bond needs a proper sanctioned mission, for Queen and country. Handed to him by M.
Blofeld can stay locked up for now. No more going rogue, personal issues, even db5. If Dc comes back I'd like him to go out on a proper Bond adventure, kicking arse like the good old days of cr and qos.
Its funny how we thought SP was going to be just that, a proper Bond adventure, and for the most part it was, atleast in comparison to Craig's other Bond Films. But as discussed on here ad nauseam Spectre wasn't really what we meant. It was still personal, It still dealt with his family, he still went Rogue, etc. I swear if he goes rogue in the next movie....
Yeah, if we get that again I'll be taking an extended hiatus from Bond. If you stop to think about it, Bond has operated without authority at some point in all of Craig's 4 films. If you count DAD and LTK, that's 6 of the last 9. It's time to think of a new plot point. 8-)
It's a trend, perhaps it makes the hero look independent and anti-authoritarian. I think the The hero(es) in the Mission Impossible movies have only worked within the system in one movie. But I agree. Going rouge is no longer unusual, it's a clishè I don't Welcome.
It's a trend, perhaps it makes the hero look independent and anti-authoritarian. I think the The hero(es) in the Mission Impossible movies have only worked within the system in one movie. But I agree. Going rouge is no longer unusual, it's a clishè I don't Welcome.
That must be it. When Craig's Bond has been working for MI6, M is constantly on top of him. He needs to go rogue to be on his own. Bond in the old days was almost always on his own and could think for himself without worrying that M is going to order a rookie agent to shoot at him. He didn't have much reason to go rogue since he had all the power he wanted. We need a Bond who can do his job without any interference.
No, it's not about an overactive M.
We now live in an age when fighting "The power" is very popular, be it the EU, the Washington system or whatever. An agent who simply works for the authorities simply isn't seen as cool enough.
No, it's not about an overactive M.
We now live in an age when fighting "The power" is very popular, be it the EU, the Washington system or whatever. An agent who simply works for the authorities simply isn't seen as cool enough.
Yet Bond hasn't had a compelling reason to go rogue since LTK. He's not cool when he goes rogue, probably because it's such a contrived plot point.
No, it's not about an overactive M.
We now live in an age when fighting "The power" is very popular, be it the EU, the Washington system or whatever. An agent who simply works for the authorities simply isn't seen as cool enough.
Yet Bond hasn't had a compelling reason to go rogue since LTK. He's not cool when he goes rogue, probably because it's such a contrived plot point.
We need a real, transcendent threat for Our Hero.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
With Mallory as M, Bond doesn't need to do rogue. Mallory has (eventually) total trust in Bond and lets him do things his way as long as he gets it done.
Just look at the way Mallory takes the team to the Safe House in SP. He fully knows or expects Bond to be there.
Bond as an agent who works independently, outside of the normal government channels, but still under the control of M. No need to go rogue at all.
With Mallory as M, Bond doesn't need to do rogue. Mallory has (eventually) total trust in Bond and lets him do things his way as long as he gets it done.
Just look at the way Mallory takes the team to the Safe House in SP. He fully knows or expects Bond to be there.
Bond as an agent who works independently, outside of the normal government channels, but still under the control of M. No need to go rogue at all.
I agree that the whole rogue thing is overdone at this point. The films need a new dynamic, especially if Craig comes back. I have really enjoyed his take on Bond, but I honestly find him a little dull when he's out there on his own and doesn't have another actor to work with. It's basically Craig stomping about looking glum. I feel that's the biggest weakness in his portrayal. It was interesting watching Connery sweep a hotel room for bugs because he could hold your attention. I don't feel Craig has that type of charisma.
I still think adopting the plot of Icebreaker would be an interesting way to go. Team Bond up with a group of other foreign agents working on a single mission. One of them is the bad guy (or gal). No need to go rogue, it's something that hasn't really been done before, Bond's in danger from multiple angles, and it gives Craig (if he returns) plenty of opportunities to work with different actors.
