April is the cruellest month: a day-by-day game

Special Interest Games
423

Interesting hypothesis–and hard to argue against it, but can you?

Daniel Craig has only one film I consider great – Casino Royale – although I acknowledge that most people and critics would also lump Skyfall into that category, and I can wholly understand why even though it doesn’t thrill me as other Bond films do. So I am willing to concede that Craig has two.

Pierce Brosnan has two films I consider great – GoldenEye and Tomorrow Never Dies – but people and critics would probably only name the former film as great. So Brosnan, too, fails to meet the four film greatness level.

Roger Moore has three films I consider great – The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only, and Octopussy. Regardless, most people and critics would probably only label two of Moore’s films as such – TSWLM and FYEO – so he misses the greatness mark as well.

And that leaves Sean Connery. My favorites of his are From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball, and Diamonds Are Forever. But while I love DAF, I can’t in good conscience call it a great film. There’s too many issues with it–editing choices and special effects to name two. But I think Connery still has four solid films in the running – Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, and Thunderball. The question is, do most people and critics think that Dr. No and Thunderball qualify as great? I think it’s a given that FRWL and Gf qualify on that score. But while I don’t rate DN among my favorite films, I nevertheless appreciate its importance and quality, and I think that you can consider it great. It kicked off the series and basically started the action/adventure genre after all. As for Thunderball, it might not reach the quality and moviemaking skill of the other three, but it is at the height of Bondmania and it is a spectacle and it still holds up today, so I think that yes, you can call it a great film.

So, as a result, Connery has four films that are great and which (to me) disproves the hypothesis that no Bond actor has been in more than three great films. But I can certainly see where a lot of people would agree with said theory. It’s by no means a sure thing to get four great films–although the more movies you can do, the better the odds you have of making a run for it.

A tip of the cap to you Jim for coming up with that hypothesis. That was a good one. :+1:

(And MI6HQ I don’t see why you can’t post a topic here on this thread, although if it doesn’t go with the thread’s subject matter you could always start a new thread topic on the main page.)

3 Likes
424

Thanks, @Double-OhAgent.

Just interesting to know anyone’s thoughts regarding this topic:

Blonde Bond Girls were all considered weak and poorly written female characters and a critical subject for sexism, then so the Bond films that they’re in.
So if a Bond Film has a Blonde Bond Girl then it’s a warning that it will be a weak or a mid-tier film (those films that have Brunette Bond Girls tend to be great, memorable and best).

1 Like
425

Interesting one…

Honey Ryder and Tatiana? Might test that proposition but I can see where it’s going with the likes of Goodnight and Stacey Sutton.

Possibly Kara gets a pass, although she is largely redundant for the second half of The Living Daylights.

As for Tiffany Case, given that she appears as blonde, brunette and redhead…

4 Likes
426

Damn, it is true. While I do not consider many of the blond Bond girls dumb, the stereotype from the real world was definitely put to use.

Time for the next film to correct that.

Wait. Madeleine did that already. She even survived a blond Bond!

1 Like
427

What with Honey, Tania and Pussy featured in the generally revered first three entries, I don’t buy the “blonde girl = bad film” theory at all.

Further, I don’t think featuring “weak and poorly written female characters” who are “a critical subject for sexism” is (1) unique to the films featuring blonde Bond girls or (2) relevant at all to whether a Bond film is “weak.”

With all due respect to Barbara, the Bond formula does not hinge on “fully-realized” female characters who are strong of will and/or arm, or are particularly “empowered.” These aren’t rom-com’s or dramas, they’re adventure stories in the classical sense: brave hero slays the dragon, or the giant, or the evil king, and the princess or fair damsel is his reward. Period. The “girl” is a prize to be won through acts of courage and daring. And in Bond’s case she’s even more objectified because there’s no “happily ever after.” In the next adventure, we start over with another monster to slay and another damsel to win, ad infinitum.

