Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
In this Discussion
How modern life ruined 007's Mojo
AceHole
Belgium, via Britain
Whilst I was musing over the various opinions proffered on these boards of what the producers should or shouldn't be doing next, a few thoughts struck me - when Connery, Broccoli & Saltzman took the world by storm in the 60’s the James Bond franchise was, above all, two things:
EXOTIC B-)
The locations, the cars and the hardware/gadgets were, to most people, simply mindblowing. The majority of stuff featured in Bond films from 1962 right through to say, for argument's sake, Moonraker in ’79 had never been seen or done before. Not by anyone amoungst the ‘normal’ population at least.
Everything Sean, Roger (and yes, you too George8-|) did in those days was extravagant, loud and completely over the top. Most importantly - 007's appeal was founded on the sheer inaccesability of it all. You could not Google a DB5 or afford a 7-day all inclusive break to the Caribbean for scuba diving, salsa & cocktails. High octane action-adventure films were not watched (and certainly not in colour) in every house & bedroom across the world.
Most of what you saw James Bond do in the 60’s and 70’s was vastly out of reach for the average Joe & Jane. Then came the 1980’s.
Reaganomics and the ‘greed is good’ culture started a boom in wealth and aspirations by normal folk. By the early 80's almost everybody in the western world had a colour TV. Rambo, Arnie et.all invaded not just our cinema’s but now also our living rooms, in all their over the top glory. So 007 had to come up with something different. Hence Dalton’s grittier outings, far ahead of their time (it would be another 12 years untill the world warmed to Jason Bourne's bare knuckled, sombre style) though alas not at all what the public wanted back then. Movie-goers were not holding their breath for a realistic James Bond, no matter how well The Living Daylights initially fared at the box office…
As for the novelty factor, now that vast internet access is mere a (i)phone-click away, and cheap package holidays rule, modern travel & technology have drained all of the novelty out of the spectacle of cinema. It’s just no longer ‘special’ to see 007 blow up lots of expensive kit in the Bahamas when you can order any of it on Amazon WHILST lying on a beach in Thailand…
DARING :-O
If censors had been anything like they are today then Pierce Brosnan would most definitely NOT have been permitted to see Goldfinger as a young lad, and may not have subsequently been inspired to brave the role later in life (some may have considered this a blessing, but that’s another debate). When they first swept through cinema’s, Bond films caused a fair bit of consternation in conservative circles - citing them as vile, immoral filth, filled to the brim with unwholesome innuendo.
Fast forward to 2014… groups of pre-teen boys spend their lunch break comparing illegal porn clips to see who can boast the most disturbing download. You get the picture (or in this case, hopefully not).
And how many contemporary film critics & political movements do you know who find 007’s ‘sordid escapades’, to quote Q, too extreme or vulgar for our society? James Bond’s rather racy brand of humour just doesn’t factor. At all.
The very foundation of James Bond was always the stunt work and, believe it or not, for the first twenty years or so the franchise actually ruled the roost when it came to the spectacular – 007 outdid every other action film that dared challenge it’s top spot in the testosterone stakes. However, since the late 80’s Bond has struggled to wow the newer audiences in a saturated CGI driven market. Modern filmmaking techniques render real-life stunts (nearly) superfluous, and all but the most ridiculous digital effects will inevitably draw yawns from a generation spiked on the instant satisfaction of PS4 and youtube...
Sure, my above points are applicable to the entertainment industry as a whole (not only the old-fashioned thrill of 007 has been affected), but I think it’s why EON & co. have a much harder job of making Bond relevant AND entertaining than ever before. I think we have become too demanding as an audience, wanting great scripts & gritty realism but simultaneously pining after the pure entertainment factor that was far easier for filmmakers to deliver in the figuratively smaller, less mass-media exposed world of the 1960’s and 70’s.
Perhaps we as an audience (and especially fans) should settle for ONE OR THE OTHER. Either we go the grounded route and applaud the filmmakers for such efforts as License To Kill and Casino Royale, devoid of (some) of the flair & gadgets their predecessors used to such great effect, or we accept a return the simpler days of The Spy Who Loved me and Tomorrow Never Dies - built to do exactly what it says on the tin, no more, no less.
Fingers crossed they get it right…
EXOTIC B-)
The locations, the cars and the hardware/gadgets were, to most people, simply mindblowing. The majority of stuff featured in Bond films from 1962 right through to say, for argument's sake, Moonraker in ’79 had never been seen or done before. Not by anyone amoungst the ‘normal’ population at least.
