› ›

How 'patriotic' should James Bond (and Bond 26 beyond) be?

124»

Comments

  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 283
    LucknFate wrote: »
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    It's a really interesting question as to what motivates a modern man to work for his government, and I hope they can answer it convincingly. They could go the route of "it's a solid paycheck and I'm always in demand if I need to be" or they could go the "I want to protect my neighbors from terrorism" route. Both are valid I think.

    Could be just want to shoot people, preferably foreigners, if they don't do thy bidding.

    Who would want to watch that?

    www.reform.co.uk/our_values
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 1,920
    LucknFate wrote: »
    LTK makes sense in the context of a post-Die Hard, Rambo I+II, Commando sorta world. Never bothered me, it's not my favorite, but I don't mind its American-ness. It's unique for it and has a killer ending.

    I have no problem with the film either. As I said once (and I was almost killed for it) it has a slight Thunderball flavor.

    It's not just Death Wish IV 1/2.

  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 283
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    LTK makes sense in the context of a post-Die Hard, Rambo I+II, Commando sorta world. Never bothered me, it's not my favorite, but I don't mind its American-ness. It's unique for it and has a killer ending.

    I have no problem with the film either. As I said once (and I was almost killed for it) it has a slight Thunderball flavor.

    It's not just Death Wish IV 1/2.

    Nothing is.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,590
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Bond's Britishness is definitely there in the films, even the recent ones. You get villains calling him a 'loyal terrier' or rolling their eyes at the 'empire', and of course Bond acknowledges he does his duty out of a sense of loyalty to Monarch and Country. I'd argue you can't really take that element away from the Bond films without something feeling off, but I don't think it'll get anymore nationalistic than that. I agree that Heyman especially should be capable of balancing that sense of Britishness with a broadly appealing blockbuster.

    Not sure one can cite 'King and Country' without being nationalistic.

    It's why LTK deserves more and more plaudits. Bond is motivated personally, rather than out of some toneless nationalistic fervour.

    Bond's character isn't contingent upon nationalism.

    Insofar as the specific story can give Bond any motivation, even a personal one, I suppose... But a film like LTK is rare in the Bond series, and ultimately he's not an anti-hero: his job is to get sent on missions for the British Government or act in their interests. If he doesn't have some sort of higher sense of duty I don't think it's quite the same character.

    I would also say nationalistic and patriotic are slightly different things, or at least potentially can be. With Bond as a character it can be an important distinction.

    That's actually one thing I always disliked about LTK: not British enough. It feels like Bond is making a long cameo in an American action movue.

    All Bond movies are American (Broccoli/Saltzman). LTK gets Bond out of his comfort zone
    and features a solitary London scene, in which Moneypenny essentially saves the day.

    We get a red double decker, too, just in case the intended American audience don't realise where it is.

    I know they're "American" in that sense (that said, Harry Saltzman was Canadian), but the series is British icon. You don't feel it so much in LTK, it's very American centric and a double decker bus in a single shot of a very brief scene doesn't really cut it for me.
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    edited May 9 Posts: 283
    Ludovico wrote: »
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Bond's Britishness is definitely there in the films, even the recent ones. You get villains calling him a 'loyal terrier' or rolling their eyes at the 'empire', and of course Bond acknowledges he does his duty out of a sense of loyalty to Monarch and Country. I'd argue you can't really take that element away from the Bond films without something feeling off, but I don't think it'll get anymore nationalistic than that. I agree that Heyman especially should be capable of balancing that sense of Britishness with a broadly appealing blockbuster.

    Not sure one can cite 'King and Country' without being nationalistic.

    It's why LTK deserves more and more plaudits. Bond is motivated personally, rather than out of some toneless nationalistic fervour.

    Bond's character isn't contingent upon nationalism.

    Insofar as the specific story can give Bond any motivation, even a personal one, I suppose... But a film like LTK is rare in the Bond series, and ultimately he's not an anti-hero: his job is to get sent on missions for the British Government or act in their interests. If he doesn't have some sort of higher sense of duty I don't think it's quite the same character.

    I would also say nationalistic and patriotic are slightly different things, or at least potentially can be. With Bond as a character it can be an important distinction.

    That's actually one thing I always disliked about LTK: not British enough. It feels like Bond is making a long cameo in an American action movue.

    All Bond movies are American (Broccoli/Saltzman). LTK gets Bond out of his comfort zone
    and features a solitary London scene, in which Moneypenny essentially saves the day.

