Darenhat, isn't your standard of realism a little rigorous for a Bond film? Where does it come from? It certainly didn't develop from watching the 20 previous films. As a Bond fan, you've certainly suspended disbelief on far more outlandish goings-on than the embassy scene, or anything else in CR. Why so fussy now? Granted, Eon said CR would be a more serious film, but they did promise a James Bond film, not a documentary.
For me it is more of a 'character' standard. I can accept Bond to do some pretty outrageous things, and even suspend my disbelief on several occasions. For instance, in CR I can believe (as ludicrous as the concept really is) that 'the Good Guys' need to defeat 'The Bad Guys' by playing a game of high-stakes poker. Nonsense, if you think about it, but it doesn't bother me. Just like it doesn't bother me to see Bond go into space, or Bond basejump off of an icewall.
The embassy matter for me is more of 'what would Bond do' kind of thing. Bond is, for all intents and purposes, a civil servant, albeit one with a very special attribute: a licence to kill. But his primary duty is the 'protection of Britain' and to be Her Majesty's servant. In that case, what Bond does, his actions would always be typified by the "For England!' mentality. For instance, Bond has a licence to kill, but that doesn't mean he uses it one his way to the office because some poor bloke cut him off while driving. He uses it with the express purpose that it is in some way a task to further the protection of England. Deciding to burst into an embassy, guns ablazing, is the antithesis of what Bond is in my mind. The action would have too many far-reaching consequences, not just for him, or M, or MI6, but for England as a whole.
Maybe next time he can "quip" his way in, and hold the bad guys spellbound with his keen knowledge of French wines. But really ...
If you can buy the poker game, the embassy thing ought to be a lead-pipe cinch.
By the way, did you ever consider that M actually mischaracterizes the "one inviolate rule of international politics" in that the rule really applies to the host country violating the embassy's sovereignty -- in this case, Madagascar -- and not a third party? Bond going into the embassy (essentially the territory of a foreign country) to catch his quarry is essentially no different than the dozens of times Bond has gone into a foreign country and shot up the bad guys on a mission. In fact, operating in foreign countries is what MI6, like the CIA, does. As M says, the only problem Bond had is that he was filmed doing it.
Bond going into the embassy (essentially the territory of a foreign country) to catch his quarry is essentially no different than the dozens of times Bond has gone into a foreign country and shot up the bad guys on a mission. In fact, operating in foreign countries is what MI6, like the CIA, does. As M says, the only problem Bond had is that he was filmed doing it.
What happened to the day when Bond was a Secret Agent working for the Secret Service? Bond would have known there was no way he could crash the embassy and get away secretly. A much more interesting take to me was if he actually did enter the embassy covertly, pull the suspect out adroitly and whisk him away. There was a time when "nobody did it better" than Bond, now it's more like watching John McClane in a Die Hard movie.
Don't get me wrong, I cringe when Sheriff Pepper says "You're that Secret Agent!" or when Tiffany Case says "You just killed James Bond!" These are points that put Bond in the realm of fairy tale...just like Bond crashing an embassy.
Bond going into the embassy (essentially the territory of a foreign country) to catch his quarry is essentially no different than the dozens of times Bond has gone into a foreign country and shot up the bad guys on a mission. In fact, operating in foreign countries is what MI6, like the CIA, does. As M says, the only problem Bond had is that he was filmed doing it.
What happened to the day when Bond was a Secret Agent working for the Secret Service? Bond would have known there was no way he could crash the embassy and get away secretly. A much more interesting take to me was if he actually did enter the embassy covertly, pull the suspect out adroitly and whisk him away. There was a time when "nobody did it better" than Bond, now it's more like watching John McClane in a Die Hard movie.
Don't get me wrong, I cringe when Sheriff Pepper says "You're that Secret Agent!" or when Tiffany Case says "You just killed James Bond!" These are points that put Bond in the realm of fairy tale...just like Bond crashing an embassy.
I don't know, DH. You seem to wish it was another movie rather than the movie it is. And if it had been that movie, you'd wish it was yet another. I remember when "Nobody Did it Better" than Bond, too. He was that very same secret agent who made you cringe, the guy Sheriff Pepper talks about. CR meant to show the early Bond as a reckless rookie. Given your reaction to the embassy scene, I'd say they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.
Admttedly, the scene would have worked for me if they simply didn't mention the fact that MI6 was pegged as the gate-crasher. Bond quipped that "next time he would shoot the cameras" but M's consternation was based on the fact that he shouldn't have gone in there at all. I'm simply of the belief that when a rookie agent of the Secret Service makes headlines in international papers blatantly violating the law, he wouldn't remain an agent for very long. MI6 is still a branch of the government, and thus a political entity. Bond would be considered a liability, not an asset at that point, and would quickly be canned. However, if no one was able to finger Bond, MI6, or England in the incident, I find it much more plausible that the whole thing would be considered of less importance, and Bond would not be tossed on his ear. The scene simply doesn't work for me.
BTW, I'm not implacable...I just want things my way.
