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
Are you familiar with the saying, 'if you haven't got anything nice to say, then dont say anything at all.'
You're bringing nothing to this thread, other than hostility.
Comments like this are not called for.
Not really. It's essentially saying that characters actions in films are either personal or impersonal. Nothing greatly pretentious about that. Take some Xanax and calm down, pal. We're all friends here. :)
Roger too - when Lisl died for example.
You may find this thread interesting. In a roundabout way its dealing with a similar theme - Bond being a character with wants, needs, or both - adding dimension to him etc.
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/15023/the-cinematic-007-two-dimensions-versus-three#latest
What precisely is pretentious about it?
I think its an over simplification to say that inners are not required for action movies. If you look at Rocky for example (a money making enjoyable cheese-fest), there is obvious use of his own turmoil as he relates to his wife, trainer and the death of A Creed in number 3, punters love inners and it makes you realise how unusual the early Bonds were in lacking them. Or were they of their time and we have become a more touchy feely society and, therefore, we need to relate to action characters on emotional grounds aswell ? Boune being the obvious example.
SF must be held up of an example of punters having no problem with Bond having inners if they are handled correctly and with some sensitivity (and not having to re-invent his childhood to create them). Imagine how/if SF would have worked if Bonds sole motivation for achieving his outer was because he was following orders. IMHO it is miles better for having inner motivation...but not too much and just bubbling under the surface. There is no doubt the SF sees Bond follow an emotional journey. How many other Bond's can you say that about?