It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
The Bond Theme is generally used for three reasons:
1. A quiet action scene without any big fighting or stunts
2. A loud action scene with big stunts or a big fight (like in TSLWM when the parachute comes up). Could be during the stunt/fight, or could bookend a stunt/fight with a hint of 3.
3. A scene where Bond comes off as cool; (to sort of certify the Bondness of a moment)
Generally people enjoy 2; because the loud moments are kind of what makes Bond Bond. Quantum of Solace has 4 action scenes (car chase, boat chase, plane chase, hotel fight) and they don't generally use the Bond theme that much*.
*Time to Get Out opens and closes with the 4 notes, and the boat chase ends with a pretty bomabstic rendition of the Bond theme.
However, Quantum not more reserved, but more quiet with the Bond theme. There's where he seduces Fields, which sounds like it could come out of Thunderball. The there's obviously when he sees Fields is dead and escapes from the MI6 men, which probably stands out as the film's most memorable. The theme plays when Greene's left in the desert, and also when Bond walks off into the snow.
Now obviously QoS uses motifs based on the main theme that require a bit more of a searching ear to discover, but all the more obvious uses are in quieter and less bombastic moments. I don't think some Barry films would outstrip QoS's 4/5 obvious and elsewise silent Bond theme uses.
In terms of the other Craig films, the Bond theme is used, but in a repetitive sense. The same arrangement is reused quite a bit between Skyfall and Spectre. I think QoS (and NTTD) thus stand unique in this sense; a lot of the Bond theme used originally, albeit in more quiet moments.
I don't disagree with that, which may sound a bit tepid but let me elaborate ;)
I think CR has one of the best finales in the series. It's a superb action scene in a gorgeous location, suitably having Bond sneaking up behind enemies with his silenecd gun instead of mowing down everyone in sight with a machine gun.
I have always been in the minority that prefers CR's last third over the the first one, since I am not the biggest fan of the Bond Begins-angle. I also like Bond a lot better in the final part of the film than his overconfident persona of the beginning.
I do think Vesper's demise is bordering on the overdramatic, though it just restrains itself enough for me to not put that label on it. Something I think NTTD doesn't quite succeed in (but that's another discussion).
There's something else I really want to say on this thread, actually. I often see Dalton and Craig being cited as the coldest, scariest Bonds, but I think it's actually Connery by a long shot. You don't want to get on Dalton and Craig's bad side, of course, but they still show significantly more vulnerability and human sides to them than Connery ever does. It's struck me more and more watching these films over the years that Connery's Bond is particularly the most ruthless and emotionally detached of them all. There are very, very few times he is relatable in a warmer sense; a couple that come to mind are him admitting to Honey he is scared in DN and saying "how can a friend be in debt?" to Kerim Bey in FRWL, but there's really not much else I can think of. He lacks the level of warmth we see all the other Bonds have with some of the women they're with, and his nasty side is arguably scarier than all the others.
Connery used to have good chemistry with actresses, so I don't think it's a problem of coldness either. The spark was there.
You could say that his bond enjoyed women. He likes being with them even if he doesn't treat them particularly well.
The chemistry was there, absolutely. When I said cold, I mean he enjoys them for simple pleasure and at a surface level more than as meaningful partners, as you kind of put it. I’d argue all the other 5 Bonds seemed to form more serious attachments to a few of the women they were with and seemed to care about them as people more frequently.
Yeah, he's immensely charismatic and cool of course, but Connery's is probably the least human Bond, I tend to think. He has, I feel, the least emotional depth of any of them.
And when you say he's scary, I think that's probably strongest in Dr No, where he's actually quite an abrasive and humourless person, and really quite cold as you say. I actually think they decided to tone that down a little for FRWL.
With FRWL there's much more a sense he doesn't know how the whole thing is going to pan out. He seems to have genuine affection for Tanya, and there's much more a sense that he's in danger with Grant gaining the upper hand on him. So I agree, I think he's noticeably more human in FRWL.
What always got me with Dr No is underwhelming the eponymous villain is. Locking Bond up in an easily escapable room.
The book made a lot more sense in Bond's escape.
I wouldn't call it 'an easily escapable room', considering him beeing electrocuted, then having to past the spiders, the heat, etc. But what it IS lacking, iirc, is the part where Dr. No observes him, to see how he gets through. In the book, that gives the feeling that no matter what Bond does, he won't make it as there's a sort of 'end boss' to the wicked game (ages before video gmaes were invented). The film lacks that part, so you don't get that feeling, you don't think it was a set-up and Bond will be confronted with the impossible last hurdle.
Connery played Bond with a far stronger emotional shield. The killing of Kerim is a good example: he's definately feeling the loss, you can see it in his face, but he collects himself in seconds (and Kerim's personal belongings) to continue his work. Same goes for how he treats Tanya after the betrayal. In Thunderball, he puts up his sunglasses before telling Domino what happened to her brother. In later films, the emotions are shown more, to make Bond more relatable. But I think that's also a sign of the times: my father's generation (pre-boomer and boomer) were tought to not show emotions. So theirs are far less obvious, but sure are there nonetheless. I think that's how you should see Connery's performance as well. His BOnd isn't emotionally less connected, but it is shown in a different way and, as it stays close to the book-version, he chooses to let the work be prioritised over emotional impact.
