Most of his job would be sitting at a desk, talking on the phone, occasionally interviewing people, maybe trying to interrogate someone in a room somewhere, and going to get lunch.
But Craig's MI6 is a fantasy one, not the real thing. If it were, he wouldn't be thrown into a personal crisis with every mission, nor would there be gadgets of the nature we've seen. Most of his job would be sitting at a desk, talking on the phone, occasionally interviewing people, maybe trying to interrogate someone in a room somewhere, and going to get lunch.
I appreciate that distinction. But does it mean that the fantasy MI6 cannot reflect some aspects of reality?
Most of his job would be sitting at a desk, talking on the phone, occasionally interviewing people, maybe trying to interrogate someone in a room somewhere, and going to get lunch.
But Craig's MI6 is a fantasy one, not the real thing. If it were, he wouldn't be thrown into a personal crisis with every mission, nor would there be gadgets of the nature we've seen. Most of his job would be sitting at a desk, talking on the phone, occasionally interviewing people, maybe trying to interrogate someone in a room somewhere, and going to get lunch.
I appreciate that distinction. But does it mean that the fantasy MI6 cannot reflect some aspects of reality?
It's all in the matter of the degrees.
The Bond films have often existed in their own fictional universe, often built around the actor. With Connery, from the get go, there was a combination of spy thriller and boyish adventure and sci-fi fantasy, done to greater or lesser extent as the series wore on. Lazenby essentially carried on the tradition. Moore brought in much more camp and light-heartedness. Dalton tried to bring a literary edge, and the films from his era through Brosnan tried to be more topical and, for lack of a better term, "realistic."
What's interesting to note is that despite significant changes in tone or in the characterization by the actor, MI6 was always shown to e a competent organization. With Dench's M in the Brosnan era, we got the impression it was trying to adapt to the end of the Cold War, but it was still reasonably competent.
But Craig's tenure shows that it appears to be an exceptionally poorly managed and staffed bureaucracy, to the degree that interests might be better served without it. All of this seems less to reflect "reality" -- because how could a Bond film truly expect to do this -- and more an artificial means by the writers and so forth to make Bond's behavior seem more palatable and to make Bond, himself, stand out as more competent despite his numerous failings in the Craig era.
It reminds me of what they did in the Star Trek films based on the original characters. In the old TV series, Starfleet was shown as a pretty competent organization. In fact, many of the admirals and other officers were even more impressive than Kirk and crew. There were rogues among them, of course, but these were people "on the frontier," away from the prying eyes and ears of their leadership and subjected to the pressures of their situation. The organization had some bad apples but itself was not rotten. But for the films, more than once, they too often had to make Starfleet look highly incompetent and its personnel incapable in order to make our heroes by contrast seem more admirable -- it was really unnecessary.
In Craig's Bond films, this seems to be SOP. I mean, one thing I haven't noted is that we have yet to see any other competent MI6 agents, either. So far, they've been nonexistent or rather poor, too, with the possible exception of Mathis, who I'm still not sure was legitimate. In the Connery/Lazenby era, we got the impression that the other 00s were just as competent as Bond, and would replace him if it's necessary. Even in the Moore era, there was some attempt to make the other 00s seem as highly trained. But Craig seems to be the only 00 capable of doing anything, and even he fails a lot. It feels less like "reality" and more like stacking the deck to him.
But Craig's MI6 is a fantasy one, not the real thing. If it were, he wouldn't be thrown into a personal crisis with every mission, nor would there be gadgets of the nature we've seen. Most of his job would be sitting at a desk, talking on the phone, occasionally interviewing people, maybe trying to interrogate someone in a room somewhere, and going to get lunch.
James Bond has always existed in a netherworld with one foot in everyday reality and the other in fantasy.
But Craig's MI6 is a fantasy one, not the real thing. If it were, he wouldn't be thrown into a personal crisis with every mission, nor would there be gadgets of the nature we've seen. Most of his job would be sitting at a desk, talking on the phone, occasionally interviewing people, maybe trying to interrogate someone in a room somewhere, and going to get lunch.
