What is "The Most Different" Bond film?

Jarvio

Which of all the official EON bond films (so not NSNA or 60's CR) do you consider the most different to the rest? Obviously all bond films follow a formula, but which one was the biggest departure from that in your opinion?

For me, it would be hands down, CR. Daniel Craig's bond films have taken bond in a completely new direction. CR seems far more story-driven than, say, the Moore and Brosnan bond films, which seemed more action-based. Obviously there is some action in CR - and bloody good action at that - but for me the film seems the most driven by story and dialogue. I saw it on TV last night, and it crossed my mind that, in many ways, this isn't like a bond film.

When I say it's not like a bond film, that doesn't mean to say I don't like it. I rather like it. But it is very difficult for me to rank with the rest of the bond films. So CR, hands down, to me, is the most different of the bond films, followed by QOS.

What about you?

Golrush007

It's an interesting question, because it depends a lot on context. Some things were a departure at the time they were made are now accepted as the norm.

Perhaps the first major departure would be YOLT, which took Bond from being mildly fantastical, tongue in cheek entertainment to being well beyond plausible, involving hollowed out volcanoes... and slowly this becomes part of the Bond standard to the point where it becomes considered part and parcel of the Bond formula. Likewise, Moonraker, stretches this even further, taking Bond into the realm of sci-fi. Luckily this did not become so much part of the Bond formula!! It does resurface in DAD to a certain extent.

TLD and LTK are a kind of departure, because they are very different from the films which preceded them, ie. the Roger Moore films.

DAD was a stylistic depature in a way, because the Bond films had (and I would like to think still do have) a tradition of doing stunts and effects 'in camera', whereas many sequences in that film made liberal use of CGI and had no stuntman in a real scenario, being filmed in camera. Again, luckily this has not become the norm for Bond.

True, CR is a departure, but I don't think it is a huge departure. In a sense, it is a return to the pre-YOLT Bond, the FLEMING Bond, without so much of the 'filmic' Bond tradition attached to it. After all, it is a largely Fleming story. The characterisation of Bond is a bit of a departure though, and in my opinion a step in the right direction.

I think as much as Bond tends to be thought of as a repetitive, formulaic series, it has been filled with many departures and changes to the formula. I mean, we have LALD - the 'blaxploitation Bond', TMWTGG the 'Kung-fu Bond', GE the '90s Bond' and so on.

Higgins

in my opinion the "most different" films are DAF and OHMSS

DAF in a negative way because the entire movie feels cheap and boring. The great locations are missing, the villain looks like sugardaddy, there is not much action and the climax is more jokey than serious. We see our hero as an old man for the first time and not like an energetic agent, even the Bondgirl does not take him serious for the first half of the movie.
DAF is the first movie, where you can see the budget cuts and they look really bad compared to all other lower-budgeted Bonds (such as TLD and LTK).

OHMSS in a positive way as it is the richest, colorful 60's movie of all Bonds.
Visually it's candy and the main actor has only played once the role. He's very different optically to all other actors and if you are asking your non-Bond-fanatic friends most of them will not connect him with Bond - not his name and not his face.

GordoLeiter

LTK for being the most brutal Bond movie ever made and i doubt there will be another one like this one. DAF i would say paved the way for the Moore style era for its campy and comedic take on the Bond franchise, if Connery were to stay after DAF it would still be like the Moore era.

chrisisall

Moonraker for being the only Bond to to boldly stray from camp directly into comedy territory. X-(

Q-Branch_2012

chrisisall wrote:

Moonraker for being the only Bond to to boldly stray from camp directly into comedy territory. X-(

I second this. This is definately the most different (ridiculous?) of the Bonds. So for me I would go with Moonraker.

Hardyboy

From Russia with Love. None of the usual Bond formula, and the entire film is built on a plot to kill Bond and to make fools out of the British Secret Service. Arguably it's the most serious of the films, and it has more in common with John le Carre than it does Ian Fleming.

BIG TAM

I agree, Hardyboy. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE sticks out like a sore thumb (in a good way) as being sufficiently different. I suppose the 'Bond formula' as we know & love it didn't kick in till GOLDFINGER.

