Personally, I don't mind if Bond doesn't smoke. It's not an essential part of his character (cinematically speaking) and so it doesn't concern me. Nor would I be concerned if Bond did smoke in CR. Although I'm not fussed that Bond isn't smoking, there are two things which bother me about Bond's lack of smoking-
First, it annoys me that Campbell has specifically and deliberately come out in public to state that Bond won't be smoking for fear that he be a bad role model. Campbell can have his principals, but please just don't talk about it.
he wouldn't have to smoke in every scene, but one or two scenes...Bond has a smoke, and the audience gets to watch the character think for a moment. Smoking is a horrible habit, of course, but it's also a fabulous cinematic device.
Absolutely true. Smoking is such a simple yet effective device.
So really, I'm on the fence about this. I think both sides have merits, and while Campbell particularly annoys the hell out of me, there are other issues which I am much more concerned about.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
edited October 2006
I'd like to make it clear that I'm not campaigning for Bond to smoke...now.
What I failed to post when I first saw this thread, in response to the original question, is "yes," on one level Bond should be a smoker because it's part of his character, but "no," at a different level he cannot do that today considering the present climate of the series.
"...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.....
By your argument about the persuading force of Bond films being akin to the disciplines of marketing and advertising, kids as a direct result are having more unprotected, serial sex than they would have had otherwise. Also, as MBE argued, kids are becoming alchoholics at an earlier age as another direct effect of the Bond films (some scientists claim that certain people are genetically predisposed to become alcoholics, and, and emulating Bond films can actually be the catalyst for that).
Yes. Doing a little good is better than doing a lot bad, isn't it? Bond doesn't actually encourage unprotected sex and doesn't really encourage excessive drinking (although I think probably showing Bond in his room drinking by himself was probably irresponsible- I've seen a lot of kids saying how cool he looked in that scene, and he really doesn't).
And to return to this thread's subject, yes, as a direct carry-over from the novels, cigarette smoking was a fundamental trait of the cinematic Bond, which really ceased with Moore's reign due in part to disassociate him from Connery. It was only with Brosnan when smoking was banned to make an emphatic statement against it. Nonetheless, smoking was consciously established as an essential character element, just as the tuxedo, vodka martinis and Walther PPK.
Ah. No; I thought we were talking about fundemental character traits; not furniture. Get rid of Sherlock Holmes' deerstalker and.. you're left with Sherlock Holmes. Bond started off cigarette smoking but had ditched it nine years after the series started, and we're in the forty-fourth year.
With the rash of firearm related violence among youth nowadays, why not ban indiscriminate killings on Bond films altogether? At least smoking (if at all), would lead to a less violent death.
That's really beneath you. Realistically, are kids more likely to jump out of a plane with no parachute or try a vodka martini because of a Bond film? Let's stop dealing with the hypothetical and deal with the sensible. And not be crass, discussing 'better' ways to die.
What I failed to post when I first saw this thread, in response to the original question, is "yes," on one level Bond should be a smoker because it's part of his character, but "no," at a different level he cannot do that today considering the present climate of the series.
Exactly- very level headed: that's all I'm saying. I like seeing Bond smoke- I do think it suits him; but nothing exists in a vacuum and it simply can't and shouldn't happen now. Many of us would love a really tough, stripped back Fleming adaptation; but the Bond brand has been established now and you simply can't do it: look at all the fuss over very slightly changing the formula this time around.
Hero? I thought Bond was suppossed to be someone we loved to hate and hated to love? A man who sometimes did questionable and ugly things? At least this new incarnation. That's what the lead actor, producers and director have been saying they want to do with the character in CR.
James Bond has been around for 40 years as a silly cinematic hero; they're not changing the brand that much. They're just making him a little more believable character who is actually capable of making mistakes and makes some decisions the audience shouldn't fully agree with. Like all good heroes. I don't know where this 'hate' stuff is coming from.
It's more like you punched her in the face ysterday got on your soap box about how it was bad yet continued to kick her in the knees and jab her in the kidneys today. They're still glamorizing drinking (again-- as big a problem or bigger toiday with kids than smoking), violence and sex to children so the high horse of new found ethics is more than a tad wobbly.
Another issue altogether. Are you saying; yes or no: that they should feature smoking just because they did so in the past, regardless of the changed world and attitudes to smoking? (Remember how cigarette advertising was allowed when LTK was released: believe it or not certain attitudes have changed).
If they want to keep Bond from influencing the kiddies then get a 15 or R rating and keep them out of the the theater.
MBE
Bit late for that- the brand's established. LTK had a 15 rating but I'm willing to bet plenty of kids under that age have seen it because they like Bond.
It was PG-13 (that means any age is allowed in even with an adult, it's just a warning) in the U.S. and it was only a 15 in the UK because a head exploded. They were still marketing the film to the underage set, worse they were taking product placement money to show Bond smoking cigarettes.
Except they weren't. It was a 15. If they were marketing to the underage, it wouldn't have had an exploding head.
The bit about rebranding -- that's part of the debate. It's a bit late for all the sanctimony -- worse it's inconsistent. It's cherry picking about the one issue that's likely to get the media watchdogs after you full force -- it has arse all to do with ethics or any broader concerns about damaging the psyches of or influencing bad habits in impressionable children.
