Missing the point?

Jamesbondjr

After reading many, many members reviews on this site, it struck me. Are some people missing the point?

I read a lot of people saying (whether they like the film or not) that it is just not 'Bond' enough. I too was thinking this whilst watching the film, then as the last line is uttered and the credits rolled, it struck me. To me, what made made this film not 'Bond enough' was lack of the James Bond theme actually in the film, but now I realise why it wasn't used as much.

This was not supposed to be your typical Bond film. This is Bond before he is the Bond that we know. His charm and suaveness aren't quite there, some of his kills are downright awkward. M is also different. It was said that she is now a "bitchy old hag". She too would not be the same here, characters have to evolve from somewhere. Its fair enough if you don't like the characters now but, in my opinion, these are not yet the people we know.

This has led me to think that Casino Royale is quite brilliantly done, finally we get to see how these characters became who they are. Over the next few films we may start to see them take shape into the people we have already seen previously.

blueman

Good points, and hopefully EON will continue with the nicely done character work started in CR. If they don't hire Haggis back, they should get somebody who can write decent dialogue, unadulterated P&W just ain't Bond.

highhopes

That's exactly right. James Bond is meant to evolve as a character in CR. But I don't think the journey is simply from fledgling Bond to the one "we know," if they mean by that the one that has already been portrayed in 20 movies -- the always perfectly coiffed, know-it-all, babe-magnet-y, quipping comic strip character (Sorry, but that's the Bond I've come to know). I'm not interested in him at all. But I don't think the journey ends at CR. I think Craig is going to insist on a "character arc" in each of his Bonds. In his GQ interview he mentions he was kind of a pain in the a** during the filming, questionning why this and why that. I hope he keeps it up. I don't want Eon slipping back into bad habits.

jbfreak

I think it was plenty Bond enough for some of the reasons listed. We know Bond as an experienced killing machine. This is supposed to be the first chapter in the book of the life of Bond. I was sceptical before I saw it but as I was sitting in the theater I didn't want it to end. I think that EON did a brilliant job in making it "Bond enough" and I hope that we see the same thing in Bond 22.

Hardyboy

At the risk of raising some people's ire, I think those who say CR and/or Craig just aren't "Bond" enough have a very limited conception of who and what Bond is. If your idea of who is Bond is based on the 1970s model, then, no, this isn't Bond. If you think Bond should primarily be a quipster who walks away from fights without a scratch and who is adroit at using out-of-this-world gadgets, then this isn't Bond. However, if you know your Fleming you know that Bond is a man who takes his job extremely seriously and has a tenacious--even obsessive--desire to see the mission to a successful conclusion; that he tries to limit his sexual conquests to unavailable (usually married) women, and has a tendency to fall in love--usually with psychologically wounded women (see especially the novels CR, DAF, and OHMSS); that he has a healthy disrespect of authority in general and bureaucracy in particular; and that he has the ability to summon almost superhuman strength when he's being tortured or is on an extreme adrenaline rush. I saw these characteristics in Craig's Bond, and I also saw the qualities of the film Bond that we all enjoy--a sense of humor, a way with the ladies, and a cheerful recklessness. In short, there's enough in Craig's portrayal that is recognizably Bond and enough that stamps Bond as Craig's own.

ant007uk

Hardyboy wrote:

At the risk of raising some people's ire, I think those who say CR and/or Craig just aren't "Bond" enough have a very limited conception of who and what Bond is. If your idea of who is Bond is based on the 1970s model, then, no, this isn't Bond. If you think Bond should primarily be a quipster who walks away from fights without a scratch and who is adroit at using out-of-this-world gadgets, then this isn't Bond. However, if you know your Fleming you know that Bond is a man who takes his job extremely seriously and has a tenacious--even obsessive--desire to see the mission to a successful conclusion; that he tries to limit his sexual conquests to unavailable (usually married) women, and has a tendency to fall in love--usually with psychologically wounded women (see especially the novels CR, DAF, and OHMSS); that he has a healthy disrespect of authority in general and bureaucracy in particular; and that he has the ability to summon almost superhuman strength when he's being tortured or is on an extreme adrenaline rush. I saw these characteristics in Craig's Bond, and I also saw the qualities of the film Bond that we all enjoy--a sense of humor, a way with the ladies, and a cheerful recklessness. In short, there's enough in Craig's portrayal that is recognizably Bond and enough that stamps Bond as Craig's own.

Well put and well said, IMO I think the people who are not impressed with DC and CR in particular are actually fans of PB and are still pi55ed that their man is not the role.

Jamesbondjr

I agree Hardyboy, well put.

When I say I found the film not "Bond enough" I was merely quoting what other people had said. Really I should have said was, what I found about Casino Royale that makes it different from the previous 'official' Bond films was the lack of the main theme.

I for one loved the new direction and can't wait to see were it leads!

Hardyboy

No need to apologize, Jr.--I've read plenty of responses from people who've said, "This just isn't Bond," and that's what I was responding to.

blueman

That sounds like the post of the year, hardy. Kudos for summing all that up so very well.

Oddly, seeing CR has put thoughts of other Bond movies in my head--and favorably so. I'm no fan of Hamilton's TV-style direction in the 70s, but LALD strikes me as a very good Bond film in a way I don't think I've appreciated: excellent use of Fleming's story, solid performance by Moore, great villian, some great set pieces, memorable female lead. Kinda the things that make CR shine IMO. It has it's cringe-worthy moments, sure, but for some reason it's the one Bond film running around in my head with CR...kinda weird.

CR definately makes me sit up and look at the Bond film canon with different eyes.

TND is also cycling though my head in a good way, but I've always had a soft spot for that one. ;%