Categories of Bond Films

IcePak

I've been thinking about the Bond series and realised that while the series as a whole obviously has a formula, some films in the series have more in common with others. I've created a series of categories that I think fit most of the films. Of course, some films fit into more than one category, but I've chosen the ones I feel best reflect the film as a whole. Do you agree?

Flemingesque Bond
These films adhere closely to the story of the novel or short story and/or the character Fleming created. They usually contain a serious tone, although that doesn't preclude the use of dark humour.
Films:
[list=*]
[*]Dr No[/*]
[*]From Russia With Love[/*]
[*]On Her Majesty's Secret Service[/*]
[*]For Your Eyes Only[/*]
[*]The Living Daylights[/*]
[/list]

Cinematic Bond
Here, the story keeps some elements from the source material. However, it makes some elements seem larger than life. The character of Bond retains some of Fleming's version, but is more comedic and often portrayed as a playboy. The focus here is 007 as a spy investigating the self-centred scheme of an egotistical villain.
Films:
[list=*]
[*]Goldfinger[/*]
[*]Thunderball[/*]
[*]Octopussy[/*]
[*]A View to a Kill[/*]
[*]Casino Royale [/*]
[/list]

Epic Bond
Epic Bond films utilise a similar formula to Cinematic Bond. However, here everything becomes much bigger. The scope of the adventure is much larger and usually involves a villain's scheme to take over or destroy the world. As such, the character of Bond is usually portrayed as a pawn in a grandiose escapade of epic proportions. The source material is disregarded for the most part.
Films:
[list=*]
[*]You Only Live Twice[/*]
[*]The Spy Who Loved Me[/*]
[*]Moonraker[/*]
[*]Tomorrow Never Dies[/*]
[*]Die Another Day[/*]
[/list]

Camp Bond
These films take the characteristics of Cinematic Bond - egotistical villain, larger than life scenarios, and Bond as a playboy - but play everything for laughs. Bond usually sleepwalks from one situation to another with little effort involved in overcoming the obstacles in his path. Some of these films could even be classified as spoofs of Bond and the spy genre.
Films:
[list=*]
[*]Diamonds Are Forever[/*]
[*]Live and Let Die[/*]
[*]The Man with the Golden Gun[/*]
[/list]

Rogue Bond
These films take Cinematic Bond but make him grittier and involve a lot of amped up, personally-driven violence. Usually Bond is out for revenge for personal reasons and becomes a rogue agent for a time.
Films:
[list=*]
[*]Licence to Kill[/*]
[*]Quantum of Solace[/*]
[*]S.P.E.C.T.R.E.[/*]
[/list]

Character-Driven Bond
Here, the investigation leads to something from Bond's past or involves Bond at an intensely personal level. The character comes to the fore in some way for some or most of the film that reveals something about him.
Films:
[list=*]
[*]Goldeneye[/*]
[*]The World is Not Enough[/*]
[*]Skyfall[/*]
[/list]

What are your thoughts?

heartbroken_mr_drax

IMO you've categorised them perfectly! I like how you've titled TWINE as "character driven Bond".

{[]

Mr_Osato

I like TND but wouldn't rate it as epic. I cannot remember any real epic moments. DAD I would put in the 'camp' category, or 'trash' category if there ever was one. Casino Royale might deserve a 'Flemingesque' rating. TND maybe the 'cinematic' camp? The last one is a bit difficult to categorize. Maybe the most generic Bond movie, even though I do like it.

heartbroken_mr_drax

Mr_Osato wrote:

I like TND but wouldn't rate it as epic. I cannot remember any real epic moments. DAD I would put in the 'camp' category, or 'trash' category if there ever was one. Casino Royale might deserve a 'Flemingesque' rating. TND maybe the 'cinematic' camp? The last one is a bit difficult to categorize. Maybe the most generic Bond movie, even though I do like it.

I think the plot of DAD and TND allows it to fit within the epic category because they're both plots that match the scale of the others in that category.

IcePak

I agree, Mr_Osato. I originally had CR as Fleming-esque but it also has a more cinematic approach. And it even has character-driven moments in that the film reestablishes the character.

I also agree with you, Heartbroken_Mr_Drax - DAD and TND have the epic scope to match films like YOLT, TSWLM, and MR. But I can also see how people might consider DAD to be camp and that TND might not be as epic as some of these films and coulbd be classified more as a cinematic Bond film.

I suppose this shows the superfluous nature of categorisation. The fact that many of the films cross over the different categories shows how each of the films is never just one thing. And that makes for more interesting viewing.

weaRNTear

Mr_Osato wrote:

I like TND but wouldn't rate it as epic. I cannot remember any real epic moments.

Don't really know if I would credit any Bond film as being Epic! TND is large scale on action set pieces and the whole WW3 outbreak that is looking over the plot, but at a runtime of under 2 hours it goes by pretty fast. GoldenEye of Skyfall would maybe be in that category.

Firemass

IcePak wrote:

For Your Eyes Only
The Living Daylights

Cinematic Bond
Here, the story keeps some elements from the source material. However, it makes some elements seem larger than life. The character of Bond retains some of Fleming's version, but is more comedic and often portrayed as a playboy. The focus here is 007 as a spy investigating the self-centred scheme of an egotistical villain.
Films:

Goldfinger
Thunderball

That is a really exceptional, well-thought-out job of categorizing the Bond films. Nice work IcePak. -{

I would at least consider that Goldfinger and Thunderball be Flemingesque Bond because they are just as faithful to the novel as FRWL and DR. Fleming happened to write some very cinematic novels IMO.

I would say the first 4 Bond films and OHMSS are the only films that can qualify as Flemingesque.

Other ones like FYEO, OP, TLD, LTK, and CR would be "Cinematic" because they contains elements of Fleming, but also add a lot of extra stuff to the movie that was not found in the novels. Maybe I could call these "Fleming/Cinematic" because other films like TSWLM and MR are very "cinematic" to the point of being "pure cinema" and don't contain any ties to literary source material.

Matt S

Firemass wrote:

IcePak wrote:

For Your Eyes Only
The Living Daylights

Cinematic Bond
Here, the story keeps some elements from the source material. However, it makes some elements seem larger than life. The character of Bond retains some of Fleming's version, but is more comedic and often portrayed as a playboy. The focus here is 007 as a spy investigating the self-centred scheme of an egotistical villain.
Films:

Goldfinger
Thunderball

That is a really exceptional, well-thought-out job of categorizing the Bond films. Nice work IcePak. -{

I would at least consider that Goldfinger and Thunderball be Flemingesque Bond because they are just as faithful to the novel as FRWL and DR. Fleming happened to write some very cinematic novels IMO.

I would say the first 4 Bond films and OHMSS are the only films that can qualify as Flemingesque.

Other ones like FYEO, OP, TLD, LTK, and CR would be "Cinematic" because they contains elements of Fleming, but also add a lot of extra stuff to the movie that was not found in the novels. Maybe I could call these "Fleming/Cinematic" because other films like TSWLM and MR are very "cinematic" to the point of being "pure cinema" and don't contain any ties to literary source material.

I agree with this.

Chula

You over-complicated things. I can make it simpler. Two categories:

GOOD Bond:
- Dr. No
- From Russia With Love
- Goldfinger
- Thunderball
- You Only Live Twice
- On Her Majesty's Secret Service
- Diamonds Are Forever
- Live And Le Die
- The Man With The Golden Gun
- The Spy Who Loved Me
- Moonraker
- For Your Eyes Only
- Octopussy


BAD bond:
- every Bond film after Octopussy

IcePak

Firemass wrote:

IcePak wrote:

For Your Eyes Only
The Living Daylights

Cinematic Bond
Here, the story keeps some elements from the source material. However, it makes some elements seem larger than life. The character of Bond retains some of Fleming's version, but is more comedic and often portrayed as a playboy. The focus here is 007 as a spy investigating the self-centred scheme of an egotistical villain.
Films:

Goldfinger
Thunderball

That is a really exceptional, well-thought-out job of categorizing the Bond films. Nice work IcePak. -{

I would at least consider that Goldfinger and Thunderball be Flemingesque Bond because they are just as faithful to the novel as FRWL and DR. Fleming happened to write some very cinematic novels IMO.

I would say the first 4 Bond films and OHMSS are the only films that can qualify as Flemingesque.

Other ones like FYEO, OP, TLD, LTK, and CR would be "Cinematic" because they contains elements of Fleming, but also add a lot of extra stuff to the movie that was not found in the novels. Maybe I could call these "Fleming/Cinematic" because other films like TSWLM and MR are very "cinematic" to the point of being "pure cinema" and don't contain any ties to literary source material.

Thanks for the feedback.

Of Connery's first four films, I've only read Thunderball and have to admit it adheres closely to the novel. I'll take your word the other three do as well.

I'm reading Casino Royale at the moment and agree that Fleming is a very cinematic writer. I love how the 2006 film uses the best bits from the book but adds elements that, IMO, improve upon the novel.

My original intention with the Flemingesque category was to classify the films that capture the essence of Fleming's writing, even if the stories are highly embellished upon. FYEO and TLD fall into this category, especially the latter, which follows the source material very closely (like TB) but then adds to it. I can't recall whether FYEO uses any of the short story but I found that it, and the extra material in TLD, captured the essence of the character and Fleming's storytelling style. Hence my choice in including those films into the Flemingesque category.

However, I agree with what you are saying about FYEO, OP, TLD, LTK, and CR and am considering reworking the categorisation system.

It's interesting how the 60s, 70s, and 80s have their own dominant style (Flemingesque in the 60s, Camp and Epic in the 70s, and Cinematic in the 80s) but that the following films took from these styles rather than developing their own unique style. I suppose it could be argued that the Brosnan era introduced a more character centric style in GE and TWINE and that the Craig era introduced a darker, rougher style, but I'm not convinced that underneath they are much different from the styles that came before. Maybe it will take time and perspective to see that.

DEFIANT 74205

IcePak wrote:

I can't recall whether FYEO uses any of the short story

Two, in fact. It more or less follows For Your Eyes Only and Risico and blends them almost seamlessly, but does add elements to the film that are not found in either short story. Overall, though, I thought it was definitely Moore's most Fleming-esque film (and in my view, his best Bond film).

I like how you combined the "Epic/Camp" categories in your signature block. I was going to point out that I think Moonraker and Die Another Day deserves to be in the "camp" category after reading your initial post. They are so bad that they're very much cringe-worthy.