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

Bond's Character Arc Explained


33 replies to this topic

#31 danielcraigisjamesbond007

danielcraigisjamesbond007

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2002 posts
  • Location:United States

Posted 18 April 2009 - 12:38 AM

Absolutely. As opposed to her being rendered a quickly forgotten, rarely referenced character as she was in the novels, or Tracy was in the films.

Exactly. My thing is, even though I don't like Quantum, I was glad that we had that very last scene about how Vesper's betrayal wasn't intentional.
Unlike DAF, the "Tracy" storyline was never fully finished, IMO. We just got a pure action, silly, campy movie.

#32 MattofSteel

MattofSteel

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2482 posts
  • Location:Waterloo, ON

Posted 18 April 2009 - 01:03 AM

Re-watched it on the weekend. It does more right than wrong, it's just that it's a Moore film starring Connery. There's a disconnect. Some aspects are very early Connery-ish, and wonderful. But they contrast with the sillier ones.

#33 Eddie Burns

Eddie Burns

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 232 posts
  • Location:Somewhere on Planet Earth

Posted 20 April 2009 - 08:10 PM

Didn't know you guys had actually turned MoS's post into a thread. As most of you know, my belief that there is little to no character arc is a strong one. Matt has a good go at it and it is a wonderful read and fantastic effort. However, as I do, I have a few things to raise with you. B)

-First you say Bond's arc begins with the second to last scene of CR. Erm, what about the rest of the movie? Bond's arc begins the first time we see him in Prague. QoS seems to have ignored the first half of CR (y'know, Bond being uncomfortable with killing, Bond making mistakes, a relatively fresh 00 with a boss with balls of steel). They ignored all that so just to turn Bond into Rambo. If you fail to see this then I really don't know what to say.

- This scene, to me, exemplifies his absolute disdain for what's happened to MI6 as an institution - ????eh??? Sorry but what are you going on about? Nowhere does Bond express his opinions on MI6 or the direction it's going. The fact that he outright refused to go rogue, and still stuck to his duty contradicts all that. This doesn't make sense at all and is just a case of filling holes with whatever sounds good. I can say with confidence that there was no disdain, that never came across. Unsurprised? yes. But I think Craig/Forster just didn't know how to play the scene. Having Craig appear apathetic came across as 'yeah whatever...let's bring on the next action scene'. M had to over-act to compensate. That is how it came across to me.

- Credit for the Mathis break-down, and you are spot on with most of that. But the only reason he's in the movie is because Bond has nowhere to turn. This robotic Bond, if his plastic cards worked, would have flown straight to Bolivia and not given Mathis a second thought. Hence we would have had no Mathis. So, the way I see it is that Mathis was put there to die just so we could have a sombre moment and be reminded by a dying Mathis that Vesper loved Bond. A great character is killed off and his last words are about Vesper? Mathis was a spy, not his bloody counselor.

- Why does Bond even need a cover? What about Mathis? The whole thing with Fields was great fun but felt totally out of place. And him liking nice things and seducing women isn't at all new and should not even be considered an arc. We saw all this in CR. Unless you think recycling the same things in a different movie constitutes an arc.

-Because he's thinking big picture. He's developing. He's struggling to balance duty and personal need. - I don't see any struggle at all. He's out to stop Greene and the only reason he didn't take him there was because he had nothing on the man. It wasn't because of any struggle! By this time in the movie Bond had done nothing that would have been considered personal to anybody. Bond doesn't display any rash behaviour nor does he act recklessly throughout (unlike CR), so saying he is learning to control himself is really just another hole you're filling.

-So he does what any logical spy would do. He dumps the body, and he PUSHES FORWARD. - I, for the life of me, cannot imagine Fleming ever writing that. The very fact that some really go to great lengths to justify such an appalling scene is funny. It would have resonated more if Bond went back to Mathis' girlfriend at the end or something. Or even have Bond exact some harsher revenge than quipping about mutual friends and shooting some unrecognisable man in a car. Instead it felt tacked on and a case of Forster trying to be too clever in his understanding of the character. In the end, it just further underlines my belief that Bond was a robot, and this scene just proves it more than anything else.

-Because part of her "talk" was an act ??? So M was putting on an act just to get a reaction out of Bond, and she got one by him knocking out her guards and mentioning Fields deserved proper recognition? If all it took was that for her to figure out an agent whom she promoted then she's the dumbest M in the series...ever! Yes, M was indeed very very stupid in QoS. I just realized that now.

Edit: Will finish up later as I have to go...to be continued

#34 MattofSteel

MattofSteel

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2482 posts
  • Location:Waterloo, ON

Posted 20 April 2009 - 09:32 PM

Please don't, Eddie. I beg you. B) But seriously, go for it, I've already got counter arguments for most of that :tdown: