›

The theories of Bond films! Was DAF the film where the series "jumped the shark"?

1…121314151618»

Comments

  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,847
    Kananga grew up on a farm on the island. He soon found growing poppies was bringing in the proper money. However, when he came to the states on a vacation, he saw the difference in price. Angered about how little he got compared to the end product, he vowed to get the whole distribution in his own hands. So, first, he ran for president, which didn't cost him too much monay. Now the export part was sealed, he just made his own customs look away.
    Taking on existing criminals would bring in liabilities. And as president of an Island, however small, his face was known. So, he created 'Mr Big', and with the help of his government's money, started selling drugs in the US. Thanks to holding the whole chain of production to export, it was quite easy to grow 'big', as he was selling under the market price. Seeing how this worked, he expanded his fields, buying more land on the island. With such cashflow it was easy to get everyone to walk in line.
    It is then he decided he could even better his current plan: and you've all seen that in the film.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 15,261
    Black muscle.
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 767
    In real life, Mr Big and Kananga backed Trump
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,863
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    There is a number of authoritarians/dictators worldwide, including some "democratically" elected, who easily manage to run their government alongside, or in fact identical with, a crime syndicate. I'd rather not mention names to keep the peace here, but there is nothing remotely unreal about what Kananga does.

    You beat me to it.
  • DwayneDwayne New York City
    Posts: 3,018
    echo wrote: »
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    There is a number of authoritarians/dictators worldwide, including some "democratically" elected, who easily manage to run their government alongside, or in fact identical with, a crime syndicate. I'd rather not mention names to keep the peace here, but there is nothing remotely unreal about what Kananga does.

    You beat me to it.

    Same here (I was too shy to post the obvious).
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,959
    Yeah I am not saying it is unreal, was curious how one would do it. Which one came first. Love how one of the theories is that he became PM first and then went to focus on crime. I do wonder who in his inner sanctum would be charged with keeping an eye on New York.

    Although not touched on in the movie do we suspect San Monique had a large gap between wealth and poverty. Seems like an opulent hotel that Bond stays in. Later during the bus chase it looks like people are living with modest means. Now that I think of it, is LALD saying more than we may realize?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,773
    Dwayne wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    There is a number of authoritarians/dictators worldwide, including some "democratically" elected, who easily manage to run their government alongside, or in fact identical with, a crime syndicate. I'd rather not mention names to keep the peace here, but there is nothing remotely unreal about what Kananga does.

    You beat me to it.

    Same here (I was too shy to post the obvious).

    I'm glad the common sense answer was dropped right away. Thanks, gents. ;-)
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,847
    thedove wrote: »
    Yeah I am not saying it is unreal, was curious how one would do it. Which one came first. Love how one of the theories is that he became PM first and then went to focus on crime. I do wonder who in his inner sanctum would be charged with keeping an eye on New York.

    Although not touched on in the movie do we suspect San Monique had a large gap between wealth and poverty. Seems like an opulent hotel that Bond stays in. Later during the bus chase it looks like people are living with modest means. Now that I think of it, is LALD saying more than we may realize?

    The original inhabitants are living off of a monthly allowance, as long as they keep Kananga in place. However, they need people to take care of their houses, gardens, etc. So the work is done by immigrants, mainly from India, who have no voting rights, and live in shacks.

    Any comparison to Quatar is strictly by accident.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,899
    thedove wrote: »
    Yeah I am not saying it is unreal, was curious how one would do it. Which one came first. Love how one of the theories is that he became PM first and then went to focus on crime. I do wonder who in his inner sanctum would be charged with keeping an eye on New York.

    Although not touched on in the movie do we suspect San Monique had a large gap between wealth and poverty. Seems like an opulent hotel that Bond stays in. Later during the bus chase it looks like people are living with modest means. Now that I think of it, is LALD saying more than we may realize?

    Again: San Monique is a thinly disguised Haiti. Maybe the poorest country in America, yet apparently few people show obscene wealth.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 4 Posts: 18,594
    It's kind of funny that it's sort of the only time Bond has veered into the world of getting involved in, technically, regime change of a foreign nation, although maybe QoS too to some extent. There's a version of LALD which is possible to write which is quite a serious spy story!
    Except of course, he pretty much decides to kill the leader of a foreign nation without consulting his superiors- I mean, does a licence to kill really extend that far?
  • Reflsin2bourbonsReflsin2bourbons
    Posts: 457
    mtm wrote: »
    Except of course, he pretty much decides to kill the leader of a foreign nation without consulting his superiors- I mean, does a licence to kill really extend that far?

    Yes that's true, I never really thought about that! My reflex was to say that Kananga wasn't head of San Monique; after all, no other world leaders were at the UN summit. But it is pretty clearly stated that Kananga is the leader of San Monique.

