Talking about the first half. What I'm saying is that to me, the 2nd half is bad, and only certain elements from the 1st half are good. So overall I find the film a bit average.
GF has never ranked high for me, but for me the second half is what really makes the film IMO. The fort knox raid is so cool, as is the oddjob fight and Goldfinger's meeting explaining his plan to his investors.
In classic lit critical terms the 'hero' has to succeed by his own efforts which is arguably not the case in GF.
He does if you understand that his seduction of Pussy turns her loyalties and that his escape not once but twice leads to the denouement.
Goldfinger is easily the most successful Bond film for me, a wonderfully colorful and breezy film that even with broad humor manages some great tension and dramatic scenes. It is far and away more witty and interesting than any of the cardboard cut out imitators that follow it, and everything from the wonderful Ken Adams sets to John Barry's epic score to Guy Hamilton's able direction to Sean Connery's spot on performance make it a masterpiece in the genre. If you're waiting for cheesy psychological subtext. half-baked scripts, and sound and fury signifying nothing that modern films offer, you may be disappointed.
Goldfinger is easily the most successful Bond film for me, a wonderfully colorful and breezy film that even with broad humor manages some great tension and dramatic scenes. It is far and away more witty and interesting than any of the cardboard cut out imitators that follow it, and everything from the wonderful Ken Adams sets to John Barry's epic score to Guy Hamilton's able direction to Sean Connery's spot on performance make it a masterpiece in the genre.
I understand what you're saying here and I find it hard to disagree because strictly on formula and the right parts, it works. But....
If you're waiting for cheesy psychological subtext. half-baked scripts, and sound and fury signifying nothing that modern films offer, you may be disappointed.
I can't agree with that.
Whether you're talking about Bond films or just in general, there are so many more Bond films that either are a copy of the formula or a slight deviation that to me are much more enjoyable films with deeper meaning that play well again and again. Yeah, Goldfinger is iconic and well put together, and it's irresistible as the quintessential Bond which launched the mania and all the playboy, 1960s, classy gentleman vibe that crops up in all sorts of references to that time (Catch Me If You Can and Mad Men etc.). But on the whole as a Bond fan - there's much more to like that proceeds and follows GF.
Overtime I find myself more and more bored with GF and more and more turned off by the film's weaker look and feel.
Not me. I find most of the stuff I listed -- cheesy psychological subtext, etc. -- to just be trivial filler that substitutes for the lack of creativity on the part of the writers and director to find fresh ways to present Bond.
Once in a while -- On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Casino Royale, for instance, though they are remarkably similar stories -- to cleanse the palette is fine, but then we have to endure Licence to Kill, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall.
Not all Bond films have to be like Goldfinger. Certainly, Dr. No and From Russia with Love are not. But I don't find the films that come later to be significant in their development of the Bond character. Seriously, what do we really learn? That he drinks a lot? That he can be depressed? That he can be hurt? We know that already. And we don't really see a significant exploration of any of this so much as just downbeat lip service. Even Casino Royale, good as it was, didn't go as far with the romance to make the rest seem quite as dramatic for me.
The problem is too many people conflate the idea with the execution. What's the difference? The brilliant Goldfinger versus the turgid A View to a Kill. The fantastic You Only Live Twice versus the campy Moonraker. Just because one recognizes the idea doesn't mean they're all the same, any more than the local carnival is Disney World or Mike and Molly is The Honeymooners.
Once the A-level writing and production values of the 1960s wore off, we got the B- and C-level iterations. A good example is the whole lair concept. In each of the 60s Bonds, the villain had some kind of either tastefully expensive or incredibly elaborate, or both, lair, with expansive architecture, scores of goons, and imaginative, deadly traps. By Live and Let Die and The Man with the Golden Gun, the henchmen have been reduced to maybe a dozen people at most and a few set pieces in a room. By Goldeneye, it's a rusty telescope, and by Spectre, it's a Howard Johnson's built into an oil refinery in the desert. Goldfinger pulls out all the stops, while quite a bit of the tripe that follows keeps trying to put the stop back in. But take away even that, and the aesthetic is just cool.
I think the "lack of creativity" that you point out is what happens when a film series, that is incredibly successful, must be sustained for such a long time...
You might find my answer a bit of a cop-out, but I can't think of much else that can be done when producing pure entertainment. The latest Star War film is pure entertainment, but it isn't really anything new is it?
It's almost as if we're having an argument about an artist producing incredible original artwork on a regular basis - is it really possible or is it essentially always more of the same?
It's almost as if we're having an argument about an artist producing incredible original artwork on a regular basis - is it really possible or is it essentially always more of the same?
That's a VERY good point and worthy of more in-depth discussion IMO! {[]
I think the "lack of creativity" that you point out is what happens when a film series, that is incredibly successful, must be sustained for such a long time...
You might find my answer a bit of a cop-out, but I can't think of much else that can be done when producing pure entertainment. The latest Star War film is pure entertainment, but it isn't really anything new is it?
It's almost as if we're having an argument about an artist producing incredible original artwork on a regular basis - is it really possible or is it essentially always more of the same?
I think there's truth to that, but the funny thing is a TV series can do this -- with more episodes and with less time to produce each of them, especially in the U.S. Movies, especially these days, have a lot more time to be creative, but they still turn into dreck the overwhelming majority of the time.
I think another problem since the demise of the studio system is too many cooks in the kitchen. The committees are bigger, and the number of egos all mixing in the process are greater. Gone are the days when a single vision -- Hitchcock, for instance -- seemed to guide a production.
Seriously, the Bond formula -- essentially three or four plots reworked for each film -- is not the problem. If it were, so many other films wouldn't have copied it over the past 40 years. Look at the Die Hard series, for instance. It's just the climax of every Bond film you've ever seen stretched out over two hours.
Where the Bond films mostly break down is two areas: The writing, which has been consistently weak for decades, with the rare exception of an anomaly like Casino Royale, and the production values. Oh, they spend a lot of money on both, but it isn't always wisely spent. With a Bond film, it's mostly about the presentation -- finding the right actor to play Bond, the right clothes to wear, the right toys to play with, the right girl to co-star, and the right script to act out. Because so much about Bond is aesthtic, a flaw in any of those areas results in a less-than-spectacular presentation, the way a flaw in a simple but expensive suit is far more noticeable. With Bond, they already have the recipe, so that's not the problem. The problem is the ingredients are not always top-notch, nor are the bakers.
It's almost as if we're having an argument about an artist producing incredible original artwork on a regular basis - is it really possible or is it essentially always more of the same?
