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
Masterson, Paula, Kerim Bay, Quarrel,… all made Bond’s mission a personal one at a given point in the story, for example. On the other hand, did Bond and Blofeld need to have shared a ceiling in their upbringing in SP? I’d say that is going a bit too far in the personal stakes topic. I thought the discussion was gonna veer that way.
Maybe I understood badly the topic of the discussion. Anyway, I’ll leave you guys to it as I’ve been typing away on a small phone all this time ;)
Cheers friends
Die Hard is great, but it is a great one-off movie that they forced into a franchise, and the subsequent films really strained to continue its themes as formula (in my opinion). I often wonder if they tried to get Alan Rickman back, despite his character being dead, he was such a big part of the film’s success.
And you’re right, when there’s no character arc in a story, it’d be very, very, very, very difficult to green light. The bottom line of any industry is to make money, no different in the film business. So stories with little to no character arc/personal/emotional obstacles aren’t impossible to make, it just makes a hard job even harder (making a successful film that will have a profit).
Most worldwide audiences want to see a Luke Skywalker start off as a little farm boy, and end up fighting Vader (who ends up being his father). I’m not saying all audiences, but most. Therefore most films will try and satisfy audience expectations and, as an audience member, we vicariously live through our heroes up on the screen. It’s cathartic. It’s exciting. Our heart pounds. Our hands get sweaty. We may even shed a tear. And when the credits role, it was hopefully a journey worth taking, and then going on over and over (hence the rewatch-ability of films we love).
@Univex , I understand the foster brother angle was a step too far for a lot of us (I wasn’t a fan of the film, and only now can accept it with a more warmth).
And you have a point: how far is too far. That IS a valid point, and up to the writers to get right (sometimes they will nail it, other times they’ll fail; that’s the nature of everything. But hopefully over a life, or a creative life, we hit more gold than not).
I was mainly responding to defloria who, by the sounds of it, is happy with no personal angles/arcs etc. I’m not arguing against his desire, I’m arguing that this could ever take place in the upcoming Bond stories. Bond has been playing with arcs and personal stories since ‘89 and some are great, some may’ve valiantly missed the mark, or been way off the mark, but that won’t stop more of these stories from being put into future Bond instalments.
Yes, you don't need more than a Quarrel or Kerim Bay to make it personal for 007. The rest of the emotional baggage you can leave at the door.
I think that the hero’s journey works really well for a one-off story, but becomes difficult for a hero who has many adventures such as Bond. I think you generally don’t want Bond to be different at the end of most Bond films than he was a the start (or at least I don’t), but of course there must be the occasional exceptions. If Bond is to have dozens of adventures I don’t want each one to be a life-changing event for him.
I do think balance is the key, but we all obviously have different tastes when it comes to where the tipping point is (imo).
Once again, you’re not wrong, and you can have personal angles or arcs that work in degrees.
Of course we don’t want Bond to change radically after each adventure, but each adventure could change him into what we know: perhaps in one story, he becomes more ruthless because of how he let the villain off the hook at the midpoint mark, instead of listening to his instinct and killing him; in another story, he may learn to be less trustworthy as the “casual” fling he was enjoying in London was actually a honeypot spy working for whichever country; and maybe he learns mercy in another tale from his life.
Once again, as I said earlier @sandbagger1 , it’s totally reliant on the story they want to tell.
Usually you want the protagonist to experience the main, emotional thrust, but you’re absolutely correct @Colonel_Venus ; Bond could get mixed up in a personal story of someone else (M’s been kidnapped by an organization that he thought he defeated twenty years earlier), but even then, it will, to a degree still be personal, to our protagonist.
And I think you’re also correct in saying that some Bond fans dislike, specifically, something from Bond’s past being brought up into the main storyline. They didn’t like it, and fair enough.
That’s why I mentioned earlier that there are many ways of creating personal angles.
I do get what your point of view is but from my standpoint, having been introduced to Bond In DN, FRWL and Goldfinger in the 60's, I have no problem seeing my heroes fully formed even in their first adventure. The recent Man from U.N.C.L.E. movie showed how this can work. Solo, Gaby and Illya are fully formed at the beginning of the adventure and never undermines the characters as the adventure unfolds.
Fleming's Bond did not like his job, and often did not like himself. There were internal questions about what he was doing, but then he did it anyway because he came across an evil so powerful that he knew the job he did was necessary.
