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
But sort of like the Marvel movies for me, I felt there was a bit of “overexposure” to Harry Potter between all the marketing and merchandise for those films that it sort of put me off wanting to see them. I’m sure I’ll give them a watch again eventually; but it’s not really high on my list of priorities.
That's how I view all three of them. There's a lot to learn from a creative sense from all three of them.
The other reason is because Paloma’s a supporting Bond girl. She’s fun and colourful because of how brief her appearance is. She stops short of being one dimensional due to the subversion of her actually being a competent agent, but even then there’s not actually much to her. Generally the main Bond girls have more to them - they usually have a goal they need to attain, or change as characters due to their involvement with Bond. If Paloma were the main Bond girl (which I doubt would have worked) she’d be quite different I suspect. It’s a nice case of ‘leave them wanting more’ with her character. I do agree colourful Bond girls in general are always great though, and it’d be nice to have a fun supporting one like Agent Fields or Paloma.
Let's face it, if it were a more standard Bond film from the 60s or 70s, she'd have been Minor Bond Girl A who would have been killed.
Also I think it's interesting that we have complaints that the films don't do x (in this case a fun and light supporting character) by giving an example of the films doing exactly that.
They have to give us light and shade, it can't just be doom and gloom and it can't just be gags, and they're not. Even Moonraker has its moments of darkness and tension, some are even amongst the darkest in the series.
But those days are gone I guess.
My issue with ‘Bond’s equal’ type characters is that they can be a bit boring. Wai Lin’s an example. There’s really not much to her, and while Yeoh’s a great actress I’m not sure I get the sense there’s much there between her and Bond. Same with Jinx. I’m not a big fan of Holly Goodhead either.
Anya’s the best of that lot by far for me, and I think it’s down to her having a more compelling (and even tragic) story in the film. It can be done, for sure (in a way Paloma’s a spin on the Bond’s equal type - a mix of that and the ‘minor Bond girl sent from MI6’ one you get occasionally).
And yes, I can't name a Bond Girl whose as colorful, vibrant, has a sense of humor, and happy as Paloma herself or maybe Agent Fields, maybe Mary Goodnight or Wai Lin? I don't know (Kara was more childish than being vibrant or cool), but most of the Bond Girls have been serious and some of them were emotionally vulnerable (no problem with them but it's way too overused, particularly in the Craig Era), they're not as cool and vibrant as Paloma/Agent Fields, hence, why the audiences really warmed to Paloma.
There could still be a backstory, a Bond Girl could still be a compelling, dimensional character but without making her a 'Debbie Downer' kind of thing, if you get what I mean, maybe we need a Bond Girl like that for a change, we're done with serious and emotionally heavy Bond Girls, or serious Bond Girls, and with Paloma proved that it could work.
In many ways she’s a character who’s meant to be much more outlandish than a typical Bond girl. In this particular film she’s not going to sleep with Bond, so she doesn’t need that tact and can have an almost childish element to her (I think if Bond did peruse her as he would do in pretty much any other Bond movie it’d actually feel a bit odd because she initially comes off as so ‘innocent’. Again, she wouldn’t be the same character).
I did forget her, you’re right. She’s good.
The ‘only three weeks training’ wasn’t in the original script and was added because it had become Ana de Armas’s catchphrase on set (the actress was worried she wouldn’t be able to do the stunts because she had ‘only three weeks training’). It’s fun but it doesn’t really make sense in the context of the story. In that way it does feel like something from the Moore era.
Yes, this is why many audiences warmed up to her, it worked, and I think her character in general was really distinctive, something that I haven't seen in the majority of Bond Girls, it's a unique take as Bond Girls haven't been like that before, it's a breathe of fresh air, she's just being herself, a bit of spanky, she didn't act sexy or classy either, she's being herself in a cool manner.
She's a distinctively unique character.
Not all Bond's opposite means to be a damsel in distress, sometimes, it's in the personality, like Paloma, it's a fresh and unique take to have a Bond Girl whose Bond's opposite in personality, to he's silent is the girl who is loud, Bond's sophisticated, the Bond Girl is not, a rowdy.
