› ›

The DNA of a movie hero...

patbpatb
edited April 2022 in General Movies & TV Posts: 4,617
re-reading all of the comments re No Time to Die and the opinions re the directions of Star Wars and Star Trek, it does raise the question (for me at least) of what has happened to the traditional movie hero? Both Star Trek and Star Wars cleverly referred to WW2 contexts and, by inclination, we had traditional heroes who were strong, adult, upstanding, well defined, got on with the job etc etc. With Bond, the influences go back to WW2. Do the perceived failings of all of the series relate to a new kind of hero (emotional, team based, questioning, often fallible, "in touch with their emotions"). How would huge stars like John Wayne, Errol Flyn survive in todays Hollywood culture? And can Bond return to embrace some of these traditional traits? Or am I just an old git?

Comments

  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited April 2022 Posts: 4,162
    Perhaps there's a case to be made that the Errol Flynns and John Waynes/the characters they played (heck, even Sean Connery with James Bond) were somewhat over-romanticised in a sense. Perhaps not always, but much of the time. Certainly the James Bond of even the early Sean Connery films is depicted far more glamorously and less morally ambiguous than Fleming's Bond (the cinematic Bond has rarely, if ever, been truly conflicted about things like killing, the nature of his profession etc.) I suppose what we're seeing now in a lot of franchise films is an attempt to 'deconstruct' the hero and understand what makes them heroic. Movies like Logan and NTTD do this by having older versions of their protagonists, subverting our expectations of them, putting them in situations where they have children for the first time. Both even have their main characters ultimately sacrifice themselves and die in ways which cement their heroic nature. You can also see it with Luke Skywalker in the new Star Wars films too - he becomes an isolated hermit due to his past only to come back and 'sacrifice' himself (how well this is handled in the film is debatable, but still), thus redeeming him as the hero we all know.

    So in a sense, Bond is still that traditional hero. It's just the films are doing something different now. If anything I want to see more of Fleming's anti-hero - the loner, the man addicted to the danger of his job, the man conflicted about killing and his own purpose.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,413
    Yes, I'm not sure Bond needs to return to being a 'traditional hero' any more than he is. As 007HallY points out, Fleming didn't write him as a square jawed perfect guy with no qualms or misgivings or troubles to overcome, so I think it's fine that the films reflect that. Also I just prefer my heroes to have to deal with a bit of actual drama, it heightens the experience and increases the tension.
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,617
    I watched "The Power of the Dog" last night and tends to confirm my point re the traditional hero - Shane it is not!
Sign In or Register to comment.