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
Yeah, but they're coherent. And they don't ramble... 😆
I don't worry that early 60s Bond used pay phones while Dalton used phones the size of shoe boxes and Craig used smartphones. Nor do I concern myself with changes in clothing style. Bond updates himself as most of us do. As long as Bond remains true to his essential nature and character, I am fine.
I am also fine with a reboot of the series with a younger Bond. What I don't buy is the idea that there is something so unique about today's generation(s) that the next Bond film must reflect the zeitgeist of the times, whatever that looks like.
The attraction of Bond is that perhaps he really is a dinosaur. He's at home in every time, but he's not of the times. For example, though more Gen Z males are attending church than females, I wouldn't expect that of Bond.
Don't know who these two are or watch their videos myself, but from a brief look at the beginning it's interesting. I'll definitely give it a proper watch when I get free time.
I agree with @CrabKey insofar as I think there's a timeless quality to Bond in all his incarnations. I'd slightly disagree that there's nothing special about this particular time in history (all periods when the Bond films were released were unique and in some way informed the films in my opinion). I don't think creating a modern Bond film means fundamentally changing the character though - adapting him to the times perhaps (and that's a whole conversation in itself), but fundamentally each incarnation has had the same core traits in my opinion.
I think @CrabKey hits the nail on the head with this sentence. What has made Bond last so far is not that he is an icon of the '60s or '70s, but that he is an icon, period. Although he probably still carries with him a few of the qualities that Fleming gave him from his own views and ideas of how the world was evolving in the '50s, they don't necessarily pose any particular problems when Bond does his thing in modern films. I don't get the sense that the few changes thus far made, have rendered the recent Bond totally different from the original incarnation. He gave up smoking, yes, but I hardly notice that. Also, Bond's health issues in the Fleming books aside, I don't think smoking is what defines him. And isn't that more or less the only major difference between modern Bond and original Bond?
If folks think his personality is based around him having a couple of cigarettes in the 60s then they've sort of missed a lot of what's in the Bond films, I'd say.
And if someone only identifies those traits which gone out of fashion such as forcing himself on women as being the core, essential parts of his personality without which he isn't 007, then I'd suspect them of being a little disingenuous, as otherwise they've missed out on an awful lot of good Bond movies.
Exactly. The good thing about Bond is that he's such a specific character - his vices and habits are all instantly recognisable (even if it's simply the line 'shaken not stirred' in relation to his martinis) as is his heroism/virtues. Weirdly it means you can do a lot with each new version of the character without losing him in that process.
That's actually quite an interesting question, and, honestly I think you can push it fairly far. There's obviously a lot about his demeanour, he's pretty much going to stay suave and not be silly or do a campy voice or anything like that (although, y'know, even then you've got Sean doing his comedy german routine in DAF etc.), but beyond that he can be caring, he can be cruel; he can be funny, he can be serious... you can take him to a lot of places. I was reading that the Broccolis are very protective of him and have a good idea of what he would do - apparently one script for TWINE had him opening up about Tracy to Electra and the Brocs said no: Bond never reveals anything about himself. That's probably true, but in a certain situation I could still imagine that happening.
I guess he can't ever really be evil. But beyond that it's hard to think of too many things you can't do with him.
For example, I don't think Bond's whole 'you must first dig two graves' speech in FYEO is quite in-keeping with the character. I understand it's a line from the Fleming story (albeit used in a very different way) but I personally find it a bit too finger wagging and judgmental coming from a man like Bond, especially when his profession involves killing people (and indeed he kills out of revenge throughout the entire film). It's a fine line in the sense that I can imagine the idea working, but not in the way it's done in the film. I'd say Bond trying to prevent a young woman from going down a path of revenge is in-keeping with the character in itself, but I suspect he'd likely approach it in a more forceful, less pontificating way (I dunno, him saying something to Melina like 'you did what you came to do, now go home and forget this. Leave the rest to me' or whatever would have been more Bond-like for me).
