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
SF builds on that. He's confident, and actually trying to do some proper spying.
Now I understand the dislike for SP. Trying to catch it all under one SPECTRE story doesn't work, and the film loses itself in too many short stories.
Still, it's not that bad and Craig plays it exactly in the way those who complain about him were asking for: More Roger Moore, more fun.
The real problem with that film is it's story telling. It's because of this we don't understand why Bond behaves like he does, but that's more the writers- and directors fault. Perhaps Craig plays it too good even, which makes it confusing for those who watch.
Craig portrays an Englshman who's too international for England. Who's sophisticated, has class and charm, but has a hard edge. The only problem Craig has is he hasn't got the charismatic face of a Connery or the charm of Moore. Or the twinkle in his eye that Lazenby has.
I think this speeding up as also had an effect on the character of James Bond. He no longer is seen entering night clubs to find info. He is a "blunt instrument" and as such there is no time for niceties.
The Bond film have generally had less time for romance. So while Bond and Domino sitting on a beach talking about her brother would be played another way. Think of Swann and Bond meeting and most of their dialogue taking place on the run. Even the train scene from SP is really condensed to the point where there really isn't much character development.
I wish for the Bond of old, but is that because I long for a simpler time. Where the bad guys were easily identified and the woman were either on the side of right and virtue or out to kill Bond. Another thought, when is the last time Bond had to deal with a true femme fatale? Onatopp?
Not much on the allies either. Felix Leiter was played with such blandness I doubt many could tell you the actor that played him in CR and QOS. Would a relationship between Bond and his ally allow for some character development? For sure. They teased it with Mathis then threw that away in QOS. While Leiter and Bond seem to be good friends we haven't really seen why. Will we see a Kerim Bay? A Marc-Ange Draco? Even a Columbo? Looks like this Bond is a one agent guy.
So have we lost James Bond. Well we have lost the character of the 60', 70's and 80's. We have gained a gritty character. Who may lack some suave and sophistication but makes up for it with his take no prisoners attitude. We have a Bond who longer really flirts with Moneypenny, or antagonizes Q. We have a Bond for this day and age and while that seems to be gold at the Box Office I can't help but lament for the Bond of old.
I agree to a certain extend. I see they're stil trying to put those elements in, like Moneypenny and Bond (shaving, in the bar in Macau) but it's necessarily brief and you have to pay attention to it. Same goes by the way for Craigs humour. Perhaps he plays it a bit too cool for modern audiences to pick up on it. I've got a feeling too much needs to be explained. This makes again for unrealistic dialogue.
Yes they've brought back certain elements. Moneypenny to me was ruined when we discovered her back story and know that she was once an agent. I always liked that we didn't really know when or where Bond and Moneypenny met. We didn't know how or when the flirting started. We first see Bond sit on Moneypenny's chair and pretend to dance. It's fun and playful. In today's movie it wouldn't work. The MeToo movement would be all over it. I think the right balance was acheived between Brosnan's portrayal and Bond as Moneypenny. Not sure that Harris and Craig have the same chemistry.
Take the flirting with Moneypenny away and you remove some of the character of the Bond we remember. No man would get away with that behaviour today and so there goes the way to establish that Bond is a ladies man who can playfully flirt and be wanted by women. Instead we have the dynamic of Bond and Moneypenny having worked in the field together. She doesn't fawn over him and he doesn't flirt with her.
Bond isn't given the chance to know it all. He hasn't really shown the taste for the finer things. They established how he came to get his martini recipe. But no scenes where he can show he knows the temp of sake, the indifferently blended brandy, etc. This undermines a lot of the character. Bond was an expert in many things (except diamonds) and that really has been taken away from him. Don't even get me started with his smoking. The literary Bond smoked like a chimney today's movie audiences wouldn't buy the smoking. Again another piece of the character is removed. Oh and even the touch of his throwing the hat at the rack which showed how he's just all that and a bag of chips. Gone when the hat styles went out. These little things all added tot he character and made him different. It made men want to be him and ladies want to be with him. Now he's not really much different then any of the other action heroes of his time.
