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
It's a fair point, but then you did yourself want Fleming's intention to be important when you made that point, so if intention is now not important then the consistency thing goes both ways.
I did say that you're right that he's now unlikeable to us in that scene; I am agreeing with you. And hey, I think he's pretty obnoxious throughout Dr No, which they then toned down an awful lot for FRWL. Generally he's a hero, and although there are certainly moments where we're laughing at him rather than with him ("a woman" for example), we like him. Don't you like James Bond?
True. I read the script a few years back and it was dreadful. I can't imagine how they thought they were going to make anything palatable out of it. The total opposite of "nobody starts out to make a bad film."
#1: here's the full quote: “Bond is not a hero, nor is he depicted as being very likable or admirable. He is a Secret Service Agent. He’s not a bad man, but he is ruthless and self-indulgent. He enjoys the fight- he also enjoys the prizes. In fiction people used to have blood in their veins. Nowadays they have pond water. My books are just out of step. But then so are all the people who read them.”
“I didn’t intend for Bond to be likable. He’s a blunt instrument in the hands of the government. He’s got vices and few perceptible virtues.”
That paints a different picture to that of which you have painted. Bond is not supposed to be likeable or a hero (a picture I doubt Fleming kept consistent as he referred to Bond as "St. George against the dragon.") But Bond is also not meant to be unlikeable: "he's not a bad man, but he's ruthless and self-indulgent." Yes, you can be unlikeable but a good man, but I interpret this as crafting a hero who has an edge.
#2: Words from an author mean little if they don't make their way to the page. Fleming can say all he likes about Bond being unlikable, but if I don't see any effort to put this on the page, I can discard this opinion. I do see an effort to write a normal, uninteresting man deal with the extraordinary. So I put stock in that quote more. I still haven't seen any evidence of Bond's unlikability in the novels being brought up to change my opinion here.
This means it isn't necessarily the author's opinion is useless, but that they must frame their work that way for us to believe in what they say.
#3: As for charming and unlikable, this is irrelevant because I see no evidence of the latter. If you are left with just the former, you get a likable personality. Besides, the reader is also charmed alongside the other characters, and we never get the perspective of an unlikable Bond.
#4: In regards to Bond in the films, this doesn't really matter to your point as we are discussing the actual makeup of the character, which takes literary roots. Taking Connery's performance in his films as evidence as Bond's inherent unlikability doesn't work.
#5: Connery's Bond has a bit of unlikability: but I think that potentially the thing that shifts the goalposts here is that the Pussy scene in GF would have been created for an audience that would still find Bond likable for that sort of behaviour. Going back to #2, they frame this a likable behaviour, even if we in the 21st century don't see it that way. If a character is intended to be a certain way, then every action they do is framed for that effect.
So Fleming's Bond (if he is meant to be unlikable) is likable not necessarily by reader opinion, but also because there is no writing (no iteration) of him being unlikable. EON's Bond (meant to be likable) is still likable despite dodgy behaviour because it is framed in a positive way (that audiences back then would have accepted).
Yes, give it a bit more of a "day in the life of Bond" feel than the recent films. Lower stakes, faster paced, shorter run time. I like the thinking. :D
There is also a difference between being a fantasy and being a role model.
Funnily enough it makes me think that Skyfall is maybe the film with the lowest stakes of all? Although there are agents at stake, the ultimate aim is to kill just one old lady.
Mind you, I guess there's TMWTGG, where the stakes are to, erm, stop a man selling his concept for some extremely efficient powerplants to people. The evil swine :D
From Russia with Love is just Spectre being petty and wanting to kill Bond.
Casino Royale's plot can be boiled down to 'stop a man winning a card game', that game is literally high-stakes but I think it goes to show you can have a simpler plot if you present it with enough flair and of course Casino has some of, if not, the best character work in the series.
Interesting ideas.
I liked how NTTD was bookended by Madeleine. I wouldn't want that in every film though.
Maybe Q shows up for the first time much later in the film to give Bond gadgets tailored to the mission (e.g. swimming to Mr. Big's island).
Or no Q at all. CR did that well.
I like the idea of Bond being left to his own devices (no cell phone!) in the Australian outback or Canadian wilderness, and having to retrofit a gadget in a different way. On a mission, not on a training mission (which has been done to death).
I would have liked to have seen the climb to Blofeld's castle in NTTD. Perhaps in a future film.
