Traditionalists Beware!

Loeffelholz

According to CBn, it looks as if a couple of traditional accoutrements will be left out when QoS hits cinemas:

http://commanderbond.net/article/5516

No "Bond...James Bond." No "shaken...not stirred" this time round

I don't think this is a particularly big deal at all. Craig delivered "the line" at the end of CR perfectly---well enough to coast through this one without it---and the vodka martini instructions were ably superseded by a verbatim rendering of Fleming's recipe for a Vesper.

But for Cinematic Bond Traditionalists^TM, I wonder if this only serves to further aggravate. Given the ongoing lack of Q and Moneypenny, etc., will they feel as if too much of the Precious Classic Formula^TM has gone by the wayside?

My only concern about a possible lack of "shaken, not stirred" is that it has always been a convenient form of shorthand to describe Bond's fastidious nature---which is a bit of character business I've always appreciated. I wonder if they are going to do something else...or perhaps let that character trait go as well?

Hardyboy

Ahhh, you beat me to it, Loeff. Well, look at it this way: Bond didn't wear a tuxedo in LALD, and there was no Q in that film; and Q and Moneypenny are absent from both CR and QoS, and we've survived. I think Bond fans are a tougher lot than we're given credit for.

Loeffelholz

Hardyboy wrote:

Ahhh, you beat me to it, Loeff.

Cool! No Hardysmackdown tonight! B-)

I think you're right, of course. To me, this is more evidence that they're revisiting the spirit of the books, rather than just paying lip service to something that's become perhaps too routine.

youknowmyname

It doesn't bother that bad. I will get over it. It will be different, that's for sure. I agree Loeff that we can do without it, that we're big boys and girls and all. I am still looking forward to QOS and think it is going to be sweet as traditional quotes or not.

One article I read on this whole thing said that the aim is to make a good movie first, a good Bond movie second and I dont mind that at all.

One article mentioned how angry Bond fans are going to be. So far there doesn't seem to be much strife. Does anyone want to change that? :v

http://www.3news.co.nz/News/Entertainment/QuantumofSolaceditchesJamesBondcatchphrases/tabid/418/articleID/72584/Default.aspx?ArticleID=72584

zaphod

Not particularly bothered by any of this, as long as they preserve a sense of continuity with Bond as a character then it's fine. I do have a question about how much of the taditional' format can go, and it still be a Bond film, but they managed to produce some of the most' Bondian' moments in the series so far in CR whilst diverging from the format in so many ways, not least of which in casting Daniel in the first place. As long as we get some sense of glamour, panache and spectacle and it's not all misery muck and blood I'll be happy (I applaud the harder edge, but feel it needs counterbalancing)
I'm much more concerned that we are starting to create a binary type divison here where one is either a 'Traditionalist' or perhaps a 'revisionist'. I think that we are grown up enough to appreciate elements of each approach, and speaking personally I have no idea which camp I would fall into. For example CR is my fourth favourite Bond film, but I don't regard it as perfect, Daniel is not my idea of Bond physically, but he produced a fine performance and in many senses character defining scenes (shower & torture scene as examples)
Does this make me a Traditionalist or not ?

emtiem

Bleh; if there wasn't a place to put it, there wasn't a place to put it. You can't put a line in just because it's a catchphrase; I can imagine it being even slightly harder because of that.
He hasn't even said it in every movie (three Connerys are missing it) and I don't think I would have noticed if it hadn't been pointed out.

Even less bothered about 'shaken not stirred': Roger didn't even say it once in seven movies!

Loeffelholz

zaphod wrote:

I'm much more concerned that we are starting to create a binary type divison here where one is either a 'Traditionalist' or perhaps a 'revisionist'. I think that we are grown up enough to appreciate elements of each approach, and speaking personally I have no idea which camp I would fall into. For example CR is my fourth favourite Bond film, but I don't regard it as perfect, Daniel is not my idea of Bond physically, but he produced a fine performance and in many senses character defining scenes (shower & torture scene as examples)
Does this make me a Traditionalist or not ?

