Over the last few Bond films they’ve made a point to further his personal storyline along. And that adds depth to the character. As a writer, I’m normally all for that.
But…
Am I the only one who doesn’t want to see things change and him change? One of the reasons my favorite Bond movies remain the Sean Connerys is that James Bond is just who he is. He’s suave, he’s witty, he knows thirty languages, he can pilot planes, he’s an expert skiier/skindiver/driver. And he takes on a super villain with secret lairs, a private army all in matching jumpsuits (how did he recruit them and how did no one see these secret lairs being built?), a Herculean henchman, and a plot to take over the world. One guy against all that, and he still destroys the villain and his empire and has time to get laid at least twice a movie. That's enough. And it didn't take 2 hours and 43 minutes.
Yeah, it’s a formula but I like the formula. As Hitchcock says, “the best movies have the best villains.” Just give 007 a worthy fun opponent and blast the James Bond theme. Why delve into his personal life when a new Bond arrives every generation or so?
Here’s what the producers need to understand: Anyone can create an action hero and start a franchise. They can use the same CGI effects and generate eye popping (but fake) action sequences. They can film around the world. They can introduce their own super villain with his own world domination plot.
But it’s not James Bond. The one thing the Bond franchise has to do is protect James Bond. Change him too much and it’s no longer James Bond. It’s just an action hero. And there’s nothing special about a new action hero. You’ve squandered sixty years of nurturing a franchise.
You might claim, “Well, the Sean Connery James Bond was from a different era. We need to modernize him.”
Why?
Is it anachronistic for someone to be suave, look good in a tux, be attractive to women (James Bond is hardly Pepe LePew — I doubt he’d be in trouble with #MeToo), be British, and have enough stored knowledge to beat Ken Jennings at JEOPARDY?
Anyway, that’s my fear for the future of James Bond based on what I saw in NO TIME TO DIE. So I walked out of it depressed. That’s never happened before. A few times I’ve walked out mad at how stupid certain installments were (I’m looking at you MOONRAKER) but never depressed. Usually I’m exhilarated. It was a fun ride and at the end I was reassured that "James Bond would be back"for another. NO TIME TO DIE was many things — many good things — but it sure wasn’t a fun ride. And did I mention it’s too friggin’ long?
What did y'all think? (Note: I won't post any comments that spoil plot points.)
38 comments :
It's been the biggest movie release in a year. It was a month ago. Everyone who cares pretty much knows all the spoilers by now, surely?
The thing the new producers don't seem to get is that Bond is a total fantasy figure, as is his world. He represents a world that didn't exist in 1962 and doesn't exist now, filled with casinos, beautiful women waiting for him in his hotel room, villains trying to dominate the world, etc. I was SO pissed when they changed the card game from baccarat to Texas holdem in the Daniel Craig CASINO ROYALE. As one excellent video pointed out, the Daniel Craig Bond movies have turned him into Batman: The hero with a troubled past. With all due respect to Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale, Arthur Miller pointed out that the main difference between writing for the theatre and writing for movies is that in a play the past matters and, as you pointed out Ken, Bond has endured for over half a century without delving into his past of his psyche.
I prefer the older Bond movies for the same reasons as you. I especially agreed with "Change him too much and it’s no longer James Bond. It’s just an action hero".
However it must be difficult to come up with new story lines in the same format that will bring people into theaters. (Wasn't Thunderball bashed because it was just like an earlier Bond movie?) I think the Marvel movies do a good job so far of telling the same story in unique ways, but as you mentioned earlier, modern TV shows are stale because they don't make original shows anymore. (...plus they are Noted to death).
BTW: The most memorable line I've heard about the movie was from the British panel show "Mock the Week", where a panelist complained "In a movie named "No Time to Die", why indeed did I have to die?"
I completely agree on the length, almost three hours was way too much. The basic plot was a bit too complicated also. I did enjoy the vintage car again and the fun action sequences. I actually thought of Mr. Levine when I walked out and his thoughts on editing and time. I like scratching the surface of Bond's personal life, but it does get a bit too deep.
My problem with the Daniel Craig films have largely had to do with... Daniel Craig. Certainly a good actor, he simply seems miscast as James Bond. As Bond, Craig seems incapable of feeling or expressing pleasure -- and, no, he doesn't smile to any extent. This is not a Bond through which I can imaginably live vicariously. He doesn't enjoy his work.
It isn't just that the recent films are too long; they have almost no shape. The Broccoli heirs cram action scenes into the pictures and try to make them bigger and bigger, but after a while that's just deadening; the scenes lose effect. The climax of SKYFALL, for instance, is absurdly endless; by the time the movie ends, the tragic point of the story has been lost in explosions and bombast.
The difference in your reaction to the Craig era and my reaction is probably generational. I'm a Gen-Xer, so I and my cohorts grew up craving an alternative to the campy genre film and TV of our youth (Batman '66 reruns, Roger Moore-era Bond, Lynda Carter Wonder Woman, Superman III and IV, Flash Gordon, etc.). We wanted media companies to take this material seriously.
Note that seriously does not mean humorless. Instead, what we wanted was a seriousness of purpose, where the stakes feel real, where the story progresses (and doesn't simply hit the reset button with each new episode). So I and my peers love the Craig Bond, the Bourne films, the Zack Snyder DC films, The Dark Knight Trilogy, the Chris Pine Star Trek reboot, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the new Dune film. We love the logical, serious, deconstructed approach to this material, where the creators don't resort to formula and don't act like they're slumming it just because it's genre work.
I think the tide is turning. Millennials and Gen Z grew up with the serious-minded genre works that I cited above, and they seem to be having the exact opposite reactionary view that Gen X did: they want a return to the goofy and colorful and borderline campy. It's why the Marvel movies do so well.
No approach is inherently better than the other. I have my preferences as stated above. My generation got a 20-year run on the serious approach to this stuff. The next generation can now have their own 20-year run. Unlike you, I don't believe that the next Bond series of films will double down on what the Craig era did. Quite the opposite, I think they'll be tonally more similar to the Connery era, but with the flash and dazzle of the Marvel films, where there's more of a perceive illusion of change rather than actual narrative and character progression.
VincentS,
Casinos and beautiful women waiting in hotels have never existed in the real world?
Can't comment on the new movie because I haven't seen it, but...
The problem with the Craig-era Bond isn't so much that they further his backstory, but that they totally reinvent the wheel. It's not just "another" Bond, it's a complete reboot of the series, starting his story pretty much from scratch, basically making it all a prequel as well. And thus it suffers from the same problems as damn near all modern-day prequellish reboots (or rebooting prequels?), be it Star Trek or Star Wars or what have you. The movies or shows might be well done and spectacular, and no doubt you will appeal to a new generation one way or another, but by altering the formula you devalue the entire "franchise" - both old and new - because you cannot tell anything new without proper reference to the established old, and the old stuff will always be perceived in light of the new stuff that's been tacked on. Bond has to be this suave superheroesque renegade agent, otherwise it's not Bond. If you make Bond black, or a woman, or gay, or all of that combined, you sure can make a movie out of it, but that wouldn't be Bond. Even altering the persona to make him more "fragile" or "multifaceted" or "emotional" or anything like that, like it has been done with the Craig-Bond, is a highly problematic move that cuts into your public perception potential insofar as people expect to see a Bond movie and what they get is contemporary sociocultural commentary exploitingly riding on the coattails of the successful franchise. Pretty much like "Discovery" isn't Star Trek or "Solo" isn't Star Wars, they all merely (ab)use the respective fictitious universes and frames to squeeze some more bucks out of it.
I think CASINO ROYALE jumped to the head of the line in Bond films by making Bond a human being whose engagements with others I cared about. The technology was incidental to the relationships and issues of trust and betrayal. As the Craig films have moved on, apart from his evolving relationship with Dench, the gadgetry and gimmicks have overwhelmed. Whenever they’ve added science fiction, the story has suffered. NO TIME has more science fiction than any Bond movie since the silly MOONRAKER. A good tight spy story, a la FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, is sufficient.
Daniel re your post, '66 Batman, Lynda Carter Wonder Woman, and Flash Gordon were kid's shows that adults sometimes watched, they weren't meant to be deep and complex so you can't lump them in with Bond or Superman. Plus you should thank Superman 1 for being the genesis for the comic book movies you enjoy.
Hey Ken, have you heard over the last few years that the character of Sam Malone is now horrible just because he slept with a lot of women?
Surprisingly, I hadn't seen a lot of Bond in my youth. So I watched the entire series in preparation for this one - including the crappy 1967 CASINO ROYALE and the unofficial (but still very good) 1983 NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN with Connery.
On one hand, I can understand the effectiveness of the formula (movies like YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE and THE SPY WHO LOVED ME are some of their very best), but it can get stale. Case in point, Lazenby's ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE set up a ballsy tragic ending, for it to get forgotten completely on Connery's underwhelming return on DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER. And then there's the lazy affair that was THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN - an utter waste of Christopher Lee.
It's not worth spending too much time addressing some of the more problematical racial and sexist issues that crop up in these films and really don't stand up to the current social climate (LIVE AND LET DIE has insane atmosphere, but it still made me uncomfortable in terms of villifying black society).
The Craig era had its ups and downs. QUANTUM OF SOLACE and SPECTRE were definitely less than impressive outings. To me, Craig's CASINO ROYALE remains the gold standard and the high point of the franchise (especially that airport chase sequence). Hell, Martin Campbell managed to do it twice! Brosnan's GOLDENEYE also remains a favorite of mine. If there's another Bond, Campbell should do it while he still can! He's the franchise's best director by a mile!
I wouldn't say NO TIME TO DIE is the best Bond film, but to me it still wraps up the Craig era on a very, very, VERY high note. Never in all these years I expected such an effective twist as introducing {SPOILER ALERT}...........Bond's young daughter. All of a sudden, the action had a sense of urgency that it never really had before. Bond always left a trail of bodies behind him, even counting his girlfriends and wife. It was always collateral damage that, for the most part, we didn't give a second thought anymore than Star Trek's redshirts.
But a 4 year child? His child? This was new, fresh territory. And to manage that after nearly 60 years of films is an amazing feat.
You pretty much summed up my feelings.
But I'm shocked you didn't mention Ana De Armas and that dress she wore. She was stunning, even if the script was heavy handed in focusing on the fact she wasn't going to sleep with Bond.
My main problem with it was the CGI. For a while I've believed that the action genre has been ruined by CGI. This film confirmed it. Once you have digital explosions in a Bond film, it's game over. Apparently it cost $250 million. If there are hardly any practical effects, what the fuck are they spending all that money on? You go to an action movie for the big screen spectacle. There's nothing thrilling about watching something made entirely on a computer. This isn't about using CGI for things that can't be done any other way. They had a car explode into digital flames. That's unforgivable in a Bond film.
And who decided to turn the Craig films into James Bond & Friends? It used to be just Bond and the love interest in the third act. Now it's Bond, the girl, Q and Moneypenny. It takes away from the point of the franchise, which is to watch a larger than life hero on his own. And in what world would a secretary and a gadget maker be included in potentially world changing events??
But it could have been a lot worse. The original director, Danny Boyle, was replaced because he wanted to go heavy on the MeToo aspect. That version would have probably ended with Bond declaring he's non binary.
There’s a thing on YouTube called Screen Rants. And they do fake pitch meetings for movies. The one for No Time to Die is golden. When you actually say it out loud the plot points make absolutely no fucking sense. Check it out. https://youtu.be/Dz9kLWsiQjc
Here’s a takedown of the most ridiculous plot points in this movie. I find it hilarious and spot on.
https://youtu.be/Dz9kLWsiQjc
I have not seen NTTD yet, but we are currently looking at "Diamonds Are Forever".
I also realize that I have to watch ANY Bond in the context of the times
I'm happy that Connery's Bond is the suave, knowledgeable guy, but I can see why this was his last Bond for a while. James doesn't start out too well, doing various and sundry, including choking (not to death) a woman with her own bikini top.
The dialogue is YEESH.
Plenty O'Toole (winkwink) is a gold-digger and has no part of the plot. If Lana Wood was as good an actress as her sister Natalie, it is not evident here.
They wasted Leonard Barr. They could have used some of his actual one-liners.
Tiffany Case (winkwink) starts out reasonably smart (albeit in her underwear) and the YEESH dialogue takes over.
Then Tamora, an African woman in a sideshow turns into a gorilla. IN NINETEEN SEVENTY-ONE.
So, yes, I still like a suave, intelligent Bond that can thump the bad guys, but certain things about the series have had to change.
I think the difference, among many things is that you have an older audience that had a lot of campy Bonds and they decided to make him GRAVELY serious (Check Quantum of Solace). It's also in a climate of big blockbuster movies based on comics. Bond movies do try to ride certain trends: the 60's Bonds are the bed any woman, kill all the villain stuff that folks reeling from the Cold War might like and Live and Let Die is a nod to Blaxploitation films ("Names is for tombstones, baby!").
I'm fond of the older Bonds, although I am a lesser fan of DAF now. However I don't need to hear him sing (Dr. No) play video games (Never Say Never Again) nor do I miss the groovy-out-of-sight Soul of Marvin Hamlisch's score (listen to the pre-title sequence of "The Spy Who Loved Me").
The best Bonds blend humor and good action and heck, I dig gadgets, too!
worst Bond movie ever
Yes, yes- Craig is just too humorless and grim. Viva Sean Connery! Bring him back - suave, sophisticated, sardonic, and horny.
Let's talk anachronism.
My Fair Lady has been revived on Broadway and is now on tour (I get to see it in the spring). It's my all-time favorite musical. And critics prattled on about how they made it more up-to-date by not having Eliza come back to Higgins in the end.
Apparently, none of the critics was aware that that was how Shaw wrote Pygmalion, on which My Fair Lady is based. Nor does it seem to occur to them that the musical is set more than 100 years ago (as Pygmalion was), and that gender issues were just a tad bit different.
But, yes, let's update it so people in the 1910s act like they did in the 2010s?
If you want to see a great take down of all the ridiculous plot points and stupid concepts in this movie take a look at Screen Rants' No Time to Die movie pitch. Hilarious!
https://youtu.be/Dz9kLWsiQjc
2 hours & 43 minutes What do they think they are, a Marvel movie?
The millions are not going to the CG artists, toiling endlessly at their screens.
Best Bond film: The Man Called Flintstone.
Ana De Armas' character needs her own movie.
I do like Daniel Craig Bond overall but I DO wish there had been at least one (1) standalone movie, apart from the endless narrative. Just an old-fashioned caper. I thought the end of SKYFALL would begin a new run of individual adventures but alas...
>> (James Bond is hardly Pepe LePew — I doubt he’d be in trouble with #MeToo)<<
I think you are wrong. In Dr. No he pretty much rapes the Asian bad gal. I guess it’s ok because he was trying to kill him. In Goldfinger he rapes Pussy Galore out of being a lesbian. All she really needed was a good man, don’t you know. In Thunderball the spa attendant resists his charms until she thinks she has caused an accident that could have killed him. He uses her fear of losing her job to have sex with her.
In each case the women are portrayed as really wanting it but resisting until his manliness overcomes them. And once he’s had his way with them they are “his”. “Anytime,anyplace” the spa attendant says to him. “He coldly replies “Another time, another place”.
By the way, did you know that President Kennedy was a big fan of the Bond books? If you think about it, perhaps it explains his sex antics like sleeping with the mob bosses girlfriend. You can see Kennedy sort of identifying with Bond.
Malcolm Burns
"Filled with."
Daniel, I am also a Gen-Xer. You and your cohorts? You and your peers? In the future, just speak for yourself. I still love the Batman 60's TV show. It's no where near as campy as the Clooney movie. I also much prefer it to the latest travesties. I consider the Dark Knight movies to be so-so and I much prefer Ceasar Romero's take on the Joker compared to Heath Ledger and much MUCH better than the recent Joker movie.
I consider the Craig Bond movies to be watch-once and never again. I've not seen No Time To Die (incidently, also the title of the worst Columbo episode ever made) and have no desire to. Probably will eventually. The Jar-Jar Abrams Trek movies are abysmal. He himself has stated that he has never watched a single episode of any Trek series or watched any of the first 10 movies. He has no understanding of Roddenberry's vision of what Star Trek is supposed to be.
I find the DC and Marvel movies to be unwatchable. If I've seen one, I've seen them all.
What I have written here are all my own opinions as is what you wrote. You are welcome to express your opinions, but don't think for a moment that you speak for all your cohorts and peers. You most definitely don't.
Malcolm Burns
These things happen to Bond in all the time. I've only had a strange beautiful woman waiting for me in my hotel room maybe six times in my whole life. Seven tops!
No worries, Ken. Next time we’ll discover Bond was teleported up to the SpaceForce starcruiser by order of Captain Felix Leiter, Jr. Working title: MOONRAKER II
It wasn't THAT much different than any other Bond movie. They've made 25 of them; if they made them all the same then you'd complain that...they were all the same. It was too long but still more entertaining than any of the Marvel pictures.
the movie was long dreary and dark. it had little humor. they should have kept mask on bad guy. you would not have know what looks like or if he died. the ending was anti bond. ana de armas was the brightest part of movie. she should have helped bond at end
Yep, too friggin' long. Even with its several good moments. If James Bond himself was watching the movie, he'd say "I wish Q could come up with something that would delay my peeing so I could finish watching this movie."
I miss the humor of The Bond films. Even Sean's had some. I don't want them too silly like the Roger Moore one's could be but The Bond films don't have to be depressing like the Craig films have been. I am looking forward to who the new Bond will be. I think it's time for a change.
Ken, I agree completely with you. I left the film sad and I kept asking why was that ending necessary and how will he be back? I grew up watching the Moore Bond films, but have embraced the Connery Bond. He brought a skill set we all wished we had along with a look all women wished we had. The films came in at under two hours and I didn't feel like I missed anything, including would Bond see his family during the holidays? After World War II, the last thing England was was cool. Bond and The Beatles changed all of that...although Bond takes a very uncool view on The Beatles in Goldfinger. Sometimes less is more and Connery did that with Bond.
As far as the modern Bonds go, I greatly prefer Pierce Brosnan’s Bond to Craig’s. Brosnan’s Bond enjoys himself and enjoys his job. Craig is so damned grim. Brosnan didn’t always have the best scripts, but Tomorrow Never Dies is fun, and Goldeneye is one of the best in the series.
I will miss Craig as Bond, I liked him very much and I have seen them all. All Bonds had something for their time – some had more of an oomph than others and some if you watch them now look very much outdated but this is expected. I am looking forward to see what they are coming up next! If this is something totally unexpected--so be it. Might be time for a change.
There seems to be an aversion to characters who are primarily a vehicle for fun adventure (or mystery) stories. Writers seem to feel these characters must undergo character development. But sooner or later, someone wants to start over with the original concept so they can undo what they have done in the previous stories.
A prime example are comic books, where the companies have married off Superman and Spider-Man and given them children (Well, at least Superman, I think. It's been a while since I read them.), then rewrite their histories so they can return to the original concept.
Do the viewers/readers really want character development for them? Is it a desperate grab for attention? Are there ways to provide character development without making such dramatic changes to a character?
Another problem with giving Bond 'issues' is that they do it half-heartedly. His deep personal sadness etc, never affects his ability to do vine-swings out of supercasinos, or hold his breath for ten minutes, so what was the point?
The NoTToD sequence with MI6 following Bond live via satellite link was also incredibly dated, as was talk of 'nanobots' - this isn't just because the movie was released after 2 years' delay.
And sorry, Rami, but what a booooooring villain!
Post a Comment