Ever feel like James Bond has become generic after a time?

JohnMasterson

Especially now after all of the Ian Fleming titles have been adapted into films? (And in some cases "adapted," horribly. *Sneeze* *Cough* Live and Let Die, Moonraker, Diamonds Are Forever, You Only Live Twice, & The Man with the Golden Gun *Cough* *Sneeze* *Cough* *Cough* *Sneeze*)

I can't explain it very well but to me the most generic Bond films of all time were Tomorrow Never Dies and Quantum of Solace. Now I'm not sure exactly what makes these two films generic and I don't know if I can properly convey their general, generical-ness in proper written words but to me they just are generic.

Quantum of Solace and Tomorrow Never Dies just happen to fit the very definition of the word "generic," to me especially after Martin Campbell's GoldenEye and the only proper Casino Royale movie adaptation which had the unfortunate shortcoming of being made decades after the Cold War. (It was probably filmed in-between late 2005 and early 2006, I believe.)

TonyDP

To me, Bond has become just another generic action hero because the filmmakers have pretty much abandoned everything that made the Bond films unique and that set them apart from the crowd. I know a lot of people prefer the "back to basics" and more realistic approach of the last couple of films but the flip side to that argument is that they really don't stand out from the crowd anymore and after the initial release quickly fade from public consciousness. Long gone are Ken Adams' striking sets, the over the top stunts and crazy gadgets that were all catalysts of conversation and that would draw the casual viewer in, if only for the spectacle of it all. Bond himself has gone from a suave expert of all trades to a surly everyman who can't even get it on with his leading lady. When I was a kid growing up I wanted to be James Bond; now I look at the films with Craig and I really have no interest in that character or the world he inhabits. The last couple of films also have absolutely no sense of fun. They are dense and turgid affairs that take place in pretty boring and visually uninteresting locales so much of the time that after a couple of viewings I have zero desire to ever watch them again whereas the earlier films were visual feasts that welcome repeated viewings. The world of Bond should always be 15 minutes ahead of ours, but these days he can barely keep up and it is this sameness and lack of imagination that has made him and his films "generic" to me.

Thunderpussy

You've hit the nail on the head TonyDP, Sums up my feelings too. -{

Mr Beech

I thought Casino Royale was a fantastic filmgoing experience with my favorite set of locations of just about any movie. I do see, however, how not-Bond it was. I do hope they really mean it when they say that Skyfall is meant to be a return to classic Bond. There is indeed a lack of the fun and charm that used to be woven all throughout Bond scripts and screenplays. I love them all, but they definitely aren't as unique in today's film market.

James Suzuki

Yeah, and SKyfall is not using the same Bond formula now, too.

zaphod

TonyDP wrote:

To me, Bond has become just another generic action hero because the filmmakers have pretty much abandoned everything that made the Bond films unique and that set them apart from the crowd. I know a lot of people prefer the "back to basics" and more realistic approach of the last couple of films but the flip side to that argument is that they really don't stand out from the crowd anymore and after the initial release quickly fade from public consciousness. Long gone are Ken Adams' striking sets, the over the top stunts and crazy gadgets that were all catalysts of conversation and that would draw the casual viewer in, if only for the spectacle of it all. Bond himself has gone from a suave expert of all trades to a surly everyman who can't even get it on with his leading lady. When I was a kid growing up I wanted to be James Bond; now I look at the films with Craig and I really have no interest in that character or the world he inhabits. The last couple of films also have absolutely no sense of fun. They are dense and turgid affairs that take place in pretty boring and visually uninteresting locales so much of the time that after a couple of viewings I have zero desire to ever watch them again whereas the earlier films were visual feasts that welcome repeated viewings. The world of Bond should always be 15 minutes ahead of ours, but these days he can barely keep up and it is this sameness and lack of imagination that has made him and his films "generic" to me.

I agree with a lot of what you say, particularly the aspirational bit about 'wanting to be Bond''
Nobody in their right minds would want the joyless life of Jason Bourne or currently James Bond.
Where we might diverge is that I have some sympathy with the current producers in as much as from a technological viewpoint we all have access to such cool stuff (he says writing this on iPad)
That it is difficult to be impressed without resorting to invisible cars when our phones are capable of so much. I think that there is an opportunity for Bond to have some fun in between the mayhem. Even this has become less interesting (what is it with these androgynous choices, all Tom-boy and no Boobs)

I hope 23 finds the balance that I believe is possible. Otherwise I will have to join you and conclude that Bond has run it's course. It has been an amazing achievement in terms of longevity, and I have felt like this before throughout the Moore era after LALD (which I liked)

Mrs.Bryce

TonyDP wrote:

