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'm really getting sick and tired of Bond going rogue every single bloody film now, or having a personal backstory for Bond. It's no longer original to the series anymore. It's been done to death.
And also sick of M, Q and Moneypenny being right at the heart of the action. Why can't we go back to them just appearing once or twice in the movie, Bond being briefed, Bond flirting with Moneypenny as he leaves M's office, and then Bond being given some latest gadget by Q, instead of having to do something silly like steal the Aston Martin as he did in SP. It came off as very unrealistic.
What I would give for a straight forward Bond film again. Bond on a mission to get a bad guy, but someone he doesn't know, someone who isn't connected to MI6, and someone who doesn't have anything to do with Bond's past.
It's about time they went back to the formula again, and back to the books again. Keep P&W's original concepts to an absolute bare minimum.
I think we will see the next era return to some form of roots with Bond on missions unconnected from movie to movie, but in doing that I want EON to treat the formula with the same reservation they have with Craig. They've used what works for the story, but they don't throw the kitchen sink at it. I don't want every movie to have the same beats that you can predict, the same opening, the same briefing. That got old by 1969, and they went on to do it for three decades after that point.
They need to find a compromise, doing films that feel traditional without being detrimentally tied to ticking every box. There's just so much in the formula that bogs down interesting storytelling. Bond's gotta see M, then Moneypenny, then Q, then he's gotta have this chase and this fight and this dialogue with the villain and Bond girl, and on and on and on. There's a way to tell those stories with those elements, but in a far more interesting and flipped way, which the Craig era has done in parts. Have a Bond girl, but write her to be platonic with Bond and put a spin on it. Do a classic car chase, but truly make it a visceral experience like never before. Explore different psychoses in villains, do newer stunts never seen before, visit places Bond has never been instead of a rotating door of the usual and bring back proper location shooting. Maybe even set a film in one major location like the old days before globe-trotting completely took over.
The films simply need to feel as unique and individual as the Craig films feel to me, and like Connery's did. There was a point in the series where it all felt the same, and I don't want the series to fall into that again, because I quite frankly won't be bothered with it. They just need to get the absolute best Bond they can and write him with depth. If they have that, they can build any structure and tone they feel they need, but if they don't have that, well...
I agree, and they did begin to experiment a bit with not having Desmond show up in LALD, having Bond order other drinks, smoke cigars. Not exactly the level your talking about, but it was refreshing seeing M show up at Bond's house, I thought.
Ironically, I think Spectre indulges in a lot of tired old Bond formula that I thought the Craig era had successfully shaken... I don't dislike Spectre because I can't handle how cutting edge it is. Lol.
Once again, I wish this was in the actual movies. I mean the specific dialogue you've written. The closest Craig's Bond comes to this is in QoS when he meets M after escaping the kill-or-capture... But outside that, he seems to have severe communication issues (why not defend himself when accused of killing a member of Special Branch?). He's also very disrespectful towards M in Spectre, for absolutely no reason.
I was actually quite excited, watching Spectre for the first time, when Bond said "Very good sir" to M after their meeting and "I completely understand" after Q explains that M ordered the smart blood injection. I thought to myself: finally, Craig's Bond has grown up and learned to play with others. And then I was dismayed to find him later, uh, stealing a car from Q Branch? He has never been more of a brat.
Pool sheet. A great actor can convey anything, regardless of upbringing. Crappy actors might need a life kick in the arse to be able to display angst I guess....
Precisely.
The problem is, the series now is feeling all the same. LTK experimented with the formula and shook things up back in 1989, while still remaining close to Fleming. Bond went rogue, and Bond was on a personal mission for once in the series, with a harder edged tone. Both M and Q appear out of their normal environments (on foreign soil) and become more involved with the story itself. Unfortunately this was as good as it would ever get, and Dalton's film has still not been bettered with any film that has followed.
