Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Should Bond be flawed and human or witty and always on top?


29 replies to this topic

#1 00Twelve

00Twelve

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7706 posts
  • Location:Kingsport, TN

Posted 15 December 2006 - 05:08 PM

Alright folks, here it is. The official thread for the ongoing debate over your preferences on Bond's character. Good to see that Casino Royale is enough of a shake-up to really bring this to a boil.

Should Bond be arguably just like Fleming wrote him: Ultimately disliking killing, getting badly hurt semi-often, making occasional mistakes, conflicted over his women (yet only loving a scant few of them), and not making post-mortem jokes?

Or, should Bond be a suave super-spy, extremely well-educated and cultured, a smooth talker, a ladykiller (or letting his guard down multiple times), and an infallible crack shot?

Both versions have seen immense popularity and varying levels of praise, and do please forgive me if these appraisals of each version seem too general, but you get the idea. Do you prefer Bond to be on the lighter or more heroic side, or do you prefer Bond to be on the darker or more anti-heroic side?

And it begins...

#2 Judo chop

Judo chop

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7461 posts
  • Location:the bottle to the belly!

Posted 15 December 2006 - 05:17 PM

My quick reply. Say, on a scale of 1 to 10, a "1" is 100% raw Fleming as you described, a "10" being the most harmless parts of TSWLM.

I would say CR is either a "1" or a "2" and over the next couple films I would like Bond to progress to a "4", or a "5" at most.

(Longer, drawn-out reply to follow at a more opportune time...)

#3 Bucky

Bucky

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1031 posts
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 15 December 2006 - 05:26 PM

it depends on who is portraying him. for craigs run i would like to continue to see the darker more anti-heroic side. by the time he is done i might be ready for a more lighter bond

#4 Cody

Cody

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1393 posts

Posted 15 December 2006 - 05:27 PM

Flawed and human, in more down-to-earth films.

The more super-spy and fantastical the movies get, the less I enjoy.

#5 Blisster Shoots

Blisster Shoots

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 65 posts

Posted 15 December 2006 - 05:38 PM

Without a doubt, more human and flawed.

It's more exciting because and it's more real.....people can relate to the character better.

If you are a man, try pursuing a woman acting like Connery, Moore, & Brosnan. It happened to me once....lol, I laughed at the guys face. He didn't know I was a Bond fan.

#6 ComplimentsOfSharky

ComplimentsOfSharky

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2804 posts
  • Location:Station PGH, Pittsburgh

Posted 15 December 2006 - 05:42 PM

A little of both - as it was in CR.

#7 Mr_Wint

Mr_Wint

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2406 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 15 December 2006 - 09:20 PM

Its hard to give a good answer to this. Up until, perhaps, TLD you could say "serious Bond" = "better film", but now I think its harder. For instance, LTK screams for a little more witty heroic Bond, while in CR the human Bond works much better. Another example: the personal elements they gave to the character in TWINE makes him look weak. The short hotel scene in TND works much better and actually give the character a fascinating side. I guess it depends on the story and how its done by the filmmakers. If they have a good story with strong characters around Bond and a witty inventive dialogue, then it doesn't matter much "how" the Bond-character is written as long as it works with the rest of the film.

Forced to give a preference, I would say the more 'balanced' Bond we see in TB or TSWLM.

#8 moorebond82

moorebond82

    Discharged

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPip
  • 1538 posts
  • Location:Indiana. Born and raised in New Jersey

Posted 15 December 2006 - 09:42 PM

I like both but lean towards:
Bond being a suave super-spy, extremely well-educated and cultured, a smooth talker, a ladykiller and an infallible crack shot?

Edited by moorebond82, 17 December 2006 - 11:53 PM.


#9 Qwerty

Qwerty

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 85605 posts
  • Location:New York / Pennsylvania

Posted 15 December 2006 - 10:27 PM

A little of both - as it was in CR.


Agreed.

#10 Moore Baby Moore

Moore Baby Moore

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 101 posts

Posted 24 January 2007 - 06:21 PM

Bond can be flawed/human and witty at the same time. It can't and shouldn't be one or the other. The more rounded he is as a character, the better he works.

#11 ChronoBreak

ChronoBreak

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 112 posts
  • Location:Pacific Northwest

Posted 24 January 2007 - 06:48 PM

I think that both can be incorporated successfully - The viewer needs to be able to identify with Bond as a flawed human being while also wanting to be him to a certain extent - So far, Craig and Connery (in his first two films, at least) have done the best at balancing these aspects.

#12 dodge

dodge

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5068 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 24 January 2007 - 06:56 PM

Always on top--but eventually. Let him stumble on the way while remaining Bond-cool while he's struggling. A good laugh at himself now and then would be an unexpected treat.

