134 replies to this topic

[Professor Pi]

There are a few strong scenes of Bond's human character in two of Rog's movies, The Spy who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only.  He cuts off Anya when she talks about the death of his wife acknowledging he's sensitive "about certain things."  He's also seen visiting her grave in FYEO's opening.  In the latter movie, he fends off the figure skater's advances demonstrating a restraint not seen in previous Bond films.  Also, he cautions Melina on her seeking vengeance, drawing from his experience as well as pointing out to her that her father also thought national interests were worth personal risk.  In that way, it's a fitting film to watch after Quantum of Solace, both featuring women bent on revenge.

 

However, it's Bond's speech to Anya when she confronts him about killing her lover that underscores his human character as a secret agent.  "In our business, people get killed. We both know that."  It's a scene that could easily have been in a Dalton or Craig movie, and outweighs anything in a Brosnan Bond.  I hope it's scenes like that which Logan will afford us in the next two Craig Bonds.

[DamnCoffee]

I think Logan was behind the Silva/Bond introduction as well. 

[Andrew]

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

 

You did the interview with Logan?

 

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.

 

I think all of those moments are terrible, personally.

 

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".

 

I agree completely, except maybe about Lazenby but I'm not big on him.

 

I don't think Fleming's Bond was an empty character but I think he left a lot up to the reader to interpret. Heck, the only real background we get to the guy doesn't come until the obituary in YOLT.

 

 

However, it's Bond's speech to Anya when she confronts him about killing her lover that underscores his human character as a secret agent.  "In our business, people get killed. We both know that."  It's a scene that could easily have been in a Dalton or Craig movie, and outweighs anything in a Brosnan Bond.  I hope it's scenes like that which Logan will afford us in the next two Craig Bonds.

 

This is one of my favorite scenes of the franchise actually. It's a solid scene that doesn't hit the viewer over the head.

[gkgyver]

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

 

More blah blah.

 

So, "this time" they want to show a "more human" Bond?

Gosh, isn't that original. After all, Bond was depicted in such a Roger Moore fashion in Casino Royale, Quantum, and especially Skyfall ...!

 

No, really, what's the difference between Brosnan's films being "personal" every time, and Craig's movies being "human" every time, except that the latter are just better made movies?

After Brosnan's soft-washed Bond, the Broccolis have found a new formula that people buy into (the key word being "buy"), and they will ride it until we can't see it anymore. Again.

Skyfall is as far as that methodology can go.

 

I'm really starting to lose interest in this franchise, because it starts to take itself far too serious.

Both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace were great films with a Bond vibe. Skyfall is a good film with some Bond elements that seem more like a parody than anything else.

[DamnCoffee]

No, really, what's the difference between Brosnan's films being "personal" every time, and Craig's movies being "human" every time, except that the latter are just better made movies?

 

You answered your own question. 

[Andrew]

Skyfall is a good film with some Bond elements that seem more like a parody than anything else.

 

I can't even imagine how one would see that.

[gkgyver]

The Aston Martin scene is a parody, nothing else. The quibbles between M and Bond is nothing but a reheating of any discussion these two had in earlier films, even prior to Craig.

[DamnCoffee]

I'm pretty sure that's more an homage that a parody. 

[Guy Haines]

Fleming's Bond may have been described as "the man who is only a silhouette", but on reading the books, one finds he is all too human, even in the smallest details. I'm pleased that John Logan is taking his cue from Ian Fleming, and will continue to explore Bond's personality. However, I doubt it will be in some kind of "Skyfall revisited" - the plot was rather too personal. Instead, I think we'll see further aspects of Bond's human side revealed throughout a more "conventional" storyline.

[seawolfnyy]

I am perfectly fine with them exploring Bond's human side. I think it adds depth to the character and makes for smarter films. I mean why cast an actor of Craig's caliber if you aren't going to use his talents? Having said that, I do believe they could explore his character whilst also making a film that isn't as heavy and dark as Quantum of Solace and Skyfall. I want them to explore his human side, but do it in a somewhat lighter tone.

[tdalton]

The Aston Martin scene is a parody, nothing else. The quibbles between M and Bond is nothing but a reheating of any discussion these two had in earlier films, even prior to Craig.

 

Completely agreed.  Hopefully Bond 24 won't feature any more of these references to previous films and the overused M/Bond trust issues from the previous four films.

 

I'm more than happy for them to continue exploring Bond as a character, but hopefully it's done in a different fashion moving forward.  We've spent three movies with Craig's Bond and M navigating their way through trust issues.  It's time to move on from that and do something else.

