Dirty Benny's Weekly Rant

[The Saint 007]

Whenever I see the topic of which Bond adventure you would want to be in on the forums, it's not surprising that no one, or a few at most, pick a Craig Bond outing. Even though he's constantly deemed as cool and bada$$, most people really wouldn't want to be Craig's Bond. Like Roger Moore once said, Bond is escapist fantasy and should not leave you feeling depressed. As a kid, I would have never became interested in the Bond films if they were the way they are now.

[Veronica]

Whenever I see the topic of which Bond adventure you would want to be in on the forums, it's not surprising that no one, or a few at most, pick a Craig Bond outing. Even though he's constantly deemed as cool and bada$$, most people really wouldn't want to be Craig's Bond. Like Roger Moore once said, Bond is escapist fantasy and should not leave you feeling depressed. As a kid, I would have never became interested in the Bond films if they were the way they are now.

"Cool" is not the word that would describe Craig.
And the word badass is there because he looks like someone who is into pub fights. Neddless to say that's not who Bond is at all. And my definition of a badass isn't the mentioned above "pub fight" either.
Even better there should be a poll for women:"Whose Bond girl would you like to be?"
I somehow doubt Craig would score highly on that simply because I don't know ONE SINGLE lady that like Craig or thinks he is a good Bond.
I think the most crucial thing for women when it comes to Bond is charisma. Craig and charisma don't go into the same sentence.

[Daltonite Toothpaste]

That was bad enough, but in SP the theme is Bond needs to “get a life”. WOW! REALLY!?!? If James Bond, suave, debonair, globetrotting super spy who travels to far off exotic locals, where he beds gorgeous women, all the while subverting an evil megalomaniac’s plan for world destruction, needs to “get a life” by contrast I suppose with my absolutely dull dreary existence, I should just pack it all in, cause life ain’t getting any better then.

I hate when people talk about Bond, like it has to be high camp all the time. It Doesn't. But at the same time, it doesn't have to become so mind numbingly tedious. But getting to this rant, the Bond theme is sorely missed. A few bars in a 2hr+ film is nowhere near enough. The lack of one of the most identifiable aspects of the series, is one of the reasons that I have turned away from the films.

[dirtybenny]

That was bad enough, but in SP the theme is Bond needs to “get a life”. WOW! REALLY!?!? If James Bond, suave, debonair, globetrotting super spy who travels to far off exotic locals, where he beds gorgeous women, all the while subverting an evil megalomaniac’s plan for world destruction, needs to “get a life” by contrast I suppose with my absolutely dull dreary existence, I should just pack it all in, cause life ain’t getting any better then.

I hate when people talk about Bond, like it has to be high camp all the time. It Doesn't. But at the same time, it doesn't have to become so mind numbingly tedious. But getting to this rant, the Bond theme is sorely missed. A few bars in a 2hr+ film is nowhere near enough. The lack of one of the most identifiable aspects of the series, is one of the reasons that I have turned away from the films.

I've always contended, the written word loses all subtly, so I don't know if you are misunderstanding me or I am of you. If it is the latter I apologize, but just so I make myself clear and there is no confusion. I am in no way insinuating Bond must be "high camp", what I am saying is every Bond from Connery to Brosnan has fit my description highlighted above, they jus put their own spin on the role. Wither it's Moore's light adventurous take, or your personal favorite Dalton's subdued, serious interpretation, they all fit. I'll even go one further and say Craig even fits the bill, if you delete the suave and sophisticated label.

[Daltonite Toothpaste]

What I mean, was that the way people talk about Bond is if all the martin swilling, and bed hopping, and secret bases must always be there. Then, when the series runs into the ground through cliche overload, those same people would then complain. The first 5 Bonds juggled with the familiar aspects*, but still the character felt like Bond, to me. Even if you remove the suave and sophisticated labels, I still would say that what Craig plays, isn't Bond, imo. Action is my second favourite genre, and if CR/QOS/SF weren't part of the series, I would probably enjoy them for their action. Same with Craig. But then, they not supposed to be other films, they're supposed to be Bond films.


* Even Dalton, whose Bond might not have been the most outwardly charming, but he made up for it with a cunning and ruthlessness that not other Bond had.

[Veronica]

It is a bit of a stretch to say Bond always and only battled megalomaniacs with secret lairs and henchmen and what not. He didn't and a Bond movie doesn't have consist of that in order to feel like a Bond movie. For example FRWL,IMO the best Bond movie,didn't have this(although a trap is set by orders of Blofeld) and yet it is very much a Bond film.
The thing with Craig movies is different. There was never a moment in CR that I thought:"This could only be a Bond movie!" and QOS doesn't even have a Bond theme.How could a Bond movie not have a Bond theme? And the gun barrel is at the end. This is more than just abandoning the formula its basically going all over it with a car.