That's a VERY good point and worthy of more in-depth discussion IMO! {[]
It's entirely possible, but it also depends on what means by "original." Nothing about the Bond films is truly original. They are always formulaic in some form. What's left is freshness of the approach and aesthetic. And that certainly can happen, in the same way that someone figures out how to make a romantic comedy or a trenchcoat mystery seem fresh again, even though they are all essentially plotted and conceived in the same -- it's mostly in the execution.
It's almost as if we're having an argument about an artist producing incredible original artwork on a regular basis - is it really possible or is it essentially always more of the same?
That's a VERY good point and worthy of more in-depth discussion IMO! {[]
It's entirely possible, but it also depends on what means by "original." Nothing about the Bond films is truly original. They are always formulaic in some form. What's left is freshness of the approach and aesthetic. And that certainly can happen, in the same way that someone figures out how to make a romantic comedy or a trenchcoat mystery seem fresh again, even though they are all essentially plotted and conceived in the same -- it's mostly in the execution.
I think the freshness comes from serving up a classic dish in a new way. For the most part the reboot has been successful in doing that, but mainly by Craig subverting the archetype by not being at all charming and relentlessly hard as nails. He also showed a lot of the angst that was hinted at by Dalton (my favourite Bond, but also far from a charmer ) The problem for me at least was the telegraphed inevitability of homage and half arsed reveals. Also very little action (if you don't count the dullest PTS in the series history and a car chase without incident, tension or drama) Rogue Nation proved that you could still pull this off with panache but not the present team. It may be controversial but in the dream team of Craig and Mendes you had a star and Director who both seem to think Bond is not worthy of their talents and it showed.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
I like all of Craigs finales minus SP, QOS was rather average finale as well. But SF and CR I have no problems with.
The only finale of Craig's that I think is well done is SF, even though Bond fails because his plan is stupid.
I agree from a plot perspective both SP and SF finales make little sense. SF went to Bonds childhood home just to create more pointless back story. Was it cinematic and action packed? Yes. Necessary? No.
SP was similar. They rushed back to London I feel to wrap up the C and mi6 storyline. Like I said before I really think they could have had the finale at Blofelds lair. Difference with SF and SP was at least SF finale was very entertaining. SP was meh.
I think another problem since the demise of the studio system is too many cooks in the kitchen. The committees are bigger, and the number of egos all mixing in the process are greater. Gone are the days when a single vision -- Hitchcock, for instance -- seemed to guide a production.
Cubby pointed this out in that really long TSWLM documentary, that the scripts are essentially put together by committee and that because of that, it struggles to get writers who wish to have carte blanche.
Where the Bond films mostly break down is two areas: The writing, which has been consistently weak for decades, with the rare exception of an anomaly like Casino Royale, and the production values. Oh, they spend a lot of money on both, but it isn't always wisely spent. With a Bond film, it's mostly about the presentation -- finding the right actor to play Bond, the right clothes to wear, the right toys to play with, the right girl to co-star, and the right script to act out. Because so much about Bond is aesthetic, a flaw in any of those areas results in a less-than-spectacular presentation, the way a flaw in a simple but expensive suit is far more noticeable. With Bond, they already have the recipe, so that's not the problem. The problem is the ingredients are not always top-notch, nor are the bakers.
To me Bond has never been "perfect" and my top five Bond films are full of flaws, some with cheesy lines and bad sequences. Hell, Bond films never actually make it into my "Top 10" movies!
For the genre, I'd say Goldfinger is the "perfect" film -- none of the others or the knock offs have ever eclipsed it. Nothing is flawless, but the flaws in all the rest of them are far more noticeable.
For the genre, I'd say Goldfinger is the "perfect" film -- none of the others or the knock offs have ever eclipsed it. Nothing is flawless, but the flaws in all the rest of them are far more noticeable.
That's a VERY good point and worthy of more in-depth discussion IMO! {[]
It's entirely possible, but it also depends on what means by "original." Nothing about the Bond films is truly original. They are always formulaic in some form. What's left is freshness of the approach and aesthetic. And that certainly can happen, in the same way that someone figures out how to make a romantic comedy or a trenchcoat mystery seem fresh again, even though they are all essentially plotted and conceived in the same -- it's mostly in the execution.
I think the freshness comes from serving up a classic dish in a new way. For the most part the reboot has been successful in doing that, but mainly by Craig subverting the archetype by not being at all charming and relentlessly hard as nails. He also showed a lot of the angst that was hinted at by Dalton (my favourite Bond, but also far from a charmer ) The problem for me at least was the telegraphed inevitability of homage and half arsed reveals. Also very little action (if you don't count the dullest PTS in the series history and a car chase without incident, tension or drama) Rogue Nation proved that you could still pull this off with panache but not the present team. It may be controversial but in the dream team of Craig and Mendes you had a star and Director who both seem to think Bond is not worthy of their talents and it showed.
Sure, though I think Craig's success comes less from playing Bond against type and more from being closer to the original type: He's the most Connery-esque actor to play the part since, well, Connery. The problem with Craig's Bonds, except arguably Casino Royale, is the writing, which assumes less is more. That's one reason why the final acts are basically a let down. By now, we should have some imaginative, big budget endings. Instead, we get all set up and very little pay off. The irony is it should be easy -- a huge fight at the lair.
I like all of Craigs finales minus SP, QOS was rather average finale as well. But SF and CR I have no problems with.
The only finale of Craig's that I think is well done is SF, even though Bond fails because his plan is stupid.
I agree from a plot perspective both SP and SF finales make little sense. SF went to Bonds childhood home just to create more pointless back story. Was it cinematic and action packed? Yes. Necessary? No.
SP was similar. They rushed back to London I feel to wrap up the C and mi6 storyline. Like I said before I really think they could have had the finale at Blofelds lair. Difference with SF and SP was at least SF finale was very entertaining. SP was meh.
I think they believe they're making Bond more "arty" and "weighty" by doing this. I don't agree, but Craig and Mendes seem the type to think so. To me, it's all just unsatisfying lip service to character development, and a way to shoe horn trivia into the story. But I didn't find the SF ending entertaining because I'd seen it done before and better, right down to a decaying manor house, an old guy with a shotgun, makeshift weapons and traps, two men and a woman trapped inside and fighting against marauding invaders, and music playing as a distraction (unfortunately, the whole scene isn't here but only this part):
I think they believe they're making Bond more "arty" and "weighty" by doing this. I don't agree, but Craig and Mendes seem the type to think so. To me, it's all just unsatisfying lip service to character development, and a way to shoe horn trivia into the story.