I'm not sure Bond has to work in the field with other agents, even though it would be fun to see more of the other 00-agents. The teamwork angle is more of a Mission Imposible thing.
But Bond should go back to when going rouge was a rare occurance, not the rule.
I don't mind when Bond works with another agent in the field, like Mathis and Leiter in CR and QOS. I would advocate for the return of Jeffrey Wright as Felix in 25 if Craig returns. Based upon Bond's reference to Leiter as a "friend" in SPECTRE it would indicate that Bond has developed a relationship of trust with Leiter along with some level of friendship.
Bond is part epic hero, so he doesn't work with a group. Beowulf didn't have backup.
In the early films, communications were relatively antiquated (think of the radio in Dr. No), so there was a reason he wasn't in contact. That's no longer the case. There needs to be a reason Bond isn't communicating with MI6.
Bond is part epic hero, so he doesn't work with a group. Beowulf didn't have backup.
In the early films, communications were relatively antiquated (think of the radio in Dr. No), so there was a reason he wasn't in contact. That's no longer the case. There needs to be a reason Bond isn't communicating with MI6.
We could have a Goldfinger situation where he is in captivity for half the film and has had his communication devices stripped from him. There he's on his own but not rogue. Or he could be in captured early in the movie, but he escapes soon after but is on his own for the rest of the movie and has to fend for himself without MI6's help because he is unable to get in touch.
Bond is part epic hero, so he doesn't work with a group. Beowulf didn't have backup.
In the early films, communications were relatively antiquated (think of the radio in Dr. No), so there was a reason he wasn't in contact. That's no longer the case. There needs to be a reason Bond isn't communicating with MI6.
The group would not be Bond's "backup"; he doesn't trust any of the other members. In Icebreaker, he joins the group unwillingly because M orders him to. The "team" is made up of Mossad, KBG and CIA agents, so lots of potential for conflict and betrayal. And (if I remember the novel correctly), he goes in knowing that there is a trap laid for him.
Regarding isolating Bond and leaving him without communication: I agree, it's much harder these days to create a realistic scenario where he couldn't reach HQ some way or another. I can only think of him being undercover; being captured (as Matt S suggests); because he has been ordered not to communicate and/or told there will be no backup if he's caught (which may be too Mission Impossible); or because he's stubborn and wants to do it on his own (which seems the most likely reason )
Bond is part epic hero, so he doesn't work with a group. Beowulf didn't have backup.
In the early films, communications were relatively antiquated (think of the radio in Dr. No), so there was a reason he wasn't in contact. That's no longer the case. There needs to be a reason Bond isn't communicating with MI6.
You're right. This is the reason we keep seeing Bond go rogue. It's so that he has a reason to be on his own without backup.
I'm not sure about that. Ethan Hunt, with or without his team, has gone rogue in every move save one (I think ....). Jason Bourne has been rouge in every movie.
It's not just about modern communications. It's deeper, cultural thing.
Bond is part epic hero, so he doesn't work with a group. Beowulf didn't have backup.
In the early films, communications were relatively antiquated (think of the radio in Dr. No), so there was a reason he wasn't in contact. That's no longer the case. There needs to be a reason Bond isn't communicating with MI6.
The group would not be Bond's "backup"; he doesn't trust any of the other members. In Icebreaker, he joins the group unwillingly because M orders him to. The "team" is made up of Mossad, KBG and CIA agents, so lots of potential for conflict and betrayal. And (if I remember the novel correctly), he goes in knowing that there is a trap laid for him.
Regarding isolating Bond and leaving him without communication: I agree, it's much harder these days to create a realistic scenario where he couldn't reach HQ some way or another. I can only think of him being undercover; being captured (as Matt S suggests); because he has been ordered not to communicate and/or told there will be no backup if he's caught (which may be too Mission Impossible); or because he's stubborn and wants to do it on his own (which seems the most likely reason )
I quite enjoyed Icebreaker and think it would make a very good film.
Bond is part epic hero, so he doesn't work with a group. Beowulf didn't have backup.
