134 replies to this topic

[Andrew]

Didn't see a thread on this already. My apologies if there is...

 

 

“Fleming’s courage in showing Bond’s fear and vulnerability and depression was really interesting and something that a modern audience can accept,” said Logan. “I think Skyfall demonstrated that they want more layers to that character. And those are the layers that Fleming wrote.”

http://www.ign.com/a...-bond-24-update

 

Now, I love every 007 film of the Craig era; they're all in my Top 10, if not Top 5, but this is exactly what I don't want for B24. I'm done with the "peeling back the layers" of Bond. SKYFALL went as far as I wanted in terms of Bond's back story and character and I think that we've learned all we need about Bond's human element from all three of the Craig films.

 

There's also a risk of becoming melodramatic and pretentious if the material is not handled correctly, as would happen with the Brosnan era, which I believe is where the term "peeling back the layers" originated in 007.

 

I'm not saying I want Bond to be a superhero but I'd like something more similar to FRWL, GF, and TB, which are three great spy films that don't worry too much about Bond's emotional "layers."

 

As an addendum, I also tend to think some people overblow the depth of Fleming's Bond but that's another subject for another time.

[Shrublands]

Here is a link to the original interview.

 

http://www.ft.com/cm...l#axzz2N1UHrhJ0

[007jamesbond]

don't see anything wrong with human Bond........just continue to develop Bond character more than before getting closer to Fleming Bond!!! 

[Matt_13]

We are very lucky to have Logan for at least two more films. He gets it.

[007jamesbond]

We are very lucky to have Logan for at least two more films. He gets it.

 

yep it nice to see more of Fleming Bond more and more and less of a movie Bond.........something only the craig era started to do it seems....glad Logan is continue with this 

[TheManwiththeWaltherPPK]

I'm glad to hear we will be getting more Fleming.  Based on Skyfall, I think Logan knows that there is a fine line between revealing Bond's emotional layers and giving the character depth and losing the mystique of the character.  In the commentary, Mendes mentions that they knew it would be wrong for Bond to speak about his past or vent about his childhood - that's not who he is.  The hints came from M and Kincade instead.  As long as Logan maintains that sort of savvy, I think Bond the icon/enigmatic superspy will be fine.   Fleming was very careful about maintaining that balance as well.  Bond remains a fuzzy silhouette for the reader to project himself into.  Little is said about Bond's tailoring or other details, his tastes and interests are conveyed by his mental analysis of other characters.

[JohnnyWalker]

I thought Goldfinger showed a human side of Bond, it could be called complex. Goldeneye did too. They could easily make it lighter with those elements.

[jamie00007]

Agreed with the OP on this one. I LOVE all the Craig films. Casino Royale and Skyfall are both in  my top 5. And overall they've given us a brilliant trilogy thats about James Bond, not just what he does. But really, havnt they taken the peeling back of layers and the whole character study thing of Bond far enough? Time to just get on with the job. As the final dialog of Skyfall implies.
 

[DamnCoffee]

This is brilliant news! 

[Andrew]

So much has been made of "Fleming Bond" over the years that I'm not even sure I know what it means any more. People seem to overstate the complexity of the way Fleming wrote the character. I'm not really sure how many "layers" Fleming wrote in the character and he didn't quite explore those areas. When he did it was in brilliantly subtle ways.

 

I'm not against a "human" side of Bond as some of you suggest, although that's another phrase that I'm not exactly sure how we're defining. Craig's Bond is very "human" and as I said those are some of my favorites. What I'm not sure about is this need to continue to delve into Bond's psyche and history. What stones are left unturned here?

 

I'd like a fun spy adventure film for the next one. I'm not talking something on the level of MOONRAKER or DIE ANOTHER DAY. I want a film like THUNDERBALL, which is fun but takes itself seriously unlike the two mentioned in the previous sentence.

 

In summary, my hope is that we can a film of James Bond on a mission without having to worry about "peeling back the layers."

 

 

I thought Goldfinger showed a human side of Bond, it could be called complex. Goldeneye did too. They could easily make it lighter with those elements.