#13 Colossus

Colossus

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1490 posts
  • Location:SPECTRE Island

Posted 25 January 2007 - 09:25 AM

It should be a balance of both like Connery/Lazenby, even Terence Young knew that to make an enjoyable Bond on celluloid you'd need all those post-kill quips and jokes to keep things balanced from the moments of Flemingnesque brutality. Always the best way!

#14 PrinceKamalKhan

PrinceKamalKhan

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11139 posts

Posted 26 January 2007 - 01:26 AM

Alright folks, here it is. The official thread for the ongoing debate over your preferences on Bond's character. Good to see that Casino Royale is enough of a shake-up to really bring this to a boil.

Should Bond be arguably just like Fleming wrote him: Ultimately disliking killing, getting badly hurt semi-often, making occasional mistakes, conflicted over his women (yet only loving a scant few of them), and not making post-mortem jokes?

Or, should Bond be a suave super-spy, extremely well-educated and cultured, a smooth talker, a ladykiller (or letting his guard down multiple times), and an infallible crack shot?

Both versions have seen immense popularity and varying levels of praise, and do please forgive me if these appraisals of each version seem too general, but you get the idea. Do you prefer Bond to be on the lighter or more heroic side, or do you prefer Bond to be on the darker or more anti-heroic side?

And it begins...


That's like asking me to choose between The Living Daylights and Moonraker! Or between Peking Duck and Russian caviar, I love 'em both. I think as a child, I preferred the suave super-spy but as I matured and read the Bond novels, I came to appreciate the character as Fleming wrote him more. I think the serious Bond should continue into Bond 22 but I wouldn't mind Craig doing his 4th(if he stays in the role that long) in a You Only Live Twice-type superspy adventure as an exit.

More importantly, I prefer good Bond(real or superman) to weak Bond, i.e.,
good comic superspy Bond(the Lewis Gilbert films for example) and good flawed human Bond(Dalton's films) to weak comic superspy Bond, A View to a Kill and weak flawed human Bond i.e., The World is not Enough.

#15 Agent Carter

Agent Carter

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 159 posts
  • Location:Classified

Posted 26 January 2007 - 09:53 PM

I prefer Fleming's Bond overall. BUT the audience for the most part probably has never read a single Bond novel. I love how CR did it. I love the Living Daylights. I prefer so called realism in these films over the fantastic.

So I would say 90% Fleming. 5% Moore. 5% something new we haven't seen before.

#16 Athena3

Athena3

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 29 posts
  • Location:Upstate NY living in IN

Posted 02 February 2007 - 12:54 AM

The 'realistic' nature of DC's Bond was a welcome change, but Bond always needs to be a Man's man! Tall, confident, charismatic, funny at times and a great dancer. I think that's why women enjoy him so much...we want to watch a confident man in action. (The scene in DAD comes to mind, where Brosnan escapes, wearing pj bottoms and confidently walks into the hotel, asks for a room, tailor, etc; gets dressed as is back in action.) There seems to be a short supply of the take charge man, it seems. After all...he is a hero who saves the day and all that..

Don't mind that he show a little indecision for a short bit, but in the end he has to be in charge. Didn't you have a smile on your face at the final scene in CR? That's right, y'all wanted to hear him say his name and exude that movie Bond confidence.

#17 Turn

Turn

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6837 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 02 February 2007 - 01:28 AM

The 'realistic' nature of DC's Bond was a welcome change, but Bond always needs to be a Man's man! Tall, confident, charismatic, funny at times and a great dancer. I think that's why women enjoy him so much...we want to watch a confident man in action. (The scene in DAD comes to mind, where Brosnan escapes, wearing pj bottoms and confidently walks into the hotel, asks for a room, tailor, etc; gets dressed as is back in action.) There seems to be a short supply of the take charge man, it seems. After all...he is a hero who saves the day and all that..

Don't mind that he show a little indecision for a short bit, but in the end he has to be in charge. Didn't you have a smile on your face at the final scene in CR? That's right, y'all wanted to hear him say his name and exude that movie Bond confidence.

I thought Craig was confident for most of the film. How could you not like the cockieness of breaking into M's apartment or the audacity of tearing up an embassy in Madigascar?

But Craig wasn't the first Bond to not feel in control some of the film. I wouldn't classify the Bond of TWINE as being confident and in control in a lot of that film, being played for a sap by Elektra and Renard.

#18 PrinceKamalKhan

PrinceKamalKhan

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11139 posts

Posted 02 February 2007 - 01:34 AM

The 'realistic' nature of DC's Bond was a welcome change, but Bond always needs to be a Man's man! Tall, confident, charismatic, funny at times and a great dancer. I think that's why women enjoy him so much...we want to watch a confident man in action. (The scene in DAD comes to mind, where Brosnan escapes, wearing pj bottoms and confidently walks into the hotel, asks for a room, tailor, etc; gets dressed as is back in action.) There seems to be a short supply of the take charge man, it seems. After all...he is a hero who saves the day and all that..

Don't mind that he show a little indecision for a short bit, but in the end he has to be in charge. Didn't you have a smile on your face at the final scene in CR? That's right, y'all wanted to hear him say his name and exude that movie Bond confidence.

I thought Craig was confident for most of the film. How could you not like the cockieness of breaking into M's apartment or the audacity of tearing up an embassy in Madigascar?

But Craig wasn't the first Bond to not feel in control some of the film. I wouldn't classify the Bond of TWINE as being confident and in control in a lot of that film, being played for a sap by Elektra and Renard.


Exactly. I think that's why TWINE has plunged to near the bottom of my Bond ratings. TWINE'S Bond only makes sense to me if the Brosnan era was, indeed, a "reboot" and the Bond of TWINE had never encountered the deadly Fiona Volpe in TB.

#19 Shadow Syndicate

Shadow Syndicate

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 648 posts
  • Location:Olympia Washington (It's The Water)

Posted 02 February 2007 - 05:53 AM

He still needs to have flaws, but it's how he handles em that makes him so cool

#20 David_M

David_M

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1064 posts
  • Location:Richmond VA

Posted 02 February 2007 - 02:51 PM

Well, history's shown it can quickly get boring if Bond is completely unaffected by what goes on around him, and able to emerge from any scrape with his hair unmussed (though in fairness, Roger's still my favorite, so go figure).

On the other hand, we had in Brosnan a Soap Opera Bond, forever moping about this or that betrayal, lost love or whatever, and that really, really didn't work. There's a certain amount of wish-fulfilment at the center of Bond's appeal and it's hard for us to want to be a guy when even he doesn't seem to want to be him.

I really like the way CR handled the balance; Bond is flawed and human, but his chief flaws are his arrogance and overconfidence. He makes serious mistakes, but in an odd way he does so out of strength. And he does not spend a lot of time moping. What we do see of his emotions is often subtle; the lingering stare into the mirror after the fight on the staircase, calling Vesper a "bitch" at the end as if we don't know he loved her, and so on. This is what I want to see in Bond; we know what he's feeling, but we aren't hit over the head with it. We sympathize with him, but we don't pity him. He's not the "victim Bond" of the Brosnan era.

Maybe it's a cop-out, but I see room for the superman Bond and the human Bond. All I ask is that you pick one approach and stay with it. Roger was never asked to cry as Bond, for example, and Craig shouldn't be asked to drive a hover-gondola through the streets of Venice. Not to pile the brickbats on Brosnan, but this was another problem in the 90s films. It's hard to get too worked up about the "human drama" of Bond killing Elektra, for example, when the very next scene has him juggling plutonium rods barehanded in an action scene straight out of a Roadrunner cartoon. You can't have it both ways.

Edited by David_M, 02 February 2007 - 02:53 PM.


#21 Safari Suit

Safari Suit

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5099 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 02 February 2007 - 04:04 PM

I agree almost completely with David M. Well said :cooltongue:

Craig shouldn't be asked to drive a hover-gondola through the streets of Venice.


Wouldn't you love to see him try though? Maybe for Red Nose Day or Children in Need?

Edited by Safari Suit, 02 February 2007 - 04:04 PM.


#22 plankattack

plankattack

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1385 posts

Posted 02 February 2007 - 04:14 PM

I lot of it comes down to making the script fit the star. Rog was much better with throwaway lines than looking as mean as Connery could be. Brozza wanted to "emote" as Bond, but I'm not entirely sure that's his strength as an actor. Dalton was ill-at-ease with one-liners in TLD, but was great at some real character depth in LTK.

What Bond should we have now? Well DC strikes me as a 4 or a 5 on the previously mentioned scale so the scripts should be tailored to that characterization. DC could deliver "They were on their way to a funeral" much better than "Saved by the bell." He says his favourite film is FRWL - it seems natural that would then be his perception how he should best play Bond.

#23 erniecureo

erniecureo

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • Pip
  • 379 posts

Posted 02 February 2007 - 06:43 PM

I like Connery's blend best...Cruel and dark at times, but the humor seemed more natural to me. For example, when Patricia Fearing releases him from "the rack" in Thunderball, I love his line: "I must be six inches taller." Funny, but not smarmy, like some of the Moore/Brosnan deliveries (in my opinion). And when he roasts Lippe: "Now don't you worry. I'll tell the chef." There's humor and malice in there, beautifully balanced.

