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
So yeah, whatever I said about wanting a strong continuity and overarching arcs, it doesn't work like that for Bond, or indeed any film franchise. That said, I don't think we will go back to complete standalone films just yet. There might be sequel hooks, recurring villains, etc.
Yeah, for the "Blofeld trilogy" I suspect Fleming wanted to use SPECTRE as replacement for SMERSH and turned Blofeld himself into a recurring adversary, more or less by happenstance. Of the three novels, only YOLT is a sequel to the other. TB is pretty much a standalone with a "sequel hook" of sorts and OHMSS a spinoff with very little link to the previous book except the villain who is turning into a nemesis. Even YOLT is only somewhat a sequel, when we discover that Shatterhand is indeed Blofeld.
Just to confuse everything a little bit further, 'The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy' is a trilogy in five (now even six) parts made into one movie.
When I said I'd like continuity because I like the films more grounded, I meant it in the way that the Soviets were recurring enemies to Bond. I don't need any character arcs or anything like that spread out over films. Craig got to do that, now I want my not-so-hero hero to do his job and save the world.
Similarly, Moore's Bond changed throughout his tenure, and if the audience really wanted to they could see that as his Bond getting older and more reflective, especially by FYEO (and especially as his films have so many recurring characters and even a few plot threads). Fleming's Bond certainly changed based on his experiences in the novels. The character had to overcome obstacles, and his attitude towards the world even developed over time.
I don't know if it's just the terminology ('character arc' feels a bit stringent in this context I think - again, Bond adventures don't tend to be pre-planned in quite this way, and the character is always going to be reacting to the experiences of the adventure and often having to overcome obstacles). But there'll always be some development with each Bond.
DN: Bond is high-strung and irritable
FRWL: more confident and businesslike
GF: quippy and sarcastic
TB: confident and relaxed
YOLT: relaxed, affable
DAF: self-amused, bored
I would love to see Bond grow and develop through his films but I am not interested in the love interest of the first film being referenced through out the next films.
Have Bond go through a near death experience at the end of the first film due to a mistake he makes, much like FRWL (the film doesn't have to end on a cliffhanger like that particular novel, and we can see him come out of the film with the Bond girl etc). Perhaps during the PTS of the next one he makes another reckless mistake/nearly botches the mission, and afterwards we get a brief reference from M about how long it took him to recover from his injuries in the last one. He sends Bond on an 'easy' assignment to get his head sorted, otherwise he'll be suspended from duty. Then of course much like DN the mission turns out to have something deeper to it, and Bond uses his wits and self-determination to make the right decisions, pursue the right leads, and defeat the villain. That's an 'arc' of sorts (although it's more Bond getting over obstacles rather than his personality fundamentally changing).
But why wouldn't you want that? That's how most characters in all films work, really. They change their point of view; that's kind of the point of most stories really.
I don't necessarily mean the 'end goal in mind' thing, as I'm not sure planning these things very rigidly works, but movie characters should develop and learn.
Look at Indiana Jones: a character in a sequence of films which live in a very similar tonal world of action/adventure to Bond, and each film is a learning experience for him. So much so that the second film had to be a prequel in order to show how he came to change his perspective and become more heroic. And these were coming out in the 80s: audiences were fine with it.
So there's the plan, and there's the reality that takes over in whatever order it works out.
When there's an item like Bond as Blofeld's foster brother, I expect intense dislike for the idea wouldn't depend on how early it was brought up or put on a schedule.
Would you rather have commentaries by Dalton on his films OR Craig on his films?
We are blessed to have Roger's commentary on all his films. They are wonderful and have some insights into filming and the cast in general. Pierce did some commentaries as well. Unfortunately we won't ever get a Sean commentary.
But we have two Bond's who have not provided commentary to their films. Timothy and Daniel who I think would be able to really share some interesting stories or thoughts into their portrayal.
Which Bond actor would you like to hear them comment on their films?
If I had to pick one, I'd probably go with Craig, as he's a bit funnier and more entertaining as himself, plus he was more hands-on with the actual production of his films so is likely to give greater insights into the films as a whole.
I think this debate deserves its own thread.
With Craig, we'd have 3 more films than Dalton to hear his thoughts and it could really give his doubters a chance to hear his thoughts on choices he'd made or clarify the often misinterpreted "rather slash my wrists" comment, for example. It would especially insightful to hear about the production of QoS that he supposedly helped write with Forster during the writers' strikes.
It would take a good presenter to get Dalton or Craig to address these sorts of things fans would want to know and not one of those commentaries where the actor just narrates what is going on in a scene and leaves long gaps between comments.
Probably more entertaining though.
I think a lot of that he covers in Being James Bond, which basically is a commentary track really and is a good watch.
Plus, I suspect Dalton might be somewhat bitter about his tenure.
Y'know weirdly he's actually never come across that way from what I understand. I remember reading on these forums that he's still close with the Broccoli family too.
Don't believe that at all! He seems very respectful of the character, and as @007HallY says, he does seem to be close to the Broccoli family ( Wasn’t he one of the pallbearers at Cubbys funeral?)
Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I do remember reading an interview from when LTK was being shot and his frustration was palpable.
Oh I'm sure Bond films are frustrating to work on! But that's nothing new and we got a glimpse of that sort of reaction from Craig with his wrists comment. I don't think I've read of Dalton expressing frustration after the fact though (and to be honest, I think a lot of other actors would have been more annoyed about the circumstances, especially with his contract). Just look at Brosnan's reaction in 2004.
I'm sure there's lots of interviews with him talking about it, but the only one I know of off the top of my head is a clip of Dalton talking about it at a ceremony (Michael Parkinson was hosting, but not sure exactly what it was). I think he said something to the effect of they're hard films to work on (long hours etc), but he loved the people and the experience, and he could never miss it because the franchise and his contribution to it is so much a part of him. Which I think is quite nice.
Like I said, maybe there's me reading too much into it, and I know he had serious issues working with Glen on LTK. Anyway, I remember reading an interview when he said LTK might be THE last Bond, which shocked me at the time. He didn't sound like someone who was happy about how things were turning out.
But hey, I think even Connery saw the role as both a blessing and a curse. Moore probably not, as it gave him a career renaissance.
I think Craig would be a more entertaining commentary than Timothy. I agree with those who said they would need someone with them to bring out stories and avoid awkward silences.
I still wonder if that's actually true or if that was an invented excuse as I still recall a Premiere Magazine article that basically had an MGM exec saying that if Brosnan wasn't cast as Bond and Dalton out that MGM would not help finance it.