Also, Bond really isn't a spy in the films anymore. Starting with Brosnan, James Bond turned into a pure action hero. The action stopped following the story, and the story started following the action. To me, that isn't Bond. With all of the concessions the films make to today's world, is it possible to bring back more of Fleming's type of story to the films? I know it's no longer the cold war, but it's not like today's world has become the world of shoot outs. Well, unfortunately it has in America. But that's not what I'd like to think of the world.
Completely agree. The espionage elements that Bond is known for is no longer the main ingredient in the films.
While it's by no means perfect The Living Daylights has a brilliant blend of adventure, Bond, espionage, global politics and action. Love to see these ingredients done for a modern Bond.
I think a large part of the right balance also needs to consider adapting the character to today's world. We've had so many different cinematic incarnations. Bond doesn't need to follow the outdated parts of Fleming's character. I'm sure if Fleming were alive in a different time, Bond would have different in some ways. And because of that, I think Bond can adapt. If he's going to live in today's world, he needs to follow today's rules. And then break the rules of today in the same way he broke the rules of the 1950s and 60s.
Also, Bond really isn't a spy in the films anymore. Starting with Brosnan, James Bond turned into a pure action hero. The action stopped following the story, and the story started following the action. To me, that isn't Bond. With all of the concessions the films make to today's world, is it possible to bring back more of Fleming's type of story to the films? I know it's no longer the cold war, but it's not like today's world has become the world of shoot outs. Well, unfortunately it has in America. But that's not what I'd like to think of the world.
Your 1st paragraph, "Bond must adapt," then what you explain in your 2nd paragraph is Bond doing that exactly, adapting to the modern world yet you say it doesn't work. And I don't understand how Bond must follow today's rules, only to break them?
There are limits to how far Bond can "adapt" to today's social mores and to exceed those limits would critically dilute the essence of the Bond character. As I alluded earlier, what would prevent a future Bond of a different race, gender, sexual orientation, political party affiliation, etc.? Once you go there, you will have a Bond in name only. So, the answer is "no," Bond does not need to adapt and if he does (and has), it will surely be more for commercial than artistic interests. Taken to an extreme, that would give you the scenario you posed to Thunderpussy above, e.g., a Bond who is no longer Bond.
If Fleming were alive today, how would we know one way or another with certainty that he'd "follow the rules"? Given the same setting in life (upper echelon of British society) who can be sure that he'd be ideally PC and wouldn't be given to the same pleasure seeking of his roots? As far as smoking, they still sell cigarettes, don't they?
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
The smoking issue could probably be resolved by somehow implying Bond smokes (perhaps showing pack, or an ashtray with old cigarettes in his hotel room or the like) without actually showing him doing so.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
The smoking issue could probably be resolved by somehow implying Bond smokes (perhaps showing pack, or an ashtray with old cigarettes in his hotel room or the like) without actually showing him doing so.
Fair enough. There is still freedom of choice in our society, within laws and reason and the last thing I'd ever want to see is the Bond character caving in to ideological fascism.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
The smoking issue could probably be resolved by somehow implying Bond smokes (perhaps showing pack, or an ashtray with old cigarettes in his hotel room or the like) without actually showing him doing so.
Fair enough. There is still freedom of choice in our society, within laws and reason and the last thing I'd ever want to see is the Bond character caving in to ideological fascism.
If Bond is in the fictional present he can't be doing things that are no longer fashionable or "cool" just because his character did when it was developed. If he did, he'd be old-fashioned.
Sounds as if you'd like Bond to be set back in a time where all this stuff was fashionable and acceptable...
It's a vice. Bond isn't a perfect person. In fact, he's an anti hero. If smoking is a part of his character, then he should smoke.
Killing people also isn't cool and fashionable.
Film: Tomorrow Never Dies | Girl: Teresa di Vicenzo | Villain: Max Zorin | Car: Aston Martin Volante | Novel: You Only Live Twice | Bond: Sir Sean Connery
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
The smoking issue could probably be resolved by somehow implying Bond smokes (perhaps showing pack, or an ashtray with old cigarettes in his hotel room or the like) without actually showing him doing so.
Fair enough. There is still freedom of choice in our society, within laws and reason and the last thing I'd ever want to see is the Bond character caving in to ideological fascism.
If Bond is in the fictional present he can't be doing things that are no longer fashionable or "cool" just because his character did when it was developed. If he did, he'd be old-fashioned.
Sounds as if you'd like Bond to be set back in a time where all this stuff was fashionable and acceptable...
No, you and your conclusions are wrong. It seems it is you who want Bond to do what is fashionable and acceptable today. I contend that Bond was never about that. It's not a matter of doing things that were considered cool; that would make one a poseur. The public consensus of what was "cool" came after, but preceding any of that, without giving any thought to "what would make people think that James Bond is cool?" ...it was all about Fleming's life philosophy to live on his own terms, which just happened to translate into a world that captured the imagination of the public.