To me, Bond has become just another generic action hero because the filmmakers have pretty much abandoned everything that made the Bond films unique and that set them apart from the crowd. I know a lot of people prefer the "back to basics" and more realistic approach of the last couple of films but the flip side to that argument is that they really don't stand out from the crowd anymore and after the initial release quickly fade from public consciousness. Long gone are Ken Adams' striking sets, the over the top stunts and crazy gadgets that were all catalysts of conversation and that would draw the casual viewer in, if only for the spectacle of it all. Bond himself has gone from a suave expert of all trades to a surly everyman who can't even get it on with his leading lady. When I was a kid growing up I wanted to be James Bond; now I look at the films with Craig and I really have no interest in that character or the world he inhabits. The last couple of films also have absolutely no sense of fun. They are dense and turgid affairs that take place in pretty boring and visually uninteresting locales so much of the time that after a couple of viewings I have zero desire to ever watch them again whereas the earlier films were visual feasts that welcome repeated viewings. The world of Bond should always be 15 minutes ahead of ours, but these days he can barely keep up and it is this sameness and lack of imagination that has made him and his films "generic" to me.

Couldn't have put it any better, agree one hundred percent.
If this proves the point, I have only seen the movies from 1997 and onwards three or four times; where as I have probably seen all the others atleast a dozen times.

P.S That may not seem many times but for someone my age it is! )

Napoleon Plural

To be fair, these descriptions apply to many modern action films, they're bought on DVD for the extras and so on, not for repeat viewing. They are rollercoaster rides so charm, wit and sumptuous locales go out the window. The modern chase-style movie is what we are looking at, to keep audience attention.

Moore Than

In terms of Bond himself. He has become more generic during Daniel Craig's tenure, most notably in Quantum of Solace. Take Bond's name away and replace it with Bourne/whoever and you wouldn't have noticed the difference. As for Craig's films. I agree that QoS is a rather dense and turgid affair devoid of humour and is also tasteless at times. Casino Royale on the other hand is quite the opposite. It has a much better story/script to begin with, has better characters, is visually good to look at and has memorable set pieces. And not devoid of humour either "Do I look as if I give a damn" and the torture scene "I've got an itch down there", are two examples.


In terms of the films The Spy Who Loved Me is the last one that I would say was ahead of the game. Moonraker was a response to Star Wars, since then the films have been followers not leaders. It's true that in terms of the visuals they are not quite the feast to the eyes they once were. Not since The Living Daylights really (except CR).

IcePak

TonyDP wrote:

The last couple of films also have absolutely no sense of fun. They are dense and turgid affairs that take place in pretty boring and visually uninteresting locales so much of the time that after a couple of viewings I have zero desire to ever watch them again whereas the earlier films were visual feasts that welcome repeated viewings. The world of Bond should always be 15 minutes ahead of ours, but these days he can barely keep up and it is this sameness and lack of imagination that has made him and his films "generic" to me.

I agree. However, Bond films have always reflected the times they were produced in, which is why the recent films are less fun than the classic era (DN - DAD) Look at what else is out there currently: there's not a lot of fun for be found in cinema in recent years. Perhaps this reflects on the type of society we've morphed into in the last decade.

Napoleon Plural

Actually, snippets of Skyfall make it look a bit different, not quite generic.

The Bonds could do their own thing in the 70s and 80s - why? Cos there just weren't many other action flicks around, so no competition. When another did come on the scene - and only one mind - be it Star Wars or Raiders, they kind of jumped to it (though not with Die Hard or Lethal Weapon, a big mistake imo and one time when they really should have looked sideways). Now they don't know where to look, there's so much action stuff, actually even DAD tried to outdo xXx, jeez, why?

jasper_lamar_crabb

Yes, during the Brosnan era. Fortunately that is now over and Bond is cool again.

Thunderpussy

I thought with QOS the Bond got pretty close to a Jason Statham movie.

Thomo

as was quoted in NSNA:
Q: Good to see you Mr Bond, things have been awfully dull around here...Now you're on this, I hope we're going to have some gratuitous sex and violence!
James Bond: I certainly hope so too.

thesecretagent

Watched the latest Mission Impossible the other night. Yes, it's full of unbelievable stunts and scenes - but it's an action flick! And for that, it's brilliant! We need Bond to get back to this. Gadgets, stunts, humor, copious amounts of sex with impossibly beautiful women - all the things that take you out of everyday life and all the sh*t that goes with it!

SilentSpy

I don't think Bond has become generic but that the producers have created some generic films that happen to feature Bond. Tomorrow Never Dies, Die Another Day, and Quantum of Solace are perfect examples. They have Bond moments but are pretty much generic action movies lacking the true spirit of a Bond movie. I hope the current director can get what makes a Bond movie special. I think he will be able to since he doesn't seem to be a fan of Quantum of Solace. Which is a step in the right direction.