All a Bond girl has to do to “succeed” in her designated role is for us to believe she’s worth the trouble; a prize worth winning. Honey Ryder is blonde and pretty much a wild child, unsophisticated in the ways of the world and unschooled. There is no way on Earth she’d have survived the encounter with Dr No without Bond to save her. Nonetheless she is often cited as the best Bond girl in the entire series, because as an object of desire, she’s unbeatable. She treads the fine line perfectly: she’s naive but not stupid, she needs Bond to save her but she’s not stumbling into traps every five minutes and screaming for help. Ask most viewers (male viewers, anyway) if she’s worth what Bond goes through to end up in that boat with her and they’ll say, “Hell, yeah.” Ask the same about Mary Goodnight and they’ll likely answer “Hell, no.” And they’re both blondes.

I would maybe compare two Bond girls in two successive films who happen to be a brunette and a blonde, one more “successful” than the other: Octopussy and Stacy Sutton. But it’s not the hair color that matters. Octopussy is competent and capable and intelligent but she excels in her own area of expertise and doesn’t try to be “the female Bond.” By story’s end, she and Bond have weathered many trials as comrades and we are pleased to see them end up together. It’s a satisfying payoff. Stacy on the other hand is a burden, plain and simple. She’s like a suitcase you drag through a succession of airports on a long day of travel despite a broken wheel that keeps it heading off in the wrong direction, or dragging on one side. You keep dreaming about how wonderful it would be to kick it aside and leave it behind, but you’ll need what’s packed in it when you reach your destination, so you keep soldiering on. That’s Stacy: the formula says we need a “Bond girl,” so Bond keep dragging her along, uncooperative and cumbersome burden that she is, to get to that clinch in the shower at the end. And when the scene comes, we don’t care anyway, because she was never worth it. But it’s not because she’s blonde. The script made Stacy stupid, but a bottle of hair color made Tanya blonde.

In fits and starts we have adjusted – most would argue improved – our expectations for what makes a Bond girl “worth it,” until now we want them to be competent and smart as well as sexy, and that’s cool. But ultimately they still have the same role they did when hot but empty headed Honey emerged looking for shells: to be Bond’s reward at the end of the quest. Holding ANY of them up as paragons of female empowerment is as foolish as calling Moonraker “science fact.” And you know what, that’s okay, because again it’s an adventure story and the woman’s job is to be worth winning, period. It’s progress that most modern viewers now agree a helpless ditz isn’t worth it and a strong-willed and maybe physically capable woman is, but it’s still the same in the big picture. These women only exist in the films to fill a need: Bond needs a girl as his reward at the end. (Admittedly the Craig films upend this: only once does he end up with the girl, and it’s generally considered his least satisfying film)

Anyway, is anyone really going to argue that Solitaire was anything more than a helpless damsel? Domino spears Largo, but aside from that is she ever “empowered”? Does Kissy ever do anything AT ALL to distinguish herself besides looking adorable? And they’re all brunettes.

2 Likes
428

I politely disagree.

Sure, adventure stories at some time followed the formula which had the damsel in distress.

But to be effective every genre has to develop and adapt to the times.

I would not want to see a contemporary Bond film in which the woman was „only worth saving“ because she is not a burden. I don’t even need Bond to get her as a reward at the end. Heck, isn’t it much better if Bond is viewed as a reward?

Look at Raiders of the Lost Ark. A pastiche of adventure tropes - but Marion is tough, funny and daring. She is Indy‘s „goddamned partner“. That does not take away anything from him, on the contrary, she adds a major selling point to his character.

The other „dames“ in Indy‘s life did not fare that well.

I want Bond to be partnered with that kind of woman.

2 Likes
429

I appreciate the politeness, but I’m not sure we disagree. Possibly I just didn’t state my case well.