It's actually just a bit of fun. I'd started a thread called "Your Bond Party Affiliation" (now gone? ?:) ) where, for entertainment purposes, Bond fandom was split into basically three camps: Flemingists (fans whose idea of Bond springs mostly from the novels), Cinematic Bond Traditionalists (fans guided more by the films) and Bond-Centrists. It wasn't meant to truly divide anyone, although such sinister machinations were ascribed to it at the time...

Sounds like you would have been a Centrist {[]

Loeffelholz

emtiem wrote:

Bleh; if there wasn't a place to put it, there wasn't a place to put it. You can't put a line in just because it's a catchphrase; I can imagine it being even slightly harder because of that.

Paradoxically, it seems to me that Eon did precisely that---in the vast majority of the 21 films to date. I suppose it's debatable how necessary it was in each instance...but actors like Moore and Brosnan certainly relished their deliveries, and in those cases it appeared to be more for 'catchprase's sake' than anything else.

I share in your not realizing that Connery didn't do it in three films until somebody pointed it out {[] In that sense, it proves an even better decision for QoS than I'd imagined. Frankly, it's about time someone like Forster took the stand he's chosen, IMRO.

emtiem wrote:

Even less bothered about 'shaken not stirred': Roger didn't even say it once in seven movies!

True---although it was still there a fair amount, as they tended to delegate it to other characters during Moore's era: Agent Triple-X in TSWLM springs foremost to mind.

I'm glad nobody's bothered by this---slightly surprised, even. Whatever could have made me think otherwise? Oh yeah...the last three years or so

Hardyboy

Loeffelholz wrote:

I'd started a thread called "Your Bond Party Affiliation" (now gone? ?:) )

It isn't--the thread is right here, where it's always been. So, Loeff, if my closing a thread is a "Hardysmack," what do you call my hard work at locating a thread? :v

Loeffelholz

Hardyboy wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

I'd started a thread called "Your Bond Party Affiliation" (now gone? ?:) )

It isn't--the thread is right here, where it's always been.

That's a relief...but it didn't turn up in a forum search when I used the thread's title...

[EDIT: That's because I'd misspelled 'Affiliation' ;% ) ]

Hardyboy wrote:

So, Loeff, if my closing a thread is a "Hardysmack," what do you call my hard work at locating a thread? :v

You think one up, boss, and I'll put it in the glossary! {:)

Ravenstone

I have no idea what my party affiliation may be. It's quite a quandary!

Still, I can't say I miss Q or Moneypenny at all. Q I quite liked, but the whole Moneypenny thing could get a tad tedious. It's quite easy to still be a Bond film without them.

Likewise, the 'Shaken, not stirred'. I loved the reply of "Do I look like I give a damn?" in Casino Royale. Perfect. But I shall miss, "Bond. James Bond," I think.

Of course, this all raises the issue of what is necessary in a Bond film, which strikes me as being a can open - worms everywhere type question!

For me, Bond should always be a quintessential British gentleman who nevertheless has a definite air of danger about him. That's an absolute. There should be beautiful people, beautiful clothes, and beautiful surroundings. Dress him well, put him in exclusive surroundings, and the rest falls into place (I'm paraphrasing, of course).

Loeffelholz

Ravenstone wrote:

Of course, this all raises the issue of what is necessary in a Bond film, which strikes me as being a can open - worms everywhere type question!

Good point, Ravenstone, and that seems quite a reasonable direction for this thread.

An interesting example is the transition from Connery to Moore---Sir Roger never drove an Aston Martin, never ordered a vodka martini for himself (others did it for him ), and made his debut in a film without Q....but the vast majority of Precious Classic Formula^TM elements remained firmly in place.

Arguably, the most important elements of the formula also remain in place for QoS---as was the case in CR---albeit perhaps more 'pared down' than ever. In the Craig Era (so far), we have no Q and no Moneypenny. In CR they blew the martini line out of the water for the foreseeable future, and saved the "Bond...James Bond" (and the full Bond theme) until the very end. In QoS, we lose 'the line'...but we'll likely have much more Bond theme, and resume a traditional gunbarrel.

It's a rearranging of the game pieces that IMRO freshens up a 46 year-old franchise...and it seems to be working.

Ravenstone wrote:

For me, Bond should always be a quintessential British gentleman who nevertheless has a definite air of danger about him. That's an absolute. There should be beautiful people, beautiful clothes, and beautiful surroundings. Dress him well, put him in exclusive surroundings, and the rest falls into place (I'm paraphrasing, of course).

