Greatest misconceptions about James Bond

13»

Comments

  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,287
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    That whenever an actor played the serious type, he would be praised as being close to the books, Craig and Dalton are being hailed as the Bond closest to the books because they've played the character serious, but for me, this is a misconception, because if one portrayed the character as serious doesn't mean he would be automatically close to the literary Bond as the Bond of the books was far more than just that, he was complex, a multifaceted character, have too many sides and angles.

    Exactly, it's like when Craig has that gag about their codenames in CR, he calls Vesper Stephanie Broadchest, and they smirk at how silly that is, when in reality Fleming was the one responsible for coming up with those silly names - that was a part of the original stories as Fleming wrote them. Glibly poking fun at that convention is actually moving further away from the Fleming source material, not closer. Roger Moore's films were more faithful to the Fleming Bond, at least in that sense.

    I mean Pussy Galore and Kissy Suzuki were the only questionable names that Fleming created. Vesper Lynd a bit more clever, but the rest were above board in terms of double entendres.

    With regards to the humour of the novels, I don't think Fleming was particularly funny in a quippy way. There are attempts at the sort of one-liners that characterise the films: Bond says to Mr. Big "Those who die the death they deserve," he mocks Drax about the loss of the Nazis by saying "Too bad" and when Drax about what led him to guess Drax's cheating he says "my eyes."

    Later on I think Bond finds his charm: even if Fleming does have Bond tatter on for much longer after the fact, the "it's the right size for me" is a clever retort. Not to mention the quite charismatic man we see with Jill in Goldfinger, Domino in Thunderball and Tiger in YOLT.

    Dalton I think gets the earlier awkward charm even if the films try to go for the later novels in terms of jokes. And where I think he triumphs over Connery is that Connery's Bond constantly toed the line between bastard and hero in way that I only really saw in Casino Royale. Craig does a good job of replicating the late novels.

    But it's not the fact that they don't DO more silly names which I find grating, it's the fact that they would visibly turn their noses up at the idea, and create a joke out of it, almost saying "could you imagine?" When the reality is that the reason they included those names like Mary Goodnight and such in the films is precisely because it was Fleming that made the creative choice to include them in his books.


    So you think the going forward the series should have Bond girls with names like Holly Goodhead or Onatopp?

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,657
    Benny wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    That whenever an actor played the serious type, he would be praised as being close to the books, Craig and Dalton are being hailed as the Bond closest to the books because they've played the character serious, but for me, this is a misconception, because if one portrayed the character as serious doesn't mean he would be automatically close to the literary Bond as the Bond of the books was far more than just that, he was complex, a multifaceted character, have too many sides and angles.

    Exactly, it's like when Craig has that gag about their codenames in CR, he calls Vesper Stephanie Broadchest, and they smirk at how silly that is, when in reality Fleming was the one responsible for coming up with those silly names - that was a part of the original stories as Fleming wrote them. Glibly poking fun at that convention is actually moving further away from the Fleming source material, not closer. Roger Moore's films were more faithful to the Fleming Bond, at least in that sense.

    I mean Pussy Galore and Kissy Suzuki were the only questionable names that Fleming created. Vesper Lynd a bit more clever, but the rest were above board in terms of double entendres.

    With regards to the humour of the novels, I don't think Fleming was particularly funny in a quippy way. There are attempts at the sort of one-liners that characterise the films: Bond says to Mr. Big "Those who die the death they deserve," he mocks Drax about the loss of the Nazis by saying "Too bad" and when Drax about what led him to guess Drax's cheating he says "my eyes."

    Later on I think Bond finds his charm: even if Fleming does have Bond tatter on for much longer after the fact, the "it's the right size for me" is a clever retort. Not to mention the quite charismatic man we see with Jill in Goldfinger, Domino in Thunderball and Tiger in YOLT.

    Dalton I think gets the earlier awkward charm even if the films try to go for the later novels in terms of jokes. And where I think he triumphs over Connery is that Connery's Bond constantly toed the line between bastard and hero in way that I only really saw in Casino Royale. Craig does a good job of replicating the late novels.

    But it's not the fact that they don't DO more silly names which I find grating, it's the fact that they would visibly turn their noses up at the idea, and create a joke out of it, almost saying "could you imagine?" When the reality is that the reason they included those names like Mary Goodnight and such in the films is precisely because it was Fleming that made the creative choice to include them in his books.


    So you think the going forward the series should have Bond girls with names like Holly Goodhead or Onatopp?

