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

1468910

Comments

  • Posts: 1,515
    Excess in a Bond film is welcome and a good idea.

    Agree. Are we really worried about Bond's lungs and liver? I'm not. Last time I checked Bond was a fictional character. Not only are his lungs and liver impervious to excess, but now he can come back to life after being blown to bits by rockets.





  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,081
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Excess in a Bond film is welcome and a good idea.

    Agree. Are we really worried about Bond's lungs and liver? I'm not. Last time I checked Bond was a fictional character. Not only are his lungs and liver impervious to excess, but now he can come back to life after being blown to bits by rockets.

    =D>
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,023
    How many gangs/criminals order a martini with meticulous instructions like how Craig Bond did in CR? Not many! That’s what makes him sophisticated compared to alcoholics that cannot function in life.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,487
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Excess in a Bond film is welcome and a good idea.

    Agree. Are we really worried about Bond's lungs and liver? I'm not. Last time I checked Bond was a fictional character. Not only are his lungs and liver impervious to excess, but now he can come back to life after being blown to bits by rockets.





    Alchol's effects on over all health can be masked and isn't as obvious as smoking, so having a man in a tux order a martini still plays into our imaginations as being somewhat cool and sophisticated.

    Smoking is altogether different.

    The nasty truth about that habit is out and there's no putting the toothpaste back in the tube; most have seen what smoking leads to, so although Bond is a fictitious character (and I can assure you I care not one bit about his liver and lungs), it stretches belief to think a guy who smokes could do even half of what Bond does.

    Let me see him jumping off cranes, but please never let me see him light another coffin-nail. I can believe the parkour chase in CR more readily than I can a man who smokes, then tried to participate in that sequence!

    This a moot point in the end...it's safe to assume Bond won't smoke again, and for the foreseeable future, he will still have plenty of booze to occupy his time.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 721
    Especially as the drink companies pay for product placement.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,487
    Excellent point, 😂
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited April 2023 Posts: 3,390
    peter wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Excess in a Bond film is welcome and a good idea.

    Agree. Are we really worried about Bond's lungs and liver? I'm not. Last time I checked Bond was a fictional character. Not only are his lungs and liver impervious to excess, but now he can come back to life after being blown to bits by rockets.





    Alchol's effects on over all health can be masked and isn't as obvious as smoking, so having a man in a tux order a martini still plays into our imaginations as being somewhat cool and sophisticated.

    Smoking is altogether different.

    The nasty truth about that habit is out and there's no putting the toothpaste back in the tube; most have seen what smoking leads to, so although Bond is a fictitious character (and I can assure you I care not one bit about his liver and lungs), it stretches belief to think a guy who smokes could do even half of what Bond does.

    Let me see him jumping off cranes, but please never let me see him light another coffin-nail. I can believe the parkour chase in CR more readily than I can a man who smokes, then tried to participate in that sequence!

    This a moot point in the end...it's safe to assume Bond won't smoke again, and for the foreseeable future, he will still have plenty of booze to occupy his time.

    But then so the Bond of the books, think of how he survived Dr. No's obstacle course or that fight with giant squid where he's climbing a giant net, considering him smoking two packs of cigs a day?

    Think of how Lazenby's Bond climbed up a cable car, or how he made himself dangle and jumped into a bobsled track in OHMSS?

    Or how Dalton's Bond fought Necros while hanging through the giant net, aerially in TLD, Or how Bond managed to climb a mountain in the TLD PTS? Or how did he also done the whole Tangier action sequences, that whole rooftop scenes and that motorcycle scene? That whole Tangier action sequence is one of the most demanding action sequences in the series up until the Craig Era.

    Or did he managed to climb Blofeld's volcano lair or how did he managed to do some fighting in the Kobe Docks and rooftops in YOLT without having some complications?

    He'd made some dangerous stunts back then and he's smoking.
    Despite of him smoking, he could still do some extreme action scenes.

    His challenges in the books were far more extreme than what he did in the films that he sometimes spent the book's ending in the hospital.

    So, I don't think that's a problem.

  • edited April 2023 Posts: 2,880
    Maybe something else to consider about Bond's vices is that the character is usually the underdog.

