35 replies to this topic

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

No excuses now for Bond 24. Bond became Bond in CASINO ROYALE, had his solace in QUANTUM OF SOLACE, and is ready to get back to work with (a male) M, Q and Moneypenny at the end of SKYFALL.

 

So, during his first three films Craig was the black sheep of the Bonds for many people - he's blonde, he has no style, the plots are Bournesque or Nolanesque, etc.  I don't agree 100% with those who say that but I do think that there was a big mistake during the Craig era and I hope this will be completely solved by Bond 24: Bond becomes Bond,

 

We've dealt with his past and psychological profile, his deep feelings about women, the dirty work in his missions - ok, do it for CASINO ROYALE, but that was a little over-extended for QUANTUM OF SOLACE and SKYFALL. It's time for a "normal" Bond film - and by "normal" I don't say a MOONRAKER or THE SPY WHO LOVED ME plot. Just a normally orcherstrated plot where Bond/MI6 have nothing personal about the villain, just like in THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, THUNDERBALL, TOMORROW NEVER DIES. Simply: Bond is sent to a mission to prevent X's plan, then he ends with a girl (not necesarily in the bed or next to the water, but in a context where we say he's with "the good girl"). And also, the gunbarrel should be back at the beginning - and stick with one good design, one good pose and one good suit (Craig had three different gunbarrels with three different suits, poses and designs), with a different music of course.

 

I'm not one of those who like a full of fireworks Bond film, but sometimes we have to take a break with dealing with Bond past and emotions. Five consecutive adventures of Bond dealing with his inner feelings seem quite boring IMHO. Time for some escapism for Bond 24 (not slapstick, of course). I think that'd help a lot to make Craig feel "bonder" for older audiences who grew up during the Connery-Brosnan eras, reminding us Craig is still the same James Bond, albeit with a different style. As I said before, the only thing that connnected Connery-Lazenby-Moore-Dalton-Brosnan was the typical Bond structure, even when they were different characterizations.

[stamper]

There will never be another "normal" Bond again. All future films will stil explore Bond psyche, the Fleming style. Sorry to say. You still have 20 of those to watch at home on Blu-ray.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

There will never be another "normal" Bond again. All future films will stil explore Bond psyche, the Fleming style. Sorry to say. You still have 20 of those to watch at home on Blu-ray.

 

I'm not against that they explore Bond's psyche a little, but not the whole plot related to it. Bond can't grow up and becoming Bond forever. I'm quite sure we'll have a normal Bond soon, even with Craig.

 

It's "the circle of life" - we were tired of a funny Bond (Moore), and another Bond (Dalton) came to "live on the edge". We were tired of a badass Bond, and a lighter escapist Bond came (Brosnan). Then we were again tired of that comic Bond, and we've got a psychological Bond (Craig) again, and so on...

[TheSilhouette]

 

There will never be another "normal" Bond again. All future films will stil explore Bond psyche, the Fleming style. Sorry to say. You still have 20 of those to watch at home on Blu-ray.

 

I'm not against that they explore Bond's psyche a little, but not the whole plot related to it. Bond can't grow up and becoming Bond forever. I'm quite sure we'll have a normal Bond soon, even with Craig.

 

It's "the circle of life" - we were tired of a funny Bond (Moore), and another Bond (Dalton) came to "live on the edge". We were tired of a badass Bond, and a lighter escapist Bond came (Brosnan). Then we were again tired of that comic Bond, and we've got a psychological Bond (Craig) again, and so on...

By your definition of "normal", I'm not sure we will have another one of those for the Craig era. I mean, Craig finished becoming Bond at the end of QoS. At the beginning of Skyfall, he was "the finished product" , but he loses a step after he's shot. I think Craig's Bond will always be more psychologically and emotionally oriented, that's just his "thing" just as Moore's Bond films were more comical. I don't think Craig has any interest in doing a cookie cutter Bond film and rightly so, because it's beneath him.

[kronsteen63]

I completely agree with the OP on this subject.  It's why I was underwhelmed by Skyfall, though I still admit it's a pretty great film.  I think there is plenty of room for Daniel Craig's Bond to be emotionally or psychologically damaged in some way, but the entire plot and structure of the film doesn't have to revolve around it.  And as far as the Craig era not being "cookie cutter", I'd have to disagree.  Skyfall had a lot of derived elements in it, mostly recycled from the Pierce Brosnan era (attack on the MI6 building, a jaded, physically deformed former MI6 agent whose motive is driven by his feelings of betrayal by his own government, etc.).  It was just portrayed slightly differently and most people don't notice.  And it kinda feels like every Mission:Impossible movie features some sort of stolen disc/drive with lists of agents on them.  Still, there are a lot of unique aspects to it that we have never seen before.

 

The end of all 3 Craig films have, in a way, promised a more established Bond and a more conventional film to follow, but so far nothing like this has come to fruition.  Hard to say if they'll do it the next time around, seeing as how casual Bond fans and general moviegoers prefer this Bond incarnation over many of the previous ones, and in the end that's where the majority of EON's profits come from.

[tdalton]

I'll agree that I don't want to see them looking back into Bond's past, and especially not his childhood as they did with SKYFALL.  I also don't want to see your standard Bond film either, where it follows the formula and there are no surprises.  I'd rather they keep doing something different with each of the films, whether it ultimately works, as it did with CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE, or whether it doesn't, as was the case with SKYFALL. 

 

Keep moving forward and not looking back are what EON should be doing right now.  Given the ridiculous amount of money that SKYFALL has pulled in, I think that EON has earned enough goodwill amongst the entire audience out there to go out the next time and try something new.  Hopefully they continue to take risks with the films rather than trying to make THUNDERBALL 2 or something like that.

[Zographos]

The second Bond stops changing is the moment he stops being a character.  Characters can't be static; they need trajectories.

 

Obviously this era will run its course, but the solution isn't to remake TOMORROW NEVER DIES, it's to press ahead with something innovative.  I agree with Stamper - if you're expecting TND2 for Bond 24, you've severely misread where the franchise is at.

 

I also don't think that the Bond movies are, as a whole, circular.  All Bonds added something new and unique to the role and evolved it in some way, something that gets obscured with phrases like "the Connery-Brosnan era" (there was no such beast).

[Dustin]

Mod note: edited the thread-title. Please do continue.

Edited by Dustin, 05 December 2012 - 11:17 PM.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

Even when MR and TSWLM has a lot of YOLT, and AVTAK of GF, and SKYFALL of TWINE, I do think that each film has its differences to the source base. I don't think "there are no surprises". I doubt someone could ever imagine Bond in outer space before MR. Were you expecting a villain to get sucked out to outer space, or Bond being pushed out of a plane with no paratuche? Max Zorin is equal to Goldfinger? No, one is obsessed with gold while the other is sadistic and cold blooded. And yes, TND... you can say it's a rip off of TSWLM, FYEO, etc, but who thinks of that all the time? While watching SF I was never thinking "oh, the MI6 blows up like TWINE", "oh, there's someone of M's past behind her, and Bond isn't in shape". We enjoyed the film. In the end, we want ALL the Craig films to see him depressed and solace-less? and trying to "find himself to prove he is James Bond"? That'd be as monotonal as having five films in a row with Bond saving the world and bedding a girl at the end, you'd say "c'mon, let's move on". And that's what I'm thinking now after SKYFALL - one of the things I've enjoyed the most is more humour and traditional elements that lacked in CR and QOS, made feel it "bonder".

 

But whether you like the "hero Bond" that saves the world or the "new age rebooted Bond" that is still dealing with his inner feelings, my point is what Kronsteen63 said before: does every plot and every character has to be related with Bond past or feelings? In Fleming's novels (except Vesper, Tracy, Blofeld and maybe Le Chiffre) nobody something really personal against Bond or Bond against them. Was Jack Spang determined to destroy Bond or viceversa? No. Did Mr Big wanted to destroy Bond? No, he was just someone who got in his way and that's why he was behind him. 

[Guy Haines]

I think some of the criticism of SF has less to do with the Craig films "exploring Bond's psyche" and more to do with the whole re-boot and the way the "comfort zone" elements of the Bond film series have either disappeared or been re-introduced in different ways. I've read one or two posts recently bemoaning the loss of "my James Bond", which, I think, means:-

 

1) The gunbarrel/Monty Norman theme is in the wrong place - I sympathise with that criticism, but it doesn't really spoil my enjoyment of the Craig films.

