I am not really sure what is being defined by "formula". If you were to have a Star Wars with the USS Enterprise and Capt Kirk, you would be getting away from the "formula" but then again you would not have a Star Wars movie.
Bond movies are their own genres. They are not spy movies. This is where Skyfall crumbles. The movie franchise has tried to reinvent itself, essentially surrender, because the producers have failed in the post Cubby era.
They are saying they want to scrap the Fleming Bond legacy in favor of the Jason Statham/Strike Back/Bourne type series. No one can honesty and objectively say this movie was in the Bond, for good or bad, legacy.
By formulaic elements, I meant bringing back Q, Moneypenny, and the ridiculously old fashioned wood-paneled office with a padded door. I am more than willing to leave all that to history.
But then again I suspect where we disagree is that I consider QoS one of the most Flemingesque movies in the series. It's dark, grimy, not too grandiose, and had very little in the way of sexing up that most of the movies tended to do.
There is nothing Flemingesque about QoS. QoS was a Bourne ripoff.
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. I've never really bought the idea that QoS was that close to a Bourne movie.
Pretty much the only thing in QoS that reminded me of Bourne was the fight between Bond and Slate, which quite frankly was a welcome addition, since, to me anyway, putting in a Connery-style fight scene in a movie in the 21st Century would seem absurdly outdated.
and remembered for the bringing in of Q and moneypenny back into the series, the reboot is complete with skyfall, and a bringing back of a male M and in a copy of the M office of old ,
I think it doffed its cap brilliantly to the rest of the series, DB5, M's padded office, the soundtrack (listen and you will hear some bars of OHMSS on one track, Q, Moneypenny etc whilst making Bond "believable" or as much anyone could believe it was real. I also loved the look of the whole film, Deakins should get an Oscar. The shot of Bond, M and the DB5 near Buachaille Etive Mor is as iconic as Connery leaning against his DB5 in Goldfinger.
The only downsides for me were the ending in the Chapel, thought it was a little flat and the dragons scene, looked slightly crowbared in.
The Shanghai tower block fight scene was brilliant and the opening was as good as CR.
Perdogg - I am sorry but Die Another Day was the nadir of the Bond series, the surfing scene and the invisible Aston was embarrassing.
Welshboy - the only problem with a car chase in the DB5 is what would it be up against ? Most modern cars would run rings around it, even a Corsa. But agree if they could have sorted it, would have made a good addition.
I think the one thing that Craig era has given us is a "future for Bond" after DAD it was out on its feet.
cheers
Nickp
which track has the ohmss
Hi, sorry for delay in getting back, its at the start of Jellyfish, starts out sounding like Dark Knight then moves into the opening horn section on OHMSS..
Without a doubt! It fits that Bond formula previously mentioned at the start of the thread. This was the first film in a while to have that true 007 feel....
I am sorry, I have to disagree. It is not a real Bond movie. Bond is no longer Bond, he may be Bourne; he may be Batman, but he is not James Bond any more.
He has been totally emasculated and lacks any of the traditional Bond traits that made the series unique, such as the male, rugged yet refinded and independent, who works in the framework of a governmental organization.
Craig is not allowed to be the individual created to enjoy the things in life such as drinking, smoking , and sex (in fact in all three movies he looked like he was unable to enjoy anything) and he inabilitiy to articulate the fundamental manchaean bases of Bond existence in modern literature is telling on how far Mike and Barbara have deviated from the original EON films.
"And if I told you that I'm from the Ministry of Defence?" James Bond - The Property of a Lady
Without a doubt! It fits that Bond formula previously mentioned at the start of the thread. This was the first film in a while to have that true 007 feel....
I am sorry, I have to disagree. It is not a real Bond movie. Bond is no longer Bond, he may be Bourne; he may be Batman, but he is not James Bond any more.
He has been totally emasculated and lacks any of the traditional Bond traits that made the series unique, such as the male, rugged yet refinded and independent, who works in the framework of a governmental organization.
Craig is not allowed to be the individual created to enjoy the things in life such as drinking, smoking , and sex (in fact in all three movies he looked like he was unable to enjoy anything) and he inabilitiy to articulate the fundamental manchaean bases of Bond existence in modern literature is telling on how far Mike and Barbara have deviated from the original EON films.
Have you read any of the books? My guess is you haven't. If you had you'd recognize Ian Fleming's Bond.
There is no such things as a "classic" Bond film. The first three are supposed to be the classics, but each is very different from the other two.
Without a doubt! It fits that Bond formula previously mentioned at the start of the thread. This was the first film in a while to have that true 007 feel....
I am sorry, I have to disagree. It is not a real Bond movie. Bond is no longer Bond, he may be Bourne; he may be Batman, but he is not James Bond any more.
He has been totally emasculated and lacks any of the traditional Bond traits that made the series unique, such as the male, rugged yet refinded and independent, who works in the framework of a governmental organization.
Craig is not allowed to be the individual created to enjoy the things in life such as drinking, smoking , and sex (in fact in all three movies he looked like he was unable to enjoy anything) and he inabilitiy to articulate the fundamental manchaean bases of Bond existence in modern literature is telling on how far Mike and Barbara have deviated from the original EON films.
Have you read any of the books? My guess is you haven't. If you had you'd recognize Ian Fleming's Bond.
There is no such things as a "classic" Bond film. The first three are supposed to be the classics, but each is very different from the other two.
Of course I have read the books. Please tell me how Skyfall-Bond is part of Fleming's legacy. Taking bits from novels is not a "Fleming Bond".
Without a doubt! It fits that Bond formula previously mentioned at the start of the thread. This was the first film in a while to have that true 007 feel....
I am sorry, I have to disagree. It is not a real Bond movie. Bond is no longer Bond, he may be Bourne; he may be Batman, but he is not James Bond any more.
He has been totally emasculated and lacks any of the traditional Bond traits that made the series unique, such as the male, rugged yet refinded and independent, who works in the framework of a governmental organization.
Craig is not allowed to be the individual created to enjoy the things in life such as drinking, smoking , and sex (in fact in all three movies he looked like he was unable to enjoy anything) and he inabilitiy to articulate the fundamental manchaean bases of Bond existence in modern literature is telling on how far Mike and Barbara have deviated from the original EON films.
Hang on a sec... are you saying that Craig's Bond doesn't drink... or have sex?
In the version I watched of CR, he drinks like a fish, and has sleeps with 2 girls... so I'm not sure which versions you've been watching... )
(As for the smoking... times have changed... it's much better he doesn't. That doesn't then mean he's not 'manly' because of it, plus rugged and refined is EXACTLY how I would describe Craig !)
Can I ask what you mean by emasculated? My definition is: To be deprived strength or vigour... and even when Bond's been tortured.. and had his balls ripped to pieces, one of his first concerns was how he was going to please Vesper...so I can hardly see where your argument comes into play... not to mention that Craig is one of the most physically strong Bond's we have seen, plus his injuries have hardly stopped him from enjoying himself... in fact there have been 2 girls he's slept with, with a possible 3rd, since Vesper, so.....
And although this sounds very high-faluting "and he inabilitiy to articulate the fundamental manchaean bases of Bond existence in modern literature" = I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at...???? If you could enlighten me...
I take it you're not a fan of Craig's Bond....
She's worth whatever chaos she brings to the table and you know it. ~ Mark Anthony
I think that's really the bottom line. I certainly couldn't find the evidence of all of this so-called "emasculation" in Craig's Bond films, and I think you have amply pointed out some holes in that line of reasoning. -{
See Pussy, that is what happens when you try to get " too realistic " with Bond. If you are going to leave a bread crum trail for the villain and football team size crew shouldn't you try to have a little more back up than two Octogenarians and your dad's old shot gun on hand. I guess that is what happens when the modern day Bond doesn't have his ear piece in with mom telling him what to do.
I feel that being "too realistic" would have helped the Skyfall estate sequence.
But . . . what is a "classic" Bond movie? I think many people have different interpretations on that particular description of the franchise. For me, I wouldn't classify "SKYFALL" as "classic". At least for me.
how would you define a 'real' James Bond movie? What classic elements have to be represented in order for the audience to connect to the world of James Bond?
Barbel's list was quite comprehensive. However, what Skyfall lacked was a gunbarrel at the very start of the film. I'm also finding it hard these days to distinguish elements of Fleming's Bond from generic action hero in Craig's performances, whereas Connery, Dalton, Brosnan and Lazenby all played a very Fleming-esque character (in Connery's case, in his early performances only). Sure, Craig's Bond is entertaining to watch, and Skyfall is a fantastic film. But when I compare it with the classics, it lacks a certain "Fleming" feel to it.
I think its the best Bond film alongside Casino royale (yet may still Craig doesn't suit Bond 8-) ) and has won the Bond franchise many new fans with young kids and such. Its an awesome Bond film and will be held highly by may Bond fans.
Not may Bond Fans taught that when CRaig was annouce that he would churn out the two best Bond film since the 60's even the best.
I agree it's as good as Casino Royale, and I agree that both films will be regarded highly by many Bond fans, but I don't agree that either of the two were the "best Bond film". As for winning new fans with young kids, Fleming himself said that his works are intended as adult adventures. They're certainly not intended to be targeted at the younger audience.
Without a doubt! It fits that Bond formula previously mentioned at the start of the thread. This was the first film in a while to have that true 007 feel....
I am sorry, I have to disagree. It is not a real Bond movie. Bond is no longer Bond, he may be Bourne; he may be Batman, but he is not James Bond any more.
He has been totally emasculated and lacks any of the traditional Bond traits that made the series unique, such as the male, rugged yet refinded and independent, who works in the framework of a governmental organization.
Craig is not allowed to be the individual created to enjoy the things in life such as drinking, smoking , and sex (in fact in all three movies he looked like he was unable to enjoy anything) and he inabilitiy to articulate the fundamental manichaean bases of Bond existence in modern literature is telling on how far Mike and Barbara have deviated from the original EON films.
Hang on a sec... are you saying that Craig's Bond doesn't drink... or have sex?
In the version I watched of CR, he drinks like a fish, and has sleeps with 2 girls... so I'm not sure which versions you've been watching... )
(As for the smoking... times have changed... it's much better he doesn't. That doesn't then mean he's not 'manly' because of it, plus rugged and refined is EXACTLY how I would describe Craig !)
Can I ask what you mean by emasculated? My definition is: To be deprived strength or vigour... and even when Bond's been tortured.. and had his balls ripped to pieces, one of his first concerns was how he was going to please Vesper...so I can hardly see where your argument comes into play... not to mention that Craig is one of the most physically strong Bond's we have seen, plus his injuries have hardly stopped him from enjoying himself... in fact there have been 2 girls he's slept with, with a possible 3rd, since Vesper, so.....
And although this sounds very high-faluting "and he inabilitiy to articulate the fundamental manichaean bases of Bond existence in modern literature" = I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at...???? If you could enlighten me...
I take it you're not a fan of Craig's Bond....
1. I do not have anything against Craig. I have never had any problems with any of the actors who have played Bond. That is not the issue. The problems I have are more related to political correctness.
2. Let's talk about sex. Yes Craig has sex, but is it Bondian Sex or is it just enough for the franchise to include it as part of the overall Bond genre. My argument is that the Craig-Bond, with the exception of Strawberry Fields in QoS, does not appear to be allowed to pursue and to fullfill his own sexual interest. The sex in CR with Solange was only to gain information about Solange's husband, not to satisfy his sexual needs. The sex scenes in Skyfall have no context. Why was he having sex with the Island girl why did he have sex with Severine in the shower. He never showed any desire toward either one, therefore one concludes that there is a subtext that is ill defined. Why didn't he pursue a sexual encounter with Eve? Is he allowed in 21st century to be a man and to pursue a sexual conquest like Connery-Bond or Moore-Bond, vis-a-vis Manuala in Moonraker. I do not think he is. Is Male sexuality now considered wrong?
