'Neither Seen Nor Heard - The Role of Children in the James Bond Films'

1246

Comments

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Thanks, Thundy. I searched for it this morning and for some reason it didn't show up.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Bibi Dahl was technically a child.
  • Posts: 12,526
    Wasn't their kids in the desert scenes of QOS?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Wasn't their kids in the desert scenes of QOS?

    Waiting for a drink of water, yes.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    This is insane, I never thought about it but there are really not a lot of kids in bond films. Stacey from a View to a kill is basically a kid without actually being one
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Looks like NTTD will be special in this regard.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited April 2021 Posts: 18,270
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Benny wrote:
    Clearly not news, moved to Bond movies. But I'm wondering, what the point of this is?

    Please give this thread a chance, @Benny, friend. I've posted things quite accidentally in the News section before. I think we need a little more leniency on here with new members like @Dr_Yes who aren't posting spam after all, unlike some new members do. This is this poster's first discussion topic and it's something new to discuss here and I think it has potential to be quite interesting.

    Perhaps the OP could change the heading somewhat to make the Bond link a little clearer, though. Something like 'Neither Seen Nor Heard - The Role of Children in the James Bond Films' would be more appropriate for a James Bond fan discussion site such as this and less vague too, perhaps.

    Looking back I see that I actually came up with the revised title for this thread. That's something I'd totally forgotten about. Still a very interesting subject though and maybe we'll have more to add to it once NTTD hits the screens.
  • Max_The_ParrotMax_The_Parrot ATAC to St Cyril’s
    Posts: 2,426
    There’s a boy holding a balloon, accompanied by his mother in TLD at the fair in Vienna. Bond mistakes him for Saunder's killer and pulls a gun on him.There’s also the Swiss children selling their fruit and veg at the side of the road in GF.
  • Posts: 15,116
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Benny wrote:
    Clearly not news, moved to Bond movies. But I'm wondering, what the point of this is?

    Please give this thread a chance, @Benny, friend. I've posted things quite accidentally in the News section before. I think we need a little more leniency on here with new members like @Dr_Yes who aren't posting spam after all, unlike some new members do. This is this poster's first discussion topic and it's something new to discuss here and I think it has potential to be quite interesting.

    Perhaps the OP could change the heading somewhat to make the Bond link a little clearer, though. Something like 'Neither Seen Nor Heard - The Role of Children in the James Bond Films' would be more appropriate for a James Bond fan discussion site such as this and less vague too, perhaps.

    Looking back I see that I actually came up with the revised title for this thread. That's something I'd totally forgotten about. Still a very interesting subject though and maybe we'll have more to add to it once NTTD hits the screens.

    It's quite a fascinating topic, come to think of it.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,270
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Benny wrote:
    Clearly not news, moved to Bond movies. But I'm wondering, what the point of this is?

    Please give this thread a chance, @Benny, friend. I've posted things quite accidentally in the News section before. I think we need a little more leniency on here with new members like @Dr_Yes who aren't posting spam after all, unlike some new members do. This is this poster's first discussion topic and it's something new to discuss here and I think it has potential to be quite interesting.

    Perhaps the OP could change the heading somewhat to make the Bond link a little clearer, though. Something like 'Neither Seen Nor Heard - The Role of Children in the James Bond Films' would be more appropriate for a James Bond fan discussion site such as this and less vague too, perhaps.

    Looking back I see that I actually came up with the revised title for this thread. That's something I'd totally forgotten about. Still a very interesting subject though and maybe we'll have more to add to it once NTTD hits the screens.

    It's quite a fascinating topic, come to think of it.

    It is. I'm sure someone could write a good Bond paper about it if they put their mind to it. They could even include a bit about Bond's own childhood from what is revealed through the novels and the films.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2021 Posts: 16,382
    It is a slightly weird quirk that they almost never appear. I was watching TND recently and when Bond and Wai Lin are having their shower in the street after the bike chase there are a few kids getting washed there, which in any other film would be incidental but it did stick out to me in a Bond film because they almost never appear otherwise.

    You don't even really get much in the way of generational relationships in Bond films: Colonel Moon and General Moon or Zorin and Dr Mortner's pseudo father/son relationship are rare exceptions.
    Are any of the main villains parents?


