85 replies to this topic

[001carus]

I think there have been some serious misconceptions about what makes a Bond film a Bond film. Obviously, 46 years of cinema have mutated the Bond character and franchise into something different, but this reaction to Quantum of Solace has actually made me rather angry. Hopefully and most probably we'll have Barbara and Michael sticking to the serious and realistic tone in future films, but because of the lack of love for QOS due to "too serious" and "not enough Bondisms" has thrown open the possibility of a silly, "fun" sequel ala Diamonds are Forever. While I guess I can understand complaints about the editing, run time (of which I don't see a problem with on both accounts), the common complaints about the film that there aren't enough "Bond moments" are simply frustrating.

Here we are, blessed with arguably the best Bond ever in Daniel Craig, FINALLY a more serious tone we haven't seen in full flight since the 60s, and in all seriousness, Fleming's Bond alive on the screen. Now I like all the Bond actors in their own way. They all bring something new and different to the table, and I can't dislike any of them. But let's compare the six Bond's to Fleming's original. Connery was incredible. His charisma and wonderful power and ability translate to a brilliant Bond. But he lacked the emotion and vulnerable nature that was present in the books. He wasn't quite the human being Fleming's Bond was. Lazenby was another great addition, but somewhat wooden. Roger Moore was clearly going in a different direction now. Quips galore, he was about as far removed from Fleming's as one could be. Dalton went back to basics, and while he was very nearly Fleming, I don't think the producers had the strength back then to create this human Bond. Brosnan fell back further to Moore's silliness once again, playing on quips and Bondisms that the crowd ate up, but by the end, were completely fed up.

And now we get Craig. Low on quips, ruthless, cunning, smart, vulnerable and human. Everything Fleming's Bond was envisioned to be. By all intents and purposes we should have raised arms and cheers, and while Craig certainly got a warm welcome with Casino Royale (which, by the way, I DID think was a slightly superior episode to QOS), his second chapter was a more cold reception. Now we've got the viewers claiming QOS isn't "Bondian" enough, from the fans who think they know what the term means. Let's look at these "Bondisms." "Bond, James Bond" isn't there - something that a) was never a big part of the Fleming books, b. Wasn't even featured in the second Bond film, which is wildly considered to be the greatest Bond film ever, and c) "Bond, James Bond" got incredibly LAME by the end. By the end of the Brosnan era it just sounded SO forced and weak.

The one liners are the second "Bondism" that has been "discarded" in QOS. Once again, these were NEVER in the novels. They've simply gathered overtime into the Brosnan era, where they're uttered every five or so lines. In any real life situation Brosnan Bond would just lose friends and women if he was spurting the lame crap he utters in his films. And yet everyone wants these back in the films. Why? They only serve to slow down and reduce the credibility of the films.

I find it absolutely worrying that people want the Bond formula instead of the unpredictable, emotion-driven, character-developing stories of the Craig era. Why do we want this? Why do people just want Bond to be "a fun night out" instead of a thinking man's film which gives its audience respect. Why do viewers want to know exactly what's going to happen, because for about 18 of the 22 movies, I knew exactly how it was going to play out from start to finish. Now that we've got CR and QOS, that's been flipped on its head, and it's staggering how far they've come in just six years.

I hope the future of the Bond films have not been jeopardized by these foolish assumptions. I want a serious, story driven, deep film, in the same vein as Fleming, not a fun, run of the mill action/comedy. I hope most members on this forum want that too. What are your opinions on this? Sorry for the overlong post.

Edited by 001carus, 05 December 2008 - 09:19 AM.

[Bradley De La Cloche]

I agree completely with your post, 001carus. To be frank, I think a lot of the QoS haters are a complete bunch of hypocrites. I mean, Roger Ebert loved Casino Royale because it didn't have all the Bond cliches, but he hated QoS for that exact same reason. And let's not forget our good friend stamper, who absolutely despises this film, BUT STILL WENT TO SEE IT 3 TIMES.

Edited by Bradley De La Cloche, 05 December 2008 - 12:57 PM.

[blueman]

As long as EON keeps making thrilling films like QOS that so effectively mirror the tone/settings/pace/characterizations/etc. of Fleming's thrilling novels, I'll be a very happy Bond fan. Others won't be, oh well, welcome to my experience of Bond since the mid-70s.