 

There's no real complex character development in GOLDFINGER. Yes, Bond is "human" but he's always been that way minus most of the Roger Moore era and the Brosnan era. Brosnan's first three films (GOLDENEYE included, which I don't consider that high water mark that many do) would've been a lot better if their attempts at character development didn't have the subtlety of a sledgehammer.

 

I suppose I should in this post with a question of two, which are:

 

- What else do you want to see in terms of "peeling away the layers" of the character?

- What does Fleming/human Bond mean to you? Are they even the same thing?

[jamie00007]

I agree, at the end of the day Fleming's Bond is a pulp hero, not some character out of Tolstoy. Im very happy that we have finally seen his more human, flawed and interesting character brought to the screen but theres really nothing in the source material that requires any further travels down that road than what we've already got, they just need to remain consistent with the character they've established but they dont need to focus on it.

Edited by jamie00007, 09 March 2013 - 10:42 PM.

[tdalton]

Hopefully this all happens within the confines of the mission rather than manifesting itself in some kind of new round of trust issues with Mallory.  If we're going to emotionally test Bond again, I'd like it to be something that is done to him by the villain.  Maybe he finally runs up against someone who he doesn't think he can beat either physically or mentally, and that tests him, or have the villain do something that forces some kind of introspection on his part.  If we have to sit through more "can I trust you?" nonsense between Bond and M, then I'll probably have to get up and leave the theater, as there's no way that they can possibly stretch that plot point any further after using it as a major basis of the plot in four consecutive Bond films.

[quantumofsolace]

Fleming

 

 

When I wrote the first one in 1953, I wanted Bond to be an extremely dull, uninteresting man to whom things happened; I wanted him to be a blunt instrument ... when I was casting around for a name for my protagonist I thought by God, (James Bond) is the dullest name I ever heard.

 

I wanted the simplest, dullest, plainest-sounding name I could find, 'James Bond' was much better than something more interesting, like 'Peregrine Carruthers'. Exotic things would happen to and around him, but he would be a neutral figure—an anonymous, blunt instrument wielded by a government department.

[The Shark]

Fleming

 

 

When I wrote the first one in 1953, I wanted Bond to be an extremely dull, uninteresting man to whom things happened; I wanted him to be a blunt instrument ... when I was casting around for a name for my protagonist I thought by God, (James Bond) is the dullest name I ever heard.

 

I wanted the simplest, dullest, plainest-sounding name I could find, 'James Bond' was much better than something more interesting, like 'Peregrine Carruthers'. Exotic things would happen to and around him, but he would be a neutral figure—an anonymous, blunt instrument wielded by a government department.

 

Key bit there.

[Harmsway]

Is this really any surprise? This approach has been yielding good box office returns since GOLDENEYE. EON isn't going to change course now.

[quantumofsolace]

Fleming

 

 

When I wrote the first one in 1953, I wanted Bond to be an extremely dull, uninteresting man to whom things happened; I wanted him to be a blunt instrument ... when I was casting around for a name for my protagonist I thought by God, (James Bond) is the dullest name I ever heard.

 

I wanted the simplest, dullest, plainest-sounding name I could find, 'James Bond' was much better than something more interesting, like 'Peregrine Carruthers'. Exotic things would happen to and around him, but he would be a neutral figure—a anonymous, blunt instrument wielded by a government department.

 

Key bit there.

But it remained that way throughout. If anything happened that looked like it was going to change the character it was quickly forgotten . Vesper,Kissy,Felix... only his parents death seemed to make a mark on the stories and that was there to give the orphan a blank emotionally detatched state of mind.i.e . a dull blunt instrument

[The Shark]

 

Fleming

 

 

When I wrote the first one in 1953, I wanted Bond to be an extremely dull, uninteresting man to whom things happened; I wanted him to be a blunt instrument ... when I was casting around for a name for my protagonist I thought by God, (James Bond) is the dullest name I ever heard.

 

I wanted the simplest, dullest, plainest-sounding name I could find, 'James Bond' was much better than something more interesting, like 'Peregrine Carruthers'. Exotic things would happen to and around him, but he would be a neutral figure—a anonymous, blunt instrument wielded by a government department.

 

Key bit there.

But it remained that way throughout.

 

As the novels progressed Fleming projected more of his himself onto the character - his world views, thoughts on mortality, his own childhood, and so on. Fleming's Bond may have started off as a blank slate, but after several instalments, that soon changed.

[quantumofsolace]

He has some thoughts,views in CR but he doesn't ever become a fully fleshed character in any of the Fleming novels because he's not supposed to.Blank is much of his appeal

[The Shark]

He has some thoughts,views in CR but he doesn't ever become a fully fleshed character in any of the Fleming novels because he's not supposed to.Blank is much of his appeal

 

There's a middle ground between being a blank slate and a fully fleshed out character. That's where the literary Bond lies.

[sharpshooter]

We are very lucky to have Logan for at least two more films. He gets it.

 

He does. Craig’s skill is balancing the human and tough side. For example the opening scene of Skyfall with Bond showing concern for Ronson and reluctantly moving on to chase Patrice. I’m not sure if we would’ve had scenes like that in the past. Just that little bit of extra depth. 

[quantumofsolace]

He has some thoughts,views in CR but he doesn't ever become a fully fleshed character in any of the Fleming novels because he's not supposed to.Blank is much of his appeal

 

There's a middle ground between being a blank slate and a fully fleshed out character. That's where the literary Bond lies.

There is . But he's closer to blank than flesh when talking about classic literary leading characters.

It's best if we know little or nothing more about him.

[The Shark]

 

He has some thoughts,views in CR but he doesn't ever become a fully fleshed character in any of the Fleming novels because he's not supposed to.Blank is much of his appeal

 

There's a middle ground between being a blank slate and a fully fleshed out character. That's where the literary Bond lies.

There is . But he's closer to blank than flesh when talking about classic literary leading characters.

It's best if we know little or nothing more about him.

 

We barely learn any more about Bond in SKYFALL than what Fleming had already told us.

[quantumofsolace]

We are very lucky to have Logan for at least two more films. He gets it.

 

He does. Craig’s skill is balancing the human and tough side. For example the opening scene of Skyfall with Bond showing concern for Ronson and reluctantly moving on to chase Patrice. I’m not sure if we would’ve had scenes like that in the past. Just that little bit of extra depth. 

The Moore and Dalton eras showed Bond caring about other agents. LTK was based entirely around that

 

 

He has some thoughts,views in CR but he doesn't ever become a fully fleshed character in any of the Fleming novels because he's not supposed to.Blank is much of his appeal

 

There's a middle ground between being a blank slate and a fully fleshed out character. That's where the literary Bond lies.

There is . But he's closer to blank than flesh when talking about classic literary leading characters.

It's best if we know little or nothing more about him.

 

We barely learn any more about Bond in SKYFALL than what Fleming had already told us.

best it stays that way

[PPK_19]

I'l start by saying I broke this news early this morning.

 

Now tooting my own horn is out the way, I don't like it. This whole 'Bond as a character, human, layers' bullshit is exactly what I don't want for Bond 24.

 

Let's just see him on an adventure and kick some ass like in QOS (except written and directed better). Yeah? Have some fun with 007 once again? I hate that there is a 'theme' for Craig's Bond. 

[THX-007]

There's also a risk of becoming melodramatic and pretentious if the material is not handled correctly, as would happen with the Brosnan era, which I believe is where the term "peeling back the layers" originated in 007.

 

Brosnan's first three films (GOLDENEYE included, which I don't consider that high water mark that many do) would've been a lot better if their attempts at character development didn't have the subtlety of a sledgehammer.

Not really. The "peeling back the layers" / "human 007" kinda started with Dalton although at the time it was toted as an introduction to a darker 007. And before that it was Lazenby in OHMSS although that was toted as "the new Bond, the different 007." GE had some good character moments particularly the interactions between 007 and 006. But after that there were times where it looked like we were going deeper into the character of 007 but nothing came of it. There was the Dr. Kauffman scene in TND where we had a rather dark and well written moment but then after that we have Bond driving his remote control BMW and having a good time. TWNE was suppose to be the film where the more human side of Brosnan's Bond was to suppose to be shown. Problem was that it didn't really go anywhere, the film has scripting problems and action scenes are rather shoved in. Compared to OHMSS, the film where it gets its title from, every action scene feels natural / falls neatly into place. The helicopter with buzz saws was a pretty useless scene and probably only served so 007 could show off his BMW. DAD started off with a neat idea with Bond being captured and tortured in North Korea. But again they pissed it down their leg and for the rest of the film we have nonsense that even Moore found too over-the-top / goofy. Brosnan said himself in an interview that he was disappointed that in DAD, Bond shaves off his beard in the Hong Kong hotel and that was that as far as the captivity in Korea goes. No lasting repercussions, no emotional or physical side effects. He's off to parasail off a melting glacier. 

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

Only good "character" bits during the Brosnan era took place indeed in GoldenEye. The rest were made limp by both lousy writing and Brosnans lack of capability. Daniel Craig has proven to be most "human" portrayal of Bond yet, and by that I mean he feels like a real person, Lazenby managed to pull that off too.

Flemings Bond wasn't the most profound literary character there is, but it is incorrect to say that he didn't have many moments of inner reflection. Fleming did call him a blunt instrument but he certainly did tell a whole lot of this supposedly empty character.   

"Peeling back layers" doesn't have to mean any trust issues or other psychobabble, we just might get a glimpse of Bonds everyday routine and perhaps see him frustrated of "softening idleness".

Edited by AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän, 10 March 2013 - 01:55 AM.

[jamie00007]

I just think that the Craig trilogy has done a brilliant job of deconstructing and then reconstructing both the character of Bond, psychologically and professionally, and the Bond universe that I want to see the payoff to that, a regular mission with no personal baggage or hangups (something we've not had since The Living Daylights), 007 in his prime doing what 007 does best. I want to see Craig in at least one film like that while he's young enough. Skyfall leaves us in the perfect place for that. Over the three films we've seen where Bond comes from, what makes him tick, a fairly thorough character study, his first mission as a 00, we've got the various Bond elements (Q, Moneypenny, a new male M) re-introduced, now is the time for a traditional Bond adventure with Bond simply carrying out a mission. Anything else than that would be I think a blown opportunity. The end dialog of Skyfall says it all:

"Are you ready to go back to work?"

"With pleasure, M. With pleasure"

[Loomis]

We are very lucky to have Logan for at least two more films. He gets it.

Do we know which elements of the SKYFALL screenplay Logan was responsible for?

[plankattack]

I think we're reading too much into what Logan says. I don't think we're going to get psychological breakdown of Bond. I don't think we got that in SF, frankly - I think that criticism is blown way out of proportion - I'm not sure a bored, burnt out Bond (which Fleming wrote about) revealing his past (which Fleming wrote about) is some great deep philosophical character drama. I think it's just a fleshing out of the character.

I do think, and hope, that Bond's personality will have some say in how the story flows - not unlike OHMSS, LTK, FRWL, TLD, TWINE, rather than just a central figure who fires a machine gun and makes puerile puns about being sexually aroused.

I think Logan is saying that we're going to get something resembling a real person, rather than the caricature that has too often been lazily served up to us over the years.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy some of the throwaway lines, the womanizing, the wry smile, that the we've seen over the years, but I think it's twice as effective when there's a sense that there's real guy at the centre of it. If a character is permanently portrayed as infalliable and indestructible, then it's almost impossible to create a story with any tension or danger in it.

[JohnnyWalker]

We are very lucky to have Logan for at least two more films. He gets it.

Do we know which elements of the SKYFALL screenplay Logan was responsible for?

He wrote the scene with Q and Bond meeting, all of their interactions are very well done. Not sure what other scenes.