The James Bond Debate Thread - 216

doubleoego

Bond can explore certain elements from the older days that can be adapted for contemporary times which can make all the difference but if we're talking about actually going back to a setting of the 50s or 60s then no. Bond is a man of the times.

DaltonCraig007

I think I was the one who started debate #2 in another thread... and I still agree to it. I cannot imagine Bond in a much too advanced world. IMO there will be a time where the world will be too different and too modern to what the franchise have seen 1962-2012. I think the current world still has links to the 60's and 50's... but once we'll be in 2050 or 2060 (if I am still alive at that date), I think Bond will be rendered irrelevant. And then IMO EON will be forced to make period pieces, be it set in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's or '00's.

SJK91

As much as I would admit that bringing Bond back to the 60s would be an interesting idea, I couldn't see the series evolving from there. EON wouldn't necessarily be stuck in the 60s, but where would the series go after the period piece? A different actor in a modern film? Or another 60s period piece? I just don't see that concept being very beneficial towards the series as a whole.

Maybe the period piece would work as a one off TV miniseries, but as far as the film franchise goes, I think they have to keep it modern. (And in my opinion, I think the modernness of the franchise has allowed it to be around for 50 years!)

Samuel001

Virage said:
If Bond has updated itself for 50 years, it can do it for at least 50 more.

I'm glad the first person said exactly what I was thinking.

JBFan626

Who would have thought Bond would have been the longest running series in movie history? The fact that the series continues, only boosts it's popularity. The only thing I can relate it to is like say, the Disney characters or the Muppets: in the sense of their longevity and the characters we come to know and love as part of popular culture. Likewise, Bond has become a similar archetype. The general public has an association of Bond as someone of sophistication, fine tastes in wine, women and dress, fast cars, a Britishness, a spy with suave confidence; an almost hubris. As long as people admire this male archetype, then the mythos of Bond will continue and I think they can adapt the character to the times. Sure the hardcore Fleming fans will become more and more disillusioned as we move away from a post World War II world. But the Bond character can continue to exist for many years to come adapting to the times.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

I say no. Bond shouldn't do a period piece set of films. It is more interesting to see the character adapt to the new times as decades go by.

DarthDimi

Very interesting, guys. Let's move on.

THESIS 003

The second half of almost every Bond film introduces a steep decline in quality.

Samuel001

Without remembering all the scenes in the films I can't comment but every film? I doubt that's the case. Most but not all.

Kennon

Thesis 002:

To the contrary, backwards is a dead end. If the series kept in indefinite suspension in the 50's or 60's there would have been no series any more by TMWTGG or earlier even. If the only direction the films can go is to its own past then it's got no more future.

DaltonCraig007

Thesis 3 is not correct for some outings, like CR, which I find better in the 2nd half.

PrinceKamalKhan

Thesis 003: "The second half of almost every Bond film introduces a steep decline in quality."

Disagree. This thesis may be true for the Brosnan era: I consider the first halves of TND and DAD his era's 2 best hours in the role but both of them decline in their second halves. However, IMHO many earlier Bond films' second halves improve upon their first halves: YOLT, OHMSS, TMWTGG, OP for example.

RogueThunderball

For the films that I love, which are most of them, I like the first half just as much as the second half. However, when I started thinking about it I realized that the ott Bond films have a marked decline in quality over the second half. I am looking at you YOLT, MR, and DAD. All three of these films start off good but the second half of the films are not as good as the first half, imo.

BAIN123

Not necessarily. All the earlier entries have cracking second halves. Take for instance the confrontation with Dr No or the fight with Grant in FRWL. There are several other instances where quality is maintained throughout.

Your thesis seems to be more applicable to the Pierce Brosnan films - namely TND and DAD.

TND is pretty cheesy throughout but at least the first half isn't JUST firing machine guns.

thelivingroyale

001: maybe GE's succes did help the franchise and he did have a part in that. But for CR no, because the franchise wasn't in danger of ending after DAD. It made alot of money and reviews at the time weren't really that bad. CR was great but the franchise would've been fine without the reboot.

002: if they were going to stay in the 60s they shouldn't have made live and let die, there's absolutely no point going back now

003: every bond film??? no. Alot of bond films??? yes. DAD started of brilliantly with the awesome hovercraft chase and bond being captured, but got worse and worse from the 2md half onwards. CR's second half with the sinking house wasn't as good as the first (alot of craig fans like to bash DAD for overuse of CGI but this scene was just as bad and drags the rest of the 2nd half down). Moonraker was a good film but in the 2nd half went bad (jaws in love, space lazer battles).

SJK91

In my opinion, here are the films where the 2nd half (or whereabouts) declined steeply from the rest of the film:

- Moonraker (5.5/10 overall)
- For Your Eyes Only (7/10 overall)
- Tomorrow Never Dies (7/10 overall)
- Die Another Day (5/10 overall)

I enjoy For Your Eyes Only and Tomorrow Never Dies to an extent overall, but For Your Eyes Only loses a ton of steam after Bond kicks Loque's car off the cliff and Tomorrow Never Dies' second half is a barrage of bullets.

Moonraker's first half was one of the best first halves in the franchise (barring the Bondola), but after that silly cable car fight...well, that was it. Die Another Day kind of had the same thing going for it, but the ice palace halted all positive progress.

So, I personally disagree with thesis 003 as I really don't find any of the other films' second halves to be a detriment to them. (They were either good all around, or bad all around!)

QBranch

^ What @Samuel001 said. I can't remember every scene, but in my opinion, the following films do not decline in quality in the second half- instead, they are rather balanced:

DN
FRWL
TB
LALD
TLD
GE
CR

Let's hope I can add SF to that list. ;)

JBFan626

Once the Bond films settled into a formula is when the second halves started to drag out. TSWLM and MR spring to mind. The first halves of the films had really interesting spy based plots that kept both Bond and audience guessing. This is the case for the first halves in most Bond movies and why they are so engaging. The problem with those Moore entries, is once the scheme is revealed, the films just drag on and on: the jig is up; nothing new or exciting really happens after that. The Brosnan films did this too. A View to a Kill is another example. Live and Let Die another.

On the contrary, several of the Bond films build up the suspense up until the final act: Dr. No is a great example: Dr. No's identity is not revealed until later in the film. From Russia With Love also builds until the climax of the Red Grant fight, whereas the helicopter/boat chases, while perhaps not as exciting, are brief and also lets the audience catch their breath: still very effective. OHMSS is another great example: nothing new in the plot is revealed per se, but the pacing really climaxes with the action/Rigg's kinapping/Draco's surprise aerial attack.

So, it's half and half: when the film-makers get lazy and settle into formula, yes the second halves don't deliver on the promise of the first. But thankfully, several of the Bond films have stepped up and made for excellent films start to finish.

00Beast

I would say that this is definitely a trait of the Bond movies in general, though not pertaining to every single one. Take FRWL for example: the real storyline and fast-paced action comes about during the second half where SPECTRE is hot on Bond's trail and the Russians are a step away from capturing Bond, Kerim, and Tatiana. Even after Red Grant is killed and the Lektor is safely in Bond's posession, SPECTRE still launch extra attacks to ensure that they are victiorious. The same is true with OHMSS. The middle of the film is horribly boring, but the second half is where it all starts happening once Bond is on the run from SPECTRE once again. Even AVTAK, which many fans consider somewhat boring, has a second half that picks up the pace so quickly that you don't have time to catch your breath. The mine sequence with Zorin gunning down his workers, May Day sacrificing herself, and then Bond vs. Zorin on the Golden Gate Bridge really give the movie an edge that was missing in the first half. Now look at the other side of the coin with movies such as Moonraker, Diamonds Are Forever, or Goldfinger. They make a big deal about setting up the mission in the first half, and then when the second half rolls around, the action tends to slow and just kind of wait around until the climax, and movies such as DAF fail to deliver in the climax, though the first half was really entertaining. As with GF, the entire second half revolves around Bond's capture, and limits what he can do to only snooping around for maybe 5
minutes before getting thrown back into his cell. As for Moonraker, the good ol' fashioned spying tactics of Drax's estate and Venice get lost in fantasy filled with gadgets and over-the-top action sequences that fail to match up to those of the first half, like the pre-title sequence parachuting or the fight with Chang in the glass shop. So as I said before, it's not true with all 22 Bond moviesd, but instead works with some more than others.

Zekidk

JBFan626 said:
The general public has an association of Bond as someone of sophistication, fine tastes in wine, women and dress, fast cars, a Britishness, a spy with suave confidence; an almost hubris. As long as people admire this male archetype, then the mythos of Bond will continue and I think they can adapt the character to the times.

Precisely! 50 years of success should be enough time to prove to anyone that you have found a formula that works and could carry on from generation to generation.

DarthDimi said:

THESIS 003

The second half of almost every Bond film introduces a steep decline in quality.

Not the case IMO, with GF, TB, YOLT, OHMSS, TMWTGG, OP, AVTAK, TLD, LTK and QoS!!

But certainly the case with all Bond-movies with Brosnan and MR and FYEO!

00Beast

@Zekidk: You think GoldenEye and Tomorrow Never Dies have slow second halves? I'm not criticizing you or anything, I just think those really pick up fast with all that action toward the end!

DaltonCraig007

Whenever I watch GE, which I love, my enthusiasm always takes a drop when Bond arrives in Cuba. And I disagree with you @00Beast on MR - the film is fantastic from the first minute to the last second.

Zekidk

00Beast said:
@Zekidk: You think GoldenEye and Tomorrow Never Dies have slow second halves? I'm not criticizing you or anything, I just think those really pick up fast with all that action toward the end!

I didn't use the word "slow" now, did I?

"Fast" doesn't always equal "quality" in my world!

00Beast

DaltonCraig007 said:
Whenever I watch GE, which I love, my enthusiasm always takes a drop when Bond arrives in Cuba. And I disagree with you @00Beast on MR - the film is fantastic from the first minute to the last second.

Yeah, I figured you'd disagree on Moonraker! Hahaha. I just didn't like how the movie takes a turn from dark and ominous in the beginning to light-hearted and goofy toward the end, although some of the scenes in space take it back to the dark roots of the beginning. But you said that Cuba takes a drop with you? I could see that, given the fact that it takes a little while for things to get cooking again. But once Xenia comes down out of the helicopter, the movie starts back again!

Zekidk said:

00Beast said:
@Zekidk: You think GoldenEye and Tomorrow Never Dies have slow second halves? I'm not criticizing you or anything, I just think those really pick up fast with all that action toward the end!

I didn't use the word "slow" now, did I?

"Fast" doesn't always equal "quality" in my world!

Well, yeah, not always, but I just really like the action-packed climaxes in Brosnan's first two.

JWESTBROOK

I have to agree, Quantum of Solace tightened up a bit in the second half. Less action (barely) and more substance.

SaintMark

Something that has been noticable strongly from DAD, CR & QoS. the 1st two mentioned had really bad last acts and with QoS it can be argued that the whole movie sucked but by the secondhalf I was indeed asking myself if I really wanted to sit out the movie.

Kerim

I don't feel this is the case for DN, FRWL, TB, OHMSS, TMWTGG, FYEO, OP, LTK, GE, TWINE and CR.

karatemanchan37

I would agree, but only with the older and more traditional Bond films. The problem with spy movies is that everything is built on the suspense and lead-up, not the resolution. The fact that Bond has been around for nearly 50 years also made the movies more standard and being trapped to follow the standard method:

PTS-->Intro/Hook/Briefing-->Bond Girl(s)/Villain introduced-->1st conflict-->Meet New Allies-->2nd conflict-->Ally or secondary Bond Girl dies-->3rd conflict-->Main Bond Girl kidnapped by main villain-->Final Showdown with Villain-->Crisis Adverted, Reunites with Girl

With the exception of OHMSS, CR, and QOS I think you can categorize most of the films in that order. And this is why the 2nd half is really a let down - the movie spends the 1st half of the movie trying to pump you up with bigger, nastier villains or some new, interesting sechmes to bring you in, but it fails to deliver because you expects how it would end already.

00Beast

I guess this could be easily answered with one question: does the build-up in the first half out-weigh a stong climax?

DarthDimi

I think the following films maintain a strong second half:
* DN
* FRWL
* GF
* TB
* YOLT
* OHMSS
* MR
* FYEO
* OP
* TLD
* LTK
* GE
* CR

Hence, I disagree with the thesis.

DarthDimi

THESIS 004

A different director each Bond film is better than the same director working on several Bond films.

Categories

In this Discussion

Announcements