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
Good points. Again, I don’t think the Carmichael description means much to anyone today, and I’m not quite sure how much it even did to a lot of British readers at the time. By the time Bond is seen in comic strips we don’t get much of that Carmichael ‘look’, and he seems to get progressively more weathered/gritty looking as the illustrations move through the late 50s. Also worth noting Fleming himself said beyond the specifics of the scar, comma of hair, and eye colour, he didn’t know exactly what his creation looked like.
Completely agree about what to look for when casting Bond, and yes, no one seems to have an issue with a black Leiter or Moneypenny. I don’t think anyone would lose any sleep over a black Bill Tanner!
I think it’s interesting that Bond as a character is essentially an upper middle class, expatriate born man who leans into the finer things in life, who’s almost exclusively played by actors in these films from working class backgrounds. It’s not integral to the casting, but there’s something about that distance to a certain type of image that just works (I don’t think Bond could have been played convincingly by otherwise wonderful actors such as David Niven or even Trevor Howard in 1962 for instance, as they lacked that sense of toughness, magnetism etc that Connery with his noticeable Scottish accent had). Bond’s habits are very particular, but he’s a very individualistic character. A man in his profession wouldn’t fully fit in with back slapping ‘old boy’ types. The books and films even poke fun at batty intellectuals, colleagues who still wear their boarding school tie, and that ‘old man’ speak.
Very interesting point.
Oh hi, M! Oh hi, Moneypenny! You’re tearing me apart, Blofeld!
Sure, no actor looked exactly like Fleming but some had something of him.
Nah, Wiseau as M would be cool.
M: ‘So anyway James, how’s your sex life?’
The way in which stories were told was constantly evolving from 1962 until 1987, and part of what made the formula so great is that is was flexible enough that it could suit the times in which they were made, thats how EON managed to be so successful and so consistent for so long. The Living Daylights doesn't feel like a film from the early 60's, it feels fresh and contemporary to the late 80's, the styles, the fashion , the music, the production value, everything is modern and alive to the time, despite it being adapted from the same basic ingredients as Goldfinger or Thunderball. Again, all that "classic bond" really means is a bond film where the drama and sense of jeopardy flows organically from the story, and not out of trauma from Bond's past, or skeletons looming out of "the shadows".
Yeah, I'm going with eyes above race, stature, or any other traits. They truly are the windows into Bond's soul.
See, I don’t know how much of the drama or jeopardy from the last three Craig films actually comes from Bond’s past. In SF the drama’s about Bond picking himself up after what he goes through, and his childhood home is included as a way of him taking control of the situation. We get mentions of his past and the death of his parents but it’s more a textural detail than what he has to overcome (ie. It makes sense a man like Bond has a lot of loss in his life, but it’s clearly something he’s left in the past).
Even in SP it’s more Blofeld who has hang ups about his father/Bond. Previously unseen figures from Bonds past are nothing new for the books/films anyway, and itself that’s not a negative.
The difference is that whitewashing (or blackwashing or [insert description]-washing) is not simply replacing an actor of one phenotype with an actor of another phenotype. Whitewashing is the minimization or eradication of contributions made by non-White people in favor of increasing the prominence or relevance or impact of White people.
Micky Rooney playing the Japanese landlord in Breakfast at Tiffany’s is a well known example of whitewashing. Why is that an example of whitewashing but casting a Black actor as James Bond not? Well, that’s because a Black actor wouldn’t be dressing in white-face to play James Bond as a White character. That Black actor wouldn’t be doing an impersonation of a White man. Additionally, the history of Bond as a White character wouldn’t intentionally be minimized. A Black James Bond would simply be one iteration of James Bond in a long line of other actors that played the character. Bond’s race is far less consequential to his characterization than nationality.
Exactly, when it is incorporated into the structure of a classic bond film it makes for a much better rounded story, as was the case from 1962 and 1987, before the craft started to become lost.
Your definition of characterization seems narrow. Exploring Bond’s past is one way to explore his character but not the only way. Casino Royale has strong characterization that’s not directly tied to Bond’s personal history. What Casino Royale does is center Bond’s immaturity and ego within the bigger landscape of duty and betrayal. Both plot and characterization feed into each other to create a narrative the dovetails into the ultimate lesson for Bond, which itself becomes the inner wound that’s explored in subsequent films.
I think it depends. I think it’s done exceptionally well in SF (which isn’t a typical/formulaic Bond movie by any means but still has a great deal of reverence to the classic films/tropes). SP (which is a much more formulaic Bond movie) not so much. I like how Bond’s relationship with Travelyan/the references to his past are done in GE. Same for the inclusion of Paris in TND.
