What next for Madeleine Swann

1910111214

Comments

  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,787
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Biggest ongoing areas of conflict:

    Brosnan, SPECTRE, Dalton v Brosnan, Brosnan films, Early Moore v Later Moore, SF v SP

    Am I missing anything?
    Even for someone who has not been here until two days ago: Sort of sounds familiar. No more Brosnan vs Craig?

  • I don't mind the abstract idea of bringing her back, but I can't think of a good way to do it. Craig's already had his tragic love story, so killing her would just be repetitive. Turning her into a villain doesn't fit with the character. Showing them break up is soapy and doesn't belong in a Bond film. I don't mind having her fate be mentioned (Madeleine got tenure at *insert University far away from the UK*). Bond has had fairly serious relationships with Bond Girls who survive who are never mentioned again (Solitaire, Natalya, Kara) so it wouldn't be out of the ordinary not to bring her back.

    The one thing I can think of is to sort of do what they planned on doing with Natalya in TND (she was supposed to be there in place of Paris Carver) and have her as a supporting Bond Girl where Bond leverages his personal connection to her for information. Considering her dad's connection to Spectre it would make sense for her to know stuff too.
  • echo wrote: »
    Eon really wrote itself into a corner with SP by allowing Blofeld to be captured and Bond to quit for Madeleine. Now they will have to undo both and it's just going to take up screen time.

    He could just be taking a deserved sabbatical after saving MI6 once again. Even if it was supposed to mean his retirement you could easily fix that with one line of dialogue.

    Blofeld's escape could make for a cool PTS.

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited February 2017 Posts: 6,083
    It was clear he was leaving the service. Q said, "I thought you had gone." He even threw his gun away for Madeleine!
  • I choose option 1.5. A single shot of Madeleine walking off to the background, leaving Bond. Then moving on with a new storyline.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    edited February 2017 Posts: 8,787
    CountJohn wrote: »
    The one thing I can think of is to sort of do what they planned on doing with Natalya in TND (she was supposed to be there in place of Paris Carver)
    I wasn't aware of that. Apart from wondering how the hell she should have got to meet Carver, I'm actually glad they killed off Paris and not Natalya in TND.

  • QsAssistantQsAssistant All those moments lost in time... like tears in rain
    Posts: 1,812
    If M takes Bond back after he quit twice, and another time where he was presumed dead because he never bothered to show up, then M is stupid. Any good employer wouldn't take an employee back after they quit twice, and because of a girl. Realistically he wouldn't take him back.

    BOND: "M, Madeline and I just broke up. I'd liked to return for duty now."

    M: "What?! Are you serious? Bond, you quit... twice. Both times were because of women."

    BOND: "Yes... and now I'm not with a woman. So I'm coming back."

    M: "No. I need someone who won't run away with a girl because the brain in his pants is telling him he's in love."

    BOND: "But..."

    M: "No! I need someone reliable. Someone who won't clown around. Speaking of, I have an important mission that needs taking care of. Now bugger off Bond. Moneypenny, get me 009."

    MONEYPENNY: "Yeah, about that..."

  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,787
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Excellent!
    Now that the previous James Bond 007 is gone, there is no reason why the former 009 should not take over the James Bond code name and the James Bond 007 code number from him, is there? So we could simply continue the series as it was.

    [Ducks and runs. Bigly.]
  • MrcogginsMrcoggins Following in the footsteps of Quentin Quigley.
    Posts: 3,144
    If M takes Bond back after he quit twice, and another time where he was presumed dead because he never bothered to show up, then M is stupid. Any good employer wouldn't take an employee back after they quit twice, and because of a girl. Realistically he wouldn't take him back.

    BOND: "M, Madeline and I just broke up. I'd liked to return for duty now."

    M: "What?! Are you serious? Bond, you quit... twice. Both times were because of women."

    BOND: "Yes... and now I'm not with a woman. So I'm coming back."

    M: "No. I need someone who won't run away with a girl because the brain in his pants is telling him he's in love."

    BOND: "But..."

    M: "No! I need someone reliable. Someone who won't clown around. Speaking of, I have an important mission that needs taking care of. Now bugger off Bond. Moneypenny, get me 009."

    MONEYPENNY: "Yeah, about that..."

    Bond 25 You Only Quit Twice .
  • Posts: 4,602
    The balance is perfectly in the wrong place. If she played a smaller role in the plot/narrative of SP then easier just to forget her,
    if she created a better emotional connection with Bond and the audience, you can justify another movie with some form of role for her,
    I think I may be typical in that, I really dont care enough about her as a character and yet, it would seem strange to make no reference to her. (when you watch the last 2 mins of SP, it's clear that emotionally, she has played a key role in Bond's decision making process)
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    Birdleson wrote: »
    He quit. That's obvious.
    Not quite.

  • edited February 2017 Posts: 386
    Meh. I like Lea Seydoux and enjoyed her in Spectre but a series that can bring back Joe Don Baker as a good guy doesn't need to observe relationship continuity.

  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    Birdleson wrote: »
    To me.
    English, please.

