I don't agree with Richard--W...but everyone is entitled to his/her opinion and he clarified himself to a large extent. That's all I was looking for, not looking to get into a debate.
Well, he was sort of a winner depicted at the time; we may seem him as a loser according to modern thinking, but that's to enforce our own viewpoint on a previous era. People were smokers and heavier drinkers back then, and most heroes don't have a gang of friends to fall back on, but the genre usually overlooks that.
Barbara Broccoli's thing is to take those traits and turn the tables on them by saying, yeah, this guy is screwed up and we are acknowledging that, in a Batman Dark Knight sort of way. Interesting, but my problem is that it is only half acknowledged; a mixture of patriotism and dumbness (imo) keeps a lot of critics and folk going along with Bond like he is still a cool guy anyway.
Well, he was sort of a winner depicted at the time; we may seem him as a loser according to modern thinking, but that's to enforce our own viewpoint on a previous era. People were smokers and heavier drinkers back then, and most heroes don't have a gang of friends to fall back on, but the genre usually overlooks that.
Barbara Broccoli's thing is to take those traits and turn the tables on them by saying, yeah, this guy is screwed up and we are acknowledging that, in a Batman Dark Knight sort of way. Interesting, but my problem is that it is only half acknowledged; a mixture of patriotism and dumbness (imo) keeps a lot of critics and folk going along with Bond like he is still a cool guy anyway.
Well, Bond was considered to be an unusual hero even by the standards of his time. Fleming was always getting rejected by Hollywood, although that probably had more to do with the womanizing than anything else. Even so, the films portrayed Bond as a moderate drinker/smoker whereas in the books he smokes 70 cigarettes a day and he takes a drink an average of once every three pages. Even back then "chain smoking" and alcoholism were considered vices.
There's a good argument that the movie Bond was more an invention of Kevin McClory/Jack Whittingham than Ian Fleming.
The literary Bond was a "winner"? He was, in fact, friendless, an alcoholic, a nicotine addict, and remarkably unsuccessful with women. He was betrayed by Vesper Lynd and rejected by Gala Brand and Tiffany Case. Then the great love of his life is murdered. By the last couple of books, his world his falling apart. It would've been interesting to see where Fleming would've taken him.
Does not happen very often, but here I fully agree with you {[]
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Although I disagree with much of what Richard--W said in his last post, I agree that it is well-thought out and coherent. (Not stupid at all). At least this time he is giving his opinions without laying out his curriculum vitae first so that we dare not dispute the validity of his views. That being said, I believe some of those views are oversimplified, and some overlook the fact that Craig's Bond is a total reboot (resulting in rougher edges that are later refined). Also, many of the faults and weaknesses attributed to the new Bond I don't believe are necessarily weaknesses. This Bond has to improvise and be more resourceful. He doesn't have all the answers, nor does he have just the right gadgets at hand to get him out of any tight spot. Yes, he makes mistakes, and sometimes those mistakes cost him and others dearly (I seem to recall that also happens from time to time in the Bond novels I have read). But in looking back on previous cinematic Bonds, it's striking how many times Bond gets out of a jam or overcomes the villain merely by coincidence or happenstance. I, for one, don't see a huge disconnect just because Bond has to struggle a bit more to deal with the precarious situations he finds himself in. And I vehemently disagree with the notion that Craig's Bond has become this callous, indifferent cyborg as opposed to the somewhat more empathetic figure he is in the novels and in previous films. To me, Craig shows a Bond who is struggling with his emotions, trying to keep them in check lest they interfere with his ability to successfully complete his mission. His handling of Mathis, Vesper and even Severine made complete sense to me in context, and I think Craig's fine, subtle acting allows for hints of Bond's emotional state to come through in those scenarios. I don't think I need to go on to try to refute every point made by Richard--W and, in fact, I can see where he is coming from with respect to many of them. But the bottom line for me is that this Bond, Craig's Bond, is a Bond that I can recognize from the novels, a Bond I can enjoy, and a Bond I can continue to root for. Looking forward to Daniel Craig as Ian Fleming's James Bond 007 in Bond 24.
The literary Bond was a "winner"? He was, in fact, friendless, an alcoholic, a nicotine addict, and remarkably unsuccessful with women. He was betrayed by Vesper Lynd and rejected by Gala Brand and Tiffany Case. Then the great love of his life is murdered. By the last couple of books, his world his falling apart. It would've been interesting to see where Fleming would've taken him.
Does not happen very often, but here I fully agree with you {[]
...though have you read the Bond novels, I wonder?
Although I disagree with much of what Richard--W said in his last post, I agree that it is well-thought out and coherent. (Not stupid at all). At least this time he is giving his opinions without laying out his curriculum vitae first so that we dare not dispute the validity of his views. That being said, I believe some of those views are oversimplified, and some overlook the fact that Craig's Bond is a total reboot (resulting in rougher edges that are later refined). Also, many of the faults and weaknesses attributed to the new Bond I don't believe are necessarily weaknesses. This Bond has to improvise and be more resourceful. He doesn't have all the answers, nor does he have just the right gadgets at hand to get him out of any tight spot. Yes, he makes mistakes, and sometimes those mistakes cost him and others dearly (I seem to recall that also happens from time to time in the Bond novels I have read). But in looking back on previous cinematic Bonds, it's striking how many times Bond gets out of a jam or overcomes the villain merely by coincidence or happenstance. I, for one, don't see a huge disconnect just because Bond has to struggle a bit more to deal with the precarious situations he finds himself in. And I vehemently disagree with the notion that Craig's Bond has become this callous, indifferent cyborg as opposed to the somewhat more empathetic figure he is in the novels and in previous films. To me, Craig shows a Bond who is struggling with his emotions, trying to keep them in check lest they interfere with his ability to successfully complete his mission. His handling of Mathis, Vesper and even Severine made complete sense to me in context, and I think Craig's fine, subtle acting allows for hints of Bond's emotional state to come through in those scenarios. I don't think I need to go on to try to refute every point made by Richard--W and, in fact, I can see where he is coming from with respect to many of them. But the bottom line for me is that this Bond, Craig's Bond, is a Bond that I can recognize from the novels, a Bond I can enjoy, and a Bond I can continue to root for. Looking forward to Daniel Craig as Ian Fleming's James Bond 007 in Bond 24.
I'm with you all the way! Especially about keeping emotions in check. Reminds me of a passage from Carte Blanche (I know, it's not fleming, but it's still bond) where an ally died and Bond is having dinner with Felix went something like "...neither man raised his glass. It's something you don't do, no matter how much you want to." So Bond is still feeling but he's not allowed to show them.
What I find distressing about Richard--W's posts is that he is like so many so-called Bond fans today: they take the approach of "MY interpretation of Bond is THE interpretation of Bond; all others are inauthentic, wrong, and downright heretical." Increasingly people are seeing Bond only as they believe he should be seen and they seek to shut up anyone who has a different take. Where you see that most often today is around Daniel Craig's interpretation of Bond: there are some who hate that he's nothing like Connery's or Moore's Bond, and others--like Richard--who argue he and his films are nothing but bastardizations of Fleming.
A book I'd like to recommend to everyone is Sinclair McKay's The Man with the Golden Touch: How the Bond Films Conquered the World. I read this not too long ago: I didn't always agree with McKay and I loathed his too-cute-for-words writing style, but I thought he had some spot-on observations on many of the films and especially on how the film Bond has never been "Fleming's Bond" and never could be.
McKay makes the case throughout the book that the character as written by Fleming was fine for the 1950s, but by the time the films started being made, tastes and attitudes had changed. Where once David Niven and Dirk Bogarde would have been symbols of British masculinity, by the 1960s actors like Albert Finney, Stanley Baker, and Michael Caine offered a rougher view of what a man was. What's more, an aristocratic Bond would totally lack what the films most needed--international appeal. McKay spends a lot of time talking about Connery's Scottish burr, Lazenby's Australian accent and awkward delivery, and Brosnan's comes-and-goes Irish brogue and how these elements clash with the "sophisticated" image of Bond and create a sense of a character who transcends class barriers. McKay especially praises Craig's accent--which he says at times sounds like Tony Blair's--and his rough-and-tumble look (he says there's a running joke in the films of Craig's Bond not owning his own tuxedo) and concludes the "clearly intended effect was to project classlessness; that [Bond] might somehow belong to any one of a number of British social tribes" (356). No, he is not Fleming's Bond; he is Cinema's Bond, and Cinema Bond belongs to the world.
Then there's the issue of "fidelity" to Fleming--either in plot or "spirit." McKay has one of the best takes on this I've ever read, one that deserves to be quoted in full:
"One might quickly go back to the novels and ask what exactly the 'spirit' of Fleming is: can it be most accurately found in the intricate, chilly plotting of From Russia with Love? Or do we find a more representative spirit in the bonkers moment where Bond fights it out to the death with a giant squid at the climax of Doctor No? Is the spirit somewhere within the gloom and oppression and anger of the short story 'The Living Daylights'; or in the schoolboy earnestness of Moonraker, with Bond and Gala enjoying a skinny-dip in the English Channel prior to having a white cliff fall down around them?" (202)
So, then, there are multiple Bonds--a Bond for every taste and every mood--even in the works of Ian Fleming himself. My advice to Richard--W and the other fans who've been moaning and groaning for the last few years: lighten up. Craig won't last forever. There will one day be a new actor and new writers and directors, all of whom will add a new wrinkle to Cinematic Bond. But please stop trying to lecture everyone on who and what Bond really is--that's YOUR Bond, and Bond is too big to be contained by your conception.
