Can and should the Bond movies strive for novel-like 'realism' ?

chrisisall

In written form, Bond can seem more real than in any other medium IMO because novels engage your imagination to the greatest degree. When reading a novel, your mind can simply accept an alternate reality & construct mental images to support it. In a movie, it all has to be interpreted & solidified to produce a series of widely accepted images & sounds that 'feel' correct to a spectrum of viewers. What can be easily bought in a printed story can be quite difficult to re-create on film.

Which Bond movies played with so-called 'reality' most successfully (keeping in mind that the Bond novels were NEVER intended to reflect total real world reality), which moments or movies strayed too close or too far for you, and what level of 'reality' would you like to see in future Bonds?

Dutchfinger

First of all I must say, I appreciate both the realistic and over the top Bond movies in their own ways.
Licence to Kill of course would be my best example as a Bond movie that worked very well mainly because it was so realistic.
Other good examples of course would be TLD, FYEO, FRWL, CR and SF.

But looking at all of the Bond movies I named, as good as they pull of the realism, all of these movies have some necessary over the top elements in it as well. Without these elements, it wouldn't be a Bond movie anymore.
As real as Licence to Kill was, the over the top stunts that the trucks did in the end of the movie were great!! As was the rocket shooting car in the Living Daylights and the parascope installed in a tunnel in istanbul in From Russia With Love.

During these times it really seems like people are demanding realistic Bond movies. We can't possibly have a Bond villian in a hollowed out volcano anymore. So when I'm asked about the 'level of reality' in future Bond movies. I think we are doing just fine with the realism level in the Craig movies. As long as some typical Bond elements remain, or else it wouldn't be Bond anymore. Skyfall and Casino Royale (for realistic Bond movies) pulled the balance off perfectly. You could almost claim that Bond movies could even go a little lighter in future Bond movies...

LastRatStanding

From Russia With Love didn't stray too much into the impossible if at all. It's what springs to mind when I think of a 'realistic Bond film'. However, even though It is overall one of my favourite Bond films it's not really because it's realistic, it's more to do with the great characters and twist to Bond as to who's behind all the trouble. A great realistic ending for Red Grant though, there are many crazy deaths out there for the bad guys and I have no problem at all with that but the simple violence of the train fight is great.

There are plenty Bond films that are of course unrealistic and we all know that - it's just a case of how it's done really. There is a reason Moonraker and Die Another Day are always brought up when talking about the 'worst' Bond films and it's usually because of the ridiculous unbelievability that comes with them. Personally I love the space fight scenes in Moonraker (it's the horrible attempt at humour that bothers me) and in general they are taken quite seriously - minus Jaws obviously. I think an unrealistic plot line like that suffers even more if it isn't presented seriously. Moonraker knew it was crazy and seemed to think a lot of humour had to be forced in too so that the crazy plot didn't take itself too seriously but i'm certain I'd enjoy Bond going to space more if it wasn't ruined by the stupid Jaws In Love scenes. Unrealistic plot lines are even less believable if they are treated like jokes. Another example is the PTS when everyone falls out the plane - probably impossible, but Bond bags himself a parachute during the fall and escapes the chasing jaws - a very tense scene once again ruined by the silliness of Jaws' parachute failing to open and falling into a circus tent and not dying.

The Spy Who Loved me and You Only Live Twice are examples of completely unrealistic lairs. The volcano and atlantis I think we can all agree are ridiculous but there is no real problem with them. They don't mock themselves at all and are presented as if they are serious and to me this helps a lot. I'm sure there are many out there who thinks "If you're going to have something unbelievable in a film, may as well do it right and go all out", but IMO that's what they were thinking when Die Another Day came to be and that's a prime example of unrealistic plot line at it's worst.

Those are what sprung to my mind immediately but there are many other unrealistic moments that I don't question at all. I don't think many Bond fans want complete realism in a Bond film. I certainly don't but really like the unrealistic bits too SEEM believable, that's the point right?

