It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I get what you are getting at. I think all of the films really kind of blend a combo of realism with fantasy. That is the magic of Bond. Fantasy elements encroaching on reality, as if DN and Blofeld exist in the world we all recognize.
Some films, as you've shown in your opening post breakdown, are less inclined towards the fantasy stuff.
For me the series works either way.
We all love Bond being Bond. I like the mix. Bond having to deal with both Stromberg and Atlantis and the threat of nuclear armageddon, so a mad man can preside over his new civilization under the ocean - AND the more grounded tales of battling enemy agents on the Orient Express in FRWL, fighting smuggling rings and KGB in FYEO and busting up drugs and power conspriaces involving mercenaries, drug dealers and rogue KGB elements in TLD.
I like that Bond has to deal with all sorts of situations, including some real wild ones.
Trick is to keep Bond himself grounded, and always maintain real danger and suspense elements.
Any wink-wink and you've got spoof, as opposed to camp with danger. The Rog films were guilty of some wink-wink but even those films maintained the danger and suspense for the most part. They just freelanced into the wink-wink a bit before getting back on course.
Dalton brought back serious Bond, Brosnan light comedy 2, and Craig another return to serious Bond. If history is a precedent, Bond 7 will no doubt be an actor most at home playing light comedy.
Despite my criticisms of the series, I can't argue its financial success. For me the criticisms have always boiled down to artistic ambivalence. The series has always been best when at its core a film has had a solid story and a serious approach.
Much of what Fleming wrote was implausible, but everything was treated seriously. No pigeon double-takes or motorized gondolas for him.
As Craig's Bond slips further into middle age, it will be fine for him to develop an ironic, world weary, self-effacing approach to his character, but not to the point that he conveys to the audience that between them and himself none of what's going on should be taken seriously.
I give you Bond trying to pass off as a Japanese fisherman in YOLT, which I find to be far more silly than anything from the Moore era.
I give you Bond wearing a seagull cap in GF, Goldfinger revealing his plan to the gangsters, only to kill them minutes later, the ridiculous Disco Volante finale in TB, the jetpack from the same film, Bond's encounter with a tarantula in DN and so on.
As there seems to be quite a few Moore-bashers around recently, I took it upon myself to have a go at Connery for a change.
I'm not trying to cause a Moore vs Connery debate, but I'm just trying to point out that we can have an almost snobby attitude when it comes to the Moore films (and the Brosnan films, too). I think we sometimes paint a picture that films such as DN and FRWL are hardcore, faultless thrillers that they are not. They are good entertainment, like any Bond film is, and should be. I know we have our tastes, what we think makes a good Bond film, what we can and cannot tolerate in a Bond film, but I must say that the constant vilifying of the Moore era becomes tiring to say the least
I LOVE the Connery era for kick starting the series off in glorious style
I LOVE OHMSS, it is my personal favourite
I LOVE the Moore era, it is superlative entertainment
I LOVE the Dalton era for its darker moments
I LOVE the Brosnan era for its renewal of the series, making it suitable for the modern day
I LOVE the Craig era for its different take on the Bond films
But...Broz is the present whipping boy, I guess.
Yes people sometimes having trouble separating the "writing" from the "actor."
So....every of the 23 (excluding CR'67 & NSNA) has got this...healthy mix of both? Come on....;). If I see Kananga exploding.....and if I actually can see that it is so weirdly fake? I think the "healthy mix" is gone.
Just some examples/elements that for me made the fun go away a bit:
--> The Chinese henchman being ejected from the ejector seat (GF)
--> "Osatooo....Aaaaaarghh"...Helga being eaten to the bone in a "matter of minutes" (YOLT)
--> James Bond being turned into a Japanese (YOLT)
--> Blofeld dressed as a bad sister of Margaret Thatcher (DAF)
--> As I mentioned, the "inflated opinion" of Kananga (LALD)
--> The AMC-corcscrew-stunt (TMWTGG)
--> "Ooops, not a banana Q" and perhaps Bond's banana inside that....schoolgirl (FYEO)
--> Bond dressed up as a clown (OP)
--> Surfing like no one can....really, NO ONE! (DAD)
And, those are just individual elements. For instance, on the whole, I found FYEO a wunderful Bond film. Because, for some reason the "No Q, not a banana"-joke didn't bother me too much, because it was counteracted by good acting, well written characters, a strong plot and some touch torture sequences (dragging behind a boat in the sea). So again, the overall "feel" of FYEO was for me perfect!