3. Drinking, smoking, and gambling. Again, in the novels Bond did these out of pleasure. In the Craig-Bond movie he drinks on the Island as part of depression, not because he derived pleasure from doing so. Gambling is not done out pleasure, only business in CR. He never smokes because the nanny-state won't allow it.
4. Manichaean bases of Bond. This is not really a Craig-Bond issue. In fact, none of the Bonds since Moore have really addressed this. There is no sense that the modern Bond believes he part of the struggle between Good and Evil. I am talking more of philosophical sense and not in a comic book sense. Instead we get, pardon the alliteration, fifty shades of gray. Bond is on the side of Good and the Villians are Evil. There has been no articulation of this since Sir Roger Moore was Bond. Fleming-Bond was a strong believer in this. Even in Goldfinger when he killed the Mexican thug, he was down a bit, but he knew it was done in the line of duty and he acknowledge that the thug was part of evil. After Vesper killed herself in CR he knew he had to destroy Smersh because Smersh was evil. I am tired of the modern moral equivalency. When Moore-Bond killed Drax and Stromberg he was killing evil, and it was very clear that Bond was good and they were bad.
"And if I told you that I'm from the Ministry of Defence?" James Bond - The Property of a Lady
I think that's really the bottom line. I certainly couldn't find the evidence of all of this so-called "emasculation" in Craig's Bond films, and I think you have amply pointed out some holes in that line of reasoning. -{
I have to disagree. The Bond-M relationship started to emasculate Bond before Daniels tenure, but has intensified into a bizarre mother and wayward child. In Transactional Analysis terms M is ' Critical Parent' with Bond as oscillating between 'rebellious' & 'compliant' child. The other point that stands for me is the lack of pleasure for Bond, yes he fleetingly sleeps with Women,but I get no sense of enjoyment even in that. It is central to Bond that he takes pleasure where he can as respite from his 'tough life'.That pleasure comes in many forms, including cars, clothes, cool toys for boys, luxury travel and yes women. Was hoping that Skyfall would bring some of this out, but apart from a self conscious adjustment of his cuff links there was precious little of that.
The Bond-M relationship started to emasculate Bond before Daniels tenure, but has intensified into a bizarre mother and wayward child. In Transactional Analysis terms M is ' Critical Parent' with Bond as oscillating between 'rebellious' & 'compliant' child.
I have to agree. This might be an unpopular opinion, but I don't believe Dame Judi Dench should ever have been chosen to play 'M'.
I'm looking forward to a colder, more distant relationship between this new, male M, a relationship that's more akin to the boss-employee or superior-subordiate relationship.
I am sorry, I have to disagree. It is not a real Bond movie. Bond is no longer Bond, he may be Bourne; he may be Batman, but he is not James Bond any more.
He has been totally emasculated and lacks any of the traditional Bond traits that made the series unique, such as the male, rugged yet refinded and independent, who works in the framework of a governmental organization.
Craig is not allowed to be the individual created to enjoy the things in life such as drinking, smoking , and sex (in fact in all three movies he looked like he was unable to enjoy anything) and he inabilitiy to articulate the fundamental manchaean bases of Bond existence in modern literature is telling on how far Mike and Barbara have deviated from the original EON films.
Have you read any of the books? My guess is you haven't. If you had you'd recognize Ian Fleming's Bond.
There is no such things as a "classic" Bond film. The first three are supposed to be the classics, but each is very different from the other two.
Of course I have read the books. Please tell me how Skyfall-Bond is part of Fleming's legacy. Taking bits from novels is not a "Fleming Bond".
The James Bond in the books was morose, bitter, and chronically depressed. He second guessed himself and he made mistakes and those mistakes often got people killed. He was a nicotine addict (70 cigarettes a day) and an alcoholic who took amphetamines to stay alert. The sex in the books was quite brutal (see the rape of Pussy Galore and the treatment of Viviene Michael). Because of these elements, Hollywood wouldn't touch the books. When the movies did get made, they watered down the character. Craig's Bond is about 2/3rds of the way back to the literary Bond.
Ian Fleming created an original character - the anti-hero as epic hero. Hollywood returned to the stereotype of the gentleman English adventurer that was already tired and stale by the end of the 40s.
The James Bond in the books was morose, bitter, and chronically depressed. He second guessed himself and he made mistakes and those mistakes often got people killed. He was a nicotine addict (70 cigarettes a day) and an alcoholic who took amphetamines to stay alert. The sex in the books was quite brutal (see the rape of Pussy Galore and the treatment of Viviene Michael). Because of these elements, Hollywood wouldn't touch the books. When the movies did get made, they watered down the character. Craig's Bond is about 2/3rds of the way back to the literary Bond.
Ian Fleming created an original character - the anti-hero as epic hero. Hollywood returned to the stereotype of the gentleman English adventurer that was already tired and stale by the end of the 40s.
Please don't waste my time anymore. Bond never raped Pussy Galore or mistreated Viviene Michael.
"And if I told you that I'm from the Ministry of Defence?" James Bond - The Property of a Lady
I am sorry, I have to disagree. It is not a real Bond movie. Bond is no longer Bond, he may be Bourne; he may be Batman, but he is not James Bond any more.
He has been totally emasculated and lacks any of the traditional Bond traits that made the series unique, such as the male, rugged yet refinded and independent, who works in the framework of a governmental organization.
Craig is not allowed to be the individual created to enjoy the things in life such as drinking, smoking , and sex (in fact in all three movies he looked like he was unable to enjoy anything) and he inabilitiy to articulate the fundamental manichaean bases of Bond existence in modern literature is telling on how far Mike and Barbara have deviated from the original EON films.