In the early films, communications were relatively antiquated (think of the radio in Dr. No), so there was a reason he wasn't in contact. That's no longer the case. There needs to be a reason Bond isn't communicating with MI6.
The group would not be Bond's "backup"; he doesn't trust any of the other members. In Icebreaker, he joins the group unwillingly because M orders him to. The "team" is made up of Mossad, KBG and CIA agents, so lots of potential for conflict and betrayal. And (if I remember the novel correctly), he goes in knowing that there is a trap laid for him.
Regarding isolating Bond and leaving him without communication: I agree, it's much harder these days to create a realistic scenario where he couldn't reach HQ some way or another. I can only think of him being undercover; being captured (as Matt S suggests); because he has been ordered not to communicate and/or told there will be no backup if he's caught (which may be too Mission Impossible); or because he's stubborn and wants to do it on his own (which seems the most likely reason )
Bond historically has a lot of help, whether it's Felix, quarrel. Tiger, octopussy, etc he is very rarely on his own during a mission. Bond should go more realistic in certain aspects. Deniable or black ops would need him to have very little contact with his team. Of course he is often also dispatched in an official capacity on behalf of the British government with his 00 status being undisclosed, these aspects could and should feature in future films.
Bond is part epic hero, so he doesn't work with a group. Beowulf didn't have backup.
In the early films, communications were relatively antiquated (think of the radio in Dr. No), so there was a reason he wasn't in contact. That's no longer the case. There needs to be a reason Bond isn't communicating with MI6.
The group would not be Bond's "backup"; he doesn't trust any of the other members. In Icebreaker, he joins the group unwillingly because M orders him to. The "team" is made up of Mossad, KBG and CIA agents, so lots of potential for conflict and betrayal. And (if I remember the novel correctly), he goes in knowing that there is a trap laid for him.
Regarding isolating Bond and leaving him without communication: I agree, it's much harder these days to create a realistic scenario where he couldn't reach HQ some way or another. I can only think of him being undercover; being captured (as Matt S suggests); because he has been ordered not to communicate and/or told there will be no backup if he's caught (which may be too Mission Impossible); or because he's stubborn and wants to do it on his own (which seems the most likely reason )
Bond historically has a lot of help, whether it's Felix, quarrel. Tiger, octopussy, etc he is very rarely on his own during a mission. Bond should go more realistic in certain aspects. Deniable or black ops would need him to have very little contact with his team. Of course he is often also dispatched in an official capacity on behalf of the British government with his 00 status being undisclosed, these aspects could and should feature in future films.
Leiter isn't in the last half of Dr. No. Quarrel dies shortly after they get to the island. Bond basically takes out Dr. No and all his minions single-handed.
In FRWL he's on his own after he boards the train and Kerim Bey is killed (the second half of the film).
In GF he's on his own throughout until Pussy Galore helps out near the end. Even then, he has to defeat Oddjob on his own.
You can argue that the current iteration of Bond does not fit the epic hero because many of his goals are personal (revenge, anger, etc.) and the epic hero is not supposed to act for selfish purposes. I wrote about Bond fitting Jung's archetype of a warrior on my blog here: http://cdwilsher.com/index.php/2016/07/21/whats-matt-damon-talking-about/
Don't confuse me with the other DutchBondFan, but be sure to follow his YouTube account. You can read my articles on James Bond Nederland: www.jamesbond.nl/author/gosse/
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,990Quartermasters
If I were Eon, I'd put it up front, on black-screen, just before the gunbarrel sequence: "In memory of Sir Roger Moore." Granted, it's more likely to end up at the end, prior to credits running...but I feel Sir Rog's importance merits the former :007)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
If I were Eon, I'd put it up front, on black-screen, just before the gunbarrel sequence: "In memory of Sir Roger Moore." Granted, it's more likely to end up at the end, prior to credits running...but I feel Sir Rog's importance merits the former :007)
We feel that, but I doubt EON does. He won't get any better treatment than Cubby got.
I’m taking a brief respite from film noir to write about something that is bugging me.