    We get a red double decker, too, just in case the intended American audience don't realise where it is.

    I know they're "American" in that sense (that said, Harry Saltzman was Canadian), but the series is British icon. You don't feel it so much in LTK, it's very American centric and a double decker bus in a single shot of a very brief scene doesn't really cut it for me.

    A quite British phenomenon, insofar it gained traction thanks to Americana. Fleming's novels took off whenever JFK rated FRWL.

    Still unsure why LTK is particularly 'American centric' any more than another entry.

    American cast, probably, but that's expected as it's mostly set in the US.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 9 Posts: 17,967
    Ludovico wrote: »
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Bond's Britishness is definitely there in the films, even the recent ones. You get villains calling him a 'loyal terrier' or rolling their eyes at the 'empire', and of course Bond acknowledges he does his duty out of a sense of loyalty to Monarch and Country. I'd argue you can't really take that element away from the Bond films without something feeling off, but I don't think it'll get anymore nationalistic than that. I agree that Heyman especially should be capable of balancing that sense of Britishness with a broadly appealing blockbuster.

    Not sure one can cite 'King and Country' without being nationalistic.

    It's why LTK deserves more and more plaudits. Bond is motivated personally, rather than out of some toneless nationalistic fervour.

    Bond's character isn't contingent upon nationalism.

    Insofar as the specific story can give Bond any motivation, even a personal one, I suppose... But a film like LTK is rare in the Bond series, and ultimately he's not an anti-hero: his job is to get sent on missions for the British Government or act in their interests. If he doesn't have some sort of higher sense of duty I don't think it's quite the same character.

    I would also say nationalistic and patriotic are slightly different things, or at least potentially can be. With Bond as a character it can be an important distinction.

    That's actually one thing I always disliked about LTK: not British enough. It feels like Bond is making a long cameo in an American action movue.

    All Bond movies are American (Broccoli/Saltzman). LTK gets Bond out of his comfort zone
    and features a solitary London scene, in which Moneypenny essentially saves the day.

    We get a red double decker, too, just in case the intended American audience don't realise where it is.

    I know they're "American" in that sense (that said, Harry Saltzman was Canadian), but the series is British icon.

    Plus Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson both hold British nationality.

    Conversely, I think all of the living Bonds (maybe not George) have become American! :D
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,641
    sandbagger1 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    If they are wise, they stay away from anything even remotely hinting at "patriotism". Not that there's anything wrong with a patriotic Bond as such, but if the Internet gets that debated started, it'll just end up another culture clash. Some will equate any signs of patriotism to blatant nationalism; others will say that Bond isn't "British" enough anymore. Pretty much everything is being heavily politicized nowadays, and pretty much all of that is extremely polarizing. More than ever before, I'd say we keep Bond "the neutral hero" as much as possible. He's an MI6 agent fighting the evils of the world. Good enough.

    Agreed, we’re there for the man, not the flag. I don’t need to see the Union Jack front and centre every film, especially now that nationalism is rearing its ugly head all across the globe.

    Precisely how I'm feeling about it.
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 283
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    sandbagger1 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    If they are wise, they stay away from anything even remotely hinting at "patriotism". Not that there's anything wrong with a patriotic Bond as such, but if the Internet gets that debated started, it'll just end up another culture clash. Some will equate any signs of patriotism to blatant nationalism; others will say that Bond isn't "British" enough anymore. Pretty much everything is being heavily politicized nowadays, and pretty much all of that is extremely polarizing. More than ever before, I'd say we keep Bond "the neutral hero" as much as possible. He's an MI6 agent fighting the evils of the world. Good enough.

    Agreed, we’re there for the man, not the flag. I don’t need to see the Union Jack front and centre every film, especially now that nationalism is rearing its ugly head all across the globe.

    Precisely how I'm feeling about it.

    Yep
  • DwayneDwayne New York City
    Posts: 2,959
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    sandbagger1 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    If they are wise, they stay away from anything even remotely hinting at "patriotism". Not that there's anything wrong with a patriotic Bond as such, but if the Internet gets that debated started, it'll just end up another culture clash. Some will equate any signs of patriotism to blatant nationalism; others will say that Bond isn't "British" enough anymore. Pretty much everything is being heavily politicized nowadays, and pretty much all of that is extremely polarizing. More than ever before, I'd say we keep Bond "the neutral hero" as much as possible. He's an MI6 agent fighting the evils of the world. Good enough.