Little did we know at the time that LTK would be the template formula the same way DAF was back in 1971. LTK would set the template for the next 30 years, and over two different Bond actors.
At least the template defined in 1971 would only set the formula for Moore's Bond until 1985. The Bond series now needs a serious overhaul again, and I think it needs to go back to basics (and the novels) even if it is just for one or two movies.
SP attempted to bring back some of the most flawed parts of the old series formula, and in all the wrong ways, while still buried under a corrupted version of the LTK formula, making the Bond personal connection now nothing more than a stupid concept - Blofeld being family connected.
The Craig era, for whatever people want to say about it, allowed for a consistency that Dalton's movies didn't have, depicting a world that was largely played straight with a stable tone. Bond's world is given more consequence, and tension isn't flattened by a cheap one-liner or physical gag that still remained in Glen's approach to Dalton's movies (clearly Moore's style was hard to abandon fully). When Craig does spout a line, he does so with an acidic cynicism and dryness, serving less as a moment of humor and more a representation that he has had his fill.
I love the Dalton films, you know that, but I wouldn't outright crown them as the originator of what we have now. LTK was an interesting prototype for what Bond could be, but the inability for those involved to truly embrace the concept of a "darker" Bond and world hampers the film immensely. In essence, it was a trial run that the Craig era has truly taken on as an overarching tone, even during the move to Mendes' approach. Its success has been in EON's ability to allow Dan to play the Bond he wants, a luxury Dalton was without under Cubby and Glen.
That won't stop them.
I guess we see LTK different then, because I see that film as harder edged than both SP and SF, and at least on par with QoS. It's also the only real time we have seen Fleming Bond on screen in his truest form.
True, there was a Moore hangover with Dalton's first film, but by the second film the script was really tailored to Dalton's strengths, and any humour in LTK was stripped right back, and left to the brief scenes with Q.
And to me LTK was the Craig template. It was the first time Cubby and co. really had the balls to push the boundaries, including landing the film with a 15 certificate, but they didn't dare persevere with this route during the Brosnan era, opting back to the more traditional formula.
It was only Bourne and 9/11 that caused Babs and co. to go back to what they started in LTK.
It's got the Moore era hang-ups like TLD did, just in different areas and ways. They're still there, and still deflate a lot of tension. It's part of why I hate to see Dalton quipping in it. It doesn't feel like something that this Bond should ever do in the situation he's in, supposedly on a serious mission and fully focused on nothing but vengeance.
There's also a helluva lot of cheese that additionally sinks its tone, making it as confused as the likes of GF at times. The ultimate sign of this is the ending, the weakest part of the film by far that does nothing with the dramatic stakes and consequences Bond should have been facing at the end of the mission. Instead they went meek, safe and silly.
I stand by my point that QoS is a far better model of this story, because above all it has consistency, something neither Dalton film achieved. I just don't see much of a maverick bravery in what EON did with LTK overall. They didn't really support Tim the way they should've and if they weren't going to go all in with that story, they shouldn't have done it at all. Maybe it was too much to ask for Bond to let go of the established formula so soon after Moore was done, but I'll be damned if those leftovers don't sink an otherwise compelling film.
It's high ranking to me, but it would be seriously high if the tone wasn't such an issue at critical times where the movie makes you wonder if it knows what story it's telling.
All of Q's scenes are totally unnecessary and rob the film of all it's seriousness. Also Dalton despite more experienced in the role than in TLD has his accent wandering amongst other issues.
LTK is a seriously flawed film, Dalton may be giving us the most Fleming portrayal of the series but the above mentioned dilutes all that down and as our friend says above the jarring tone makes you feel like the story doesn't feel confident enough to get over what it's trying to say.
QOS I think does this much more successfully.
Yes, I've noticed that.
Regarding comparisons to QoS, I think that's unfair. EON learnt a lot from the Bourne Supremacy, which served as a template for Bond to find his 'solace'. They essentially took that story (which had the hero's girl die under water at the start of the film rather than at the end of the prior entry) and grafted onto the classic Bond universe, with its classy locales, expensive visuals & sinister & nefarious organizations. LTK didn't have such a successful contemporary template to draw from in 1989, and so I think they did a decent enough job for the time.
I seem to like the Q aspect of LTK more than most, but I understand why some find his presence distracts from what is going on, or adds to much levity to it. I honestly think the script needed to make it far more apparent that Q was acting on M's behalf, and openly have Bond confront the notion that he was really endangering his position in the service by acting out. But of course, we never get any of it.
I don't really get the Bourne comparison on the whole. Supremacy is an entire film about outfoxing crooked government, and the big idea is Bourne working to forgive himself. QoS on the other hand has any notions of solace as second or third to the story. Bond is not overtly going after resolution, and only characters like Mathis push him towards facing Vesper's actions to see the truth behind them. When Bond opens himself up and wipes away his somewhat rational disgust at being betrayed, he's finally able to know all and forgive Vesper, but he never sets out to do so. Bond and Bourne work for completely disparate ends, and for even different reasons. It's like arguing Casablanca rips off Gone with the Wind because both feature tortured lovers. We have to look at how those broad genre conventions or ideas are used, as they'll more often than not be quite different.
LTK's 80s influences are easier to argue than any Bond-Bourne connections in QoS, if one wanted to. If Bond was removed from the story you would be able to make the plot a Miami Vice motion picture, with Sanchez as the big bad drug baron to be brought asunder. The sweaty, grittily shot, sun-drenched drug plots of those kinds of 80s films, down to the fight the law enforcement have with the kingpin and all his colorful side-allies is plainly there to see. But because Bond is there, the movie is able to shadow that influence. I'm fine with Bond films stepping outside the box of what a Bond movie is (this is a QoS lover talking here), but with LTK it's never a mystery what playbook it's working under.
Again, there's nothing wrong with that, but let's not argue that LTK didn't play by a specific template or didn't do the late 80s equivalent of MR's aping of Star Wars, for example. Bond had moved toward the culture of the time and what audiences of the day were starving for, for better or worse. But it's definitely there, undeniably so, much like it can't be argued that the more earnest tone of new millennium (and largely post-9/11) movies paved the way for the market EON are now playing Bond to.
I really love the ending to LTK. In fact, its probably one of my favourites, alongside OHMSS. For once we don't see a villains lair being blown up, with an army of bad buys in orange boiler suits v an army of good guys in black boiler suits.
Instead we get one of the best action scenes in the series, ending in a bloodied, battered and torn Bond laying on the floor - the first time we have ever seen this in a Bond film. And then the `Don't you want to know why?' line, which felt like it jumped straight out of a Fleming novel.
I also don't really see that much cheese in this one, other than the scenes with Q, and the `bless your heart' moments. Other than that the humour is kept to a bare minimum. In fact, I can't remember one quip that Dalton does in this film.
I have bigger issues with QoS, because Bond turns superhuman again in this one. The plane action scene feels very box ticking, as does the speed boat chase, and I really cannot stand the freefall into the sinkhole, where Bond is right as rain again two seconds later. It also suffers from severe editing, not allowing many scenes to breathe.
The Aston car chase works well, as does the rooftop chase, and the ending is good too, but overall not a patch on LTK.
QoS doesn't show us a superhuman Bond, either. We see him in every major scene of action (car chase, Siena chase, Slate fight, dogfight/free fall, hotel raid, etc) take brutal amounts of damage. In each scene the cuts of the previous scrap at caked over by all the fresh gashes, with sweat ever trickling from every bit of cracked skin were the protective layer has been peeled back by punches, kicks, stabs, bludgeoning and burns. It's his willpower alone that keeps him going.
LTK's finale shows a battle worn Bond well, but in comparison to QoS where he's covered in blood, sweat and dirt for over half of it, it doesn't compare. LTK also wasn't the first movie to show a beat up or bruising Bond, as the Connery era had gone there before.
Perhaps, but even an actor can only emulate something if he knows what he has to emulate.
Take Top Gun: Tom Cruise and Val Kilmer are very much the top fighter pilots because they hung out with real ones and were able to understand why these guys are so cocky and full of themselves. They translate that to the screen.
I thought about this joie de vivre because I've long been wondering why all the Cubans I met, the Bosnians and Croats just after that war and those Indians in their slums seemed so much happier then my well-to-do friends in the West. It's really increadeable how boring we humans can get when everything is going perfectly (and how much we still complain). But i digress. I think people in general, and Connery and Moore especially, bacause of their histories couldn't take life all that seriously, and thus had more fun living it. Now I find Craig to be a very fine actor, but I think @Bondjames has a point when he says he's missing something, some flair. Something, oddly enough that you could certainly find in the recent Man From Uncle film. Personally I think that's because of Guy Ritchie, whom gets this Joie de vivre just fine (and is certainly misunderstood because of it).
Now I know too little about Craig's personal life to say that I am right, but if I am it would be difficult for him to understand this whole concept and emulate it onto our screens, for he should first be aware that this is what is missing and then try to learn from people who live their lives this way. It's hard to portray loss if you haven't lost someone, it's hard to portray love for life if you can't feel it that way. (I'm not saying he doesn't enjoy living, that's something completely different).
p.s. I'd rather play snooker ;-)
I always thought the post-Casino dinner scene with Vesper captured this really well.
He has moments of fun, but at times he's labored by what he faces in the stories. In his first and second films Bond is dealing with betrayal from a woman he wanted to grow old with, and that's not something he's going to be all smiles about. SF shows him picking himself back up from near death while facing a world that wants his kind to die out. Again, not really time for kicks.
In between these moments though we get the trick he plays with the man's car at the Ocean Club, the card game with Dimitrios and seduction of Solange, all the fun he and Vesper have before he knows the truth about her, his man talk interactions with Mathis, etc in CR. In QoS every scene with Mathis outside his death is lively, his little tricks with Fields and chats with Camille are great, and in SF his snarky discussions with M, his very light flirtations with Moneypenny, mental chess matches with Q and more again show a lighter side of him. And SP is full of moments where Bond "lives it up," as he's less brought down by what he's facing. Which makes sense, as the previous films made him strong.
"There's no place it won't catch up to you. It's how every story ends. It's what you are, Jason...a killer. You always will be. Go ahead. Go on. Go on.! Do it.! Do it.!"
"She wouldn't want me to. That's the only reason you're alive."
The above exchange from Bourne clearly mirrors QoS's M/Bond exchanges regarding various kills throughout QoS, but those are framed more around Bond being a loose canon.
"I think you are so blinded by inconsolable rage that you don't care who you hurt."
"Is he still alive?"
"He is."
"I'm surprised."
No, the parallels are quite clear to me, and I think they were to the general public as well. The Bourne Supremacy is and was an exceptional film that was very influential in this genre. More so than the first one, in my view.
In fact, come to think of it, the Marie/Bourne dynamic in that earlier film has continued to influence the entire Craig era, right down to Bond's decision not to kill Blofeld in 2015's SP. "You have a choice". Indeed.
Regarding LTK's comparisons to Miami Vice and other more contemporary fare from the late 80's: Yes, those similarities are definitely there. In that case, the producers and director arguably weren't as stylistically successful in grafting those elements into the Bond larger than life universe as they were in QoS. Perhaps Glen was out of his depth in this respect, but it could have also been budget constraints. Dalton also wasn't quite as suave as he could have been (Willis & Arnie arguably had more charm at that time). A more accomplished director like Spielberg might have made more out of it.
To me, it seems like he's acting it and so he's just not credible in this respect. Yes, a lot of it could indeed be due to writing and directing, but I feel it's more than that. Difficult to put my finger on it though, and as I said, I rarely find actors credible with this element these days.
