What Do You Think About Bond's Development Over Time?

Hey everyone,

As I rewatched a lot of the Bond films, I could not help but notice how much the characters and plots had evolved. From the classic charm of Sean Connery to the darker more serious tone with Daniel Craig it is fascinating to see how the franchise has shifted to stay relevant to new generations.

how do you all feel about the changes in Bond is character and the films as a whole? Do you miss the older more lighthearted versions or are you a fan of the more intense, modern take? What do you think about the direction the films are heading in with the latest installments? Any ideas for what you would love to see in future Bond films?

As well, I found these resources when doing research on this; https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/what-are-your-summer-bond-filmsminitab & if anyone have any resources, tutorials or personal experiences please share with me, It would be greatly appreciated!!

Thank youā€¦ā€¦. :slight_smile:

7 Likes

Welcome! I love them all, of course, but my preference lies with the earlier eras, maybe because I was introduced to Bond during the Moore tenure.

7 Likes

Bond is a more interesting character than given credit for. If he wasnā€™t he wouldnā€™t have captured the publicā€™s imagination for so long. He embodies our innermost fantasies, and that is especially the case when heā€™s presented in the fully established style of Connery/Moore. That doesnā€™t make him one note, either.

The insights into his soul are rarer but pack more of a punch. Humour is armour. Subtexts of his life automatically exist without needing to be dwelt on too much. Heā€™s single and has few real friends. But the world of espionage elevates it all into something desirable and mysterious. Heā€™s living a life of danger but we also know heā€™s the best, and good enough to survive it all.

Depending on my mood Iā€™m fine with the smooth operator or the haunted loner. Both are legitimate. Right now Iā€™m looking for more of the former.

7 Likes

My only problem with the ā€œmore intense, modern takeā€ is that the films remain, in the end, as outlandish and divorced from reality as they ever were, only now Bond as a character is more to be pitied than admired.

I was initially drawn to the films by their larger-than-life nature, from the spectacular glamour of exotic locales to the awesome enormity of Ken Adamā€™s various sets (with monorail lines to get from one end to the other!) to the extinction-level threats to the ā€œanything goesā€ approach to stunts and action. At one point, Bond films had a virtual lock on all of that, but at this point, itā€™s hard to remember any of it even being part of the package, and I miss it. In general, regardless of what ungodly sums keep getting poured into them, the films keep feeling smaller and smaller to me, and part of that is the focus on ā€œBond cleaning up his disaster of a personal lifeā€ instead of ā€œBond saves the world, because itā€™s his job.ā€ Every time they say ā€œthis time itā€™s personal,ā€ I just hear, ā€œWell then itā€™s none of my business. Next.ā€

Honestly, Iā€™m not sure where they can go next. Plenty of other films can serve up angst and tragedy more convincingly than the Bond films with their ā€œphysics be damnedā€ and ā€œwho needs logicā€ approach to storytelling, and generally the last thing I want to see is a hero whose life is more of a train wreck than my own. On the other hand, the MCU and its various imitators routinely pump out the kind of OTT action, ā€œworld in the balanceā€ stakes and lighthearted spirit of say, the Moore era Bond films, and theyā€™re even less beholden to groundedness than 007. So with those two extremes as potential dead ends, where do you go next? I honestly donā€™t know. All I know is that if I made a graph showing how often I choose to watch the various Bond entries, the line would plummet downward after 1987 and stay there. Whatever spin I try to put on it or explanations I try to offer myself or others, the proofā€™s in the pudding: Iā€™m just progressively less interested the further the series moves forward in time.

It should perhaps be noted that I was 9 when I saw Goldfinger on TV and 14 when I saw Moonraker in the cinema, and Iā€™m 59 today. Itā€™s entirely possible that the ā€œsweet spotā€ for any of this stuff is somewhere in oneā€™s adolescence and everything after that is just a case of trying to relive past glories. In which case, whatā€™s ā€œbestā€ might depend on when you came in. The main goal in each era is to deliver what sells in the moment, and ultimately Iā€™m a kid of the 70s whoā€™s just visiting the current decade. I probably shouldnā€™t be too surprised if the trend du jour doesnā€™t have the same appeal.