    As for the title question, Kananga would have to do very little actual country running. He could very easily leave power in the hands of bureaucrats or the politburo of his country and be free to run NY nightclubs and get involved in the whole entertainment business.

    San Monique, as an out of the way tourist destination, could probably make money on its own from rich travellers or fishing companies and the like, and with a small population (and some form of foreign support) could probably run itself.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,899
    mtm wrote: »
    It's kind of funny that it's sort of the only time Bond has veered into the world of getting involved in, technically, regime change of a foreign nation, although maybe QoS too to some extent. There's a version of LALD which is possible to write which is quite a serious spy story!
    Except of course, he pretty much decides to kill the leader of a foreign nation without consulting his superiors- I mean, does a licence to kill really extend that far?

    I don't think it does, even for a dictator. And that's assuming Kananga is a dictator, officially or not. It's certainly never stated. So Bond killed a criminal and a drug lord, yes, but also a legitimate head of government of a sovereign state. Maybe he omitted it in his report. "I completed the mission by killing in self defence the criminal known as Mr Big."

    On a side note, there's a nice Jekyll and Hyde aspect to Kananga/Mr Big that was never used again for any other villain.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 4 Posts: 18,594
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    It's kind of funny that it's sort of the only time Bond has veered into the world of getting involved in, technically, regime change of a foreign nation, although maybe QoS too to some extent. There's a version of LALD which is possible to write which is quite a serious spy story!
    Except of course, he pretty much decides to kill the leader of a foreign nation without consulting his superiors- I mean, does a licence to kill really extend that far?

    I don't think it does, even for a dictator. And that's assuming Kananga is a dictator, officially or not. It's certainly never stated. So Bond killed a criminal and a drug lord, yes, but also a legitimate head of government of a sovereign state. Maybe he omitted it in his report. "I completed the mission by killing in self defence the criminal known as Mr Big."

    Yeah I'd never really thought about it before, but it's quite dodgy really isn't it? Killing the head of state of a fellow member of the UN, apparently without oversight, and in tandem with an agent of the CIA involved, also with no apparent supervision. Feels like Bond has gone quite far there. And I don't think there's any suggestion that he's even treating the inhabitants of San Monique particularly badly, is there?
    Obviously we know Kananga was a bad guy, but M and his superiors have an awful lot of explaining to do!
    Ludovico wrote: »
    On a side note, there's a nice Jekyll and Hyde aspect to Kananga/Mr Big that was never used again for any other villain.

    Yeah it is a fun idea, although I must admit I'm not sure it ever quite pays off enough somehow. It's not a massive surprise, maybe because Big and Kananga do seem to suspiciously hang out with exactly the same people.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,959
    Makes me appreciate that this movie has a deeper level to explore or to talk about. Thanks for all the interesting and thought provoking pieces shared here.

    Lets move on to another theory.

    There is a saying that shows and movie series will "jump the shark".

    The idiom "jumping the shark", or "shark jumping", or to "jump the shark"; means that a creative work or entity has evolved and reached a point in which it has exhausted its core intent and is introducing new ideas that are discordant with or an extreme exaggeration (caricature) of its original theme or purpose.

    My theory is that DAF is the point of the series where Bond "jumped the shark". When a low level diamond smuggler can pull out a Playboy Club card from the wallet of "James Bond" and seems to know who he is and what he is capable of, all pretense of Bond being a spy or secret agent is gone.

    Compare this to FRWL where Grant says they had to sweat out the number of Bond from another operative. Or GF where Goldfinger mentions that Bond has been identified by his "opposite" number. It was assumed that Bond was still a secret agent. Sure in YOLT M says they faked his death to give him more elbow room, but that might be because of his frequent run-ins with SPECTRE.

    No my theory is the series jumped the shark in DAF. A film I love but also realize this is where the Bond films became less about serious spy movies and more about excess and grandeur. Where everyone knows your drink, where low level operatives know who you are the gig is up.

    Do you agree that DAF is where the series "jumped the shark"?

    I would argue although there were attempts to get more grounded and serious, that didn't happen for over 10 years. The next time Bond got grounded was when Tim was cast in 1987. Curious to hear whether you agree with my theory. Was DAF the movie where the series "jumped the shark"?
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,863
    mtm wrote: »
    It's kind of funny that it's sort of the only time Bond has veered into the world of getting involved in, technically, regime change of a foreign nation, although maybe QoS too to some extent. There's a version of LALD which is possible to write which is quite a serious spy story!
    Except of course, he pretty much decides to kill the leader of a foreign nation without consulting his superiors- I mean, does a licence to kill really extend that far?

