Bond's Childhood shouldn't be a substantial thing in the films

edited November 2015 in Bond 26 & Beyond Posts: 24
I say this as in the last two films Bond's childhood has been fleshed out and given dramatic relevance in the story. Skyfall's use was fine (close to the edge though) however spectre and how they've tied Blofield into it is just too much in my opinion. The Bond character has got to have a level of enigma to him (its part of his iconic allure), that's what has allowed the character to survive been recast so many times. This level of mystery around him helps the film's have that vicarious quality. Having Navy stuff is fine and brief references to childhood is fine. In my opinion its indactive of lazy cliche writing as there are plenty of things the writers could milk for dramatic potential and character depth from in the more important timeframe of Bond as an agent. These work best though as sub-plots in my opinion though rather than main plots as the last two films have tried. Do you guys agree or do you disagree and like this fresh approach being taken with Bond.
«1

Comments

  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    I think it's a general feeling around these parts. I don't think it completely derailed SP, but going any further with these personal angles would just be bordering on parody, not to mention very repetitive. Stick to one off missions, please.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    Well with a new writer and director and studio, who knows what we'll get
  • TreefingersTreefingers Isthmus City, Republic of Isthmus
    edited November 2015 Posts: 191
    Fleming only gave away a few details to work with, some made up elements here and there like the Skyfall estate are fine but that's already pushing it. The mystery element aids in giving the character of Bond more charisma, all this melodrama is pointless.

    DC will go into history as the emo Bond: First all the stuff with Vesper and her suicide, then QOS with him in "emotional turmoil". Then SF with him portrayed as a washed up agent with a midlife crisis plus all the childhood stuff. SP veers from the source material by creating a relationship between Bond and Blofeld. This latter got the short end, as it made him look like a brat with daddy issues.

    For example, Heath Ledger's Joker, CN never explained why he became the Joker, he simply is what he is: a crazy motherfucker. Why couldn't Blöfeld simply be the evil, cunning and menacing mastermind he is? He said himself that Bond had been meddling in his business for a while, so there's a good reason to deal with him, no drama was needed at all.

    Its funny though, the look Swann gives Blofeld when he starts: "Did you know ve're brothers, but my father liked him more...", like she herself doesn't buy this plot point.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    Well I appreciate the different turn in writing, but the idea that Bond's childhood is becoming a major facet of the films and the fact that Blofeld is Bond's adopted brother is pretty ridiculous. This isn't the type of thing you watch Bond for - as I said, I appreciate the attempts to make Bond more of well-written/personal movies instead of just entertainment, but 90% of those attempts fail, either critically or financially.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • MalloryMallory Do mosquitoes have friends?
    Posts: 2,035
    I think it works well in Skyfall because it adds to the plot in a meaningful way (the parallels with Silva, the third act etc).

    In Spectre it's just unessecary, but as both @haserot and @Aziz_Fekkesh said, its not enough to completely derail the movie.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • nunoloulenunoloule Portugal
    Posts: 4
    Blofled motivation in Spectre is an unnecessary kid joke.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    Well I appreciate the different turn in writing, but the idea that Bond's childhood is becoming a major facet of the films and the fact that Blofeld is Bond's adopted brother is pretty ridiculous. This isn't the type of thing you watch Bond for - as I said, I appreciate the attempts to make Bond more of well-written/personal movies instead of just entertainment, but 90% of those attempts fail, either critically or financially.

    I agree with your points but it works with the general audience....see:Skyfall, both critically and financially successfully. However also Spectre - critically not as well received, financially still successful.




  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited November 2015 Posts: 1,984
    Skyfall, along with On Her Majesty's Secret Service worked for both, but it's one of those rare films that fits in that 10%. The rest either didn't work financially (Licence to Kill) or didn't work critically (the opening of For Your Eyes Only was poorly received, and both Quantum of Solace and Spectre weren't the best either). There needs to be less of Bond (or M's) past coming back to haunt them, and there needs to be less personal connections/investigations and more of Bond just investigating unlikely villains.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 582
    I thought it was good for SF. As many have said, less successful in SP with the whole foster brother thing. Interestingly the original idea for The Living Daylights was to go back to Bond's time in the navy. Would be interesting for a one off spin-off film. MGW has often had the idea of going back to Bond's roots, he wanted to do this with FYEO too but Cubby said they should always be going forwards.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,189
    I'm not overly interested in Bond as a kid to be honest. Little snippets are ok (like SF) but I'm not sure I want it going much further than that. Isn't Bond meant to be a somewhat mysterious figure or, in Fleming's term, "a cipher"?