BTW, I'm not implacable...I just want things my way.
But that's impossible, when things have to be my way ) Otherwise, I'm liable to pout.
I wouldn't read too much into the headline. The newspaper can claim it was an MI6 agent all it wants, the government and MI6 would simply deny it or refuse comment, just as the Russian secret service is now denying having poisoned the whistleblower. Of course, that doesn't mean there wouldn't be a good deal of consternation behind the scenes and that people wouldn't be calling for Bond's head. Actually, it would be far more likely that they would demand that M's head be the one that rolls. She's ultimately responsible whether she ordered it or not.
Actually, it would be far more likely that they would demand that M's head be the one that rolls. She's ultimately responsible whether she ordered it or not.
Exactly. Which is why it would surprise me that she would keep Bond on the payroll, after giving her agency bad publicity, breaking into her flat, and accessing confidential files using her identity. At this point Bond really hasn't brought anything redeeming to the table, other than his two '00' kills...but to quote M herself: "any thug can kill."
I like the idea of having an unpolished Bond, but not one that screams incompetence. I like the fact that Dr. No himself called Bond 'clumsy and stupid' (we as the audience tended toward not believing it...thinking it was Dr. No's arrogance speaking). Bond palms the knife from the dinner table hoping to kill Dr. No, much like Bond hides the knife he hopes to use on Le Chiffre. These are excellent 'blunt instrument' moments which speak of the more raw elements of Bond.
Actually, it would be far more likely that they would demand that M's head be the one that rolls. She's ultimately responsible whether she ordered it or not.
Exactly. Which is why it would surprise me that she would keep Bond on the payroll, after giving her agency bad publicity, breaking into her flat, and accessing confidential files using her identity. At this point Bond really hasn't brought anything redeeming to the table, other than his two '00' kills...but to quote M herself: "any thug can kill."
I like the idea of having an unpolished Bond, but not one that screams incompetence ...
No offense Darenhat, but like many of CR's critics, you're misrepresenting what happens in the film:
M doesn't say she is going to keep him on the payroll. She tells him she is seriously considering "feeding" Bond to the people who want his head, and in the meantime to go stick his head in the sand. He goes to the Bahamas on his own time, where he uncovers and later foils the plot on the airliner. If that isn't redemption, I don't know what is.
So I don't see Bond as "screaming incompetence." Did he make a huge mistake at the Embassy? Yes. Was he rash? Yes. Did he overstep his orders? Certainly. But I would think that promoting someone to elite 00-status means that person has displayed an aptitude for the job that is rare and firing someone you've invested time in and who has displayed those qualities doesn't seem like the smartest move in the world for a manager.
Repeated mistakes would of course be another thing.
And that is true even in the real world: You don't just fire a valuable employee for making a mistake, DH. At least I don't. But that may be because I've made a mistake or two myself in my time and got a pass. Here's one that leaps to mind:
I was a newspaperman for many years, and a good one. But during a stint at the copy desk many years ago, I unwittingly paired a story about the capture of a rapist with a picture of the mayor-elect. There was a passing resemblance between the two, but that's no excuse: I should have been more careful given that the story was about a rapist. The incident was embarassing to say the least, no more so than to me (I called the mayor-elect and apologized -- he was forgiving, I should add). I suppose I could have been fired, but I wasn't, I presume because my bosses felt my talents warranted overlooking the mistake. I never made another like that one, that's for sure.
Now you'll probably say the two circumstances are different because Bond invaded the embassy on purpose while I screwed up on the pictures by accident. But both decisions required judgement and in both cases, the judgement was poor. But an instance of bad judgement is not automatically a firing offense.
Now there are no doubt some people would have fired me for my screwup. But they would not be the type of person I would want to work for under any circumstance.
Very good examples, HH. I agree that it wouldn't be worth throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But it seemed like someone would have to answer for what happened. If, on the otherhand, the 'newspaper' angle was left out, I'd feel a bit mollified.
I'd still have prefered to see Bond not do what he did, anyway. As you said, he has a history and training. But what he did seems to fly in the face of what any well-trained secret service agent, practiced in covert tactics, would do.
Very good examples, HH. I agree that it wouldn't be worth throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But it seemed like someone would have to answer for what happened. If, on the otherhand, the 'newspaper' angle was left out, I'd feel a bit mollified.
I'd still have prefered to see Bond not do what he did, anyway. As you said, he has a history and training. But what he did seems to fly in the face of what any well-trained secret service agent, practiced in covert tactics, would do.
Darenhat -- I'm nominating you to be M (would that make you "D"?) when Judi's tenure done. You'd keep those double-0s on a short leash. )(Just don't fire them too quickly).
Actually, it would be kind of fun if in Bond 22, M puts Bond on desk officer night duty for a few weeks, as he sometimes does in the books. Her explanation? "Did you think your success with LeChiffre makes up for the embassy fiasco? That will be all, 007." And watch him do a slow burn. I'm sure the writers could develop a scenario in which Bond uses the time to peruse MI-6 files for info on Mr. White's organization.