    I mean, we're used to the typical Bond vs henchman fight in which Bond is in some way at a disadvantage physically (we see it in his fights with Oddjob, Jaws, even Red Grant although more so in the novel). We had SF in which Bond's injuries/substance abuse affected him for the entire movie. It's certainly there in the novels. In the case of something like the obstacle course in DN, for example, what's put at the forefront isn't how strong or fit Bond is (on the contrary, he struggles throughout the whole thing, has recently come back from his near death experience in FRWL, and would likely have died had he not stolen the knife). Instead it's his endurance and ability to think fast that gets him out of the situation despite how ill prepared he is physically for the task.

    So in that sense even acknowledging that Bond's drinking isn't necessarily good for the physicality of his job might play into something quite fundamental (and human) about the character.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,487
    Not a problem to you @SIS_HQ ... And the books are the books, and even whilst reading them, I am taken out of them sometimes because of the amount Bond smokes! So I kind of hum over some of the extreme tastes he has and ignore them.

    In the films, it's harder to ignore. Especially today with the stunts being so intricate, one has to believe that the character and the actor playing him are in top shape (one of the reasons I didn't like Brosnan-- he didn't look strong enough to do most of the stunts his character was doing).

  • edited April 2023 Posts: 2,051
    Now my knowledge on Fleming is a tad bit limited but I never understood how a character who smokes 70+ Cigarettes a day doesn’t have some type of Asthma or Upper Respiratory disease. I mean doing the physically exhausting assignments would surely be met with loads of wheezing and coughing, and Bond would have to pull out an Albuterol Inhaler just to scrape by.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,487
    Now my knowledge on Fleming is a tad bit limited but I never understood how a character who smokes 70+ Cigarettes a day doesn’t have some type of Asthma or Upper Respiratory disease. I mean doing the physically exhausting assignments would surely be met with loads of wheezing and coughing, and Bond would have to pull out an Albuterol Inhaler just to scrape by.

    @007ClassicBondFan … exactly… We can stretch the imagination, especially when we’ve never wrestled giant squids or fought barracuda… But some of us have taken a puff and know that disgusting burn down the throat and that eruption in the lungs; others have seen the affects of chronic smoking, therefore reading the amount Bond smokes, I knew very early on, was just ridiculous and took me out of the stories.

    But I can at least force some of this down, or I expel the idea from my mind that a man who smokes 60-70 cigs/day, is able to snorkel like a pro, or hold breath underwater for long periods of time…

    But if I hadta watch a modern actor smoking like Dalton, I’d be disappointed and I couldn’t believe that he’s a character who’d then be able to run up a crane, dive off of it, sprint full out, break into an embassy, fight, shoot, battle and cause a massive explosion AND get away… in reality, this actor/character wouldn’t be able to sprint up a set of stairs let alone do the things Bond is supposed to do.
  • Posts: 1,515
    I've never viewed action scenes in the context of 'a smoker couldn't do that.' While some Bond films seem more realistic than others, all are fantasy involving a hero who does things real people could not without serious injury. Connery was probably the most realistic Bond as he didn't engage in the implausible stunts of his successors that keep getting bigger and more preposterous. The bridge sequence in NTTD is exciting, but quite unbelievable. None of the automatic rounds hit him, the conveniently placed stone abutment on the bridge doesn't break up after being hit with the force of a car, and Bond doesn't pull out a shoulder socket after leaping from the bridge with a rope and crashing to the ground without injury. Craig's films are good about showing cuts and bruises, but he is injury free. Bond rolling out of the tanker truck in CR without breaking any bones? By then we've already had the crane sequence, so we know this Bond simply cannot be injured unless it's a rope bola to the jewels.

    I am not defending smoking. I've not missed it, nor will I. I just don't agree with the notion that without smoking Bond's action scenes are more believable.

  • That’s a good point about Connery actually. I could buy that Connery’s Bond could still perform his job adequately regardless of the smoking and drinking because he isn’t presented as some sort of superhuman in his films. The fantastical elements of the series came from the gadgetry and set design I’d say, not from seeing Connery dive bomb off a bridge or a dam. I’m not saying I dislike those elements of later Bonds, in fact scenes like those often make Bond much more impressive as an action hero. But if you’re going to show me Bond doing some sort of physical feat that requires the discipline to keep yourself in great health, and shape, I think showing Bond engaging in a cigarette afterwards undercuts a lot of what would’ve been shown. Like imagine Craig’s Bond doing that dive in NTTD, before immediately landing on his two feet, taking out a pack of Malbaro’s, and lighting a cigarette. It’d just be jarring.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,487
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I've never viewed action scenes in the context of 'a smoker couldn't do that.' While some Bond films seem more realistic than others, all are fantasy involving a hero who does things real people could not without serious injury. Connery was probably the most realistic Bond as he didn't engage in the implausible stunts of his successors that keep getting bigger and more preposterous. The bridge sequence in NTTD is exciting, but quite unbelievable. None of the automatic rounds hit him, the conveniently placed stone abutment on the bridge doesn't break up after being hit with the force of a car, and Bond doesn't pull out a shoulder socket after leaping from the bridge with a rope and crashing to the ground without injury. Craig's films are good about showing cuts and bruises, but he is injury free. Bond rolling out of the tanker truck in CR without breaking any bones? By then we've already had the crane sequence, so we know this Bond simply cannot be injured unless it's a rope bola to the jewels.

    I am not defending smoking. I've not missed it, nor will I. I just don't agree with the notion that without smoking Bond's action scenes are more believable.

    @CrabKey i didn’t say the action scenes were more believable because he doesn’t smoke, I said: IF Bond smoked it’s take me out of the movie coz I wouldn’t believe he could get up a flight of stairs, let alone do the things he does in the films.

    That’s IF he smoked.

    It’s about stretching the imagination, and i buy that James Bond can ride horses, jump on planes, off of bridges onto trains… but IF I saw him smoke, it’d take me out of the picture— does that make sense? I’m not calling any of the stunts remotely believable, nor am I saying a non-smoker makes it more believable. I’m saying that IF the character did all of these (especially modern) stunts AND he smoked, it’d ruin the illusion for me.
  • Posts: 1,515
    @Peter. Sure, I get what you're saying. Like everything on this site, it's a matter of how you see things. Smoking before or after an action sequence would take you out of the film. For me most of what I see is preposterous anyway, so whether or not he smokes and drinks makes no difference. I accept that most of what Bond does would result in serious injury or death in real life, but Bond films are not real life. I do like things tilted more toward the realistic, but Bond films are entertaining because they're usually outlandish.
  • Posts: 12,263
    In my mind, it's all so farfetched that I've never even considered Bond's smoking and drinking impeding his ability to do what's already impossible. It's just another aspect of the fantasy element I think - that he can drink, smoke, have tons of sex, and not have to worry about serious repercussions like anyone normally would. Pre-Craig, I'd consider Bond to be the ultimate symbol of luck, but given how much more "grounded" Craig's era is and the things he has to suffer through, not so much there.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Kicking: Impossible
    Posts: 6,719
    Yeah. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Peter is fitness-oriented and goes to the gym, so it makes sense that he thinks it's outrageous that Bond could be a smoker and still be able to do the things he does. But maybe other people don't care.
  • Posts: 12,263
    Everyone's going to see and process art differently, much of that based on one's lifestyle and life experiences I'm sure. Nothing wrong with having different perspectives!
  • mattjoesmattjoes Kicking: Impossible
    Posts: 6,719
    Exactly.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,487
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Yeah. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Peter is fitness-oriented and goes to the gym, so it makes sense that he thinks it's outrageous that Bond could be a smoker and still be able to do the things he does. But maybe other people don't care.

    Hey @mattjoes — you’re correct! And you nailed it: I can go along with all those bullets missing Bond. I let all logic take a back seat while I watch him jumping and fighting and driving and, and, and…. And I obviously know it’s all preposterous stuff. But lighting a smoke and doing all of that, forget it, 😂. That’s my line in the sand. If you want me to “believe” you can do all of this AND you’re a smoker?…

    And some passages in Fleming seduce me, others make me feel ill (YOLT always gives me a queasy stomach and all his smoking does too— Fleming was that good he gives me a reaction (both pros and cons)).

    I take Connery Bond having the odd cigarette , because his action was quite basic… But the things they’re having Bond do now? Keeping the “truth” of the story alive, you just can’t have the character as a smoker anymore.

    A cigar I can buy once in a while. But not a pack a day smoker. Not even a one-day smoker.

    But it’s moot. EoN Bond won’t be smoking any time soon.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited April 2023 Posts: 2,925
    I've never smoked, but being an old git from the industrial North of England I was certainly in a tiny minority when I was growing up. I mean, the local shop near our school used to sell individual cigs to kids for 5p each and no one cared! Not even kidding. That's how entrenched smoking was in society back then. So the extent of the modern squeamishness around smoking is vaguely amusing to me, tbh. It shows you how effective social conditioning is, I guess - I grew up when there was no stigma whatsoever so it doesn't bother me, but younger people have grown up when cigarettes have very much been stigmatised, so they think the opposite. Which is fair enough. Mind you, have to say that the idea of audiences being more appalled if Bond lit a Rothmans than if he sparked up a bifda is hilarious! Love it. :))
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited April 2023 Posts: 8,028
    I completely get how smoking would put people off (coincidentally, yesterday marked one year off the cigarettes for me!). But I don't see how someone being an avid smoker would take you out of a scene. Personal preferences aside, and I have my own, I come from a military family - and I have these mad stories burnt into my brain about a regiment stopping halfway through a 30km hike with all their gear for a smoke break. And that's only twenty-five years ago. Fitness hasn't changed that much.

    However, general attitudes to smoking have. And that's a valid enough reason for Bond to not smoke, I guess. I find it very cool looking on camera, but I can certainly understand the logic behind why it wouldn't be a good visual in the grand scheme of things.

    One thing to remember is that Bond is not just Bond on its own - Bond is a product of many facets and product placement is one of them. Him smoking back in the early 60s made sense because it was a thing that everyone did. What made Bond's habits in the books stand out was not just this mad, unhealthy habit, but that he had his cigarettes hand-rolled. He did the things others did but in a better way.

    But now? Less people smoke than they ever did. Nobody gets their cigarettes hand rolled or their tobacco pre-mixed to their taste anymore.

    If it's not worth including, then just don't include it.

    Edit: it's mad that this has popped up in a Craig-era thread, considering his Bond never smoked while Craig himself once smoked like one of those regiment guys I mentioned above.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,487
    But, @CraigMooreOHMSS Craig was told, by his trainer, an ex military man himself, to quit the cigs immediately.

    For good reason.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited April 2023 Posts: 8,028
    peter wrote: »
    But, @CraigMooreOHMSS Craig was told, by his trainer, an ex military man himself, to quit the cigs immediately.

    For good reason.

    That may be true, but I'd argue that's an exception to the rule in the grand scheme of things; and that's with the knowledge that the rule might be massively flawed.

    Craig's trainer might have been incredibly wise (and I'd agree with him, quitting was a great thing for me personally) but the fact remains that thousands of soldiers fitting Bond's physical profile have puffed away consistently over the decades and probably still do.

    There are people who have never inhaled a cigarette in their lives that couldn't run 20km; yet my Dad uaed to smoke 50 a day and probably could still give it a good whack.

    The key thing is public perception. And with that in mind, I totally agree with Bond not being a smoker. It hasn't changed my enjoyment of the films one bit.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,002
    kurt-russell-snake-plissken.gif
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited April 2023 Posts: 3,390
    That's the thing, we all have different views on to this.

    For me, it doesn't matter if he's smoking but still doing action scenes, yes, @peter it takes you out of the books sometimes, but when I'm talking about Bond's drinking, some people here are going to counterpart me the books, because that makes him badass and etc.

    And yet, drinking and performing action is also not that far off, and that's what takes me out of the Craig Bond sometimes, he's more of a heavy drinker than those of the previous Bonds, him drinking every minute of the film, vodka martini? It's still the same as the other liquors, but look at the guy, he never gets his stomach bloated (due to liver disease), not getting a bit weak because of the strong alcohol consumption, yet he could still do action scenes (the most obvious here being the Cuba sequence in NTTD where he fights while he drinks), that's a bit tad unbelievable to me 😅, even Paloma who drank a lot but never seemed to lost her way and could still kick guys who were bigger than her 😅.

    But I'm taking it, because it's just a film, and the characters that I'm watching were fictional characters, and like what @CraigMooreOHMSS had said, some smokers in real life could still able to perform heavy activities, and there are also some non smokers who couldn't able to do so.

    It's no different to him smoking whilst doing action, I have no problem with it, what I'd like is to keep the important aspects of Bond (as Fleming created), as he usually is, a smoker, a gambler (even this aspect is suddenly fading from Bond), a drinker, a reckless driver, and a Casanova.

    Because what I'm seeing is cigarettes was removed from the character, because it's already outdated, but then, the characters around him like Severine, still smokes, those people in the SPECTRE meeting smokes, and even other fictional characters in other films smokes, but why Bond couldn't?

    As @FoxRox said, it's another part of fantasy element, is it that true that Bond is a male wish fulfillment? Is he what men looking of what they wanted to be?

    That's Bond, he's a symbol of masculinity who can made every aspects looked cool, he can make smoking cool, he can make drinking cool, he can make all things cool, despite of those things not being cool in real life! And therefore something that men cannot afford.

    If we're taking out the unbelievable moments in Bond films then better we should take out Sports cars too, because it's also impossible and a bit empathy for the people of England that half of their taxes goes to Bond's expensive cars which would be destroyed in the middle of an action scene, right?

    But no, because again, he's a fantasy male wish fulfillment.

    Does anyone here see those "male wish fulfillment fantasy" in Craig?

    Yes, while smoking is really a dated aspect, and if we're removing those in Bond, all of his vices, then it's no different to the books being rewritten because some words didn't aged well, and have many people (particularly the young generations) gets offended.

    And we're fighting for them to be kept, because it's a part of Fleming, those racism, sexism, homophobic aspects and etc. And if they're removed, all of what makes those Ian Fleming books would be gone.

    And that's the same as the Bond character, as I've felt he's being adjusted to the modern times.

    That's why I really enjoyed the Dynamite comics books, because they've still kept Bond in the modern world, yet still also kept the aspects of what makes the character distinctive.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,973
    No smoking, no womanizing, what's next? Bond orders his steak "done, well done." Can't risk food poisoning!
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,870
    Despite not caring either way, I’d put money on Bond not smoking again anytime soon.
    Bond ordering a vodka martini, shaken not stirred is a well known part of the character.
    Despite both being bad for us, smoking is just bad. Drinking in moderation is still acceptable.
  • Posts: 3,279
    I'd use the bulk of CR as the template for the next one - keep the grounded realism and harder edged action of CR, the use of Fleming adapted scenes, and a harder edged male vocal rock song. More like LALD, AVTAK, TLD and CR, rather than dreary depressing crap like Sam Smith and Billy Eilish.

    I'd bring back Arnold to score the next one, and make it sound as John Barry-ish as possible. If it makes the Arnold haters moan even more because of this, then that is an added bonus.

    I'd lose unnecessary links to previous Bond films. I'm done with the DB5 (as much as I love the car), and I don't want to see homages to previous flicks anymore.

    I'd throw away any family angst or retcon Fleming re-imagined crap from SF, SP and NTTD (the worst thing they did in the Craig era).

    And I'd throw away any attempts at trying to connect the films into a continuous arc. Again, another massive failure during the Craig era, as the overall arc was not planned beforehand, it was just clumsily shoehorned in with each film.

  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited April 2023 Posts: 3,390
    Agreed with all of those you've listed @jetsetwilly

    I would also add there:

    1. Just don't make the next Bond so brooding, I'd liked to see Bond have his own personality or maybe adhere to the Connery Bond for balancing the personality of his Bond.
    I felt like Craig became too much brooding with no style or class or whatsoever, he's too much brute, I think Connery's Bond perfected it by being professional to his job and convincing as a killer, but at some point still have sophistication and class.
    There's a coolness in Connery's Bond, that Craig's Bond lacked, he almost felt like John Wick.
    Maybe that's what the modern trends clinging into nowadays, but I would be happy if they did.
    I don't liked any Dalton/Craig copy of Bond again, I'd liked the next Bond to have his own personality and balancing it.

    2. And If there's one thing I'd like to keep from the Craig Era, it's the Bond Girls like Camille or Paloma, who doesn't need to have an intimate interaction with Bond or yes, sex, that's one of the things I find better in Quantum of Solace is that Bond and Camille never got to have sex, the same for Paloma in No Time To Die, it's just a mutual relationship, as long as they have great banter and chemistry, there's no need for them to have sex, they could just work together.
    Bond could still be a womanizer but there's no need for him to have sex or bed any woman that he's with, I'm fine with mutual interactions, as long as they have great banter and chemistry, so it's probably the only thing from the Craig Era I would liked to keep.
Sign In or Register to comment.