54 replies to this topic

[Moomoo]

If there is one sore point I have with the last two actors to have played Bond (Dalton and Brosnan), it's been their desire to show more of Bond's vulnerable side. I accept that Bond is human and should not be seen as some indestructible hero (Moonraker seems the worst example of that), but surely Bond isn't, and cannot be, too vulnerable. He is a trained killer with a licence to kill. How can someone vulnerable have a licence to kill? The two don't seem compatible.

Dalton went on about wanting to be Fleming's Bond, a man of flaws, and Brosnan wanted to push the envelope and explore Bond's demons. I've read only a few Fleming books but I never got the impression Bond was particularly vulnerable or overtly emotional. There are paragraphs where Bond has to make quick life-threatening decisions and he questions the right choice, and Fleming showed us Bond has fear, but fear is not the same trait as vulnerability.

I'd like to see a less vulnerable Bond in future movies. I think many people regard Connery as the best Bond because he never gave the character a vulnerable side. He maintained this macho persona throughout his films. I think Lazenby was the same even though his Bond was required to fall in love. Bond's vulnerable side was essential in that movie. Moore was never vulnerable. Sure, he wasn't the most macho of Bonds, but he never needed to show Bond as somehow weak. One of the best scenes in the entire series is in TSWLM when Anya mentions the death of Bond's wife and Bond replies:

Bond
All right, you've made your point.

Anya
You're sensitive, Mr Bond.

Bond
About certain things, yes.

And that's it. Two lines sum up Bond's emotional side. It's so brief yet brilliantly effective. He expresses how he feels as succinctly as possible and then moves on.

Brosnan and Dalton's Bond exploited the doubts, the insecurities; but I never thought it was consistent with Bond's license to kill persona.

Compare the scene in TSWLM with the scene in TND when Bond meets up with Paris Carver. Bond is so open with his emotions that he's almost weak. I'm not saying it's a bad scene, just not how I imagine Bond to be with some old lover. I think Bond should never be so open with his emotions or too vulnerable.

As Bond said in TMWTGG:

Bond
When I kill it's under the specific orders of my government... and those I kill are themselves killers.

Scaramanga
Come, Mr Bond, you get as much fulfilment out of killing as I do. Why don't you admit it.

Bond
I admit killing you would be a pleasure.

Is this a man who is vulnerable? I don't think so. It's time to make Bond macho once more.

Moomoo

[[dark]]

I accept that Bond is human and should not be seen as some indestructible hero (Moonraker seems the worst example of that), but surely Bond isn't, and cannot be, too vulnerable.

In parts, perhaps, but take a look at Bond after his experience in the gravity simulator. Aside from his torture in Die Another Day, I'd probably go so far as to say that single experience is the worst condition we've seen Bond in. Moore plays it masterfully; he's genuinely shaken up by what happened.

Now, let's face it: cinema Bond isn't Fleming's Bond anymore.

I love the let's-make-Bond-vulnerable approach. I'd much rather have a three-dimensional, emotional 007 than a cardboard cut-out who is little more than a prop in the film. I can understand why after several films with a personal approach, that fans would rather have a straight-out mission [though I believe Tomorrow Never Dies is far less personal than most people seem to think], but it's possible for us to have a three-dimensional, emotional Bond in a "strictly business" mission film.

Keep Bond human!

Edited by [dark], 27 March 2004 - 02:50 PM.

[Loomis]

If there's another Bond film (and it's a big "if"), I'd like to see a return to the "this time it's not personal" ethos of the Moore era. I want another MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN or MOONRAKER. Not much to ask, surely?

But, please, no more pretentious, chest-beating nonsense. Enough (for the moment, at least) of traitors, tragedies, exes and doomed love affairs for 007 - let's have some good old-fashioned, brain-in-neutral escapist FUN again. Crikey, Connery's Bond would be appalled by some of the lily-livered, namby-pamby, profoundly unmanly plotlines of late; and Fleming, well, he'd be turning in his grave.

[Moomoo]

I guess the secret is to get the balance right. The early Bond films had Connery to carry the character and no one had anybody to compare him to. I think we now have a slight problem in that the next Bond actor can play Bond as:

1) Almost without vulnerability
2) As above but with more comedy
3) With hints of vulnerability
4) Vulnerable but with moments of comedy

Tough choice to make!