    The power went to his head.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    edited 4:25am Posts: 16,604
    I don't think the series jumped the shark with DAF. In 1971 the franchise still had another 50 years before it's demise. I'd say Bond jumped the shark with SP since that film led to NTTD and the end of the Eon series. RIP. :(
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 15,261
    I don't see DAF or anything in that film as jumping the shark, but simply introducing the extreme other end of tone - the comedic and camp, which would return in varying degrees in later years.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,899
    I'd tend to say DAF definitely jumped the shark, although sometimes I think it jumped with YOLT (too much sci-fi, Connery had lost interest in the role, too many nonsensical scenes). But DAF is the very first time, and to a degree the only time, when Bond fell full on self parody. They could take the whole script unchanged except for the names and it would be an Austin Powers movie.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 2,236
    I think it was YOLT. The Bond series was never the same after that. Even OHMSS had its stuff like the dubbed Lazenby.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 5,616
    I think when you have long running stories that are told long enough, they’ll often become more fantastical or even self referential. It’s the same for Bond. I guess DAF was the biggest leap in tone from its predecessor at that point in the series. I’d argue it’s the first ‘course correction’ Bond film. I’ll go with what @QBranch said though - instead of jumping the shark it just gave us more of the comedic and camp, and that certainly remained in the series throughout the Moore era.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 15,261
    I think jumping the shark is more about introducing something outlandish (something that seems out of character) to try and lure in audiences when you're running out of ideas, and I never got the impression from DAF that the crew had run out of ideas. I actually think the film is a lot of fun and would welcome that kind of tone again here and there.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,594
    QBranch wrote: »
    I think jumping the shark is more about introducing something outlandish (something that seems out of character) to try and lure in audiences when you're running out of ideas

    And also isn't it generally when a decline is perceived to start? And I think the Bond series had many highlights after this.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    edited 10:50am Posts: 4,427
    I'd say YOLT was when the series 'Jumped the Shark' as it had abandoned any semblance of the Fleming novels, which up until that point the series had been relatively faithful. It's too outlandish even for Bond.

    The producers wanted everything bigger and better after Thunderball but at the expense of the Bond character.

    But the series bounced back and has had ups and downs ever since.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited 12:30pm Posts: 5,616
    I suppose if you can criticise the films for jumping the shark is there any reason the same can’t be said for Fleming? As zany and fantastical as the films can get you also have plenty of oddities in those novels that are pretty egregious. Like the films they also developed into increasingly fantastical adventures and story developments in later instalments. Is GF, for example, a novel that jumped the shark when the villain randomly made Bond his secretary? I think you can argue it is by this logic - just as much as DAF is for the films anyway. Much of that book is pretty ridiculous anyway. We even got subsequent fourth wall breaking with the mention of Bond’s adventures being novels in the YOLT obituary. I think that goes further than the films ever did. And yet no one ever describes Fleming’s novels as having a jump the shark adventure.

    I agree that jumping the shark implies a decline. Bond in both literature and film hasn’t worked like that. They’ve changed and even gotten bigger in scale, but it’s a franchise so subject to reinventions, course corrections and taking different directions it doesn’t have a natural/consistent decline. Even within individual eras, as much as they tend to get more fantastical as they go on (much like Fleming). In a way Bond can’t jump the shark in the same way a shorter running television series can.
  • Since62Since62
    Posts: 1,761
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    I'd say YOLT was when the series 'Jumped the Shark' as it had abandoned any semblance of the Fleming novels, which up until that point the series had been relatively faithful. It's too outlandish even for Bond.

    The producers wanted everything bigger and better after Thunderball but at the expense of the Bond character.

    But the series bounced back and has had ups and downs ever since.

    Agreed the film series jumped the shark at YOLT, but not because of faithfulness to the novel or not, though, cerrtainly, they passed on a great novel with that one. I've read they did not want to make OHMSS right after TB because water-water-water then snow-snow-snow, but they should have. It would have set up YOLT properly, and then TMWTGG. The novel TMWTGG not that interesting so it wohave needed creative uld help. Could they have gotten Connery to stay ? Perhaps the drama of OHMSS would have piqued his interest enough. If not, they'd have been better off getting out a one-off - perhaps DAF but with a better script and action set-pieces - before starting the trilogy of OHMSS-YOLT-TMWTGG. At any rate, the series really dropped at YOLT. It was very popular, but, quite a drop-off.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,863
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I'd tend to say DAF definitely jumped the shark, although sometimes I think it jumped with YOLT (too much sci-fi, Connery had lost interest in the role, too many nonsensical scenes). But DAF is the very first time, and to a degree the only time, when Bond fell full on self parody. They could take the whole script unchanged except for the names and it would be an Austin Powers movie.

    I think the OP is right; the "You just killed James Bond!" moment is the first instance of outright parody in the series. There are later moments also breaking the fourth wall, like the James Bond theme played by Vijay in OP.

    YOLT treads right up to the line...but it stops before Bond goes into space.
Sign In or Register to comment.