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 sure that's right. Yes, we want to see them repeat what we know to some extent, but some of the thrill of sequels lies in their characters being confronted by or put in positions we haven't seen them deal with yet. What will the Terminator be like when he's a good guy? What will it be like when Indiana Jones is partnered with his father? etc. A good sequel will always, to some extent, push the boundaries of what we've seen that character do before.
We agree then
IMO The Terminator himself is the same in each movie, he is just serving different masters after the first one
Who the character is remains the same
John Wayne is always John Wayne, the same man at the end of "Rio Bravo" or "The Spoilers" that he was at the beginning
What the character does and who the character is are two seperate things
I mean, he ends the sequel with "I know now why you cry": a specific story point is that he learns to become more human in that one. The boundaries of being a killer robot have been pushed.
Sometimes, but you make him do different things and put him in different situations, and he'll reveal new sides of who he is.
Honestly, I was excited watching NTTD for the first time when I realised that they were actually giving James Bond a child. I was looking forward to seeing how the character would react to that. I was excited in CR when we saw Bond and Vesper walking arm in arm in Venice and giggling like real lovers: I'd never seen James Bond like that and it was exciting.
Rocky.
Rambo.
Riggs.
McClane.
Skywalker.
Indiana.
Characters don’t remain stagnant. They change. They change, but always remain connected to their essence.
If there was no change, and nothing to learn from a new adventure, then there would be no point in seeing any sequel. We want to see our favourite people tested, learn and change. Or what’s the point in storytelling?
When you say these characters should remain connected to their essence, I think what exactly is important to their essence may well vary from viewer to viewer. I would also point out all the characters you have listed have been tied to one actor’s interpretation of their character, which has forced aging and an upper limit of stories possible for the character. This isn’t the case for Bond.
I wasn’t saying change for the sake of change.
The Hero’s Journey is one where obstacles are presented and the character that started on this road, learns and overcomes and has “resurrected” and has changed by the end.
You mention Luke: Luke started off as a farm boy in the first film and ended up being a warrior who helped destroy the antagonist’s HQ, by the end of that first film. He is different at the end compared to who he was at the beginning. His arc didn’t happen over three films, it happened in ALL of the films, that lead to his final incarnation at the end of Jedi.
Yet he kept his essence.
He was still Luke, @sandbagger1
I'm not saying there isn't character development or that there shouldn't be character development, I just saying a movie or book can still be great entertainment without it
For example Dashiell Hammett's Continental Op never develops any further as a character from who he is in the first paragraph of the first book, what he does is tell entertaining stories
Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood don't 'grow as people' in "Where Eagles Dare", they just kick arse and take names
In other words they turn up for the next movie as essentially the same person they have always been, and behave in the same way, because that's why the audience wants to see them go around again.
Most of it is just "soap" added in to attract those who enjoy seeing an element personal drama, but it's not essential
Despite its huge success and pop-culture status, Rambo: First Blood Part II earned mixed reviews from critics, with many feeling Rambo's compelling nature was lost from its predecessor in favor of a more typical action hero portrayal.
i.e. The critics wanted "soap" the audience didn't care
Tested yes, learn perhaps, change no
A story doesn't always have to be about a journey of change for a character, a good story can be a told for it's own sake.
For example in most of the books about "The Saint" he is always the same confident fellow who operates with absolute self belief and certainty that he is right (by his own moral standards) he is essentially unchanging (but as he has been in an awful lot of books and stories, and I can't claim to have read them all, I can't completely rule it out)
The stories are about him cleverly outwitting villains and getting out of tight situations
The Saint has a long term girfriend in the books, but she is always either there as part of his loyal support team, or not there and probably not even mentioned. There are no scenes of domestic interaction where they discuss their feelings for each other or where their relationship is going. Of course these stories were written in a different time, when tastes and public morals were different, so relationships of the nature of the one The Saint had with his girlfriend could be implied, but it was advisable not to draw too much attention to it, if the author wanted to avoid disaproval from the establishment.