Moomoo

[Dr Niles Crane]

I reckon Dalton and Brosnan went too far with the whole vulnerability thing - I am glad they cut that scene in Licence to Kill where Bond rescues that litter of kittens and I really felt that scene where Bond looks 'slightly shaken' after 14 months of horrible torture in DAD just went too far!

[SnakeEyes]

On a personal level, I say yes, because that's exactly how I like my Bond. Brosnan is way too much of a pussy, but Dalton got the balance right, for me.

Commercially speaking, I think Bond should return more (alot more) to the 'man on mission' type film, banging chicks and killing villans along the way to saving the world.

[Moore Not Less]

I too would like to see a less vulnerable Bond in the next film. I don't wan't Bond to turn into some kind of soap opera figure. Remember, this is the cinematic version of a fictional character called James Bond that we are talking about, not a real life character. Sean Connery and Roger Moore got it right. For the most part, they were men on a mission doing it for Queen and country who only occasionally showed hints of vulnerability or world weariness.

"Well, we don't go to the cinema to see ordinary people. We go there to see things that are larger than life. We go there to see the gods, the heroes." Simon Raven.

Amen to that.

[SPECTRE ASSASSIN]

It will be interesting to have bond more vulnerable. But I think the reason why Bond failed to be vulnerable in the Brosnan/Dalton films was because of bad writing. I would prefer to have Bond to be more mean and realistic like Dalton, but also have a soft side in some scenes in the future Bond films.

[booyeah_]

There needs to be a balance as far as vulnerability is concerned. Bond shouldn't be Superman and we don't need to see any scenes of him walking on water or dodging bullets like that guy in the matrix did. Bond movies shouldn't be soap operas either and I'd hate to see my fav spy hero act like a pussy. Frankly, keep James Bond human. A good example is in Thunderball when Bond drops his gun, thus giving off his location to SPECTRE assassins. An occasional mistake like that can be a good thing.

[freemo]

Surely there's something to be said for a brilliantly done two-dimensional character as opposed to a shoddily done three-dimensional character. One can be a human without being a basketcase. And anyway, those little moments in The Spy Who Loved Me and The Man with the Golden Gun say more about Bond's chararacter than the last four "personal" films combined.

[Atticus17F]

Surely there's something to be said for a brilliantly done two-dimensional character as opposed to a shoddily done three-dimensional character. One can be a human without being a basketcase.

That's very true, and I think Eon need to keep that in mind when exploring the degrees of vulnerability within the character. I can understand Bond sobbing as he clings to his dead wife's body, for example, but I don't buy into all this smoothing-dead-women's-hair and fighting-back-manly-tears that's been going on since the Brosnanification.

Roger's reaction to Andrea's death in TMWTGG and Sean's reaction to Paula's death in TB are spot on examples for the James Bond character, if you ask me. Any more than that makes me want to laugh.

[Sensualist]

Ya...OO7 blowing away an unarmed woman into oblivion in the 1999 movie really makes him a "pussy". Sure.

Haven't seen too many movies where the 'hero' shoots to kill a weaponless babe at point blank range. Have you guys?

[Loomis]

Ya...OO7 blowing away an unarmed woman into oblivion in the 1999 movie really makes him a "pussy". Sure.

Ain't what he does, but how he does it. The Bond of TWINE is a "slack-jawed faggot" (not being homophobic here, merely indulging in a little quotation from PREDATOR ) who bears NO resemblance whatsoever to Fleming's creation. And anyone who can't see that is as blind as a bat. For a self-proclaimed Bond fan to be unware of the travesty that is the 007 of TWINE is laughable and tragic.

BTW, freemo, terrific post.

[SnakeEyes]

People recognising defeat, always lament the exeption rather than the rule to make a point to the contrary of their failure.

See post above.

[Tarl_Cabot]

If there's another Bond film (and it's a big "if"), I'd like to see a return to the "this time it's not personal" ethos of the Moore era. I want another MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN or MOONRAKER. Not much to ask, surely?

But, please, no more pretentious, chest-beating nonsense. Enough (for the moment, at least) of traitors, tragedies, exes and doomed love affairs for 007 - let's have some good old-fashioned, brain-in-neutral escapist FUN again. Crikey, Connery's Bond would be appalled by some of the lily-livered, namby-pamby, profoundly unmanly plotlines of late; and Fleming, well, he'd be turning in his grave.

yes! No more wounded bird 007 storylines...How about a good 'ol fashion travel the world,kill people,**** hot babes and blow **** up 007 outing? Pure fun but with a plot and set pieces that are creative and don't insult us.

