Where does Bond go after Craig?

1622623625627628688

Comments

  • Posts: 4,236
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Someone said a black Harry Potter, haha, that tickled me. There's just no need to change his race. Focus on the core of the character and not surface level things. And make Bond powerful, he's got a new era to define.

    Exactly, the colour of one's skin is ultimately surface level, yet it's used by some as a reason why certain actors, who are otherwise very capable of embodying all the essential qualities of Bond, can't play the part.

    And what would be wrong with a black Harry Potter?

    Change the record, it's boring. No one is saying a black actor cannot embody all the essential qualities of Bond. Idris Elba (too old now) definitely carries similar traits to Connery.

    However, to keep the franchise in some kind of loose tie to its Fleming origins, why not keep as much of the original description as close as possible to an actor that closely fits the bill.

    By all means modernise the world around Bond, but lets try to at least keep the main character himself as close as possible to Fleming's description. Otherwise it's difficult to still claim on the credits and poster that `xxx xxx is Ian Fleming's James Bond'.

    What if an actor hypothetically did have a lot of the traits of the Fleming description, more so overtly than Craig or Moore (the black hair, cruel mouth, the height, classically dark/handsome, something ‘cruel’ about them etc) but just wasn’t white?

    Anyway, I’m not sure if getting as close to the Fleming description as possible is ever a consideration when picking actors. The description of the literary Bond is surprisingly vague despite some key details (ie. What does a ‘cruel’ mouth actually look like?)

    It's probably not a consideration, I am just stating what I would prefer. I would rather have a Dalton type as the next Bond, someone who looks like Fleming's description, and tries to go back to the source material as much as possible.

    If that actor happened to have a naturally darker shade of skin because of something like a mixed origin background, then no, it really wouldn't bother me. I always saw Bond in the novels as a tanned person anyway (probably all those exotic sunny locations).

    Fair enough. Like I said, I think one of the cool things about Fleming’s description of Bond is that it has enough of that literary flourish for it to be impactful. No one remembers the Hoagey Carmichael comparison (to modern readers it means nothing anyway and Fleming himself abandons it by the second book). It’s how startlingly good looking but cruel he is, the coldness of the eyes etc.

    I guess some actors have had specific similarities (Craig’s eyes are pretty much the same colour as the literary Bond’s, but I think it’s through his performance that that sense of ‘coldness’ comes through). But none were picked because they looked exactly like the literary character. As you said I’m sure there’d be circumstances where a mixed race or non white actor could be closer in appearance than any other actor has (not that that’s a dealbreaker - they could also lack the right gravitas or presence needed, or could fall short of this when compared to other candidates).

    One of the things I don’t understand is how casting an actor who isn’t white would automatically make the character ‘no longer James Bond’, and by extension just any other generic action hero. Is Bond not distinctive enough a character even in his 21st century incarnation? Are the films simply ‘generic action movies’? While I understand a minority don’t love the later films, they are still James Bond films and they stand out from the crowd. I think it’s actually because they’ve been adapting the Fleming texts for so long and the movies still contain a noticeable trace of that DNA. I personally think that mentality undersells this franchise. From a simple script perspective the character’s specific vices, his brand of humour, and indeed the heightened reality/tropes of these films are idiosyncratic, and for me haven’t been replicated or bettered in lesser action movies. They just need to find an actor who can bring something unique to the role while embodying those fundamental (and often intangible) qualities - his Britishness, sex appeal, charisma, physicality, cruelty, dark humour etc.

    Casting’s not a science in that sense. I think it’s possible that a black/asian/mixed race (or whatever) actor could embody all that and absolutely nail it. A white actor could be picked and absolutely bomb even if they do have black hair and look like Hoagey Carmichael. So long as they go into it trying to cast their James Bond with those qualities of the character in mind, and by extension try to bring all this out in the film, I’m fine with it.

    Fleming mentions Carmichael twice: in Moonraker and Casino Royale. But in From Russia with Love there is full description that also seems to evoke a Carmichael-esque description.

    I also thought that Fleming was describing his brother Peter with the descriptions and I think a picture is fully drawn with that sort of model in mind. Of course, without knowing Fleming's brother or the Hoagy Carmichael comparison perhaps there could be some jeopardy about the description but I think there's a full picture of "Fleming Bond" that works quite well. Of course there's the Fleming approved sketch but I don't think that matches his descriptions. In that sense maybe the description can be unclear.

    The race discussion is a bit tired. The literary Bond should always be white as there are no barriers to keeping him faithful to Fleming. But the film Bond can't always be literal to all descriptions given as the actor pool would be limited too much to get an accurate/good production. People understand this sort of leniency: no complaints about Felix or Moneypenny and some suggest Colin Salmon for M (based on the graphic novels perhaps?). While I get that perhaps keeping the race of character is different than keeping the descriptions of a whole set of them, I think it should be understood that if the best available actor by far is a different race than they should get a shot at it. Of course it's never as clear cut as that but I think that's a reasonable stance to have.

    I Think that Bond does have a learned sense of class instead of an inherent upper class nature (that Moore and Connery mostly had, with going to Cambridge): he fits into Blades well enough but he's still an outsider, he feels disgust at the "soft life," dislikes being called "old boy/man" etc. He went to Eton, but got expelled and fit in better at a more militaristic Scottish school. He only really spends money/lives expensively because he's aware of his own mortality. That's perhaps something that could be touched on for the next era

    Good points. Again, I don’t think the Carmichael description means much to anyone today, and I’m not quite sure how much it even did to a lot of British readers at the time. By the time Bond is seen in comic strips we don’t get much of that Carmichael ‘look’, and he seems to get progressively more weathered/gritty looking as the illustrations move through the late 50s. Also worth noting Fleming himself said beyond the specifics of the scar, comma of hair, and eye colour, he didn’t know exactly what his creation looked like.

    Completely agree about what to look for when casting Bond, and yes, no one seems to have an issue with a black Leiter or Moneypenny. I don’t think anyone would lose any sleep over a black Bill Tanner!

    I think it’s interesting that Bond as a character is essentially an upper middle class, expatriate born man who leans into the finer things in life, who’s almost exclusively played by actors in these films from working class backgrounds. It’s not integral to the casting, but there’s something about that distance to a certain type of image that just works (I don’t think Bond could have been played convincingly by otherwise wonderful actors such as David Niven or even Trevor Howard in 1962 for instance, as they lacked that sense of toughness, magnetism etc that Connery with his noticeable Scottish accent had). Bond’s habits are very particular, but he’s a very individualistic character. A man in his profession wouldn’t fully fit in with back slapping ‘old boy’ types. The books and films even poke fun at batty intellectuals, colleagues who still wear their boarding school tie, and that ‘old man’ speak.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,507
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Someone said a black Harry Potter, haha, that tickled me. There's just no need to change his race. Focus on the core of the character and not surface level things. And make Bond powerful, he's got a new era to define.

    Exactly, the colour of one's skin is ultimately surface level, yet it's used by some as a reason why certain actors, who are otherwise very capable of embodying all the essential qualities of Bond, can't play the part.

    And what would be wrong with a black Harry Potter?

    Change the record, it's boring. No one is saying a black actor cannot embody all the essential qualities of Bond. Idris Elba (too old now) definitely carries similar traits to Connery.

    However, to keep the franchise in some kind of loose tie to its Fleming origins, why not keep as much of the original description as close as possible to an actor that closely fits the bill.

    By all means modernise the world around Bond, but lets try to at least keep the main character himself as close as possible to Fleming's description. Otherwise it's difficult to still claim on the credits and poster that `xxx xxx is Ian Fleming's James Bond'.

    What if an actor hypothetically did have a lot of the traits of the Fleming description, more so overtly than Craig or Moore (the black hair, cruel mouth, the height, classically dark/handsome, something ‘cruel’ about them etc) but just wasn’t white?

    Anyway, I’m not sure if getting as close to the Fleming description as possible is ever a consideration when picking actors. The description of the literary Bond is surprisingly vague despite some key details (ie. What does a ‘cruel’ mouth actually look like?)

    It's probably not a consideration, I am just stating what I would prefer. I would rather have a Dalton type as the next Bond, someone who looks like Fleming's description, and tries to go back to the source material as much as possible.

    If that actor happened to have a naturally darker shade of skin because of something like a mixed origin background, then no, it really wouldn't bother me. I always saw Bond in the novels as a tanned person anyway (probably all those exotic sunny locations).

    Fair enough. Like I said, I think one of the cool things about Fleming’s description of Bond is that it has enough of that literary flourish for it to be impactful. No one remembers the Hoagey Carmichael comparison (to modern readers it means nothing anyway and Fleming himself abandons it by the second book). It’s how startlingly good looking but cruel he is, the coldness of the eyes etc.

    I guess some actors have had specific similarities (Craig’s eyes are pretty much the same colour as the literary Bond’s, but I think it’s through his performance that that sense of ‘coldness’ comes through). But none were picked because they looked exactly like the literary character. As you said I’m sure there’d be circumstances where a mixed race or non white actor could be closer in appearance than any other actor has (not that that’s a dealbreaker - they could also lack the right gravitas or presence needed, or could fall short of this when compared to other candidates).

    One of the things I don’t understand is how casting an actor who isn’t white would automatically make the character ‘no longer James Bond’, and by extension just any other generic action hero. Is Bond not distinctive enough a character even in his 21st century incarnation? Are the films simply ‘generic action movies’? While I understand a minority don’t love the later films, they are still James Bond films and they stand out from the crowd. I think it’s actually because they’ve been adapting the Fleming texts for so long and the movies still contain a noticeable trace of that DNA. I personally think that mentality undersells this franchise. From a simple script perspective the character’s specific vices, his brand of humour, and indeed the heightened reality/tropes of these films are idiosyncratic, and for me haven’t been replicated or bettered in lesser action movies. They just need to find an actor who can bring something unique to the role while embodying those fundamental (and often intangible) qualities - his Britishness, sex appeal, charisma, physicality, cruelty, dark humour etc.

    Casting’s not a science in that sense. I think it’s possible that a black/asian/mixed race (or whatever) actor could embody all that and absolutely nail it. A white actor could be picked and absolutely bomb even if they do have black hair and look like Hoagey Carmichael. So long as they go into it trying to cast their James Bond with those qualities of the character in mind, and by extension try to bring all this out in the film, I’m fine with it.

    Fleming mentions Carmichael twice: in Moonraker and Casino Royale. But in From Russia with Love there is full description that also seems to evoke a Carmichael-esque description.

    I also thought that Fleming was describing his brother Peter with the descriptions and I think a picture is fully drawn with that sort of model in mind. Of course, without knowing Fleming's brother or the Hoagy Carmichael comparison perhaps there could be some jeopardy about the description but I think there's a full picture of "Fleming Bond" that works quite well. Of course there's the Fleming approved sketch but I don't think that matches his descriptions. In that sense maybe the description can be unclear.

    The race discussion is a bit tired. The literary Bond should always be white as there are no barriers to keeping him faithful to Fleming. But the film Bond can't always be literal to all descriptions given as the actor pool would be limited too much to get an accurate/good production. People understand this sort of leniency: no complaints about Felix or Moneypenny and some suggest Colin Salmon for M (based on the graphic novels perhaps?). While I get that perhaps keeping the race of character is different than keeping the descriptions of a whole set of them, I think it should be understood that if the best available actor by far is a different race than they should get a shot at it. Of course it's never as clear cut as that but I think that's a reasonable stance to have.

    I Think that Bond does have a learned sense of class instead of an inherent upper class nature (that Moore and Connery mostly had, with going to Cambridge): he fits into Blades well enough but he's still an outsider, he feels disgust at the "soft life," dislikes being called "old boy/man" etc. He went to Eton, but got expelled and fit in better at a more militaristic Scottish school. He only really spends money/lives expensively because he's aware of his own mortality. That's perhaps something that could be touched on for the next era
    I think it’s interesting that Bond as a character is essentially an upper middle class, expatriate born man who leans into the finer things in life, who’s almost exclusively played by actors in these films from working class backgrounds. It’s not integral to the casting, but there’s something about that distance to a certain type of image that just works (I don’t think Bond could have been played convincingly by otherwise wonderful actors such as David Niven or even Trevor Howard in 1962 for instance, as they lacked that sense of toughness, magnetism etc that Connery with his noticeable Scottish accent had).

    Very interesting point.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,664
    Personally I could hardly care less about the skin color of the next Bond actor. Short of EON casting Tommy Wiseau as Bond; I think we’ll be just fine with whomever they pick.

    Oh hi, M! Oh hi, Moneypenny! You’re tearing me apart, Blofeld!
  • Posts: 1,396
    I think Bond is Fleming's fantasy so Bond can resemble an idealized Fleming. Ian looked a little like Carmichael, after all.


    Sure, no actor looked exactly like Fleming but some had something of him.
  • Posts: 4,236
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Personally I could hardly care less about the skin color of the next Bond actor. Short of EON casting Tommy Wiseau as Bond; I think we’ll be just fine with whomever they pick.

    Oh hi, M! Oh hi, Moneypenny! You’re tearing me apart, Blofeld!

    Nah, Wiseau as M would be cool.

    M: ‘So anyway James, how’s your sex life?’
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited September 3 Posts: 8,414
    Burgess wrote: »
    Burgess wrote: »
    Just make a fun movie under 2hrs 15 minutes - there's no need to overcomplicate things. Characterisation can fit in where it's appropriate to the story, but it should never be the primary consideration. The focus on modern bond films is about how events are affecting bond on an emotional, internal level, and that's how you end up with storylines where everyone has past relationships with eachother and characters emerge "from the shadows". Honestly, it's getting really hokey at this point. Bond films need a shot in the arm, get a real version of the bond theme, make a rock and roll theme song, go back to focusing on solid scenarios for a gripping plot, 3 strong set peices per film, include at least 1 showstopping stunt, and be a bit more tongue in cheek without relinquishing a sense of jeopardy, similar to how they did in TLD. Bring back Arnold for the score, let him have at least one last crack at it - surely he has had some new ideas over the past 20 years.

