Would you like to see Bond's backstory in SF or beyond?

Virage

With Skyfall looking like it will feature a bit about Bond's past I'm going to pose a question. Would you like to see Bond's backstory in SF or beyond? By that I mean how he was orphaned when he was little and taken in by his aunt finally make it on to screen.

So what do you think?

no i think it should stay a mystery...besides if they show a blonde kid instead of a brown/black haired kid it would destroy it bond isnt blonde

doubleoego

Craig is Bond and craig is blond. If they did show Bond as a kid in a flashback, he'd be blond. However, I don't foresee such a scenario taking place.

I suppose Bond's past being visited would depend on its execution but no, I personally don't want to see such bacground exposition put on film. I'm happy with the young Bond novels for that stuff. The movies should focus on the present and taking things forward.

That being said, I'm almost convinced that whatever Bond's past makes it into SF will not be substantial.

SaintMark

NO

fire_and_ice

No thanks.

identigraph

I personally would be very dissapointed if they went down this road, I like the fact Bond is just Bond, we don't need to see the whole Bruce Wayne-like back story.

RogueAgent

No not at all. If there is a little bit of dialogue regarding it? Seeing as they are at his ancesteral home? Then that's fair enough, but not a full blown movie or story about it.

Samuel001

No, not really. It's unneeded. Skyfall should touch on this subject enough.

boldfinger

Yeah I would very much like to see Bond´s backstory: Etched into every wrinkle of his face and into the deadly coldness of his eyes.

The dialogue between Bond and Vesper in the train was good enough. But no verbal mention of Bond´s past should ever be more explicit than that.
TSHLM had this nice moment when Tanya rattles down Bond´s dossier, and Bond turns cold all of a sudden. That was also nice.

sirseanisbond

Well we're obviously going to get some amount of his back story in Skyfall, as it will see Bond returning to his ancestral Scotland, and his family’s Skyfall lodge where his parents are buried. You don't just throw that kind of stuff in, they're going to play an important role in the plot somehow, and for me personally, I find that interesting. I want Bond to have more depth, and I want to get a glimpse of what his backstory looks like.

WVPoef

Yes and no, not sure where I stand on this. Depends on how they do it.

Agent007391

I don't think they ever will. Besides, EON has made it official that Craig's Bond shares the same backstory as the novel Bond, just with everything moved up some years (and omitting the WWII thing)

saunders

Cubby Broccoli was always dead against any suggestion of showing Bonds younger self (in fact if he was still around I think it's fair to say that CR would of been radically different with any suggestion of this being Bond's first 00 mission removed). MGW tried more than once to get his interest in doing a roots story but Cubby always refused believing the audience wanted to see the Bond as they knew him, and I guess he knew his audience better than anyone, so for that reason it's a no from me.

thelivingroyale

I don't want any flashbacks showing a young Bond, but I wouldn't mind them mentioning more about his backstory. Skyfall looks like it will have something to do with Bonds backstory.

Kennon

Personally, no. I can see why it would intrigue some fans. But I don't think it's necessary. We've had lots of films not giving any of Bond's backstory, it never hurt a bit.

Sandy

I think about it every now and then. My answer is no. Like @thelivingroyale I don't mind them mentioning it but showing the backstory would be an entirely different thing.

sirseanisbond

Sandy said:
I think about it every now and then. My answer is no. Like @thelivingroyale I don't mind them mentioning it but showing the backstory would be an entirely different thing.

I agree is no much as I would not like to see a prolonged flashback to a teenaged Bond living with his Aunt in Kent, but I see no harm in a brief flashback to Bond as a boy standing in front of his parents grave in the rain before flashing back to him standing there in present day.

Virage

sirseanisbond said:

Sandy said:
I think about it every now and then. My answer is no. Like @thelivingroyale I don't mind them mentioning it but showing the backstory would be an entirely different thing.

