Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Which Film is the one that feels LEAST like a Bond film to you ?
An interesting thought in my mad Bond obsessed brain but one I have never thought about asking myself even !!
When I think about it ,even though TLD,SP are lower than it (I think TLD may move up soon in my rankings @GoldenGun @Getafix etc ) they are still Bond by a long way,especially TLD.
The film that feels least Bond and actually quite depressing,even though Sir Roger is Bond, is FYEO.
I can’t explain why but i think it’s the score and Sheena Easton’s tune.
Which is the least Bondian to you and why ?
When I think about it ,even though TLD,SP are lower than it (I think TLD may move up soon in my rankings @GoldenGun @Getafix etc ) they are still Bond by a long way,especially TLD.
The film that feels least Bond and actually quite depressing,even though Sir Roger is Bond, is FYEO.
I can’t explain why but i think it’s the score and Sheena Easton’s tune.
Which is the least Bondian to you and why ?
^ 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
It also often takes Bondian tropes a bridge too far (the invisible car, the ejector seat righting the car again, CGI tsunami surfing, CGI plane finale). It all verges on parody. Those are just a few of the reasons why it forever languishes at the bottom of my Bond film rankings!
I like LTK a lot but it doesn't feel very bondian. Too dirty, too violent, too serious for the bond formula.
LALD always felt different to the other films but Bondian in it's own way.
Least Bondian has to be one of the Craig's.
Probably QUANTUM in that it lacks Q, Moneypenny, an opening gunbarrel, signature "Bond, James Bond" introduction, Bond getting laid as the end credits roll, the Bond theme, a main Bond girl he beds, 007 disposing of the villain, and a title song that sounds Bondian.
Mostly I sense a general vibe that with this film, Eon is ashamed of Bond's cinematic heritage and are looking too much toward Bourne for inspiration. CR was a successful attempt to re-energize the series, yet the formula remained intact, in spite of some slight tweaking.
In fact, NSNA feels more like a traditional Bond film than QoS to me.
Bondian points in QUANTUM's favor: the shorter running time, globe trotting, Craig looking his best, Gassner's production design and Arnold's last score.
However, when watching the Bond films, it's SF and SP that stands out for me feeling least like Bond films. I have nothing to base this on in terms of examples within the two films, but when watching those two I never get the feeling of watching a Bond film. I feel like I'm watching the character thrown into something else - a depressing Nolan-esque tale of sorts, or something like that.
One of the things I did admire about QOS back in the day is that it felt it didn't need to carry all of the Bond tropes in order to call itself a Bond film, especially as the Brosnan run was still fresh in memory where it seemed to indulge in every trope to the point that in TWINE he actually introduces himself "Bond, James Bond" TWICE. It felt like overkill. QOS was probably too extreme an opposite, but I was game to let the pass. All that mattered to me was whether it was a solid adventure film... and it wasn't. But the fact that they did cut back on such tropes made its reintroduction in later much more special.
What's interesting to look back on is Connery's run. Unlike later installments, the filmmakers didn't feel the need to throw every single trope into the films like a checklist which Brosnan's films did. In all of six films, Connery only introduces himself "Bond, James Bond" in three films. He doesn't even wear a tuxedo in two films (unless you count the man in the Connery mask in FRWL). He's only served a vodka martini in three films, one of them being stirred not shaken as a gag. Even after getting a tricked out vehicle in GF, he only gets that again in briefly in TB and the remaining films have him driving another.
Those are very good points.
In first place, Skyfall. The most noticeably (and unfortunate) departure for me is the absence of a main Bond girl, which is something I discovered I really need in a Bond film. The third act is something radically different from what we're used to. It's set at Bond's childhood home, which sheds light on the past of a man who usually remains a bit of a mystery, and the chapel confrontation is fundamentally psychological in nature, rather than physical, as it's commonly the case. Also, M dying is something that forces the viewer to analyze the outcome and degree of success of the mission in different terms than is usual. But most crucial than all these aspects, is the fact that in how it's structured and paced, the film almost has the rhythm and feel of a drama, not of an action-adventure thriller, which is what I'm used to in Bond films.
I think they're both good films, but they're not what I want from Bond films. For me, they work as films, but by the criteria of Bond films, they fall short.
People here usually claim that Severine or M is the main Bond girl/woman in SF, but I feel that honour belongs to Eve Moneypenny.