Thunderbird 2

I agree with SilentSpy.

I was recently skimming through my copy of Ben MacIntyre's For Your Eyes Only, Ian Fleming + James Bond. (Given to me for free by a work colleague!) It made me realise what was missing from QoS above and beyond the weak film editing and arty farty direction. - It was ordinary. State of the art, bespoke template, action film ordinary. I like and enjoy TND and DAD. - The latter I forgave its blunders after I saw QoS. However there is nothing spectacular, because they lack Flemings touch. I would add TWINE to this bracket too, except the damaged nature of Electra King and the great boat chase stick in the mind. Fleming always brought a touch of exotic to his stories. Locations, food, characters etc.
It also made me realise why I love CR so much. - The CGI is toned down. Characterisation drives the bulk of the story, even the base jump chase, its Bond's tenacity that drives the action. The tension at the card table reminded me of the opening chapters of the Moonraker novel, and its enhanced by the background characters. - I am not expecting to see the likes of Atlantis or the YOLT volcano in every Bond film, and Bond gorging himself silly would look stupid, but it would be nice to see Bond as a production do something beyond its competitors again. Maybe Skyfall will deliver that promise? We will see.

xxxx

Yes Bond has changed in response to the whole Bourne thing. Yet for me its not all bad. For me the thing that attracted me to Bond was not the massive set pieces but Bonds ability to make a smart remark or do something downright hilarious in any scene. Because Bond has lasted so long I think it has to change to reflect the times. For me Casino Royale really showed us how good a modern bond movie can be. Humor, memorable action(especially the parkour chase in Madagascar), and attractive woman. The quantum of solace showed us how bad a modern bond can be. Trying bring the whole water plot and and government politics into it really ruined it for me. What a modern Bond needs is a Villain out to destroy the world who has flamboyance and yet is also feels modern and grounded. Casino Royale did this well but it can really be improved.

Napoleon Plural

Do I ever feel James Bond gets geriatric?

hegottheboot

The films are a formula. Over time as people dropped out the formula became more and more simplified, especially in the wake of summer blockbusters designed for mass profit margins.
The influencers slowly became the influenced.
Harry and Cubby were geniuses for being able to pinpoint trends and fads to capitalize on plots. They always had their finger on the pulse of the times exactly. As with Young, Hunt, Hamilton, Adam, Moore, Maibaum and the other founding fathers, when Harry left the films were never the same.
There needs to be a shake up somewhere, a vitality returned to the film series, and no cutting down the character to less than a bare minimum doesn't cut it. CR and QOS are still heavily influenced by other modern films and have very little to no identity of Bond or the series whatsoever.
Ian Fleming wrote adventure stories placed in the Cold War. The knight was a spy with a dirty job to do. It was a fantasy as the works of LeCarre and others have constantly shown. We could still wish to be Bond in the books as well. "Dark" is not a catch-all term either.

Nash

As the above agents have noted, the on-screen Bond has fallen far from the grace of the novels and the early films. Though obviously challenged by a limited budget, Dr.No still shines as my fave 007 film because all involved did such a masterful job of setting the foundation in place for all of the films to follow. Lucky for many of those folks, they are now dead and don't have to suffer through disasters like QoS (which in my mind stands for a full Quota of Shyt). I am not kidding when I say that I must have seen that flick when it first came out a few years ago, but I could not remember enough of it to be sure that I had. So I rented it again, and watched.......and I am STILL not sure whether I had seen it before. It is that forgettable. A pathetic me-too attempt at trying to be generic Bourne or Mission Impossible. And it is not that Craig is so bad, he is not. In the hands of a better production, director and script, I have no doubt he could shine. If anything, and I know this can't happen, they need to CUT the budget on future 007 films. This might force them to get back to the witty dialogue and clever secret agenting that made the early films so much fun. (rant over)

Napoleon Plural

Nash wrote:

If anything, and I know this can't happen, but they need to CUT the budget on future 007 films. This might force them to get back to the witty dialogue and clever secret agenting that made the early films so much fun.

True enough. Welcome to the forums, Nash. {[]

CmdrAtticus

This sounds like another version of the two different points of view of Bond fans. One is the type that prefers the superman fantasy version that the series morphed into starting with DAF, where it was all about the gadgets and over the top sets and bad puns and Kodak moment scenery. They threw out Fleming's character and gave us a caracature version of him. Then they tried to bring some of him back in the Dalton films, but the writers couldn't make it work. The other fans are the ones who prefer the original films where the the plots are closer to reality and Bond is a more human figure as he is in the Fleming novels.