Hang on a sec... are you saying that Craig's Bond doesn't drink... or have sex?
In the version I watched of CR, he drinks like a fish, and has sleeps with 2 girls... so I'm not sure which versions you've been watching... )
(As for the smoking... times have changed... it's much better he doesn't. That doesn't then mean he's not 'manly' because of it, plus rugged and refined is EXACTLY how I would describe Craig !)
Can I ask what you mean by emasculated? My definition is: To be deprived strength or vigour... and even when Bond's been tortured.. and had his balls ripped to pieces, one of his first concerns was how he was going to please Vesper...so I can hardly see where your argument comes into play... not to mention that Craig is one of the most physically strong Bond's we have seen, plus his injuries have hardly stopped him from enjoying himself... in fact there have been 2 girls he's slept with, with a possible 3rd, since Vesper, so.....
And although this sounds very high-faluting "and he inabilitiy to articulate the fundamental manichaean bases of Bond existence in modern literature" = I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at...???? If you could enlighten me...
I take it you're not a fan of Craig's Bond....
1. I do not have anything against Craig. I have never had any problems with any of the actors who have played Bond. That is not the issue. The problems I have are more related to political correctness.
2. Let's talk about sex. Yes Craig has sex, but is it Bondian Sex or is it just enough for the franchise to include it as part of the overall Bond genre. My argument is that the Craig-Bond, with the exception of Strawberry Fields in QoS, does not appear to be allowed to pursue and to fullfill his own sexual interest. The sex in CR with Solange was only to gain information about Solange's husband, not to satisfy his sexual needs. The sex scenes in Skyfall have no context. Why was he having sex with the Island girl why did he have sex with Severine in the shower. He never showed any desire toward either one, therefore one concludes that there is a subtext that is ill defined. Why didn't he pursue a sexual encounter with Eve? Is he allowed in 21st century to be a man and to pursue a sexual conquest like Connery-Bond or Moore-Bond, vis-a-vis Manuala in Moonraker. I do not think he is. Is Male sexuality now considered wrong?
3. Drinking, smoking, and gambling. Again, in the novels Bond did these out of pleasure. In the Craig-Bond movie he drinks on the Island as part of depression, not because he derived pleasure from doing so. Gambling is not done out pleasure, only business in CR. He never smokes because the nanny-state won't allow it.
4. Manichaean bases of Bond. This is not really a Craig-Bond issue. In fact, none of the Bonds since Moore have really addressed this. There is no sense that the modern Bond believes he part of the struggle between Good and Evil. I am talking more of philosophical sense and not in a comic book sense. Instead we get, pardon the alliteration, fifty shades of gray. Bond is on the side of Good and the Villians are Evil. There has been no articulation of this since Sir Roger Moore was Bond. Fleming-Bond was a strong believer in this. Even in Goldfinger when he killed the Mexican thug, he was down a bit, but he knew it was done in the line of duty and he acknowledge that the thug was part of evil. After Vesper killed herself in CR he knew he had to destroy Smersh because Smersh was evil. I am tired of the modern moral equivalency. When Moore-Bond killed Drax and Stromberg he was killing evil, and it was very clear that Bond was good and they were bad.
1. I don't think political correctness is the reason why Bond doesn't smoke, (to use one of your gripes as an example) smoking kills... FACT. It causes Cancer.... FACT - and so in interest of having a M16 operative who is able to pass physical tests, it makes sense that he doesn't.
Look at all the flak that Severine got because she smoked....? It's just not a turn on anymore... unlike in the Connery days.
2. I would say that Bond DOES pursue women for his own sexual gratification. He did with Vesper.... (I really do wonder if you've watched CR at all....????) The fact he fell in love with her, and then lost her.... has somewhat tarnished his desire to pursue other women.... although like you said, he does with Fields.
And we see him do the same in in Skyfall.... the fact we see him in one scene looking slightly maudlin doesn't mean he hasn't been 'at it' for the entire time he's been 'enjoying death' - it's just not shown.
As for him feeling no desire for Severine... really? I for one thought he was captivated by her, the first moment he clapped eyes on her... and risked a whole heap of trouble to meet her on the yacht. Your view is obviously completely different...?
As for drinking.... he does plenty of it. In CR especially - heck he even names a drink after Vepser... and he does gamble for pleasure in CR - not just at the set up poker game, but in the bar as well.... where he meets Solange. (I think he desires and pursues her too... he just realises he can kill 2 birds with one stone, by getting info about her husband.... after all, he is there to do a job!)
We also have a gambling reference in Skyfall....but because Severine doesn't like to gamble, I bet you that is one of the reasons why he doesn't sit down to play.... he has her to pursue instead.
I rather think that you are a fan of the more spoon fed, formulaic style of Bond ... the fact we are seeing the much more realistic version doesn't sit right with you... even though, for me, it makes it far more believable. Perhaps you would prefer to see all of these scenarios spelt out for you, so you don't have to imagine... or presuppose?
And one last thing on your political correctness.... I don't think the producers are shying away from that at all... look at the hand fight we had with Bond in QoS with Mr Slate not to mention the rather brutal 'near rape' scene of the waitress with the General - I think we are focusing on different things.
Craig's Bond is not the smooth Bond. He's the gritty, down to earth, 'let's get the job done' Bond. And if women, gambling and sex fall in his path along the way... all the better. -{
She's worth whatever chaos she brings to the table and you know it. ~ Mark Anthony
IMO, one of the problems/pitfalls with portraying Bond in this day and age as perdogg prefers (and perdogg's opinion is well taken and valid) is not one of political correctness but one of reducing Bond to self parody, especially in the post Austin Powers era. Connery's Bond films of the 60's were basically parody proof because they were so "cutting edge" for the times. Now I do believe the literary Bond could be adapted to the screen in these times (and I think the Craig Bond films have attempted to do this to some level). However you're probably looking at an instant "R" rating and some very dark business with what could be a not particularly likable Bond. I think with Skyfall, EON has begun to create a balance between the more classic elements and the modern re-boot. If CR/QOS were about Bond's birth as a "oo", Skyfall would be his midlife crisis as a "00". It should be interesting where things go in 24 now that he is free of the dynamics and constraints of his relationship with Dench's "M" and the addition of the interpretations of some newly added "classic" elements in "Q" and Moneypenney.