Can these elements return? I think there are ways to make it happen. I don't think it can all be laid at Craig's feet. I think the filmmakers are trying to appeal to today's cinema audience. Some for artistic reasons, some for societal changes.
We know many descriptions of the Bond character, but I just read on Wikipedia quotes of Ian Fleming from a 1964 Playboy interview, talking about Bond: "I don't think that he is necessarily a good guy or a bad guy. Who is? He's got his vices and very few perceptible virtues except patriotism and courage, which are probably not virtues anyway ... But I didn't intend for him to be a particularly likeable person." And, "James Bond is a healthy, violent, noncerebral man in his middle-thirties, and a creature of his era. I wouldn't say he's particularly typical of our times, but he's certainly of the times." That last bit about being "of the times" offers hope, if any is needed (though I doubt it is) for Bond in the future, because I'm confident Bond occupies a unique niche. My opinion about the above descriptions is that they largely fit all the Bonds except Moore and Brosnan--no offense, since Moore is one of my faves, and I thought Brosnan did well too.
From "Ian Fleming - The CBC Interview" on YouTube, Fleming said his books were meant for "warm-blooded heterosexual adults, you know, in beds and railway trains and aeroplanes. They're not meant for schoolboys". And he talked about how spying is a "dirty" trade, but he thought people liked his books because they have pace, plenty of action, and espionage is seen as very romantic. In the video "Desert Island Discs- Ian Fleming (1963)", he speaks of Bond's guts and "very lively appetites". He talked about how some critics at that time thought the books depicted too much sadism and sex. About the sadism, Fleming said he toned down what actually can happen in real life. About the sex in the books, Fleming said he didn't find any harm in that, since Bond had about one woman per book, one a year, was a bachelor and traveled 'round the world. The interviewer asked, "How much longer do you think you can keep Bond going? Is he a job for life?" And Fleming replied, "I don't know, it just depends on how much more I can go on following his adventures".
@thedove mentioned Bond's smoking. The CDC in the U.S. said that in 2016, 26% of youth-rated G, PG and PG-13 movies had tobacco imagery in them, but some people want movies that feature tobacco imagery to get an "R" rating. However, vaping is apparently popular or acceptable in many movies--not sure if Bond would stoop to that.
Considering it was DAD that we last saw Bond smoke,i don't think it will be back for the present.
But his personality and mannerisms MUST be kept.
. Small little references to a previous era without upsetting the PC brigade. Your post makes me a little sad as it reminds us of an era when Bond had style and time for a little frivolity.
Quite right. I think rebooting the character was a poor idea, trying to emulate Nolan’s Batman. CR would have benefitted from continuing from where the last actor left. Much in the same way as TLD and GE before it.
Exactly...Bond fans do not think the same way as Marvel,Star Wars,DC fans etc.
Thanks! I was on a roll! LOL! I like your thoughts on how to bring back some elements. I too get wistful thinking of where the character was and now is.
"Cupido minimus, unusual in these parts"
I think CR and QoS are somewhere in the beginning of Bond's career, and SF and SP are far later. No matter that the time setting or stories don't correspond. Bond never was about continuity. Maybe more like Mad Max, a legend rather than a corresponding story-arc. That's also why I'm not too fond of what they di with SP.
Personally I like the way current Moneypenny and Bond interact, and I don't mind the backstory much, but I understand why some dont like it. Again it wasn't necessary, he could've been shot by, let's say 006 ;-)
I think in SP they just made many small wrong choices, and rather than support the other films Craig's made, they're pulled down. Which is a pity and I guess an effect that will fade away, just like DAD pulled Brosnan down, until people start to realise it doesn't make GE a bad film.
