Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Where Do We Draw the Line Between "Classic" Bond and Modern Bond?
I would say the 6 year break from '89 to '95 is the dividing line. So from Connery to Dalton is Classic, with Brosnan and Craig being the modern incarnation of the character. Is this what most of us agree on?
^ 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
Yes LTK was a bit of a move away from the style of the old films, but no more than Moonraker was a shift from the style of FRWL.
With GE the series became high tech, M now surrounded by glass and steel. It felt like Bond had been dragged up to date.
Exactly, with GE like it or not there are no longer the stuffy, dithering old men in and around Mi6.
"I think we're having a little trouble with the line madam"
"We're the laughing stock of the intelligence community"
GE is definitely the start of the "modern Bond".
Although Pam's line in LTK "I haven't had one of these in five years" (a cigarette) has a modern touch too. Can't see the Bond girls of old saying something like that.
It was the first Bond film after the Cold War and it consciously addresses that fact. Also it was the first time Cubby wasn't directly involved. Barbara Broccoli's first producer credit for me was the advent of the modern Bond series.
DAF - AVTAK: Modern Bond
TLD - LTK: First revisionist era
GE - DAD: Contemporary Bond
CR - SF: Second revisionist era
Contemporary wouldn't be something I'd apply to any particular era, in my opinion. Contemporary has a wide meaning, but if you're honestly going to to attach to an era, it'd be the current one.
I like it. A bit specific but I don't disagree with these labels.
The dreamer era- DAF thru AVTAK
The "new style" era- TLD thru DAD
The dark era- CR thru SF
simple as that
I consider the five '70s films, all made well beyond the publication of their Fleming source material, to be homages of sorts of the earlier classic era. The '70s movies re-work a lot of the same themes, plot devices and characterizations from the previous decade - the elements that identify a Bond film. Also connecting the '70s films to the classic era are the two directors, Hamilton and Gilbert who each also directed in the classic era.
From the '80s onward I think we are in the modern and post-modern era of Bond. The connection with the Fleming novels and the classic early films is now more tenuous.
I can relate to this categorization as well though. The Rog films of the '80s do resonate with his earlier work. The Rog connection is tangible, although I think there is a distinct change in tone post MR, post '70s.
My favourite era is obviously the classic era, and the somewhat bombastic homage decade that followed with Sean, Rog, Hamilton and Gilbert.
The sooner though that we can escape this current "dark era" the better IMO. I would like to see a return to the relaxed swagger, colour and dangerous excitement of the classic era. This dictinction is worth making too I think. Although Dalts portrayed Bond as a little more vulnerable and human, the broader tone and style of the '80s film still resonated with what came before. After all, John Glen and Cubby of course were both very much connected with the earlier work. Glen goes back to OHMSS, and classic-era stalwarts such as John Barry and Richard Maibaum were also much a part of the '80's mix.
GE though did launch a whole new modern take on the films, with a new cast of filmmakers.
The Craig-era is a response, maybe even a needed response, to the excess of DAD, but I think it's gone way too far in the dark direction. It actually did seem to hold some promise with the closing scene of CR -with the now mature Bond's utterance of the famous salutation, with the evil White groveling at his feet, followed by the blaring of the James Bond Theme.
I was quite looking forward to the next film. I'd even made allowance for Craig's different look. It seemed an exciting time. And then came QoS. Sigh.
Even SF, although a very good film in many respects, continues the darker tone of QoS. We endure.
However, :) I think there will be many more decades of Bond to come. This is only a phase that we are experiencing.
Agreed, the series changed not because of the hiatus, nor the actor, but when Cubby turned over the reigns to his children in 1995. If Cubby had produced a film in 1993, it would have still been classic Bond even if Dalton had left and Pierce came aboard then. Barb and Mike had their own ideas for modernization, and while some may not like one or either of the eras they have presided over, it's hard to argue anything less than they have been highly successful both financially and in the eyes of the general public. What a bunch of dissenting hardcore fans have to say is of little consequence in this regard.
SF in my opinion is at least a partial return to the classic era Timmer describes in his last sentence above, I find it very much different than CR/QOS and much more reminiscent of a classic era film. It ticks many of the Bondian boxes we here acknowledge so to say otherwise regarding these traits or Craig's performance is a fairly weak argument. Of course we need a few things back such as the gun barrel and a girl in the end to make it really right, but all in all SF moved the series much more towards what we've come to expect.
@ Timmer- my friend, I mostly agree with what you have to say in general about many things Bondian, DAF being one of the few exceptions, but that first statement you just posted about most fans "waiting out" this era only applies to a very few outside of a very few over in the DCINB club and is clearly out of touch with realities of box office, general opinion, and that of the majority here, sorry to say.
As a Bond fan, I am helping to drive the revenue streams for both films, but I don't really like either film very much. Many of us just endure, even if we participate in the fun. And I did say "many" fans, not "most" meaning there are a sizeable number of us, but certainly not a majority, that aren't sold on the Craig era. We are still trying to recover from QoS and while SF I think, was a vast improvement, we are not there yet. But we are Bond fans. We make the most of what we are being served.
I think Bond fans generally are mixed regarding QoS. It does get a lot of hate, and SF I think will take more grief as time goes on, but for now yes it has been generally well received in Bondfandom land.
Have you still not bought into the DAF brilliance?! :P ;) Even I can say nice things about SF, and if I try real hard, I can find a few good things to say about QoS, but its got to be a real sunshiny day.
Come back to us when a DAF edition releases that cuts out:
*Most of Blofeld (especially in drag)
*All of Tiffany
*Plenty more of...well, Plenty
*Bond as a flipping celebrity of sorts
*Cut the old ending for a new one, maybe acted out with look-alike hand-puppets?
I could go on, but my heart (yes, I have one) can't take it.
Now common...I know she can be annoying sometimes but...wow
8->