MBE
I know- I can't believe how inconsistent the governments have been over these last few years. I mean, imagine actually changing their minds about enforcing tighter reguations on cigarette health warnings. And imagine those increased health warnings actually having an effect on the perceptions of cigarettes on people. Individuals like film directors. What a load of cynical b****ds; actually succeeding in trying to change the way people look at the dangers of cigarette smoking.
Yes or no: should Bond, whose look and manner is copied by many simply because he looks cool (see http://www.jamesbondlifestyle.com/ : any tips on killing the bond way, there?)- a simple fact- encourage the addictive and deadly smoking of cigarettes?
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
By your argument about the persuading force of Bond films being akin to the disciplines of marketing and advertising, kids as a direct result are having more unprotected, serial sex than they would have had otherwise. Also, as MBE argued, kids are becoming alchoholics at an earlier age as another direct effect of the Bond films (some scientists claim that certain people are genetically predisposed to become alcoholics, and, and emulating Bond films can actually be the catalyst for that).
Yes. Doing a little good is better than doing a lot bad, isn't it? Bond doesn't actually encourage unprotected sex and doesn't really encourage excessive drinking (although I think probably showing Bond in his room drinking by himself was probably irresponsible- I've seen a lot of kids saying how cool he looked in that scene, and he really doesn't).
And to return to this thread's subject, yes, as a direct carry-over from the novels, cigarette smoking was a fundamental trait of the cinematic Bond, which really ceased with Moore's reign due in part to disassociate him from Connery. It was only with Brosnan when smoking was banned to make an emphatic statement against it. Nonetheless, smoking was consciously established as an essential character element, just as the tuxedo, vodka martinis and Walther PPK.
Ah. No; I thought we were talking about fundemental character traits; not furniture. Get rid of Sherlock Holmes' deerstalker and.. you're left with Sherlock Holmes. Bond started off cigarette smoking but had ditched it nine years after the series started, and we're in the forty-fourth year.
With the rash of firearm related violence among youth nowadays, why not ban indiscriminate killings on Bond films altogether? At least smoking (if at all), would lead to a less violent death.
That's really beneath you. Realistically, are kids more likely to jump out of a plane with no parachute or try a vodka martini because of a Bond film? Let's stop dealing with the hypothetical and deal with the sensible. And not be crass, discussing 'better' ways to die.
What I failed to post when I first saw this thread, in response to the original question, is "yes," on one level Bond should be a smoker because it's part of his character, but "no," at a different level he cannot do that today considering the present climate of the series.
Exactly- very level headed: that's all I'm saying. I like seeing Bond smoke- I do think it suits him; but nothing exists in a vacuum and it simply can't and shouldn't happen now. Many of us would love a really tough, stripped back Fleming adaptation; but the Bond brand has been established now and you simply can't do it: look at all the fuss over very slightly changing the formula this time around.
I'm being hypothetical and not sensible? Ha! This from someone who grasps at straws, err, I mean, "extrapolates" other posters' assertions from thin air. Be careful, those are traits of paranoia, pal.
So, just because the smoking habit was dropped after the first 9 years of the film series, would you say then that fundamentally the Bond character is a non-smoker? Those 9 years, BTW is the foundation that defines the series and will continue to do so as long as it lasts. As sore as the other point goes, would a non-drinking Bond still be Bond? As I've said, I can understand the concern with Bond's influence over kids, but the logic is flawed even if based on the alcoholism issue alone, which you don't seem to see as a valid concern or something that's "sensible."
The difference between Holmes and Bond, is that the deerstalker cap was merely an occasional accessory worn by the literary character, which was expounded upon and firmly established as a Holmes staple in his many screen incarnations. The pipe smoking is another matter, though a specific type has gained traditional status in the films, it is one trait of Holmes that cannot be separated from the character whether in print or film..so that's another flawed arument there.
Because you not only accept but defend the changes that the Bond character has underwent, then the only conclusion that you can make is that the Bond character is wide open to any and all interpretation imaginable.
"...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.....
Bond doesn't actually encourage unprotected sex and doesn't really encourage excessive drinking (although I think probably showing Bond in his room drinking by himself was probably irresponsible- I've seen a lot of kids saying how cool he looked in that scene, and he really doesn't).
This is where I draw the line. I don't really have a problem with Bond not smoking as I have never seen it as a fundamental part of his character, but Bond drinks, and if it means, some kids may start drinking in a room all by themselves, I'm sorry but I'm willing to take the risk.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Bond doesn't actually encourage unprotected sex and doesn't really encourage excessive drinking (although I think probably showing Bond in his room drinking by himself was probably irresponsible- I've seen a lot of kids saying how cool he looked in that scene, and he really doesn't).
This is where I draw the line. I don't really have a problem with Bond not smoking as I have never seen it as a fundamental part of his character, but Bond drinks, and if it means, some kids may start drinking in a room all by themselves, I'm sorry but I'm willing to take the risk.