Yeah, those three would be my choices as well. Least Bond-like isn’t necessarily a bad thing; I love both LTK and QOS. DAF, not so much. I think GE is doing its damndest to be as Bondian as possible. Pretty good movie. So it’s not really a marker of quality to be the most Bond-esque.
In fact, I thought TWINE cheated with the introduction of Christmas Jones, who felt like she was only brought in so that Bond could have someone to sleep with at the end, which sort of goes against the conceit of that film being Brosnan's OHMSS. The whole concept is Bond lets his guard down for a woman who turns out to be the mastermind that he has to kill at the end. When he kills her it's almost tragic in how he can't just cut her off emotionally as he remorse over her body, because he still has feelings and that's potentially getting in the way of his job, and it frustrates him because he's very aware of that vulnerability. To me that story would have been better served where Bond is sitting out in the balcony alone, taking the time to heal himself before his next assignment. It may not have been a "traditional" Bond ending, but neither was OHMSS's but we all give that a pass because it's Fleming. It would have felt more natural for the story than doing another gag with MI6 locating Bond shagging Christmas.
I also must admit that I'm less attached to Bond traditions and tropes because ever since I read the novels I saw what Bond films could be. The MR ends with Bond saying goodbye to the Bond girl who turns out to be engaged to another man, so it ends with him alone. I thought it was one of the most effective endings of any Bond film, and I would hope to see something like that realized on screen one day.
I’d say DN-TLD all feel like genuine Bond films to me. The Brosnan ones too, though I’m not sure about TND. The other three definitely. As for the Craig era CR and SP feel more like Bond films than the other two.
Regardless of their quality, I think these five films have a distinctly different feel compared to other Bond films:
1. NSNA
2. SF
3. TND
4. LTK
5. QOS
Sometimes I think it's okay to have a Bond film that doesn't quite feel like a Bond film. QUANTUM being one of them. At the time it felt refreshing to me, but looking back I still would have at least placed the gun-barrel in the beginning.
The Pierce era did feel like it was self consciously trying to check all the formula boxes.
I love the variety of the Connery era as far as the traditional elements are concerned. For me, each Connery film stays true to formula, and each feels refreshing (including DAF).
Agreed about the gun barrel for QOS. For me it’s all about a certain balance. CR gets it just right, not needing Q or Moneypenny but still carrying enough Bondian elements to be recognizably Bond.
Nope,you know by now they arnt Bond films to me in any of my threads Thundy .
To add to my earlier post, and on further reflection, while QoS lacks several Bond tropes, that's only a part of what makes it feel not Bondian enough. It has, as I mentioned, some core Bondian qualities, but the key point for me is that it takes itself too seriously. Yes, there is a decent amount of humor, but it comes across as more subdued than usual, and the film lacks the feeling of spectacle and (moderate) self-awareness that other films convey. Same with Sf, even though it has more of the classic tropes. It's also worth pointing out that, while there is a correlation between the amount of humor in a film and how seriously it appears to take itself, I think it's not the only factor. I believe some of QoS' fans have pointed out how the film has humor-- yes, but that doesn't mean it doesn't take itself too seriously! The style in which the film is acted is also important (most crucially by the actor playing Bond), probably even how it's shot and scored. Conversely, plot is not of great importance, in my view.
Bond films can be made with no cars, no gadgets, even not much action (hell, they can even attempt to be introspective), and still feel like Bond films because they have that "twinkle in the eye". Likewise, a Bond film could have lots of gadgets and a gadget-filled car, and not feel like one if it was a serious affair in which there was no wink to the audience. It would probably be like The Dark Knight, or something. Not a bad film at all, but not a Bond film. QoS and Sf are like that. Funny at times, yes. There is action, intrigue, elegance and other Bondian qualities, but it takes more than that. It boils down to this: Bond films are fantasies, and they have to convey that adolescent sense of fun. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall a review of Skyfall that pointed out the Bond film series had finally grown up. That's the problem. Bond shouldn't ever fully grow up. It can deal with mature subject matter, it can be introspective, but it can't get rid of that childlike sense of fun. It's ingrained in it.
Would you say the living daylights is more Bondian than LTK? I can think of many moments.
Bond is brooding throughout the film ; seeing Bond have fun at times, makes Bond , Bond.
With that said, with all its faults QOS is the least Bond film but increasingly enjoyable.