Why can't James Bond movies be emotional and dramatic?

james362001

Why can't a James Bond movie be emotional and dramatic? The ending of On Her Majesty's Secret Service certainly was a surprise. It made me want to see Diamonds Are Forever.

I also like the scene with Roger Moore ( I forgot which movie) where he visited the grave of who I thought was his wife.

Javier Bardem says Skyfall will have an emotional aspect and dramatic aspect. Daniel Craig says Sam Mendes is not out to create anything dramatic. it will not be an angst-ridden movie.

Maybe that is exactly what they should do is develop the James Bond character and let him have tears.

If Judi Dench's Lady M (as I call her) does get killed in SKYFALL as current rumors say, I do hope to see some tears and an emotional goodbye.

Hardyboy

The Roger-Moore-at-the-graveside scene was in For Your Eyes Only.

Anyway, wasn't Casino Royale "emotional and dramatic?" Didn't he fall in love with Vesper and lose her? What about Bond's clear grief and rage over what happened to Della and Felix in Licence to Kill? I think there have been a lot of emotional moments in the Bond films--they certainly have their place, but they shouldn't be the driving force.

james362001

Thanks for the clarification. I always forget what movie it is. For Your Eyes Only. Will write it down. Yes. I just watched Casino Royale (2006) again. It does have its moments. Glad it was a long movie and they didn't cut so much out like they did Quantum of Solace. Too bad Marc Forster wanted it to be the shortest Bond film ever.
I am very eager to see SKYFALL (2012). Of all I have read about it, even the rumors, and the photos just released make me want to see it even more.

Hardyboy wrote:

The Roger-Moore-at-the-graveside scene was in For Your Eyes Only.

Anyway, wasn't Casino Royale "emotional and dramatic?" Didn't he fall in love with Vesper and lose her? What about Bond's clear grief and rage over what happened to Della and Felix in Licence to Kill? I think there have been a lot of emotional moments in the Bond films--they certainly have their place, but they shouldn't be the driving force.

Erik

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT6PRT_XHRA

I think, this is the best emotional scene from the last movie.

Gassy Man

"Casino Royale" was a breath of fresh air because it was the first Bond movie in years that wasn't aimed primarily at a 15-year-old's interpretation of the world. It was still a spy fantasy but it at least tried to recapture some of the adult feel of the earliest Bonds. We live in odd times. With today's movies the stories are usually pretty juvenile in terms of their emotional complexities yet at the same time the execution is usually overwrought with forced emotional conflicts -- it isn't enough that the hero is in danger, the hero must be out for revenge because his or her parents were wiped out by the villain who is also seeking to take over the world using some horrific virus that makes Smallpox look like a cold while also navigating a landscape that includes the duplicitous boss, sacrifice of an old friend, and sexual tension with a woman who may or may not be on his side. It all becomes predictable and uninteresting, especially if the hero is some one-note character who spends most of his time obsessively brooding about revenge. The Bond films helped to set a pattern but then fell victim to constantly repeating it, and often the execution became more interested in greater verisimilitude with the action and lesser verisimilitude with the characters. There's no reason the Bond films couldn't be emotional and dramatic in a fresh way but filmmakers are more likely to play it safe and keep the status quo and so they all seem to just be iterations of the previous ones.

Hardyboy

Your gas is a breath of fresh air, Gassy Man. . .

Napoleon Plural

I think one reason why the movies shouldn't be too emotional or dramatic is that they simply run out of steam early on if the main narrative drive comes from emotional impetus. In the films it was mainly about a kind of joke albeit a sophisticated one early one, which spirals onwards and upwards, the joke I guess being about one man's superhuman-ish ability to win out against the odds.

But if it gets all emotional in each movie, it becomes like listening to the same friend banging on about their problems. Other movies carry more of an emotional impetus and become heavy going quick, imo the Star Wars series but also Lethal Weapon. The Bond films keep it light, though quality and classy too, so they go the distance.

Gassy Man

Hardyboy wrote:

Your gas is a breath of fresh air, Gassy Man. . .

Outstanding!

James Suzuki

off topic chat- May I ask you gassy man, what ur picture is of, it looks like emperor sidious in the phantom of menace, (hopefully it isnt you?)

Gassy Man

Sure -- it's the venerable Patrick MacGoohan as "The Prisoner," about to be gassed before being sent off to the Village.

Sir_Miles_Messervy

james362001 wrote:

Why can't a James Bond movie be emotional and dramatic? The ending of On Her Majesty's Secret Service certainly was a surprise. It made me want to see Diamonds Are Forever.

I also like the scene with Roger Moore ( I forgot which movie) where he visited the grave of who I thought was his wife.