That's an arc, right there. And it doesn't involve love, children or a villain from his past. It's not exactly revelatory from a scriptwriting standpoint - it's a type of story that's been done before - but it's an example of what could be done while still delivering on the things that "movie Bond" has always promised us over the years.
That doesn't make this particular film better than others, it just shows it is plausible to make a good film in that way. In a certain context, that can be refreshing, too.
Of course, character arcs are different from personal stakes. Every Bond film (not to mention, The Day of the Jackal itself) has personal stakes, but in the future, I'd definitely want a Bond film in which the personal stakes for Bond are limited to his survival, the survival of the non-villainous characters he meets in the course of his mission, and the survival of the world. A Bond film can have Bond learn about the nature of trust, it can have Bond come to understand why his boss has to make some tough decisions, it can have Bond's family in danger... but I'd like a break from all that.
And while I'm on the subject, I would say that, since a Bond film always includes the former elements (emotional investment in seeing certain characters survive the mission), a Bond film that also adds the latter elements (trust, family, etc.) is, for all practical purposes, a "more personal" kind of film. A film in which Bond faces obstacles that go beyond the obstacles he faces in other types of stories.
It all depends on the story they want to tell, yes. And, obviously, every film has personal stakes. I want them to tell a less personal kind of story.
Like any of the, yes, archetypes, available to us, the writers have to come up with unique ways of presenting them so they feel fresh and new.
And @delfloria i understand what you’re saying. I hold the 60s era to a very high standard. It was a magical time and I still watch 62-69 with extreme awe.
But we present more now, we delve a little bit deeper into character, and I’m not taking away your desire for similar execution to the original films, I’m just not sure it’s possible to go back there. Everyone expects more: the studios/financiers, producers, creatives and audiences. They (not all), want to see more layers. As I’ve heard so many times: where’s the meat?
As for breaking formula and giving Bond a co-character/star… if the story was good enough, I’d think they’d green light it. But there are other considerations, namely: how would the star feel about that? I’m sure you’ve heard of cases where friction between two co-stars was ignited (Newman and McQueen springs to mind). Yes, leading actors stake their territory and are serious about protecting it (the project I’m working on, we went to a big actor for a co-starring role, and we were declined because this actor wouldn’t have one of the two starring roles). So, a very real consideration, especially for something as big as James Bond, and whoever next plays him.
True.
I think it’s possible. The plots of each Bond film from the 60’s (besides maybe YOLT) were pretty gripping, and still found ways of making the story more engaging with audiences without necessarily exploring Bond’s emotions. Like I said earlier, I want the drama and tension to be from other sources in the script, and not necessarily Bond’s emotions. I think it’s possible to make a movie engaging and exciting to modern audiences without deconstructing the main character, and both FRWL/TSWLM did a great job of doing just that.
What is your definition?
It seems that many at EoN have been on record mentioning how FRWL was one of their favorites in the series. There have been reports in the past that such-and-such an actor wants his FRWL.
But they've never been able to re-create it.
What would be interesting is to see their script archive; were there writers commissioned in the past, specifically asked by the producers, to write a contemporary FRWL (I'm not talking a remake, but a tight, somewhat contained thriller)?
If there have been these commissions, I wonder why they never were greenlit.
And it is really wonderful that we have all been able to carry a proper conversation about two or three topics, and to reach some understandings. Have to say, well done guys.
[Do cary on ;) I, for one, feel like I'm on the old forums again. Even if only for a day (probably)]
Going forward, while I enjoyed Craig's Bond (for the most part), I'm not ready to go there again. I don't want to see a young Bond age out in five films. Whatever weight the new Bond needs to carry, let it be new. I hope we can avoid, "this is like Tracy, like Vesper, like Madeleine." If Bond needs to avenge a death, next time kill Moneypenny, Q, Tanner, or May. My hope is we can avoid "everything old is old still."
When I say deconstructing a character I’m referring to how the writers would take any sort of situation presented by the story and use it as a lense to look into a character’s psychology, seeing what makes him/her tick, why they have gotten to that point where they find themselves in life, and ultimately re-affirming critical elements of said character. With regards to Bond, I think that trope is at it’s strongest in Skyfall, which not only manages to deconstruct Bond, but the entire film series as well.