James Bond has always existed in a netherworld with one foot in everyday reality and the other in fantasy.
Well said! Do you honestly think Moneypenny goes round the office flirting with him or Q spends a fortune on making gifts with one man?
No, you are right - those in the office are in everyday reality and fantasy. Thats why this new bunch works....
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
But Craig's MI6 is a fantasy one, not the real thing. If it were, he wouldn't be thrown into a personal crisis with every mission, nor would there be gadgets of the nature we've seen. Most of his job would be sitting at a desk, talking on the phone, occasionally interviewing people, maybe trying to interrogate someone in a room somewhere, and going to get lunch.
James Bond has always existed in a netherworld with one foot in everyday reality and the other in fantasy.
Sure, in the sense that Batman exists in a world more or less like the real one. But until recently, Bond understood that in order for us to believe the nonsense elements, that universe had to be rooted in something tangible and worth defending -- like institutions with some degree of competence and rigor. Just like Batman.
That's why SPECTRE, the organization, didn't seem so implausible. It functioned in parallel to MI6 as a highly efficient and well run organization, but its villainy was the contrast and made Bond's missions all the more important, regardless of the actual politics.
Now, I'm not so sure what exactly MI6 is defending. It just seems like a bloated, poorly run, badly staffed, incompetent government bureaucracy that exists for the sake of existing. What are they fighting for anymore? Why? To defeat terrorists? What does that mean? Civilization in the current Bond films -- if we are to use MI6 as the model -- doesn't seem all that meaningful, except in the blandest of terms: Innocent people will get hurt. "Our way of life" is being threatened. After all, no one trusts anyone else and apparently can be relied upon. Craig's Bond is never happy. But the Bonds of old made us believe the institutions were worth defending. And the fascinating thing is it was strong enough for us to forget that at the center of that was a monarchy built on a foundation of exploiting the poor and enslaving and colonizing foreigners so we could just enjoy the movie.
People tend to forget that Bond's playfulness and frivolity in the past films, particularly the classic era, were the result of being alive in what might be considered the height of western civilization. After all, the cars, clothes, gambling, excitement, and women are all the spoils of being on the winning team. But Craig and MI6 don't really seem to win anything anymore. Theirs is a universe that makes little sense except existence is a dour, frightful, uncontrollable day to day drudge. In this sense, it's not surprising how inept MI6 in Craig's Bonds is but that doesn't mean that it's necessarily realistic.
But the Bonds of old made us believe the institutions were worth defending.
This is what's missing from all of Craig's Bond films. His Bond films don't make me care about Bond or the good guys. I don't really care what happens, and there's no suspense because I feel no investment in the characters. I don't care when Vesper dies because the romance is so poorly done that I don't believe it. I don't care that Bond is miserable in QOS because of Vesper's death, because I didn't believe he cared for her when she was alive. I don't care when Bond falls off the train bridge because it's so stupid that M orders the rookie agent Eve to shoot. I feel like the villain deserved to get away because of how stupid M is. I felt like the 00 programme should have been shut down because of how poorly it was run. M's speech in Skyfall doesn't affect me because the poor actions on MI6's part already made me take the other side.
But the Bonds of old made us believe the institutions were worth defending.
This is what's missing from all of Craig's Bond films. His Bond films don't make me care about Bond or the good guys. I don't really care what happens, and there's no suspense because I feel no investment in the characters. I don't care when Vesper dies because the romance is so poorly done that I don't believe it. I don't care that Bond is miserable in QOS because of Vesper's death, because I didn't believe he cared for her when she was alive. I don't care when Bond falls off the train bridge because it's so stupid that M orders the rookie agent Eve to shoot. I feel like the villain deserved to get away because of how stupid M is. I felt like the 00 programme should have been shut down because of how poorly it was run. M's speech in Skyfall doesn't affect me because the poor actions on MI6's part already made me take the other side.