And Moomoo,do NOT compare Dalton and Brosnan as if they are the same actor(Dalton was much better! ). I liked Dalton's humanity. He made 007 a real character again and I hope that continues with the next actor but let's keep the fun intact. I think Brosnan has just overdone the drama and the result has been pretentious performances,films(not all his fault-he's not the writer of course).

[Tarl_Cabot]

LOL Snakeyes,Loomis and Freemo! You guys are on a roll!

We didn't need the bibliograghy Loomis. That's a classic line from the other masterpeice of 1987!

[H.M.Servant]

I think Connery got the balance right in the 2 first films. after Goldfinger Bond became too invincible,and after TLD Bond became too vunerable, and things got too personal. Brosnan's got it right on occasions (GE), but blew it in others (TND)

I think the key to the Bond vunerabillity is another part of his personality which I'm missing in the current films, namely the sadistic aspect, which in a strange way kindof compensates it.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Ya...OO7 blowing away an unarmed woman into oblivion in the 1999 movie really makes him a "pussy". Sure.

Ain't what he does, but how he does it. The Bond of TWINE is a "slack-jawed faggot" (not being homophobic here, merely indulging in a little quotation from PREDATOR ) who bears NO resemblance whatsoever to Fleming's creation. And anyone who can't see that is as blind as a bat. For a self-proclaimed Bond fan to be unware of the travesty that is the 007 of TWINE is laughable and tragic.

BTW, freemo, terrific post.

He was superb in the Spain scene and then that movie turned into .His fight and groaning in the sub was appauling...much like his sauna scene in Goldnenye. I can't imagine Sean/George/Roger/Tim being tortured by a some chic's thighs...ridiculous.

[Loomis]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH is by far the worst of all the James Bond films. Oops, did I just call it a James Bond film? Silly me.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH is by far the worst of all the James Bond films. Oops, did I just call it a James Bond film? Silly me.

I think TWINE is a masterpiece compared to Die another Day.

[Sensualist]

Actually Timothy's portrayal in TLD where he gets knocked out by a drugged martini is THE biggest faggot scene in the series. Talk about vulnerability. He LOOKED like a faggot there AND gets duped by a waif (the weakest Bond girl in the series)

TD was always second choice Bond. Thank goodness he only did two. Nearly killed the franchise.

Connery. We need another Connery. He IS James Bond. Timothy's spin was the worst of the five. Connery's was the BEST. HANDS DOWN the best.

[Loomis]

Actually Timothy's portrayal in TLD where he gets knocked out by a drugged martini is THE biggest faggot scene in the series. Talk about vulnerability. He LOOKED like a faggot there AND gets duped by a waif (the weakest Bond girl in the series)

You wanna talk about "faggots"? Okay. I've posted this before, but I think it's pretty relevant here:

GOLDENEYE is, for my money, easily the campiest Bond flick of recent years. The sizzling sexual tension between Bond and Trevelyan. (Check out their first meeting in the pre-credits sequence - it's as though Trevelyan is coming on to Bond and Bond is allowing himself to be seduced! "Aren't we all?" "After you, 006", etc. Wow, do those lines drip with innuendo or what? Trevelyan is being all cocky and macho, while Bond is playing coy and a little hard to get.) Bond mincing down a flight of stairs. A Tina Turner title song.

Then there's a drunken Judi Dench, face caked with so much makeup she could pass as a clown at Octopussy's circus, getting all bitchy and catty with Bond in her office. Natalya, Xenia, Boris, Mishkin and Ourumov are all very campy characters. Minnie Driver's cameo is pure camp, too.

If this sort of thing is your idea of James Bond, Sensualist, then I recommend you re-read all the Flemings. Twice. Heck, even A VIEW TO A KILL is considerably closer to Fleming than THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH.

[SnakeEyes]

"TD was always second choice Bond."

Yeah, right after Sean Connery. Then we had Lazenby, Moore, Neill and then Brosnan.

Frankly, 2nd is up, from mr Brosnan (which is obviously who you were implying was number 1).

TWINE is pathetic, it doesn't feature any James Bond i've ever seen before, book or film, and has the most silly touchy feely stuff ever.

OH BUT WAIT, I FORGOT, BOND SHOOTS A WOMAN POINT BLANK.
Damn it all if it isn't the ghost of Fleming...