 

2)  Bond flirting with Moneypenny pre/post getting his marching orders.

 

3)  Bond reporting to Q to collect the Aston Martin and the exploding pens, etc.

 

4)  Bond encountering his adversary, who overpowers him temporarily, but just long enough to conveniently explain his world threatening plot....

 

5)  Which, of course, 007 destroys, in a blaze of pyrotechnics, saving the leading lady just in time before once more seducing her as the credits roll.

 

I wouldn't have any issue with any of that returning, but I doubt if any of these scenes will be back in quite the way the critics would like. I can't see Eve Moneypenny as the type who secretly worships Bond from afar. Q now is certainly not part army officer/part backroom boffin. There will still be room for a "Blofeld" character, but he may well be more likely creating cyber-havoc in the world economy than plotting the end of everything inside a hollowed out volcano. And I think we'll see Bond (finally) end a film with a lady he seduced earlier who survives to the end of the story - but I just can't imagine her breathless "Oh, James!" as the credits roll and the Bond theme comes back on.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

I wouldn't have any issue with any of that returning, but I doubt if any of these scenes will be back in quite the way the critics would like. I can't see Eve Moneypenny as the type who secretly worships Bond from afar. Q now is certainly not part army officer/part backroom boffin. There will still be room for a "Blofeld" character, but he may well be more likely creating cyber-havoc in the world economy than plotting the end of everything inside a hollowed out volcano. And I think we'll see Bond (finally) end a film with a lady he seduced earlier who survives to the end of the story - but I just can't imagine her breathless "Oh, James!" as the credits roll and the Bond theme comes back on.

 

Yes, I think that is what should return re-adapted to the Craig era, but following almost the same standards than the traditional films. Giving us surprises and twists, yes, but basically respecting the formula.

[FOX MULDER]

I completely agree. Bond is fully rebooted now.

 

We've had the backstory, the Vesper betrayal, the coming-of-age in QOS, the personal journey of Skyfall...

 

Now, for the next one, let's have a real Bond movie. 

 

Bond versus Blofeld, spread over Bond 24 and Bond 25. That will do nicely...

[seawolfnyy]

Eventually, we will get a return to the "normal" films, but it won't be during Craig's tenure. I think Bond 24 will be more "normal", but not like TND or TB or TLD. I like the new direction in the Craig era as it has made the films more than mindless action thrillers and has attracted a higher quality crop of directors. I definitely could see Blofeld returning for 24 and 25 though.

[tdalton]

 

 

Now, for the next one, let's have a real Bond movie. 

 

 

 

We've had a real Bond movie.  There hasn't been a fake Bond movie at any point, unless I missed something along the way.  Craig's three Bond films are Bond films just as Brosnan's are Bond films, Dalton's are Bond films, and so on. 

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

 

 

 

Now, for the next one, let's have a real Bond movie. 

 

 

 

We've had a real Bond movie.  There hasn't been a fake Bond movie at any point, unless I missed something along the way.  Craig's three Bond films are Bond films just as Brosnan's are Bond films, Dalton's are Bond films, and so on. 

 

 

Not sure. Dalton and Brosnan respected the formula and the character has not been redefined completely until the complete redefinition that came with Craig: Three different gunbarrels in different places, few James Bond Theme heard, no ending with a girl - things that you can do in one movie (two or three as an excess), but not for a whole era. Bond is not Peter Parker, who suddenly was bitten by a spider and find himself with a new personality and is constantly balancing between his past and present. Bond is a secret agent, with a lot of psychological stuff that I'm glad it's been explored in the Craig era, but not in the excess of a teenage super hero. 

His parents died in a climbing accident as Alec reminded us in GOLDENEYE - perfect. He lived his childhood in Scotland and his parents were Andrew Bond and Monique Delacroix as we learn in SKYFALL- ok. But dealing a whole era with Bond's life will even make us lose the mistique of Bond, of that Bond we didn't knew nothing about (except for the novels - and even Fleming revealed biographical aspects in his penultimate novel!). We can see shades of Bond's past, that's OK and I love it, but no "how Bond is constantly affected by his past in the whole Craig era".

