20 replies to this topic

[spynovelfan]

Probably an old topic, but I'm interested in how many threads there have been, before, during and after CR's release, about what I would regard as fairly minor aspects of the cinematic James Bond. A lot of fuss about whether or not Craig would wear a tuxedo, about the gunbarrel, the Bond theme, and so on. I seem to remember Loomis saying straight after seeing the film for the first time that it 'wasn't really a Bond film' (or something - thankfully he seems to have seen the light since then! ).

Am I the only one who didn't/doesn't care that much about this stuff? I was never remotely worried about whether or not the gunbarrel, tux or theme would be in there, and wouldn't be worried if they're not there next time. I actually wished CR had had even less of that sort of thing. Throw in (or out) Q and Moneypenny, too: hell, they weren't really in the novels and those seemed plenty Bondish enough! For me, these sorts of things aren't core elements of James Bond - they're merely overly familiar accoutrements. They're comfortable, I suppose, but they're merely signals: the main element for me is the character of 007 himself. CR was a departure for that as well in the film series, of course, because Bond makes a lot more mistakes and has his heart broken. But what is 'core Bond' to you - the elements that would break *your* heart if they took them out of the next films?

[tdalton]

There aren't any elements of the Bond films that I would be upset to really see go, except for the character of James Bond himself (obviously). I would like to see Craig get a traditional gun barrel sequence for the next film, but it wouldn't be necessarily bad for the film if there wasn't one, and it wouldn't make me think of it being any less of a Bond film without it. I can easily do without Moneypenny or Q returning to the franchise in the near future, especially as Villiers has proven to be a fairly decent replacement and is a nice change of pace from having had Moneypenny in all the other films. To answer the question, I can't really say that there are any elements to the films that I would be truly upset to see go, other than the main character.

[spynovelfan]

Interesting. And perhaps another way to look at it is: If you were worried that Craig might not wear a tux (and plenty of people here were, so don't make me go searching the archives for you! ), did the film change your mind? I loved the elegance of CASINO ROYALE, and Craig's costumes were part of that. But if he hadn't actually had a bow tie on during the gambling scenes, would the film really have suffered that much? And would it be possible in the next film to not have 007 gamble or visit a casino but be undercover the whole time - and it still be a brilliant Bond film?

Neenaw neenaw... The Bond Police are on their way.

[tdalton]

Interesting. And perhaps another way to look at it is: If you were worried that Craig might not wear a tux (and plenty of people here were, so don't make me go searching the archives for you! ), did the film change your mind? I loved the elegance of CASINO ROYALE, and Craig's costumes were part of that. But if he hadn't actually had a bow tie on during the gambling scenes, would the film really have suffered that much? And would it be possible in the next film to not have 007 gamble or visit a casino but be undercover the whole time - and it still be a brilliant Bond film?

Neenaw neenaw... The Bond Police are on their way.

I was most likely one of those complaining about some of the things that I saw Bond wearing in the film when some of the still pictures came out, but the film definitely changed my mind on that. Everything, to me anyway, looks better when in motion, and everything about the look of the film and the clothes that the characters were wearing certainly looked much better in motion when they could be seen in the full context of the film. Ultimately, I don't think that the next film would suffer at all if they were to not have Bond wear a tux in any part of the film. IMO, the only thing that it takes to make a Bond film is to have it feature the character of James Bond.

[Judo chop]

SNF, this is a question that all fans should give a whole lotta thought to. I'm going to rattle off a few of my basic thoughts here and now, but I expect I'll be reevaulating my own Core Bond after we hit page 3 of the thread and I've been privileged to read many other insightful opinions.

My first thought is that the only true core, is Bond himself:

1) His name is James Bond.
2) He is a 00 agent working for the British Government.
3) The film consists mainly of him doing that work, and doing it reasonably well.
4) He is "cool". That could mean many things, but most importantly it is that he is NOT "uncool". He is not a coward. He is not a bumbler.
5) He has a taste for the finer things in life, particularly women and drink.

So, that's core Bond. Take any of that away, and you've broken him.

Now, that's not to say that that is ALL I need to enjoy a Bond film. Those merely comprise the nucleus of a Bond film. There is no possibility of existence without those elements.

After that, the question becomes closer to what you are probably really getting at: What elements do I need to really enjoy what we've already established IS a Bond film?

Even off the top of my head, it gets complicated. It is probably not an itemized checklist that I need, but something closer to a 'minimum score'. I'm fine if such and such is missing, but go too far with stripping the tradition and Bond fades to gray. If so many things are missing, then so many other things must be present.

