Pre Casino Royale era was never mentioned or seen again in EON Productions
What happened to her?
With apologies to R. Benson’s “Blast from the Past.”
She’s disguised as Dr. Swan. Blofeld’s ultimate back up plan if he failed.
Well, she did a poor job of saving Blofeld from Bond. Maybe that was because Blofeld had just tried to blow her up.
That’d sure be a complex relationship!
1 Like
People seem to convinced Irma Bunt is in Bond 25, but that has only ever been said on forums. Probably best people don’t set themselves up for disappointment given, odds are, we’ll never see that character again.
I also don’t think that Bunt will appear in BOND 25.
But I like the idea of Madeleine being not what Bond (and we) think she is.
She could very well be Blofeld´s hidden asset, a double agent who became unsure of her loyalities.
What about Madeleine and Bond cuddling on a lonely beach in the PTS? Bond feeling totally secure, out of the service, together with the woman he wanted to be his future… and then Madeleine tries to kill him. Bond has to defend himself, chases the escaping Madeleine, she has an accident, and her last words, with a deadly smile, are: “He planned this all along…”
3 Likes
Could even go with a sleeper agent who doesn’t know she’s one until she’s activated. You could then have her as a villain for the rest of the film, Bond struggling about whether he could get his Madeline back.
I can’t see Maddy being a Blofeld mole in any way. It would mean that Blofeld put that netting in the derelict MI5 atrium so that bond could find her on the top floor and jump all the way down to escape the explosion with seconds to spare.
No, Blofeld wanted her and bond dead and any retrofitting of that well and truly jumps all sharks.
Bond has literally been doing that since before that was even a phrase…
But yes. I agree. Best way to move is forward.
2 Likes
Unless Blofeld wanted them to escape…
Would explain his extremely weird way of flying the helicopter so low over the Thames that Bond could easily follow him.
Joking, of course. Hopefully.
Onward, please.
2 Likes
You had me there for a moment…
Onward indeed!
Or…
Maybe she wanted Blofeld out of the way so she can take control of his organisation and carry on her father’s legacy.
2 Likes
If you ever written a narrative of any kind you may have found that it’s often tempting, when the idea occurs to you, to weave in, or retro fit a convoluted reveal that says to the viewer ‘Didn’t see that coming, did you?’
But that usually comes at the expense of so many more fundemantal aspects of the story. It’s almost always better to resist those temptations or forever be retro fitting until all else is cockeyed in order to facilitate one ego driven clever twist.
It’s sometimes not until the story/script is read as a whole, or worse when the film is watched with an audience that the writer may see it for what it is. Then they may wish they’d stayed true to the original idea instead of manipulating everything to make everything true to a singular ‘clever’ twist.
I don’t think The Dark Knight Rises was retro fitted, but it does show how a ‘clever’ twist can instead ruin a whole story by undermining its character’s etc. The reveal of the true villain may have felt to Nolan like the right thing to do, but imo it simply makes the big bad you’ve invested in a cheap trick tossed aside so the director can say “Ta dah…”
I hope there’s not a vain, cheap ‘ta dah’ with Swann and the impact of whatever her fate may be is allowed to be built upon the character we’ve invested in.
1 Like
I get what you mean, many a TV series falls victim to that after a few seasons, but TDKR, is a poor example to use, as who Marion Cotillard was isn’t a shocking twist, it was predicted by most LONG before the film came out.
The film itself is using a different tact of having the lead character work off a wrong assumption, which the audience may or may not follow depending on if they take that characters word above the facts presented. For example, we’re told, long before the story of the child, that Bane didn’t see daylight until he has a man. We’re told that the child is the heir of Ras Al Ghul…the character that Marion Cotillard was believed to be playing. It’s only if you, like Bruce, made the wrong assumption about who Bane was in that flashback story (he’s actually the one prisoner who rescued the child, it’s his story because he saw the action of protecting Talia as his path to redemption as well as why he needs to wear the mask) that you’ll feel like that.
The only red herring card played is if you take what one character assumes, over what the actual witnesses state. I think it’s Jonathan Nolan who is particularly fond of that - The only other Chris Nolan film to use it is The Prestige (you’re told the end several times, but Jackman’s lead disregards it), also written by Jonathan Nolan, but it does appear in both Person Of Interest (Reece and Finch do this for the reveals of both Control and Elias) and Westworld (Delores does this for the story of William)
It’s kind of the related to a flawed narrator, the narrative is perfectly honest, but the lead character is wrong and, potentially, takes the audience into a wrong conclusion with them. Quite a few magic tricks follow the principal.
Edit: I should say making Madeline Swann being Irma Bunt wouldn’t be this, it WOULD be what you’re describing of having a reveal, just so they could have a twist, the fact there’s no grounding for it be damned. It would rely on convolutions not a single assumption.
1 Like