Is James Bond Science Fiction?

Colonel Shatner

James Bond movies are often seen as a spy thrillers, even though volcano bases, laser satellites, invisible cars, and steel teethed henchmen are in the realms of science fiction. Sure you have relatively grounded instalments like From Russia With Love and Casino Royale, but even they have some elements of fantasy or sci-fi, with Tomorrow Never Dies and Goldfinger being more further out there, while You Only Live Twice and Moonraker were the real deal.

I can say Quantum of Solace will be comparable to Dr. No and GoldenEye in being more heavily sci-fi than Casino Royale, without pushing the boat out like Die Another Day.

DrMaybe

Colonel Shatner wrote:

...and steel teethed henchmen are in the realms of science fiction.

I'd say that's more in the realm of dentistry and rap singers. )

Most sci-fi has some kind of basis in science fact. The Bond franchise always liked to keep up on new technology, especially to keep "Q" stocked with new toys. A good example of this were the 3 wheel ATVs used in DAF. They hadn't even reached the general market yet.

emtiem

I'll go with the Radio Times on this one: 'spy fantasy' is as good a name for whichever genre Bond occupies as any- seems to cover most bases.

JADE66

Most of the James Bond films, starting with Dr. No, have some sci-fi element about them. Killer satellites, laser weaponry and gadgets, computer tech that was ahead of its time, all give a nod to science fiction. This was done, I believe, at first to make the audience believe that Bond and the people he worked for and against, populated a very different and dangerous world that the rest of us could know nothing about.
The general public would panic if they knew there were laser satellites and multi-national megalomaniacs ready to start WWIII literally at the touch of a button. Men like Bond would need specialized equipment not available to the military or to civilian law enforcement agencies in order to combat these threats. This could be very very cool for the film goer in the early days of Goldfinger and Thunderball. By the time of Moonraker however suspense had devolved into slapstick and the gadgets had taken over.
Ian Fleming wrote Bond as a man who relies on his courage, his brain, his fists and his gun to get the job done. And while Fleming did not entirely shun fantastic elements, they never overpowered the story, they never became the focus of the story. This was Bond's story. The sci-fi elements of Moonraker, DAD, TND, DAF, all detract from the story, in some instances, stopping it cold.
Save the lasers for Star Wars and Star Trek.
Yes, the James Bond films had become science fiction. Casino Royale brought them back to Earth. It is my hope that QoS will stay on Earth. SFX can be cool but they should not be the star of the show.
In short, fewer lasers, more Bond. James Bond-{

ohmss1969

People always forgets Cubbys words :

"not science fiction , we call it science fact"

(quote MR interview) )

JADE66

ohmss1969 wrote:

People always forgets Cubbys words :

"not science fiction , we call it science fact"

(quote MR interview) )

Artificial gravity, laser Uzis, killer orchids and exploding bolos are not science fact and have no place in a serious Bond film. Cubby could call it whatever he wanted. I call it a mistake.

Barbel

By this stage, and I would argue for many years now, the James Bond films are a genre in their own right (proven by the sincerest form of flattery in the shape of the imitators they have always had). Some of the stories have science fiction elements, some don't. A horror movie doesn't have to have supernatural elements to be a horror movie, to draw a parallel.

Max E

I would never call Bond science fiction, but you have right that it is not like the reality.

LOO7K OUT

One of the best summing ups of the Bond series are that they are 30 seconds into the future.

Within possibility, if not probability.

If I can paraphrase Lord Lew Grade here - All James Bond is great, some of it is terrible, but it's all great!

Duncan

Thunderbird 2

Ah, this kind of question is right up my street!

Bond is Sci Fi. I say that because even the films that are more about the characters and less the technology have Sci Fi elements to them. - The pager in "From Russia" was a gimmic idea in the early sixties - it became a prelude to the devices doctors have used for years, not to mention the mobile phone today. - In a related vein bond has a car phone in that film.

