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

Guess Bond IS going to be an assassin then...


28 replies to this topic

#1 CasinoKiller

CasinoKiller

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 145 posts

Posted 29 June 2010 - 12:27 PM

In one of Deaver's recent interviews, in addition to confirming Project X as a reboot, M being a man, Mary Goodnight being Bond's secretary amongst other things, he also mentions the Double O Section being this shadowy division of MI6 which specıalıses in assassination and whose agents are disavowed if ever compromised.

So it looks like Bond's now going to be less a spy and more an assassin. Which, to be fair, is kinda like what hes been portrayed as mostly

#2 Aris007

Aris007

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3037 posts
  • Location:Thessaloniki, Greece

Posted 29 June 2010 - 01:30 PM

Perhaps you're right. It'll be very interesting to see Bond's skills as an assassin rather than a spy who mostly kills when he's attacked.

However Deaver will have to make Bond's character far more dark to match an assassin.

#3 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

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

Posted 29 June 2010 - 01:46 PM

Hmm. Don´t know yet whether I like that.

#4 CasinoKiller

CasinoKiller

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 145 posts

Posted 29 June 2010 - 02:05 PM

I dont think Bond necessarily has to be much darker in order to be an assassin. Remember, he already has a 'license to kill' which is given only to agents who are willing to kill in cold blood. Practically every version of Bond, in film and in literature so far, has shown a willingness to kill in cold blood when necessary (and sometimes even when not necessary); though his finer feelings on the matter have differed from version to version. The point is that the difference between Bond being an assassin as opposed to being a secret agent with a license to kill is simply the difference between Bond being sent out with specific instructions to kill as opposed to being sent into dangerous missions where he will (most likely) have to kill anyway. Its a very subtle difference.

Besides, even in the Fleming books, there have been mentions of Bond's role as an assassin within the Service (though the word isnt explicitly used). In Live and Let Die he mentions how is assignment is not only to destroy Mr. Big's organisation, but to possibly 'destroy' Mr. Big himself. In 'The Living Daylights' his mission is to kill a Soviet sniper (which he fails to do). In 'The Man with the Golden Gun' his mission is to kill Francisco Scaramanga. So there have been occassions when Bond has acted like an assassin, even if it hasnt been stated as such.

#5 zencat

zencat

    Commander GCMG

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 25814 posts
  • Location:Studio City, CA

Posted 29 June 2010 - 02:56 PM

Besides, even in the Fleming books, there have been mentions of Bond's role as an assassin within the Service (though the word isnt explicitly used). In Live and Let Die he mentions how is assignment is not only to destroy Mr. Big's organisation, but to possibly 'destroy' Mr. Big himself. In 'The Living Daylights' his mission is to kill a Soviet sniper (which he fails to do). In 'The Man with the Golden Gun' his mission is to kill Francisco Scaramanga. So there have been occassions when Bond has acted like an assassin, even if it hasnt been stated as such.

Yes, it's pretty clear M uses the Double-Os as assassins when need be, and it's clear Bond's mission has been assassination from time to time. Not just TLD and TMWTGG, but remember in Goldfinger he's coming back from an assassination mission (reflections in a double bourbon). Heck, Bond became a double-O by assassinating two targets in cold blood. There's nothing really new here in that regard. Bond IS a trained assassin. What's new is the disavowed part, which I really like.

#6 CasinoKiller

CasinoKiller

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 145 posts

Posted 29 June 2010 - 03:48 PM

Yeah, and I suppose it will clearly reflect on the relationship between Bond and M (who I suppose will be a reinvention of Admiral Miles Messervy).

#7 Carver

Carver

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1470 posts
  • Location:Birmingham, UK

Posted 29 June 2010 - 04:05 PM

As others have said, it's not going to make a huge difference as Bond has always been a killing machine; whether born of a reaction to an attack on him, or through specific orders to assassinate someone, he has always killed for his job. What I presume this new information means, however, is that there will be less emphasis on covert and reconnaissance missions and more on simply 'eliminate the threat' ones.

#8 zencat

zencat

    Commander GCMG

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 25814 posts
  • Location:Studio City, CA

Posted 29 June 2010 - 04:14 PM

I think it would be great if Bond's mission was simply to eliminate the target. But then it gets complicated. Or maybe he does eliminate the target and then it gets complicated. Lots of room there for some of those famous Deaver twists and turns. Oh, man, I'm excited about this. Only...332 days to go.

