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
But they were literally getting back to the roots of the character with CR. It’s the first Fleming novel/first time we see him attain 00 status…
But like I said, no Bond film has ever been a strict, purist version of Fleming. The whole ‘Stephanie Broadchest’ dynamic is them adapting Bond from the novel in a creative way. In the book he’s highly strung and outright sexist towards the idea of a woman assisting him. In the film he’s more relaxed and has his flirtatious/verbal sparring with Vesper (although he obviously isn’t taking her authority that seriously going by the Broadchest thing) but like the novel he falls for her over time. It’s just as well too. In the film we at least see Bond as a bit of a womanising rouge, and Craig’s charm/charisma sells it, similar to how Connery’s presence made the character likeable. In the book he’s just being a dick.
It's just a meta joke.
It's the inference that by making fun of the silly names we're getting back to what Bond is really about, when the silly names are as close to fleming as you can get. You couldn't drive a wedge between them if you wanted to. There's no reality where the character of Bond is true and consistent with fleming and the silly names aren't. That's what the fleming stories are, inspite of whatever mystique they might have gained since he wrote them.
Well like I said, I think it’s more about Vesper and Bond’s sparring during that scene/what it’s trying to tell the audience about them at this point. And it does adapt that from the book, albeit differently/creatively. It’s a tongue in cheek joke anyway, self aware and even a bit silly.
I mean, the villain of NTTD was literally named ‘Lucifer Safin’ (real name too). They kept the villain’s name of Le Chiffre (the name of the villain who deals with finances being ‘the number’). Worth saying Pussy Galore is a particularly outlandish double entendre from a particularly outlandish Bond novel (and is somewhat justified by her being an ex circus performer/cat burglar). I think even in Fleming ‘Broadchest’ would be an unusual name. Names like Solitare or Tiffany Case are more subtle even if relevant references by comparison.
There's only a few examples being cited: the name Pussy Galore and guano drowning of Dr. No. What is the bedding women thing that you refer too? What pulpy, nonsense is there beyond that? The guano is also very much a "hoisted by his own petard" joke that works in the context of Jaws dying in a shark tank. It doesn't work in the context of Jaws flapping like a bird into a circus tower to survive a jump from a plane.
Never mind the constant double entendres during the Moore era that Bond in the novels would struggle to deliver. He struggles with the "your mouth is big enough for me," in From Russia with Love, so much so you'd think he's delivering a factual statement about his preference for large mouths...
I will 100% agree on the facet however, that Craig's melancholy was extended far beyond it's remits. We got 2 YOLT inspired films. But this is strengthened by the fact that we do have one novel that is entirely sad and melancholic and Byronic.
But claiming Moore's comedic Superman has a strong literary claim is not true because the closest novel to this is Goldfinger, which is still very much less Supermanny than the Connery mold (another level below Moore)
The Moore films particularly somewhat broke that fourth wall with stuff like Tarzan yells, slide whistles, self aware musical cues etc. Not saying it’s bad in itself (subjective as it is). The films are simply more self aware in their comedy in this way. The closest we get I suppose is the YOLT obituary with the reference to fictional books about Bond (although it’s strange and out of place/not funny as such). Regardless though that harder edge and darkness was there in Fleming. And the humour isn’t the same as it was in the Moore films.
Moore dressing as a clown is depicted seriously.
Moore films dealt things unseriously that fleming took seriously, Craig films dealt things unseriously that fleming took seriously. It's much of a muchness.
Yes, I agree that the films -even the silliest ones- adapt the spirit of the books pretty well. Because you have John Barry playing the most serious and ominous music over scenes of airships blowing up Silicon Valley, volcano rocket bases and golden gun-ed assassins in much the same way that Fleming's deadly serious prose tells us about fights with giant squid, spies suffering amnesia and getting brainwashed to be Russian killers, and, even in the very first book, a handsome spy getting sent to a casino to effectively gamble a baddie to death. It's all fantasy stuff, and I think the films adapt that spirit, if less so the literal word, to a different, bigger medium very well in my opinion.
Yeah, Moore dressing as a clown is a great dramatic scene with an undercurrent of irony/black comedy (it’s very Hitchcockian in a sense). Can’t imagine it in Fleming but the spirit is there in a sense.