A more recent example is the portable defibrilator unit in the Aston in CR.(2006) OK, portable units do exit today, but not to the small scale of a portable CD player to the best of my knowledge.

These things are a far cry from Stromberg's Atlantis, Drax's Space Station or Graves's Icarus weapon. However they reflect a true signature of Sci Fi, furturistic technology, which is conceavable and in some cases, has come to pass in some form in the real world down the road.

- Other examples that could be indirectly pointed out:

Aston's ejector seat
and bulletproof glass - Goldfinger.
Underwater camera - Thunderball.
Voicechanger device - Diamonds.
Neptune Sumbersible - FYEO.
Mini binoculars - Living Daylights
Sony Ericsson "Smartphone" - Tom Never Dies.

This is a very wayward list, but you can see how some of these devices are a bit "unconventional" although they exist, such as the ejector seat and the sub. Others you can readily buy in some form now. Such as the voicechanger or the binoculars. - In most cases though, the device showed up in Bond first.

Bond is first and foremost thriller espoinage adventure (it is about HIM, the man after all) but the sci fi twist, - subtle like From Russia or CR (2006), persistant like Goldfinger or FYEO, or blantant to extreme, like Moonraker or DAD, is always in there.

In the end, it depends on the actor and the tone of the film. I am into "blatent" Sci Fi in a big way, but at the same time its the convition and more realistic premise of CR and the realisim of the characters (esp 007 himself) that makes it my favorite Bond movie to date. :007)

Agent Wade

In a way, they're all science fiction to a point. Some much more than others. Consider though the technological elements in films like FRWL, FYEO and CR. The point of the story was not heavily bent upon elements of technology so much as they were with conflict between parties based on power and espionage.

How many people though really keep a difibulator in their glove compartment though, honestly.

Abundance of science fiction elements in the Bond movies.
DN: light
FRWL: minimal
GF: moderate
TB: moderate
YOLT: heavy
OHMSS: mild
DAF: heavy
LALD: heavy
TMWTGG: moderate
TSWLM: heavy
MR: over-the-top
FYEO: mild
OP: moderate
AVTAK: moderate
TLD: moderate
LTK: mild
GE: moderate
TND: heavy
TWINE: moderate
DAD: over-the-top
CR: mild

Seahawk

There is a recognised sub-category of genre fiction which enthusiasts refer to by the (somewhat contrived) title of "Spy-Fi"
This refers to spy stories which have heavy elements of Science fantasy contained within them.
I would place YOLT,DAF,TSWLM,MR & DAD in that category. At the other extreme FRWL,OHMSS,LALD,FYEO,LTK & CR all (at a push) more or less work as straight espionage thrillers.
To my way of thinking every other Bond film occupies a position somewhere between these two poles.

Colonel Shatner

On hindsight Tomorrow Never Dies is not so farfetched when stealth ships have been around since the 1980s in the US Navy and becoming more prolific in other less funded navies since then.

Seahawk

Colonel Shatner wrote:

On hindsight Tomorrow Never Dies is not so farfetched when stealth ships have been around since the 1980s in the US Navy and becoming more prolific in other less funded navies since then.

That's a bit naughty! The Sea Shadow was indeed the inspiration for the stealth ship in TND but she was never intended to be mission capable. Mission capable U.S. Ships incorporating aspects of her design are estimated to be nearly 3 years away from entering operational service, whereas the decidedly less well funded Swedish Navy have had such a ship on active service for nearly 4 years now.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3724219.stm

Commander_Bond

I do not think it is science fiction. Bond has always been Flemmings fantasy alter-ego, and I use the word Fantasy more than Sci-Fi.

Yes lots of the things used are not realistic, but that's what the films are all about, if all the gadgets were normal then it would be boring i'm sure. No, I think Sci-fi is more to do with Aliens and space travel (I guess then moonraker can be a bit of one, other than that, I would'nt say so.)