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
I wholeheartedly agree.
“ The bigger and more personal the stakes, the more we're going to root for them. “
This is what they teach in films schools.
This is what every director wants.
This is what every producer and every studio wants, and it hasn’t changed in decades.
So if there are ever stand alone adventures in James Bond films again, they will find a way to up the stakes and make it personal— the thinking is that not only will we “root” for our hero, but we can somehow relate to him (or her).
There was something to the post-WWII generation, and particularly Connery and Moore, that had an attitude of "protecting society is greater than the individual." But Fleming himself--unlike Moore or Connery--had Bond going through personal musings and doubt and revenge and more on his missions.
Can you imagine Connery or Moore doing a "die, Blofeld, die!" scene? I can't. But it's Fleming.
I simply disagree. If Bond was to get emotionally involved like that with every assignment he was given, then he wouldn’t be able to be completely objective on the job, which is what a man who kills for Country SHOULD be above anything else, or at least that’s what I think. Now there are moments in the films where he ignores his orders. I always think of the scene in TLD as a great example where he’s not being completely objective to what Queen and Country ask of him by killing Pushkin, but instead follows his own instincts which obviously prove him right in the end.
The thing is you can have dramatic stakes without constantly falling back to the same trope of breaking down a character’s psychological makeup. Look at FRWL; we’re on edge most of the entire movie because we don’t know wether or not Tatiana will actually fall for James, or continue being a pawn on SPECTRE’s game. TSWLM is another great example in which we’re faced with the tension between Bond and Anya for the murder of her lover during the PTS.
I’m not arguing against what makes a successful script work; but I will question the logic in rehashing a trope that’s been beaten to death in the last 20 or so years of Bond films. I want Bond to be more objective, and for the dramatic stakes to come from OTHER aspects of the script, not from his inner psychology. I want something more akin to FRWL than Daniel Craig 2.0. But I don’t make these decisions.
And yes, winning for M at Blades IS personal.
@echo you're bang on. Fleming definitely steered things more and more to the personal, the deeper he went with his Bond adventures!!
How many people had even heard of Bernard Lee or Desmond?
All of which should not be applied to James Bond or............Sherlock Holmes.
That makes no sense.
Men should want to be him, women should want him but neither need to relate to him.
Maybe at one time, but filmmaking has changed, and, as @echo rightly pointed out, the big one to change this was Die Hard, at least amongst the big studio action films.
The studios saw that by making DH about the protagonist saving his wife, and therefore saving his marriage and family, it elevated what could have been a by the numbers shoot ‘em up.
The modern audience can both still want to be Bond, but also relate to the jam he’s in. We then feel the stakes and obstacles he has to overcome, and when he does overcome, then, well, guess what? He’s the hero we couldn’t be. He does the impossible, but I can still relate to the character….
Outside of the Bond world, probably not many and that's the point and the reason we got an increased role for the MI6 regulars compared to the earlier films.
That line of thought probably made more sense when Eon began idolizing the Bond character as the unflappable agent in the 60s. This idea that he’s the ultimate male figure that should be revered and wanted. But I think that’s a silly fantasy that should be left behind in the Brosnan era.
At least when I read Fleming, I realized that I didn’t want to be his Bond. He was a severely flawed character, and all the more interesting for it. The fact that Craig not only went that route but was even game to double down on that was admirable.
To see Bond go back to being overly dandy like Henry Cavill would feel like a step backwards.
There are no personal stakes for Bond, he is just a blunt instrument of the government. Suave but still a deadly instrument of the status quo. Bond may be self aware about his profession, like Dalton in TLD or Craig in CR, but he'll still do the job, because he know it needs to get done. No internal/emotional struggles needed.
Oh, you mean a robot?
Movies like that don’t exist anymore, because modern audiences these days expect more from a protagonist than “he’s good at his job”.
Bingo.
So much for You Only Live Twice
I would like to see Nobody Lives Forever be adapted, after a few movies with a new Moneypenny and a few with May. If EON wanted to replace Tamil Rahini with Blofeld after being in a few movies that would be fine. Next to Icebreaker, it's probably the most film-able John Gardener novel. It's really time that EON to take advantage of IFP, they have a unique catalog of Bond adventures. They need to realize that they don't always need a Richard Maibaum or Purvis and Wade to give them an "original" screenplay.
Harris, Whishaw and in particular Fiennes have something those MI6 character actors didn't have: Star Power. They're going to play a big part if they are hired. Fiennes alone got Sam Mendes to cancel his M being a traitor. And that was a good call for everyone.
Bingo. It’s all paint by numbers. One could argue it’s opening the path to AI and a comercial/statistic logic of perpetuation and eventual exhaustion.
The same is somehow happening in the literary market. The thing is, we call it a market. That’s wrong all by itself.
The last few years I’m only hearing “what do the viewers want?”, “what do the readers want?”, which are economical questions with no anthropological or philosophical value.
Instead, they should be making art, and believing in it, and contaminating audiences and readers with things they didn’t even know they wanted. And taking risks (no, I’m not talking about bending formulas or subverting expectations and all things canonical). I’m talking about believing in the work, on what you are puting out there, as the main objective, not catering to the ever groing ignorant masses.
And I’m sorry, but stating what studios want and explaining what creative classes offer to the wanna be writers of the world, is not to be seen as golden ratio. It should be seen as modernity’s ailment. I reiterate, that is simply paint-by-numbers.
But hey, take all of the above as one man’s opinion writen on a forum in a Sunday.
That’s not entirely right and not entirely wrong; personal stakes have always been in every story… Oedipus Rex? Medea? Hamlet? MacBeth? King Lear? Godfather and Serpico? Rocky? Rambo?
After Die Hard though, studios had a choice in action pictures: make a DH (as in an action film with personal stakes), or make a low budget Jeff Speakman film.
Bond has pretty much been in the DH sandbox since LTK.
So this is a mixture of what’s always been in great stories, producer and studio needs and, audience expectations.
EDIT: and no, this isn’t paint by numbers. Hamlet is personal. Rambo: First Blood is personal. ET is personal. It’s all in the execution.
Some are great.
Some are crap.
But make no mistake, personal obstacles elevate stories.
Once I showed DR. NO to friends who had never seen it. They were excited because it was the first James Bond film. After the film ended, they were underwhelmed, saying they couldn’t connect with the Bond character, that there was no emotional hook involved. This is why modern audiences gravitate more towards CASINO ROYALE as a starting point these days because it’s there with Bond’s growing connection with Vesper.
Someone mentioned DIE HARD as the kicking off action films with emotional stakes. I’d go earlier and say RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. Shortly after that we got the first Rambo film which was centered on a protagonist suffering from PTSD. LETHAL WEAPON would come along and that featured personal stakes.
Before you know it, Bond dips his toes in that trend with LICENCE TO KILL and it’s never been the same.
But I don’t think this should the point of this conversation - which is an interesting one. I think there are personal stakes that better suit some characters than others. That’s all. Not that they shouldn’t exist (how could they not? Even Oedipus was firmly there in Bond’s relationship with M). But there are some that suit Bond better than others, I think. Shall we discuss which ones?
And I also think studio mentality and creative classes are fallacious means to capitalise the idea that everyone can have artistic talent. And, as such, these two are but money dynamics and I have no interest on statistics derivated from either.
I believe this discussion could last for a while, and be an interesting one, at that. But to ease both sides on the matter, I still maintain there should be a balance between tha narrative drive and Bond’s personal stakes.
I mean if that’s how you read it then who am I to question it. Just when I think of the more “personal” angles Fleming has given Bond, playing for M at ‘Blades’ isn’t one of them.
Hey, when Paula died in TB, Bond’s focus was sharpened immediately. I’d say it became personal. Stuff like that.
I'm simply talking about story and personal stakes.
It has been this way in all of the greatest stories. Oedipus Rex, Medea, Antigone, Hamlet, MacBeth,A Midsummer's Night Dream, King Lear, Frankenstein, Godfather, Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon, Apocalypse Now, The Conversation,Rocky, Rambo, Casino Royale...
Do we want elevated stories, or z-list action flicks?
I have no love for the studio system, but Bond IS a part of it, and filmmaking IS a business and whether independent or from the Big Studios, the bottom line is to make money. Always. The more the merrier.
And as far as Bond is concerned, I'm not saying what the stakes for him should be (it'd be completely reliant on the story they want to tell), I'm just saying that they WILL find a personal angle to whatever script they dream up.
That is all.
I would never want Craig 2.0 (or a Connery or Moore or Dalton or Brosnan 2.0 either).
Someone was being sarcastic above and said something like: perhaps he should have a wife and daughter in the next film as well. That comment misses what some of us are saying, which is: the personal ain't going away anytime soon. It's been where Bond has been playing since '89, and there's no sign of this changing.
What those stakes are, I don't care. That's up to their writers to decide. How personal? I don't know, and don't care-- that's also up to the writers and the creative team.
All I, and others are saying, is that there WILL be some personal angle.