›

Bond scripts and "inner" and "outer" motivations/goals

patbpatb
in Bond Movies Posts: 4,617
I was on a script writing course on Saturday and Bond came up. We were discussing the convention of the main character having inners and outer goals and motivations. Outers are physical goals and inners are the emotional motivations created by the inner emotions of the character. The presenter said that inners are far less important in action movies and used Bond as an example of action movies that dont have outers. Myself and another Bond fan on the course were forced to interupt and correct him. But it did get me thinking about how this applied to Bond. I think the first big example is in OHMSS when Bond's love for Tracey is the inner and it effects the outer as he ignores orders and raids the HQ early to save her. Did SC's Bond have inners? And perhaps DC's Bond has too many inners? Do fans love the early Bonds as they have no inners and he simply follows orders and gets the job done rather than getting distracted by inners. Interesting stuff.

Comments

  • Benson20Benson20
    Posts: 17
    Quite interesting, that. I think as you say, some see Craig's Bond as having too many inners, especially in Quantum of Solace, Skyfall and Spectre. I think it's a theme in films nowadays though to be more introspective, for example, the Dark Knight films. It really depends on how you look at it, but you see quite a number of Bond fans asking for a mission based film (something I would also like to see), suggesting that a lot of people want to see the return of, or at least more of an inclusion of, outer goals for Bond in the films once again.
  • Scaramanga12Scaramanga12
    Posts: 562
    pretentious tosh.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,176
    Scaramanga12 wrote: »
    pretentious tosh.

    Are you familiar with the saying, 'if you haven't got anything nice to say, then dont say anything at all.'
    You're bringing nothing to this thread, other than hostility.
    Comments like this are not called for.
  • Benson20Benson20
    Posts: 17
    Scaramanga12 wrote: »
    pretentious tosh.

    Not really. It's essentially saying that characters actions in films are either personal or impersonal. Nothing greatly pretentious about that. Take some Xanax and calm down, pal. We're all friends here. :)

  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,585
    In the 60s pre: OHMSS all the inners belonged to other characters. Bond only hinted at them. Moments when he paused briefly over a dead body, like Paula or Kerim. Maybe these deaths spurred him on, but they were never really eluded to. Connery still conveyed a little of his inner self when these deaths occurred.

    Roger too - when Lisl died for example.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    patb wrote:
    I was on a script writing course on Saturday and Bond came up. We were discussing the convention of the main character having inners and outer goals and motivations. Outers are physical goals and inners are the emotional motivations created by the inner emotions of the character. The presenter said that inners are far less important in action movies and used Bond as an example of action movies that dont have outers. Myself and another Bond fan on the course were forced to interupt and correct him. But it did get me thinking about how this applied to Bond. I think the first big example is in OHMSS when Bond's love for Tracey is the inner and it effects the outer as he ignores orders and raids the HQ early to save her. Did SC's Bond have inners? And perhaps DC's Bond has too many inners? Do fans love the early Bonds as they have no inners and he simply follows orders and gets the job done rather than getting distracted by inners. Interesting stuff.

    You may find this thread interesting. In a roundabout way its dealing with a similar theme - Bond being a character with wants, needs, or both - adding dimension to him etc.

    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/15023/the-cinematic-007-two-dimensions-versus-three#latest
    Scaramanga12 wrote: »
    pretentious tosh.

    What precisely is pretentious about it?
  • patbpatb
    edited February 2016 Posts: 4,617
    If we lead on from that, does that mean that the SC version of Bond was easier to play because he had no "inners" to deal with? and that DC is overwhelmed. The foster brother issue has been discussed to death but this seems to be an example of creating a physical plot in order to create a very powerful "inner" that is not actually used at all.
    I think its an over simplification to say that inners are not required for action movies. If you look at Rocky for example (a money making enjoyable cheese-fest), there is obvious use of his own turmoil as he relates to his wife, trainer and the death of A Creed in number 3, punters love inners and it makes you realise how unusual the early Bonds were in lacking them. Or were they of their time and we have become a more touchy feely society and, therefore, we need to relate to action characters on emotional grounds aswell ? Boune being the obvious example.
    SF must be held up of an example of punters having no problem with Bond having inners if they are handled correctly and with some sensitivity (and not having to re-invent his childhood to create them). Imagine how/if SF would have worked if Bonds sole motivation for achieving his outer was because he was following orders. IMHO it is miles better for having inner motivation...but not too much and just bubbling under the surface. There is no doubt the SF sees Bond follow an emotional journey. How many other Bond's can you say that about?
Sign In or Register to comment.