› ›

Bond's character growth in Skyfall

2

Comments

  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    I'm just using that as a way of saying "Point A" with the suave secret agent as "Point B". Basically a way of saying, in an easier way, going from brand new Bond to seen it all Bond.
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    I bet it'll come. I think the throughline of the story is Bond growing from the simple Royal Navy brawler into the suave secret agent we all know and love.
    A little bump in the long half-century of Bond called Casino Royale, perhaps.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Bond has changed so much during the years from Connery coming out the blocks in Doctor No, all the way through to Craig and the present day and all it entails with the needs of the world and peoples desires, said so a few days back, that today Bond moves with the times, has no alternative really, whether people like it or not, as we're no longer in the 1960s Bond is chalk and cheese from what some grew up with, back in the day Connery's mission would be so simplistic and Bond would rely on his wits and know how and fancy gadgets and all would be kept to a minimum and audiences would still turn up to watch, unfortunately, and I mean maybe it's not to everyone's liking but Bond seems more Inspector Gadget in the 21st century than Fleming creation, you can blame Brosnan for all that, but I know it's not his fault really, we have to move with the times, once again
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    I bet it'll come. I think the throughline of the story is Bond growing from the simple Royal Navy brawler into the suave secret agent we all know and love.
    A little bump in the long half-century of Bond called Casino Royale, perhaps.

    I'm just talking about the Craig Bond, BTW.
  • shadowonthesunshadowonthesun Banned
    edited October 2011 Posts: 1,894
    Okay crazy idea: BOND 23 is said to be called "Skyfall". The most obvious connection to this is the phrase "the sky is falling", a euphamism for the end of the world. BOND 23 comes out in November 2012 - and a lot of people seem to think the end of the world is coming in December 2012. Maybe the villain has some kind of semi-apocalyptic plan to destabilise governments around the world, so that when the end comes a month later, major nations have disappeared and new countires have been formed. That's unlike anything we've seen before, so maybe that will open up some avenues for character development.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Armageddon would of been suitable, but that's a former WWE PPV, maybe that would of suited a Craig Bond, and if the end of the world is due some time next year, at least they could delay it enough so we get to see the finished product of Bond 23 at least, I mean, there's a lot of hype with this upcoming movie and I'm kind of eager to see what they will have put together
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited October 2011 Posts: 6,385
    Clearly, after Fields showed up, and they got to the better hotel, they were using some real funds there. Why would you get rid of a taxi when you have no other means of transport?
    Mathis had money because he wasn't wasting his funds on expensive wine. ;) And I assume he paid for the plane tickets as well.
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    edited October 2011 Posts: 6,601
    Clearly, after Fields showed up, and they got to the better hotel, they were using some real funds there. Why would you get rid of a taxi when you have no other means of transport?

    EDIT: And now that I remember, they used the taxi when they got there. I forgot that Fields showed up at the airport. Anyway, they had no other means of transport.
    They were supposed to be under cover, hence the taxi and the cheap hotel - at least, THAT was the idea Fields had until Bond decided to not give a damn.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    Clearly, after Fields showed up, and they got to the better hotel, they were using some real funds there. Why would you get rid of a taxi when you have no other means of transport?
    Mathis had money because he wasn't wasting his funds on expensive wine. ;) And I assume he paid for the plane tickets as well.
    Actually, I kinda figured he owned the plane. It appeared to be a small private plane from the inside.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    With Bond, now being Bond as we know him, how would you apply this to Bond 23? How could Bond change throughout the film when there seems little need for him too?
    When I was a kid, I saw a trailer for BATMAN RETRUNS. There was one scene that really stood out in my mind - The Penguin says "Oh! You mean ... we frame him!". Straight away, I knew there was no story in the film. You don't frame the hero, because the hero will always clear his name. What you do is you strip away everything the hero represents. Make his values mean nothing. Destroy everything he fights for. You drag him down to your level, and force him to fight. That way, even if the villain loses, he still wins because the hero is corrupted. It's what the Joker did so effectively in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES - he turned Harvey Dent, tried to corrupt Batman and nearly broke Jim Gordon. This is a fundamental element of good storytelling: get right down into the depths of darkness and see if we can strike a light.