Putting the smoking aside, most of what Bond did, excessive drinking, serial adultery and fornication, routinely traveling to exotic lands and living an excessive lifestyle in times that were austere, were actions not fashionable in terms of publicly pronounced respectability. It was the "sex and sadism" that secretly appealed to readers' guilty pleasures.
Ultimately, Bond, like Fleming, did what as he wanted without caring what others thought. Do you think that Fleming thought it was cool for people to read how Bond smoke 70 cigarettes a day? If anything, by his blatant laying out of his dirty habits for all to see, it perhaps was the shock effect he was after in showing "this is me."
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
It seems it is you who want Bond to do what is fashionable and acceptable today. I contend that Bond was never about that. It's not a matter of doing things that were considered cool; that would make one a poseur. The public consensus of what was "cool" came after, but preceding any of that, without giving any thought to "what would make people think that James Bond is cool?" ...it was all about Fleming's life philosophy to live on his own terms, which just happened to translate into a world that captured the imagination of the public.
Putting the smoking aside, most of what Bond did, excessive drinking, serial adultery and fornication, routinely traveling to exotic lands and living an excessive lifestyle in times that were austere, were actions not fashionable in terms of publicly pronounced respectability. It was the "sex and sadism" that secretly appealed to readers' guilty pleasures.
Ultimately, Bond, like Fleming, did what as he wanted without caring what others thought. Do you think that Fleming thought it was cool for people to read how Bond smoke 70 cigarettes a day? If anything, by his blatant laying out of his dirty habits for all to see, it perhaps was the shock effect he was after in showing "this is me."
In the context of the novel/Fleming-Bond, yes. I completely agree with you.
In the context of the film-Bond, no.
The films were made to appeal to too many audiences, and the constant ongoing changes in the world were reflected in them. That's why Bond's uber-masculine qualities exhibited in the novels was constantly watered down. Novel, Bond is the anti-hero. Films, Bond is the hero. CR is probably the only film which challenges what I'm saying IMO.
I grew up with the film Bond and that's who he is to me, not the novel Bond. So that's why I feel how I do.
In the context of the novel/Fleming-Bond, yes. I completely agree with you.
In the context of the film-Bond, no.
The films were made to appeal to too many audiences, and the constant ongoing changes in the world were reflected in them. That's why Bond's uber-masculine qualities exhibited in the novels was constantly watered down. Novel, Bond is the anti-hero. Films, Bond is the hero. CR is probably the only film which challenges what I'm saying IMO.
I grew up with the film Bond and that's who he is to me, not the novel Bond. So that's why I feel how I do.
Actually, it's the other way around in the broadest level; the antics of book Bond were comparatively sedate to the uber masculinity that was to come in the Bond films. The film Bond is merely the interpolation of the literary character, traits and all. For example, the internalized, ironic and sardonic humor of the books (not just limited to Bond’s ponderings) was translated into a visual narrative that lent a wit and humor to the films. The action in the books, though sensational to read, needed infusion when translated on the screen.
So, in essence, there is a clear and linear connection between the book and film versions of the character. Cinematically, Bond continued to be an anti-hero, who actually set the standard for movie protagonists to have casual sex at will and to indulge in vice, which by the way, Bond still does; the Playboy magazine fantasy had suddenly gone mainstream. Before Bond, all of that was shocking and at best, sex outside the marriage bed was implied and given a romantic flavor; but now it’s obligatory lest a male protagonist be seen as weak, or worse, though no one in production would admit it, gay.
You are correct in one aspect, which I did say in earlier posts, that any concessions to audience sensitivities were to ensure fun for the whole family, e.g., optimum box-office. Otherwise, the Bond series might have died an early death had it gone the route of art films. It was deft decision making on the part of the producers to keep it going and there was actually sensible method to what seemed like madness to us, like the way DAF was done, or the allowances given to Roger Moore’s take on Bond given the period and the point in the life-cycle of the series at a given time.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
re smoking
Bond doesn't do it because he's cool or fashionable or sophisticated
he is indulgent, guiltlessly indulges in pleasure while he can, because he could be dead tomorrow
for me that would therefor be part of The Right Balance
I don't think all the dangerous driving, highstakes gambling, or sleeping with villain's girlfriends is recommended behavior either, but for some reason this is the life this character has chosen: presumably short but intense while it lasts
I like the later Moores and the two Brosnans: they take shorter Fleming stories and spin them out into larger stories that maintain the Fleming spirit
as opposed to the earlier Moores and the later Connerys, where they use a couple of names and maybe the setting from the book, but otherwise abandon the source material after the first scene for something much more generic
and I would love to see a period Bond film, the public would not be confused: that first Captain America film was one of the best written of the Marvel Films, and was no less successful at the box office than the others in the series, they should stop assuming the audiences are stoopid
I really enjoyed that film as well. I don't think EON believes audiences would be too stupid to accept a period film. The problem is that CA is not Bond. He didn't have decades of films establishing him in a contemporary time frame. They were able to have CA frozen and brought back today and that worked for that storyline and character. The public would absolutely be confused with one Bond period film for a variety of reasons. One is that if you are referring to taking him back into the 1950's, then it would be a serious jolt to modern audiences. If you are suggesting a 60's piece it might seem like a nice bit of nostalgia, but it still might be a bit unsettling as - again, they're is the history of Connery being Bong at that time. The only way I could see a period Bond film working is if EON wanted to due a separate television series with another actor. They could pull this off even while maintaining the cinema series since it would be in two different mediums.
