46 replies to this topic

[Atomic Agent]

Yep. It sucks that something else is different. It's disappointing news. But I'd trade Bond's smoking habit any day if it means getting away from the WAY less-than-serious tone of Bond movies over the past 30 years.

[Scottlee]

The most iconic Bond moment of them all is only iconic in the first place because of the cool way Bond speaks at the same time he's sparking up. Like others have said, to take away this trait is to take away from the character. I'm not quite sure what the producers are thinking about. So it's okay for Brozza to smoke in probably the furthest-from-Fleming's-Bond of a 007 flick there has ever been, but when it comes to a movie that apparantly is trying to get back the original realism of the novels, smoking is a no-no? I just don't get it. Smoking was just as frowned upon back in 2002 as it is now.

[Captain Grimes]

They took him into MI-6 despite heavy drinking, smoking and taking Benzedrine???

Yes, according to Casino Royale, the book.

I could see EON doing this stuff if it's later in Bond's career and he's trying to deal with all of the loss and uncertainty in his life... but on his first missions? I think drinking and sex are enough for the first six months or so...

I haven't followed any of the spoilers, but judging by the trailer, Bond has killed two men by the time the film starts. I think that having two murders weighing on his conscience would cause a great deal of moral uncertainty. Probably more, in fact, than he would feel on later missions, after he had a few dozen killings under his belt.

I mean, I know we're all hard-boiled men of the world here, but when you have a good actor and an Oscar-winning writer there are different ways to convey stress, anxiety, guilt, and a sense of impending doom than popping Benzedrene.

Popping Benzedrine alone doesn't convey a great deal. My point is that Bond's various vices, together, humanize the character; they show that he's not a superman, and that his job takes a tremendous toll that he has to find relief from. By steadily subtracting vices, the film series has turned Bond more into a superhero, a fantasy character who can maim and murder without needing any kind of self-medication besides sex and the occasional drop of vodka.

If Haggis were writing the character from scratch, then yes, he could find other ways to convey Bond's stress, anxiety, and guilt. But these are the means that Fleming used, among others. So why try to fix what isn't broken? Just to appease an alarmist public that thinks that any depiction of risky behavior will automatically compel viewers to duplicate that behavior?

Edited by Captain Grimes, 02 October 2006 - 06:14 PM.

[SeanValen00V]

Creatively selling out again EON.

Doesn't surprise me.

[Harmsway]

I don't really think cigs are anywhere near as essential as a lot of the purists make it out to be. Nor does it show as much of a character trait as the purists seem to think it does. Is it a nice, subtle touch? Yup, but it's hardly absolutely defining.

However, is it hypocritical for EON to not allow Craig to smoke a cigar in CASINO ROYALE? You bet.

[Captain Grimes]

I don't really think cigs are anywhere near as essential as a lot of the purists make it out to be. Nor does it show as much of a character trait as the purists seem to think it does. Is it a nice, subtle touch? Yup, but it's hardly absolutely defining.

However, is it hypocritical for EON to not allow Craig to smoke a cigar in CASINO ROYALE? You bet.

Well, since I've been arguing the purist case in this thread, I might answer that few of us--if any--think that smoking "absolutely defines" the Bond character. But it is important. Important enough, indeed, for Fleming to tell us, often at length, how much Bond was smoking, when he was smoking, what he was smoking, who made what he was smoking, etc.

All of that aside, the main thing is that the decision to cut smoking out of the movies is both hypocritical, as you say, and a little spineless. But I wouldn't say, true fanboy that I am, that it lessens my enjoyment of the movies very much.

[Thunderfinger]

At least he is wearing a tuxedo.

[RevolveR]

People are going to freak out when I say this, but here it goes....

I've read Fleming and I enjoy his writing and his Bond character. That said, I'm glad that Fleming's Bond is not the one we see on screen. I am glad that EON is attempting to go back to realism and a grittier style of Bond. They need to. But when I go to the theatre and watch James Bond on November 17, I want to see a resolute man absolutely kick some ing . Fleming's Bond (yes I realize that a real assasin would suffer from all of the things that Fleming portrays) is way too depressing. Bond needs to be strong and together, not falling apart. Today more than ever, we need to see a hero that desptite it all is able to set an example through strength. If Bond kills a terrorist, or any enemy of his country, I don't give a damn if he feels bad or not.

So to hell with Fleming's true Bond. Just be glad we're getting something more interesting than DAD.

IMO

Edited by RevolveR, 02 October 2006 - 09:20 PM.

[License To Kill]

As a proponent of him smoking, I really could careless if it wasn't included in the film. Just like Revolver said, the hell with Fleming's true Bond. I want a Bond who is just a larger than life action hero, with shades/hints back at Fleming, mind you. But, overall, it is imperative to lose sense of reality when watching Bond, IMO.

I don't want the Fleming novel on screen. If I wanted that, I'd read the damn novels.

[Thunderfinger]

Yes! Damn Fleming! Damn him to Hell!

[License To Kill]

Yes! Damn Fleming! Damn him to Hell!

Sarcasm?

[Thunderfinger]

Yes.
Damn sarcasm, too!

[Harmsway]

But it isimportant. Important enough, indeed, for Fleming to tell us, often at length, how much Bond was smoking, when he was smoking, what he was smoking, who made what he was smoking, etc.

Fleming gave us lot of somewhat insignificant details. Overall, he wasn't that fantastic of a writer wherein every single detail had a really solid point. Often Fleming was detailed for the sake of being detailed - giving us background and so on that ultimately enriches the overall feel of the story (though in a number of places actually weighs some of his novels down), but was hardly all that important.

In no way am I saying it wouldn't be a nice touch, or even add something to the character (though it never has whenever it's appeared in the movies, IMHO), but it's not something I'd say is one of the essentials regarding 007.

All of that aside, the main thing is that the decision to cut smoking out of the movies is both hypocritical, as you say, and a little spineless. But I wouldn't say, true fanboy that I am, that it lessens my enjoyment of the movies very much.

We're on the same page there. EON's refusal to use smoking on any sort of moral ground is laughable - Bond's an absolutely horrible role model in all sorts. I think there are other arguments that could plausibly be utilized for not using smoking, but any moral arguments are flimsy.

[JimmyBond]

Creatively selling out again EON.

Doesn't surprise me.

You used to be such an interesting poster, your posts were always a joy to read. What happend?

[Thunderfinger]

If they had to cut out his smoking scene, then that surely implies he was smoking something illegal?

[Publius]

I'm a non-smoker, but I do think Bond is a man of vices, and to play them down is to water down (though not necessarily destroy) the character.

Interestingly, I probably wouldn't mind if he just didn't happen to smoke, but the way they proudly proclaim it you'd swear they were putting out something morally "proper" to view, and that we should applaud them for it. Which we shouldn't, because they're not, as they're still dehumanizing murder and glorifying casual sex, as well as portraying the consumption of alcohol, a far more destructive and epidemic vice, in a positive light.

But given the clout of certain interest groups (let's call them suburban fascists), I'm not surprised EON continues to go down this route. Though as long as they don't let the pressure turn Bond into his soft-edged, sensitive, TWINE version again, I can live with it.

Edited by Publius, 02 October 2006 - 10:04 PM.

[Jim]

Do people really go to James Bond films waiting for him to light up?


People have said the same thing about including Moneypenny, Q, the gadgets, the locales, Bond's looks, his height, his hair color, etc....at what point do all these "little things" finally add up to the point where the character no longer resembles Bond, but instead some bastardization that no one really cares about?

Not yet, it would appear.

Yes, there may have been a notion that they return to the character what Fleming done writted, but one might as well complain about the absence of casual racism or having him whacked off his man-chebs on Benzedrine.


Excuse-making and nothing else. Either return to the Bond that Fleming wrote, or don't hype it up as such. Again, EON tries to have it both ways.

Proved unsuccessful for those billionaire film producers so far, hasn't it?