In Skyfall, the injuries we see Bond sustain in the PTS, and the failure of the mission as a result are used as a springboard to tell an allegory about the relevance of Bond as a character, and the film series as a whole. What confirmed this for me was Dench’s dialog in the Courtroom scene; “Today I’ve repeatedly heard about how irrelevant my department has become. Why do we need agents, the 00-Section, isn’t it all rather quaint?” That almost sounds like the filmmakers breaking the fourth wall to a degree, and speaking directly to the audience with that line of dialogue. Throughout the entirety of Skyfall, we’re questioning if Bond had lost touch with what made him MI6’s best agent, hence the inclusion of the MI6 reprogramming in the 1st act. Now one can make the argument that Fleming did very much the same thing with the ending of YOLT, and opening of TMWTGG, and fair enough Fleming did exactly that.
But the problem that arises with that is the subtext they’re trying to add doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense when it’s held to actual scrutiny. How are we supposed to believe that James Bond, and by extension the entire film series is facing irrelevancy where there has YET to be a Bond film that has lost money at the box office. When the film series itself has strived and constantly reinvented itself since the 60’s. I understand that QOS really deflated a lot of people, but it’s not like 007 is a stranger to bad movies. It’s not like films like DAF, AVTAK, or DAD triggered this deep “existential” mode of thinking in EON the way QOS has. And it becomes even worse when they drag that subtext into the next two films with Craig. Hence the inclusion of C/Nine Eyes in Spectre, and Nomi in NTTD. They’re all meant to give us a look into the character Bond, a look into the state of the film series, and make us question if Bond can continue on for the next few decades. It’s a reading that I find flawed, and honestly why I’m not as much a fan of Craig’s later outings as I am of Casino Royale. Casino Royale has everything that people want from a Bond film, myself included, and it did all of that without holding a microscope to Bond/the series’ identity. Hopefully I was able to convey all of that in a way that’s palpable, it took me a bit to try and convey these thoughts in an organized way.
And as far as FRWL goes, I’d say Majesty’s, Goldeneye, and Casino Royale all give it a run for its money, but don’t truly rival it, but that’s just my opinion. Connery just makes FRWL so damn special to me, and that’s why FRWL is perhaps my all time favorite film.
EDIT;
I don’t wish to confuse anyone, because I think I’m perhaps not making enough sense. I’m fine with emotional stakes, hell my favorite 4 Bond films all have them, but I think EON should stop using those stakes to have allegories for the relevancy of the franchise.
What does 'breaking down a character's psychological makeup' mean though? I don't love Spectre as a film and I don't think it's all handled perfectly, but what's different about the tension between Bond & Blofeld in that and Bond & Anya in TSWLM? Both are to do with one of them killing someone close to the other in the past. I don't see how one 'breaks down' the psychology of a character? One drives the plot a bit more than the other, which just makes it feel more coherent to me, if anything.
Looking back, the stuff like Anya or Paris kind of feels like paying lip service to some sort of inner emotional life/tension of Bond, and then on to the next action scene. Or that quite funny 'it's what keeps you alone' scene in GoldenEye where Pierce gets to gurn into the sunset on a beach, and for that scene to have nothing to do with the rest of the film. I like to feel that Bond is affected by his mission, and I like that to be part of the actual story rather than just a single scene.
Look at Top Gun Maverick. Pretty much everyone agrees it's almost the perfect blockbuster movie: the building of character is intertwined with the stakes of the mission so perfectly that the tension is incredibly high for the action climax. Now, it's all about the character of Maverick himself and his relationships with other people: does it 'break down' his psychological makeup? I'd say it does, and much moreso than Spectre did with Bond's- but it's all the much better for it. It's a tremendously exciting and thrilling film.
You may say that Bond is a series and they can't do that every time, and I say Bond should always be approached as if they're making the only, possibly final Bond film there will ever be. Put everything you've got into this film, worry about the next one next year. That's how Cubby did it, after all- he didn't worry about the next movie.
You're sort of describing half of Fleming's Bond but removing the other half.
Yeah I guess the 'stuff from his past' angle has been done now, but I guess it's tricky with Bond because he's a person who doesn't really have personal attachments, and its a little tricky to push a personal involvement with a story without that. You can't use the MI6 personnel every time, so he pretty much has to get involved with someone he meets on the mission.
It was even supposedly initially rewritten as a Lethal Weapon sequel, wasn't it? I don't know if that's definitely true or just said because the final film appears to be not dissimilar to a LW film.
Lethal Weapon was produced through Warner Brothers and Die Hard was produced through 20th Century.