[bondjames]

Excellent posts in this tread.

 

I fully agree - For Your Eyes Only in particular did it the way it should be done. Roger Moore was excellent when he showed vulnerability and his human side. Even when he kicked Locke's Benz off the cliff - there was an edge there that you could feel. It's a pity they relied more on buffoonery in the scripts because he showed some excellent acting skills in For Your Eyes Only (advice to Melina, the aforementioned Locke scene, the Tracey cemetary scene), The Spy Who Loved Me (Anya scene), Moonraker (the post-NASA G test scene) are examples. And he always maintained his masculinity in these scenes.

 

What I don't want to see is some of the awful pathetic overacting and cheesiness that characterised Brosnan's work in 1) the World is Not Enough - e.g almost crying like a wounded child when confronting Elektra, almost crying when told by Renard that he has been betrayed, almost crying while touching the screen feeling pity and sympathy for Elektra's kidnapping plight at the MI6 lodge; in 2) Tomorrow Never Dies - almost crying in the hotel room when Paris enters;  and in 3) Die Another Day - almost crying when he realized that Jinx was not dead in the Ice Palace. These were very painful and vomit inducing scenes for me, and really not worthy of our hero. I remember thinking what the hell is this? Is this what James Bond has become?

 

Craig won't muck it up I'm sure - he's too good an actor - but they've got to be careful with this peeling back the layers stuff. Easy does it. I think when he looks at his cut face in the mirror in Casino Royale, or when he stares at Vesper in the shower as he enters the hotel room or later comforts her, or when he stares away into the distance after having sex with the girl on the beach in Skyfall or looks at the guy standing by the door when missing the shots at the shooting range in Skyfall - that's the way it should be done. Show that he's a real human being with an ego/pride and possible damage to his soul without crossing the line and turning him into some pathetic PC 90's metrosexual fool

Edited by bondjames, 12 March 2013 - 03:15 AM.

[SecretAgentFan]

The Aston Martin scene is a parody, nothing else. The quibbles between M and Bond is nothing but a reheating of any discussion these two had in earlier films, even prior to Craig.

 

Completely agreed.  Hopefully Bond 24 won't feature any more of these references to previous films and the overused M/Bond trust issues from the previous four films.

 

I'm more than happy for them to continue exploring Bond as a character, but hopefully it's done in a different fashion moving forward.  We've spent three movies with Craig's Bond and M navigating their way through trust issues.  It's time to move on from that and do something else.

 

Agreed. But since we have a new "M" I believe EON wanted to move on anyway. It definitely was time to shake up this M-Bond relationship. And the way Bond stresses the fact that he will return to his job now "with pleasure" sounded to me as if he really meant it.

[tdalton]

 

The Aston Martin scene is a parody, nothing else. The quibbles between M and Bond is nothing but a reheating of any discussion these two had in earlier films, even prior to Craig.

 

Completely agreed.  Hopefully Bond 24 won't feature any more of these references to previous films and the overused M/Bond trust issues from the previous four films.

 

I'm more than happy for them to continue exploring Bond as a character, but hopefully it's done in a different fashion moving forward.  We've spent three movies with Craig's Bond and M navigating their way through trust issues.  It's time to move on from that and do something else.

 

Agreed. But since we have a new "M" I believe EON wanted to move on anyway. It definitely was time to shake up this M-Bond relationship. And the way Bond stresses the fact that he will return to his job now "with pleasure" sounded to me as if he really meant it.

 

Hopefully that's the case, however it has been the staple of the franchise since Barbara and Michael took over running the show (pretty much every film features it to some degree, save for perhaps Tomorrow Never Dies).  Hopefully they're able to let it go and find a new angle to focus on, especially now that they're getting a new 'M", which would actually create a scenario in which even more of the M/Bond trust issues would actually make narrative sense.

[Dustin]

The quibbles between M and Bond is nothing but a reheating of any discussion these two had in earlier films, even prior to Craig.

 

No, I think this time there really is a difference: M is no longer in a position of authority, not even when Bond turns up at her flat. She's the weak part this time, and this is what changes the entire M-Bond chemistry. Never before was this the case, not even with M kidnapped in TWINE. Bond's activities in SKYFALL after he returns from 'enjoying death' are thematically no longer just an assignment, a mission performed for his superior; this time he's helping a friend.

 

Sorry, but I feel this is far, far from a rehash of previous events.

Edited by Dustin, 12 March 2013 - 07:26 PM.