    I don't mind if they do or if they don't, but they should refrain from adding in scenes where the characters turn their noses up at aspects of Flemings creation, especially under the guise of being "more authentic" or true to the character.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,341
    I think Dalton actually finds that right balance between the several aspects of the literary character, he's brooding but not depressed, he's smart but not a show-off, and that typical sense of wanting to protect friends and lovers I can really see in Dalton's portrayal. Much like book Bond, he's always at the verge of falling for the Bond girls, but not in a smitten kind of way, but more like 'if we met in other circumstances I can imagine giving this a go'.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited February 19 Posts: 8,657
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I think Dalton actually finds that right balance between the several aspects of the literary character, he's brooding but not depressed, he's smart but not a show-off, and that typical sense of wanting to protect friends and lovers I can really see in Dalton's portrayal. Much like book Bond, he's always at the verge of falling for the Bond girls, but not in a smitten kind of way, but more like 'if we met in other circumstances I can imagine giving this a go'.

    Yes, it's been a while since I read Fleming, but from what I remember he's rarely outright depressed. Contemplative, sure, melancholic sometimes, but rarely at a complete low ebb.

    Often hes quite jovial. (And Dalton captures that in his early scenes with Moneypenny and Kara)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,106
    Benny wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    That whenever an actor played the serious type, he would be praised as being close to the books, Craig and Dalton are being hailed as the Bond closest to the books because they've played the character serious, but for me, this is a misconception, because if one portrayed the character as serious doesn't mean he would be automatically close to the literary Bond as the Bond of the books was far more than just that, he was complex, a multifaceted character, have too many sides and angles.

    Exactly, it's like when Craig has that gag about their codenames in CR, he calls Vesper Stephanie Broadchest, and they smirk at how silly that is, when in reality Fleming was the one responsible for coming up with those silly names - that was a part of the original stories as Fleming wrote them. Glibly poking fun at that convention is actually moving further away from the Fleming source material, not closer. Roger Moore's films were more faithful to the Fleming Bond, at least in that sense.

    I mean Pussy Galore and Kissy Suzuki were the only questionable names that Fleming created. Vesper Lynd a bit more clever, but the rest were above board in terms of double entendres.

    With regards to the humour of the novels, I don't think Fleming was particularly funny in a quippy way. There are attempts at the sort of one-liners that characterise the films: Bond says to Mr. Big "Those who die the death they deserve," he mocks Drax about the loss of the Nazis by saying "Too bad" and when Drax about what led him to guess Drax's cheating he says "my eyes."

    Later on I think Bond finds his charm: even if Fleming does have Bond tatter on for much longer after the fact, the "it's the right size for me" is a clever retort. Not to mention the quite charismatic man we see with Jill in Goldfinger, Domino in Thunderball and Tiger in YOLT.

    Dalton I think gets the earlier awkward charm even if the films try to go for the later novels in terms of jokes. And where I think he triumphs over Connery is that Connery's Bond constantly toed the line between bastard and hero in way that I only really saw in Casino Royale. Craig does a good job of replicating the late novels.

    But it's not the fact that they don't DO more silly names which I find grating, it's the fact that they would visibly turn their noses up at the idea, and create a joke out of it, almost saying "could you imagine?" When the reality is that the reason they included those names like Mary Goodnight and such in the films is precisely because it was Fleming that made the creative choice to include them in his books.


    So you think the going forward the series should have Bond girls with names like Holly Goodhead or Onatopp?

    I don't mind if they do or if they don't, but they should refrain from adding in scenes where the characters turn their noses up at aspects of Flemings creation, especially under the guise of being "more authentic" or true to the character.

    You do get that from Bond 1 onwards all of the films have been slightly tongue in cheek? There’s been a knowing side to the films right from the beginning, like the anecdote about the audience reaction to B1. Have you seriously never noticed that?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited February 19 Posts: 8,657
    mtm wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    That whenever an actor played the serious type, he would be praised as being close to the books, Craig and Dalton are being hailed as the Bond closest to the books because they've played the character serious, but for me, this is a misconception, because if one portrayed the character as serious doesn't mean he would be automatically close to the literary Bond as the Bond of the books was far more than just that, he was complex, a multifaceted character, have too many sides and angles.

    Exactly, it's like when Craig has that gag about their codenames in CR, he calls Vesper Stephanie Broadchest, and they smirk at how silly that is, when in reality Fleming was the one responsible for coming up with those silly names - that was a part of the original stories as Fleming wrote them. Glibly poking fun at that convention is actually moving further away from the Fleming source material, not closer. Roger Moore's films were more faithful to the Fleming Bond, at least in that sense.

