Sign in or 
Share this
What Bond should be (an editorial)
Source: Better Than Hog-killing (Blog entry)
Author: Mike Jones
Have the directors of James Bond forgotten that he is a spy? Have they forgotten that he is a cold blooded and efficient killer. Have they forgotten that he has an innate distrust and seeming hatred for women? Well it seems so. Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace (the former especially) have been hailed as bringing Bond into the 21st Century. Well there is one problem with that, James Bond isn't from the 21st Century. He doesn't use a Vaio, he doesn't drive a toyota, he doesn't wear and omega watch.
These films, ruthlessley entertaining as they are (the latter, especially) are not James Bond. This has been said before, but I have never heard a proposition as to what James Bond should be. Definitely not this Jason Bourne esque, emotive kung fu master. In the last film, apart from a few moments, he seemed to just kill his way to the information he wanted. BAD SPY. It would have been so much better if halfway through it M gave him the sack and we found out how he spent his severance pay. No doubtebly on something Sony.
The best 21st century spies are easily BBC 1's Spooks. A show which mixes action, tension, genuine espionage with the emotions of the team of spies. This is what James Bond should be. They don't globetrot often and even stretching outside of London seems odd for them, but by god is it no absolutely stunning TV.
If they wanted to route him here then I'd say they get their inspiration from the boys writing/directing/researching Spooks. But in my ideal world, this would be what goes down in a Bond film.
* It would be set in the 50's.
This would mean no SONY, no OMEGA, no Satellites, no mobile phones and loads and loads of tension. Bond, out in some foreign land with no contact with M as he infriltrates and tries to stop a global threat would be excellent to see happen again, but in this world he's always phoning in updates. Remove that. Boom. Tension.
As if that wasn't enough then it would also mean that, due to gadgets, cars and general technology not being nearly as advanced, Bond has to be more creative in his methods.
* Cold-blooded Violence.
Sure there is violence now, there are fights where Bond get's beaten to a pulp then returns to elbow a guy in the neck, before flipping him onto his head and spinning him off a building. It all get's ridiculous. But there's so much of it there's nothing to feel about it. James Bond's first kill in Dr. No was incredibly cold blooded, more this. It's more entertaining seeing a character risk corruption in himself than it is to see one jump from a crane.
* Sexism.
That's right. James Bond is from the 50's. They were different times, it was rampant, I'm sure. Bring back his lifestyle of easy loving, his hatred and disregard for women. Of course the reason for this would be the tragedy of his wife being killed. So bring her back. Then kill her.
* A Masterplan
Perhaps the assembly of a superweapon that must be stopped. Perhaps a bomb that can't be smuggled. Or even go the 24 Season 1 route and have James working to stop an assassination that could spark a global conflict.
* Cool.
There's a moment in Thunderball when James steps out of his wetsuit and is wearing a tuxedo, as ridiculous as it is (it's called a WETsuit for a reason, the tux would be soaked through) it's a show of more machismo and style than was ever mustered throughout the whole of Quantum Of Solace.
* Gadgets
Perhaps a pen that conceals poison, or a briefcase/bomb/telephone scrambler. Something realistic that could be explained easily. Definitely bring back a form of Q also.
* Less action
Car chases, fun. Shootouts, fun, Parkour, fun. Conversation, genius. A great scriptwriter could have a Bond film bristling with great twists, brilliantly flowing conversation and perhaps a couple of action scenes. A car chase should stand out in a film, not the conversation. They're called set pieces for a reason and recently James Bond has lost sight of this, in fact, films in general have. 2 huge set pieces in a film is enough for me, thanks.
Some others...
* One liners
* Moneypenny
* Taking orders from M without getting a strop on.
* Vodka Martini's, Shaken, Not stirred.
Author: Mike Jones
Have the directors of James Bond forgotten that he is a spy? Have they forgotten that he is a cold blooded and efficient killer. Have they forgotten that he has an innate distrust and seeming hatred for women? Well it seems so. Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace (the former especially) have been hailed as bringing Bond into the 21st Century. Well there is one problem with that, James Bond isn't from the 21st Century. He doesn't use a Vaio, he doesn't drive a toyota, he doesn't wear and omega watch.
These films, ruthlessley entertaining as they are (the latter, especially) are not James Bond. This has been said before, but I have never heard a proposition as to what James Bond should be. Definitely not this Jason Bourne esque, emotive kung fu master. In the last film, apart from a few moments, he seemed to just kill his way to the information he wanted. BAD SPY. It would have been so much better if halfway through it M gave him the sack and we found out how he spent his severance pay. No doubtebly on something Sony.
The best 21st century spies are easily BBC 1's Spooks. A show which mixes action, tension, genuine espionage with the emotions of the team of spies. This is what James Bond should be. They don't globetrot often and even stretching outside of London seems odd for them, but by god is it no absolutely stunning TV.
If they wanted to route him here then I'd say they get their inspiration from the boys writing/directing/researching Spooks. But in my ideal world, this would be what goes down in a Bond film.
* It would be set in the 50's.
This would mean no SONY, no OMEGA, no Satellites, no mobile phones and loads and loads of tension. Bond, out in some foreign land with no contact with M as he infriltrates and tries to stop a global threat would be excellent to see happen again, but in this world he's always phoning in updates. Remove that. Boom. Tension.
As if that wasn't enough then it would also mean that, due to gadgets, cars and general technology not being nearly as advanced, Bond has to be more creative in his methods.
* Cold-blooded Violence.
Sure there is violence now, there are fights where Bond get's beaten to a pulp then returns to elbow a guy in the neck, before flipping him onto his head and spinning him off a building. It all get's ridiculous. But there's so much of it there's nothing to feel about it. James Bond's first kill in Dr. No was incredibly cold blooded, more this. It's more entertaining seeing a character risk corruption in himself than it is to see one jump from a crane.
* Sexism.
That's right. James Bond is from the 50's. They were different times, it was rampant, I'm sure. Bring back his lifestyle of easy loving, his hatred and disregard for women. Of course the reason for this would be the tragedy of his wife being killed. So bring her back. Then kill her.
* A Masterplan
Perhaps the assembly of a superweapon that must be stopped. Perhaps a bomb that can't be smuggled. Or even go the 24 Season 1 route and have James working to stop an assassination that could spark a global conflict.
* Cool.
There's a moment in Thunderball when James steps out of his wetsuit and is wearing a tuxedo, as ridiculous as it is (it's called a WETsuit for a reason, the tux would be soaked through) it's a show of more machismo and style than was ever mustered throughout the whole of Quantum Of Solace.
* Gadgets
Perhaps a pen that conceals poison, or a briefcase/bomb/telephone scrambler. Something realistic that could be explained easily. Definitely bring back a form of Q also.
* Less action
Car chases, fun. Shootouts, fun, Parkour, fun. Conversation, genius. A great scriptwriter could have a Bond film bristling with great twists, brilliantly flowing conversation and perhaps a couple of action scenes. A car chase should stand out in a film, not the conversation. They're called set pieces for a reason and recently James Bond has lost sight of this, in fact, films in general have. 2 huge set pieces in a film is enough for me, thanks.
Some others...
* One liners
* Moneypenny
* Taking orders from M without getting a strop on.
* Vodka Martini's, Shaken, Not stirred.
alexberg |
Latest page update: made by alexberg
, Dec 8 2008, 12:28 AM EST
(about this update
About This Update
Edited by alexberg
1 widget added view changes - complete history) |
|
Keyword tags:
bond direction
More Info: links to this page
|
| Started By | Thread Subject | Replies | Last Post | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anonymous | In Response to What James Bond Should Be... | 5 | Jan 7 2009, 10:34 PM EST by Benjuk | ||
|
|
Thread started: Jan 5 2009, 6:03 PM EST
Watch
I've been a cinematic Bond fan since 1977, when as a wide-eyed thirteen-year-old, I rode my bike four miles to see The Spy Who Loved Me on opening day. I purposely paint that picture for a reason: In the year of "Star Wars" this pre-pubescent lad couldn't understand why all of that summer's movie hype was focused on the overrated George Lucas thing. All of my friends were fascinated by the aliens and gee-whiz special effects of Star Wars. And yet there I was the standout, preferring instead to be entertained by Roger Moore's effortless ability to ski off a cliff, drive a really cool car, battle one guy with webbed fingers, another with steel teeth, prevent nuclear war, and end up in a plush bathysphere with Barbara Bach as his reward. That to me was pure fantasy, escapist entertainment at its best.
Spy made me a Bond fan, although my first 007 experience was staying up late to watch Goldfinger on TV when I was a kid. There is a connection. These two movies seemed to get the balance just right. Both had an over-the-top plot, larger-than-life villains, reserved yet desirable vixens, an incredible toy of the vehicular category, and a hero who seemed very amused by the whole thing. Those two movies made James Bond cool and fun. You were mesmerized by the action, you laughed at the absurdity of it all, and yet you wanted to believe that the world of 007 really did exist. The fun element seems to be gone in today's Bond. I applaud the decision to go back to Fleming's roots, and reinvigorate. But Craig's Bond, unlike Dalton's, is far too distanced from the cinematic levity we once embraced in Connery's & Moore's best outings. That style is what made Bond the unique character we once knew. Styles change, but the comfort of Bond for 40 years was our familiarity with the balance between thrills and tongue-in-cheek humor. Today's Bond doesn't make me laugh. |
||||
| Topol | Producers should read this | 10 | Dec 19 2008, 10:27 AM EST by del-allforcraig | ||
|
Thread started: Dec 8 2008, 9:00 PM EST
Watch
I completely agree with all of that... bring James Bond back to what the books are about. Like doing Moonraker the way the book is written- way better~
|
||||
Showing 2 of 2 threads for this page
