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

Madeleine Swann is Tracy Bond?


162 replies to this topic

#121 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 11 January 2016 - 08:00 AM

I think you touched on an interesting element there. For me, too, SPECTRE felt as if Mendes wasn't all that interested in Bond any more.

Mendes had one good story about Bond to tell with SKYFALL - that actually wasn't so much about Bond - and when that story was told that was it for him then. That's why he didn't want to come back, and it was a mistake to set out to change his mind. The script for SPECTRE certainly didn't inspire him much, that's perhaps why the kinks in it weren't ironed out properly.

Dürrenmatt once said that a story arrived at its end only when it took the worst possible outcome. I'm not sure about that myself, but I do agree that SKYFALL surely was told to the end and you needn't wonder what happens after the last frame.

With SPECTRE Mendes seems not to have opened a new page for Bond; it feels rather like he's been leafing through the old pages without getting the start of a new tale there.

#122 Surrie

Surrie

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 756 posts
  • Location:Surrey Heath

Posted 11 January 2016 - 09:55 AM

I just want to see EON have something that resembles a plan that's a bit more than the fly-by-the-seat-of-their-pants routine they currently operate under.  I'm not saying that they need to plot out every single plot detail over the course of several films, but just having a general idea of where they're headed would be nice, and having the courage to stay the course even if one film doesn't make the box office of its predecessor would be a nice change in attitude as well.

 

Agreed. If they make a decision to go in a certain direction they need to see it through. Chopping and changing all the time because of critics reviewing does not fair well in the long run. 



#123 Tiin007

Tiin007

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1696 posts
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 11 January 2016 - 12:03 PM

 

I just want to see EON have something that resembles a plan that's a bit more than the fly-by-the-seat-of-their-pants routine they currently operate under.  I'm not saying that they need to plot out every single plot detail over the course of several films, but just having a general idea of where they're headed would be nice, and having the courage to stay the course even if one film doesn't make the box office of its predecessor would be a nice change in attitude as well.

 

Agreed. If they make a decision to go in a certain direction they need to see it through. Chopping and changing all the time because of critics reviewing does not fair well in the long run. 

 

 

Also agreed, especially because the negative responses of certain audience members and critics are not because "they aren't taking to the overarching story" but are rather due to external factors. Take QoS, for instance. Audiences did not respond to it as favorably as to CR, so in the very next film this grand organization is ditched entirely (the fact that White and a brief mention of the organization are included in SP is itself nothing short of miraculous, all things considered). Truth is, though, audiences did not love QoS because of editing, pacing, and plotting decisions within the movie (all of which were fixed for SF anyway), NOT because of the evil organization. Rather than distance themselves as much as possible from the entirety of that movie (almost retconning it out of existence), EON should instead have tried to focus on specifically what did not work with that film, and adjust accordingly (say, by giving the next film room to breathe in its pacing, and by ditching the quick-cut editing). Ditching Quantum the organization as quick as they did was a mistake.



#124 Surrie

Surrie

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 756 posts
  • Location:Surrey Heath

Posted 11 January 2016 - 12:10 PM

 

 

I just want to see EON have something that resembles a plan that's a bit more than the fly-by-the-seat-of-their-pants routine they currently operate under.  I'm not saying that they need to plot out every single plot detail over the course of several films, but just having a general idea of where they're headed would be nice, and having the courage to stay the course even if one film doesn't make the box office of its predecessor would be a nice change in attitude as well.

 

Agreed. If they make a decision to go in a certain direction they need to see it through. Chopping and changing all the time because of critics reviewing does not fair well in the long run. 

 

 

Also agreed, especially because the negative responses of certain audience members and critics are not because "they aren't taking to the overarching story" but are rather due to external factors. Take QoS, for instance. Audiences did not respond to it as favorably as to CR, so in the very next film this grand organization is ditched entirely (the fact that White and a brief mention of the organization are included in SP is itself nothing short of miraculous, all things considered). Truth is, though, audiences did not love QoS because of editing, pacing, and plotting decisions within the movie (all of which were fixed for SF anyway), NOT because of the evil organization. Rather than distance themselves as much as possible from the entirety of that movie (almost retconning it out of existence), EON should instead have tried to focus on specifically what did not work with that film, and adjust accordingly (say, by giving the next film room to breathe in its pacing, and by ditching the quick-cut editing). Ditching Quantum the organization as quick as they did was a mistake.

 

 

You are right. The criticism comes more heavily from editing, cinematography, scriptwriting and pacing, rather than specifics within the story. If EON have good ideas (which they do) then they need to commit to those ideas and actually believe in them. They all too frequently clear the slate clean in terms of building a story and then focus on giving the film a fresh look...