Everything Sean, Roger (and yes, you too George8-|) did in those days was extravagant, loud and completely over the top. Most importantly - 007's appeal was founded on the sheer inaccesability of it all. You could not Google a DB5 or afford a 7-day all inclusive break to the Caribbean for scuba diving, salsa & cocktails. High octane action-adventure films were not watched (and certainly not in colour) in every house & bedroom across the world.
Most of what you saw James Bond do in the 60’s and 70’s was vastly out of reach for the average Joe & Jane. Then came the 1980’s.
Reaganomics and the ‘greed is good’ culture started a boom in wealth and aspirations by normal folk. By the early 80's almost everybody in the western world had a colour TV. Rambo, Arnie et.all invaded not just our cinema’s but now also our living rooms, in all their over the top glory. So 007 had to come up with something different. Hence Dalton’s grittier outings, far ahead of their time (it would be another 12 years untill the world warmed to Jason Bourne's bare knuckled, sombre style) though alas not at all what the public wanted back then. Movie-goers were not holding their breath for a realistic James Bond, no matter how well The Living Daylights initially fared at the box office…
As for the novelty factor, now that vast internet access is mere a (i)phone-click away, and cheap package holidays rule, modern travel & technology have drained all of the novelty out of the spectacle of cinema. It’s just no longer ‘special’ to see 007 blow up lots of expensive kit in the Bahamas when you can order any of it on Amazon WHILST lying on a beach in Thailand…
DARING :-O
If censors had been anything like they are today then Pierce Brosnan would most definitely NOT have been permitted to see Goldfinger as a young lad, and may not have subsequently been inspired to brave the role later in life (some may have considered this a blessing, but that’s another debate). When they first swept through cinema’s, Bond films caused a fair bit of consternation in conservative circles - citing them as vile, immoral filth, filled to the brim with unwholesome innuendo.
Fast forward to 2014… groups of pre-teen boys spend their lunch break comparing illegal porn clips to see who can boast the most disturbing download. You get the picture (or in this case, hopefully not).
And how many contemporary film critics & political movements do you know who find 007’s ‘sordid escapades’, to quote Q, too extreme or vulgar for our society? James Bond’s rather racy brand of humour just doesn’t factor. At all.
The very foundation of James Bond was always the stunt work and, believe it or not, for the first twenty years or so the franchise actually ruled the roost when it came to the spectacular – 007 outdid every other action film that dared challenge it’s top spot in the testosterone stakes. However, since the late 80’s Bond has struggled to wow the newer audiences in a saturated CGI driven market. Modern filmmaking techniques render real-life stunts (nearly) superfluous, and all but the most ridiculous digital effects will inevitably draw yawns from a generation spiked on the instant satisfaction of PS4 and youtube...
Sure, my above points are applicable to the entertainment industry as a whole (not only the old-fashioned thrill of 007 has been affected), but I think it’s why EON & co. have a much harder job of making Bond relevant AND entertaining than ever before. I think we have become too demanding as an audience, wanting great scripts & gritty realism but simultaneously pining after the pure entertainment factor that was far easier for filmmakers to deliver in the figuratively smaller, less mass-media exposed world of the 1960’s and 70’s.
Perhaps we as an audience (and especially fans) should settle for ONE OR THE OTHER. Either we go the grounded route and applaud the filmmakers for such efforts as License To Kill and Casino Royale, devoid of (some) of the flair & gadgets their predecessors used to such great effect, or we accept a return the simpler days of The Spy Who Loved me and Tomorrow Never Dies - built to do exactly what it says on the tin, no more, no less.
Fingers crossed they get it right…
^ 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
Exactly. I'm not saying the producers shouldn't try anything different at all, but perhaps they should stop this obsession of 're-inventing' 007 because it's getting to the point where they are trying too hard, and it shows (see QoS and SF...), in my opinion.
You can never please everyone and SkyFall felt to me like it was made by committee rather than with a real vision. It was still a good film, but seemed to be wanting both heaps of critical approval and love from the casual film goers a bit too much.
Just make a well put together film and focus on the bigger picture - let the next film speak for itself...
Quite right. You saw this with FYEO after MR went nuts with the franchise, and again after DAD, though with a much more drastic overhaul.
Even though the 'sober' entries are probably my favorites (FRWL,OHMSS,FYEO,CR) I would actually quite like a bit more 'flair' in this one, perhaps a return to the old fashioned mission, DC and Mendes would still keep it grounded...