[tdalton]

 

 

 

 

Now, for the next one, let's have a real Bond movie. 

 

 

 

We've had a real Bond movie.  There hasn't been a fake Bond movie at any point, unless I missed something along the way.  Craig's three Bond films are Bond films just as Brosnan's are Bond films, Dalton's are Bond films, and so on. 

 

 

Not sure. Dalton and Brosnan respected the formula and the character has not been redefined completely until the complete redefinition that came with Craig: Three different gunbarrels in different places, few James Bond Theme heard, no ending with a girl - things that you can do in one movie (two or three as an excess), but not for a whole era. Bond is not Peter Parker, who suddenly was bitten by a spider and find himself with a new personality and is constantly balancing between his past and present. Bond is a secret agent, with a lot of psychological stuff that I'm glad it's been explored in the Craig era, but not in the excess of a teenage super hero. 

 

 

A Bond film is much more than those things.  By the same logic, DR. NO isn't a real Bond film because there is no pre-title sequence.

 

They certainly haven't gone as far as to turn Bond into Peter Parker.  Craig's Bond is, save for Dalton's interpretation of the character, the closest to Fleming that we've seen in the series.  That alone is enough to make it a real Bond film.

[seawolfnyy]

 

 

 

 

 

Now, for the next one, let's have a real Bond movie. 

 

 

 

We've had a real Bond movie.  There hasn't been a fake Bond movie at any point, unless I missed something along the way.  Craig's three Bond films are Bond films just as Brosnan's are Bond films, Dalton's are Bond films, and so on. 

 

 

Not sure. Dalton and Brosnan respected the formula and the character has not been redefined completely until the complete redefinition that came with Craig: Three different gunbarrels in different places, few James Bond Theme heard, no ending with a girl - things that you can do in one movie (two or three as an excess), but not for a whole era. Bond is not Peter Parker, who suddenly was bitten by a spider and find himself with a new personality and is constantly balancing between his past and present. Bond is a secret agent, with a lot of psychological stuff that I'm glad it's been explored in the Craig era, but not in the excess of a teenage super hero. 

 

 

A Bond film is much more than those things.  By the same logic, DR. NO isn't a real Bond film because there is no pre-title sequence.

 

They certainly haven't gone as far as to turn Bond into Peter Parker.  Craig's Bond is, save for Dalton's interpretation of the character, the closest to Fleming that we've seen in the series.  That alone is enough to make it a real Bond film.

 

Honestly, based on your assessment tdalton, this makes Craig's Bond (and Dalton's) more of a real Bond film than any of the other 18 films.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

 

They certainly haven't gone as far as to turn Bond into Peter Parker.  Craig's Bond is, save for Dalton's interpretation of the character, the closest to Fleming that we've seen in the series.  That alone is enough to make it a real Bond film.

 

 

Yet I'm sure the 80% of the people grew up with the cinematic Bond, and read the novels after watching a Bond movie. Nobody doubts Craig and Dalton were the closest to Fleming's Bond, but a tiny bit of escapism is always needed - look at OHMSS, that scene where after fighting Che Che he takes a finger of caviar "Royal Belguga, North of the Caspian". That's it. In the same film, we've got some "Bond discovering himself" but in some scenes. In the Craig era, the 80% is "Bond discovering himself".

[MajorB]

Yes, I'd like the next film to be about a mature, confident operative who doesn't have to prove hiimself to M or himself or anyone else. I'm quite happy if during a mission he's put in a situation that challenges him emotionally, but the past four films have shown Bond having to prove his worth to M for one reason or another, and to me that's enough. Of course, with a new M, there's a natural opening for another of that kind of story, but I hope that's not how they go.

[plankattack]

 I'm quite happy if during a mission he's put in a situation that challenges him emotionally, 

 

Perfectly put. I do think there is great scope to this discussion (and what's great about CBn) but I do suspect there are two different issues at play in this and similar threads with the notion "when is the old Bond coming back."

