Missing Bond Elements?
heartbroken_mr_drax
New Zealand Posts: 2,073MI6 Agent
One thing that facinates me about the opinion of some regarding QoS is that its missing key Bond elements. And Im interested to ask what everybody considers to be traditional Bond elements that should appear in the next installments.
IMO I thought that CR was missing more Bond elements than QoS did. There is a definate Bond tone to QoS and but not as obvious, I prefer that compared to it being as overt as DAD and lacking as much as CR.
For the next Bond film Id like to see the gunbarrel at the start, they teased us with the last two which makes me value it more! But thats about it, they can do what they feel fit next time
. 'I'm their fan, and I trust them' lol
IMO I thought that CR was missing more Bond elements than QoS did. There is a definate Bond tone to QoS and but not as obvious, I prefer that compared to it being as overt as DAD and lacking as much as CR.
For the next Bond film Id like to see the gunbarrel at the start, they teased us with the last two which makes me value it more! But thats about it, they can do what they feel fit next time
. 'I'm their fan, and I trust them' lol 1. TWINE 2. FYEO 3. MR 4. TLD 5. TSWLM 6. OHMSS 7. DN 8. OP 9. AVTAK 10. TMWTGG 11. QoS 12. GE 13. CR 14. TB 15. FRWL 16. TND 17. LTK 18. GF 19. SF 20. LaLD 21. YOLT 22. NTTD 23. DAD 24. DAF. 25. SP
"Better make that two."
"Better make that two."
Comments
What seems to me to be the problem is the difference between Fleming elements and traditional Bond film elements, which for the sake of argument let's call Broccoli elements- the gunbarrel at the start, the Q scene, and so on (we all know the list). They are absent from QoS. They are absent for artistic reasons with which one may or may not agree (personally, I don't) but will definitely return in one or two films time.
I also think that Fleming wrote a character that had these refined attributes. To what degree can be argued, but I don’t think they are a creation of the producers. This side of Bond existed for the producers to build on and enhance.
I miss the cinematic elements and hope they all come back eventually, but as was shown by CR a first class Bond movie can be made without them. I do feel that the absence of some of the classic Bond characters like Moneypenny and Q leave less room in the film for scenes that show this other side of Bond.
I do not mean this to be an attack on Craig. I feel that the actor only has so much latitude in how to portray Bond. In the end he has to match his acting to the scene he is in and say the lines on the script. I feel that most of the credit/blame, depending on your opinion, belongs with the producers and for that matter with the writers more than the actor.
Co-sign. {[]
1) What I would call "humanizing elements", i.e, Q, Moneypenny, a love interest. You see, I miss Q and Moneypenny not strictly because I miss those characters (even though they are fun characters, to be sure), but because I think they present a chance for our man 007 to "let his hair down", so to speak. When he flirts with Moneypenny, when he gently annoys Q by making fun of his gadgets, he shows a warmer, funnier, more accessible side of him that we don't usually get to see when he is on a mission (when he slips into his "cold, ruthless, badass" persona). Similarly, a fling with a hot-looking woman also may serve to humanize the character of Bond as well (not to mention the fact it also gives male members of the audience a chance to live vicariously through him
2) A formidable villain. I found Greene to be severely lacking in this role. He didn't pose a credible physical threat to 007, nor did he project the image of a menacing Father figure, a mastermind a la Stromberg for example.
3) Stylish action. The action in Bond movies used to be different from that in other movies (such as the Bourne trilogy) because there was always an element of cleverness in it (using a bad guy as a counterweight to make an escape in the TWINE PTS, using the ejector seat to flip the car in DAD,...). Nowadays, Bond seemed to resort more to brawn than brains to beat the baddies. I do realize that the new approach is more realistic and, if done right, can be quite exciting to watch (like the hand-to-hand combat in QoS), but without a touch of clever style somewhere, it just isn't Bondian action.
4) One-liners: no need to go overboard with them, but humor, if done right, is also another humanizing element.
The villain is one step further up the Quantum organizational chart. Greene was punchable; it worked for me.
I found the action in QoS quite stylish. One might quarrel with the editing, but the mayhem seemed very 'Bond' to me.
I found many instances of effective humour in this piece...too many to name without boring everyone.
I can only think of one thing currently 'out of whack.' Put the gunbarrel back where it belongs next time.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I believe they will make at least four films with Craig, but hopefully more, and in totality, these films will ultimately rival the Connery ones in defining Bond for an entire generation. That gives time to create a series of films linked not just by character and formula but by growth of the character over the series -- something we really haven't seen since the Connery era.
