› ›

Bond's character growth in Skyfall

Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
edited February 2012 in Skyfall Posts: 13,355
Craig has said in interviews before he likes characters to grow and learn throughout the course of the film and to quote him "otherwise, what's the point".

With Bond, now being Bond as we know him, how would you apply this to <i>Skyfall</i>? How could Bond change throughout the film when there seems little need for him too?
«13

Comments

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited October 2011 Posts: 15,718
    This is a tough one. It seems B23 will be a one-off classic film, so Craig will play a more traditional Bond this time 'round. But, how can he 'grow and learn' throughout a traditional Bond film? Bond's character developement in the outings prior to CR was minimal.

    I hope this doesn't mean more psycho-babble from Judi Dench.

    But I have to admit I am lost for words. I cannot see how Bond could develop throughout the course of a more traditional film. Probably Mendes and Logan have a new fresh new take on the character and on the Bond films. If done right it could be great.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited October 2011 Posts: 13,355
    This is a tough one. It seems B23 will be a one-off classic film, so Craig will play a more traditional Bond this time 'round. But, how can he 'grow and learn' throughout a traditional Bond film? Bond's character developement in the outings prior to CR was minimal.
    That's exactly my point. I'm stumped.

    I love the idea of Bond learning, for any character this can often be very good, but how this applys to James Bond, a standard character, I don't know.

    Maybe there is some ideas from the books I'm forgetting that could be used.
    I hope this doesn't mean more psycho-babble from Judi Dench.
    I very much doubt that.
    Probably Mendes and Logan have a new fresh new take on the character and on the Bond films. If done right it could be great.
    I expect to be impressed, this time next year. Bond 23 looks to have the cast and crew on board to do so. This should be a great start to a new beginning.

    I'll look for the interviews were Craig says this, to back me up.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited October 2011 Posts: 15,718
    Yes Samuel, I have to say I am more and more excited and confident for the film week after week. My worries are all gone now.

    And yes, I agree, it could come from the books, and I am also forgetting these ideas.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    Y'know, the sad thing is that we have a year to speculate, and we'll probably end up wrong.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Yes Samuel, I have to say I am more and more excited and confident for the film week after week. My worries are all gone now.
    That's quite the quick turnaround. How came?
    Y'know, the sad thing is that we have a year to speculate, and we'll probably end up wrong.
    There can't be that many can there?

    I'd say maybe Bond will learn how to be able to command a big team successfully and this will be shown in the final battle but being Commander Bond, he would already know this.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    I think, if we go back to the beard conversation on the other thread, some of those ideas for the beginning, with Bond unshaven and hanging out in his flat for a portion of the beginning, that could help some character growth.
  • shadowonthesunshadowonthesun Banned
    Posts: 1,894
    With Bond, now being Bond as we know him, how would you apply this to Bond 23? How could Bond change throughout the film when there seems little need for him too?
    When I was a kid, I saw a trailer for BATMAN RETRUNS. There was one scene that really stood out in my mind - The Penguin says "Oh! You mean ... we frame him!". Straight away, I knew there was no story in the film. You don't frame the hero, because the hero will always clear his name. What you do is you strip away everything the hero represents. Make his values mean nothing. Destroy everything he fights for. You drag him down to your level, and force him to fight. That way, even if the villain loses, he still wins because the hero is corrupted. It's what the Joker did so effectively in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES - he turned Harvey Dent, tried to corrupt Batman and nearly broke Jim Gordon. This is a fundamental element of good storytelling: get right down into the depths of darkness and see if we can strike a light.

    This is what BOND 23 should do. The villain (and I suspect it will be Javier Bardem) should take away everything that Bond represents so that it appears that the only way to defeat him is to essentially become a villain himself. Of course, Bond will overcome this in the end, but the fact that he is willing to do the unspeakable to accomplish his mission should be a nice idea to explore. If you want a particularly good example of this, check out the second season of "Angel". Despite being the hero, Angel is willing to commit cold-blooded murder, drives his handful of friends away, ignore his repsonsibilities as a champion for humankind, and allows two rampaging vampires to commit a massacre, and all of in his pursuit of destroying an evil law firm (long story). By the end, the audience is supposed to hate Angel for what he is willing to do (and this is done very effectively). Of course, this was done over the course of about eight to ten episodes, and a two-hour Bond film doesn't nearly have enough time to do the same - but I think exploring just how far Bond is willing to go, even if it means becoming a villain himself, would be an interesting way to go. Most television series and films will stop just short of sending their heroes over the edge of darkness; Bond should go all the way over and see what happens next.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    Yes Samuel, I have to say I am more and more excited and confident for the film week after week. My worries are all gone now.
    That's quite the quick turnaround. How came?
    Well it seems to shape up very nicely. If the locations are indeed London, Scotland, Istanbul and S.Africa, that is the least globe trotting since LTK, and that is a very good thing. Other news I forget, but all in all the film is looking much better than a few months ago.

