Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
How Bond Dodged the Bullet or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love David Arnold
Got your attention? I do hope so!
I had posted this on the old forum, but felt it would be worth another go here. So without further ado, I am sure you want an explanation for the title!
It would seem that among many fans there is a general air of negativity in regards to Bond's post 1980's films. Though the exact era in which decline began seems to differ from individual to individual, it would seem a consensus has formed that Licence to Kill was the end of an era (and to some others among us, the start of the actual present decline). The post Dalton films tend to be considered sub par in contrast with the rest of the series in one facet or another, and whatever aspect of the film that this applies to is often believed grievous enough a sin to sink the entirety of the production. Whether it be poor scripting, Brosnan's wooden acting, David Arnold's lackluster scoring, or "Bourne style" editing, these and many other complaints are leveled at most everything post Timothy Dalton. Now, I do not seek to argue that these complaints are illegitimate! Quite the contrary in fact; I quite understand where people are coming from when they make them. However, I cannot help but wonder if we are being a little unfair.
"But Leiter!" you say, "Why should we tolerate mediocrity?" And in this you raise a good point, friend; we have legitimate grievances with modern Bond films, and should not be asked to just let them go. That said, there also would appear to be a general unwillingness to "smell the roses", so to speak. I believe there has been a decline in the quality of modern cinema at large, and that in the face of this James Bond has naturally also become a victim. That said, given some of the less than desirable traits of the modern movie industry, I would also argue James Bond has done well. And here at last we come to the head of the issue...
it could have been a lot worse!
Sure many elements in the films now are inferior to past Bond excursions... but believe you me, they could have (and might well have been) a lot worse! The idea of this thread, then, is to explore ways in which Bond has dodged the ol' metaphorical bullet. What oft criticized elements of the modern Bond films may in fact be blessings? How could things have become catastrophically worse than what we got? When we step back and view the failings of modern Bond in light of the failings of the movie industry at large, what ways does James Bond come out ahead? I actually feel that we, in our fervor as 007 fans, tend to overlook what we've got in these movies. As an example, I cite this common criticism of a 90's era Bond film:
"Tomorrow Never Dies is just a generic action film!"
Generic? With apologies to those favoring this argument, this is plainly absurd. One can level a great many criticisms at that film to be sure! but to write it off as a generic action film is to demonstrate one's unfamiliarity with the genre. If you find yourself willing to make this claim about any Bond movie, I urge you to go out and rent every Steven Seagal, Chuck Norris, and Vin Diesel movie you can get your hands on. After the torrent of truly generic and uninspired onscreen action has filled your mind with a Lovecraftian sense of mind-numbing horror, come back, watch Tomorrow Never Dies, and try and make the same claim. I again reiterate that this is a film one can indeed legitimately have many grievances with... but when we venture into a territory where we are leveling claims like "generic action film" we do seem to be looking for an easy way to quantify our dislike without really explaining ourselves.
I do not mean to say we shouldn't harbor dislike for a bond movie! Heaven perish the thought... why, we are all of us entitled to our opinions! My purpose here is to get us to discuss the ways in which even those films we despise the most in the series could have been far worse than they are! Was Pierce Brosnan really that bad, or do we just want someone to blame? Who else might have taken the part then? As much as I love Dalton's Bond above the others, I have to realize he was no longer an option by Brosnan's entrance to the series. What about David Arnold? Inferior to John Barry? Unquestionably, and nigh unfathomably so! But is he really that bad? Contrast him with your typical modern composers and he shines. Many superior to Arnold exist, and people often cite them as examples... but most such suggestions aren't the kind of people who would touch Bond with a ten foot pole, and thus, we have Arnold. Within the scope of what was attainable, it could have been far worse!
So in what ways do you believe Bond has dodged the bullet? Where could things have very possibly become far worse than what we got? Please allow yourself to explore the possibilities, and share your thoughts here!
I had posted this on the old forum, but felt it would be worth another go here. So without further ado, I am sure you want an explanation for the title!
It would seem that among many fans there is a general air of negativity in regards to Bond's post 1980's films. Though the exact era in which decline began seems to differ from individual to individual, it would seem a consensus has formed that Licence to Kill was the end of an era (and to some others among us, the start of the actual present decline). The post Dalton films tend to be considered sub par in contrast with the rest of the series in one facet or another, and whatever aspect of the film that this applies to is often believed grievous enough a sin to sink the entirety of the production. Whether it be poor scripting, Brosnan's wooden acting, David Arnold's lackluster scoring, or "Bourne style" editing, these and many other complaints are leveled at most everything post Timothy Dalton. Now, I do not seek to argue that these complaints are illegitimate! Quite the contrary in fact; I quite understand where people are coming from when they make them. However, I cannot help but wonder if we are being a little unfair.