    I've seen several casual Bond fans mock Blofeld's motivation in SP, so it's not just amongst us where its proving controversial.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • Posts: 11,189
    HASEROT wrote: »
    tigers99 wrote: »
    MGW has often had the idea of going back to Bond's roots, he wanted to do this with FYEO too but Cubby said they should always be going forwards.

    in the 80's, around the time when they were transitioning from Moore to Dalton - Cubby had once again tried to acquire the rights to CR, but failed (obviously) - but had he gotten them, his plan was to reboot the Bond franchise with CR back in 80's, with Dalton as 007 on his first mission..

    I like the idea of that but wouldn't Dalton have been a bit old back then for a Bond on his first mission?
  • Posts: 21
    I like the fact they are fleshing out the Bond character backstory but I would say I can't agree with what they have done with Blofeld being a 'step-brother' type thing with Bond.
    To be honest it smacks of the Austin Powers/Dr.Evil story line where Austin and Dr.Evil are in fact Brothers in the Bond parody which is now making Bond another parody of itself.

    I did like many references in the latest film about things that have been missing elements within Bond films of late. But, some how it feels like 007 being an agent looking to find out the organisation that have people every where is really one man trying to destroy Bond's life.... which wasn't the original reasoning behind Spectre.

    I am all for rebooting and that but make it worth while. It seems to be going down a plot line that I am surprised they even thought about doing.

    Don't get me wrong I think they are good films and I do think Daniel Craig is doing a great job as Bond. I just hope they don't go really daft with the next film with the Bond/Blofeld story.

  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    rog008 wrote: »
    I like the fact they are fleshing out the Bond character backstory but I would say I can't agree with what they have done with Blofeld being a 'step-brother' type thing with Bond.

    They aren't step brothers, or adoptive brothers. I keep reading this, but that isn't what the film tells us. The film states that Hannes Oberhauser looked after Bond across two winters and asked his son, Franz, to treat Bond like a brother. I think people are putting too much weight on the brother angle. I can understand if people hate the notion they knew each other at all, but the connection is more symbolic than it is literal. A little like the 'mother' notion in SF.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,921
    HASEROT wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    tigers99 wrote: »
    MGW has often had the idea of going back to Bond's roots, he wanted to do this with FYEO too but Cubby said they should always be going forwards.

    in the 80's, around the time when they were transitioning from Moore to Dalton - Cubby had once again tried to acquire the rights to CR, but failed (obviously) - but had he gotten them, his plan was to reboot the Bond franchise with CR back in 80's, with Dalton as 007 on his first mission..

    I like the idea of that but wouldn't Dalton have been a bit old back then for a Bond on his first mission?

    he was what, 42-ish when he filmed TLD... perhaps... but like i said, it was around that time, it could've been maybe after OP when they weren't sure if Rog would be back for another - or even after FYEO... i have to watch it again, but i just remember MGW bringing that up, that had he gotten the rights to it when he did - he would've rebooted the franchise way earlier..... because, with them doing it - it was a way to fulfill their father's wish..

    I recall MGW saying that he had pitched a period Bond to Cubby in the '80s...maybe that's what he was saying. I think of a reboot as rebooting in the present time.
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    RC7 wrote: »
    They aren't step brothers, or adoptive brothers. I keep reading this, but that isn't what the film tells us. The film states that Hannes Oberhauser looked after Bond across two winters and asked his son, Franz, to treat Bond like a brother. I think people are putting too much weight on the brother angle. I can understand if people hate the notion they knew each other at all, but the connection is more symbolic than it is literal. A little like the 'mother' notion in SF.

    This is good and quite spot on. I'll keep it in mind next time I watch it.

  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • Posts: 582
    HASEROT wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    tigers99 wrote: »
    MGW has often had the idea of going back to Bond's roots, he wanted to do this with FYEO too but Cubby said they should always be going forwards.

    in the 80's, around the time when they were transitioning from Moore to Dalton - Cubby had once again tried to acquire the rights to CR, but failed (obviously) - but had he gotten them, his plan was to reboot the Bond franchise with CR back in 80's, with Dalton as 007 on his first mission..

    I like the idea of that but wouldn't Dalton have been a bit old back then for a Bond on his first mission?

    he was what, 42-ish when he filmed TLD... perhaps... but like i said, it was around that time, it could've been maybe after OP when they weren't sure if Rog would be back for another - or even after FYEO... i have to watch it again, but i just remember MGW bringing that up, that had he gotten the rights to it when he did - he would've rebooted the franchise way earlier..... because, with them doing it - it was a way to fulfill their father's wish..

