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 think you're putting too much emphasis on the SF bike being conveniently available, @slide_99. Bond will use it to drive atop unusually small walls and then jump off a bridge onto a moving train. The bike is not so much convenient as it is practically needed to give us some cool action moments a few seconds later. Also, using a crane on a moving train to fight his enemy is pretty innovative. I'd say that's something "extra to make them interesting", as you said.
The "classic" era had some surprising moments, as you described, but "alternative forms of transportation" have also slipped into goofy nonsense that some fans buy and others resent. The moon buggy, the conveniently positioned jetpack, the Q-equipped gondola, and so on, are not without their detractors. And speaking of a conveniently available bike, TND showed us the one BMW bike in Beijing with the keys still in it... Also, I'm glad Glen decided to cut the magic carpet in TLD, or we'd have been stuck with that embarrassing little alternative mode of transportation as well.
Now I get what you're saying about the Bonds differentiating themselves from other action series. Unfortunately, other action series have learned from Bond, taken from Bond, and done their own thing with it. Look at F&F; since its 6th film, anything goes in the "alternative mode of transportation" department. Even a car equipped to fly into space and orbit Earth is perfectly fine now. In a way, the Bonds can differentiate themselves from such extravaganza only by omitting the extra bits and going back to the sober roots of muscled Friedkin / Peckinpah car action. QOS opens with a car chase that was, in my opinion, shot and edited a tad frenetically, but it was a car chase at its purest: fast, done for real, no gadgets, no sudden wings, lasers or stingers, and no laughs. It's hard and sober, rough and serious. Later Craig films, like SP, did add a few extra comedic beats, such as the slow-driving opera singer wannabe being gently pushed on by Bond's Aston, but you're right in saying that in the end, it's just a car chase, and nothing more.
That "nothing more" is, however, what the Craig era has more or less been all about. A reset. A dialling down of the extravaganza taken too far in previous films (which, can I remind the room, include an invisible car. An invisible car, folks.) I don't think that was the wrong impulse. The Craigs have managed to fill plenty of seats because people were pleasantly surprised by this serious Bond. The over-the-top crazy stuff from the past had already put too many off.
But, I will concede this much: it's all about balance. You lose a bit of Bond if you go too sober, and you lose a bit of Bond if you go too crazy. Did the Craigs get the balance right? I myself will say yes, but others will say no. And that's what keeps things interesting.
For me it’s classic Bond. It’s heightened reality. You kinda need that spectacle and absurdity otherwise you just get standard action.
Yep, and Bond would've shoved the Beetle cars off the other side of the train and therefore avoid almost wiping out Eve in the car :))
I don’t think it detracts from the stunt, or lessens the impact visually though.
The cgi tsunami surfing in DAD is imo far worse.
No question about that. I prefer a real stunt with a few minor imperfections over something that never happened and looks like a cut scene from an early 2000's videogame. CGI has come a long way since, but DAD is, sadly, stuck with it forever. I don't get it, either, since the film opens with a pretty cool bit of real surfing.
The free fall scene after Bond and Camille bail out of the DC3 is bordering on DAD cgi territory for me.
And that thing with the fire and the glass breaking near the end of the film. What on Earth was that?
I remember thinking how shockingly bad the surfing scene was when I first saw DAD. How that scene survived is a head scratcher.
As to the devices that assist a stunt--which I fully grasp their need--they do take a little of the magic from a stunt. That I notice doesn't necessarily detract, but I tend never to forget I am watching a film. I am always curious how things are done.
I found that quite cool, personally. What's the issue with that sequence for you, Dimi?
Bond spinning on the ropes and killing Mitchell would be a pretty good signature Bond move for me, too.
https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a666145/james-bond-author-anthony-horowitz-dislikes-skyfall-hes-weak-thats-not-bond/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/jamesbond/9826812/Sebastian-Faulks-ridicules-distasteful-Bond-film-Skyfall.html
Don’t expect EON to have them as screenwriters in the future! Which is kind of a shame in Horowitz's case. I wonder if SF got a novelization, if Horowitz would have read it, and changed his mind. As for Faulks, talk about the pot calling the kettle black! At least SF tried something different but still felt like both literary and cinematic Bond. He DID NOT write like Fleming, and added nothing new! He’s so smug, and it makes me wish that he hadn’t written Bond. At least Jeffery Deaver seems happy about his time on Bond. Even it was considered a mixed bag. He could have pulled off a decent SF novelization. Carte Blanche felt more like Cinematic Bond than Literary Bond for me, honestly.