"But Leiter!" you say, "Why should we tolerate mediocrity?" And in this you raise a good point, friend; we have legitimate grievances with modern Bond films, and should not be asked to just let them go. That said, there also would appear to be a general unwillingness to "smell the roses", so to speak. I believe there has been a decline in the quality of modern cinema at large, and that in the face of this James Bond has naturally also become a victim. That said, given some of the less than desirable traits of the modern movie industry, I would also argue James Bond has done well. And here at last we come to the head of the issue...
it could have been a lot worse!
Sure many elements in the films now are inferior to past Bond excursions... but believe you me, they could have (and might well have been) a lot worse! The idea of this thread, then, is to explore ways in which Bond has dodged the ol' metaphorical bullet. What oft criticized elements of the modern Bond films may in fact be blessings? How could things have become catastrophically worse than what we got? When we step back and view the failings of modern Bond in light of the failings of the movie industry at large, what ways does James Bond come out ahead? I actually feel that we, in our fervor as 007 fans, tend to overlook what we've got in these movies. As an example, I cite this common criticism of a 90's era Bond film:
"Tomorrow Never Dies is just a generic action film!"
Generic? With apologies to those favoring this argument, this is plainly absurd. One can level a great many criticisms at that film to be sure! but to write it off as a generic action film is to demonstrate one's unfamiliarity with the genre. If you find yourself willing to make this claim about any Bond movie, I urge you to go out and rent every Steven Seagal, Chuck Norris, and Vin Diesel movie you can get your hands on. After the torrent of truly generic and uninspired onscreen action has filled your mind with a Lovecraftian sense of mind-numbing horror, come back, watch Tomorrow Never Dies, and try and make the same claim. I again reiterate that this is a film one can indeed legitimately have many grievances with... but when we venture into a territory where we are leveling claims like "generic action film" we do seem to be looking for an easy way to quantify our dislike without really explaining ourselves.
I do not mean to say we shouldn't harbor dislike for a bond movie! Heaven perish the thought... why, we are all of us entitled to our opinions! My purpose here is to get us to discuss the ways in which even those films we despise the most in the series could have been far worse than they are! Was Pierce Brosnan really that bad, or do we just want someone to blame? Who else might have taken the part then? As much as I love Dalton's Bond above the others, I have to realize he was no longer an option by Brosnan's entrance to the series. What about David Arnold? Inferior to John Barry? Unquestionably, and nigh unfathomably so! But is he really that bad? Contrast him with your typical modern composers and he shines. Many superior to Arnold exist, and people often cite them as examples... but most such suggestions aren't the kind of people who would touch Bond with a ten foot pole, and thus, we have Arnold. Within the scope of what was attainable, it could have been far worse!
So in what ways do you believe Bond has dodged the bullet? Where could things have very possibly become far worse than what we got? Please allow yourself to explore the possibilities, and share your thoughts here!
^ 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
The producers thankfully realized they had nowhere else to go after Die Another Day - and especially after Brosnan walked away from the role of Bond - so they decided to wipe the slate clean, and start a new - taking things back to basics... but imagine had Brosnan stuck around... would we have gotten Casino Royale right away? - chances are, no.. they were going to reserve that for their impending reboot.. so what we would've gotten instead, might have been an even bigger disaster than Die Another Day... as Michael Wilson had stated, had Brosnan stuck around, they probably just would've made another A typical effects driven Blockbuster type of movie... i couldn't venture as to think what they would've come up with - maybe a CGI Bond riding a CGI meteor back into CGI earth's orbit.. who knows..
The point being that, as negative as it may sound, I doubt they are ever going to make what we'd see as the ideal Bond film. The aim here is to see how things could have been worse by comparison; bad casting decisions, directors, etc.
And for Laz's info, I'd take the small crap over the big one ANYDAY - easier to clean up.
I know a lot of folks on here, myself included to a certain extent, long for the a return to more of the traditional elements: the standard PTS ending with a wink and joke, the M briefing, the Moneypenny scene, the Q scene, etc., even down to the details of the more traditional looking office.
But in some ways, the producers were wise and mixing things up a bit, especially in the Craig films. The Bond films didn't make the mistake of some franchises of trying to replicate the old formula to a T for nostalgia's sake. There has been just the right give in take: Brosnan era: M is back, but she's female, we still have Q, there's a new Moneypenny, but no Felix. The gunbarrel's still intact. The enemy is in fact a double agent. The BMW becomes the car in Bond for this era....etc. The Craig era, kept the series fresh, by returning to the tone of the earlier films: casino's, tuxedos, martini's, Felix Leiter, etc...but doing away with elements that became formulaic: Q, Moneypenny, the silly double entendres. There was actually some depth to the relationship to Bond and the lead lady. The gunbarrel was even re-imagined. I think we've come full circle now though, where it feels right again to re-introduce some of the classic elements again. But had the Bond films sticked too closely to the script, and only adding in the movie cliches of the time: lot's of explosions, violence, sex...the films would have grown really tiresome.