Just got back into my original post and given all the subsequent posts about smoking, I'm afraid anyone who believes the modern cinematic Bond should smoke for whatever reason is really kicking a dead carcass around. If EON wanted to have him smoke again, the Craig reboot would have been the perfect time to have done it and yet they still did not. They give a pass to his drinking because as damaging as it might be in the real world it is still broadly accepted whereas smoking has been on the decline for a long time. Since with Craig's reboot they still wanted to emphasize that he still had some habit that they could show him abusing, drinking was the obvious choice. Outside of a series of period films that could be made, discussing the future cinematic Bond smoking I think is just an exercise in futility. I would prefer posts focus on my original intent of the post - the right balance of the plotting of the films and Bond's characterization (not his habits, but the balance of seriousness vs tongue in cheek).
I don't think EON believes audiences would be too stupid to accept a period film. The problem is that CA is not Bond. He didn't have decades of films establishing him in a contemporary time frame. They were able to have CA frozen and brought back today and that worked for that storyline and character. The public would absolutely be confused with one Bond period film for a variety of reasons. One is that if you are referring to taking him back into the 1950's, then it would be a serious jolt to modern audiences. If you are suggesting a 60's piece it might seem like a nice bit of nostalgia, but it still might be a bit unsettling as - again, they're is the history of Connery being Bong at that time. The only way I could see a period Bond film working is if EON wanted to due a separate television series with another actor. They could pull this off even while maintaining the cinema series since it would be in two different mediums.
Yet a period Bond novel has been presented more than once before, and (generally) the readers aren't confused. Of course, the reading public is more restricted than the film-going public and the budgets are much smaller!
the right balance of the plotting of the films and Bond's characterization (not his habits, but the balance of seriousness vs tongue in cheek).
Okay, if it's based on seriousness and tongue in cheek then I'd vote for OHMSS as being the most balanced film between the two. I think the fact that the plot is restricted to a few locations and involves few main players allows it to feel balanced. As soon as the films get larger in scale, they become less believable (GF/TB/MR/TSWLM etc) - therefore becoming less balanced.
Just got back into my original post and given all the subsequent posts about smoking, I'm afraid anyone who believes the modern cinematic Bond should smoke for whatever reason is really kicking a dead carcass around. If EON wanted to have him smoke again, the Craig reboot would have been the perfect time to have done it and yet they still did not. They give a pass to his drinking because as damaging as it might be in the real world it is still broadly accepted whereas smoking has been on the decline for a long time. Since with Craig's reboot they still wanted to emphasize that he still had some habit that they could show him abusing, drinking was the obvious choice. Outside of a series of period films that could be made, discussing the future cinematic Bond smoking I think is just an exercise in futility. I would prefer posts focus on my original intent of the post - the right balance of the plotting of the films and Bond's characterization (not his habits, but the balance of seriousness vs tongue in cheek).
In hopes of nudging things forward, are there other insights or any particular direction for this discussion you are looking for? It seems that though a lot of different views have been covered and presented, you perhaps find them lacking. What would be your own proposal and examples for the "ideal" balance?
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Just got back into my original post and given all the subsequent posts about smoking, I'm afraid anyone who believes the modern cinematic Bond should smoke for whatever reason is really kicking a dead carcass around. If EON wanted to have him smoke again, the Craig reboot would have been the perfect time to have done it and yet they still did not. They give a pass to his drinking because as damaging as it might be in the real world it is still broadly accepted whereas smoking has been on the decline for a long time. Since with Craig's reboot they still wanted to emphasize that he still had some habit that they could show him abusing, drinking was the obvious choice. Outside of a series of period films that could be made, discussing the future cinematic Bond smoking I think is just an exercise in futility. I would prefer posts focus on my original intent of the post - the right balance of the plotting of the films and Bond's characterization (not his habits, but the balance of seriousness vs tongue in cheek).
Habits are part of characterisation, and that includes smoking, as much as it does womanising, drinking and gambling.
And saying that we would have gotten smoking in Craig's era if Eon wanted isn't a helpful argument. Otherwise we could say that if Eon wanted to give us a balanced film, the Craig 'reboot' would have been a perfect time to do it.