[dirtybenny]

I think you fine people are reading way too much in to a sentence meant as a throw away line to convey the thrust of my rant which is, if James Bond needs to "get a life" then what does that mean for us.

Let me break down the sentence in contention, because I think we are all in the same book, but just need to get on the same page.

"If James Bond, suave, debonair, globetrotting super spy who travels to far off exotic locals, where he beds gorgeous women, all the while subverting an evil megalomaniac’s plan for world destruction..."

To start: "James Bond, suave, debonair", pretty self explanatory.

"globetrotting super spy": Bond travels as part of his occupation as espionage agent in each and every Bond film.

"who travels to far off exotic locals": When Bond travels, he visits exotic locations, wither they be in Jamaica, Turkey, Thailand, or Russia, just to name a few.

"where he beds gorgeous women": James Bond has sexual relations with at least one beautiful woman per film, however I did not intend to convey coital hopscotch, just the fact he does in fact bed beautiful women.

"all the while subverting an evil megalomaniac’s plan for world destruction": I think this one is where most of the confusion comes from, especially the words "world destruction" however "global crime" didn't have the same ring to it.
First, Direct from Merriam-Webster: MEGALOMANIA: 1.a mania for great or grandiose performance, 2. a delusional mental disorder that is marked by feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur. I think one or both of those definitions fit all of Bond's foes.
Second, All of Bond's enemy's schemes involve some global component, wither it be starting a war, manipulating the worlds commodities prices, i.e. gold/oil, or in fact actual world domination. In no way did I refer to any lairs, secret or other wise, henchmen, (though they all had them) or any other over the top elements associated with "Bond Villains" just so we're all clear.

Like I said this sentence isn't even the real point I was trying to make, perhaps my literary skills are a bit tarnished and I'm not being clear enough, I hope this puts things straight.

[Veronica]

I get what you are saying benny I just wrote the comment becuase Craig fans like to say "old Bond movies" have this megalomaniacal plots to rule the world. As you said there are more types of megalomania but these people are saying like every Bond villain wanted to destroy tye world in a Stromberg/Hugo Drax style.

[dirtybenny]

I got ya now V , just wanted to make sure you weren't lumping me in with all of those otherfolks!

[acid]

Just read your previous rant, 27 benny about the doubling down and I absolutely agree that's what's been happening, many times over the years.

There are times in the past where the series got a bit too outlandish with You Only Live Twice and Moonraker, or even a bit too dark with Licence To Kill.

Yes despite Moore being my favourite Bond I used to dismiss Moonraker as ridiculous in my youth (though still enjoyed it) but having watched it again more recently I was taken aback by how well it holds up. Compared to most modern films that just seem to be a disjointed hotch potch of ideas, cash ins, homages and meaningless, ambiguous pouty bits to try and impress the critics, Moonraker felt so polished and engaging. OK, apart from the gondola chase! It's about telling a story. An outlandish fantasy story at times yes, but a good and exciting story. Whereas modern films like the Craig era just seem to throw everything and the kitchen sink in to try and appeal to as many different demographics as possible. It's all about reboots, remakes, take a good brand and milk it dry, sprinkle with copious product placement and poached ideas to draw people in to get a return on investment as quickly as possible. Reusing old scenes and stunts from other films is favoured as it's supposedly less risky as a business decision.

In the Moore Era the films get more and more outlandish after LALD through to MR but then all Eon needed to do was go back to basics with FYEO. OP and AVTAK have quite serious tones as well, but these are still fun to watch. It is about finding a good balance, yes and also about telling a good story.

[Veronica]

What actually angers me is the fact that EON and Co. is talking about these movies with Craig like they are doing adaptations of John le Carre novels. They constantly go on about how "serious" and "realistic" these movies are.
I was just watching "Tinker,Tailor,Soldier,Spy" today and was reminded of it. Its ridiculous how some actually bought the "no jokes its more serious" propaganda that has been going on since 2006.
Or how since Craig is depressed he is obviously more closer to the real world spies. It bizzare to think that. I don't event think that a real world spy can afford to be depressed. Just think about it.
A person who has such an dangerous job. Can that person afford taking pills,drinking to death and most of all
dussapearing for six months and then just randomly come back? I am sure that person would keep the job.
When in CR Craig said :"...I have no idea what an honest job is." Is this an answer from a secret agent-whose job is very dangerous and risky? If you didn't better you would think this guy is modeling. But then again would anyone ever mistake Craig for a model?

