Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
So to what "Bond camp" do you belong: A) Fleming-esque Realism, B) Hamilton-esque Popcorn
I have been wondering this for quite some time now. And especially on the discussion threads for "Skyfall" and "Bond 24" I read that not every Bond fan thinks the same about what purpose a Bond film should have. Off course, James Bond is foremost entertainment. And the franchise is a blockbuster franchise. Actually, ever since the 1960's James Bond really created the term "blockbuster".
But we have different opinions about how entertaining and how realistic a Bond film should be. I usually don't like to be black and white, but for the sake of simplicity let's organize the Bond films a bit.
The fun, funny, entertaining, escapist, Hamilton-esque popcorn-blockbusters
We know that there are a bunch of Bond films that stressed the fun, gadgetry and escapism of the franchise. Guy Hamilton's "Goldfinger" is perhaps the best example. They are slightly bit more "stand-alone". Just to summarize them all under this genre:
--> "Goldfinger"
--> "Casino Royale" (1967)
--> "You Only Live Twice"
--> "Diamonds Are Forever"
--> "Live And Let Die"
--> "The Man With The Golden Gun"
--> "The Spy Who Loved Me"
--> "Moonraker"
--> "A View To A Kill"
--> "Tomorrow Never Dies"
--> "Die Another Day"
The realistic, more serious, politically critical, multilayered, Fleming-esque blockbusters
But some other Bond films tend to be way more critical towards themes like politics. Also, those are the films that perhaps are being considered more "Fleming-esque". Yes, they are entertaining, but also more cold-hearted and realistic:
--> "Doctor No"
--> "From Russia With Love"
--> "On Her Majesty's Secret Service"
--> "For Your Eyes Only"
--> "Octopussy"
--> "The Living Daylights"
--> "Licence To Kill"
--> "The World Is Not Enough"
--> "Casino Royale" (2006)
--> "Quantum Of Solace"
--> "Skyfall"
I did not know exactly where to put "Thunderball", "Never Say Never Again" and "GoldenEye", as I think they below to both categories. But let's not discuss that....and if the film belongs in that category. What I want to know from you is this:
To what category do you belong?
What category of Bond films do you prefer, and which category should prevail in Bond 24?
But we have different opinions about how entertaining and how realistic a Bond film should be. I usually don't like to be black and white, but for the sake of simplicity let's organize the Bond films a bit.
The fun, funny, entertaining, escapist, Hamilton-esque popcorn-blockbusters
We know that there are a bunch of Bond films that stressed the fun, gadgetry and escapism of the franchise. Guy Hamilton's "Goldfinger" is perhaps the best example. They are slightly bit more "stand-alone". Just to summarize them all under this genre:
--> "Goldfinger"
--> "Casino Royale" (1967)
--> "You Only Live Twice"
--> "Diamonds Are Forever"
--> "Live And Let Die"
--> "The Man With The Golden Gun"
--> "The Spy Who Loved Me"
--> "Moonraker"
--> "A View To A Kill"
--> "Tomorrow Never Dies"
--> "Die Another Day"
The realistic, more serious, politically critical, multilayered, Fleming-esque blockbusters
But some other Bond films tend to be way more critical towards themes like politics. Also, those are the films that perhaps are being considered more "Fleming-esque". Yes, they are entertaining, but also more cold-hearted and realistic:
--> "Doctor No"
--> "From Russia With Love"
--> "On Her Majesty's Secret Service"
--> "For Your Eyes Only"
--> "Octopussy"
--> "The Living Daylights"
--> "Licence To Kill"
--> "The World Is Not Enough"
--> "Casino Royale" (2006)
--> "Quantum Of Solace"
--> "Skyfall"
I did not know exactly where to put "Thunderball", "Never Say Never Again" and "GoldenEye", as I think they below to both categories. But let's not discuss that....and if the film belongs in that category. What I want to know from you is this:
To what category do you belong?
What category of Bond films do you prefer, and which category should prevail in Bond 24?
^ 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
Please continue in this topic :-).
Anyway I like both categories and I think the best Bond films are usually the ones that blend both. The films that are Fleming inspired and are more or less played straight but still have gags and gadgets (GF, GE, TLD, etc).
It's good when Bond films use Fleming but they shouldn't disregard all the things the films have bought to the table because there is some stuff, cinematic Bond elements like gadgets and one liners, that myself and others have come to expect when we go to ses a new James Bond film.
Goldfinger could have been more Fleming-esque if you ask me. Pussy Galore was a butch lesbian who didn't move to the good/straight side.
It was Guy Hamilton who added more fun and entertaining extras that Fleming himself did not think of. The "grumpier" Q, to create more laughter, the gadget-laden Aston Martin, including ejector seat, something Fleming didn't thought of.