TV Saint never changes either
"Soap" has increasingly seeped into the field of "Action" movies in more recent times, but in earlier times audiences got along fine without it and it is far from being an indispensible ingredient.
Yes, exactly, that's what I'm saying, I want to learn about different facets of "who he is" not to see him "change"
Whereas I could do without it
To each his own
:)
No, I think you misunderstood my point about essence. There's no going back to the way you were. When Empire starts, Luke IS NOT the farm boy we first met in the film previously. And when we meet him again, at the beginning of Jedi, he IS NOT the Luke training with Yoda we saw at the beginning of the film before. But he IS still Like Skywalker, and yes, he has changed, but maintains his essence (hence why we can identify him and recognize him as Luke, even though he HAS changed).
Yes, we have always learned from Heroes in stories, and heroes do change.
Once again, I've never read The Saint, nor watched it, but early TV was a different medium; the writers weren't as skilled as today, and their method of storytelling was very simple. But, I'm sure everyone from Spock and Kirk to Starsky and Hunch, had things that did change them from their first episode to last, no matter how small they depicted it back in the day.
Again, that's kind of the same thing. And what's wrong with characters growing?
Terminator 2 is bad because the character changes and learns? And you can't say he doesn't change and learn: they literally flip a switch to make sure he does: I can't think of many other films where it's made explicit in the actual dialogue that the eponymous character will be learning and growing from his experiences which are about to be presented to us.
I don't understand it to be honest, especially as you just said you "want to learn about different facets of 'who he is'". And CR was pretty universally embraced by audiences and Bond fans alike.
I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with it, just that it's a matter of personal taste and not essential to have all the time in every movie
As for the Terminator, the creators needed to make that fundamental switch from the character being a villain to a "hero" for purely off screen reasons, so Arnie could become a "white hat" and they could all make the really big money.
Yes they "literally flicked a switch" and reprogramed him, if you want to call that "personal growth" then fine, but I don't quite see it that way.
More than one thing can be true, we can love something overall without loving all it's individual parts
The problem with Craig-Bond for me is not that he has a tragic affair in CR, which taken in isolation is fine and something a bit different, it's all the personal traumas keep piling up after that, until it becomes melodrama.
QoS is the nearest thing to a "normal" Bond movie out of the five, which is too low a ratio for my taste.
Bond falls deeply in love, Vesper betrays Bond, Vesper dies, Mathis dies, Bond appears to die, M dies, Blofeld is Bonds brother, Bond falls in love again, Bond feels betrayed again, Bond has a child, Leiter dies, Bond dies... It's just too rich for my blood, James Bond became "Days Of Our Lives".
Starskey and "Hunch", I like it, perfect for a detective / cop show
No, I can assure you that Original TV Kirk, Spock and co never change, things may happen to them in one episode, but by the next they are back to being exactly the same as they were before, that's just how they rolled back then.
Marshall Dillon never did get around to marrying Miss Kitty...
On the other hand Starsky and Hutch did change, but only after David Soul & Paul Michael Glazer began to throw their weight around, after the show became a big hit and they aquired the leverage to demand changes. Soul was unhappy with certain attributes that had been assigned to his character, Glazer wanted to learn how to direct and both wanted to try and have some character development. But the Producers themselves had to be coerced into it.
If we keep going on seeing the same Bond like how Connery played it in 'NOW', the people would've been bored, back then, I could see this working, but for modern audiences, a character growth is a sign of relatability, the modern audiences need to relate to the character, and if they can't, then the movies could go, it's a part of realism.
Media critics always seem to feel that way, but there's no evidence that the audience do.
In the same way critics can never understand or accept why more people in 1985 preferred to watch "Rambo 2" rather than "Places In The Heart" or "The Colour Purple"
Media critics generally try to encourage audiences to watch what they consider to be artistic or worthy and denegrate what they consider to be empty entertainment, which is their prerogative, but the audiences often disagree with them.