Once again, I think you’re being a bit vague and I don’t think I completely understand you in that last bit. From what I do kinda get I don’t think it’ll fully be the case/I’m sure there’ll be contradictory examples but I’m fine being proven wrong.
I can see that. I think by the Moore films the jokes sometimes become less integrated into the world of the film though and merely for the audience (the Tarzan yells, slide whistles and musical cues being non diagetic for instance, and even the double taking pigeons are a bit of a break from the reality of the film in a way). It’s something that lingered into the Dalton films and I think ran its course by LTK (to the point some people here don’t always get that Dario seeing Pam as an angel is a joke, for instance. Same for the slow motion run the DEA agents do). I don’t think that type of approach to comedy is integral to Bond in itself, but it’s a spin on the self awareness of the films and has evolved since.
But otherwise yes, there’s always an element of tongue in cheekness/winking at the audience. It’s why Bond can drive an Aston Martin fitted to the tee with gadgets or why we get elaborate but cool sequences. Again it’s always there in the films, no matter how serious they are.
Do you think the slow-mo DEAs is tongue-in-cheek then? I must admit I've not really got that sense from it.
The angel gag is a bit subtle as well. Like it should have harp music over it or something. But yeah, it goes over people’s heads that Dario and Pam had previously interacted (it did with me).
I guess the slow motion bit is meant to be a gag that kinda got lost. I know a member of these forums who worked as an assistant editor on LTK has talked about how it was meant to play to the Chariots of Fire theme originally (apologies to this person btw as I don’t know their username off the top of my head and their posts about this were interesting). That and they charge towards two rather unthreatening looking goons who just give up… and Bond is looking confused in the background, haha.
Yeah I'm sure it took me several viewings to realise 'oh yeah, he thinks he shot her'. It's a lot to ask of the audience to remember that.
Funnily enough, if that was meant as a gag then it actually makes me more disposed towards it! A bit like how I can never quite hate the double-taking pigeon or tarzan cry because they were at least trying to be funny even if they come off as bit naff, and I find that much more honourable and much prefer it to trying to be serious and coming off as pretentious, as that slow-mo does if you take it seriously!
And I'll never hate the beach boys because I think it completely works and is no sillier than playing a big triumphant version of the oddly jazzy Bond theme and anyone who disagrees can fight me :D
Actually what I do love about the slow-mo DEA is you have this big, 'epic' shot of them running like they're in Vietnam, and then when they actually get to the men they're running at, the speed suddenly turns back to normal and they all have to sort of make little baby tip-toe steps to get around the nose of the plane to get to the baddies and they all look rather silly :D
That's our good friend, @ColonelSun who was an assistant editor on LTK. And yes, he said the slo-mo in the PTS was going to be a gag of Chariots of Fire
You could kind of subtitle the PTS of LTK as 'Johnson vs Johnson' :D
Craig's Bond bangs about in the constant state of emotional state of YOLT: so while they've overdone it a lot, it's really them banging about the same book. Moore's films have no novel that you can point to for their comedic sense (if anything, any humour in the novels points more firmly in Connery direction).
Furthermore, that last line doesn't make sense. I'll presume that you meant to swap the words around for Craig. But I don't think Craig or Moore took Fleming elements and changed the seriousness of them. They just highlighted different elements (and accentuated them)
Ah nice! His posts are very interesting, always cool to read.
Not really. Maybe after the PTS in SF (although I'd argue he's more disillusioned - a sort of mix between his state of mind in TLD short story and an extreme version of his physical state at the beginning of TB). That film mirrors YOLT no doubt, but more in stuff like him having a metaphorical 'death', him overcoming his physical/mental obstacles (which aren't quite the same), and the villain slowly slipping into madness.
Craig's Bond is actually pretty carefree and confident in CR. Even after Vesper's death in QOS he doesn't default to constant depression, nor does he mess up in his job. Obviously it's affecting him somewhat (ie. him drinking heavily on the plane and stealing Vesper's photo) but ultimately he's able to function and doesn't explicitly seek out revenge. He's just getting the job done even when MI6 seemingly turns against him. It's actually more similar to his state of mind in the novels... well, after Vesper's death more than Tracy's. In SP he seems to even have found a new lease on life after SF, even when he's going against MI6 to track down Spectre (but honestly, Craig's Bond always did that sort of stuff anyway). Heck, even in NTTD he seems more at peace in retirement, even with his conflicts over Madeline.
