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 Largo and SPECTRE essentially told Kutze that he'd make far more money from the NATO job than he would with earnings from a Nobel Prize in the sciences, which would be dirt in comparison, and so Kutze seemed motivated to jump at the chance of wealth when it was offered to him. You can tell he'd rather be tinkering in his lab at Warsaw, though, and that he is uncomfortable around the SPECTRE crew. I wouldn't be surprised if they threatened the lives of his family to get him to join them in the Bahamas.
There are numerous instances throughout the series where Bond gets much-needed assistance from the lead girl.
imho it's DAD where Classic cinematic Bond ended, for 40 years the was a reliable formula, it was thrown out the window in 2006.
Still, objectively speaking I would say it ended with OHMSS.
DAF was so completely different to the six movies before. Probably the biggest contrast ever between two back to back Bond films.
For me though it's MR. Films after that were distinctly different in the 80's with a more down to earth feel. The sense of eccentric and distinctly Bondian idiosyncrasy and glamour that characterized the earlier entries disappeared with Adam, and was replaced by a more realistic (and dare I say more common and imitable) tone and feel.
This is probably the winner. An oddball CGI mess to a stripped down film played straight down the middle.
The only other pairings that would even come close for me are FRWL/GF (or GF/TB), TB/YOLT and AVTAK/TLD, but I think the reason those last two feel so different is because the change in how the films were presented is so stark. AVTAK to TLD was also a massive changeover from a geriatric Bond to a young one, so that always makes them feel different to me, despite the clear Moore era hangovers in Dalton's movies.
The first 60 minutes of DAD could easily be mixed up with CR. DAD is quite gritty and serious in tone. Even if the last act is comic book/sci-fi like.
Of course once the film goes to Iceland it's DAF and MR level.
And 11 seconds of messed up CGI is simply not a deciding factor.
I think I would have to say OHMSS. DAF marked the start of the more humerous take on the character -- and as much as I wouldn't want it to be the end, it does feel like a chapter is closing for the character. I believe it would be sometime before the series would re-hit that stride of movie making magic. For all their faults, TB and to a lessar extent YOLT have something interesting to say, both in regards to their atmosphere and settings, while I feel that some of the 70s and 80s films are definitely lacking atmosphere, especially when compared to the 60s adventures. I think OHMSS marks the point in the original timeline where the character of Bond comes full circle.
To a lessar extent I'd say LTK. By the time GE was made, the changes both in front of the camera and behind the scenes can definitely be felt - not to mention that GE just feels like a more modern cinematic take on the character.
The difference is I can take none of DAD seriously. The attempts at making Bond seem tortured, the overplayed face-off with M, and on and on. The era wasn't built for it, and because of that it comes off as phony and strained.
Add in Jinx, the cartoonish villains and scheme, and it's all a bit too much. I can't call DAD the end of classic Bond simply because it's not worthy of inclusion in that period of Bond's history.
@bondjames, you definitely have a point here. In the 80s Bond was undeniably his least stylish. Whether it's the hit and miss wardrobes in both formal and casual wear of the Moore era that remained from the 70s or Dalton's Bond, who as I say, looked like he dressed off the rack in clothes that visibly had no tailoring, the fashion icon Bond was in the 60s had long faded. I don't think the 90s were much better, as the presentation of the suits on Bond left a lot to be desired, but he found his way back to a more timeless line up of suits in the Craig era, best seen in QoS.
The trick with dressing a Bond actor is playing to the actor's strengths. Dan's eyes and general features look best with suits of blues and grays, much like Sean's did, and I think that's why those eras have been so successful from a fashion standpoint. The Moore era dressed Bond up almost too much in seas of double-breasted suits with a misguided aristocratic layer or other wacky presentations and they didn't seem to know what to do with Dalton at times during his era. Was his Bond rugged and on the go, or did he like to look nice in the field? They never seemed to decide on which.
I think Sean and Dan are the most successful in this overall area. They both have strengths and weaknesses in their eras, but I think they really made statements in both their formal and casual wear like no other Bond actors have. James Bond to me is Sean dressed in his default gray suits with navy grenadine ties, and I've been happy to see Dan consciously return to that 60s style of fashion and the palettes Sinclair chose to dress Sean in post-CR. Just as Sean owned those casual button-up shirts as in TB, Dan has also owned the polo, the premier bit of casual wear that defined his Bond while out of the suits.
