What to keep and what to get rid of from the Craig era.

1235710

Comments

  • Posts: 1,515
    As long as Blofeld and SPECTRE continue to be a part of the Bond story, the series will be hamstrung. The story will always be the same. SPECTRE will have evil designs on something. Bond will hold a grudge. Blofeld will escape, maybe die, but certainly return. That's not reinvention. That's flogging a dead horse.

    No more outer space, diamonds, sunlight arrays, nano anything, chips with every agents name on it, blowing up MI6, rogue agents, Bond showing up at M's residence, Bond resigning, facial transformations, threats to shut down MI6, Bond never being shot by multiple shooters firing hundreds of bullets.

    Oh, wow! What's left? That's where the reinvention comes in. And it won't be with the writers who for the most part are responsible for the things I don't want to see again.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,683
    @CrabKey: You definitely have a point there.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited April 2023 Posts: 8,081
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    The thing I love about the Craig era, is the series and Bond as a character was taken seriously. Hopefully that continues

    Hopefully EON are true to their word and there's a complete reinvention of Bond from the ground up.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,487
    What’s your idea of a “complete reinvention” @Mendes4Lyfe ?

    And did EoN say a “complete” reinvention? Or a reinvention?

    And weren’t they discussing this concept in the context of: a new era, a new Bond? What are the evil forces Bond will fight today and tomorrow?

    I fear your idea of a “complete reinvention “ is to make a U-Turn back to clown suits and raised eyebrows.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,972
    CrabKey wrote: »
    As long as Blofeld and SPECTRE continue to be a part of the Bond story, the series will be hamstrung. The story will always be the same. SPECTRE will have evil designs on something. Bond will hold a grudge. Blofeld will escape, maybe die, but certainly return. That's not reinvention. That's flogging a dead horse.

    No more outer space, diamonds, sunlight arrays, nano anything, chips with every agents name on it, blowing up MI6, rogue agents, Bond showing up at M's residence, Bond resigning, facial transformations, threats to shut down MI6, Bond never being shot by multiple shooters firing hundreds of bullets.

    Oh, wow! What's left? That's where the reinvention comes in. And it won't be with the writers who for the most part are responsible for the things I don't want to see again.

    But diamonds are forever.
  • I’d like for the next Bond to be a tad bit lighter to differentiate himself from Craig and his era. Not super light like Roger Moore, but more akin to Connery/Brosnan. Craig came very close to nailing that style in his last two films.
  • Posts: 12,263
    A tone closest to the original novels is ideal for me. Serious and tense, but still plenty of humor of the dry and witty kind.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,105
    I’d like for the next Bond to be a tad bit lighter to differentiate himself from Craig and his era. Not super light like Roger Moore, but more akin to Connery/Brosnan. Craig came very close to nailing that style in his last two films.

    I agree.
    CrabKey wrote: »
    As long as Blofeld and SPECTRE continue to be a part of the Bond story, the series will be hamstrung. The story will always be the same. SPECTRE will have evil designs on something. Bond will hold a grudge. Blofeld will escape, maybe die, but certainly return. That's not reinvention. That's flogging a dead horse.

    No more outer space, diamonds, sunlight arrays, nano anything, chips with every agents name on it, blowing up MI6, rogue agents, Bond showing up at M's residence, Bond resigning, facial transformations, threats to shut down MI6, Bond never being shot by multiple shooters firing hundreds of bullets.

    Oh, wow! What's left? That's where the reinvention comes in. And it won't be with the writers who for the most part are responsible for the things I don't want to see again.

    One of the ways to reinvent Blofeld is similar to how I felt they should have reinvented the Joker after The Dark Knight: bring in his longtime partner in crime: Harley Quinn. Which they did. Same could be done for Blofeld and Irma Bunt. We know that Blofeld will be back, (he is Bond's archenemy after all), why not use his hired help.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,081
    peter wrote: »
    What’s your idea of a “complete reinvention” @Mendes4Lyfe ?

    And did EoN say a “complete” reinvention? Or a reinvention?

    And weren’t they discussing this concept in the context of: a new era, a new Bond? What are the evil forces Bond will fight today and tomorrow?

    I fear your idea of a “complete reinvention “ is to make a U-Turn back to clown suits and raised eyebrows.