    I recall MGW saying that he had pitched a period Bond to Cubby in the '80s...maybe that's what he was saying. I think of a reboot as rebooting in the present time.

    i believe that was the intention... it was going to reboot and start over, but stay in the present time.. not going back as a period piece... thats how i remember it at least..

    Like I said there was the idea of having a film set during Bond's days in the navy,
  • JohnHammond73JohnHammond73 Lancashire, UK
    Posts: 4,151
    I agree it shouldn't be substantial, not from now on anyway. I think we've had all that, had Bond's origin, if you will, and I think we can now move on.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,921
    I wouldn't mind if they brought up Bond's naval history in a future film somehow.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,119
    I say this as in the last two films Bond's childhood has been fleshed out and given dramatic relevance in the story. Skyfall's use was fine (close to the edge though) however spectre and how they've tied Blofield into it is just too much in my opinion. The Bond character has got to have a level of enigma to him (its part of his iconic allure), that's what has allowed the character to survive been recast so many times. This level of mystery around him helps the film's have that vicarious quality. Having Navy stuff is fine and brief references to childhood is fine. In my opinion its indactive of lazy cliche writing as there are plenty of things the writers could milk for dramatic potential and character depth from in the more important timeframe of Bond as an agent. These work best though as sub-plots in my opinion though rather than main plots as the last two films have tried. Do you guys agree or do you disagree and like this fresh approach being taken with Bond.

    I actually wholeheartedly disagree. And I have addressed your 'concerns' entirely in the opening post of this new topic:
    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/13846/spectre-appreciation-topic-and-why-you-think-the-24th-bond-film-was-the-best-spy-film-of-2015#latest
    What I also loved about "SPECTRE" was the good story and personal backgrounds of several characters. I for instance loved the family backgrounds. And the connection with the previous films didn't feel contrived to me. I liked them! Introducing a family background in the reasoning of the villain is by no means an error in writing or stupidity in screenplay/plot writing. It's more a fact of simply....disliking that aspect of family history. At first I was a bit sceptical about this, but I thought it was decently executed and with enough elaboration explained.

    Saying that "Bond should not have a family background in a Bond film" is merely the voice in someone's mind screaming for conservative familiarity. Similar to how critics slammed the ending of "OHMSS" when it premiered in 1969/1970. As if James Bond marrying a girl, and then being killed off at the very end "is not Bond".

    With such notions people are limiting themselves. And it doesn't let the franchise move forward in new territories. I agree that Bond is more realistic than, let's say "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight Rises". But there is also a similarity: Both Fleming's novels and DC Comics are firmly grounded in fantasy. Sometimes larger-than-life, bordering sci-fi, but most of the time they have a cinematic reality to them.

    Having said that: the entire personal background histories of Bond, of Silva, of 'M', and Blofeld -when re-reading the novels "You Only Live Twice" and "Octopussy"- that Sam Mendes, Marc Forster and Martin Campbell brought to us, feel entirely satisfying to me. And they are mostly properly explained to us as well........if you like it or not.


    Sadly, the "Mission: Impossible"-franchise isn't daring enough to do this. But for the reasons I just explained I actually really liked "Mission: Impossible III". It takes some guts to make a character vulnerable, to make him more 'rounded' with personal backgrounds and therefore deep emotional reasoning. Instead, Ethan Hunt plays the 'Bond of the past', that perhaps many conservative Bond fans miss so much. But not me. I've seen that with Bond already. Done that, been there in the past. Not with Bond. And this is one of the reasons why perhaps individually "Rogue Nation" is a very good film, but it also makes the actual franchise less appealing to me.

    There, for me "SPECTRE" is definately the best spy film of 2015. And that doesn't surprise me a bit :-).
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • Fleming gave Bond a kid. Beware what you wish for if you ask for a third Bond fan fiction by Sam Mendes :)
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • Posts: 2,887
    Fleming gave Bond a kid. Beware what you wish

    Technically he only gave Bond a fetus, and he made sure Bond had no idea of its existence. It's ignored in TMWTGG and probably would have remained so if Fleming lived, since there isn't a single child character in any of the books.

    As for the larger topic of Bond's childhood, Fleming wisely only gave brief references to that period, probably because he understood that Bond must retain an air of mystery/mystique, and that dissipates when you know too much of the character's history.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    I just want to know if Bond had an Omega watch as a kid.
Sign In or Register to comment.