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
Maybe another controversial opinion, but I don't feel that way towards him, Dalton's Bond is more like a trained soldier while the Bond of the books showed a multifaceted personality, the Bond of the books showed fear, naivety, I'd say showing some traits that we're yet to see in the films, he comes off as childish in almost the majority of scenes in the books, he had a wide set of emotions that we haven't seen in the films yet.
Bond of the books is an interesting character due to his complexities, something that I don't get from Dalton's Bond, I'm seeing him more as a precursor to Craig's Bond (which is also far from the Book Bond).
Dalton for me is more like the lite version of Craig's Bond, he's calculated, serious, hardened and tough.
He's still far from the books for me, in fact, none of the film Bond ever captured the Bond of the books, just different, maybe in some 1 or 2 scenes (like in OHMSS, which is a faithful adaptation of the book) but all in all, very different, almost like Apples and Oranges in comparison.
He may have read the books, but then so Connery (who have read a few books) or Moore (as he had stated), reading the books is an essential thing to understand the character, but it doesn't mean that when you read them, you would get the accurate personality and description of the character in the book.
Cinematic Bond is colder and tough.
I think that’s a good point actually. Bond of the books has more self doubt and is more reflective (maybe by nature of us being inside his head) than Dalton’s Bond, I’m not sure I believe they’re the same character either.
He adds little ticks like pushing his coffee away, but that’s not quite enough.
At times I think Craig’s Bond is closer to Fleming’s, but then he’s his own thing sometimes too and that’s fine. He remembers why people like the movie Bond: that self confident swagger, which for some reason Dalton’s Bond lacked, and I think that’s why audiences didn’t love him. There’s an inherent sense of fun about that swagger to all of the Bonds, and without it you’re missing that appeal of the character.
I agree, I don't think Dalton's Bond is the perfect match to Fleming's Bond. But I don't think him trying to bring it back to the source material can be dismissed either. It was a direction he seemed to consciously want to go in, and I like his more jaded, intense take on the character. It certainly compared with what we'd seen previously.
For me, I think it's more important that the scriptwriters, producers, and director have more of a deference to the novels. I'd go as far to say the Craig films have an awful lot of Fleming in there, as does TLD. It's nice if an actor has read the books and gets something out of them, but let's be honest, not all the actors read every single Fleming novel when they were Bond. I know Connery had barely read three of them (not sure if he was even particularly interested in them either, and he famously said he was much more interested in Fleming as a man than his novels). Bronsnan famously once said DN was the first Bond novel during an interview. I know Craig and Dalton have read them, and Moore seemed to get a lot out of GF's opening, but didn't seem to use them as a reference point otherwise (in fact I think he himself said he found Fleming's views on women outdated, and that was in '77!). None of them I think have based their interpretation entirely off of the books, and that's not a bad thing.
It wouldn't surprise me. There's an awful lot of Fleming in SF, particularly YOLT.
I know people praise Dalton mainly for reading the books and consciously trying to bring back that element back to the character, but I think there's a case to be made that Craig probably understood the books the most out of all the Bonds (at least from what I've seen from interviews with both and the way the latter's films ended up, especially considering how involved he was creatively). Again, I don't think it's a necessity that the actor be completely immersed in Fleming, or at least to the extent the filmmakers are, but if the next actor does read them and gets something out of the books (while bringing his own take on the role) it'd be cool.
That's what I really liked about Craig Bond's interaction with Camille and with Madeleine (in SPECTRE, not in the sequel, for clarification), those interactions were quite like those in the books.
Applying Bond from book to screen perfectly and accurately would be very hard to do.
Broadly, the spirit of Fleming’s Bond is there in Craig’s I’d say. Both Bonds fell for women and had their traumas and doubts they came back from. Craig’s Bond is more of a harder edged agent prone to going ‘off piste’ to get the job done, but there’s a good sense that he’s MI6’s top agent, a ruthless professional with a fondness for gambling, women, cars, adventure and drink, as Fleming’s Bond was.
Agreed, it’s very difficult for any future actor to just do ‘Fleming’s Bond’, and I’d say it wouldn’t give us the best portrayal. The films have always been a dialogue between that original source material and things like contemporary ideas, the actor’s own take, and of course the tropes the films themselves have honed.
Yeah I don't think they should either. For better or worse (depending on your viewpoint) James Bond has long moved beyond the books and is a movie character.
Yes, and even bits which feel like Fleming and yet aren't, like the scorpion drinking game. The Brosnan films had very little of those attempts to get the flavour.
I still think the crater base in Spectre was one of the most Fleming-y things the films have ever done: it really feels like one of the books at that point to me.
One bit I liked that they took was the sniper mission between two skyscrapers mentioned in CR.
Mendes gets flak, but I think he managed to invoke the spirit of the fun of 70s/80s Bond movies at the same time as making them feel more like Fleming than they often have done before, which is a pretty impressive combo to pull off. As well as making them something new too.
I think the books still very much matter in making these films. But ultimately they’re different things, albeit things which are related, agreed. Again, it’s that dialogue between the novels and everything else.
That's what I liked about Bond, you can have two different interpretations of the character (depending on personal preferences), for those who yearns for a different Bond than the one played in the films, then there are the books, but for those who found the books not being quite up to their tastes, there are the films that's different from the books that they could enjoy.
And the Cinematic Bond moved past the time that the Bond of the books can't.
I don't think casual viewers would enjoy the literary Bond being brought to the screen, sure, while some of them enjoy the descriptions, but when those are translated to screen, it would've been a different experience already, for me, the James Bond books are one of the most difficult books to adapt aside from the 'Dune' series, unlike the other books, none of the James Bond books would've been likely to be accurate, especially Bond himself, he's too much of a complex character to be translated to a script with limited screentime and there are his inner thoughts, one may wonder how it would all played out?
The books still matter in understanding the character, if a film move stray far from the material, it would no longer be Bond, the books are the roots, the bloodline to retain what makes the character and this whole movie franchise special, distinctive from any other generic spy action films out there, I agree.
Craig's first two films felt like the first two novels. Bond was a bit more cold and driven but still easily pushed into sentiment. Craig adds maybe a bit of brutishness that was lightly touched on in the novels and his performance in QoS is at the very top when it comes to Fleming portrayals.
With Craig's last 3, there are a few more liberties taken. YOLT obviously inspires themes in Skyfall and I think Craig's performance can be compared to the novel: bits of darkness with many sarcastic quips and the sort of "ridiculous" ending that feels ethereal in a sense. Spectre is more Skyfall inspired than Fleming inspired: Craig's Bond reacts to tragedy by finding himself a normal life, while Fleming's needed to knuckle down on a tough job to get back to the status quo.
And well his final film, NTTD, I don't really see too much of Fleming's Bond. I see Craig's Bond that ultimately started from Fleming inspiration in Skyfall.
I think that's fair, and unavoidable considering where he is in his life really. I know you're not saying it's a fault per se, and I don't think it is. Some of the stuff surrounding him is very Fleming, not least his choice of retirement location which couldn't be much more Fleming! I guess potentially you could say he's the most like the other Bonds he has been as he's even more confident in himself and laid back than he was in Spectre to start with.
I like how Craig’s films highlighted that ‘Byronic Hero’ aspect of the character, which I think is there in Fleming’s later novels. NTTD is an interesting story as well in the sense that it’s about an older Bond - a man who likely presumed he’d never live past 45. So it obviously will add stuff which Fleming didn’t. Even then I have no difficulties seeing his Bond retire to Jamaica. But on the whole Bond in the books contemplated resigning, drank heavily to curb traumas (or inactivity) in his life, even had a child and and a chance at having a marriage with Kissy, and went through ups in his job after having quite bad lows. I think those ideas are there at the core of the Craig films. I think they’re generally interesting interpretations of Fleming.