It's always possible that the script went to two studios (when an option runs out on a script, it goes back to the writer, who could turn it around at another studio; I had only understood that 20th Century Fox was the one to purchase and then later develop it as a John McClane flick.
But now I'm interested to see if it went though the halls of Warner Brothers first. I'll do a search in it and see what I find!
https://www.sealionpress.co.uk/post/tales-from-development-hell-simon-says
In the end, Warner Brothers WAS interested in the script to turn into LW4, BUT the sale didn’t go through from 20th Century to Warners!!
I hadn’t heard of that before!! But it seems it got stuck in just the idea phase and no sale was made to develop the script into a Riggs and Murtaugh adventure!
Die Hard is a funny old series, from its origins as a book adaptation which meant that technically it could/should have been a sequel to a movie which had already been made with Frank Sinatra playing the lead; to Die Hard 2 being an adaptation of a totally unrelated other book!
I already explained in my last post what I meant, so I won’t be typing all that again. If you want the jist, I’m tired of seeing EON constantly use Bond’s emotions as pointless allegories that make zero sense in the grand scheme of things.
And the big difference between Bond/Anya and Bond/Blofeld? Bond/Anya wasn’t some poorly written plot element meant to give us an illusion of continuity, unlike the Bond/Blofeld element. “Spy” actually gave us a set up to that conflict between the pair, whereas SP has to tell us that Bond/Blofeld have had this relationship, and that Blofeld had played every part in making Bond’s life miserable because “Dad payed more attention to you than he did to me?” So no, the two are not even remotely similar in the slightest.
I agree that films need to have dramatic tension, and every Bond film should be made as if it’s the last one, but at the same time, you don’t need to constantly have Bond in emotional turmoil to get that dramatic tension. And I think EON should stop questioning the series/character’s relevancy every single time a Bond film isn’t as successful as it should be.
Sorry, I posted before I saw your most recent reply.
Do you think that Fleming's Octopussy short story that the Spectre story is based on was poorly written because it added a new childhood backstory to Bond?
I don't really buy that retroactively adding a past life detail to a character is always a bad thing. Would seeing Blofeld kill Oberhauser in the same way we see Bond kill Anya's boyfriend have altered it for you? Like how the GoldenEye PTS adds on a new situation in Bond's past which hadn't existed before the movie but pre-dates everything else in it.
When you say it's not remotely similar in the slightest: they're not really all that massively different.
I think you probably do need some emotional crisis point for situations of dramatic tension.
This seemed to be a point in your last post: that Skyfall was a moment of the series questioning itself after Quantum of Solace wasn't a mega hit? I think that's based on a bit of a false assumption: I don't think it's as meta in that way as you're saying it is. You have a point that SF does seek to ask the question as to whether Bond the blunt instrument is still as vital and useful as he was, but I'd say that's probably more down to the series' 50th anniversary at that point than any perceived failure of a previous film. It's a celebratory thing, and even my example of Top Gun Maverick does a similar thing. SF is certainly more successful on this note than GoldenEye was for my money, which again just played quite an interesting concept lip service and effectively ditched it after one scene.
Some unmentioned here are:
In the angle of Octopussy herself nearly blaming Bond for the death of her father (Dexter Smythe), there's a connection between Octopussy and Bond because Bond got involved in a mission that Octopussy's father also had a big role to play, there's an emotional tension but earned in the way that Bond had to earn Octopussy's trust despite of the past, and more interesting in that Octopussy herself was in the moral grey area of working with the villains.
It's somewhat replicated in SPECTRE with creating an emotional tension when Blofeld revealed to her how Bond became the catalyst for Mr. White's suicide (the suicide of Madeleine's father), there's Madeleine being torn of whether she would blame Bond for it, or continue trusting him, there's the emotional tension.
But making films in one row with constant uses of emotional tension lessens the effectivity of using this trope (yes, that's how I call it) on the audiences, this was done many times in the Craig Era, to the point of overusing them to death, thinking that people would still be invested, but just became repetitive and mostly forced, mostly magnifying some small issues that had never been given a build up or development.
Both of you, @007ClassicBondFan and @mtm are right, different perspectives yet both reasonable.
Also, don't have the franchise taking inspiration from other movies, Bond should be the TRENDSETTER, not the trend follower.
Seems unrealistic for Bond to be the trendsetter when it's been going for over half a century.