Should Bond be flawed and human or witty and always on top?
#1
Posted 15 December 2006 - 05:08 PM
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
Posted 15 December 2006 - 05:17 PM
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
Posted 15 December 2006 - 05:26 PM
#4
Posted 15 December 2006 - 05:27 PM
The more super-spy and fantastical the movies get, the less I enjoy.
#5
Posted 15 December 2006 - 05:38 PM
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
Posted 15 December 2006 - 05:42 PM
#7
Posted 15 December 2006 - 09:20 PM
Forced to give a preference, I would say the more 'balanced' Bond we see in TB or TSWLM.
#8
Posted 15 December 2006 - 09:42 PM
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
Posted 15 December 2006 - 10:27 PM
A little of both - as it was in CR.
Agreed.
#10
Posted 24 January 2007 - 06:21 PM
#11
Posted 24 January 2007 - 06:48 PM
#12
Posted 24 January 2007 - 06:56 PM
#13
Posted 25 January 2007 - 09:25 AM
#14
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
Posted 26 January 2007 - 09:53 PM
So I would say 90% Fleming. 5% Moore. 5% something new we haven't seen before.
#16
Posted 02 February 2007 - 12:54 AM
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
Posted 02 February 2007 - 01:28 AM
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?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.
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
Posted 02 February 2007 - 01:34 AM
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?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.
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
Posted 02 February 2007 - 05:53 AM
#20
Posted 02 February 2007 - 02:51 PM
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
Posted 02 February 2007 - 04:04 PM
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
Posted 02 February 2007 - 04:14 PM
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
Posted 02 February 2007 - 06:43 PM
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
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
Posted 03 February 2007 - 11:53 PM
#26
Posted 04 February 2007 - 01:44 AM
#27
Posted 04 February 2007 - 01:55 AM
#28
Posted 04 February 2007 - 03:10 AM
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
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
Posted 05 February 2007 - 04:00 AM