#125 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 12 January 2016 - 03:31 AM

They could have kept going with the Quantum storyline and the rebooted series would have been all the better for it.  The problem with Spectre is what it ultimately does to its predecessors.  It takes the rather mysterious and sinister Quantum organization, which was operating on a global scale and "has people everywhere", and puts it under the umbrella of a man and organization who were formed, in large part, because Hans Oberhauser had the decency to take in a young man named James Bond after the death of his parents.  

 

Not only is that a horrible foundation for a film, it also takes something away from its predecessors.  It even makes Silva and Skyfall less interesting because part of Silva's appeal was that he was this lone wolf that could do pretty much anything with a computer.  Now we come to find he was working for Bloferhauser too.



#126 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 12 January 2016 - 11:29 AM

Did I not understand this right?  Blofeld does not argue in SPECTRE that he formed his organization because of his jealousy of Bond, does he?  It´s just a coincidence that the stepbrother he hated continued to bug him and vice versa, I thought.

 

But I agree in having Quantum as a shadowy organization would have been enough and even better for the Craig era.  I sincerely hope that Spectre, the organization, will be fleshed out in future installments and become as dangerous as Quantum.

 

Or... would it be possible for Bond to discover that Blofeld just played with his mind by implying that LeChiffre, Greene and Silva were part of Spectre?

 

What about Spectre and Quantum actually co-existing and becoming emboiled in a hostile relationship so that Bond is caught in between?  IS and Al-Quaida are also not one organization but are wreaking havoc on the world nevertheless.



#127 Surrie

Surrie

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 756 posts
  • Location:Surrey Heath

Posted 12 January 2016 - 11:37 AM

Did I not understand this right?  Blofeld does not argue in SPECTRE that he formed his organization because of his jealousy of Bond, does he?  It´s just a coincidence that the stepbrother he hated continued to bug him and vice versa, I thought.

 

But I agree in having Quantum as a shadowy organization would have been enough and even better for the Craig era.  I sincerely hope that Spectre, the organization, will be fleshed out in future installments and become as dangerous as Quantum.

 

Or... would it be possible for Bond to discover that Blofeld just played with his mind by implying that LeChiffre, Greene and Silva were part of Spectre?

 

What about Spectre and Quantum actually co-existing and becoming emboiled in a hostile relationship so that Bond is caught in between?  IS and Al-Quaida are also not one organization but are wreaking havoc on the world nevertheless.

 

I really like the idea of Spectre and Quantum working against each other, but I think EON have written themselves out of this story line by having Q inspect Sciarra's ring - and that linking LeChiffre, Greene and Silva...



#128 Tiin007

Tiin007

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1696 posts
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 12 January 2016 - 01:52 PM

 

Did I not understand this right?  Blofeld does not argue in SPECTRE that he formed his organization because of his jealousy of Bond, does he?  It´s just a coincidence that the stepbrother he hated continued to bug him and vice versa, I thought.

 

But I agree in having Quantum as a shadowy organization would have been enough and even better for the Craig era.  I sincerely hope that Spectre, the organization, will be fleshed out in future installments and become as dangerous as Quantum.

 

Or... would it be possible for Bond to discover that Blofeld just played with his mind by implying that LeChiffre, Greene and Silva were part of Spectre?

 

What about Spectre and Quantum actually co-existing and becoming emboiled in a hostile relationship so that Bond is caught in between?  IS and Al-Quaida are also not one organization but are wreaking havoc on the world nevertheless.

 

I really like the idea of Spectre and Quantum working against each other, but I think EON have written themselves out of this story line by having Q inspect Sciarra's ring - and that linking LeChiffre, Greene and Silva...

 

 

And the White connection. Unless Bond learns in the next film that Mr. White had defected to SPECTRE, before ultimately having a falling-out with this organization as well, I think Quantum will have to remain a tentacle of SPECTRE.

 

And, yes, SAF, I had the same understanding as well. It is a massive coincidence that Bond, who had made Oberhauser jealous enough to kill his own father all those years ago, has since become a thorn in Franz's side. Oberhauser did NOT form SPECTRE "because of his jealousy of Bond," nor to "get back at Bond." While one could argue that Bond's garnering Hannes's affection may have played a role in Franz's "turn to the dark side," the fact remains that anyone willing to kill his own father over petty jealousy most likely has psychological issues to begin with. Oberhauser forming SPECTRE was most likely going to happen with or without Bond's presence in his adolescence, and at most Bond merely expedited the process. 