I have to say I'm trying to think of as sheerly horrible scenes in Fleming's novels as Craig goes through. I mean horrible stuff is in Fleming's novels, but not directly to Bond.
Some novel spoilers ahead:
So, Bond thinks he's about to run over a gal on the railway tracks in one novel, but it turns out it's not the case. Not really close to the gal in SF and the target practice scene.
Bond has to sacrifice his mate at the top of Piz Gloria, who has just stumbled in there not realising Bond is undercover. In some ways worse than putting Mathis in the dump truck, of course. But you are allowed to see just how awful it is for Bond, and that he has no other choice, and you read about him remonstrating with himself. Frankly, you don't get that with Craig's interpretation of Bond, it's Wayne Rooney all the way.
led in there not realising Bond is undercover. In some ways worse than putting Mathis in the dump truck, of course. But you are allowed to see just how awful it is for Bond, and that he has no other choice, and you read about him remonstrating with himself. Frankly, you don't get that with Craig's interpretation of Bond, it's Wayne Rooney all the way.
Yes, well he comes across quite brutal does Craig Bond, with none of the literary version's introspection either. Admittedly this is difficult for an actor to portray. I'll say that in his defence!
There's a good argument that the movie Bond was more an invention of Kevin McClory/Jack Whittingham than Ian Fleming.
From what I gather, Terrence Young may have been the biggest influence on developing the "cinematic" Bond. Young was "Professor Higgins" to the rough and tumble Connery. Harry and Cubby had the brilliant idea that Bond would be better served by smoothing out tough than trying to get someone mannered and classy to be tough.
There's a good argument that the movie Bond was more an invention of Kevin McClory/Jack Whittingham than Ian Fleming.
From what I gather, Terrence Young may have been the biggest influence on developing the "cinematic" Bond. Young was "Professor Higgins" to the rough and tumble Connery.
Indeed. Much more worthy of that title than that cretin Kevin McClory.
What I find distressing about Richard--W's posts is that he is like so many so-called Bond fans today: they take the approach of "MY interpretation of Bond is THE interpretation of Bond; all others are inauthentic, wrong, and downright heretical." Increasingly people are seeing Bond only as they believe he should be seen and they seek to shut up anyone who has a different take. Where you see that most often today is around Daniel Craig's interpretation of Bond: there are some who hate that he's nothing like Connery's or Moore's Bond, and others--like Richard--who argue he and his films are nothing but bastardizations of Fleming.
A book I'd like to recommend to everyone is Sinclair McKay's The Man with the Golden Touch: How the Bond Films Conquered the World. I read this not too long ago: I didn't always agree with McKay and I loathed his too-cute-for-words writing style, but I thought he had some spot-on observations on many of the films and especially on how the film Bond has never been "Fleming's Bond" and never could be.
McKay makes the case throughout the book that the character as written by Fleming was fine for the 1950s, but by the time the films started being made, tastes and attitudes had changed. Where once David Niven and Dirk Bogarde would have been symbols of British masculinity, by the 1960s actors like Albert Finney, Stanley Baker, and Michael Caine offered a rougher view of what a man was. What's more, an aristocratic Bond would totally lack what the films most needed--international appeal. McKay spends a lot of time talking about Connery's Scottish burr, Lazenby's Australian accent and awkward delivery, and Brosnan's comes-and-goes Irish brogue and how these elements clash with the "sophisticated" image of Bond and create a sense of a character who transcends class barriers. McKay especially praises Craig's accent--which he says at times sounds like Tony Blair's--and his rough-and-tumble look (he says there's a running joke in the films of Craig's Bond not owning his own tuxedo) and concludes the "clearly intended effect was to project classlessness; that [Bond] might somehow belong to any one of a number of British social tribes" (356). No, he is not Fleming's Bond; he is Cinema's Bond, and Cinema Bond belongs to the world.
