12 replies to this topic

[triviachamp]

Sorry but I have to get this off my chest. One of the more annoying aspects of following Bond through all the years is that there is a section of the fanbase and critics that seem to demand that the Bond series slavish follow the Formula by saying things like how some Bond movie isn't "Bondian" enough or whatever. I have several problems with this.

First of all I thought that being formulaic is about the worst thing possible for a piece of entertainment to be? Why is the Bond Formula so sacrosanct? It is especially bizarre to see critics lambasting Bond for being the same old silly formulaic fluff and then complain about Bond not being the same old silly formulaic fluff.

Another problem I have with this line of argument is that it always problematic to critique a movie (or anything else) by comparing it to some other movie. You run the risk of essentially saying that a movie's quality is based on how it similar to some other movie. For example I hate TWINE but I hate because I think it is a bad film as supposed to it not being like GF, FRWL, OHMSS or whatever.

The other problem I have is that this whole line of argument is basically a strawman. Really elements of all of the Connery and Moore movies are merged with all of the parodies and knockoffs of Bond to create a non-existent film that All Bond Films Should Be. I mean Goldfinger does not feature Bond at a casino at all but he does bet over Golf(!). Oh and he spends most of the film a prisoner and in Kentucky of all places at that. Thunderball spends a lot of screentime at Shrublands. Moore hardly played baccarat or drank a vodka martini. In Moonraker he doesn't fire his Walther. In AVTAK he barely uses gadgets and spends a lot of time in the exotic locale of San Francisco.

If anything the Brosnan films feature the gadget laden car far more than Connery and Moore. Wait the gadget laden car is a perfect example of what I am complaining about since it more of a cliche of the Bond parodies and knockoffs rather than of the Bond films themselves. At least until Brosnan. Not to mention that the Brosnan and Craig eras seem more obsessed with going to as many locations as possible than what came before.

Of course I could be making a big strawman argument as well. So discuss!

[junkanoo]

I'm not really sure where you're going with this. It's as if you aren't satisfied with what Bond films are ... which are escapist fantasies.

Bond saves the world? The most beautiful women in the world don't have better options than what they're doing, say .... becoming actresses ... oh wait, they do and they are. Tell me ... exactly where does someone build and test a large undetectable ship? Undetectable land? Why doesn't anyone just shoot Bond and call it a day? Oh, that's right ... no more movies.

Parodies work, when there is a kernel of truth that makes them funny. You suggest that the parodies are a cliche rather than being the Bond films themselves. I suggest that the Bond films are the cliche. Doesn't mean we can't love them. We do.

Edited by junkanoo, 25 October 2012 - 02:06 PM.

[united1878]

They shouldn't be formulaic.
QOS might have got a 50/50 reception from fans and critics alike but at least they were trying something different. I appreciate that film a lot more than any of the Brosnan films which are purely by-the-numbers Bond films.

[Vauxhall]

There are certain aspects which should always remain in the series, but I think that every fan has a different threshold about what that should mean. For me, there should be a British agent called James Bond, a pre-title sequence, interactions with assorted MI6 colleagues, exotic girls, stunning locations and creative action scenes. Everything else that people might consider hallmarks of the series (gunbarrel, Bond theme, gadgets, etc.) would obviously be preferable, but they're not deal-breakers for me. I think honestly the only thing that would be a deal-breaker would be changing the very nature of Bond's character, or casting vacuous celebrities for the sake of it, but fortunately I don't see that happening any time soon. Any bright ideas to freshen up the series are always welcome to me.

[The Shark]

I appreciate that film a lot more than any of the Brosnan films which are purely by-the-numbers Bond films.

GOLDENEYE is far from formulaic.

[united1878]

I appreciate that film a lot more than any of the Brosnan films which are purely by-the-numbers Bond films.

GOLDENEYE is far from formulaic.

GE might be significant in that it's the first post cold war Bond, with a female M but the story structure is nothing new- blowing up something in the PTS; briefing from M; get some gadgets from Q, all of which just happen to perfectly get him out of particular sticky situations; venturing into the villian's lair; kill a lot of henchmen; kill the baddie and head off with the girl.

Edited by united1878, 25 October 2012 - 02:54 PM.

[plankattack]

I think for awhile the formula was the franchise's saving grace. Twenty years ago when cinema was a different place, EON could do very well turning out a known quantity every couple of years. There was a maximum to how well the film would do (there's a graph in the latest Time magazine that's quite informative) but it was median was solid.

But the movies are different place now - the audience has so many more choices and a much shorter attention span, so doing the same old thing dates you in a hurry.

For EON to continue to be successful, I do think the formula should for the most part get the chop. But what should remain is a style. Take the much-maligned QoS - visually it was very much a Bond-film IMHO, though people seem more than ready to say it's Bourne film or whatever. But it had a sheen and a touch that was unmistakably Bond.

Of course, one man's style is another's formula. The handwringing over the gunbarrel is example A.

Personally, EON should concentrate on telling an interesting story about their hero, and if formulaic touches find their way in, great. But the franchise will rapidly be in trouble if there is any sense that they're just following a formula. The current, sophisticated audience, savvier and with more choice within the genre than 30 years ago, will turn away if they think they're getting the same old same old.

[FOX MULDER]

They shouldn't be formulaic.
QOS might have got a 50/50 reception from fans and critics alike but at least they were trying something different. I appreciate that film a lot more than any of the Brosnan films which are purely by-the-numbers Bond films.

But why?

OK you appreciate they were "trying something different", but what does that matter if the end result was a poor film ('Quantum of Solace")?

"Formulaic" doesn't necessarily mean 'bad'. Plenty of Bond films are formulaic and brilliant. It's the way you USE the formula that matters.

And if you take away all the elements of the formula, what are you left with? Not much. Just another mundane spy story. Fleming himself admitted Bond wasn't a 'deep' character - never was intended to be. You cannot tell a Bond story like you tell a Le Carre story.

[triviachamp]

I'm not really sure where you're going with this. It's as if you aren't satisfied with what Bond films are ... which are escapist fantasies.

I don't recall ever saying that Bond shouldn't be escapist fantasy, just not paint-by-the-numbers formula. Moonraker pretty much dumped Bond's Walther and didn't feature Bond at a casino or a gadget laden car (a boat yes but no car) yet I would still call it escapist fantasy and those elements aren't something I would criticize about the film.

I should also mention that "escapist fantasy" is a pretty broad term. Melodramatic romances are escapist fantasies too.

Parodies work, when there is a kernel of truth that makes them funny. You suggest that the parodies are a cliche rather than being the Bond films themselves. I suggest that the Bond films are the cliche. Doesn't mean we can't love them. We do.

You misunderstand what I was saying. Perhaps I explained it poorly. The parodies took the Aston Martin from Goldfinger and parodied it so much that it became a cliche of Bond parody films. However this resulted with the perception that Bond movies always had a gadget laden car which is not true since only GF and TSWLM actually had a gadget laden car. Oh and TLD but Dalton was the "serious" and "bad" Bond so that doesn't count. In other words the gadget laden car became part of the Bond formula despite being no where near as prevalent as the parodies would suggest. However the Brosnan films all had a gadget laden car so now a prevalent element of the Bond parodies has become a prevalent element of the actual series and Craig has been criticized for not having a gadget laden car despite no one being upset that say AVTAK didn't have one.

[Dustin]

And if you take away all the elements of the formula, what are you left with? Not much. Just another mundane spy story. Fleming himself admitted Bond wasn't a 'deep' character - never was intended to be. You cannot tell a Bond story like you tell a Le Carre story.

You can do exactly that, Fleming himself did it with THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS.

They shouldn't be formulaic.
QOS might have got a 50/50 reception from fans and critics alike but at least they were trying something different. I appreciate that film a lot more than any of the Brosnan films which are purely by-the-numbers Bond films.

But why?

OK you appreciate they were "trying something different", but what does that matter if the end result was a poor film ('Quantum of Solace")?

Of course, from time to time mistakes are being made, but slavishly sticking to a famed 'formula' - that at closer look doesn't even exist as such - is bound to drive the show against a wall just as sure. The crucial thing for Eon is not to hand over the bridge to someone else, to make their own mistakes and learn from them as much as possible.

"Formulaic" doesn't necessarily mean 'bad'. Plenty of Bond films are formulaic and brilliant. It's the way you USE the formula that matters.

I'd argue the Bond films in their overall majority are surprisingly different, perhaps even downright un-formulaic. Every single one tries to offer something different, something new or at any rate something not seen from this angle before. Until - and including - GOLDENEYE each single film tried hard not to mimic the previous one. Even those cases where the series produced remakes of their own entries - YOLT/TSWLM/MR - are infused with enough 'fresh' elements as not to bore the audience with the same old material. What the series uses in perpetuity is a basic plot, true. But that one is really so basic it comes down to 'Good vs. Bad'.

And yet it's true that after GE and with the pressure to quickly follow with a new up-to-date entry the productions became somewhat static, the tone didn't change significantly, the scenes became interchangeable, the diet monotonous on a high level. Perhaps this is what finally lead to DAD's attempt at sensational action cinema, an in the end not as satisfying result as everybody had hoped for. You see, by sticking to the by-the-numbers approach you can arrive at the very same point the experimental method can bring you to.

[plankattack]

I'd argue the Bond films in their overall majority are surprisingly different, perhaps even downright un-formulaic. Every single one tries to offer something different, something new or at any rate something not seen from this angle before. Until - and including - GOLDENEYE each single film tried hard not to mimic the previous one.

Sorry Dustin, I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. I feel one of the series problems (prior to GE most definitely) was to follow a successful film with a ramped-up version of the previous film. And it's natural - if you have success with one thing, that by doing it again and better you'll have more success. But what always seems to be forgotten is that the freshness, the originality is gone.

TB-YOLT - TB was the most epic Bond at that point, so what do you next? Try to make one even bigger.

TMWGG wants to take the elements of LALD it thought was successful (chases, Pepper, thumping rock song) to make an "improved version." MR follows TSWLM - if you pare it down, the former is a re-make or readjustment of the latter, plot, characters etc

TLD - a new Bond eager to get back to the source material and get away from some of the cinematic tropes, is followed by LTK, which for many doesn't feel like a Bond film at all.

With the exception of LTK, I tend to like the prior film more than the one that follows, and while critics' opinions should always be taken with a grain of salt, out there beyond fandom, the reviews say the same thing. The series has always been guilty of latching onto trends (and I don't mean that as a criticism) but it's always been more derivative of itself before anything else.

Even a successful formula can grow stale, and I for one feel that after twenty-odd films, there's precious little to be gained from reverting to the formula.

[Dustin]

I'd argue the Bond films in their overall majority are surprisingly different, perhaps even downright un-formulaic. Every single one tries to offer something different, something new or at any rate something not seen from this angle before. Until - and including - GOLDENEYE each single film tried hard not to mimic the previous one.

Sorry Dustin, I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. I feel one of the series problems (prior to GE most definitely) was to follow a successful film with a ramped-up version of the previous film. And it's natural - if you have success with one thing, that by doing it again and better you'll have more success. But what always seems to be forgotten is that the freshness, the originality is gone.

TB-YOLT - TB was the most epic Bond at that point, so what do you next? Try to make one even bigger.

And... infuse a generous helping of sci-fi to help the whole thing along even better?

Seriously, I think TB is still one step away from science-fiction while YOLT is right in the middle of it. You could have Blofeld's (second) lair on the moon, and you would not get a significantly different version of YOLT than the one we've actually got. Of course this is also due to the make-it-bigger law of Bond films, but it also marks a diversion from the 'simple' secret - super - agent genre.

TMWGG wants to take the elements of LALD it thought was successful (chases, Pepper, thumping rock song) to make an "improved version." MR follows TSWLM - if you pare it down, the former is a re-make or readjustment of the latter, plot, characters etc

But TMWTGG also is the first Bond film to set up the villain as a different, a private sector version of Bond himself, complete with his own gadgets and supercar. Another dimension added to the mix, and to good effect. Sure, MR follows TSWLM's example for the most part, but its space scenes once more help to divert the audience from the more familiar parts. Granted, it's not as different in tone and atmosphere as say GF and FRWL are. But its quality of not leaving the beaten path is in itself not the main problem, not yet. It went as far as it could, but did not cross the border IMO.

TLD - a new Bond eager to get back to the source material and get away from some of the cinematic tropes, is followed by LTK, which for many doesn't feel like a Bond film at all.

But LTK introduced rogue Bond, the first time Bond ignored M's orders and actually quit service for his own means. Quality-wise this is a quantum leap from TLD where Bond refused to assassinate the Pushkin in order to get at the real villain.

With the exception of LTK, I tend to like the prior film more than the one that follows, and while critics' opinions should always be taken with a grain of salt, out there beyond fandom, the reviews say the same thing. The series has always been guilty of latching onto trends (and I don't mean that as a criticism) but it's always been more derivative of itself before anything else.

I agree there. Perhaps the formula itself consists some kind of variable element that itself mustn't be ignored, lest the magic becomes a trite and lacklustre affair? At any rate the formula seems to more complicated than 'x + y = Bond n'.

Edited by Dustin, 25 October 2012 - 08:19 PM.

[Tony_OO_Black]

There's a difference between formula and telling good drama, and that's a distinction the Bond movies haven't always successfully made.

GoldenEye is my favourite Bond movie because it got the balance right; all the 'Bondian' elements were present and correct, yet there was a thematic story at its heart driving it, the villain had a strong personal connection to Bond, and it touched on his angst & demons while still being a riot. Skyfall may be my second favourite because, even more than Casino Royale or OHMSS, it does the same.

Nobody wants a Bond film that isn't glamorous, slightly hyper-real, without amazing stunts, beautiful locations, gorgeous women, mad villains and the odd gadget or two. That's Bond. That's why we love it. But the best Bond films are ABOUT something, are driven by good character work & drama. You can have all that and have formula.