Very good post. however, JBFan626 !! :-bd
Yes, that's exactly my point--freshening up the car would be a good idea for the next film, which is why I also thought the BMW in the Brosnan films weren't a bad idea either. I haven't been in the car discussions too much, but isn't EON contract with Ford-Aston Martin expired anyway? So we'll probably see something new. It's all about cycles: rotating familiar and new elements in and out to keep each phase unique and fresh.
Now I’m not saying that Babs and MGW got everything right (because Christ knows they have not) but imagine the consequences had the studio gained total control?
DADs box office was massive and in this day and age of CGI everything how long would it have been before we had a Michael Bay directed Bond film with an American Bond?
I cant forgive Babs and MGW DAD because at the end of the day the buck stopped with them but at least they recognised the error of their ways post DAD and rectified it. Would the studio have done that if the money was still flooding in?
It tells you enough about Hollywood when Tamahori was immediately snapped on the ‘strength’ of DAD to helm their new Bond imitating franchise XXX – which bombed and killed the franchise stone dead. Would a second Tamahori Bond on the back of DAD been our destiny if the studio had control?
It’s a terrifying alternate universe so for all the mistakes Babs and MGW make I’m glad we’ve got them with their hand on the tiller.
it was something that even happened to their late father - twice...... they went really out there (for the time) with YOLT, then scaled it back significantly for OHMSS... same thing happened with MR - they pushed the boundaries about as far as they could go, then brought Bond back to earth in FYEO... and likewise between DAD and CR.... and if you notice, the one thing each of those 3 films had when following the over-the-top film? - no gadgets.... they featured a very grounded Bond, who had to rely more on his wits than gadgetry....
that's why the same problems that the majority of Bond fans had with QOS, in terms of the action and editing, I don't see them replicating in B23... they experimented, it didn't work - so they'll go back to what worked... it might not be as "simple" as they used to be years ago... but probably more along the lines of CR - in terms of shooting and editing... which i would be more than happy with....
personally, i like when things get shaken up every now and then - for better or worse lol...... that keeps the series fresh and exciting... if they kept filming everything the same way that they did in 1963 - the look of the films would be boring and dated (by today's standards)... everything changes / goes through cycles.. so does Bond.
Unlike some, I thought the 90s Bond series took off with a blast. As much as I like Dalton (see avatar) I consider GE a better Bond film than TLD and LTK in many ways. My major beef with TND then, is that it failed to be as strong in many respects as GE. It doesn't even come close! The writing let me down (far less inspiring plot for the villain, far less interesting characters e.g. Way Lin versus Natalya, the dialogues were poorer,...) and that entire third act is a travesty compared to what GE's Cuba scenes had to offer. So you see, I don't mind considering TND separate from what Hollywood put out back then, but I will need to hold it in the same light as GE and then, I'm afraid, my only conclusion is indeed something of a decline in quality.
The same was true for TWINE. They dropped the emphasis on action and tried to be more dramatic and 'intelligent' in their writing, but where everything was balanced out well in GE, it feels like TWINE ended up with more complexity in its script than the film had bargained for. One mysterious reveal after the other, one "he's involved too!" too much, daughters and nephews and bosses all involved on a personal level, clues hidden in the silliest things like someone's exact words... My God, it feels like Freud would have had a field day with this. My beef with this film is that unlike GE (and TND), it tries so darn hard to reach deep into its characters' inner universe and be artistic (with a load of completely unnecessarily 'complex' elements), yet it fails in achieving its goals and is even unclear at times about what is going on (even the author of the novelization couldn't tell exactly what went on with all the gizmo's aboard the submarine). TND, at least, kept it simple and thus entertaining. My problem with TWINE has been from day 1 that the film suffered severely from P&W's writing, an issue that was absent in GE and also much less annoying in TND.
DAD does re-introduce some level of simplicity and characters who are a lot less complex. However, DAD went perhaps a bit too far in that sense. Sometimes, the film is too simple and its character too empty inside. Again, they failed to find the right balance, this time leaning more toward the opposite extreme: there's not enough content. Compared to the previous three, DAD took Bond in far more cartoonish regions. I did find the film enjoyable, however, for it is a colourful and energetic experience and I don't believe Brosnan did a terrible job. But they gave him a useless sidekick in Jinx, which is new since GE, and they took the villain and his plot to comic book land. Still, I enjoy DAD a lot more than TWINE, despite the CGI abuse, because this film allows to be enjoyed. TWINE wants me to cry and feel sorry for certain characters half the time; DAD at least puts a smile on my face on several occasions. A step up from TWINE, but still not so much of a success compared to GE and TND.
