15 replies to this topic

[Zen Razor]

Recently I have had some conversation with "Bond Fans" claiming ever since the Brosnan and Craig era that Bond has become nothing but cliché and is not what it used to be and have just become rip offs. Lots of people claim the Craig era is just taking it's ideals from the Bourne series and have becoming nothing but over used Cliché to settle the fans in. I've heard that the humor that Bond films used to have have been stripped away. The use of the Oil covered Fields in Quantum Of Solace and even Greene's hotel being similarly structured to that of Scaramanga's hideout. Plenty have also quoted that Skyfall is just overhyped? The villians are not what they used to be and don't even have anymore defining physical features like before?

 

What do you guys think do you think Bond is just a load of Cliché or not?

[Jim]

It always was. Right back to Fleming. We're just more aware of it now and with more opportunity to become so aware, and point it out.

[Zen Razor]

I don't necessarily agree I don't believe these films are exactly Cliché but these elements are for Nostalgic purposes rather than Cliché? Cliché is the overuse of a original formula to the point it doesn't become original anymore as far as I can remember Bond films was the only film to introduce these elements so why are they even called Cliché? You can watch any Action film from 2000 and up and can see a resemblance and I believe it's just thanks to the Camera work being used that makes it look more modern. Cliché isn't exactly what Bond films are made around but the Nostalgic factor to make fans feel they are apart of something. As far as the comedy goes plenty have been put in just not sexual like they were before. I feel Craig we can feel a sense of rejuvenation in the Bond series and their are much more to take from. 

[SecretAgentFan]

One could argue that there actually is only one Bond story (novel or film) - and any further endeavors are just remakes.

 

BUT... that´s the fun of it.  Of course, re-used elements become clichés.  Yet, the way these clichés or tropes or stereotypes are used again, slightly altered, through the lens of its particular timeframe - that´s what makes Bond so interesting.

 

And all the arguing about it is, of course, also a cliché.  One can always spot the criticisms that accompany the next Bond film: the villains, film songs, bond girls, stunts, jokes etc. are not what they used to be...  YES.  They aren´t.  But if they were, it would be a huge problem, wouldn´t it?  Why would anyone want to pay for the exact same thing again and again?

 

Wait... That´s what people do, right?

[hoagy]

Having the villains be obese or scarred and bald and having the hero survive by the use of gadgets itself became a cliché.  The new films have tipped their hat to certain Bond-isms, but are more hard-edged and NON-cliché, don't you think ?

 

Some people want their Bond light-hearted.  As for me, having grown up on the books and the films as they were released, which started out with a hard-edge and toughness, I am quite happy with the Craig films.  By the way -- LeChifre in CR DID have tears of blood, the henchman ("Elvis") in QOS DID have a strange haircut and demeanor and his boss had an odd way of speaking and displayed a Napoleonic complex, and Javier Bardem's terrific portrayal in SF DID include a jaw and dental issue which, when revealed, was quite gruesome.  Not to mention the blonde hair on a guy who is clearly not blonde (shudder !).  So, when you get past the initial impression, there IS a use of the old patterns even now.  Depending on your point of view, they are not as blatant as with some earlier villains, at least, not until certain moments.

 

The Bond films, in going back to a harder, tougher edge -- which the series itself displayed long before Bourne -- is bound to catch the "copying Bourne" criticism.  The Bourne films are fresher in people's memories than FRWL, OHMSS and (but for the dumb stuff with the too-young girl) FYEO.  The cinematic techniques employed are not unique to Bourne.  Even so, the Craig films, with their plots, locations and characters, are much more exotic and glamorous -- definitive Bond characteristics -- than the Bournes.

 

While I'm at it -- how about the Bourne films having their OWN worn out clichés ?  How many repressed memories of the same root problem does this guy have ?  Did it seem to anyone else that they dredged up more than one crucial episode that gave him that amnesia-causing trauma ?  How many times can you make the same film about a guy figuring out his past ?  It was darn near a reboot each time !  Don't get me wrong -- I enjoyed them -- but that plot wears thin after awhile.  Either he moves on or has new adventures.

[JamesPup]

I would say things aren’t as exciting as they are the first time. And there are only so may villains, gadgets, and plots that people can come up with. I think that is the problem that everything has been done already. I feel like they have become cliché at times but who cares. They try to make something completely new and interesting but they get scenes where its better to do something that had been done before because it was done right the first time. I don’t see how any Bonds are like the Borne movies. I like Bond a lot better then Borne. I bet the next Bond will be great and the villain will be of a very new concept. I loved Skyfall and have it as one of my favorite Bonds ever.

[Zen Razor]

Sounds about right but regardless whether it innovates or not I feel people are still going to criticize and it's up to the majority to put down the minority to make to allow for it's success or failure. Not everyone can be bought but some of these complaints sounds more like excuses I feel to many people are mourning the abscense of the comedic and unseriousness that previous Bond films featured. We have been told that from the start this was going to take a more serious look at the Bond series. So is that not innovation?

I can't agree more hoagy? I feel some of the classical elements are put there but are just not as easily given as before. Let's face it even some previous Bond villians didn't have as much defining features as others did. I feel when you look deep down you can see a classical Bond film just modernized. I feel they do tend to bring something new to the table every film. With that in mind it makes me wonder that Bond 24 might showcase so more classical elements than before since MGM was given back right to Blofeld.  I don't necessarily hate Bourne films but they have sealed themselves up and I honestly don't see many people looking to continue it for years like Bond has done. Can this finally prove that Bond is the only and spy-film that has not been outdated? I think so I feel little by little people are starting to understand this series has been around for awhile and why it has.