 

Granted, Blofeld says: "Well, this cuckoo made me realize my father's life had to end. In a way he's responsible for the path I took." But I take that more as him deflecting any responsibility for his own actions by placing the blame on Bond, or as merely acknowledging that his murder of his own father may have sealed his fate to the point of no return. Or maybe he was just taunting Bond. But I don't think that we the audience are supposed to assume that SPECTRE was formed because of Bond. 

 

While I am not a fan of the massive coincidence that these childhood acquaintances have since become arch enemies, at least it is a way better plot decision than the alternative (Blofeld having created SPECTRE because of Bond). 



#129 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 12 January 2016 - 02:15 PM

I've posted along these lines before - Franz Oberhauser was a nasty piece of work - maybe because of the Blofeld bloodline who knows? (We forget he's as much a Blofeld by blood as an Oberhauser)

I've an idea we may find out in a future film - maybe when Blofeld has his final confrontation with Craig's Bond - that "Dad's demise" might have had something to do with a lot of secret Nazi gold Hannes Oberhauser knew about and that sonny boy Franz/Ernst secretly coveted - which would allow for one more tenuous link to the Fleming source material and one more "delving" into the past of at least one Bond movie character.

One thing I am convinced of - Oberhauser/Blofeld didn't set up SPECTRE many moons ago just to get back at young James. He thanks Bond, ironically, for setting him off on his path, but I agree with others here who think that Oberhauser would have set off on the path to an avalanche killing dad, Franz faking his own death and becoming Ernst, and the founding of SPECTRE regardless of the presence in the nest of the cuckoo, young James Bond.

#130 Tiin007

Tiin007

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1696 posts
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 12 January 2016 - 02:20 PM

And that would further cement the notion that in SP, Blofeld was merely taunting Bond, as his decision to murder his father was not solely the result of jealousy. I'd be happy with such a scenario. And perhaps that's how Blofeld got the money to finance his budding criminal organization.



#131 Surrie

Surrie

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 756 posts
  • Location:Surrey Heath

Posted 12 January 2016 - 02:55 PM

Yes - agree with the above. It makes far more sense that Oberhauser/Blofeld was always going to follow the path of evil regardless of Bond's presence in his life or not. In fact, I would say it actually amuses him than Bond and his paths have crossed once again. 



#132 Revelator

Revelator

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 572 posts
  • Location:San Francisco

Posted 12 January 2016 - 09:02 PM

Granted, Blofeld says: "Well, this cuckoo made me realize my father's life had to end. In a way he's responsible for the path I took."

 

That crystallizes one of the problems I had with this version of Blofeld--someone who's so emotionally unbalanced and unhinged that he kills his own father out of jealousy of his quasi-step-brother doesn't fit the psychological profile of a criminal mastermind-executive who's able to start and run an organization like Spectre. The original Blofeld is characterized as being completely cold-blooded and impersonal--no one even knows if he's had sex. He's not the type who'd bump off his father due to silly emotions. True, Fleming eventually changed the character, but only after Spectre had been smashed apart.
 



#133 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 12 January 2016 - 10:12 PM

The organization itself may not have been formed as a direct means to get back at Bond, but we're given enough to justify the thought that Oberhauser's turn to the dark side is, if not fully then at least in some part, due to his jealousy over Bond.  

 

It doesn't matter, though, how much or how little one subscribes to that idea.  There's enough there to draw your own conclusions, IMO.  The fact that there is any personal connection or even the hint at a causal relationship between Bond and Oberhauser becoming an evil mastermind is unacceptable, especially in the rather simple-minded way they've gone about it.  



#134 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 13 January 2016 - 06:17 AM

The more I think about it the more I would welcome the Craig era to end here - because the stepbrother-element has put everything Blofeld-related in a corner one cannot write oneself out of anymore.

 

Time to restart.



#135 Surrie

Surrie

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 756 posts
  • Location:Surrey Heath

Posted 13 January 2016 - 10:57 AM

The more I think about it the more I would welcome the Craig era to end here - because the stepbrother-element has put everything Blofeld-related in a corner one cannot write oneself out of anymore.

 

Time to restart.

 

I would be disappointed if they ended Craig's era on SPECTRE - I still feel as though EON have touched on quite a powerful dynamic, but they need at least one more well thought out film to pull it off and act as Craig's Swan song. 



#136 Bucky

Bucky

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1031 posts
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 13 January 2016 - 03:21 PM

 

The more I think about it the more I would welcome the Craig era to end here - because the stepbrother-element has put everything Blofeld-related in a corner one cannot write oneself out of anymore.