IMO, one of the problems/pitfalls with portraying Bond in this day and age as perdogg prefers (and perdogg's opinion is well taken and valid) is not one of political correctness but one of reducing Bond to self parody, especially in the post Austin Powers era. Connery's Bond films of the 60's were basically parody proof because they were so "cutting edge" for the times. Now I do believe the literary Bond could be adapted to the screen in these times (and I think the Craig Bond films have attempted to do this to some level). However you're probably looking at an instant "R" rating and some very dark business with what could be a not particularly likable Bond. I think with Skyfall, EON has begun to create a balance between the more classic elements and the modern re-boot. If CR/QOS were about Bond's birth as a "oo", Skyfall would be his midlife crisis as a "00". It should be interesting where things go in 24 now that he is free of the dynamics and constraints of his relationship with Dench's "M" and the addition of the interpretations of some newly added "classic" elements in "Q" and Moneypenney.
One of the things I would like to say without turning this into a discussion of the novels, but I do not think that the novels we are as grim or as dark as some would like us to believe. I think this is just group think in order to justify the direction the movies are headed under Craig-Bond. I think the novels were probably more like of the tone, obviously not the quality, of the Brosnan-Bond and not as campy as the Moore-Bond, although Moore, I thought gave "flemingesque" qualities to Bond.
Yes, there were elements in the Fleming novels that would not have made it to the screen 50 years ago, such as the sex and the nudity - especially the scene in Dr No where Bond first meets HoneyChile.
There was personal enjoyment and humour in Bond's private life, as well as stark realities, but why is there all of this unnecessary psychobabble about it?
"And if I told you that I'm from the Ministry of Defence?" James Bond - The Property of a Lady
IMO, one of the problems/pitfalls with portraying Bond in this day and age as perdogg prefers (and perdogg's opinion is well taken and valid) is not one of political correctness but one of reducing Bond to self parody, especially in the post Austin Powers era. Connery's Bond films of the 60's were basically parody proof because they were so "cutting edge" for the times. Now I do believe the literary Bond could be adapted to the screen in these times (and I think the Craig Bond films have attempted to do this to some level). However you're probably looking at an instant "R" rating and some very dark business with what could be a not particularly likable Bond. I think with Skyfall, EON has begun to create a balance between the more classic elements and the modern re-boot. If CR/QOS were about Bond's birth as a "oo", Skyfall would be his midlife crisis as a "00". It should be interesting where things go in 24 now that he is free of the dynamics and constraints of his relationship with Dench's "M" and the addition of the interpretations of some newly added "classic" elements in "Q" and Moneypenney.
One of the things I would like to say without turning this into a discussion of the novels, but I do not think that the novels we are as grim or as dark as some would like us to believe. I think this is just group think in order to justify the direction the movies are headed under Craig-Bond. I think the novels were probably more like of the tone, obviously not the quality, of the Brosnan-Bond and not as campy as the Moore-Bond, although Moore, I thought gave "flemingesque" qualities to Bond.
Yes, there were elements in the Fleming novels that would not have made it to the screen 50 years ago, such as the sex and the nudity - especially the scene in Dr No where Bond first meets HoneyChile.
There was personal enjoyment and humour in Bond's private life, as well as stark realities, but why is there all of this unnecessary psychobabble about it?
In the books, at the end of CR, Vesper is dead. At the end of OHMSS, Tracy is dead. At the end of FRWL Bond is presumed dead. At the end of TMWTGG Bond has been shot and is presumed to be dying. At the end of TB Bond is hospitalized. At the end of YOLT Bond is an amnesiac. At the end of MR, Bond is rejected by Gala Brand. At the end of the TSWLM, a cop explains to Viviene Michael that men like Bond are very dangerous, even when they are on the "right" side, and are to be avoided at all costs.
Nope, nothing grim there. )
Speaking of Honeychile:
"It was a beautiful back. The skin was a very light uniform café au lait with the sheen of dull satin. The gentle curve of the backbone was deeply indented, suggesting more powerful muscles than is usual in a woman, and the behind was almost as firm and rounded as a boy's."
You won't see THAT description in any of the films.
A critic in the 50s wrote a review of Fleming's books, entitled "Sex, Sadism, and Snobbery", which is actually a pretty accurate summary (although not necessarily a bad thing).
I have read most of the Fleming novels, and I found them to be pretty grim and dark by and large. No "group think", just my freely-formed opinion based on what I read. And although I respect the fact that your opinion of the Craig Bond films appears to be well thought out, and not just gratuitous criticism, I still disagree with much of your analysis. I believe several others have done a very good job of providing the counterpoints to your view, especially Lexi and Howard B, so I'll leave it at that. Interesting discussion, though.
IMO, one of the problems/pitfalls with portraying Bond in this day and age as perdogg prefers (and perdogg's opinion is well taken and valid) is not one of political correctness but one of reducing Bond to self parody, especially in the post Austin Powers era. Connery's Bond films of the 60's were basically parody proof because they were so "cutting edge" for the times. Now I do believe the literary Bond could be adapted to the screen in these times (and I think the Craig Bond films have attempted to do this to some level). However you're probably looking at an instant "R" rating and some very dark business with what could be a not particularly likable Bond. I think with Skyfall, EON has begun to create a balance between the more classic elements and the modern re-boot. If CR/QOS were about Bond's birth as a "oo", Skyfall would be his midlife crisis as a "00". It should be interesting where things go in 24 now that he is free of the dynamics and constraints of his relationship with Dench's "M" and the addition of the interpretations of some newly added "classic" elements in "Q" and Moneypenney.