I know some people resent it when M castigates Bond, but I like it when M cracks the whip.
Actually, it would be kind of fun if in Bond 22, M puts Bond on desk officer night duty for a few weeks, as he sometimes does in the books. Her explanation? "Did you think your success with LeChiffre makes up for the embassy fiasco? That will be all, 007." And watch him do a slow burn.
You know, that reminds me of a scene from "THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS", when M - quite nastily - hinted that another 00 agent would be up to the task of killing a Soviet general, instead of Bond. Ah, Timothy Dalton and Robert Brown! They sure had an interesting dynamics going on.
Some people prefer the paternal (or maternal) M, but I like that other kind of dynamic, the more business-like kind. It reminds the audience that Bond isn't the only agent in the SIS stable and gives Bond a more realistic edge. M isn't supposed to be like Batman's Alfred. On the other hand, Bond is valuable to the service and I would think M would want to protect its assets if at all possible.
Actually, it would be kind of fun if in Bond 22, M puts Bond on desk officer night duty for a few weeks, as he sometimes does in the books. Her explanation? "Did you think your success with LeChiffre makes up for the embassy fiasco? That will be all, 007." And watch him do a slow burn.
You know, that reminds me of a scene from "THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS", when M - quite nastily - hinted that another 00 agent would be up to the task of killing a Soviet general, instead of Bond. Ah, Timothy Dalton and Robert Brown! They sure had an interesting dynamics going on.
Some people prefer the paternal (or maternal) M, but I like that other kind of dynamic, the more business-like kind. It reminds the audience that Bond isn't the only agent in the SIS stable and gives Bond a more realistic edge. M isn't supposed to be like Batman's Alfred. On the other hand, Bond is valuable to the service and I would think M would want to protect its assets if at all possible.
I'm with you HH. I prefer M to be the boss. Nice suggestion btw. I think that would a very interesting scene. I can just picture Craig seething as he says 'Yes Ma'am'.
After all, Bond is just one of several 00's who are on a level with Bond. He does need to be put in his place every now and again. No 00 is bigger than the organisation.
And Fish, I agree with you about Brown and Dalton. I liked their relationship. I also loved Bernard Lee with Connery. The only M I haven't got on with is Dame Judy, though I did enjoy her performance in CR.
I know some people resent it when M castigates Bond, but I like it when M cracks the whip.
I'm trying to imagine Judy Dench in leather holding a whip in her hand.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Seriously, I want to make three quick comments;
1)I understand how DH feels about the newspaper articles identifying MI6 but I personally didn'y have much of a problem with the actual scene. I do think that the newspaper article (as in the fact that MI6 was identified) is an example of bad writing. Nonetheless I did not approach CR with the feeling that it was particularly 'realistic' and so I wasn't bothered by that scene. The one thing that did annoy me was a forward jump that the bomber made; I just couldn't accept that he would be able to do it without falling flat on his face.
2)Regarding the scene in M's apartment; I think it is a terrible scene. My major objection to is the psychoanalysis (and the fact that the same actress who played M in GE was giving yet another speech on aspects of Bond's personality), but I also think that it is quite odd that a so-called rookie 00 would break into his boss's apartment after having screwed up in Africa. It wasn't enough to wreck the film for me (although the psychoanalysis did) but I wish that M would have had the nerve to discipline Bond. That is why I actually think HH's idea of Bond being on desk duty in Bond 22 is a good idea. -{
3)In regards to the role M should play, the first thing is that s/he should STOP psychoanalysing Bond! X-( I don't want to hear how he's mysoginsitic, isn't ready to have been made a 00 or anything else that Campbell and co think that M should say. Beyond that, I would still love for Judy Dench to be replaced, but since that isn't going to happen, I would like her (or her predecessor) to emulate the great Bernard Lee. Stern, efficient, impatient, no-nonsence, secretly fond of Bond and eager to show-up 007, yet also willing to send Bond to almost certain death if required. Some people may argue that Lee's M was paternal, and considering the younger man-older man relationship he was to a degree, but he was still willing to do whatever was required, even if it meant Bond's death.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
2)Regarding the scene in M's apartment; I think it is a terrible scene.
Terrible is a bit harsh but I didn't like this scene much either. I really dont think that even Bond would overstep the mark that much and break into M's home, hack into her computer and steal her password! There has always been an underlying respect between the two and this action shows no respect at all for M.
It didn't spoil any of my enjoyment of the film, but I did feel it was out of character for Bond.
In regards to the role M should play, the first thing is that s/he should STOP psychoanalysing Bond! X-( I don't want to hear how he's mysoginsitic, isn't ready to have been made a 00 or anything else that Campbell and co think that M should say. Beyond that, I would still love for Judy Dench to be replaced, but since that isn't going to happen, I would like her (or her predecessor) to emulate the great Bernard Lee. Stern, efficient, impatient, no-nonsence, secretly fond of Bond and eager to show-up 007, yet also willing to send Bond to almost certain death if required. Some people may argue that Lee's M was paternal, and considering the younger man-older man relationship he was to a degree, but he was still willing to do whatever was required, even if it meant Bond's death.
