›

Is Bond Hampered by His Own "Formula"?

2»

Comments

  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,506
    This time around Bond has been hampered more by SONY! :-q
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,506
    This time around Bond has been hampered more by SONY! :-q
  • M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
    Posts: 538
    I feel like it's a blessing and a curse. Having a formula does ensure consistent success, but it also sometimes limits the creativity of the series. A balanced solution would be to keep some of the formula elements, but also finding a number of aspects (beyond simply moving to a different locale) to change in each entry.

    Little motifs (like the gunbarrel) don't do any harm, but when the entire plot of the movie becomes predictable, it's a problem. It's harder to be surprised.

    Once you've seen Goldfinger, you've seen the majority of the films.

    1) Fun action sequence
    2) Bond is briefed by M.
    3) Bond investigates a pretty locale
    4) Bond sleeps with the villain's mistress to get information
    5) The villain kills the mistress, but Bond meets a new female lead anyway
    6) Bond plays a game with the villain to learn more information
    7) Bond reports back to London and Q gives him gadgets
    8) Bond sneaks into the enemy's HQ and sees what he's planning
    9) Then Bond is captured (instead of killed), and escapes unharmed
    10) Chase sequence
    11) Final confrontration in the villain's lair
    12) Villain and henchman are killed
    13) Mission accomplished. Bond and female lead #2 make love in a secluded place.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    1) Fun action sequence
    2) Bond is briefed by M.
    3) Bond investigates a pretty locale
    4) Bond sleeps with the villain's mistress to get information
    5) The villain kills the mistress, but Bond meets a new female lead anyway
    6) Bond plays a game with the villain to learn more information
    7) Bond reports back to London and Q gives him gadgets
    8) Bond sneaks into the enemy's HQ and sees what he's planning
    9) Then Bond is captured (instead of killed), and escapes unharmed
    10) Chase sequence
    11) Final confrontration in the villain's lair
    12) Villain and henchman are killed
    13) Mission accomplished. Bond and female lead #2 make love in a secluded place.
    Sounds good to me!
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    I feel like it's a blessing and a curse. Having a formula does ensure consistent success, but it also sometimes limits the creativity of the series. A balanced solution would be to keep some of the formula elements, but also finding a number of aspects (beyond simply moving to a different locale) to change in each entry.

    Little motifs (like the gunbarrel) don't do any harm, but when the entire plot of the movie becomes predictable, it's a problem. It's harder to be surprised.

    Once you've seen Goldfinger, you've seen the majority of the films.

    1) Fun action sequence
    2) Bond is briefed by M.
    3) Bond investigates a pretty locale
    4) Bond sleeps with the villain's mistress to get information
    5) The villain kills the mistress, but Bond meets a new female lead anyway
    6) Bond plays a game with the villain to learn more information
    7) Bond reports back to London and Q gives him gadgets
    8) Bond sneaks into the enemy's HQ and sees what he's planning
    9) Then Bond is captured (instead of killed), and escapes unharmed
    10) Chase sequence
    11) Final confrontration in the villain's lair
    12) Villain and henchman are killed
    13) Mission accomplished. Bond and female lead #2 make love in a secluded place.


    So do you Think Guy Hamilton is the one we own the Bond Formula or the one to we own what Bond is about by the masses belifs ?

    Ian fleming created the Character of the Novels which Terrence Young followed with the limitations of violence he had in the 60s and latter Guy Hamilton transformed the whole thing and he is the one who invented the formula that the masses know as James Bond.


    When i read in regular sites about the best Bond actor and what a true Bond film is they all say Bond is a charming good looking and Cool spy who singreat with ladies. Always has the best gandgets and wins against the bad guys without a sweat.

    Meanwhile Fleming's Bond is another story: a womanizer blunt instrument who hates what he does.

    I personally like much more The cinematic Bond but i don't Mind the Fleming bond at all.




  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    Szonana wrote: »
    I personally like much more The cinematic Bond but i don't Mind the Fleming bond at all.
    With Dalton you get the best of both!
    \m/
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Szonana wrote: »
    I personally like much more The cinematic Bond but i don't Mind the Fleming bond at all.
    With Dalton you get the best of both!
    \m/

    Dalton was the better Craig.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Szonana wrote: »
    I personally like much more The cinematic Bond but i don't Mind the Fleming bond at all.
    With Dalton you get the best of both!
    \m/

    Dalton was the better Craig.
    Dude, you'd better duck the inevitable incoming...
    :))
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    edited September 2015 Posts: 1,130
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Szonana wrote: »
    I personally like much more The cinematic Bond but i don't Mind the Fleming bond at all.
    With Dalton you get the best of both!
    \m/

    You are partly right since Dalton is a little more fleming, i guess the one which has best of both worlds is connery.
    Like Jason said Dalton is the better Craig hehe and i do like Craig.


  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    Szonana wrote: »
    Like Jason said Dalton is the better Craig hehe and i do like Craig.
    QOS is solidly in my top ten!
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Szonana wrote: »
    Like Jason said Dalton is the better Craig hehe and i do like Craig.
    QOS is solidly in my top ten!


    I like QOS, its not in my top 10 but I do like it more than many other Bond fans.

    Actually i like most of the underdogs of the series some more than others but i did enjoy very much Die Another Day, Moonraker, Quantum of Solace and Diamonds are forever though it is the Sean Connery Bond film i like the least.
  • trevaniantrevanian
    Posts: 232
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Szonana wrote: »
    I personally like much more The cinematic Bond but i don't Mind the Fleming bond at all.
    With Dalton you get the best of both!
    \m/

    Dalton was the better Craig.

    I'd consider that insulting ... to Dalton!

    If you want to compare Dalton to Connery, well okay, they're the two that matter to me.

  • trevaniantrevanian
    Posts: 232
    There's a consideration here about the formula issue. A StarTRek writer analyzed the original series a long ways back, and noted that it was just like many other TV series, it fell into the trap of its format settling down and congealing into formula. I read that over 40 years back and find that I apply that thought to a lot of franchise entertainment, and think it is increasingly valid.

    I imagine YOLT was the template for SPY, but with MR, YOLT/SPY wasn't a format or template, it was a formula by that point.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,985
    bondjames wrote: »
    Now for a perhaps controversial view. Retrospectively, if one looks carefully at QoS, despite it shaking up the formula quite substantially, and despite the short run time, and despite the arthouse style, it IS a Bond film imo. That is a credit to Marc Forster. He just messed up on the editing. More than any director, I think he shook this formula up, and still retained the essence of Bond. With more practice, he could be a very good Bond director who injects a different take while retaining the essence of what is Bond.

    I agree that QoS shook up the formula. However, I think it tried to do it too much and strayed too far from the essence of Bond, including:

    Bond doesn't say "Bond, James Bond"
    Bond doesn't sleep with the main love interest
    Bond doesn't kill the villain onscreen
    Unclear action scenes (never an issue with Bond before, even in the worst films)

    Even the opera scene, which I like better than most of the film, is pretty muddled when you pick it apart. I do like the ending of the film, though. It felt like Haggis actually spent substantial time writing it.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2015 Posts: 23,883
    echo wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Now for a perhaps controversial view. Retrospectively, if one looks carefully at QoS, despite it shaking up the formula quite substantially, and despite the short run time, and despite the arthouse style, it IS a Bond film imo. That is a credit to Marc Forster. He just messed up on the editing. More than any director, I think he shook this formula up, and still retained the essence of Bond. With more practice, he could be a very good Bond director who injects a different take while retaining the essence of what is Bond.

    I agree that QoS shook up the formula. However, I think it tried to do it too much and strayed too far from the essence of Bond, including:

    Bond doesn't say "Bond, James Bond"
    Bond doesn't sleep with the main love interest
    Bond doesn't kill the villain onscreen
    Unclear action scenes (never an issue with Bond before, even in the worst films)

    Even the opera scene, which I like better than most of the film, is pretty muddled when you pick it apart. I do like the ending of the film, though. It felt like Haggis actually spent substantial time writing it.

    I agree that the execution of the action scenes in particular was very poor.

    The conceptualization was good though and I think this is what they have to keep doing to continually shake up this franchise, otherwise it will fall back into cliche and banality all too soon.

    So I don't have a problem with them not doing the first three things you mention... I strangely didn't miss it in this film. Not being able to follow the action was unforgiveable though.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Why would anybody miss the typical Bond things in the Jason Bourne movie Quantum Of Solace?
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    bondjames wrote: »
    Not being able to follow the action was unforgiveable though.
    The one & only part I couldn't follow was how Bond used the anchor to flip the boat. In an otherwise easy to comprehend film (for ME) I can forgive.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,333
    chrisisall wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Not being able to follow the action was unforgiveable though.
    The one & only part I couldn't follow was how Bond used the anchor to flip the boat. In an otherwise easy to comprehend film (for ME) I can forgive.

    It deflated the boat I believe.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    Murdock wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Not being able to follow the action was unforgiveable though.
    The one & only part I couldn't follow was how Bond used the anchor to flip the boat. In an otherwise easy to comprehend film (for ME) I can forgive.

    It deflated the boat I believe.
    And that's why it flipped?
    Okay.
    :D
Sign In or Register to comment.