YOLT on the other hand....in that movie the ridiculousness becomes too much for me. I mean, as a kid I didn't bother so much about that hollow volcano. But sjee, to see a scarred gay-ish Blofeld taxying inside that volcano. Well, then sooner or later you can understand that someone else wants to spoof it. So the "feel" of YOLT for me was....too ridiculous. Hence the camp "Hamilton-esque popcorn".
If you try hard, if you really want to place an individual Bond movie in one of the above two camps, you CAN do it. It's just a matter of how ridiculous or how realistic the Bond movie is on a certain scale (1 being very realistic, 10 being very ridiculous. 1 to 5 in the camp "realistic", 6 to 10 in the camp "ridiculous").
And yet FYEO features a Blofeld parody itself, "Stinging in the rain", a parrot as a plot driver, a terrible Maggie Thatcher impersonator and a disco soundtrack. As others have suggested, there are too many shades of grey to club the films into two distinct categories. On the one hand you have something pretty straight-laced in FRWL and on the other, MR, which is a barmy travelogue with a plot from a comic book. Everything else falls between these two extremes, with varying degrees of humour and drama. I imagine there would be an interesting venn diagram that could be compiled, if you could decide on the right criteria. If I had to make a call, there are far more 'popcorn' flicks than 'realistic' pictures. The only films I would regard as being pretty straight are FRWL and at a push OHMSS, but this still has it's moments of bombast. I guess what I'm saying is, even the so called 'realistic' Bond films just aren't close enough to genuine espionage to say they're anything other than fantastic nonsense.
Exactly, a parody to get rid of him...at the very start of the movie. Still, FYEO remains a good Bond film for me.
I think I'm a bit too critical towards each of every Bond film. It's all about how you perceive the Bond films. I tend to disagree with your remarks, because I think there are gradations in each and every Bond film. Things you like to say/mention as "shades of grey".
It's like using the Brandt line in the modern world (i.e. A North-South divide of the world, the north being wealthy, the South being poor)- it simply doesn't work nowadays.
I would also say that FYEO is a pretty much balanced film.
I'm not saying FYEO is bad, just noting that it has some fluff. I like FRWL as much as I like MR, so I'm not one to fall in either 'camp'.
Not quite sure what you're saying regards, 'shades of grey'? - I'm suggesting the same thing. There are varying shades and each film has its own balance of these shades.
We might as well be arguing which brand of Vodka is best for your health. :))
You're not making any sense and you're putting words into my mouth. No, not every Bond film has the "healthy mix" and I obviously prefer some Bond films. But cinematic Bond is at its best when it does have the healthy mix of Fleming and grandeur.
Please name your list of Bond films that have that "healthy mix of Fleming and grandeur"? :-)
DN, GF, TB, OHMSS, TLD, LTK, GE, TND, TWINE, CR, QOS, SF.
Pretty much what I'd have said. Although I'd be tempted to add OP. It has a Fleming-esque quality to it IMO. If you remove the silly gags I'd say it's more Fleming than FYEO, which usually gets the nod for being Roger's most Fleming-esque.
FYEO already is a top shelf product! OP could have been if they'd skipped some of the goofy bits.
The films are what drew me in as a fan and knowing that they're a constant, has kept me as a fan.
But... when I finally got round to reading the books, I lived what I was reading. Yes - the plots were often sensationalist, but the descriptive and narrative prowess that Fleming displayed on the page was just unrivalled. Reading CR, I can remember being completely consumed in what was happening more than any other book I've ever read.
So I've got to go for Flemingesque realism - but I can find good in almost any Bond medium!
Thanks @chrisisall for the stab. I agree with ya on most counts.