6 Likes

I really agree with you on those first two paragraphs. The personal angle has been done to death and then, like a dead horse, beaten some more. Iā€™d like just a regular, straight-forward, no personal connections missionā€“just like the old days. It shouldnā€™t be that hard to do. It wasnā€™t for the first 25 years.

As for my interest in the series, Iā€™m good through Casino Royale in 2006. After that, itā€™s too inner-Bond and MI6-centric, the missions too personal, and Bond too moody. The fun has gone. Bring back the fun!

4 Likes

I believe it is not due to your (and my) growing out of it.

We just have a different (longer) perspective on what Bond can be, with those fans getting familiar with Bond at a later era being often uncomfortable with a less serious approach. Because many media outlets told them so.

And I absolutely agree on your assessment that the last era was just as divorced from reality, only with a character to be pitied. It probably was a sign of its times which praised themselves for being gritty and dark and serious, even if the basic elements remained silly. The Nolan Batman trilogy had a sad and hopeless tone but it was just as outlandishly telling the story of a billionaire dressing in a for combat hugely inconvenient bat costume. And the Craig tenure was all about an orphan wrecking himself and being disappointed that women tricked him and his superiors viewed him as disposable, but at the same time he survived unsurvivable situations fitting right into a comic book universe - and he died because a convoluted set of circumstances were set up in order to have the producers feel courageous (only not courageous enough, assuring us in the end credits that they did not really mean it anyway).

Where can Bond go now?

I guess Marvel has lost the all in good fun-market now, too. So there is an opening.

But I would prefer a spy thriller in the vein of FRWL, with the times having already changed to fit a new film in believably. Only, please, with a hero who enjoys his job and has no other personal agenda but carrying out his mission successfully.

4 Likes

Since weā€™re here roughly the same generation - with many of CBnā€™s old guard - it must in all fairness also be noted how, in the days of Moore and Brosnan, especially the lit-Bond/Fleming fans craved a more faithful depiction of Bond as ā€˜humanā€™: a capable and proficient counter-agent that was nonetheless fallible and - at least on paper - far from a superhero.

I remember how the Lazenby and Dalton films were regarded as insidersā€™ tip on the Fleming gold standard by many hardcore fans, me included. For long years we argued the films had abandoned Flemingā€™s creation.

Iā€™m not sure what exactly it was that CASINO ROYALE rediscovered (reinvented?) Bond or the fact that Bond wasnā€™t initially a computer game character. Whatever it was, after CASINO ROYALE we were hugely excited - and certainly didnā€™t expect it to end in NO TIME TO DIE.

3 Likes

I should perhaps amend my earlier ā€œstopped caring in '87ā€ remark to allow for Casino Royale, which even if I donā€™t return to it as often as ā€œClassicā€ Bond I am fairly likely to give a spin in the player now and then. I greatly enjoyed CR, though even at the time I never thought ā€œBond is back!ā€ but instead saw it as the playing out of a fascinating thought experiment: ā€œWhat if there had never been a Bond movie until now and we started from scratch?ā€ That was a bold and exciting spin on things and it worked for me in spades, even if it turned out Eon had no long term game plan and the Craig era spiraled into a death dive in short order. But even when things were going well, I could never connect the dots between Craig Bond and Classic Bond, and still canā€™t.

Which to be fair, isnā€™t to imply everything suddenly went wrong for me when Craig signed on. If anything it was his arrival and the promise of something very different that pulled me back in. By the end of the Brosnan era, I was convinced the Bond formula had been milked long past the death of the cow, and I walked out of DAD with every intention of putting the whole thing behind me. Yet here I am, 22 years later and still yammering on about Bond, so however diminishing the returns, Iā€™m probably an addict for life.

4 Likes

There is a certain recurring theme in the novels thatā€™s rarely been addressed in the films - and certainly never shown before CASINO ROYALE: many books finish with Bond being severely beaten up; three of them feature chapters in a hospital, two times the last chapter*.

In ā€˜Thunderballā€™ Bond awakes in a Nassau clinic, doped up but still out of his mind with concern for Domino. He gets the doctorā€™s permission to see her in the next room and falls asleep kneeling beside her bed while she holds his head. Thereā€™s no suggestion of the casual sex thatā€™s been the staple diet of the filmsā€™ last few frames.

When they shot CASINO ROYALE there apparently also was a scene depicting Bond on a stretcher being rushed into A&E. It didnā€™t make the final cut, but there are a few moments inside the clinic later on that to me show just that element of Bond we havenā€™t been shown on screen before: itā€™s a bloody dangerous business and heā€™s happy to get away from it with most parts still attached to the body. Fleming might have recognised that part.

Things developed into a different direction as we know. Sometimes I wish they hadnā€™t.

*And one time heā€™s poisoned and has to be resuscitated until the antidote is available, also resulting in a lengthy clinic rehab - all of it off page though.

3 Likes

I welcomed that element in CR, too. But I was only more disappointed when they immediately shied away from the consequences, had Vesper tearyeyed deliver one of the most embarassing lines in Bond history ā€žYou are more man with your little fingerā€¦ā€œ. And then the following scene in which he has sex with her in his hospital bed - really, did LeChiffre maim his testicles or didnā€˜t he?

The same goes with the bookā€˜s famous ā€žThe bitch is deadā€œ-line. Immediately weakened by M telling Bond that Vesper actually was not that bad.

This list goes on and on: great idea to show Bondā€˜s first kills, but the black and white is strained arty, and the assassin who seems dead and then rises once again is a clichĆ© (why not dwell on the aftermath for Bond?); the whole pared down approach is good but then you have the airport sequence and the Venice building going down. And if you have a digitalis induced heartattack you will not be totally fine afterwards. Everything which seems so ā€ždifferentā€œ from previous extravaganzas actually is just as overcranked. I would even say that stealing another personā€˜s parachute in midair is much more realistic.

But thatā€™s what I donā€™t like about CR: many promising ideas but no courage to see them through, yet everything was sold as if it was better than everything which had come before.

3 Likes

Well, one should remember they are after all attached to a body that, while capable of superficial bruising and bleeding, is otherwise essentially invulnerable. My theory is that Craig Bond is a Skynet T-800 Terminator, with a tearable epidermis applied over a super-strong hyperalloy endoskeleton. Indeed, I theorize that the impact-resistant materials used in the modelā€™s testicles enabled them to both cushion the fall and act as flotation devices after Bondā€™s 300-foot fall from the bridge in Skyfall.

Now, if LeChiffre had put aside that carpet beater in favor of a barrage of high-yield explosive missiles, maybe Bond would not have been up to sex with Vesper. Maybe. But as she seems to prefer his little finger anyway, perhaps it doesnā€™t matter.

3 Likes

Maybe she only thought it was his finger.

2 Likes

His little fingerā€¦ :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

3 Likes

I have been thinking about this question since it was posted, and my response is that Bond did not so much develop, as have successive manifestations through time, which contain connections to one another. When I think of development, I think of Easy Rawlinsā€™ trajectory in Walter Mosleyā€™s novels. Flemingā€™s work has a development of sortsā€“Bondā€™s downward spiral mirroring the decline/dissolution of empireā€“but it is disintegration a la Beckett more than development.

I again return to Dustinā€™s concept that Eon opens the toy chest of Bond components, spreads them out, picks among them, and decides what will fly in that temporal moment (as you can tell, Dustin Venmoed me his friendship fee for November). These parts include elements of the texts and previous films; audience response to what came before (ranging from desire for continuation to desire for alternative paths); and the zeitgeist. What is popular? What issues are people facing? What do they wish to escape from? What do they wish to be reassured about?

If they ever do a Bond musical (heaven forfend), the 11 oā€™clock number must be ā€œIā€™m Still Here,ā€ since no lyric better sums up Bondā€™s journey than ā€œThen you career from career to career.ā€

Iā€™ll drink to that.

2 Likes

And to this:

2 Likes

And even more to this (sorry, I am a Broadway baby):

2 Likes

Hi all! Back to the CBN community after a long time.

Very interesting question here. I personally prefer the pre-reboot era version of Bond. I love CR, and itā€™s one of my favorite Bond films. And I like Bondā€™s character development in that film, itā€™s the perfect start for a new era. However everything after that are my least favorite films in the series, except perhaps for SP which is at least great fun in the first half. But I think the character has become so much less interesting post-CR, which is ironic because these films are often presented as having more depth and character to them.

I think Conneryā€™s version of Bond, being the original and most iconic, is the most enigmatic version of the character. Itā€™s not exactly clear what drives him, what his motivations are, what is behind the armour so to speak. He does show a strong sense for justice and does consider a lot of his colleagues friends. But overall his version of the character is the most stoic of all. Despite that though the character still feels like a very real man in his earlier films, especially DN and FRWL. GF and TB make him a bit more larger than life, but still retain that sense of realism to the character. The version we see in YOLT, and especially DAF seem quite different though. The character seems emotionally disconnected from whatā€™s happening around him, just doing his job while the films overall go for a bit lighter, comedic and over the top style. But I feel this is mostly due to Conneryā€™s performance rather than the writing for the character. He seemed disconnected with the role in both YOLT and DAF, and that is why Bond feels disconnected in-universe. As legendary as the man is, with his performances in DN, FRWL, GF and TB being absolutely legendary and probably the main reason why the franchise became what it is, I think Bondā€™s character in YOLT and DAF are the two weakest versions weā€™ve seen in the pre-reboot era (even though YOLT is a top 10 Bond film for me). But Bond being this larger than life character with all the fantasy around it as established so well in this era is exactly why I love this series, and what is lacking for me in the newer films.

Lazenby is very interesting. In fact I think his version of Bond is the most interesting in my personal opinion (OHMSS also being my favorite Bond film by the way). He starts the film off pretty much just being Conneryā€™s James Bond. But the film gives that version of Bond fascinating character development not seen before, which we see in his relationship with Tracy, M and Draco. And by the time we get to the scene where Bond proposes to Tracy, the character has changed. And OHMSS manages to pull it off that this development feels natural, subtle and towards the end of course heartbreaking. I also think Lazenby feels more real, more relatable perhaps, yet he feels like the James Bond we all know and love from the previous movies (as does the film itself). I think a lot of this is because of Lazenby, who of course was not an experienced actor at the time. Like the fact that not every word comes out as smooth as it does with Connery or Moore, makes him feel more real in a way. Yet he still retains that classic Bond charm, which is probably because of Lazenbyā€™s natural fit for the role. Heā€™s arguably the closest to the character in real life as often pointed out.

Mooreā€™s Bond is I think the most misunderstood of them all (especially by general audiences). I feel like when people think of Mooreā€™s Bond they tend to think of all the outlandish moments in the films (the slide-whistle, double-taken pigeon, space lasers, California girls and stuff like that). Iā€™ve even heard people calling Mooreā€™s era the Batman 66 era of the Bond films, which is absurd. Yes, Mooreā€™s Bond is the funniest. He is the best at the quips and puns. Heck Moore himself is the funniest guy to ever play Bond. But his portrayal of the character is actually very versatile with a lot of depth. And donā€™t get me wrong I love the emotionally distant, cool, collected Bond. And I love the fun and outlandishness in this era. Again, this is something that I really miss with the newer films. Mooreā€™s version of Bond is mostly the smooth operator, but it seems that in each film his portrayal is just a little different to suit the tone of the film. In LALD heā€™s extremely cool and laid back (not unlike Conneryā€™s later performances). In TMWTGG heā€™s harder-edged and has some moments where you can really see the character shine in deeper ways such as his disgust at Scaramanga when he states Bond and him are very much alike. In TSWLM we see hints of his struggles with his job shine through and we get this subtle but powerful emotional response when Tracy is mentioned. In MR he feels very much larger than life, but at the same time still feels very real around all the outlandishness, and it works perfectly for the film. In FYEO we see the second most down to earth version of the character up to that point (apart from OHMSS of course), with a mostly very serious portrayal. In OP there is this very interesting contrast between the first and the second half of the film. In the first half he seems to be having the time of his life on the mission, which is very entertaining and fun. And then in the second half he is all business, as the film gets more serious in tone as well. The clown scene is often wrongly framed as being campy, when in reality it is actually a pretty intense scene, especially regarding Bondā€™s character. AVTAK does pretty much the same, in the first half itā€™s Bond enjoying what he does (especially in the St. John Smythe scenes) and then in the second half he is all business and serious. I absolutely love Mooreā€™s characterization of Bond. And I feel that if you watch Connery-Lazenby-Moore as one clear timeline you actually get a fascinating character development. Conneryā€™s Bond starts off a bit more serious, though very enigmatic and emotionally completely shut off. Then we get to Lazenby where we see the character change and consider a different life, which obviously ends in tragedy. Then we get to Moore who goes back to being the emotionally shut off smooth operator again, but occasionally shows these subtle hints of struggle and past tragedy. And itā€™s exactly that subtlety which makes these moments so interesting and powerful. For me, Bond is at his best when he feels like a fantasy character, mysterious, but with these occasional subtle deeper character momentsā€¦and of course just doing his job as a selfless hero.

Dalton is kind of a soft reboot for the character, but I would say that it also continues what John Glen already did with FYEO-OP-AVTAK for the character. Daltonā€™s Bond is a man doing his job, but there is more visible intensity and more struggle there. And obviously LTK takes this to the extreme. I think LTK goes too dark and lacks that classic Bond charm, but I think Bondā€™s characterization here is on point. And at this point in the franchise Bond going rogue still was fresh, creative and interesting.

Brosnanā€™s Bond as said many times combines a lot of what previous actors did, which is logical given the franchiseā€™s already long history and this being a clear continuation of that. And in my opinion he does this perfectly, making his portrayal of Bond probably the most complete of all, while also giving it his own touch with his wonderful charm. Heā€™s mostly the indestructible suave spy, but at the same time heā€™s perhaps the most emotionally accessible. He does feel a bit more enigmatic in GE, and when you get to the more emotional moments such as when he finds out about Trevelyanā€™s betrayal or the beach scene, itā€™s very powerful. Then in the other films we get even more hints of Bond behind the armour, yet heā€™s always that same smooth secret agent we all know and love. Heā€™s still that ultimate male fantasy. What I love about the Brosnan era is that the emotion is done subtly. It doesnā€™t abandon the classic charm and the formula, but gives it an interesting new twist, while going even more over the top with the action (another thing I really enjoy about this era). Itā€™s a lot of fun, and the more ā€˜ā€™personalā€™ā€™ angles to the stories feel more natural and serve the story (except perhaps in TND with Paris, which feels a bit forced in my opinion, though still interesting). And Brosnanā€™s Bond always seems to be a man that lives in the moment. There are some instances when you can really see what he feels, yet heā€™s also able to quickly move on without it seeming to haunt him. And this to me is very crucial to Bondā€™s character in my opinion. He shouldnā€™t get stuck in the past and be an emotional mess all the time, which of course leads me toā€¦.

The Craig era. Again, CR is the perfect start. It has all the charm of a classic Bond film, though itā€™s obviously something very different. Itā€™s not unlike OHMSS, which at this point I really welcomed for the series. But here is the thing, I donā€™t want every Bond film to be a CR, just like I donā€™t want every Bond film to be an OHMSS. Bond doubting if he really should continue the life he has chosen as a 00 agent, seeing the consequences his job has on him physically, the whole development of the character throughout the film with that final scene being the moment where we can say ā€˜ā€™heā€™s now the James Bond we all know and loveā€™ā€™. Itā€™s really fascinating and very well done here in my opinion. But I think the producers learnt a lot of wrong lessons from this film. It essentially made every Bond film after that into another CR (but now instead of things becoming personal because of what happens in the film, itā€™s always about the past coming back to haunt Bond). QOS, Bond is not at his best at the beginning, he is confused, conflicted, MI6 basically fires him, the film is all about his personal (psychological) problems and past, yet seems to develop into the Bond we all know and love towards the endā€¦heā€™s now really James Bond. SF, same thing basically, he is not at his best, confused, conflicted, he quits like a loser when he has just failed his mission, the film is about his personal (psychological) problems and past (as well as Mā€™s), yet he seems to develop into the Bond we all know and love towards the endā€¦heā€™s now really James Bond. Then we get to SP, and this one is actually somewhat the exception to the rule as I would call it ā€˜ā€™CR formula in reverseā€™ā€™. Here he actually is the James Bond we all know and love from the beginning throughout most of the runtimeā€¦until his evil step brother comes back to haunt him and he wants to quit (for the 3rd time in 4 movies!). Then NTTD goes back to doing another CR, but this time it ends with a very convoluted plot which makes no sense until the poor man is finally put out of his misery. The thing is, Bond is no longer a larger than life character here, heā€™s no longer a man on the job, the films are no longer fun, itā€™s no longer about going into some part of the world for an adventure, the films hold back on some of the seriesā€™ signature aspects (such as the use of the Bond theme). Itā€™s all about Bond himself and his personal emotional problems. Heā€™s the center of the universe. We can see how miserable he is all the time, his emotions are on full display, he cries multiple times throughout the films (which used to be something shocking when it happened in OHMSS and also in CR), the villains are more obsessed about him rather than their goal and they try for him to be more like a regular human being instead of that larger than life enigmatic character. Itā€™s exactly the opposite from what made me love this series in the first place.

So for me personally (and again this is just my personal opinion), for the future I do hope the producers understand what made Bond so appealing in the first place and go back to the pre-reboot era formula. I miss it.

And just for some context, I am from 1994. So Brosnan was Bond around the time I became a fan and introduced me to the series with GE. Though Craigā€™s films are the only ones I have seen on the big screen. And I do hold some fond memories of going to the cinema for these films, even if the films didnā€™t always meet my expectations.

10 Likes

Well argued and I agree on most of it.

2 Likes

Thank you! Always nice to share some thoughts on Bond. Especially now that there havenā€™t been any known developments regarding the future of the franchise.

3 Likes

First, welcome back.

The movies were made during a time when peopleā€™s trust/belief in institutions was declining, so Bond quitting corresponded to the unmoored state his audience experienced in their own lives. As always, the films reflected the zeitgeist.

Because the institution he serves is no longer larger than life, or commanding the respect it once did.

While they can go back to the formula, they cannot conjure up the previous zeitgeist, which gave birth that formula. Empire is gone. State-sanctioned assassins are not all the rage. As you note, as the job /missions have shrunk, the focus on emotions has increased to fill the void. What villain and state-authorized actions against said villain can appeal to a wide audience. What can viewers agree with, and maybe even experience some identification with?

This weekend WICKED is offering people an opportunity to defy gravity, and GLADIATOR II, a chance to be part of a heroic comeback against injustice (in some ways, GLADIATOR II follows the Bond template with Denzel Washington as the villain). Both films are large and loud, and both are set in fantasy landsā€“Oz and an imaginary Ancient Rome.

How does a Bond film fit into this movie-going world?

1 Like