I think this new approach with M's analysation (is that a word?) of Bond began with GE. It a step which probably needed to be made due to the modern, more feminist world. She still puts Bond firmly in place from a female perspective, to keep all the feminists out there happy.
She still puts Bond firmly in place from a female perspective, to keep all the feminists out there happy.
Yeah, we wouldn't want to hurt the feelings of all those feminist audience members who rush out to watch James Bond movies! ) I've got an idea...if they don't like the character, don't see the movie! My sister is like that a little bit. Sometimes she gets really offended by James Bond, and I start thinking: "You know what? It's a fictional character. There are real people who do much worse. Why not send some of that negative energy their way?"
Yeah, we wouldn't want to hurt the feelings of all those feminist audience members who rush out to watch James Bond movies! ) I've got an idea...if they don't like the character, don't see the movie!
Exactly. It seems to me that Campbell is almost ashamed to be directing a Bond film; what with Bond being sexist and all. 8-)
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
3)In regards to the role M should play, the first thing is that s/he should STOP psychoanalysing Bond! X-( I don't want to hear how he's mysoginsitic, isn't ready to have been made a 00 or anything else that Campbell and co think that M should say. Beyond that, I would still love for Judy Dench to be replaced, but since that isn't going to happen, I would like her (or her predecessor) to emulate the great Bernard Lee. Stern, efficient, impatient, no-nonsence, secretly fond of Bond and eager to show-up 007, yet also willing to send Bond to almost certain death if required. Some people may argue that Lee's M was paternal, and considering the younger man-older man relationship he was to a degree, but he was still willing to do whatever was required, even if it meant Bond's death.
So is Judi' M -- She says so explicitly in Goldeneye. And she's also stern, efficient, fond of Bond, etc ..., all those attributes you grant to Lee's M, at least as I read her. In fact I always thought it was Bond who was resentful at having a woman boss. To which any woman boss worth her salt (and I've had a few) would say: "Tough: you may not like me but you're going to have to deal with me" -- which is the point Dench's M was making in GE. And Bond is something of a sexist. It's been part of the character for a long, long time. Didn't you notice? Next time you're out with your wife or girlfriend, Dan, and you run into a male acquaintance, pat her on the behind and send her on her way with the admonition "Man talk." I'll bet being called a mysoginist would be the least of your problems. )
I had gotten the impression when I first watched GE that Bond did not resent working for a woman per se but that he didn't feel Dench's M specifically was not capable of doing the job. In fact, it seemed to have been an opinion shared by Tanner who referred to her as 'the evil queen of numbers' meaning, I gathered, that she was more interested in listening to stats than experienced personnel.
It would seem that they were right. M was wrong about the GoldenEye, wrong about Elektra King, made a bad judgement call that led to her being captured, and had a double-agent working under her nose for months because her organization failed to properly vet Miranda Frost (and then tries to blame it on the CIA: "you should have told us she was on the same fencing team as Graves!"...uh, they probably found that out in a matter of days after learning she was involved in the case).
The only film whch I had any real respect for Dench as M was in TND. She was tough, sure, and seemed to have confidence in Bond and his decision-making.
So is Judi' M -- She says so explicitly in Goldeneye. And she's also stern, efficient, fond of Bond, etc ..., all those attributes you grant to Lee's M, at least as I read her. In fact I always thought it was Bond who was resentful at having a woman boss. To which any woman boss worth her salt (and I've had a few) would say: "Tough: you may not like me but you're going to have to deal with me" -- which is the point Dench's M was making in GE. And Bond is something of a sexist. It's been part of the character for a long, long time. Didn't you notice? Next time you're out with your wife or girlfriend, Dan, and you run into a male acquaintance, pat her on the behind and send her on her way with the admonition "Man talk." I'll bet being called a mysoginist would be the least of your problems. )
Firstly, I think you should clean up your post. It sounds like I was responding to NP. )
Alright, yes, Bond is sexist. That is, for good or bad, an essentially Bondian quality. The thing is, telling him that he's sexist, is a bit like telling him that he's capable of violence. It's obvious, and in the case of M's speech in GE, all it does is appease the feminist critics of Bond. I can just imagine when M made the speech, someone going "You tell him girl!" In fact, she actually went beyond that, calling him a misogynist, which is far from accurate.
Now I actually don't have a problem with Bond's female boss being tough (and I agree that her toughness could work well with Bond's so-called resentment at working for a woman, although I agree with DH that Bond's problem with Dench was with her specifically) but that speech was IMO so obviously PC/trying to apologise for Bond's being sexist that I really hated it. I don't think it was clever, I think it was professionally inappropiate to make such a personal comment and I couldn't help but feel while watching it that it was inserted into the film for reasons that had nothing to do with art and everything to do with politics. I think it was completely unnecessary and if it had been eliminated, along with a few other things, GE would IMO have been a true masterpiece.
