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
Well said and to touch on your last point, it's one of the very reasons why the likes of spider-man and Batman are more popular than superman, or why many other superheroes are popular than superman.
The key driving force behind spider-man's popularity and uniqueness in comicdom and why he's Marvel's flagship character is because of his all too human element and human issues that he goes through. Spider-Man is primarily all about the struggles and the jugglings of Peter Parker and that was revolutionary back in Amazing Fantasy #15 1962. But with batman, his awesomeness derives from the fact that in a world full of super powered individuals he's a top tier hero with no super powers at all.
Thank you.
Carling? Bond is a Heineken man, now. ;)
I blame Ron Ely.
:))
I don't know why people think Bond doesn't/hasn't moved with the times. We have seen him reflected against the tyranny of the evil Russians and SPECTRE in his origin, and since then he has evolved many times, hardly staying exactly the same for long. I for one am all for a three dimensional Bond, and it has hardly ever been better than right now. We finally have a film that goes into his backstory, but only a little. It teases, and never lets you know too much or too small an amount, but just right. Bond should in fact feel pain, show how he feels, and act realistically to the challenges set before him. He is now much more in tone with the times now than ever as well. He can't do everything alone, he is just one man. He has a healthy reliance on his MI6 colleagues to assist him whenever it is crucial. Moreover, this Bond can mess up. I too love that about him. A hero that has no flaws and never fails is not only a sorry excuse for a character, but also lacks any interesting qualities or traits that make him relatable and therefore, memorable. Dan has brought back some great cornerstones to the role that have at times been lost. He can joke, but it is never too much, and he balances it well. He looks confident in every room he walks into, looking perfect in his suits and every ounce of the immaculate cultivation of a cool, calm, and collected Bond with inspiration straight from the Connery blueprint. He can switch between forcefulness and elegance in seconds. When he feels pain either physically or emotionally, that is transmitted by Dan's wonderful mannerisms that make it so easy to see what is happening in his head. And as we have seen in Skyfall, we have a Bond moving against the times. He is an outdated agent in a world of signal intelligence, and MI6 is at the point of considering just how valuable human agents are when things can get so tangled as we see them get in the film. Not only with mis-steps, but with defections and the lot. At this point we see Bond doing what he does best. Progressing no matter what is going on around him. The very Bond series that he is the central figure of have done the same, through bankruptcies, lawsuits, re-castings and strikes. The Bond journey on screen has now matched that of the franchise's fight for survival in our world, outside of the fictional tales Fleming helped spawn. And THAT is truly a wonderful thing. No matter how big the risk and no matter how insuperable the task, always bet on Bond. He may be beat (both on and off screen), but he never stays down for long, and that is what keeps me and millions of other fellow Bond fanatics coming again and again.
Thanks for everything, James. :)>-
But we need to follow his example more....
Okay. So you want a Bond who shows his feelings, doesn't work alone, acts realistically and messes up. I respect that.
But that almost sounds like an ordinary guy to me. For me, Bond is special. I want my heroes to be more amazing than that.
When you say that a hero that shows no flaws is a "sorry excuse for a character and is not memorable" I wonder if you like the old Bond-movies at all? I honestly can't remember Sean Connery, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan, showing that many flaws, but feel free to refresh my memory.
Oh, you must be well under thirty... :))
At least I'm old enough not to make this discussion personal ;-)
You can start by picking examples from the first three.
"No matter the actor or film", right?
Flawed in my book means essentially unhappy, which I take it Bond is most of the time. Which makes him no different from US how? That is what Fleming intended IMO- a man with unusual skills, not so different from the rest of us.
And I honestly don't care what "Fleming intended" in his more than 50 year old cold-war novels. I grew up on the movies.
Now I'll say you will grow up some day. In the mean time you will enjoy the Bond movies as you like.
Be well.
I don't think missteps and poor judgment calls (everyone makes them once in a while) equals a flawed character (not everyone has a flawed character), which was what I thought you meant.
But he didn't "control every situation" in SF. Quite the opposite in fact. Guess he still has something to learn.
But I really like your definition of Connery's Bond, which I very much agree with.
Making bad mistakes are flaws. :-/ By being in control, I mean Bond doesn't lose his head, and at the end of it all he gets the baddie because of his knack for thriving under danger.