Interesting view, although I think Dalton's Bond still has that calculated move aspect on him that the Book Bond doesn't have, he lacked the naivety, immaturity or the inexperienced nature (dare I say, the unprofessionalism) of the character, for the literary Bond, it's like everything he sees must be new to him and thinking that he would have no way out (these are evidents in well, almost all of the books), having self doubts and all, easily swept off by girls' feet but still respecting them (treating them more in a platonic/mutual relationship than being romantic) okay maybe Dalton got that aspect a bit, his relationship with Pam Bouvier definitely showed bits of this.
But there's also that innocence and childish aspect of the literary Bond, he could be bully and throw some dirty words if he liked (the example of this is in 'Goldfinger' where he was strapped on the laser table and having panic attacks, often trash talking Goldfinger), he could be sarcastic (the example of this in 'You Only Live Twice' when Tiger Tanaka is setting him up for a Japanese training), he's such a complex character, he have too many angles.
The 'Flowers were being hurt when they picked' scene in Moonraker also comes to mind and for me, I don't see Dalton being like that either, Literary Bond could also be a 'know-it-all' guy if he wanted to and throw in some sophisticated facts.
Dalton's Bond comes across to me as a hardened, experienced professional whose moves were calculated, he knows exactly what to do, he may comes off as rebel at times and improvise some tactics to get the job done, but for me, he's still far from Fleming Bond as much as the accuracy goes.
Again, this can all be applied to the Film Bonds in general, none of them captured the literary Bond, maybe capturing some bits here and there, but still not enough.
The thing is, the Byronic Hero bit often quoted comes from YOLT, soon after Tracy's death. From my memory of the novel, Bond's malaise actually doesn't last long, and in Japan he seems to come to form after what could be described as a blip.
Craig's films take this blip and apply it to Skyfall, after Bond "dies." Similarly to YOLT Bond is reborn by taking on a mission again. Then in Spectre, despite being more jovial, Bond is still more reserved and a bit of a loner as if the events of the previous film have still impacted him. He's jaded with his work and doesn't know if he can trust anybody, but like YOLT, he sets it aside for his job.
Then he retires, which of course was not out of the question for Fleming's Bond, but Bond retires twice: once because he's not sure the job is even in the right in the first adventure (he quickly learns that it is), and the second time when he's bored out of his mind. That's sort of where Craig's films depart and focus on the Fleming from Skyfall, without the context of Skyfall has. Then NTTD introduces another event of Madeleine's betrayal and Bond's malaise continues through until when he's on a job again.
Technically, each film is using Fleming/YOLT in that respect. But what it did was make it a normal characteristic for Bond rather than a one off. That's why I say Skyfall inspired vs Fleming inspired. Sort of like if every film after OHMSS was a revenge film. Once is fair game, but more than that is more hypothetical DAF inspired than anything actually based in the novels.
I agree with a lot of that and how it departs from the specifics of Fleming's novels and Bond's character in them. But I'm not sure if I follow much of what you're trying to say in the last two paragraphs to be completely honest with you. Bond constantly being brought back from malaise, boredom, physical injury, a happy life, or even something like an uncharacteristic health kick with a mission is repeated throughout the Fleming books. He was often prone to becoming cynical, bored, or even a bit depressed about his job. They're story ideas that obviously the Craig films have run with in their own ways. Same for the two times Bond comes across women he wants to settle down with (once with Vesper and another with Tracy/Madeline).
But yeah, as I said it's not strict adaptation, and they're using those broad threads to create original stories at the end of the day. But I definitely think that source material and a lot of Fleming's Bond run through those films.
1. Avenge his parents
2. Rob the Bank (money)
3. Something about Bond that doesn't seem to make much sense
4. Something about the end of the cold war? it is not clear. Too many rewrites?
Like I was saying in the other thread, Bond villains can get away with quite elaborate schemes simply by having a tangible motive - an obsession, revenge etc. It’s why people tend to get confused about Safin in NTTD. He effectively destroys SPECTRE by the third act (fulfilling the original revenge motive) and to keep the story going the film has to make it clear why he wants to release the nanobots on the wider world (ironically making it a bit unclear). Had his final plan still been centred around the revenge goal I think he’d be better received as a villain. Ironically he’s a villain I’d compare unfavourably to Travelyan.