Although I do think Casino Royale needed 10 more minutes of romance, I'm still more affected by the whole Bond/Vesper situation -- but I get your point. It's as though the Craig films require us to remember how much we cared about everything and everyone else in all the other Bond movies to feel like what happens in these is meaningful, too. I care mostly because of the momentum of the older films rather than what these films themselves create.
This is what's missing from all of Craig's Bond films. His Bond films don't make me care about Bond or the good guys. I don't really care what happens, and there's no suspense because I feel no investment in the characters.
I actually gave a toss what happened to Q on that cable car. I was actually concerned for the man. Can you say the last time that happened? Was there any point to John Cleese's R? Apart from doing silly asides...
I don't care when Vesper dies because the romance is so poorly done that I don't believe it. I don't care that Bond is miserable in QOS because of Vesper's death, because I didn't believe he cared for her when she was alive.
I did give a damn for Vesper
She was beautiful, enigmatic but not giving too much away? Rather like a Sphinx. There was a big problem when she died at the end of Casino Royale. It was the perfect cinematic ending. All the characters were very well drawn in CR.
I don't care when Bond falls off the train bridge because it's so stupid that M orders the rookie agent Eve to shoot. I feel like the villain deserved to get away because of how stupid M is.
I
Strangely enough I agree with you. A bloody stupid thing to do. No wonder she was carpeted on her way out. But it made her believable so the actions of Silva seemed more plausible. It made her act om impulse.
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
I think that first comment is mine, and actually, it did. The whole point of Little Nellie is it represented western ingenuity, which is why when Tanaka scoffs at it, Q tells him, "You'll see." But it's not even about being British -- it's the idea that Bond represents more than himself out in the field. It's not a personal quest. It's bigger than that. That's one of the reasons the writing in Craig's Bonds is so facile. It uses broad concepts like "democracy" in place of the tangibles.
I t That's one of the reasons the writing in Craig's Bonds is so facile. I.
I disagree with you are the Craig Bonds being facile. Take Spectre and the scenes with 'C' and Mallory. The dialogue is tinged with menace as both are fighting for their lives. Both fight in a very English way..
I'd say the dialogue for the Craig Bonds has been superb. Certainly better then Goldeneye..
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
I'd say the facile writing goes beyond the dialogue, but with the exception of Casino Royale, the dialogue has been largely unmemorable. But it is marginally better than what we heard in Goldeneye.
I'd say the facile writing goes beyond the dialogue, but with the exception of Casino Royale, the dialogue has been largely unmemorable. But it is marginally better than what we heard in Goldeneye.
Well, we disagree about Casino Royale..
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
Well, I would extend my remarks by pointing out what was once fantasy is now reality. Fifty years ago, the idea of an international criminal organization engaged in extortion, terror, espionage, etc. and led by a single individual seemed far-fetched in the extreme.
Now, not so much.
What was Osama bin Laden but the quintessential Bond villain brought to life? (And, no, I'm not denigrating the reality of 9/11).
The point is, with the fantasy elements of Bond no longer fantasy, what does EON do? Have Bond engage in more extreme forms of fantasy (Martians! Vampires!). I don't think that would work.
What's more, modern technology has made Bond's once fantastical gadgets humdrum. The tracking device in Goldfinger is now available to anyone with a hundred dollars to spare and a cell phone
Set the movies in the past, the Fifties or Sixties? While that would be interesting, EON doesn't seem to want to go in the direction, probably believing that the films wouldn't generate the size of audiences it's looking for.
The truth is the Bond films have to deal with a world where the lines between what is real and what is fantastic aren't very clear, thus making the "one foot in reality and one foot in fantasy" formula more difficult. The Craig films have gone in the direction of being basically realistic with fantasy fringe elements (a car with a flame thrower--although in this day and age you can probably get a flame thrower installed on a car!).
But the Bonds of old made us believe the institutions were worth defending.