As for CR, let me just say that along with GE it proudly resides in my Top 5. I love this film! It has everything I ever wanted out of a modern Bond film. Rather than deliberately seeking elements to be all negative about, I tend to forgive those few minor things about the film that might allow some criticism, and treat the whole picture as something closer to perfection than most contemporary films.
Then why do I have such major issues with QoS? Again, not because of QoS' place in the spectrum of modern movies, but because of how annoyingly different and poorer QoS is compared to CR. The film dropped so much of what made CR great, including its pacing. CR was never too slow but had moments that allowed the film to breathe. In QoS' case, entire reels feel like they had gone up in flames for I've never seen a Bond film work its way from point A to K to S to Z in such a discontinuous manner. It's like playing a video game without the cut scenes. Where CR achieved so much in about 145 minutes, QoS achieved less than half in about 95 minutes. It's rushed, it's arrogant. It hopes that the notion of speed will boost the adrenaline in my veins. But I'm not 16 anymore. And I went from loving the Michael Bay style to being indifferent about it, to downright loathing it. So many things in QoS demonstrate incompetence. If I didn't know better, I'd say that is precisely the problem. In some cases it really is, by the way. MK12? For that crime alone, Forster should never be allowed near a Bond film again (and something tells me he won't be!) Unlike the previous Bonds, this one absolutely insults me, treating me like I'm some kid with short attention span and stoned on Red Bull, for whom watching a film isn't an event anymore, but something you do to kill the time between school and hanging out in the pub or playing soccer with your buddies. That's why half a story is missing, that's why important shots ended up on the cutting room floor. That's why some characters are so unbelievably thin they're almost transparent in physical terms. That's why QoS is nothing like CR and that is too bad.
So you see, I feel like I can justify my concerns, problems and on other occasions, my enthusiasm, simply by judging each Bond film against the previous one(s). I don't like it myself when people seem so frustrated they go looking for the tiniest bit in the modern Bond films to complain about when they are so apologetic towards some of the older ones like YOLT and TMWTGG. And I'm full of those Batman Begins / Bourne talks, which aren't illegitimate at all but don't need to be brought up as a valid argument all the time! I simply watch the Bonds from film to film and notice when one film is a lot worse or better than its predecessor. But remember, I love GE and CR, no matter how long since the Dalron era they were made. So I disagree that the post-Dalton Bonds were all a lot worse.
wouldn't you agree though, that a lot of that just merely comes from technical advancements in the industry?... films filmed in the 60s, were shot differently in the 70s, and 80s and so on - that's just the natural evolution of film...
no question films today are going to be shot in much better quality - and action in films is shot much differently now than it was even 15 years ago.. times change...
the problem with some of the modern Bond films, is that while they look pretty, and are nice eye candy - that's usually where it's depth stops, because of shallow storytelling... there's a reason why earlier Bond films like FRWL, and GF still top a lot of the newer films, and it's because of the storytelling - while the directing and action might not have been as flashy, they had the right amount of suspense, action, intrigue, and overall great story, that allows those films to still hold up today....
...... just my humble opinion....
I always thought the fight between Grant and Bond was the most modern fight in the franchise, more than any that came after... IMO, not even the Slate fight in QOS is as 'modern' as the Grant fight... The train fight in FRWL started the modern era of fight scenes, and no-one surpassed that in modernity OR quality. I will eat my hat if the Bourne movies didn't look at the FRWL train fight when making their trilogy. Just my opinion...
I always thought that if FRWL,TB, GF or OHMSS were shot today, they would look identical, if only a few improvements on back projection. The 60's films reached a level of modernity that is unmatchable.
Oh I don't disagree at all that technical advancement has alot to do with how the modern films look. So part of it is because I have grown up watching films that have outstanding special effects and when I see older films that have really bad effects I can't help but cringe a little. Having said that though, I can't still help but feel that there are several of the earlier films that really should have been better quality because they don't even stand up to films of that era. Movies such as FRWL, TB, FYEO, OP, I find to be brilliant because I will watch them today and they haven't aged at all. That's because of great attention of detail to make things as real as possible. But then I look at movies like YOLT or DAF where it seems like they didn't really try too hard. The plots are weak, the acting is bad, and the visuals are terrible. So I guess in conclusion I would just say that beginning with Dalton to the present , all the films are consistently of a certain quality, whereas with earlier entries I find that it's more of a mixed bag.