One of the things I would like to say without turning this into a discussion of the novels, but I do not think that the novels we are as grim or as dark as some would like us to believe. I think this is just group think in order to justify the direction the movies are headed under Craig-Bond. I think the novels were probably more like of the tone, obviously not the quality, of the Brosnan-Bond and not as campy as the Moore-Bond, although Moore, I thought gave "flemingesque" qualities to Bond.
Yes, there were elements in the Fleming novels that would not have made it to the screen 50 years ago, such as the sex and the nudity - especially the scene in Dr No where Bond first meets HoneyChile.
There was personal enjoyment and humour in Bond's private life, as well as stark realities, but why is there all of this unnecessary psychobabble about it?
perdogg
My opinions may be ill conceived, short sighted, dumb as a bag of hammers, etc.....but they are mine, not the product of "group think". Just because people may agree on certain things that differ from your opinion doesn't mean they are a bunch of lemmings marching in lockstep to the sea.
perdogg
My opinions may be ill conceived, short sighted, dumb as a bag of hammers, etc.....but they are mine, not the product of "group think". Just because people may agree on certain things that differ from your opinion doesn't mean they are a bunch of lemmings marching in lockstep to the sea.
I apologize - should not have insulted you or anyone else, it will not happen again.
"And if I told you that I'm from the Ministry of Defence?" James Bond - The Property of a Lady
Skyfall, whether it could be characterized as a "classic" James Bond movie or not... I would NOT define it a 'real' James Bond movie. The first 25 minutes was your typical action scene in a Bond film prior to the Bond song, but then from there on the story lacked in plot and character. Plot was all over the place - MI6 assuming Bond was dead and leaving him high and dry stranded as an alcoholic while they were under attack was atypical of what an organisation of their calibre would do for one of their top agents - why would Bond even consider going back to them after hearing M give Moneypenny the order to take the shot that almost killed him? ; the personal vendetta was more between Silva and M, had nothing to do with Bond; Severine was a mystery - what was the connection between her and the guy killed by the sniper who had the files of the MI6 agents? ; Silva promised he would kill 5 agents and eventually lost interest; how Silva got through maximum security to eliminate M ; and how he managed to trace Skyfall after Bond took M there into hiding was not delved into. Even worse, you'd think an organisation such as MI6 would take extreme measures to protect M and not leave the job to a one man army with a vintage shotgun and an old Aston Martin. Lastly, Bond was an orphan who knew nothing about his family other than his coat of arms (OHMSS explains this) and MI6 knew nothing of his past as well. Unless there is a director's cut that gels the information together, it will not make sense to me.
Classic elements needed for the audience to connect to the world of James Bond is elegance (Bond is meant to be suave & sophisticated), perfectionism (since when does Bond fail in marksmanship & fitness tests?), constant high speed chases, a catchy Bond song, and a good story that flows - even though I admit the sexual themes were present. And sadly, Skyfall showed none of that which is sad considering it was directed by Sam Mendes, who's usually on par with his directing. The screenwriters are as much to blame to this though.
Classic elements needed for the audience to connect to the world of James Bond is elegance (Bond is meant to be suave & sophisticated), perfectionism (since when does Bond fail in marksmanship & fitness tests?), constant high speed chases, a catchy Bond song, and a good story that flows - even though I admit the sexual themes were present. And sadly, Skyfall showed none of that which is sad considering it was directed by Sam Mendes, who's usually on par with his directing. The screenwriters are as much to blame to this though.
It's obvious that you have an opinion of what a "classic" James Bond movie is. But the thing is that not everyone might agree with your opinion.
Skyfall, Lastly, Bond was an orphan who knew nothing about his family other than his coat of arms (OHMSS explains this) and MI6 knew nothing of his past as well.
What ? It is known that Bond was orphaned when his parents were killed in a climbing accident ,I think it is mentioned he was about 10 ,he was then raised by an aunt (she would know about her own family), went to Eaton where he was expelled ,his whole family history is known to himself and MI6 . Have you ever tried to get NSV clearance without all your family history, I had enough problems when I did not know my fathers last address and his exact date of birth (I hadn't seen him for over 30 yrs) Bond wasn't an orphan running about the streets,fending for himself when he was selected for the RN 8-)
Comments
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. I've never really bought the idea that QoS was that close to a Bourne movie.
Pretty much the only thing in QoS that reminded me of Bourne was the fight between Bond and Slate, which quite frankly was a welcome addition, since, to me anyway, putting in a Connery-style fight scene in a movie in the 21st Century would seem absurdly outdated.
Hi, sorry for delay in getting back, its at the start of Jellyfish, starts out sounding like Dark Knight then moves into the opening horn section on OHMSS..
cheers
NickP
M: "Jealous husbands, outraged chefs, humiliated tailors . . . the list is endless."
complete hogwash
A classic Bond movie= without a shadow of a doubt thats why its doing so well with Cinema goers and critics alike.
I am sorry, I have to disagree. It is not a real Bond movie. Bond is no longer Bond, he may be Bourne; he may be Batman, but he is not James Bond any more.
He has been totally emasculated and lacks any of the traditional Bond traits that made the series unique, such as the male, rugged yet refinded and independent, who works in the framework of a governmental organization.
Craig is not allowed to be the individual created to enjoy the things in life such as drinking, smoking , and sex (in fact in all three movies he looked like he was unable to enjoy anything) and he inabilitiy to articulate the fundamental manchaean bases of Bond existence in modern literature is telling on how far Mike and Barbara have deviated from the original EON films.
Have you read any of the books? My guess is you haven't. If you had you'd recognize Ian Fleming's Bond.
There is no such things as a "classic" Bond film. The first three are supposed to be the classics, but each is very different from the other two.