Specifically, Matt Damon.
More specifically, his comments about James Bond.
Damon must have a Bourne movie about to come out because he’s slagging James Bond again. In 2009, he called Bond a “sociopath.”
“They could never make a James Bond movie like any of the Bourne films because Bond is an imperialist, misogynist sociopath who goes around bedding women and swilling martinis and killing people,” he said. “He’s repulsive.”
So, is Bond a sociopath? This actually wasn’t the first time or the last time that charge was made. After all, Bond is promiscuous, materialistic, violent, and (at least in the books) a borderline alcoholic. This seems to fit a sociopath.
But Bond is also prepared to give his life for his country and no sociopath ever is willing to do anything for somebody else.
No, Bond fits Carl Jung’s archetype of a warrior. His virtues are skill, courage, and discipline. He is prepared to give his life for those whom he has sworn to protect. He’s Beowulf in a bespoke suit, Sir Lancelot in an Aston Martin DB5. Ian Fleming’s one genius act was to combine an epic hero with an anti-hero and, in turn, give us a hero for our age.James Bond
Also according to Jung, a warrior does not fear death; he fears powerlessness. I always thought that the most effective torture scene would be for the villain to threaten to blind Bond but leave him alive and helpless.
But that might be too much for the kiddies.
If this seems a little far-fetched, I would point out that Fleming corresponded with Jung and Jung even gave Fleming permission to translate one of his lectures (Fleming was fluent in German).
And, unlike Matt Damon, I don’t think Bond is a misogynist. There’s no indication that he hates women. Male chauvinist, absolutely; but not a misogynist
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Comments
Yeah, if we get that again I'll be taking an extended hiatus from Bond. If you stop to think about it, Bond has operated without authority at some point in all of Craig's 4 films. If you count DAD and LTK, that's 6 of the last 9. It's time to think of a new plot point. 8-)
That must be it. When Craig's Bond has been working for MI6, M is constantly on top of him. He needs to go rogue to be on his own. Bond in the old days was almost always on his own and could think for himself without worrying that M is going to order a rookie agent to shoot at him. He didn't have much reason to go rogue since he had all the power he wanted. We need a Bond who can do his job without any interference.
We now live in an age when fighting "The power" is very popular, be it the EU, the Washington system or whatever. An agent who simply works for the authorities simply isn't seen as cool enough.
Yet Bond hasn't had a compelling reason to go rogue since LTK. He's not cool when he goes rogue, probably because it's such a contrived plot point.
We need a real, transcendent threat for Our Hero.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Just look at the way Mallory takes the team to the Safe House in SP. He fully knows or expects Bond to be there.
Bond as an agent who works independently, outside of the normal government channels, but still under the control of M. No need to go rogue at all.
I agree that the whole rogue thing is overdone at this point. The films need a new dynamic, especially if Craig comes back. I have really enjoyed his take on Bond, but I honestly find him a little dull when he's out there on his own and doesn't have another actor to work with. It's basically Craig stomping about looking glum. I feel that's the biggest weakness in his portrayal. It was interesting watching Connery sweep a hotel room for bugs because he could hold your attention. I don't feel Craig has that type of charisma.
I still think adopting the plot of Icebreaker would be an interesting way to go. Team Bond up with a group of other foreign agents working on a single mission. One of them is the bad guy (or gal). No need to go rogue, it's something that hasn't really been done before, Bond's in danger from multiple angles, and it gives Craig (if he returns) plenty of opportunities to work with different actors.
But Bond should go back to when going rouge was a rare occurance, not the rule.
In the early films, communications were relatively antiquated (think of the radio in Dr. No), so there was a reason he wasn't in contact. That's no longer the case. There needs to be a reason Bond isn't communicating with MI6.
We could have a Goldfinger situation where he is in captivity for half the film and has had his communication devices stripped from him. There he's on his own but not rogue. Or he could be in captured early in the movie, but he escapes soon after but is on his own for the rest of the movie and has to fend for himself without MI6's help because he is unable to get in touch.