I agree is no much as I would not like to see a prolonged flashback to a teenaged Bond living with his Aunt in Kent, but I see no harm in a brief flashback to Bond as a boy standing in front of his parents grave in the rain before flashing back to him standing there in present day.

That's sorta what I had in mind. The thing is if a extended flashback is needed by the plot, we get a long flashback. The bit that has been nagging me is Silverfin and By Royal Command. For obvious reasons the Young Bond Books are one of the most sort after in Hollywood, and proberbly more so after the hunger games. The two books I mentioned earlier NEED that extended flashback and those books with a likely chance of hitting the big screen and showing the origins. So after or just before that what would be wrong of doing it as the mysterious orign has all ready been told.

doubleoego

Do you have a link to movie studios wanting to adapt the YB novels into movies?

Virage

doubleoego said:
Do you have a link to movie studios wanting to adapt the YB novels into movies?

2004: Its reported by variety that Miramax has brought the film rights to Book 1 (SilverFin) and Book 2 (Bloodfever). Vairty also guesses there will be five books before the official announcement.
">http://commanderbond.net/2433/miramax-buys-rights-to-first-two-young-james-bond-novels.html

2005: Harry Potter Rumored For Role and the project is described in "early Years".
http://au.movies.ign.com/articles/648/648736p1.html

2005: Higson mentions the film rights to the LA times.

2006: Higson says Not now. BUT NOT NO: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/5031094.stm

2009: The Herald Hints at the films.
http://www.mi6-hq.com/news/index.php?itemid=7768&catid=108&t=qos&s=qos

Ps.
@doubleoego. All the books made the top 50 on release and they are James Bond Books. I Mean what Hollywood big-wig wouldn't want to get their hands on the biggest franchise ever!

BAIN123

I think part of the fun of Bond is his sense of mystery.

Touching on the subject might be good. I always liked how they did it in GE with the passing mention of Bond's parents but to have his family become part of the story itself like they did in 24 season 6? No.

Then again I may be suprised with SF so I'm prepared to change my view come November.

Bounine

Virage said:
With Skyfall looking like it will feature a bit about Bond's past I'm going to pose a question. Would you like to see Bond's backstory in SF or beyond? By that I mean how he was orphaned when he was little and taken in by his aunt finally make it on to screen.

So what do you think?

I'd like to hear it discussed a little but not really in a flashback, merely through dialogue. I can't understand why people are so against finding out a little of Bond's background history like in Fleming's YOLT obituary.

"...but I see no harm in a brief flashback to Bond as a boy standing in front of his parents grave in the rain before flashing back to him standing there in present day."

I'm not sure about that, it seems a little cliched. I guess if the teenage Bond stood in the shadows instead of plain sight it would be better. One flashback I would like to see is Bond's parents in their climbing accident. It should be played out how John Pearson described it in the Bond biography. There was an argument at first if I remember, then Bond's father went chasing after his mother up the mountain. It need only be short.

TheWizardOfIce

saunders said:
Cubby Broccoli was always dead against any suggestion of showing Bonds younger self (in fact if he was still around I think it's fair to say that CR would of been radically different with any suggestion of this being Bond's first 00 mission removed). MGW tried more than once to get his interest in doing a roots story but Cubby always refused believing the audience wanted to see the Bond as they knew him, and I guess he knew his audience better than anyone, so for that reason it's a no from me.

Agree 100%. Who are Babs, MGW or any of us to disagree with Cubby? OK he made a few duff calls in his time but overall his gut instinct was always right.

Especially seeing as now the timeline has been f**ked around with what we would get would be totally different to Fleming and Pearsons definitive versions. I dont want to end up with a situation like Batman where we have multiple versions of origin stories.

Bounine

...as long as they don't go another origin story after this unlike with Burton's Batman films and Nolans ones.

I never agreed with all of Cubby's views.

bondsum

saunders said:
Cubby Broccoli was always dead against any suggestion of showing Bonds younger self (in fact if he was still around I think it's fair to say that CR would of been radically different with any suggestion of this being Bond's first 00 mission removed). MGW tried more than once to get his interest in doing a roots story but Cubby always refused believing the audience wanted to see the Bond as they knew him, and I guess he knew his audience better than anyone, so for that reason it's a no from me.