I think part of the reason that some viewers feel something is missing from Craig's portrayal is because Craig looks older than the character is likely written to be. When I first read of "rebooting" the series with Bond starting out pre-00, I assumed the character would be in his late 20s; I'm guessing he's really supposed to be in his early to mid 30s in the films. But Craig and I are almost exactly the same age -- and I'm told he looks at least ten years older than me. Even though his "cragginess" is no more than Connery's when he started as Bond, like many rugged actors of the past, he just looks older than his years and certainly more so than his contemporaries.
To me, the scripts aren't as good as the Connery ones yet, but they might get there. Also, a few more minutes of actual character-driven scene even at the expense of a little less action would give Craig a chance to show his considerable acting skills. He's got a classically handsome shape of face but his features -- nose in particular -- are rather crudely formed, and in part due to how pale he is and how blue his eyes are, his gaze is particularly cold and intense . . . but he is such a good actor, he can generate more emotion than many actors blessed with prettier features. Yet, even Casino Royale stopped just short of letting Craig work his "magic." I believe the next film will give him the opportunity, and give us a Bond more like the one we are used to.
Agreed. What I found surprising is that Craig apparently had quite a lot of input into what actually ended up on the screen in QoS. Then why was the movie so filled with action? DC should realize that even though he is quite a physical actor and handles the action scenes well, he is at his best when he is acting (examples are the scenes where he sparred verbally with Vesper on the train and in the hotel, and scenes where he faced Le Chiffre across the poker table). If I were him, I would push for more of those scenes and less of the running around and fighting in Bond 23.
I agree with you and suspect that a lot of what you are talking about and missing is currently languishing somewhere on the cutting room floor. I really hope that we get to see it someday. I also suspect that the impending writers strike had a big impact upon the script. I agree that for me it lacks the superb sparkle of some of the scenes in CR. I also agree with another poster who would like to see Bond outwit his opponents rather than just pummel them.The examples cited are good ones (using an opponent as a counter-weight) I would add throwing the electric fire into the bath in GF when all appears lost. This kind of thing elevates Bond above both his opponents in the narrative, and his opposition in the Cinema, and for me is a vital Bond component that has not materialised yet with Daniel. I have no doubt that he can pull it off.
With both of Daniels outings we have had evoloution and revoloution respectively. I have high hopes for 23{[]
QoS certainly was missing something, but as a Bond fan I will always justify it and can never see past it. Loved every minute.
"Better make that two."
I liked CR because it is a good Bond movie!! And a good Bond movie does not necerrarily need:
- the flirty talks with MoneyPenny
- the presence of Q
- the presence of gadgets
- a plot of worldwide domination, preferably with a orbital laser
- the 007 walk with the iris
- the James Bond fanfare at certain places and so on..
A good James Bond movie to me is much more than repeating these elements and all explanations in the direction, that QoS critics are mostly because of the lack of the traditional Bond elements are too simple and pretty pathetic.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I agree with you that those particular elements are not in themselves vital for a great Bond movie and I think that CR proved that. I also feel that it is possible to find QOS lacking a certain something outside of those conventions, and for non 'pathetic' reasons.
I'm not at all bothered that they have been missing and feel that my inability to connect with QOS has nothing to do ith them.
I would however really like to hear the theme used more, and for Bond to be refered to as 007 more often, but even this is kind of optional for me. As Craig has himself said if a way can be found for them to work in an organic way in furure films then fine, otherwise leave them out.
Here's to Bond 23B-)
Such eeriness means the organisation can unnerve you without having to seem that evil. So it's more about mind control.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I have no problem with this kind of discussion, but to my taste QoS critics are too easily labelled to not liking it just because of the lack of these elements.
And that is imho too simple and pathetic but I did not specificly meaning this thread here. It was more general
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Except that, as I mentioned before, perhaps people are objecting to the absence of traditional figures like Q and Moneypenny because the humanizing effect of these characters on the central character of 007 is also gone with them. I don't really care if Q and Moneypenny are missing from a Bond film, as long as their function to show a more human, lighter side of Bond is fulfilled by someone else. Loeff has suggested bringing May, the Scottish housekeeper, into the cinematic Bond's universe. I think that's a good idea. Another good candidate would be Loelia Ponsonby, Bond's personal secretary. Certainly there could be some fun in bringing her in (since she serves as secretary to 007, 008, and 0011, perhaps there could be some kind of intra-office competition for her attention
I do feel that its justified that these subtle parts were missing in the last two for an appropriate reason.
"Better make that two."