Of course I have read the books. Please tell me how Skyfall-Bond is part of Fleming's legacy. Taking bits from novels is not a "Fleming Bond".
My friend at The Number 007 http://n007.thegoldeneye.com/film_commentary/skyfall_review.html#farewell_grandeur is spot on.
Hang on a sec... are you saying that Craig's Bond doesn't drink... or have sex?
In the version I watched of CR, he drinks like a fish, and has sleeps with 2 girls... so I'm not sure which versions you've been watching...
(As for the smoking... times have changed... it's much better he doesn't. That doesn't then mean he's not 'manly' because of it, plus rugged and refined is EXACTLY how I would describe Craig !)
Can I ask what you mean by emasculated? My definition is: To be deprived strength or vigour... and even when Bond's been tortured.. and had his balls ripped to pieces, one of his first concerns was how he was going to please Vesper...so I can hardly see where your argument comes into play... not to mention that Craig is one of the most physically strong Bond's we have seen, plus his injuries have hardly stopped him from enjoying himself... in fact there have been 2 girls he's slept with, with a possible 3rd, since Vesper, so.....
And although this sounds very high-faluting "and he inabilitiy to articulate the fundamental manchaean bases of Bond existence in modern literature" = I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at...???? If you could enlighten me...
I take it you're not a fan of Craig's Bond....
I think that's really the bottom line. I certainly couldn't find the evidence of all of this so-called "emasculation" in Craig's Bond films, and I think you have amply pointed out some holes in that line of reasoning. -{
I feel that being "too realistic" would have helped the Skyfall estate sequence.
But . . . what is a "classic" Bond movie? I think many people have different interpretations on that particular description of the franchise. For me, I wouldn't classify "SKYFALL" as "classic". At least for me.
Barbel's list was quite comprehensive. However, what Skyfall lacked was a gunbarrel at the very start of the film. I'm also finding it hard these days to distinguish elements of Fleming's Bond from generic action hero in Craig's performances, whereas Connery, Dalton, Brosnan and Lazenby all played a very Fleming-esque character (in Connery's case, in his early performances only). Sure, Craig's Bond is entertaining to watch, and Skyfall is a fantastic film. But when I compare it with the classics, it lacks a certain "Fleming" feel to it.
I agree it's as good as Casino Royale, and I agree that both films will be regarded highly by many Bond fans, but I don't agree that either of the two were the "best Bond film". As for winning new fans with young kids, Fleming himself said that his works are intended as adult adventures. They're certainly not intended to be targeted at the younger audience.
You're conflating the terms "classic" and "brilliance".
Is Skyfall a "classic"? No. Will it be? Time will tell.
1. I do not have anything against Craig. I have never had any problems with any of the actors who have played Bond. That is not the issue. The problems I have are more related to political correctness.
2. Let's talk about sex. Yes Craig has sex, but is it Bondian Sex or is it just enough for the franchise to include it as part of the overall Bond genre. My argument is that the Craig-Bond, with the exception of Strawberry Fields in QoS, does not appear to be allowed to pursue and to fullfill his own sexual interest. The sex in CR with Solange was only to gain information about Solange's husband, not to satisfy his sexual needs. The sex scenes in Skyfall have no context. Why was he having sex with the Island girl why did he have sex with Severine in the shower. He never showed any desire toward either one, therefore one concludes that there is a subtext that is ill defined. Why didn't he pursue a sexual encounter with Eve? Is he allowed in 21st century to be a man and to pursue a sexual conquest like Connery-Bond or Moore-Bond, vis-a-vis Manuala in Moonraker. I do not think he is. Is Male sexuality now considered wrong?
3. Drinking, smoking, and gambling. Again, in the novels Bond did these out of pleasure. In the Craig-Bond movie he drinks on the Island as part of depression, not because he derived pleasure from doing so. Gambling is not done out pleasure, only business in CR. He never smokes because the nanny-state won't allow it.
4. Manichaean bases of Bond. This is not really a Craig-Bond issue. In fact, none of the Bonds since Moore have really addressed this. There is no sense that the modern Bond believes he part of the struggle between Good and Evil. I am talking more of philosophical sense and not in a comic book sense. Instead we get, pardon the alliteration, fifty shades of gray. Bond is on the side of Good and the Villians are Evil. There has been no articulation of this since Sir Roger Moore was Bond. Fleming-Bond was a strong believer in this. Even in Goldfinger when he killed the Mexican thug, he was down a bit, but he knew it was done in the line of duty and he acknowledge that the thug was part of evil. After Vesper killed herself in CR he knew he had to destroy Smersh because Smersh was evil. I am tired of the modern moral equivalency. When Moore-Bond killed Drax and Stromberg he was killing evil, and it was very clear that Bond was good and they were bad.
I have to disagree. The Bond-M relationship started to emasculate Bond before Daniels tenure, but has intensified into a bizarre mother and wayward child. In Transactional Analysis terms M is ' Critical Parent' with Bond as oscillating between 'rebellious' & 'compliant' child. The other point that stands for me is the lack of pleasure for Bond, yes he fleetingly sleeps with Women,but I get no sense of enjoyment even in that. It is central to Bond that he takes pleasure where he can as respite from his 'tough life'.That pleasure comes in many forms, including cars, clothes, cool toys for boys, luxury travel and yes women. Was hoping that Skyfall would bring some of this out, but apart from a self conscious adjustment of his cuff links there was precious little of that.
I have to agree. This might be an unpopular opinion, but I don't believe Dame Judi Dench should ever have been chosen to play 'M'.
I'm looking forward to a colder, more distant relationship between this new, male M, a relationship that's more akin to the boss-employee or superior-subordiate relationship.
