198 replies to this topic

[Guy Haines]

Now that the rebooted Bond has got the angst out of his system - at the end of QoS - we could see the character move on. But I don't see a return to the "fun" movies of the 1970s as the answer.

I'm a fan of Connery's Bond, Craig's Bond, but most of all Fleming's Bond. Without wishing to wallow too much in nostalgia, I do think that the books and the films of the classic Bond books produced in the 1960s provide enough of a guide as to what does and does not work (or belongs) in a Bond film that the film makers ought to keep these in mind when writing and producing future Bond films.

Going off the subject slightly, whilst driving to work this morning I listened to Radio 4's "Desert Island Discs", and the castaway this week was Lewis Gilbert. I didn't get to hear the whole show, but did listen to his account of the making of YOLT and TSWLM. Wing Commander Wallis, it seems, was lucky to get away from the real volcano alive, after flying too low and finding he hadn't enough "lift" to fly back out - he just made it out, though, in the end!

Mr Gilbert also gave his views about Roger Moore's Bond, and said he was proud that he was able to help provide the humourous aspect that Moore's interpretation needed, he felt.

Lewis Gilbert did an excellent job as a Bond director, especially given the grand scale of the three films he helmed. I'm not sure, though - in my very humble opinion - that indulging Roger Moore's already much lighter approach to Bond was a good idea.

I always thought, watching the Moore movies, that playing the rest of the film much more straight, as a contrast to Roger's likable drollery, would have worked far better than the "he doesn't take it seriously, so why should we?" approach which influenced the Bond films of the 70s and 80s.

[Loomis]

I remember buying that A VIEW TO A KILL too (the black cover with the red gunbarrel....? And, sad-warning, I remember the trailers for MAD MAD III, THE GOONIES and others on there too?).

Yep, that's exactly the same VHS edition of A VIEW TO A KILL that I purchased (from WHSmith in Windsor, fact fans).

Pretty sure the PALE RIDER trailer was on there, too. Of course, trailers were also pretty special in those days - I also owned a pre-recorded VHS tape produced by some long-forgotten company or another that consisted of all the Bond trailers from DR. NO to (I think) OCTOPUSSY.

Personally, I'm getting a bit tired of moreose, introspective "emo" action characters with deep psychological issues, as well as the faux-documentary style that's currently in vogue - and I'd include Craig's two Bond films in that description. But the pendulum will swing back, as it always does.

I'm not sure that Bond needs to revert to self-parody, but I do miss the sense of larger-than-life outrageousness that was present in the 60s and 70s Bonds, as well as most of the Fleming books. I'd like to see the black humour and sense of the bizarre return to the series.

The idea that a "gritty" and "realistic" approach is somehow more faithful and authentic to the spirit of Fleming is nonsense.

The sense of the bizarre, in particular, has been sorely missing from the series since the 1970s.

[DR76]

I'm not sure that Bond needs to revert to self-parody, but I do miss the sense of larger-than-life outrageousness that was present in the 60s and 70s Bonds, as well as most of the Fleming books. I'd like to see the black humour and sense of the bizarre return to the series.

I don't. I don't miss it all. I don't mind watching one of those old 60s and 70s Bond films with the ridiculous plotlines every once in a while, but I don't miss it one bit.

[Trident]

The sense of the bizarre, in particular, has been sorely missing from the series since the 1970s.

Oh, but that's not the series' fault. That's due to bizarre becoming so mainstream that we don't recognise it any more.

[DR76]

The sense of the bizarre, in particular, has been sorely missing from the series since the 1970s.

And I hope that it remains missing. The day the Bond franchise returns to that old style is the day I will stop watching new Bond films. The last thing I want to see is the franchise regress to its over-the-top crap.

[Zographos]

Whatever the flaws of this era of Bond movies, we ought to let it have its own flaws and not try to stamp an older template on it. They're not going to make another A View To A Kill because that era is dead (appropriately in my opinion, less so in others'), and it's unfair to press that onto current films, or to pretend that previous eras didn't have their own flaws.