[SecretAgentFan]

Little by little?

[Hansen]

Bond is full of cliché. That is part of the reason I love it. It is also due because most of the time, it is extremely well balanced & subtle and also pretty well acted : Connery in Goldfinger is surrounded by clichés but he has the perfect distance between taking them seriously and playing with them. Remember: he wears a tuxedo under his wet suit and he remains damn cool.

 

Sometime the use of clichés turns to parody : DAF and most of of Moore's era (Pepper in LALD & TMWGG, MR...) and just gets me out of the film.

 

Sometimes there is no cliché and works pretty well : LTK, CR.

 

Sometimes, it is just awkwardly used and feels like an old uncle mumbling about how great he was before : DAD  & SF (mostly referring to the DB5 for the latter)

 

So, fine with me for the cliché, but use them in style

[Colossus]

What sets Bond apart from numerous other spy flicks/franchises [as if this has not been said enough but it is the ticket…] is that he is part of the old world establishment. It is this familiarity that is likable.

[Turn]

I guess it just falls on how one defines cliché and differs it from comfortable and familiar. The original post gave examples like the humor was stripped away and the villains didn't have defining physical characteristics. Many of us who were around in the Moore era would have swapped the overuse of humor for what we have now if possible. As for physical characteristics, if that's how you define a villain then you're easily pleased. I thought touches like Le Chiffre's tears of blood and the somewhat unnecessary scene with Silva in his cell with his malformed jaw would qualify without being overwhelming. I thought Silva was the best villain in years based on motivations and Bardam's strong presence.

 

And I thought it was the Austin Powers films that made Bond stale and cliché to many people. Does that term have different levels?

 

As Jim said, it always has been cliché without that being bad. To me I got tired of Bond always ending up with the girl at the end with a cheap sex joke. I pick on the Moore era because despite Bond for a long time being the action series it was really coasting. Car chases were passé. Moneypenny and Q exchanges would be standard with little return. Then you had Indiana Jones and other new franchises making it less special and the series had to adapt and change without losing what made it special and it's worked for the most part. Although even in the Brosnan era I got tired of the same new car with gadgets, Bond and girl against the villain and his army in the finale and the standard romantic clinch before the credits.

 

I still don't see the Bourne series being that influential or groundbreaking. Decent films that I don't care if I ever necessarily see again. I don't want to be Jason Bourne, dress like him, quote him or anything else.

 

But with Bond you take a character you thought you knew and give him new direction and motivations and you make it feel fresh and yet familiar without the baggage of having to bring back the lead actor who is too old by now (I'm thinking Indiana Jones). You can follow his sense of dress and style and enjoy it. Who doesn't immediately think James Bond when they put on a tux and do the gun pose? That's not a cliché, that's an icon.

 

Has anybody ever put on an outfit and thought "yeah, I'm styling like Bourne tonight"?

[plankattack]

 

Has anybody ever put on an outfit and thought "yeah, I'm styling like Bourne tonight"?

 

No. But every time I've forgotten where I put my car keys or my wallet, I think "I'm losing my memory just like Jason Bourne".....  

[DamnCoffee]

The thing is though, there's no point in trying to deny that Bond started the entire spy craze anyway, and if there wasn't a Bond, there wouldn't be a Bourne. It's fine for people to say that Bond is overhyped and cliche, but they just fail to realise that in 50 years time, Bond will still be known, and half of the other action heroes kicking about these days will be barely remembered. James Bond is far more than just a film series, it's a British treasure. There's something that just works about a man going out on a mission. Bond will always move with the times, and comparisons will always be drawn, but at the end of the day, James Bond will live on with his held held high. In fact, James Bond is probably in the strongest place it could be right now. $1 Billion gross for Skyfall, brilliant reviews across the world and a pretty damn good actor at the helm. Some people just have no idea how much a world without Bond would effect them. Especially if they love films. 

[Zen Razor]

@DamnCoffee

 

I can't agree anymore I think Cliché just sounds to negative. It makes it sound as if Bond was unoriginal, I can ensure that it is very original and that thanks to Bond we have some pretty amazing films. It truly is a classic. I love Bond films can never truly get old. Lots of people say there is no point because the cold war had already ended but I think otherwise.

[Sir Roger Moore]

Broccoli and Saltzman started it all back in the sixties and the success of Brosnan's films in the nineties proved that the character could survive after the end of the Cold War. Craig and Mendes are taking the series from strength to strength and are ensuring the future of the greatest series of films in worldwide movie history. As has been said Bond is a British institution but is also loved and celebrated the world over. It could be argued that the Bond films are Britain's finest export.

 

Films like the Bourne series like to think that they created the modern action/suspense film when the fact is they simply would not exist without the legacy of James Bond. They, and films like them, owe any of their success to agent 007 in his many incarnations.

[Iceskater101]

I don't believe Bond is overhyped. James Bond is really what kickstarted action movies and spy movies. He was a man that anyone wanted to be and women wanted to be with. I think cliche is James Bond but that's not a bad thing. That's just what the franchise is. It existed through out the other Bond movies.