14 replies to this topic

[bondfisher007]

Is why bond goes crazy for vesper death and not tracy death?

[OmarB]

One's a green recruit and the other is a seasoned veteran so their outward expressions of guilt would be shaded by that. If you've read them then you'll know that Tracy's death has a way more profound effect on him that's not tackled in any of the movies.

[Guy Haines]

One's a green recruit and the other is a seasoned veteran so their outward expressions of guilt would be shaded by that. If you've read them then you'll know that Tracy's death has a way more profound effect on him that's not tackled in any of the movies.

Agreed. More profound because Bond had spent the previous ten adventures (the novels, that is) treating the women of his life as disposable pleasures rather than genuine relationships -even the ones that look as if they will last do not. In the book OHMSS Bond is at a point when he suddenly realises he wants to settle down at last, and believes he has found his soulmate. Moreover, there is no hint of betrayal on the part of Tracy, whereas Bond's reaction to the death of Vesper is affected by the knowledge that she was a double agent.

[DR76]

One's a green recruit and the other is a seasoned veteran so their outward expressions of guilt would be shaded by that. If you've read them then you'll know that Tracy's death has a way more profound effect on him that's not tackled in any of the movies.

Because the screenwriter for "DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER" couldn't write himself out of a paper bag. Sloppy characterization is the only excuse I can think of. In the novel following Tracy's death, Bond had great difficulty dealing with her death.

[The Shark]

One's a green recruit and the other is a seasoned veteran so their outward expressions of guilt would be shaded by that. If you've read them then you'll know that Tracy's death has a way more profound effect on him that's not tackled in any of the movies.

Because the screenwriter for "DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER" couldn't write himself out of a paper bag. Sloppy characterization is the only excuse I can think of. In the novel following Tracy's death, Bond had great difficulty dealing with her death.

DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER was written and conceived on the premise that ON MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE was a standalone Bond film. It could even work as a sequel to YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, considering it starts off where that film - Japan. You can blame the producers for that decision, if you want. But that is one lazy and ignorant excuse for slamming Tom Mankiewicz.

[OmarB]

That's why I specified "if you've read them" in my original post. But after making the posting I realized that not only was my response redundant, but the whole thread is. If a person read the books this would not be a question asked because these are two things dealt with very well in the first place. As for the movies and their handling of the whole thing, ham fisted comes to mind in some cases. They also tried to take continuity out of the equation when the source material depends on it's continuity so things get cut for a simplified continuity or some other reason. Could have had a pretty intense couple of movies.

But that's what you get from learning about a literary character from movies. Conan, Tarzan and Sherlock Holmes also come to mind.

Edited by OmarB, 02 December 2010 - 05:24 AM.

[DR76]

DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER was written and conceived on the premise that ON MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE was a standalone Bond film. It could even work as a sequel to YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, considering it starts off where that film - Japan. You can blame the producers for that decision, if you want. But that is one lazy and ignorant excuse for slamming Tom Mankiewicz.

I'm not buying the idea that OHMSS was a stand alone film. Especially since Tracy's death was brought up in "THE SPY WHO LOVED ME", "FOR YOUR EYES ONLY" and "LICENSE TO KILL". I have every right to slam Tom Mankiewicz, along with Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman for "DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER". Any Bond fan does.

[Safari Suit]

I suspect the real reason was a matter of timing. Brooding, serious-toned heroics were the order of the day in the late 00s (remember them? Crazy days, huh?!?) Were they in the very early 70s? Not so much, I'd say. Plus Casino Royale was the most commerically successful Bond film for decades, whereas OHMSS was, while far from the flop it's often assumed to be, the least successful Bond film to that date, so I think that makes a difference right there. Maybe if CR had seen a significant drop-off from DAD Vesper would have been another Tracy, who knows?

[Judo chop]

Because OHMSS ends with Tracy's death?

What's he supposed to do? Shoot holes in Blofeld's name in the closing credits?

[Doctor Whom]

DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER was written and conceived on the premise that ON MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE was a standalone Bond film. It could even work as a sequel to YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, considering it starts off where that film - Japan. You can blame the producers for that decision, if you want. But that is one lazy and ignorant excuse for slamming Tom Mankiewicz.