This is what's missing from all of Craig's Bond films. His Bond films don't make me care about Bond or the good guys. I don't really care what happens, and there's no suspense because I feel no investment in the characters. I don't care when Vesper dies because the romance is so poorly done that I don't believe it. I don't care that Bond is miserable in QOS because of Vesper's death, because I didn't believe he cared for her when she was alive. I don't care when Bond falls off the train bridge because it's so stupid that M orders the rookie agent Eve to shoot. I feel like the villain deserved to get away because of how stupid M is. I felt like the 00 programme should have been shut down because of how poorly it was run. M's speech in Skyfall doesn't affect me because the poor actions on MI6's part already made me take the other side.
And then SPECTRE dumped most of the dour to deliver unto us a joyous ride again.
Well, I would extend my remarks by pointing out what was once fantasy is now reality. Fifty years ago, the idea of an international criminal organization engaged in extortion, terror, espionage, etc. and led by a single individual seemed far-fetched in the extreme.
Now, not so much.
What was Osama bin Laden but the quintessential Bond villain brought to life? (And, no, I'm not denigrating the reality of 9/11).
The point is, with the fantasy elements of Bond no longer fantasy, what does EON do? Have Bond engage in more extreme forms of fantasy (Martians! Vampires!). I don't think that would work.
What's more, modern technology has made Bond's once fantastical gadgets humdrum. The tracking device in Goldfinger is now available to anyone with a hundred dollars to spare and a cell phone
Set the movies in the past, the Fifties or Sixties? While that would be interesting, EON doesn't seem to want to go in the direction, probably believing that the films wouldn't generate the size of audiences it's looking for.
The truth is the Bond films have to deal with a world where the lines between what is real and what is fantastic aren't very clear, thus making the "one foot in reality and one foot in fantasy" formula more difficult. The Craig films have gone in the direction of being basically realistic with fantasy fringe elements (a car with a flame thrower--although in this day and age you can probably get a flame thrower installed on a car!).
Sort of. There were certainly vast criminal organizations in the past, as well as terrorists, but the idea of one modeled so closely after a legitimate corporation is what probably was innovative. But even this Fleming was borrowing somewhat from past works, such as Sax Rohmer's Fu Manchu series.
One could make the argument that in Fleming's day people said the same thing about the existing technology -- we have sonar and radar and satellites, so you can track anything. We can bug phones and put a homer on anything. People can talk on walkie talkies. Plastic surgery can make anyone look different. Computers can make complicated calculations. I mean, the technology of the day always looks impressive because it represents what can be done that couldn't easily before.
The trick is to find something interesting about the current times or the technology that can be used in the telling of the story. Fleming did this well. What if someone could use a radio beam to knock down rockets? What if the Russians had a coding machine we needed? These questions opened the door to bigger story possibilities. To topple rockets, the villain would have to have a vast and powerful base of operations. In order to steal the Lektor/Spektor, Bond would have to be swept up in an intricate love affair and spy plot.
But what do the modern writers do? They come up with a premise, generally built upon some computer technology (itself mostly tedious for filmmaking because so much happens in the invisible digital world), and then don't really develop a story from it. Think about it. What are the implications of Nine Eyes? Essentially that nothing is secret anymore. What does the film do with it? Almost nothing. It shows that C can spy on Mallory. Oh, and Blofeld can, too. So what? The issue is raised, but what is done with it for dramatic effect? Nothing. It's just the excuse for the story. The same could be said for Silva in Skyfall. He's doing the exact same thing but on a smaller scale.
I guess terrorism is going on in the world, too. Only we don't see it. It gets talked about a lot. CNN apparently reports on it all the time in the Craig Bond world. But when do we see an actual act? Where is the carnage and devastation -- not the outcome, which we are told all the time in expository scenes -- but the actual act? Where is the tension that builds to that point to show what is at stake? The closest we come is Silva, I guess, but then all his attempts are a feint. Bond is fighting an invisible war using invisible technology, with effects that largely happen off screen.
Somewhere in all that is a story. The problem is the writers can't or won't find it. They start with the premise of some action sequences and then fill in the blanks to connect them loosely. And on top of that, they don't put in the scenes that at least make us think that all this is worth the trouble for everyone else. MI6 is a disaster. The government is a bunch of angry bureaucrats. Western interests align with, what, beating the terrorists? The world built in the films after Casino Royale is largely one of anonymity for civilization, where everything instead is implausibly boiled down to a personal issue for Bond.
But the Bonds of old made us believe the institutions were worth defending.
This is what's missing from all of Craig's Bond films. His Bond films don't make me care about Bond or the good guys. I don't really care what happens, and there's no suspense because I feel no investment in the characters. I don't care when Vesper dies because the romance is so poorly done that I don't believe it. I don't care that Bond is miserable in QOS because of Vesper's death, because I didn't believe he cared for her when she was alive. I don't care when Bond falls off the train bridge because it's so stupid that M orders the rookie agent Eve to shoot. I feel like the villain deserved to get away because of how stupid M is. I felt like the 00 programme should have been shut down because of how poorly it was run. M's speech in Skyfall doesn't affect me because the poor actions on MI6's part already made me take the other side.
And then SPECTRE dumped most of the dour to deliver unto us a joyous ride again.
What I liked best about Spectre was that it tried in its own way to be fun again.
What I liked best about Spectre was that it tried in its own way to be fun again.
SP was like TB in that both have slow & relatively uneventful parts, both look gorgeous, and both have Bond actors at the absolute top of their game.
And they're both fun.
Have to say that Skyfall is the best example of Craig's Bond and Craig's MI6's incompetence. The fact that a mummy-troubled ex-agent could do what he did to that organisation and get away is a joke.
Beautiful film, but completely at the expense of common sense. Also very odd that Silva wasn't caught when getting from London to Scotland - and also if Mallory mentions being able to track them on the motorway cameras!
What I liked best about Spectre was that it tried in its own way to be fun again.
SP was like TB in that both have slow & relatively uneventful parts, both look gorgeous, and both have Bond actors at the absolute top of their game.
And they're both fun.
To me, Thunderball was the more interesting, though. One thing the older films get better than the newer films is glamour. Thunderball feels glamourous. The sets, the clothes, the atmosphere -- all helped by the direction and music -- make it feel like a lush adventure from start to finish. Spectre, not so much. So watching Thunderball, to me, is not just fun, but it's also a feast for the senses. Spectre is a modern film, in that they appear to have spent a lot of money, but what they got out of it was mostly bragging rights that they spent a lot of money.
Just a note about the spectre meetings in both films.
It was very similar to the meeting in TB. One member killed before everyone else, to
Keep them on their toes. As with Spectre another meeting, but a much more " Hands
on " killing, and this time it wasn't even a thief but a loyal member ! so in my book
Much more evil.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Have to say that Skyfall is the best example of Craig's Bond and Craig's MI6's incompetence. The fact that a mummy-troubled ex-agent could do what he did to that organisation and get away is a joke.
Beautiful film, but completely at the expense of common sense. Also very odd that Silva wasn't caught when getting from London to Scotland - and also if Mallory mentions being able to track them on the motorway cameras!
Kill him!
Skyfall is a pretty dumb movie if you analyze it more than casually -- it relies on a whole series of events that are at best improbable and can really only be reconciled with considerable effort.
Silva's entire plan is shaky from the start. He would have had to have anticipated a series of intertwining events that seem quite a stretch, such as knowing where Bond would be when he sets off the explosive or that M would be at a particular hearing at a particular time (and apparently choose to remain to recite a poem and such when she was told she was a target).
This can be reconciled to some degree if we're supposed to believe that Silva hacked into MI6 computers to monitor everything closely or, perhaps, had help now from Blofeld, but none of this is ever confirmed onscreen and still leaves the question of how Silva would know where his prison cell would be in the alternative MI6 headquarters to even make his escape, assuming that he knew he would be taken prison and not just killed by Bond outright in Japan.