I've come up with 3 details that I would say carry the most weight:

1) Wit. Bond can retort. Bond has some kind of an answer to any threat. Much of who Bond is to me now, is what Bond has said. A Bond who comes up with no quotable banter is too easily forgotten.

2) Location. A story that never leaves New York City, for example, would do some serious damage to the total score.

3) Score. The score must be "Bondian". The sound of the spy was defined in 1962, and I would be torn from the film if it strayed outside of that sound.

Of course there are others that I love and do hope to see again. The tux, the car, the gadget, the casino, the walther, MP, Q, etc. But those three above are the heavy hitters. It would take a lot of little work to overcome the loss of any one of those.

[ACE]

Shopping List - Core Bond values:

1 Contemporary, global, zeitgeistian, Hitchcockian, Anglo-centric action, romantic, mystery thrillers.

2 Recognizable but apolitical, classic villains.

3 At least one, beautiful attractive female lead with whom Bond has a romantic/sexual entanglement.

4 Bond working in the milieu of a fictional yet serious SIS.

5 A James Bond performance in a classic story with character-led plotting all of which capture and adhere to the spirit and essence of the works of Ian Fleming.

6 Populist film entertainments made with solid production values written and directed by experienced film-craftspersons with a British sensibility.

7 Orchestral scores with unique, visually arresting titles sequences which come after a pre-titles teaser.

8 A gunbarrel somewhere.

(Feel sort of guilty about the last two but there you go - I am a bit of a stick-in-the-mud traditionalist on some things!)

[Turn]

But if he hadn't actually had a bow tie on during the gambling scenes, would the film really have suffered that much? And would it be possible in the next film to not have 007 gamble or visit a casino but be undercover the whole time - and it still be a brilliant Bond film?

The films prior to CR (this is NOT a Brosnan bash) really bowed to formula, which made CR seem fresher. I cringed somewhat at seeing Bond on skis and in a casino for no real reason in TWINE. Or seeing his new car with this gadget or that. Getting a film where the highest tech gadget in the Aston Martin is a defibrilator, who'd have thought it?

I could enjoy a whole film of Bond being undercover the whole film if it was Daniel Craig in the part, because so much of my enjoyment if CR was not so much in watching a James Bond film, that's a given, but my watching this man playing James Bond. He made me feel I was watching a book brought to life.

[blueman]

EON created movie Bond in the 60s, and there's always been the Bond "stuff" that goes along with that. GE was a bit of an attempt to shake that up, but CR really pulled it off, and the key was what many are citing: Craig as Bond, and EON's decision to make him/the character the focus of the film even at the expense of their own "stuff." And good for them!

Thinking ahead, I expect they'll keep the Craig-stuff, and maybe even build on it: the gun barrel could come at the end of the PTS again, Villiers could have a slightly expanded role, etc. Moneypenny could come back again, hopefully introduced as a "new" character, maybe Q. There is the expectation of what movie Bond is out there, CR got away with majorly tweaking all that as a one-off, but it wouldn't surpirse me to see the next couple films embrace the more traditional EON-created stuff but maybe keeping the tone CR established. Oddly, I think that's what the Brosnan films were trying to do, and not really succeeding at it. I think EON wisely went with Brosnan's strength, which is fluff. Can't argue with the BO, but it's nice to see Craig in the role now.

[Sigma7]

I think the character of Bond in the books should appear more, and political correctness should be disbanded, if bond needs to slap a woman, then he must. DC actually doesnt look that good in a tux, but he looks damn good in a suit, so he should wear more of that

The dialogue and story needs to be good, and the wit cant be stupid ( eg DAD )

The gadgets need to be clever, and not relied upon , unless its for a specific mission. ( they also need to be realistic, and be perceived as standard equipment for spies)

[Flash1087]

The gunbarrel, the theme song, and Bond being both clever and violent. The rest is negotiable.

[doubler83]

I like this Bond undercover lark. A bit like Splinter Cell Double Agent, with Bond going "bad" and doing things that he wouldn't usually do, and the British Government wondering whether or not he was still on their side.

Hmmm, nice.

[LadySylvia]

Am I the only one who didn't/doesn't care that much about this stuff?

Ten or fifteen years ago, I would have care. Now? I don't think I really do anymore.

[Loomis]

It's only this kind of thread that makes one realise how few in number those "core elements" actually are. I managed to enjoy YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE for about twenty years without noticing that Bond doesn't wear a tux in it until someone here on CBn pointed it out. And another of my favourite Bond films, NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN, doesn't even feature The James Bond Theme!