I did enjoy it thanks mate. My girlfriend is a massive Ryan Gosling fan (don't get me started) so she was excited to see it. It's such an easy watch, like you say it's such a fun film and the stunt work is great. Gosling and Emily Blunt have great chemistry
We had the same thing! ATJ's Giorgio Armani advert played twice before the film and then we were saw his spoof advert we were laughing like crazy. I'm still annoyed he's the face of my favourite aftershave though
Haha! He is incredibly charming in it: I think even I fell in love with him a bit in it :))
I love him as a character, but I don't think I could ever like him as a person. And that's probably why I like him as a character. He's a deep, complex persona, and I *sort of* relate to him, not because I kill people or because I'm charming (far from it), but because I often make mistakes while still trying to do the right thing.
Hahaha same mate. I can't complain too much, I struggle to hide my crush on Ana 😅 needless to say Blade Runner 2049 is on a lot in our house
Haha! Everyone's happy :D
Ironically, Fukunaga did talk about rebooting Bond on NTTD, with BB. Within the literary world, a lot of characters have been brought back, in particular the 10 years. Too many to list! The Dynamite Comics and The Double Trilogy (so far) have done this quite a bit. Now that EON has the full rights to Blofeld and Spectre back, expect them back on a more common basis. Hopefully, his castle will make an appearance one day.
The script for TMWTGG was actually one the few times that Richard Maibaum made it worse. Contrary to his ego about writing Bond. TMWTGG was an example of the same people being on the series too long.
The underwater coral reef and the explosives from the LALD novel. This would be a great idea to adapt to get this goal. It's some great Fleming material that should be adapted for a movie one day.
An origin story if we can get some characters we haven't seen before. Charmian Bond and May, it's time for them to get a movie to their name. Forever and a Day should be referenced for a full origin story, if they have a Bond on his first mission story. If he's already a 00 agent, I think that EON will look at The Batman and it's style of having a young but experienced hero for us. Maybe even multiple villains that we have seen.
Thanks man @echo
I like your idea of Bond retrofitting a gadget. Something akin to modifying a Batmobile. Would make an interesting build-up scene to something. Oh and then the car can pull off some badass stunt and later be sold as a collectable.
No. Not after the controversies in his personal life.
I have to say, though, I still got that little thrill of excitement when the gun-barrel opening appeared, then moved to the pre-title sequence. That part of the Bond formula still works and shouldn't be changed, imo.
I do find myself agreeing with @mtm that the basic idea of Bond facing off against a master assassin for a whole film is something that could be good. I liked the idea of the cat-and-mouse duel in an unusual arena - definitely something which has possibilities for the future.
Nothing about the formula needs to be changed. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Infact it's straying away from the formula that caused them problems to begin with, making the stories interconnected, making Bond and Blofeld brothers, having Bond go rogue instead of simply being handed a dossier by M etc.
Your last paragraph is an opinion, not a fact.
I can find fault, as I can in every film, but you call "straying from formula" caused "problems to begin with" and then you make a list.
Straying from formula, whatever that means in your world, wasn't a problem. It's just that some of the things you listed could be perceived as being weak on execution (for some).
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, it's time for O.K. Craig! Starring Harry Craig as Dr. Harry Craig, Naomie Harris as Miss Harris, Ralph Fiennes as Admiral Cuthbertson and Mathieu Amalric as Número Uno.
Harry Craig IS Dr. Harry Craig in O.K. Craig!
I think it's worth saying that as is the case with any formulaic series, it can't just be the same thing over and over again. That gets boring very quickly and doesn't work for every scenario the writers/filmmakers might envision. The fundamental formula has to be there, but it always has to be tinkered with a bit... more of the same but different I guess, and again it has to work for the story. Taking a minor example it's why in the old series we shifted from the basic set ups we got in the first two - something happens, Bond is called upon (usually interrupting a date with Sylvia Trench), we get an M briefing in his office and off we go. By GF we instead got PTS's with Bond, this leading into the main story afterwards, and Bond getting to M's office later/under different circumstances... by YOLT we're even having the briefing in a different location altogether. It continues to develop as the series continues/under different actors, but there's always been a tinkering of that formula.
I think one thing that we probably can't change is the travelogue nature of the bond films - they do like to take us to multiple foreign locales each film and I suspect Eon wouldn't consider a film set in just one location. I personally wouldn't mind a And Then There Were None style film with Bond and a collection of other agents at an isolated location where they are being picked off one by one, with suspicion and mistrust running rife within the group; however I think it's just not epic enough for a Bond film.
Yeah that was already feeling mechanical by YOLT. And you're right about some films needing to end on a romantic moment and some not: in Brosnan's films they were tied to it and I'd say in something like TND it doesn't really feel necessary as Bond and Wai Lin don't really have any romantic connection; much like Bond and Camille.