Pam is a great character, but she's still not as vibrant, wildly happy, chill and cool as Paloma, the problem with Pam was she acted whiny at times due to her jealousy with Lupe, she's not as cool and energetic (or hyper) as Paloma.
Paloma was both high and free spirited Bond Girl (something that Pam lacked).
Yep, those three.
Paloma basically is Goodnight done right, without the grim attitude to women.
She is a bit of a fresh spin on things, yes; which I would point out is a good thing. A memorable, charismatic supporting character most viewers enjoyed, left us wanting more, didn't outstay her welcome: that's a plus point of the film.
Yeah, agreed.
I guess also some fun, light characters which don't jar with the the rest of the film; these are also good. But not Paloma v2.0.
But they got it right. That's a good sign, not a failing of the films.
I'm personally over serious and emotionally traumatized characters, I just want to see like how other world would collide with Bond's world or something like that.
We need something like this in Bond 26, a charismatic, positive and light character, not the whole film itself needs to be lighthearted, sometimes one character needs have it alone but doing it right without bordering on parody.
Yes, it's the thing I liked about Mary Goodnight, she's just chill, cool and not too much bothered by the world, she's not overly serious or full of grit or angst, she's just being fun and light, she have a positive aura.
Yes, I agree, the same can be said for Tiffany Case, actually half of the Bond Girls in the books were really better than their film counterparts with the only exception of Tracy who's better in film than the book.
And yes, while we could still have a Bond Girl as an equal, technically, it's about the skill and their level of competence or their resourcefulness, but in personality, I don't need it, the 'cut on the same cloth' again and again, Madeleine is enough, we don't need another of those, we need a fresh take, a new ground, even if it means of going down the 'Bond's opposite' route in terms of personality that's something that has never been done before.
My bad, I should have really said "stereotypical" instead of "typical". Basically what the average non-bond fan thinks of when they think "Bond Girl", which to my mind means tough, plucky and resourceful, if a bit naive at times. For examples I'd cite, Honey, Tatiana, Tilly Masterson, Aki and Kissy, Tiffany Case, Triple XXX, Octopussy, Kara Milovy, Pam Bouvier, Natalya, Wai Lin, Christmas Jones, Jinx, Paloma etc.
May as well put these two quotes together as they seem to cover the same thing. I don't understand where this notion of "there not being much to her" being a problem comes from, but to me bond films work just fine as "empty calories", e.i. primarily escapist fun. I mean don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that a Bond film needs to be that way, or necessarily should be, but it doesn't make or break a film for me if its a bit surface- level, nor do I see that particularly being a problem for general audiences looking for an enjoyable way to pass a couple hours. I mean sure, give characters a goal or a history if you want and if the story calls for it, but don't add in needless "depth" where it isn't called for. For me, story is tantamount in this regard. You say, "well, she'd need more depth in a leading role, she'd need to be more dimensional", I say "well, that really depends on the story you're telling, doesn't it?" Anything can be a hindrance in the wrong place, right? If you're saying her character needs to be a certain way prior to even the basics of a story being formulated IMO that's putting the cart before the horse. The story should act as a fountian head, with everything else flowing from it, not preceeding it. Again, I'm not saying necessarily characters should be one dimensional, but in the right story I don't really see why it's an issue that they are, either. I don't really know who Wai Lin is or what her goals in life are beyond she's resourceful and committed to doing her job, and I don't really need more than that. It works well enough to serve the story, and that's what's important. Adding in "depth" just for the sake of it is basically the mission statement of the last 2 Bond films, and that just smacks of insecurity to me. If you have a "Casino Royale" or a "On Her Majestys Secret Service" or even a "Skyfall" on your hands, great, have at it, be as moody and character driven as you want, but if you don't and you're just telling a meat and potatoes Bond adventure at least be straightforward and honest about it, otherwise you're just getting in the way of a better story that could be.
