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
I believe a lot of that special feel was lost during the Glen years, when the films became more down to earth and 'real' in the way they were filmed, losing some of that cool eccentric flavour that characterized the earlier ones. Adam leaving probably had a lot to do with it, but budgets were scaled down as well, and action orientation (Indy style) became more important. Barry was still on the job though, and that really helped to make things continue to feel 'Bondian'.
Recently it's been much more spotty. I personally believe that's because a lot of the directors/script writers who really understood Bond aren't on the job anymore. Having said that, the Craig years have given us a return to the stylish visuals & a more lethal agent, and I'm very grateful for that. Other areas aren't so good though, including the scores.
A Bond film must always be a special movie going experience.
From what Brady is saying I think it's about taking the series as a whole and hoping to goodness that DAD doesn't water down the effect the series has had so much that it damages it beyond repair.
I was trying to think of a literary equivalent where a series of books has been considered a triumph of modern literature even though one or two of the books were utter shite. Bound to be something somewhere.
You make very good points. I can't argue with that. But I do fear that I've been misunderstood. In the definition of some snobs, what is popular culture or entertainment cannot be "art". Using this snobbish definition art (with which I disagree) I was saying that Bond films are something superior to "art"; entertainment.
@BMW_with_missiles, snobs they indeed are. Of course, these are people who stand pretentiously in front of paintings at exhibitions in places like New York and San Francisco pretending that a Jackson Pollack canvas is a game-changing work of art and not a glorified finger painting, so let's not take their word too seriously on just what is and isn't "art."
I on the other hand, find great value in popular culture, because it's unstuffy and without pretension. Because we as people are struck with the understandable and great need to escape the unavoidable idea that we'll all be dead soon, entertainment is an oasis we use to get through the days, weeks and months that make up our year. It only makes sense then that the things people use to distract themselves with are on the whole engrossing enough to block out these negative thoughts and unbreakable truths. I look at popular culture as one of the ideal forms of finding out what people are most obsessed with, because the films or series that maintain a place in our collective consciousness as "good" or "great" truly are important and have a proven track record as being seen as exceptional because so many love them. And again, because popular culture lacks the high pretension of the art world and its "high art," you can rest assured that what people like, they like. After all, there's no time to act a snob when Death's door is ever-approaching and a new season of Game of Thrones is premiering to distract your mind away from the truth.
Of course, popular culture has its faults too, because there's always crazes inside this culture where one book, film or series is the only thing people talk about for an extended period of time that may not be up to snuff in comparison to everything else out there to enjoy. But the true mark of artistry is when a pop culture product remains in the minds of those a part of that culture long after the craze around it has died. Trends have made us suffer through people incessantly talking about the Twilight movies and 50 Shades of Grey, for example, and sure enough their 15 minutes reach their end and soon it's like they never existed while better things like Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones live on to captivate people.
Even inside pop culture itself, Bond has always been a different animal from almost all the rest, working as what I always call "event cinema." Every year a Bond film comes out it is a main fixture and source of excitement and craziness in that year and the months leading up to its premiere are absolutely nuts with speculation and buzz. The series is looked back on in anticipation of a new addition to the series in these years, and the best Bond actors, films, cars, gadgets and more are ranked in lists by journalists of pop culture on the web and on forums like our own to get the excitement building even more until it's fit to bust the ceiling.
Bond is art because it has captivated audiences since the massive wave of popularity it experienced in the 60s, especially during GF and TB's releases, which coined the term Bondmania and gave evidence towards a Bond phenomenon erupting worldwide. It is hard to find films that are more entertaining, everlasting and engaging than the Bond films, and harder still to find creations that so easily envelop you in their worlds and make you feel a part of some grand adventure for two hours with a man you either want to be or be with.
Bond also goes beyond being just a cinematic icon or pop culture hero of the ages, though. Nowadays he's just as vital as he's always been, and over time has only heightened in his esteem as a national hero for Britain. Times of empire have come and gone, but Bond is still there doing his duty no matter what is facing him, a modern myth for our ever changing times. He's a respectable and elegant man of fine taste and intrigue who can stay afloat and alive in an uncertain and dangerous business, and acts in the face of villainy in a manner that we all hope we would if put in a similar circumstance. In a pinch and near demise, we all want to believe we'd fashion an escape like Bond and win the day. Facing a dastardly archenemy, we'd like to think we'd stare at him or her with an unflappable demeanor as Bond always does, and maybe even feel the courage and resolve to throw a dry and biting one-liner their way, even as we faced certain death.
Bond is also a man with traits we could all benefit from adopting in our own lives, like a joy of life, travel, world culture and the ability to welcome new experiences into our days, just as his traits of loyalty, duty and calm in the face of chaos are equally as important and vital. And in an ever-changing time where the world seems more dangerous than ever before, like we do with Superman, it's nice to think and hope that somewhere out there a man like Bond exists, doing his part to restore the balance of evil, keeping us all secure. Even if it's fantasy, it's the best fantasy to be caught up in, and like all great art, Bond and his experience of life and the world around him adds meaning and significance to our own lives and how we deal with our own challenges.
