Only four epic Bond films?

arthur pringle · February 2007

The stereotype James Bond film (riffed on by Mike Myers for Austin Powers) is the OTT gadget-laden epic characterised by gargantuan production-design and a feeling of immense scope. To my mind there are only four films that can be put into this box: Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker.

While most, if not all, of the films look like they've had a lot of money thrown at them the epic James Bond film looks like a thing of the past. Is this a matter of economics or is that type of film, even updated, too anachronistic?

Will we ever see James Bond storm a huge Ken Adam style set with a small Army again?

Hardyboy · February 2007

Doesn't Die Another Day qualify as an epic as well? OTT villains, outlandish plot to annihilate the world, even a huge fortress that gets destroyed at the end. . . Seems to qualify to me.

arthur pringle · February 2007

I think Die Another Day was an attempt at an epic Bond but the film didn't have the big ending. It also spent an hour pretending to be a semi-normal entry before it went OTT. I think Goldfinger and Octopussy are two big Bond films that just miss being epics.

TonyDP · February 2007

You could make a case for Goldfinger (fantastic car, huge sets, larger than life villain) and also OHMSS. Love story aside, it had an expansive, globe trotting story and the one thing required of all Bond "epics": the big commando raid at the end.

I also miss the big budget spectacle with the cast of hundreds duking it out and Bond in the middle of it all; and I agree that it would probably be too expensive to produce and maintain a high level of quality given the cost involved in making one of these movies today.

arthur pringle · February 2007

There is a strong case for Goldfinger. Thinking about OHMSS, it may be why the film is my favourite. It's a more human story but still has the feel of an epic. The battle at Piz Gloria is great fun. Octopussy had a battle of sorts but I haven't seen that one for a while. I can't remember if it ended with the lycra-clad balloonists or Sir Roger defusing a nuclear bomb while dressed as a clown. Or the plane sequence come to that.

arthur pringle · February 2007

Thunderball always seems like a very gadget laden film to me. Jet-packs, the hydro-foil, DB5 water canons, radio-active pills, an underwater jet-harness, exploding chairs etc.

You may be right about Goldfinger.

TonyDP · February 2007

arthur pringle wrote:

Octopussy[/i] had a battle of sorts but I haven't seen that one for a while. I can't remember if it ended with the lycra-clad balloonists or Sir Roger defusing a nuclear bomb while dressed as a clown. Or the plane sequence come to that.

I love Octopussy and have no problem enjoying it, but the the scenes at the end where the girls attack the Monsoon Palace feel almost like a spoof of the earlier commando raids. The battles in GF, TB, YOLT, OHMSS, TSWLM and MR were life or death situations with very high stakes and they all had a certain level of intensity to them. I didn't get that vibe with Octopussy - maybe it was all those beautiful girls wrapping their thighs around the mens' heads

. It was also over very quickly and the plane sequence was the final action set piece of the film.

Alex · February 2007

Fish1941 wrote:

The stereotype James Bond film (riffed on by Mike Myers for Austin Powers) is the OTT gadget-laden epic characterised by gargantuan production-design and a feeling of immense scope. To my mind there are only four films that can be put into this box: Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker.

I'm not sure that THUNDERBALL belongs in this category. I don't recall that many big gadgets. On the other hand, I think that GOLDFINGER and DIE ANOTHER DAY do belong.

In my opinion TB definitely belongs in this category, this picture was colossal.

An epic, if there ever was.

Moore Not Less · February 2007

TonyDP wrote:

I love Octopussy and have no problem enjoying it, but the the scenes at the end where the girls attack the Monsoon Palace feel almost like a spoof of the earlier commando raids. The battles in GF, TB, YOLT, OHMSS, TSWLM and MR were life or death situations with very high stakes and they all had a certain level of intensity to them. I didn't get that vibe with Octopussy - maybe it was all those beautiful girls wrapping their thighs around the mens' heads . It was also over very quickly and the plane sequence was the final action set piece of the film.

Yes, Tony. The girls attack on the Monsoon Palace did not have the same intensity as those from GF, TB, YOLT, OHMSS, TSWLM and MR. And the attack was really of a smaller scale, similar to Columbo's night time raid on Kristatos' warehouse in FYEO. Both very enjoyable, but not epic battles.

emtiem · February 2007

TonyDP wrote:

I also miss the big budget spectacle with the cast of hundreds duking it out and Bond in the middle of it all; and I agree that it would probably be too expensive to produce and maintain a high level of quality given the cost involved in making one of these movies today.

Weird, isn't it? They actually can't afford to make films like that anymore. In Die Another Day they couldn't even manage to film the main cast on locations in which the film was set; let alone have a massive army!

I'd agree with Arthur, though- I'd say only Thuderball, YOLT, TSWLM and Moonraker really qualify- Goldfinger's closest but isn't quite up there in terms of size.

emtiem · February 2007

Here's an epic Bond that never was!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbCOuiq9yqk

Loeffelholz · February 2007

emtiem wrote:

...I'd say only Thuderball, YOLT, TSWLM and Moonraker really qualify- Goldfinger's closest but isn't quite up there in terms of size.

