›

What defines the screen Bond and where did it all go wrong?

124

Comments

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited February 2012 Posts: 11,189
    I might be wrong but I think even Fleming felt less than satisfied with CR - easily his "nastiest" novel. I remember hearing he was always suprised when people said they really liked it. There is a noticible increase in flamboyance as the books go on. True Bond gets beaten up a lot but he survives to tell the tale and I wouldn't describe getting attacked by a giant squid as particularly plausable either - no matter how much Bond is hurt.

    I will agree though that Bond gets beaten and bruised far more in the books than he ever has on film.

    I for one don't think Bond should be too violent. A certain degree of violence - of course but part of the joys of Bond is showing it to younger generations. Truth be told if Bond stuck purely to Fleming it would have died a long time ago. Maybe that would have been a good thing but it would mean many of us wouldn't be here.
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I might be wrong but I think even Fleming felt less than satisfied with CR - easily his "nastiest" novel. I remember hearing he was always suprised when people said they really liked it. There is a noticible increase in flamboyance as the books go on. True Bond gets beaten up a lot but he survives to tell the tale and I wouldn't describe getting attacked by a giant squid as particularly plausable either - no matter how much Bond is hurt.

    I will agree though that Bond gets beaten and bruised far more in the books than he ever has on film.

    I for one don't think Bond should be too violent. A certain degree of violence - of course but part of the joys of Bond is showing it to younger generations. It's become bigger than the books.

    Then I guess this is where our viewpoint on Bond films differ. I don't want a Bond film which is acceptable to young kiddies. I want violence, sex, blood, sadism - 18 certificate territory.

    My wishes have only been reached twice with this dark, nasty vision of Bond - CR and LTK.
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    NicNac wrote:
    It's an interesting take jsw, but in truth it will never happen like that. The Bond films set their stall out from the word go and have tried to stick to the same basic principles.

    Bond can't go '18', they have to remain entertainment for the masses. If the violence became excessive I for one would walk away. To some degree the violence is cartoon violence and it has to stay that way.

    All the reasons you love LTK are the reasons I dislike it. ;)
    I know, and I respect that. If I had it my way, Bond would be no longer a global mainstream franchise, so I know not everyone would like this in a Bond film.

    The other end of the spectrum is not ideal for the movies either - the DAD, CGI, parasurfing, double-taking pigeon, comedy-ridden, gadget laden, OTT Austin Powers spoof.

    There has to be a balance.

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited February 2012 Posts: 11,189
    I remember Dalton in an interview with Terry Wogan saying he wanted to make Bond primerily for adults but which kids could also enjoy. You make Bond an 18 kids won't even be able to enjoy it.

    I think its the "forced violence" some people didn't take to in LTK aswell. To some it seemed like "lets make it as violent as possible to show how "gritty" we can be".
  • identigraphidentigraph
    Posts: 1,052
    Just out of curiosity, how popular were the novels? I've always been under the impression that they were only modertaley succesful until the films came along and raised the profile?
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    They were very successful BUT the films are what have made the series last. President Kennedy famously cited FRWL as one of his favourite books.
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    identigraph wrote:
    Just out of curiosity, how popular were the novels? I've always been under the impression that they were only modertaley succesful until the films came along and raised the profile?
    Best sellers from what I remember. Kennedy had FRWL in his top 10 favourite novels of all time.

  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I remember Dalton in an interview with Terry Wogan saying he wanted to make Bond primerily for adults but which kids could also enjoy. You make Bond an 18 kids won't even be able to enjoy it.

    I think its the "forced violence" some people didn't take to in LTK aswell. To some it seemed like "lets make it as violent as possible to show how "gritty" we can be".
    And to others it seemed like `let's make it as violent as possible to get closer to the world Fleming wrote about...'

    ;)
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited February 2012 Posts: 11,189
    I'd argue something like FRWL is closer in to the ideal. A story focused on the adult world of espionage but not "overly" violent and something younger audiences can watch alongside their parents. I remember seeing it with my dad when I was about 11 or so.

    Even Royale, which has some nastier scenes but still has that gloss
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I'd argue something like FRWL is closer in to the ideal. A story focused on the adult world of espionage but not "overly" violent and something younger audiences can watch alongside their parents. I remember seeing it with my dad when I was about 11 or so.

    Even Royale, which has some nastier scenes but still has that gloss
    I think that's why CR is more poular as a film. It managed to strike a balance between harder edged, yet keeping the upper class gloss element that LTK lacked.

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited February 2012 Posts: 11,189
    jetsetwilly wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I'd argue something like FRWL is closer in to the ideal. A story focused on the adult world of espionage but not "overly" violent and something younger audiences can watch alongside their parents. I remember seeing it with my dad when I was about 11 or so.