[Loomis]

You know, the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that there's a tremendous gay subtext to GOLDENEYE (of a kind not found in any other Bond flick).

Virtually all the characters seem at least potentially queer: Natalya appears uncertain about her sexuality, shying away from Boris' innuendo and sneering at "boys with toys"; Xenia is clearly a butch lesbian; Bond behaves as though he's lost his lover rather than his best friend; and Boris discovers his true orientation midway through the picture when he sides with Trevelyan. Oh, yes, and if the fastidious, lisping Ourumov isn't homosexual I don't know who is!

Really, the only character who seems positively, definitely straight is Wade.... and even then 007 forces him to bare his bottom.

I'd be interested in reading gay CBners' views on GOLDENEYE. Or maybe zencat could explore this issue further - he's good at subtexts.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Dalton being drugged into unconsciousness was a faggot thing? WTF? We all have our views...some profoundly sillier than others...I have a hilarious article courtesy of Jaelle in my PMs that translates a brazilian journalists take on Brosnan. I'll be glad to share it with anyone. It will add a sparkle to your day.

[Loomis]

I have a hilarious article courtesy of Jaelle in my PMs that translates a brazilian journalists take on Brosnan. I'll be glad to share it with anyone. It will add a sparkle to your day.

I received that too, Tarl, but I no longer have a copy. How about putting it up in this thread? (Might need a bit of editing to make it "family-friendly".)

[Tarl_Cabot]

You know, the more I think about, the more I'm convinced that there's a tremendous gay subtext to GOLDENEYE (of a kind not found in any other Bond flick).

Virtually all the characters seem at least potentially queer: Natalya appears uncertain about her sexuality, shying away from Boris' innuendo and sneering at "boys with toys"; Xenia is clearly a butch lesbian; Bond behaves as though he's lost his lover rather than his best friend; and Boris discovers his true orientation midway through the picture when he sides with Trevelyan. Oh, yes, and if the fastidious, lisping Ourumov isn't homosexual I don't know who is!

Really, the only character who seems positively, definitely straight is Wade.... and even then 007 forces him to bare his bottom.

I'd be interested in reading gay CBners' views on GOLDENEYE. Or maybe zencat could explore this issue further - he's good at subtexts.

LOL now you've lost it. OMFG! it just occurred to me The tile GOLDENEYE has huge gay subtext!

I agree about the vastly overrated Goldeneye's campiness though.

[Tarl_Cabot]

It's too dirty and a rated G version just wouldn't do it justice.

[Sensualist]

Actually Timothy's portrayal in TLD where he gets knocked out by a drugged martini is THE biggest faggot scene in the series. Talk about vulnerability. He LOOKED like a faggot there AND gets duped by a waif (the weakest Bond girl in the series)

You wanna talk about "faggots"? Okay. I've posted this before, but I think it's pretty relevant here:

GOLDENEYE is...

If this sort of thing is your idea of James Bond, Sensualist, then I recommend you re-read all the Flemings. Twice....

Actually, as the previous post intimates, Sean Connery is Sensualist's idea of James Bond. Roger Moore rates second.

As for re-reading Fleming. No time. Besides, haven't you heard? The snobby, substance-abusing, adulterous bigot died an Eon ago.

He wrote pulp for people craving fantasy (travel, hedonism, good food, fine tailoring, adventure) enduring bleak times during the austerity of post-war Britain.

His work is over-rated by the members of this board. Tho Sensualist does have to defend him continuously to the un-initiated in the REAL world.

His work belongs to a by-gone era. ("Nıgger Heaven", anyone?) Thank goodness the movies only take bits and pieces of Fleming (Die Another Day has the Moonraker element, bits of TMWTGG (JB comes back to the west separated from M by bullit-proof glass) and Casino Royal (having endured brutal torture, partly of a sexual nature (notice the device in General Moon's hand)))

Fleming's Bond is a chain-smoker and multi-adulterer and needs therapy because he's [censored]ed up not to mention he's a bit of a racist. Much like Fleming himself (Doh!!!).

No one wants to see Fleming Bond in 2005. Except a TEENY WEENY ITSY BITSY minority of 'fans' on CBn who never lived through the austerity of post-war England and see things through rose-coloured glasses.

FlemingBond is DEAD. Leave him in the 50s and early 60s. That's where he belongs.

[Loomis]

That's all very well, Sen, but the fact that the Flemings are being republished, republished and republished again while most of the continuation novels are out of print and look likely to remain so ought to tell you something.