James Bond Film SeriesVocabulary and Expressionscodename stunt gad

James Bond Film Series
   The James Bond movie series turned 50 this year. For almost half the time that feature films have been in existence, there have been feature films about a secret agent codenamed 007. It is a unique achievement. The pertinent question, though, is not why Bond has lasted so long, but why other film series have not. Cinema-goers are routinely faced with a fourth "Ice Age" cartoon or a third instalment of " Alvin and the Chipmunks". It would not be wildly inaccurate to suggest that Hollywood is obsessed with creating strings of sequels. So it is curious to note that while there are TV soap operas and superhero comics which have kept going for decades, so far nothing on the big screen has come close to matching 007 for longevity and popularity.
   What is Bond’s winning formula? According to a new documentary, Everything or Nothing: the Untold Story of 007, one key factor is the balance between continuity and change, between staying reliably the same and seeming fresh and new. Certain elements of every Bond movie are unwavering, so we feel an affectionate familiarity with them; others are new each time, so we don’t feel as if we are watching the same film over and over again.
   We can all list the features that stay the same: There is the pre-credit stunt sequence and the bombastic ballad, the briefing with M and the visit to a casino, or a swanky party, or both. There are gadgets and car chases and seductive women, one of whom may well be a villainess. And, crucially, there is James Bond himself. We know how he introduces himself, how he likes his vodka martinis and how good he looks in a tuxedo. We know he will be the same remorseless killer at the end of the film as he is at the start. The director of a new Bond film is licensed to get on with the story knowing that we have already bonded with Bond. It is a rare advantage. How many other characters are so iconic that they can survive a change of actors without any drop in popularity?
   But while the 007 formula may seem as rigid as one of Sean Connery’s toupees, the space within it that is left open for variation and evolution is just as important. Each film can have a new villain, a different love interest and any number of exotic locations. What’s more, it can be set in different time periods, in that Bond always operates in the period when the film is made, whether that is the 1960s, the 21st century or at any point in between. This allows the films to adapt to the cinematic trend of the moment, be it Blaxploitation (Live and Let Die, 1973)or Kung Fu (The Man With The Golden Gun, 1974).
   Look for that cocktail of stability and malleability in other movie series and you will not find it. Batman and Spider-Man, for instance, are restricted to their stomping grounds of Gotham and New York, where they encounter the same small roster of colorful antagonists. No wonder audiences wouldn’t put up with them for 50 years without a break. Zorro, The Three Musketeers, and The Pirates of the Caribbean are all tied to specific places and periods. Indiana Jones may not to be bound to a specific milieu, but he is synonymous with a specific actor. Even Britain’s campy "Carry On" series faltered when it lost its key cast members. Bond’s closest competitor in recent years, the Bourne movie series, ticks many of the same boxes as 007. Matt Damon has been replaced semi-successfully with Jeremy Renner, and Bourne can go anywhere in the world so we need not tire of the same old backdrops. But whether the hero is played by Mr. Damon or Mr. Renner, he is always tangling with one particular American government agency, so it is hard to see the series continuing for another four decades.
   Meanwhile, at the other end of the spectrum, there are movie series which are so loose and indistinct that almost nothing connects the various instalments, leaving little for an audience to grow attached to. The Die Hard films have little in common with each other except the presence of Bruce Willis (and a token connection between the baddies of parts one and three). Mission: Impossible has the same problem. Four episodes in, we still have only a fuzzy impression of who Tom Cruise’s character is or which organization he works for.
   Ask yourself this: would anyone get excited if a Mission: Impossible finished with the caption Ethan Hunt Will Return? It is unlikely. But when a Bond film finishes with the equivalent promise, it still leaves a tingle of anticipation, even after 50 years.