    One of the biggest exceptions to the kid rule is in the titles of Skyfall of course, when we look directly into the eye of James Bond himself as a child! Then we see a photo of him in Spectre.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,571
    Also in TND, there's the symbolism of an innocent kid playing with Bond's night vision binoculars at Ha Long bay, unaware that they're on the brink of World War III.
  • edited April 2021 Posts: 2,917
    Part of why men and women enjoy the Bond films is that they're an escape from children and domesticity. You can be a international globetrotter, enjoy sexual freedom, and never have children tying you down. An occasional glimpse of a child is fine, but Bond's world is that of adults who enjoy themselves with the freedom of adults. Letting children--or parents--into the series would chip away at that enjoyment and dilute a very attractive fantasy. To be completely free of family ties might not be desirable in reality, but it's wonderful to take a two hour vacation from them.
  • edited April 2021 Posts: 2,917
    The most prominent child in the entire series is the Thai boy in TMWTGG that Roger Moore later felt so embarrassed about. He's a one-man argument why children should barely be seen or heard in Bond films.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,382
    I think that kid’s quite good. It’s just the film’s attitude to poverty there which is the embarrassing thing.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,571
    Young Craig Bond:

    51089265231_4da1f65924_o.png
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,296
    Revelator wrote: »
    Part of why men and women enjoy the Bond films is that they're an escape from children and domesticity. You can be a international globetrotter, enjoy sexual freedom, and never have children tying you down. An occasional glimpse of a child is fine, but Bond's world is that of adults who enjoy themselves with the freedom of adults. Letting children--or parents--into the series would chip away at that enjoyment and dilute a very attractive fantasy. To be completely free of family ties might not be desirable in reality, but it's wonderful to take a two hour vacation from them.

    Bingo.
  • Posts: 15,116
    Revelator wrote: »
    Part of why men and women enjoy the Bond films is that they're an escape from children and domesticity. You can be a international globetrotter, enjoy sexual freedom, and never have children tying you down. An occasional glimpse of a child is fine, but Bond's world is that of adults who enjoy themselves with the freedom of adults. Letting children--or parents--into the series would chip away at that enjoyment and dilute a very attractive fantasy. To be completely free of family ties might not be desirable in reality, but it's wonderful to take a two hour vacation from them.

    I also think it "temporises" Bond, reminding us that he is a mortal man and like us grows up and grows old.
  • Ludovico wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    Part of why men and women enjoy the Bond films is that they're an escape from children and domesticity. You can be a international globetrotter, enjoy sexual freedom, and never have children tying you down. An occasional glimpse of a child is fine, but Bond's world is that of adults who enjoy themselves with the freedom of adults. Letting children--or parents--into the series would chip away at that enjoyment and dilute a very attractive fantasy. To be completely free of family ties might not be desirable in reality, but it's wonderful to take a two hour vacation from them.

    I also think it "temporises" Bond, reminding us that he is a mortal man and like us grows up and grows old.

    A View to a Kill managed that perfectly well without children. ;)
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,296
    Oowwwww!
  • Posts: 15,116
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    Part of why men and women enjoy the Bond films is that they're an escape from children and domesticity. You can be a international globetrotter, enjoy sexual freedom, and never have children tying you down. An occasional glimpse of a child is fine, but Bond's world is that of adults who enjoy themselves with the freedom of adults. Letting children--or parents--into the series would chip away at that enjoyment and dilute a very attractive fantasy. To be completely free of family ties might not be desirable in reality, but it's wonderful to take a two hour vacation from them.

    I also think it "temporises" Bond, reminding us that he is a mortal man and like us grows up and grows old.

    A View to a Kill managed that perfectly well without children. ;)

    It was difficult to hide by thus time, given Moore's age. They just ignored it. But I'll always say that it's in FYEO that he seems older: not only because he doesn't look as youthful as he used to be, but because he's depicted as an older man: we're reminded that he's a widower, he refuses Bibi's advances, his relationship with Melina is mostly the one of a mentor, etc.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,270
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    Part of why men and women enjoy the Bond films is that they're an escape from children and domesticity. You can be a international globetrotter, enjoy sexual freedom, and never have children tying you down. An occasional glimpse of a child is fine, but Bond's world is that of adults who enjoy themselves with the freedom of adults. Letting children--or parents--into the series would chip away at that enjoyment and dilute a very attractive fantasy. To be completely free of family ties might not be desirable in reality, but it's wonderful to take a two hour vacation from them.

    I also think it "temporises" Bond, reminding us that he is a mortal man and like us grows up and grows old.

    A View to a Kill managed that perfectly well without children. ;)

    It was difficult to hide by thus time, given Moore's age. They just ignored it. But I'll always say that it's in FYEO that he seems older: not only because he doesn't look as youthful as he used to be, but because he's depicted as an older man: we're reminded that he's a widower, he refuses Bibi's advances, his relationship with Melina is mostly the one of a mentor, etc.