(Odd how I'm so much more excited about this than I was about DMC.)

#9 DAN LIGHTER

DAN LIGHTER

    Lt. Commander

  • Enlisting
  • PipPipPip
  • 1248 posts

Posted 29 June 2010 - 04:34 PM

Maybe your excited so much more than DMC because Jeffery Deaver is so excited. I can just tell the Chap is excited to be doing it. So it's rubbing off on some of us.

Now, did Bond show much spying in the books? I can only remember Casino Royale as real spying. Must be plenty of other examples........

#10 zencat

zencat

    Commander GCMG

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 25814 posts
  • Location:Studio City, CA

Posted 29 June 2010 - 04:43 PM

Maybe your excited so much more than DMC because Jeffery Deaver is so excited. I can just tell the Chap is excited to be doing it. So it's rubbing off on some of us.

Think you have something there. Don't get me wrong, I was excited about DMC, but I was spooked by how Faulks talked about it. It just seemed he wasn't into it or the genre. I wasn't sold that his genius would magically produce a great Bond novel (ironically, I appear to be the only fan who actually liked it).

JD is clearly VERY into it.

BTW, it was fun at the signing when JD, near the end, revealed he's going to do the next Bond book. Not many people there knew about this and there was an excited gasp when he revealed it.

#11 DAN LIGHTER

DAN LIGHTER

    Lt. Commander

  • Enlisting
  • PipPipPip
  • 1248 posts

Posted 29 June 2010 - 04:49 PM

I liked DMC, but have been disappointed in Faulks reaction to it since in his shunning of fans.

Deaver wont be doing this, it's clear he actually has a lot of time for his readers, just look at the tour schedule. And a quick glance at his website shows his fans approval at him writing the next Bond. It's in his genre so it mega exciting. Besides, the man can write a ripping good thriller.

Back on topic. So, Bond, Spy much? Really?

#12 CasinoKiller

CasinoKiller

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 145 posts

Posted 29 June 2010 - 05:48 PM

Maybe your excited so much more than DMC because Jeffery Deaver is so excited. I can just tell the Chap is excited to be doing it. So it's rubbing off on some of us.

Now, did Bond show much spying in the books? I can only remember Casino Royale as real spying. Must be plenty of other examples........


Well, to be fair to Bond, in the Fleming books he did do a fair amount of spying, or at any rate his original assignment was related to espionage matters.

Casino Royale didnt really involve spying at all. If nothing else, it was an assassination-by-proxy mission, in that Bonds purpose was to beat Le Chiffre at the card tables, cause him to lose all the Soviet funds he'd embezzled, which would force the Soviets to get him bumped off. Nothing remotely to do with intelligence gathering in this (the movie actually did introduce an aspect of intelligence gathering to the story, in that M wanted Le Chiffre alive so that they could learn about a global terrorist network).

A lot of the other early books, namely LALD, Moonrake and DAF did have Bond assigned to investigate something, though it wasnt really 'spying' and/or gathering intel about the Soviets-Bond acted more as a special police agent than anything else.

From Russia with Love was actually THE first Bond spy novel...Bond's whole mission involved getting a decoder machine that is crucial to future intelligence gathering efforts on the part of the Western intelligence servives, so yeah, theres definetly some good old Cold War espionage.

OHMSS was also possibly a spy novel, with Bond having to spend a larger part of the book infiltrating the enemy hideout, though it was actually all in preparation of capturing Blofeld rather than merely gathering intel so I'm not sure if that counts.

I consider Bond's original assignment at least, in YOLT, to be espionage related, in that he had to get Tanaka to reveal to him intel the Japanese had gotten on the Soviets which was crucial to England's security. Later, it became an assassination mission/revenge story.

But yeah, I know what you mean, most of the time Bond behaved less as a spy and more as a commando/one-man paramilitary force.

#13 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 30 June 2010 - 09:33 AM

As I said before Bond, is a counter-intelligence operative, with the training and abilities of a black-ops special forces commando. His job is to destroy the threat behind the spy, and usually leaves the paperwork and genuine spying to the "white collar boys", to paraphrase Fleming.

However there are exceptions to the rule, and M does occasionally send Bond on relatively mundane tasks are more habitual to a spy.

#14 Trident

Trident

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2658 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 30 June 2010 - 11:40 AM

Actually it would seem even the killing part of the 00's duties is more of a sideline. Fleming's Secret Service only employs three 00-agents and does not generally use assassination as a weapon, as Mister Big lets us know in LALD. (Question: what is assassination used for then? Company sports?)