No other Bond actors really have those defined pieces that they wear with consistency as Sean and Dan have done, but when they do it adds so much to the character on the screen.
I find that all the entries since then are more like other regular films in their presentation and aesthetic. Sure, they still visit far and away places, but there's something amiss in the manner in which the locales are presented (despite attempts to recapture that essence). Something unremarkable in comparison to everything up to 1979. Some of the films compensate with great character work and dialogue (CR comes to mind) but it's not quite the same. SF perhaps came the closest in my opinion to capturing that distinct style of the past, and I think that is one of the reasons why that film was such a runaway hit. The first teaser just screamed classic old school Bondian style.
Adam obviously had something to do with it, since he stopped with MR, but it's also in the way the films are lensed.
@bondjames, you're right: Adam's impact is unquantifiable. You're right to say that the massive scale and almost otherworldly atmosphere of his work gave the 60s films so much of their iconic punch, and the series after his time was instantly handicapped simply because he wasn't part of the team.
It doesn't help that as the world grew out of the 60s a greater emphasis on grounding things was had in the 80s and beyond, and a "real" or "raw" world doesn't tonally mesh well with the kinds of larger than life and evocative sets Adam would always create. They never felt of our world, but that's why they were so stellar. He gave a surreal touch to the fantasy of Bond, and thus created even more fantasy on top of it. As good as those films were, I can't imagine the 60s without those sets, as so much of their style was down to how Adam, Lamont and the rest of the designers created the sets and overall visual appeal of Bond's world.
So to not have Adam and have poor suits is to really crush the glamor and style of Bond indefinitely, and that very much is the 80s onward.
I can certainly see that, now you mention.
That aspect of it can definitely be felt. I think as early as YOLT Cubby saw the cost of what Adam delivered, and knew it couldn't go on forever. But as we see, the unwillingness to invest in Bond's onscreen appeal results in films that don't feel very Bondian in style.
One of the problems these films will always have, and we felt it recently, is how do you present a Bond film in the modern age? Do you simply try to copy what others did before for an easy buck and marketability, or do you try to reinvent a recipe that's been overused? If you copy you're looked at as being a slave to tradition, and if you reinvent you get called out for making anti-Bond films. It feels so damned if you do, damned if you don't, and the next cycle of Bond films will face that question. Do they do something new, or something safe?
I think the Craig era has partly been able to have its cake and eat it too by reinventing and then slowly injecting some "vintage" elements into it under Mendes, but next time around they can't do the same thing. It's just very hard to make Bond films now, not only because the world isn't so easy to escape into fantasy from, but also because it's all been done before. You do anything in a Bond film now, you're accused of ripping off one of the other 23, so with each subsequent entry how to make a Bond film gets all the more complicated.
It just makes you wonder how long it can go on for.
All that is needed is a new approach.
That's the kind of dilemma I'm talking about. The Bond films don't really welcome new approaches in a lot of ways, because so much is tied to formula and what audiences expect a Bond film to be. If a film fails to meet those and tries to reinvent, it gets tarnished for it, as OHMSS did for a while, and LTK and QoS.
The reinvention of Bond post-Moore in Dalton's run failed to ignite, though not as bad as post-Connery in the 60s was, which could've ended it all. As from Brosnan to Craig, people were upset from the very beginning, if only because of the latter's hair color. It's been very clear that it's hard for people to accept change in any way, as it comes to Bond. If things are even a bit out of line, it's game over.
CR was able to skirt some formula to tell an exciting new tale that hit with audiences, but QoS got shot for a similar approach and stripped down story. When SF and SP returned some elements of Bond's tradition, it was unwelcomed by a good number, especially the latter. I just wonder after a while what people really want, because that seems to change day and night. Do we want Bond to go new places (which becomes harder and harder with every minute), or do we play to tradition? Because I see a near equal number unhappy with both, and many that seem to flip flop.
It's too hard to tell if a compromise of sorts is even viable between the new and the old, and many don't want to give EON the benefit of anything in figuring it out.
Do a proper gun-barrel.
Do a proper Bond score.
Cast an actor that actually looks like Bond.
Have M at his desk, giving Bond a mission.
Have Q handing gadgets to Bond while reprimanding him for destroying the last gadgets.
Have Moneypenny flirt harmlessly with Bond in her office.
Have an actual plot with a villain that has a clear mission.
No personal non-sense with Bond.
:lol:
The common movie-goer cannot remember anything past Casino Royale, if not even Skyfall, so it will be seen as a new approach.