On the whole, "Goldfinger" the movie at least "feels" more "popcorny" entertainment than "Goldfinger" the novel. "Goldfinger" set a standard, but a different standard than the movie "From Russia With Love".
It's all about the lasers. :)>-
But I'll say I belong to both categories...
I adore FRWL and OHMSS, but I also love AVTAK and TSWLM... Do I just have a strange taste?
Furthermore, I have trouble deciding which of both categories, if - again - I choose to accept these as the only varieties there are, I favour most. I guess I gravitate towards the "Fleming ones", with such films as DN, FRWL, OHMSS, FYEO, TLD, LTK, GE (see above) and CR constituting my top 8 in the Bond series. However, I have a pretty soft spot for GF, DAF and particularly MR. So I wouldn't want to miss them either. Incidentally, I think GF also belongs in the Fleming section. For those who have read the novel, the film's scrip is pretty faithful to it. In fact it might very well be the only script that's ever managed to do things better than Fleming.
Whatever the judgement on that, I think Fleming is the best way to go. We can have some fun every once in a while, even AVTAK can be a pretty enjoyable Bond film, but one must regularly go back to the source and reposition oneself on the Fleming spectrum. It's the inevitable sobering up phase, certainly required lest an empty wallet and a serious hangover be all that's left after an evening of heavy drinking. That's why MR and DAD were followed by grittier and more realistic Bond films instead of sequels in spirit and tone.
It pleases me that every Bond actor has had at least one film in this section of grittier, more realistic films. Craig is definitely the lucky one in this respect. So far 'gritty' has been his only style of Bond films. Perhaps they will loosen up a bit for Bond 24. I have confidence that Craig can manage a Bond film that's lighter in tone and that requires just a little more comedic input from him. It would be interesting as an experiment any way.
Personally, I am in the latter camp, the "realistic Fleming-esque camp". For me this is an age thing. As a young kid I loved the extravaganza from the franchise, including steeltoothed Jaws, a gadget-laden Aston Martin, Oddjob and Bond-bimbo's in bikini's.
But in all honesty......right now, at age 32, I'm really more into the more serious Fleming-esque Bond films. "Die Another Day" for example.....I haven't seen it completely since....2011 I think.
Let me rephrase the question: If you HAVE to make a TOP 2 of the two camps, what would it be then.
=D>
It's not about doing things better than Fleming. Because Fleming himself did it already perfectly. I agree that "Goldfinger" stays faithful to the plot and story of Fleming's novel. But really guys, the film "feels" way more comical, more ludicrous & cheesy, than the actual novel.
You name it yourself: "The laser"!! Man, that wasn't even in the novel. There was an Aston Martin in the novel yes, but not one that was completely filled with gadgets. Pussy Galore stayed a more handsome version of Rosa Klebb....and always stayed lesbian.
I agree that "Goldfinger" was a benchmark for later films. Guy Hamilton really invented the term "blockbuster". But, in all honesty, I think "From Russia With Love" deserved more credits last year than "Goldfinger" gets now. "From Russia With Love" deserved a limited edition steelbook BluRay set too!
Just compared FRWL with GF and you know the differences in the "look" and "feel" of the films. Terence Young's FRWL is grittier, "colder", whereas Hamilton's GF sets another standard though, that of entertainment and fun.
However, based on the lists above, I suppose I'd go for the second list with the more cerebral films like FRWL, TLD, CR etc. With these films, there's an added layer of intelligence, so re-watching them feels more rewarding. The 'realistic' approach helps bring Bond's universe and ours closer together- and needless to say, the notion of James Bond actually existing in our realm is incredible.
=D>
Fleming's novels btw are quite escapist themselves, which is what lent the escapist element to the Bond films in the first place.
The Terrence Young and Peter Hunt films aren't exactly grounded in realism. That villain with the cat keeps turning up, not to mention the loon with the metal hand, who lives on his own fantasy island and calls himself Dr No.
That's the point that I was trying to make. Although less "goofy" than a lot of the films the books were still meant to be highly entertaining "escapist" adventures primarily.
I have to agree with your comments, @timmer.
The only films where I think they go all out "cold-hearted", "thriller" (as so many like to put it), are Licence to Kill and Quantum of Solace.
Then again, you still have things like a winking fish statue, an iguana with a diamond necklace and a toupee-wearing chap called Elvis in those films.
I suppose that's what sets the Bond films apart from other action series: that element of the benign bizarre, and it's sense of humour.
This one?
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/2775/what-kind-of-bond-fan-are-you
Yes, that's the one.
I've read some posts, and let's change the question a bit. Which camp of Bond films for you at least "FEELS" more realistic on one hand, and which section of films "FEEL" more comical on the other hand.
@Gustav_Graves .