Plus it was just one example of psychoanalysis in a film full of it (there was also the beach scene and some of Alex's dialogue). When M in CR started psychoanalysing Bond yet again, I couldn't believe that Campbell had done it again. But why am I surprised? He does obviously have a problem with Bond's sexism. In the train scene, which I liked alot, he completely crossed the line IMO when Vesper said "You treat women as disposable objects." I wonder what Campbell must be thinking when he gets asked about the horribly sexist older films. Afterall in them, Bond was a misogynist who reated women as disposable objects. )
P.S. HH, If while talking to a male acquaintance, I patted my girlfriend on the bottom and said "Man talk," I would be writing my next post from a hospital bed.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Sorry NP, but you have no choice. You're a part of this wether you like it or not. Now pick a side! X-(
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
P.S. HH, If while talking to a male acquaintance, I patted my girlfriend on the bottom and said "Man talk," I would be writing my next post from a hospital bed.
I had a feeling that might be the case )
But that's why I think M's mysoginist comment is not out of place. You concede that Bond is a sexist and I think you have to admit he does treat women like disposable objects. You may even admit that women don't find that particularly admirable in a man. So what's the problem? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ... Why is it so wrong for M or Vesper to say so?
You suggest M's comment is personal, but I don't think so. The context of the conversation is Bond's feelings about having a female boss -- I think in this case the boss is justified in trying to gauge whether those feelings are going to negatively affect his ability to work for a woman (he doesn't exactly disavow that notion, either, as I recall).
Was her comment PC? That's not how I would describe it. The purpose of the dialogue in that scene is merely to underscore that Bond is now in a new world. One in which James Bond, the famous womanizer, is bossed around by a woman. Welcome to the present, Mr. Bond. What would have been PC is for Bond to change into a sensitive, nurturing male who isn't afraid to cry. That hasn't happened, thank God.
I give EON credit for trying to keep Bond up with the times. If the writers or the director can't riff off some of a characters' most famous traits for the script, what the heck are they supposed to use? I just do not understand the objection.
Terrible is a bit harsh but I didn't like this scene much either. I really dont think that even Bond would overstep the mark that much and break into M's home, hack into her computer and steal her password!
Considering the crap that Bond has pulled over the years, I find it easy to believe that he would overstep the mark. And I suspect that he needed M's computer to access some kind of technology that would enable him to track Mollaska's contact. He probably suspected that considering what had happened in Madagascar, she would not be that obliging if he had asked.
I can understand why the scene is there as he does indeed use her ID later on to further his investigation. The scene has a purpose and even though I think they could have done it another way, ie in her office it didn't hinder my enjoyment. I'm just not sure even Bond would go as far to breaking into M's home.
Terrible is a bit harsh but I didn't like this scene much either. I really dont think that even Bond would overstep the mark that much and break into M's home, hack into her computer and steal her password!
Considering the crap that Bond has pulled over the years, I find it easy to believe that he would overstep the mark. And I suspect that he needed M's computer to access some kind of technology that would enable him to track Mollaska's contact. He probably suspected that considering what had happened in Madagascar, she would not be that obliging if he had asked.
I can understand why the scene is there as he does indeed use her ID later on to further his investigation. The scene has a purpose and even though I think they could have done it another way, ie in her office it didn't hinder my enjoyment. I'm just not sure even Bond would go as far to breaking into M's home.
If I was Bond -- and I am, in my own mind, although no one else thinks so -- and I needed to break into the MI6 computer, I would break into M's home and use hers rather than her office inside MI6 headquarters. I would think her apartment would be easier to break into. At least I hope so, for SIS's sake.
What would have been PC is for Bond to change into a sensitive, nurturing male who isn't afraid to cry. That hasn't happened, thank God.
Quite agree. We dont want a metrosexual Bond thankyou very much! I dont want to see him cleansing and moisturisng before bed, just after he's finished crying after watching 'Beaches'. )
I agree with you HH. M's comments dont bother me at all. It actually worked in letting us know that the times have changed but James hasn't.
I was comparing CR to what a real James Bond might do to make the point that the new James Bond character is an idiot and a jerk. I was not saying that the movie wasn't real enough, quite the opposite. I can turn on the news to see people running amok with guns and dishonest civil servants, I don't need to buy a movie ticket. I buy a movie ticket to escape from that, to live in a fantasy world with a character I like to identify with. Everyone does. It's not the lack of realism killing the James Bond series, it's the lack of imagination.
Imagination is what makes the Bond films fun. They've been losing the fun scenes like laser battles in space, spear fights underwater, gunbattles on skis, fighting seemingly indestructible henchman. It got down to only one fun scene with Pierce Brosnan driving a tank through town, and he managed to make that look boring by never cracking a smile during it.
I don't know if they're trying to update the character or make the movies cheaper, but they're ruining them.
