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
100% with you on that.
I've always felt the simple "action movie" tag failed to grasp what really makes Bond films unique.
FRWL has one great set piece after another, but most are more suspenseful or drama based than actual action set-pieces. GF is similar. And both these classic films always rank at the top of the Best Bond films lists.
Yep, MR was a huge hit, but with box office figures adjusted for inflation and time - GF and TB were up there around the billion dollar marks - and only Skyfall has achieved that level of box office since those glory days.
Box office hits and misses are frequently about the right timing - fantasy Bond like MR was well placed in 1979 - following the unexpected success of Star Wars.
Today, the more mature and serious approach to Bond is clearly right for these times - hence the huge audience the film captured and the top reviews which came with the box office success.
In the novels? Oh please...
The action setpieces are the biggest Bond trademark. At least when you speak to people, who haven't read any of the novels (99%).
The franchise almost died in 1975 because they tried the "drama"-approach, with TMWTGG,
If TMWTGG is a drama then it's the worst drama of all time. I think Bond movies shouldn't be action movies, a Bond film should be a mystery/thriller/drama with 3 great action sequences. (Like the tank scene in GE, the parkour chase in CR or the PTS in SF.)
A well-balanced one would be TLD. Or OHMSS.
Keep in mind that two classic scenes which people always talk about are Bond facing Goldfinger's laser and talking his way out of being burnt in half, and Bond confronting Red Grant on the train in FRWL, both these scenes are very sharply written. As is Silva's introduction to Bond in Skyfall.
To sum Bond up as the action set-pieces are the biggest Bond trademark is underestimating all the other elements - like the two examples I give above - which contribute to Bond being so popular for 50 years.
Bond originated from Fleming - and the producers say they always return to the books for inspiration - so whether or not most of the audience (99%???) have or have not read the books doesn't really matter - what counts is that the source material remains essential to Bond's continued success and essential for filmmakers like Mendes to find fresh angles or new perspectives on the character.
Bit weird that you think TMWTGG was a dramatic approach to Bond!!!
The book was certainly that - but the film was pretty cartoony.
In terms of trademarks? Well, girls, gadgets, gambling, great locations and spectacular action should pretty much cover it. We already lost the gadgets, so what's next?
I see, it really is about the action set-pieces for you.
Just out of interest, do films like Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy hold your interest?
Absolutely. Because I never expect any actionscenes in Le Carre movies. The premise is different.
But I would hate it, if they turned the Bond-movies into TTSS.
Interesting.
The Bond films certainly have room, as many of them have like FRWL, OHMSS, CR, SF, to allow character and dialogue to advance the story rather than action.
Sue me, I think the source material matters. Regardless of who among Joe public knows them, they are still source material and inspiration. And regardless of the novels, classic Bond movies don't always have plenty of action and often have quiet moments. What define Bond movies is not the action so much as the character and atmosphere.
And TMWTGG had too much of a comedic take, it was not the drama, which was never developed, that was an issue.
Forgive me for stating the bleeding obvious here but why can't we have our cake and eat it?
Drama & character and action are not mutually exclusive. Why can't one film have the lot? Take Leon, TDK or Bourne.
SF almost got it so right and the PTS is a microcosm of what modern Bond is capable of - suspense, character development, tension and some great action.
Alas the tube sequence (which I was expecting to be an epic action scene) whilst dramatic and tense fails to deliver in terms of action for a Bond film. Had this scene been up to snuff I think I would have said SF would have been perfectly balanced.
As it is we have only one big action sequence. Not on frankly.
Take the sublime OHMSS as the template - a few fights, a shootout and two epic stunt sequences. The only misstep OHMSS makes for me is the stock car chase - superfluous, diffuses the drama and nowhere near as good as Fleming's own ending to that car chase. If, after SPECTRE shoot up the phone box the chase had continued on the icy mountain roads concluding with Tracy's line 'You're going to have to think of something clever' and Bond sending the car over the cliff I think OHMSS would have had the absolute perfect cocktail of character, drama, suspense and action. Just imagining Laz cooly lighting a fag and watching the SPECTRE car tumble into the valley gives me goosebumps.
In a modern Bond film the audience (and I count myself in that) demands big stunts done for real. CR got it very nearly right but due to the second half being a faithful adaptation of the book the balance was not quite there with the film being too action heavy on the first half. Doesn't particularly bother me but I would say something like TLD or GE are the way to do it - big PTS, and then a rip snorter of an action sequence somewhere towards the end of the second act before the climax (although TLD doesn't quite get this right as the plane sequence really is the climax given the Whitaker scene is do weak). I'm addition to these two massive 10 minute sequences you need to mix in about two or three fist fights/gun battles at your leisure and you're there. In a 2.5 hour film the sum total of action only needs to be about 30 minutes leaving you a full two hours to craft a suspenseful story with plenty of character development and everyone's a winner.
Piece of piss really.
I think one of the defining characteristics of a great Bond movie is often when the story is advanced by both dialogue AND action. In a well written script there is no conflict between good, tightly written dialogue and great action. It's that old F. Scott Fitzgerald chestnut: 'Action is character'. We learn so much about Bond through the way he moves, fights, responds. This is precisely why Connery is and remains the best Bond - not only did he inherently understand this, but he had brilliant scripts that also shared this same view of how Bond should be appear on screen.
Action these days too often feels like it's 'bolted on' for the sake of it, rather than being integral to the story and character. I actually found the SF action scenes mainly extraneous and boring. The PTS chase was derivative and utterly contrived, while the final confrontation at Skyfall was completely devoid of wit or intelligence - just a generic sequence of large explosions and gunfire.
I don't think a good Bond movie requires a set number of action scenes. And I don't think the action has to be 'huge'. The fight between Bond and Grant in FRWL is iconic and one of the best remembered fight scenes in the whole of cinema history. No explosions. Just visceral, utterly believable and sordid hand to hand combat. The cargo net fight in TLD is highly dramatic and impressive but essentially very simple. Having said that, if a large, balletic action sequence fits the story, then I am all for it. But it must flow seamlessly with the narrative and not just feel like it's been forced in for the sake of it.
Yeah, but those had the unfair advantage of having story lines and not intelligence insulting contraptions so you really shouldn't compare them!
half as good as Skyfall? You know how to make a man shiver!
Any way, buig
Positively terrifying prospect!
You are right. It is not a new thing in Bond, and SF is probably not the worst offender. I also agree that a lot of the action in QoS is totally unnecessary. The irony though for me is that I think the QoS plot makes a lot more sense than SF. Any way, that's another issue. But yes, I really dislike the plane battle in QoS - pointless, contrived, boring and heavily CGI'd. Just dreadful, basically.
Allegedly the sequence was meant to be longer, culminating in a roof top chase in London, after they both come up from Underground. So scriptwise you have the "epic action scene" right there. But - and I think this was in the clapperboard thread - it was Mendes who scrapped it. Like he did with the actionscene on Silva's island, which was suppose to be a "homage to Indiana Jones."
Guess Mendes isn't that keen on action.
The rooftop chase in London sounds a bit too similar to a rooftop chase in Istanbul, and a rooftop chase in Sienna, for that matter, so I can understand why Mendes thought it should be cut. May be they need some fresh ideas...
I'm not a scriptwriter and don't work in the industry.
But since we know that a lot of scenes were scrapped from the original final script in order for the movie to make the proper (maximum) runtime, don't scriptwriters have a general idea when finishing the final script, how long it will transcribe to onscreen?
I'm glad it was scrapped too, especially since we may not have gotten the Tennyson scene because of it.
Same thing with the so-called Indy homage; good riddance, I say. People here get their trousers in a knot if Bond films so much as wink to the past films so a full blown tribute to an entirely separate yet equally iconic series would have really caused a stink.
I personally don't think Bond films should ever be too action heavy, Brosnan's films became far to reliant on them and they weren't particularly good at even that, other blockbusters of the time were delivering far more thrilling moments.
The parkour chase, the opening car chase from QOS and the PTS of SF and the climax for me as well would probably rank as the stand out as the action sequence of Craig's era but this period has become defined by more suspenseful moments.
The PTS of CR is a cracker and the Bregenz scene from QOS. Bond confronting Patrice in Shanghai, Silva's introduction, I have no problem with the underground sequence and what it leads to, I think some people are just too wrapped in what Bond used to be and just want that school boy thrill once again but we are adults, I'm not sure if they could make you feel like you did as a kid.
We cry for a big set piece but I don't think we could get something on the scale of what came before plus we tend to remember these films as children and the delight they gave us and some of us hold onto that feel, I can't personally, films that thrilled me as a boy can potentially make me cringe now.
The older films we talk about were released at a different time in our lives. I hope we can get an action sequence that will blow our socks off with it's thrills and sheer inventiveness but I'm more concerned with these films having great dialogue performed by quality actors. I pretty much convinced that some here would ask for a cheesy action fest in the tradition of the Moore films on paper but the reality would be horrific, too many people on this forum think they are bloody experts at crafting a so called great Bond film when the reality is they wouldn't have a clue what to do.
Lets get John Glen back to direct Bond 25 shall we?
John Glen made some of the best Bond movies in the canon. Primarily because he was a craftsman and not a clever dick. He doesn't get cut much slack around here, because he never gives off the aura du jour. He was a great franchise director, a great second unit action director and a talented editor. He used the team around him and was never in it for personal glory.
Personally I don't mind a tiny bit of daft humour in my Bond films - as long as its not overkill.
Incidentally speaking of John Glenn I've been following the makers of JamesBondRadio. One of them, Tom Sears, just came back from a screening of TLD followed by a Q&A featuring Glenn. Apparently Glenn described Daniel Craig as " a cheap Timothy Dalton impression".
I admire Glenn for working his way through the ranks in the Bond production company but I really don't think he would have given us anything as critically acclaimed as CR or SF. Personally, while I like a lot of Glenn's films I don't think they are on the same level as those two.
@RC7. Glenn also made AVTAK. One of the laziest, poorest films in the series.