I think the new 'realistic' tone of the series would make a Q scene really interesting. The gadgets don't have to be outlandish, and it doesn't have to be the parade through the lab with all the crazy antics. Sometimes I think of the scenes in Alias with Marshall as being great. They rarely got tiresome, and it always involved Marshall having to purposely create a gizmo for a particular purpose, whereas too many of the Q scenes were..."We've put a garrote in this rubber chicken. Maybe it will come in handy, Bond." Then, at some point, Bond will pull out the rubber chicken because it's all he happens to have at the moment.
Probably not as underdeveloped as the relationship in the great Q scene in GF, but more on the GE level.
Moneypenny should be short and sharp, possibly even as a new assitant that Bond has no history with :v B-)
"Better make that two."
Bond 23 needs to start with the traditional gunbarrel sequence, that is an absolute MUST.
Then, looking back to Connery/Lazenby era Bond, one thing to note is that Q visits Bond in M's office, rather than Bond wandering around a quirky lab. This could be re-instated for Bond 23 and could allow the introduction of Q without it feeling cheesy. And why not just call him Major Boothroyd of Q Branch? That is his name after all.
As for Moneypenny, it is arguable that a modern M doesn't need a secretary sitting in an ante-room all day. Careful consideration is needed on how to reintroduce this character without it feeling forced.
Bond music throughout the film is required. Not full blown fanfare, but subtle notes as in Barry's scores. Good tensiion music too please, Gumbold's Safe and Bond At The Monsoon Palace are two quality pieces of music that feel very Bondian without using the Bond theme.
A decent spy thriller plot that doesn't call for explosions every two minutes should be a must after QoS. FRWL or OHMSS style will do fine. There is still a lot of action in those films but it is complemented by a cracking story and character development on both counts.
That'll do for now
Gorgeous opulent set pieces. QoS had this briefly with the opera scene, but not enough. The poker game in CR looked like it was being played in the basement of a bar. Seeing Bond walking into a gorgeous location, surrounded by beautiful people dressed in their finest, with appropriate music in the background sets a mood that has been missing (except for the opera scene) in the last two films. I will say the exteriors have been shot well and the locations great. It's the interiors that need work.
Better villain, the best villains, the ones everyone remembers, are the bigger than life villains. Worthy adversaries for Bond. The type of villain that looks at Bond like he is nothing more than nuisances. Mr. White if given more screen time may be that villain, he is suitably ominous and has a dangerous presence. But, Greene and Le Chiffre were lacking in the menacing department.
More espionage, a slower scene with Bond actually spying or investigating something, yet with the hint of danger lurking. The earlier films were filled with these types of scenes, like Bond investigating the Disco Volante in TB. this allows the audience to see Bond's resourcefulness, rather than just his toughness.
A Moneypenny type character. I enjoyed the Samantha Bond and Pierce interaction, I thought it was, for the most part, clever. Doesn't have to be Moneypenny, but someone for Bond to interact with at "the office".
I for one, don't believe Q can be replaced. He was a unique character and I wouldn't try to introduce any "new" Q.
A big action scene, most of the recent action scenes have been claustrophobic. Something like the attack on Piz Gloria, with a huge number of extras, and Bond leading the way.
Off the top of my head, those are my thoughts to what is missing
Couldnt agree more. Especially on the Q note. As with what you said about the espionage we got a bit of that in CR before the Miami airport chase
"Better make that two."
I think they should introduce a male Moneypenny...then that gives DC a chance for the love scene he was talking about eh?* :x This would certainly add something to Bond's dynamic relationships with office staff.
BTW, Tanner is almost a Moneypenny of sorts in QoS...what did you think of that?
*Do know this is a complete joke and I am totally attempting not to be offensive to any homosexuals!
Tanner was played well by Michael Kitchen, I loved how he said "Evil queen of numbers".
Moneypenny is great because she always trusts and jokes with Bond because she has vested interests that make her a better character.
Moneypenny should return, Im not sure about Q though.
"Better make that two."
The gunbarrel and its proper placement is the most popular element missing so far. Lines like "Bond, James Bond" and ordering a martini are not required for every single film, but we haven't seen them done normally in a while.
The James Bond Theme and even the scores in general need to be more Bondian like some someone said before. I heard hints of the James Bond Theme in two scenes of QOS, but the roaring fanfare should not only be at the end. The fanfare is required during at least one major action scene during the film. David Arnold's scores in my opinion have gone down hill. His first two were good and DAD was alright but these last two scores have not impressed me. I know that we will probably never get another John Barry, but Arnold needs to put more heart and soul into his scores. They need to me memorable. If I can whistle the music played during an action sequence (like in GF, LALD and TLD) then the composer had made it memorable. The score also must play off of the song well. Barry did this brilliantly with GF, MR and especially AVTAK. Not only are the newer songs mediocre they also do not serve as a good base to score a film off of.