It really depends on what the film needs and how well this hypothetical Bond girl is portrayed. To be honest, I think the best Bond girls have a lot of darkness in their backstories, even in the films. In a lot of cases to create a compelling character you can't really avoid it. Honey, for example, kills her rapist, Tracy is suicidal when she and Bond first meet, Natalya's whole goal in GE is based around seeing the mass murder of her co-workers, Domino is the unhappy mistress of a man who killed her brother etc. I don't think the Craig era women are any more emotionally traumatised than what we've seen in the past (ie. is Camille any more emotionally traumatised or serious than Melina? Or Severine in comparison to Andrea? They're all cut from the same cloth). Again, it's why Paloma's a supporting character and not used for very much of the film - she's an interesting, unique character, but beyond a point wouldn't be compelling as she is when used sparingly. I personally think it's best to avoid 'flat character' main Bond girls anyway.
Maybe they could try and do the 'rogue' Bond girl outline again (ie. someone like Pussy Galore or Octopussy - Bond girls who operate outside the law and might even be involved with the villains in some form. Their arc is that they generally come round to helping Bond by the end of the story. Even then you get someone like Fleming's Tiffany Case who broadly fits that mould and has one of the darkest backstories in the entire franchise. She even carries that trauma more overtly in the book than most others do).
But you don't add 'depth' to a character for the sake of it. You do it for the sake of the broader story. That's what all the Craig films did with their Bond girls (ie. Severine is trapped by Silva, which in turn leads her to ask for Bond's help, and this leads him to finally confront Silva. Bond confronts White, who in turn asks him to protect his daughter who also has information. That drives the plot and story. Madeline's past with Saffin also does this. There's nothing superfluous there).
Part of the audience getting that entertaining two/three hours of escapism is creating compelling characters in whatever form. That's just the way it is.
I'm not really sure if Anya, Octopussy, Pam, Wai Lin, Jinx, or even Jones fit your description there to be completely honest with you (at least the naive bit). Even Natalya's a bit debatable in that respect.
In terms of Bond films I think dull characters are way more detrimental and should be avoided more than flat ones, just my 2 cents.
I'd say for the main Bond girls it rarely works, even if just because Bond girls are often characters that help drive the story/are directly involved in Bond's mission in some way, even if they're often independent of MI6. Even for supporting characters like Agent Fields they're not always flat characters (she changes in the sense she decides to help Bond).
I guess you have Wai Lin and Jinx (often it seems to be the Bond's equal ones who don't really have much to them - no backstory or any sort of arc. They have goals but they're limited to the mission) but as I said I find them a bit boring anyway. Then you have ones I rarely remember like Aki and Kissy, and again they're quite flat as characters from what I remember. Even Paloma has an external arc for the viewer in the sense we go from seeing her as a scatterbrain to realising she's a competent agent.
Basically what I'm trying to say is, in the broadest sense, a flat character Bond girl is often a dull one.
Well, in Jinx's case, she was on the verge of getting a spinoff (possibly origin) movie to herself. So she could have been more fleshing out for her character. In particular, if it was planned to be an origin.
It's a bit odd that they decided Jinx should get a spin off (maybe it was due to Berry's level of fame? Very strange). I'm not sure if fans were crying out for it to happen.
It's not a problem, it's great in this movie. I keep saying: they did exactly what you asked for here and most people liked it.
Unless you're making a James Bond Jr-style cartoon, then your main characters need a bit of depth, yes. If you can't feel for them, you can't really get excited or worried about them when they're in danger. TSWLM is not a hugely deep film, but even there we've got the subplot about Bond killing Anya's partner, and that gives us a bit of dramatic meat.
I don't want an emotionless two hours of spectacle of motorbikes jumping over cars, I want to get involved in the story. I want to laugh, have my pulse quickened, feel tension, get caught up in the story. If you want less than that then fine, but no moviemaker worth their salt is going to make that film.
And that's why you make them interesting: add a bit of depth etc.
She won an Oscar while she was actually shooting DAD so I guess her profile had risen a lot, and DAD was the most successful Bond film to date so I guess it kind of makes sense to capitalise on it. Apparently it was actually going to be a bit more down and dirty, Eurothriller, Bourne type thing. But some female-fronted action things had underperformed around that time and MGM got cold feet.