Again that's just professional critics or tabloid media, who are always either in the process of overhyping to build something up, or trying to tear those same things down, in order to generate some controvercy that may attract attention and make them some money. These days those views also get picked up and ampliphied by social media echo chambers. The "James Bond is a washed up / hasbeen / dinosaur" trope has been around since about the time of YOLT I would think, as that was the moment when Bond Box Office stopped getting bigger with each successive film.
No, not every film needs that. I've already sited examples, but if you don't agree that's fine, I understand it's all subjective, do you?
Sorry, I'm not understanding, what was "NOW"?
Audiences didn't get bored of Connery's unchanging Bond, Connery got bored of the part (amongst other things). Some additional character development might have helped keep Connery engaged, but the audiences in the 1960s were quite happy with the status quo.
Of course audiences have always needed to relate to a character in the first place, that goes without saying, but that has nothing to with needing to have ongoing character development.
Sherlock Holmes being a definitive example
The way I understand it, character narratives comes from challenging the character's philosophy or beliefs in some way. An event comes along, and the character ends up solidifying (sticking to the philosophy and having greater confidence in it), clarifying (accepting the premise but changing aspects to greater fit future settings) or deserting the belief.
The thing is, with Bond, a lot of the beliefs are kind of set in stone. Bond is loyal to Britain, takes value in people over ideals or orders, and doesn't believe in long-term thinking (and prefers to enjoy life's pleasures). It takes major events to change, or even challenge these beliefs.
For a relatively well done example: Bond believes MI6 and Britain are good in Skyfall. In the PTS, M orders Bond to be shot, and they leave a dying man behind in Istanbul. As Bond thinks MI6 has lost sight of who they are fighting for, he decides to stay dead. Then the bombing of MI6 changes his opinion again; now he realises his work may potentially save the lives of many, so his ideological qualms with MI6 should be damned. M's death serves to only solidify this message.
The problem becomes that having many major character events sort of turns the story melodramatic; the focus turns emotional rather than the plot events or the action. For the next Bond, probably large scale events like betrayals or major deaths are probably to be avoided until later.
If the next Bond films want character drama from Bond, they can focus on the contrast of his boredom without his job and how nasty and unlikeable it can be. I don't think Bond can be changed much otherwise.
That doesn’t mean that Bond can’t be more three dimensional in certain adventures. I suspect with First Light you’ll see that with Bond being so early in his career and the inclusion of his past (ie. He’s more likely to change more overtly by the end of the adventure/have conflicts within the story, and he seemingly has a more developed backstory than most other versions). It just depends on how it’s done, and I don’t think it’s antithetical to Bond as a character (if he can be one dimensional and ‘flat’ he can be more complex. Not all ‘complex’ characters are written by Tolstoy or Dostoyevsky, and many characters in blockbusters are three dimensional or have been depicted with genuine in that manner with the right stories. Even characters you can compare Bond to).
Steven Knight talked about this....
More often than not, arcs are baked into storytelling. And always have been. Please look at Citizen Kane, or the book or various films of A Christmas Carol. Or how about, Oedipus Rex?
Yes, arcs are in the DNA of storytelling— always have, but now we have a fancy three letter word that’s thrown about.
Where arcs may not be as relevant are in plot heavy script/films and comedies. Benoit Blanc doesn’t really change, but the genre is more plot-focused rather than character.
But *generally* arcs will be baked into most stories, and most genres. Even horror (does Jamie Lee Curtis have an arc in Halloween? Has she been changed by her experience? I’d say, yes).
This isn’t a modern invention. Arcs have been around since the dawn of storytelling.
🤷♂️
😂 can you expand? Honestly— this sounds like there’s a wild story behind your experience?!!
No rubber gloves thankfully but a couple of personal items including a watch that were damaged/broken when the security tray got jammed going through the scanner!
I was not impressed, least of all by the cavalier attitude!