    Yes, that's all true about the Moore Bond in FYEO. If anything they tried to play down his advanced age in A View to A Kill rather than use it as a plot point or reference it in any way. Moore had also had his facelift before filming began in 1984 in an effort to look younger though that didn't really come off very well.
  • Posts: 15,116
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    Part of why men and women enjoy the Bond films is that they're an escape from children and domesticity. You can be a international globetrotter, enjoy sexual freedom, and never have children tying you down. An occasional glimpse of a child is fine, but Bond's world is that of adults who enjoy themselves with the freedom of adults. Letting children--or parents--into the series would chip away at that enjoyment and dilute a very attractive fantasy. To be completely free of family ties might not be desirable in reality, but it's wonderful to take a two hour vacation from them.

    I also think it "temporises" Bond, reminding us that he is a mortal man and like us grows up and grows old.

    A View to a Kill managed that perfectly well without children. ;)

    It was difficult to hide by thus time, given Moore's age. They just ignored it. But I'll always say that it's in FYEO that he seems older: not only because he doesn't look as youthful as he used to be, but because he's depicted as an older man: we're reminded that he's a widower, he refuses Bibi's advances, his relationship with Melina is mostly the one of a mentor, etc.

    Yes, that's all true about the Moore Bond in FYEO. If anything they tried to play down his advanced age in A View to A Kill rather than use it as a plot point or reference it in any way. Moore had also had his facelift before filming began in 1984 in an effort to look younger though that didn't really come off very well.

    It's a bit sad if predictable really:Moore looked younger than his age for his first four Bond movies I'd say, he started looking his age around FYEO. They sort of alleviated this in OP by having him act younger than the previous outing (not as a mentor figure) and having a more mature Bond girl at his side.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,270
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    Part of why men and women enjoy the Bond films is that they're an escape from children and domesticity. You can be a international globetrotter, enjoy sexual freedom, and never have children tying you down. An occasional glimpse of a child is fine, but Bond's world is that of adults who enjoy themselves with the freedom of adults. Letting children--or parents--into the series would chip away at that enjoyment and dilute a very attractive fantasy. To be completely free of family ties might not be desirable in reality, but it's wonderful to take a two hour vacation from them.

    I also think it "temporises" Bond, reminding us that he is a mortal man and like us grows up and grows old.

    A View to a Kill managed that perfectly well without children. ;)

    It was difficult to hide by thus time, given Moore's age. They just ignored it. But I'll always say that it's in FYEO that he seems older: not only because he doesn't look as youthful as he used to be, but because he's depicted as an older man: we're reminded that he's a widower, he refuses Bibi's advances, his relationship with Melina is mostly the one of a mentor, etc.

    Yes, that's all true about the Moore Bond in FYEO. If anything they tried to play down his advanced age in A View to A Kill rather than use it as a plot point or reference it in any way. Moore had also had his facelift before filming began in 1984 in an effort to look younger though that didn't really come off very well.

    It's a bit sad if predictable really:Moore looked younger than his age for his first four Bond movies I'd say, he started looking his age around FYEO. They sort of alleviated this in OP by having him act younger than the previous outing (not as a mentor figure) and having a more mature Bond girl at his side.

    I'd agree with that. Moore certainly looked at his peak in his first four Bond films considering he was 45 when he took over for role in 1972. After that he was showing signs of aging. Even his hairstyle changed to the combed back look in his three 1980s films. This was presumably to cover over a spot where his hair was thinning. He also had more of a jowl visible from FYEO onwards which I suppose was fair enough given his age.
  • Posts: 15,116
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    Part of why men and women enjoy the Bond films is that they're an escape from children and domesticity. You can be a international globetrotter, enjoy sexual freedom, and never have children tying you down. An occasional glimpse of a child is fine, but Bond's world is that of adults who enjoy themselves with the freedom of adults. Letting children--or parents--into the series would chip away at that enjoyment and dilute a very attractive fantasy. To be completely free of family ties might not be desirable in reality, but it's wonderful to take a two hour vacation from them.

    I also think it "temporises" Bond, reminding us that he is a mortal man and like us grows up and grows old.

    A View to a Kill managed that perfectly well without children. ;)

    It was difficult to hide by thus time, given Moore's age. They just ignored it. But I'll always say that it's in FYEO that he seems older: not only because he doesn't look as youthful as he used to be, but because he's depicted as an older man: we're reminded that he's a widower, he refuses Bibi's advances, his relationship with Melina is mostly the one of a mentor, etc.