    This is what BOND 23 should do. The villain (and I suspect it will be Javier Bardem) should take away everything that Bond represents so that it appears that the only way to defeat him is to essentially become a villain himself. Of course, Bond will overcome this in the end, but the fact that he is willing to do the unspeakable to accomplish his mission should be a nice idea to explore. If you want a particularly good example of this, check out the second season of "Angel". Despite being the hero, Angel is willing to commit cold-blooded murder, drives his handful of friends away, ignore his repsonsibilities as a champion for humankind, and allows two rampaging vampires to commit a massacre, and all of in his pursuit of destroying an evil law firm (long story). By the end, the audience is supposed to hate Angel for what he is willing to do (and this is done very effectively). Of course, this was done over the course of about eight to ten episodes, and a two-hour Bond film doesn't nearly have enough time to do the same - but I think exploring just how far Bond is willing to go, even if it means becoming a villain himself, would be an interesting way to go. Most television series and films will stop just short of sending their heroes over the edge of darkness; Bond should go all the way over and see what happens next.
    Sounds like you're championing your ideas that you mentioned in another thread a while back and as I and others have already stated, it's just never going to see the light of day. What you are proposing is more fitting for a Bond novel but EON, Hollywood and even the GA, collectively speaking don't have the balls to execute and embrace such a format that drastically departs from such a commercial formula that sees the protagonist in such a blatant negative light regardless of the bigger picture. It's all good to have ideas and express such notions but they have to be tinkered with to a degree that the wider audience isn't going to find Bond an abhorrent character all of a sudden.

    Bond isn't going to be portrayed as murdering people because his adversary pushes him to do so. It just won't happen. As you mentioned a similar device was used in TDK and batman didn't succumb but Dent did. Bond isn't Dent and even QoS loosely toyed with the idea with the way Bond was killing off goons but even though we as the audience could see more of what was going on as to why these quantum leads were being killed by Bond, a lot of people just didn't like it and it wasn't just that but the whole trust, revenge angle was not only understandably too much but it's a device we've seen over and over again.
    Right now what I think we need and what I hope EON should go for is a story that conveys Bond as a competent, effective and trust worthy agent that needs no one, especially M to tell him how to do his job. Kerim expressed this earlier and I agree with him. I'm all for a deep, suspenseful and compelling story but the fun factor needs to be reintroduced, Bond needs to just get on with it and after the emotional turmoil and character development as conveyed in the last 2 movies, it's time for Bond to leave the weighty presence of the emotional baggage on ice. It's time for men to once again to wish they were in Bond shoes.
  • shadowonthesunshadowonthesun Banned
    Posts: 1,894
    There are plenty of examples of mainstream films that have pushed their protagonists into very dark places to see how they would react - like THE DARK KNIGHT RISES. I see no reason why Bond cannot do it.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited October 2011 Posts: 15,723
    Because Nolan has full power over Batman, and for Bond, the very conservative EON have all the power. That is why it will never happen in the Bond franchise.
  • shadowonthesunshadowonthesun Banned
    Posts: 1,894
    And yet, they were willing to accept Peter Morgan's "shocking" idea. Furthermore, Javier Bardem went on the record as saying that he would only accept the role if it was interesting, something more than the standard Bond villain.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited October 2011 Posts: 15,723
    Shocking and interesting, by EON standards, means very little. Mikkelsen said he expected to have lots of action scenes in CR, and Amalric said he wouldn't have signed if the role wasn't interesting. Both Le Chiffre and Greene were boring, dull, underdevelopped roles. So I don't see why with Bardem it will be different. And B23 is the 50th anniversary, which has much more chance of being a fairly traditionnal film than an innovating outing.
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    Shocking and interesting, by EON standards, means very little. Mikkelsen said he expected to have lots of action scenes in CR, and Amalric said he wouldn't have signed if the role wasn't interesting. Both Le Chiffre and Greene were boring, dull, underdevelopped roles. So I don't see why with Bardem it will be different. And B23 is the 50th anniversary, which has much more chance of being a fairly traditionnal film than an innovating outing.
    From all, that you can read in here, people seem to opt for traditional this time around rather then going out of their ways to be innovating.

    Personally I feel, that Le Chiffrre was a villain, perfect for CR, whereas I think, that Almaric probably found his role had more promise, then actually made it to screen.
  • shadowonthesunshadowonthesun Banned
    Posts: 1,894
    Both Le Chiffre and Greene were boring, dull, underdevelopped roles.
    In your opinion. Le Chiffre, for example, is very unique in the Bond franchise because he is motivated by fear and desperation.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited October 2011 Posts: 15,723
    In your opinion.
    I never said it was anything other than my opinion. 8-|
    Le Chiffre, for example, is very unique in the Bond franchise because he is motivated by fear and desperation.
    In your opinion. I thought he was dull, boring, under-developped. Too uninteresting to be 'unique'.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    There are plenty of examples of mainstream films that have pushed their protagonists into very dark places to see how they would react - like THE DARK KNIGHT RISES. I see no reason why Bond cannot do it.
    Okay, I've been letting this go for a little while now, but you do realize THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is the movie that comes out next year, right? And that the movie you're talking about is simply THE DARK KNIGHT?
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,356
    Shocking and interesting, by EON standards.
    No, by Morgan standards. I'm sure EON gave him some free reign as to what he could come up with and even they did not know what it was until he presented it to them.