I like that Carver’s a bit of a dweeb, but has that undercurrent of nastiness (he kills his own wife after all). It’s quite relevant today in the sense that rich/powerful men can often have that benign public persona (in reality to have become that rich one has to be ruthless to some extent). I like Hopkins but I don’t think it would have been as interesting.
What does any of this have to do with his overall motivation? He was playing Ouramov for his own benefit. He persuades Ouramov to help fake his death/join his syndicate (Ouramov mainly seems to be in it for the money, but there’s also an implication of wanting to see the downfall of the UK too), which helps him obtain things like the Goldeneye. Of course Travelyan withholds his past from him. It’s heavily implied Travelyan would eventually just kill him. Travelyan wasn’t working for the Russians directly so wasn’t a double agent.
Admittedly it’s all very convoluted in the way Bond films often can be (if anything Ouramov’s motivations are a bit murkier here, but it’s there). I had to think back as I haven’t the film in a while. But Travelyan’s overall reasons for doing this are clear.
Well, It was a question. It's not explained in the movie. How did he meet Ourumov if he wasn't a double agent?
Is he planning everything since 1986? Why is he angry about the Cold War if he always worked for himself?
I'd say it's generally clear why Travelyan's doing all this (revenge) and even if elaborate it's there in the movie.
I think when getting into detailed specifics like has Travelyan been planning everything for ten years (which seems to be the case) or how exactly he met Ouramov (I have no idea nor do I care) I'm not sure any Bond film is going to give us many detailed answers. Most of it's background detail and not exactly relevant. Again, very elaborate and even silly things about Bond villains can be justified by a pretty simple motivation. In this case rather long term evil plans, playing both sides, and unlikely 'alliances' are justified by Travelyan's past, and it's made clear throughout the film. If we're really getting into it why did Travelyan join MI6 in the first place? It probably would have been easier just becoming a rogue super villain. The answer of course is because being Bond's former comrade is a more compelling story choice, and because Travelyan's central motive is so strong the audience simply go with it.
From what I remember Travelyan (rather mockingly) displays cynicism to Bond about MI6/the Cold War during the graveyard scene, but the reasons for his betrayal from MI6 and this attitude towards it are centred around his parents' deaths ultimately.
I'd say Travelyan holds up surprisingly well as a villain.
Why would he even care about Bond or the Cold War?
He cares about Bond for a couple of reasons. Firstly Bond represents everything about MI6 he hates - that sense of loyalty towards Britain etc. In the graveyard scene that hatred is framed around what happened to his parents ultimately. That and Bond is the reason he's been scarred.
None of this is a problem with character motivation as far as I can tell, and it's all made clear in the film. The only issue is perhaps how contrived it all is but that's all very typical Bond film stuff. Few question it when watching the film because Travelyan's central motivation is so strong.
As for how he got in cahoots with Orumov, I think it's easy to imagine: as an MI6 operative he probably had access to intel about high ranking officers in the Red Army and could easily identify one that could be corrupted. In the last year of the USSR, I don't think he would have been short on candidates. Discreetly getting in touch with him should have been easy too.
In my head canon, the facility they destroy in the PTS has been previously emptied of weapons and later sold by Trevelyan to kick-start the Janus Syndicate.
Why did he expect any kind of loyalty from Bond? Trevelyan worked for himself from the beginning.
From what I remember the only mention of that is he says (again, rather mockingly during the graveyard scene) that he considered asking Bond to join him but ultimately knew he wouldn't do it.
Honestly, it's all there in the film. I haven't watched it in a good while now and even I can make sense of this. I really don't think beyond basic contrivances there's an issue with character motivation here (and none of what we've talked about really falls under that).
Oh yeah, he's way too young for the character's background. But I guess it's worth it having Bean play the part.
That'd probably be a way of recruiting Ouramov. There's nothing that says it couldn't be the case anyway. Again, it's such background detail and most audiences don't care. It's a relatively easy plot point to go along with.