    Yes, that's all true about the Moore Bond in FYEO. If anything they tried to play down his advanced age in A View to A Kill rather than use it as a plot point or reference it in any way. Moore had also had his facelift before filming began in 1984 in an effort to look younger though that didn't really come off very well.

    It's a bit sad if predictable really:Moore looked younger than his age for his first four Bond movies I'd say, he started looking his age around FYEO. They sort of alleviated this in OP by having him act younger than the previous outing (not as a mentor figure) and having a more mature Bond girl at his side.

    I'd agree with that. Moore certainly looked at his peak in his first four Bond films considering he was 45 when he took over for role in 1972. After that he was showing signs of aging. Even his hairstyle changed to the combed back look in his three 1980s films. This was presumably to cover over a spot where his hair was thinning. He also had more of a jowl visible from FYEO onwards which I suppose was fair enough given his age.

    I guess he was not meant to last that long as Bond. Wasn't Moore supposed to be a transitional Bond, for two or three films, to keep the series going?

    Anyway that's very off topic.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited April 2021 Posts: 18,270
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    Part of why men and women enjoy the Bond films is that they're an escape from children and domesticity. You can be a international globetrotter, enjoy sexual freedom, and never have children tying you down. An occasional glimpse of a child is fine, but Bond's world is that of adults who enjoy themselves with the freedom of adults. Letting children--or parents--into the series would chip away at that enjoyment and dilute a very attractive fantasy. To be completely free of family ties might not be desirable in reality, but it's wonderful to take a two hour vacation from them.

    I also think it "temporises" Bond, reminding us that he is a mortal man and like us grows up and grows old.

    A View to a Kill managed that perfectly well without children. ;)

    It was difficult to hide by thus time, given Moore's age. They just ignored it. But I'll always say that it's in FYEO that he seems older: not only because he doesn't look as youthful as he used to be, but because he's depicted as an older man: we're reminded that he's a widower, he refuses Bibi's advances, his relationship with Melina is mostly the one of a mentor, etc.

    Yes, that's all true about the Moore Bond in FYEO. If anything they tried to play down his advanced age in A View to A Kill rather than use it as a plot point or reference it in any way. Moore had also had his facelift before filming began in 1984 in an effort to look younger though that didn't really come off very well.

    It's a bit sad if predictable really:Moore looked younger than his age for his first four Bond movies I'd say, he started looking his age around FYEO. They sort of alleviated this in OP by having him act younger than the previous outing (not as a mentor figure) and having a more mature Bond girl at his side.

    I'd agree with that. Moore certainly looked at his peak in his first four Bond films considering he was 45 when he took over for role in 1972. After that he was showing signs of aging. Even his hairstyle changed to the combed back look in his three 1980s films. This was presumably to cover over a spot where his hair was thinning. He also had more of a jowl visible from FYEO onwards which I suppose was fair enough given his age.

    I guess he was not meant to last that long as Bond. Wasn't Moore supposed to be a transitional Bond, for two or three films, to keep the series going?

    Anyway that's very off topic.

    Yes, well his initial contract was for three Bond films I think and then he just negotiated each subsequent film one at a time holding out to get the best monetary deal he could.

    Yes, we'd better return now to the topic at hand.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,296
    I'd be ecstatic to look like Moore at that age...he was a very handsome man (although at his peak from LALD-MR). More than any of the other Bonds, he seems like the kind of man that women would quickly fall into bed with...
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,270
    echo wrote: »
    I'd be ecstatic to look like Moore at that age...he was a very handsome man (although at his peak from LALD-MR). More than any of the other Bonds, he seems like the kind of man that women would quickly fall into bed with...

    Of course he was very handsome as Bond and he looked very well indeed for his age throughout his films. The point was just about how he had visibly aged more in his last three Bond films, which is understandable. There's no stopping time. It waits for no man, not even Roger Moore. :)
  • Tokoloshe2Tokoloshe2 Northern Ireland
    Posts: 1,175
    Anyone volunteering to compile a list of children in Bond films, to get back on topic?
  • Posts: 15,116
    I think showing children sparingly was the right move. One of the flaws of Star Wars after the original trilogy was the heavy presence of children. As a child, I wanted to be a Star Wars character, not a child in the Star Wars universe. Same for the Bondverse, superhero movies, etc. This is not the Famous Five.
Sign In or Register to comment.