Side note, I believe it was Craig's idea for Bond not to smoke, for the same reason that heartbroken_mr_drax pointed out, and for me, that takes away a vital element of Fleming's character. And, Bond was also supposed to involved in a ski chase in SP, but that was also written out because Craig said he couldn't ski (as opposed to giving it a go). Instead, we get a poorly conceived and executed action sequence involving ramming planes into the back of cars that Bond is supposed to be pursuing to save a girl, crashing through buildings and still plowing on - all because of simple characterisation choices.
Film: Tomorrow Never Dies | Girl: Teresa di Vicenzo | Villain: Max Zorin | Car: Aston Martin Volante | Novel: You Only Live Twice | Bond: Sir Sean Connery
I don't think EON believes audiences would be too stupid to accept a period film. The problem is that CA is not Bond. He didn't have decades of films establishing him in a contemporary time frame. They were able to have CA frozen and brought back today and that worked for that storyline and character. The public would absolutely be confused with one Bond period film for a variety of reasons. One is that if you are referring to taking him back into the 1950's, then it would be a serious jolt to modern audiences. If you are suggesting a 60's piece it might seem like a nice bit of nostalgia, but it still might be a bit unsettling as - again, they're is the history of Connery being Bong at that time. The only way I could see a period Bond film working is if EON wanted to due a separate television series with another actor. They could pull this off even while maintaining the cinema series since it would be in two different mediums.
Yet a period Bond novel has been presented more than once before, and (generally) the readers aren't confused. Of course, the reading public is more restricted than the film-going public and the budgets are much smaller!
A period film would make it very difficult for the Bond films to do the product tie ins, which are so important to establishing the budget. It could work for artistic reasons but not economic ones, as the Bond films largely exist anymore to be a place to advertise.
Just got back into my original post and given all the subsequent posts about smoking, I'm afraid anyone who believes the modern cinematic Bond should smoke for whatever reason is really kicking a dead carcass around. If EON wanted to have him smoke again, the Craig reboot would have been the perfect time to have done it and yet they still did not. They give a pass to his drinking because as damaging as it might be in the real world it is still broadly accepted whereas smoking has been on the decline for a long time. Since with Craig's reboot they still wanted to emphasize that he still had some habit that they could show him abusing, drinking was the obvious choice. Outside of a series of period films that could be made, discussing the future cinematic Bond smoking I think is just an exercise in futility. I would prefer posts focus on my original intent of the post - the right balance of the plotting of the films and Bond's characterization (not his habits, but the balance of seriousness vs tongue in cheek).
Habits are part of characterisation, and that includes smoking, as much as it does womanising, drinking and gambling.
And saying that we would have gotten smoking in Craig's era if Eon wanted isn't a helpful argument. Otherwise we could say that if Eon wanted to give us a balanced film, the Craig 'reboot' would have been a perfect time to do it.
Side note, I believe it was Craig's idea for Bond not to smoke, for the same reason that heartbroken_mr_drax pointed out, and for me, that takes away a vital element of Fleming's character. And, Bond was also supposed to involved in a ski chase in SP, but that was also written out because Craig said he couldn't ski (as opposed to giving it a go). Instead, we get a poorly conceived and executed action sequence involving ramming planes into the back of cars that Bond is supposed to be pursuing to save a girl, crashing through buildings and still plowing on - all because of simple characterisation choices.
As far as I know, Craig does smoke, why would it be his idea for Bond to stop smoking? If I remember correctly, even in Brosnan movies Bond only smokes once. It seems to me that this is a conscious decision made by producers long before Craig's time.
As for skiing, are we to believe that Roger Moore could ski and did his own stunts? Skiing scenes are amongst the easiest to use stuntmen for, you usually wear a hat and goggles, so your face is easy to hide.
Just got back into my original post and given all the subsequent posts about smoking, I'm afraid anyone who believes the modern cinematic Bond should smoke for whatever reason is really kicking a dead carcass around. If EON wanted to have him smoke again, the Craig reboot would have been the perfect time to have done it and yet they still did not. They give a pass to his drinking because as damaging as it might be in the real world it is still broadly accepted whereas smoking has been on the decline for a long time. Since with Craig's reboot they still wanted to emphasize that he still had some habit that they could show him abusing, drinking was the obvious choice. Outside of a series of period films that could be made, discussing the future cinematic Bond smoking I think is just an exercise in futility. I would prefer posts focus on my original intent of the post - the right balance of the plotting of the films and Bond's characterization (not his habits, but the balance of seriousness vs tongue in cheek).
Habits are part of characterisation, and that includes smoking, as much as it does womanising, drinking and gambling.
And saying that we would have gotten smoking in Craig's era if Eon wanted isn't a helpful argument. Otherwise we could say that if Eon wanted to give us a balanced film, the Craig 'reboot' would have been a perfect time to do it.