It's hard to tell if Bond and Bourne are riffing on one another, or if the things the two films share are simply coincidences because they're bound by a genre that features these kinds similar themes and ideas of shattered visions of government with traitors everywhere and a more grounded take on what it means to be a spy.
I still feel that Supremacy is more motivated by solace than QoS is, but when I said QoS doesn't do it as loudly, I simply meant from a subtlety standpoint. I think so much of Supremacy is bound by Bourne's journey to just find out what his past was and forgive for that sin he committed (with the story supporting that), whereas in QoS, although the Vesper angle and Bond's forgiveness does play a big part, it's presented as far more subdued and is diluted by the main scheme he is trailing to find out more about Quantum. Bond never mentions Vesper by name in the film or makes a motion to bring anything about her up, whereas Bourne is constantly confronted with his past and has to deal with things then and there. I like that approach in each film, however, as how the story is told relates to who Bourne and Bond are and makes the two feel like different experiences despite the bleed over. Bourne still isn't himself fresh off amnesia, so memories will come flying at him unpredictably to the point that he's forced to face them, as he has no ability to repress what he can't recall. Bond however is obviously able to recall it all, and he shoves all his feeling down into his gut to burn it up so that nobody suspects his vulnerability and he doesn't have to face the hurt he's been caused directly or the possible suspicions he may have of Vesper's innocence.
I haven't watched the Bourne films in a long time, and you have me wanting to fire them up sooner rather than later to see if I make any connections myself. I still haven't seen any of the new Bourne, so I should probably do that sometime. But I appreciate you sharing your perspective and the findings that you think support your claim.
I see what you're saying about the emphasis on solace in QoS vs. The Bourne Supremacy. It's certainly not as obvious, and is more subtle in the Bond film, perhaps to avoid direct comparisons with the Bourne entry.
The Bourne/Marie dynamic, including her death having a profound impact on him as he came to terms with who he was and is, still resonates with me. It was her words, that he "has a choice" to keep running and be a killer or not, which were the fundamental element of that film. Elements which were first broached in The Bourne Identity. So when EON took the Vesper story from the novel and expanded on it for the film with the "you have a choice" angle, then took it even further in QoS with Bond's solace, and finally brought it full circle in the train conversation in SP, (resulting in his decision not to kill Blofeld) the similarities to that aspect of the Bourne story were quite clear to me.
Craig's Bond has the opportunity to leave cleanly and find a life - something which Bourne can never do.
The token ending on LTK doesn't bother me at all, because the rest of the film is so perfect. I can even live with the winking fish.... ;)
The action scenes in QoS show Bond dirty and torn, yet we never see Craig physically look hurt at any moment, not like we did in CR. But my biggest gripe is the sinkhole freefall, where Bond is right as rain 2 seconds later. This for me brought the film back into Brosnan territory.
As for Connery covered in blood - I don't recall this in any Bond film. He looked tattered and a bit dirty in Dr. No during the tunnel scenes, but that was it.
I see hurt in Dan in QoS, but even if he didn't show it the argument doesn't really hold up for Dalton in LTK either. Bond is torn to shreds in the finale and is right as rain days after at the party as Sanchez's, nary a scratch on him. At the very least you can see the scars Dan's Bond carries with him. And Dan's Bond is also by and far the strongest and most durable of the Bonds, so there's also that. He's not going to fall to pain like Dalton's would, for example, who wasn't a great fighter or accompanied with a high pain tolerance.
As for Sean, he's got busted over bleeding knuckles in DN, get all kinds of beat in FRWL and in TB there's a minor moment where he bleeds from the mouth. Young didn't want to go overboard with blood, but he did like to show Bond taking a bit of a beating while being affected by the danger he was facing. Outside of blood, Young's Bond always showed wear and tear on his suits as well, instead of some films that simply have Bond swap suits when one gets ruined.