    Agreed, we’re there for the man, not the flag. I don’t need to see the Union Jack front and centre every film, especially now that nationalism is rearing its ugly head all across the globe.

    Precisely how I'm feeling about it.

    Same.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,590
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Bond's Britishness is definitely there in the films, even the recent ones. You get villains calling him a 'loyal terrier' or rolling their eyes at the 'empire', and of course Bond acknowledges he does his duty out of a sense of loyalty to Monarch and Country. I'd argue you can't really take that element away from the Bond films without something feeling off, but I don't think it'll get anymore nationalistic than that. I agree that Heyman especially should be capable of balancing that sense of Britishness with a broadly appealing blockbuster.

    Not sure one can cite 'King and Country' without being nationalistic.

    It's why LTK deserves more and more plaudits. Bond is motivated personally, rather than out of some toneless nationalistic fervour.

    Bond's character isn't contingent upon nationalism.

    Insofar as the specific story can give Bond any motivation, even a personal one, I suppose... But a film like LTK is rare in the Bond series, and ultimately he's not an anti-hero: his job is to get sent on missions for the British Government or act in their interests. If he doesn't have some sort of higher sense of duty I don't think it's quite the same character.

    I would also say nationalistic and patriotic are slightly different things, or at least potentially can be. With Bond as a character it can be an important distinction.

    That's actually one thing I always disliked about LTK: not British enough. It feels like Bond is making a long cameo in an American action movue.

    All Bond movies are American (Broccoli/Saltzman). LTK gets Bond out of his comfort zone
    and features a solitary London scene, in which Moneypenny essentially saves the day.

    We get a red double decker, too, just in case the intended American audience don't realise where it is.

    I know they're "American" in that sense (that said, Harry Saltzman was Canadian), but the series is British icon. You don't feel it so much in LTK, it's very American centric and a double decker bus in a single shot of a very brief scene doesn't really cut it for me.

    A quite British phenomenon, insofar it gained traction thanks to Americana. Fleming's novels took off whenever JFK rated FRWL.

    Still unsure why LTK is particularly 'American centric' any more than another entry.

    American cast, probably, but that's expected as it's mostly set in the US.

    You said it yourself: American cast, mostly set in the US. I'd add a minimal British presence in the story, and tropes extremely common in American action movies at the time.
  • dewiparrydewiparry
    Posts: 129
    He just needs to say 'British Intelligence' after his name drop. That's enough. We're the best.
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 283
    Ludovico wrote: »
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Bond's Britishness is definitely there in the films, even the recent ones. You get villains calling him a 'loyal terrier' or rolling their eyes at the 'empire', and of course Bond acknowledges he does his duty out of a sense of loyalty to Monarch and Country. I'd argue you can't really take that element away from the Bond films without something feeling off, but I don't think it'll get anymore nationalistic than that. I agree that Heyman especially should be capable of balancing that sense of Britishness with a broadly appealing blockbuster.

    Not sure one can cite 'King and Country' without being nationalistic.

    It's why LTK deserves more and more plaudits. Bond is motivated personally, rather than out of some toneless nationalistic fervour.

    Bond's character isn't contingent upon nationalism.

    Insofar as the specific story can give Bond any motivation, even a personal one, I suppose... But a film like LTK is rare in the Bond series, and ultimately he's not an anti-hero: his job is to get sent on missions for the British Government or act in their interests. If he doesn't have some sort of higher sense of duty I don't think it's quite the same character.

    I would also say nationalistic and patriotic are slightly different things, or at least potentially can be. With Bond as a character it can be an important distinction.

    That's actually one thing I always disliked about LTK: not British enough. It feels like Bond is making a long cameo in an American action movue.

    All Bond movies are American (Broccoli/Saltzman). LTK gets Bond out of his comfort zone
    and features a solitary London scene, in which Moneypenny essentially saves the day.

    We get a red double decker, too, just in case the intended American audience don't realise where it is.

    I know they're "American" in that sense (that said, Harry Saltzman was Canadian), but the series is British icon. You don't feel it so much in LTK, it's very American centric and a double decker bus in a single shot of a very brief scene doesn't really cut it for me.

    A quite British phenomenon, insofar it gained traction thanks to Americana. Fleming's novels took off whenever JFK rated FRWL.

    Still unsure why LTK is particularly 'American centric' any more than another entry.

