You Don't Mess with Icons......

[007]

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/EDITORIA ... -3961.html

Even though it’s been beaten at the box office by dancing penguins, James Bond’s Casino Royale outing has to be considered a success. The reviews are glowing, audience response is positive, and really, the movie’s pretty good. How’d they do it? They changed James Bond.

Though the movie works well, I have a problem with that. James Bond is an icon, and you don’t f**k with icons. Whether or not the changes in the character are big or not will vary depending on who you talk to, but I think they’re big. Really big. The character being played by Daniel Craig in Casino Royale is barely Bond at all. There’s nothing suave or sophisticated about him. The man doesn’t even look comfortable in a suit. Craig’s version is a grittier, grimier, musclier spy. He’s neither subtle nor debonair. He’s a thug with a gun. As M says, “a blunt instrument”. Brosnan and Connery’s Bonds were subtle and sharp knives.

Now the reasons for the film going that route are irrelevant, as are the excuses. We all know this is supposed to be a prequel and that presumably; this mass murderer up on screen will turn into the epitome of cool embodied by Brosnan and Connery. Doesn’t matter, what we’re watching is a guy named James Bond when he’s nothing like James Bond at all. Superficial martini references don’t change that.

We’re tampering with an icon here folks. The name James Bond means something. When people say “Bond movie” they think of something specifically. Sure he’s been played by different people and he’s been in different kinds of movies, but the basic core of the character was hasn’t changed. Until now that is. Who cares? Why does it matter?

Because you don’t f**k with icons. Imagine if in the next Indiana Jones movie George Lucas decided to turn Indy into Sherlock Holmes instead of the charming and sometimes reluctant adventurer we know and love. Would that be acceptable? Of course not, and I’ll tell you why.

When you mess with icons they cease to be icons. If you change their basic nature, modify them, retool them or just slap the same name on a completely different character, then the name ceases to have meaning. James Bond becomes Jack Ryan; the James Bond label becomes the equivalent of National Lampoon. Names like James Bond, characters like Bond have MEANING in our cultural consciousness because they are attached to a well defined character or idea. Almost by definition, that’s what makes them iconic. Their personality is so strong, their character so well defined that it takes on a life of its own. If you change any of that, then the name starts to mean less and eventually the character ceases to be iconic.

Don’t believe me? Take a look at Darth Vader. Before Lucas revealed him as nothing more than a petulant, whiny teen the Dark Lord of the Sith deserved his title. The guy was dark, scary, powerful, pure evil. Lucas tampered with his icon, showed us something new behind the mask. Suddenly Darth Vader seems a lot less scary. Nooooooo!

The question is how much can you tinker before destroying? Some people like the changes to James, and I’m not going to begrudge them that. But personally when I go to a Bond movie I go for fantasy, I don’t go for gritty realism. When I want that in a spy movie, there are plenty of other options. I don’t need the Bond version of The Bourne Supremacy. We have that already. James Bond used to fill a certain entertainment niche, a niche which is now apparently gone… or perhaps rather ceded to Tom Cruise’s Ethan Hunt. Casino Royale has abandoned ship on whatever it was that made James Bond, James Bond. The franchise continues onward, but to me 007 is dead. Which iconic character is next?

[James]

Hmmn.

[The Sweeney]

It's pretty obvious this guy has never even heard of Ian Fleming, never mind picking up one of his novels to read.....

[Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry]

It's pretty obvious this guy has never even heard of Ian Fleming, never mind picking up one of his novels to read.....

I think he's saying that the suave, sophisticated James Bond established by a forty year movie series has been scrapped to fit in with modern trends, which is fair. As for Fleming; I've been reading From Russia With Love today and at no time did I picture Daniel Craig. Quite the opposite.

[The Sweeney]

It's pretty obvious this guy has never even heard of Ian Fleming, never mind picking up one of his novels to read.....

I think he's saying that the suave, sophisticated James Bond established by a forty year movie series has been scrapped to fit in with modern trends, which is fair. As for Fleming; I've been reading From Russia With Love today and at no time did I picture Daniel Craig. Quite the opposite.

That's the beauty of novels, we all picture someone different.

Ironically, I never pictured any of the Bond actors in the role when I read Fleming's books. To be honest, I don't really know who I imagined in the part.

[Skywalker]

That's the beauty of novels, we all picture someone different.

Ironically, I never pictured any of the Bond actors in the role when I read Fleming's books. To be honest, I don't really know who I imagined in the part.