Devil May Care is a pretty embarrassing Bond novel (the ‘writing as Ian Fleming’ thing didn’t help, but it’s really not a good book anyway). I’m not a fan of Horrowitz's books personally. The criticisms are pretty dull as well (and a bit weird with the ‘he’s weak’ thing coming from Horowitz considering some of the stuff in he puts Bond through. Hell, it’s disingenuous coming from a supposed fan of Fleming’s novels). Personally I’d take SF over any of their works any day.
Same here. I will say it’s a shame that Anthony Horowitz badmouthed (but in a fair way) EON in recent years. He could have been a good ally for story ideas. But alas, he said what he said. There are other people who can write Bond stories. As for James Bond, I’m not worried at all. Bond has joined the ranks of Sherlock Holmes, Batman, Superman and even something far out as Pokemon, as there will always be fans. So while his Books, Movies and Videogames will always take breaks, Bond will always return. When is the only question.
Bond authors badmouthing the films isn't new I suppose. Even Charlie Higson criticised NTTD (and much like Faulks and Horowitz, I personally have plenty of criticisms about his Bond novella).
But yeah, this comment from Horowitz genuinely confuses me:
It's just such a stupid thing for an official Bond author to say. Bond doubts himself throughout the Fleming novels (and even in Horowitz's own books). Either he simply didn't enjoy the film (which is fair enough) and is making up excuses for it, or he genuinely doesn't understand James Bond. I'm inclined to say it's the first option, but I personally don't think he's quite as good with the character/format as some believe (he really has no talent at writing villains and has a bad habit of being anti-climactic).
I mean, yeah, correct I guess. :-??
It's more like if you'd made that criticism but previously praised the more fantastical sci-fi elements in Bond (stuff like lasers/going into space as per MR or the elaborate plastic surgery/voice modulation in DAF). That's not to say the criticism is invalid, but you need to expand on it with that in mind. Otherwise it just comes off as weird and inconsistent, as I think it does here.
It looks weird to me. And unreal. Other than that and the air jump, I have no complaints about QOS.
+1 I loved that moment too plus even though Elvis was a weak character, you can't say he didn't have a spectacular exit! And agree also, the scaffolding fight was original and superbly choreographed!
If you can forgive Tarzan's yell, you can forgive everything. But people choose what they want to forgive.
This was you RE Charlie Higson:
You could just as easily say that the criticism of Elvis being a non-character is just people "making up excuses" for why they don't QoS because they "just didn't enjoy it". Or you could say criticism of John Cleese as Q is people "making up excuses" for why they don't like DAD because they "just didn't enjoy it". Ultimately everyone's feelings about what media they enjoy is informed by their subjective experience. No one judges things based on a purely objective set of criteria, not even film critics do that. Take a film like Killers of the Flower Moon for example, a lot of people really enjoyed that film, and a lot of people disliked it or thought it was overlong. How do we know which are legitimate and which are "just making excuses"? I dunno, it just feels weird to start investigating the way someone feels as if their bona fides are worth any less than your own.
