Your Bond Party Affiliation
Loeffelholz
The United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Tee Hee and I just stumbled upon this in the #22 thread, and I thought it might bear broader examination.
To my mind, there are two basic groups of Bond thought---sometimes crossing actor, style and film preferences...and, at other times, shaping them: Flemingists and Cinematic Bond Traditionalists.
Flemingist - Those whose Bond frame of reference descends primarily from Fleming's novels. These Bond fans generally prefer the less comedy-driven, less outlandish (or, at least, more understated and/or 'realistic') plot lines...and, of course, Fleming-adapted (or inspired) material. I would include myself in this group.
Cinematic Bond Traditionalist - More guided by the traditions and norms established by the films themselves, as they've unfolded over the past 45 years. Might not have ever read Fleming; if so, considers the books well separate from the films, and feels they should remain so. The CBT will generally prefer the bigger-scale, 'spectacle'-style Bonds, and won't mind a lighter tone. I believe Tee Hee falls into this category.
So which are you, and why?
To my mind, there are two basic groups of Bond thought---sometimes crossing actor, style and film preferences...and, at other times, shaping them: Flemingists and Cinematic Bond Traditionalists.
Flemingist - Those whose Bond frame of reference descends primarily from Fleming's novels. These Bond fans generally prefer the less comedy-driven, less outlandish (or, at least, more understated and/or 'realistic') plot lines...and, of course, Fleming-adapted (or inspired) material. I would include myself in this group.
Cinematic Bond Traditionalist - More guided by the traditions and norms established by the films themselves, as they've unfolded over the past 45 years. Might not have ever read Fleming; if so, considers the books well separate from the films, and feels they should remain so. The CBT will generally prefer the bigger-scale, 'spectacle'-style Bonds, and won't mind a lighter tone. I believe Tee Hee falls into this category.
So which are you, and why?
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
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Comments
Now if only Bond fans could elect actors, producers, directors, etc. based on their Bond party affiliation...
{[]
-Roger Moore
Well, given that I believe JFF might actually be the one who coined the term 'Flemingist' (as a pejorative!), I would assume that he's a CBT.
Now that would be interesting :v
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I figured this might come up at some point; thanks, Hardy {[]
Obviously, a third party is called for---and I'm fairly certain this will be the dominant one...which should hopefully create enough of a separation between onerous real-life politics and just-for-fun BonditicsTM to satisfy even the most contrarian of moderators B-)
In all such human endeavours, mainstream moderates enjoy the company of the masses, their tastes encompassing elements from each of the two more disparate camps. They don't like being labeled, or pigeon-holed (which is where irony comes into play
Bond-Centrist - This Bond fan is possibly (or probably) well-read, re: Fleming, and finds value in transferring a bit of the literary heritage to the Big Screen---and yet, finds enough to like in Cinematic Bond's broader, lighter-tone outings (most of the time) to afford them a generous measure of dispensation, whilst condemning excesses on either side.
P.S. Just having fun here, folks! I'm a Flemingist, but I still enjoy TMWTGG and TSWLM...hopefully we can relax...just a little...?
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
{[] That one's got my vote!
~Pen -{
mountainburdphotography.wordpress.com
After all it was the popularity of the Books that got the whole franchise started. Like anything else, the further you deviate from the original, the more you dilute the very essence of what was so attractive in the first place.
Taken to its extreme you end up with ..... DAD!!
The Cinema Traditionalist has a real dilema reconciling his/hers tastes in the broad pantheon of the 21 films.
Since the style of the films varies so much, one could be in conflict over issues like - just how many Big Red Explosions should you have, how many Funny Quips - and should the "quips" be clever, "See he dosen't get away" or clownish like "Christmas comes ....".
So it might be possible to have splinter groups like, Conneryites, Lazenbyists, Mooreish, Daltonians or even Brosnanians and Craigists! You may even find strange combinations of the splinter groups!
And of course, the Centrists, who like everyone in the "middle" see Bond as a "smorgisbord", take a little of this and that .... combinations of Flemingist/Conneryite with Lazenbyist leanings or a Traditiionalist/Daltonian/Craigist!!!