  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    Didn't Craig himself say (in that interview last Fall) that Bond had quit? Something about how, in that particular moment, the character truly believes he is done.
  • I'm tired of Bond quitting.
  • Posts: 1,680
    Craig indicated thats what he thinks, that in that moment he is done. But said theres always to be continued.
  • Posts: 4,602
    Bond and his gun are iconic. The gun is part of the Bond legend. So it's a very deliberate message/image when we see Bond throw away his gun on the Bridge. Combined with the later scene of him driving off "into the sunset", surely the intention is for us to see that Bond has had enough of killing (why have a gun if you are not going to kill anymore) and what use is a licence to kill if you dont' want to kill anymore. It would have meant more if we actually beleived in the relationship (clearly, the script writers wanted us to) so throwing the gun away did not have the same impact as it could have done...but the scene is there for all to see.
    So if DC comes back with no reference to this, it will just further undermine SP IMHO
  • patb wrote: »
    The balance is perfectly in the wrong place. If she played a smaller role in the plot/narrative of SP then easier just to forget her,
    if she created a better emotional connection with Bond and the audience, you can justify another movie with some form of role for her,
    I think I may be typical in that, I really dont care enough about her as a character and yet, it would seem strange to make no reference to her. (when you watch the last 2 mins of SP, it's clear that emotionally, she has played a key role in Bond's decision making process)

    Spot on, Pat. This 'neither/nor' is right at the heart of my problems with SP and the places it's left the narrative. I've said before that my frustration with the film isn't because it's bad, but rather that it could be so much better.
    In the case of Madeline, they've got an excellent actress who's beautiful, and whose character has a compelling backstory. She's not used up to that potential, but she's also clearly not set up to be 'just another' Bond girl.
    Again, though, given my druthers I think I'd be happy enough with not mentioning her again. Like you, I'm just not connected enough to her character and don't need to see anything 'resolved.'
  • Posts: 4,325
    pachazo wrote: »
    Didn't Craig himself say (in that interview last Fall) that Bond had quit? Something about how, in that particular moment, the character truly believes he is done.

    A big theme of the film is Bond's choice, paralleling with CR, that he can continue the life of a spy/assassin or not. So it's self-evident from the context of the film that Bond is 'done', in that moment at least.
  • Posts: 4,325
    patb wrote: »
    Bond and his gun are iconic. The gun is part of the Bond legend. So it's a very deliberate message/image when we see Bond throw away his gun on the Bridge. Combined with the later scene of him driving off "into the sunset", surely the intention is for us to see that Bond has had enough of killing (why have a gun if you are not going to kill anymore) and what use is a licence to kill if you dont' want to kill anymore. It would have meant more if we actually beleived in the relationship (clearly, the script writers wanted us to) so throwing the gun away did not have the same impact as it could have done...but the scene is there for all to see.
    So if DC comes back with no reference to this, it will just further undermine SP IMHO

    Absolutely, it's not exactly the symbolic riddles that TS Eliot plays in The Waste Land, it's not that complicated.
  • I don't really disagree that the gun/bridge thing is symbolic. But on a practical level, what's the point? Bond is and always has worked for MI6, so the idea that he's "quitting" can't be taken very seriously.
    James Bond quits the service, does he? So that's the end of it? The next movie will be about his adventures in stamp collecting, or him working out how to collect his pension?
  • Posts: 4,325
    octofinger wrote: »
    I don't really disagree that the gun/bridge thing is symbolic. But on a practical level, what's the point? Bond is and always has worked for MI6, so the idea that he's "quitting" can't be taken very seriously.
    James Bond quits the service, does he? So that's the end of it? The next movie will be about his adventures in stamp collecting, or him working out how to collect his pension?

    We'll have to see where they take it. But dramatically the point is always that Bond can never quit, this is his life. Hence Fleming kills Tracy off in OHMSS; any thought he has of marrying Vesper is cut short by her suicide.
  • True. As Bond fans - or frankly fans of any narrative that adheres to normal conventions - you have to accept a degree of predictability. The hero doesn't die, and the villain doesn't win. I've we're thoughtful about it we never really believe that, say, Goldfinger is going to kill Bond on the laser table. The art is in making us nervous about it all the same. On that front I think SP's narrative doesn't quite work. Why has Bond left the service? Do we care?

  • Posts: 4,602
    Agree with these points, so what were the script writers trying to portray when Bond throws the gun away? what emotions are we meant to feel for Bond? and what tension does it bring to the scene when we know full well he will come back (with a gun), we cant have some horrible scene with Q saying, "I know you were upset and threw your gun away but you've calmed down now so heres a new gun"
    Its as if the writers just did not think about the impact of these scenes...really weird IMHO
  • For what it's worth, "I thought you'd gone" also doesn't register that powerfully for me. I take it to be 'gone' as in 'on leave/long-overdue holiday/taking a cure at the spa.' I didn't take it as "I thought you'd quit MI6 forever."
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    edited February 2017 Posts: 7,314
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    Didn't Craig himself say (in that interview last Fall) that Bond had quit? Something about how, in that particular moment, the character truly believes he is done.

    A big theme of the film is Bond's choice, paralleling with CR, that he can continue the life of a spy/assassin or not. So it's self-evident from the context of the film that Bond is 'done', in that moment at least.
    That's how I've always seen it. Just wanted to give Dan's opinion on it since some people thought otherwise.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,083
    Birdleson wrote: »
    But wasn't the whole deal that she wouldn't stay with him because of his work? And he chose her.

    Yes.
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,884
    It seems Léa Seydoux could have some beef with SPECTRE's Bond team (mainly Mendes).
    Here's a link:
    https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/sam-mendes-was-furious-lea-seydoux-jetted-between-movies-while-making-spectre-095223033.html

    Even though the producers seemed relatively comfortable with her schedule plan, perhaps they'll write her out for the next film because they won't want to work with her again? She better hope that Mendes doesn't return.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I'd be very satisfied if they write Madeleine off completely. I don't want another death of Tracy mimic to farther "emotionally torture" Bond, so no thanks.
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,884
    I'd be very satisfied if they write Madeleine off completely. I don't want another death of Tracy mimic to farther "emotionally torture" Bond, so no thanks.

    Yeah, it seems like the majority of people want her to leave but if Craig returns (which he most likely will) it'd be awkward to not have her in the film. Unless, they give Craig a line saying something like "Madeleine got hit by a bus yesterday... sooo what's my mission, M?" That would be the minimum that they could do.

Sign In or Register to comment.