I absolutely prefer a female love interest who’s more than “just” the damsel in distress, which is why no matter how gorgeous some of the early Bond girls were, Tracy was the first one I felt anything for. And I also agree – as I tried to express – that our standards are higher in this day and age. We will not “settle” for a Bond girl who’s merely gorgeous if that’s all she’s got going for her. They have to be more interesting than that, whether they tweak Bond’s ego, possess some skill he doesn’t have but that’s essential to the success of the mission, etc. Vesper for instance is the ultimate Craig Bond girl because she’s as conflicted, haunted, damaged and all-around messed the Hell up as he is.

My favorite Bond girls have had something to add to the story: Honey is in over her head, but she’s still fiercely independent and almost feral. She doesn’t think she needs Bond, but that’s why she does need him. Pussy Galore is competent and tough, a pilot and good at judo, so she’s interesting. Until she isn’t. Fiona Volpe is as ruthless and unsentimental as Bond and thus much more appealing to me than Domino (despite Claudine Auger’s astonishing beauty). Anya is the first female to suggest that maybe Roger isn’t as irresistible as he thinks he is. And so on. But in the end, they all end up in the same spot: 007 has to save their bacon. Because that’s their function. They can push the envelope, they can try to be more, and “break ground,” they can do interviews and say they’re “not the usual Bond girl,” but in the end they all need to be saved. I’m not saying that’s good – in fact it’s often depressing – but it is fact.

I agree Bond needs a “partner,” as Marion is to Indy. In hindsight, Anya doesn’t come all that close, but in 1977 it was closer than we’d ever been and people loved it. Holly more or less follows in that tradition. Octopussy is probably the closest we get to a true “match” for Roger’s Bond so it’s depressing when she’s left behind like all the others and he ends his run with a total loss like Stacy. But in “Classic Bond” we are stuck with the formula ending: Bond and the girl end up in the clinch. It doesn’t matter if they have a real chemistry, or if we even like the girl, it’s a contractual obligation. That’s how we get something weird like FYEO where Bond takes on the role of mentor/Uncle/big brother to Melina and just when that feels comfortable and right for us, they end up skinny-dipping. “Sorry darling, I know this runs counter to our relationship until now, but it’s the last scene and, well, you are a woman, so…off with the robe.”

Then we have the “female Bonds.” Jinx fails spectacularly because she is so very in-your-face about how much the equal of Bond she is, only to need saving like all the others, anyway. Wai-Lin is much more interesting because she actually IS super-capable, although when she and Bond make out at the end, I still even after all this time can only think “Where did THAT come from?”

Again, the Craig era “beats” this by almost never giving Craig a happy ending. Vesper dies, Camille doesn’t even like him “that way,” the “happy ending” with Madeleine lasts a mere couple of weeks and Bond himself dies when they reunite. I guess that’s better than making the girl the “prize”? Anyway, it proves that the “damsel” routine is not essential to a successful Bond film: Bond can lose the girl, watch her die or indeed never have one even show up, and people still enjoy the film. They may even like it more for breaking the cycle.

Anyway, sorry if I wasn’t clear earlier. I don’t mean that it’s good that Bond girls are ultimately just a “reward.” And yes, I like it better when they’re more interesting than just a kewpie doll to be handed over when you hit all the targets. But I still say that the formula, as begun by Fleming and magnified by the films, assigns them this role, for sure.

BTW, I’m not much of a Star Wars fan, but a big part of the appeal of Princess Leia is that she is categorically NOT your typical “Princess in need of rescue.” People love it when that trope gets turned upside-down.

2 Likes
430

Almost anything is better than making a woman a prize a man receives for a job well done.

I have always rather liked Gala Brand as far as the novels’ Bond women go–she will not be anyone’s prize.

3 Likes
431

Yeah, but Vesper and Tracy both get the other formula fate for a love interest: Death. So the choices are to be just interesting enough to survive and get a celebratory roll in the hay before you’re ditched off-screen, or be really interesting and end up a corpse.

