Quantum Of Solace Is The Biggest Disaster In James Bond History And Not For The Reason You Think

James Bond is dead. Daniel Craig's version, that is. Buried beneath a hail of ballistics at the end of 2021's "No Time To Die," Craig's 007 was the first in the franchise's more than 60-year run to ever die on-screen (and not the fakeout "You Only Live Twice" kind). If you'd merely heard about, rather than witnessed, such an unprecedented and momentous moment in Bond history, you might think Craig's tenure in the tux was the finest the saga had ever seen, fully justifying longtime Bond producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson in their decision to have England's greatest spy KIA. But you'd be wrong.

The prevailing view of the Craig era goes like this: 2006's "Casino Royale" is one of, if not the best Bond movie ever made, but its follow-up, 2008's "Quantum of Solace" was a historic blunder that nearly derailed the whole enterprise just as it was getting started. Fortunately, the saga got back on track with 2012's "Skyfall," which reinvigorated the franchise and is widely regarded as one of the best Bond films ever made. Since "Skyfall" things have been a bit of a mixed bag, with Craig going out on what should have been a grand farewell but ended up being a divisive disappointment with "No Time To Die." And there you have it; the popular version of events.

Except, that's entirely the wrong way to view Daniel Craig's Bond movies and I'm here to tell you why.

By the time "Quantum of Solace" finished its theatrical run, it had made $591 million worldwide, almost matching "Casino Royale," which hit $594 million two years earlier. However, the sequel was made for a whopping $240 million, whereas its predecessor had a comparatively meager $100 million budget. And if there's one thing Hollywood doesn't like, it's sequels making less money than the original movies. That, and writers exercising their right to strike.

It didn't help that the critical response ranged from lukewarm to outright hostile. "Casino Royale" writers Neal Purvis and Robert Wade — somehow the same writing duo behind the widely panned "Die Another Day" — had penned both "Royale" and "Quantum," but had apparently lurched into more dour territory with the latter, and critics were mostly unimpressed. Deborah Ross of The Spectator dubbed the film a "crushing disappointment," while Joe Morgenstern of the Wall Street Journal called it "a model of mediocrity." Indeed, the movie's RT score sits at an emphatically mediocre 64%. For its part, The Sunday Times surmised what would become the dominant view of "Quantum of Solace," stating that, "Director Marc Forster has brought the brand's successful relaunch crashing back to earth."

Contrary to what the critics said, however, the real reason "Quantum of Solace" was nothing short of a disaster is this: it directly led to "Skyfall," the actual moment Daniel Craig's James Bond films started going downhill. "Skyfall?" I hear you ask, "The almost universally beloved Bond movie heralded for saving the franchise?" Yes, that one.

When Daniel Craig's third Bond movie arrived, there had clearly been behind-the-scenes changes between "Quantum of Solace" and "Skyfall," and not for the better. I'll skip the standard criticisms of the film — the needlessly complex and impractical "Dark Knight"-inspired plot, the "James Bond does 'Home Alone'" ending — and focus on the biggest issue: an overarching sense of self-awareness that had been present in previous movies but which suddenly became dominant.

Writers Neal Purvis and Robert Wade were back, alongside "The Aviator" writer and friend of director Sam Mendes, John Logan. Their script seemed acutely aware of a pervasive criticism of its hero as an outdated figure in contemporary society and played this up throughout "Skyfall" as a central thematic element. But that wasn't the only real-world concern the writers addressed.

Following the criticism of "Quantum" as too serious, "Skyfall" resurrected famous 007 tropes from franchise history in an apparent attempt to lighten things up. Whereas in "Casino Royale" Bond was given nothing more than his firearm and a portable defibrillator, suddenly he was sat beside an inexplicably pretentious Q  (Ben Whishaw) — or as Sam Mendes put it in the director's commentary a "mildly patronizing" Q — in London's National Gallery, being handed a palm print-activated Walther PPK/S 9mm and a radio transmitter. Mendes may have taken a minimalist approach to the gadgets in "Skyfall," but this was not the minimalism that worked so well in Craig's first movie. In fact, all the while Whishaw's Q played down MI6's interest in gadgets with lines about how the agency doesn't "go in for" exploding pens anymore, you got the feeling the "Skyfall" writers very much "go in for this stuff," as evidenced by the return of an ejector seat-equipped Aston Martin DB5 later in the movie.