[001carus]

I agree completely with your post, 001carus. To be frank, I think a lot of the QoS haters are a complete bunch of hypocrites. I mean, Roger Ebert loved Casino Royale because it didn't have all the Bond cliches, but he hated QoS for that exact same reason. And let's not forget our good friend stamper, who absolutely despises this film, BUT STILL WENT TO SEE IT 3 TIMES.

Exactly. Hypocritical is exactly the term I'd use. Roger Ebert... what the hell? He clearly completely misunderstood what QOS was about. Ah well, I'd like to the think Ian Fleming would be proud of CR/QOS.

As long as EON keeps making thrilling films like QOS that so effectively mirror the tone/settings/pace/characterizations/etc. of Fleming's thrilling novels, I'll be a very happy Bond fan. Others won't be, oh well, welcome to my experience of Bond since the mid-70s.

I agree, and I too, don't care what others think. But there's always that feeling that there could be a repeat of what happened with OHMSS. A serious, interesting film trying to do something different from past Bonds, following the Fleming material more closely, and developing the character massively. It wasn't received as well as past Bonds, and as such, we ended up with Diamonds are Forever - one of the biggest mistakes in cinema. All this, because of disgruntled fans not getting their "Bond Formula." Gah, I hate the Bond formula.

[bond 16.05.72]

Although I have my problems with QOS I'll take it over the majority of the series and after over 30 years a fan can proudly claim that CR was the best and my favourite Bond.

Craig is the best Bond actor to date and the way the series is moving I'll be glad to see it develop. I don't want the cliches back at all.

If Gadgets, Q & Moneypenny must return let them be for a reason not some hamfisted attempt to please joe public and Brozzer fans who think James Bond revolves round all that outdated crap.

Ebert's review made no sense after his glowing review of CR and must come to the conclusion the guys going senile.

I would have liked QOS to slow down and take it's time but I still enjoyed the hell out of it and look forward to my next viewing, maybe my 3rd and last Theatrical showing will be soon if not I will wait with baited breath for QOS premiere on the small screen.

Well Done Eon, don't listen to all the cliche lovers and continue to make films that make us proud not squirm with embarassment.

[plankattack]

but because of the lack of love for QOS due to "too serious" and "not enough Bondisms" has thrown open the possibility of a silly, "fun" sequel ala Diamonds are Forever.

001carus, what a great post. You've summed up out how I've felt about the franchise since being taken to see LALD by my father. But the above statement is the only one I'll disagree with.

Sure QoS has stirred up lots of debate amongst us fans, and yes there are some that really dislike it, but I don't think anybody (well, there might be a couple) want to disown it and ex-communicate it! But more importantly, it's worldwide take is going to be huge, so I'm not sure that translates into "lack of love" or a OHMSS situation. It's a business after all, and in a way, the success of all the films since '95 have almost liberated EON to make the films that they want to. Plus they have a star who takes every opportunity in an interview to talk about how much he loves the old ones (which I think makes very clear the "tone" of project that he wants to be involved in). But if they were to change styles again, it won't be because the last couple have been too "serious."

As for the critics - they gave up being honest about Bond a long time ago, and, with the exception of CR, they're going to write the story they're going to write. Heaven forbid let the facts of the product get in the way.

Edited by plankattack, 05 December 2008 - 01:07 PM.

[dee-bee-five]

I guess it all depends on what one regards as being Bondian. Some fans seem to think that all the bells and whistles that attached themselves to the series 1971-2002 are what Bond is. And that's fine, if that's what they like; hell, I enjoy the glorious silliness of Moonraker as much as the next fan.

But if I'm looking for Bond, I look to Fleming. And it seems to me that QoS is the most Bondian Bond film we've had since 1969, with the possible exception of CR.

[HildebrandRarity]

We all know that only a small minority of "fans" don't like Q0S. They're a vocal minority.

Look at the box office.

There's no accounting for a vocal minority who love their dumbed-down story-telling.

But the MAJORITY of Bond fans *do* like Q0S and it's 'spirit'.

[Eurospy]

Everything of the above.

Although, don't reduce Ebert's comments to himself only. His opinion is EXACTLY the same as most of the Bond fans who disliked QOS. Praising CR for lack of cliches, then negatively criticizing QOS for that same reason.

I think Mr. Craig would sooner walk away from Bond than have him turn into a parody of himself again.

[ImTheMoneypenny]

Great post 001carius. Well said.

[001carus]

I think Mr. Craig would sooner walk away from Bond than have him turn into a parody of himself again.

That's exactly what I'd like to think. Even if Barbara and Michael get a little loopy and go back to their Brosnan ways there would still be Craig there as the middle man to stop the nonsense.

I really think the Bond franchise has gone MASSIVELY in the right direction here. I think it was Hildebrand who said "QOS makes all predecessors seem like child's play (paraphrase)." Along with CR, I'm almost ready to agree with that statement. The series seems so much more important and relevant than it did last decade (I can't speak any further back than the 90s, because, unfortunately, I wasn't alive!). Like I said, Bond is now more than just a fun night out, but unfortunately, for some reason, we have these fans that only want this.

EDIT: Thanks plankattack and ImTheMoneyPenny for the charming compliments.

Edited by 001carus, 05 December 2008 - 02:22 PM.

[Joe Bond]

I agree with you too. I think why Ebert liked CR was the fact it did not change the formula that much and it still had a lot of formula elements without the formulaic film structure and if you watched his review for The World is Not Enough on the At the Movies website you would see that the other critic liked TWINE but was disappointed that there wasn't anything new since it was directed by Micheal Apted but Ebert gave a glowing review saying how he did not want anything new and the other critic came back by saying why don't you rent some of the previous movies if you don't want anything new. So I feel that this is why he did not like QoS because it brought something totally new and left some of the formulaic elements behind which is why I really like it. I was also listening to the Being James Bond.com's podcast review of the film, I love their podcasts especially their CR review, and sadly was disappointed at the fact they didn't like the film for it being almost too realistic for its own good where they thought the whole double suicide scene at the end went to far with realism and they also went as far to complain about Bond not wearing a tux in the gunbarrel and not liking the gunbarrel at the end. They also thought none of the action scenes worked and they said how the opening shot intercuting with the cars in the tunnel was a OH NO moment but for me it was a OH YES moment since I felt that was the most artistic opening shot in any Bond film and they also complained of how when the movie started he thought he sat too close but he was almost at the back of the theatre and he could not follow anything in the action sequences even on his second viewing which did not happen to me at all on the first viewing and I was at least toward the middle. The only dissapointing thing about QoS is that its not as beloved as CR but I know I love it and if they do go for something more traditional they could try for a more realistic version of a say Goldfinger with out anything feeling forced and I do agree that Craig would never let the producers go back to the silly stuff of the Brosnan era since the producers are doing one movie at a time with Craig and they know he could want to leave at any minute so I am sure they will do anything to have him keep doing Bond films.

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

Everything of the above.

Although, don't reduce Ebert's comments to himself only. His opinion is EXACTLY the same as most of the Bond fans who disliked QOS. Praising CR for lack of cliches, then negatively criticizing QOS for that same reason.

I always check Ebert's reviews because, generally, if he likes a movie....there's no real point in me going to see it.

[honour]

I don't understand the need for a return to formula.

That's how I feel about it.Simple as that.

[Eurospy]

I don't understand the need for a return to formula.

That's how I feel about it.Simple as that.

That depends on what one perceives on being "formula" I guess.

Even with CR and QOS I can see the formula there, only played with and twists on certain/many elements.

[001carus]

I don't understand the need for a return to formula.

That's how I feel about it.Simple as that.

That depends on what one perceives on being "formula" I guess.

Even with CR and QOS I can see the formula there, only played with and twists on certain/many elements.

I think CR and QOS follow the formula VERY lightly, but mostly follow the standard film setup to have an intro to the characters, a middle, and a climax, followed by a conclusion. I'd say the clear cut Bond formula that's been present for the last 40 years is roughly as follows:

1. Bond kicks in the PTS, possibly thwarting the villain of the film's plans
2. Bond gets his assignment from M.
3. Bond meets up with Q and gets his gadgets (This sometimes takes place later)
4. Bond meets the villain, possibly undercover.
5. Bond meets Bond girl 1, sleeps with her, and she either ends up dead for being a traitor to the bad guys, or ends up being the traitor to Bond
6. Bond meets Bond girl 2, possibly sleeps with her.
7. They have a final assault on the villain's lair/base.
8. Bond doesn't return home, but instead snuggles with Bond girl 2 while MI6/CIA watch.

Coupled with "Bond, James Bond", "Vodka Martini. Shaken, not stirred" and the sprinkling of one liners, the Bond formula creates a completely predictable story. QOS follows 5, 6, and 7 lightly and in a very different manner to what they usually are. CR follows 5 and 6 only, and I see the death of Solange as really the only Bond formula moment in that movie.

[blueman]

The most significant narrative difference between CR and QOS: in CR, we're introduced to the bad guys right after the titles, and cut away from Bond's storyline a lot so as to keep us posted on what Le Chiffre and co are doing next.

But in QOS we're only introduced to characters/storylines after Bond is: we meet Camille for the first time when Bond does, and only get a glimpse of Greene and Medrano when Camille leads Bond (and us) to them. This Bond-first narrative structure stays with QOS all the way to the end (we're only privvy to Medrano and Greene's confrontation in La Perla becuase Bond and Camille are outside getting ready to attack - indeed, Forster intercuts Camille infiltrating the hotel during this bit of bad guy business). This is incredibly expert writing/directing IMO, the best Fleming novels followed this IIRC (I think FRWL might be the only significant break with this, the first 5 or 6 chapters deal exclusively with SMERSH setting up their plan - oh, and not counting TSWLM ).

IMHO, CR would only have benefitted by such a narrative flow: much of the padding in the first half of the film is cutaways from Bond, info from which could have been shown differently - in fact M repeats info we already have after Miami when she's shoving Bond off to the poker game. It's not something I mind a whole lot one way or the other, but if I have a preference it's with QOS's sleeker and more Bond-centric storytelling (the last half of CR follows such a format much more closely as storylines have converged, and works for me that much better because of it).

[Joe Bond]

I don't understand the need for a return to formula.

That's how I feel about it.Simple as that.

That depends on what one perceives on being "formula" I guess.

Even with CR and QOS I can see the formula there, only played with and twists on certain/many elements.

I think CR and QOS follow the formula VERY lightly, but mostly follow the standard film setup to have an intro to the characters, a middle, and a climax, followed by a conclusion. I'd say the clear cut Bond formula that's been present for the last 40 years is roughly as follows:

1. Bond kicks in the PTS, possibly thwarting the villain of the film's plans
2. Bond gets his assignment from M.
3. Bond meets up with Q and gets his gadgets (This sometimes takes place later)
4. Bond meets the villain, possibly undercover.
5. Bond meets Bond girl 1, sleeps with her, and she either ends up dead for being a traitor to the bad guys, or ends up being the traitor to Bond
6. Bond meets Bond girl 2, possibly sleeps with her.
7. They have a final assault on the villain's lair/base.
8. Bond doesn't return home, but instead snuggles with Bond girl 2 while MI6/CIA watch.

Coupled with "Bond, James Bond", "Vodka Martini. Shaken, not stirred" and the sprinkling of one liners, the Bond formula creates a completely predictable story. QOS follows 5, 6, and 7 lightly and in a very different manner to what they usually are. CR follows 5 and 6 only, and I see the death of Solange as really the only Bond formula moment in that movie.

Yes I agree with this and would be happy if they tried something totally new for the next one but if they do reintroduce some traditional elements they should do it in a more realistic and new way a good example of this was casting Jeffery Wright as Felix and Wright portrayed him in a realistic and new way, and another good example is how Christopher Nolan has reintroduce traditional Batman elements in his Batman movies like the tumbbler, batman's gadgets, and his own suit that are new and more realistic so I feel this is esential if the elements come back but the whole traditional film structure like you have listed should never come back because it would be like you said, predictable, and CR and QoS are the exact opposite.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I really despise extremes, is like this silly thing of "you're with us or against us, there's no space to stay in the middle".

I feel we are going from one extreme to another. The Brosnan era was cheesy and too unbelievable, and now QOS it's too realistic, at lest for a Bond movie, with almost no space for escapism (taking to account that 'coincidentally' this is the current trend for action movies), and I'm not only talking about the almost unstoppables extreme close ups and fast cuting for some sequences, I'm also referring to the squalid locations and even to the faded photography. I would just wish that the series stays in the right balance, achieved lately for CR.

Anyway, I have to admit that if I've been forced to choose I would prefer this extreme, rather than the earlier one.

One last thing... I hate when people talk (writing like this "CR/QOS") as if the two Craig's entries were just one big movie, they're very stylistically different ("two separate movies" as Craig himself has declared), then again there's not such a big difference as in DAD in comparison with QOS, because CR isn't in any extreme, and that's exactly that could make it pass the test of time.

No wonder, the Bond films that are regarded classic (even beyond the fandom) are the one that presents a good balance between realism and fantasy, GF and TSWLM, are example of this achievement. But right now, the fad dictate and automatically translate, the more realism equal a better film.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 06 December 2008 - 02:31 AM.

[blueman]

Mr. Beech: if you think it's all Bond, why start so many threads complaining about this or that point in QOS??? It's a little more realistic than some (seems what you're driving at), so big whoops, right?

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Mr. Beech: if you think it's all Bond, why start so many threads complaining about this or that point in QOS??? It's a little more realistic than some (seems what you're driving at), so big whoops, right?

My humble opinion it's a little more complex than that (if you read my other threads...), but if you want to understand it like that, well, that's your thing, that's fine with me.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 06 December 2008 - 03:18 AM.

[blueman]

Just think you're trying to come up with objective reasons why your subjective opinion should hold sway over, well, everybody. You like what you like, I get that; others like what they like regardless if it conforms to your standards and parameters.

Either you're preaching to the choir (people who think like you), or tossing your pearls before swine (people who don't think like you). That, IMHO, seems to be all you're interested in doing here, but like what you said, it's your thing so whatever.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Just think you're trying to come up with objective reasons why your subjective opinion should hold sway over, well, everybody. You like what you like, I get that; others like what they like regardless if it conforms to your standards and parameters.

Either you're preaching to the choir (people who think like you), or tossing your pearls before swine (people who don't think like you). That, IMHO, seems to be all you're interested in doing here, but like what you said, it's your thing so whatever.

Well, this is the reason that almost any forum have to exist: share and discuss with others your "subjective opinion" (this is redundant), giving objective fundaments, to support a reasonable debate.

I don't know which are your expectations, but this is what everybody usually does in a forum.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 06 December 2008 - 09:24 AM.

[blueman]

That's exactly my expectation: I guess I'm a little put off by your rhetorical question-thread starters (asking something you don't want to debate, just expound upon), and drumming up critical and BO success to bolster your Bond paradigm over any other. TSWLM might well be enjoyable and popular with critics and audiences alike, but it's not a Bond film to me, doesn't have anything remotely resembling Fleming's character in it - it's got Roger Moore, and he's pretty swell, but I don't tend to confuse him with an actor actually portraying Bond in a decently filmed thriller. QOS doesn't seem too realistic for Bond to me, seems just about right in fact. You have a low opinion of it, okay (interesting that most critics - your standard - reviewed it favorably going by RT, and audiences - again, your standard - are still going in to suffer through it, to the tune worldwide of almost half a billion dollars... sorry 'bout that). IMHO, CR didn't go far enough, though that's mostly hindsight and comparing it to the new film, which works for me as a template Bond film. I imagine Bond will lighten up a bit in 23, but hopefully not too much, I like him all edgy and Fleming (with the odd moments of flash, like upgrading hotels in La Paz, nice that but also glad there wasn't too much of that, gets distracting in a thriller, but that's just me ).

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

QOS doesn't seem too realistic for Bond to me, seems just about right in fact. You have a low opinion of it, okay.

I don't have such a low opinion about QOS I just think is a little overrated mostly in this forum, while it's in fact underrated in others like imdb. With QOS I have a some kind of similar feeling that the one that I have for The Dark Knigh, I think they're pretty decent films (even with its flaws), but I don't believe that are deep master pieces of art.

Regarding to your comments about TSWLM, that it's not a Bond film to you, because doesn't have anything remotely resembling Fleming's character in it. I understand that, 'cause in my case, I don't see any of the Brosnan movies as real Bond films, I see him more like caricature, full of cliches, of what the establishment of Hollywood understand of Bond, instead of a proper portraying of OO7.

Hence, you will understand that I much prefer QOS to that previous era, but then again I do considere LTK as a proper Bond movies, only that like the worst of the entire canon, thus I don't want that the series goes beyond for that so called gritty route.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 06 December 2008 - 10:40 AM.

[stamper]

Not only I went three times, I'll get and good on Blu-Ray, it's too fascinating like watching the Titanic sink.

I feel btw that there's no need to bring back the bond formula next, because this movie is all of it, ie there's not a lot of things in it not taken from prior bond movies, unlike CR which, when they had them, had them with a twist.

It's just a run of the mill 007 movie from the past, with the only difference with Brosnan era being the quick cuts, intense action and shaky cam. All the rest is pure old, tired Bond. Craig acts in it like he is James Bond, which makes the ending stupid because they can't say "he is now Bond ! coming next !" when the whole movie had him acting like Brosnan era Bond. I loved CR because the were rejuvenating the formula. Here, they just replicate it. Just my thoughts.

[Eddie Burns]

Quantum is an allright movie, but it ain't memorable and instantly forgettable. All the finger pointing to the B.O and RT won't change that. It's a run of the mill action movie that copy and pasted action scenes from other films and still managed to do it worse. Those people that are calling for the formula back, want go watch a Bond film...not a bourne/statham hybrid. It's not that they want the silliness to return, they want something that at least screams Bond while being original, memorable, and familiar.

We're Bond fans and we defend the series religiously, but please call a spade a spade. Can the filmmakers be original or is the trend of action movies going to dictate what Bond movie we get? Forster is not a genius...he can't do action and took the easy option and got Bradley. I cringe when Forster gets credit...all camera tricks but no substance.

[Eurospy]

Let's face it, CR was a tough act to follow.

Exactly because they rejuvenated the formula with it (an excellent choice of words there stamper).

Not even the producers, probably, we're quite sure how to follow it. I love the movie as much as QOS, but after CR not even I knew what I wanted, except that Craig's Bond is the Bond I always wanted to see.

So they decided to have one foot in CR and the other in the overall formula. The plot's not developed as fresh is it could have been, that's true, but I still find it a solid movie, as both Bond and otherwise. People keep mentioning the action sequences, but my favorite touches were his interactions with Mathis, Fields' look (is there anything under that trenchcoat?) and Bond willing to kill Camille to save her from suffering. They had tried to have touches such as this in previous movies, but never quite got there. IMHO, this time they did.

[001carus]

Those people that are calling for the formula back, want go watch a Bond film...not a bourne/statham hybrid. It's not that they want the silliness to return, they want something that at least screams Bond while being original, memorable, and familiar.

But that's what I'm saying. The Brosnan Bond films AREN'T screaming with Bond. Infact, nothing really since the 60s does. For a Bond film to be screaming with Bond, it needs to relate back to the Fleming novels.

While one can arguably say that CR and QOS aren't in the same style as the Fleming novels (For me however, the two newest installments scream of Fleming), it's hard for one to call a Brosnan Bond film much like Fleming's Bond at all.

And this is my point. All these fans want is for the Bond films to be "like Bond" without really understanding what it means to Bond. And CR and QOS, without a doubt, have done the best job of being Bond, arguably since the 60s.

[Professor Dent]

The one liners are the second "Bondism" that has been "discarded" in QOS.

The Brosnan era type one liners are gone but Craig has his fair share in there. Opening the trunk of the Aston & saying, "It's time to get out," asking Miss Fields "Can you come over here? I can't find the stationary," telling Tanner that "Slate was a dead end," & Mathis asking if Bond thought Field had handcuffs with Bond replying "I hope so." All funny, or maybe more sarcastic, lines in the context of the scene in the movie & Craig's deliver of them is spot on. These types of quips work for me.

Now that Craig's Bond has moved on from the Vesper brooding mode into the spy we all know, I'm anxious to see how his Bond plays in a more traditional spy thriller.

Also, good post, 001carus.