Thunderpussy

I too agree FRWL, is a stand out film as It doesn't follow the formula to come.

Blackleiter

I agree it's Casino Royale. Played absolutely straight and gives the only real semblance of Bond's beginnings. Plus, the lack of a Moneypenny and a Q, with no real gadgets to speak of, for me CR has a feel that no other Bond film has.

Jarvio wrote:

Which of all the official EON bond films (so not NSNA or 60's CR) do you consider the most different to the rest? Obviously all bond films follow a formula, but which one was the biggest departure from that in your opinion?

For me, it would be hands down, CR. Daniel Craig's bond films have taken bond in a completely new direction. CR seems far more story-driven than, say, the Moore and Brosnan bond films, which seemed more action-based. Obviously there is some action in CR - and bloody good action at that - but for me the film seems the most driven by story and dialogue. I saw it on TV last night, and it crossed my mind that, in many ways, this isn't like a bond film.

When I say it's not like a bond film, that doesn't mean to say I don't like it. I rather like it. But it is very difficult for me to rank with the rest of the bond films. So CR, hands down, to me, is the most different of the bond films, followed by QOS.

What about you?

Halcon

Excellent observation Hardyboy...
nonetheless I (personally) feel that I'm still watching a James Bond movie with FRWL.

...Moonraker now...(though I love the film) I couldn't tell what the hell I was watching there at the end...

Brosnan_fan

I would definitely say OHMSS. A new Bond actor who would turn out to be a one-film Bond, a story where Bond gets married and then suddenly his wife is killed off, leaving no trace of a happy ending! It was almost as if the filmmakers were asking the public to stop seeing these films! (Please note I wasn't born yet, but I can only imagine the noise this film would have generated!)

Others that could be considered different:

MR - well, Bond goes into outer space! 'Nuff said.

LTK - as mentioned previously, a film with a brutal tone throughout. As much as I like it, I wouldn't want to see another Bond film in the same vein, ever.

TWINE - quite an extraordinary beast of a film, this one. The writing, direction and acting asks the audience to go on this intriguing journey with Bond, where love/passion, betrayal, loyalty and friendship are explored. All the familiar elements of Bond suddenly take a back seat!

Silhouette Man

The Most Different James Bond Films for me would be:

OHMSS - very different; feels like a real film in a standalone sense, not having to rely on the crutch of being a James Bond film...
LALD - a dark heart in the seemingly light tale
LTK - James Bond meets ultraviolence
QoS - a film that breaks with Bondian traditions.

Firemass

Moonraker is not that different at all. Have you watched YOLT or TSWLM lately? ?

ZorinIndustries

CR

It did not feel right at all. I left the theater rather disappointed and confused. Hardly any traditional 007 ingredients.

davidelliott101

ZorinIndustries wrote:

CR

It did not feel right at all. I left the theater rather disappointed and confused. Hardly any traditional 007 ingredients.

Which is weird as it is mostly a straightforward adaptation of the Ian Fleming novel. It shows how far the film series diverted from the original source material!

Actually, I'm surprised that folks are picking FRWL, OHMSS are picked as the most different, too... since they are faithful to the novels!

Silhouette Man

davidelliott101 wrote:

ZorinIndustries wrote:

CR

It did not feel right at all. I left the theater rather disappointed and confused. Hardly any traditional 007 ingredients.

Which is weird as it is mostly a straightforward adaptation of the Ian Fleming novel. It shows how far the film series diverted from the original source material!

Actually, I'm surprised that folks are picking FRWL, OHMSS are picked as the most different, too... since they are faithful to the novels!

Yes, my thoughts exactly - it's been a long time coming 8-)

Distorted Humor

I would say Skyfall, its a VERY good film, but it didn't feel like a bond film to me.

Firemass

The most rational way for me to think about this question is to break the Bond films down by decade. It's easier to spot a "different" film when surrounded by its peers.

The 60's: Most different film is You Only Live Twice because the other 5 Bond films were more faithful to the Fleming books. YOLT started the blockbuster sci-fi/fantasy 007 adventures that would become popular again in the late 70's.