And the latter three were all done by Lewis Gilbert...safe to say that his Bonds all had a distinctive style...

Steed · February 2007

It's interesting that many of these films listed here- the big budget extravaganzas with endless pyrotechnics- I tend to find amongst the least satisfying films of the series- except one, TSWLM, which is a classic and one of the series' finest, imho. Moonraker, Thunderball and Die Another Day are amongst my least favourites- all flash and little substance, for me. Much the same I could say about YOLT due to Connery's wooden performance, although that works a bit better than those, imho.

I think, personally, OHMSS and Casino Royale qualify as epics, in that Bond himself goes through a personal journey, and is a lot more as a person than a catalyst for big explosions/action setpieces and a device for bad one liners- flaws DAD had in abundance. You get to see a lot of the 'inner Bond' in OHMSS and CR. I pray the series never again goes down the heartless, soulless route of DAD and its ilk.

Harry Palmer · February 2007

To me OP does not qualify as an epic. There may be some over-the-top action and stunts, but the plot is detection based and fairly down to earth.
GF is a hybrid, but not baroque enough. Gadgets and stunts are becoming important to the point of rivalling the spy-centred plot. But there is still some healthy balance, and the spy-story is not totally overshadowed.
TB takes it a step further towards gadgetry (still a hybrid) and YOLT crosses the line.

But what about DAF?
Lasers beaming from outer space. World-threatening villain. Okay the oil-rig is no volcano base, but the function is the same.

By the way, I am a great fan of the intimate non-gadgety Bond myself, so if EON decide to shred the epic-film recipe once and for all, I won't be too upset.

blueman · February 2007

I think it's hard for EON not to at least try to make epic Bonds: they make the most money. CR is the first Bond since, what, FYEO to go "small"? Even lousy wannabe-epics like DAF raked it in (and imagine the BO if they'd managed to cast the early 70s equivalent of Halle Berry...).

Considering how character-orientated CR is for a Bond film, is unprecedented that it's done so well at the box office. EON may well have hit on a new winning formula...we can only hope.

superado · February 2007

TSWLM moments such as when Stromberg's Atlantis first surfaces and the long shot of the Liparus tanker opening up to swallow the U.S. Sub, still leaves me saying "D*MN!!!" Brassy music helps with the gargantuan, "this villian means business" effect. Maybe if they used miniatures for DAD instead of CGI, the cheesier of the two special effects, it might have been more "epic" in feel. Yeah, larger-than-life villains would be nice once in a while, since the epic effect came from that specific variety.

blueman · March 2007

I wouldn't mind more Flemingesque villians, I thought Mads did a good turn as Le Chiffre. Fleming's bad guys were all sizes, little mean guys and big big bad guys. Hopefully we get a bigger yet still Fleming bad guy in Bond 22.

Harry Palmer · March 2007

I like a villain to have a larger-than-life scheme, but I can also live without that detail provided the character has charisma. My preference is for cool and collected villains (like Drax, Stromberg and Auric Goldfinger), rather than high strung Zorin or Carver-type psychos with a foaming mouth and an evil laugh.
Incidentally, MR doesn't rank very high in my list of favourite Bond films, but I find Drax to be one of the most memorable villains. In contrast, TLD is one of my favourite Bond-films yet Whittaker is perhaps the most insipid of all the villains in series (I consider Whittaker, rather than Koskov to be the prime villain of that movie).

Dan Same · March 2007

Harry Palmer wrote:

I like a villain to have a larger-than-life scheme, but I can also live without that detail provided the character has charisma. My preference is for cool and collected villains (like Drax, Stromberg and Auric Goldfinger), rather than high strung Zorin or Carver-type psychos with a foaming mouth and an evil laugh).

I pretty much agree. Although most of my favourite villains have larger-than-life schemes or are larger-than-life (Dr No, Goldfinger, Kananga, Scaramanga, Stromberg, Drax being a few examples) I really only insist on three things; that the villain be well acted, well written and not be annoying (like Graves).

I agree with you that a villain should be cool and collected, rather than a psycho. Although most Bond villains are mad, they should provide the impression to Bond and the audience that they consider themselves to be perfectly reasonable; they just happen to be willing to kill millions of people.

Harry Palmer wrote:

Incidentally, MR doesn't rank very high in my list of favourite Bond films, but I find Drax to be one of the most memorable villains. In contrast, TLD is one of my favourite Bond-films yet Whittaker is perhaps the most insipid of all the villains in series (I consider Whittaker, rather than Koskov to be the prime villain of that movie).

I agree with you about MR; it's in my bottom 6 (including NSNA) however I love Drax. As for TLD; I love the fact that it rarely gets shown on Australian Television.

)

Solaris · March 2007

I do think films like TLD, even though its one of my favourites, really lacked a good villian, neither of them were threatening or menacing Witikker or Koskov. the best villians give off a sense that Bond is in some kind of danger, even though the audience already know that Bond is going to save the day and come out fine, foiling the evil plan of the villian.

I deem a villian succsessful if I believe his scheme credible and if I forget that Bond is going to pull through in the end.