The informed fans who are not the ones bringing 850 million USD Box Office to EON/Distributor will be divided anyway. One half will welcome bringing Bond back on track, the other half will complain why Bond 25 is not another Skyfall.
It's a win-win situation for EON anyway. If Craig stays on another 850 million are guaranteed.
If Craig goes, the new Bond could even do more, because everyone and its dog will want to see the new guy in action.
Bond has never been so certain to be around for another few decades at least than today.
This is kind of my point, and from my perspective, what I really don't care to see exactly as described. The series has never grown out of what the 60s did, and that's always been the biggest issue. Instead of using the momentum of the 60s to explore, it stayed exactly the same from a structure standpoint. I'm sick of seeing the Q briefings play the same way, and for actors trying and failing to flirt the way Sean did with Lois.
If anything, new ways need to be found to do these same things. Have M brief Bond, but do it in a different location or put a twist on it, like on briefing in the Brosnan era that happens inside M's personal car. Same idea, different approach. The Q missions could be mixed up by having him in the field facing different things, but I think those scenes are the hardest to reinvent as they always end up going the same way.
A part of me actually misses the CR and QoS days where Q and Moneypenny weren't there, sorry to say. For once since the 60s the films were just telling the story they wanted, and didn't feel the need to tack on an unnecessary intro to every movie to have Q, M and Moneypenny do the same things over and over again. I wish the very different approach of CR and QoS stayed around for a lot longer, if not a whole era, because things actually felt fresh. That's not to say SF and SP fail for having the "team" back, but their presence really is just more of the same, and some new people don't like, simply because those character can only be a very certain way.
Which is why I again wonder how long this same old approach will be allowed, because I'll already be getting very bored if it returns as per usual. I don't see the continued longevity some do.
When the franchise started, they had the benefit of less competition, and less parodies. Then, with things like Austin Powers, and competition like Jason Bourne and Mission Impossible, suddenly Bond had to get more sophisticated. I think what people are hankering for now is a return of the Bond of old but without losing that new lense of realism and consequence. A lightheartedness, but a cleverness about it so as to not jeopardize the vulnerability of the characters. It's another case of striking that balance. They did it with LALD, TLD, GE, CR and for the time that those films were made, they nailed it.
I also suspect Kutze was influenced by vanity. Taking care of two A bombs and setting them to potentially detonate might have played a role too... Maybe he was seen as a junior academic and he resented that. Largo allowed him to play in the big leagues with big toys. It's only once he was in it that he thought of the consequences.
@Ludovico, I think Kutze was excited to study the bombs, as they were the most advanced thing in the nuclear field. Being a nuclear physicist, it was an exciting proposition his need for knowledge and firsthand experience couldn't turn down.
It would sadden me to no end if you would get bored with Bond.
I think after 24 films we can safely say, that they always found a way to re-introduce the series or even bring some new elements into it.
But you can't fundamentally change things. Bond has to stay the Bond we know from Fleming and the 24 EON films.
QOS proved that giving up too much of the "same old stuff" will not be successful.
Hence they made the most mainstreamed Bond ever after that, one for everyone from the kid to the Grandma/Grandpa. Skyfall.
Honestly, if they cast another actor for Bond 25, we will see a new area that will have its own feel, like the Dalton, Brosnan and Craig era did.
Re-envisioning Bond can be done only to a certain degree or the identity will get lost like it almost did in 2008.
I am fully aware, many of us here love QOS, I'm merely stating what the general consensus is out there. If someone disagrees, then be it. But I think QOS hit all the wrong buttons with the general public.
Not assuming what you feel and think, but generally the young guys like you will experience what all of we older ones had to at least once in our lives so far.
Leaving the Bond behind that we grew up with and fear that the new one will not be to our liking.
I've been through this twice with Brosnan and Craig.
It'll be something approaching that, yes. It will be very hard for me to warm to anything post-Craig, as I feel my interest will wane at least a few degrees, if not many more. That's not to say I'm against change, as it's inevitable, just that these particular films have been a much needed rebirth for me, and Dan has made magic in my eyes. I love his Bond more than I have any other, because I feel like I know him like a real man. He's brought a very specific thing to the role and given it such dimension and life, so I am apprehensive of what could come after.
I hope I'm wrong at the direction things will go, but I can't help but have my feelings at this stage.
But that is how strongly I feel about DC and the gifts he brought to the franchise.