The 70's: Very mixed decade for Bond. Three Guy Hamiltons and two Lewis Gilberts. If one really sticks out it would be Live and Let Die because of the supernatural/voodoo themes.

The 80's: Octopussy. The rest of John Glen's films are much more serious and geared for the adult audience. However, Octopussy is clearly made for kids age 10-15. It's a fine piece of entertainment that is loaded with goofy humor and gags. A View to a Kill was a welcome return to form IMO.

The 90's and beyond: All 4 Brosnan movies go well together, as do the 3 Daniel Craig films. Casino Royale was quite a bit different from Die Another Day but I wouldn't single either movie out as a renegade.

Charmed & Dangerous

Y'know, I'm not so sure that any are that different. They are all developments of previous Films, always striving to go one better than the preceding film, but retaining key elements. YOLT continues the more fantastical elements from Thunderball, which in turn built on some of the more fantastic/tongue in cheek elements of Goldfinger.

Every now and then the series has reset itself, such as FYEO - when Bond could only come down to earth, literally, after Moonraker; OHMSS reigning in the fantasy after YOLT; TLD after AVTAK; and most notably, CR after the excesses of DAD (invisible car, anyone?). But even these 'resets' retained some of the essential elements of the series, not least the cinematography, the humour, the supporting cast, Bond on a mission etc.

For me, the only one which has really felt different is Skyfall, because I found it quite unpredictable. The cinematography felt a little different, and for the first time I didn't get the feeling that Bond was invincible. And it was the first which has really looked to develop character over spectacle.

Peppermill

I really enjoy reading all your comments, some very well stated comments.

I think DAF was actually the first Roger Moore movie in tone and humor. Although YOLT was a `bit` over the top it did have a semi-serious plot while DAF was played mostly for laughs. After the very serious movie that was OHMSS the production team decided that it was time for a more light hearted Bond.

BIG TAM

YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE - It sticks out like a sore thumb between TB & OHMSS. I know Bond gets married & therefore becomes less of an enigma, but tonally OHMSS feels like a better progression from TB. YOLT is just so unbelievably outlandish after the relative believability of the previous film.

LIVE & LET DIE - The voodoo elements give it an oddly macabre, mystical feel. With a bit more effort & daring (& no doubt a resulting box-office death) this could have been 007 in Dennis Wheatley territory.

LICENCE TO KILL - Bond's more brutal than ever & not tied to the service. If anything, the one sop to tradition (Q!!) gets in the way. Curiously, with its violence & rogue agent theme it now feels like a template for the Daniel Craig era, particularly QOS.

CASINO ROYALE - An ironic Bond. All the usual elements stripped bare or presented in a way as to comment on their iconic status (e.g. Bond's curt dismissal of the vodka martini).

SKYFALL - Bond's given a backstory. Unheard of previously. Up till now Bond's a leading character of 22 films that we know absolutely nothing about. True, his orphan status is touched upon in CR but this film seems to put real meat on 007's bones.

Lazenbyfan

For me it's License to Kill.

Not for the violence, per se, but because it's more of a revenge movie than a "mission." In fact, Bond has quit and become rogue. More Lethal Weapon than your average Bond.

Great action movie, not much of a Bond movie.

chrisisall

Lazenbyfan wrote:

Great action movie, not much of a Bond movie.

That kind of describes Craig's movies in a way... :v

Blackleiter

Craig's movies were just as much Bond movies as Dalton's. They're all Bond films, but some of them have a somewhat different tone. Nothing wrong with that. :007)

chrisisall wrote:

Lazenbyfan wrote:

Great action movie, not much of a Bond movie.