Bond muses in MR that he ordinarily has between one and three assignments per year that call for his specific talents. And in GF we learn that plans to fold the whole 00 operation are at least considered. Of course, given how extraordinarily bad the 00-sections 'productivity' is to be rated. Then again, one can hardly order them to kill more people if there's no need for it, isn't it?

#15 CasinoKiller

CasinoKiller

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 145 posts

Posted 30 June 2010 - 02:44 PM

IMO Fleming never really thought clearly about the whole 'Double O' section concept or even about Bond's job precisely. Hes never really described as a spy, an assassin or a paramilitary officer-rather hes only ever described as a 'secret agent' a generic term which seems to encompass a wide range of activities. Basically Fleming never really defined Bond's job so that he could pretty much be put into any kind of situation that suited the plot. Sometimes hes involved in investigating major crimes/large-scale criminal enterprises and what pretty much seems a lot like pure detective work (LALD, DAF, Dr. No and Goldfinger being prime examples). At other times, he's involved in intelligence gathering, as seen in FRWL and arguably YOLT. In OHMSS he actually infiltrates the enemy's hideout with a false identity and thus becomes a 'real' spy in that sense. And yet there are other times when he just seems to be the agent sent to get rid of the enemy because hes considered 'tough', such as in Casino Royale and TMWTGG (and in the case of the former, is good at cards)

Also in CR, we are told that a Double O number is basically a distinction awarded to any agent who has killed in cold blood. Its only in Moonraker that we're told that 00 agents are the only men in the Service who can be 'asked to kill' implying that they do serve as assassins sometimes. FRWL is actually the first time the concept of the 'license to kill' is introduced, suggesting that these are agents who have killed and who are permitted to kill on duty. Goldfinger confuses the issue further by suggesting that the 'license to kill' is a special permission given by M to a 00 to eliminate a particular target, essentially an assassination order.

The general idea one gathers from Bond's activities in the books, and in the films, is that the 00's are elite agents of the Secret Service who are 'licensed to kill' while on a mission. They are given the most sensitive, the most dangerous assignments, which often send them into a variety of dangerous situation where they need to exercise that license.

#16 Harry Fawkes

Harry Fawkes

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2229 posts
  • Location:Malta G.C

Posted 30 June 2010 - 04:21 PM

Perhaps you're right. It'll be very interesting to see Bond's skills as an assassin rather than a spy who mostly kills when he's attacked.

However Deaver will have to make Bond's character far more dark to match an assassin.


Ian Fleming wrote the following:

It was part of 'Bond's' profession to kill people. He had never liked doing it and when he had to kill he did it as well as he knew how and forgot about it. As a secret agent who held the rare double-O prefix - a licence to kill in the Secret Service - it was his duty to be as cool about death as a surgeon. If it happened, it happened. Regret was unprofessional - worse, it was a death-watch beetle in the soul.

Deaver might be 're-booting' the Bond series but it seems he is sticking with what Fleming actually created, as can be seen from the extract above.

My point is, in Fleming's novels Bond is an assassin.

As for Bond's character being far more dark to match an assasin, as O.F. Snelling aptly put it, 'He is as tough and as accomplished as a commando - probably more so. Ian Fleming's James Bond is a killer, he always was. He kills as a soldier kills; in the field, destroying his enemies in the name of his queen and his country. He has long ago discarded any public school sentiments about fair play and sporting chances. He has killed in hot and in cold blood, but he is very different from the hired hoodlums of gangland, who will murder a man they have never known or seen before as dispassionately as they will step on an insect ... violent death, of which he has seen and metted out so much, has never given him pleasure - or any great pain, for that matter.

So, to say that Bond IS going to be an assassin is strange given the fact that he always was one.

#17 Trident

Trident

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2658 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 30 June 2010 - 04:43 PM

Perhaps you're right. It'll be very interesting to see Bond's skills as an assassin rather than a spy who mostly kills when he's attacked.

However Deaver will have to make Bond's character far more dark to match an assassin.


Ian Fleming wrote the following:

It was part of 'Bond's' profession to kill people. He had never liked doing it and when he had to kill he did it as well as he knew how and forgot about it. As a secret agent who held the rare double-O prefix - a licence to kill in the Secret Service - it was his duty to be as cool about death as a surgeon. If it happened, it happened. Regret was unprofessional - worse, it was a death-watch beetle in the soul.

Deaver might be 're-booting' the Bond series but it seems he is sticking with what Fleming actually created, as can be seen from the extract above.

My point is, in Fleming's novels Bond is an assassin.

As for Bond's character being far more dark to match an assasin, as O.F. Snelling aptly put it, 'He is as tough and as accomplished as a commando - probably more so. Ian Fleming's James Bond is a killer, he always was. He kills as a soldier kills; in the field, destroying his enemies in the name of his queen and his country. He has long ago discarded any public school sentiments about fair play and sporting chances. He has killed in hot and in cold blood, but he is very different from the hired hoodlums of gangland, who will murder a man they have never known or seen before as dispassionately as they will step on an insect ... violent death, of which he has seen and metted out so much, has never given him pleasure - or any great pain, for that matter.

So, to say that Bond IS going to be an assassin is strange given the fact that he always was one.



Not sure if I agree completely there. My reading would be that Bond really is a soldier (often forgotten: soldiers are the people that all have a licence to kill by their very nature) that is forced to act like an assassin. But the soldier can stop killing once the enemy surrenders, while the real assassin would shoot on and indeed have no qualms, no regrets, no remorse about it. Bond has to fight all these side effects of his profession almost permanently. He's not an assassin by nature and only his ability to overcome his own doubts and fight on makes him the instrument the SIS and M need so badly.

#18 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 30 June 2010 - 04:54 PM

What's new is the disavowed part, which I really like.

Me too.

#19 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 30 June 2010 - 05:26 PM

Isn't that a steal from Brian De Palma's MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE? (Right down to the use of the word "disavowed".)

#20 zencat

zencat

    Commander GCMG

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 25814 posts
  • Location:Studio City, CA

Posted 30 June 2010 - 05:43 PM

I'm sure if we look hard enough we can find an earlier example of a spy being "disavowed." I think this idea may be as old as spies themselves. Not sure it's fair to accuse JD of "stealing" this idea.

#21 CasinoKiller

CasinoKiller

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 145 posts

Posted 30 June 2010 - 06:57 PM

If I remember correctly, in Die Another Day, Bond is clearly disavowed when his mission to kill that North Korean colonel fails...maybe thats the sort of thing Deaver means

#22 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14266 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 30 June 2010 - 07:20 PM

What's new is the disavowed part, which I really like.

Me too.


Oh come on, Gardner did that on at least one occasion.

#23 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 30 June 2010 - 07:31 PM

What's new is the disavowed part, which I really like.

Me too.

Oh come on, Gardner did that on at least one occasion.

I wouldn't know if he did. I've willfully forgotten the Gardner novels.

#24 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14266 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 30 June 2010 - 07:35 PM

What's new is the disavowed part, which I really like.

Me too.

Oh come on, Gardner did that on at least one occasion.

I wouldn't know if he did. I've willfully forgotten the Gardner novels.


Oh.

#25 zencat

zencat

    Commander GCMG

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 25814 posts
  • Location:Studio City, CA

Posted 30 June 2010 - 09:32 PM

What's new is the disavowed part, which I really like.

Me too.

Oh come on, Gardner did that on at least one occasion.

I wouldn't know if he did. I've willfully forgotten the Gardner novels.


Oh.

No Deals, Mr. Bond. That is what the title refers to, being disavowed if caught.

What's different about Deaver's world is it isn't mission specific. It's a permanent part of being a double-oh. At least that's how I understand it.

#26 Harry Fawkes

Harry Fawkes

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2229 posts
  • Location:Malta G.C

Posted 01 July 2010 - 05:11 AM

Perhaps you're right. It'll be very interesting to see Bond's skills as an assassin rather than a spy who mostly kills when he's attacked.

However Deaver will have to make Bond's character far more dark to match an assassin.


Ian Fleming wrote the following:

It was part of 'Bond's' profession to kill people. He had never liked doing it and when he had to kill he did it as well as he knew how and forgot about it. As a secret agent who held the rare double-O prefix - a licence to kill in the Secret Service - it was his duty to be as cool about death as a surgeon. If it happened, it happened. Regret was unprofessional - worse, it was a death-watch beetle in the soul.

Deaver might be 're-booting' the Bond series but it seems he is sticking with what Fleming actually created, as can be seen from the extract above.

My point is, in Fleming's novels Bond is an assassin.

As for Bond's character being far more dark to match an assasin, as O.F. Snelling aptly put it, 'He is as tough and as accomplished as a commando - probably more so. Ian Fleming's James Bond is a killer, he always was. He kills as a soldier kills; in the field, destroying his enemies in the name of his queen and his country. He has long ago discarded any public school sentiments about fair play and sporting chances. He has killed in hot and in cold blood, but he is very different from the hired hoodlums of gangland, who will murder a man they have never known or seen before as dispassionately as they will step on an insect ... violent death, of which he has seen and metted out so much, has never given him pleasure - or any great pain, for that matter.

So, to say that Bond IS going to be an assassin is strange given the fact that he always was one.



Not sure if I agree completely there. My reading would be that Bond really is a soldier (often forgotten: soldiers are the people that all have a licence to kill by their very nature) that is forced to act like an assassin. But the soldier can stop killing once the enemy surrenders, while the real assassin would shoot on and indeed have no qualms, no regrets, no remorse about it. Bond has to fight all these side effects of his profession almost permanently. He's not an assassin by nature and only his ability to overcome his own doubts and fight on makes him the instrument the SIS and M need so badly.


I agree completely Trident and that is what I tried ‘thrusting’ out too.
When I wrote: So, to say that Bond IS going to be an assassin is strange given the fact that he always was one I was using the word assassin in its broadest definition - that is to say that Bond is already a killer.

The gist of my piece rests on the point that:-

Bond kills as a soldier kills; in the field, destroying his enemies in the name of his queen and his country. He has long ago discarded any public school sentiments about fair play and sporting chances. He has killed in hot and in cold blood, but he is very different from the hired hoodlums of gangland, who will murder a man they have never known or seen before as dispassionately as they will step on an insect ... violent death, of which he has seen and metted out so much, has never given him pleasure - or any great pain, for that matter.

Which is, if I understood correctly, what you, in the end, are pointing out yourself, no?

Harry

#27 Bryce (003)

Bryce (003)

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10110 posts
  • Location:West Los Angeles, California USA

Posted 01 July 2010 - 05:22 AM

Well stated Harry.

I always enjoyed the part in Licence Renewed when Bond reflects on the Double-O section being dismissed but M assuring him he would still retain his status as "007" and be the blunt instrument. The old sailor never gave up on his favorite son and knew that more so than ever in the early 80's and with the Cold war still heating up, that a seasoned agent of Bond's experience would be needed from time to time.

I look forward to this. Now, if some blunt instrument will get this MGM debacle squared away and the films back on track, I'll be really happy.

#28 Trident

Trident

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2658 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 01 July 2010 - 05:43 AM

The gist of my piece rests on the point that:-

Bond kills as a soldier kills; in the field, destroying his enemies in the name of his queen and his country. He has long ago discarded any public school sentiments about fair play and sporting chances. He has killed in hot and in cold blood, but he is very different from the hired hoodlums of gangland, who will murder a man they have never known or seen before as dispassionately as they will step on an insect ... violent death, of which he has seen and metted out so much, has never given him pleasure - or any great pain, for that matter.

Which is, if I understood correctly, what you, in the end, are pointing out yourself, no?

Harry



I see him as someone able to put his emotions aside when the assignment calls for it, doing his duty much as a soldier in a war. He's in effect always rationalising his actions as self-defence, even when he knows the analogy doesn't always hold the water. And I also see him piling up an emotional debt he knows he will one day have to settle. His duty hasn't indented on his courage yet, but it calls for a steady effort on his side and he suspects the outcome.

#29 Harry Fawkes

Harry Fawkes

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2229 posts
  • Location:Malta G.C

Posted 01 July 2010 - 06:52 AM

The gist of my piece rests on the point that:-

Bond kills as a soldier kills; in the field, destroying his enemies in the name of his queen and his country. He has long ago discarded any public school sentiments about fair play and sporting chances. He has killed in hot and in cold blood, but he is very different from the hired hoodlums of gangland, who will murder a man they have never known or seen before as dispassionately as they will step on an insect ... violent death, of which he has seen and metted out so much, has never given him pleasure - or any great pain, for that matter.

Which is, if I understood correctly, what you, in the end, are pointing out yourself, no?

Harry



I see him as someone able to put his emotions aside when the assignment calls for it, doing his duty much as a soldier in a war. He's in effect always rationalising his actions as self-defence, even when he knows the analogy doesn't always hold the water. And I also see him piling up an emotional debt he knows he will one day have to settle. His duty hasn't indented on his courage yet, but it calls for a steady effort on his side and he suspects the outcome.


Nicely put Trident.