As for future Bond films, I want to see a little bit more of the unbelievable, but not too much. Back to the level of The Living Daylights / A View To A Kill would be spot on.

chrisisall

LastRatStanding wrote:

The Spy Who Loved me and You Only Live Twice are examples of completely unrealistic lairs. The volcano and atlantis I think we can all agree are ridiculous but there is no real problem with them. They don't mock themselves at all and are presented as if they are serious and to me this helps a lot.

I don't think many Bond fans want complete realism in a Bond film. I certainly don't but really like the unrealistic bits too SEEM believable, that's the point right?

You have read my mind here, or at least, we are on the same frequency. )

As for future Bond films, I want to see a little bit more of the unbelievable, but not too much. Back to the level of The Living Daylights / A View To A Kill would be spot on.

Yes, please. -{

chrisisall

Dutchfinger wrote:

As real as Licence to Kill was, the over the top stunts that the trucks did in the end of the movie were great!! As was the rocket shooting car in the Living Daylights and the parascope installed in a tunnel in istanbul in From Russia With Love.

I loved all those.

During these times it really seems like people are demanding realistic Bond movies. We can't possibly have a Bond villian in a hollowed out volcano anymore.

Who says so? :v
Okay, but how about a plot involving the International Space Station? Like a more realistic take on Moonraker? Bad guys buy into a share on its cargo, and try to use it for a bargaining chip or crash it into a city, and Bond goes into space with no sound or lasers. I for one would LOVE to see Daniel do THAT!! -{

LastRatStanding

chrisisall wrote:

Okay, but how about a plot involving the International Space Station? Like a more realistic take on Moonraker? Bad guys buy into a share on its cargo, and try to use it for a bargaining chip or crash it into a city, and Bond goes into space with no sound or lasers. I for one would LOVE to see Daniel do THAT!! -{

That COULD work if done really well. It would certainly be interesting to see Craig in a Bond film like this. I feel he's found his comfort zone though and it works so well I doubt they'll stray too far from it. I always wanted to see Dalton in a ridiculous Bond film too just to see what it'd be like!

Firemass

chrisisall wrote:

What can be easily bought in a printed story can be quite difficult to re-create on film.

OHMSS suffers from this translation. Peter Hunt very faithfully directed one of the worst Bond films ever.

chrisisall

Firemass wrote:

OHMSS suffers from this translation. Peter Hunt very faithfully directed one of the worst Bond films ever.

We must agree to disagree here.

Nick37

When a Bond film goes for an OTT sequence, I usually like it when they play it straight. The cello case chase in TLD. It's impossible, but Dalton plays the scene for all it's worth, and WE believe he can do it, because Dalton's performance indicates HE believes it. Same with the tricked out Aston Martin. "I'vve had a few...Optional extras installed." There's no wink to the camera. Same with the tanker chase. In another film, I'd be shaking my head at a semi doing a wheelie. But Dalton's so focused, rolling up the window without a care in the world, you're caught up in the moment. When Connery puts on the rocket pack in Thunderball, he plays it like every mission he puts on a rocket pack.

But really, Dalton and Connery aren't the only two who have mastered this. Roger Moore is a genius at driving in a submarine Lotus like everyone has one. Brosnan too can sell that he's driving a BMW by remote control.

I think Bond movies do need at least one OTT sequence in them. Because even in the most ridiculous of sequences, you just lean back and go, "Only Bond." The franchise has built itself on these sequences. As long as the actor playing the role sells the stunt, it works. Every actor in the role has done so. I say, bring them on.

Blackleiter

I totally disagree with the notion that OHMSS is anywhere close to being the worst Bond film, and it most certainly does not suffer from the fact that it sticks close to the novel. As for the most realistic Bond film, for me it's FRWL.

chrisisall wrote:

Firemass wrote:

OHMSS suffers from this translation. Peter Hunt very faithfully directed one of the worst Bond films ever.

We must agree to disagree here.