EON needs to hire me and Delicious as script consultants. It wouldn't cost too much to use computer animation to create my villians fortress in a volcano or have Bond skiboard a lavaflow. It might cost some money to shoot in the Phillipines. My script used 3 enviroments Bond hasn't been in yet. Phillipines is the only place I know that has all 3. We'd need some lions, too. I'd drop a few of my stunts because they'd be used by criminals, but i don't see any harm in teaching the world how to fight off a pride of lions.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited January 2007
I think it's going to be difficult to persuade Eon that CR, which has now earned over $500 million at the box office, is contributing to the ruin of the franchise...come to think of it, it's damn near impossible to convince me I've said it before, but I'll say it again: The Bond series ebbs and flows, like the tides, from wildly outlandish to more grounded, or relatively 'serious,' entries. Patience would be the watchword, here...
I'd wish you luck on selling them on your ideas, but I'm trying to sell them on mine :v
As for a lack of imagination...hmm. This one had more Fleming in it than anything in nearly 20 years---and I've always rather enjoyed Fleming's imagination. My hope is that they continue to mine unused elements from all the novels when conjuring up the next Bond adventure---and, given the success they've found lately, I'd say anyone trying to move a Bond spec script would be well advised to give it a try
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Comments
Maybe next time he can "quip" his way in, and hold the bad guys spellbound with his keen knowledge of French wines. But really ...
If you can buy the poker game, the embassy thing ought to be a lead-pipe cinch.
By the way, did you ever consider that M actually mischaracterizes the "one inviolate rule of international politics" in that the rule really applies to the host country violating the embassy's sovereignty -- in this case, Madagascar -- and not a third party? Bond going into the embassy (essentially the territory of a foreign country) to catch his quarry is essentially no different than the dozens of times Bond has gone into a foreign country and shot up the bad guys on a mission. In fact, operating in foreign countries is what MI6, like the CIA, does. As M says, the only problem Bond had is that he was filmed doing it.
What happened to the day when Bond was a Secret Agent working for the Secret Service? Bond would have known there was no way he could crash the embassy and get away secretly. A much more interesting take to me was if he actually did enter the embassy covertly, pull the suspect out adroitly and whisk him away. There was a time when "nobody did it better" than Bond, now it's more like watching John McClane in a Die Hard movie.
Don't get me wrong, I cringe when Sheriff Pepper says "You're that Secret Agent!" or when Tiffany Case says "You just killed James Bond!" These are points that put Bond in the realm of fairy tale...just like Bond crashing an embassy.
I don't know, DH. You seem to wish it was another movie rather than the movie it is. And if it had been that movie, you'd wish it was yet another. I remember when "Nobody Did it Better" than Bond, too. He was that very same secret agent who made you cringe, the guy Sheriff Pepper talks about. CR meant to show the early Bond as a reckless rookie. Given your reaction to the embassy scene, I'd say they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.
BTW, I'm not implacable...I just want things my way.
But that's impossible, when things have to be my way
I wouldn't read too much into the headline. The newspaper can claim it was an MI6 agent all it wants, the government and MI6 would simply deny it or refuse comment, just as the Russian secret service is now denying having poisoned the whistleblower. Of course, that doesn't mean there wouldn't be a good deal of consternation behind the scenes and that people wouldn't be calling for Bond's head. Actually, it would be far more likely that they would demand that M's head be the one that rolls. She's ultimately responsible whether she ordered it or not.
Exactly. Which is why it would surprise me that she would keep Bond on the payroll, after giving her agency bad publicity, breaking into her flat, and accessing confidential files using her identity. At this point Bond really hasn't brought anything redeeming to the table, other than his two '00' kills...but to quote M herself: "any thug can kill."
I like the idea of having an unpolished Bond, but not one that screams incompetence. I like the fact that Dr. No himself called Bond 'clumsy and stupid' (we as the audience tended toward not believing it...thinking it was Dr. No's arrogance speaking). Bond palms the knife from the dinner table hoping to kill Dr. No, much like Bond hides the knife he hopes to use on Le Chiffre. These are excellent 'blunt instrument' moments which speak of the more raw elements of Bond.
No offense Darenhat, but like many of CR's critics, you're misrepresenting what happens in the film:
M doesn't say she is going to keep him on the payroll. She tells him she is seriously considering "feeding" Bond to the people who want his head, and in the meantime to go stick his head in the sand. He goes to the Bahamas on his own time, where he uncovers and later foils the plot on the airliner. If that isn't redemption, I don't know what is.
So I don't see Bond as "screaming incompetence." Did he make a huge mistake at the Embassy? Yes. Was he rash? Yes. Did he overstep his orders? Certainly. But I would think that promoting someone to elite 00-status means that person has displayed an aptitude for the job that is rare and firing someone you've invested time in and who has displayed those qualities doesn't seem like the smartest move in the world for a manager.
Repeated mistakes would of course be another thing.
