50 replies to this topic

[JLaidlaw]

I've been wandering round a few of the speculative threads of what happens now that Bond 23 is on ice, and it's been a lot of fun seeing people's far out ideas of where the series could go. And I was going to start one myself- wondering how Eon could best fill the gap between Bond 22 and 23- we've already had mention of a possible non-Bond spy movie coming from Eon. And I was going to speculate as to whether they could do a Spy-Action-Thriller movie in the Bond vein (perhaps even arguably set in the same continuity) without using the James Bond names and associated ephemera.

That's a bit silly, but in pursuing it I'm left wondering a far more interesting question; what is it that makes a Bond film a Bond film? In a series which has gone on so long, had so many changes of actor, visits so many locations, has had so many different writers, directors, composers, what is the underlying notion that makes a Bond film a Bond film. What is it beyond the names of the characters and organisations involved that stops me thinking that the Mission Impossible series (to pick a random example) is not a Bond film.

Can it be the character? The character who is played completely differently in say The Spy Who Loved Me to Quantum of Solace? If it is the character, it must be the name and general demeanour. But if I took Raiders of the Lost Ark and replaced Harrison Ford with Timothy Dalton, and Indiana Jones with James Bond, would I have a Bond film? No. The situations? Well, again, the situations seem pretty similar to a lot of globetrotting spy movies. The Music? Possibly- It's certainly not the Bond theme, which makes next to no appearances in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace- and yet I regard their scores as exceptionally 'Bondy'. But then Goldeneye doesn't have a particularly James Bond score, and that does alright.

I really am genuinely stumped. So two questions I'd love to hear responses to:

1) What makes a Bond film a Bond film?
2) Is it possible to make a quasi-James Bond film without James Bond?

[SecretAgentFan]

1) The character of James Bond is the main ingredient which influences everything else.

2) No. A film without James Bond would just be another spy thriller. That could work, of course. But why would EON want to start another spy franchise? Very counter-productive. They can be happy that BOURNE self-destructed after three films.

[The Shark]

1) What makes a Bond film a Bond film?

Great scores.

Missing in action since 97.

[Guy Haines]

Like Hamlet without the Prince.

But, I suppose EON could dust off that idea they bounced around, very briefly, after DAD of having a "Jinx Johnson" spinoff movie. As she's an ex Bond character and an agent herself, some might argue it would be close enough to a Bond film without Bond.

Whether they should is another matter entirely - a bit late in the day, I think, for that idea.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

I've been wandering round a few of the speculative threads of what happens now that Bond 23 is on ice, and it's been a lot of fun seeing people's far out ideas of where the series could go. And I was going to start one myself- wondering how Eon could best fill the gap between Bond 22 and 23- we've already had mention of a possible non-Bond spy movie coming from Eon. And I was going to speculate as to whether they could do a Spy-Action-Thriller movie in the Bond vein (perhaps even arguably set in the same continuity) without using the James Bond names and associated ephemera.

That's a bit silly, but in pursuing it I'm left wondering a far more interesting question; what is it that makes a Bond film a Bond film? In a series which has gone on so long, had so many changes of actor, visits so many locations, has had so many different writers, directors, composers, what is the underlying notion that makes a Bond film a Bond film. What is it beyond the names of the characters and organisations involved that stops me thinking that the Mission Impossible series (to pick a random example) is not a Bond film.

Can it be the character? The character who is played completely differently in say The Spy Who Loved Me to Quantum of Solace? If it is the character, it must be the name and general demeanour. But if I took Raiders of the Lost Ark and replaced Harrison Ford with Timothy Dalton, and Indiana Jones with James Bond, would I have a Bond film? No. The situations? Well, again, the situations seem pretty similar to a lot of globetrotting spy movies. The Music? Possibly- It's certainly not the Bond theme, which makes next to no appearances in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace- and yet I regard their scores as exceptionally 'Bondy'. But then Goldeneye doesn't have a particularly James Bond score, and that does alright.

I really am genuinely stumped. So two questions I'd love to hear responses to:

1) What makes a Bond film a Bond film?
2) Is it possible to make a quasi-James Bond film without James Bond?

1. The protagonist being Fleming's James Bond. To make a point, neither unofficial version of Casino Royale qualifies as a James Bond film because their protagonists are clearly not Fleming's Bond.
2. No. If there were to be a spinoff, it should be based around HMSS, like The Moneypenny Diaries. To make a Jinx movie would show a complete ignorance of what makes a Bond movie attractive to audiences worlwide.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

Indeed. Quantum of Solace IMO was a Bond film, but Bond was outside his universe.

[Loomis]

But, I suppose EON could dust off that idea they bounced around, very briefly, after DAD of having a "Jinx Johnson" spinoff movie. As she's an ex Bond character and an agent herself, some might argue it would be close enough to a Bond film without Bond.

I gather that the Jinx film - far from merely being just an idea that was "bounced around, very briefly" - got fairly far into pre-production, with a completed script by Purvis and Wade and an interesting director attached (Stephen Frears). I for one was very curious to see how it turned out.

[SecretAgentFan]

Question is: would the character of "Jinx" (and the script) also belong to MGM?

[Jim]

Half a bottle of spirits per day
60 - 70 cigarettes per day
Scrambled egg fetish - evident meanness and lack of social grace accentuated by ordering this as an evening meal and pretending that taking champagne with it makes this remotely acceptable.
Adventurous views on the Korean, and the Balt.
Ill-read, therefore inexpert in much.
Pints of bourbon at a time.
S+M fantasies.

They've been making Bond films without James Bond in them for forty-eight years. It takes an undeformed athletic man strapped into a suit and banging on about the vintage of champagne (how hugely impressive) and big 'splosions.

[Safari Suit]

Scrambled eggs are ace and I wont hear a word against them

[Lazenby]

Interesting topic. I feel that what makes a Bond movie, Bond, and not Jason Bourne are the elegant touches and sophistication of not only the camera work, but in the dialog.

As far as making a Bond movie without Bond, I feel you can. For years, I contested that EON look into making a movie with other double o's. Then you can have actor's like Guy Pierce, Clive Owen, etc. not beholden to an interpretation. Great topic again.

[Jim]

I do wonder why they've been keen to at least hint at the the drinking and smoking and sexual depravity but have never shown him eating a nice plate of scrambled eggs, which seems to be the most innocent of the vices (unless they think cholesterol and constipation is worse than, say, alcoholism or hacking up a lung).

[Jim]

The Bond of the books is thrillingly ghastly; the Bond of the films seems to have persuaded the weak-minded that it's acceptable and stylish to dress at inappropriate times of day in a dinner jacket - ony waiting staff and below stairs persons do this - make weak puns and generally deport one's self as an increasingly decrepit sex pest. He is unutterably vile and would be the sort of person once kept in a freak-show; or at least signing a register of some sort. A nightmarish vision of what some monumental cretin would perceive as sophisticated behaviour.

The Bond of the books is the best literary character yet to be filmed. I do wish they would hurry up and do this.

[SecretAgentFan]

Maybe that´s why EON keeps saying they want to go back to Fleming - finally getting scrambled eggs into the film.

[RJJB]

It's not a Bond movie unless it has James Bond in it. Period.
The producers could do something stupid like put Roger Moore back in the role and I'd go see the movie, because it's Bond. Gadgets, girls, stunts, locations--they are all important, but not as important as Bond himself.

[The Richmond Spy]

Perhaps there could be a film that sets up the next Bond film. We have had PTS's without Bond. Granted, stretching the LALD PTS into 100+ minutes would be excruciating.

[jamie00007]

Technically the McClory estate could do just that. They lost their rights to the character of James Bond in the last round of courtcases but retained their rights to Blofeld and SPECTRE. So technically theres nothing stopping them making a rival Bond film with another MI6 agent going after SPECTRE and Blofeld.

Edited by jamie00007, 27 April 2010 - 11:21 AM.

[David Schofield]

The Bond of the books is thrillingly ghastly

The Bond of the books is the best literary character yet to be filmed. I do wish they would hurry up and do this.

Would you cast someone just starting to enjoy vast quantities alcohol, 70 fags a day, scrambled eggs, doing mininmal excercise, becoming an illiterate xenophobic percunious pompous - at the start of the mission, "becoming Bond as it were".

Or would you cast someone who was showing the effect of these things over the years.

[AMC Hornet]

If you want to know what a Bond film looks like without 007 in it, then try Our Man Flint or Murderer's Row.

In the former you will see Jame Coburn doing everything perfectly, because he knows everything and knows he cannot be defeated, even without his 83-function lighter. Roger Moore at his worst never let on that he knew his character was going to win in the end (although we knew - that's part of the appeal).

In the latter (the only Matt Helm film I can stand watching) you will see Dean Martin drinking himself stupid (while driving!), making very bad jokes and self-referencing his rat-pack connections.

Neither film/ series took themselves seriously, because the makers knew that they couldn't seriously compete with the glamour and sophistication of the James Bond films. It would be like the British attempting to produce hard-boiled gumshoe noir movies with a Sam Spade or Philip Marlowe lookalike.

Bond works because he's European. Americans just can't pull off that level of sophistication (Jason Bourne choosing a wine?). The nearest successful competitor was True Lies, and it was successful because, unlike the two films mentioned above, it wasn't trying to beat EON at their own game.

Another important factor is the director. From the start, every Bond director has been either British or Commonwealth. Do you really want to see Quentin Tarantino direct a Bond film? Let him do MI4.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

From the start, every Bond director has been either British or Commonwealth. Do you really want to see Quentin Tarantino direct a Bond film? Let him do MI4.

Marc Forster is German/Swiss/American, so it would appear that a British or Commonwealth background is no longer a prerequisite.

And I'd love to see what Tarantino would do with a Bond film, especially after Inglorious Basterds.

[Jim]

The Bond of the books is thrillingly ghastly

The Bond of the books is the best literary character yet to be filmed. I do wish they would hurry up and do this.

Would you cast someone just starting to enjoy vast quantities alcohol, 70 fags a day, scrambled eggs, doing mininmal excercise, becoming an illiterate xenophobic percunious pompous - at the start of the mission, "becoming Bond as it were".

Or would you cast someone who was showing the effect of these things over the years.

On the first option, casting myself would be the act of a scoundrel, but I can think of no-one better suited to that description.

On the second option, thoughts run to the thread debating whether the current hiatus is the option to bring back the seventy-something Mr Brosnan.

[Bryce (003)]

Half a bottle of spirits per day
60 - 70 cigarettes per day
Scrambled egg fetish - evident meanness and lack of social grace accentuated by ordering this as an evening meal and pretending that taking champagne with it makes this remotely acceptable.
Adventurous views on the Korean, and the Balt.
Ill-read, therefore inexpert in much.
Pints of bourbon at a time.
S+M fantasies.

It's worked for me for years. I don't know what everyone else's problem is. Go figure.

[David Schofield]

Half a bottle of spirits per day
60 - 70 cigarettes per day
Scrambled egg fetish - evident meanness and lack of social grace accentuated by ordering this as an evening meal and pretending that taking champagne with it makes this remotely acceptable.
Adventurous views on the Korean, and the Balt.
Ill-read, therefore inexpert in much.
Pints of bourbon at a time.
S+M fantasies.

It's worked for me for years. I don't know what everyone else's problem is. Go figure.

Go see AMC Hornet's post #19, paragraph 5 for your answer, Brycey.

[JLaidlaw]

Well wading through the Scrambled Egg comments, this appears to be the main line of thought.

1) The character of James Bond is the main ingredient which influences everything else.

It's not a Bond movie unless it has James Bond in it. Period.

And so it is the character which makes the series unique. But what is that character? As I've already said the Daniel Craig model is far removed from the Roger Moore type.

The best overall description I can find of the movie-Bond is the Casino Royale biography (largely adapted from Fleming), which teaches us that Bond has an internationally mobile upbringing, but after being orpahned at a young age was educated in two of Britain's most highly renowned private schools but expelled from Eton for lacivious behaviour. He has a keen passion for combat and outdoor sports; running, swimming, skiing, climbing, and enjoys drinking (not to excess), driving for pleasure, gambling and liaisons with women. The only additions I would make to that are that Bond identifies himself as British, he has finer tastes in food and has a tendency to get personally involved with his missions.

But when you think of it, that's all pretty vague isn't it? If you were designing from scratch a British spy character (in the hero mode) you'd expect him to have a similar background; maybe orphaned, certainly well educated, physically tough and as Dalton so rightly put it, always living on the edge and therefore consoling himself with the finer things. On the face of it there is nothing about this character which could be described as unique.

It appears to me that James Bond only remains a unique character and series because rival studios allow him to remain unique. Whenever a studio knowingly takes on the Bond franchise it is always with a 'twist' which ultimately results in the lack of the films longevity. As AMC Hornet pointed out, 'He's like Bond, but doesn't take himself seriously' doesn't really work, and nor does 'He's like Bond, but he's an American muscle-laden hero'. Thus the only real competitors Bond has ever had have been secret agents (or policeman) who exist in very different worlds.

Which begs the question- if many of the highest grossing Bond films had excised the Bond trademarks, and replaced the name with Martin Somerset, would they have been hits?

Edited by JLaidlaw, 28 April 2010 - 11:40 AM.

[Zorin Industries]

Of course you cannot make a James Bond film without 007. Otherwise it is not a Bond film.

[Loomis]

Well, they made a Bond film without James Bond two years ago. Although QUANTUM OF SOLACE is actually a Bourne film, albeit that it focuses on the exploits of (apparently) a British Treadstone or Blackbriar "asset" as opposed to Jason B.

[elizabeth]

Of course you cannot make a James Bond film without 007. Otherwise it is not a Bond film.

Goes hand-in-hand with my feelings when I first read this topic: ...........................................................

[O.H.M.S.S.]

One could say there already is a Bond film without Bond: Casino Royale (1967).

[elizabeth]

One could say there already is a Bond film without Bond: Casino Royale (1967).

Technically, Bond was in CR '67. Multiple times.

[O.H.M.S.S.]

One could say there already is a Bond film without Bond: Casino Royale (1967).

Technically, Bond was in CR '67. Multiple times.

If you mean a character called James Bond, indeed there was one in CR, even more then one after a while as we all know. However, the character that Fleming wrote about and the EON's (+NSNA) is about was not featured in CR, although mentioned twice. So CR'67 is a Bond film without Bond.