    American cast, probably, but that's expected as it's mostly set in the US.

    You said it yourself: American cast, mostly set in the US. I'd add a minimal British presence in the story, and tropes extremely common in American action movies at the time.

    Same with LALD.

    Many Americans cast, American locations, Bond drinking Bourbon, Blaxploitation/French Connection feel yet not stigmatised the way LTK is.

  • GerardGerard
    Posts: 6,138
    The same could be said for DAF.
  • CrabKeyCrabKey
    Posts: 2,183
    One way to show pride in one's country is to avoid the usual critical cliche's. A film need not brag about its country but harp on its faults.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 1,035
    I think the film should avoid doing either, just focus on Bond foiling a bad guy threatening innocent lives for personal gain.
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 283
    Gerard wrote: »
    The same could be said for DAF.

    Beat me to it.

    Another highly 'American' Bond film which doesn't get the same criticism LTK does.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 14,389
    LTK occurs mostly in Republic of Isthmus filmed mostly in Mexico.

  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,475
    LTK to me feels more Latin American than USA-esque, on that account DAF and LALD score much hugher tbh. Maybe even AVTAK too...
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    edited 6:27pm Posts: 283
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    LTK to me feels more Latin American than USA-esque, on that account DAF and LALD score much hugher tbh. Maybe even AVTAK too...

    AVTAK was viewed by Roger Moore as being too violent, takes place primarily in the states and has a American (Grace Jones is Jamaican but moved to the states whilst young) cast in important roles.
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    LTK to me feels more Latin American than USA-esque, on that account DAF and LALD score much hugher tbh. Maybe even AVTAK too...

    Michael Kamen's under-rated score certainly has that Latin feel to it.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,590
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Bond's Britishness is definitely there in the films, even the recent ones. You get villains calling him a 'loyal terrier' or rolling their eyes at the 'empire', and of course Bond acknowledges he does his duty out of a sense of loyalty to Monarch and Country. I'd argue you can't really take that element away from the Bond films without something feeling off, but I don't think it'll get anymore nationalistic than that. I agree that Heyman especially should be capable of balancing that sense of Britishness with a broadly appealing blockbuster.

    Not sure one can cite 'King and Country' without being nationalistic.

    It's why LTK deserves more and more plaudits. Bond is motivated personally, rather than out of some toneless nationalistic fervour.

    Bond's character isn't contingent upon nationalism.

    Insofar as the specific story can give Bond any motivation, even a personal one, I suppose... But a film like LTK is rare in the Bond series, and ultimately he's not an anti-hero: his job is to get sent on missions for the British Government or act in their interests. If he doesn't have some sort of higher sense of duty I don't think it's quite the same character.

    I would also say nationalistic and patriotic are slightly different things, or at least potentially can be. With Bond as a character it can be an important distinction.

    That's actually one thing I always disliked about LTK: not British enough. It feels like Bond is making a long cameo in an American action movue.

    All Bond movies are American (Broccoli/Saltzman). LTK gets Bond out of his comfort zone
    and features a solitary London scene, in which Moneypenny essentially saves the day.

    We get a red double decker, too, just in case the intended American audience don't realise where it is.

    I know they're "American" in that sense (that said, Harry Saltzman was Canadian), but the series is British icon. You don't feel it so much in LTK, it's very American centric and a double decker bus in a single shot of a very brief scene doesn't really cut it for me.

    A quite British phenomenon, insofar it gained traction thanks to Americana. Fleming's novels took off whenever JFK rated FRWL.

    Still unsure why LTK is particularly 'American centric' any more than another entry.

    American cast, probably, but that's expected as it's mostly set in the US.

    You said it yourself: American cast, mostly set in the US. I'd add a minimal British presence in the story, and tropes extremely common in American action movies at the time.

    Same with LALD.

    Many Americans cast, American locations, Bond drinking Bourbon, Blaxploitation/French Connection feel yet not stigmatised the way LTK is.

    Whattaboutism. LALD and DAF are also very American (too much for my taste), but at least LALD has MI6 directly involved early on (DAF too, I guess, but I'm really not a fan of this one and it has many more problems). I don't think LTK is stigmatised, it has its detractors, but also many fans.
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 283
    Ludovico wrote: »
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Bond's Britishness is definitely there in the films, even the recent ones. You get villains calling him a 'loyal terrier' or rolling their eyes at the 'empire', and of course Bond acknowledges he does his duty out of a sense of loyalty to Monarch and Country. I'd argue you can't really take that element away from the Bond films without something feeling off, but I don't think it'll get anymore nationalistic than that. I agree that Heyman especially should be capable of balancing that sense of Britishness with a broadly appealing blockbuster.