 

I know there are some that want to see a Bond without self-doubt, growing arc etc etc. I personally have enjoyed the "fleshing-out" of the character, and the sense that EON committed to the idea rather than just paying it lip-service, but I do think that DC's fourth film should (and will) fit into the more traditional template of the character. That being said, I still hope that who Bond is integral to the film's plot.

 

To explain: OP - Bond goes to India, confronts villain, chases around, thwarts plot, film over. Two films later in TLD, Bond is still confronting villains and thwarting plots, but part of the plot's hook is that he falls for a woman and to an extent lies to her get what he needs mission-wise. There's more to Bond than just a trigger-finger. Or how about FRWL - Bond is both smooth and savvy, but the tete-a-tete with Grant comes about because Grant initially fools him, before Bond figures him out; the one thing Bond definitely is not while on the Orient Express is the indestructible superman of say YOLT, where Bond is arguably the least interesting (and interested) character in the whole film.

 

The Bond of TLD, FRWL, even TWINE, I have no trouble seeing back, and each of those interpretations are the finished product but the plot to some extent hinges on who and how that finished product behaves.

 

Now I do think the other issue is that some just want "old-style" James Bond films back. Gun-barrel-stunt-song-Moneypenny-villain-stunt-1st girl-stunt-sacrificial lamb-stunt-2nd girl-big finish-make out w/2nd girl-Bond will be back. And yes watch them, that is the order.

 

Now if that's what you want, all power to you, but I should say, out of 23 films, there are somewhere between 16 and 18 that follow that pattern (and for the longest time, with diminishing returns). I for one am happy for a few more that surprise, rather than just re-show me what I've had for the last forty years.

[kronsteen63]

To explain: OP - Bond goes to India, confronts villain, chases around, thwarts plot, film over. Two films later in TLD, Bond is still confronting villains and thwarting plots, but part of the plot's hook is that he falls for a woman and to an extent lies to her get what he needs mission-wise. There's more to Bond than just a trigger-finger. Or how about FRWL - Bond is both smooth and savvy, but the tete-a-tete with Grant comes about because Grant initially fools him, before Bond figures him out; the one thing Bond definitely is not while on the Orient Express is the indestructible superman of say YOLT, where Bond is arguably the least interesting (and interested) character in the whole film.

 

The Bond of TLD, FRWL, even TWINE, I have no trouble seeing back, and each of those interpretations are the finished product but the plot to some extent hinges on who and how that finished product behaves.

 

 

Nicely put!  I've been trying to get my thoughts across as to why I say I want a more traditional Bond film, but at the same time I still want them to avoid completely reverting back to those "old-style" Bond films you mentioned.  This sums up my feelings and expectations quite nicely.

[Baccarat]

I am completely satisfied with Craig, and the respective merits of CR, QoS, and SF: Bond is still 007, still licensed to kill, and still doing it all with a sense of style and a dry British wit. That's all the formula I need. The fact that all three are darker and more "psychological" in tone than the films that came before only makes them better. There is no going back; only forward.

Edited by Baccarat, 07 December 2012 - 01:06 AM.

[tdalton]

 

 

They certainly haven't gone as far as to turn Bond into Peter Parker.  Craig's Bond is, save for Dalton's interpretation of the character, the closest to Fleming that we've seen in the series.  That alone is enough to make it a real Bond film.

 

 

Yet I'm sure the 80% of the people grew up with the cinematic Bond, and read the novels after watching a Bond movie. Nobody doubts Craig and Dalton were the closest to Fleming's Bond, but a tiny bit of escapism is always needed - look at OHMSS, that scene where after fighting Che Che he takes a finger of caviar "Royal Belguga, North of the Caspian". That's it. In the same film, we've got some "Bond discovering himself" but in some scenes. In the Craig era, the 80% is "Bond discovering himself".

 

 

There can be escapism and all of that without having to have the film beholden to the formula.  Having all of the films follow the exact same structure over and over again and include the same gags, tropes, plotlines (Bond recycles plots far too often), etc. is not the same thing as escapism.  I'd argue it's exactly the opposite of escapism, to be honest.  I want to see EON continue to do different things each and every time out.  I don't want BOND 24 to be something like SKYFALL, just like I didn't want SKYFALL to be another retread of QUANTUM OF SOLACE, and so on down the line.  They're finally starting to take some risks with the franchise now.  It's not the time for EON to retreat back to the standard formula that the first 20 films are all built upon. 