432

The dilemma women often face in movies–a man’s sex object or discarded/dead object.

By contrast, Tiffany retains some agency, finishing the movie erect, and not prone beneath Bond. And for all we know, she is still on that cruise with him (or at least I like to think so).

1 Like
433

It is a little bit of both. The On Her Majesty’s Secret Service score is arguably the best in the series and We Have All The Time In The World is one of the best songs, so, just on that face, it is somewhat understandable that the filmmakers would want to use it in No Time To Die. That viewpoint becomes even clearer when one realizes that the Bond-Madeleine relationship is such a weak one that it can’t get off the ground on its own. As a result, the filmmakers needed to use something special like the OHMSS music to do the heavy lifting hoping that nostalgia for the original–and the inherent greatness of the tune–would appeal enough among moviegoers to get the relationship aloft. At the same time, the filmmakers go all in on said music, especially WHATTITW, that (as others mentioned previously) it’s as if they were trying to adopt the music to be forever associated with Daniel Craig and NTTD.

Ultimately, it’s just a poke in the eye to OHMSS and its fans. The Craig films have had so many call backs and references to past 007 films that this case shouldn’t be a surprise, but to the extent it does, it is a surprise–and it doesn’t work. Rather than just using OHMSS music as a simple reference, they use the cue repeatedly throughout the film and it’s just lazy. How many of us on here were disappointed and upset that Thomas Newman reused a number of his cues for SPECTRE after having originated them in the previous film? While we enjoyed them in Skyfall, we were wanting and expecting and hoping for something totally fresh from Newman the second time around like we’d gotten throughout the series from other composers. But alas it was not to be–and neither was it to be in NTTD either, as the film is unable to fully stand on it’s own merits. It has to ride on the nostalgia coattails of others–others who are, and did it, better.

I know there are many who like/love NTTD (more than I would have thought upon first seeing the film) and lucky you. But for me, the decision to use so much of OHMSS’s music for NTTD can’t help but take a little away from the former film, and as someone who finds the NTTD film the worst in the series, it’s very sad, because now I’ll also have it associated in the back of my mind with that.

2 Likes
434

I can see where some might think that now is the time for EON to cash in their chips, now that they have concluded working with their favorite 007 and have killed him off. But I don’t think that is the direction they should go in. Yes, Michael G. Wilson is getting older and likely will be retiring from the series either right away or sticking around for one more film to help with the transition of finding a new James Bond and smoothing out the kinks of working with a new studio. Barbara Broccoli is also getting older, but she is still young enough to have some more films in her. Additionally, it would appear, as Orion pointed out, that David Gregg Wilson is being groomed to replace his father in the near future. The last point seems to be a pretty good indicator that EON is not done with the Bond films. Another clue can be found at the end of No Time To Die where it states “James Bond will return.”

And why would EON quit now? For the first time in like 40 years(!!!) they will be partnering with a studio that is financially secure. Now, how will that relationship work? That remains to be seen. But Amazon is not an expert at releasing theatrical films that I know of, so one would think they would be more willing to try and work with EON rather than dictating terms. Additionally, the new Lord Of The Rings series that is being released soon on Amazon, seems to have had some questionable decisions made behind the scenes, decisions that have many speculating that the series will not only NOT be a success, but a flop. If either of those were to be the case, that would seem to make Amazon be even more acquiescent to working with EON on Bond.