Politics/Bonitics*tm, I can't see any similarity.
Nothing but Peace. Harmony and one clear voice here in the World of James Bond!!!! :007)
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
Flemingist: Probably prefers Connery, Lazenby, Dalton and Craig.
Cinematic Bond Traditionalist: Connery, Moore, Brosnan
Bond-Centrist: All (or most) of the above
Of course, there will be Flemingists who hate Craig, Traditionalists with a soft spot for Lazenby or Dalton, and Centrists who don't think Brosnan was 'all that.' Such is the spice of life.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Conneryite, not to be confused with a Jacobite.
Lazenbyist, a lobbyist?
Mooreish, hmm, I guess Rog is extremely popular in Africa.
Daltonians, Brosnanians, they both sound like planets from Star Trek. (As in, Take me to the Daltonian ambassador)
As for Craigists, dare I use the term which rhimes, elitist?
All in good fun amongst multifaceted fans with multifarious interests, of course
Nevertheless, I also love The Spy Who Loved Me and the brilliantly ridiculous Moonraker. The latter is perhaps about as far from Licence To Kill as one is likely to get, however both films I could watch many times. There may be little to get passionate about in the soggy centre, but I say let's hear it for the middle way!
Thanks, L880 {[]
I have a great deal of empathy for the Centrists, for many of the reasons you indicated. What makes me a Flemingist, ultimately, is my impatience with the more egregious comedic excesses, which always elicit a groan, no matter how often I see them, and chafe against my Fleming-based hopes and aspirations for the character.
That said, consistency of tone counts for a lot in my book, and therefore I can enjoy films like LALD, TMWTGG and TSWLM on a more casual basis, but I'm frustrated by so-called 'more serious' Bond efforts which have occasional bursts of attempted hilarity: FYEO, OP, LTK. My reflexive reaction invariably drives me to the 'Flemingist' side of centre.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
To follow that line of thinking, I wouldn't want to read a James Bond novel that was written strictly to be a film treatment with no regard to literary style.
The Bond novels are novels...the Bond films are films. I think it unrealistic to say one should necessarily try to be the other.
I think that a Bond Isolationist, as you describe it, is probably closer in spirit to the Cinematic Bond Traditionalist, inasmuch as you feel the novels and films are separate entities and should remain so...which isn't to say that Traditionalists are at all dismissive of Fleming...they appreciate Fleming, to the extent that he created the James Bond character, and simply allow for a broader scope of possibilites as to what Fleming actually 'inspired.'
Either way, I can certainly respect a Traditionalist who appreciates Fleming prose {[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Like the Centerist, the Isolationist want his/her Bond without real commitment to either films or books.
Other factions are now bound to emerge, Those who despise Fleming and prefer other "official" works:
Amisites: Devoted to "Colonel Sun" and others like, Gardnerists, Bensonites, Higsonists, the relativley unknown Faulksists, and the few but devoted "Woodies".
One group, definatively a fringe element of troublemakers are those who prefer ONLY Roger Moore as Bond and only then when he is dressed in a Clown costume - The Mooreowns!!
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
Flemingists were dying for something fresh---radically so---after DAD, and I think the vast majority of this camp were satisfied by CR.
I view the Traditionalists as the ones who said, in the runup to CR, "If it's not broke, don't fix it," and really wanted to see Brozzer get another picture or two. The die-hard Traditionalist didn't want Bond to change---and probably laments the continuing absence of Q and Moneypenny.
The Centrist just wants Bond to continue---action, sex, some humour, spectacle, gadgets and fun...with (perhaps) a nod to the source material. In a sense, everyone's a Centrist at heart, I think...but at the same time, each fan probably has specific wants and desires for the character which pull him/her to either side of the issue from time to time. The finer question is: On which side are they most of the time? If it's exactly fifty-fifty, then we're talking about a true Bond-Centrist.
