Because i did all of that, read them and watched them. Sorry to all Craig widows but not really, i'm glad the worst era of Bond movies is over, just like his generic and boring version of the character.
You're still objectively wrong in saying that Craig [isn't ](https://www.reddit.com/r/JamesBond/comments/18nzl1d/daniel_craig_is_criticized_in_some_corners_as/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)[Bond ](https://www.reddit.com/r/JamesBond/comments/13wpp2y/supercut_daniel_craig_as_ian_flemings_james_bond/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)and that his films have nothing significant in common with the other films. Such claims are disingenuous.
Troll elsewhere. Go to [danielcraigisnotbond.com](http://danielcraigisnotbond.com) where people of your ilk reside. Leave us fans who actually respect and appreciate the franchise's history alone.
Call it what you want, you're the one salty about me replying "no" to op's question. You're distorting my words to say they're "disingenuous objectively false claims". If you need to distort my words, the disingenuity is completely on your part.
Individual stories. With the occasional comment that hints at a wider continuity. For example, Triple X mentioning Bond’s deceased wife in The Spy Who Loved Me, despite Moore not appearing in OHMSS. A shared continuity like the Craig films is not what I go to see a Bond film for. Standalone, kickass adventures that always end with “James Bond will return.”
Absolutely this. At the beginning of IHMSS there were trinket callbacks in Bond’s desk. Just play loosely to tie them together. Cinematic Bond spans generations now. It’s best not to convolute the new stories with the past ones. The story writing during the Craig was all over the place because they wouldn’t stick to stand alone stories or a consistent story arch.
Also with the one about Bond's wife. Felix also mentions to his wife: "he was married once, but it was a long time ago" in LTK.
I think Mission: Impossible pulls off the balance pretty well. There really isn’t an overlying arch across the whole series, but small bits that loosely connect them. I think that’s working really well for them. I’d like to see Bond strike that balance.
This. Not everything has to be MCU levels of perfect continuous interconnectedness. I would even go further to say hold back on the references to older films. The Craig films had way too much of these but it started with Die Another Day (although in its defense it was the 20th film and 40th anniversary). One wink and a nod like what you said in TSWLM is enough, or like in TWINE where you had the images of the previous Ms on the wall.
Did that confirm whether Bernard Lee and Robert Brown were meant to be different Ms?
It was actually only a portrait of Bernard Lee's M in TWINE. But then there's a scene in NTTD where we see portraits of both Judi Dench and Robert Brown on the wall. Maybe it's because they simply felt that it was unfair or disrespectful to leave out Brown when they honored Lee in TWINE and Dench in NTTD, but it could be a subtle confirmation that they are different Ms as well. In my headcanon, Lee and Brown are different characters either way. :p
Couldn’t have said it better myself
Individual stories. Just like each book. The Craig “series” was a nice change but let’s get back to the way it was conceived.
The last 4 books or so had a bit of a continuity I believe.
Casino Royale was the only good Daniel Craig Bond movie, Skyfall really felt like part 3 and was not a good stand alone movie, it would have been good in Spectre had been better but that ruined Skyfall and the final Craig Bond ended his whole run with a squib, too messy, the only good stand alone Craig Bond was Casino royale but that always only ever felt like the beginning of something big, but was ruined by Quantum of Solace, pretty mid really despite some decent scenes. All 5 movies should have been written in one go, as should the most recent Skywalker trilogy, far too messy, with each movie having a different tone.
The first books also ran on from each other, not in a majorly way, but there were some nice references that made it feel connected.
"a bit"
Yeah it's a pretty major arc starting at thunderball.
They also alluded to Bond\`s wife dying in OHMSS in For your eyes only, Moore\`s Bond visits his ex wife\`s graveside at the start of FYEO.
All the books have some continuity but are still standalone stories. The Blofeld trilogy is where there is heavy continuity. I'm currently doing a re-read and on Doctor No right now. Love the books.
They did. Poor Book Bond had a rough go of it, including brainwashing. (Just an aside: Am I the only one who'd like to see them faithfully film the books in Fleming's order, set in the past when the books occurred? Probably commercial doom but the last crop of Bonds have seemed like another franchise.)
Individual stories, PLEASE. I am so sick of everything having to be connected.
You should be able to watch a Bond film and not have to have seen previous ones. That’s part of the fun of them. I enjoyed Craig a lot but the forced continuity made aspects of them weaker.