{[]

Gassy Man

I can live without it -- after decades of what felt like (slightly better than) half-hearted formula, it's nice to be excited not only by a Bond film again, but by the possibility of being surprised in the movie theatre.

Loeffelholz

Holy crap! Good to see you, Gassy! {[]

emtiem

Loeffelholz wrote:

emtiem wrote:

Even less bothered about 'shaken not stirred': Roger didn't even say it once in seven movies!

True---although it was still there a fair amount, as they tended to delegate it to other characters during Moore's era: Agent Triple-X in TSWLM springs foremost to mind.

I think that may well be the only time in Roger's tenure, though.

Ravenstone wrote:

Of course, this all raises the issue of what is necessary in a Bond film, which strikes me as being a can open - worms everywhere type question!

Well, he's not Bruce Forsythe; so he certainly doesn't require catchphrases! I'd say it just needs to be what we know them all to be: big glossy, well-made, expensive fantasy adventures with action, class and laughs. They should have our man living the high life with as much pretty and expensive stuff on screen as possible. And that's about it: I don't think a film should be a checklist of details (catchphrase, Q, gunbarrel, Moneypenny, dinner suit etc.)- it should just deliver whatever suits the underlying requirements: the high life, dangerous, fun fantasy.

Loeffelholz

Agreed. It's good to see them chuck the checklist...

Ravenstone

Why, thank you! {[]

As I've said elsewhere, I have a great love and deep respect for Rog's Bond. Despite all the silliness and stuff, Bond still had a hard edge. And the silliness probably saved the franchise for posterity, because I think another Connery-clone would have probably started to get stale.

As long as Bond stays as Bond, really. The rest is just secondary. But I must confess, the Aston Martin is a must. I couldn't bear Bond in a Beemer!

Loeffelholz

This is another issue, but it goes to the discussion we're having here---i.e., what's 'necessary' for a Bond film...

M seems to no longer address Bond as '007.' Based on the trailers for QoS (and the entire CR film), it seems that M is calling Bond by his last name rather than by his number. Fleming did this in the first novel, but thereafter he called him '007' during briefings...and 'James' when the conversation was of a personal nature.

In the CR film, the number '007' was shown during the titles sequence---and one of the MI6 guys in the situation room identified Bond by his number once during the defibrillator sequence, but that was the extent of it. Interesting that they've gone away from M using it; obviously it's one of those things not deemed sufficiently important...but I'd like to hear '007' more often---and toss in a 'Commander' or two, while they're at it :007)

A minor point, to be sure, but the pedant in me finds it somehow more important than "Bond...James Bond" or "shaken...not stirred."

Gassy Man

Loeffelholz wrote:

Holy crap! Good to see you, Gassy! {[]

Same here, Loeff. Got rid of Internet at home for a while, but I'm back in action.

Sweepy the Cat

I don't mind for one or two movies but... forever

Smoke_13

I could care less if they are present in the film. Actually, I prefer not to see them at all.

The best line in CR occurred when Bond was offered his martini shaken not stirred after losing to LeChiffre and responded with, "Do I look like I give a damn?"

I guess after some reflection, Craig's sentiments towards the shaken martini apply to how I feel about the absence of the martini and Q in general.

Keep it new, keep us guessing as to what happens next and give us a Bond that puts himself through hell to get the job done. That's my kind of Bond. The kind that would go light a cigarette under a fuelling rocket to stop it from launching if that's what it took.

emtiem

Loeffelholz wrote:

I'd like to hear '007' more often---and toss in a 'Commander' or two, while they're at it :007)

Yeah, definitely- 'Commander' does sound very cool for some reason; I'd like it if someone called him by that occasionally.

Ravenstone

Loeffelholz wrote:

.but I'd like to hear '007' more often---and toss in a 'Commander' or two, while they're at it :007)

Agreed. It would be nice to have a 'Commander' or two thrown in, and '007'. Bit more formal and impersonal.

00-Agent

I don’t mind Bond, James Bond not being included if there is not a place for it in the film, but if he introduces himself and doesn’t use it that will suck.:(

Leaving out the shaken not stirred line doesn't bother me.