CR, SF and SP are all "modern", moody and interesting looking/feeling films. In terms of Bond films, I don't feel that this style has ever been done - mostly because it didn't need doing.
DAD signalled a point where Bond could no longer really sustain just being action films with Bond inserted by numbers, audiences would've become tired, quickly. They didn't do anything for character development. At least the latest run of films have brought in new fans and increased people's exposure to the franchise.
I don't particularly enjoy the Craig films wholeheartedly as much as others in the series, at times I find them a touch pretentious and unnecessary and even slightly boring.
I've followed all your comments and find myself agreeing with your points about the cooks and the ingredients - but I am slightly baffled as to what a potential solution would be other than completely cleaning house and cooking Mexican instead of Japanese....
The whole Tarantino directing a Bond film is great discussion point, I've raised this with non-Bond fans who think he'd ruin Bond and the film would be "cool" (because it's Tarantino) but would be "completely different" to everything else. It's an interesting viewpoint and sustains my belief that the success of Bond is down to "more of the same".
He does if you understand that his seduction of Pussy turns her loyalties and that his escape not once but twice leads to the denouement.
That's a pretty big "IF" ….
Bond could have escaped at this point since Goldfinger was fool enough to let him wander off with Pussy. Instead he overpowers her, rapes/makes love to her and then goes back into captivity. Bond has no intention or idea that his actions would cause Pussy to change sides. Bond's attempt to notify the CIA via Mr. Solo was a solid attempt, but the scriptwriters snuffed that one out.
Even Bond jokes that the president doesn't realize how trivial his involvement was…
Goldfinger has been considered the "perfect" Bond film, but it's falling apart around the seams and many fans are noticing. The only reason I rank it as highly as I do is GF is my favorite Fleming novel.
My current 10 favorite:
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
You Only Live Twice comes to mind, however I find the hollowed-out volcano highly entertaining.
Looking back on my original post, I definitely consider YOLT to have a worse second half. The volcano lair is cool, but Aki's death, the wedding scene, and Bond turning Japanese all contribute to sinking this otherwise fun film.
My current 10 favorite:
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
I think they believe they're making Bond more "arty" and "weighty" by doing this. I don't agree, but Craig and Mendes seem the type to think so. To me, it's all just unsatisfying lip service to character development, and a way to shoe horn trivia into the story.
CR, SF and SP are all "modern", moody and interesting looking/feeling films. In terms of Bond films, I don't feel that this style has ever been done - mostly because it didn't need doing.
DAD signalled a point where Bond could no longer really sustain just being action films with Bond inserted by numbers, audiences would've become tired, quickly. They didn't do anything for character development. At least the latest run of films have brought in new fans and increased people's exposure to the franchise.
I don't particularly enjoy the Craig films wholeheartedly as much as others in the series, at times I find them a touch pretentious and unnecessary and even slightly boring.
I've followed all your comments and find myself agreeing with your points about the cooks and the ingredients - but I am slightly baffled as to what a potential solution would be other than completely cleaning house and cooking Mexican instead of Japanese....
The whole Tarantino directing a Bond film is great discussion point, I've raised this with non-Bond fans who think he'd ruin Bond and the film would be "cool" (because it's Tarantino) but would be "completely different" to everything else. It's an interesting viewpoint and sustains my belief that the success of Bond is down to "more of the same".
The solution's easy -- improve the aesthetics and be more like the 1960s films in balance, creativity, and excitement.
Millennials basically want to pretend they're living in the middle 1960s anyway, with the clothes and hairstyles --even the music, social activities, and listening to LPs again. If there's ever been another time for it, it is now. But that time is fading, as new fads and a new generation are just around the corner.
Almost everything that has made the Craig Bonds interesting again revolves around the retro qualities and not the so-called modern qualities. Is it really that Bond is depressed and screwed up that makes him interesting? Is that what mass audiences in particular are responding to? No, it's the idea that he's brash and unpredictable again and would rather let his fists do the talking -- like an old-fashioned movie hero. He's as confident and masculine as Connery and, like him, seems to have earned it based as much on what he does as what he looks like. He's not just a model. Audiences want to see what he does next because they're not sure.
For all the talk about the need for subtext, Spectre was just as mopey dopey as Skyfall about Bond's psychology, but the difference is they dared to try to insert some Roger Moore-style humor. too. Tonally, it felt wrong, perhaps more to critics than general audiences, but not because there were jokes but because they were the wrong kind of jokes for Craig. Did we ever see Connery landing on a couch like that? (The closest thing is his landing on a chair in Tanaka's office, but it wasn't broadly funny but the punchline to not knowing if Bond was going to be assassinated or not.) Did he ever do the parachute thing?
The right sort of humor for Craig is more like handing the golf ball back to Odd Job or even an exchange like "Do you expect me to talk?" It's telling an enemy agent trapped in a sauna that Bond will let the chef know. The torture scene with Blofeld -- which looked as exciting as rebooting a computer at the Apple store -- was a complete missed opportunity because the minimal set and cheesy dialogue were so flat. Imagine if there had been something closer to Goldfinger. in scope and in wit.
If anything, the modern qualities -- like the lackluster third acts -- are what hold Craig's Bonds further back. Be like a 1960s Bond -- witty, moving, exciting, perverse, sophisticated, all wrapped up in one rather than lean on only one or two areas. Pull out all the stops. Play the A game. Die Another Day didn't fail because it was fantasy -- it failed because it was crappy fantasy. It was poorly conceived and executed. But outside, maybe, of an invisible car, none of the ideas were fundamentally bad. People didn't complain about Bond ice boating or whatever, for instance -- they complained that the CGI was laughably poor. They didn't complain that a laser was going to destroy things. They complained that they'd see it before and better. And Brosnan personally is just not interesting enough to carry the role. Take away the trappings, and there's not much for the audience to pay attention to.
He does if you understand that his seduction of Pussy turns her loyalties and that his escape not once but twice leads to the denouement.
That's a pretty big "IF" ….
Bond could have escaped at this point since Goldfinger was fool enough to let him wander off with Pussy. Instead he overpowers her, rapes/makes love to her and then goes back into captivity. Bond has no intention or idea that his actions would cause Pussy to change sides. Bond's attempt to notify the CIA via Mr. Solo was a solid attempt, but the scriptwriters snuffed that one out.
Even Bond jokes that the president doesn't realize how trivial his involvement was…
Goldfinger has been considered the "perfect" Bond film, but it's falling apart around the seams and many fans are noticing. The only reason I rank it as highly as I do is GF is my favorite Fleming novel.
Wow, you were watching a different movie.
Bond tries to seduce Pussy from the get go, just as he does with every other attractive woman in the movie (Jill, Dink, Tilly, etc.), which is why she tells him to turn off the charm. She knows what he is up to. But being Bond, he keeps at it. He plays every card he has, even her.
The so-called rape scene is only so to a modern audience. It's clear that's not how the writer and director intended it. Their jujitsu scene, or whatever, is just the metaphor for what is going on emotionally. The subtext is he senses she's really attracted to him, but simply too proud and stubborn to admit it. He is proven right when she gives in, and even further when she chooses not only to change sides vis a vis Goldfinger but even her sexuality! That she stays with Bond at the end further confirms this reality. His mild surprise when he says "I must have appealed to her maternal instincts" suggests that even he didn't think he could pull it off.
How is Bond going to escape at that point, and why would he? Goldfinger's Chinese/North Korean troops are everywhere, and more importantly, Bond doesn't even know all the details yet. Where is the bomb? How is Goldfinger going to get it there? How does he know if there isn't yet another bomb somewhere? Goldfinger is unpredictable and a cheat. He could be planning any number of things beyond what he's admitted.
So, Bond's playing a game of strategy with Goldfinger to keep getting closer and closer to an advantage point to do something from the inside, another version of cards at the beginning and golf in the middle. The best chances of stopping Goldfinger are to have a man on the inside stick close by him, not one on the outside wondering what is going on. That's why he tries to send a note -- not to escape but to alert others so it becomes a two-pronged effort to stop Goldfinger. Bond has to see it through till the end to be sure.
Escaping would merely mean no one would be in Goldfinger's camp anymore. If escaping were all that was required, Bond would have ducked out earlier when he had the chance and not listened in on the lecture. And Bond is ready to see it to the end, including dying if necessary to stop the plot.
Bond is doing everything he can at the end of the film. It's just not an empty-headed modern film where the assumption is all he has to do is burst in with guns blazing at the end and a series of convenient coincidences and happenstances will allow him to emerge victorious. He is very carefully observing and planning, and he is using every resource he can, even Pussy. He knows she's a survivor and smarter than the others -- and his first sign that she might help him is when he tells her Goldfinger is mad, and he sees the worry in her face. He is a thinker. A secret agent.
The solution's easy -- improve the aesthetics and be more like the 1960s films in balance, creativity, and excitement.
Millennials basically want to pretend they're living in the middle 1960s anyway, with the clothes and hairstyles --even the music, social activities, and listening to LPs again. If there's ever been another time for it, it is now. But that time is fading, as new fads and a new generation are just around the corner.
Almost everything that has made the Craig Bonds interesting again revolves around the retro qualities and not the so-called modern qualities. Is it really that Bond is depressed and screwed up that makes him interesting? Is that what mass audiences in particular are responding to? No, it's the idea that he's brash and unpredictable again and would rather let his fists do the talking -- like an old-fashioned movie hero. He's as confident and masculine as Connery and, like him, seems to have earned it based as much on what he does as what he looks like. He's not just a model. Audiences want to see what he does next because they're not sure.
For all the talk about the need for subtext, Spectre was just as mopey dopey as Skyfall about Bond's psychology, but the difference is they dared to try to insert some Roger Moore-style humor. too. Tonally, it felt wrong, perhaps more to critics than general audiences, but not because there were jokes but because they were the wrong kind of jokes for Craig. Did we ever see Connery landing on a couch like that? (The closest thing is his landing on a chair in Tanaka's office, but it wasn't broadly funny but the punchline to not knowing if Bond was going to be assassinated or not.) Did he ever do the parachute thing?
The right sort of humor for Craig is more like handing the golf ball back to Odd Job or even an exchange like "Do you expect me to talk?" It's telling an enemy agent trapped in a sauna that Bond will let the chef know. The torture scene with Blofeld -- which looked as exciting as rebooting a computer at the Apple store -- was a complete missed opportunity because the minimal set and cheesy dialogue were so flat. Imagine if there had been something closer to Goldfinger. in scope and in wit.
If anything, the modern qualities -- like the lackluster third acts -- are what hold Craig's Bonds further back. Be like a 1960s Bond -- witty, moving, exciting, perverse, sophisticated, all wrapped up in one rather than lean on only one or two areas. Pull out all the stops. Play the A game. Die Another Day didn't fail because it was fantasy -- it failed because it was crappy fantasy. It was poorly conceived and executed. But outside, maybe, of an invisible car, none of the ideas were fundamentally bad. People didn't complain about Bond ice boating or whatever, for instance -- they complained that the CGI was laughably poor. They didn't complain that a laser was going to destroy things. They complained that they'd see it before and better. And Brosnan personally is just not interesting enough to carry the role. Take away the trappings, and there's not much for the audience to pay attention to.
Based on this, the most modern interpretation of this style is TND, what do you think of it?
It's entirely possible, but it also depends on what means by "original." Nothing about the Bond films is truly original. They are always formulaic in some form. What's left is freshness of the approach and aesthetic. And that certainly can happen, in the same way that someone figures out how to make a romantic comedy or a trenchcoat mystery seem fresh again, even though they are all essentially plotted and conceived in the same -- it's mostly in the execution.
I think the freshness comes from serving up a classic dish in a new way. For the most part the reboot has been successful in doing that, but mainly by Craig subverting the archetype by not being at all charming and relentlessly hard as nails. He also showed a lot of the angst that was hinted at by Dalton (my favourite Bond, but also far from a charmer ) The problem for me at least was the telegraphed inevitability of homage and half arsed reveals. Also very little action (if you don't count the dullest PTS in the series history and a car chase without incident, tension or drama) Rogue Nation proved that you could still pull this off with panache but not the present team. It may be controversial but in the dream team of Craig and Mendes you had a star and Director who both seem to think Bond is not worthy of their talents and it showed.
Sure, though I think Craig's success comes less from playing Bond against type and more from being closer to the original type: He's the most Connery-esque actor to play the part since, well, Connery. The problem with Craig's Bonds, except arguably Casino Royale, is the writing, which assumes less is more. That's one reason why the final acts are basically a let down. By now, we should have some imaginative, big budget endings. Instead, we get all set up and very little pay off. The irony is it should be easy -- a huge fight at the lair.
I think its more Flemingesqe than Connery like. Connery although truly iconic always exuded much more inscouant charm than Fleming gave him. Bond as written is a bit dull and humourless (I'm nonetheless a real fan of the novels) the clever bit
was realising that to work on screen we needed to like and not just admire him. Craig has never tried to be likeable (on screen or off) and for me his Bond has been a bit flat. SP addressed this, and to my mind got the balance much better (the problem with SP was not Daniel) I agree that the solutions were obvious to the weak pay offs, but for some reason were avoided. I think a fear of Austin Powers haunted the later fims.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
The solution's easy -- improve the aesthetics and be more like the 1960s films in balance, creativity, and excitement.
