› ›

BOND'S FAMILY

LeChiffreLeChiffre
edited January 2012 in Skyfall Posts: 1,548
Does anyone agree with me that it would be really interesting to see Bond's parents in flashback, maybe linked to the Skyfall operation in some way. Just read another poster's comments under separate thread and it got me thinking. Dame Maggie Smith would be great (as her name is still listed on the IMDB cast). Perhaps Albert Finney is not a government minister type after and could be Bond's grandfather in flashback. Would make for brilliant scenes but I guess they would have to cast a young version of Bond to play opposite him(which IMO would be a neat idea). Sorry for getting all Jerry Springer with all these family issues!

Comments

  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    Maybe, maybe not. It depends upon how well they're used. For example: Austin Powers' dad was used well in Goldmember, but Anakin Skywalker's mom was not in Attack of the Clones.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,506
    Not really comfortable with this idea? I have not read any of the novels so i do not know how much they feature in them?

    I know they are referenced in them or atleast one? Not sure so apologies? But Fleming just focuses on Bond and feel that the films should too. If they should do as you suggest? We would have a big debate about who should be the young Bond? And then should he have the role in 20 years time? When he looks like the Bond role proper? lol
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,564
    Absolutely not! Bond's family has always been kept as vague as possible by Fleming. I don't think it would even be interesting to see them go into the family history. It's completely irrelevant in a Bond film. One of those redundant spin-off books perhaps, but not the films.
  • DiscoVolanteDiscoVolante Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts: 1,347
    <b>Moved to 'Skyfall'</b>
  • jackdaggerjackdagger
    Posts: 498
    I'd rather not see his family. It seems that so many movies nowadays are playing off the "orphaned hero" backstory that it's become cliched.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    It loses some of the mystery of the character is that is revealed. We just know that Andrew and Monique were killed, but for sure why. That mystery is still there, and should remain there for now at least.
  • VirageVirage
    edited January 2012 Posts: 1,856
    The only member of bonds family who could still be alive are Aunt Charmian and his cousins from Bloodfever.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Remember something like this before and also remember saying that Bond should be on screen as an individual and any references of family should be kept to a minimum, there was talk of introducing a son or daughter into the picture but I don't want my Bond adventures resembling something like Die Hard in that capacity
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited January 2012 Posts: 23,564
    There're two things that many people fail to understand.

    A) The things we love about Bond have more to do with what he does and how he does it. His inner universe, his human complexity, the workings of his psychological clockwork are not a defining factor in Bond's abilities as the spy we all love.

    B) The orphan with no long lasting relationships, cold when he has to be, is the perfect basis for the character. The more we add to this, the more we lose the mystery, the more we shift our focus away from Bond: the spy, to Bond: the troubled human being.

    Funny how people keep nagging about the Bond series being too much like the recent Bourne and Batman films, yet in the end with ideas like this one they tend to make Bond exactly like Bourne and Bruce Wayne. I love multidimensional characters in a Bond film, except when it comes to Bond himself. For me, Bond is the man in the tux with the gun, the car, the martini and the girl(s). The minute Bond becomes the man with the photo album or the man on Freud's couch, I'm out. I want my Bond films clean and concise. I don't want the soap opera version.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,506
    DarthDimi wrote:
    There're two things that many people fail to understand.

    A) The things we love about Bond have more to do with what he does and how he does it. His inner universe, his human complexity, the workings of his psychological clockwork are not a defining factor in Bond's abilities as the spy we all love.

    B) The orphan with no long lasting relationships, cold when he has to be, is the perfect basis for the character. The more we add to this, the more we lose the mystery, the more we shift our focus away from Bond: the spy, to Bond: the troubled human being.