An absolute gentleman, @007HallY . Very funny. Very talented, he’s a writer-director now. This weekend I had the pleasure of reading something he’s working on. He’s a great storyteller, period.
And I agree with you about Craig being more care-free than what he’s given credit for. I find his era was a nice balance between the serious and dry humour. I didn’t find Craig-Bond to be too much of any one thing. In the end, he’s a fantastic actor and he knew when to be playful, when to be ice cold, when to have a poker face (which often times led to some humour, like, “What makes you think this is my first time “, or after guesstimating how many euros he’s picked up in the Casino, he tells Severine he may stretch buying her a drink, into two drinks… obviously there is a particular poster who obsesses about the Craig era, and has either misread these films on purpose, or perhaps he did really miss the points of humour and nuance and how varied CR through “Bond 25” ( 😂), really was.
My feeling on the dry wit and tension of QOS (one I have called Craig's best performance!) and the overly-grandiose CR have been expressed elsewhere on the forum. CR is obviously exempt from this: it is an adaptation of another novel.
Anyway, since we are reducing Bond's two longest eras to tropes, Moore=TSWLM/Moonraker and Craig=Skyfall is the equivalence I'm using here. Particularly when addressing complaints about Craig being too "serious" and taking Fleming "too seriously". Nobody is similarly trying to say FYEO is slapstick humour and inappropriate for Bond (beyond the PTS and the ending)
But I believe that Craig's back half has strong YOLT inspiration (it isn't a bad novel at all, but in quick succession it is overdone).
NTTD certainly has strong elements of YOLT to it: the film is bizarre and atmospheric, and a lot of the movie feels unsettling: you're unsure where this bit is going. Bond isn't sad, but he cuts quite a lonesome figure. From what I remember, there are also many isolated locations. There's also Safin's plan to kill people for the sake of killing people. And most obviously there's the downbeat ending.
Spectre is harder to support my opinion, but there is a serious "personal" dimension with Bond here that only shows up in YOLT. Bond has a vendetta against SMERSH, but he doesn't chase it as "personally" as he does Blofeld in YOLT. Similar in Spectre, where the Oberhauser stuff and the making it personal ("author of all your pain") doesn't come close to the nature Bond goes after Quantum in QOS. The insane way Waltz plays Blofeld is also very close off the rails way Blofeld is in YOLT (rather than the cool planner seen in TB and OHMSS)
I mean, I agree that YOLT is a major inspiration for the later Craig films. Just not that Bond is in the same space emotionally as he is in that book. Bond basically suffers from PTSD in that novel and loses his way. Again, the closest I can think of is in SF, and it’s for very different reasons.
👍
That would be great. They could even incorperate some of the elements of the train sequence in TMWTGG. I think both of those novels have some material left to source and would bring Bond back to the U.S. potentially for the first time since Casino Royale. It could be a way to improve the films performance in North America.
I do love a good train sequence in Bond and some of my favourites have featured them prominently (FRWL, OP, SF). My only concern is that Dead Reckoning featured a major train set piece for its third act and I'm not sure it would be seen as fresh at the moment. But always up for more train antics, it would be good to see the original idea for Skyfall (India) be returned to.
As for returning to America, I can also see some logic in this too. Aside from 'Miami' in CR I dont think CraigBond ever went there. Did Brosnan ever go to America either? I don't think so. But regardless, a decent set piece and a visit to an American location wouldn't go amiss, either back to NY or maybe Chicago.
Yes, MI DR did do the train finale well. But it was way too long. It tried at times to outmatch the first movie’s train finale. The train sequence using this as a basis should be closely edited for editing purposes. As for Bond coming back to America, it’s time. EON should also cut back on the satire of police officers. I know we’re an easy target for ripping on right now in the world. It’s time for a more serious approach to Bond in America. Thankfully, Guy Hamilton can’t direct and Tom Mankiewicz can’t write anymore. Rest In Peace, but let’s not use them as examples for the future. AVTAK is another good example of how America shouldn’t be portrayed in Bond.
That was 40-50 years ago.