Totally agree. I don't mind subtle references to his past but the audience doesn't need a "Who Do You Think You Are?" episode in a Bond movie. This is the thing that worries me the most about Skyfall.

M_Balje

Only in connection with another chacter. Like Felix and his wedding in LTK, Alec in GE be old friend of him. Also haven't mind if Brosnan have made a fift movie with the return of Jack Wade and there talking a litle bit about Bond his army time, if made a litle connection to the story.

But i don't whant see Bond his back ground like Voldemort in Harry Potter 6 or before the age of 32. At the moment i think it is fine to have actors who be in there 30,40-50's. I whant a Bond who work for Mi6 (or sometimes CIA) and not more. No young Bond.

As said before i don't mind Judi Dench's M get a Spinoff. This is also to get started again with Bond 24 and Bond 25 it going to be the Mi6 worldwide adventure /commander Bond Bond. Also if Dench M die or return later this is something i think Bond need now.

SirHenryLeeChaChing

I'm undecided on this. On one hand, we're supposedly getting into M's past so I wouldn't be surprised if Bond makes a reference to his. If it is kept short and relevant to the story, it wouldn't bother me. It just depends on the nature of all of it.

As far as Cubby, he was human and makes mistakes like everyone else. One particular 1970's film that gets way too far away from reality comes to mind @-)

saunders

SirHenryLeeChaChing said:

As far as Cubby, he was human and makes mistakes like everyone else. One particular 1970's film that gets way too far away from reality comes to mind @-)

I presume your talking about MR, but to be fair to Cubby it made more money than any previous Bond film so financially, if not artistically, it can hardly be called a mistake from a producers point of view.

DarthDimi

A little disclosure, I wouldn't mind, but too much means making the same mistake as with the young Bond books. Digging too deep into Bond's past equals cementing certain guesses we may or may not have on the matter as something not quite dissimilar from "the truth" in Bond's - dare I say - mythology. I don't want to know a lot more than the things Fleming offered me in his days. I have trouble recognising other writers' authority to expand on the more personal facts in Bond's life. Remember please that the two most personal things dealt with in the film - Tracy's and Vesper's death - were lifted from Fleming's pages. Paris Carver wasn't, but then she's no more than a another one of Bond's former pleasures. He left when she got too close. And that's all we need to know. Alec seemed a pretty personal affair too, but once again a former friend turned foe is not too liberal a take on the legacy of Fleming. So again I say, a little peak into Bond's inner universe never hurts but when little become big, I get worried.

Call me a purist. ;-)

SirHenryLeeChaChing

saunders said:

SirHenryLeeChaChing said:

As far as Cubby, he was human and makes mistakes like everyone else. One particular 1970's film that gets way too far away from reality comes to mind @-)

I presume your talking about MR, but to be fair to Cubby it made more money than any previous Bond film so financially, if not artistically, it can hardly be called a mistake from a producers point of view.

I agree that if the box office was Cubby's primary concern, it was very successful. I always hope every EON Bond movie makes money. Artistically, that's another story for me. The novel was and is one of my favorites and I would have liked to see them give us more of that and less Star Wars.

boldfinger

M_Balje said:
Only in connection with another chacter. Like Felix and his wedding in LTK, Alec in GE be old friend of him. Also haven't mind if Brosnan have made a fift movie with the return of Jack Wade and there talking a litle bit about Bond his army time, if made a litle connection to the story.

Good idea with Jack Wade, I liked him anyhow ;-) .
But Bond and Trevelyan already were on the edge of soap opera ground.

Bruce Wayne´s backstory in BB was done in an excellent fashion, the first 20min of that film are a masterpiece (well, the rest is too). But for Bond the opportunity would have been CR, after that it doesn´t quite make sense.

Categories

In this Discussion

Announcements