A radical and dangerous fringe, too be sure, but fortunately too few in number to present a significant threat to Western stability
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I still contend that anyone who really calls himself a devout Flemingist has NO business even attending a Bond film, since Fleming was an author - not a filmmaker.
Now that's an interesting position! {[]
Let's reverse that, and roll with it: If you're a 'devout' Bond moviegoer, you have no business cracking a Fleming Novel :v
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I agree...and that's the case with several of the people on this site and others who have seen the films but never read the books. Hence my term Isolationist in that the two mediums should really be enjoyed separately, but not compared. Flemingist would be driven to see anything outside of Fleming's novels as a pale endeavor to mimic. A Flemingist who enjoys even the most faithful cinematic interpretation of Bond, and find that worthy, would IMO fall into the camp of Centrist and feels that the merging of the two mediums is achievable and that middle ground is possible. An Isolationist would never conceive this as possible.
Going to the theater to see 'The Passion of Christ' does not necessarily make one a Christian. Nor does reading the Bible make one Roger Ebert.
This classifaction of Bonditics starts to sound more and more like an attempt to divide and seperate Bond Fans into fragmented groups, let's say "The Balkanism of Bond".
The worst thing about trying to draw lines like Flemingist and Traditionalist is that there are ALWAYS exceptions. It is a rather fun excercise, but reminds me of a lot of evil political scenarios from the past.
Therefore as a loyal reader of Fleming I declare Independence from the Flemingists!!! I retain my rights as a Cinema Fan to watch and not enjoy bad versions of IF's stories, and celebrate when someone gets it right!!!
I guess you can group me in with the Mooreowns, as a small militant fringe!!!
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
I guess our definition of Flemingist is quite different. To me it's merely someone who appreciates seeing elements of Fleming's books make the crossover leap. I'm not really talking about 'comparing' anything. A Flemingist (as I define it) doesn't have the sort of fanatical fervour you seem intent upon projecting onto him. I would have thought it was obvious that direct, word-for-word transcription from novel to celluloid has never been seriously on the table---and frankly, I don't know anyone rational who would expect such a thing.
Example: Let's say, for instance, that in Bond #22, or #23, the bad guys capture Bond and decide to teach him a lesson about meddling in their affairs. They tie him to a chair, bind his wrist to the arm of the chair, take his pinky finger...and bend it back until it snaps!
Bond fans will react differently to this, according to their frame of reference. A Traditionalist might well object, because he's come to appreciate a Bond who is unflappable, rarely musses his hair, and this is far too serious stuff.
A Centrist will have his own reactions, based upon whatever combination of factors he chooses (of course), his own tastes in Bond, and whether the scene works in the context and tone of the film...ad infinitum...
A Flemingist will watch it, and go: "Wow! That's cool, that was in the LALD novel!"
And I don't see how that's wrong ?:)
In my opinion, the term Isolationist is unnecessary...but you're more than entitled to start a sect of your own {[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I'm not trying to 'divide and separate' at all---I don't have that power
Wow.
Okay, mods, shut 'er down before anyone gets hurt 8-)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I'm definately a Flemingist for many reason's:
First of all, I've fallen in love with the novels over the past five years. The world of the literary Bond is much more interesting and fascinating to me than the cinematic one. In other words, I like the books better than the films.
I love most of the films, but easily prefer the film's that are darker in tone, more realistic, and remain true to the spirit of Ian Fleming. Examples: CR, GE, LTK, FRWL, TLD. One could also tell that I am a Flemingist by my least favorite Bond films, the light hearted, flippant disasters of the Roger Moore era (TMWTGG, MR, OP, AVTAK). I also virtually can't stand Roger Moore. He's not Bond. Most of his films aren't Bond.
My reasononing for my favorite Bond and Bond film tie in directly with the Flemingist way of thinking. My favorite Bond film is Casino Royale because it is IMO the closest to Fleming's vision of Bond. My favortie Bond actor is Daniel Craig because IMO he plays Fleming's Bond near flawlessly.
In conclusion, I guess all I can say is I'm proud to proclaim myself a Flemingist!
I think it is fun.