I totally agree with Barry Nelson who wants to see more espionage and "sneaking around" in the Craig films. This one of Bond's best features and Craig has barely done it. The lack of this maybe why his films do not feel that Bondian yet.
I know this has been talked about a lot, but I feel that I must say that a Bond film requires a certain type of editing and stunt coordination. These new guys are good and they bring a different and unique twist to these elements of filmmaking, but the styles established by Peter Hunt, John Glen, Bob Simmons and even Vic Armstrong must always be remembered. Their efforts are part of what made Bond so great and distinct back in the good old days.
Lastly, I have said for years now that I want Q and Moneypenny to return. These characters are institutions and I fail to understand how anyone can think they are a distraction to the story. I love the idea mentioned earlier about Q giving Bond his gadgets in M's office like in the Connery days. That will be a nice and different way of exposing the character. Moneypenny will always have a place in M's office in my world and her flirting with Bond is legendary, especially if they get an actress who has chemistry with the Bond actor.
I agree with most when they say when Q is brought back make his character different. Desmond's Q has passed away and a new actor needs to be introduced so he can bring his own original interpretation to the role. Bond and Q should always have banter and should always meet in the lab every now and then. Maybe throw in a wacky gadget or two every few films. But, make the whole process more serious out of respect for Desmond. Q needs to give Bond more realistic gadgets that will help in his espionage escapades. The entire dynamic between Bond and Q can be redefined for a generation if done right. The bottom line is this: Bond will always need someone from MI6 to give him some equipment for his job, so why not let that person be good old Q for about five minutes and not some nobody buffoon like the guy from CR?
Agreed, but this isn't entirely Arnold's fault. In the old days (ah...) John Barry would write his main theme and then incorporate it into the score. He would sometimes play that theme slowly for the love scenes if it lent itself to that, then with more rhythm for the action scenes (not his best work, but TMWTGG shows this process at its most extreme). Often he would write a secondary piece for the love scenes (eg "We Have All the Time In The World", since the OHMSS theme wouldn't work as a love theme) or perhaps the action scenes (eg "Snow Job" in AVTAK), and that would be used in various ways through the score too.
Arnold is in a different situation- he has to put up his idea for the title song against other contenders. The clearest example would be "Surrender" from TND, which was relegated to the end titles while the Crow thing was selected to open the film (nevertheless, he used "Surrender" as the basis for the score in a very Barry-like fashion). The "outside" title song often arrives too late for him to use it in the score, even if he wanted to- which in at least some cases, he didn't (cough, Madonna, cough).
I'm with you on the other points, too.
TWINE would probably be the best example of Arnold incorporating the theme into the score in the most Barry like way.
But the last three title songs have proved be rather odd, I have enjoyed them all though!
I think that Arnold's work on QoS is his best work yet, close to TWINE. It incorporates plenty of the Bond theme (which I have found from owning the ST) and is quite original.
I personally would not like to see Arnold be too much like Barry, as the thing I enjoy about the EON Bonds is contributors are able to bring their own mark onto the series.
"Better make that two."
TWINE, I would say, is the best example of Arnold using a secondary theme ("Casino" aka "Elektra's Theme" aka "Only Myself To Blame") a la Barry, though I would put TND ahead of it in terms of integrating the main theme- by which I mean "Surrender".
I do like the QoS score very much (read my review) and it's certainly at the top of his Bond work. As to Arnold being too much like Barry, he couldn't be too much like him for my taste! :007) IMHO, Arnold's slower pieces ("City Of Lovers" from CR, "Casino" from TWINE, and so on) stand up well against Barry's music, but his action cues- although definitely getting better and less techno-based- suffer in comparison. Barry's action cues (say "Snow Job" from AVTAK or even "007") don't rely on percussion and orchestral stings to the degree that the younger composer's do and therefore bear repeated relistening much better.
Brilliant point. Arnolds action pieces are quite messy and dont actually sound all that good. But again (and I apolgise) Come In 007, Your Time Is Up although laced with electric Arnoldisms is very orchestrally driven and well done, quite Barryish.
As you mentioned and I know this is off topic but I feel that he Arnold really is improving, proof lies in Night at the Opera and the last 30 seconds of Time to Get Out is so Barry that its not funny. {[]
"Better make that two."