The James Bond in the books was morose, bitter, and chronically depressed. He second guessed himself and he made mistakes and those mistakes often got people killed. He was a nicotine addict (70 cigarettes a day) and an alcoholic who took amphetamines to stay alert. The sex in the books was quite brutal (see the rape of Pussy Galore and the treatment of Viviene Michael). Because of these elements, Hollywood wouldn't touch the books. When the movies did get made, they watered down the character. Craig's Bond is about 2/3rds of the way back to the literary Bond.
Ian Fleming created an original character - the anti-hero as epic hero. Hollywood returned to the stereotype of the gentleman English adventurer that was already tired and stale by the end of the 40s.
Please don't waste my time anymore. Bond never raped Pussy Galore or mistreated Viviene Michael.
1. I don't think political correctness is the reason why Bond doesn't smoke, (to use one of your gripes as an example) smoking kills... FACT. It causes Cancer.... FACT - and so in interest of having a M16 operative who is able to pass physical tests, it makes sense that he doesn't.
Look at all the flak that Severine got because she smoked....? It's just not a turn on anymore... unlike in the Connery days.
2. I would say that Bond DOES pursue women for his own sexual gratification. He did with Vesper.... (I really do wonder if you've watched CR at all....????) The fact he fell in love with her, and then lost her.... has somewhat tarnished his desire to pursue other women.... although like you said, he does with Fields.
And we see him do the same in in Skyfall.... the fact we see him in one scene looking slightly maudlin doesn't mean he hasn't been 'at it' for the entire time he's been 'enjoying death' - it's just not shown.
As for him feeling no desire for Severine... really? I for one thought he was captivated by her, the first moment he clapped eyes on her... and risked a whole heap of trouble to meet her on the yacht. Your view is obviously completely different...?
As for drinking.... he does plenty of it. In CR especially - heck he even names a drink after Vepser... and he does gamble for pleasure in CR - not just at the set up poker game, but in the bar as well.... where he meets Solange. (I think he desires and pursues her too... he just realises he can kill 2 birds with one stone, by getting info about her husband.... after all, he is there to do a job!)
We also have a gambling reference in Skyfall....but because Severine doesn't like to gamble, I bet you that is one of the reasons why he doesn't sit down to play.... he has her to pursue instead.
I rather think that you are a fan of the more spoon fed, formulaic style of Bond ... the fact we are seeing the much more realistic version doesn't sit right with you... even though, for me, it makes it far more believable. Perhaps you would prefer to see all of these scenarios spelt out for you, so you don't have to imagine... or presuppose?
And one last thing on your political correctness.... I don't think the producers are shying away from that at all... look at the hand fight we had with Bond in QoS with Mr Slate not to mention the rather brutal 'near rape' scene of the waitress with the General - I think we are focusing on different things.
Craig's Bond is not the smooth Bond. He's the gritty, down to earth, 'let's get the job done' Bond. And if women, gambling and sex fall in his path along the way... all the better. -{
One of the things I would like to say without turning this into a discussion of the novels, but I do not think that the novels we are as grim or as dark as some would like us to believe. I think this is just group think in order to justify the direction the movies are headed under Craig-Bond. I think the novels were probably more like of the tone, obviously not the quality, of the Brosnan-Bond and not as campy as the Moore-Bond, although Moore, I thought gave "flemingesque" qualities to Bond.
Yes, there were elements in the Fleming novels that would not have made it to the screen 50 years ago, such as the sex and the nudity - especially the scene in Dr No where Bond first meets HoneyChile.
There was personal enjoyment and humour in Bond's private life, as well as stark realities, but why is there all of this unnecessary psychobabble about it?
In the books, at the end of CR, Vesper is dead. At the end of OHMSS, Tracy is dead. At the end of FRWL Bond is presumed dead. At the end of TMWTGG Bond has been shot and is presumed to be dying. At the end of TB Bond is hospitalized. At the end of YOLT Bond is an amnesiac. At the end of MR, Bond is rejected by Gala Brand. At the end of the TSWLM, a cop explains to Viviene Michael that men like Bond are very dangerous, even when they are on the "right" side, and are to be avoided at all costs.
Nope, nothing grim there.
Speaking of Honeychile:
"It was a beautiful back. The skin was a very light uniform café au lait with the sheen of dull satin. The gentle curve of the backbone was deeply indented, suggesting more powerful muscles than is usual in a woman, and the behind was almost as firm and rounded as a boy's."
You won't see THAT description in any of the films.
A critic in the 50s wrote a review of Fleming's books, entitled "Sex, Sadism, and Snobbery", which is actually a pretty accurate summary (although not necessarily a bad thing).
My opinions may be ill conceived, short sighted, dumb as a bag of hammers, etc.....but they are mine, not the product of "group think". Just because people may agree on certain things that differ from your opinion doesn't mean they are a bunch of lemmings marching in lockstep to the sea.
I apologize - should not have insulted you or anyone else, it will not happen again.
Perhaps in the first two movies, Connery's Bond was parody proof. By "GOLDFINGER", he wasn't.
Classic elements needed for the audience to connect to the world of James Bond is elegance (Bond is meant to be suave & sophisticated), perfectionism (since when does Bond fail in marksmanship & fitness tests?), constant high speed chases, a catchy Bond song, and a good story that flows - even though I admit the sexual themes were present. And sadly, Skyfall showed none of that which is sad considering it was directed by Sam Mendes, who's usually on par with his directing. The screenwriters are as much to blame to this though.
It's obvious that you have an opinion of what a "classic" James Bond movie is. But the thing is that not everyone might agree with your opinion.
What ? It is known that Bond was orphaned when his parents were killed in a climbing accident ,I think it is mentioned he was about 10 ,he was then raised by an aunt (she would know about her own family), went to Eaton where he was expelled ,his whole family history is known to himself and MI6 . Have you ever tried to get NSV clearance without all your family history, I had enough problems when I did not know my fathers last address and his exact date of birth (I hadn't seen him for over 30 yrs) Bond wasn't an orphan running about the streets,fending for himself when he was selected for the RN 8-)