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...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...
... 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
Amen to that!
The pattern has always been that when the Bond films get too outlandish, the next one brings it down the Earth. Look at YOLT, then OHMSS... MR, then FYEO... AVTAK, then TLD and now DAD then CR.
I WELCOME the Fleming material wholeheartedly. CR was the first Bond film in a LONG time that FELT like a Bond film.
attache, no offense, you can keep your exploding villains, space battles, ice palaces, buzzsaw yo-yos, indestructible henchmen and CGI para-surfing Bond... to paraphrase Marvel Comics in the '60's... "MAKE MINE FLEMING!".
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.
I'm with Darenhat here. Craigs Bond has lost his sent of whats right and wrong and what's appropriate to a situation. As I keep saying over and over, they have muddied or soiled the basic character blueprint and having done it they cant go back.
Summary of Bond's treatment of women over the series as an indication of his character:
Connery - a fifties male who treats women like iresponsible children and in a lot of cases because that's how they behave. The milieu at this point is cynical of feminism so Bond can't be blamed personally for being a philanderer. Both sexes are stuck in their pre-feminist roles - men are all action/no feelings and women are all feeling/no action. Bond's treatment of women in Goldfinger is patronising and the women he interacts with are either childish or in the case of Pussy Galore, resistant, which is just the flipside of the childishness and therefore part of it. She gives in to Bond eventually.
Lazenby's Bond - almost identical to Connery if not worse - the girls who are being treated for allergies in OHMSS are almost unbearably silly and childish.
Moore's Bond - the influence of feminism is starting to make itself felt. Moore is a mixture of the strictly disapproving and wry artistocrat he has played in so many roles and intensely patronising of women as well. But the girls are starting to fight back without resorting to seduction. The interactions in MR between Bond and Dr Goodhead, who is a fully trained astonaut, being a case in point. However the high camp of the Moore movies and the over-the-top seductiveness of so many of the females - eg the girl who pilots the iceberg sub in VTAK, the girl at the hotel in TSWLM, Stacey Sutton and many others - is comical so easier to forgive and just enjoy. The 80's were a very tacky, brassy time for popular culture. Moore's Bond crystallises the idea that he does everything for Queen and Country (eg his chat with Scaramanga in TMWTGG) although Connery has touched on this too in TB afte seducing the woman who picks him up in her car.
Dalton's Bond - unlike his predecessors Dalton's Bond has a deep-seated natural respect for women (hurray!) even though the scripts give him the freedom to be sexist due to the force of circumstances. For example when he forces Pam Bouvier to be his executive secretary because they are in South America which is a "man's world". Kara Milovy's character in TLD is innocent and out of her depth so Bond gets to be protective and bossy.
Brosnan's Bond - the girls have arrived in force, starting with a formidable female M played by the ever-wonmderful Judy Dench and a succession of female characters who are quite capable of meeting men on their own terms. Christmas Jones is an independent girl who gets involved with Bond because she wants to, both Natalya in GE and Wai Lin in TND only fall for Bond after he has proved himself to be moral and strong. Elektra King is a masterful villainess who is both powerful and able to use her feminity as a tool to control men. We have come a long way from the helpless, childish and silly girls of the early Bond films. Jinx is the epitomy of this evolution, and much more whole and confident than the earlier XXX in TSWLM who is also supposed to be Bond's equal.
The girls have grown up over the last 40 years and the Bond series shows the evolution of the female psyche in both film and culture. However the change in both has destablised the fifties male because he and the fifties female used to prop each other up like two playing cards. The women did the feeling and the men did the doing. But now both sexes need to be able to do both. The female is now able to stand on her own two feet so the male has been forced to evolve too. But the Bond character (and indeed men in general) is still in the middle of that process. However, taking away Bond's moral sense and good manners is not the right way to go. In a way the evolution of women (which is a goos thing of course) have taken away Bond's "mojo". The writers need to find a way to make Bond strong and sensitive and this may not even be possible without destroying the character. John McClane in the Die Hard series, Indiana Jones, and more recently, Rick O'Connell and The Mummy I and II are all exploring the new male. I think Rick O'Connell is the ebst of the bunch - a good father, a good lover and a good warrior.
BTW my second screenplay Master of Dragons has now been novelised and has gone to an assessor for appraisal. It took longer to novelise the screenplay than I thought but it has been worth the effort.
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!
Well, in my case, I was actually being diplomatic. I intensely dislike this scene, not so much because Bond broke into M's home (although it did annoy me) but because of the conversation that followed.
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?
Bond is indeed a sexist, but he isn't mysogynist. That's one problem with the scene in GE; it wasn't particularly accurate. The thing is, though, Bond is who he is. You either accept it or not. One of the people that I have always been able to share my love of Bond with has been my mother. Is it because she believes that women should be submissive to men? Of course not. She's a feminist who wouldn't take crap from any man but who accepts that one of the essential Bondian qualities is his sexism. When M made her (inaccurate) speech in GE and Vesper made the comment in CR, I recoiled because not only were both IMO completely unnecessary but what other purpose could they serve than to appease anti-Bond critiics? Vesper had already analysed Bond rather successfully and amusingly. The point, that she was able to size him up and was his equal, was made. Why go on and make that comment?
As for M's speech in GE, if it had been taken out or was replaced, would it have affected thr film? My suspicion is that if it did have an effect, it would have been positive. I suspect that you probably want a precise reason why I dislike M's speech, however I don't think I can give you one. It just struck me as an example of massive political-correctness, and a speech that a former Uni professor of mine (who hated Bond for his sexism) would have loved.
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).
True, but I think it could have been more cleverly written. It seemed to me as if the scene was written to provide for that speech rather than a speech being written to provide for the scene. If it was important that M be personal (and I don't think it was as I agree with DH that Bond's problems with M went beyond her gender) then I would have preferred a cleverer and less obvious speech. Perhaps instead of calling Bond what she did, M could have made a comment like "Oh, and 007, you may not enjoy working for a woman, but if you ever mess up, I will make sure..." (I don't know, I'm not the screen writer around here. )
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.
You mean Bond didn't cry in CR?
I guess this is a matter of perspective. You don't think it was PC (and compared to your scenario it might not have been ) but IMO it was among the most PC moments in the entire series. Plus, it wasn't as if it was unique. In the same film, Alec noted that Bond might drink to deal with the people he kills and Bond told Natalya that he was cold as it keeps him alive. I don't know wether Campbell is a fillmmaker or Freudian. )
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'm not saying that they can't riff (as you say) off his most famous traits. Just do it in a way that isn't obvious and doesn't sound as if the director is trying to apologise for working with a sexist character. That scene in the train was IMO terrific. I just think they should have left off that last comment. It really didn't need that last comment, and if they had to deal with Bond's sexism, well, the "You're not my type of woman." "Smart?" "Single" was more than sufficient IMO. (I won't comment on the scene in M's home as it still gives me nightmares. )
P.S. HH, wether you respond to my post or not, I have to say that I enjoyed writing it, so my thanks to you. -{
"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
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!
Well, in my case, I was actually being diplomatic. I intensely dislike this scene, not so much because Bond broke into M's home (although it did annoy me) but because of the conversation that followed.
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?
Bond is indeed a sexist, but he isn't mysogynist. That's one problem with the scene in GE; it wasn't particularly accurate. The thing is, though, Bond is who he is. You either accept it or not. One of the people that I have always been able to share my love of Bond with has been my mother. Is it because she believes that women should be submissive to men? Of course not. She's a feminist who wouldn't take crap from any man but who accepts that one of the essential Bondian qualities is his sexism. When M made her (inaccurate) speech in GE and Vesper made the comment in CR, I recoiled because not only were both IMO completely unnecessary but what other purpose could they serve than to appease anti-Bond critiics? Vesper had already analysed Bond rather successfully and amusingly. The point, that she was able to size him up and was his equal, was made. Why go on and make that comment?
As for M's speech in GE, if it had been taken out or was replaced, would it have affected thr film? My suspicion is that if it did have an effect, it would have been positive. I suspect that you probably want a precise reason why I dislike M's speech, however I don't think I can give you one. It just struck me as an example of massive political-correctness, and a speech that a former Uni professor of mine (who hated Bond for his sexism) would have loved.
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).
True, but I think it could have been more cleverly written. It seemed to me as if the scene was written to provide for that speech rather than a speech being written to provide for the scene. If it was important that M be personal (and I don't think it was as I agree with DH that Bond's problems with M went beyond her gender) then I would have preferred a cleverer and less obvious speech. Perhaps instead of calling Bond what she did, M could have made a comment like "Oh, and 007, you may not enjoy working for a woman, but if you ever mess up, I will make sure..." (I don't know, I'm not the screen writer around here. )
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.
You mean Bond didn't cry in CR?
I guess this is a matter of perspective. You don't think it was PC (and compared to your scenario it might not have been ) but IMO it was among the most PC moments in the entire series. Plus, it wasn't as if it was unique. In the same film, Alec noted that Bond might drink to deal with the people he kills and Bond told Natalya that he was cold as it keeps him alive. I don't know wether Campbell is a fillmmaker or Freudian. )
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'm not saying that they can't riff (as you say) off his most famous traits. Just do it in a way that isn't obvious and doesn't sound as if the director is trying to apologise for working with a sexist character. That scene in the train was IMO terrific. I just think they should have left off that last comment. It really didn't need that last comment, and if they had to deal with Bond's sexism, well, the "You're not my type of woman." "Smart?" "Single" was more than sufficient IMO. (I won't comment on the scene in M's home as it still gives me nightmares. )
P.S. HH, wether you respond to my post or not, I have to say that I enjoyed writing it, so my thanks to you. -{
Well I enjoyed reading it, Dan. Your points are always challenging. But I think on the whole PC issue, the newer films do not pander as much as you believe they do, they simply acknowledge that Bond's behavior falls short. If anything, Bond even now wallows in his shallowness with women. That's what makes his falling for Vesper all the more interesting. You don't expect it (as for his crying in CR -- when I mentioned crying in my earlier post, I didn't mean crying at having lost a loved one. I meant the sniveling kind of crying where tears are shed over trifles -- like the casting of Daniel Craig over at CraigisnotBond). You mention -- or maybe not you, but someone, I've lost track -- that the character has been been significantly changed, but I simply disagree. As I said before, he's been sharpened and is now more Bond than he has been in years. He's just a more rounded human being. And even sexists-mysoginists are human.
BTW, I'm not the least bit surprised your mom likes Bond despite his sexism. She sounds like a normal, regular, complicated human being. You'll note that Bond and Vesper weren't each other's "type" either. But Bond, let's face it, is the adorable kind of sexist. )
(as for his crying in CR -- when I mentioned crying in my earlier post, I didn't mean crying at having lost a loved one. I meant the sniveling kind of crying where tears are shed over trifles -- like the casting of Daniel Craig over at CraigisnotBond).
BTW, I'm not the least bit surprised your mom likes Bond despite his sexism. She sounds like a normal, regular, complicated human being. You'll note that Bond and Vesper weren't each other's "type" either. But Bond, let's face it, is the adorable kind of sexist. )
True, he is very adorable. ) BTW thank you, I'll pass on your kind regards to my mother. I have to say though, the only person I know who doesn't like Bond is my girlfriend but that's because she wants to be the black sheep (her family also likes Bond.) Ah well, I'll soon bring her over to the dark side. )
"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
Comments
Amen to that!
The pattern has always been that when the Bond films get too outlandish, the next one brings it down the Earth. Look at YOLT, then OHMSS... MR, then FYEO... AVTAK, then TLD and now DAD then CR.
I WELCOME the Fleming material wholeheartedly. CR was the first Bond film in a LONG time that FELT like a Bond film.
attache, no offense, you can keep your exploding villains, space battles, ice palaces, buzzsaw yo-yos, indestructible henchmen and CGI para-surfing Bond... to paraphrase Marvel Comics in the '60's... "MAKE MINE FLEMING!".
I'm with Darenhat here. Craigs Bond has lost his sent of whats right and wrong and what's appropriate to a situation. As I keep saying over and over, they have muddied or soiled the basic character blueprint and having done it they cant go back.
Summary of Bond's treatment of women over the series as an indication of his character:
Connery - a fifties male who treats women like iresponsible children and in a lot of cases because that's how they behave. The milieu at this point is cynical of feminism so Bond can't be blamed personally for being a philanderer. Both sexes are stuck in their pre-feminist roles - men are all action/no feelings and women are all feeling/no action. Bond's treatment of women in Goldfinger is patronising and the women he interacts with are either childish or in the case of Pussy Galore, resistant, which is just the flipside of the childishness and therefore part of it. She gives in to Bond eventually.
Lazenby's Bond - almost identical to Connery if not worse - the girls who are being treated for allergies in OHMSS are almost unbearably silly and childish.
Moore's Bond - the influence of feminism is starting to make itself felt. Moore is a mixture of the strictly disapproving and wry artistocrat he has played in so many roles and intensely patronising of women as well. But the girls are starting to fight back without resorting to seduction. The interactions in MR between Bond and Dr Goodhead, who is a fully trained astonaut, being a case in point. However the high camp of the Moore movies and the over-the-top seductiveness of so many of the females - eg the girl who pilots the iceberg sub in VTAK, the girl at the hotel in TSWLM, Stacey Sutton and many others - is comical so easier to forgive and just enjoy. The 80's were a very tacky, brassy time for popular culture. Moore's Bond crystallises the idea that he does everything for Queen and Country (eg his chat with Scaramanga in TMWTGG) although Connery has touched on this too in TB afte seducing the woman who picks him up in her car.