    Even Royale, which has some nastier scenes but still has that gloss
    I think that's why CR is more poular as a film. It managed to strike a balance between harder edged, yet keeping the upper class gloss element that LTK lacked.

    I'm a fan of GE. I know it's OTT in places but I think it again strikes that balance between the fantastical and the serious (plus the OTT scenes are fun and NOT embarassing). Also, if it weren't for GE we probably wouldn't have CR in its current form.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,584
    jetsetwilly wrote:
    identigraph wrote:
    Just out of curiosity, how popular were the novels? I've always been under the impression that they were only modertaley succesful until the films came along and raised the profile?
    Best sellers from what I remember. Kennedy had FRWL in his top 10 favourite novels of all time.

    The books were popular best sellers, but when Kennedy announced that then the novels went global in popularity.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited February 2012 Posts: 12,837
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I remember Dalton in an interview with Terry Wogan saying he wanted to make Bond primerily for adults but which kids could also enjoy. You make Bond an 18 kids won't even be able to enjoy it.

    I think its the "forced violence" some people didn't take to in LTK aswell. To some it seemed like "lets make it as violent as possible to show how "gritty" we can be".

    I think the violence in LTK wasn't forced, it was just realistic. I enjoyed it when I was a kid, but I couldn't see it at the cinema. LTK is my favourite bond film so maybe I'm getting defensive, but I don't think there's anything wrong with it. It was a little darker, but so was CR and everybody loves that. The thing about LTK, (and CR to an extent), is that they were dark, gritty and serious but they still felt like bond films, you still knew it was james bond. Unlike QOS.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Meant to post this here.

    Have just re-watched the Tosca scenes from QoS and think it is fair to say that this is one of the most authentically (screen) Bondian sequences in a Bond film for a couple of decades. Although overall the film may not be a huge success, I think Forster shows a better understanding of what makes a Bond movie in those 5 minutes than Cambell, Spottiswood, Tamahori and co managed in all their accumulated hours prior to that.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Sorry to say but I've always half maintained that License To Kill just doesn't feel like a Bond release, it's only when M appears or Q for instance or the words 'Mister Bond' get mentioned you get back on track. It's not Dalton's fault, I don't mind a bit of violence in Bond, it was a big step up in 1989 from the previous laid back and younger audience viewings, It's just that Bond goes around Florida looking for sharks and then off to Mexico for a bit of gambling, Yes we have the obligatory Vodka Martinis, Card tables and diner suits and girls, but whatever anyone thinks, it just doesn't feel like Bond half the time, I have to be honest with myself. I'm not saying it's a poor film, it isn't, it's just that often it doesn't come across as a tangible 007 entry
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Baltimore_007 wrote:
    Sorry to say but I've always half maintained that License To Kill just doesn't feel like a Bond release, it's only when M appears or Q for instance or the words 'Mister Bond' get mentioned you get back on track. It's not Dalton's fault, I don't mind a bit of violence in Bond, it was a big step up in 1989 from the previous laid back and younger audience viewings, It's just that Bond goes around Florida looking for sharks and then off to Mexico for a bit of gambling, Yes we have the obligatory Vodka Martinis, Card tables and diner suits and girls, but whatever anyone thinks, it just doesn't feel like Bond half the time, I have to be honest with myself. I'm not saying it's a poor film, it isn't, it's just that often it doesn't come across as a tangible 007 entry

    Exactly. But at least it's only half the time.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    Baltimore_007 wrote:
    Sorry to say but I've always half maintained that License To Kill just doesn't feel like a Bond release, it's only when M appears or Q for instance or the words 'Mister Bond' get mentioned you get back on track. It's not Dalton's fault, I don't mind a bit of violence in Bond, it was a big step up in 1989 from the previous laid back and younger audience viewings, It's just that Bond goes around Florida looking for sharks and then off to Mexico for a bit of gambling, Yes we have the obligatory Vodka Martinis, Card tables and diner suits and girls, but whatever anyone thinks, it just doesn't feel like Bond half the time, I have to be honest with myself. I'm not saying it's a poor film, it isn't, it's just that often it doesn't come across as a tangible 007 entry