Jinx was quite successful as a Bond girl. Let's remember that it is not the dream job for an actress and it is difficult to have big names.
And it's perfectly within you're right to hold that opinion, inspite of how it might conflict with the reality of the wider view from many many casual fans and ordinary moviegoers that, in fact, De Armas was one of the highlights of the film and about as far from dull as you could find. In fact I'd hazard a guess and say that no Bond girl post-Vesper has recieved such an immediate and visceral positive reception from an audience, and that's coming in an era of such accomplished soulful creatures as Camille, Lucia and Madeline. What audiences are really looking for is originality and freshness instead of saminess, and has nothing to do with whether a character is "complex" or not. I think that notion is a bit of hearsay that has entered the fandom as a result of one barbara broccolis various soundbites in the media. The reason people found Paloma compelling is because in contrast to just about every other recent Bond girl, instead of slowly emerging into bonds life, or introducing themselves in a long scene of dialogue, she more or less is dropped into a situation and has an instant dynamic with bond (again, very nostalgic, like the good old days) and they just dive straight into an adventure together. That was very refreshing for an audience in 2021, just like Bond and Vesper trading barbs on the train was refreshing back in 2006, but one is not out and out "better" than the other. If all you have is surface and you want to invest an audience more you have a choice to make, you can add depth or you can make better surface, and the mistake is thinking that one option is always better than the other. Like I said, if you know you have the right story on your hands, like Casino Royale or OHMSS, there's no reason you shouldn't plunder that for all its worth in terms of character and drama, but if all you have is a simple save the world mission then dressing it up like its more than it is will only subtract from its potential not add to it. Would SP have worked better if Bond had not been related to Blofeld in anyway instead been simple rivals and had the character of Madeline been a more straightforward plucky Lass who envigorates and turns Bond on by how unimpressed she is by his status as a spy, how it only reminds her of her family life, which she'd rather forget. Then, through an amazing adventure she is won round to him, and he thinks maybe there is something to settling down after all, and they drive off together. Maybe that could have worked, but as it is I don't think the Bond/Madeline dynamic will leave much of a footprint on the franchises history as a whole, and the problem wasn't that they didn't her character complex and soulful enough for general audiences to be able to connect and find her compelling, I feel confident enough to say that much.
Like I said, even Paloma had an external arc for viewers in the sense she goes from being a nervous scatterbrain into a competent agent in our eyes. There’s something there that’s engaging in terms of what the film showed us. Is it quite right for the main Bond girl? Like I said, I suspect she’d be different based on what the story needs from that type of character.
Strip away the academics and chin stroking of what you’re saying - what sort of Bond film deserves certain characters , what a ‘complex’ character actually is etc. and it’s simple in one sense. A Bond girl should be interesting and work for the story.
Where we seem to differ (I think - it’s a bit hard to tell sometimes) is perhaps how Bond girls are made interesting in the script at least, and which ones specifically we find interesting. So many Bond girls have some sort of drama that informs what they do, their characters, and their role in the story. It’s not just Tracy in OHMSS or Madeline Swan, it’s Natalia in GE, Anya in TSWLM, Melina in FYEO, Stacy in AVTAK, Andrea in TMWTGG, and many others. By your logic those characters needn’t be in those films or have their backstories because of the type of films they’re in… again, as far as I can tell anyway. They all help drive the plot along with their goals/backstories, just like Severine in SF or Swan in SP and NTTD. I think these characters all work for the films they’re in (all movies would certainly be different without them just in terms of basic plot) and I just don’t understand the criticism you have with the Craig films here specifically. The Bond girls in those films do work for the stories they’re in.
It’s just a part of storytelling. I think it’s hard to create a good Bond girl who is completely flat (again, in the sense they don’t change or develop, even if in the way the story is told, have some sort of goal etc.) there aren’t many main Bond girls who fall completely into that from what I can tell.
You say 'it depends what story you're telling' and that's pretty obvious, but there just ain't any big film like this which is going to tell a story about a character who is just cute and that's it, because there's no story there.
Bit part cameo characters like Paloma: great, almost no story needed.
+1