    I mean Pussy Galore and Kissy Suzuki were the only questionable names that Fleming created. Vesper Lynd a bit more clever, but the rest were above board in terms of double entendres.

    With regards to the humour of the novels, I don't think Fleming was particularly funny in a quippy way. There are attempts at the sort of one-liners that characterise the films: Bond says to Mr. Big "Those who die the death they deserve," he mocks Drax about the loss of the Nazis by saying "Too bad" and when Drax about what led him to guess Drax's cheating he says "my eyes."

    Later on I think Bond finds his charm: even if Fleming does have Bond tatter on for much longer after the fact, the "it's the right size for me" is a clever retort. Not to mention the quite charismatic man we see with Jill in Goldfinger, Domino in Thunderball and Tiger in YOLT.

    Dalton I think gets the earlier awkward charm even if the films try to go for the later novels in terms of jokes. And where I think he triumphs over Connery is that Connery's Bond constantly toed the line between bastard and hero in way that I only really saw in Casino Royale. Craig does a good job of replicating the late novels.

    But it's not the fact that they don't DO more silly names which I find grating, it's the fact that they would visibly turn their noses up at the idea, and create a joke out of it, almost saying "could you imagine?" When the reality is that the reason they included those names like Mary Goodnight and such in the films is precisely because it was Fleming that made the creative choice to include them in his books.


    So you think the going forward the series should have Bond girls with names like Holly Goodhead or Onatopp?

    I don't mind if they do or if they don't, but they should refrain from adding in scenes where the characters turn their noses up at aspects of Flemings creation, especially under the guise of being "more authentic" or true to the character.

    You do get that from Bond 1 onwards all of the films have been slightly tongue in cheek? There’s been a knowing side to the films right from the beginning, like the anecdote about the audience reaction to B1. Have you seriously never noticed that?

    Tongue in cheek is perfectly fine, but if part of your mission statement is to be more true to Fleming (which Campbell and Co talk about many times during production and appears evident in the film) and return to a more authentic grounding for the character, then it doesn't make sense to suddenly start acting like you're too cool for school and above aspects of what he (Fleming) created.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited February 19 Posts: 3,836
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I think Dalton actually finds that right balance between the several aspects of the literary character, he's brooding but not depressed, he's smart but not a show-off, and that typical sense of wanting to protect friends and lovers I can really see in Dalton's portrayal. Much like book Bond, he's always at the verge of falling for the Bond girls, but not in a smitten kind of way, but more like 'if we met in other circumstances I can imagine giving this a go'.

    I think what makes still Dalton a different one from the literary books was he's still calculated, there's no naivety or anxiety in his portrayal, this was more evident in TLD in Pushkin's Hotel Room Bust or when he was attempting to foil Sanchez's meeting with his colleagues at the Isthmus Casino in LTK, or the way he killed one of Sanchez's men and thrown the money in the same film, I don't see the Bond of the books doing that, Dalton in those scenes felt very assured, he's not hesitating like the literary character would've always felt.

    Dalton's Bond was the type of Bond that when he's up to something, he would do it, no matter what it takes, that's how I've read his Bond portrayal, he's the man who would always find a way to accomplish his goals, the Bond of the books was not like that, if the literary Bond could get out of the situation and find a way to escape, he would do it, he'd rather drink than to be on the mission, he was trapped in a world that he can't escape and because he needed too.

    So, like the other Bond actors, he have managed to capture some bits from the literary Bond here and there, but still, not the closest.

    I don't see Dalton in the scene of FRWL book where he was having an anxiety entering the hotel to meet Tatiana, having self doubts that "could I get out of here alive?" Feeling from him, the same feeling when he's about to enter Blofeld's poisonous garden in YOLT, like as Fleming described, was some sort of hesitation that he could've decided to abandon the mission of finishing his business with Blofeld and go to live with Kissy, but part of him was thinking to avenge his wife until he heard a voice calling him to do the exact same thing, none of the Bonds have managed to exert that kind of feeling, not even Dalton.

    The Bond of the books was having self doubts like "Have I done the right thing? Have I done the right decision?" He's always questioning himself, his own abilities and that's what makes him a bit jaded or cynical as a result, think of the scene in Goldfinger book while he's working as Blofeld's secretary, there's a feeling in him questioning if he had made the right decision, but because he had no choice, he'd frustratingly gave it a go.

    There's that 'fight or flight' scenario always going on in Bond's head all the time he was infiltrating something.

    It's not that he's serious, it's not, the literary Bond was more than just that, his psyche was way more complex in the books, way more complicated that Dalton, in my view, have only scratched the surface, the tip of the iceberg, but not the depths of it.