Javier Bardem says Skyfall will have an emotional aspect and dramatic aspect. Daniel Craig says Sam Mendes is not out to create anything dramatic. it will not be an angst-ridden movie.

Maybe that is exactly what they should do is develop the James Bond character and let him have tears.

If Judi Dench's Lady M (as I call her) does get killed in SKYFALL as current rumors say, I do hope to see some tears and an emotional goodbye.

Well, they can be -- they just generally aren't.

I think they are wonderful "departures" now and then, but I don't know that I'd be crazy about a slew of Bond films that were all emotion all the time. How many times can Bond fall in love before it gets tired?

mpoplawski

In reply to GassyMan - I read a great quote from a movie critic. He said the problem with today's movies are they film "B" movies with "A" movie budgets and "A" movies with "B" movie budgets. Enough with the 3-D already. If you don't have a story in the first place then it is just a waste. Avatar - what a colossal waste of time.

degame

i think it is happening more and more that bond films are getting a bit more 'emotional' or rather bond is getting a bit more human and less of a super-person in sequels. i like it, but it's a dance on thin ice.

Gassy Man

mpoplawski wrote:

In reply to GassyMan - I read a great quote from a movie critic. He said the problem with today's movies are they film "B" movies with "A" movie budgets and "A" movies with "B" movie budgets. Enough with the 3-D already. If you don't have a story in the first place then it is just a waste. Avatar - what a colossal waste of time.

That's an excellent and very accurate observation.

james362001

I have seen so many movies in the past 3 years that were just awful. They hype the movie so much as being THE BEST, THE GREATEST, IN A WORLD WHERE...., NEVER IN ANY MOTION PICTURE BEFORE.... and then the movie falls flat. I have seen so many rotten endings and movies circumcised at the end abruptly( like Ides of March) and it has no meaning, no purpose what so ever. I have resorted to Turner Classic Movies for the happy ending now. Another thing that bothers me is the movie trailer. They show so much and only the good stuff and special effects that you can see the entire movie and the ending in 30 seconds to 2 minutes.

Gassy Man wrote:

mpoplawski wrote:

In reply to GassyMan - I read a great quote from a movie critic. He said the problem with today's movies are they film "B" movies with "A" movie budgets and "A" movies with "B" movie budgets. Enough with the 3-D already. If you don't have a story in the first place then it is just a waste. Avatar - what a colossal waste of time.

That's an excellent and very accurate observation.

Gassy Man

james362001 wrote:

I have seen so many movies in the past 3 years that were just awful. They hype the movie so much as being THE BEST, THE GREATEST, IN A WORLD WHERE...., NEVER IN ANY MOTION PICTURE BEFORE.... and then the movie falls flat. I have seen so many rotten endings and movies circumcised at the end abruptly( like Ides of March) and it has no meaning, no purpose what so ever. I have resorted to Turner Classic Movies for the happy ending now. Another thing that bothers me is the movie trailer. They show so much and only the good stuff and special effects that you can see the entire movie and the ending in 30 seconds to 2 minutes.

Gassy Man wrote:

mpoplawski wrote:

In reply to GassyMan - I read a great quote from a movie critic. He said the problem with today's movies are they film "B" movies with "A" movie budgets and "A" movies with "B" movie budgets. Enough with the 3-D already. If you don't have a story in the first place then it is just a waste. Avatar - what a colossal waste of time.

That's an excellent and very accurate observation.

I've been carping about the sad state of movies for a quarter century. Even as a teenager I could tell the vast difference in quality between a film made, say, before 1970 and those made afterward. In the 80s, it was even worse, as films were basically just TV shows (directed with the same blandness) with different budgets and cinematography.

CmdrAtticus

The main demise of intelligent, adult, well written films of films is the inlfated and spiralling cost of film budgets. To cover the costs of bloated effects and action films, Hollywood has to market them towards a young, adult (mainly male) international audience where they can extract even more money through toys and games. This even creeped into the Bond series over the years. The net effect is that the type of quality productions we used to see even in the silent film era up until the 1970's have been driven into the cable/TV/independent markets. They can produce high quality, dramatic films and series with smaller budgets and yet still attract top of the line actors. The great classic B&W films we see today on Turner Classics would only be made for television now.

Fleming wrote his character and stories more in the vein of Hitchcock or the dark film noir than Saturday afternoon actions serials, which is why North by Northwest seems like a Fleming thriller whereas the Raiders films seem like the Bond films. The novels allowed for emotion as well as action pieces, whereas the films are all about the action. They've tried to turn this around with Craig's films, but they are still sticking with a lot of running and shooting with only small bits of emoting (though CR had the best emotional scenes next to OHMSS so far). If the producers wanted to keep the series skating close to Fleming and yet still be popular at the box office, they would make sure future writers and directors watched North by Northwest each time before starting the next film.