I for one think the "Formula" gets a bad rap. It is still possible to have a good movie using all the elements of the formula. I still miss Moneypenny and Q.:'(

Ravenstone

One of the reasons why there's a formula is because it always worked so well. If they could get them all into the film, all well and good; but I wouldn't want them shoehorned in almost just for the sake of it.

I do think the sheer glorious rush of emotions when you're sat in the cinema and the theme plays, the gun barrel moves - it can't be beaten. When Bond says, "Bond. James Bond" - well, maybe it's just me, but I want to cheer.

That's not to say I won't still get completely mental if it doesn't have those things. But if I come out of the film and all I can think of is there wasn't a shaken, not stirred, or a Bond James Bond, then I think there's definitely something else wrong with the film that the insertion of those lines wouldn't fix.

Loeffelholz

Ravenstone wrote:

...if I come out of the film and all I can think of is there wasn't a shaken, not stirred, or a Bond James Bond, then I think there's definitely something else wrong with the film that the insertion of those lines wouldn't fix.

That's the crux of it, all right. Personally, I expect to be on the edge of my seat, and thrilled for 106 minutes---there won't be any time to miss the little things.

That's the beauty of the Precious Classic Formula^TM...there are so many elements that a bit of 'mix and matching' (and the odd omission) have no deleterious effect---in fact, quite the opposite.

highhopes

Good riddance.

I'm always pleased to hear that given a choice -- sticking to the formula or making the best possible film -- the filmmakers are opting for the latter. I don't think that's been the case for a long, long time.

Yet the tux appears to be back in spades, judging from the new trailer, which I've just seen and love.

Loeffelholz

highhopes wrote:

Good riddance.

I'd strongly suspected you might feel that way

highhopes wrote:

I'm always pleased to hear that given a choice -- sticking to the formula or making the best possible film -- the filmmakers are opting for the latter. I don't think that's been the case for a long, long time.

Same here; with the Craig Era, Barbara Broccoli has truly come into her own. Perhaps, if Mike Wilson's too tired, she should press on without him :v

frostbitten

These changes to the "Precious Classic Formula" are not really a big deal, although I will definitely miss hearing the iconic line "Bond, James Bond". It's kind of amusing, though, that a trio of screenwriters, one of them an Award-winning screenwriter (Haggis), couldn't find a way to work that line into the script (is it really that difficult to figure a way to have Bond introduce himself?)

BTW, I jumped into my time-traveling DeLorean today, and was able to catch this interview with the director of the next Bond pic appearing in magazines some time in 2010:

Reporter: We've heard that there will not be a PTS in this movie. Can you comment on that?

Director X: Yes, that's true. Look, a typical PTS takes up 10-15 minutes. That's about 10 percent of the entire movie! Most of the times, these sequences have nothing to do with the plot of the movie itself, and are just escapades designed to show what a fun, clever character Bond is. That's a frivolous waste of the moviegoers' time. What we are doing these days with the Bond movies is Art. It's serious business, and I mean serious. There's no room for a frivolity like that!

Reporter: What about M? There's a rumour she won't be in this film either.

Director X: That's right. I mean, come on, whoever heard of a major intelligence organisation having a Chief with such a ridiculous moniker? What does M stand for anyway? Mommy? Does the world's best spy have to check in with his Mum 2,3 times a mission? (Oh Mommy, can I go and kill that baddie, please? Please, pleeease!)

Reporter: Finally, we can't help but notice that bicycle on the set. Is that Bond's latest mode of transportation?

Director X: I'm thrilled to say that indeed it is. No more Aston Martins. I mean, who would people notice more, a guy driving a shiny DBS or one pumping away on a Huffy? Bond's a spy, for God's sake! Let's not insult the intelligence of today's more sophisticated audience. The more anonymous we make Bond, the better.

{:)

0073

Besides: Bond, James Bond was a borrowed one to begin with, don't you agree Miss....?

Trent, Sylvia Trent.

Moonraker 5

Would be a different kettle of fish if they had announced that neither of those lines would ever be uttered again, but for this film I'm not in the slightest bit bothered. We've had Craig say both already, and as has been pointed out, Roger didn't utter 'Shaken, not stirred' once in the longest reign of any actor.