    Not sure one can cite 'King and Country' without being nationalistic.

    It's why LTK deserves more and more plaudits. Bond is motivated personally, rather than out of some toneless nationalistic fervour.

    Bond's character isn't contingent upon nationalism.

    Insofar as the specific story can give Bond any motivation, even a personal one, I suppose... But a film like LTK is rare in the Bond series, and ultimately he's not an anti-hero: his job is to get sent on missions for the British Government or act in their interests. If he doesn't have some sort of higher sense of duty I don't think it's quite the same character.

    I would also say nationalistic and patriotic are slightly different things, or at least potentially can be. With Bond as a character it can be an important distinction.

    That's actually one thing I always disliked about LTK: not British enough. It feels like Bond is making a long cameo in an American action movue.

    All Bond movies are American (Broccoli/Saltzman). LTK gets Bond out of his comfort zone
    and features a solitary London scene, in which Moneypenny essentially saves the day.

    We get a red double decker, too, just in case the intended American audience don't realise where it is.

    I know they're "American" in that sense (that said, Harry Saltzman was Canadian), but the series is British icon. You don't feel it so much in LTK, it's very American centric and a double decker bus in a single shot of a very brief scene doesn't really cut it for me.

    A quite British phenomenon, insofar it gained traction thanks to Americana. Fleming's novels took off whenever JFK rated FRWL.

    Still unsure why LTK is particularly 'American centric' any more than another entry.

    American cast, probably, but that's expected as it's mostly set in the US.

    You said it yourself: American cast, mostly set in the US. I'd add a minimal British presence in the story, and tropes extremely common in American action movies at the time.

    Same with LALD.

    Many Americans cast, American locations, Bond drinking Bourbon, Blaxploitation/French Connection feel yet not stigmatised the way LTK is.

    Whattaboutism. LALD and DAF are also very American (too much for my taste), but at least LALD has MI6 directly involved early on (DAF too, I guess, but I'm really not a fan of this one and it has many more problems). I don't think LTK is stigmatised, it has its detractors, but also many fans.

    One of LtK's central criticism is it's 'not Bond enough' due to its 'American' edge.

    It's worth remembering many Bond films follow this path without the criticism.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,590
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Bond's Britishness is definitely there in the films, even the recent ones. You get villains calling him a 'loyal terrier' or rolling their eyes at the 'empire', and of course Bond acknowledges he does his duty out of a sense of loyalty to Monarch and Country. I'd argue you can't really take that element away from the Bond films without something feeling off, but I don't think it'll get anymore nationalistic than that. I agree that Heyman especially should be capable of balancing that sense of Britishness with a broadly appealing blockbuster.

    Not sure one can cite 'King and Country' without being nationalistic.

    It's why LTK deserves more and more plaudits. Bond is motivated personally, rather than out of some toneless nationalistic fervour.

    Bond's character isn't contingent upon nationalism.

    Insofar as the specific story can give Bond any motivation, even a personal one, I suppose... But a film like LTK is rare in the Bond series, and ultimately he's not an anti-hero: his job is to get sent on missions for the British Government or act in their interests. If he doesn't have some sort of higher sense of duty I don't think it's quite the same character.

    I would also say nationalistic and patriotic are slightly different things, or at least potentially can be. With Bond as a character it can be an important distinction.

    That's actually one thing I always disliked about LTK: not British enough. It feels like Bond is making a long cameo in an American action movue.

    All Bond movies are American (Broccoli/Saltzman). LTK gets Bond out of his comfort zone
    and features a solitary London scene, in which Moneypenny essentially saves the day.

    We get a red double decker, too, just in case the intended American audience don't realise where it is.

    I know they're "American" in that sense (that said, Harry Saltzman was Canadian), but the series is British icon. You don't feel it so much in LTK, it's very American centric and a double decker bus in a single shot of a very brief scene doesn't really cut it for me.

    A quite British phenomenon, insofar it gained traction thanks to Americana. Fleming's novels took off whenever JFK rated FRWL.

    Still unsure why LTK is particularly 'American centric' any more than another entry.

    American cast, probably, but that's expected as it's mostly set in the US.