 

Time to restart.

 

I would be disappointed if they ended Craig's era on SPECTRE - I still feel as though EON have touched on quite a powerful dynamic, but they need at least one more well thought out film to pull it off and act as Craig's Swan song. 

 

I see what you did there



#137 Surrie

Surrie

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 756 posts
  • Location:Surrey Heath

Posted 01 June 2016 - 02:36 PM

With all the recent media hub surrounding whether Craig will return or not - not looking more plausible. Can we assume that Swann was in fact Craig's Bond's Tracy? 



#138 thecasinoroyale

thecasinoroyale

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14358 posts
  • Location:Basingstoke, UK

Posted 01 June 2016 - 02:45 PM

I guess we will find that out with Bond 25 in respect of Craig returns and we get an answer of her D.O.A status, or if a new actor comes in and the series is "rebooted" (hopefully not) and she is wasted, as Blofeld would have been.



#139 Surrie

Surrie

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 756 posts
  • Location:Surrey Heath

Posted 01 June 2016 - 02:50 PM

Please don't let either of them be wasted!



#140 Tiin007

Tiin007

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1696 posts
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 01 June 2016 - 04:15 PM

As much as I desperately want Craig to return for one more, if his return would mean that Bond 25 retreads the avenging Tracy / Vesper plotline, then I'd rather just have a new actor in the role. It's simply too soon since CR / QoS.

 

But I would welcome a continuation of SPECTRE (the organization) / Blofeld. 



#141 Surrie

Surrie

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 756 posts
  • Location:Surrey Heath

Posted 01 June 2016 - 06:11 PM

As much as I desperately want Craig to return for one more, if his return would mean that Bond 25 retreads the avenging Tracy / Vesper plotline, then I'd rather just have a new actor in the role. It's simply too soon since CR / QoS.

 

But I would welcome a continuation of SPECTRE (the organization) / Blofeld. 

 

For sure, the SPECTRE/Blofeld ideas can't be lost. I wouldn't complain if Madeleine was not featured in Bond 25 - I'd settle for her surviving and riding off into the sunset like many Bond girls before her. 



#142 Tiin007

Tiin007

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1696 posts
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 01 June 2016 - 06:43 PM

 

As much as I desperately want Craig to return for one more, if his return would mean that Bond 25 retreads the avenging Tracy / Vesper plotline, then I'd rather just have a new actor in the role. It's simply too soon since CR / QoS.

 

But I would welcome a continuation of SPECTRE (the organization) / Blofeld. 

 

For sure, the SPECTRE/Blofeld ideas can't be lost. I wouldn't complain if Madeleine was not featured in Bond 25 - I'd settle for her surviving and riding off into the sunset like many Bond girls before her. 

 

 

Right, especially because the audience is never explicitly told that Bond left the service for her. I think the ending of SP was left ambiguous precisely because EON weren't sure where they wanted to take Bond 25 (let alone whether Craig would even return or not), so they can just as easily pass off SP's ending as being not unlike the way all of the Connery / Moore entries ended. 

 

I'd have rather they just omitted the "I love you" and the "why don't you leave your job?" nonsense from SP entirely, but as long as they ignore Swann for Bond 25, I'll still be happy. 



#143 Surrie

Surrie

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 756 posts
  • Location:Surrey Heath

Posted 02 June 2016 - 07:50 AM

Yes - I agree mostly with this. However, it's not the first time a Bond girl (apart from Tracy) has professed 'love' for Bond. Granted, it was more direct in SP but it has happened before. Not really sure why some outcry about their relationship. 

 

I'd be happy if they let her drive off into the sunset, never to mention her again, or if they bring her back for Bond 25. But, they can only do this with Craig and a solid script. If they can't do her character and their relationship justice, then at least grant her the ending 99% of all Bond girls have been given as well. 



#144 thecasinoroyale

thecasinoroyale

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14358 posts
  • Location:Basingstoke, UK

Posted 02 June 2016 - 08:52 AM

The only way she will be back, to garner a motivation for Bond returning to MI6 or the service - which, if I was M, I wouldn't let him as he's quit twice in 10 years over a woman - is her death.

If he's content with her, then he's no need to return. If she dies, he has the means for...*yawn*...revenge against Blofeld or SPECTRE or whoever is involved. Lucia Sciarra I hope for taking HER husband, so she takes HIS girl.

Either way, like you say, it's dangerous ground if she returns because Craig's Bond now is ruled by his heart and only acts when it's broken. Which doesn't lead to any new direction really.

#145 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 02 June 2016 - 09:30 AM

 

 

Right, especially because the audience is never explicitly told that Bond left the service for her. I think the ending of SP was left ambiguous precisely because EON weren't sure where they wanted to take Bond 25 (let alone whether Craig would even return or not), so they can just as easily pass off SP's ending as being not unlike the way all of the Connery / Moore entries ended. 

 

I'd have rather they just omitted the "I love you" and the "why don't you leave your job?" nonsense from SP entirely, but as long as they ignore Swann for Bond 25, I'll still be happy. 

 

 

I wonder what is ambiguious about the ending of SPECTRE.

 

Bond says "I´ve got better things to do", throws away his gun, walks away from M and the authorities to join Madeleine who has explicitly said that she cannot be together with him as long as he lives the life of a secret agent.  

 

And then Q even says that he thought Bond were gone, and Bond replies he just wants one last thing - the car.

 

 

Apart from all that - what narrative could do Madeleine "justice"?  Her character arc already is completed: She has learned to love Bond and to accept her father´s love as well.  There´s nothing left to do for her - except being killed off and providing another revenge motif for Bond.

 

No, thanks.



#146 Tiin007

Tiin007

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1696 posts
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 02 June 2016 - 12:02 PM

 

 

 

Right, especially because the audience is never explicitly told that Bond left the service for her. I think the ending of SP was left ambiguous precisely because EON weren't sure where they wanted to take Bond 25 (let alone whether Craig would even return or not), so they can just as easily pass off SP's ending as being not unlike the way all of the Connery / Moore entries ended. 

 

I'd have rather they just omitted the "I love you" and the "why don't you leave your job?" nonsense from SP entirely, but as long as they ignore Swann for Bond 25, I'll still be happy. 

 

 

I wonder what is ambiguious about the ending of SPECTRE.

 

Bond says "I´ve got better things to do", throws away his gun, walks away from M and the authorities to join Madeleine who has explicitly said that she cannot be together with him as long as he lives the life of a secret agent.  

 

And then Q even says that he thought Bond were gone, and Bond replies he just wants one last thing - the car.

 

 

 

It is possible that, once Bond decides against killing Blofeld, Madeline views him and his profession in a new light, realizing that there is more to Bond and the life of a secret agent than killing. 

 

Tossing aside his gun could be his way of, for the first time in the past four films (per the retcon), not allowing Blofeld to control his life. 

 

Regardless, if I remember correctly, earlier drafts of the script were more explicit that Bond left the service. With the film as it stands, however, some clever writing in Bond 25 could pass it off as Bond going on holiday or whatever. Each time I watch the movie (now five times) I remain unconvinced that he definitely left MI6-- a lot of this depends on where they take it in Bond 25. 



#147 Eskyfall

Eskyfall

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 69 posts
  • Location:New Orleans

Posted 08 August 2016 - 01:16 AM

I think the ending of SPECTRE is left deliberately ambiguous. My belief is that Bond retired and he and Madeleine are driving off into the sunset. This could allow a fresh start for the next actor should Craig not return. I could see him just being on holiday, but the way that Bond throws his gun away it really seems that he is choosing Madeleine over the service. Therefore, I think it's more likely and makes more narrative sense, for Bond to have retired. Then in Bond 25, Madeleine is killed by Blofeld which prompts Bond's return.



#148 Surrie

Surrie

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 756 posts
  • Location:Surrey Heath

Posted 08 August 2016 - 10:19 AM

I think the ending of SPECTRE is left deliberately ambiguous. My belief is that Bond retired and he and Madeleine are driving off into the sunset. This could allow a fresh start for the next actor should Craig not return. I could see him just being on holiday, but the way that Bond throws his gun away it really seems that he is choosing Madeleine over the service. Therefore, I think it's more likely and makes more narrative sense, for Bond to have retired. Then in Bond 25, Madeleine is killed by Blofeld which prompts Bond's return.

 

I would only want to see Madeleine killed if Craig is in the next installment. If he's not going to return, then leave it with them driving off into the sunset as Bond has done many times before in past installments.



#149 Odd Jobbies

Odd Jobbies

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1573 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 08 August 2016 - 06:38 PM

I would only want to see Madeleine killed if Craig is in the next instalment. If he's not going to return, then leave it with them driving off into the sunset...

This.



#150 Surrie

Surrie

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 756 posts
  • Location:Surrey Heath

Posted 09 August 2016 - 09:59 AM

 

I would only want to see Madeleine killed if Craig is in the next instalment. If he's not going to return, then leave it with them driving off into the sunset...

This.

 

;)  I always liked you Odd Jobbies.