To be honest, I take more issue with the ‘drama’ of FYEO than SF, GE, LTK or TND. It could have been developed to actually have a world weary Bond (who has killed out of revenge/has experienced that) trying not to let a young woman lose her soul. As it is it’s just Bond finger wagging and coming off as hypocritical.
It’s weirdly done as it’s seemingly not the sole reason Blofeld becomes what he is (it’s more just textural detail much like Bond’s past in SF). It’s there to illustrate he was always nuts. The audience associate it as being Blofeld’s motivation because it’s hammered in a bit too much. It’s not done well at all but I wouldn’t quite call it soap opera-ish (that’s reserved for TWINE for me!)
Right. But, again, there are good and bad ways to move a character through an emotional arc. Spectre didn’t do it well. But Casino Royale did. Skyfall did. OHMSS did. The failure of Spectre to follow through on a satisfying character arc isn’t an argument for not centering Bond’s journey in future films.
I just think he has enough charisma, swagger, looks and toughness to play the part.
They only gave the role to a well-known white actor. It's all about jobs, just like now.
Sure, Joseph Wiseman wasn't Chinese either but I don't think it was done maliciously.
No one is making the argument that you’re rebutting. Characterization is important but so is plot. Both work in tandem to create a satisfying narrative. It can be done well or terribly.
Yes, I’ve always approached it the same way. It’s how Marvel accommodates the passing of years for their continuity without rebooting. Spectre screwed with that, AND it was a dud, too. NTTD is a much better film, but it leaves me cold and might as well be “it was all a dream”. The idea of a hard reboot every Bond is not appealing to me.
That's a better Spectre than the one we got. I wonder why they dropped it?
My argument is that had they removed some of the emotional/personal characterisation stuff from the first half of B25 there would be much more room to properly set up the villain and employ some of the screenwriting craft necessary to work out the plot so it's engages the audience as it should. If you place characterisation ABOVE the mechanics of good, solid storytelling, then you end up with villains with threadbare motivations, and nothing to actually make anyone in the least bit caught up in the stakes of what's happening.
Getting rid of the ‘characterisation’ of the first half of NTTD would be odd as it’d no longer be the same story. It wouldn’t really be doable. We wouldn’t have the background of Safin/Madeline’s initial meeting (and it’s his desire for revenge/how he feels about Madeline that informs what he does later/sets the direction of the plot and story). The whole point of the story is that Bond gets a chance at happiness but ultimately sacrifices himself in the name of duty (very Fleming). It’s made more impactful by him and Madeline splitting and then reuniting.
Not saying it’s all done perfectly, but it’s coherent storytelling for the most part.
The irony here is that characterization is the reason why one would care about Safin’s plan. It’s his motivation that drives the story. I think NTTD simply has too much plot, which can be said about a number of Bond films including some that you cite as exemplary installments, like Octopussy and The Living Daylights. Both of which I really love, incidentally.
Had the scope of Safin’s plan been limited to revenge against Spectre and his obsession with Madeleine then I think the character arc we see Bond go through would have been better served. But Safin’s machinations to destroy Spectre and his history with Madeleine are treated as subplots along with the ultimate expression of Bond and Madeleine’s love affair—their daughter. Not to mention the subplots around a new 007, Bond’s relationship with Leiter and M’s clandestine weapon. There are about three or four too many subplots in NTTD.
I haven’t thought this through but I would have streamlined some of these elements and cut the rest:
Safin, posing as Spectre, tries to kill Bond at the beginning of NTTD in order to separate Madeleine from Bond and to push Bond into taking out Spectre once and for all. Safin breaks Blofeld out of prison as the ultimate gift for Madeleine (with the intention to kill him) which, in turn, makes Blofeld and Bond uneasy allies against Safin in the third act.
Tanner; Sir they’ve stolen nuclear weapons and are holding the world hostage!
M; Hahaha, what a story Tanner!
Yeah, that sounds pretty good to me. Blofeld and Bond teaming up at the end would have been a nice twist, and made for a very tense double act. It would give the underused Safin a bit more presence, too.
Yes I like the idea of them having to help each other, that would be a nice development from the previous film.
Exactly, so why not just focus on that instead of getting lost in the weeds with Bond thinking madeline betrayed him, bundling her onto a train, bond going into hiding again, antics with Nomi, Felix, squabbling with M etc. Wouldn't the best way to make that premise you just described above as impactful and engaging as possible be to pair it with a fully fleshed out villain who we understand, who's motivation/plan is clear, and we know what he's actually trying to achieve from any of it?
Again, I don't mind there being an emotional core to a bond film, but only when that comes about as the result of a well rounded, comprehensive story and not intended to make up for other missing or underwritten elements.