So... this guy named Fleming who'd seen and heard of and been involved in terrible acts of espionage during World War II decided to try and rid himself of his demons by creating a fictional character that would at once exhibit the anguish & pain of his experiences whilst also taking them to a fantasy level where such dark and sinister moments could be the stuff of semi-heroic storytelling.
Then these guys Saltzman & Broccoli seize the day by securing rights to this fellow's novels to make movies...
Then the movies are produced faithful to the novels, then not, then with comedy injected, then action, then spectacle, then reduction to basics, then blends, then dead-seriousness...
Are Bond movies action films? No. With the possibly arguable exception of YOLT, Bond movies have never been just about wowing the audience with one amazing set piece after another.
Are Bonds drama? Hell no, "Little Women" they ain't.
Comedy? Some moments in the Moore era could definitely qualify, but they're the sprinkles on the sundae, not the ice cream.
Satire maybe? MR came closest, but it's still no Flint or Helm.
Spy flick then? While FRWL is the truest 'spy flick' the franchise ever delivered, Bond films rarely concern themselves with actual 'spy stuff' (See: The Constant Gardener).
IMO, 'pulp fiction' or 'adult comic book' might describe the Bond films best. And either is not an actual Film Genre to my knowledge.
Therefore my thread title.
Thoughts?
Comments
In a video store (a dying breed) they would most probably be in the Action section. Or the Suspense section, if there is one.
I don't think they are their own category though, from a labelling standpoint. They should be included in the same video section as the MI series & the Bourne series (both Action Thrillers) or even the Indy series (which veers more to Action Adventure), although all 4 have differences (which two franchises are exactly the same though)?
They should be included in the same section of the video store. The similarities are closer than the distinctions. And yes, MI copied Bond, but I didn't realize that was what we were discussing.
For awhile there in the Sixties, when Bond was indeed inspiring the likes of UNCLE, Flint, and the like...and existing characters like Nick Carter were changing their formats to jump on the Bondwagon...your suggestion might have been a little more on the mark. Nowadays, if only for the sake of marketing, Bond films are considered ACTION/ADVENTURE offerings, even though their subject is obviously the most long lived and successful continuing character ever to appear in that genre.
:)>-
Great, objective, reasonable, non-sycophantic post.
I'm a fan of Superman, and I like Superman III despite its totally obvious shortcomings. No boot-licking, just fun there.
I'm a fan of Batman, and I can have fun with Batman & Robin, as some can have fun with Moonraker. I enjoy Indiana Jones IV in the same way.
YOUR problem is that you don't want to discuss pros & cons, you want to shoot clay pigeons & see who it pisses off. It's all about the conflict, and the winning of an argument to you.
The real winners here are the folks who enjoy Bond movies.
'Nuff said.
:D
I agree wholeheartedly that Bond is a mix of several genres. After 50 years, it does draw on many elements from various genres (it's difficult for it not to in that timeframe I guess)...
I still think Action Adventure or Action Thriller is a broad enough & more reflective overall description to capture all 50 movies than pulp fiction (reminds me too much of the Tarrantino movie) or adult comic book (reminds me too much of Sin City or 300) though. It's difficult to find a term to describe them.
:))
No movie or TV series ever has had so much variance...
=D>
I agree with you but I suggest that the two go hand in hand (continued relevancy & inability to pin down the genre).
Like all great, long lived franchises in any medium, Bond has to continually reinvent & embrace sub-genres to stay relevant. It is that continuous reinvention if you will, within the confines of the franchise's accepted boundaries, that keeps Bond relevant, but it is also what makes it difficult to pin down a specific genre, because it has oscillated between many over the years to retain relevancy.
Within this long 50 year history, some eras (with certain genre combinations) have been more successful (and have dated better IMO) than others.
We've been on the serious side of things for a while (my preferred genre), but there is a slight move back to comedy (as evidenced in SF). B24 may go more the action adventure route again (with Bautista in the fold) combined with comedy.
I must confess that I never watched much of the original series back in the ‘60s, certainly not during its glory days with Martin Landau and Barbara Bain; the only episodes I did watch at the time were after Leonary Nimoy joined the cast. I’m not sure why, perhaps I was dedicated to watching some other series that was scheduled opposite it in the earlier seasons. I’ve also never watched any of the movies starring Tom Cruise and I have no intention of ever doing so: I have a problem with Tom Cruise that makes @Getafix’s issues with Brosnan as Bond seem trivial by comparison. No more need be said on this particular topic, just take it from me: I have a blind spot concerning Mission Impossible. I may try to rectify this lack of awareness concerning the original TV show, but the movies just aren’t on my radar. Apologies all around…
However, I realize I'm being unfair.
I have not seen Edge of Tomorrow (I sort of thought....oh well here's another Tom Cruise movie) but I've heard it's good. Also I recently caught Knight and Day and that was pretty good mindless fun. Jack Reacher was pretty good too.
Back on topic, James Cameron's True Lies is in the Bond Genre for me. A perfect TSWLM level film, and not a simple spoof. He did his Bondian homework there...
It is way overdue for a blu ray release.
:))
Moore's Bond had been the top dog for action/suspense/adventure throughout most of the 70's & into the early 80's (& his playful manner was the staple), so when these two started hitting their stride, they cribbed from the master. Sir Rog.
A passing of the baton if you will.
There was a lot of Bond genre in that movie. A true tribute. I remember defending GE to a lot of my friends the following year. They felt it couldn't hold a candle to True Lies & I was the lone defender of JB's comeback.
Hate to admit it but I had a similar feeling last time I watched it.
Their ideas ?
I seem to recall reading that somewhere. I know True Lies had a much larger budget than GE, so I'm not sure how realistically GE could have done some of what they did in that movie. It may have been an action scene or two that GE may have contemplated, like the Harrier scene .....I can't remember. Cameron did a magnificent job on the action scenes in True Lies. There's no disputing that. I also always remember fondly the bit when one of Art Malik's thugs is panicking because the battery on his videocam was running out while Malik was making his grand speech. Priceless. Malik was outstanding here (as he was in TLD). Movie needs a blu ray release now! It's only been 20 freaking years
Regarding the premise of this thread: I think Bonds are in a small unique subcategory, but I don't think they are alone. As I said previously I wouldn't go so far as to argue that they deserve their own genre. The way I see it......they are the undisputed top dog (because they invented it, have done it the best, are the most respected & because they've been at it the longest) in the ''globe trotting Action Adventure Thriller'' genre that includes numerous imitators like MI, Indy & to a lesser extent, Bourne (only due to the CIA/thriller/globe trotting element but without glamour/romance). Even Nolan's Batman films have cribbed from Bond (the globe trotting to Hong Kong in TDK, definitely the opening plane sequence in TDKR, along with Lucius Fox's Q rip off).
Fundamentally, there has to be a travelogue & glamour aspect to it combined with the other elements and fantastic stuntwork (hence Die Hard, Lethal Weapon etc. don't qualify in the same genre).
Accept no substitutes.
There's some big-boy actions sequences in this film that are clearly better than the majority of Bond films. Some uneven, strange storytelling otherwise, but man the action is cool here.