Considering Fleming's remarks, Craig may even be the closest incarnation to the literary Bond ( I don't completely agree with Fleming, Lit. Bond usually roots for the little guy/ weaker side, which does make him a 'better' person, or at least 'not a bad person'). But movies need a bit more show than that, and I guess the other Bonds, even Dalton, did have a little bit more glamour then Craig has.
Craig could make this type of line work. I truly believe any actor could. I don't believe you'd see if in a film today because it would be deemed inappropriate. You just couldn't do it. It would push things too far. Can you imagine the headlines?!
Like you say, this wouldn't be seen as right so the romantic aspect of the character can't be what it should. The films can't be seen to show Bond as the man women wish they could be with. So, no more scenes of Bond asking a female receptionist if there are any messages for him in, before she sighs as Bond walks away up the stairs, James Bond theme playing.
Sophistication. That's what it was. Other characters acknowledgement of Bond being correct - through praise or frustration - showed us, the audience, this guy know what he was talking about.
He would do the sane with M who would praise Bond on what he know of the assignment he was being briefed on but would also give us more information himself. 007 wasn't any old agent M could find on the day, it proved to us why he was getting the best of the best and he would also show distaste for Bond somehow. But again, today this attitude or trait could be seen as not right for the lead in action/spy film series.
Commander Bond seems to be no more. As does, going undercover and being prisoner of the villain for the end of the film. Again, I can only think these things have been looked on as not the right fit for an action film today because the people that make the films are well aware of their existence and are choosing not to use them.
Bond will no longer check his hotel room, if he stays anywhere long enough!, for bugs.
The changing times have made Bond change too. Today you would not see a film set in one foreign location, so we'll never get to ease up on the pace of the story. It must be three, four or more. Audiences would cry "is that it? I spent xxx to go to only xxx in 2 hours". And no colourful ally Bond would meet in this location, that'll be funny, clever, provide banter, and be useful to 007 only to die later on giving the story real stakes. Today Bond is a one man army - yeah, no big battles at the end either. Today Bond's alleys are M, Q and Moneypenny. They provide to same feature to the story but aren't as interesting characters.
Society has killed 007, not EON and it is something sadly that I can't think will change any time soon.
@RC7 thank you, that was fun to watch!
I love what you said @Samuel001 when you said people either praised Bond or showed their frustration. Very true. I even miss Bond and the villain meeting and just talking with deeper levels going on. Think of Largo and Bond in TB when Bond has come over for lunch. Yes we saw Greene hold a charity function and some mingling there but it was missing some of the elements the older films had.
Should be interesting to see what we get in Craig's finale. I can't see too much of a departure of his character. However when the successor is named there may be a chance to add back some of the elements we've been missing the last 14 years.
Yes, and you can edit certain scenes from the Star Wars prequels so they appear congruous with the Original Trilogy, doesn't mean the films themselves are the same. That says more about the skills of the editor who stitched that video together than it does about EON or their output as of late.
Don’t worry, this wasn’t for you @Misery4Lyfe.
Personally,i would have loved to see the dinner and card game between Blofeld and Bond in SP that led to the torture scene.
That could have changed the dynamic of the whole film in a positive way !!!
It really would. I remember liking that scene in the script, well, most of it anyway.
Yes, a definate Yes, and if they'd lined that up for SP then they've been very foolish to leave it out. It is, after all, one of the ways Bond Always manages to let his nemesis make a mistake.
I was just watching the clip of Bond talking with Scaramanga over lunch in TMWTGG. And Bond sat down to eat with Kamal Khan, dressed in tuxes, etc. Sitting down, eating with and talking with the villain--another way of showcasing Bond's civility, the counterpoint to each man's killing ability, and a great way to ratchet up the tension and chew juicy dialogue, IF the script is good enough and the right actors have chemistry. I do miss seeing him do that. Why couldn't they bring back that element, even in new ways, to challenge modern security? Bond does check the security cameras at the Ocean Club. Bond being in a hotel room also gives us a chance to see him pour a drink (could or should).