I have to say there's definitely been a strange phenomenem in the Bond fandom I've witnessed throughout the years. With just about every Moore fan I've come across, while they may bask in the glory of Roger in his pomp, they will freely admit that he did get a bit too old, and some of his kissing scenes were a bit cringey, and the stunt doubles were blatantly obvious etc. Connery fans will take pride in their man as the original, the height of masculinity in the 60's when Bond fever was at its heightest pitch, and at the same time acknowledge that he clearly was checked out from YOLT onwards and let himself go towards the end. Brosnan fans, while quick to point out how their man reinvigorated Bond for a new, post-soviet world with a smoothness that had audiences purring around the globe, will also concede that some of his one liners got overly Corny, that his films went a bit OTT, and his acting didn't always help matters. The problem is when it comes to Craig fans, as hard as I try, the best I can seem to get them to acknowledge that, despite the fact that he was clearly very successful during his tenure, it wasn't all smooth sailing and a few clangers were dropped along the way is "well, its a choice. You might not like it but that's because you probably have different tastes and the film doesn't speak to you personally." This just feels very peculiar to me because I can completely understand enjoying a film as a guilty pleasure, or genuinely believing that a film is an overlooked gem that doesn't have the reputation it truly deserves, but to my mind you still have to at least acknowledge that it has the reputation it has for a reason, and not put it down to just "personal tastes". Its still incumbent on you to recognise the criticism and engage with it fairly, and simply brushing it off as "personal taste" or the film not speaking to you is weirdly dimissive, if not a little bit unhinged. All film is subjective, but at the same time theres a reason consensus exists on a certain film, and it usually has some basis in some underlying property of the film itself, and not merely personal taste. Again, there are exceptions, just because there are consensus on something doesn't necessarily mean its right, and films reputations certainly shift overtime (look at OHMSS), but it still doesn't change the fact that generally speaking consensus exists for a reason. The consensus is that Bond and Blofeld being brothers was a stupid idea, something that belongs in a spoof like Austin powers and not Bond, that Madeline Swan is far and away the least interesting Bond girl that Bond has had a somewhat serious relationship with on screen, that Blofeld and Safin were underutilized and both the actors weren't allowed to reach their potential in the roles. I'd also say that broadly speaking the reputation of both films is that they mostly forgettable, not the worst bond films but a far cry from the heights of Skyfall and Casino Royale. These aren't my opinions (I'm much harsher), they are what is generally believed about the films, and don't get me wrong, theres nothing wrong with holding dissenting opinions, I have plenty of them when it comes to bond, but at the very least cam we try to be self-aware about it. Most fans of Diamonds are Forever are able to acknowledge the film has plenty of flaws, but they find something to appreciate in all the quirky, gaudiness, and that's perfectly valid and fine. But I've never seen a DAF fan who unironically believes the film is objectively an 8 or 9 out of 10 bond film, and that people who point out faults or just "finding excuses" because they don't appreciate the choices made, and I would probably laugh at them if that were the case. No one says that critics of the tsunami surfing sequence in DAD are just "finding excuses" because the film doesn't personally speak to them. We acknowledge, even those of us who personally "vibe" with these films, that thats not whats happening. The filmmakers just made a bad error in judgement. They dropped a clanger, just like a footballer might hoof the ball over an open goal - that's it. Connery had them, Moore had them, Brosnan had them, but again, with Craig there seems this weird need to intellectualise a mistake rather than just acknowledge that, yeah, some things didn't really work here, but hey, I still find a lot to enjoy in it. Instead, it's "oh, it's a choice, if you didn't like it, maybe the film just isn't for you", and the problem with this is it seems to suggest that theres no other way the film could have played out or any decisions that could have been avoided without compromising some sense of artistic integrity, that any criticism towards the films are either "just an excuse" because the viewer doesn't happen to like it, and therefore nothing but personal preference, or that it simply went over their heads and they didn't understand it, both of which rule out the possibility of a fault existing in the film to begin with.
It’s really not that deep mate. All I was saying was that I thought it was weird that Horrowitz (not Higson) said that Bond being ‘weak and not sure of himself’ is an issue. This is a writer who’s praised Fleming’s books (which as I said has Bond doubting himself throughout them. Again, even in his own Bond novels, WAMTK especially, I’d say his Bond doubted himself at times too and was put in situations where he was 'weak'). It's not that he can't have criticisms I personally disagree with, it's just that by his own standards I don't think they make much sense, and he doesn't say much else about these criticisms beyond that. By most accounts one would think Bond's struggles in SF would be something he'd appreciate, but it's something he's fundamentally pointed as being 'not Bond'. That's my problem with what he's saying and where I would critique... well, his critique.
Consensus mean nothing. Even Lazenby has fans.
Okay then, Horowitz. But I don't think him praising Fleming in the past has much to do with it because you've used similar arguments with me before:
Seems like a pretty standard reply to criticism where these films are concerned.