[DaveBond21]

An interesting thing for me is that all 3 Craig films have actually had a relatively downbeat ending compared to the usual Bond kissing the girl.

 

But I love the final moments of CR and SF.

 

I think the Bond movies do need to be different these days, but I do agree that the revenge angle (MI6 traitors) has been done so much that they now are the norm - making every Bond movie since 1995 effectively the same plot - a traitor from within.

 

Still, plot doesn't matter as much to me as having a good time, and with that, all the Bond movies deliver.

 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[CasinoKiller]

This whole idea of a 'traditional Bond', a 'classic Bond' or a 'Bond formula' which the Craig films have supposedly discarded is quiet laughable, in many ways. Because, nearly EVERY Bond film in the latter half of the series' existence (I'm talking post-The Living Daylights) has broken and/or subverted the 'formula' in some manner or the other. I mean, consider the following-

 

License to Kill - Bond becomes a rogue agent and goes on a private vendetta; formula pretty much shattered here

 

Goldeneye - The villain being Bond's friend and a former 00; a 'flashback' PTS set 'nine years ago'; introducing a female M...some significant departures here

 

Tomorrow Never Dies - Admittedly a pretty formulaic film (being a near-remake of YOLT and TSWLM will tend to do that...)

 

The World is Not Enough - The whole Electra King twist (first Bond Girl to be THE villain!), M being kidnapped, MI6 attacked...not your average Bond movie

 

Die Another Day - Bond is abducted and spends over a year being tortured in a North Korean prison camp...a gritty start to a Bond film one could scarcely imagine in a formulaic Bond

 

Casino Royale - Rebooting the franchise, made Bond a rookie 00, had him fall in love...pretty much self-explanatory

 

Quantum of Solace - The first direct sequel in the series ever

 

Skyfall - Nuff said!

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

This whole idea of a 'traditional Bond', a 'classic Bond' or a 'Bond formula' which the Craig films have supposedly discarded is quiet laughable, in many ways. Because, nearly EVERY Bond film in the latter half of the series' existence (I'm talking post-The Living Daylights) has broken and/or subverted the 'formula' in some manner or the other. I mean, consider the following-

 

License to Kill - Bond becomes a rogue agent and goes on a private vendetta; formula pretty much shattered here

 

Goldeneye - The villain being Bond's friend and a former 00; a 'flashback' PTS set 'nine years ago'; introducing a female M...some significant departures here

 

Tomorrow Never Dies - Admittedly a pretty formulaic film (being a near-remake of YOLT and TSWLM will tend to do that...)

 

The World is Not Enough - The whole Electra King twist (first Bond Girl to be THE villain!), M being kidnapped, MI6 attacked...not your average Bond movie

 

Die Another Day - Bond is abducted and spends over a year being tortured in a North Korean prison camp...a gritty start to a Bond film one could scarcely imagine in a formulaic Bond

 

 

Which of these had the gunbarrel at the end, a black and white teaser, a CGI end title card, the Columbia logo with the soundtrack audio? Also, which of them showed Bond questioning all the time if he's the same he was before? 

[Stavro]

They should not force integrating new Bond films into the series, I'm afraid, by doing that, the quality of the films will be lowered.

By making films, they are making Bond history that will never be forgotten. In another 50 years, they will think of even QoS as the classic 007 adventure.

 

Although I do agree the films have been a bit personal since TLD. I suppose Bond 24 will correct that.

Edited by Stavro, 18 December 2012 - 07:35 PM.

[CasinoKiller]

 

This whole idea of a 'traditional Bond', a 'classic Bond' or a 'Bond formula' which the Craig films have supposedly discarded is quiet laughable, in many ways. Because, nearly EVERY Bond film in the latter half of the series' existence (I'm talking post-The Living Daylights) has broken and/or subverted the 'formula' in some manner or the other. I mean, consider the following-

 

License to Kill - Bond becomes a rogue agent and goes on a private vendetta; formula pretty much shattered here

 

Goldeneye - The villain being Bond's friend and a former 00; a 'flashback' PTS set 'nine years ago'; introducing a female M...some significant departures here

 

Tomorrow Never Dies - Admittedly a pretty formulaic film (being a near-remake of YOLT and TSWLM will tend to do that...)

 

The World is Not Enough - The whole Electra King twist (first Bond Girl to be THE villain!), M being kidnapped, MI6 attacked...not your average Bond movie

 

Die Another Day - Bond is abducted and spends over a year being tortured in a North Korean prison camp...a gritty start to a Bond film one could scarcely imagine in a formulaic Bond

 

 

Which of these had the gunbarrel at the end, a black and white teaser, a CGI end title card, the Columbia logo with the soundtrack audio? Also, which of them showed Bond questioning all the time if he's the same he was before? 

 

 

Agreed...the Craig films have deviated more from the formula than any of the previous ones, which is the point of the reboot. But that's not to say that deviating from the formula is something totally new and radical for the Bond films. 

 

As far as Bond questioning himself goes...that was the point of Skyfall. It was a sort of meta-textual reference to Bond's relevance in the contemporary world, and also part of the character's arc for this film. I think exploring James Bond's psyche and what makes him tick is an apt subject for the 50th anniversary film.

 

One thing I'm pretty sure the Craig films are never going to go back on is the notion of developing Bond as a character, and giving him a character arc for each film  (and, for the first time ever in the series), an arc that spans SEVERAL films. Casino Royale showed us a Bond who goes from being a somewhat brash and impulsive rookie to a cold-hearted fighting machine. Quantum of Solace has Bond resolving his lingering emotional issues vis a vi Vesper and becoming the perfect agent we all know and love from the old films. Skyfall is a film that is, thematically at least, set at a later point and deals with a physically and psychologically wounded Bond trying to recover and become the legendary operative he once was again.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

 

One thing I'm pretty sure the Craig films are never going to go back on is the notion of developing Bond as a character, and giving him a character arc for each film  (and, for the first time ever in the series), an arc that spans SEVERAL films. Casino Royale showed us a Bond who goes from being a somewhat brash and impulsive rookie to a cold-hearted fighting machine. Quantum of Solace has Bond resolving his lingering emotional issues vis a vi Vesper and becoming the perfect agent we all know and love from the old films. Skyfall is a film that is, thematically at least, set at a later point and deals with a physically and psychologically wounded Bond trying to recover and become the legendary operative he once was again.

 

 

Character arc... in CR he's a rookie agent, in QOS he resolves his emotional issues and in SKYFALL he's psychologically wounded. 

So, in Bond 24 he's envolving to a Super Sayayin, right?

 

 

http://imageshack.us...ondsayayin.png/

 

 

Please, let's leave Bond's private life misterious and secret next time. OK for the last three films, but now Bond should be Bond, instead of "Become Bond."

[CasinoKiller]

 

 

One thing I'm pretty sure the Craig films are never going to go back on is the notion of developing Bond as a character, and giving him a character arc for each film  (and, for the first time ever in the series), an arc that spans SEVERAL films. Casino Royale showed us a Bond who goes from being a somewhat brash and impulsive rookie to a cold-hearted fighting machine. Quantum of Solace has Bond resolving his lingering emotional issues vis a vi Vesper and becoming the perfect agent we all know and love from the old films. Skyfall is a film that is, thematically at least, set at a later point and deals with a physically and psychologically wounded Bond trying to recover and become the legendary operative he once was again.

 

 

Character arc... in CR he's a rookie agent, in QOS he resolves his emotional issues and in SKYFALL he's psychologically wounded. 

So, in Bond 24 he's envolving to a Super Sayayin, right?

 

 

http://imageshack.us...ondsayayin.png/

 

 

Please, let's leave Bond's private life misterious and secret next time. OK for the last three films, but now Bond should be Bond, instead of "Become Bond."

 

 

Well, he already kinda became Bond by the end of QOS...Skyfall was about Bond being pushed beyond his limits.

 

As far as the future course of character development goes for 007...well, I think they'll be exploring the Bond/Mallory dynamic a bit more. Or maybe the idea of Bond now being a senior veteran agent and an inspiration to younger agents/rookies. (Say...that could sure make a great plot idea!)