[freemo]

Ahh, the layers are back. Let the peeling back begin.

 

Next up: the dramatic envelopes (they won't push themselves, you know).

 

Followed by: what makes him tick? (hopefully a time bomb).

[Professor Pi]

The quibbles between M and Bond is nothing but a reheating of any discussion these two had in earlier films, even prior to Craig.

 

No, I think this time there really is a difference: M is no longer in a position of authority, not even when Bond turns up at her flat. She's the weak part this time, and this is what changes the entire M-Bond chemistry. Never before was this the case, not even with M kidnapped in TWINE. Bond's activities in SKYFALL after he returns from 'enjoying death' are thematically no longer just an assignment, a mission performed for his superior; this time he's helping a friend.

 

Sorry, but I feel this is far, far from a rehash of previous events.

 

The quibbles between M and Bond is nothing but a reheating of any discussion these two had in earlier films, even prior to Craig.

 

No, I think this time there really is a difference: M is no longer in a position of authority, not even when Bond turns up at her flat. She's the weak part this time, and this is what changes the entire M-Bond chemistry. Never before was this the case, not even with M kidnapped in TWINE. Bond's activities in SKYFALL after he returns from 'enjoying death' are thematically no longer just an assignment, a mission performed for his superior; this time he's helping a friend.

 

Sorry, but I feel this is far, far from a rehash of previous events.

 

I hadn't thought of that, Dustin.  It's interesting how often Skyfall takes a previous scene or Bondian element (M's home, tied to chair, finale at Bond's 'lair') and turns it on its head. 

[THX-007]

The Aston Martin scene is a parody, nothing else.

Not really. Its a homage.

 

THIS is a parody =)

[Hansen]

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?

Amen

As a matter of fact, I really do not know how they are going to tie Bond 24 to Skyfall.

The fact that we knew little about Bond past allowed to accept that the same character "lives" over 50 years.

Making him more or less "unidimensional" makes him last. Honestly, we have plenty of Harry Potter/Martin Riggs/Batman-like with trauma, bla, bla.

Bond is firstly a universe. Making him too realistic is awkward. And Skyfall is a perfect demonstration of that.

To be crystal clear : non-realistic does mean gadget evrywhere. CR & OHMSS are for me the best Bonds

[JohnnyWalker]

"Making him too realistic is awkward. And Skyfall is a perfect demonstration of that."

 

 

Is it?

Edited by JohnnyWalker, 14 March 2013 - 04:41 PM.

[S K Y F A L L]

The Aston Martin scene is a parody, nothing else.

Not really. Its a homage.

 

THIS is a parody =)

LOL, thanks for sharing having seen that before.

[Vauxhall]

I think Logan was behind the Silva/Bond introduction as well. 

Yes, indeed. All the stuff about rats, coconuts and oil drums.

 

Logan's comments about BOND 24 are pretty much exactly what I was expecting at this stage. It seems essential to build upon SKYFALL by continuing to shape Bond's actual character and his new working relationships. I don't think there's much risk of it falling into melodrama though. Logan knows his Bond too well to allow the character developments to overshadow what actually makes a Bond film tick. 

[FlemingBond]

To me they don't have to break the character down anymore, but there can be surprises in how Bond reacts to those around him. I always thought it was so interesting, and maybe a part of Fleming himself, that Bond wants to treat women in a somewhat disposable way, and yet he ends up falling for them in the novels anyway. I think putting the character in situations where he truly cares for who he is protecting and working with is a way of 'peeling back the layers'

[SecretAgentFan]

It will be very interesting to see whether Logan will really end up writing BOND 24 or do a "Peter Morgan".

 

IMO, Logan was only there because Mendes wanted him. I must admit, Logan is an established and well-connected writer. But apart from THE AVIATOR I am absolutely not fond of his work. Judging from Mendes´ audio commentary even the rat speech for Silva´s introduction - something I like very much - was not Logan´s but Mendes´ idea. And the fact that Purvis and Wade have pulled out of writing more Bond soon, IMO, hints at their understandable displeasure of remaining the whipping boys for everything that is not good enough, while the script doctor or director-associate (Haggis, Logan) gets all the glory.

 

I believe it´s just the other way around and that P & W actually have contributed most of what was great about the past Bond films. Sure, Haggis and Logan may have added interesting dialogue. But how much of that was really their idea - and how much was influenced/worked out by the director, the producers and the cast?

 

I have been in situations in which well-connected writers (who had a great way of sucking up to influential people) were called in by the director to "give a fresh perspective", mostly doing the director´s bidding, like a secretary writing down everything - and then getting praised for their great work.

 

Now, this is only speculation, of course. But I could imagine very well (especially with Logan and Mendes off to do their tv series) that the next director will bring in his own favorite writer and Logan will step down.

 

In the end, it´s all about getting a great Bond film, of course.

Edited by SecretAgentFan, 28 April 2013 - 01:31 PM.

[Dustin]

Hm, Mendes not returning - not returning right now, that is - could mean Logan's work might end up in one of Eon's many drawers. Hopefully not the one marked "waste', that would be a little expensive for two finished scripts... 

[SecretAgentFan]

Oh, they can afford it... 

[Dustin]

Certainly no financial problems there, agreed. And they must by now have enough extra-scripts to shoot the whole series trice over. Then again if/when Mendes decides to finally have another go they might always come back to Logan's efforts in case they haven't been used by then.

Edited by Dustin, 28 April 2013 - 05:00 PM.

[00Twelve]

I wouldn't read too terribly much into this. We're not going to get more superfluous backstory; the producers surely wouldn't allow more of that. 

 

The idea of a more "human" Bond in the vein of Fleming, to me, would mean just a flawed guy who isn't constantly unflappable. We're not talking about a Bronte character here, just the guy who feels guilt for getting the sacrificial lamb killed, or can't hold back the rage to murder the man responsible for, say, Felix' maiming. Or who is visibly scared and exhausted during and after a ski chase where he is all alone against a small army that wants him dead. Just, you know, a 3D person instead of a living cartoon. Nothing to worry about; none of these things make him into a soap opera character as long as they're not played that way.

[tdalton]

I wouldn't read too terribly much into this. We're not going to get more superfluous backstory; the producers surely wouldn't allow more of that. 

 

I wouldn't be so sure that we're not going to get exactly that.  EON made an obscene amount of money by going that route, and I'd have to think that there would be a great deal of temptation for them to go back to that well again since audiences clearly responded to it.  It would be nice if EON could resist that temptation and not feel the need to delve back into Bond's backstory as a flimsy plot device, but I'm sure that they'll end up doing it again and simply say that it was what the audiences wanted.

[RMc2]

And the fact that Purvis and Wade have pulled out of writing more Bond soon, IMO, hints at their understandable displeasure of remaining the whipping boys for everything that is not good enough, while the script doctor or director-associate (Haggis, Logan) gets all the glory.

 

I believe it´s just the other way around and that P & W actually have contributed most of what was great about the past Bond films. Sure, Haggis and Logan may have added interesting dialogue. But how much of that was really their idea - and how much was influenced/worked out by the director, the producers and the cast?

 

Now, this is only speculation, of course. But I could imagine very well (especially with Logan and Mendes off to do their tv series) that the next director will bring in his own favorite writer and Logan will step down.

 

You're probably spot on. I still feel bad on behalf of P&W that they get so much blame for QoS when we know there was a writer's strike, and Craig and Forster have stated they wrote a lot of it as they filmed. Somehow, Haggis seems to escape being blamed for QoS, yet gets lots of praise for CR.

 

As for Logan's significane on SF, the Empire podcast last November with P & W pretty much says they did most of the work on SF and Logan's contribution was...limited. Also, I remember Logan saying somewhere that Bardem (like many good actors) liked to improvise and play around with his dialogue and came up with some great stuff. 

 

Admittedly that should all be taken with a pinch of salt: P&W are naturally not going to talk themselves down and EON have hired Logan for a reason, presumably - but I wouldn't be surprised if Logan was hired because they wanted Mendes to return, and those two worked out the story for Bond 24 together, according to P&W.

 

It seems very unlikely Logan will remain the only writer on the next two Bond films. We all know these films go through a multitude of writers and script doctors before the final version is credited to two or three names.

 

I always assumed that P&W were EON's in-house writers from TWINE onwards, working out the plots and characters for each film over many many drafts, until a final few other writers were brought on to polish things up, add sparkle, etc. Directors on these projects nearly always bring on their favoured writers to work out the shooting script, and like you say they usually do the bidding of the director, 'correcting' things the director doesn't like, developing story and characters in ways the director prefers and, I assume, adjusting the tone to suit the director's preferences (although the producers are unlikely to hire a director who doesn't accept the tone and story of the draft they like). Then when it comes to shooting, of course, there's the influence of the actors, cinematographer, 2nd unit etc. It's all a melting pot.