A Bond actor with dark hair is a must, though. Obviously.

[spynovelfan]

It's only this kind of thread that makes one realise how few in number those "core elements" actually are. I managed to enjoy YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE for about twenty years without noticing that Bond doesn't wear a tux in it until someone here on CBn pointed it out. And another of my favourite Bond films, NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN, doesn't even feature The James Bond Theme!

A Bond actor with dark hair is a must, though. Obviously.

Ah, glad you turned up!

I was interested that you felt, just after viewing the film for the first time, that it 'wasn't really a Bond film' (or words to that effect). Was there just something in your Vesper or did you really feel like that, because I felt it was much more blatantly Bondish than I had expected. I really don't have a problem with losing any 'expected' element in a Bond film other than the basic character of 007.

There are a few more that haven't been mentioned yet, like 'Bond. James Bond.' How would we feel if that didn't happen in the next, say, three films? I think they could introduce some new core elements. For example, the facial scar, the idea that he only goes for married women, etc.

[ACE]

A Bond actor with dark hair is a must, though. Obviously.

Obviously

There are a few more that haven't been mentioned yet, like 'Bond. James Bond.' How would we feel if that didn't happen in the next, say, three films?

I know it's iconic but so was Q!

Did he say it in the best Bond film ever made^TM, From Russia With Love?

In the Dalton movies, the line was sort of underplayed. I think Dalton really changed his signature introduction to "Shaken not stirred". His line reading of that was much, much more powerful. IMHO, it became his signature.

We'd be surprised at how flexible the Bond mythos is. Of course, to discuss it academically, the deletion of certain things seems unthinkable. But to see it in practice, we find Bond is a lot stronger than some accoutrements.

[Loomis]

I was interested that you felt, just after viewing the film for the first time, that it 'wasn't really a Bond film' (or words to that effect). Was there just something in your Vesper or did you really feel like that, because I felt it was much more blatantly Bondish than I had expected.

No, it was my honest view at the time. "Too radical", I kept saying. Whereas I remember that you felt it was actually (a little) too formula-bound - I recall your mentioning that, up to and including the Miami airport sequence, it was pretty much indistinguishable from a Brosnan outing (with the obvious exception of the PTS).

But I freely admit to being the John Kerry of internet Bond fandom in my flip-flopping. I intially found CASINO ROYALE overrated - still a very good film, but certainly overrated. Then I began to consider it a solid gold classic. On DVD, I started getting that "too radical" vibe again. And now I'm back to thinking it's superb. "Go figure."

[Loomis]

To bring to the discussion the perspective of the non-fan, some of my friends seem to think CASINO ROYALE lacks "core Bond" values, considering it unBondian that the villain is killed by someone other than 007, and bemoaning the lack of Q and zany gadgets (it strikes me that Q is more missed than Moneypenny).

It's easy for us to laugh at this sort of thing, but, for a large section of Joe Public, "core Bond" really does = DIE ANOTHER DAY.

[00Twelve]

I myself am definitely a person who desn't care about "staples" in the Bond films. I'm all up for some Flemingesque shake-ups, and I wish we could get away from some of the icons. Couldn't care less about "B..JB," or gunbarrels, or comeback lines, or Q or Moneypenny or all that. They're feel-good hits; that's all, IMO. I'm interested in Bond for the stories, the locales, and the characters. All the need to out-do each film in terms of stunts or gadgets isn't what makes Bond Bond for me. I realize I may sound rather strongly here, and let me say that I do love all the Bond films, but I love the direction that CR went because it was by far the most interesting of the Bond films that I've seen since (?). If EON randomly abandoned more of the formulas or "staples," I wouldn't complain. As long as they don't change the literary and cinematic character into something he's NEVER been.

[JLaidlaw]

Analysing the Bond Elements you mention, I'd say that to a certain extent, there is only one thing needed to be a Bond film- James Bond. However, there are many things which can and should be used to make it a classly, holistic Bond experience.

The Bond Theme
Or rather, some variant of it. I was not upset to have On Her Majesty's Secret Service having a similar sounding action theme for that film, and the same goes for the elements used from You Know My Name in Casino Royale, and to a lesser extent, Surrender in Tomorrow Never Dies and Live and Let Die in that film. When we come down to it, as wildly different as those songs look on paper, they all have that similar feel when in the movie- the feel of the original Dr No theme, and as long as Bond can have a backing song like that it's great. It's one of the reasons why Casino Royale 67 starts to feel more Bondian than Never Say Never Again. That said, For Your Eyes Only is a great film without such scoring. The one thing that does get irritating is when you hear nothing but the Bond theme all film, or it's looped again and again (The Little Nelly Scene from You Only Live Twice)

Dress
Definitely important. That's not to say dinner jackets every day, that's to say that he has to look like Bond, and the thing about Bond is every room he's in, he owns it, and let's face it, Connery doesn't look like that in certain scenes of You Only Live Twice or Diamonds are Forever. This also applies to the look of the actor they choose. One of the reasons Craig was so unliked at first was because the popular press published two photographs, the pose with the gun, which makes him look fifty, and the lifejacket one, which was not suave. The stylists were much better in the film, and just like Brosnan, Dalton, early Moore and early Connery, he looked like he owned the hotel, let alone the room.

The Gunbarrel and the Title Sequence
To me, this is art for arts sake. It's something that makes the Bond films stand out. The gunbarrel is a great introduction to the film and could be described as similar to a studio logo (Like the Disney Castle) It of course achieves a better purpose than this. It does not need to be there for the film to be a Bond film, but there isn't any need to take it out is there? It's not outdated, it's quite a cool motif, so there's no problem in leaving it where it is. I have to admit, I'm a bit of a traditionalist, and would have liked to see Connery and Niven do ones for their respective unofficial films. The title sequence, if done properly puts you into the right state for the film you are about to see, as long as it's perfectly set to the music. One thing I am against is the random inclusion of naked women and guns in the title sequence for no good reason. There was a time when it became a dull staple of the films that it was neccessary to sit through, between Moonraker and Licence to Kill there were at least four genuinely bad ones, but when I saw Tomorrow Never Dies I knew the title sequence was back to stay. It also lends a classiness to a Bond film, if there are going to be credits, I don't want to see them at the bottom of the screen like I'm watching an American drama. And the worst introduction to a Bond film is easily Never Say Never Again, Casino Royale '67 was a very good introduction for including a title sequence.

Bond, James Bond
It is foolish to litter this throughout a script, the same as it is for Shaken Not Stirred. If done so it is not a catchphrase, like it became in the latter Moore days, it has dramatic impact, it's a well written line, so I think that though any Bond film would be fine without the quote, there is no point in excluding for the sake of exclusion.

Q and Moneypenny
Not needed. Though Bond should be technically equipped for anything he's going to meet.

M
Essential. Firstly filling a narrative function, but for this specific run of films, I'd say that Judi Dench's M is the one character we can't get rid of. Bond needs a constant relationship with somebody, and more than Felix Leiter, Q or Moneypenny, at the moment it's M. She has become an integral part of the films for me, and I will hope to see her in 22 and 23. There may be some who argue that Bond does not need a constant relationship, but I don't think that's true. Bernard Lee, Lois Maxwell, Samantha Bond and, naturally, Desmond Llewellyn gave Bond some sort of grounding, and there are certain places where their comradeship is needed to give gravitas or lighten some certain areas. At the moment Bond needs M. Soon, it may be Leiter or a Sylvia Trench model instead.

So, there are my thoughts, there are some things you can remove, but they work so well, and if done well enough, aren't given the chance to become repetitive, so why should you?

Edited by JLaidlaw, 14 April 2007 - 01:18 PM.

[00Twelve]

Well said, JLaidLaw!

[Publius]

In the Dalton movies, the line was sort of underplayed. I think Dalton really changed his signature introduction to "Shaken not stirred". His line reading of that was much, much more powerful. IMHO, it became his signature.

Very good point, ACE. It was barely ever even said until Dalton became Bond, and then it became a new standard.

Honestly, for me, Bond is all that's required for it to be...Bond. I'm not going to go into any depth defining the character, since (as I argue probably far too often) there have been many different--and good--interpretations so far, but I think we all know Bond when we see him, and he probably still has a lot of flexibility that could be utilized before upsetting any large swath of fans (which is really the only thing keeping boundaries on how he's defined). I think said flexibility owes to how Fleming wrote him, as well as to the simplicity of his appeal.

Anyway, as long as we have Bond, everything else is optional, although I think some things are more important than others (his relationship with M, for example), and some niceties are better than others (the Bond theme, if used sparingly and possibly "creatively"). Then there's what I consider baggage that needs to be dropped, at least for a good period of time (Moneypenny, Q, maybe even the gunbarrel).

Really, I'm fairly open to most manners of risk-taking when it comes to Bond, and I'd like to see a lot more of it, at least as long as it's done for good reason and done intelligently (i.e., unlike the emo-Bond experiment of TWINE). Ironic that so many Bond fans want to play it safer than do many fans of franchises where the hero is far less adventurous.