I think what has been said in this thread about the colouring effects of nostalgia is dead on. Nostalgia is a wonderful thing, and it's part of what makes being a fan fun, but don't let it limit possibilities. I'd hate to think we'd have lost CR and QOS, whatever their imperfections, to prior expectations about what a Bond movie should be.

Worse, I'd hate to think we may yet lose another great movie.

[JimmyBond]

Now that the rebooted Bond has got the angst out of his system - at the end of QoS - we could see the character move on. But I don't see a return to the "fun" movies of the 1970s as the answer.

I agree with that too. The reason I posted this thread in the Bond 24 & Beyond thread is because I'm not advocating Craig's next adventure be OTT silly Moore type shenanigans. If anything I'm advocating that somewhere down the line the series go in this direction again. That's all.

[The Shark]

What the hell is Blofeld up to anyway? "Auction off nuclear supremacy to the highest bidder"[?] Seems like they were making it up as they went in that one.

He says quite clearly to Bond at the oil rig, that he's demanding "total nuclear disarmament and world peace". That "nuclear supremacy'" line by Willard Whyte is just him stipulating what the outcome could potentially be.

I'd say Craig needs a Spy Who Loved Me, rather than a Thunderball. An old-style epic adventure, with an outlandish plot and big villains.

Hate to say it, but once you opt for the Spy Who Loved Me paradigm (which in many ways could be construed as a giant, grotesque "f you" to Harry Satlzman and Ian Fleming. Favouring box office gross and mass entertainment over the spirit of Fleming, and essentially rehashing both YOLT and TB) you're most likely going to head down the Pierce Brosnan route. Think about it, that entire era seems built upon the high octane action, over-the-top stunts, rather dated electronic soundtrack, megalomaniacal villains, strong, independent but dumb as hell Bond girls, and monstrously large production values marking a significant turning point in the Bond time-line. It's also no small coincidence that most Brosnan fans in particular hold this entry in high regard (as do most of the mainstream public, sadly).

Thunderball, at least managed to capture the intimacy, intrigue, suspense and sombre mood of Fleming's novels, despite being considerably larger than life. Essentially it doesn't let the scale overpower the story.

The sense of the bizarre, in particular, has been sorely missing from the series since the 1970s.

Indeed. The 'benign bizzare' is one of the most unique aspects of Fleming's novels, that is largely overlooked when the Bond makers attempt to produce gritty, down-to-earth Bond films i.e. For Your Eyes Only, The Living Daylights, Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace etc...

The sense of the bizarre, in particular, has been sorely missing from the series since the 1970s.

Oh, but that's not the series' fault. That's due to bizarre becoming so mainstream that we don't recognise it any more.

Where exactly has it become mainstream, Trident?

I am of course talking about the grotesque oddities of some of Fleming's novels, which carried over into the films.

I'm not sure that Bond needs to revert to self-parody, but I do miss the sense of larger-than-life outrageousness that was present in the 60s and 70s Bonds, as well as most of the Fleming books. I'd like to see the black humour and sense of the bizarre return to the series.

I don't. I don't miss it all. I don't mind watching one of those old 60s and 70s Bond films with the ridiculous plotlines every once in a while, but I don't miss it one bit.

Nice to know.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Lewis Gilbert did an excellent job as a Bond director, especially given the grand scale of the three films he helmed. I'm not sure, though - in my very humble opinion - that indulging Roger Moore's already much lighter approach to Bond was a good idea.

I always thought, watching the Moore movies, that playing the rest of the film much more straight, as a contrast to Roger's likable drollery, would have worked far better than the "he doesn't take it seriously, so why should we?" approach which influenced the Bond films of the 70s and 80s.

I think it was all a bit too much for Lewis Gilbert; Peter Hunt and Terence Young were used to big pictures (Hunt had even shaped many of them), wheras Gilbert was more used to smaller, personal pictures, or even slightly-big pictures with small, personal moments -- suddenly getting caught up into helicopters and volcano lairs and double-taking pigeons (one thing I like about TSWLM: It doesn't have empty personal moments, as the other two Gilbert Bond films do) must've thrown poor old Lewis off his stride... and, so, the self-indulgent, unrestrained bloat set in.