    I disagree. I love LTK because I think it DOES feel like a bond, while also being dark and serious. CR also felt like a bond, but it also felt a bit different, but it we needed a change then. But QOS felt nothing like a bond film. It was awful.
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    Baltimore_007 wrote:
    Sorry to say but I've always half maintained that License To Kill just doesn't feel like a Bond release, it's only when M appears or Q for instance or the words 'Mister Bond' get mentioned you get back on track. It's not Dalton's fault, I don't mind a bit of violence in Bond, it was a big step up in 1989 from the previous laid back and younger audience viewings, It's just that Bond goes around Florida looking for sharks and then off to Mexico for a bit of gambling, Yes we have the obligatory Vodka Martinis, Card tables and diner suits and girls, but whatever anyone thinks, it just doesn't feel like Bond half the time, I have to be honest with myself. I'm not saying it's a poor film, it isn't, it's just that often it doesn't come across as a tangible 007 entry

    I disagree. I love LTK because I think it DOES feel like a bond, while also being dark and serious. CR also felt like a bond, but it also felt a bit different, but it we needed a change then. But QOS felt nothing like a bond film. It was awful.

    We are on the same page here. I too loved LTK and CR, yet was disappointed by QoS. It was lacking a Bond feel to the movie, other than David Arnold's occassional retro Barry sounds.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Don't get me wrong I enjoy LTK but I just feel that films like OHMSS, FRWL, TLD and FYEO echo Fleming more. I suspect even Dalton would admit to that.
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Don't get me wrong I enjoy LTK but I just feel that films like OHMSS, FRWL, TLD and FYEO echo Fleming more. I suspect even Dalton would admit to that.

    OHMSS and FRWL yes, TLD and particularly FYEO - no way!
  • Jason19Jason19
    Posts: 90
    JetSetWilly says; 'I want violence,sex, blood,sadism - a dark ,nasty vision of Bond.' Tell me JetSetWilly -did you work as an interrogator at Guantanamo Bay ? Perhaps Alfred Hitchcock's 'Phsycho ' would be more your kind of thing.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    That's a tad harsh Jason19. I can see where JSW is coming from - the books WERE nastier in several ways - but they had, as has been said - an "upper class gloss.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,999
    LTK might not have captured the same Fleming feel of TLD, but Dalton's performance certainly does imo.
  • actonsteveactonsteve
    Posts: 1,492
    Getafix wrote:
    Meant to post this here.

    Have just re-watched the Tosca scenes from QoS and think it is fair to say that this is one of the most authentically (screen) Bondian sequences in a Bond film for a couple of decades. Although overall the film may not be a huge success, I think Forster shows a better understanding of what makes a Bond movie in those 5 minutes than Cambell, Spottiswood, Tamahori and co managed in all their accumulated hours prior to that.

    I have been saying this since release. Some of his directorial touches are extraordinary. I just like the idea of Bond cavalierly and rather cruelly blowing the cover of about a hundred Quantum people at their anonymous meeting. Very Fleming thing to do.
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    That was THE perfect, classy scene. The music, the atmosphere, "You people really need a better place to meet"..Together with the very first scene of flying over the lake to the tunnel and the chase until the motor started roaring. Pitch perfect and ideed showed, what Forster is capable of, if he hadn't followed a weird dream for most of the film - which is represented in the editing.
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    edited February 2012 Posts: 3,327
    Jason19 wrote:
    JetSetWilly says; 'I want violence,sex, blood,sadism - a dark ,nasty vision of Bond.' Tell me JetSetWilly -did you work as an interrogator at Guantanamo Bay ? Perhaps Alfred Hitchcock's 'Phsycho ' would be more your kind of thing.
    Pray tell Jason, have you ever actually read a Fleming Bond novel?



  • Jason19Jason19
    Posts: 90
    I have read all Ian Flemings Bond novels and the short stories too. Only Casino Royale seems to have what you want - and we had enough of that in the Craig film - Yuk !
  • chuck007chuck007
    Posts: 172
    Jason19 wrote:
    I have read all Ian Flemings Bond novels and the short stories too. Only Casino Royale seems to have what you want - and we had enough of that in the Craig film - Yuk !

    Just curious, what is your favorite Bond movies, Jason?
  • Jason19Jason19
    Posts: 90
    I like all of the first seven Bond films (1962 -1972' Dr.No' to 'Diamonds Are Forever' and I will give a passing nod to Never Say Never Again ) The first half of The Living Daylights was also quite good and Tomorrow Never Dies had someting going for it.
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    Jason19 wrote:
    I have read all Ian Flemings Bond novels and the short stories too. Only Casino Royale seems to have what you want - and we had enough of that in the Craig film - Yuk !

    So there was no violence in the novel DAF, when Bond nearly gets kicked to death by football boots?

    So there was no violence in Dr. No's torture assault course for Bond?

    So there was no violence when Bond tries to commit suicide while waiting for Goldfinger's buzzsaw to chop him in half, moving slowly through him every 2 minutes?

    Are you SURE you've read the Bond novels, Jason....? ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.