Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Is avoiding Bond "cliches" becoming a cliche?
Since CR it has been well documented that a lot what people would call "box ticking" elelments of a Bond film have been missing but is this approach actually becoming a bit tired itself, are they film makers trying to avoid anything that could be criticised as sticking to closely to the Bond formula? Has gritty and realistic been done to death?
Is it time to embrace the so called cliches of a Bond film and go for a full on old school release?
Is it time to embrace the so called cliches of a Bond film and go for a full on old school release?
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Before CR the Bond films had become very kitsch and a few of the films had entered the the unfortunate realm of unintended pastiche. DAD was really the apex of the situation what with its invisible cars, ice palaces, sword and laser fights etc. The film was almost a Bond spoof opposed to the real deal itself.
CR was a clear attempt to cut the paraphernalia associated with Bond and focus on the character. It worked well mainly because Martin Campbell understood Bond and Fleming well and the film is tonally much closer to the novels.
QOS represented a shift in a direction hinted at in CR. Forster made a more frenetic and frantic film which was much darker and moodier in tone. QOS was not a perfect fit in the Bond universe and in many ways it's very similar to LTK. Both films take ingredients from their predecessor and really focus on the grittiness the new lead bought to the role to the detriment of other elements, eg; humour, charm. Both films weren't well received.
SF then was a return to form as Mendes clearly felt it was right to bring back some of the old irony but still maintain the darker more Fleming-esque tone from CR. So we get beats like the Aston introduction scene in SF but also we have the return of Q and Moneypenny, we have a more colourful theatrical villain who has a grand lair, we have tongue-in-cheek Komodo dragon scenes and Bond returns to his old misogynistic self.
The next step would be to continue this vein in Bond 24 but be playful with reintroducing the elements. So why not for Bond 24 introduce a villain who wants to take over the world? Why not reintroduce the spy car? More colourful henchmen. More gadgets etc...
But I think the key thing Mendes will focus on aside from all the Bond-isms of the film will be the characters and the story and as long as they are held dear the film should rock.
you have to remember, that when they were first making the Bond films back in 1960s, nothing like that had been done before. It wasn't until they hit their stride with GF and TB that a formula or pattern started to develop - which along with it came the cliches that everyone would poke fun at..
the films since CR still have remnants of the Bond formula to them - but they've been stripped down.... and if you look closely from CR to SF, slowly those traditional elements are being brought back into the mix....
IMO, doing it the way they did it has worked, and it's just fine with me... by the time we got to DAD - the cliches and formula had become tired and needed reenergizing.
I very much agree with this assessment of how things stand after Skyfall, @haserot. The James Bond character construct should always be the centre of the James Bond films - elegant death is the watchword here, otherwise we get another Joe Ordinary hero in a blue-collar action film that are already two a penny by this stage. James Bond needs to be different from ordinary high-octane action films in my view and the current Craig era is certainly delivering this. Skyfall is surely the most stripped-down Bond film since For Your Eyes Only, The Man with the Golden Gun and Dr. No and is in my opinion alll the better for it.
I'd personally love if, like Skyfall, they continue to keep the right amount of cliche, camp, and "box tickings" in the franchise while still managing to keep it fresh (see: Skyfall). I love a lot of what made the old ones Bond movies, and I don't want to see it become too "Bourne-esque"
Now, the world is a smaller place and we all travel around the globe. They have to find places that can still deliver the Wow factor.
The clichés are still very important though. They can veer off centre or re-jig the formula, but they must always come back to the basics.
The end of Skyfall does make me think that some of the old elements will definitley be in place though.
But exotism is a trope, not a cliché per se. And it is an important element of the Bond formula, again dating back to Fleming. That said, I agree with you that it is a very difficult one to use now. Back in the 50s, America was very foreign to a UK reader, so were many places in the world that are now major tourist destinations.
One of the biggest problems the series has faced. I am one of the few who was disappointed with the lack of location shooting in SF, but on the whole it doesn't seem to have done the film any harm. The key for me is not where to shoot, but how to shoot. With Deakins around it's safe to say that we have a DOP who knows how to get the most out of a frame. If they can afford him some genuine location photography in B24, I don't think it will matter whether they shoot in Blackpool or Bangkok, it's going to look tasty.
I always quite like it when they poke fun at the cliches.
exactly... that's why i love the way Craig delivers his one liners... yes they are very dry (which makes them funnier to me lol).. but they are off the cuff remarks - they aren't lobbed up like softballs.. Craig is plenty humorous as Bond, he just doesn't do it with a wink and smile like some who came before.
Regarding one liners I sometimes think Broz (and Craig very occasionally for that matter) deliver certain lines as if they know they are bad and cheesy. I'm thinking of Craig's "deep water" line in Skyfall, which reminded me of Brosnan's "buried with work" line in the way it was delivered.
With Dalton it was the opposite. He'd say the lines in a flat, fairly emotionless way as opposed to dry ala Connery.
As in most things, it's sensible to seek a middle ground. The Brosnan era showed some structural problems with the box-ticking, even though I do love it, and Die Another Day has unnecessarily soured the general view on his era. On the other hand, wantonly eliminating "Bond cliches" threatens to take away the series' essential nature, which would be a far worse problem.
It all goes to show what a balancing act Babs and MGW have to pull off. Go too far in one direction, and people will want something new and exciting and different. Go too far in the other direction, and people will wonder what happened to their beloved Bond series.
yeah, i was never fond of either the 'buried with work" or "fell into some deep water" lines.... the buried with work line is funny, but it's delivered in a very awkward and sheepish manner.... the deep water line, while i get, i wasn't very receptive to - i dont hate it, but i don't really find it funny.. it felt forced..... which is weird, because seconds before came the "last rat standing" line, which was more of a softball set up, but i loved it..
edit: Basically, I like a little campiness in my Bond films. Some of the best parts in Skyfall were pretty campy.
Regarding cliches I find that Craig's tenure is largely devoid of them. They're used as incremental elements rather than the mentality of "We need a chase here" "we need a witticism here ".
Is like a few more boxes ticked for the next one but both SF and CR are excellent so they must be doing summat right.
I will just echo this. Agree. A nod to the past here and there is in order, but too much repetition can get tiresome after half a decade. I want to see something I have not seen before, as long as the Bond universe is recognizable.
Yes, @Murdock, more Bond theme please, that can not be called a cliche anymore than raising the flag on a national holiday.