But yes, it just goes to show how simple an event can incite a complete change in someone's character. Of course it should be part of our storytelling.
Brutal, mate. Sorry to read that (although I was looking forward to a good “please follow us, sir”/backroom/latex gloves story, lol!!).
And you’re bang-on!
Not your villain origin story I hope! That sounds like a horrible experience though.
To do a new film going back to the formula will be the kiss of death of the franchise, same old in new digital clothes. It might work for one film due to curiosity, but box office will go down from there on.
The Craig era showed essentially that you could rebuild Bond in it's own mini-series and make it stand out on it's own, it's essentially the The Dark Knight (comic book graphic novel version) of the series.
Now they need to rethink Bond as another set arc, or several of them as I think there should be room to explore different aspects of the character on Amazon, like doing a one off with an older Bond (Brosnan) etc. a bit like the Elseworlds series.
True dat, but not "deep down", right up front, that's what I want to see
(i.e. He can, and should, be affected during the film, but I would prefer he not carry it over into the next one.
Good comparison, and Batman has struggled a bit to live up to the expectation of matching the success of that version since, both financially and artistically.
It's a Catch 22, which ever direction the producers take will almost inevitably disappoint one section of the audience or another...
That's literally what happens: he learns as a person through the movie. They don't 'reprogram' him: it's explicitly stated that they flick the switch to allow him to learn from his experiences. If you don't think that's personal growth then I've no idea what you regard growth to mean.
That's fine, but really a different subject from the one we're discussing. To recap: I'm saying I like to see characters I'm familiar with put in circumstances where they deal with something new, to either allow them to grow or show different sides of their character to the audience. And if you were already sick of the drama at the point where Vesper and Bond were shown to be love, which is one of the examples I gave, then I feel like your resistance to established characters being placed in new and interesting situations is very high.
It's because TV shows back then went into syndication across various networks and it couldn't be guaranteed that the episodes would be shown in order, hence each episode basically required to set back to the status quo so it would fit with whichever the next one was. When Kirk and Spock made it to the movies then they actually could develop and experience life-changing events (and deaths of course).
But James Cameron's motivation for doing so was purely to enable the character to become a "white hat" rather than a "black hat", after that he stays the same in subsequent editions. Cameron not motivated by a desire to have the character develop for any other reason. The audience for the Terminator movies does not want him to display more and more human emotions, they want him to remain a cold, calculating, arse-kicking machine. He's not Mr Data
And so do I
That's where we differ, I don't need them to "grow"
I don't mind if they do grow, as long as it doesn't become a soap opera, but it's not essential that they "grow" in every appearance
And so do I
No I became sick of the melodrama after SF, which is when it became part of an established Craig-Bond formula and they began milking it
"new and interesting situations" yes, endless personal realtionship dramas, not so much
Just as I've never liked Medical Dramas and Soap Operas
I don't think that was the reason
My understanding is that they didn't think the audience was interested, or might miss a week and then be confused if the character behaved differently or referred to events from the previous episode that they missed, get frustrated and change channels
Not saying that they were right, but I've read that is how the Networks thought back in the day
I've always preferred the original TV show to any of the movies or sequels, although I enjoy watching individual story driven episodes from the other series
In fact I select episodes to watch on that basis, if the synopsis involves personal growth or drama I avoid it, if it involves an encounter or confrontation with an alien race I watch it
But that's just my subjective personal perference
Even if that were true, it's not relevant. What does the intention matter? I’m talking about what happens, not the behind-the-scenes reasons for why it happens.
Regardless, it's not true: the heart of the story is the central irony that the most human character is the machine, and that Sarah finds herself becoming a Terminator at one point of the story. It's not about 'hats'.
Says who? T2 was an enormous hit.
A story is generally where characters change over time. It's not only soap operas, it's pretty much all stories.
So when you said you 'could do without it' when I mentioned the CR scene, you didn't mean it.
