Bond as a Villain
delicious
SydneyPosts: 371MI6 Agent
Following the muddying of Bond's character in CR I think in the next film he should become a freelance mercenary who is hired by MI6 from time to time when noone else can do the job. And in the film after that he should change sides completely and become a full on villain. Eon should create a new young secret agent from scratch who is hip and 21st century - probably black, female and bisexual - and who defeats the evil dirty rotten Bond. It's a slippery slope...
Comments
"Yeah... Umm... I'm going to have to go ahead and sort of disagree with you there."
Tell me, have you visited planet earth recently....
I can't agree with delicious at all!
As Dr. Evil says: ...R...ight...
"In the early 25th century, a machine created by a defense network computer, which became sentinel, will be sent back through time to destroy the worlds greatest Secret Agent before he was ever born. Join Bond has he not only travels the world but through decades of history in attemtps to destroy what can not be destroyed. the ultimate showdown between man and machine. At the end who will remain standing? His future is in his hands."
Hey.....I'd go see it.........once.......maybe.......:s
Casino Royale didn't "muddy" Bond in the least. On the contrary, it clarified him, stripping away the layers of extraneous bull**** the character had accumulated over four decades to get to his core: a serious man dedicated to furthering the interests of Queen and country with every tool, both subtle and not-so-subtle, at his disposal.
Somehow, I can't see Bond change sides completely and become a full on villain. However, it's always possible that he could pose as a villain. Should that be the case then Daniel Craig would be the right man for the job. Before Casino Royale I saw him more as a villain than I did as Bond.
Oookay.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
No actually, can you give me directions?
This thread is not going to devolve into one where posters call each another names.It'll be shut down if that occurs.
You're right.I probably overreacted here.My apologies.The thing is,we've recently had arguments begin over much lesser issues and they're never any fun to deal with.But you guys aren't doing that.
Everybody,carry on...:)
Straight on through the galaxy, turn left at Mars, then go on for a few thousand miles as you are, then right at Jupiter (you may have to ask for directions when you get here) and then follow the bend for a few thousand miles until you see Moon on your left. Once you get there it isn't too far from there. Go right down the hill, and follow it until you see a great big wall in the distance (there's a good Chinese restaurant nearby if you are hungry). Cross a big area of water, and keep going for a few thousand miles (past a few small islands - one does good Sushi if you get hungry again) until you reach a big bush. Walk on past it (ignoring the funny-looking creatures hopping around with boxing gloves) until you reach a bridge that looks like a coathanger.....then you should be home!
I hope no one actually took that post seriously.
Bond's character has not been muddied. If anything, he has become the Bond he always should have been. Ian Fleming's novels and short stories were intended for adults. Invisible, rocket-launching cars, laser beam wristwatches and steel toothed henchmen are for kids.
The Bond Fleming created was a killer, ruthless, tough and smart. Fleming's Bond was more undercover commando than twinkle-eyed spy with a lot of toys. But he was never and will never be a villain.;)
Well, I don't kow abut Fleming, but IMO the Bond that existed from DN to DAD was absolutely fine.
I tend to agree that Daniel Craig's Bond lacked suaveness in Casino Royale. Having said that, his Bond is not the finished article, he's a "rookie" agent. I'm certainly giving Craig the benefit of the doubt for now. As the character of his Bond develops over the next couple of films the suaveness may well become more evident.
Dan, I see where you are coming from, but I don't believe for a moment the intention of the re-boot is that Craig's Bond becomes suave later on. The intention of the re-boot is that he's not the complete package in Casino Royale, he's "rough round the edges" As his character develops in the next couple of films suaveness may or may not become more evident. It wouldn't strike me as incredibly false if it did.
The other thing is that in terms of suaveness, it's a lose-lose situation for me; if he doesn't become suave in the next few films, then that will mean he will not have one of IMO the most important Bondian characteristics, and if he does become suave, then his becoming suave (even though he's 38 years old) does indeed strike me as false.
I guess it comes down to wether or not one likes this whole idea of a reboot. I don't. However to show that I'm not simply a party pooper
I didn't mind the idea of Bond being "rough around the edges" or not the complete package in Casino Royale. My problems with the re-boot (prior to CR's release) were Judi Dench as M and Daniel Craig as a "rookie" Bond. As far as I was concerned, if Eon do a re-boot then they should do it properly. Which meant no Dench. Which also mean't no Craig unless the "rookie" element was dropped.
Watching Casino Royale, I found it surprisingly easy to believe in Judi Dench as M. It didn't occur to me at any time that she didn't belong. I could already accept Maud Adams and numerous others who have appeared as seperate characters in seperate films, so it didn't require a huge leap of faith to accept Judi Dench as M.
As for Daniel Craig. He made it easy for me to believe in him as the "rookie" Bond through the sheer quality of his performance, even though he's 38 going on fourty something.
Well, at the risk of angering certain members of this site
BTW, how come you didn't comment on my controversial description of Caterina Murino as very beautiful?
Yes, it does come down to what one can and cannot accept. There's no particular logic to it really. For me, the more I enjoy a film the more I tend to forgive any flaws it may have in concept or execution. I enjoyed Casino Royale so much that it became surprisingly easy for me to accept Judi Dench. However, if CR had been a poor film I likely would have found it much harder to accept her.
Because I didn't feel like it.
Caterina's a real beauty that's for sure. Shame she was only on screen for barely five minutes in CR.
How true.
Which argument is that? ?:) I don't consider Craig's Bond to be suave so is your objection that you do consider him to be suave?
I don't think it's shallow in the sligtest and nor do I cosider it to be a minor point. Suaveness is IMO an essential Bondian quality and is just as important as characteristics like ruthlessness, toughness and other essential Bondian qualities. Craig IMO isn't suave which I think is like a eagle without its wings. I think it's fundamental to the character.
The character Craig played in the film wasn't suave, something that was done deliberately by the scriptwriters. To say Craig isn't suave is wrong. He is an actor (and a damn good actor at that) so can play any side to the character he wants. It's just that CR dictated that Bond was not to be suave in this particular film. But I think this will change for Bond 22.