  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited October 2011 Posts: 13,355
    The villain (and I suspect it will be Javier Bardem) should take away everything that Bond represents so that it appears that the only way to defeat him is to essentially become a villain himself. Of course, Bond will overcome this in the end, but the fact that he is willing to do the unspeakable to accomplish his mission should be a nice idea to explore. If you want a particularly good example of this, check out the second season of "Angel". Despite being the hero, Angel is willing to commit cold-blooded murder, drives his handful of friends away, ignore his repsonsibilities as a champion for humankind, and allows two rampaging vampires to commit a massacre, and all of in his pursuit of destroying an evil law firm (long story). By the end, the audience is supposed to hate Angel for what he is willing to do (and this is done very effectively). Of course, this was done over the course of about eight to ten episodes, and a two-hour Bond film doesn't nearly have enough time to do the same - but I think exploring just how far Bond is willing to go, even if it means becoming a villain himself, would be an interesting way to go. Most television series and films will stop just short of sending their heroes over the edge of darkness; Bond should go all the way over and see what happens next.
    Bond is often a villain working for the good guys and Craig has said in the past he always questions whether Bond is truely good or not so this could work well. I imagine Bond 23's shocking story will tie into Bond's character growth.

    Maybe the rumour of Quantum already having control of the economy at the start of the film will also show Bond growing, having to face a new challenge.
    Yes Samuel, I have to say I am more and more excited and confident for the film week after week. My worries are all gone now.
    That's quite the quick turnaround. How came?
    Well it seems to shape up very nicely. If the locations are indeed London, Scotland, Istanbul and S.Africa, that is the least globe trotting since LTK, and that is a very good thing. Other news I forget, but all in all the film is looking much better than a few months ago.

    That'd good to hear. You did miss a lot while you were away so there is plenty to catch up on. Make sure you know everything!
  • shadowonthesunshadowonthesun Banned
    Posts: 1,894
    Maybe something else that would be interesting to see would be Bond failing a mission. Not something with earth-shattering consequences (ie Orlov successfully detonating a nuclear weapon on a NATO base), but something localised that will have a discernable effect on Bond (ie being too late to stop Medrano from leading his bloody coup). How would Bond react to that?
    Bond is often a villain working for the good guys and Craig has said in the past he always questions whether Bond is truely good or not so this could work well. I imagine Bond 23's shocking story will tie into Bond's character growth.
    That's the beauty of it - the pieces are already in place. For example, would Bond be willing to let someone innocent die for the sake of a mission? His licence to kill is often cited as being "a licence to kill whom he chooses, how he chooses and when he chooses". It doesn't say that the person he kills has to be guilty of something - would Bond be willing to kill a fellow agent in order to preserve his cover? And if he was (because it's only interest if he actually does it), how would that affect him?
    Maybe the rumour of Quantum already having control of the economy at the start of the film will also show Bond growing, having to face a new challenge.
    I haven't heard that one. But we do know Quantum has significant influence in certain countries - like Haiti; they destabilised and overthrew the government. If they can control small countries, why can't they control larger ones? They do, after all, have a Russian minister of the interior in their pocket.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Maybe the rumour of Quantum already having control of the economy at the start of the film will also show Bond growing, having to face a new challenge.
    I haven't heard that one. But we do know Quantum has significant influence in certain countries - like Haiti; they destabilised and overthrew the government. If they can control small countries, why can't they control larger ones? They do, after all, have a Russian minister of the interior in their pocket.
    It's likely incorrect now, with the time that's passed and what we know about Bond 23 but here it is anyway:

    "They turn the usual Bond story upside down. Typically 007 chases a megalomaniac and restrains him from taking over world domination in the end. This time Bond has to learn just in the beginning that Quantum already has world domination. That also defines the title: The property of this lady is the whole world. And of course Quantum does it's best to go to war against Bond and MI6, with disturbing means. "They really shock the audience this time", the source said.

    http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/bond_23_report_apr10.php3?t=&s=articles&id=02526
  • shadowonthesunshadowonthesun Banned
    Posts: 1,894
    Yeah, eighteen months is a little rank for me.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited October 2011 Posts: 13,355
    Yeah, eighteen months is a little rank for me.
    It's a nice idea for a film though, wouldn't you agree? Very in line with what's already been said.

    Maybe when Quantum return it'll be used.
  • shadowonthesunshadowonthesun Banned
    Posts: 1,894
    Kind of reminds me of Ozymandis in WATCHMEN: "Do it? Dan, I'm not a Republic Serial villain. Do you seriously think I'd explain my master-stroke if there remained the slightest chance of you affecting its outcome? I did it thirty-five minutes ago."
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Just want to say I think the above storyline ideas are really interesting. I am hopeful that Bond 23 will be a great one; it is shaping up well. They have a great cast and crew apparently. I think Craig and Mendes do want something outstanding. Fingers crossed.
  • KerimKerim Istanbul Not Constantinople
    edited October 2011 Posts: 2,629
    It will be six years between CR and Bond 23. By now, Bond should have developed professionally and personally. While toned down conflict with M is OK, I don't think the unseasoned and raw talent should be applicable any longer to Craig's Bond.

    At the same token, M's mothering also should be scaled back.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    Six years in real time, whereas in film time, it could only be two years. After all, the QoS game suggests that the events of Casino Royale take place only six months before Quantum of Solace, even though the films were released two years apart.
  • KerimKerim Istanbul Not Constantinople
    Posts: 2,629
    That's a fair point Agent007391. Still, I'd like to think there was development to Craig's Bond character after M showed she could trust Bond and that he moved on from Vesper's death.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    Well, y'see, I'd like to think that there's at least a year between Vesper's death and Bond's assault on Mr. White's house, not six months. I figure that the MI6 analysts took most of that time to even figure out who Mr. White is, where his home is, and when he was going to be there with the money, then getting Bond off whatever assignments he was placed on in the interim.
  • shadowonthesunshadowonthesun Banned
    edited October 2011 Posts: 1,894
    the QoS game suggests that the events of Casino Royale take place only six months before Quantum of Solace, even though the films were released two years apart.
    The games are not canonical. According to EON, QOS started twenty minutes after CR ended. Based on the date on the Blu-ray disc at the resort in the Bahamas and the date that the Palio di Siena is run and taking into account the timeframe of CR (allowing for Bond's recovery after the torture), this is an accurate timeline.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    Analyzing dialogue from the films:

    M states when Bond shows up in Siena with White that he's not had much sleep. If the villa scene takes place directly after the scene where Bond's talking to M about Vesper, then that would mean that Bond didn't have sleep while sorting his life out with Vesper.

    Mathis has had time to enjoy his release from MI6 holding (and a trial happened, I believe is mentioned in the dialogue), and return to his routine. Not only that, but he's not harboring any real hard feelings toward Bond, meaning he's had time to put what happened behind him.

    EON probably meant that QoS took place 20 minutes after the ending of CR, meaning there is probably time between Bond and M talking about Vesper and Bond capturing Mr. White.

    As far as games being non-canon, I only really add in the original games, but I put in QoS simply because it gives us a hint and EON sanctioned it.

    The timestamp on the Blu-ray (who records security footage on a Blu-ray? Seriously?) is subject to being retconed or corrected at any future date should EON wish to move the timeline up or back or whatever. All we really need to keep is the time that Bond is looking for using the text message.
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    23rd comment :P

    Lets get back on direct topic.

    To me, Bond in CR and QoS was a hurt, energetic puppy. Bond 23 should show him become a tailored Shepard. I expect us to see MI6 spoil him with the lavish locations and hospitality, such as the gadgets, infinite budget, and the lavish resorts he seems to stay at.

    Connery and Moore had the eyebrow. Lets see Craig raise that brow. Where does he get the pep in his step? The extreme cockiness. What drives him to do what is necessary for Queen and Country, we havn't really seen that too much in CR and QoS, at least not in the main plot.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    I dunno, how about the scene in QoS where Bond picks a better hotel because the one Fields takes him to looks like shit?
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    I dunno, how about the scene in QoS where Bond picks a better hotel because the one Fields takes him to looks like shit?
    They still show up in a taxi -_-

    That and the party scene are the direction B23 needs to go, QoS was closer than CR.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    They were already in the taxi because before Fields showed up, Bond and Mathis didn't have any real money.
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    They were already in the taxi because before Fields showed up, Bond and Mathis didn't have any real money.
    AND THATS MY POINT. Not having any money isn't how Bond got to be the BA he is. Having MI6's chip on his shoulder adds to his ego, and we've barely seen that out of Craig's Bond. Don't write in a rogue story-line and make him do what he can with what he has. That's not Bond. Bond always has the comfort of luxury, but often gets to the point where he has to go off what he has. We've only had a scent of the extravagance of Craig's Bond.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    edited October 2011 Posts: 7,854
    Clearly, after Fields showed up, and they got to the better hotel, they were using some real funds there. Why would you get rid of a taxi when you have no other means of transport?

    EDIT: And now that I remember, they used the taxi when they got there. I forgot that Fields showed up at the airport. Anyway, they had no other means of transport.
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    Clearly, after Fields showed up, and they got to the better hotel, they were using some real funds there. Why would you get rid of a taxi when you have no other means of transport?

    EDIT: And now that I remember, they used the taxi when they got there. I forgot that Fields showed up at the airport. Anyway, they had no other means of transport.
    I've already made a counter argument to this, refer to:
    Don't write in a rogue story-line and make him do what he can with what he has. That's not Bond. Bond always has the comfort of luxury, but often gets to the point where he has to go off what he has. We've only had a scent of the extravagance of Craig's Bond.
    I flaw the writing for the lack of Bond's suave.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    I bet it'll come. I think the throughline of the story is Bond growing from the simple Royal Navy brawler into the suave secret agent we all know and love.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    When was 007 ever a 'Royal Navy brawler', I could never classify him along those lines
Sign In or Register to comment.