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
To your point however, all that being said above, QOS is still plagued by a weak, unpolished script, shoddy, if not unrealized diretion, and the actors aren't as strong: particularly with the villain. Therefore the Bond character within this framework is not as well defined and convincing the way he is in CR.
The use of MP and Q are not what makes a Bond film, Bond does. They were never as central characters in the books that they became in the films. Since Maxwell and Llewellyn are gone, I don't care if MP or Q ever come back because I never liked any of their successors.
Major Boothroyd was not in almost 1/2 of Fleming's books and MP was not in all of them either. Do those not count as Bond books?
But the pendulum has swung too far the opposite way against what makes Bond films Bondian.
I'm sure as time goes on you'll get more of those tick the box throw in all the cliches films but I'll be signing off the series by then, for all it's faults at least the last movies have tried to show the character and not some cardboard cut out going from cliche to cliche with everything but the kitchen sink thrown in telling us it's James Bond with the subtlty of a sledgehammer. ie the PB era or should that be error?
I do agree both Moneypenny and Q are not needed for every film and even when they do return, taking a film out and not having them in it could also really help the series, introducing May would also work. There are so many things to do in the films, that bringing back two characters on a permanent basis should not be top of the list.
I am sure that for many Bond fans, watching a Bond film with no Q, no MP, no gadgets, no Bond theme during an action sequence, no witty one liner when Bond disposes of someone, etc, they end up wondering if they've just watched a Bond film, or some regular action film.
The point is to introduce the character we'll all see if the next films see's those characteristics emerge or not. I'm not entirely sure where we are with Bond yes I'd like more Bondian elements but not box ticking, Mendes doesn't make me think everthing is hunky dory but I guess we'll see, I like Craig as Bond and just hope Bond 23 surprises us but in a good way!
I think the same will happen with Bond. The Brosnen era began with a script meant for Dalton. Once PB sank his teeth into the character, the series reflected what he did best: humor, over the top action, smirking womanizing etc. That's how he saw the character and the producers played to that. Audiences seemed to love it.
Craig plays Bond 100% straight, as a human being, not a superhero. We're never going to see him in outer space or surfing down the face of a melting ice shelf. Now, I like this. So far, the early Connery films, the two Daltons and the two Craigs best reflect what I personally enjoy about the IF novels. So I'm happy. QOS has even risen almost to the top in my list of favorite Bond films. I like it stripped down, on a human level, with the tougher version of Bond in place.
But eventually, in popular culture, "everything old is new again". We'll see with the next actor the producers extolling the return of "classic Bond elements", more fitting for the "modern audience" who grew tired of the grim grittiness of the DC era etc. I could write the press copy for them today, it's so predictable...
As someone who loves (and watches a lot of) pre-1990 movies -- and is a big fan of classic horror -- I can unequivocally say that my enjoyment of Bela Lugosi and Peter Cushing films is in no way tainted because those gentlemen are long dead.
In the movies... they are immortal.
Whenever I see an article or interview on Moore or Connery, I always enjoy reading it. I don't think I'll be enjoying a Bond film once one of them will be dead.
Films always evolve. You can't stop it. And I say that's a great thing. If films didn't evolve then I would have watched a black and white, musical Western in the style of Roy Rogers the other night instead of the Coen's True Grit.
The Bond films will always evolve to incorporate current film-making styles, techniques, and what is fashionable to the mainstream audience. I've had the great fortune to see many old Bond films on the big screen and see how they play to older fans, new fans, and people that were just curious. Think about Bond's fight with Dr. No at the end of that film. Is that really what you want in a fight scene in a modern Bond film? Think of the car chase in Dr. No - aren't you glad that the car chases in modern Bond films aren't shot the same way?
Now think of the action scenes in CR. When I saw it in the theatre they were actually thrilling. I mean, they made what started out as a foot chase one of the most exciting action scenes I (and the rest of the audience based on the reaction) had ever seen. But there's something even more important - the "Madagascar chase" revealed as much about Bond's character as any dialogue could. Think of how many times a character complains about Bond being stubborn or having an ego, or how determined he could be. Bond's refusal to give up during that chase in CR showed those qualities as much or more than any dialogue in, say, the Brosnan films (show - don't tell). It also showed that he was a highly trained agent and was a quick thinker - again, great traits to show.
So the above paragraph shows that the *way* the filmmakers do something, and use it, is more important than *what* they're doing. Sometimes it's good (the above-mentioned chase), sometimes it's bad (I read an interview where the director of QOS said he edited the early action scenes in a confusing way to mirror that Bond didn't know what was going on - interesting idea in theory but comes off as wanking in execution).
The other point I wanted to make was about "traditional" Bond. When I was 12/13 we used to watch the older (pre-MR) Bond films over and over again on TV. That really cemented our ideas of what Bond was in our heads. But as many have pointed out, our ideas of Bond were an accumulation of things that occured in the *series*, not in every individual film. So when they took the "checklist approach" to certain elements in the Brosnan films it felt like someone trying to make what they *thought* was a Bond film. If there's no reason for Bond to visit a high-end casino, then don't have him go.
I have no problem bring back Q or Moneypenny as long as there's a legitimate reason for them instead of fanwanking (or just as bad, gratuitous humour). Same with other elements. Like the chase scene in CR, if it's well done andd adds something to the plot or character then go for it. But to have it for the sake of having it...why?
For me, Bond is a British secret agent who reports to M and receives his mission from him or her. He travels to exotic places where he tries to piece together enough information to discover the exact nature of a threat to Queen and country or the world at large and then defeat that threat. That threat could be posed by a person, an organization, or another nation - I really don't think it matters as long as the threat and its consequences are well defined, interesting, and unique.
The place that Bond travels to should be exotic and even a little unknown to most people, and the best Bond films show the local culture as well as interesting or beautiful scenery. Bond is a man of means and taste and there is an ability for the audience to live vicariously through him, not just in traveling to these exotic locations but also in his experiencing the finer things in life, such as cars, clothes, and food and drink.
Male members of the audience also live vicariously through him as he's the man we want to be - imposing not just through his physical ability but also through the force of his personality and presence. He is a man who is instantly noticed and deferred to when he walks into a room (although that's at odds with his role as a secret agent!) and if he isn't in command of a situation he will take command due to his resourcefullness, skills, ingenuity, or force of personality. Because of these traits women in the audience are attracted to him as much as men want to be him.
In the course of his adventures Bond meets with, or meets for the first time, colleagues with whom he has trust or gains trust. He meets a woman (or women) and has a flirtatious relationship with them whether or not it's an agreeable meeting. The sexual tension is palpable, if not right away, then eventually. These women shouldn't be bimbos because a) they aren't a match for a man like Bond (it says a lot about a man if he goes after "easy pickings" - he isn't a boastful Axe-fragrance-wearing fratboy with something to prove) and b) why would the women in the audience identify with them? Like the character of Bond a "Bond girl" can be smart, resourceful, *and* sexy - they aren't mutually exclusive traits.
The best Bond films in my opinion have an air of timeless class to them, and an air of romance. Not just romance in the way of romantic love, but the romance of the exoticness of the settings, the music, the beautiful cinematography and production design. CR was a much more "grounded" film than many others but it kept that air of class and romance, while LTK didn't in my opinion. GE was another film that I thought had that air of timeless class to it, although it was more fanciful.
Once those elements are in place than it doesn't much matter to me if Bond orders a martini that is shaken, not stirred (would any bartender actually try to stir a vodka martini? Yeesh) or goes to a casino. Nice to have a couple of touchstones in each film, but more isn't always better.