Side note, I believe it was Craig's idea for Bond not to smoke, for the same reason that heartbroken_mr_drax pointed out, and for me, that takes away a vital element of Fleming's character. And, Bond was also supposed to involved in a ski chase in SP, but that was also written out because Craig said he couldn't ski (as opposed to giving it a go). Instead, we get a poorly conceived and executed action sequence involving ramming planes into the back of cars that Bond is supposed to be pursuing to save a girl, crashing through buildings and still plowing on - all because of simple characterisation choices.
As far as I know, Craig does smoke, why would it be his idea for Bond to stop smoking? If I remember correctly, even in Brosnan movies Bond only smokes once. It seems to me that this is a conscious decision made by producers long before Craig's time.
As for skiing, are we to believe that Roger Moore could ski and did his own stunts? Skiing scenes are amongst the easiest to use stuntmen for, you usually wear a hat and goggles, so your face is easy to hide.
This isn't the article I read, but a quick google search pointed me in this direction:
The current Bond, Daniel Craig, is the only one to refuse to light up in character. Craig is a heavy smoker off camera, but he sees Bond smoking as a logistical problem. In an interview he stated:
“I don’t wish for [Bond] to smoke. Fleming wrote a Bond who smoked 60 cigarettes a day. I can’t do that and then run two-and-a-half miles down a road, it just doesn’t tie in.”
Also, perhaps I wasn't clear when I added skiing to the conversation. I wasn't referring to the stunts that's performed by the actor or the stuntman, and whether they were placed in front of a green screen or not. I was referring to the fact that Bond does ski, but because Craig can't, the film and character suffers because the subsequent action sequence is not a Bondian sequence. We don't see Bond using his wits, or anything particularly exciting, either. We get Bond charging into a situation Rambo style. Point is, if you take away a skill/habit/sensibility, it eventually turns into something else.
Film: Tomorrow Never Dies | Girl: Teresa di Vicenzo | Villain: Max Zorin | Car: Aston Martin Volante | Novel: You Only Live Twice | Bond: Sir Sean Connery
I was also a bit disappointed when Craig did not ski. It's true they could have faked it, but I think they decided not to not only because Craig doesn't ski but also because they've done it so many times in the past perhaps they wanted to try a different approach. They did the straight ski chases, snowmobile, snowboard, parahawks, etc - so perhaps they wanted to be a little more inventive. Well, it was done and that's that.
Smoking - yes it is part of the literary Bond's character - but (again), the producers are not going to have Bond smoke again, so discussing it round and round to me is just futile. I approach this type of thing from the view of EON, because that's who calls the shots for the series. We can dream about anything we want, but in the end it's only us chattering on. Now, I will say that one of my desires was to show Bond in his flat, and I was thrilled they did it in SP in fact they did it twice -even though they were very brief scenes). However, EON will be as likely to show Bond smoking again as they would be showing him dressed in a drag disguise (Moore's clown outfit is as close as we'll get to something like that -but, well, that was Moore).
As far as what I personally consider the right balance in the films - I refer to the first four films then OHMSS, TLD, GE & CR. For me, the best balance came when they had Fleming's stories to work with. They may have had a small hiccup here and there but overall those films struck a pretty good balance - though not a perfect one and I think that has much to do with the fact that they are doing such a delicate juggling act transferring the stories to the screen while at the same time keeping their eye on the box office. Some may think TB and even GF slanted a bit more towards the spectacle, but I keep in mind that TB was originally intended as a film and I always believed Fleming wrote GF with one eye on a potential cinematic adaptation.
The problem for EON now has been what's left of Fleming they can either use as a springboard for a main plot (TLD) or at the very least things that can influence parts of the films - such as using the parts of the plot of TMWTGG to write SF (Bond returns a broken man, M is almost assassinated - granted it was by Bond in the novel - M sends him out on a mission to redeem himself as an agent). My worry is when they ever reach the point there is nothing left to scour out of that literary bucket and they have to shape something from out of thin air. Until then, I can only hope they will keep striving to maintain a proper balance with the character and the plots so they maintain their style rather than attempt to follow whatever is culturally fashionable.
I would like the next film to be a straight mission based film as the originals were - Bond is sent out by M to stop the villain and he gets the heroine. No going rogue, none of the plot dealing with his past (though touching upon it briefly in passing is fine), etc, and no super villain trying to extort or control the entire planet - they can leave that to all the comic book films. A good spy thriller with some action, good characters and a great classic villain would be all I need.
I think if they made a low-stakes Bond film in the vein of FRWL, FYEO, TLD, or CR, it would be very well-received. And I think many of the actors currently rumored to be in the mix, up to and including Daniel Craig, could thrive in that type of film.
I think if they made a low-stakes Bond film in the vein of FRWL, FYEO, TLD, or CR, it would be very well-received. And I think many of the actors currently rumored to be in the mix, up to and including Daniel Craig, could thrive in that type of film.
I would like the next film to be a straight mission based film as the originals were - Bond is sent out by M to stop the villain and he gets the heroine. No going rogue, none of the plot dealing with his past (though touching upon it briefly in passing is fine), etc, and no super villain trying to extort or control the entire planet - they can leave that to all the comic book films. A good spy thriller with some action, good characters and a great classic villain would be all I need.
Agreed. Looks as if many of us are in the same boat here.
I think if they made a low-stakes Bond film in the vein of FRWL, FYEO, TLD, or CR, it would be very well-received. And I think many of the actors currently rumored to be in the mix, up to and including Daniel Craig, could thrive in that type of film.
Craig would need to demonstrate far greater emotional range than we have seen so far, I like his intensity, but feel his one note approach would be inappropriate in a smaller scale adventure. I'm undecided if he is capable of it or not and just not been given the opportunity. I'd like some light to balance the shade in a smaller production and a counterweight to the angst. I know some people feel we got that in Spectre, but I disagree. I'd like to see our boy have a little fun, and without a Helicopter in sight.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
All of John Glen's films seem to have a balance mostly. FYEO and OP have some serious moments, but we still have Moore at his best. All of his films present very different locations around the world - Italy, Greece, India, Germany, France, San Francisco, Austria, Tangier, South America - that is very similar to the first Connery films - taking the audience to a range of different locations.
The problem with Craig's Bond is that an attempt is made to make the film more personal to Bond. This works well in CR and SF, but it's not necessary. Let's not forget that Bond is a man doing a job - but we haven't actually seen Craig do his job, since he's gone rogue in three of his four films. Not everything has to be connected to Bond, because it makes the film world seem smaller. It's ok for a modern Bond to simply be assigned a job to catch an eccentric, larger than life villain. All that is needed is for some fun you'd expect from a film and mix in with some elements that bring Bond back to Earth. Bond is supposed to be a man that men want to be - maybe it's time to bring that back to the character.
All of John Glen's films seem to have a balance mostly. FYEO and OP have some serious moments, but we still have Moore at his best. All of his films present very different locations around the world - Italy, Greece, India, Germany, France, San Francisco, Austria, Tangier, South America - that is very similar to the first Connery films - taking the audience to a range of different locations.
The problem with Craig's Bond is that an attempt is made to make the film more personal to Bond. This works well in CR and SF, but it's not necessary. Let's not forget that Bond is a man doing a job - but we haven't actually seen Craig do his job, since he's gone rogue in three of his four films. Not everything has to be connected to Bond, because it makes the film world seem smaller. It's ok for a modern Bond to simply be assigned a job to catch an eccentric, larger than life villain. All that is needed is for some fun you'd expect from a film and mix in with some elements that bring Bond back to Earth. Bond is supposed to be a man that men want to be - maybe it's time to bring that back to the character.
Apart from the personal aspect, SP brought back all of classic Bond elements. It was the first time that Craig tried to be that man that men want to be. If you didn't get that idea from Craig in SP, he's probably not the right man to be that type of Bond.
Comments
Completely agree. The espionage elements that Bond is known for is no longer the main ingredient in the films.
While it's by no means perfect The Living Daylights has a brilliant blend of adventure, Bond, espionage, global politics and action. Love to see these ingredients done for a modern Bond.
"Better make that two."
Your 1st paragraph, "Bond must adapt," then what you explain in your 2nd paragraph is Bond doing that exactly, adapting to the modern world yet you say it doesn't work. And I don't understand how Bond must follow today's rules, only to break them?
There are limits to how far Bond can "adapt" to today's social mores and to exceed those limits would critically dilute the essence of the Bond character. As I alluded earlier, what would prevent a future Bond of a different race, gender, sexual orientation, political party affiliation, etc.? Once you go there, you will have a Bond in name only. So, the answer is "no," Bond does not need to adapt and if he does (and has), it will surely be more for commercial than artistic interests. Taken to an extreme, that would give you the scenario you posed to Thunderpussy above, e.g., a Bond who is no longer Bond.
If Fleming were alive today, how would we know one way or another with certainty that he'd "follow the rules"? Given the same setting in life (upper echelon of British society) who can be sure that he'd be ideally PC and wouldn't be given to the same pleasure seeking of his roots? As far as smoking, they still sell cigarettes, don't they?
Fair enough. There is still freedom of choice in our society, within laws and reason and the last thing I'd ever want to see is the Bond character caving in to ideological fascism.
If Bond is in the fictional present he can't be doing things that are no longer fashionable or "cool" just because his character did when it was developed. If he did, he'd be old-fashioned.
Sounds as if you'd like Bond to be set back in a time where all this stuff was fashionable and acceptable...
"Better make that two."
Killing people also isn't cool and fashionable.
Totally agree. You fully understood what Fleming wanted to present in terms of the anti-hero angle.
No, you and your conclusions are wrong. It seems it is you who want Bond to do what is fashionable and acceptable today. I contend that Bond was never about that. It's not a matter of doing things that were considered cool; that would make one a poseur. The public consensus of what was "cool" came after, but preceding any of that, without giving any thought to "what would make people think that James Bond is cool?" ...it was all about Fleming's life philosophy to live on his own terms, which just happened to translate into a world that captured the imagination of the public.
Putting the smoking aside, most of what Bond did, excessive drinking, serial adultery and fornication, routinely traveling to exotic lands and living an excessive lifestyle in times that were austere, were actions not fashionable in terms of publicly pronounced respectability. It was the "sex and sadism" that secretly appealed to readers' guilty pleasures.
Ultimately, Bond, like Fleming, did what as he wanted without caring what others thought. Do you think that Fleming thought it was cool for people to read how Bond smoke 70 cigarettes a day? If anything, by his blatant laying out of his dirty habits for all to see, it perhaps was the shock effect he was after in showing "this is me."
In the context of the novel/Fleming-Bond, yes. I completely agree with you.
In the context of the film-Bond, no.
The films were made to appeal to too many audiences, and the constant ongoing changes in the world were reflected in them. That's why Bond's uber-masculine qualities exhibited in the novels was constantly watered down. Novel, Bond is the anti-hero. Films, Bond is the hero. CR is probably the only film which challenges what I'm saying IMO.
I grew up with the film Bond and that's who he is to me, not the novel Bond. So that's why I feel how I do.
"Better make that two."
Actually, it's the other way around in the broadest level; the antics of book Bond were comparatively sedate to the uber masculinity that was to come in the Bond films. The film Bond is merely the interpolation of the literary character, traits and all. For example, the internalized, ironic and sardonic humor of the books (not just limited to Bond’s ponderings) was translated into a visual narrative that lent a wit and humor to the films. The action in the books, though sensational to read, needed infusion when translated on the screen.
So, in essence, there is a clear and linear connection between the book and film versions of the character. Cinematically, Bond continued to be an anti-hero, who actually set the standard for movie protagonists to have casual sex at will and to indulge in vice, which by the way, Bond still does; the Playboy magazine fantasy had suddenly gone mainstream. Before Bond, all of that was shocking and at best, sex outside the marriage bed was implied and given a romantic flavor; but now it’s obligatory lest a male protagonist be seen as weak, or worse, though no one in production would admit it, gay.
You are correct in one aspect, which I did say in earlier posts, that any concessions to audience sensitivities were to ensure fun for the whole family, e.g., optimum box-office. Otherwise, the Bond series might have died an early death had it gone the route of art films. It was deft decision making on the part of the producers to keep it going and there was actually sensible method to what seemed like madness to us, like the way DAF was done, or the allowances given to Roger Moore’s take on Bond given the period and the point in the life-cycle of the series at a given time.
"Better make that two."
Bond doesn't do it because he's cool or fashionable or sophisticated
he is indulgent, guiltlessly indulges in pleasure while he can, because he could be dead tomorrow
for me that would therefor be part of The Right Balance
I don't think all the dangerous driving, highstakes gambling, or sleeping with villain's girlfriends is recommended behavior either, but for some reason this is the life this character has chosen: presumably short but intense while it lasts
I really enjoyed that film as well. I don't think EON believes audiences would be too stupid to accept a period film. The problem is that CA is not Bond. He didn't have decades of films establishing him in a contemporary time frame. They were able to have CA frozen and brought back today and that worked for that storyline and character. The public would absolutely be confused with one Bond period film for a variety of reasons. One is that if you are referring to taking him back into the 1950's, then it would be a serious jolt to modern audiences. If you are suggesting a 60's piece it might seem like a nice bit of nostalgia, but it still might be a bit unsettling as - again, they're is the history of Connery being Bong at that time. The only way I could see a period Bond film working is if EON wanted to due a separate television series with another actor. They could pull this off even while maintaining the cinema series since it would be in two different mediums.
Yet a period Bond novel has been presented more than once before, and (generally) the readers aren't confused. Of course, the reading public is more restricted than the film-going public and the budgets are much smaller!
Okay, if it's based on seriousness and tongue in cheek then I'd vote for OHMSS as being the most balanced film between the two. I think the fact that the plot is restricted to a few locations and involves few main players allows it to feel balanced. As soon as the films get larger in scale, they become less believable (GF/TB/MR/TSWLM etc) - therefore becoming less balanced.
"Better make that two."
In hopes of nudging things forward, are there other insights or any particular direction for this discussion you are looking for? It seems that though a lot of different views have been covered and presented, you perhaps find them lacking. What would be your own proposal and examples for the "ideal" balance?
Habits are part of characterisation, and that includes smoking, as much as it does womanising, drinking and gambling.
And saying that we would have gotten smoking in Craig's era if Eon wanted isn't a helpful argument. Otherwise we could say that if Eon wanted to give us a balanced film, the Craig 'reboot' would have been a perfect time to do it.
Side note, I believe it was Craig's idea for Bond not to smoke, for the same reason that heartbroken_mr_drax pointed out, and for me, that takes away a vital element of Fleming's character. And, Bond was also supposed to involved in a ski chase in SP, but that was also written out because Craig said he couldn't ski (as opposed to giving it a go). Instead, we get a poorly conceived and executed action sequence involving ramming planes into the back of cars that Bond is supposed to be pursuing to save a girl, crashing through buildings and still plowing on - all because of simple characterisation choices.
As far as I know, Craig does smoke, why would it be his idea for Bond to stop smoking? If I remember correctly, even in Brosnan movies Bond only smokes once. It seems to me that this is a conscious decision made by producers long before Craig's time.
As for skiing, are we to believe that Roger Moore could ski and did his own stunts? Skiing scenes are amongst the easiest to use stuntmen for, you usually wear a hat and goggles, so your face is easy to hide.
This isn't the article I read, but a quick google search pointed me in this direction:
http://www.geist.com/blogs/notes-from-the-ashtray/the-spy-who-loved-smoking/
Also, perhaps I wasn't clear when I added skiing to the conversation. I wasn't referring to the stunts that's performed by the actor or the stuntman, and whether they were placed in front of a green screen or not. I was referring to the fact that Bond does ski, but because Craig can't, the film and character suffers because the subsequent action sequence is not a Bondian sequence. We don't see Bond using his wits, or anything particularly exciting, either. We get Bond charging into a situation Rambo style. Point is, if you take away a skill/habit/sensibility, it eventually turns into something else.
Smoking - yes it is part of the literary Bond's character - but (again), the producers are not going to have Bond smoke again, so discussing it round and round to me is just futile. I approach this type of thing from the view of EON, because that's who calls the shots for the series. We can dream about anything we want, but in the end it's only us chattering on. Now, I will say that one of my desires was to show Bond in his flat, and I was thrilled they did it in SP in fact they did it twice -even though they were very brief scenes). However, EON will be as likely to show Bond smoking again as they would be showing him dressed in a drag disguise (Moore's clown outfit is as close as we'll get to something like that -but, well, that was Moore).
As far as what I personally consider the right balance in the films - I refer to the first four films then OHMSS, TLD, GE & CR. For me, the best balance came when they had Fleming's stories to work with. They may have had a small hiccup here and there but overall those films struck a pretty good balance - though not a perfect one and I think that has much to do with the fact that they are doing such a delicate juggling act transferring the stories to the screen while at the same time keeping their eye on the box office. Some may think TB and even GF slanted a bit more towards the spectacle, but I keep in mind that TB was originally intended as a film and I always believed Fleming wrote GF with one eye on a potential cinematic adaptation.
The problem for EON now has been what's left of Fleming they can either use as a springboard for a main plot (TLD) or at the very least things that can influence parts of the films - such as using the parts of the plot of TMWTGG to write SF (Bond returns a broken man, M is almost assassinated - granted it was by Bond in the novel - M sends him out on a mission to redeem himself as an agent). My worry is when they ever reach the point there is nothing left to scour out of that literary bucket and they have to shape something from out of thin air. Until then, I can only hope they will keep striving to maintain a proper balance with the character and the plots so they maintain their style rather than attempt to follow whatever is culturally fashionable.
I would like the next film to be a straight mission based film as the originals were - Bond is sent out by M to stop the villain and he gets the heroine. No going rogue, none of the plot dealing with his past (though touching upon it briefly in passing is fine), etc, and no super villain trying to extort or control the entire planet - they can leave that to all the comic book films. A good spy thriller with some action, good characters and a great classic villain would be all I need.
Agreed. Looks as if many of us are in the same boat here.
"Better make that two."
As long as it's the boat 007 finds himself in at the end of the movie, alone with the leading lady! (Yes, I'm a traditionalist
Craig would need to demonstrate far greater emotional range than we have seen so far, I like his intensity, but feel his one note approach would be inappropriate in a smaller scale adventure. I'm undecided if he is capable of it or not and just not been given the opportunity. I'd like some light to balance the shade in a smaller production and a counterweight to the angst. I know some people feel we got that in Spectre, but I disagree. I'd like to see our boy have a little fun, and without a Helicopter in sight.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
The problem with Craig's Bond is that an attempt is made to make the film more personal to Bond. This works well in CR and SF, but it's not necessary. Let's not forget that Bond is a man doing a job - but we haven't actually seen Craig do his job, since he's gone rogue in three of his four films. Not everything has to be connected to Bond, because it makes the film world seem smaller. It's ok for a modern Bond to simply be assigned a job to catch an eccentric, larger than life villain. All that is needed is for some fun you'd expect from a film and mix in with some elements that bring Bond back to Earth. Bond is supposed to be a man that men want to be - maybe it's time to bring that back to the character.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Apart from the personal aspect, SP brought back all of classic Bond elements. It was the first time that Craig tried to be that man that men want to be. If you didn't get that idea from Craig in SP, he's probably not the right man to be that type of Bond.