    The literary Bond was the man who always complained and questioned about the world, about the society, a man carrying the whole world on his back, he's a man who was having a hard time adapting to the changing world around him, he's like a shadow that's being left behind, Bond, I think, at some point had some sort of existential crisis, I don't see any of that aspect in the Film Bonds.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,341
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I think Dalton actually finds that right balance between the several aspects of the literary character, he's brooding but not depressed, he's smart but not a show-off, and that typical sense of wanting to protect friends and lovers I can really see in Dalton's portrayal. Much like book Bond, he's always at the verge of falling for the Bond girls, but not in a smitten kind of way, but more like 'if we met in other circumstances I can imagine giving this a go'.

    I think what makes still Dalton a different one from the literary books was he's still calculated, there's no naivety or anxiety in his portrayal, this was more evident in TLD in Pushkin's Hotel Room Bust or when he was attempting to foil Sanchez's meeting with his colleagues at the Isthmus Casino in LTK, or the way he killed one of Sanchez's men and thrown the money in the same film, I don't see the Bond of the books doing that, Dalton in those scenes felt very assured, he's not hesitating like the literary character would've always felt.

    Dalton's Bond was the type of Bond that when he's up to something, he would do it, no matter what it takes, that's how I've read his Bond portrayal, he's the man who would always find a way to accomplish his goals, the Bond of the books was not like that, if the literary Bond could get out of the situation and find a way to escape, he would do it, he'd rather drink than to be on the mission, he was trapped in a world that he can't escape and because he needed too.

    So, like the other Bond actors, he have managed to capture some bits from the literary Bond here and there, but still, not the closest.

    I don't see Dalton in the scene of FRWL book where he was having an anxiety entering the hotel to meet Tatiana, having self doubts that "could I get out of here alive?" Feeling from him, the same feeling when he's about to enter Blofeld's poisonous garden in YOLT, like as Fleming described, was some sort of hesitation that he could've decided to abandon the mission of finishing his business with Blofeld and go to live with Kissy, but part of him was thinking to avenge his wife until he heard a voice calling him to do the exact same thing, none of the Bonds have managed to exert that kind of feeling, not even Dalton.

    The Bond of the books was having self doubts like "Have I done the right thing? Have I done the right decision?" He's always questioning himself, his own abilities and that's what makes him a bit jaded or cynical as a result, think of the scene in Goldfinger book while he's working as Blofeld's secretary, there's a feeling in him questioning if he had made the right decision, but because he had no choice, he'd frustratingly gave it a go.

    There's that 'fight or flight' scenario always going on in Bond's head all the time he was infiltrating something.

    It's not that he's serious, it's not, the literary Bond was more than just that, his psyche was way more complex in the books, way more complicated that Dalton, in my view, have only scratched the surface, the tip of the iceberg, but not the depths of it.

    The literary Bond was the man who always complained and questioned about the world, about the society, a man carrying the whole world on his back, he's a man who was having a hard time adapting to the changing world around him, he's like a shadow that's being left behind, Bond, I think, at some point had some sort of existential crisis, I don't see any of that aspect in the Film Bonds.

    I think these are fair points, though there are three moments in which I can see those elements back in Dalton's portrayal: Saunders death and Bond impulsively chasing what turns out to be an innocent boy with his mum, Dalton finding Felix after the shark attack, and the very final moment of the LTK climax where Bond leans on a rock and sighs while reminiscing on what has happened.

    These are only a few moments and I do think you're right that all the actors have been generally more self-assured than their literary counterpart. Maybe safe for Lazenby, and perhaps that's also why he's a good fit for OHMSS the movie...
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 19 Posts: 17,106
    mtm wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    That whenever an actor played the serious type, he would be praised as being close to the books, Craig and Dalton are being hailed as the Bond closest to the books because they've played the character serious, but for me, this is a misconception, because if one portrayed the character as serious doesn't mean he would be automatically close to the literary Bond as the Bond of the books was far more than just that, he was complex, a multifaceted character, have too many sides and angles.

    Exactly, it's like when Craig has that gag about their codenames in CR, he calls Vesper Stephanie Broadchest, and they smirk at how silly that is, when in reality Fleming was the one responsible for coming up with those silly names - that was a part of the original stories as Fleming wrote them. Glibly poking fun at that convention is actually moving further away from the Fleming source material, not closer. Roger Moore's films were more faithful to the Fleming Bond, at least in that sense.

    I mean Pussy Galore and Kissy Suzuki were the only questionable names that Fleming created. Vesper Lynd a bit more clever, but the rest were above board in terms of double entendres.