And that is true even in the real world: You don't just fire a valuable employee for making a mistake, DH. At least I don't. But that may be because I've made a mistake or two myself in my time and got a pass. Here's one that leaps to mind:
I was a newspaperman for many years, and a good one. But during a stint at the copy desk many years ago, I unwittingly paired a story about the capture of a rapist with a picture of the mayor-elect. There was a passing resemblance between the two, but that's no excuse: I should have been more careful given that the story was about a rapist. The incident was embarassing to say the least, no more so than to me (I called the mayor-elect and apologized -- he was forgiving, I should add). I suppose I could have been fired, but I wasn't, I presume because my bosses felt my talents warranted overlooking the mistake. I never made another like that one, that's for sure.
Now you'll probably say the two circumstances are different because Bond invaded the embassy on purpose while I screwed up on the pictures by accident. But both decisions required judgement and in both cases, the judgement was poor. But an instance of bad judgement is not automatically a firing offense.
Now there are no doubt some people would have fired me for my screwup. But they would not be the type of person I would want to work for under any circumstance.
I'd still have prefered to see Bond not do what he did, anyway. As you said, he has a history and training. But what he did seems to fly in the face of what any well-trained secret service agent, practiced in covert tactics, would do.
Darenhat -- I'm nominating you to be M (would that make you "D"?) when Judi's tenure done. You'd keep those double-0s on a short leash.
Actually, it would be kind of fun if in Bond 22, M puts Bond on desk officer night duty for a few weeks, as he sometimes does in the books. Her explanation? "Did you think your success with LeChiffre makes up for the embassy fiasco? That will be all, 007." And watch him do a slow burn. I'm sure the writers could develop a scenario in which Bond uses the time to peruse MI-6 files for info on Mr. White's organization.
I know some people resent it when M castigates Bond, but I like it when M cracks the whip.
Some people prefer the paternal (or maternal) M, but I like that other kind of dynamic, the more business-like kind. It reminds the audience that Bond isn't the only agent in the SIS stable and gives Bond a more realistic edge. M isn't supposed to be like Batman's Alfred. On the other hand, Bond is valuable to the service and I would think M would want to protect its assets if at all possible.
I'm with you HH. I prefer M to be the boss. Nice suggestion btw. I think that would a very interesting scene. I can just picture Craig seething as he says 'Yes Ma'am'.
After all, Bond is just one of several 00's who are on a level with Bond. He does need to be put in his place every now and again. No 00 is bigger than the organisation.
And Fish, I agree with you about Brown and Dalton. I liked their relationship. I also loved Bernard Lee with Connery. The only M I haven't got on with is Dame Judy, though I did enjoy her performance in CR.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Seriously, I want to make three quick comments;
1)I understand how DH feels about the newspaper articles identifying MI6 but I personally didn'y have much of a problem with the actual scene. I do think that the newspaper article (as in the fact that MI6 was identified) is an example of bad writing. Nonetheless I did not approach CR with the feeling that it was particularly 'realistic' and so I wasn't bothered by that scene. The one thing that did annoy me was a forward jump that the bomber made; I just couldn't accept that he would be able to do it without falling flat on his face.
2)Regarding the scene in M's apartment; I think it is a terrible scene. My major objection to is the psychoanalysis (and the fact that the same actress who played M in GE was giving yet another speech on aspects of Bond's personality), but I also think that it is quite odd that a so-called rookie 00 would break into his boss's apartment after having screwed up in Africa. It wasn't enough to wreck the film for me (although the psychoanalysis did) but I wish that M would have had the nerve to discipline Bond. That is why I actually think HH's idea of Bond being on desk duty in Bond 22 is a good idea. -{
3)In regards to the role M should play, the first thing is that s/he should STOP psychoanalysing Bond! X-( I don't want to hear how he's mysoginsitic, isn't ready to have been made a 00 or anything else that Campbell and co think that M should say. Beyond that, I would still love for Judy Dench to be replaced, but since that isn't going to happen, I would like her (or her predecessor) to emulate the great Bernard Lee. Stern, efficient, impatient, no-nonsence, secretly fond of Bond and eager to show-up 007, yet also willing to send Bond to almost certain death if required. Some people may argue that Lee's M was paternal, and considering the younger man-older man relationship he was to a degree, but he was still willing to do whatever was required, even if it meant Bond's death.
Terrible is a bit harsh but I didn't like this scene much either. I really dont think that even Bond would overstep the mark that much and break into M's home, hack into her computer and steal her password! There has always been an underlying respect between the two and this action shows no respect at all for M.
It didn't spoil any of my enjoyment of the film, but I did feel it was out of character for Bond.
I think this new approach with M's analysation (is that a word?) of Bond began with GE. It a step which probably needed to be made due to the modern, more feminist world. She still puts Bond firmly in place from a female perspective, to keep all the feminists out there happy.
Yeah, we wouldn't want to hurt the feelings of all those feminist audience members who rush out to watch James Bond movies!
It would seem that they were right. M was wrong about the GoldenEye, wrong about Elektra King, made a bad judgement call that led to her being captured, and had a double-agent working under her nose for months because her organization failed to properly vet Miranda Frost (and then tries to blame it on the CIA: "you should have told us she was on the same fencing team as Graves!"...uh, they probably found that out in a matter of days after learning she was involved in the case).