DEFIANT 74205

Blackleiter wrote:

I totally disagree with the notion that OHMSS is anywhere close to being the worst Bond film, and it most certainly does not suffer from the fact that it sticks close to the novel. As for the most realistic Bond film, for me it's FRWL.

chrisisall wrote:

Firemass wrote:

OHMSS suffers from this translation. Peter Hunt very faithfully directed one of the worst Bond films ever.

We must agree to disagree here.

+1. -{

OHMSS is one of the best Bond films ever made.

As for the thread title, the short answer to both questions ("Can" and "Should") is "Yes", it can, and it should. I've often argued that the cinematic Bond should, as closely as possible, mirror the literary Bond in behaviour, vices and mannerisms. That's what makes it realistic, because the Fleming Bond character is much more of a "real" person than some interpretations of the character. The literary Bond has his weaknesses and his vices (such as being a heavy smoker and drinker) as well as being a cold, ruthless killer when his job calls for him to pull the trigger. James Bond is not a role model and should not be depicted as such.

Thunderpussy

+1
I'm another BIG OHMSS fan. -{

Brilliant Film

Blackleiter

Daniel Craig!

DEFIANT 74205 wrote:

The literary Bond has his weaknesses and his vices (such as being a heavy smoker and drinker) as well as being a cold, ruthless killer when his job calls for him to pull the trigger. James Bond is not a role model and should not be depicted as such.

Nick37

Craig doesn't smoke though. Dalton gets the literary Bond closeness award For having the dark hair color, and for drinking and smoking, even though they carefully edited around it as much as possible, especially in LTK. We see him light it, but I don't think we actually see him exhale smoke once, the poor guy.

Blackleiter wrote:

Daniel Craig!

DEFIANT 74205 wrote:

The literary Bond has his weaknesses and his vices (such as being a heavy smoker and drinker) as well as being a cold, ruthless killer when his job calls for him to pull the trigger. James Bond is not a role model and should not be depicted as such.

Napoleon Plural

It's sort of a matter of taste really. Even stuff in FRWL strikes me as silly watching it now, as it is meant to be a 'serious' Bond film. Klebb's audition of her most important man for the job - she just strikes him with a knuckleduster and walks away! Or Kerim saying it would be hard to get a layout of the embassy. 'But you must have the original plans...' says Bond. Oh yeah, that would be it, Kerim seems to say, like it has never occurred to him before. D'oh! Small stuff, but you notice it.

But where the wit is working, and the charm of a film full on, I can forgive a lot. DAF is what it intends to be. I don't care about 'realism' there. And actually, a lot of the novels have daft moments in them that aren't really credible, sort of WTF moments.

RogueAgent007

Nick37 wrote:

When a Bond film goes for an OTT sequence, I usually like it when they play it straight. The cello case chase in TLD. It's impossible, but Dalton plays the scene for all it's worth, and WE believe he can do it, because Dalton's performance indicates HE believes it. Same with the tricked out Aston Martin. "I'vve had a few...Optional extras installed." There's no wink to the camera. Same with the tanker chase. In another film, I'd be shaking my head at a semi doing a wheelie. But Dalton's so focused, rolling up the window without a care in the world, you're caught up in the moment. When Connery puts on the rocket pack in Thunderball, he plays it like every mission he puts on a rocket pack.

But really, Dalton and Connery aren't the only two who have mastered this. Roger Moore is a genius at driving in a submarine Lotus like everyone has one. Brosnan too can sell that he's driving a BMW by remote control.

I think Bond movies do need at least one OTT sequence in them. Because even in the most ridiculous of sequences, you just lean back and go, "Only Bond." The franchise has built itself on these sequences. As long as the actor playing the role sells the stunt, it works. Every actor in the role has done so. I say, bring them on.

Here, Here! I quite agree! These are the things that separate Bond movies from plain old action films. But allowance should be made for those who were introduced to Bond through the books vs. those who saw the movies first. I think it gives a different perception of what Bond should be.

I was introduced to Bond by movie and read the books later. While I enjoy the books, Bond will always be Connery to me (from the first 5 films).

Blackleiter

I second that! -{

RogueAgent007 wrote:

Bond will always be Connery to me (from the first 5 films).