Despite its flaws, the something-for-everyone approach worked and with a total worldwide gross of $1.1 billion, "Skyfall" became the biggest Bond movie ever. In fact, until it was unseated by "Spider-Man: No Way Home," "Skyfall" was Sony's highest-grossing release ever. The soft reboot had worked.

Of course, the Bond producers wouldn't use that phrase to describe the film. Barbara Broccoli, in response to a question from Den of Geek about "Skyfall" being more "fun," said:

"It has to do with the story. 'Casino Royale,' [...] is about Bond falling in love with someone who turns out to be a double agent. He's tortured in one of the worst ways imaginable, so it's really hard to make that fun. 'Quantum' was about Bond seeking revenge for Vesper's death, so with this film, 'Skyfall,' we created a new story. I'm glad you think it's more fun. It's more appropriate for the story, and I think it's a really good third film for Daniel."

But "Skyfall" wasn't for everyone. Writer Neal Purvis told The Guardian how he'd received congratulatory emails from an actor friend for "Casino Royale" and "Quantum of Solace." After "Skyfall," however, no such email arrived. As Purvis recalled, "We saw him at a party and I said: 'You never told us what you thought of 'Skyfall.' He said: 'Wasn't a Bond movie.'" Just what makes a Bond movie is up for debate, but the point is that "Skyfall" didn't, in fact, please everyone with its muddled tone and fan service. More importantly, the film set a precedent that ultimately guided Craig's Bond to the shambles that was "No Time To Die" and its shocking ending.

Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson have borne the brunt of this "Skyfall" critique, but there's more to the story. While the pair were busy trying to make Bond more "fun," Daniel Craig was making his way across a New York party to chat with "American Beauty" director Sam Mendes about directing what would become "Skyfall." As the Bond star told Vanity Fair in 2012, "Obviously I'd had way too many drinks, because I just offered a job which is not my job to do, or my position to do."

Luckily for him, Broccoli and Wilson were delighted at the notion and immediately flew to New York to meet Mendes. But what's interesting here is that Craig took it upon himself to directly influence the trajectory of his Bond movies going forward. The man who'd been asking producers to kill 007 as soon as "Casino Royale" became a hit had seemingly struggled with the character ever since he first donned the tux, and was making moves of his own behind the scenes.

Craig once told Rolling Stone, "I've been trying to get out of this from the very moment I got into it, but they won't let me go." That discomfort with playing 007 has come to epitomize Craig's run, with the actor being openly disdainful of his experiences as Bond. Much of that seems to have stemmed from the amount of pressure he felt from the outset. In a conversation between Craig and fellow "Royale" star Mads Mikkelsen, the actor recalled how he just wasn't able to join the rest of the cast for poker games between scenes, saying, "What you were asking me to do was to go off set and relax and I was so not able to do that."

"Quantum of Solace" remains a hugely underrated James Bond movie deserving of much more respect. But it also remains the reason we got "Skyfall" and that's a legacy it can't escape. Still, rather than being viewed as the first misstep for Craig's James Bond, it should be seen as the last good Bond movie in the actor's run.

Ultimately, "Skyfall" lost its way because it was too aware of how it would be perceived. That's a death knell for any creative product. Anyone who's scrolled Instagram in recent months will likely have encountered clips from the David Bowie interview where he admonishes artists to "never work for other people," and explains how he thinks it's "terribly dangerous for an artist to fulfill other people's expectations," adding, "I think they generally produce their worst work when they do that."

Which is exactly what "Skyfall" represents. Sure, Bond movies don't have to be works of art, and are, after all, part of one of the biggest blockbuster franchises in history. But Daniel Craig's 007 kicked things off by proving that Bond could elevate himself to the level of art, which is what made his tenure as Bond so exciting a prospect. After "Quantum" was grilled by certain critics for being too somber, however, Daniel Craig, Barbara Broccoli, and Michael G. Wilson reinvented their Bond to appeal to audience expectations rather than subvert them, ultimately leading down a path of diminishing returns which ended in the entirely unjustified death of 007. As Broccoli told Variety:

"Our fans are the ones who dictate how they want to consume their entertainment. I don't think we can rule anything out, because it's the audience that will make those decisions. Not us."

Well, who could have put it any better than that?