Millennials basically want to pretend they're living in the middle 1960s anyway, with the clothes and hairstyles --even the music, social activities, and listening to LPs again. If there's ever been another time for it, it is now. But that time is fading, as new fads and a new generation are just around the corner.
Almost everything that has made the Craig Bonds interesting again revolves around the retro qualities and not the so-called modern qualities. Is it really that Bond is depressed and screwed up that makes him interesting? Is that what mass audiences in particular are responding to? No, it's the idea that he's brash and unpredictable again and would rather let his fists do the talking -- like an old-fashioned movie hero. He's as confident and masculine as Connery and, like him, seems to have earned it based as much on what he does as what he looks like. He's not just a model. Audiences want to see what he does next because they're not sure.
For all the talk about the need for subtext, Spectre was just as mopey dopey as Skyfall about Bond's psychology, but the difference is they dared to try to insert some Roger Moore-style humor. too. Tonally, it felt wrong, perhaps more to critics than general audiences, but not because there were jokes but because they were the wrong kind of jokes for Craig. Did we ever see Connery landing on a couch like that? (The closest thing is his landing on a chair in Tanaka's office, but it wasn't broadly funny but the punchline to not knowing if Bond was going to be assassinated or not.) Did he ever do the parachute thing?
The right sort of humor for Craig is more like handing the golf ball back to Odd Job or even an exchange like "Do you expect me to talk?" It's telling an enemy agent trapped in a sauna that Bond will let the chef know. The torture scene with Blofeld -- which looked as exciting as rebooting a computer at the Apple store -- was a complete missed opportunity because the minimal set and cheesy dialogue were so flat. Imagine if there had been something closer to Goldfinger. in scope and in wit.
If anything, the modern qualities -- like the lackluster third acts -- are what hold Craig's Bonds further back. Be like a 1960s Bond -- witty, moving, exciting, perverse, sophisticated, all wrapped up in one rather than lean on only one or two areas. Pull out all the stops. Play the A game. Die Another Day didn't fail because it was fantasy -- it failed because it was crappy fantasy. It was poorly conceived and executed. But outside, maybe, of an invisible car, none of the ideas were fundamentally bad. People didn't complain about Bond ice boating or whatever, for instance -- they complained that the CGI was laughably poor. They didn't complain that a laser was going to destroy things. They complained that they'd see it before and better. And Brosnan personally is just not interesting enough to carry the role. Take away the trappings, and there's not much for the audience to pay attention to.
Based on this, the most modern interpretation of this style is TND, what do you think of it?
I think the freshness comes from serving up a classic dish in a new way. For the most part the reboot has been successful in doing that, but mainly by Craig subverting the archetype by not being at all charming and relentlessly hard as nails. He also showed a lot of the angst that was hinted at by Dalton (my favourite Bond, but also far from a charmer ) The problem for me at least was the telegraphed inevitability of homage and half arsed reveals. Also very little action (if you don't count the dullest PTS in the series history and a car chase without incident, tension or drama) Rogue Nation proved that you could still pull this off with panache but not the present team. It may be controversial but in the dream team of Craig and Mendes you had a star and Director who both seem to think Bond is not worthy of their talents and it showed.
Sure, though I think Craig's success comes less from playing Bond against type and more from being closer to the original type: He's the most Connery-esque actor to play the part since, well, Connery. The problem with Craig's Bonds, except arguably Casino Royale, is the writing, which assumes less is more. That's one reason why the final acts are basically a let down. By now, we should have some imaginative, big budget endings. Instead, we get all set up and very little pay off. The irony is it should be easy -- a huge fight at the lair.
I think its more Flemingesqe than Connery like. Connery although truly iconic always exuded much more inscouant charm than Fleming gave him. Bond as written is a bit dull and humourless (I'm nonetheless a real fan of the novels) the clever bit
was realising that to work on screen we needed to like and not just admire him. Craig has never tried to be likeable (on screen or off) and for me his Bond has been a bit flat. SP addressed this, and to my mind got the balance much better (the problem with SP was not Daniel) I agree that the solutions were obvious to the weak pay offs, but for some reason were avoided. I think a fear of Austin Powers haunted the later fims.
I dunno. I find the book Bond to be much more the classic British gentleman, or perhaps knight in armor, though with distasteful elements of snobbery and prejudice.
He's definitely not the blue collar bruiser that either Connery or Craig suggest physically. I always imagine someone in rough physical approximation to, say, Roy Scheider, muscular but lean. yet with the wit and polish of someone closer to Cary Grant or David Niven. Ironically, that's why Connery is closest to the book character earlier on, where he tries to approximate the polish more. This more less starts to disappear after Thunderball.
But Craig is getting a lot of mileage out of reminding audiences of Connery. It's one reason they've been certain to surround him with so many visual elements from that era, from the suits and cars to even the way Craig walks. And few people in today's audiences are likely to have read the books outside of the fans. But at least on some level they're familiar with the movies. There's no doubt that Austin Powers did a lot to hold things back, in the same way it was so tough to make a serious Batman film in the shadow of the 60s TV series.
The thing is, it was done, though. It's always about the execution. Very people analyze things down to the level the hardcore fans do, parsing out meaningless details to the point of absurdity. They respond primarily to the aesthetic and immediacy of what they see. That's one reason that young people, for instance, so often think newer is better by definition. Skyfall was hugely successful because of this. First, it was the latest thing, but it was also familiar because we'd already seen it with The Dark Knight (and Straw Dogs). You didn't really have to think about it because doing so actually hurts the movie.
But moreso, it was sentimental. And today's mass audiences love sentimentality as the primary emotional appeal, so much, they ignore how dumb or illogical what they see is. Skyfall had a pretty stupid plot, and what we learned about Bond was minimal. But not to audiences who delighted in its sentimentality. It's not a very good Bond film, but it has lots of what seem emotionally weighty moments. Spectre's plot is not a whole lot better, yet it is more of a Bond film. But it's not particularly sentimental. That's a problem for mass audiences. Thus we see how the former is celebrated while the latter is panned. A great Bond film does both. That is Casino Royale in the modern context but all of the 60s Bonds, even if they wisely leaned away from sentimentality and toward pleasant emotions--fun, lust, adventure, and so forth. They wanted the audience to have a good time.
Sure, though I think Craig's success comes less from playing Bond against type and more from being closer to the original type: He's the most Connery-esque actor to play the part since, well, Connery. The problem with Craig's Bonds, except arguably Casino Royale, is the writing, which assumes less is more. That's one reason why the final acts are basically a let down. By now, we should have some imaginative, big budget endings. Instead, we get all set up and very little pay off. The irony is it should be easy -- a huge fight at the lair.
I think its more Flemingesqe than Connery like. Connery although truly iconic always exuded much more inscouant charm than Fleming gave him. Bond as written is a bit dull and humourless (I'm nonetheless a real fan of the novels) the clever bit
was realising that to work on screen we needed to like and not just admire him. Craig has never tried to be likeable (on screen or off) and for me his Bond has been a bit flat. SP addressed this, and to my mind got the balance much better (the problem with SP was not Daniel) I agree that the solutions were obvious to the weak pay offs, but for some reason were avoided. I think a fear of Austin Powers haunted the later fims.
I dunno. I find the book Bond to be much more the classic British gentleman, or perhaps knight in armor, though with distasteful elements of snobbery and prejudice.
He's definitely not the blue collar bruiser that either Connery or Craig suggest physically. I always imagine someone in rough physical approximation to, say, Roy Scheider, muscular but lean. yet with the wit and polish of someone closer to Cary Grant or David Niven. Ironically, that's why Connery is closest to the book character earlier on, where he tries to approximate the polish more. This more less starts to disappear after Thunderball.
But Craig is getting a lot of mileage out of reminding audiences of Connery. It's one reason they've been certain to surround him with so many visual elements from that era, from the suits and cars to even the way Craig walks. And few people in today's audiences are likely to have read the books outside of the fans. But at least on some level they're familiar with the movies. There's no doubt that Austin Powers did a lot to hold things back, in the same way it was so tough to make a serious Batman film in the shadow of the 60s TV series.
The thing is, it was done, though. It's always about the execution. Very people analyze things down to the level the hardcore fans do, parsing out meaningless details to the point of absurdity. They respond primarily to the aesthetic and immediacy of what they see. That's one reason that young people, for instance, so often think newer is better by definition. Skyfall was hugely successful because of this. First, it was the latest thing, but it was also familiar because we'd already seen it with The Dark Knight (and Straw Dogs). You didn't really have to think about it because doing so actually hurts the movie.
But moreso, it was sentimental. And today's mass audiences love sentimentality as the primary emotional appeal, so much, they ignore how dumb or illogical what they see is. Skyfall had a pretty stupid plot, and what we learned about Bond was minimal. But not to audiences who delighted in its sentimentality. It's not a very good Bond film, but it has lots of what seem emotionally weighty moments. Spectre's plot is not a whole lot better, yet it is more of a Bond film. But it's not particularly sentimental. That's a problem for mass audiences. Thus we see how the former is celebrated while the latter is panned. A great Bond film does both. That is Casino Royale in the modern context but all of the 60s Bonds, even if they wisely leaned away from sentimentality and toward pleasant emotions--fun, lust, adventure, and so forth. They wanted the audience to have a good time.
Great analysis.I think we are in broad agreement on most things. True the book Bond was much more of British gentlemen, but something of the iron fist in a velvet glove. Bond is both gentlemen and thug but with a strong moral centre.True both Craig and Connery were a bit to 'blue collar' for that but for me Connery exuded a gravitas and class that Craig does not. Where I think we are in sync is that fun is the missing element, not just for the audience but for Bond. The reboot Bond lives a miserable joyless life, even sex seems tainted. There were a couple of occasions where reboot Bond exhibited that rebellious fun and Craig was very good at it (country club car park scene comes to mind). The relentless focus on going rogue and revenge meant that even amidst the mayhem Bond had no fun, no toys, and very few Women. Even when he does manage some fun free sex it's always against a dark backdrop. I certainly don't want crude innuendo, double-taking Pigeons or invisible cars, but an all out assault on the villain's lair with some genuine tension would have been nice.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Comments
Goldfinger is easily the most successful Bond film for me, a wonderfully colorful and breezy film that even with broad humor manages some great tension and dramatic scenes. It is far and away more witty and interesting than any of the cardboard cut out imitators that follow it, and everything from the wonderful Ken Adams sets to John Barry's epic score to Guy Hamilton's able direction to Sean Connery's spot on performance make it a masterpiece in the genre. If you're waiting for cheesy psychological subtext. half-baked scripts, and sound and fury signifying nothing that modern films offer, you may be disappointed.
I understand what you're saying here and I find it hard to disagree because strictly on formula and the right parts, it works. But....
I can't agree with that.
Whether you're talking about Bond films or just in general, there are so many more Bond films that either are a copy of the formula or a slight deviation that to me are much more enjoyable films with deeper meaning that play well again and again. Yeah, Goldfinger is iconic and well put together, and it's irresistible as the quintessential Bond which launched the mania and all the playboy, 1960s, classy gentleman vibe that crops up in all sorts of references to that time (Catch Me If You Can and Mad Men etc.). But on the whole as a Bond fan - there's much more to like that proceeds and follows GF.
Overtime I find myself more and more bored with GF and more and more turned off by the film's weaker look and feel.
"Better make that two."
Once in a while -- On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Casino Royale, for instance, though they are remarkably similar stories -- to cleanse the palette is fine, but then we have to endure Licence to Kill, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall.
Not all Bond films have to be like Goldfinger. Certainly, Dr. No and From Russia with Love are not. But I don't find the films that come later to be significant in their development of the Bond character. Seriously, what do we really learn? That he drinks a lot? That he can be depressed? That he can be hurt? We know that already. And we don't really see a significant exploration of any of this so much as just downbeat lip service. Even Casino Royale, good as it was, didn't go as far with the romance to make the rest seem quite as dramatic for me.
The problem is too many people conflate the idea with the execution. What's the difference? The brilliant Goldfinger versus the turgid A View to a Kill. The fantastic You Only Live Twice versus the campy Moonraker. Just because one recognizes the idea doesn't mean they're all the same, any more than the local carnival is Disney World or Mike and Molly is The Honeymooners.
Once the A-level writing and production values of the 1960s wore off, we got the B- and C-level iterations. A good example is the whole lair concept. In each of the 60s Bonds, the villain had some kind of either tastefully expensive or incredibly elaborate, or both, lair, with expansive architecture, scores of goons, and imaginative, deadly traps. By Live and Let Die and The Man with the Golden Gun, the henchmen have been reduced to maybe a dozen people at most and a few set pieces in a room. By Goldeneye, it's a rusty telescope, and by Spectre, it's a Howard Johnson's built into an oil refinery in the desert. Goldfinger pulls out all the stops, while quite a bit of the tripe that follows keeps trying to put the stop back in. But take away even that, and the aesthetic is just cool.
You might find my answer a bit of a cop-out, but I can't think of much else that can be done when producing pure entertainment. The latest Star War film is pure entertainment, but it isn't really anything new is it?
It's almost as if we're having an argument about an artist producing incredible original artwork on a regular basis - is it really possible or is it essentially always more of the same?
"Better make that two."
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I think another problem since the demise of the studio system is too many cooks in the kitchen. The committees are bigger, and the number of egos all mixing in the process are greater. Gone are the days when a single vision -- Hitchcock, for instance -- seemed to guide a production.
Seriously, the Bond formula -- essentially three or four plots reworked for each film -- is not the problem. If it were, so many other films wouldn't have copied it over the past 40 years. Look at the Die Hard series, for instance. It's just the climax of every Bond film you've ever seen stretched out over two hours.
Where the Bond films mostly break down is two areas: The writing, which has been consistently weak for decades, with the rare exception of an anomaly like Casino Royale, and the production values. Oh, they spend a lot of money on both, but it isn't always wisely spent. With a Bond film, it's mostly about the presentation -- finding the right actor to play Bond, the right clothes to wear, the right toys to play with, the right girl to co-star, and the right script to act out. Because so much about Bond is aesthtic, a flaw in any of those areas results in a less-than-spectacular presentation, the way a flaw in a simple but expensive suit is far more noticeable. With Bond, they already have the recipe, so that's not the problem. The problem is the ingredients are not always top-notch, nor are the bakers.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I think the freshness comes from serving up a classic dish in a new way. For the most part the reboot has been successful in doing that, but mainly by Craig subverting the archetype by not being at all charming and relentlessly hard as nails. He also showed a lot of the angst that was hinted at by Dalton (my favourite Bond, but also far from a charmer ) The problem for me at least was the telegraphed inevitability of homage and half arsed reveals. Also very little action (if you don't count the dullest PTS in the series history and a car chase without incident, tension or drama) Rogue Nation proved that you could still pull this off with panache but not the present team. It may be controversial but in the dream team of Craig and Mendes you had a star and Director who both seem to think Bond is not worthy of their talents and it showed.
The only finale of Craig's that I think is well done is SF, even though Bond fails because his plan is stupid.
I agree from a plot perspective both SP and SF finales make little sense. SF went to Bonds childhood home just to create more pointless back story. Was it cinematic and action packed? Yes. Necessary? No.
SP was similar. They rushed back to London I feel to wrap up the C and mi6 storyline. Like I said before I really think they could have had the finale at Blofelds lair. Difference with SF and SP was at least SF finale was very entertaining. SP was meh.
Cubby pointed this out in that really long TSWLM documentary, that the scripts are essentially put together by committee and that because of that, it struggles to get writers who wish to have carte blanche.
To me Bond has never been "perfect" and my top five Bond films are full of flaws, some with cheesy lines and bad sequences. Hell, Bond films never actually make it into my "Top 10" movies!
"Better make that two."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdN22EZZXII
CR, SF and SP are all "modern", moody and interesting looking/feeling films. In terms of Bond films, I don't feel that this style has ever been done - mostly because it didn't need doing.
DAD signalled a point where Bond could no longer really sustain just being action films with Bond inserted by numbers, audiences would've become tired, quickly. They didn't do anything for character development. At least the latest run of films have brought in new fans and increased people's exposure to the franchise.
I don't particularly enjoy the Craig films wholeheartedly as much as others in the series, at times I find them a touch pretentious and unnecessary and even slightly boring.
I've followed all your comments and find myself agreeing with your points about the cooks and the ingredients - but I am slightly baffled as to what a potential solution would be other than completely cleaning house and cooking Mexican instead of Japanese....
The whole Tarantino directing a Bond film is great discussion point, I've raised this with non-Bond fans who think he'd ruin Bond and the film would be "cool" (because it's Tarantino) but would be "completely different" to everything else. It's an interesting viewpoint and sustains my belief that the success of Bond is down to "more of the same".
"Better make that two."
That's a pretty big "IF" ….
Bond could have escaped at this point since Goldfinger was fool enough to let him wander off with Pussy. Instead he overpowers her, rapes/makes love to her and then goes back into captivity. Bond has no intention or idea that his actions would cause Pussy to change sides. Bond's attempt to notify the CIA via Mr. Solo was a solid attempt, but the scriptwriters snuffed that one out.
Even Bond jokes that the president doesn't realize how trivial his involvement was…
Goldfinger has been considered the "perfect" Bond film, but it's falling apart around the seams and many fans are noticing. The only reason I rank it as highly as I do is GF is my favorite Fleming novel.
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
Looking back on my original post, I definitely consider YOLT to have a worse second half. The volcano lair is cool, but Aki's death, the wedding scene, and Bond turning Japanese all contribute to sinking this otherwise fun film.
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
Millennials basically want to pretend they're living in the middle 1960s anyway, with the clothes and hairstyles --even the music, social activities, and listening to LPs again. If there's ever been another time for it, it is now. But that time is fading, as new fads and a new generation are just around the corner.
Almost everything that has made the Craig Bonds interesting again revolves around the retro qualities and not the so-called modern qualities. Is it really that Bond is depressed and screwed up that makes him interesting? Is that what mass audiences in particular are responding to? No, it's the idea that he's brash and unpredictable again and would rather let his fists do the talking -- like an old-fashioned movie hero. He's as confident and masculine as Connery and, like him, seems to have earned it based as much on what he does as what he looks like. He's not just a model. Audiences want to see what he does next because they're not sure.
For all the talk about the need for subtext, Spectre was just as mopey dopey as Skyfall about Bond's psychology, but the difference is they dared to try to insert some Roger Moore-style humor. too. Tonally, it felt wrong, perhaps more to critics than general audiences, but not because there were jokes but because they were the wrong kind of jokes for Craig. Did we ever see Connery landing on a couch like that? (The closest thing is his landing on a chair in Tanaka's office, but it wasn't broadly funny but the punchline to not knowing if Bond was going to be assassinated or not.) Did he ever do the parachute thing?
The right sort of humor for Craig is more like handing the golf ball back to Odd Job or even an exchange like "Do you expect me to talk?" It's telling an enemy agent trapped in a sauna that Bond will let the chef know. The torture scene with Blofeld -- which looked as exciting as rebooting a computer at the Apple store -- was a complete missed opportunity because the minimal set and cheesy dialogue were so flat. Imagine if there had been something closer to Goldfinger. in scope and in wit.