But even not addressing that element of the story, Bond's plan at the end just makes no sense. M going along with it just makes n sense, except that she trusts Bond -- which given the plan, isn't a very good idea. Mallory tracking them but not sending reinforcements makes no sense.
The reason why it works is because the audience gets caught up in the sentimentality of the story and ignores the lapses in logic, and because we saw virtually the same story in The Dark Knight, it's familiar enough to somehow make sense.
Just a note about the spectre meetings in both films.
It was very similar to the meeting in TB. One member killed before everyone else, to
Keep them on their toes. As with Spectre another meeting, but a much more " Hands
on " killing, and this time it wasn't even a thief but a loyal member ! so in my book
Much more evil.
It's definitely reminiscent, but here's the problem for me: In Thunderball (and others), Blofeld is the one who makes the decision. In this one, it's Hinx. Blofeld merely observes. In fact, Blofeld really doesn't do a whole lot in the film. It's not just his screen time that's the issue but his actual villainy. Like a CEO, though, he definitely takes credit for his employees' work.
Comments
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I appreciate that distinction. But does it mean that the fantasy MI6 cannot reflect some aspects of reality?
It would be the IPCRESS File.
The Bond films have often existed in their own fictional universe, often built around the actor. With Connery, from the get go, there was a combination of spy thriller and boyish adventure and sci-fi fantasy, done to greater or lesser extent as the series wore on. Lazenby essentially carried on the tradition. Moore brought in much more camp and light-heartedness. Dalton tried to bring a literary edge, and the films from his era through Brosnan tried to be more topical and, for lack of a better term, "realistic."
What's interesting to note is that despite significant changes in tone or in the characterization by the actor, MI6 was always shown to e a competent organization. With Dench's M in the Brosnan era, we got the impression it was trying to adapt to the end of the Cold War, but it was still reasonably competent.
But Craig's tenure shows that it appears to be an exceptionally poorly managed and staffed bureaucracy, to the degree that interests might be better served without it. All of this seems less to reflect "reality" -- because how could a Bond film truly expect to do this -- and more an artificial means by the writers and so forth to make Bond's behavior seem more palatable and to make Bond, himself, stand out as more competent despite his numerous failings in the Craig era.
It reminds me of what they did in the Star Trek films based on the original characters. In the old TV series, Starfleet was shown as a pretty competent organization. In fact, many of the admirals and other officers were even more impressive than Kirk and crew. There were rogues among them, of course, but these were people "on the frontier," away from the prying eyes and ears of their leadership and subjected to the pressures of their situation. The organization had some bad apples but itself was not rotten. But for the films, more than once, they too often had to make Starfleet look highly incompetent and its personnel incapable in order to make our heroes by contrast seem more admirable -- it was really unnecessary.
In Craig's Bond films, this seems to be SOP. I mean, one thing I haven't noted is that we have yet to see any other competent MI6 agents, either. So far, they've been nonexistent or rather poor, too, with the possible exception of Mathis, who I'm still not sure was legitimate. In the Connery/Lazenby era, we got the impression that the other 00s were just as competent as Bond, and would replace him if it's necessary. Even in the Moore era, there was some attempt to make the other 00s seem as highly trained. But Craig seems to be the only 00 capable of doing anything, and even he fails a lot. It feels less like "reality" and more like stacking the deck to him.
James Bond has always existed in a netherworld with one foot in everyday reality and the other in fantasy.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Well said! Do you honestly think Moneypenny goes round the office flirting with him or Q spends a fortune on making gifts with one man?
No, you are right - those in the office are in everyday reality and fantasy. Thats why this new bunch works....
That's why SPECTRE, the organization, didn't seem so implausible. It functioned in parallel to MI6 as a highly efficient and well run organization, but its villainy was the contrast and made Bond's missions all the more important, regardless of the actual politics.