That kind of describes Craig's movies in a way... :v

chrisisall

Blackleiter wrote:

Craig's movies were just as much Bond movies as Dalton's. They're all Bond films, but some of them have a somewhat different tone. Nothing wrong with that. :007)

Just that if Licence to Kill isn't a 'Bond' movie, then neither are Craig's. Or most of Brosnan's, for that matter. B-)

Blackleiter

I get it, and I believe that anyone who thinks License to Kill isn't really a Bond movie is pretty misguided. :007)

chrisisall wrote:

Blackleiter wrote:

Craig's movies were just as much Bond movies as Dalton's. They're all Bond films, but some of them have a somewhat different tone. Nothing wrong with that. :007)

Just that if Licence to Kill isn't a 'Bond' movie, then neither are Craig's. Or most of Brosnan's, for that matter. B-)

chrisisall

Blackleiter wrote:

I get it, and I believe that anyone who thinks License to Kill isn't really a Bond movie is pretty misguided. :007)

I'd happily feed them to a Carcharodon carcharias. )

Nick37

Alright, let's get this Miami Vice Parallel out of the way once and for all.

Is Licence to Kill set in Miami? No.

Does being in Key West automatically mean that since you're in Florida, you're obviously going for Miami, as in Miami Vice? No.

Does Bond spend the entire movie in Florida? No.

Does James Bond strut around in an expensive suit over a t-shirt and no socks? No

Does Bond have an equally well-dressed African American, Native-American, and Irish partner? No. In fact, Sharkey is much more akin to Quarrel than Tubbs.

Does Bond drive around in a Ferrari? No.

Does Bond work for Vice? No. Does Leiter? No.

Is this the first time Bond has gone against a drug kingpin? No (Live and Let Die)

Do all movies that feature a drug kingpin between 1984-1990 and after automatically tie-in to Miami Vice? No.

Now lets take a look at what the film has.

Does James Bond smoke? Yes. Not something that HAS to be in a James Bond film, but it does harken back to Fleming.

Does Bond order a vodka martini, shaken, not stirred? Yes.

Does Bond say the line, "Bond, James Bond." Yes.

Does Bond spend time in a casino? Yes.

Does Bond wear a tuxedo? Yes. More than once? Yes

Does Bond bed a beautiful woman? Yes

Does he bed more than one beautiful woman? Yes.

Does Bond drive a flashy car? No, but he does get driven around in a Rolls Royce, which isn't half shabby. And for the record, I don't remember Bond driving a flashy car in Dr. No, or You Only Live Twice.

Does Bond have an expensive watch? Yes. The always dependable Rolex Submariner.

Does M feature in the film? Yes

Does Moneypenny? Yes

Does Q? Yes

While not a requirement, does Felix Leiter? Oh yes.

Does Bond get gadgets from Q Branch? Yes.

Does Bond use a Walther PPK? Yes

Does Bond fight an @ssholish villain? Yes

Does Bond kill henchmen? Yes

Does Bond beat the villain? Yes.

Spectacularly? Oh yes.

So...What exactly is it that Licence to Kill doesn't have that makes it less of a Bond movie than any of the others? Because it's a personal mission? Well shoot I mean, by that time, the guy's been doing missions for MI-6 for 37 years. I think he's due.

If going against a drug-kingpin automatically means you're copying Miami Vice, then we really live in a closed-minded society and Live and Let Die is also a copy of Miami Vice before Miami Vice was Miami Vice. In fact, we should yell and scream at the people who made Miami Vice because in actuality, they copied the plot of their show from Live and Let Die. Licence to Kill isn't a copy of Miami Vice, Miami Vice is a copy of Live and Let Die and Eon was just trying to take back the plot that was rightfully theirs. In fact, every movie that features a drug kingpin after 1973 should all be sued because they're stealing the hero against a drug kingpin plot that Live and Let Die did. The fiends.

The only damn thing that connects Licence to Kill to Miami Vice is the fact that both take place in Florida (But not in the same cities and in the case of LTK, not the whole bloody time in Florida) and they feature a character who makes and sells drugs (Which Bond could care less about. He just wants to kill the f*cker.)

Firemass

If it makes you feel better I've never even heard of Miami Vice...

chrisisall

Nick37 wrote:

Alright, let's get this Miami Vice Parallel out of the way once and for all.

Well done, sir. -{
I'd just add that Michael Kamen's score sounds, well, not quite as Bond-ish as it could have. I think that adds to misperception a bit. I think a Barry score would have just shut everyone up concerning this.