Sure, he's conservative and traditional and patriotic at times, but mostly he is anachronistic.
He is a British man who doesn't like tea, wears only slip on shoes, wears short sleeve shirts under his suit, is tanned when all around him are pale. He likes "exotic" foods and drinks. He is at one very British, but also completely out of step with his times.
In the films, this is even more evident. He behaves as a man who has total sexual liberation, has complete aloof detachment from all around him, bar perhaps M, and utilises only the most modern of cars and gadgetry.
Should Bond be a modern man? Of course he should. He always has been. And I'm not sure how having flaws (which he demonstrates throughout the novels) is a particularly "modern" characteristic.
Bond to me is a flawed character but in a good way, he doesn't follow the crowd, he's not PC, he confronts where doctrine says to be meek, he make's mistakes, but he learns from them & comes back stronger, he doesn't live by other's rules, he has his own moral code that he stringently adheres too, I think he is a modern man, a true English Gentleman.
Fair enough, each to his own I suppose. But a lot of other people do care about the character Fleming created.
Although the books are indeed over 50 years old, the character of Bond is nevertheless a human, with flaws and qualities that we can all identify with - he feels pain, doubt, moments of weakness, regret, genuine remorse even, on occasion - and crucially, he makes mistakes. It is these universal elements of the character - which, lets not forget made Bond popular before the films were even dreamed of - that are still as relevant to audiences today as ever.
Kingsley Amis wrote in his excellent 'James Bond Dossier' that the Bond of the books was at heart a dark, brooding Byron-esque figure, a man already out of his time, made accessible for 'modern' readers by being dressed-up in the glamorous persona of a secret agent.
The modern film incarnation is, IMO, the same. As depicted in Skyfall, Bond is a glorious anachronism, a brooding, sulking musket in an age of missiles. Yet, by displaying the very qualities that Fleming originally invested the character with - most notably, a dogged refusal to lie down and accept defeat - he is someone we can all still relate to, admire and aspire to be.
So, while the Bond of the movies may exist in a world of cutting-edge modernity, the character himself is timeless - and long may he continue to be.
Perfect. No wonder why I enjoyed Colonel Sun so much.
To me this describes Craig's Bond perfectly. How many ordinary men could leap from crane to crane in CR and make it look believable, then look completely credible eating caviar in an elegant casino? Or storm into an embassy on his own and single-handedly capture his man? How many of us would be able to maintain the stubborn, never-quit attitude that Bond has when Le Chiffre is torturing him? Be able to pilot a DC3 let alone triumph in a dogfight against 2 fighter jets? Beat up 3 MI6 agents with our hands tied behind our backs and then casually run on the outside of a terraced hall to confront our boss instead of running away first? Tear the train apart (and then adjust our cufflinks!) like in SF?
And all of this PLUS a three dimensional character? That's even MORE impressive than just being the SuperBond of old IMHO. Larger than life and three dimensional are not mutually exclusive.
Look, I enjoy all the Bond movies - not equally, obviously, but I still have a lot of time for the 'weaker' entries in the series. However, I am at a stage in my life where I have no real interest in watching - as @NicNac puts it - 'an indestructible creature' who is able to 'run, jump, shoot, ski, surf, drive, fly and parachute better than anyone else'.
I prefer a bit more depth of characterisation, and yes, an ability to identify with the hero. That doesn't mean I can do what he does - far from it, unfortuantely - but it means that I can relate to him and as a result care if he succeeds in his mission or not.
The Bond of the novels could do all the above things (i.e, running, shooting, driving, skiing) to an exceptionally high-level; crucially, though, he had to work hard to achieve those skills, and was never the best in the world at any of those pursuits. This kept the character grounded, and importantly human as opposed to superhuman.
My thoughts exactly - you get a sense watching Craig that these skills are hard-fought for, and that they have been acquired by a professional through grit and determination.
Anyway, if I really wanted to watch an 'indestructible creature' who can do things 'no ordinary fellow can' I'd be better off watching 'Red Heat' , 'Commando' or other assorted Arnold Schwarzenegger movies of the late 80's(!).
Well, no ordinary fellow can both run, shoot, drive and ski to and "exceptionally high-level" ;-)