Returning to the heavily stylized, cartoon style films would certainly set the series apart again from the generic action films of today, but it would be at the cost of Fleming's creation. It's what they've done to Doyle's character in the Downey films...they turned him into a stylized caracature of the author's creation. I do understand fans who want the series to stand apart from all the enormous number of action films that are pushed into the market every year, but I would hate to see them return to that cartoonish formula in order to do it. One of the biggest problems is that the original films actually established the type of glossy, stylized films were used to seeing now (like Mission Impossible) - another reason it's harder to set them apart. I really enjoyed the last Mission Impossible. It had the plot and action pieces that a big Bond film should have..and it had humor!

It looks like Skyfall is going to be another character driven, dark film. We'll see what happens, but I think if the producers made the next one along the lines of the MI4 film, it would please a lot of the fans who miss the old over the top films that they used to make, and bring in even larger audiences.

zaphod

CmdrAtticus wrote:

This sounds like another version of the two different points of view of Bond fans. One is the type that prefers the superman fantasy version that the series morphed into starting with DAF, where it was all about the gadgets and over the top sets and bad puns and Kodak moment scenery. They threw out Fleming's character and gave us a caracature version of him. Then they tried to bring some of him back in the Dalton films, but the writers couldn't make it work. The other fans are the ones who prefer the original films where the the plots are closer to reality and Bond is a more human figure as he is in the Fleming novels.

Returning to the heavily stylized, cartoon style films would certainly set the series apart again from the generic action films of today, but it would be at the cost of Fleming's creation. It's what they've done to Doyle's character in the Downey films...they turned him into a stylized caracature of the author's creation. I do understand fans who want the series to stand apart from all the enormous number of action films that are pushed into the market every year, but I would hate to see them return to that cartoonish formula in order to do it. One of the biggest problems is that the original films actually established the type of glossy, stylized films were used to seeing now (like Mission Impossible) - another reason it's harder to set them apart. I really enjoyed the last Mission Impossible. It had the plot and action pieces that a big Bond film should have..and it had humor!

It looks like Skyfall is going to be another character driven, dark film. We'll see what happens, but I think if the producers made the next one along the lines of the MI4 film, it would please a lot of the fans who miss the old over the top films that they used to make, and bring in even larger audiences.

Whilst I share a number of your views, the comparison with MI4 was something I have been thinking about. I to enjoyed the spectacle and big set pieces. However at the end of the movie Ethan whathisname is is nore more real to me.I'm neither any wiser about him or care very much as he is never more than a cipher. My point is I guess that it's hard to do both things well.
I would welcome some more humour of the right sort, but prefer a rounded character.

Thunderpussy

Even Hitler wants Bond dead ( yes, yet another Hitler video ) )
although this one has Gotz Otto

http://youtu.be/XIqQYUV2zhE

JohnMasterson

You know, I sort of find it funny how people say that Daniel Craig in Casino Royale was un-Bondian-like, when the 2006 Casino Royale film technically set a NEW foundation for the James Bond character in general. Since they had the rights to the Casino Royale book, they decided to go back and create an entirely fresh foundation, ignoring the older one that was once created by the great Sean Connery and the great Terence Young.

Now, I know that Ian Fleming purists wanted a guy who looks more like the James Bond of the original novels but the thing is, that was a series of books and this is a movie series....You do know the difference between a book series and a film series, right? What works on the written page, might not necessarily work on a major motion picture film studio set. You know, it's kind of like when people complained about Jennifer Lawrence being cast as Katniss Everdeen in the Suzanne Collins Hunger Games movie series, I mean, yeah, she's not like anything you ever imagined but there should be a disconnect between a reading book and watching a film and you should know the difference by now!

Jamesbondjr

I really like QOS but suffers from being a sequel; it is the only Bond film that does not work as a standalone film. QOS works best when viewed as an epilogue to Casino Royale. I don't think that any of the Bond films are generic, sure, they share similarities with some more recent trends but they are not generic.

'Generic' is a term that is thrown around a lot these days and often with no context. It is also seemingly used as a throwaway insult to certain things, particularly with regard to entertainment media.

What about the Bond films do you find generic? And do you imply a negative definition of the word?

JohnMasterson

I guess Tomorrow Never Dies is generic in that it borrows too heavily from Roger Moore's The Spy Who Loved Me, but I suppose Tomorrow Never Dies does work better as a standalone film than Quantum of Solace does.

Jamesbondjr

Ah, ok. I see what you mean now.

There are similarities, but then there are similarities between a lot of the films. I've never seen it as problem to be honest.