    You said it yourself: American cast, mostly set in the US. I'd add a minimal British presence in the story, and tropes extremely common in American action movies at the time.

    Same with LALD.

    Many Americans cast, American locations, Bond drinking Bourbon, Blaxploitation/French Connection feel yet not stigmatised the way LTK is.

    Whattaboutism. LALD and DAF are also very American (too much for my taste), but at least LALD has MI6 directly involved early on (DAF too, I guess, but I'm really not a fan of this one and it has many more problems). I don't think LTK is stigmatised, it has its detractors, but also many fans.

    One of LtK's central criticism is it's 'not Bond enough' due to its 'American' edge.

    It's worth remembering many Bond films follow this path without the criticism.

    DAF, LALD and AVTAK have all been criticised as "too American", here and elsewhere. Even GF gets sometimes criticised for its part in Kentucky (overlong, tacky, clichéed). So it's not something proper to LTK. But for LTK, it has more to do, at least for me, with the common tropes of American action movies at the time (personal vendetta against a drug lord, the hero operating without governmental sanction, etc).
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 283
    Ludovico wrote: »
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Bond's Britishness is definitely there in the films, even the recent ones. You get villains calling him a 'loyal terrier' or rolling their eyes at the 'empire', and of course Bond acknowledges he does his duty out of a sense of loyalty to Monarch and Country. I'd argue you can't really take that element away from the Bond films without something feeling off, but I don't think it'll get anymore nationalistic than that. I agree that Heyman especially should be capable of balancing that sense of Britishness with a broadly appealing blockbuster.

    Not sure one can cite 'King and Country' without being nationalistic.

    It's why LTK deserves more and more plaudits. Bond is motivated personally, rather than out of some toneless nationalistic fervour.

    Bond's character isn't contingent upon nationalism.

    Insofar as the specific story can give Bond any motivation, even a personal one, I suppose... But a film like LTK is rare in the Bond series, and ultimately he's not an anti-hero: his job is to get sent on missions for the British Government or act in their interests. If he doesn't have some sort of higher sense of duty I don't think it's quite the same character.

    I would also say nationalistic and patriotic are slightly different things, or at least potentially can be. With Bond as a character it can be an important distinction.

    That's actually one thing I always disliked about LTK: not British enough. It feels like Bond is making a long cameo in an American action movue.

    All Bond movies are American (Broccoli/Saltzman). LTK gets Bond out of his comfort zone
    and features a solitary London scene, in which Moneypenny essentially saves the day.

    We get a red double decker, too, just in case the intended American audience don't realise where it is.

    I know they're "American" in that sense (that said, Harry Saltzman was Canadian), but the series is British icon. You don't feel it so much in LTK, it's very American centric and a double decker bus in a single shot of a very brief scene doesn't really cut it for me.

    A quite British phenomenon, insofar it gained traction thanks to Americana. Fleming's novels took off whenever JFK rated FRWL.

    Still unsure why LTK is particularly 'American centric' any more than another entry.

    American cast, probably, but that's expected as it's mostly set in the US.

    You said it yourself: American cast, mostly set in the US. I'd add a minimal British presence in the story, and tropes extremely common in American action movies at the time.

    Same with LALD.

    Many Americans cast, American locations, Bond drinking Bourbon, Blaxploitation/French Connection feel yet not stigmatised the way LTK is.

    Whattaboutism. LALD and DAF are also very American (too much for my taste), but at least LALD has MI6 directly involved early on (DAF too, I guess, but I'm really not a fan of this one and it has many more problems). I don't think LTK is stigmatised, it has its detractors, but also many fans.

    One of LtK's central criticism is it's 'not Bond enough' due to its 'American' edge.

    It's worth remembering many Bond films follow this path without the criticism.

    DAF, LALD and AVTAK have all been criticised as "too American", here and elsewhere. Even GF gets sometimes criticised for its part in Kentucky (overlong, tacky, clichéed). So it's not something proper to LTK. But for LTK, it has more to do, at least for me, with the common tropes of American action movies at the time (personal vendetta against a drug lord, the hero operating without governmental sanction, etc).

    Mostly, the same tropes occur in the other 'American' Bond films, too.

    LTK isn't the first or last contemporaneous Bond film, but it does get the most stick.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,524
    While he is often called upon to save the world, I want Bond to be unapologetically patriotic ; ultimately his heart and loyalty lies with Britain 🇬🇧
Sign In or Register to comment.