Now, I'm not so sure what exactly MI6 is defending. It just seems like a bloated, poorly run, badly staffed, incompetent government bureaucracy that exists for the sake of existing. What are they fighting for anymore? Why? To defeat terrorists? What does that mean? Civilization in the current Bond films -- if we are to use MI6 as the model -- doesn't seem all that meaningful, except in the blandest of terms: Innocent people will get hurt. "Our way of life" is being threatened. After all, no one trusts anyone else and apparently can be relied upon. Craig's Bond is never happy. But the Bonds of old made us believe the institutions were worth defending. And the fascinating thing is it was strong enough for us to forget that at the center of that was a monarchy built on a foundation of exploiting the poor and enslaving and colonizing foreigners so we could just enjoy the movie.
People tend to forget that Bond's playfulness and frivolity in the past films, particularly the classic era, were the result of being alive in what might be considered the height of western civilization. After all, the cars, clothes, gambling, excitement, and women are all the spoils of being on the winning team. But Craig and MI6 don't really seem to win anything anymore. Theirs is a universe that makes little sense except existence is a dour, frightful, uncontrollable day to day drudge. In this sense, it's not surprising how inept MI6 in Craig's Bonds is but that doesn't mean that it's necessarily realistic.
This is what's missing from all of Craig's Bond films. His Bond films don't make me care about Bond or the good guys. I don't really care what happens, and there's no suspense because I feel no investment in the characters. I don't care when Vesper dies because the romance is so poorly done that I don't believe it. I don't care that Bond is miserable in QOS because of Vesper's death, because I didn't believe he cared for her when she was alive. I don't care when Bond falls off the train bridge because it's so stupid that M orders the rookie agent Eve to shoot. I feel like the villain deserved to get away because of how stupid M is. I felt like the 00 programme should have been shut down because of how poorly it was run. M's speech in Skyfall doesn't affect me because the poor actions on MI6's part already made me take the other side.
Really? So Q assembling little Nellie made you sing "Rule Britannia" did it?
I actually gave a toss what happened to Q on that cable car. I was actually concerned for the man. Can you say the last time that happened? Was there any point to John Cleese's R? Apart from doing silly asides...
I did give a damn for Vesper
She was beautiful, enigmatic but not giving too much away? Rather like a Sphinx. There was a big problem when she died at the end of Casino Royale. It was the perfect cinematic ending. All the characters were very well drawn in CR.
I
Strangely enough I agree with you. A bloody stupid thing to do. No wonder she was carpeted on her way out. But it made her believable so the actions of Silva seemed more plausible. It made her act om impulse.
I disagree with you are the Craig Bonds being facile. Take Spectre and the scenes with 'C' and Mallory. The dialogue is tinged with menace as both are fighting for their lives. Both fight in a very English way..
I'd say the dialogue for the Craig Bonds has been superb. Certainly better then Goldeneye..
Well, we disagree about Casino Royale..
Now, not so much.
What was Osama bin Laden but the quintessential Bond villain brought to life? (And, no, I'm not denigrating the reality of 9/11).
The point is, with the fantasy elements of Bond no longer fantasy, what does EON do? Have Bond engage in more extreme forms of fantasy (Martians! Vampires!). I don't think that would work.
What's more, modern technology has made Bond's once fantastical gadgets humdrum. The tracking device in Goldfinger is now available to anyone with a hundred dollars to spare and a cell phone
Set the movies in the past, the Fifties or Sixties? While that would be interesting, EON doesn't seem to want to go in the direction, probably believing that the films wouldn't generate the size of audiences it's looking for.
The truth is the Bond films have to deal with a world where the lines between what is real and what is fantastic aren't very clear, thus making the "one foot in reality and one foot in fantasy" formula more difficult. The Craig films have gone in the direction of being basically realistic with fantasy fringe elements (a car with a flame thrower--although in this day and age you can probably get a flame thrower installed on a car!).