    Just look at the paloma sequence from Bond 25, that's a great vision for where to takes things in Bond 26. It's the one part of the film which recieves universal praise from fans. It's been years since Bond and the bond girl had some playful interplay, kicked some ***, and the music during that part is very vibrant and energetic. It's like EON allowed the oppressive seriousness of the Craig era to be lifted for one scene.

    I think sometimes people misinterpret quite what 'reinvention' means. I would consider Goldeneye to be continuing in the tradition of classic bond, but it's not identical to the Connery or Moore bonds. Capturing the spirit of classic Bond and making a carbon copy aren't the same thing. For an example, The Force Awakens is a carbon copy type product, where except for brief moments with Han and Chewie it never really captures the energy of the OT. I would consider SP and Bond 25 in this category as well, lots of iconography in front of your eyeballs, but the all important essence is missing. An example of what gets it right would be the Creed films. Despite being very different, they do justice to the originals where it counts.

    With regards to "pulling a u-turn", I think there are certain elements of bond that never go out of style. If you found an audience who has never watched Bond and showed them the skii cliff jump from TSWLM, I think they'd have virtually the same reaction as an audiences in '77 did. The larger than life bond never went out of fashion, that's a myth. EON simply stuffed it in the back of the closet and instead we got rather mundane chases in SP and Bond 25 which lacked any real pizazz or spark.

    People told Speilberg you can't make those old adventures serials work for the eighties, they're far too old and passé. But he did it anyway, and it became one of the most celebrated franchises of all time, called indiana jones. It worked because they didn't just do the same thing again, they UPDATED it for the modern sensibilities of the time. So when people assume lighthearted bond means travelling back to the 70's and doing reheated roger Moore films, its actually not the case. It means taking the breezy, quirky tone of those films and updating (or "reinventing") it so that it works for the modern day but still keeps the classic spirit intact.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,487
    Was Spielberg told that @Mendes4Lyfe ? I’m not being facetious. I’ve never read about that. Who told him that? Certainly not the producers. So who would have the clout to tell The Beard that Indy wouldn’t work? Do you have a link? I’d be interested in reading about this time in film history…
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 721
    IMDb has this in its Raiders trivia section:
    Despite having the dream team of George Lucas and Steven Spielberg behind the film, it was initially turned down by every studio in Hollywood. Only after much persuasion did Paramount agree to do it.
    No idea if it is true or not, but presumably this is what Mendes4Lyfe is referring to.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,487
    IMDb has this in its Raiders trivia section:
    Despite having the dream team of George Lucas and Steven Spielberg behind the film, it was initially turned down by every studio in Hollywood. Only after much persuasion did Paramount agree to do it.
    No idea if it is true or not, but presumably this is what Mendes4Lyfe is referring to.

    Wow. I truly never heard about this.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,487
    Doing a deeper dive on Raiders, I think @Mendes4Lyfe got his info wrong:

    As far as I could find, no one told Lucas and Spielberg that no one wanted an old-time swashbuckling adventure because it wouldn’t fly in the 1980s.

    Instead they were turned down by every studio because of the BUDGET and Lucas’s OFFER :

    “Lucas wanted to fund Raiders of the Lost Ark himself, but lacked the money.[12] Lucasfilm offered the project to several Hollywood studios. They rejected it, in part because of the proposed $20 million budget, but also because of the deal Lucas offered.[12][30] He wanted the studio to provide the budget, have no creative input and allow him to retain control of the licensing rights and any sequels.[30] The studios considered this deal unacceptable.[12][30] They were also hesitant because of Spielberg's involvement due to his having delivered a succession of films over-schedule and over-budget;[30] his recent effort, 1941, was both over-budget and a critical failure. However, Lucas refused to do the project without Spielberg.[17][30][32]

    Paramount Pictures president Michael Eisner compromised with Lucas, agreeing to his deal in exchange for exclusive rights to any sequels and severe penalties for exceeding the schedule or budget. Lucas reportedly negotiated a salary between $1 million and $4 million plus a share of the gross profits, though a separate report stated he received only net profits. Spielberg received up to $1.5 million as director and a share of the gross profits.[12][19]”


  • Posts: 2,880
    peter wrote: »
    Doing a deeper dive on Raiders, I think @Mendes4Lyfe got his info wrong:

    As far as I could find, no one told Lucas and Spielberg that no one wanted an old-time swashbuckling adventure because it wouldn’t fly in the 1980s.

    Instead they were turned down by every studio because of the BUDGET and Lucas’s OFFER :

    “Lucas wanted to fund Raiders of the Lost Ark himself, but lacked the money.[12] Lucasfilm offered the project to several Hollywood studios. They rejected it, in part because of the proposed $20 million budget, but also because of the deal Lucas offered.[12][30] He wanted the studio to provide the budget, have no creative input and allow him to retain control of the licensing rights and any sequels.[30] The studios considered this deal unacceptable.[12][30] They were also hesitant because of Spielberg's involvement due to his having delivered a succession of films over-schedule and over-budget;[30] his recent effort, 1941, was both over-budget and a critical failure. However, Lucas refused to do the project without Spielberg.[17][30][32]

    Paramount Pictures president Michael Eisner compromised with Lucas, agreeing to his deal in exchange for exclusive rights to any sequels and severe penalties for exceeding the schedule or budget. Lucas reportedly negotiated a salary between $1 million and $4 million plus a share of the gross profits, though a separate report stated he received only net profits. Spielberg received up to $1.5 million as director and a share of the gross profits.[12][19]”



    I feel with these big, successful movies there's always a bit of myth-making around them in hindsight, usually from the creators. From what I understand Cubby Broccoli certainly did this with several aspects of the Bond series. I mean, disputes over budgets are pretty dry in comparison to the narrative of the out of touch studios not understanding a creative vision.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,487
    @007HallY agreed… More to the point: it’s flights of fancy though, with some on this site who make up, or twist truths, to fit the narrative of their opinions, opinions that they claim are facts.

    The above was started because a post mentioned that people are wrong to think the Bond series couldn’t go back to being “classic Bond”, just as the studios turned down Indy because they said a film that was a 1930s type serial adventure wouldn’t fly in the 1980s.

    I hadn’t heard the studios turned down Lucas and Spielberg, and it shocked me that any studio would turn away these powerhouses, in their prime, because of the story they wanted to film.

    Doing a deeper dive, I found no mention of studios turning them down because a swashbuckling adventure wouldn’t fly in the ‘80s. It was all about the dollars and cents.

    So, once again, this poster took a bit of truth and twisted it to fit their narrative (just like when they write about averting the writers strike, or writing about what many Bond fans want in the upcoming films); opinions are opinions, but one starts lying when one wants the opinions to be considered as fact.
  • Posts: 2,880
    peter wrote: »
    @007HallY agreed… More to the point: it’s flights of fancy though, with some on this site who make up, or twist truths, to fit the narrative of their opinions, opinions that they claim are facts.

    The above was started because a post mentioned that people are wrong to think the Bond series couldn’t go back to being “classic Bond”, just as the studios turned down Indy because they said a film that was a 1930s type serial adventure wouldn’t fly in the 1980s.

    I hadn’t heard the studios turned down Lucas and Spielberg, and it shocked me that any studio would turn away these powerhouses, in their prime, because of the story they wanted to film.

    Doing a deeper dive, I found no mention of studios turning them down because a swashbuckling adventure wouldn’t fly in the ‘80s. It was all about the dollars and cents.

    So, once again, this poster took a bit of truth and twisted it to fit their narrative (just like when they write about averting the writers strike, or writing about what many Bond fans want in the upcoming films); opinions are opinions, but one starts lying when one wants the opinions to be considered as fact.

    To be completely fair it may well be one of those 'myths' that's so well ingrained amongst general viewers (to the point that it's mentioned on the mostly user written IMDB trivia) that the original poster may not have known the full background. I certainly didn't before you posted that/looked it up myself. Like I said, boring disputes on budgets are always less interesting, albeit more likely to be the case, than creative disputes.

    In fairness I don't entirely disagree with @Mendes4Lyfe says about what they want for Bond 26, and can see where they're coming from/agree with certain things they say. I just disagree with them when it comes to the finer details if this makes sense.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,487
    @007HallY , I’d give the benefit of the doubt to a poster who isn’t prone to exaggeration… otherwise opinions are opinions.
  • Posts: 2,880
    peter wrote: »
    @007HallY , I’d give the benefit of the doubt to a poster who isn’t prone to exaggeration… otherwise opinions are opinions.