It actually seems like a very good excercise to demonstrate how peoples opinions are formed and classified in the "Non-Bond World".
sign me,
Flemingist/CinemaFan
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
Nevertheless,I'd be lying if I didn't say that I've also enjoyed some of the enormous and absolutely incredible spectacles Eon produced during the late 70s and early 80s(not all of them,but a few).However, I've never been very comfortable with a 007 who always has exactly the right gizmo available for every situation, or a 007 who strolls around inside a supposedly dormant volcano--much less a 007 who ventures into outer space or walks on the ocean's floor.
Additionally,I prefer for Bond's villains to be both brilliant and frightening-to be characters who pose real threats to 007.Those cartoonish over-the-top Bad Guys can be fun,too--provided they aren't overplayed, or are presented as evil for no discernable reason other than to cause mischief.All Bad Guys should have standards.:)
And I like my Bond films to be character-driven stories,and less dependent on elaborate stunts and special effects.I also prefer to see 007 actually do a little work in order to achieve his success in the field.007's victories should be due to his courage, his intelligence and his determination--rather than the result of a gadget Q somehow foresaw Bond eventually needing before the mission even began.
That 007's women should all be interesting, intelligent and resourceful- as well as devastatingly beautiful-is absolutely essential.
As noted elsewhere,Ian Fleming was a novelist and not a screenwriter.He wrote thrillers that at their cores are very much in the line of the classic adventure novels of John Buchan and H.C.MacNeile-authors he acknowledged he'd read and enjoyed as a young man.And like those gentlemen,Fleming produced the kinds of dramatic stories that are always attractive to filmmakers.
To reiterate, I think that there are many reasons to hope that at least some of the cinematic interpretations of Ian Fleming's better novels --and of the James Bond character himself--will attempt to resemble what Fleming created.Eon certainly seems to have believed in Ian Fleming, since many of their earlier films,along with some of the movies they made in the 1980s, 1990s, and now in the 21st Century, are clearly informed by his style of storytelling and his singular point of view.
All that said,by now there are surely enough disparate cinematic versions of 007 around to please practically every taste.And as loyal as some of us might be to our own affiliations and specific interpretations of 007, that doesn't automatically mean that we can't occasionally check out the action taking place elsewhere.:)
Nothing's rigid in BonditicsTM---that's why I'm starting to like it :007)
Flemingists with Centrist tendencies...Centrists who love that submarine-swallowing Liparus...Traditionalists who secretly like Daniel Craig (
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
One thing many of us note is that as Bond movies progressed, they steadily left the source material more and more behind. As Hillary Clinton says in her book that she didn't leave the Republican party as much as it left her (which by the way is a direct line from the Reagan quote book on his leaving the Democratic party...thief, absolute theif that HC), so are those bond fans who at one time could say they were both Flemingists and Cinematic Bond Traditionalists with slight liberal Flemingist tendencies back in the early days. The earlier Bond films (for the most part) stuck closer to the source material and only in later days deviated (a noted milestone in this progression is YOLT). It is unfortunate in this day and age that we have to draw such a line. Unfortunate because there is very little source material left, and unfortunate because some of the Bond movies with Fleming titles were so sloppy with source material that its forever tainted.
Of course, this is why I was and am still so excited about CR. They modernized the Fleming text, bringing Flemingist values into a modern context. I am going to coin this move Craig Flemingism much like Reagan Republicanism {[](this is where you could call the marked difference between character policy in Brosnan films and that in CR Craigonomics after the marked change in Republican economics in the 80s...now this is too much fun;)).
Still, it's hard to classify myself in one category, so as I said before, in a similar thread to this, I'm just my own type of fan, but I probably have more CBT tendencies.
Tee Hee, thanks for mentioning my school of thought, sadly, I think I'm the only attendee.
I think so too. Well done, my divergently-minded young apprentice :v {[]
FlemingistTM, JennyFlexFan
Hereby fully accredited to JFF, with all of the negligible rights and benefits thereto awarded {[]
Indeed. This is only my opinion (worth precisely $0.00
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM