32 replies to this topic

[coco1997]

And let's definitely not use the US Office as the last word...

US Office > UK Office.

[Safari Suit]

I've always found the UK Office more than a little overrated* and it's far from one of my all time faves so that maybe didn't make me spit my limey tea out all over my chips in the manor you expected , but I do sincerely find the US version, from what I've seen of it, to be damn near unwatchable. I know I'm in a minority on that but there you go.

*Someone here recently said anyone who used this phrase deserve to die, but nothing else fits (even "overpraised" seems a bit off) so I'll just have to start digging.

[Skudor]

I recently had a similar discussion at IMDb, I was forwarded to this board from there.

The notion goes, there's essentially three Bond films, that are used as templates throughout the franchise, to make other Bond films. Certain themes and structural elements are recycled over and over again.

There's the tragic/romantic chase/thriller, first seen in From Russia With Love. Later re-used in For Your Eyes Only and The Living Daylights.

There's the Goldfinger type of film, re-used in A View To a Kill and Goldeneye.

And then there's the You Only Live Twice-type, recycled in The Spy Who Loved me and Tomorrow Never Dies.

Moonraker is YOLT once again, with the second half of Thunderball grafted on to it, with the underwater battle substituted for another battle in slow-motion, though in space.

I've tried to read up on the subject, but I can't for my mind remember where I read it about, and how the arguments went. Is there any threads here? Could you shed some lights on the subject? Of Course there's more to it than that, but essentially, there are three archetypical Bond films, that gets used over and over again.

I found this thread on the subject, but it tells only half of it:

http://debrief.comma...showtopic=53305

My 2c:

1) Any review of the Bond films will find similarities between them. You can find evidence to support virtually any "theory of templates". I think it's more pick and mix, with varying degrees of originality and copy-cat. The most blatant copying would be YOLT vs TSWLM. The three types you mention are no doubt there, but I don't think you could 'neatly' fit all the movies cleanly into those categories. Personally I'd just claim that all Bond films follow Goldfinger in style and tone, and pick and mix or bastardise Fleming's themes for the story.

2) Bond as a character is ultimately a blank sheet, thus giving the movie makers a lot of freedom (except when they try too hard to follow a formula - e.g. in the 90s end early 00s). A Jason Bourne film has to be about Jason Bourne and his journey. A Bond film isn't ultimately about Bond at all.

3) Apart from Bond, M, Q, Moneypenny and Leiter anyone can die. This can be for any number of reasons (heavy deep reasons, or just because having the character live on clutters the story). The writer's haven't really generally been of a quality to get too deep here...