I personally find that Bond in DN is one of the least faithful interpretations of the character as well in many ways. Not to say Bond does anything out of character necessarily (I do sympathise with people who dislike him killing Dent in cold blood, or at least without a brief moment of reflection on it though) but the way the film is adapted involves Bond being essentially one step ahead throughout the entire story. Personally, I think Bond is a character who more often than not doesn't go into situations knowing exactly what outcome he'll get. He's more prone to off the cuff tactics and has a habit of walking into situations where he's not quite sure how it'll play out, ultimately using his wits to succeed. Even that's quite debatable an opinion amongst us, I'm sure, and even then the fundamental traits of the character are all there in that film regardless.
Sex and licence to kill are quite important. I think the fine line is called Ethan Hunt. ;)
If he looks like Ethan Hunt then he's not Bond.
Yeah those are good points. Also one thing about Dr No is that Bond is a real dick during most of it, quite sort of short-tempered and unlikable. I don't know if that's fully out of character, but it's certainly somewhere they decided Bond shouldn't be for the later films and by the next film he's much less abrasive.
Yes I think that's absolutely him, compared to someone like Ethan Hunt, whose whole thing (because it's the setup to Mission Impossible itself) is that he'll go into a situation with a plan. Bond will stroll in just hoping to shake the situation up, and, because of his immense self-confidence which shows in many of his other traits like his womanising, has faith in himself that he'll come up with some sort of idea or will be able to beat up everyone else if he gets into trouble. His swagger and ballsiness is kind of the key to his persona onscreen really.
So after almost 20 years the nature of the character was still up for discussion.
For me, in NTTD Bond acting like a soft cry-baby in front of Madeleine in the cabin before he meets his kid is out of character.
I find it's in character for Bond, but misdirected slightly in the film. Bond does kill to avenge people/for personal reasons in both the films and novels, even if it's somewhat in cold blood. I think in FYEO he'd have killed Loque more for Lissle than Whatshisname (Luigi if I recall correctly).
I always think it plays into the character's love of gambling too in the sense he never knows exactly how each hand/situation is going to go, and he has to rely on wits/intuition in the moment. The likes of Ethan Hunt and Jack Reacher are more like chess players who plan two or three moves ahead. It's a cool difference when it comes to Bond, and I'm not sure if I can think of any other character with quite that same sense of ruthlessness.
1. Professionalism. Job first, most of the time. Sometimes this is "cold," sometimes this is ruthless. But England ultimately comes first.
2. Respect for human life. Bond isn't a psychopath. He doesn't just kill for no reason, and hates to do it in cold blood. That's why I dislike the Dent scene. He also has a care for the women he comes across.
3. Lives well and enjoys life. This could be cigarettes, drinks, clothes, food whatever. No one thing is key to the character: rather a general lifestyle. He's also not necessarily Byronic. Humour in doses is key to the character
4. Awareness of mortality: He's not also completely untroubled. But with the profession comes death and Bond is aware of that, which obviously plays on his mind and his actions.
Oh yes that's a great point, that does all connect up very well.
Perhaps even more so when you look at the novels, where Bond frankly wins more often by sheer luck than anything else. Sort of the difference shown in CR, where in the novel he plays chemin de fer, which is a sort of slightly dressed-up version of 'snap' ultimately and relies just as much on luck; whereas he plays poker in the film version which is a game more dependent on the player's skill and judgement than just how the cards get dealt.
I think gambling is just one of the running themes of the James Bond series. In the FRWL novel, when SMERSH are choosing who to strike, they sort of dance around it. They dismiss the Americans because they really just take in loads of data and hope some turns gold. But MI6 are special because they take chances and follow intuition. Also a theme where Bond is annoyed by diplomats or politicians: they are risk-averse, and more worried about reputation than actual substance.
In every novel Bond takes some sort of risk where there's a lot of uncertainty. Trusting certain characters, action where he needs to sneak about undercover, or a risk where he has to get a message out. But these are managed risks, where they are even chances or as close to it as he can get.
Good point. It's not something that I think has completely been phased out in the films. Bond in DN pretty much sets up the same spy traps in his hotel room as he does in the CR novel (ie. a hair taped to a door, powder on the briefcase that would show fingerprints etc) and there are scenes in FRWL and LALD where he sweeps his hotel room for listening bugs. The Brosnan era had a couple of mentions of him sleeping with a gun under his pillow, which is also what he does in CR's opening chapter. He also seems able to sprout off facts/asides about whatever topic is brought up in the films, which isn't far off Bond's attention to detail/interests he shows in the books.
That said, I think as early as LALD Fleming changed up the character slightly. He's much more uptight and less humorous in CR, and things like his carefulness/fixation on details is emphasised a bit more. I can't quite see that version of Fleming's character doing some of the things he does in later books (something like Bond continuing to play the fixed tables in DAF, for example, which is even in the context of the book an extremely reckless thing to do).
😂 😂 😂
@007ClassicBondFan … this was almost a distant memory (since I barely watch NSNA), and now you brought it back like an annoying flashing neon sign, 😂 😂 😂!!!
Bond of the novels is an amateur-professional. Bond has no particular specialization. He’s not Jack Ryan. Bond’s background, and all the opportunities of sport and travel that it offered, is his resume. The way Bond reacts and interacts with his world is so different than that of other espionage characters because he’s not a product of university or academia. Bond was trusted by his superiors for the same reason that Fleming, and others like him, were put into sensitive positions: men and women of their pedigree were believed to have loyalty to the state because they either were the ruling class or descendants of the ruling class.
To me, that’s the inroad into Bond’s character. He’s smart. He’s talented. He’s athletic. But he’s a product of a pre-WWII mentality and methodology. The experts in the Bond novels are there to support Bond. They’re not men of action. Bond doesn’t need to be an expert on rockets. He’ll learn enough to complete a mission, but his real skill is in baiting the enemy to make a mistake that he can exploit, and typically, his enemy exists in rarified spaces that only a man like Bond can maneuver into.
Glad to be of service 😂😂😂
That's an interesting observation and I can see what you mean. I've often wondered if it was Connery's cynical attitude to the English upper-classes coming through.
I guess he was still a little uncertain how to play the part because there's also a bit of a stiffness to his performance at times. I've always been amused by the speed at which he delivers this line (0:06)
That's a very interesting analysis, good points.
Yeah that scene is very much one which springs to mind: Bond in a bar in pretty much any other film would be enjoying the situation to some extent, but here he's abrupt, on edge, short and interrogating even his friends. We all know how Connery wasn't giving the full performance in YOLT, but in that he's still giving the sense of Bond being totally self-assured and on top of the situation, which appealed to audiences very much, and it's a distinct contrast to the snappy Bond in this clip.
I think they just basically hadn't worked it out fully at that point, and that's totally understandable and fine. But if he started acting like that again in a new film, I think I probably would find it out of character. Even in CR, where he's supposed to be the fresher-faced 007 finding his feet a little more and making mistakes, he's still very self-assured and swaggering. Being on edge and humourless and kind of lording it over everyone he's supposed to be working with, as he is in Dr No for the most part, wouldn't really feel like Bond now.
Yes, Bond seems a bit on edge during that entire scene. It's a bit odd as by this point he knows Leiter and Quarrel are his allies. I think it's just a case where they were still ironing everything out.
I think one of the best creative choices EON made with CR was changing the initial dynamic between Bond/Vesper. In the book he goes into a strange little rage at the idea of a woman assisting him and seems on edge throughout the first quarter of the book. He's a bit of a dickhead to her in the film, but it's all framed through Bond verbally sparring with her along with the odd bit of flirting. He's confident enough to know that Le Chiffre has already figured out who he is and gives away his real name the moment they get to the hotel (and of course there's a nice bit of clashing between the seemingly more cautious Vesper who seems weary of someone like Bond).
I think it's Craig's charisma/confidence in the part that makes Bond strangely endearing even with the character's arrogance in those scenes. It's all done with that swagger and a bit of a smile. It also makes his Bond look more competent when he correctly assumes Le Chiffre is willing to play him. It's certainly better viewing than him being cautious, grumpy, and weirdly sexist. But yeah, cinematic Bond needs that sense of self assuredness, at least on the surface.
It's always struck me as a bit strange and very much at odds with his later performances. Leiter comes across as the cooler, more confident character in that scene.
Like I said, I wonder if Connery was channeling his own experience of officers in the Royal Navy.