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
One could make the argument that in Fleming's day people said the same thing about the existing technology -- we have sonar and radar and satellites, so you can track anything. We can bug phones and put a homer on anything. People can talk on walkie talkies. Plastic surgery can make anyone look different. Computers can make complicated calculations. I mean, the technology of the day always looks impressive because it represents what can be done that couldn't easily before.
The trick is to find something interesting about the current times or the technology that can be used in the telling of the story. Fleming did this well. What if someone could use a radio beam to knock down rockets? What if the Russians had a coding machine we needed? These questions opened the door to bigger story possibilities. To topple rockets, the villain would have to have a vast and powerful base of operations. In order to steal the Lektor/Spektor, Bond would have to be swept up in an intricate love affair and spy plot.
But what do the modern writers do? They come up with a premise, generally built upon some computer technology (itself mostly tedious for filmmaking because so much happens in the invisible digital world), and then don't really develop a story from it. Think about it. What are the implications of Nine Eyes? Essentially that nothing is secret anymore. What does the film do with it? Almost nothing. It shows that C can spy on Mallory. Oh, and Blofeld can, too. So what? The issue is raised, but what is done with it for dramatic effect? Nothing. It's just the excuse for the story. The same could be said for Silva in Skyfall. He's doing the exact same thing but on a smaller scale.
I guess terrorism is going on in the world, too. Only we don't see it. It gets talked about a lot. CNN apparently reports on it all the time in the Craig Bond world. But when do we see an actual act? Where is the carnage and devastation -- not the outcome, which we are told all the time in expository scenes -- but the actual act? Where is the tension that builds to that point to show what is at stake? The closest we come is Silva, I guess, but then all his attempts are a feint. Bond is fighting an invisible war using invisible technology, with effects that largely happen off screen.
Somewhere in all that is a story. The problem is the writers can't or won't find it. They start with the premise of some action sequences and then fill in the blanks to connect them loosely. And on top of that, they don't put in the scenes that at least make us think that all this is worth the trouble for everyone else. MI6 is a disaster. The government is a bunch of angry bureaucrats. Western interests align with, what, beating the terrorists? The world built in the films after Casino Royale is largely one of anonymity for civilization, where everything instead is implausibly boiled down to a personal issue for Bond.
And they're both fun.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Have to say that Skyfall is the best example of Craig's Bond and Craig's MI6's incompetence. The fact that a mummy-troubled ex-agent could do what he did to that organisation and get away is a joke.
Beautiful film, but completely at the expense of common sense. Also very odd that Silva wasn't caught when getting from London to Scotland - and also if Mallory mentions being able to track them on the motorway cameras!
Kill him!
"Better make that two."
It was very similar to the meeting in TB. One member killed before everyone else, to
Keep them on their toes. As with Spectre another meeting, but a much more " Hands
on " killing, and this time it wasn't even a thief but a loyal member ! so in my book
Much more evil.
Silva's entire plan is shaky from the start. He would have had to have anticipated a series of intertwining events that seem quite a stretch, such as knowing where Bond would be when he sets off the explosive or that M would be at a particular hearing at a particular time (and apparently choose to remain to recite a poem and such when she was told she was a target).
This can be reconciled to some degree if we're supposed to believe that Silva hacked into MI6 computers to monitor everything closely or, perhaps, had help now from Blofeld, but none of this is ever confirmed onscreen and still leaves the question of how Silva would know where his prison cell would be in the alternative MI6 headquarters to even make his escape, assuming that he knew he would be taken prison and not just killed by Bond outright in Japan.
But even not addressing that element of the story, Bond's plan at the end just makes no sense. M going along with it just makes n sense, except that she trusts Bond -- which given the plan, isn't a very good idea. Mallory tracking them but not sending reinforcements makes no sense.
The reason why it works is because the audience gets caught up in the sentimentality of the story and ignores the lapses in logic, and because we saw virtually the same story in The Dark Knight, it's familiar enough to somehow make sense.