Dalton's Bond - unlike his predecessors Dalton's Bond has a deep-seated natural respect for women (hurray!) even though the scripts give him the freedom to be sexist due to the force of circumstances. For example when he forces Pam Bouvier to be his executive secretary because they are in South America which is a "man's world". Kara Milovy's character in TLD is innocent and out of her depth so Bond gets to be protective and bossy.
Brosnan's Bond - the girls have arrived in force, starting with a formidable female M played by the ever-wonmderful Judy Dench and a succession of female characters who are quite capable of meeting men on their own terms. Christmas Jones is an independent girl who gets involved with Bond because she wants to, both Natalya in GE and Wai Lin in TND only fall for Bond after he has proved himself to be moral and strong. Elektra King is a masterful villainess who is both powerful and able to use her feminity as a tool to control men. We have come a long way from the helpless, childish and silly girls of the early Bond films. Jinx is the epitomy of this evolution, and much more whole and confident than the earlier XXX in TSWLM who is also supposed to be Bond's equal.
The girls have grown up over the last 40 years and the Bond series shows the evolution of the female psyche in both film and culture. However the change in both has destablised the fifties male because he and the fifties female used to prop each other up like two playing cards. The women did the feeling and the men did the doing. But now both sexes need to be able to do both. The female is now able to stand on her own two feet so the male has been forced to evolve too. But the Bond character (and indeed men in general) is still in the middle of that process. However, taking away Bond's moral sense and good manners is not the right way to go. In a way the evolution of women (which is a goos thing of course) have taken away Bond's "mojo". The writers need to find a way to make Bond strong and sensitive and this may not even be possible without destroying the character. John McClane in the Die Hard series, Indiana Jones, and more recently, Rick O'Connell and The Mummy I and II are all exploring the new male. I think Rick O'Connell is the ebst of the bunch - a good father, a good lover and a good warrior.
Bond is indeed a sexist, but he isn't mysogynist. That's one problem with the scene in GE; it wasn't particularly accurate.
As for M's speech in GE, if it had been taken out or was replaced, would it have affected thr film? My suspicion is that if it did have an effect, it would have been positive. I suspect that you probably want a precise reason why I dislike M's speech, however I don't think I can give you one. It just struck me as an example of massive political-correctness, and a speech that a former Uni professor of mine (who hated Bond for his sexism) would have loved.
True, but I think it could have been more cleverly written. It seemed to me as if the scene was written to provide for that speech rather than a speech being written to provide for the scene. If it was important that M be personal (and I don't think it was as I agree with DH that Bond's problems with M went beyond her gender) then I would have preferred a cleverer and less obvious speech. Perhaps instead of calling Bond what she did, M could have made a comment like "Oh, and 007, you may not enjoy working for a woman, but if you ever mess up, I will make sure..." (I don't know, I'm not the screen writer around here.
You mean Bond didn't cry in CR?
I guess this is a matter of perspective. You don't think it was PC (and compared to your scenario it might not have been
I'm not saying that they can't riff (as you say) off his most famous traits. Just do it in a way that isn't obvious and doesn't sound as if the director is trying to apologise for working with a sexist character. That scene in the train was IMO terrific. I just think they should have left off that last comment. It really didn't need that last comment, and if they had to deal with Bond's sexism, well, the "You're not my type of woman." "Smart?" "Single" was more than sufficient IMO. (I won't comment on the scene in M's home as it still gives me nightmares.
P.S. HH, wether you respond to my post or not, I have to say that I enjoyed writing it, so my thanks to you.
Well I enjoyed reading it, Dan. Your points are always challenging. But I think on the whole PC issue, the newer films do not pander as much as you believe they do, they simply acknowledge that Bond's behavior falls short. If anything, Bond even now wallows in his shallowness with women. That's what makes his falling for Vesper all the more interesting. You don't expect it (as for his crying in CR -- when I mentioned crying in my earlier post, I didn't mean crying at having lost a loved one. I meant the sniveling kind of crying where tears are shed over trifles -- like the casting of Daniel Craig over at CraigisnotBond). You mention -- or maybe not you, but someone, I've lost track -- that the character has been been significantly changed, but I simply disagree. As I said before, he's been sharpened and is now more Bond than he has been in years. He's just a more rounded human being. And even sexists-mysoginists are human.
BTW, I'm not the least bit surprised your mom likes Bond despite his sexism. She sounds like a normal, regular, complicated human being. You'll note that Bond and Vesper weren't each other's "type" either. But Bond, let's face it, is the adorable kind of sexist.
Oh, I know. I was just teasing you.
True, he is very adorable.
"I'll never forget my father's last words to me"Watch it, James, that's loaded""....the new James Bond.
"Ok, up against the wall, feet back and spread 'em. Now, frisk yourself. Oh, you were, nevermind"....M upon finding the new James Bond in her home.