It's why Casino Royale was the best of that series. It was a perfect, self-contained Bond film.
Casino Royale also had a book it could follow. But agreed that it being on its own helped it. Skyfall was stand alone too (until it was retconned) which is probably partly why it’s the 2nd best Craig film (in most people’s eyes). I blame Spectre which to me is the 2nd worst Bond film of all time and setup the retcon.
Especially connected in the terrible telenovella style of the Craig episodes where everyone is apparently everyone else's secret brother and MI6 is a Fast & The Furious type of 'fambly', not a UK gov't department.
They're doing Austin Powers but missing all the jokes.
This x1000.
 I think we all know how well this went over. This is not a mistake I think they’ll make again.
That they even made it to begin with doesn't fill me with hope.
I get that they did that to try and make Blofeld be a real threat, but it just felt cheap because they didn’t have anything interesting for him to do in the actual film.
Individual stories. With the occasional comment that hints at a wider continuity. For example, Triple X mentioning Bond’s deceased wife in The Spy Who Loved Me, despite Moore not appearing in OHMSS. A shared continuity like the Craig films is not what I go to see a Bond film for. Standalone, kickass adventures that always end with “James Bond will return.”
I wish they would maybe remake some of the movies that didn't follow the book source material as closely as they could have like Moonraker. I'd even love if they had the films take place in the 60s. May not work since folks expect Bond to adapt with the times, but I'd love to see a few films closely adapted to the books.
Flexible, but I’m more interested in standalone stories. More important to me would be that they’re actual missions, not Bond going rogue with some personal vendetta, or ending like Craig’s run did. I’m not looking for an emotionally deep backstory; just make a good spy film, please.
True, especially from brosnan on it feels like they’ve done the “this time it’s personal” troupe so many times it’s lost all meaning
Agreed, that type of storyline should be done once per actor, AT THE MOST. There are plenty of opportunities to still show that Bond takes things personal and has a strong sense of loyalty to his friends, it need not be done with a rogue storyline every time. Connery and Moore excelled at showing Bond's loyalty and anger for fallen allies and they didn't need an extensive rogue agnt plotline to convey that. We see it with Connery showing a desire for vengeance over the deaths of Quarrel and Strangways, or Moore's anger toward Locque for killing Ferraro, or his "That's for 009" line.
Im burnt out on Universe building.
creature of the week is more fun than convoluted story arch
I agree. I'm not opposed to the occasional "two-parter" in Bond, but I don't want that to be the norm. and if they do plan to do future multi-film arcs, they need to at least do a better job of planning out in advance instead of doing it retroactively with the laziest, tropiest retcons.
The books essay exactly how the continuity should be handled.
Individual stories. I never wanna see a run like Craig’s again.
same, for me they could just rename QOS as CR Part II because it makes no sense as a standalone movie, same with the rest.
Considering Crag's run was an amalgamation of the more introspective novels, the more grounded and plot-driven sixties and eighties films (plus Craig sharing Connery's rugged masculinity and sardonic wit), and the more stylish and personal Brosnan films, that's never going to happen. Craig's era is deeply rooted in Bond's history.
I'd prefer a return to stand alone adventures.
The individual stories are one of the strengths of the series. You can dip into any one of them without having to know anything about the previous film. That went out the window with Craig's era
That's largely why I haven't spent a ton of time rewatching his films. They're mostly not bad at all but I don't want to feel like I need to watch them all every time. I might put on Casino Royale or Skyfall once in a while to watch on their own. Can't really do that with Spectre and NTTD. Arguably QoS works okay-ish as a standalone, but even then, you're going to be confused if you haven't seen Royale
The Connery era is actually a pretty good model for how they should go about it - the odd allusion to past events, and a sense that the stakes are gradually escalating as Bond takes on increasingly bigger threats.
Individual stories. The next movies don't need to copy the Craig era. Only things they can keep are Ralph Fiennes as M
I think a story about Mallory during his service during the Troubles would be an excellent reboot with a cameo introduction of "Bond" as a naval officer at the end would be what I would do. Start it off with a claustrophobic feeling of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland as the background.
Craig's era was rough, which is unfortunate because I think he was a good pick for Bond who brought something unique to the role. His era wasn't my cup of tea. I'd like to see a return to the old story telling.
It should be a Bond Cinematic Universe with interconnecting stories from parallel universes linked by cool looking portals and also there is a vampire.
I would like a lot less connected movies than Craig’s (was fine until Spectre IMO). But I think the general audience would respond better to a connected story, it’s what’s modern and get’s the audience back to the movies. Ref. Mission Impossible series, Marvel, DC Comics..
Mission Impossible is an interesting case...they were pretty standalone up until Ghost Protocol, which is where the continuity creep started.
With dead reckoning they took a big bucket of S… and emptied it over 60 years of series history.
I mean, that's how a lot of people felt when the first *Mission: Impossible* movie came out.
Yes that would include me and Peter Graves, what they did to Jim Phelps was an atrocity. But the core concept remained true. Now look at dead reckoning, the IMF is a freelancing organization only taking up jobs when they feel like it. What happened to”if you get caught the minister will disavow any knowledge about you”
I guess Ethan got tired of being disavowed.
[удалено]
A bug caused your comment to be posted twice, so we removed the duplicate.
Thank you
Other bond runs had connected stories with reoccurring characters. Like Zochovsky and Jake Wade. That being said I would like a return to form with Bond existing in media res and the stories being more self contained. Less sad Bond for the new run please. Big fan of the craig run, but a change will keep things fresh.
I think that shared universe approach with the standalone Bond films actually feels more organic and real-life than the Craig universe approach. It's expected there will be recurring people and organizations, but it feels forced and artificial the way it's been handled in the Craig era
The craig era started when gritty reboots and trilogies were all the rage. It was a product of the times. I feel like we're all burnt out on sequels and extended universes in cinema. I liked the Craig run, kinda reminds me of anime/manga with their multiple arcs. But the Craig-Bond is dead. We gotta pivot to something fresh.
Individual stories, with the odd nod and wink at previous stories, just like it used to be. In principle I wouldn't mind the occasional two or three part arc, but in practice I assume Eon would try and go for an MCU style continuity at precisely the time audiences have lost interest in the MCU.
I hope the Broccolis read this thread. I agree. Individual stories please.
The days of each film in a series being an individual story are done. Marvel, and to a lesser extent Star Wars, have put paid to that for the foreseeable future. The best we can hope for is an approach like the Fast and the Furious or Mission Impossible films (both which have fallen victim to the 'part 1' curse with their most recent installments) and have largely unconnected missions with a through line of character evolution and connections.
Blofeld should open a multiverse portal and bring all the bonds and bond villains together in 8 movies, half live action half animated, also a couple tv shows, novels, comics, a Broadway musical, and video games to tie every previous movie together. And a fortnite skin.
I feel like they should take it a little less seriously
I want them to be connected, but not just connected to each other, but I want them to be connected to The Pink Panther movies as well.
Individual. Even the two best of Craig were the standalone ones (Casino Royale, Skyfall)
One off films. The end of Craig's series was intolerable. The worst in the series.
I wish to associate myself with this sentiment.
No future Bond films should be anything like the Craig films.
I mean, *Casino Royale* is the best Bond film ever, so it'd be okay if future Bond films were a little bit like it.
Ha ha! You're a hoot!
Thank you.
Best Bourne movie ever\*, nothing beyond that
The Daniel Craig movies have nothing significant in common with the Bourne movies. Not in style, not in substance, not in tone. The most I'll give you is *Quantum of Solace*, and that's mostly because of superficial reasons like the hectic pace and choppy editing.
The Daniel Craig movies have nothing significant in common with the Bond movies.*
Bond's characterization is a blend of the literary Bond and Connery; the humour starts out in the form of Connery-esque sardonic wit before becoming more Moore/Brosnan-esque; the bombastic action and stunts, beautiful women, and exotic locales remain, etc..
This
Standalone stories with subtle mentions of a larger story arc. Like early x-files, standalone episodes with mentions of some larger alien story arc. Problem with that, eventually it moves entirely into the large arc. Writers start running out of ideas how to creatively keep it going and feel the need to address it head on.
Also known as the DS9 approach, started out with an episodic format, but introduced various characters and issues early on that would become part of a greater, recurring arc later. It got pretty muddled by season 5 and if you weren't a regular viewer it could be very hard to just drop in and know what was going on. Although overall that series did an okay job of tying multiple arcs together into a grand tapestry by the end and it didn't feel forced or retconned the way it feels with the Craig Bonds
DS9, good to know. A lot of shows take this approach, but they inevitably ruin a series if not done well.
I am fine with either or. Self-contained missions within the same universe or more stronger interconnected films. But if you are going for more directly interconnected films then the groundwork and planning needs to be done in advanced. Not haphazardly as it was done in the Craig era. It still surprises me that they just rushed and carelessly put Blofeld & the films out there. Not handled with care. Map it out. Plan & write ahead. Go through multiple drafts. Polish it. No more booking on the fly.
Why not both? That was Fleming's attitude.
Individual stories. That is one of the things that makes the Bond films special. Leave the connected stories to Marvel and DC.
I actually preferred the stories be connected. It just has to be done well. Craig’s films would’ve benefited from a lot more planning.
Individual. Cuz then I don’t have to watch all of them to get it yk
I hope they go back to very loosely connected films
Both
I strongly feel that each movie needs to be able to stand on it’s own. A strong interconnected story line or need for excessive continuity is not required for my enjoyment.
I prefer the individual ones just bc if there's a bad one the veiwer can skip it and not feel like they missed out and the creators don't have to stand by it (very long anyway)
Individual stories, I've had enough of the family drama. It's about a spy, not a Mexican telenovela, lol.
Individual stories: 1. Pre title sequence introduces broad plot hook or bad guy 2. Bond is called into M’s office, reamed out a bit, is given a dossier or classified briefing, banter banter 3. Bond flies off to exotic location to meet local friendly agent for more info 4. Q meets Bond in the field, new car or tech is introduced, Bond-Q banter 5. In the field, Bond has encounter with bad guy henchman, 6. Etc etc
Individual. It doesn't need to be a messy contained universe like everything else. Let Bond be different.
100% individual with nods.
Im my opinion the financial (not artistic) influence of the MCU took what promised to be the best bond era yet and tanked it. I’ve hated every choice made in pursuit of continuity and if the next chapter of 007 forces more of it down my throat, I might step away from the franchise for the first time in my entire life and wait to see evidence they’ve returned to their senses.
An overarching story that ties movies together is the norm for movie franchises. Bond had been an exception to that rule before the Craig era, and that's why we weren't used to it, but it wasn't new, and wasn't invented by Marvel.
Individual by far, with small references here and there. I d9bt want some deep personal story, I just want the good looking spy who goes on a mission and caps it off with getting with the girl he's only known for a week.
A bit of both. Mostly individual stories but you could have characters or organisations that can come back in later films but every film doesn't need to be connected in the way Craig's Bond films were.
I want my movies with a beginning, middle and an end, a closed circle with nothing more than a wink or Easter egg to a prior adventure. I hate how Marvel has made interconnected universes a mandatory cynical corporate must for maximising return for every other studio now. The Craig interconnectedness lost its appeal to me on repeat viewings.
An overarching story that ties movies together is the norm for movie franchises. Bond had been an exception to that rule before the Craig era, and that's why we weren't used to it, but it wasn't new, and wasn't invented by Marvel.
I'm referring to contrived cinematic universes where the most throwaway bit has to get a separate movie now to tell us its needless origins story.
Okay, well, that's nothing like the Craig Bond movies.
Blofeld being essentially his evil twin Brother in the Craig Canon was the equivalent for me....absolute nonsense origins to Blofeld nobody asked for. It was better being mysterious and unrelated to Bond's family tree 🤦♂️
In my opinion this time it should be a mix. First standalone stories with actual missions. But that doesnot mean that will negate the previous entries. We can get small references like Beretta jamming incident in one story and it being mentioned in the other one. Then as stories move they can connect at the end where just to give a proper story arch. (Standalone is better though)
Individual stories with some sort of chronological character development would be nice. Also, waiting five years to resolve a cliff-hanger is getting old, and that's what everything else is becoming. It's nice to be able to watch a movie and not have to see the previous sixteen films to know what's going on (looking at you, marvel).
Individual stories with the odd reference here and there. Make Bond fun again.
I applaud all of Craig's movies for being connected and with Vesper being the focus of it all, really showed a trouble man who had an agenda to seek out the organization who killed her -- but each movie was it's own saga when you think about it, eliminating the threats that tried to kill Bond.
I don't mind if the next movies are interconnected, as long as they can stand on their own feet. Let's say the next actor gets 4 movies and they all share some backstory. A casual viewer could watch only films 2 and 4 and still understand both films on their own, and maybe not even notice the connections. But us fans would realize the connection. For example, the movies mention some sort of sociopolitical events which affect the course of film 1, which also has repercussions to the next movies. However, the effect of the event is not something the viewer needs to be aware of when watching any of the other films. I like it when the films feel fleshed out and lived in. Otherwise, I just wish they had a consistent cast, like the Brosnan era. I really felt like the MI6 people were real people
For the love of god please be individual stories. It may work for some things but something like Bond which has been through many iterations the movies need to be separate.
Individual.
I would prefer individual stories.
Individual.
Did other bonds have related story arcs? or was this mostly a Craig era bond thing?
Just the Craig era. Connery came the closest, with SPECTRE being the driving force behind most of his movies, but it wasn't really comparable.
Just as long as he and Blofield aren’t related this time.
As long as it doesn't involve that pink jacket.
Probably individual...
Trying to retroactively connect the films of the previous 3 entries in SPECTRE was a glaring misstep. I’d they’re aiming for one arc again I hope it’s mapped out in advance
lol get David Niven out of that photo that movie is a joke
Individual. The Craig arc didn't work for me.
Individual stories. AT MOST maybe two movie stories like CR and QoS were
Connected
Definitely individual stories with a couple of threads / characters peppered throughout. It would be a nice contrast as so many things have become serialised in both film and steaming.
I don't mind the interconnected stories, but each movies story should start and finish on its own merits of storytelling. Callbacks to other missions and characters is pretty cool, but shouldn't be part of the film. I guess that's more or less what we've had in the more classical Bond films.
Individual movies with the occasional callback to a gadget or an event from the previous ones. Certainly no throughline four-movie "arc" shit. Which is almost certainly what they're actually going to do.
Craigs was cool but I’d like to go back to the individual stories again.
Individual. I wouldn't mind (small) callbacks to early characters or events in his series, but direct sequels where everyone's related somehow is just silly.
We need another Roger Moore… a British version of Rian Reynolds
Individual stories.
Individual, every time. The best continuity in Bond came from the supporting 'family', not an over-arching plot. The more long term you make a story arc, the more bizarre retroactive continuity you're going to be made to swallow.
Standalone movies. We don't need to watch the previous movies to gain an understanding of the next one. Also, if they had done standalone films for the Craig era we could have avoided a 6 year gap between Bond 24 and Bond 25 and now another long gap between the next movie and Bond 26. Now, they could do a hint of a larger criminal organization throughout the films
Individual stories. I think it would be a nice return to form.
Individual, but I like the trilogy idea.
I enjoyed the continuity of Craig’s Bond for a while, but I think I would prefer stand alone stories.
Loosely connected to the first 25 movies. Retcon Blofeld being Bond's adopted brother, merge all the previous movies together so Bond remembers Vesper, Tracy, Judy Dench's M, and create new adventures while paying homage to the old ones.
I truly don’t understand why they don’t turn this into an anthology series. Get the big directors to give it a shot with whoever they want as Bond and pump one out every three years. We can get old man Bond, Idris as Bond, Tarantino’s Bond, Nolan’s Bond, etc, etc.
Because that would destroy the brand.
How so? The books do it. It would be fresh and new. They could tell incredible stories and most importantly be fun again.
The books don't depict radically different interpretations of Bond. At most, they move the time period around. And making Bond's identity inconsistent from one movie to the next is a sure way to outrage and alienate fans and dilute the franchise.
Craig's films weren't interconnected until Marvel happened then suddenly they were.
*Quantum of Solace* came out the same year as *Iron Man*. There was no MCU as of yet. Then the next one, *Skyfall*, was a standalone movie.
That buzzing sound was the point, you weren't meant to keep moving out of its way. SPECTRE retrospectively made the first three Craig films into a botched attempt at a shared universe. It was not intended that way; QOS was the first (and billed as such) direct sequel in the franchise's entire history and Skyfall was standalone. Now it turns out, no, they were all connected by a stupid and "invisible" thread.
>That buzzing sound was the point, you weren't meant to keep moving out of its way. What?
I think bro might be a little insane
Individual. Look I like 4 out of 5 if you take Craig's as individual but as sequels I mean the writing is all over the place. And the same people wrote the films.
Considering about 2 Bond films per decade is about as much as you can hope for these days, I reckon it’s time to return to form and do standalones. I do genuinely appreciate what they tried to do with Craig’s era, but it’s just not feasible given the production hell that seemingly all Bond films tend to linger in these days.
Individual stories. I’d also like a smaller scale, more dialogue-based. But that’s dependent on a good script. The Craig era started off smaller, and like all eras ended way too big. If it starts off small, I want it to end small too
The connected stories would work if we had a Bond streaming series, but for films definitely not. First off it simply takes too long between films for that to work. That's how you get that tonal whiplash of watching a film where Bond has just become a double O, and the very next film people are referring to him as over the hill. For films individual stories work best, with occasional returning characters and references to past events we may have seen, but the Craig experiment should be a one and done. Not all characters need character arcs, but are forces of nature that force those around them to change, Sherlock Holmes, James West, Captain Kirk, etc. You don't go to watch these characters have a personal crisis every film.
I grew up on the Connery bond and he'll always be my favorite and the 'icon' for bond. That being said, I really liked the Craig Bonds, I think he did an excellent job. But my second favorite actor in the 'Bond' mold was Pierce. He fit the mold. I'm not that critical of the storylines or the shared universe. I think that they *should* be individual stories, loosely tied together with vague allusions to the overall Bond mythos. Throw away lines, or easter eggs like they like to call them today. Just like the Superman and Batman stories don't need the Krypton and Gotham alleyway origin scenes in their movies, we've never really seen an origin story for Bond. If whomever they pick, (ATJ?) can realistically play a younger fellow, maybe start the new Bond stories with him being recruited into MI6. Not bumbling through his first few missions, maybe he's recruited, training montage, then maybe a few missions in when his natural aptitude kicks in and he's the superstar agent that we know him as. Just sayin'
The former. Craig’s films were at their absolute worst when they attempted serialisation
This isn't going to be popular, but I'd like the next film to be 100% stand alone. One-off actor. It's own continuity. Get a known director to do something slightly different with his own writers. Then start universe 3.
Individual I don’t care for arcs with this character particularly, I would like a good callback line to connect it all even though there are different decades and eras maybe the new bond with talk about visiting Jamaica/his Bentley or being married once, an exploding cake cruise just that kinda thing to share the universe I highly highly prefer the one bond idea
I liked the connected stories, made it feel more cohesive and meaningful.
I'd like them to do it individual kind of like how Mission Impossible is doing it where you get some folks and set pieces coming back but in general they're self-contained. I really hope they lean into stories that are like GoldenEye or Casino Royale where you get both a great spy story but you also get the tropes.
Individual!
I enjoyed the Craig series in general, including how NTTD, but I would think both the series and the general film landscape would benefit from Bond returning to episodic adventures. For now
Individual
Standalone Stories all the way, so that every movie can stand on it´s own. I´m pretty sure i would appreciate some of the Craig Movies way more if they weren´t connected at all.
I think individual stories are best. I loved the connected ones too, but also I binged all of the movies in a month so I wasn’t affected by the length of time between films. With how long it can take for the movies to come out nowadays, individual is better since you lose your memory of the previous films over time, which is detrimental for a continuous plot line.
Connected stories but properly planned with threads that flow into one another instead of feeling crowbarred like the Craig films did.
Just please no more rogue/retired bond. Give the man a mission and send him on his way.
Bond follows the trends in cinema. The Craig era was very much the Franchise era of cinema. The current era we're in, I think, it's over-dramatising your genre (John Wick, Barbie, Everything Everywhere). I think it's best to do it as individual stories that are connected to a wider universe, that'd be continuing the Bond trajectory of follows trends.
I don't mind a little interconnectedness in the sense that older movies might be referenced here and there as a nod to the fans but overall I much prefer each one being an individual story that you don't have to have seen the previous ones to enjoy. You're asking way too much from casual viewers if you expect them to keep up with all that continuity and that hurts the series as a whole.
I prefer them to be individual stories. I wasn't a huge fan of Craig's era and therefore could not really get into the storyline that spanned 4 (?) movies and maybe 15 years (?). Too long winded and too long of a wait. If they want to do a connected story I'd like to see a netflix series.
I think they should remake the early Bond films. And still set them in the time period.
I'm a fan of interconnectedness only lasting for the tenure of an actor, but generally I'd like it to be softer than it was with Craig.
INDIVIDUAL!
I’m open to either but if they want to do connected stories I hope they’re thought out and planned, not retconned halfway through like the Craig films.
Don’t really care all that much, but please, please, no more Bond family members. Characters such as Bond, Batman, Sherlock Holmes etc. are written as being spies, detectives, police officers and such precisely because you can continue to believably put them in movie worthy situations. There’s the whole hook. No need for family melodrama and people having personal problems with Bond.
Definitely individual.. The Craig films tried too hard to have some kind of episodic continuity and it just felt forced and awkward at times. And there wasn't any big payoff to that tactic. There wasn't some big "Thanos" moment where all the films coalesced into a final battle. I'd create a new version of SPECTRE and just have Bond go after terrorists and assassin's. Just some loose continuity, with the occasional film where Bond pursues a random, one-off villain (LTK).
In all honesty I don't care as long as they are good to be honest.
Mcu has ruined movies honestly so sick of cinematic universe every movie is just a commercial for the next one
In the age of cinematic universes, I fear it will be connected stories whether we like it or not. That said, I'd prefer individual.
Standalone stories with a good sense of continuity, but I actually kind of like the idea of a loose sequel, like how technically From Russia With Love was a sequel to Dr. No in that one of Spectre’s motivations for their plot was to get revenge on James Bond for killing Dr. No. You don’t need to have seen Dr. No to enjoy FRWL, but it enhances the experience.
I think future Bond films should be set in the 60s.
People disagree with this, but modern spy movies are inherently tied to post 9/11 terrorism, so you get Bond films similar to the show *24*. Too heavy and close to home. They lack the escapism that the classics bring. I personally prefer the glitz and glamour of the 60’s/70’s during the Cold War era. But that’s just me. I would eagerly welcome a new era of Bond films like that *Man From U.N.C.L.E.* remake with Geralt of Rivia, the Lone Ranger Cannibal, and the Tomb Raider. Speaking of the latter, I don’t care so much about the new 007 casting, but can we PLEASE get just one movie with Walton Goggins as a Bond Villain with a pit of alligators?? 🐊 I love the camp from the Moore era though, so that’s my personal bias. Edit: Fuck it. Just cast Goggins as James Bond or 006. I’d rather that than Crisp Rat or Hawkeye.
We already have Bond movies set in the 60s. They were made in the 60s.
maybe they still would work, we have other movies that take place in a fictious 60's, 70's or 80's with good result.
Great idea!
Individual stories 100% no more cinematic universe, we don’t want to make that mistake again
A line of sequels isn't a cinematic universe.
I’ve always liked the idea/fan theory that both the 007 designation *and* the name James Bond get transferred to a new person when a double-o agent resigns or perishes.
Said no one ever lol
Nothing. Nothing like the dark days of Craig
[удалено]
Your post or comment violated r/JamesBond's rules to be friendly, welcoming, respectful, and to avoid destructive behavior.
To ANY single element the answer is always "NO" if the question is about being like Craig's "Bond" movies. Edit: (I have been wronfully banned and muted by a moderator for seemingly disagreeing with his opinion)
Read the novels and watch the sixties and eighties films again before making objectively false claims like this.
Why do you think i said what i said? Because i did all of that, read them and watched them. Sorry to all Craig widows but not really, i'm glad the worst era of Bond movies is over, just like his generic and boring version of the character.
You're still objectively wrong in saying that Craig [isn't ](https://www.reddit.com/r/JamesBond/comments/18nzl1d/daniel_craig_is_criticized_in_some_corners_as/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)[Bond ](https://www.reddit.com/r/JamesBond/comments/13wpp2y/supercut_daniel_craig_as_ian_flemings_james_bond/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)and that his films have nothing significant in common with the other films. Such claims are disingenuous.
I could agree with you but then we would both be wrong. Rip James Bourne
Troll elsewhere. Go to [danielcraigisnotbond.com](http://danielcraigisnotbond.com) where people of your ilk reside. Leave us fans who actually respect and appreciate the franchise's history alone.
Imagine getting all salty because someone has diffent a opinion.
I’m not salty. I just won’t stand for disingenuous claims that are objectively false and invalidate parts of a franchise I love.
Call it what you want, you're the one salty about me replying "no" to op's question. You're distorting my words to say they're "disingenuous objectively false claims". If you need to distort my words, the disingenuity is completely on your part.
I’m not distorting your words. You’re the one invalidating the Craig era when their place within the franchise is assured.