Because the '80s Bond films had increasingly smaller budgets, unrestrained bloat couldn't fit, and so we simply got random moments like Roger the Tiger Trainer ("Siiiii-tah!"), Maggie Thatcher and the parrot, peeping Q, and the wheelie-truck, that struck oddly out-of-place tones with the general moods of each film (the tired, wheezing musk of AVTAK notwithstanding); once the '90s Bond hit, and the budgets started to swell with each change of director, the small, random moments turned into plot points that gave the phrase "smelling the onion" a whole new lease on life.

With the Craig films, a lot of money has obviously been spent putting the story on screen, rather than indulging in smutty gags, and I applaud EON for doing so; it's what they'd forgotten about since 1969.

[The Shark]

With the Craig films, a lot of money has obviously been spent putting the story on screen, rather than indulging in smutty gags, and I applaud EON for doing so; it's what they'd forgotten about since 1969.

Is 'story' a euphemism for morose, humourless, cartoonish, Donkey Kong-like roof-jumping, paying Judi Dench's check, or filming in 6 (!!!) bloody locations per film?

Lets not get ahead of ourselves here.

[Safari Suit]

Lewis Gilbert did an excellent job as a Bond director, especially given the grand scale of the three films he helmed. I'm not sure, though - in my very humble opinion - that indulging Roger Moore's already much lighter approach to Bond was a good idea.

I always thought, watching the Moore movies, that playing the rest of the film much more straight, as a contrast to Roger's likable drollery, would have worked far better than the "he doesn't take it seriously, so why should we?" approach which influenced the Bond films of the 70s and 80s.

I think it was all a bit too much for Lewis Gilbert; Peter Hunt and Terence Young were used to big pictures (Hunt had even shaped many of them), wheras Gilbert was more used to smaller, personal pictures, or even slightly-big pictures with small, personal moments -- suddenly getting caught up into helicopters and volcano lairs and double-taking pigeons (one thing I like about TSWLM: It doesn't have empty personal moments, as the other two Gilbert Bond films do) must've thrown poor old Lewis off his stride... and, so, the self-indulgent, unrestrained bloat set in.

And yet his films are far less sloppy than those of Peter Hunt and Terence Young. If Lewis Gilbert's direction is "bloated" than as Cheech and Chong would say "Bloat On"!

And no, I'm not advocating more double-talling pidgeons etc.

[Mr. Blofeld]

And no, I'm not advocating more double-talling pidgeons etc.

You are, if you think Gilbert's films are "less sloppy"; quit pullin' my leg, man...

[JimmyBond]

And no, I'm not advocating more double-talling pidgeons etc.

You are, if you think Gilbert's films are "less sloppy"; quit pullin' my leg, man...

I'm not seeing the connection there. Gilbert directed three great Bond films (well ok, my opinion of YOLT isn't that high, but it's still directed well). Just because SS thinks Gilbert's films are less sloppy, doesn't mean he wants double taking pigeons back (five seconds out of a 2+ hour James Bond film and all of a sudden that's his trademark?).

Gilbert's direction really made the films come alive, even if YOLT does have a less than stellar script, his direction really worked for the film, and made it feel like the epic Bond film it's cited as.

[The Shark]

I don't care what you call it or what you compare with. Just bring back the real James Bond. I have had enough of this pretentious nonsense.

Where is the "pretentious nonsense"? I'm curious as to what is "pretentious" to some people.

Probably best described as Forster's individual style and sensibilities. That is, everything from his faux-cinéma vérité approach of incoherent fast cutting for action sequences, muted/distorted sounds accompanied by precious visual flourishes, to unnecessary shots of impoverished locals.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I'm not seeing the connection there. Gilbert directed three great Bond films (well ok, my opinion of YOLT isn't that high, but it's still directed well). Just because SS thinks Gilbert's films are less sloppy, doesn't mean he wants double taking pigeons back (five seconds out of a 2+ hour James Bond film and all of a sudden that's his trademark?).