In some of the later films, I felt like the entire fight/chase/whatever was simply a set-up for a line...and then when other films began to copy it, the convention lost its impact.

In CR, I thought the best use of humor was the little banter in the limo on the way to the casino. The whole "Stephanie Broadchest" thing seemed funny and natural and perfect.

I guess I'm saying that I like when the humor fits the scene--not the other way around.

#24 PrinceKamalKhan

PrinceKamalKhan

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11139 posts

Posted 03 February 2007 - 11:20 PM

Well, history's shown it can quickly get boring if Bond is completely unaffected by what goes on around him, and able to emerge from any scrape with his hair unmussed (though in fairness, Roger's still my favorite, so go figure).

On the other hand, we had in Brosnan a Soap Opera Bond, forever moping about this or that betrayal, lost love or whatever, and that really, really didn't work. There's a certain amount of wish-fulfilment at the center of Bond's appeal and it's hard for us to want to be a guy when even he doesn't seem to want to be him.


Exactly. When I walked out of CR I felt something I hadn't felt in at least 4 Bond films, i.e., I actually wanted to be Bond. I never remotely fantasized about being Brosnan's Bond with the possible exceptions of being his stand-in for his love scenes with Natalya and Paris.

I really like the way CR handled the balance; Bond is flawed and human, but his chief flaws are his arrogance and overconfidence. He makes serious mistakes, but in an odd way he does so out of strength. And he does not spend a lot of time moping. What we do see of his emotions is often subtle; the lingering stare into the mirror after the fight on the staircase, calling Vesper a "bitch" at the end as if we don't know he loved her, and so on. This is what I want to see in Bond; we know what he's feeling, but we aren't hit over the head with it. We sympathize with him, but we don't pity him. He's not the "victim Bond" of the Brosnan era.


Agree in full.

Maybe it's a cop-out, but I see room for the superman Bond and the human Bond. All I ask is that you pick one approach and stay with it. Roger was never asked to cry as Bond, for example, and Craig shouldn't be asked to drive a hover-gondola through the streets of Venice. Not to pile the brickbats on Brosnan, but this was another problem in the 90s films. It's hard to get too worked up about the "human drama" of Bond killing Elektra, for example, when the very next scene has him juggling plutonium rods barehanded in an action scene straight out of a Roadrunner cartoon. You can't have it both ways.


Again, well stated and ITA. Of all the previous Bond films, Casino Royale has really made the somewhat similar The World is not Enough seem extremely weak by comparison. The 1999 Bond film tries to be a Licence to Kill/Casino Royale-type Bond and Moonraker-type Bond at the same time and the combo just does not gel. I'd rather it be all goofy and fun like MR or all serious like LTK and CR, not both.

#25 mrsbonds_ppk

mrsbonds_ppk

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1297 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 03 February 2007 - 11:53 PM

He should always be a mixture. Even though I really like to see the flawed human side, but I don't want to see him without the wittyness and winning

#26 vavu007

vavu007

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 34 posts

Posted 04 February 2007 - 01:44 AM

A mixture is best. I'd say 75% serious Bond with 25% super agent. Casino Royale (can we praise this movie enough?) had exactly the right mix. DC's Bond was confident as hell, but also very human. The payoff was an end scene that was just plain perfect. You knew Bond was hurt, but you also knew he was drawing on that hurt to go into full predator mode. The pain added a coldness to his actions. If they can duplicate that kind of thing in the other DC Bond movies, they will have quite a winning set of films (yes, even more winning than the franchise has been so far) on their hands.

#27 Spurrier

Spurrier

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 356 posts

Posted 04 February 2007 - 01:55 AM

Regardless, Bond should always show poise under pressure. He should never let them see him sweat. Whatever character trait it takes for Bond to reflect that, is what Bond should be.

#28 annita

annita

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 77 posts
  • Location:some where is the good Old U S A

Posted 04 February 2007 - 03:10 AM

how about he should be human and flawed, but he has less flaws than the regular human being which makes him so damn cool!
he should be real and tough but with a sense of humor, because frankly how could anybody take that sort of a life style without having a sense of humor about? I thought CR had the best blend, Bond was tough, flawed, real, but the arrogance bordering on cockiness and so much wit and charm...

#29 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 04 February 2007 - 06:42 AM

Regardless, Bond should always show poise under pressure. He should never let them see him sweat. Whatever character trait it takes for Bond to reflect that, is what Bond should be.



Well, the whole torture scene would have turned out differently if Craig played it that way don't you think?

#30 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 05 February 2007 - 04:00 AM

I think this has polarised some groups of Bond fans. Some prefer Bond to be "perfect", suave and never in trouble, while others welcome the shake-up.