The group would not be Bond's "backup"; he doesn't trust any of the other members. In Icebreaker, he joins the group unwillingly because M orders him to. The "team" is made up of Mossad, KBG and CIA agents, so lots of potential for conflict and betrayal. And (if I remember the novel correctly), he goes in knowing that there is a trap laid for him.
Regarding isolating Bond and leaving him without communication: I agree, it's much harder these days to create a realistic scenario where he couldn't reach HQ some way or another. I can only think of him being undercover; being captured (as Matt S suggests); because he has been ordered not to communicate and/or told there will be no backup if he's caught (which may be too Mission Impossible); or because he's stubborn and wants to do it on his own (which seems the most likely reason
You're right. This is the reason we keep seeing Bond go rogue. It's so that he has a reason to be on his own without backup.
It's not just about modern communications. It's deeper, cultural thing.
I quite enjoyed Icebreaker and think it would make a very good film.
Bond historically has a lot of help, whether it's Felix, quarrel. Tiger, octopussy, etc he is very rarely on his own during a mission. Bond should go more realistic in certain aspects. Deniable or black ops would need him to have very little contact with his team. Of course he is often also dispatched in an official capacity on behalf of the British government with his 00 status being undisclosed, these aspects could and should feature in future films.
Leiter isn't in the last half of Dr. No. Quarrel dies shortly after they get to the island. Bond basically takes out Dr. No and all his minions single-handed.
In FRWL he's on his own after he boards the train and Kerim Bey is killed (the second half of the film).
In GF he's on his own throughout until Pussy Galore helps out near the end. Even then, he has to defeat Oddjob on his own.
You can argue that the current iteration of Bond does not fit the epic hero because many of his goals are personal (revenge, anger, etc.) and the epic hero is not supposed to act for selfish purposes. I wrote about Bond fitting Jung's archetype of a warrior on my blog here: http://cdwilsher.com/index.php/2016/07/21/whats-matt-damon-talking-about/
.Release it in 2018 or 2019.
.Dedicate it to Sir Roger Moore.
-{
That's an excellent idea. -{
All of those sound like very good ideas.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
We feel that, but I doubt EON does. He won't get any better treatment than Cubby got.
I'd be interested in reading that, but all I got was an ad for a holiday in Spain!
I’m taking a brief respite from film noir to write about something that is bugging me.
Specifically, Matt Damon.
More specifically, his comments about James Bond.
Damon must have a Bourne movie about to come out because he’s slagging James Bond again. In 2009, he called Bond a “sociopath.”
“They could never make a James Bond movie like any of the Bourne films because Bond is an imperialist, misogynist sociopath who goes around bedding women and swilling martinis and killing people,” he said. “He’s repulsive.”
https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2009/jan/29/bond-bourne-matt-damon
So, is Bond a sociopath? This actually wasn’t the first time or the last time that charge was made. After all, Bond is promiscuous, materialistic, violent, and (at least in the books) a borderline alcoholic. This seems to fit a sociopath.
But Bond is also prepared to give his life for his country and no sociopath ever is willing to do anything for somebody else.
No, Bond fits Carl Jung’s archetype of a warrior. His virtues are skill, courage, and discipline. He is prepared to give his life for those whom he has sworn to protect. He’s Beowulf in a bespoke suit, Sir Lancelot in an Aston Martin DB5. Ian Fleming’s one genius act was to combine an epic hero with an anti-hero and, in turn, give us a hero for our age.James Bond
Also according to Jung, a warrior does not fear death; he fears powerlessness. I always thought that the most effective torture scene would be for the villain to threaten to blind Bond but leave him alive and helpless.
But that might be too much for the kiddies.
If this seems a little far-fetched, I would point out that Fleming corresponded with Jung and Jung even gave Fleming permission to translate one of his lectures (Fleming was fluent in German).
And, unlike Matt Damon, I don’t think Bond is a misogynist. There’s no indication that he hates women. Male chauvinist, absolutely; but not a misogynist