They're called 'dramas' or 'stories'. All stories basically involve human relationships.
You may call stories which have that 'soap operas', much as I may call TV shows or films without them 'children's shows'.
Google 'Star Trek reset button syndication'.
Great, I think the movies are way better. Lots of people agree with you and that's fine, but I think it's more because they enjoy the variety of sci-fi plots rather than because the characters change.
That seems a bit odd to me. That's to say, I sort of know what you mean with regards TNG; if it's one about Worf and his son or something you know it's going to be a pretty boring one because they did a fairly clumsy job with some of those; but the characters are what makes the sci fi stories work because you're supposed to care for them. If you're not interested in them then it's hard to be as emotionally invested in the stories which are being told.
It means that I think that, in the case of the Terminator, it's a coincidence that happens to coincide with your viewpoint
Well I think it is true (oh no it isn't, oh yes it is, oh no it isn't...)
My personal interest in the Terminator ends with T3, non Arnie or post Govenator holds no interest for me, so I can't comment. Sarah becoming a Terminator is more than I need to know, shark jumping stuff. (Just as I don't care for any more Planet of the Apes after "Beneath", I decided to get off the bus at that point)
I never said it wasn't
But, in any case, it wasn't a huge success because the Terminator "grew as a person" either
The audience is primarily expected to connect emotionally with the boy and the mother, not Arnie.
The success arises mainly from the resonant story, the spectacular action and the masterful direction of James Cameron.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then (if that's alright with you?)
Yes, I could do without it, but I could also live with it. I don't mind it, but I wouldn't particularly miss it either.
Ouch!
Human realtionships yes, fine, but when Bond's head over heals in love, then Bond plans to leave the MI6 and enjoy life, then Bond feels bitter and betrayed by Vesper, then Bond returns to MI6, then Bond feels bitter and betrayed by M and effectively leaves MI6 again, then Bond changes his mind, Bond falls in love again, Bond leaves MI6 again, Bond feels betrayed again, Bond returns to MI6 again... Vesper dies, Mathis dies, M dies, Leiter dies, Bond dies
On that scale it becomes melodrama and soap, the same emotions recycled over and over, which is what Medical Dramas and Soap Operas do
Interesting, but it's much the same reasoning that I gave, that the Networks were worried that if the audience missed a weekly episode they might beome confused or frustrated by references to events they had missed seeing and change channels. That applys equally to the initial first run and in syndication.
The "reset button" in Star Trek, particularly in The Next Generation and Voyager, refers to the episodic nature of the shows where most episodes feature self-contained stories, and the status quo is largely restored by the end, minimizing lasting consequences from one episode to the next.
We are in agreement then, some of us prefer plot driven to character driven
I'm not suggesting the two are mutually exclusive, they are mutualy inclusive, but also you can have either on it's own as well.
Many people don't like character studies because there is not enough plot
A character study novel is a literary work where the focus is heavily on exploring the psychology, motivations, and overall personality of one or more characters, often overshadowing the plot itself. The narrative delves into their internal world, relationships, and how they change and evolve throughout the story. Essentially, the character's journey and development take center stage, rather than a traditional plot-driven narrative
Key Characteristics:
Focus on Character: The primary emphasis is on the characters, their inner lives, and their relationships with others.
Psychological Depth: Character studies often explore characters' motivations, desires, fears, and how these shape their actions.
Character Growth: A character study often involves analyzing how the character changes and evolves over the course of the story.
No Traditional Plot: While there may be events or situations, the plot is often secondary to the character's journey.
I don't want James Bond to be a character study at the expense of having a decent plot
Of course characters always have a baseline, that goes without saying (although here I am saying it again), but that base doesn't have to change over time.
TV Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scottie, Uhuru, Sulu, Chappel and Chekov are unchanging, momentous personal events occasionally happen to them in an episode, but next week they are back as if that never happened and they may never refer to it again.
Yeoman Rand disappeared, but never changed.