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
+2. There is a lot of potential for a team up film between the two. Felix deserves a role outside of giving information again. Give him some true action and screen time!
I don’t want Bond to have his Robin.
Bond is a lone wolf (that uses others only when necessary).
I have no problem with a female equivalent of Bond in terms of skills or competence, I don't want a damsel in distress either, let alone a ditz.
What I'm saying was in personality that why every Bond Girl needs to have the same outlook as Bond does? Look at the recent Bond Girls from the Craig Era: Camille lost a loved one and wants a revenge similar to Bond, Madeleine has her personal demons similar to Bond and the only one 'who could understand him because they're the same, etc. Etc.'. The same in older films like Bond sees Melina as a reflection of himself being conflicted about killing and vendetta and something like that.
I'm over it, and for sure some of the other people does, we want a fresh take, something that's a Polar Opposite, it doesn't need to have a story, it's been done many times.
Does Pam Bouvier had a backstory? She's just there to help Bond on behalf of Felix Leiter, Christmas Jones for how weak the character is, didn't have a backstory either, she's just there to serve a purpose, to help Bond detonate a Nuclear weapon, the same for Tatiana Romanova whose just there to lure Bond into the Lektor and blackmail him by seducing him, the same for Pussy Galore in the film, sure she may have a backstory in the book, but it's not in the film and it still worked (maybe for the better, it made her an empowered woman without coming from a nefarious reason that if that didn't happened to her, she would've been a bit weak and uninteresting, to which Fleming may suggest so), Pussy Galore was there as Goldfinger's pilot and to help Bond, that's all.
I have no problem with Bond Girls having backstories, dramas and such, that makes them interesting, but it's been done to death many times now, way too many of them at this point, as long as the Bond Girl serves a purpose to the story, even without a backstory, I think it could work, I'm not saying that they should not do that anymore, but for the next film, we need a fresh take, a new environment away from the Craig Era.
But this time, I want a fun Bond Girl for a change, someone who has a sense of humor, the film may not be lighthearted (and I doubt will ever be), but at least there's a character who could make things light without veering into Parody or outlandishness, it's a unique take, we've seen that with Paloma, and it worked, it's just an example, of course, her role needs to be extended, they need to be more better than that, it's a fresh take, it's something that hasn't been done before, and the interaction would've been interesting if a Bond Girl is a contrast to Bond's traits or personality, a complete opposite.
Imagine Bond interacting or dealing with a spanky Bond Girl whose an opposite of him, I think that would've been interesting.
Well told.
Agree to disagree. Felix is not even close to a Robin but a co-equal agent. Either a CIA agent or independent investigator would work. As to where Bond goes next, I think that this would be a way of exploring new territory.
Another quote, but never mentioned:
When Quarrel hesitates to go to Crab Key, Bond says, "All right, Quarrel. We don’t want to force you to do anything. Leiter and I will go after dark, if you’ll give us the navigational directions."
That didn't aged well, and to think they're going to your house? @CrabKey 😁
You can have a rounded character who doesn’t have a backstory. And you can have a flat character whose past is mentioned in the film. Backstory isn’t an indicator of a rounded character in itself or how well written they are. That’s not the point.
Pussy Galore changes throughout the film, which we can see in her decision to help Bond. It’s one of the major decisions of the film which impacts the story. She’s not a flat character.
Same for Tatiana. She initially thinks she’s helping Mother Russia but eventually rejects this by the end of the film (shown in her tackling Klebb and deciding to shoot her).
Pam as a character has a goal which drives her and impacts the story (namely to take down Sanchez).
All that is drama. It’s also story.
A Bond girl has to work for the story. It’s why Madeline in SP is White’s daughter and Bond makes a deal to protect her, or Severine is being kept in captivity by Silva and uses Bond to try and escape.
It’s all well and good saying a spanky Bond girl is the way to go (but honestly, I think that could be done really badly too, it depends) but it’s only one part of creating an interesting Bond girl. Much of it is about what they want, who they are, what they do in the story, how/if they develop/change (and again, this can be through the audience's eyes - ie. the viewer sees Paloma’s competence as a fighter/agent which flips our initial impression of her. We see Elektra’s duplicity come to light throughout the story. We even see in SP how used to handling guns and being in dangerous situations Madeline is).
A spanky Bond’s opposite might be completely the wrong choice for a main Bond girl depending on the film. Or it might be the best one (I’d say that describes Natalia from GE, but even then her goal in the film hinges around figuring out why her co-workers were brutally murdered! Would this be too dark and the character too emotionally traumatised by your own criteria?)
The Bond girls generally had them even in the earlier films though. Or at the very least a degree of conflict or goals relevant to the wider story.