If anything, the modern qualities -- like the lackluster third acts -- are what hold Craig's Bonds further back. Be like a 1960s Bond -- witty, moving, exciting, perverse, sophisticated, all wrapped up in one rather than lean on only one or two areas. Pull out all the stops. Play the A game. Die Another Day didn't fail because it was fantasy -- it failed because it was crappy fantasy. It was poorly conceived and executed. But outside, maybe, of an invisible car, none of the ideas were fundamentally bad. People didn't complain about Bond ice boating or whatever, for instance -- they complained that the CGI was laughably poor. They didn't complain that a laser was going to destroy things. They complained that they'd see it before and better. And Brosnan personally is just not interesting enough to carry the role. Take away the trappings, and there's not much for the audience to pay attention to.
Bond tries to seduce Pussy from the get go, just as he does with every other attractive woman in the movie (Jill, Dink, Tilly, etc.), which is why she tells him to turn off the charm. She knows what he is up to. But being Bond, he keeps at it. He plays every card he has, even her.
The so-called rape scene is only so to a modern audience. It's clear that's not how the writer and director intended it. Their jujitsu scene, or whatever, is just the metaphor for what is going on emotionally. The subtext is he senses she's really attracted to him, but simply too proud and stubborn to admit it. He is proven right when she gives in, and even further when she chooses not only to change sides vis a vis Goldfinger but even her sexuality! That she stays with Bond at the end further confirms this reality. His mild surprise when he says "I must have appealed to her maternal instincts" suggests that even he didn't think he could pull it off.
How is Bond going to escape at that point, and why would he? Goldfinger's Chinese/North Korean troops are everywhere, and more importantly, Bond doesn't even know all the details yet. Where is the bomb? How is Goldfinger going to get it there? How does he know if there isn't yet another bomb somewhere? Goldfinger is unpredictable and a cheat. He could be planning any number of things beyond what he's admitted.
So, Bond's playing a game of strategy with Goldfinger to keep getting closer and closer to an advantage point to do something from the inside, another version of cards at the beginning and golf in the middle. The best chances of stopping Goldfinger are to have a man on the inside stick close by him, not one on the outside wondering what is going on. That's why he tries to send a note -- not to escape but to alert others so it becomes a two-pronged effort to stop Goldfinger. Bond has to see it through till the end to be sure.
Escaping would merely mean no one would be in Goldfinger's camp anymore. If escaping were all that was required, Bond would have ducked out earlier when he had the chance and not listened in on the lecture. And Bond is ready to see it to the end, including dying if necessary to stop the plot.
Bond is doing everything he can at the end of the film. It's just not an empty-headed modern film where the assumption is all he has to do is burst in with guns blazing at the end and a series of convenient coincidences and happenstances will allow him to emerge victorious. He is very carefully observing and planning, and he is using every resource he can, even Pussy. He knows she's a survivor and smarter than the others -- and his first sign that she might help him is when he tells her Goldfinger is mad, and he sees the worry in her face. He is a thinker. A secret agent.
Based on this, the most modern interpretation of this style is TND, what do you think of it?
"Better make that two."
I think its more Flemingesqe than Connery like. Connery although truly iconic always exuded much more inscouant charm than Fleming gave him. Bond as written is a bit dull and humourless (I'm nonetheless a real fan of the novels) the clever bit
was realising that to work on screen we needed to like and not just admire him. Craig has never tried to be likeable (on screen or off) and for me his Bond has been a bit flat. SP addressed this, and to my mind got the balance much better (the problem with SP was not Daniel) I agree that the solutions were obvious to the weak pay offs, but for some reason were avoided. I think a fear of Austin Powers haunted the later fims.
He's definitely not the blue collar bruiser that either Connery or Craig suggest physically. I always imagine someone in rough physical approximation to, say, Roy Scheider, muscular but lean. yet with the wit and polish of someone closer to Cary Grant or David Niven. Ironically, that's why Connery is closest to the book character earlier on, where he tries to approximate the polish more. This more less starts to disappear after Thunderball.
But Craig is getting a lot of mileage out of reminding audiences of Connery. It's one reason they've been certain to surround him with so many visual elements from that era, from the suits and cars to even the way Craig walks. And few people in today's audiences are likely to have read the books outside of the fans. But at least on some level they're familiar with the movies. There's no doubt that Austin Powers did a lot to hold things back, in the same way it was so tough to make a serious Batman film in the shadow of the 60s TV series.
The thing is, it was done, though. It's always about the execution. Very people analyze things down to the level the hardcore fans do, parsing out meaningless details to the point of absurdity. They respond primarily to the aesthetic and immediacy of what they see. That's one reason that young people, for instance, so often think newer is better by definition. Skyfall was hugely successful because of this. First, it was the latest thing, but it was also familiar because we'd already seen it with The Dark Knight (and Straw Dogs). You didn't really have to think about it because doing so actually hurts the movie.
But moreso, it was sentimental. And today's mass audiences love sentimentality as the primary emotional appeal, so much, they ignore how dumb or illogical what they see is. Skyfall had a pretty stupid plot, and what we learned about Bond was minimal. But not to audiences who delighted in its sentimentality. It's not a very good Bond film, but it has lots of what seem emotionally weighty moments. Spectre's plot is not a whole lot better, yet it is more of a Bond film. But it's not particularly sentimental. That's a problem for mass audiences. Thus we see how the former is celebrated while the latter is panned. A great Bond film does both. That is Casino Royale in the modern context but all of the 60s Bonds, even if they wisely leaned away from sentimentality and toward pleasant emotions--fun, lust, adventure, and so forth. They wanted the audience to have a good time.
Great analysis.I think we are in broad agreement on most things. True the book Bond was much more of British gentlemen, but something of the iron fist in a velvet glove. Bond is both gentlemen and thug but with a strong moral centre.True both Craig and Connery were a bit to 'blue collar' for that but for me Connery exuded a gravitas and class that Craig does not. Where I think we are in sync is that fun is the missing element, not just for the audience but for Bond. The reboot Bond lives a miserable joyless life, even sex seems tainted. There were a couple of occasions where reboot Bond exhibited that rebellious fun and Craig was very good at it (country club car park scene comes to mind). The relentless focus on going rogue and revenge meant that even amidst the mayhem Bond had no fun, no toys, and very few Women. Even when he does manage some fun free sex it's always against a dark backdrop. I certainly don't want crude innuendo, double-taking Pigeons or invisible cars, but an all out assault on the villain's lair with some genuine tension would have been nice.
If we all watched the "same" version, there would be nothing to discuss. -{
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK