It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
No sense in getting a Bond girl type role casted for when it's not needed. That's a box that just doesn't need ticking at this point in my view, as the story wouldn't necessitate it.
Shouldn't be too hard a thing to ask of the Craig era, which has successfully bucked Bond trends before. If any era can do it, it's this one.
If Swann went into hiding in Bond 25, he wouldn't be able to romance other women (unless they reboot, say, a Bunt as an Elektra-like villain who Bond sleeps with out of duty). A Bond film doesn't quite work without a sex scene every so often--think "The Angels of Death" (which, while Bond-like, undermined the one-of-a-kind nature of the Tracy romance a bit).
Still, if Craig is back, Bond and Blofeld need to have a final showdown in Bond 25, and Blofeld is going to have to tick Bond off enough so that he kills him (preferably choking him near a geyser). That means that somebody significant (Swann? Moneypenny? Q? M again?) is probably going to be a sacrificial lamb. I could see Fiennes asking to be killed off to pursue his other (quite good) work as an actor and director. Bond 25: M Is For Murdered.
True, but Blofeld is his archenemy. It has to be something big.
Madeleine isn't intended or written as a Vesper or Tracy; those are soul mates and are very different. I believe Bond is using what she represents, a way out, at the end of the film, and is seeing where things go. He's not head over heels in love, but it's enough for him that this girl understands what it's like to know a man like him, as her father was the same way working in the same dirty business. They meet at a crossroads in that way, and have an understanding. But Madeleine is a big part of Bond's development, and the sole reason he is leaving MI6, as she first suggested it to him. We will see the end of that story with some pay-off, whether they go their separate ways, stay together or doing anything in between. She's not just going to be forgotten and brushed off without a word, as she has an importance beyond just being a character. Symbolically she relates heavily to Bond's journey.
People call SP bad scripting (don't agree), but that kind of decision (to forget her) would really be ridiculous, as it cheapens how Bond has developed by never addressing it. "Hey, you know that woman Bond is leaving his old life with to retire? How about we don't mention her in the next one and just kind of pretend all that stuff between them didn't happen." Thankfully modern filmmaking strives far more to give stories a closure and sense, where things aren't randomly left hanging in the wind. Everything about the Craig films has been added onto the rest, and the four films each carry into each other. Nothing is left behind and no loose ends are left untied. Bond 25 with Dan will be no different.
Next step. She dies.
+1.
At the most she should only be mentioned and I'm still not completely okay with that. The only thing we should get, if anything, is Q saying, "It's good to see you back 007" and Bond replying, "It's good to be back." Then move on with the story.
This. At most, any sort of wrap-up for the Bond girls should be left to the novelizations (such as Natalya marrying a hockey player in TND - noted, not in great depth), even though we don't get those anymore, unfortunately.
It's probably because Izabella Scorupco was married (at the time) to a hockey player.
Madeleine is not written the same way as a Vesper or Tracy, though. Their function in the story is similar, but each are used far, far differently. Calling them "virtually" the same is a bit shortsighted.
You basically answered your own question here, though. Madeleine has been written to have a bigger impact than most Bond girls do, as Bond is leaving to be with her in a new life. If they don't address the consequence or ultimate end of their relationship in the next one, that cheapens all the development they've made with both characters, on top of just being horrid screenwriting and storytelling. Maybe this kind of thing just means more to writers who appreciate cohesive narratives, I dunno.
Of course it wouldn't or shouldn't happen with every other girl. Only Madeleine, Tracy and Vesper in these cases deserve this kind of narrative consistency and follow-up because they are the only three women who Bond leaves MI6 for. Their effect on him has to be explored meatily, otherwise their impact is watered down or rendered meaningless.
A lot can be done with Madeleine at this stage, and a lot of revealing dialogues could organically come from it, considering she's the first of 3 to survive to the end of the film. Bond could state this it wasn't the first time he'd tried to do this sort of thing, that he thought he was betrayed by the woman he loved. And the way I see it, he would soon find that he subconsciously used Madeleine as an excuse to try something new with his life, thinking he'd be happier away from MI6 and the pressures, ultimately concluding that that life chose him, and he can't do anything else. It's ingrained in him to be an agent, and the big theme of the movie would be him realizing that he's always been meant to be a protector. To be the hard man making the hard choices no one else will. He'll bow to his duty and return to MI6 with full awareness of the kind of man he is, with the film making a symbolic statement that Bond is always there, and always will be as credits roll. It'd be a bigger celebration of the character than even SF managed, if done in that way.
I reread the "Tiffany" chapters in FRWL last night and it's clear that Fleming included her story in that novel because M wants to be sure that Bond can handle Tania's request. In other words, it's about the mission.
That's exactly what I'd want to see. Bond can't be with her because being a spy is his life. Serving and protecting is the only thing he's ever really known, and it's all he can see himself doing. He was born for a storm, and the calm of retirement doesn't suit him.
If he can't be with her because being a spy is his life (which is why he doesn't end up with any of the Bond girls in the first place), then there's your answer: don't bring her back for the next one. No need to bloat the running time by including breakup sequences or whatever. "Show, don't tell" me by not casting her in the next one - I KNOW Bond and Swann won't end up together, so you needn't waste time attempting to explain this in the film.
Personally, I'm way beyond being burnt out on Bond constantly questioning his duty - he's never done it before, and now almost every other film he's not sure if being an MI6 agent is what he wants? It's ridiculous.
I simply feel like anyway you bring her back, you're shoehorning her in and taking up proper running time that should/could be used for countless better things.
Completely agree! If Bond has another moment where he questions if he really wants to be 007, it'll be the third time in five films. He did it toward the end of CR, at the beginning of SF, and, if done again, in Bond 25. It just doesn't need to be done again. He doesn't need five outings to figure out what he really wants.