    It’s interesting that your description of a “shot in the arm” means going back to what was done before as opposed to innovating something new or different. I agree with you that some of the dramatic storytelling in the Craig era didn't stick the landing. Drama becomes melodrama when subtext is erased. I think Blofeld being, in some ways, Bond's dark foil is an intersting dramatic thread that should have stayed tied to the subtext of Spectre's narrative, but I appluad EON for the effort.

    I disagree with you on characterizations place in the narrative. It should be at the center. Characterization is the stream that feeds the story. One has to undersrand why Bond reacts in order to understand how he would react. I think the way Bond films were scripted in the past is in the past. Genre entertainment is far more sophisticated and nuanced today than it was even twenty years ago.

    Audiences have different expectations of their entertainment--especially for theatrical releases. I don’t think the next era has to repeat the dramatic beats of the last era but going back nearly twenty-five years to retread a formula that was already being tinkered with in the Brosnan era will handicap, if not kill, the franchise.

    In my opinion genre filmmaking has finally caught up with other story forms, in cinema and beyond. Of course, there have always been standouts in genre filmmaking but, on the whole, it was rudimentary in execution and shallow in depth. Things have changed. There’s still a lot of it that sucks but it adheres to the standards of now.

    I disagree excessive characterisation can very much get in the way of good storytelling, I'll give an example. In the original lord of the rings film series (I don't know if its different in the books) with the exception of Aragorn who has a tragic past, and perhaps boromir, the rest of the characters don't have a terribly detailed history or heavy internal demons to overcome, all of the drama and threat comes from things they face in the here and now, which they encounter along the course of their journey. We don't related to them because they are burdened with inner angst and turmoil, we related to them because of their personalities which each get moments to shine, and the time spent along the way. Their natural charm, wisdom, silliness, stoic coolness rubs off on you and you want to see them succeed. Obviously there does become points of strife, and hard times where characters lose, grieve and have to face down adversity, but this is perfectly normal for any well told story. Those things happen when appropriate for the characters and the story calls for it, which is what I mean by Characterisation not being primary and held above all else. Story should always come first, and when there is a moment where taking a peek beneath the mask makes sense, then there's nothing wrong with it. The problem comes where, like in the Craig films, the story itself is subjugated in order to contrive moments for us to get a peek beneath the mask of the character, when it's clearly not what the story is calling for (think, "its always been me James, cuckoo!!", or bond sacrificing himself at the end of B25). In cases like that, excessive characterisation for the sake of it absolutely can be detrimental to a well rounded narrative.

    Certainly, one takes what they think are the best elements to remix or update from the past, but the way in which stories are told has evolved.


    The way in which stories were told was constantly evolving from 1962 until 1987, and part of what made the formula so great is that is was flexible enough that it could suit the times in which they were made, thats how EON managed to be so successful and so consistent for so long. The Living Daylights doesn't feel like a film from the early 60's, it feels fresh and contemporary to the late 80's, the styles, the fashion , the music, the production value, everything is modern and alive to the time, despite it being adapted from the same basic ingredients as Goldfinger or Thunderball. Again, all that "classic bond" really means is a bond film where the drama and sense of jeopardy flows organically from the story, and not out of trauma from Bond's past, or skeletons looming out of "the shadows".
  • The most significant aspect are his eyes. Craig had that allure, that gaze, the danger and calm in his. I think it's an essential part of the portrayal. In a cinematic sense they must captivate the audience throughout the film.

    Yeah, I'm going with eyes above race, stature, or any other traits. They truly are the windows into Bond's soul.
  • Posts: 4,236
    Burgess wrote: »
    Burgess wrote: »
    Just make a fun movie under 2hrs 15 minutes - there's no need to overcomplicate things. Characterisation can fit in where it's appropriate to the story, but it should never be the primary consideration. The focus on modern bond films is about how events are affecting bond on an emotional, internal level, and that's how you end up with storylines where everyone has past relationships with eachother and characters emerge "from the shadows". Honestly, it's getting really hokey at this point. Bond films need a shot in the arm, get a real version of the bond theme, make a rock and roll theme song, go back to focusing on solid scenarios for a gripping plot, 3 strong set peices per film, include at least 1 showstopping stunt, and be a bit more tongue in cheek without relinquishing a sense of jeopardy, similar to how they did in TLD. Bring back Arnold for the score, let him have at least one last crack at it - surely he has had some new ideas over the past 20 years.

    It’s interesting that your description of a “shot in the arm” means going back to what was done before as opposed to innovating something new or different. I agree with you that some of the dramatic storytelling in the Craig era didn't stick the landing. Drama becomes melodrama when subtext is erased. I think Blofeld being, in some ways, Bond's dark foil is an intersting dramatic thread that should have stayed tied to the subtext of Spectre's narrative, but I appluad EON for the effort.

    I disagree with you on characterizations place in the narrative. It should be at the center. Characterization is the stream that feeds the story. One has to undersrand why Bond reacts in order to understand how he would react. I think the way Bond films were scripted in the past is in the past. Genre entertainment is far more sophisticated and nuanced today than it was even twenty years ago.

    Audiences have different expectations of their entertainment--especially for theatrical releases. I don’t think the next era has to repeat the dramatic beats of the last era but going back nearly twenty-five years to retread a formula that was already being tinkered with in the Brosnan era will handicap, if not kill, the franchise.

    In my opinion genre filmmaking has finally caught up with other story forms, in cinema and beyond. Of course, there have always been standouts in genre filmmaking but, on the whole, it was rudimentary in execution and shallow in depth. Things have changed. There’s still a lot of it that sucks but it adheres to the standards of now.

    I disagree excessive characterisation can very much get in the way of good storytelling, I'll give an example. In the original lord of the rings film series (I don't know if its different in the books) with the exception of Aragorn who has a tragic past, and perhaps boromir, the rest of the characters don't have a terribly detailed history or heavy internal demons to overcome, all of the drama and threat comes from things they face in the here and now, which they encounter along the course of their journey. We don't related to them because they are burdened with inner angst and turmoil, we related to them because of their personalities which each get moments to shine, and the time spent along the way. Their natural charm, wisdom, silliness, stoic coolness rubs off on you and you want to see them succeed. Obviously there does become points of strife, and hard times where characters lose, grieve and have to face down adversity, but this is perfectly normal for any well told story. Those things happen when appropriate for the characters and the story calls for it, which is what I mean by Characterisation not being primary and held above all else. Story should always come first, and when there is a moment where taking a peek beneath the mask makes sense, then there's nothing wrong with it. The problem comes where, like in the Craig films, the story itself is subjugated in order to contrive moments for us to get a peek beneath the mask of the character, when it's clearly not what the story is calling for (think, "its always been me James, cuckoo!!", or bond sacrificing himself at the end of B25). In cases like that, excessive characterisation for the sake of it absolutely can be detrimental to a well rounded narrative.