) ) )
Gee, that's big of you, Dan -- sticking your neck out like that and taking a risk. I take it you're not a father. 8-)
) ) )
Gee, that's big of you, Dan -- sticking your neck out like that and taking a risk. I take it you're not a father. 8-)
Perhaps I sounded a little dismissive. What I meant was, and this has nothing to do with not being a father, is that it's one thing IMO to not have Bond smoke because of the kids (as I don't think it's an essential part of Bond's character), it's another entirely to have him not drink for the same reason. I don't agree with the theory that doing something may influence kids to do the same thing, therefore Bond should not do it. At the end of the day, wether or not kids take up smoking or binge drinking or have unprotected sex, depends on themselves, their peers and their parents. Bond is a drinker and I don't think he should cease being one because kids watch Bond films.
It may be un-PC to say that, but you know what, IMO political correctness has been a bane of the Bond films in recent years. I am not willing to forsake an essential part of Bond's character in the name of political correctness.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
) ) )
Gee, that's big of you, Dan -- sticking your neck out like that and taking a risk. I take it you're not a father. 8-)
Perhaps I sounded a little dismissive. What I meant was, and this has nothing to do with not being a father, is that it's one thing IMO to not have Bond smoke because of the kids (as I don't think it's an essential aprt of Bond's character), it's another entirely to have him not drink for the same reason. I don't agree with the theory that doing something may influence kids to do the same thing, therefore Bond should not do it. At the end of the day, wether or not kids take up smoking or binge drinking or have unprotected sex, depends on themselves, their peers and their parents. Bond is a drinker and I don't think he should cease being one because kids watch Bond films.
It may be un-PC to say that, but you know what, IMO political correctness has been a bane of the Bond films in recent years. I am not willing to forsake an essential part of Bond's character in the name of political correctness.
I'm being hypothetical and not sensible? Ha! This from someone who grasps at straws, err, I mean, "extrapolates" other posters' assertions from thin air. Be careful, those are traits of paranoia, pal.
Fine- you've reduced your argument to the level of insults yet again. Obviously you have no belief in the strength of your argument, so you forfeit the match and the game, old boy!
) ) )
Gee, that's big of you, Dan -- sticking your neck out like that and taking a risk. I take it you're not a father. 8-)
Perhaps I sounded a little dismissive. What I meant was, and this has nothing to do with not being a father, is that it's one thing IMO to not have Bond smoke because of the kids (as I don't think it's an essential aprt of Bond's character), it's another entirely to have him not drink for the same reason. I don't agree with the theory that doing something may influence kids to do the same thing, therefore Bond should not do it. At the end of the day, wether or not kids take up smoking or binge drinking or have unprotected sex, depends on themselves, their peers and their parents. Bond is a drinker and I don't think he should cease being one because kids watch Bond films.
It may be un-PC to say that, but you know what, IMO political correctness has been a bane of the Bond films in recent years. I am not willing to forsake an essential part of Bond's character in the name of political correctness.
I don't disagree, I don't want him depicted as perfect, but equally the various lifestyles he endorses (anyone see the link between endorsement and marketing? Is that too much of an extrapolation for some?) are being watched by kids and responsibility has to be taken. That's not to say I don't want any film character smoking again, but Bond is a brand which speaks to the young and impressionable. It just is.
There's a fine line to be drawn- everyone likes an un-PC hero; and I do too. But is losing smoking all that bad? What are we actually missing? I just don't think it's worth the fuss. Also I don't mind seeing him drinking on his own if there's some sort of acknowledgement that it's not cool- picturing him in an intentionally 'cool' way whilst doing so sits uneasily. Perhaps the 'dodgy liver' comment in DAD was planned all along!
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
I'm being hypothetical and not sensible? Ha! This from someone who grasps at straws, err, I mean, "extrapolates" other posters' assertions from thin air. Be careful, those are traits of paranoia, pal.
Fine- you've reduced your argument to the level of insults yet again. Obviously you have no belief in the strength of your argument, so you forfeit the match and the game, old boy!
You certainly are a repeat offender at projecting your culpability on other people. Me, resorting to insults? Your initial response to any poster you don't agree with are always condescending insults! You have a need to preemptively deem a person, whether new or regular, as undeserving of basic respect, as if it’s your [deluded] sense of duty to declare someone "stupid." Is that how you were raised, being called stupid all the time?
You must really feel that inadequate. It seems no one can comment one way or another without you laying in wait to deliver an opposing slam. Must be tough for you to keep domestic relationships intact, if you have any of those at all, I'm sure.
"...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 'splitting hairs' concept doesn't make any sense to me. It's okay for Bond to drink, but not to smoke, because drinking is a bigger part of his character? I don't see how one can be justified, but not the other. I don't care if Bond smokes and drinks. Bond is a fictional character. He should be portrayed (and treated) as such. Do we really think there is a young, impressionable mind out there who is looking for an excuse to smoke but Martin Campbell will save them from such a decision by showing them Casino Royale? The whole crux of Campbell's decision is that smoking is bad for you. Well, Mr. Campbell, so is excessive drinking, so is a hollow-tip bullet, so is taking turns too fast in an Aston Martin. Anyone who wants to take up smoking because Bond smokes, is most likely going to drink because Bond drinks, and is going to drive fast because Bond drives fast.
Just wait, Mr. Campbell, when some teenager starts driving down a winding road at excess speed, downing his seventh vodka martini, with his girlfriend and ends up getting himself and someone else seriously hurt or killed. All because you sent a message saying everything will be okay as long as you don't smoke. If a director really really wants to be socially conscious than DON'T make a Bond film.
I don't drink or smoke, but it's a part of our world and I accept that there are people who do.
I just get irritated when Hollywood thinks they're doing us some favor like this, and turns a blind eye to the harm they're perpetrating.
A good many of these posts pose that smoking is on the wane. Despite the message of Thank You for Smoking, it seems generally agreed that smoking is unhealthy. Yet I'm astonished at the numbers of young people I see smoking in the U.S. and of all ages in the U.K. Contrary statics are likely available, but while it seems smoking was on the way out a few years ago, I'm not so convinced now. I don't think it has much to do with the media; clearly they've gotten the health message out. I think it's simply living in a nihilistic age.
Should Bond smoke? In a manner of speaking--using LTK as the benchmark--he hasn't smoked in nearly 20 years and, as I observe above, it doesn't appear to have had any impact. We've had heated debates over whether Bond should continue to be portrayed as, variously, white, straight, and male. For my money, he is all of these things. He is also, as far as I am concerned, a smoker.
For those who think that in this day it is probably best that Bond stop smoking, I ask what would have happened if alot of us had gotten our wish and CR had been done as a period piece? There's no question more people smoked in the '50s and '60s and with a good deal less moral uncertainty than today. Would you still censor the smoking? I'm going to guess--rather than effectively rewrite history--the answer is "no." But the visual is still the same: The hero inhales. What difference does it make whether the context is 1956 or 2006? I say none. Let him smoke; it's how the character was written and I can't accept that it possibly the carries the degree of social influence with which we're charging it.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
The 'splitting hairs' concept doesn't make any sense to me. It's okay for Bond to drink, but not to smoke, because drinking is a bigger part of his character? I don't see how one can be justified, but not the other. I don't care if Bond smokes and drinks. Bond is a fictional character. He should be portrayed (and treated) as such. Do we really think there is a young, impressionable mind out there who is looking for an excuse to smoke but Martin Campbell will save them from such a decision by showing them Casino Royale? The whole crux of Campbell's decision is that smoking is bad for you. Well, Mr. Campbell, so is excessive drinking, so is a hollow-tip bullet, so is taking turns too fast in an Aston Martin. Anyone who wants to take up smoking because Bond smokes, is most likely going to drink because Bond drinks, and is going to drive fast because Bond drives fast.
Just wait, Mr. Campbell, when some teenager starts driving down a winding road at excess speed, downing his seventh vodka martini, with his girlfriend and ends up getting himself and someone else seriously hurt or killed. All because you sent a message saying everything will be okay as long as you don't smoke. If a director really really wants to be socially conscious than DON'T make a Bond film.
I don't drink or smoke, but it's a part of our world and I accept that there are people who do.
I just get irritated when Hollywood thinks they're doing us some favor like this, and turns a blind eye to the harm they're perpetrating.
Well-stated. Drinking is as much a problem as smoking---if not moreso---to say nothing about driving too fast or pulling out a gun when someone 'disses' you, instead of just throwing punches (which is how they did it when I was a kid).
IMRO, Bond should drink and smoke---and get away with it, because he's an escapist fictional character. I think his smoking is an essential part of his character...a building block of the fundamental hedonism which defines him. Sure, he doesn't have to smoke, but in not doing so, he is diluted, if only slightly.
Still, Political Correctness rules the day...and more's the pity.
EDIT: I'd even go along with running the Surgeon General's warning---like the Zorin disclaimer before AVTAK---before the gunbarrel sequence, if it would make a difference!
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Just wait, Mr. Campbell, when some teenager starts driving down a winding road at excess speed, downing his seventh vodka martini, with his girlfriend and ends up getting himself and someone else seriously hurt or killed. All because you sent a message saying everything will be okay as long as you don't smoke. If a director really really wants to be socially conscious than DON'T make a Bond film.
Well, to be fair- it does rather look as though this film shows the implications of driving fast down country lanes; a look at the trailer can tell one that!
I also recall the magic moment of Connery lighting up at the table. And I remember as a kid buying sweet cigarettes (now the politically correct candy sticks)and pretending to smoke as all my role models in films did. But I actually hate smoking and I've got to the point that I cringe when someone lights up on screen. It seems so pointless. Often people smoke in productions when it is totally unnecessary - but it is an acting device or a crutch for the actor.
In my experience of working in theatres (thats the English theatre as opposed to cinemas or american theaters) the acting profession still has a high number of smokers - the dancing profession even more. I don't know if they see it as some artistic expression, or living outside of social norms and conventions. Drinking is also part of it.
Perhaps we should see Bond smoke, cough his guts up and make a rationale decision that he would like to live, quit smoking and be chewing gum or wearing patches for the entire film, whilst making visits to an elderly relative/friend (Bond has no family does he?)on a cancer,respiratory,stroke or cardio ward.
Now wouldn't that be a new caring Bond for the 21st century.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Perhaps we should see Bond smoke, cough his guts up and make a rationale decision that he would like to live, quit smoking and be chewing gum or wearing patches for the entire film, whilst making visits to an elderly relative/friend (Bond has no family does he?)on a cancer,respiratory,stroke or cardio ward.
Now wouldn't that be a new caring Bond for the 21st century.
Basically, that took place in TB, though Bond switched over to lower tar cigarettes instead of quitting outright. Had Fleming lived in our times to experience first hand the greater emphasis placed on the danger of smoking, maybe we would have seen Bond quit; or, maybe not in view of the rebel Fleming was (he blatantly disobeyed this doctor's orders), living life to the fullest with no thought about his tomorrow.
If we did see Bond hacking occasionally on the screen, it would IMO ground the traits of burn-out into the character, which is how I see Bond. You can't take "ruthless" and "gritty" without taking the others too, you know.
"...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.....
You can't take "ruthless" and "gritty" without taking the others too, you know.
Uh, yes you can. They are entirely different things. A ruthless character (one who has no compassion or pity and is merciless) does not have to be 'burnt-out.' As for 'gritty', it too is possible to have a gritty Bond film in which Bond does not have smoking-related breathing problems.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Perhaps we should see Bond smoke, cough his guts up and make a rationale decision that he would like to live, quit smoking and be chewing gum or wearing patches for the entire film, whilst making visits to an elderly relative/friend (Bond has no family does he?)on a cancer,respiratory,stroke or cardio ward.
Now wouldn't that be a new caring Bond for the 21st century.
i just can imagine a movie (any move, not less a Bond movie) in which the character just take a nicotine patche in a middle of a conversation (like with a cigarrete) it seem laughable (not by the message, it is just funny)
And yeah, "Thank you for smoking" says exactly what happen in the movie industry with cigarretes, a great movie indeed.
I keep saying that if Bond smokes is his problem (even knowing that is a role model for young and older people like myself and saying also that he shouldn't) i mean, imagine KINDA SPOILER BELOW near the ending, right before the James Bond Theme kicks in, in a moment we must see Bond thinking
before the phone call, when he reads the letter
he must be doing something... i preffer the cigarrete (half calm half annoyed) to some kind of violent reaction....
Eh, sign of the times I guess. Used to bug me that cinema Bond seemed to smoke way less, then not at all, but oh well. The character Fleming wrote always seemed very bound and defined by the times, makes sense for the character to survive he would need to evolve.
Very curious about Bond's character in CR, what with the reboot and all.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
You can't take "ruthless" and "gritty" without taking the others too, you know.
Uh, yes you can. They are entirely different things. A ruthless character (one who has no compassion or pity and is merciless) does not have to be 'burnt-out.' As for 'gritty', it too is possible to have a gritty Bond film in which Bond does not have smoking-related breathing problems.
But Dan, I'm talking about taking the whole package. Bond was indeed a burn out, and you cannot discount that just because you don't particularly find it pleasant. I know you have a preference for the "iconic" traits of cinema Bond, but you really cannot ignore the literary roots particularly when the significant ones were deliberately carried over to the screen; you must really read some of these books, you know, or at least don't deny others who've done so the validity of these views.
As I've argued, some traits were left off when Bond was first translated into cinema (like his graveness, which IMO has better appeal than the "trademark" affableness of movie Bond), while some were carried over then (Connery and the smoking habit), and still again, some "rediscovered" later(again, the graveness) such as what Dalton did which IMO is no less valid. Even the liver in-joke in DAD is a nod to those Bondian excesses. Much have been lauded about taking Bond back to basics in CR, particularly of things that have "been missed" from recent portrayals. So, I don't see the validity of cherry picking which of Bond's traits to showcase, and coversely which ones to junk.
"...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.....
But Dan, I'm talking about taking the whole package. Bond was indeed a burn out, and you cannot discount that just because you don't particularly find it pleasant. I know you have a preference for the "iconic" traits of cinema Bond, but you really cannot ignore the literary roots particularly when the significant ones were deliberately carried over to the screen; you must really read some of these books, you know, or at least don't deny others who've done so the validity of these views.
I wasn't denying you the validity of your views. I was simply poinying out that within the cinematic context (perhaps there should be a smiley that says 'cinema Bond only' ) Bond has never really been a burn out and yet has arguably been enormously ruthless. Since CR is seemingly going back to the novels, then yes, Bond could indeed be a burn out, but I thought you were only talking about the cinematic context, which to date has never showed Bond as a burn out.
So, I don't see the validity of cherry picking which of Bond's traits to showcase, and coversely which ones to junk.
It's not so much about cherry picking as it is an acknowledgment that, good or bad, a fully blooded literature Bond might not work on the big screen.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I think the first time we hear Bond have some doubts about how he lives his life, which I would equate to early signs of burn out, is in GF. But even still Bond embraces his existence in the later novels, the fast driving, the gambling, the girls. Fleming does indeed explore that side of Bond, but he always seems to have Bond jump right back into the fray--even in YOLT, I'd argue. Even before he knows about Blofeld, he's enjoying life in Japan with Tiger...if he was truly burnt out, I wouldn't think he could do that. I see Bond as truly burnt out at the very end of TMWTGG: he looks at his life and sees it as hollow and empty (extrapolating his comment about women to include his entire existence, which for him not a bad argument to make, lol).
Fleming writes Bond with far too much zest for living, the little things (breakfast at his flat) and the big things (the thrill of the hunt). He does this through out the novels IMO, to the--in the end--bitter end. I'd agree Bond ends up as a burn out, and that the seeds of that are all through the novels, especially post-GF. But even in OHMSS/YOLT he has too much, well, fun at times for it to be pervasive enough to define him. IMHO.
I think Bond's vices are more of a reflection of his discontent when not on a mission. He was always at his darkest when forced to lay around (see the hard philosophizing that goes on in the hospital in the novel CR). I liken it to Sherlock Holmes's use of cocaine when he had no case to solve. Bond, in a sense, is an animal - a 'predator' - if you will. And when he's stuck in a cage, he has nothing to do but pace. I think we see elements of this in OHMSS when Lazenby is frustrated with M on two occasions and in LTK as well. Bond is a man of action - his vices are part of a way to make the 'normal' world more enticing to him.
To strip these elements (especially in CR which can be argued is a defining Bond story) is simply like taking out the main character.
not only should he be smoking 60 ciggies a day
he should also be drinking the outrageous quantities Fleming described to him
I think he usually had a hard drink in the morning, a couple with lunch, several double shots in the afternoon, a couple martinis while waiting for supper, a bottle or two of champagne with the meal, and coffee and brandy after
and then he'd set out on his mission involving driving 125 mph in an antique car and lots of gunplay with the worlds fate in the balance
but speaking of a nonsmoking 007, anybody actually read Thunderball?
that first sections hilarious, M and 007 both become health food fanatics right up until they get The Letter from SPECTRE
Bond has stopped smoking coldturkey and is lecturing his housekeeper about the benefits of a raw food diet
then when M tells him whats up, Bond starts chainsmoking right in M's offiuce, when usually he wouldnt dare light one in front of his pipesmoking boss
so dya reckon Fleming himself had gone the tofu and brown rice route? he puts a lot of geeky detail into this whole section - I'm a vegetarian, and I worked for years in a vegie restaurant in Vancouver, Flemings details all ring true, and is surprising in that he was writing this as early as 1961
Going back to Martin Campbell, during the promotional interviews for GE he said that were Bond around today, he wouldn't smoke because the health risks are more obvious, although I think this was to cover for Campbell's own views and intention to change the formula.
I am an ex smoker (13 years ago mind you!) and I kind of like Bond to show he has his own mind. I don't think the odd ciggy would hurt as long as it isn't all the time.
ThundernutsHarlow, Essex, England UKPosts: 57MI6 Agent
Going back to Martin Campbell, during the promotional interviews for GE he said that were Bond around today, he wouldn't smoke because the health risks are more obvious, although I think this was to cover for Campbell's own views and intention to change the formula.
I am an ex smoker (13 years ago mind you!) and I kind of like Bond to show he has his own mind. I don't think the odd ciggy would hurt as long as it isn't all the time.
The way Dalton did it in TLD, you mean?
On the job in the field? Not a cigarette in sight.
Looking through suspect recognition photo's in an attempt to identify Kara Milovy? Smoking like a trooper.
That's how Miltary men tend to smoke. You don't see them chuffing away as they're descending on abseil ropes into a SPECTRE base, but a couple of hours later, with time to reflect?
Another great scene in TLD is when he's sitting in the Audi staking out Pushkin. He's reading the paper and having a smoke. The street musicians come by and he throws them a few bucks and waves them on!
Comments
First, it annoys me that Campbell has specifically and deliberately come out in public to state that Bond won't be smoking for fear that he be a bad role model. Campbell can have his principals, but please just don't talk about it.
Second, I agree with the folowing: Absolutely true. Smoking is such a simple yet effective device.
So really, I'm on the fence about this. I think both sides have merits, and while Campbell particularly annoys the hell out of me, there are other issues which I am much more concerned about.
What I failed to post when I first saw this thread, in response to the original question, is "yes," on one level Bond should be a smoker because it's part of his character, but "no," at a different level he cannot do that today considering the present climate of the series.
Yes. Doing a little good is better than doing a lot bad, isn't it? Bond doesn't actually encourage unprotected sex and doesn't really encourage excessive drinking (although I think probably showing Bond in his room drinking by himself was probably irresponsible- I've seen a lot of kids saying how cool he looked in that scene, and he really doesn't).
Ah. No; I thought we were talking about fundemental character traits; not furniture. Get rid of Sherlock Holmes' deerstalker and.. you're left with Sherlock Holmes. Bond started off cigarette smoking but had ditched it nine years after the series started, and we're in the forty-fourth year.
That's really beneath you. Realistically, are kids more likely to jump out of a plane with no parachute or try a vodka martini because of a Bond film? Let's stop dealing with the hypothetical and deal with the sensible. And not be crass, discussing 'better' ways to die.
Exactly- very level headed: that's all I'm saying. I like seeing Bond smoke- I do think it suits him; but nothing exists in a vacuum and it simply can't and shouldn't happen now. Many of us would love a really tough, stripped back Fleming adaptation; but the Bond brand has been established now and you simply can't do it: look at all the fuss over very slightly changing the formula this time around.
James Bond has been around for 40 years as a silly cinematic hero; they're not changing the brand that much. They're just making him a little more believable character who is actually capable of making mistakes and makes some decisions the audience shouldn't fully agree with. Like all good heroes. I don't know where this 'hate' stuff is coming from.
Yes I know. So?
Another issue altogether. Are you saying; yes or no: that they should feature smoking just because they did so in the past, regardless of the changed world and attitudes to smoking? (Remember how cigarette advertising was allowed when LTK was released: believe it or not certain attitudes have changed).
Except they weren't. It was a 15. If they were marketing to the underage, it wouldn't have had an exploding head.
I know- I can't believe how inconsistent the governments have been over these last few years. I mean, imagine actually changing their minds about enforcing tighter reguations on cigarette health warnings. And imagine those increased health warnings actually having an effect on the perceptions of cigarettes on people. Individuals like film directors. What a load of cynical b****ds; actually succeeding in trying to change the way people look at the dangers of cigarette smoking.
Yes or no: should Bond, whose look and manner is copied by many simply because he looks cool (see http://www.jamesbondlifestyle.com/ : any tips on killing the bond way, there?)- a simple fact- encourage the addictive and deadly smoking of cigarettes?
I'm being hypothetical and not sensible? Ha! This from someone who grasps at straws, err, I mean, "extrapolates" other posters' assertions from thin air. Be careful, those are traits of paranoia, pal.
So, just because the smoking habit was dropped after the first 9 years of the film series, would you say then that fundamentally the Bond character is a non-smoker? Those 9 years, BTW is the foundation that defines the series and will continue to do so as long as it lasts. As sore as the other point goes, would a non-drinking Bond still be Bond? As I've said, I can understand the concern with Bond's influence over kids, but the logic is flawed even if based on the alcoholism issue alone, which you don't seem to see as a valid concern or something that's "sensible."
The difference between Holmes and Bond, is that the deerstalker cap was merely an occasional accessory worn by the literary character, which was expounded upon and firmly established as a Holmes staple in his many screen incarnations. The pipe smoking is another matter, though a specific type has gained traditional status in the films, it is one trait of Holmes that cannot be separated from the character whether in print or film..so that's another flawed arument there.
Because you not only accept but defend the changes that the Bond character has underwent, then the only conclusion that you can make is that the Bond character is wide open to any and all interpretation imaginable.
Gee, that's big of you, Dan -- sticking your neck out like that and taking a risk. I take it you're not a father. 8-)
It may be un-PC to say that, but you know what, IMO political correctness has been a bane of the Bond films in recent years. I am not willing to forsake an essential part of Bond's character in the name of political correctness.
Totally fair.
Fine- you've reduced your argument to the level of insults yet again. Obviously you have no belief in the strength of your argument, so you forfeit the match and the game, old boy!
I don't disagree, I don't want him depicted as perfect, but equally the various lifestyles he endorses (anyone see the link between endorsement and marketing? Is that too much of an extrapolation for some?) are being watched by kids and responsibility has to be taken. That's not to say I don't want any film character smoking again, but Bond is a brand which speaks to the young and impressionable. It just is.
There's a fine line to be drawn- everyone likes an un-PC hero; and I do too. But is losing smoking all that bad? What are we actually missing? I just don't think it's worth the fuss. Also I don't mind seeing him drinking on his own if there's some sort of acknowledgement that it's not cool- picturing him in an intentionally 'cool' way whilst doing so sits uneasily. Perhaps the 'dodgy liver' comment in DAD was planned all along!
You certainly are a repeat offender at projecting your culpability on other people. Me, resorting to insults? Your initial response to any poster you don't agree with are always condescending insults! You have a need to preemptively deem a person, whether new or regular, as undeserving of basic respect, as if it’s your [deluded] sense of duty to declare someone "stupid." Is that how you were raised, being called stupid all the time?
You must really feel that inadequate. It seems no one can comment one way or another without you laying in wait to deliver an opposing slam. Must be tough for you to keep domestic relationships intact, if you have any of those at all, I'm sure.
Smoke them if you've got them. Just don't light and throw them
Just wait, Mr. Campbell, when some teenager starts driving down a winding road at excess speed, downing his seventh vodka martini, with his girlfriend and ends up getting himself and someone else seriously hurt or killed. All because you sent a message saying everything will be okay as long as you don't smoke. If a director really really wants to be socially conscious than DON'T make a Bond film.
I don't drink or smoke, but it's a part of our world and I accept that there are people who do.
I just get irritated when Hollywood thinks they're doing us some favor like this, and turns a blind eye to the harm they're perpetrating.
Should Bond smoke? In a manner of speaking--using LTK as the benchmark--he hasn't smoked in nearly 20 years and, as I observe above, it doesn't appear to have had any impact. We've had heated debates over whether Bond should continue to be portrayed as, variously, white, straight, and male. For my money, he is all of these things. He is also, as far as I am concerned, a smoker.
For those who think that in this day it is probably best that Bond stop smoking, I ask what would have happened if alot of us had gotten our wish and CR had been done as a period piece? There's no question more people smoked in the '50s and '60s and with a good deal less moral uncertainty than today. Would you still censor the smoking? I'm going to guess--rather than effectively rewrite history--the answer is "no." But the visual is still the same: The hero inhales. What difference does it make whether the context is 1956 or 2006? I say none. Let him smoke; it's how the character was written and I can't accept that it possibly the carries the degree of social influence with which we're charging it.
Well-stated. Drinking is as much a problem as smoking---if not moreso---to say nothing about driving too fast or pulling out a gun when someone 'disses' you, instead of just throwing punches (which is how they did it when I was a kid).
IMRO, Bond should drink and smoke---and get away with it, because he's an escapist fictional character. I think his smoking is an essential part of his character...a building block of the fundamental hedonism which defines him. Sure, he doesn't have to smoke, but in not doing so, he is diluted, if only slightly.
Still, Political Correctness rules the day...and more's the pity.
EDIT: I'd even go along with running the Surgeon General's warning---like the Zorin disclaimer before AVTAK---before the gunbarrel sequence, if it would make a difference!
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Well, to be fair- it does rather look as though this film shows the implications of driving fast down country lanes; a look at the trailer can tell one that!
In my experience of working in theatres (thats the English theatre as opposed to cinemas or american theaters) the acting profession still has a high number of smokers - the dancing profession even more. I don't know if they see it as some artistic expression, or living outside of social norms and conventions. Drinking is also part of it.
Perhaps we should see Bond smoke, cough his guts up and make a rationale decision that he would like to live, quit smoking and be chewing gum or wearing patches for the entire film, whilst making visits to an elderly relative/friend (Bond has no family does he?)on a cancer,respiratory,stroke or cardio ward.
Now wouldn't that be a new caring Bond for the 21st century.
Basically, that took place in TB, though Bond switched over to lower tar cigarettes instead of quitting outright. Had Fleming lived in our times to experience first hand the greater emphasis placed on the danger of smoking, maybe we would have seen Bond quit; or, maybe not in view of the rebel Fleming was (he blatantly disobeyed this doctor's orders), living life to the fullest with no thought about his tomorrow.
If we did see Bond hacking occasionally on the screen, it would IMO ground the traits of burn-out into the character, which is how I see Bond. You can't take "ruthless" and "gritty" without taking the others too, you know.
i just can imagine a movie (any move, not less a Bond movie) in which the character just take a nicotine patche in a middle of a conversation (like with a cigarrete) it seem laughable (not by the message, it is just funny)
And yeah, "Thank you for smoking" says exactly what happen in the movie industry with cigarretes, a great movie indeed.
I keep saying that if Bond smokes is his problem (even knowing that is a role model for young and older people like myself and saying also that he shouldn't) i mean, imagine KINDA SPOILER BELOW near the ending, right before the James Bond Theme kicks in, in a moment we must see Bond thinking
yet, it is just an idea, a thought, a wannabe....
Very curious about Bond's character in CR, what with the reboot and all.
But Dan, I'm talking about taking the whole package. Bond was indeed a burn out, and you cannot discount that just because you don't particularly find it pleasant. I know you have a preference for the "iconic" traits of cinema Bond, but you really cannot ignore the literary roots particularly when the significant ones were deliberately carried over to the screen; you must really read some of these books, you know, or at least don't deny others who've done so the validity of these views.
As I've argued, some traits were left off when Bond was first translated into cinema (like his graveness, which IMO has better appeal than the "trademark" affableness of movie Bond), while some were carried over then (Connery and the smoking habit), and still again, some "rediscovered" later(again, the graveness) such as what Dalton did which IMO is no less valid. Even the liver in-joke in DAD is a nod to those Bondian excesses. Much have been lauded about taking Bond back to basics in CR, particularly of things that have "been missed" from recent portrayals. So, I don't see the validity of cherry picking which of Bond's traits to showcase, and coversely which ones to junk.
It's not so much about cherry picking as it is an acknowledgment that, good or bad, a fully blooded literature Bond might not work on the big screen.
Fleming writes Bond with far too much zest for living, the little things (breakfast at his flat) and the big things (the thrill of the hunt). He does this through out the novels IMO, to the--in the end--bitter end. I'd agree Bond ends up as a burn out, and that the seeds of that are all through the novels, especially post-GF. But even in OHMSS/YOLT he has too much, well, fun at times for it to be pervasive enough to define him. IMHO.
To strip these elements (especially in CR which can be argued is a defining Bond story) is simply like taking out the main character.
he should also be drinking the outrageous quantities Fleming described to him
I think he usually had a hard drink in the morning, a couple with lunch, several double shots in the afternoon, a couple martinis while waiting for supper, a bottle or two of champagne with the meal, and coffee and brandy after
and then he'd set out on his mission involving driving 125 mph in an antique car and lots of gunplay with the worlds fate in the balance
but speaking of a nonsmoking 007, anybody actually read Thunderball?
that first sections hilarious, M and 007 both become health food fanatics right up until they get The Letter from SPECTRE
Bond has stopped smoking coldturkey and is lecturing his housekeeper about the benefits of a raw food diet
then when M tells him whats up, Bond starts chainsmoking right in M's offiuce, when usually he wouldnt dare light one in front of his pipesmoking boss
so dya reckon Fleming himself had gone the tofu and brown rice route? he puts a lot of geeky detail into this whole section - I'm a vegetarian, and I worked for years in a vegie restaurant in Vancouver, Flemings details all ring true, and is surprising in that he was writing this as early as 1961
I am an ex smoker (13 years ago mind you!) and I kind of like Bond to show he has his own mind. I don't think the odd ciggy would hurt as long as it isn't all the time.
The way Dalton did it in TLD, you mean?
On the job in the field? Not a cigarette in sight.
Looking through suspect recognition photo's in an attempt to identify Kara Milovy? Smoking like a trooper.
That's how Miltary men tend to smoke. You don't see them chuffing away as they're descending on abseil ropes into a SPECTRE base, but a couple of hours later, with time to reflect?
"Light 'em if you've got 'em..."