And that's why I'll always find Bond to be vital in a franchise worthy of the label, "art."
Speaking solely about entertainment films, I think the Bond films are superior to other entertainment films. Listen to some of the soundtracks or look at the set designs, they are masterful creations. But also the hero is a well-educated and well-dressed protagonist opposed to the usual Everyman figure.
Are Bond films art? Some of them (OHMSS) but not all (DAD). I don't consider success to be of any significance. Fast & Furious, Transformers and all those noisy Marvel films are highly succesful but are not anywhere near art. Ingmar Bergman made art, the average moviegoer has no clue who the man was.
Some Bond films are art because they represent entertainment at its most stylish. Like The Adventures of Robin Hood or The Mark of Zorro did. I'm sure one could add the Bonds from the sixties (and a few others) to that list.
Fish and chips for the eyes.
And yet...read Brady's post.....
;)
Has been since first saw TLD back in 1988. Joe Don Baker really was given the short straw for his amount of screen time. Then again this also happened with Klebb, Blofeld YOLT & off course Kristatos.
Dalton insisted the villains be toned down so at least he was listened to.
When I saw parts of the first draft copy only a few months back on You tube I liked the added dialogue for Whitaker " I don't scare easily General I have ways of protecting myself even from your KGB Understood" then he says " On the double Sgt the General is leaving" very abruptly. this scene with Pushkin didn't need cut and I would liked to have seen it kept in.
Also I still reckon more scenes were filmed for him but sadly ended on the cutting room floor.
A question I'd ask John Glen in a second if got the chance to meet him!
That certainly is an unconventional opinion! Better than Grant? Oddjob? Jaws?? Blofeld (FRWL)???
Would like to hear your opinion why.
TLD is my favourite film and even I think the villains are the weak point
Even FYEO, which I watched two nights back, has spectacular scenery and breathtaking action scenes, especially for 1981.
The one film that truly recaptured that special Bond visual feeling for me recently was SF. It felt at least one bar ahead of everything else at the time.
It's definitely not my favourite film by a long way,but I do agree with you @Mathis1,i do like that scene a lot,and the score throughout it as well.
Also the mini cannon I find fits in well.
But I think we are in the minority !
I don't see why they didn't bring back a competent Felix instead !
Whitaker is merely underwritten. Can't really blame the actor but the character really doesn't serve any function.
You could easily amalgamate Koskov and Whitaker into one character. Pushkin could visit Koskov instead and ask him what he's doing with the money. And at the end after he survives the plane hitting his Land Rover (I've still never worked out how he doesn't end up looking like Simon Weston after this) Bond confronts him in the villa which would have some resonance, rather than being the first time Bond actually meets him as with Whitaker.
Absolutely. OK, TLD is my favourite Bond film, so I am a bit biased here but still Whitaker is not as bad as people say. It is a bit like in FYEO that the villains are not revealed early in the film, therefore it is quiet good to have less obvious and less colourfull villains.
I also think that the final shootout between Bond and Whitacker is very suspensefull. The atmosphere is great. And I also like the development of the scene. It was good that they did not make a fight between the two since Whittacker is no match for Bond, much in the same way that Goldfinger or Green are no matches for Bond. Finally Bond wins by a simple trick that surpasses Whitacker's high amount of modern arms.
What I find much more deplorable is the great opportunity missed to upvalue SF by bringing Jeffrey Wright back who already did a most wonderful job in CR and QOS.
Re TLD, i reallly think Koskov sould have died in that plane crash.It would have been a spectacular death scene! Dont know why they needed him to survive for a rather pointless reappearance at Whitakers villa!
I honestly think it was good to have two villains here. Actually in most films where the real villain is revealed late in the film and is supposed to be an ally in the beginning, we have a second villain / henchman to be in the focus for the first part of the film:
Loque in FYEO
Whitacker/Necros in TLD
Ourumov / Xenia in GE
Renard in TWINE
Koskov cannot really be visited by Pushkin. How should that work? Pushkin should believe that Koskov is still in the West or is dead. Otherwise, Pushkin would have killed him or brought him back to a Soviet military court.
I am not sure here. I like the dialouge between Pushkin and Koskov in the end. Koskov is again trying to pull out his slimy politeness but Pushkin had the last laugh.
I just find it a letdown that after the funny and amusing set-up we had for the wolf whistle activating Bond's key ring - this was the payoff. You'd think that there'd be some payoff related to it actually being a wolf whistle. It could've been any sound. I know that is nit picking but that was literally the one thing I held against TLD on first viewing.
The best way I deal with it is by viewing it as a coda and not the ending, but it is the main villain here, so that's difficult to do (I have a similar problem with Rosa Klebb's death).
Well I am OK with both endings. In both films, the climax (train fight and cargo plane) is before the finale. The finale is more like a small piece of tension in the end. We have it in many Bond films, for instance in all Guy Hamilton films when after the climax a villain - mainly the henchman - shows up again (Goldfinger, Wint and Kidd, Teehee, Nick Nack) for a small fight in the end.
I don't like the parkour scene very much.
There you go.