Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Changes in Craig's Bond Characterization
Martin Campbell said that in his view of Casino Royale, Bond was fully formed at the end of the film after he earned his stripes throughout the movie. So in his mind, Bond in the three-piece suit and the Bond theme finally kicking in at the end signifies the completion of the early-career Bond character arc in the reboot.
Marc Forster's Quantum of Solace is still about whether M trusts Bond, thinking that he is out for revenge. But Bond is really looking for answers, according to his interviews before the film's release. Bond's character arc continues through Quantum as he comes to grips with Vesper's betrayal and sacrifice for him, when Bond tells Camille the dead don't care about vengeance and his choice to turn Yusef over to MI6 in lieu of executing the man. The similarities the scene in which Bond confronts Yusef in Russia and Bond's execution of Dryden at the beginning of Casino Royale, coupled with the gunbarrel at the end of Quantum could be read to signify the completion of Bond's character arc in which he earns his stripes and becomes more or less the Bond of the first twenty films.
Skyfall has a veteran Bond, after countless successful missions, beaten down, out of shape, and potentially past his prime. He must build himself back into what he once was in order to protect M and complete his mission successfully. This film could be viewed as a continuation of the reboot timeline or as a follow-up to Die Another Day in the original timeline, much like For Your Eyes Only followed Moonraker, though was tonally very different.
Did Craig approach his portrayal of Bond in Casino Royale as if it was a one-film reboot, or prequel, in which he became the traditional Bond at the end of the film? This would be closer to the literary Bond's mindset at the end of Casino Royale the novel. As in the film, Vesper had broken down his emotional armor. Bond found Vesper's suicide note, cried, and then rebuilt his armor to prevent another from getting under his skin like Vesper had. He then decided he would dedicate himself to pursuing the bosses of the spies, the ones who made the spies do the spying. Bond of the books says "the bitch is dead" and means it. Watching Casino Royale without following it up with Quantum of Solace, one could read Craig's performance to be the same as Bond of the books.
But in Quantum of Solace, Bond is shown to still be mourning Vesper. Was this the plan all along for the reboot, to have Bond go from hot-headed rookie agent and become the well-established double-oh of the original series at the end of the reboot series, after two or three films? Or did the change in directors after each film contribute to the changes in Bond's characterization and cause his character arc to become extended past the original plan?
Marc Forster's Quantum of Solace is still about whether M trusts Bond, thinking that he is out for revenge. But Bond is really looking for answers, according to his interviews before the film's release. Bond's character arc continues through Quantum as he comes to grips with Vesper's betrayal and sacrifice for him, when Bond tells Camille the dead don't care about vengeance and his choice to turn Yusef over to MI6 in lieu of executing the man. The similarities the scene in which Bond confronts Yusef in Russia and Bond's execution of Dryden at the beginning of Casino Royale, coupled with the gunbarrel at the end of Quantum could be read to signify the completion of Bond's character arc in which he earns his stripes and becomes more or less the Bond of the first twenty films.
Skyfall has a veteran Bond, after countless successful missions, beaten down, out of shape, and potentially past his prime. He must build himself back into what he once was in order to protect M and complete his mission successfully. This film could be viewed as a continuation of the reboot timeline or as a follow-up to Die Another Day in the original timeline, much like For Your Eyes Only followed Moonraker, though was tonally very different.
Did Craig approach his portrayal of Bond in Casino Royale as if it was a one-film reboot, or prequel, in which he became the traditional Bond at the end of the film? This would be closer to the literary Bond's mindset at the end of Casino Royale the novel. As in the film, Vesper had broken down his emotional armor. Bond found Vesper's suicide note, cried, and then rebuilt his armor to prevent another from getting under his skin like Vesper had. He then decided he would dedicate himself to pursuing the bosses of the spies, the ones who made the spies do the spying. Bond of the books says "the bitch is dead" and means it. Watching Casino Royale without following it up with Quantum of Solace, one could read Craig's performance to be the same as Bond of the books.
But in Quantum of Solace, Bond is shown to still be mourning Vesper. Was this the plan all along for the reboot, to have Bond go from hot-headed rookie agent and become the well-established double-oh of the original series at the end of the reboot series, after two or three films? Or did the change in directors after each film contribute to the changes in Bond's characterization and cause his character arc to become extended past the original plan?
^ 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
Any way, I don't think they had QoS in their minds when they started making CR. They just felt they wanted to complete the arc. Plus I think Bourne made them feel they need multi-film story arcs to tie things together.
SF feels like the reboot of the reboot to me. Little or no relation to the first 2 Craig movies. CR and QoS were fresh, carried the heritage lightly and were forward looking. SF is a bit stodgy and carries the series baggage more heavily. In a sense it 'feels' more like the Brosnan era with nods to the past, self-consciously OTT plot and villains etc. Although EON obviously just see it as a continuation of the 'new' timeline there is a big tonal and narrative gap between QoS and SF. We've gone from rooky to burnt out in one step.
Anyway, I think Craig played Bond more light hearted in SF and it was his best performance. He was much better than in his first two imo. I think he showed that he's better as more of an all rounder Bond, leave the dark Bond to Dalton.
just stick , GE, TND, TWINE, between Qos and SF sorted
Tis true. When Mallory said the line, 'It's a young man's game' I was thinking, 'Hell, where will they go next?'.
I don't think so.
Brosnan’s Bond was the guy from all those previous movies, I’ve seen Connery and Moore etc all escape from similar scrapes, I’m certain that Brosnan’s Bond has it covered regardless how much emotional strain the producers throw at him. For this reason the reboot was essential as Bond needed his status as ‘mi6’s finest’ stripped away from him so the mortal peril and dangerousness could be reintroduced to the character. There was a lot of talk around the time QOS came out that Bond was still a little rough around the edges and the event of CR should have forged him into the Bond of old, but it would be have been foolhardy to slip back into formula after rejuivativing it all in CR.
