› ›

Would you rather loose continuity for the next films OR a story arc for James Bond and continuity?

1…152153154155156158»

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,724
    Yeah, good analysis. If there’s one thing I like about Spectre, it’s how they chose to make Bond at that point of his career more relaxed in his own skin, playful even.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,274
    Come to think of it, one of the most famous if not the most famous literary trilogies of all time is actually not a trilogy at all: Tolkien wrote and considered LOTR as a single novel. It's only due to its size that it was divided in three books. Many so called cinematic "trilogies" were never written as such, but made of one movie that begat sequels due to its success.

    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.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,101
    You're right about Tolkien's LOTR as a single novel split into three volumes. I guess the main difference is whether the first book (or film) of a series was already intended to be part of a longer story with a continuous arc which was already more or less determined. By that token, Rowling's Harry Potter series is a heptalogy - I doubt she knew already what would happen in the seventh volume when she wrote the first. And Fleming's Blofeld Trilogy was probably also conceived one after the other rather than at once.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,274
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    You're right about Tolkien's LOTR as a single novel split into three volumes. I guess the main difference is whether the first book (or film) of a series was already intended to be part of a longer story with a continuous arc which was already more or less determined. By that token, Rowling's Harry Potter series is a heptalogy - I doubt she knew already what would happen in the seventh volume when she wrote the first. And Fleming's Blofeld Trilogy was probably also conceived one after the other rather than at once.

    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.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,361
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Come to think of it, one of the most famous if not the most famous literary trilogies of all time is actually not a trilogy at all: Tolkien wrote and considered LOTR as a single novel. It's only due to its size that it was divided in three books. Many so called cinematic "trilogies" were never written as such, but made of one movie that begat sequels due to its success.

    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.

    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.

  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited January 6 Posts: 4,379
    I never know what people truly mean when they say they 'don't want character arcs' for Bond, especially when we're talking from film to film. Do we mean we don't want Bond to change at all from film to film? I don't see a reason why an incarnation of Bond wouldn't develop some way from film to film, even if it's just due to a change in director or story. Again, take SP and Bond's more relaxed attitude in that film. That's Bond's character having changed and developed after him overcoming his issues in SF. But really if someone had never seen SF, it wouldn't matter as both are individual adventures. But Craig's Bond developed.

    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.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited January 6 Posts: 714
    By "character arc" I think most people mean that they don't want a strict narrative continuity where Bond's character undergoes a personality change over the course of the films, with a specific end goal in mind for him. It doesn't mean that the actor gives the exact same performance every time. Connery was slightly different in every movie, but he still didn't have an arc.

    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
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,530
    Well said @slide_99 and stated. Moore got to do different tones of the same character. Doubtful this will be done again. Connery also got to portray the same character in different tones. Compare Connery's Bond in FRWL to the tone of Bond in DAF. Similarly Moore's Bond in MR to Bond in FYEO. Todays audiences I don't think we accept huge tonal shifts in narrative, though I could be wrong.

    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.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited January 6 Posts: 4,379
    I suppose it depends on what exactly this bit of 'strict' continuity is between films is and what they do with the story at the end of the day. To be completely honest I suspect in many cases fans would react positively to a more strict bit of continuity/Bond going through certain things. Doesn't have to be a repeat of Craig's era in this regard. Personally I'd be fine if they loosely adapted some of the stuff we get in Fleming.

    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).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,724
    slide_99 wrote: »
    By "character arc" I think most people mean that they don't want a strict narrative continuity where Bond's character undergoes a personality change over the course of the films, with a specific end goal in mind for him.

    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.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,996
    I probably said this in the past, the discussion for having a plan automatically recalls the Dilbert cartoon on the subject.

    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.

    Healthcare-IT-Project-Management-Cartoon.png
Sign In or Register to comment.