    Certainly, one takes what they think are the best elements to remix or update from the past, but the way in which stories are told has evolved.


    The way in which stories were told was constantly evolving from 1962 until 1987, and part of what made the formula so great is that is was flexible enough that it could suit the times in which they were made, thats how EON managed to be so successful and so consistent for so long. The Living Daylights doesn't feel like a film from the early 60's, it feels fresh and contemporary to the late 80's, the styles, the fashion , the music, the production value, everything is modern and alive to the time, despite it being adapted from the same basic ingredients as Goldfinger or Thunderball. Again, all that "classic bond" really means is a bond film where the drama and sense of jeopardy flows organically from the story, and not out of trauma from Bond's past, or skeletons looming out of "the shadows".

    See, I don’t know how much of the drama or jeopardy from the last three Craig films actually comes from Bond’s past. In SF the drama’s about Bond picking himself up after what he goes through, and his childhood home is included as a way of him taking control of the situation. We get mentions of his past and the death of his parents but it’s more a textural detail than what he has to overcome (ie. It makes sense a man like Bond has a lot of loss in his life, but it’s clearly something he’s left in the past).

    Even in SP it’s more Blofeld who has hang ups about his father/Bond. Previously unseen figures from Bonds past are nothing new for the books/films anyway, and itself that’s not a negative.
  • Posts: 387
    Burgess wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Same as it is in any context, I guess: 'a film industry practice in which black actors are cast to play historical or fictional characters who were originally white.'

    I think the missing piece in how blackwashing is used here versus what we understand as whitewashing is the erasure or minimization of past ethnic/racial characterizations. I don’t see EON erasing 60 years of white actors who played James Bond if or when they hire a Black actor as James Bond.




    I don't really see the difference.

    The difference is that whitewashing (or blackwashing or [insert description]-washing) is not simply replacing an actor of one phenotype with an actor of another phenotype. Whitewashing is the minimization or eradication of contributions made by non-White people in favor of increasing the prominence or relevance or impact of White people.

    Micky Rooney playing the Japanese landlord in Breakfast at Tiffany’s is a well known example of whitewashing. Why is that an example of whitewashing but casting a Black actor as James Bond not? Well, that’s because a Black actor wouldn’t be dressing in white-face to play James Bond as a White character. That Black actor wouldn’t be doing an impersonation of a White man. Additionally, the history of Bond as a White character wouldn’t intentionally be minimized. A Black James Bond would simply be one iteration of James Bond in a long line of other actors that played the character. Bond’s race is far less consequential to his characterization than nationality.


  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,414
    007HallY wrote: »
    Burgess wrote: »
    Burgess wrote: »
    Just make a fun movie under 2hrs 15 minutes - there's no need to overcomplicate things. Characterisation can fit in where it's appropriate to the story, but it should never be the primary consideration. The focus on modern bond films is about how events are affecting bond on an emotional, internal level, and that's how you end up with storylines where everyone has past relationships with eachother and characters emerge "from the shadows". Honestly, it's getting really hokey at this point. Bond films need a shot in the arm, get a real version of the bond theme, make a rock and roll theme song, go back to focusing on solid scenarios for a gripping plot, 3 strong set peices per film, include at least 1 showstopping stunt, and be a bit more tongue in cheek without relinquishing a sense of jeopardy, similar to how they did in TLD. Bring back Arnold for the score, let him have at least one last crack at it - surely he has had some new ideas over the past 20 years.

    It’s interesting that your description of a “shot in the arm” means going back to what was done before as opposed to innovating something new or different. I agree with you that some of the dramatic storytelling in the Craig era didn't stick the landing. Drama becomes melodrama when subtext is erased. I think Blofeld being, in some ways, Bond's dark foil is an intersting dramatic thread that should have stayed tied to the subtext of Spectre's narrative, but I appluad EON for the effort.

    I disagree with you on characterizations place in the narrative. It should be at the center. Characterization is the stream that feeds the story. One has to undersrand why Bond reacts in order to understand how he would react. I think the way Bond films were scripted in the past is in the past. Genre entertainment is far more sophisticated and nuanced today than it was even twenty years ago.

    Audiences have different expectations of their entertainment--especially for theatrical releases. I don’t think the next era has to repeat the dramatic beats of the last era but going back nearly twenty-five years to retread a formula that was already being tinkered with in the Brosnan era will handicap, if not kill, the franchise.

    In my opinion genre filmmaking has finally caught up with other story forms, in cinema and beyond. Of course, there have always been standouts in genre filmmaking but, on the whole, it was rudimentary in execution and shallow in depth. Things have changed. There’s still a lot of it that sucks but it adheres to the standards of now.

    I disagree excessive characterisation can very much get in the way of good storytelling, I'll give an example. In the original lord of the rings film series (I don't know if its different in the books) with the exception of Aragorn who has a tragic past, and perhaps boromir, the rest of the characters don't have a terribly detailed history or heavy internal demons to overcome, all of the drama and threat comes from things they face in the here and now, which they encounter along the course of their journey. We don't related to them because they are burdened with inner angst and turmoil, we related to them because of their personalities which each get moments to shine, and the time spent along the way. Their natural charm, wisdom, silliness, stoic coolness rubs off on you and you want to see them succeed. Obviously there does become points of strife, and hard times where characters lose, grieve and have to face down adversity, but this is perfectly normal for any well told story. Those things happen when appropriate for the characters and the story calls for it, which is what I mean by Characterisation not being primary and held above all else. Story should always come first, and when there is a moment where taking a peek beneath the mask makes sense, then there's nothing wrong with it. The problem comes where, like in the Craig films, the story itself is subjugated in order to contrive moments for us to get a peek beneath the mask of the character, when it's clearly not what the story is calling for (think, "its always been me James, cuckoo!!", or bond sacrificing himself at the end of B25). In cases like that, excessive characterisation for the sake of it absolutely can be detrimental to a well rounded narrative.

    Certainly, one takes what they think are the best elements to remix or update from the past, but the way in which stories are told has evolved.


    The way in which stories were told was constantly evolving from 1962 until 1987, and part of what made the formula so great is that is was flexible enough that it could suit the times in which they were made, thats how EON managed to be so successful and so consistent for so long. The Living Daylights doesn't feel like a film from the early 60's, it feels fresh and contemporary to the late 80's, the styles, the fashion , the music, the production value, everything is modern and alive to the time, despite it being adapted from the same basic ingredients as Goldfinger or Thunderball. Again, all that "classic bond" really means is a bond film where the drama and sense of jeopardy flows organically from the story, and not out of trauma from Bond's past, or skeletons looming out of "the shadows".

    See, I don’t know how much of the drama or jeopardy from the last three Craig films actually comes from Bond’s past. In SF the drama’s about Bond picking himself up after what he goes through, and his childhood home is included as a way of him taking control of the situation. We get mentions of his past and the death of his parents but it’s more a textural detail than what he has to overcome (ie. It makes sense a man like Bond has a lot of loss in his life, but it’s clearly something he’s left in the past).

    Even in SP it’s more Blofeld who has hang ups about his father/Bond. Previously unseen figures from Bonds past are nothing new for the books/films anyway, and itself that’s not a negative.

    Exactly, when it is incorporated into the structure of a classic bond film it makes for a much better rounded story, as was the case from 1962 and 1987, before the craft started to become lost.
  • edited September 3 Posts: 387
    Burgess wrote: »
    Burgess wrote: »
    Just make a fun movie under 2hrs 15 minutes - there's no need to overcomplicate things. Characterisation can fit in where it's appropriate to the story, but it should never be the primary consideration. The focus on modern bond films is about how events are affecting bond on an emotional, internal level, and that's how you end up with storylines where everyone has past relationships with eachother and characters emerge "from the shadows". Honestly, it's getting really hokey at this point. Bond films need a shot in the arm, get a real version of the bond theme, make a rock and roll theme song, go back to focusing on solid scenarios for a gripping plot, 3 strong set peices per film, include at least 1 showstopping stunt, and be a bit more tongue in cheek without relinquishing a sense of jeopardy, similar to how they did in TLD. Bring back Arnold for the score, let him have at least one last crack at it - surely he has had some new ideas over the past 20 years.

    It’s interesting that your description of a “shot in the arm” means going back to what was done before as opposed to innovating something new or different. I agree with you that some of the dramatic storytelling in the Craig era didn't stick the landing. Drama becomes melodrama when subtext is erased. I think Blofeld being, in some ways, Bond's dark foil is an intersting dramatic thread that should have stayed tied to the subtext of Spectre's narrative, but I appluad EON for the effort.

    I disagree with you on characterizations place in the narrative. It should be at the center. Characterization is the stream that feeds the story. One has to undersrand why Bond reacts in order to understand how he would react. I think the way Bond films were scripted in the past is in the past. Genre entertainment is far more sophisticated and nuanced today than it was even twenty years ago.

    Audiences have different expectations of their entertainment--especially for theatrical releases. I don’t think the next era has to repeat the dramatic beats of the last era but going back nearly twenty-five years to retread a formula that was already being tinkered with in the Brosnan era will handicap, if not kill, the franchise.

    In my opinion genre filmmaking has finally caught up with other story forms, in cinema and beyond. Of course, there have always been standouts in genre filmmaking but, on the whole, it was rudimentary in execution and shallow in depth. Things have changed. There’s still a lot of it that sucks but it adheres to the standards of now.

    I disagree excessive characterisation can very much get in the way of good storytelling, I'll give an example. In the original lord of the rings film series (I don't know if its different in the books) with the exception of Aragorn who has a tragic past, and perhaps boromir, the rest of the characters don't have a terribly detailed history or heavy internal demons to overcome, all of the drama and threat comes from things they face in the here and now, which they encounter along the course of their journey. We don't related to them because they are burdened with inner angst and turmoil, we related to them because of their personalities which each get moments to shine, and the time spent along the way. Their natural charm, wisdom, silliness, stoic coolness rubs off on you and you want to see them succeed. Obviously there does become points of strife, and hard times where characters lose, grieve and have to face down adversity, but this is perfectly normal for any well told story. Those things happen when appropriate for the characters and the story calls for it, which is what I mean by Characterisation not being primary and held above all else. Story should always come first, and when there is a moment where taking a peek beneath the mask makes sense, then there's nothing wrong with it. The problem comes where, like in the Craig films, the story itself is subjugated in order to contrive moments for us to get a peek beneath the mask of the character, when it's clearly not what the story is calling for (think, "its always been me James, cuckoo!!", or bond sacrificing himself at the end of B25). In cases like that, excessive characterisation for the sake of it absolutely can be detrimental to a well rounded narrative.

    Certainly, one takes what they think are the best elements to remix or update from the past, but the way in which stories are told has evolved.


    The way in which stories were told was constantly evolving from 1962 until 1987, and part of what made the formula so great is that is was flexible enough that it could suit the times in which they were made, thats how EON managed to be so successful and so consistent for so long. The Living Daylights doesn't feel like a film from the early 60's, it feels fresh and contemporary to the late 80's, the styles, the fashion , the music, the production value, everything is modern and alive to the time, despite it being adapted from the same basic ingredients as Goldfinger or Thunderball. Again, all that "classic bond" really means is a bond film where the drama and sense of jeopardy flows organically from the story, and not out of trauma from Bond's past, or skeletons looming out of "the shadows".

    Your definition of characterization seems narrow. Exploring Bond’s past is one way to explore his character but not the only way. Casino Royale has strong characterization that’s not directly tied to Bond’s personal history. What Casino Royale does is center Bond’s immaturity and ego within the bigger landscape of duty and betrayal. Both plot and characterization feed into each other to create a narrative the dovetails into the ultimate lesson for Bond, which itself becomes the inner wound that’s explored in subsequent films.
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    edited September 3 Posts: 556
    Teen Brofeld deciding to become a super-villain head of a trans-national criminal organization because he was enraged at Little James becoming closer to his father, is too soap-opera for me. He din't know James was going to become an mi6 operative in the first place. I think this is the type of melodrama @Mendes4Lyfe is trying to get away from.
  • edited September 3 Posts: 4,236
    007HallY wrote: »
    Burgess wrote: »
    Burgess wrote: »
    Just make a fun movie under 2hrs 15 minutes - there's no need to overcomplicate things. Characterisation can fit in where it's appropriate to the story, but it should never be the primary consideration. The focus on modern bond films is about how events are affecting bond on an emotional, internal level, and that's how you end up with storylines where everyone has past relationships with eachother and characters emerge "from the shadows". Honestly, it's getting really hokey at this point. Bond films need a shot in the arm, get a real version of the bond theme, make a rock and roll theme song, go back to focusing on solid scenarios for a gripping plot, 3 strong set peices per film, include at least 1 showstopping stunt, and be a bit more tongue in cheek without relinquishing a sense of jeopardy, similar to how they did in TLD. Bring back Arnold for the score, let him have at least one last crack at it - surely he has had some new ideas over the past 20 years.

    It’s interesting that your description of a “shot in the arm” means going back to what was done before as opposed to innovating something new or different. I agree with you that some of the dramatic storytelling in the Craig era didn't stick the landing. Drama becomes melodrama when subtext is erased. I think Blofeld being, in some ways, Bond's dark foil is an intersting dramatic thread that should have stayed tied to the subtext of Spectre's narrative, but I appluad EON for the effort.

    I disagree with you on characterizations place in the narrative. It should be at the center. Characterization is the stream that feeds the story. One has to undersrand why Bond reacts in order to understand how he would react. I think the way Bond films were scripted in the past is in the past. Genre entertainment is far more sophisticated and nuanced today than it was even twenty years ago.

    Audiences have different expectations of their entertainment--especially for theatrical releases. I don’t think the next era has to repeat the dramatic beats of the last era but going back nearly twenty-five years to retread a formula that was already being tinkered with in the Brosnan era will handicap, if not kill, the franchise.

    In my opinion genre filmmaking has finally caught up with other story forms, in cinema and beyond. Of course, there have always been standouts in genre filmmaking but, on the whole, it was rudimentary in execution and shallow in depth. Things have changed. There’s still a lot of it that sucks but it adheres to the standards of now.

    I disagree excessive characterisation can very much get in the way of good storytelling, I'll give an example. In the original lord of the rings film series (I don't know if its different in the books) with the exception of Aragorn who has a tragic past, and perhaps boromir, the rest of the characters don't have a terribly detailed history or heavy internal demons to overcome, all of the drama and threat comes from things they face in the here and now, which they encounter along the course of their journey. We don't related to them because they are burdened with inner angst and turmoil, we related to them because of their personalities which each get moments to shine, and the time spent along the way. Their natural charm, wisdom, silliness, stoic coolness rubs off on you and you want to see them succeed. Obviously there does become points of strife, and hard times where characters lose, grieve and have to face down adversity, but this is perfectly normal for any well told story. Those things happen when appropriate for the characters and the story calls for it, which is what I mean by Characterisation not being primary and held above all else. Story should always come first, and when there is a moment where taking a peek beneath the mask makes sense, then there's nothing wrong with it. The problem comes where, like in the Craig films, the story itself is subjugated in order to contrive moments for us to get a peek beneath the mask of the character, when it's clearly not what the story is calling for (think, "its always been me James, cuckoo!!", or bond sacrificing himself at the end of B25). In cases like that, excessive characterisation for the sake of it absolutely can be detrimental to a well rounded narrative.

    Certainly, one takes what they think are the best elements to remix or update from the past, but the way in which stories are told has evolved.


    The way in which stories were told was constantly evolving from 1962 until 1987, and part of what made the formula so great is that is was flexible enough that it could suit the times in which they were made, thats how EON managed to be so successful and so consistent for so long. The Living Daylights doesn't feel like a film from the early 60's, it feels fresh and contemporary to the late 80's, the styles, the fashion , the music, the production value, everything is modern and alive to the time, despite it being adapted from the same basic ingredients as Goldfinger or Thunderball. Again, all that "classic bond" really means is a bond film where the drama and sense of jeopardy flows organically from the story, and not out of trauma from Bond's past, or skeletons looming out of "the shadows".

    See, I don’t know how much of the drama or jeopardy from the last three Craig films actually comes from Bond’s past. In SF the drama’s about Bond picking himself up after what he goes through, and his childhood home is included as a way of him taking control of the situation. We get mentions of his past and the death of his parents but it’s more a textural detail than what he has to overcome (ie. It makes sense a man like Bond has a lot of loss in his life, but it’s clearly something he’s left in the past).

    Even in SP it’s more Blofeld who has hang ups about his father/Bond. Previously unseen figures from Bonds past are nothing new for the books/films anyway, and itself that’s not a negative.

    Exactly, when it is incorporated into the structure of a classic bond film it makes for a much better rounded story, as was the case from 1962 and 1987, before the craft started to become lost.

    I think it depends. I think it’s done exceptionally well in SF (which isn’t a typical/formulaic Bond movie by any means but still has a great deal of reverence to the classic films/tropes). SP (which is a much more formulaic Bond movie) not so much. I like how Bond’s relationship with Travelyan/the references to his past are done in GE. Same for the inclusion of Paris in TND.

    To be honest, I take more issue with the ‘drama’ of FYEO than SF, GE, LTK or TND. It could have been developed to actually have a world weary Bond (who has killed out of revenge/has experienced that) trying not to let a young woman lose her soul. As it is it’s just Bond finger wagging and coming off as hypocritical.
    Teen Brofeld deciding to become a super-villain head of a trans-national criminal organization because he was enraged at Little James becoming closer to his father, is too soap-opera for me. He din't know James was going to become an mi6 operative in the first place. I think this is the type of melodrama @Mendes4Lyfe is trying to get away from.

    It’s weirdly done as it’s seemingly not the sole reason Blofeld becomes what he is (it’s more just textural detail much like Bond’s past in SF). It’s there to illustrate he was always nuts. The audience associate it as being Blofeld’s motivation because it’s hammered in a bit too much. It’s not done well at all but I wouldn’t quite call it soap opera-ish (that’s reserved for TWINE for me!)
  • Posts: 387
    Teen Brofeld deciding to become a super-villain head of a trans-national criminal organization because he was enraged at Little James becoming closer to his father, is too soap-opera for me. He din't know James was going to become an mi6 operative in the first place. I think this is the type of melodrama @Mendes4Lyfe is trying to get away from.

    Right. But, again, there are good and bad ways to move a character through an emotional arc. Spectre didn’t do it well. But Casino Royale did. Skyfall did. OHMSS did. The failure of Spectre to follow through on a satisfying character arc isn’t an argument for not centering Bond’s journey in future films.

  • Posts: 3,327
    Theo James is my number one choice right now for Bond. No, he isn't black, he's white, but he also doesn't have blue eyes either, to resemble Fleming's description.

    I just think he has enough charisma, swagger, looks and toughness to play the part.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited September 3 Posts: 8,414
    My argument is not that bond can't have characterisation or angst, it's that angst alone cannot replace the benefits of a coherent story structure with an engaging premise/plot (what we used to call in the old fashioned days, a Bond movie). In the scene immediately following the Octopussy credits we're faced with a clown running away from knife-throwing twins through a woodland, immediately your mind is sent swimming with the possibilities: who are they? Why is he dressed as a clown? What's so important about that egg that he was killed for it? It is both bizarre and macabre at the same time, and slowly as the film progresses you begin to peice together what's happened, until when we arrive at the same situation by the end of the film it all makes complete sense. Now, compare that with what is planted about Safin, what his plan is, his underlying motivation, how he did all this to begin with, etc etc etc. There's basically nothing what so ever to "hook" the audience and get them intrigued and asking those questions of how this Chinatown-like mystery fits together, no juicy meat to sink our teeth into. Instead we get Bond inexplicably back in hiding, more old versus new, more trust issues between Bond and M, more stepping out of "the shadows" etc. It's not until around 90 minutes in that we actually begin to learn a bit about Safin and what he's up to, and then it's vague at best. Whatever happened to the mystery and real intrigue that blossoms out into a thrilling adventure the way The Spy Who Loved Me, Octopussy, The Living Daylights, Goldeneye did back in the day. They simply don't make'em like they used to, I guess. :-??
  • Posts: 2,010
    For me the Blofeld reveal trashes everything we've previously seen about the character and his organization. I don't buy the different Bond in a different timeline nonsense. I am fine with the actor playing Bond changing from time to time. I think of the literary and film Bond as a continuing adventure. That Bond would be well over a hundred years old makes no difference to me. In the world of fiction time doesn't have to be observed the way it is in real life. In my mind, the events of the Connery years could have taken place after Craig's CR. A stretch and some shoehorning for sure, but that works better for me than erasing Bond's past and saying, "that's not the same Bond. Well, it is, but it isn't. Forget about those previous adventures with the other guy."
  • edited September 3 Posts: 1,396
    Burgess wrote: »
    Burgess wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Same as it is in any context, I guess: 'a film industry practice in which black actors are cast to play historical or fictional characters who were originally white.'

    I think the missing piece in how blackwashing is used here versus what we understand as whitewashing is the erasure or minimization of past ethnic/racial characterizations. I don’t see EON erasing 60 years of white actors who played James Bond if or when they hire a Black actor as James Bond.




    I don't really see the difference.

    The difference is that whitewashing (or blackwashing or [insert description]-washing) is not simply replacing an actor of one phenotype with an actor of another phenotype. Whitewashing is the minimization or eradication of contributions made by non-White people in favor of increasing the prominence or relevance or impact of White people.

    Micky Rooney playing the Japanese landlord in Breakfast at Tiffany’s is a well known example of whitewashing. Why is that an example of whitewashing but casting a Black actor as James Bond not? Well, that’s because a Black actor wouldn’t be dressing in white-face to play James Bond as a White character. That Black actor wouldn’t be doing an impersonation of a White man. Additionally, the history of Bond as a White character wouldn’t intentionally be minimized. A Black James Bond would simply be one iteration of James Bond in a long line of other actors that played the character. Bond’s race is far less consequential to his characterization than nationality.



    They only gave the role to a well-known white actor. It's all about jobs, just like now.

    Sure, Joseph Wiseman wasn't Chinese either but I don't think it was done maliciously.
  • Posts: 387
    My argument is not that bond can't have characterisation or angst, it's that angst alone cannot replace the benefits of a coherent story structure with an engaging premise/plot (what we used to call in the old fashioned days, a Bond movie). In the scene immediately following the Octopussy credits we're faced with a clown running away from knife-throwing twins through a woodland, immediately your mind is sent swimming with the possibilities: who are they? Why is he dressed as a clown? What's so important about that egg that he was killed for it? It is both bizarre and macabre at the same time, and slowly as the film progresses you begin to peice together what's happened, until when we arrive at the same situation by the end of the film it all makes complete sense. Now, compare that with what is planted about Safin, what his plan is, his underlying motivation, how he did all this to begin with, etc etc etc. There's basically nothing what so ever to "hook" the audience and get them intrigued and asking those questions of how this Chinatown-like mystery fits together, no juicy meat to sink our teeth into. Instead we get Bond inexplicably back in hiding, more old versus new, more trust issues between Bond and M, more stepping out of "the shadows" etc. It's not until around 90 minutes in that we actually begin to learn a bit about Safin and what he's up to, and then it's vague at best. Whatever happened to the mystery and real intrigue that blossoms out into a thrilling adventure the way The Spy Who Loved Me, Octopussy, The Living Daylights, Goldeneye did back in the day. They simply don't make'em like they used to, I guess. :-??

    No one is making the argument that you’re rebutting. Characterization is important but so is plot. Both work in tandem to create a satisfying narrative. It can be done well or terribly.

  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 946
    CrabKey wrote: »
    For me the Blofeld reveal trashes everything we've previously seen about the character and his organization. I don't buy the different Bond in a different timeline nonsense. I am fine with the actor playing Bond changing from time to time. I think of the literary and film Bond as a continuing adventure. That Bond would be well over a hundred years old makes no difference to me. In the world of fiction time doesn't have to be observed the way it is in real life. In my mind, the events of the Connery years could have taken place after Craig's CR. A stretch and some shoehorning for sure, but that works better for me than erasing Bond's past and saying, "that's not the same Bond. Well, it is, but it isn't. Forget about those previous adventures with the other guy."

    Yes, I’ve always approached it the same way. It’s how Marvel accommodates the passing of years for their continuity without rebooting. Spectre screwed with that, AND it was a dud, too. NTTD is a much better film, but it leaves me cold and might as well be “it was all a dream”. The idea of a hard reboot every Bond is not appealing to me.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited September 3 Posts: 3,154
    In the early SP scripts, Blofeld was explicitly diagnosed by Madeleine as a 'delusional paranoiac' (a real condition), with his hatred and resentment of Bond stemming directly from his condition, not from Bond's actions per se. It'd first manifested when Bond had been sent to stay with the Oberhausers, but that wasn't the cause of it. Franz had subsequently been sent to an institution where he'd been subjected to EST in an attempt to address it and he blamed Bond for that too. So it wasn't just the seemingly adolescent pique we got in the final movie. Not sure why they pulled all that out - maybe not wanting to demonise mental health? Dunno.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 946
    Venutius wrote: »
    In the early SP scripts, Blofeld was explicitly diagnosed as a 'delusional paranoiac' (a real condition), with his hatred and resentment of Bond stemming directly from his condition. It'd first manifested when Bond had been sent to stay with the Oberhausers, but Franz had subsequently been sent to an institution where he'd been subjected to EST in an attempt to address it. It wasn't just the adolescent pique we got in the final movie.

    That's a better Spectre than the one we got. I wonder why they dropped it?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,414
    Burgess wrote: »
    My argument is not that bond can't have characterisation or angst, it's that angst alone cannot replace the benefits of a coherent story structure with an engaging premise/plot (what we used to call in the old fashioned days, a Bond movie). In the scene immediately following the Octopussy credits we're faced with a clown running away from knife-throwing twins through a woodland, immediately your mind is sent swimming with the possibilities: who are they? Why is he dressed as a clown? What's so important about that egg that he was killed for it? It is both bizarre and macabre at the same time, and slowly as the film progresses you begin to peice together what's happened, until when we arrive at the same situation by the end of the film it all makes complete sense. Now, compare that with what is planted about Safin, what his plan is, his underlying motivation, how he did all this to begin with, etc etc etc. There's basically nothing what so ever to "hook" the audience and get them intrigued and asking those questions of how this Chinatown-like mystery fits together, no juicy meat to sink our teeth into. Instead we get Bond inexplicably back in hiding, more old versus new, more trust issues between Bond and M, more stepping out of "the shadows" etc. It's not until around 90 minutes in that we actually begin to learn a bit about Safin and what he's up to, and then it's vague at best. Whatever happened to the mystery and real intrigue that blossoms out into a thrilling adventure the way The Spy Who Loved Me, Octopussy, The Living Daylights, Goldeneye did back in the day. They simply don't make'em like they used to, I guess. :-??

    No one is making the argument that you’re rebutting. Characterization is important but so is plot. Both work in tandem to create a satisfying narrative. It can be done well or terribly.

    My argument is that had they removed some of the emotional/personal characterisation stuff from the first half of B25 there would be much more room to properly set up the villain and employ some of the screenwriting craft necessary to work out the plot so it's engages the audience as it should. If you place characterisation ABOVE the mechanics of good, solid storytelling, then you end up with villains with threadbare motivations, and nothing to actually make anyone in the least bit caught up in the stakes of what's happening.

  • edited September 3 Posts: 4,236
    I’m not sure how separate storytelling and characterisation are in practice. Not that either are well defined in this instance. You don’t have good storytelling you can’t convey a character’s conflicts or even who they are just fundamentally. You don’t have good characterisation or reasons for characters doing things and you can’t move the plot along, and thus can’t tell the story effectively.

    Getting rid of the ‘characterisation’ of the first half of NTTD would be odd as it’d no longer be the same story. It wouldn’t really be doable. We wouldn’t have the background of Safin/Madeline’s initial meeting (and it’s his desire for revenge/how he feels about Madeline that informs what he does later/sets the direction of the plot and story). The whole point of the story is that Bond gets a chance at happiness but ultimately sacrifices himself in the name of duty (very Fleming). It’s made more impactful by him and Madeline splitting and then reuniting.

    Not saying it’s all done perfectly, but it’s coherent storytelling for the most part.
  • edited September 3 Posts: 387
    Burgess wrote: »
    My argument is not that bond can't have characterisation or angst, it's that angst alone cannot replace the benefits of a coherent story structure with an engaging premise/plot (what we used to call in the old fashioned days, a Bond movie). In the scene immediately following the Octopussy credits we're faced with a clown running away from knife-throwing twins through a woodland, immediately your mind is sent swimming with the possibilities: who are they? Why is he dressed as a clown? What's so important about that egg that he was killed for it? It is both bizarre and macabre at the same time, and slowly as the film progresses you begin to peice together what's happened, until when we arrive at the same situation by the end of the film it all makes complete sense. Now, compare that with what is planted about Safin, what his plan is, his underlying motivation, how he did all this to begin with, etc etc etc. There's basically nothing what so ever to "hook" the audience and get them intrigued and asking those questions of how this Chinatown-like mystery fits together, no juicy meat to sink our teeth into. Instead we get Bond inexplicably back in hiding, more old versus new, more trust issues between Bond and M, more stepping out of "the shadows" etc. It's not until around 90 minutes in that we actually begin to learn a bit about Safin and what he's up to, and then it's vague at best. Whatever happened to the mystery and real intrigue that blossoms out into a thrilling adventure the way The Spy Who Loved Me, Octopussy, The Living Daylights, Goldeneye did back in the day. They simply don't make'em like they used to, I guess. :-??

    No one is making the argument that you’re rebutting. Characterization is important but so is plot. Both work in tandem to create a satisfying narrative. It can be done well or terribly.

    My argument is that had they removed some of the emotional/personal characterisation stuff from the first half of B25 there would be much more room to properly set up the villain and employ some of the screenwriting craft necessary to work out the plot so it's engages the audience as it should. If you place characterisation ABOVE the mechanics of good, solid storytelling, then you end up with villains with threadbare motivations, and nothing to actually make anyone in the least bit caught up in the stakes of what's happening.

    The irony here is that characterization is the reason why one would care about Safin’s plan. It’s his motivation that drives the story. I think NTTD simply has too much plot, which can be said about a number of Bond films including some that you cite as exemplary installments, like Octopussy and The Living Daylights. Both of which I really love, incidentally.

    Had the scope of Safin’s plan been limited to revenge against Spectre and his obsession with Madeleine then I think the character arc we see Bond go through would have been better served. But Safin’s machinations to destroy Spectre and his history with Madeleine are treated as subplots along with the ultimate expression of Bond and Madeleine’s love affair—their daughter. Not to mention the subplots around a new 007, Bond’s relationship with Leiter and M’s clandestine weapon. There are about three or four too many subplots in NTTD.

    I haven’t thought this through but I would have streamlined some of these elements and cut the rest:

    Safin, posing as Spectre, tries to kill Bond at the beginning of NTTD in order to separate Madeleine from Bond and to push Bond into taking out Spectre once and for all. Safin breaks Blofeld out of prison as the ultimate gift for Madeleine (with the intention to kill him) which, in turn, makes Blofeld and Bond uneasy allies against Safin in the third act.


  • 007HallY wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Personally I could hardly care less about the skin color of the next Bond actor. Short of EON casting Tommy Wiseau as Bond; I think we’ll be just fine with whomever they pick.

    Oh hi, M! Oh hi, Moneypenny! You’re tearing me apart, Blofeld!

    Nah, Wiseau as M would be cool.

    M: ‘So anyway James, how’s your sex life?’

    Tanner; Sir they’ve stolen nuclear weapons and are holding the world hostage!

    M; Hahaha, what a story Tanner!
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 946
    Burgess wrote: »
    I haven’t thought this through but I would have streamlined some of these elements and cut the rest:

    Safin, posing as Spectre, tries to kill Bond at the beginning of NTTD in order to separate Madeleine from Bond and to push Bond into taking out Spectre once and for all. Safin breaks Blofeld out of prison as the ultimate gift for Madeleine (with the intention to kill him) which, in turn, makes Blofeld and Bond uneasy allies against Safin in the third act.

    Yeah, that sounds pretty good to me. Blofeld and Bond teaming up at the end would have been a nice twist, and made for a very tense double act. It would give the underused Safin a bit more presence, too.
  • Posts: 3,278
    Theo James is my number one choice right now for Bond. I just think he has enough charisma, swagger, looks and toughness to play the part.
    Yes. The series 'The Gentleman' convinced me that he would make a great Bond. Taron Egerton is still my favorite, though. He was so suave and cool in 'The Black Bird'.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,507
    Burgess wrote: »
    I haven’t thought this through but I would have streamlined some of these elements and cut the rest:

    Safin, posing as Spectre, tries to kill Bond at the beginning of NTTD in order to separate Madeleine from Bond and to push Bond into taking out Spectre once and for all. Safin breaks Blofeld out of prison as the ultimate gift for Madeleine (with the intention to kill him) which, in turn, makes Blofeld and Bond uneasy allies against Safin in the third act.

    Yeah, that sounds pretty good to me. Blofeld and Bond teaming up at the end would have been a nice twist, and made for a very tense double act. It would give the underused Safin a bit more presence, too.

    Yes I like the idea of them having to help each other, that would be a nice development from the previous film.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited September 3 Posts: 8,414
    007HallY wrote: »

    The whole point of the story is that Bond gets a chance at happiness but ultimately sacrifices himself in the name of duty (very Fleming). It’s made more impactful by him and Madeline splitting and then reuniting.

    Exactly, so why not just focus on that instead of getting lost in the weeds with Bond thinking madeline betrayed him, bundling her onto a train, bond going into hiding again, antics with Nomi, Felix, squabbling with M etc. Wouldn't the best way to make that premise you just described above as impactful and engaging as possible be to pair it with a fully fleshed out villain who we understand, who's motivation/plan is clear, and we know what he's actually trying to achieve from any of it?

    Again, I don't mind there being an emotional core to a bond film, but only when that comes about as the result of a well rounded, comprehensive story and not intended to make up for other missing or underwritten elements.
Sign In or Register to comment.