    Funny how people keep nagging about the Bond series being too much like the recent Bourne and Batman films, yet in the end with ideas like this one they tend to make Bond exactly like Bourne and Bruce Wayne. I love multidimensional characters in a Bond film, except when it comes to Bond himself. For me, Bond is the man in the tux with the gun, the car, the martini and the girl(s). The minute Bond becomes the man with the photo album or the man on Freud's couch, I'm out. I want my Bond films clean and concise. I don't want the soap opera version.

    I so agree with every word of this! The reason this franchise is su a sucess is because you know to a certain degree what you are gonna get? By all means tinker with it here and there, But? Do not try and re-invent him!
  • KennonKennon
    Posts: 297
    Please, no family. The less ties he has the better for Bond and us IMO.
  • fire_and_icefire_and_ice
    Posts: 6,432
    DarthDimi wrote:
    There're two things that many people fail to understand.

    A) The things we love about Bond have more to do with what he does and how he does it. His inner universe, his human complexity, the workings of his psychological clockwork are not a defining factor in Bond's abilities as the spy we all love.

    B) The orphan with no long lasting relationships, cold when he has to be, is the perfect basis for the character. The more we add to this, the more we lose the mystery, the more we shift our focus away from Bond: the spy, to Bond: the troubled human being.

    Funny how people keep nagging about the Bond series being too much like the recent Bourne and Batman films, yet in the end with ideas like this one they tend to make Bond exactly like Bourne and Bruce Wayne. I love multidimensional characters in a Bond film, except when it comes to Bond himself. For me, Bond is the man in the tux with the gun, the car, the martini and the girl(s). The minute Bond becomes the man with the photo album or the man on Freud's couch, I'm out. I want my Bond films clean and concise. I don't want the soap opera version.

    Agreed, we learn about bond through his actions. i am not one for too much exposition on a character, certainly not with bond. plus its not in bond character to open up (the bond i prefer). think that's why i was not a big fan of brosnan.
  • PussfellaPussfella
    Posts: 56
    the unfortunate thing is - it's really not too unfeasible for this too happen..

    Hollywood seems obsessed with squeezing out the juice of every film that they remake/reboot - aside from the amount of back story in new Batman's - how about the reboot of Halloween - where were given about 45 mins of grating backstory of Michael Myer's childhood... it's happening in horror left, right and centre

    There may well be a point where it happens to us too
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    DarthDimi wrote:
    There're two things that many people fail to understand.

    A) The things we love about Bond have more to do with what he does and how he does it. His inner universe, his human complexity, the workings of his psychological clockwork are not a defining factor in Bond's abilities as the spy we all love.

    B) The orphan with no long lasting relationships, cold when he has to be, is the perfect basis for the character. The more we add to this, the more we lose the mystery, the more we shift our focus away from Bond: the spy, to Bond: the troubled human being.

    Funny how people keep nagging about the Bond series being too much like the recent Bourne and Batman films, yet in the end with ideas like this one they tend to make Bond exactly like Bourne and Bruce Wayne. I love multidimensional characters in a Bond film, except when it comes to Bond himself. For me, Bond is the man in the tux with the gun, the car, the martini and the girl(s). The minute Bond becomes the man with the photo album or the man on Freud's couch, I'm out. I want my Bond films clean and concise. I don't want the soap opera version.

    Here here!

    Well said. I think CR was the movie that served as a backdrop to the layers of what's going on inside Bond's heart and mind. Fair enough they wanted to try and continue that into QoS but the film had closure on those issues. I care not for what makes Bond tick because I already know and it's been conveyed on screen already. Now, to paraphrase Bond in DAD, how about we just let him get on with his job.
  • VirageVirage
    Posts: 1,856
    Theres A really Beautiful Moment in the Silverfin Graphic Novel, where it tells bonds origin, with out losing the mystic. Its starts off with bond waving good buy to his parents their faces obscured in the smoke from the train. Then we go to the aunts house where he gets told the news. The last panel of the flashback had him alone on a tree-swing looking at a small brooke.

    If its ever done (which i'm not saying it should.) thats how it needs to be done.
Sign In or Register to comment.