Gilbert's direction really made the films come alive, even if YOLT does have a less than stellar script, his direction really worked for the film, and made it feel like the epic Bond film it's cited as.

All right, Jimmy; you're entitled to your opinion, but I think it's the personal moments (which is what Gilbert was really adept at) in TSWLM that make that film, because it provides a sense of grounding to the proceedings that was not there in YOLT and MR, either with bored-off-his- Connery and Akiko Wakabayashi or smirking-the-night-away Roger and Lois "Woodener than Hickory" Chiles.

That's why I love TSLWM: It's not the spectacle, but the heart of the picture, that counts.

[JimmyBond]

I happen to love Roger smirking the Night away

[Safari Suit]

And no, I'm not advocating more double-talling pidgeons etc.

You are, if you think Gilbert's films are "less sloppy"; quit pullin' my leg, man...

As usual, a charming, well thought out and rational reaction from Mr. Blofeld.

Of course by posting this I myself am being charmless and hasty. Sunrise, sunset...

[jaguar007]

With the Craig films, a lot of money has obviously been spent putting the story on screen, rather than indulging in smutty gags, and I applaud EON for doing so; it's what they'd forgotten about since 1969.

Is 'story' a euphemism for morose, humourless, cartoonish, Donkey Kong-like roof-jumping, paying Judi Dench's check, or filming in 6 (!!!) bloody locations per film?

Lets not get ahead of ourselves here.

Do you have a problem with the "morose humorless" ending of OHMSS as well? Prior to the ending, CR had a better balance of seriousness and humor than any Bond film in decades. As far as the "Donkey Kong-like roof-jumping", name a BOnd film since Thunderball that has NOT had 1 or 2 over the top action scenes.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I happen to love Roger smirking the Night away

Again, we're all entitled to our opinions... just not if they involve David Tennant as Bond.

And no, I'm not advocating more double-talling pidgeons etc.

You are, if you think Gilbert's films are "less sloppy"; quit pullin' my leg, man...

As usual, a charming, well thought out and rational reaction from Mr. Blofeld.

I'm having a bad week, man; give me a minute to get my thoughts together...

[Mr_Wint]

I think it was all a bit too much for Lewis Gilbert; Peter Hunt and Terence Young were used to big pictures (Hunt had even shaped many of them), wheras Gilbert was more used to smaller, personal pictures, or even slightly-big pictures with small, personal moments (...)

Gilbert did a few WW2 movies before Bond so had the experience.

Because the '80s Bond films had increasingly smaller budgets (...)

None of the films in the 80s had a small budget.

[Royal Dalton]

I'd say Craig needs a Spy Who Loved Me, rather than a Thunderball. An old-style epic adventure, with an outlandish plot and big villains.

Hate to say it, but once you opt for the Spy Who Loved Me paradigm (which in many ways could be construed as a giant, grotesque "f you" to Harry Satlzman and Ian Fleming. Favouring box office gross and mass entertainment over the spirit of Fleming, and essentially rehashing both YOLT and TB) you're most likely going to head down the Pierce Brosnan route.

It is possible to make a big, epic, fun, Bond film like that without it becoming a comedy-fest, or a clone of the earlier films, believe it or not.

[Safari Suit]

And no, I'm not advocating more double-talling pidgeons etc.

You are, if you think Gilbert's films are "less sloppy"; quit pullin' my leg, man...

As usual, a charming, well thought out and rational reaction from Mr. Blofeld.

I'm having a bad week, man; give me a minute to get my thoughts together...

I've had a life-alteringly bad one myself, but it's still our choice to post here, and there's no point in doing so unless we're prepared to stand up for our comments, and take the lumps from those who disagree. I find Gilbert's films to be much more professionally made than Young's and Hunt's, regardless of the quality of the scripts and actors he worked with, and regardless of whether or not the tone of these films was appropriate. So I feel it is fully possible to stand up for his merits as a director, without wishing Bond 23 and so on to be in the same mould. Though it is certainly true I enjoyed all three Bond films he made, warts and all. I certainly would say his technical merits as a director over Hunt and Young can be borne out by comparing their extracurricular filmographies.

[Loomis]

I'm not advocating Craig's next adventure be OTT silly Moore type shenanigans.

I am.

Is 'story' a euphemism for morose, humourless, cartoonish, Donkey Kong-like roof-jumping, paying Judi Dench's check, or filming in 6 (!!!) bloody locations per film?

Lets not get ahead of ourselves here.

Probably best described as Forster's individual style and sensibilities. That is, everything from his faux-cinéma vérité approach of incoherent fast cutting for action sequences, muted/distorted sounds accompanied by precious visual flourishes, to unnecessary shots of impoverished locals.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Probably best described as Forster's individual style and sensibilities. That is, everything from his faux-cinéma vérité approach of incoherent fast cutting for action sequences, muted/distorted sounds accompanied by precious visual flourishes, to unnecessary shots of impoverished locals.

They were neccessary; they provided local colour, as well as made a statement that Greene's plans were having a local effect as well as a worldwide one.

Shark and Loomis never get it, do they?

[JimmyBond]

Before we get ahead of ourselves here gentleman, can we please leave the QoS debate out of this thread? There are several other threads to debate QoS till you all are blue in the face (er, hands I suppose), this thread has had a pretty healthy discussion going on, no need to drag old arguments into it.

With that said though, I would like to point out that comments like this:

Shark and Loomis never get it, do they?

Are really unfair. Just because they don't see something in QoS that you do doesn't mean they "don't get it." There's 22 Bond films available for crying out loud, not everyone is going to see the same thing as another fan.

[Loomis]

Thanks, Jimmy.

[Lachesis]

The most curious aspect of this debate is the few folks who only see extremes, a fun Bond has to be a parody, a serious Bond has to be morose and pretentious....regardless of what has been done and how you percieve it neither of these extremes are nescessary and for the most part the Bond films have delivered a good balance of fun and serious elements.

The bias is somewhat in the serious camp atm and I for one would love to see a few steps taken away after the obsessve desire for introspection...will it happen in Bond 23 who knows, but as people have said one day the pendulum will swing back and the best stuff will probably occur before it reaches the opposite bias.

I am sure Daniel Craig could work well in a film of Thunderball scale and mood and would be dissapointed if he wasn't given a film of that sort to see how it could turn out befroe he moves on (just as I was dissapointed Dalton never got to do one of that nature - he would have been great in GE imo).

Balance is good folks lets not wear blinkers and obsess on the extremes because that just denies the great wealth of variety and entertainment that has made the series so rich.

[jaguar007]

Well said Lachesis, "fun" does not necessarily mean a rehash of Moonraker.

[bondrules]

Well said Lachesis, "fun" does not necessarily mean a rehash of Moonraker.

I agree. I don't think Bond has ever being funnier than when Connery played the part. His lines In TB and FRWL are some of the best in the entire series. I'm sure Craig can manage with the delivery if the proper material is given.

[Guy Haines]

The most curious aspect of this debate is the few folks who only see extremes, a fun Bond has to be a parody, a serious Bond has to be morose and pretentious....regardless of what has been done and how you percieve it neither of these extremes are nescessary and for the most part the Bond films have delivered a good balance of fun and serious elements.

The bias is somewhat in the serious camp atm and I for one would love to see a few steps taken away after the obsessve desire for introspection...will it happen in Bond 23 who knows, but as people have said one day the pendulum will swing back and the best stuff will probably occur before it reaches the opposite bias.

I am sure Daniel Craig could work well in a film of Thunderball scale and mood and would be dissapointed if he wasn't given a film of that sort to see how it could turn out befroe he moves on (just as I was dissapointed Dalton never got to do one of that nature - he would have been great in GE imo).

Balance is good folks lets not wear blinkers and obsess on the extremes because that just denies the great wealth of variety and entertainment that has made the series so rich.

I agree. As I mentioned earlier, look to the books and the early films as guides. The 60s Bonds were neither introspective, nor knowing self indulgent send ups.