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
I'm not adverse to Bond evolving or learning something, I just need a rest from Bond suffering personal tragedy - falling in love and being betrayed (or imagining he's been betrayed) or his lover dies, or M dies or Bond dies... (or Mathis dies or Leiter dies)
Which is kind of equivalent, as far as the audience experience goes IMO
To me the two things are interchangeable, sometimes we the audience may see Bond learn and develop in real time, sometimes the creators reveal to the audience an aspect of the character that we were not familiar with before.
A third technique is the flashback, where an aspect of the character that we are already familiar with is explained by showiing the a vignette from the past
Perhaps "character development" is too narrow a description of the process, which is really about keeping the character interesting for the audience (or for the actor playing the part, when they want to retain his services across multiple films)
Hear hear!
True, please have Bond do spy things, stop making him John Wick for sake, that's what makes the Fleming Books all the more special and to the lesser extent, the older/classic Bond films, as they're more about spycraft, Politics, Black And White world, a game and battle of wits, let's have that, of course, make Bond still human and vulnerable, but not to the point of being dramatic or taking every things personally like the Craig Era.
And please, no interconnected plots, I'm done with that.
Well said. Let's bring back espionage and intrigue, and intelligence to the plot and overall writing.
This is most likely not going to happen. Gone are the days where there needn't be an emotional hook for the lead protagonist that somehow drives him or her. We also see this in the upcoming 007-game, First Light, where there is emphasis on the death of Bond's parents.
But one thing is for sure: we will not get another Bond-going-rogue movie. That would be awkward with a new Bond.
John Wick - "They killed my dog"
John Rambo - "They killed my granddaughter"
James Bond - "I have a daughter?"
:-)
James Bond - "Vesper"
I think it's always going to exist, and indeed always has existed as @007HallY often points out. In Goldfinger for example Bond goes from treating woman as disposable, literally throwing them in the way of a would be assailant. He slaps the butt of dink and gleefully cons the cleaner into letting him into Goldfingers suite, where he quickly charms Jill. The message is - Bond is the ultimate alpha malr, bond is in command, bond doesn't see women as something other than something to be charmed or caroused into doing what he wants. Then as the story progresses he sees through the resourcefulness and bravery Jill's sister to avenge her, and then through the accomplished and enterprising Miss Galore that if he is to actually going to complete his mission, then he has to learn start treating them on equal terms with himself. Obviously if the movie had been made today the barn scene would have been handled differently, but it still stands.
The thing is there's nothing intrusive about character development if it naturally fits into a story. The problem is in recent times, the character develop has almost superseded the story, where we're supposed to care simply because big, consequential things are happening, for the characters and not because we're hooked into the story surrounding it. It's all back to front.
Fleming’s books are interconnected and feature plenty of personal loss and character development for Bond.
That’s drama.
Exactly, SP, TWINE, & NTTD comes to mind.
It shows the lack of creativity and originality, when they have to borrow some certain elements from a previous Bond film.
OHMSS is one of the best Bond films, but they've tried to imitate that magic, just like with Goldfinger, when every aspects of the film needs to be recycled many times (monopolizing resources as a plot for example).
No, Bond won’t be one dimensional in this next film, and the creatives will be looking for that interesting angle with the character, whatever that is. I suspect it won’t repeat the Craig films, but at the same time Bond always readapts itself in some way, so there could be overlap. I’m fine with that as long as it stands on its own. It’s about making the best Bond film they can ideally. And what Bond goes through in the story is a part of that and how the audience will connect to this film.
Simple as that, and yet practically it’s as tricky as that.
Great post.
I think it depends on what’s meant by personal. Tragedy I guess can be another thing (I’ve never gotten the sense even in the Craig films these tragedies are things he can’t or indeed hasn’t move on from. He’s not the kind of character to dwell on those sorts of things).
I don’t think they should censor themselves or discard a great idea or character because they’re a bit (but not completely) like something from a previous Bond film. But it’s a case of specifics.
For example, Bond falling for a woman in a way not unlike he did with Vesper or Madeline? I’m fine with that. Happened quite a bit in Fleming, and it’s a chance to give us a unique take on a Bond girl who this new Bond would feel that way about.
A figure from Bond’s past returning or Bond crossing paths with them? Are we talking about Waltz’s Blofeld, Alec Travelyan, or Paris Carver? Or something like Bond confronting Smyth in the OP short story and having that personal connection to Oberhauser, which outright plays into the character’s personal tragedies? Or his former colleague Strangways getting killed in DN? There’s infinite possibilities of how that could be done.
Same for, say, references to Bond’s childhood. Going from the First Light trailer the video game world recently expanded Bond’s origin story and actually gave him more of a personal tragedy with him actually witnessing his parent’s death! If it’s compelling and works for a new Bond adventure, I’d say go for it, whatever the idea is. The filmmakers don’t need to worry about a minority of fans dictating what a majority will supposedly want. They just need to make the best Bond film they can.
Simple, the main villain can't be someone who has a secret hidden past with one of the principle cast, and whose villainy was in some way inspired by that connection. That rules out Paris Carver (she's not the main villain, although you could say that Carver and Bond have a personal connection through Paris, but I don't consider that direct, I think it gets a pass personally, since they are strangers when the story starts), or Smythe. Now unless you count Blofeld because he features in multiple films, so technically Bond and him have a past, that only applies to Goldeneye and then the last 3 films, one after the other. You could say the villain in DAD, but he was already bent on domination before he met Bond.
I edited my post a bit, so feel free to re-read it (or not!) but here’s what I’ll reiterate from it:
If it’s compelling and works for a new Bond adventure, I’d say go for it, whatever the idea is. The filmmakers don’t need to worry about a minority of fans dictating what a majority will supposedly want. They just need to make the best Bond film they can.
Simple as that.
"There are infinite ways this could be done" - which is why I specifically gave the criteria by which it should be avoided above, when it's a secret personal connection to one of the principle cast and the main villain of the story, where the connection they share goes some way to motivating said villainy. Simple as that.
I don’t want a lover who dies, and to be honest I think they’ll stay well away from that as it’s rather overdone (and I’m glad Madeline didn’t go that way). Regarding the parents thing, I know dead parents with a secret is a bit of a ripe old trope, but I actually wouldn’t mind if they did that. Jeffrey Deaver was going to do that and I thought it actually sounded quite interesting. So as you say, it all depends on how it’s done.
I doubt the next Bond girl will die, agreed, and it's probably a bit of a trope subversion if a secondary one survives or there's a twist there. That's fine too.
So... it depends on how it's done essentially ;) In this case you're giving very specific criteria of what you want. But do you think it's possible there could be a great hypothetical Bond script that breaks your 'rules', or at the very least would result in a film you enjoyed? I'm sure there is. In fact I'm sure there are many versions of such a script.
Would, for example, a villain with some sort of connection to Bond's parents - perhaps a former friend or colleague - be out of the realm of possibility, and would it be an uninteresting angle? I'm sure it could be done appallingly, but it could also be a weirdly inspired choice too. Ultimately any writer of Bond will be looking for new creative routes, whether it be a villain who's a former 00/friend of Bond's, or for Fleming a short story involving him confronting a man who murdered his father figure. Again, a story involving Bond's parents is not my preferred creative choice, but I'll go with the mantra 'depends how it's done' again.