I don't really get villians like Drax and Stromberg who want to eradicate all people on the world so they can start their own civilisations, I don't get the reasoning behind it. however I still see them as enjoyable villians.

people like Goldfinger, Trevelean, Le Chiffre, even Blofeld to some extent had the best schemes because you could both tell they were the villian of the film, a thing that TLD couldn't with Whittiker and Koskov, and they're schemes were more believeable and you could see easily what the villian was gaining.

superado · March 2007

Yeah, the variety is good to mix it up, instead of how things repeat consecutively. I wouldn't mind small-time villains, which did come up from time to time in the stories; but unfortunately, they're harder to sell.

Loeffelholz · March 2007

I've got a feeling (based upon nothing but my gut) that the scale of the villains will grow larger throughout Craig's tenure, and that Le Chiffre represents the smallest fish he'll tackle as Bond. I think Craig's arc will be all about working up the organizational chart to the top...rather like Connery's Bond dealing with SPECTRE, but not actually meeting Blofeld face to face until YOLT.

If so, then Craig's final Bond outing should be an epic---at least, to the extent that such a thing can be done in the modern era...

Number24 · March 2007

I sort of miss the big commando style raids. We haven't seen them for a while, even if we count the mujahedin raid on the russian air base in TLD.
It doesn't even have to be unrealistic. Commando raids on the opposing forces base actually happens in real life from time to time. The commando raid has been done many times in action movies, so they have to think up a believable yet fresh way to do it. But just imagine Craig's Bond teaming up with his old friends in SBS to raid some enemy instalation ..... it could be great!

Lazenby · March 2007

Will we ever see James Bond storm a huge Ken Adam style set with a small Army again?

Most certainly. The movie industry is basically enslaved to the wants, opinions etc. and overall state of the public mind. The change in tone of the Bond movies over the years reflects nothing if not different shifts in the way people at large want to be entertained. Sometimes people want to be fired off into space and subject to all sorts of fantastic things, other times they want to see something more down to earth. The immense success of the last Bond movie strongly suggests that we are currently in the latter mode-- but there will eventually come a time when this gets boring and we demand more excitement-- then the other Bond will return. It's as inevitable as the change of seasons.

Lazenby · March 2007

arthur pringle wrote:

The stereotype James Bond film (riffed on by Mike Myers for Austin Powers) is the OTT gadget-laden epic characterised by gargantuan production-design and a feeling of immense scope. To my mind there are only four films that can be put into this box: Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker.

While most, if not all, of the films look like they've had a lot of money thrown at them the epic James Bond film looks like a thing of the past. Is this a matter of economics or is that type of film, even updated, too anachronistic?

Will we ever see James Bond storm a huge Ken Adam style set with a small Army again?

I think a case could be made for Diamonds are Forever being in the epic category.

chrisisall · June 2015

Loeffelholz wrote:

I've got a feeling (based upon nothing but my gut) that the scale of the villains will grow larger throughout Craig's tenure, and that Le Chiffre represents the smallest fish he'll tackle as Bond. I think Craig's arc will be all about working up the organizational chart to the top...rather like Connery's Bond dealing with SPECTRE, but not actually meeting Blofeld face to face until YOLT.

If so, then Craig's final Bond outing should be an epic---at least, to the extent that such a thing can be done in the modern era...

This was a very spot on post for 2007, eh?

Absolutely_Cart · June 2015

Everyone has their top 4 favorites, right?

Absolutely_Cart · June 2015

Hardyboy wrote:

Doesn't Die Another Day qualify as an epic as well? OTT villains, outlandish plot to annihilate the world, even a huge fortress that gets destroyed at the end. . . Seems to qualify to me.

Exactly. But Moonraker is a "classic" because it's older.

Thunderpussy · June 2015

Chrisisall funny how you found that quote from Loeffelholz today. as it's his Birthday ! -{
so it's a Happy Birthday and how right he was.

AlphaOmegaSin · June 2015

chrisisall wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

I've got a feeling (based upon nothing but my gut) that the scale of the villains will grow larger throughout Craig's tenure, and that Le Chiffre represents the smallest fish he'll tackle as Bond. I think Craig's arc will be all about working up the organizational chart to the top...rather like Connery's Bond dealing with SPECTRE, but not actually meeting Blofeld face to face until YOLT.

If so, then Craig's final Bond outing should be an epic---at least, to the extent that such a thing can be done in the modern era...

This was a very spot on post for 2007, eh?

Indeed {[]

A very close Prediction.

Silhouette Man · June 2015

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

chrisisall wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

I've got a feeling (based upon nothing but my gut) that the scale of the villains will grow larger throughout Craig's tenure, and that Le Chiffre represents the smallest fish he'll tackle as Bond. I think Craig's arc will be all about working up the organizational chart to the top...rather like Connery's Bond dealing with SPECTRE, but not actually meeting Blofeld face to face until YOLT.

If so, then Craig's final Bond outing should be an epic---at least, to the extent that such a thing can be done in the modern era...

This was a very spot on post for 2007, eh?

Indeed {[]

A very close Prediction.

Seconded.

-{

Only four epic Bond films?

Comments