Regardless, now is the time for EON to shake things up a little bit behind the scenes much like was done between 1989’s Licence To Kill and GoldenEye in 1995. A number of the old guard left and new blood was brought in. I think that should be done for Bond 26 as well. I’ve never disliked Neal Purvis and Robert Wade as much as some have–I’ve been more middle of the road–but now would be a good time to get some new screenwriters. They’ve been at it for over 20 years. They deserve a break. A new director would be good too, although I would accept a third effort from Martin Campbell. A new stunt coordinator might be good as well. The Daniel Craig era gave us really good hand-to-hand fights but little spectacle other than the crane jump way back in 2006’s Casino Royale. So some creativity there would be nice to see, particularly with all the well done over-the-top stunts Mission: Impossible has done in the last 10 years or so–the type of stuff that the Bond series USED to be known for. Another thing EON should do is bring back the fun. One thing the Craig era did not have a lot of in it was a sense of fun. Prior to Craig, the Bond films always had that. The films may have had other issues, but you could always depend on them being fun and giving the viewers a good time. EON needs to get back to that. Also, a new Bond acting crew would be welcome, preferably with a cast that are character actors rather than stars so the focus can be on James Bond and not him AND the team. I like the Bond crew, but they should only be there to support 007, not stand alongside him or continually be speaking in his ear.

And of course, it’s time for a new James Bond 007. EON can take the first positive and confident step toward a successful future by announcing on October 5, James Bond Day, the hiring of Henry Cavill as the seventh 007 and that Bond 26 will be released in November 2024. THAT would be the most progressive news for the Bond film series’ 60th anniversary (and for us the fans). Please EON make that happen. :grinning: :pray:

4 Likes
435

As for the theory that aside from the Broccoli family, the Bond films are nobody’s best work, I have to say that is not necessarily true. I largely agree with plank attack who said those who work behind the camera have often put in their BEST work in the Bond films while those in front of the camera often don’t.

As has been mentioned, directors often did their best work with Bond. Terence Young, Guy Hamilton, John Glen, and Martin Campbell to name a few. And for as great as Ken Adam was as a production designer and John Barry as a composer, I’d readily put up their Bond stuff particularly Adam’s YOLT and TSWLM and Barry’s OHMSS up against any of their non-Bond work. I’m not a Roger Deakins expert, but his work on Skyfall was excellent, and I have a hard time thinking he was significantly better anywhere else. And longtime 007 contributors screenwriter Richard Maibaum (especially for DN, FRWL, and OHMSS) and main titles designer Maurice Binder (especially for TSWLM and MR) are synonymous with the Bond series. Even newer contributors like composer David Arnold (TND, TWINE) and main titles designer Daniel Kleinman (G/E, CR, and SF) have done such great work with Bond that I also find it hard that they topped themselves elsewhere. And then there’s the various stuntmen in the series. I highly doubt most of them were ever better outside of Bond, especially Rick Sylvester with his ski jump in TSWLM and rock climbing fall in FYEO and Bumps Willard with his corkscrew jump in TMWTGG.

As for the actors, Sean Connery has a lot of great films and performances outside of Bond so it’s hard to say that his 007 efforts are his best.

George Lazenby can’t beat his OHMSS film’s quality, but I haven’t seen much of his other work to say for sure if he’s ever been better acting-wise. But from what I’ve seen, I’d say no.

Roger Moore in his film career was probably never better than he was as Bond, but when you consider his TV work as the Saint, Simon Templar, you could make a strong case that he was better, or at least equal to Bond, there.

Timothy Dalton, again I haven’t seen half his career, but I did enjoy him in The Rocketeer and Chuck. Have not seen The Lion In Winter, but would guess that he may have been better there.

Pierce Brosnan was great as Remington Steele, Thomas Crown, The Matador, and in The Tailor Of Panama. He was also a great Bond ,but you could make a good case that he was better in those former projects than he was as Bond.

Daniel Craig was great in Layer Cake and Knives Out was entertaining, but I might go with his performance in Casino Royale as his best career work.

As for the various villains and Bond girls over the years, I haven’t seen much of their work, but I’d be willing to bet that the more famous ones have probably done better work outside of Bond while the lesser known ones have probably done better work with Bond. As David_M said, when it comes to actors, the Bond series is more about “opening doors to more adventurous projects” and I agree with that.

Thanks for the game Jim. I’m finally done. :sweat_smile:

4 Likes