Yes, Bond doesn’t really change, it’s usually his love interest that gets a character arc. It’s a decent formula, Bond being the catalyst for change.
I’m not even disagreeing with you, lol. I just said I don’t want Bond to have his Robin. As in: I pay to see a Bond picture. I don’t want to pay for a Bond and Leiter show. The most activity I want to see out of Felix is in CR, DN, NTRD, TB.
Bond is why I pay my ticket (and he uses people as he sees fit).
That said you don’t want to underbake Felix either. His involvement in TLD for example adds nothing.
Felix Leiter is only in America, I could argue that Quarrel was Bond's official contact in Jamaica in DN.
There are a few characters that are like that in the other Bond films, but not many. Tataina has a few moments of pathos and drama, but it's kinda appropriate in that case because she is caught up in multiple webs, it's understandable someone would be a bit shaken and hopeless in that scenario. Even then, those moments are brief and we also get moments where she is bubbly and almost motherly as she plans her and Bond's future together, she has genuine innocent warmth to her despite what she's been through. I 100% agree about Andrea that character was clearly set up to be a typical tortured soul, she has very little personality or flair to her, but again that's very much the point in that instance.
Felix is in:
Jamaica (DN)
Bahamas
Montenegro
Jamaica (NTTD)
It's really a matter of personal opinion/how you view these different films. Incidentally no, you're not quite correct about Galore unfortunately. It's not quite as straightforward as Galore making a split second decision offscreen. The barn scene and scene before that (whatever one may think of them) subtly shows Galore's conflict (ie. Galore telling Bond she's 'completely defenceless now', Bond telling her seriously that Goldfinger is quite mad, and her reaction to this, her rejecting Goldfinger in their scene before that/the build up to her realising that he is, indeed, quite mad and evil). The film isn't in some way embarrassed about this character arc or wants to completely hide it from the audience. It's a part of the story.
You can just as easily argue a failing of Galore's character is that arc (namely to come round to Bond/help him) is all there is to her. I don't think that'd be correct, and I think Blackman's charisma and presence is a big part of what makes the character great, as is the writing. But you can argue it. You can also make the case that, say, Melina from FYEO has nothing but her trauma/the death of her parents as well. Same for many other Bond girls, especially those with pasts as clearly defined in this case as those characters. Most people, for instance, would say that Tiffany Case from the DAF novel is one of Fleming's best written female characters, and everything about her is built around her dark past, even down to her coldness towards Bond/refusal to sleep with him initially or any other man, and indeed her profession. You can make the criticism that her trauma is all there is to her, and if you strip that away you're not left with much (although when you think about it it's actually a weird thing to say - namely strip away everything about the character, much of which impacts their personality and their actions in the wider story, and there's nothing to them... well, obviously that'll be the case in this particular instance). The fact is she's considered a well written, charismatic character with great on-page chemistry with Bond.
I don't disagree that audiences want characters who are appealing and in some way endearing, but I don't think that necessarily always looks like Paloma.
Yeah, basically Felix pops up when there's some sort of CIA involvement in the mission... or indeed some sort of script necessity.
A big finale fight where Bond recruits Felix, ala something like Quantum of Solace, perhaps each on a journey of revenge, would be fun. Just the third act team up. Maybe not for a first picture where we're trying to establish our new guy as tough on his own, though, to be fair to your point.
This is what I mean, we need a fresh air for the next era, we need to give it a distinction from the Craig Era.
Again he tells that same man to go and fetch his shoes. He actively was making fun of Quarrel’s fears and paranoia about Crab Key up until the moment Quarrel dies.
If you choose to remain ignorant of these blatantly obvious character flaws then by all means please go ahead. It’s not as if anybody here was criticizing Connery himself for this performance rather the way it was written and the attitudes of the day. Yet you seem to be so obsessed with defending every aspect about this performance that you’re actively ignoring the racist/elitist undertones of it.
Also I think it's kind of interesting that we sort of think Felix is Bond's opposite number in the CIA, but he isn't really. Bond is the special forces blunt instrument, whereas Felix is more of a facts and investigation man- he's never been a gun-toting assassin. If anything he's more like a US version of Tanner than he is an American Bond.
Don't forget Quantum, where he's basically stationed in South America- that might be my favourite use of him in any of the films, actually. He feels like a real CIA man there (Beam's line about "we should only deal with nice people" is a real cracker), and he 'goes rogue' (as some folk might say- I would say he acts on loyalty and his morality) to help Bond, and it all adds to his character and their relationship.
Plus Tangier in TLD of course.
I always find it a bit weird how Quarrel's superstitions and fears are played up in the film. Not to say there's absolutely no hint of racial caricature in Fleming's DN, but in the book he simply has a premonition about something bad happening at Crab Key so takes out life insurance (which actually is kind of understandable considering Bond is sure Strangways has been murdered at that point). It's actually depicted as being quite uncharacteristic for him and he's otherwise quite reliable helping Bond trek through the island. He gets a bit of a fright when he sees the 'dragon' coming towards them but actually from what I remember kind of laughs it off when Bond points out it's a machine. It's Honey who believes wholeheartedly in the dragon and is terrified of it.
In the film he's much more nervous when they get to Crab Key - drinking while keeping watch, constantly on edge about the 'dragon'. It just never seemed to be quite the same character for me compared to how we see him earlier in the film.
I didn't say it always looks like Paloma, just that people haven't seen a Bond girl like her for a while. If you keep doing things the same way for long enough, people are going to get bored of it, thats a fact. After the slightly exaggerated bond girls of the late 90's, people were thirsty for a Bond Girl like Vesper who felt more like a real woman, but keep giving every Bond girl the same treatment and eventually it becomes dull and uninspired. Suddenly the more colourful, a bit exaggerated Bond Girl becomes more appealing again, a welcome escape having to watch Bond gradually win over these haunted souls into being comfortable with him. Why else would people say one of their highlights (if not THE highlight) of B25 for them was when Bond and Paloma go on a little adventure together If the way people relate to characters is through having a deep connection and appreciation for their circumstances and history? In a film with such portent and consequence for Bond, where he watches his best friend die, learns of his new family and tragically sacrifices himself, why would a realtively frivolous interlude be what people latched onto and were raving about, even calling a breathe of fresh air? Clearly we aren't getting the whole picture here, and characters can indeed be captivating on the strength of their personalities, and don't always require an element of angst or moodiness as a prerequiste to be interesting and worth investing in. Again, I don't think Bond characters necessarily should avoid having dimension to them, but if a Bond girl is little more than a fun, energetic, plucky dame, I don't see that exactly being a problem. I mean, clearly audiences didn't have a problem relating to Paloma or finding her engaging, so I don't see why it's necessarily an issue for characters to be written that way.
The highlight of what?
I agree; in fact it’s one of the reasons I found myself knocking down Dr. No a few spots recently. I still think John Kitzmiller is quite wonderful in the role however. For how poor that character may have aged in some places, Kitzmiller is still a wonderful presence on screen.
Sort of. I mean, being very technical every Bond film is a case of 'the same but different'. It's really about how it's done. I get what you mean, but I don't think it's quite as straightforward as that.
Were the Bond girls of the 90s exaggerated? Natalya wasn't in my opinion. Paris had quite a sad backstory being married to Carver, and actually we get two instances of women with similar backstories in the Craig era. Elektra was a malicious psychopath, but I wouldn't say exaggerated. Even Christmas Jones isn't, slightly silly name aside. Neither is Wai Lin really. None are anything like Paloma I'd say... Not even sure if I'm quite seeing this with Jinx or Frost (and honestly, the bigger theme I'm seeing here is some of these women being agents/Bond's equal... interestingly the Craig era never really tried to go that route with Bond's love interest).
Maybe Onnatop fits that description? She's more a villain though. Yeah, I'm just not seeing exaggerated being the common theme here...
I didn't say you needed increasingly deep or angsty character dramas for the Bond girls. I said that more often than not the main Bond girl won't simply be an 'energetic, plucky dame'. Because the filmmakers are crafting a story they'll find the most interesting thing for them to do (and indeed the most useful as it'll move the story/plot along) is to give those Bond girls some sort of arc, conflict, backstory, or goal...
I dunno, I think we're all repeating ourselves a bit here. Again, I think because Paloma is a minor character she doesn't need to have the same sort of character traits as someone like Madeline. Even then, in the audience's eyes there's an arc there - we go from seeing her as a bit ditsy and nervous to a competent agent. That's the subversion/thing they're playing with. She's not just some plucky dame. That's why she works and why so many people like her. It's because it was different and the sequence fun (although even then it's preceded by one of the darkest moments in the series). In this particular film I don't think she'd have served the story well as a main Bond girl. In another film maybe, but I think she'd have been written differently anyway.
Main Bond girls are crafted for the films they're in. All this has to do with the story. They don't have to have a cold exterior like Madeline or be determined like Camille, or even have tragic backstories. Or indeed hypothetically they can actually have a tragic backstory but be quite witty and engagingly fun as a character. It all depends. But more often than not there'll be something there because that's how stories and characters are crafted.
It's a movie. An old one by the way.
Actually it's we who don't know where EoN wants to go with Bond at the moment.
None of us here know their plan, and because we don't know their plan, we assume there isn't a plan? Not the way these things usually go.