    With regards to the humour of the novels, I don't think Fleming was particularly funny in a quippy way. There are attempts at the sort of one-liners that characterise the films: Bond says to Mr. Big "Those who die the death they deserve," he mocks Drax about the loss of the Nazis by saying "Too bad" and when Drax about what led him to guess Drax's cheating he says "my eyes."

    Later on I think Bond finds his charm: even if Fleming does have Bond tatter on for much longer after the fact, the "it's the right size for me" is a clever retort. Not to mention the quite charismatic man we see with Jill in Goldfinger, Domino in Thunderball and Tiger in YOLT.

    Dalton I think gets the earlier awkward charm even if the films try to go for the later novels in terms of jokes. And where I think he triumphs over Connery is that Connery's Bond constantly toed the line between bastard and hero in way that I only really saw in Casino Royale. Craig does a good job of replicating the late novels.

    But it's not the fact that they don't DO more silly names which I find grating, it's the fact that they would visibly turn their noses up at the idea, and create a joke out of it, almost saying "could you imagine?" When the reality is that the reason they included those names like Mary Goodnight and such in the films is precisely because it was Fleming that made the creative choice to include them in his books.


    So you think the going forward the series should have Bond girls with names like Holly Goodhead or Onatopp?

    I don't mind if they do or if they don't, but they should refrain from adding in scenes where the characters turn their noses up at aspects of Flemings creation, especially under the guise of being "more authentic" or true to the character.

    You do get that from Bond 1 onwards all of the films have been slightly tongue in cheek? There’s been a knowing side to the films right from the beginning, like the anecdote about the audience reaction to B1. Have you seriously never noticed that?

    Tongue in cheek is perfectly fine, but if part of your mission statement is to be more true to Fleming (which Campbell and Co talk about many times during production and appears evident in the film) and return to a more authentic grounding for the character, then it doesn't make sense to suddenly start acting like you're too cool for school and above aspects of what he (Fleming) created.

    Such a weird obsession with that one gag, I'll never understand how you manage to be personally affronted by so many elements in these films which occupy so much of your headspace. The joke literally is a mission statement to the audience that the film is being more true to Fleming: he never came up with Holly Goodhead or Xenia Onatopp or whatever, that was the films having a bit of fun and pushing it further. That it manages to have a bit of fun with it is hardly a failing.
    But fine, don't watch Bond21 again, the rest of us will continue to enjoy it as one of the very best. Don't forget to never watch Bond2 again either, as that has plenty of wink-at-the-audience fun with the nature of the Bond novels as well as simultaneously presenting it in a serious fashion when it needs to.
  • Posts: 4,628
    The Craig films ended with a villain basically called Lucifer Satan… so funnily enough Bond 25 is probably better than Bond 21 in this area 😉
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,850
    The Stephanie Broadchest gag wasn't simply a throwaway line, it was literally Vesper's alias. It's written on the briefing Bond reads; it's on her fake passport. Seeing these documents for the first time, years after the film release was a great moment of discovery and adds to the fun.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,341
    007HallY wrote: »
    The Craig films ended with a villain basically called Lucifer Satan… so funnily enough Bond 25 is probably better than Bond 21 in this area 😉

    Haha that's right. If you name your kid Lucifer you're really asking for it :))
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,657
    007HallY wrote: »
    The Craig films ended with a villain basically called Lucifer Satan… so funnily enough Bond 25 is probably better than Bond 21 in this area 😉

    Again, it's not about whether they include the names or not. It's the fact that they are looking down on the original creators work (the implication being "we're too good for any of that silliness") to establish an authenticity and groundedness for this new portrayal when theres no better source to establish what is authentically Bond than Fleming himself.
  • edited February 19 Posts: 4,628
    007HallY wrote: »
    The Craig films ended with a villain basically called Lucifer Satan… so funnily enough Bond 25 is probably better than Bond 21 in this area 😉

    Again, it's not about whether they include the names or not. It's the fact that they are looking down on the original creators work (the implication being "we're too good for any of that silliness") to establish an authenticity and groundedness for this new portrayal when theres no better source to establish what is authentically Bond than Fleming himself.

    Indeed, Bond films have never been self aware or tongue in cheek and Fleming always used silly names without exception.

    In all seriousness, if anything it seems more like the films poking a bit of fun at themselves more than Fleming.
  • Posts: 1,617
    None of the actors is Fleming's Bond. It is Fleming being tougher than he really was.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,657
    None of the actors is Fleming's Bond. It is Fleming being tougher than he really was.

    Yep, and luckier.
Sign In or Register to comment.