Did Cubby Play It Too Safe ?
Lady Rose
London,UKPosts: 2,667MI6 Agent
With the resounding success of Craig and Casino Royale, did Cubby play it too safe with the franchise? When Bond started out with Dr No and the subsequent films thereafter, Bond was known for being innovative and they were leaders in the industry, spawning many copycats. However, it did not take long for Bond to develop 'the formula' and Bond did lose its edge, never veering too far away from that ideal. It was tried once with LTK but they soon went scurrying back with GE.
It is well known that Micheal G Wilson wanted to shake things up and the Bond begins idea was around for a long time but was always nixed by Cubby. Even after he died his influence was very strong and his ghost must have loomed large over Micheal and Barbara and their decisions of were to take Bond.
Some years later we now have a a Bond who is blonde, not poster perfect, a lot more physical than his predecessors and a novice ( of sorts). Q , Moneypenny and the gadgets were missing and classic lines were toyed with. Bond is also a phenomenal success.
So, was Cubby right or should he have taken a few more chances?
It is well known that Micheal G Wilson wanted to shake things up and the Bond begins idea was around for a long time but was always nixed by Cubby. Even after he died his influence was very strong and his ghost must have loomed large over Micheal and Barbara and their decisions of were to take Bond.
Some years later we now have a a Bond who is blonde, not poster perfect, a lot more physical than his predecessors and a novice ( of sorts). Q , Moneypenny and the gadgets were missing and classic lines were toyed with. Bond is also a phenomenal success.
So, was Cubby right or should he have taken a few more chances?
Comments
The second phase was the phase ushered in by Guy Hamilton, starting with Goldfinger. (Interupted briefly by Young's TB) These films had a tone that wasn't much of a departure from the Young films, but it took the character of Bond in a different direction from the spirit of Fleming. Watch Connery's Bond in DN, FRWL, and TB, and then watch him in GF: they're two very different performances, at times. These films also were much lighter than the Young films, and they bordered on silly at times with some of the gimmicks, but they were still for the most part well-made and enjoyable films.
OHMSS is a hybrid of the Hamilton and Young eras.
The third era is the really big, at times way over-the-top era, beginning with TSWLM. This is when the really tricked out cars, the really fancy gadgets, and at times painful silliness were all taking place. All of these, with the exception of Moonraker, are enjoyable films, for sure, and I would rank FYEO among my favorites. These films were also appropriate for the time, sense the late-70s to mid-80s was definitely a much less serious time culturally. (These were the eras of disco and Madonna in music, after all) I will point out, though, that after MR, Bond was earning progressively less money film to film, so at some point, I think fatigue did start to set in.
The third era is pretty much the Dalton era, with spillovers into the Brosnan era. This was an era in which the character of Bond was taken back in the direction the Fleming character in a way that was unprecedented. The films were more tightly-wound and plot-oriented, the sex themes were more conservative (these were the latter years of the Reagan Administration and the beginning of AIDS scares), the villains less fantastic, and the gadgets not very heavy. There wasn't even a Bond car, per se, in LTK. These were films that, perhaps, were taken in the right direction, but they bore the brunt of the decline of the franchise toward the end of the Moore era, and they suffered from a distracted MGM and EON, who had significant legal troubles on their hands and couldn't put forth the right marketing effort.
Elements of the Dalton era leaked into the Brosnan era. The character was, like Fleming's character, more serious about his job and was quite troubled, with a definite ruthlessness about him. This character, in addiition to having a dark Fleming edge, had a mix of things from the Hamilton and second half of Moore eras that made him appeal to those demographics. The movies went much more in the direction of contemporary action flicks in pace and style, and the gadgets and cars were brought back in full force.
This new era seems to be one in which they're taking the character back to Fleming ala the Dalton era, but they're presenting him with more "cool" (and a "cool" much more contemporary to the time than perhaps any Bond before him), a more classy demeanor in slower scenes, and perhaps with more of the Fleming human elements (more emotion, more feeling) than in the Dalton era. The emphasis seems to be on plotting, like the early films, but they will most certainly use big action and use it in a timely and efficient manner. They are not afraid to use bold techniques (such as the black and white PTS and the cinematography in the poisoning scene) used in some of today's more "subversive" films.
So I would say that Cubby has overseen the shakeup of the franchise a number of times, perhaps in each time the shakeup being exactly what was needed.
Pretty much all these moves may deem safe compared to Casino Royale, but just because they arent as risky as CR may not be fair to call them safe.
For me the difference is: Cubby wanted to make good entertainments, while Babs and Mikey made an actual good film in CR. I don't think that Cubby ever aimed for that post-OHMSS, and I don't think he'd say different. Once Cubby had the formula down, he made Bond films; CR, with the siblings running things, is a film about Bond. That's the difference I see, and I'm darn curious about Bond 22. :007)
That's pretty much how I see it. I don't detect a tremendous difference between the films, from "Goldfinger" on. I know that serious students of the movies disagree, but to me, any changes have been at the margins of the almighty Formula: CR really is different in that I didn't know what to expect next. Just a better film all around. That why I hope Eon continues in this vein with Bond 22, settles on a story it likes and lets that story dictate the film, rather than the other way around.
Amen to that! The very standard formula that existed for all of the movies seemed to be - 2 girls, 1 who dies, 1 who lives. Q gives Bond a car. The sidekick can completely wallop Bond's sorry arse. The sad thing is that those rules have always existed, they just werent in EVERY movie.
In TLD, it feels refreshing that there isnt another lady competing for Bond's affections besides Kara. In LTK and OP its nice that Lupe and Magda both survive. Also, it feels like lazy screen writing to give Bond a Q - car. Its as if the producers of DAD were thinking "this really needs a car chase of some type" "Q gave him a car!" Whereas in LTK, they go to the trouble to explain the set up with the tanker chase at the end and the action piece feels more incorporated into the final movie.