I'm not buying the idea that OHMSS was a stand alone film. Especially since Tracy's death was brought up in "THE SPY WHO LOVED ME", "FOR YOUR EYES ONLY" and "LICENSE TO KILL". I have every right to slam Tom Mankiewicz, along with Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman for "DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER". Any Bond fan does.

While there are certainly little bits of continuity popping up here and there (the mention of Dr. No's death in FRWL, Tracy's grave in FYEO), with the distinct exception of QOS, all the Bond films are stand-alone.

[jamie00007]

Is why bond goes crazy for vesper death and not tracy death?

He did. Just not in the films because, as others have said DAF was not written to continue that story arc. In the books after the Tracy saga Bond is a non-functioning wreck incapable of work. The only thing that brings him out of it is the opportunity for some revenge.

[Guy Haines]

Is why bond goes crazy for vesper death and not tracy death?

He did. Just not in the films because, as others have said DAF was not written to continue that story arc. In the books after the Tracy saga Bond is a non-functioning wreck incapable of work. The only thing that brings him out of it is the opportunity for some revenge.

Which brings us to another oft mentioned item on this website, whether YOLT should have been filmed as per the novel, and in the correct sequence, after OHMSS. One or two of us wanted a faithful version of YOLT on screen, complete with an armour plated Blofeld, pihranas and poison plants. Would we, however, have accepted a Bond rightly described above as being a non-functioning wreck - certainly in the first part of the book? Would audiences, or critics? I for one would have accepted it, and appreciated a faithful version of YOLT. But the end of the film OHMSS was a shocker. How much more shocking for mainstream audiences would have been the first few scenes of YOLT showing Bond as very far from the "Bond-mania" super-spy persona of the mid 60s period?

A great acting challenge for the actor playing Bond. But would such a faithful version of YOLT have taken the series in a new, compelling, harder edged direction, or consigned the series into the box office equivalent of The Garden of Death? We'll never know.

[OmarB]

It's an interesting question. If they did the books in order so people would "know" Bond for the man he is and how he grows and changes over the years through victory and defeat then an accurate YOLT and TMWGG would work well because people would be hanging on waiting for him to set it right and get back to his old self again.

As it stands we got a Bond who was pretty stagnant. He was like a cartoon character to me, the same guy in movie after movie, never changing. Though there is something cool and comforting about that, it's not how it goes. Superman being the same all around great guy in every movie is one thing. But a character like Batman needs the story arc to see him slowly loosing himself and getting more and more isolated, withdrawn and obsessed.

[Lachesis]

With the relatively poor critical and commercial reaction to OHMSS, coupled with the departure of George Lazenby I think the Producers were keen to reconnect with the audience and quickly move beyond this relatively dark chapter - They were also making a concerted effort to target the American Audience more directly I believe hence the drafting of Tom Mackieweicz.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, we can easily lament their descision not to pursue the arc begun with OHMSS but the enduring success of Bond is proof they knew their stuff and it would be a brave and potentially concieted man to suggest they were wrong in what they did for audiences of that time. I would suggest that by the time Tracy is referenced again (TSWLM) the jitters caused by OHMSS's performance were behind them and perhaps they were aware it was gaining some degree of appreciation.

[byline]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, we can easily lament their descision not to pursue the arc begun with OHMSS but the enduring success of Bond is proof they knew their stuff and it would be a brave and potentially concieted man to suggest they were wrong in what they did for audiences of that time. I would suggest that by the time Tracy is referenced again (TSWLM) the jitters caused by OHMSS's performance were behind them and perhaps they were aware it was gaining some degree of appreciation.

I agree. Also, I think that trying to analyze this in the context of 20-plus films is very different from analyzing it with only five films (as of "On Her Majesty's Secret Service"). I'm not sure that anyone really believed at that time that the series would have the longevity it has achieved, so perhaps there was a bit of a kneejerk reaction to get things back on track by returning to the way things were before Tracy, as if she had never entered Bond's life. I certainly never get any sense from "Diamonds Are Forever" that he was grieving over her or seeking revenge for her death, and while I can understand doing it that way at the time, I agree with others that it creates a narrative hiccup in the series, one that's never been fully resolved because of the decision to handle it this way.

I think that's part of why we got to see Craig's Bond grieve for Vesper; it's essentially the culmination of the Tracy story arc transposed for Vesper. Eon filled that narrative gap, but with a different character.