[dirtybenny]

Hey Acid and Veronica, I was working on a grand response to your two great posts when, right as I was nearing the end, my computer decided to restart and I lost it.

So seeing as I really don't feel like rewriting it I'll cut to the chase and just say, I couldn't agree with you both more!

[Veronica]

Hey Acid and Veronica, I was working on a grand response to your two great posts when, right as I was nearing the end, my computer decided to restart and I lost it.

So seeing as I really don't feel like rewriting it I'll cut to the chase and just say, I couldn't agree with you both more!

Benny I know what you mean. It happened to me several times when I was writing something long and suddenly my laptop shut down.

Anyway thank you Benny!

[The Saint 007]

Yes despite Moore being my favourite Bond I used to dismiss Moonraker as ridiculous in my youth (though still enjoyed it) but having watched it again more recently I was taken aback by how well it holds up. Compared to most modern films that just seem to be a disjointed hotch potch of ideas, cash ins, homages and meaningless, ambiguous pouty bits to try and impress the critics, Moonraker felt so polished and engaging. OK, apart from the gondola chase! It's about telling a story. An outlandish fantasy story at times yes, but a good and exciting story. Whereas modern films like the Craig era just seem to throw everything and the kitchen sink in to try and appeal to as many different demographics as possible. It's all about reboots, remakes, take a good brand and milk it dry, sprinkle with copious product placement and poached ideas to draw people in to get a return on investment as quickly as possible. Reusing old scenes and stunts from other films is favoured as it's supposedly less risky as a business decision.

In the Moore Era the films get more and more outlandish after LALD through to MR but then all Eon needed to do was go back to basics with FYEO. OP and AVTAK have quite serious tones as well, but these are still fun to watch. It is about finding a good balance, yes and also about telling a good story.

I love Moonraker and don't mind the more sillier bits, because Moore is just so good with the humour and made the craziest moments look natural. He casually drives in that gondola like it was a cool Bond car. The film is nice to look at without getting too pretentious like Skyfall's long landscape shots, and is an engaging adventure as you said. And yes, even though the Moore films had some humorous moments, there was also serious tones mixed in, but without going overboard into a dreary soap opera. Despite what some may say, Moore's Bond didn't always have lots of gadgets. In The Man With The Golden Gun it was Scaramanga that had the gadgets, and there really wasn't any again in For Your Eyes Only. A View To A Kill had more basic gadgets, and Live And Let Die was pretty limited with the gadgets, too.

Moore along with Connery are my most favourite Bonds, because they are the most universal. They could be both serious and humorous in tone, and their eras balanced and mixed the formula elements the best, in my opinion.

[Count_Lippe]

Moonraker actually has a lot of good serious moments where Moore does a great acting job as well.

For example when 007 steps out of the centrifuge, or when he, M and the Minister of Defence enters what they think is Drax laboratory and are greeted by Drax himself in a big hall.

The silly bits are very funny also such as the gondola chase.

I think MR is the overall best Bond film by Lewis Gilbert, but for other reasons I put YOLT somewhat higher (Connery, 1960s feel, space race theme).

To me MR is the best Bond of the 70s and Moore's best film though.

[Veronica]

Moore is just so teriffic in that scene with gondola. could you see any other Bond looking that diginified?
The one brilliant "acting" moment of Moore that I always remember is in TSWLM when Amasova asks him if he killed her ex lover. And then he replies with all that and finishes with:"Answer to your question is yes. I did kill him." AWESOME WITH A CAPITAL A!!
As for my favourite Moonraker moment:"You missed Mr.Bond."
"Did I?" he replies with a smirk on his face.

[Daltonite Toothpaste]

I must confess, Moonraker is one of my least favourite Bond films, and the awful Bondola sequence is one reason why. I would say that TSWLM is the best 70's Bond, while FYEO is Moore's best overall.

[Count_Lippe]

I must confess, Moonraker is my favourite Bond film, and the wonderful Bondola sequence is one reason why. I would say that MR is the best 70's Bond, Moore's best Bond and the overall best Bond film.

I agree.

[Daltonite Toothpaste]

I must confess, Moonraker is one of my least favourite Bond films, and the awful Bondola sequence is one reason why. I would say that TSWLM is the best 70's Bond, while FYEO is Moore's best overall.

I agree.

Nice one.

[acid]

Hey Acid and Veronica, I was working on a grand response to your two great posts when, right as I was nearing the end, my computer decided to restart and I lost it.

So seeing as I really don't feel like rewriting it I'll cut to the chase and just say, I couldn't agree with you both more!

Thanks benny and yeah I hate it too when that happens! I'm usually really trigger happy with saving things on the computer because of that and then I just end up losing data by overwriting things I didn't mean to!