    Fair enough :)
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,487
    007HallY wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @007HallY , I’d give the benefit of the doubt to a poster who isn’t prone to exaggeration… otherwise opinions are opinions.

    Fair enough :)

    @007HallY 👍🏻
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 721
    007HallY wrote: »
    Interesting question. I guess broadly...

    Keep

    - The quality of the cinematography, editing, and production design from the last three films.

    - The focus on Bond as a character. I'll specify what I don't want to see, but I like the fact that Craig's Bond felt like a genuinely rounded character - flawed, perhaps even tragic, but ultimately human.

    - The tendency to use elements of the novels. Ok, it's not always been done well (I have 'die Blofeld, die' in mind from NTTD) but I like the fact that they incorporated the Garden of Death into NTTD, despite my problems with how it was done in practice. Same for the torture scene dialogue from Colonel Sun in SP. Just a bit more focus on the script/how everything is brought together and this deference to the literary material would be great to see more of going forward.

    - The elements of fantasy/horror, particularly in NTTD. Personally, I love the opening in Norway of NTTD, as well as the 'nanoboting' of the SPECTRE agents in Cuba in the film. It feels like something from a horror film. Personally, one of the things I love about the Fleming novels is that Bond is a man who gets caught up in these nightmarish, surreal scenarios - ie. Dr No's lair, the Garden of Death etc. Bond shouldn't just be a grounded thriller but a series in which the fantastical, horror and escapism can be combined. For all the Craig era's darker moments, the later ones certainly seemed to lean more towards that otherworldly, more fantastical feel.

    - The quality of acting talent. Not necessarily the fame of said talent.


    Get Rid Of

    - The nostalgia/references to the previous films. No more DB5, aesthetic nods, and ideally no references to the 60s Bond films beyond the bare bone elements (the gun barrel, the theme etc.) No SPECTRE, no Blofeld.

    - The entire MI6 cast of the Craig era. I love Wishaw and Harris, but the fact is the next Bond needs to reinvent the series. Bond's relationship with M, Tanner need to be re-thought and re-established with different actors.

    - No exploring of Bond's past. The Craig era did it well in SF (less so in SP) but I feel Bond needs to be more enigmatic in the next one. He needs to feel human and have flaws, perhaps change, but this can be done without referencing his past or at least making it part of the main narrative.

    - No more Bond going rogue. It's a bit worn out.

    - Ideally not another villain with a revenge motive, as it's been done in the last three films.

    - I'd like to see less of Bond being depicted as 'indestructible'. For all the character elements of the Craig era, the later films did seem to depict him as almost superhuman during the action scenes. The guy could tackle a man after getting shot multiple times, easy disarm three henchmen while handcuffed, go commando and take down an entire base. Even in CR the fact that Bond could blow up an embassy or easily catch a gun while on a crane negated the more 'human' approach they went with. I'd like to see fight sequences which are more grounded, Bond taking a few hits etc. Less 'polished' fight choreography could help this I think.



    Other


    - Sex... to be honest, this is a bit misunderstood. I don't think it matters how many women Bond sleeps with in a single film (Fleming's Bond would often sleep with only one in a single story). It's the level of erotism and chemistry Bond has with the women that matters. The later Craig films had sex, but little erotism (more romance if anything), and of course Craig didn't have the best chemistry with Seydoux in SP. This can be done in a number of ways, and doesn't have to be leery or pornographic.

    - Gadgets. I'm fine with Bond having gadgets but I'd like them to be grounded/be the sort of thing an actual secret agent would need in his day to day duties.

    I agree with you on most points, with just a few quibbles: I agree with Bond being less indestructible, particularly that Bond should not bounce back from serious injuries (such as torture) with no real consequences… but I think things like catching the gun are good, more sophisticated fight choreography is good (as far as I’m concerned, that is), I’d like to see evidence that Bond has been trained in hand to hand to a high degree rather than him just being scrappy.

    I would like to keep the lack of groan-inducing jokes, to be replaced by more wit.

    I’d like to see them stop screwing with the gunsight opening - C.R.’s was worth doing, but generally I’d like to see the film open with the traditional version.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,487
    I’d be very surprised if Spectre played a role any time soon… And the DB5 played an integral role in the Craig Era, I can’t see it making a major appearance (AM I’m sure will continue its relationship with EoN, though). My guess is anything linked to Craig, from the DB5 to Spectre to the cast of actors at Mi6 HQ will be scrubbed.

  • Posts: 1,562
    Especially if the series were to take a turn of tone, perhaps Bond still could have a car in his private garage...a Lotus Esprit...NOT saying go as clown-ish as it did in the Moore era - on one point, literally -- but we've had - and I've enjoyed immensely - the Craig era, and it's time - as has been done in the past with each change of actor - for a re-tuning.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,081
    Since62 wrote: »
    Especially if the series were to take a turn of tone, perhaps Bond still could have a car in his private garage...a Lotus Esprit...NOT saying go as clown-ish as it did in the Moore era - on one point, literally -- but we've had - and I've enjoyed immensely - the Craig era, and it's time - as has been done in the past with each change of actor - for a re-tuning.

    =D>
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,390
    I also wish Bond would reduce his drinking too, I still not in my life how despite of him drinking too much and booze, he's not getting drunk 🤷, like drowsiness, and could still drive in normal state 😅 (I'm talking more about the Craig Era here in particular).

    Try looking at this:
    Licensed to spill! Daniel Craig is booziest James Bond ever who knocks back 20 units of alcohol per movie
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3243718/amp/Licensed-spill-Daniel-Craig-booziest-James-Bond-knocks-20-units-alcohol-movie.html

    If they're making Bond more realistic, reduce his drinking, it's fine in necessary occasions, and also not too much to the point that he already drank a bottle and could still function properly.

    That's also one of the unrealistic things about the Craig Era.

    I think Moore did this better by just having drink in necessary occasions like when in dinner or meeting with a girl, or at the end of the film, but when he's in the middle of adventure, he's not drinking too much, despite of Moore being campy, and lighthearted, he's not that much on booze.

    I mean the classic Bonds in general were never that much on booze like Craig, they didn't drank liquor like fish, and that's one of the things I prefer in the Classic Era, the Craig Era turned Bond into an overly alcoholic guy.

    The Cuba scenes in No Time To Die had him drinking a liquor constantly while fighting a baddie, and asking myself that he could still function and fight, he drank a lot in that Cuba sequence, the same with Paloma, it's just unrealistic that despite of how many shots they've taken, they could still function normally.
  • Posts: 2,880
    I do like how the Craig era depicted Bond's drinking though. It wasn't glamourised, and often he would drink in order to dull emotional or physical pain. But on the other hand it wasn't depicted as being totally destructive for the character either, and while it was a vice it wasn't the root of his problems.

    To be honest, I think this is more or less how Bond's drinking should be in these movies. It's much closer to the spirit of Fleming's novels, and I do think there's something about the character's relationship with alcohol which is... well, very British really (we are a nation who enjoy our drink a bit too much sometimes, even if it is rather enjoyable).
  • Posts: 1,515
    How real must Bond be? Driving and fighting after excessive drinking are no less credible than crashing a motorcycle against a wall and jumping onto a train. Not getting hit by hundreds of bullets from automatic weapons or jumping from one girder to another. The list of incredulities in the Craig era goes on and on. No human body could take the torment inflected on Bond. So for me, excessive drinking is not an issue. For me Bond is a fantasy, not a role model. I'm fine with no smoking because it does seem out of place these days. But will our next Bond limit himself to diet sodas? Will we see Bond with a steady girlfriend on whom he won't cheat? And if does have to do it for king and country, will we see the condom scene?

    The next iteration of Bond is going to be a tough one to sort out for sure. But Bond is a bad boy, and bad boys do bad things. He drinks a lot, has lots of sex, and does implausible things. He doesn't have to abide by Miss Manners and do what polite people do these days. If Bond's behavior offends, there's an easy solution for the offended. The solution is 'quit looking over the ten foot fence at the naked man in the yard next to yours.'
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited April 2023 Posts: 3,390
    007HallY wrote: »
    I do like how the Craig era depicted Bond's drinking though. It wasn't glamourised, and often he would drink in order to dull emotional or physical pain. But on the other hand it wasn't depicted as being totally destructive for the character either, and while it was a vice it wasn't the root of his problems.

    To be honest, I think this is more or less how Bond's drinking should be in these movies. It's much closer to the spirit of Fleming's novels, and I do think there's something about the character's relationship with alcohol which is... well, very British really (we are a nation who enjoy our drink a bit too much sometimes, even if it is rather enjoyable).

    It is, but then so his smoking habit?
    It's very Fleming yet are removed because it's out of place these days, drinking was also out of place these days, especially for those people like Bond.

    I mean some people were saying that booze is very unprofessional and therefore a thing for wrecked or low class people.

    A thing for low class gangsters who gets involved with riots, fights, and rumbles, well that's how modern films depict booze.

    Like if you're a heavy drinker, you're likely to be a low class person in the society who makes troubles. 😅

    Booze for some people is a deed of criminal or gangster thing, no longer a symbol of sophistication.

    That's the thing with Bond, he's a sophisticated guy who enjoy luxuries and fine things, and drinking or booze too much is no longer considered a part of that these days.
  • Posts: 2,880
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I do like how the Craig era depicted Bond's drinking though. It wasn't glamourised, and often he would drink in order to dull emotional or physical pain. But on the other hand it wasn't depicted as being totally destructive for the character either, and while it was a vice it wasn't the root of his problems.

    To be honest, I think this is more or less how Bond's drinking should be in these movies. It's much closer to the spirit of Fleming's novels, and I do think there's something about the character's relationship with alcohol which is... well, very British really (we are a nation who enjoy our drink a bit too much sometimes, even if it is rather enjoyable).

    It is, but then so his smoking habit?
    It's very Fleming yet are removed because it's out of place these days, drinking was also out of place these days, especially for those people like Bond.

    I mean some people were saying that booze is very unprofessional and therefore a thing for wrecked or low class people.

    A thing for low class gangsters who gets involved with riots, fights, and rumbles, well that's how modern films depict booze.

    Like if you're a heavy drinker, you're likely to be a low class person in the society who makes troubles. 😅

    Booze for some people is a deed of criminal or gangster thing, no longer a symbol of sophistication.

    That's the thing with Bond, he's a sophisticated guy who enjoy luxuries and fine things, and drinking or booze too much is no longer considered a part of that these days.

    I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that booze is considered unsophisticated across the board nowadays. People still go to fancy restaurants and pair their meals with fine wines and cognacs etc. People still drink cocktails at upmarket bars. Many of the patrons of said establishments drink a lot. If there's an association with drinking being for 'gangsters or criminals' it's completely contextual. I'd argue it's more or less similar to when Fleming was writing his novels.

    While people are slightly more aware of the long term effects of drinking alcohol, I can say from personal experience almost everyone I know drinks. Sometimes a bit too much, even if they're physically active or have physically demanding jobs.

    I don't think it's just a case of Bond 'enjoying luxuries and fine things'. Bond is man who often runs the risks of never returning from his missions. In the novels it's not just that he enjoys expensive meals and drink because it's paid for on his expense account (on the contrary, Fleming's Bond has moments where he found the very idea of extravagance horrid) but because they are indulgences he enjoys that he might not get to experience again. The novel Bond wasn't a drunk (surprising as it may seem), and on duty he didn't drink to excess, but he did have a habit of drinking too much when not on a mission that even he knew wasn't beneficial to his health. Again, it's because of that mentality, and it's important to the character. It's understandable that such a man who constantly lives on the edge and risks his life might have a fondness for drink (same for sleeping with women too). These are vices and a reason for indulging in them that people can understand even today. Smoking perhaps has a 'devil may care' connotation in the right circumstance, but it's not an intoxicant so I don't think is needed to get that message across in a modern film given the restrictions most countries have put on it in public indoor places (although many people do smoke even today).
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited April 2023 Posts: 2,925
    Indeed. Bond's British - drinking culture is across all spectrums of our society. It's true that the country's full of tanked-up hoodlums but they come from all classes and, since the '90s, the women are as bad as the blokes! Having said that, I don't drink - but I've literally never met another adult who doesn't. That's how pervasive it is. I don't think British audiences would be squeamish about Bond drinking, but the films are made for an international audience so these things will probably just appear when it serves the story - such as Craig steadying himself after the stairwell fight in CR or when he's brooding over Vesper in QOS. I don't have a problem with that.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,002
    Excess in a Bond film is welcome and a good idea.

Sign In or Register to comment.