Then there's the issue of "fidelity" to Fleming--either in plot or "spirit." McKay has one of the best takes on this I've ever read, one that deserves to be quoted in full:
"One might quickly go back to the novels and ask what exactly the 'spirit' of Fleming is: can it be most accurately found in the intricate, chilly plotting of From Russia with Love? Or do we find a more representative spirit in the bonkers moment where Bond fights it out to the death with a giant squid at the climax of Doctor No? Is the spirit somewhere within the gloom and oppression and anger of the short story 'The Living Daylights'; or in the schoolboy earnestness of Moonraker, with Bond and Gala enjoying a skinny-dip in the English Channel prior to having a white cliff fall down around them?" (202)
So, then, there are multiple Bonds--a Bond for every taste and every mood--even in the works of Ian Fleming himself. My advice to Richard--W and the other fans who've been moaning and groaning for the last few years: lighten up. Craig won't last forever. There will one day be a new actor and new writers and directors, all of whom will add a new wrinkle to Cinematic Bond. But please stop trying to lecture everyone on who and what Bond really is--that's YOUR Bond, and Bond is too big to be contained by your conception.
-{ Agreed.
For a long time I was one of those fans who couldn't get the new Bond. Although as I've posted in a different thread, I have calmed down and can accept that a change was needed.
So I might have the novel destiniction of being one of the few members on AJB who have adimitted they were Wrong and have changed their minds.
Hardyboy isn't right about everthing. Just my opinion but Dalton got the closest to the Bond of the books, then again I've been wrong before. )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
-{ Agreed.
For a long time I was one of those fans who couldn't get the new Bond. Although as I've posted in a different thread, I have calmed down and can accept that a change was needed.
So I might have the novel destiniction of being one of the few members on AJB who have adimitted they were Wrong and have changed their minds.
Hardyboy isn't right about everthing. Just my opinion but Dalton got the closest to the Bond of the books, then again I've been wrong before. )
"So, then, there are multiple Bonds--a Bond for every taste and every mood"
This is what I was referring to when I said Hardyboy is right. I don't believe there's a right or wrong answer, so let's all just enjoy our Bond, whichever incarnation (or incarnations) you fancy. -{
scaramanga1The English RivieraPosts: 845Chief of Staff
I personally am very pleased to see Mendes back - it may allow continuity in the franchise to run smoother. He and Craig work well together and the success of Skyfall proved that. For now I think this is a good move and makes clear sense. Especially if they want to continue from where Skyfall left off. So not surprised he's back and quite excited by the prospect of the next movie now the New M is in place as is Moneypenny etc. So here's hoping it delivers more of the same and makes the nostalgic fans happy as well as taking the whole world forward for a new generation. Quite a Modernist outlook that will work well methinks.
I personally am very pleased to see Mendes back - it may allow continuity in the franchise to run smoother. He and Craig work well together and the success of Skyfall proved that. For now I think this is a good move and makes clear sense. Especially if they want to continue from where Skyfall left off. So not surprised he's back and quite excited by the prospect of the next movie now the New M is in place as is Moneypenny etc. So here's hoping it delivers more of the same and makes the nostalgic fans happy as well as taking the whole world forward for a new generation. Quite a Modernist outlook that will work well methinks.
My thoughts exactly. Hopefully gives them plenty of opportunity to develop the character(s) further.
I personally am very pleased to see Mendes back - it may allow continuity in the franchise to run smoother. He and Craig work well together and the success of Skyfall proved that. For now I think this is a good move and makes clear sense. Especially if they want to continue from where Skyfall left off. So not surprised he's back and quite excited by the prospect of the next movie now the New M is in place as is Moneypenny etc. So here's hoping it delivers more of the same and makes the nostalgic fans happy as well as taking the whole world forward for a new generation. Quite a Modernist outlook that will work well methinks.
Comments
Barbara Broccoli's thing is to take those traits and turn the tables on them by saying, yeah, this guy is screwed up and we are acknowledging that, in a Batman Dark Knight sort of way. Interesting, but my problem is that it is only half acknowledged; a mixture of patriotism and dumbness (imo) keeps a lot of critics and folk going along with Bond like he is still a cool guy anyway.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Well, Bond was considered to be an unusual hero even by the standards of his time. Fleming was always getting rejected by Hollywood, although that probably had more to do with the womanizing than anything else. Even so, the films portrayed Bond as a moderate drinker/smoker whereas in the books he smokes 70 cigarettes a day and he takes a drink an average of once every three pages. Even back then "chain smoking" and alcoholism were considered vices.
There's a good argument that the movie Bond was more an invention of Kevin McClory/Jack Whittingham than Ian Fleming.
Does not happen very often, but here I fully agree with you {[]
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
...though have you read the Bond novels, I wonder?
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Well good! Glad to hear it, friend.