SF instead places him at a very different point of his career and a very interesting one at that, he’s slightly more seasoned than we’re used to see him but the events of the movie break him down and he has to force himself up. All three films works together to build up a rather intriguing characterisation, which is far more in-depth than simply saying that Dalton was the ‘angry Bond’, Moore was the ’funny Bond’, Craig has actually been given an arc. Therefore he has been allowed to explore many facades of the character, we’re seen him grow from a young reckless agent to an older more sluggish man, I’m just excited to see where they take him next.
Yes.
And so am I.
If his hair was the length it was in QOS or in The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, he would look younger and far better for a gentleman spy.
Some may point to the grey in his stubble but people lose their hair and get grey in their 20's, so ...
I'm not too worried about connecting the gadgets in the car with older entries. It was a reboot and, again, I'd say it's been four years.
B.S Craig is the best Dark Bond. Casino Royale and QoS are two of darkest Bond's. Craig three performances are excellent and a actor who gets a Bafta nod for best actor for Bond surely must be doing something right.
Wow you really can't stand the fact that people have opinions on Craig that are different than yours, can you?
Do you really need me to explain that to you?
Have you heard of a show called, 'pimp my ride'? If so, give it a little thought and imagination and hopefully you should get a plausible answer.
Maybe you can explain to me, how, if SF is supposed to be a continuation of the timeline that last ended with DAD, why is it that in SF Bond is only being introduced to Moneypenny for the first time?
At the time of CR it was clearly intended that Bond was transitioning from rough and inexperienced to "the Bond we love" by the end of the film. But then with QoS people started saying oh, the reboot wasn't complete - NOW he's the Bond we love! But then with SF people say okay, NOW the reboot is complete! I understand this but don't agree with it.
I think that the "reboot" part of the Craig era ended with CR. I find with QoS that the character is evolving a bit but he's already much more like the Bond we know - it's just his mood at this time is different due to his not having had time to mourn the loss of his relationship with Vesper. Any concerns about the character not being "fully formed" are coming from M. With SF Bond is clearly a more seasoned, experienced agent but again him getting his "mojo back" is more situational than anything.
So what we see are situations changing how Bond is acting, and the fact that the character continues to evolve. This is different from what we've seen in the past (short of LTK and DAD) so it's a bit different from what we're used to. But I think that 20 years from now when we watch the Craig films we'll appreciate that the character changing gives the films more flavour.
im sorry i dont watch shows like Pimp my ride because i have better taste...
Well lets see maybe she could be the original moneypenny's daughter or neice perhaps i mean lets face it Q mentions that they dont make the grendade pens anymore (which is clearly a nod to Goldeneye) and he says he is the new quatermaster (that means that he is taking over from John Cleese's Q or maybe the position was vacaunt)
this usually suits the theroy of that 007 and James Bond is a codename
another theroy (and one that i want to dismiss) is that segments from the 007 Legends (and hopefully not Goldeneye Reloaded) game(s) (LTK, GF, DAD, OHMSS and MR) are Canon which i hope not as they are completely abysmal
another theroy is that James Bond is a timelord but i wont get into that
To that end I have always viewed them much like the Legend of Zelda games which have consistent elements but each seem to exist as separate entities in and of themselves?
Slightly different to Dr. Who who say 'regenerates' and as such continuity is established despite each doctor having his own personality and idiosyncracies, if that makes sense?
With regards to the DB5 in SF, I heard that it was intended to be the same one he won in CR, and whilst this was not made apparent in the movie, that was what the writers had been trying to achieve. To that end it would have established a three-film continuity arc. Regarding the ejector seat, this merely was a nod I feel to earlier films and the how and why it was in the car is up for debate. For example we know the previous Q (Desmond Llewellyn) built it into the car, so probably wouldn't have been him who built it into the DB5 that Bond won from the guy in CR...
However, there is in fact a deleted scene from The World is Not Enough in which Pierce is seen driving a DB5 up to the gates of Electra King's father's funeral. Therefore are we expected to believe this is indeed the same vehicle?
As such I must conclude that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth and that James Bond must in fact be a timelord.
It's there because it's the 50th and they wanted a nod to the history plain and simple and it's only wishful thinking fan boys who would try and tie it into the previous timeline. This is Craig Bond sometime on from the CR & QOS, the lines of a dialogue from Q don't support anything and they are just an in joke and a wink to the audience, why do some of you have such a hard time grasping this?
A stupid theory which holds noerit what so ever.
Lol no.
[/quote]
because CR and QOS take place earlier in Bond's Carrer and obviously this story is set a while after those two adventures and considering that Craig went from newbie agent in CR to Veteran Agent in SF doesnt add up only 3 adventures and he's compeltely changed..besides Skyfall seems to be more written for Brosnan's Bond than Craig's Bond
Q says "im your new quatermaster" now if you look back Q Branch is mentioned in QOS so there must have been a Q before Skyfall otherwise it doesnt add up and the throwaway line to the exploding pen means that Q Branch must have made them in the past and that means that Desmond's Q did exist in the past
Excellent analysis.The main difference between SF and the previous two Craig films is that in SF Bond IS the Bond we know, then he loses his identity, so to speak, he falls from grace and has to rebuild himself.
well for Felix it felt more like a recast but you cant help but James Bond's Personality changes during every incarnation i mean look at Moore to Dalton
Yes, but this has been explained: new actors new approaches. Haven't you notice they all grieve the same woman too?