    The next film will be a mix of traditional Bond in a new kind of story, pushing the series forward. The only, and best, way to go.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    There are plenty of examples of mainstream films that have pushed their protagonists into very dark places to see how they would react - like THE DARK KNIGHT RISES. I see no reason why Bond cannot do it.
    What are you talking about? TDR hasn't even been released yet. You don't know how far Nolan will take bats into the big dark deep and even then, batman is a dark character any way. Dealing with a palate that obscures what is good and bad in a smart and intelligent way is always a welcome, especially as it's the world we live in BUT Bond's character being thrusted into a territory that takes away from who he is and compromises the integrity of the character is a ridiculous notion that doesn't fit EON's agenda. Some idiots aren't even happy that the character has a license to kill.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    And yet, they were willing to accept Peter Morgan's "shocking" idea. Furthermore, Javier Bardem went on the record as saying that he would only accept the role if it was interesting, something more than the standard Bond villain.
    And you think that equates to the extreme and highly unlikely ideas you've suggested?? Shadow, you're smarter than this.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,257
    Time to remove the fuel from the ignition point before we need to put out another fire. ;-) Let's get back on track, folks.

    I myself have trouble too figuring out where they might take Bond from here. Whatever directions technically possible, it stands to reason that we don't want our character over-analysed. Here's my hunch: so far, the Craig Bond has been rather different from most of the previous Bonds. Hence, there's some circle closing to be done. Bond needs to lighten up a bit, get some fun out of life again, become the Bond of GF and TB so to speak. Perhaps that is what SF? will give us.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I'd be happy with a frwl and tb hybrid.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited October 2011 Posts: 13,356
    There are plenty of examples of mainstream films that have pushed their protagonists into very dark places to see how they would react - like THE DARK KNIGHT RISES. I see no reason why Bond cannot do it.
    What are you talking about? TDR hasn't even been released yet. You don't know how far Nolan will take bats into the big dark deep and even then, batman is a dark character any way. Dealing with a palate that obscures what is good and bad in a smart and intelligent way is always a welcome, especially as it's the world we live in BUT Bond's character being thrusted into a territory that takes away from who he is and compromises the integrity of the character is a ridiculous notion that doesn't fit EON's agenda. Some idiots aren't even happy that the character has a license to kill.
    As has already been said @shadowonthesun was likely talking about The Dark Knight and misspelled it.
    Bond needs to lighten up a bit, get some fun out of life again, become the Bond of GF and TB so to speak. Perhaps that is what SF? will give us.
    I've no doubt it will but does Bond need to learn this? There's not much there in terms of character grown from the start to end of a film.
  • DSRDSR
    Posts: 8
    I would like a general overall maturity growth in the next film. Use this long film break in a positive way and say its been a couple years since QOS. Show him learning how to use spy skills more in an undetected manor, not just blowing up everything in sight. I want to see him more neurotic like in the novels to order his food "precisely" made, him being the creature of habit and doing things in a particular fashion, and him being bored with "office work" and itching to get out on a mission. Bond is a man who know what he wants...
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,356
    Now knowing what we do, are there any more thoughts on this?
  • gaz4007gaz4007
    Posts: 71
    character growth,,,seems to me it is stubble growth hohohoho
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    Maybe we will also see alot of decision making by Bond? His loyalty is gonna be tested so perhaps close colleagues are at risk? Who knows? I am sure i have heard this charactor development thing before from Dalton and Brosnan!

    I am sure we will hear the same from whoever takes over from DC? It's just going to be the case of their own interpretation as always.
  • novemberbondnovemberbond
    Posts: 3
    Character development is not something I look for in a Bond movie. Maybe for the supporting characters and even the villain, but not for the Bond character.
    I would just like Bond to face some tough decisions, some ethical dilemma. Scenes that will let us glimpse into the man's psyche.
  • FromCanadaWithLoveFromCanadaWithLove Canada
    Posts: 612
    I don't think there has been a single Bond movie that hasn't developed Bond's character (less maybe DAF, TMWTGG, AVTAK). Most movies leave out the romantic character development (OHMSS, CR, QoS), but they all have some bit that changes Bond. Some definitely have more than others, but I believe it's impossible to write a good Bond script, or any script, without some form of character development.
Sign In or Register to comment.