A book I'd like to recommend to everyone is Sinclair McKay's The Man with the Golden Touch: How the Bond Films Conquered the World. I read this not too long ago: I didn't always agree with McKay and I loathed his too-cute-for-words writing style, but I thought he had some spot-on observations on many of the films and especially on how the film Bond has never been "Fleming's Bond" and never could be.
McKay makes the case throughout the book that the character as written by Fleming was fine for the 1950s, but by the time the films started being made, tastes and attitudes had changed. Where once David Niven and Dirk Bogarde would have been symbols of British masculinity, by the 1960s actors like Albert Finney, Stanley Baker, and Michael Caine offered a rougher view of what a man was. What's more, an aristocratic Bond would totally lack what the films most needed--international appeal. McKay spends a lot of time talking about Connery's Scottish burr, Lazenby's Australian accent and awkward delivery, and Brosnan's comes-and-goes Irish brogue and how these elements clash with the "sophisticated" image of Bond and create a sense of a character who transcends class barriers. McKay especially praises Craig's accent--which he says at times sounds like Tony Blair's--and his rough-and-tumble look (he says there's a running joke in the films of Craig's Bond not owning his own tuxedo) and concludes the "clearly intended effect was to project classlessness; that [Bond] might somehow belong to any one of a number of British social tribes" (356). No, he is not Fleming's Bond; he is Cinema's Bond, and Cinema Bond belongs to the world.
Then there's the issue of "fidelity" to Fleming--either in plot or "spirit." McKay has one of the best takes on this I've ever read, one that deserves to be quoted in full:
"One might quickly go back to the novels and ask what exactly the 'spirit' of Fleming is: can it be most accurately found in the intricate, chilly plotting of From Russia with Love? Or do we find a more representative spirit in the bonkers moment where Bond fights it out to the death with a giant squid at the climax of Doctor No? Is the spirit somewhere within the gloom and oppression and anger of the short story 'The Living Daylights'; or in the schoolboy earnestness of Moonraker, with Bond and Gala enjoying a skinny-dip in the English Channel prior to having a white cliff fall down around them?" (202)
So, then, there are multiple Bonds--a Bond for every taste and every mood--even in the works of Ian Fleming himself. My advice to Richard--W and the other fans who've been moaning and groaning for the last few years: lighten up. Craig won't last forever. There will one day be a new actor and new writers and directors, all of whom will add a new wrinkle to Cinematic Bond. But please stop trying to lecture everyone on who and what Bond really is--that's YOUR Bond, and Bond is too big to be contained by your conception.
As always, thanks for reading!
Some novel spoilers ahead:
So, Bond thinks he's about to run over a gal on the railway tracks in one novel, but it turns out it's not the case. Not really close to the gal in SF and the target practice scene.
Bond has to sacrifice his mate at the top of Piz Gloria, who has just stumbled in there not realising Bond is undercover. In some ways worse than putting Mathis in the dump truck, of course. But you are allowed to see just how awful it is for Bond, and that he has no other choice, and you read about him remonstrating with himself. Frankly, you don't get that with Craig's interpretation of Bond, it's Wayne Rooney all the way.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Yes, well he comes across quite brutal does Craig Bond, with none of the literary version's introspection either. Admittedly this is difficult for an actor to portray. I'll say that in his defence!
Indeed. Much more worthy of that title than that cretin Kevin McClory.
Outstanding post, sir! -{
Yes, after Connery! (See - Hardyboy is right!
For a long time I was one of those fans who couldn't get the new Bond. Although as I've posted in a different thread, I have calmed down and can accept that a change was needed.
So I might have the novel destiniction of being one of the few members on AJB who have adimitted they were Wrong and have changed their minds.
Hardyboy isn't right about everthing. Just my opinion but Dalton got the closest to the Bond of the books, then again I've been wrong before.
"So, then, there are multiple Bonds--a Bond for every taste and every mood"
This is what I was referring to when I said Hardyboy is right. I don't believe there's a right or wrong answer, so let's all just enjoy our Bond, whichever incarnation (or incarnations) you fancy. -{
That's just Me ,slow on the uptake again.
( I think it's down to having that monocle removed )
No problem, my friend. Sometimes it seems "slow on the uptake" is my middle name!
only if you've read ALL the fleming novels.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Agreed. Dalton also looked closest to the Fleming's hand drawing of Bond. Type 'James Bond' into Wikipedia and the picture is there.
1. People who hate things.
2. Irony.
3. Lists.
Still looking for Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, so Ill shut up for now. -{
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23268463
My thoughts exactly. Hopefully gives them plenty of opportunity to develop the character(s) further.
+1