So True.

I always imagine Bond, but can't picture a face in my mind. I tried picturing Craig in CR, but I enjoyed the novel better when I let my mind wonder.

[Kristatos]

I tend to imagine the Bond of the newspaper strips.

[James]

The last time I read an Ian Fleming book (Moonraker) I did find that the image of a young Clive Owen popped into my head more than once.

[Skywalker]

The last time I read an Ian Fleming book (Moonraker) I did find that the image of a young Clive Owen popped into my head more than once.

Not an Old Rog?

[The Sweeney]

The last time I read an Ian Fleming book (Moonraker) I did find that the image of a young Clive Owen popped into my head more than once.

I guess I could see that....

[James]

Some of the descriptions fit Clive Owen perfectly.

[Dr. No]

when I read CR I didn't have a image of any of the Bonds.
Surprising because before I read it I thought Connery or Dalton would have fit the bill.
Don;t know the Bond of the strips

[The Sweeney]

I think Fleming had this cunning way of making you (the reader) actually imagine yourself as Bond, rather than imagining someone else in the part.

This was due to the fact that each novel focuses around Bond, we live his thoughts, we eat what he eats, we drink what he drinks, we know when he goes for a shower, etc.

And couple this with the fact that descriptions of Bond are usually laid to a bare minimum in each novel, it makes it all the more easier for the reader to identify quickly with the role instead.

Well, that's how I saw it anyway...

[stockslivevan]

This guy doesn't get Bond. Not only does he not get Bond but he also forgets that the Bond character has ALWAYS changed. He sounds like he only saw the campy Connery and Brosnan Bonds. As if he is upset that Bond is shown as an assassin, a killer, which is what he really is and always has been.

Hell, Bond wasn't even the same with all actors. A sharp yet suave killer (Connery), emotionally driven (Lazenby), goofing around (Moore), dead serious (Dalton), inconsistent (Brosnan) and now mostly sharp (Craig).

Yeah, Dalton and Moore are exactly the same. The Bond icon never changed between the two, not even between Connery and Moore.

Whatever, his loss.

[The Sweeney]

This guy doesn't get Bond. Not only does he not get Bond but he also forgets that the Bond character has ALWAYS changed. He sounds like he only saw the campy Connery and Brosnan Bonds. As if he is upset that Bond is shown as an assassin, a killer, which is what he really is and always has been.

Hell, Bond wasn't even the same with all actors. A sharp yet suave killer (Connery), emotionally driven (Lazenby), goofing around (Moore), dead serious (Dalton), inconsistent (Brosnan) and now mostly sharp (Craig).

Yeah, Dalton and Moore are exactly the same. The Bond icon never changed between the two, not even between Connery and Moore.

Whatever, his loss.

Well said, Stocks.

I think the part where this reviewer really loses credibility is when he compares Bond to Indiana Jones. There has only ever been one actor to portray this character, and has currently only appeared in 3 films (that's the equivelant of Connery in GF).

He doesn't realise there has been another 18 films, spanning the period of 5 decades, and by which time has seen 6 different actors portray the character, and has gone through many cultural/social changes.

Does he really think the Bond of FRWL is the same as the Bond in MR, or the Bond in DAF is the same as the Bond in LTK.....

[007]

A lot of the hysterical pro Casino Royale reviews sounded to me like they were written by people who had never actually watched a James Bond before so perhaps it goes both ways.

[Skywalker]

A lot of the hysterical pro Casino Royale reviews sounded to me like they were written by people who had never actually watched a James Bond before so perhaps it goes both ways.

Some of the positive reviews make me feel a touch of sympathy for some Bond fans. There was one guy stating he had waited over 40 years to see James Bond on screen.

[James]

There was one guy stating he had waited over 40 years to see James Bond on screen.

Hmmn. Strange man.

[The Sweeney]

There was one guy stating he had waited over 40 years to see James Bond on screen.

Hmmn. Strange man.

Not so strange when you read the Fleming novels, and compare them to some of the comedy-fest gags we have seen over the past 40 years.....

[Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry]

There was one guy stating he had waited over 40 years to see James Bond on screen.

Hmmn. Strange man.

Not so strange when you read the Fleming novels, and compare them to some of the comedy-fest gags we have seen over the past 40 years.....

On the plus side those 'comedy gag fests' didn't have a short man with a blonde crewcut playing James Bond.