Not unfair, but the film has a light shock, getting soaked and little besides. The book has a proper gauntlet and all watched by Dr No. Culminates in Bond fighting a giant squid. I guess I am comparing them unfavourably, though. Prefer the film to book, ultimately.
You've got Connery down to a tee and I'm convinced he wanted more range with 007. He looks bored in both tb and yolt. In daf and nsna, he cocks about for the cash.
A strong argument for his talent going to waste as 007, despite some brilliant work.
It's one part of the Austin Powers rule. Have to feed Bond before putting him in an escapable situation. You can't just shoot him ;)
I do agree it's better in the book. Actually the novel's quite dark and sinister with No's human death maze, and it plays into Bond's confidence taking a knock due to his near death experience in FRWL/him ultimately escaping the unescapable maze. I guess it was cut/adapted that way because they couldn't afford spiders or anything quite as elaborate? And it makes Bond look quite brilliant working out a way to escape... I dunno...
We think the exact same on the Brosnan era. Maybe it is a generational thing, I just know it wasn't a great time for the series for me.
Right from first viewing I didn't get the love for GE. It delivers the expected tropes in sometimes clumsy ways and puts a shiny new '90s coat on everything else to make it feel fresh, but just doesn't all hold together.
TND is that throwback to the late '70s Moore films and is upfront about it and that's why it works. When you add the more personal touches like the Kauffman scene, drinking in the hotel and so on, it doesn't overwhelm or give it the false sense of where it's going. It also gives a bit of a Craig era preview with more partnership with Wai-Lin than just a romantic one, which is where TWINE was awful in just having to add the flavor of the moment actress with the cute name that Bond has to end up with.
TWINE is the bottom of the barrel for me and why DAD has more appeal despite its flaws. I actually feel Brosnan gives his most effective performance in it.
Well, as a nineties kid, I remember that in 93, 94, Bond was conidered dead and buried, 'now that the iron curtain has fallen'. There wouldn't be a future for such a 'relic of the cold war'. It was a sentiment widely adopted and published. So, when GE took this up, and showed there WAS a place for Bond in the 'new world', yes, there was a lot of enthusiasm. I think it actually portrays the dangers of 'the wild east' quite accurately.
I like the film because of the story, some of the set pieces (St. Petersburg), the amazing jump off the dam. The execution wasn't all that good, indeed. The mig into the radar, the spectacular motor jump after the plane, followed up by a stupid Bond shaking a milkcan in the cockpit and then miraculously making it whilst he should've hit the ground ages ago. But that doesn't take away the very important role the film played in the franchise.
And Brosnan WAS very popular as Bond. It's just in hintsight a lot less impressive because we've seen how Daniel Craig managed to put almost all predecessors in his shadow, and probably Brosnan the most as he was his immediate predecessor.
If anything Connery still remains the gold standard for the others to live up too.
Again I disagree with this assessment. I don’t think the drama inserted into the Craig films was any more sophisticated than Brosnan’s - setting aside Casino Royale and Skyfall of course. Say what you will about the writing behind some of Brosnan’s films - but they never stooped so low as to introduce ideas like Brofeld and they never attempted to retcon all his films to tie together to give the illusion of continuity in a half hearted way which I think is the biggest flaw of Craig’s era. I can appreciate that people like the drama Craig’s films had - but at times it felt very much like I was watching some sort of hybrid between “modern action film” and a “soap opera” (a criticism used to describe TWINE) and it felt very repetitive by the end of his era. I got sick and tired of all the twists and turns and in the end just really wanted a good old fashioned Bond film without all the personal baggage Craig’s era brought. I thought Brosnan was very convincing when he had to be tough - if anything he’s one of the coldest Bond’s I’d say and I think it’s all the more impressive when Brosnan can switch back and forth between Sophisticated Ladies Man and remorseless killer - whereas I felt Craig’s Bond was in constant “brute” mode - lacking a taste for the finer things in life - and constantly hating his job. Craig’s Bond may be more in line with Fleming’s vision - but I just think Brosnan is the better Cinematic Bond and the more entertaining one to watch. That’s just my opinion though.
I’m not sure how true this is. From what I’ve seen I think this forum in particular can very much be “Pro-Craig” at the expense of throwing Brosnan and the other actors some criticism but if you look elsewhere online you’ll find the opposite. I know the James Bond Reddit page has a rather large number of users who are Pro-Brosnan - but I think this site is still the harshest when it comes to Pierce’s era - which is fine because people can have their opinions and we can debate them in a civil way.
I'd say the likes of TWINE and DAD are polished, not improved, by the likes of SF.
Both Craig and Brosnan's tenure suffers from attempting a Dalton-esque approach to the narrative, whilst simultaneously failing to add the flighty joie de vivre of the originals.
Brosnan comes off smug and Craig pretentious.
I'd still watch all of the films (yes, dad included), but with the sickly tang of disappointment.