The only film whch I had any real respect for Dench as M was in TND. She was tough, sure, and seemed to have confidence in Bond and his decision-making.
I'm keeping out of this!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Alright, yes, Bond is sexist. That is, for good or bad, an essentially Bondian quality. The thing is, telling him that he's sexist, is a bit like telling him that he's capable of violence. It's obvious, and in the case of M's speech in GE, all it does is appease the feminist critics of Bond. I can just imagine when M made the speech, someone going "You tell him girl!" In fact, she actually went beyond that, calling him a misogynist, which is far from accurate.
Now I actually don't have a problem with Bond's female boss being tough (and I agree that her toughness could work well with Bond's so-called resentment at working for a woman, although I agree with DH that Bond's problem with Dench was with her specifically) but that speech was IMO so obviously PC/trying to apologise for Bond's being sexist that I really hated it. I don't think it was clever, I think it was professionally inappropiate to make such a personal comment and I couldn't help but feel while watching it that it was inserted into the film for reasons that had nothing to do with art and everything to do with politics.
Plus it was just one example of psychoanalysis in a film full of it (there was also the beach scene and some of Alex's dialogue). When M in CR started psychoanalysing Bond yet again, I couldn't believe that Campbell had done it again. But why am I surprised? He does obviously have a problem with Bond's sexism. In the train scene, which I liked alot, he completely crossed the line IMO when Vesper said "You treat women as disposable objects." I wonder what Campbell must be thinking when he gets asked about the horribly sexist older films. Afterall in them, Bond was a misogynist who reated women as disposable objects.
P.S. HH, If while talking to a male acquaintance, I patted my girlfriend on the bottom and said "Man talk," I would be writing my next post from a hospital bed.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I had a feeling that might be the case
But that's why I think M's mysoginist comment is not out of place. You concede that Bond is a sexist and I think you have to admit he does treat women like disposable objects. You may even admit that women don't find that particularly admirable in a man. So what's the problem? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ... Why is it so wrong for M or Vesper to say so?
You suggest M's comment is personal, but I don't think so. The context of the conversation is Bond's feelings about having a female boss -- I think in this case the boss is justified in trying to gauge whether those feelings are going to negatively affect his ability to work for a woman (he doesn't exactly disavow that notion, either, as I recall).
Was her comment PC? That's not how I would describe it. The purpose of the dialogue in that scene is merely to underscore that Bond is now in a new world. One in which James Bond, the famous womanizer, is bossed around by a woman. Welcome to the present, Mr. Bond. What would have been PC is for Bond to change into a sensitive, nurturing male who isn't afraid to cry. That hasn't happened, thank God.
I give EON credit for trying to keep Bond up with the times. If the writers or the director can't riff off some of a characters' most famous traits for the script, what the heck are they supposed to use? I just do not understand the objection.
I can understand why the scene is there as he does indeed use her ID later on to further his investigation. The scene has a purpose and even though I think they could have done it another way, ie in her office it didn't hinder my enjoyment. I'm just not sure even Bond would go as far to breaking into M's home.
If I was Bond -- and I am, in my own mind, although no one else thinks so -- and I needed to break into the MI6 computer, I would break into M's home and use hers rather than her office inside MI6 headquarters. I would think her apartment would be easier to break into. At least I hope so, for SIS's sake.
Quite agree. We dont want a metrosexual Bond thankyou very much! I dont want to see him cleansing and moisturisng before bed, just after he's finished crying after watching 'Beaches'.
I agree with you HH. M's comments dont bother me at all. It actually worked in letting us know that the times have changed but James hasn't.
Imagination is what makes the Bond films fun. They've been losing the fun scenes like laser battles in space, spear fights underwater, gunbattles on skis, fighting seemingly indestructible henchman. It got down to only one fun scene with Pierce Brosnan driving a tank through town, and he managed to make that look boring by never cracking a smile during it.
I don't know if they're trying to update the character or make the movies cheaper, but they're ruining them.
EON needs to hire me and Delicious as script consultants. It wouldn't cost too much to use computer animation to create my villians fortress in a volcano or have Bond skiboard a lavaflow. It might cost some money to shoot in the Phillipines. My script used 3 enviroments Bond hasn't been in yet. Phillipines is the only place I know that has all 3. We'd need some lions, too. I'd drop a few of my stunts because they'd be used by criminals, but i don't see any harm in teaching the world how to fight off a pride of lions.
I'd wish you luck on selling them on your ideas, but I'm trying to sell them on mine :v
As for a lack of imagination...hmm. This one had more Fleming in it than anything in nearly 20 years---and I've always rather enjoyed Fleming's imagination. My hope is that they continue to mine unused elements from all the novels when conjuring up the next Bond adventure---and, given the success they've found lately, I'd say anyone trying to move a Bond spec script would be well advised to give it a try
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM