Bond in some ways is really sex, in that it is all about the present and shutting out the rest of it. But Craig's Bond doesn't do that, it's more dwelling on the past, and not even in a useful way - I mean, stuff gets referenced in CR that doesn't quite follow in SF for instance, eg his sponsorship by a rich guardian. They might be heading for Spoiler if I'm correct in this speculative post
Great Expectations territory where Pip finds out latterly that his 'guardian' is not whom he thought
NP, if they're sticking with the story from the books, Bond was raised by his aunt charmian after his parents death. that will be the rich benefactor referenced in casino royale. his father clearly made a lot of money working for vickers armaments and machinery but Bond would not be able to access that as a teenager.
After SF I was hoping they were going to make B24 more in the vein of a GF or TB or MR - he's given a mission to investigate the villain, ends up outwitting and defeating him and ends up with the heroine. Now it seems, this film is just another extension of the first three and SF in particular as is still references his past and Dench.
You're right about the literary vs EON's character as far as how much time he dwells on his past. I think what EON and Mendes is now trying to do is allowing Craig to reveal the novel Bond over EON's past superspy creation through all the backstory narrative because EON spent all these decades only showing an action hero with no personal life and they figured when they got CR they could go full throttle with the literary spy.
After OHMSS and to the end of TMWTGG, I think Fleming was trying to figure out what to do with Bond. His success with the character by that point was really padding his estate, but at the same time I think he was bored by the whole thing and got tired of trying to come up with more original stories. That's why we got TSWLM and Bond getting married in OHMSS then the whole personal vendetta with Blofeld running to the end of YOLT. I don't think he planned on resurrecting Bond after YOLT, but he relented and did the last novel - and by that time he was sick and was having his stress filled homelife, which is why I believe TMWTGG was one of his weakest works.
With the reboot, they basically went from CR to OHMSS (QOS - with it's revenge plot - but instead of Tracy/Blofeld it was Vesper/Quantum) then to YOLT/MWTGG (I mean SF - Bond almost dying, his obit and childhood covered and being resurrected). Now we have this film and now instead of moving on, they are still going into Bond's past. Yes, I would have preferred a film without this tact and the fact they are using this narrative to explain the real sinister background going on behind the first three in order to tie them all up, but there it is. Just have to hope it will be done really well, as I'm sure it will. The only silver lining for me personally is that at least EON is showing Bond's backstory and now even to the extent of showing his new flat. I think it was smart on their part to only show him sitting around a lot of boxes in an unfurnished (save for the sofa) home. It still leaves a lot of mystery as far as his tastes in furnishings and personal effects and it really isn't integral to the story. They show him at home, but it gives me the impression it would never really be a home - only a personal space outside his work life. At least his backstory and his new digs are out there permanently in the series so future viewers won't be left with just the old superspy one dimensional character who just shows up to get a new mission then saves the woman and the rest of humanity.
I can't say that Fleming may not have gone the same route had he survived his last novel. Perhaps he may have brought up Bond's earlier life in other novels and have it haunt his present - because Fleming seemed to be trying different approaches to the last novels - except TMWTGG. He seemed to be reverting back to the younger Bond in that one since he basically gave him a standard plot from his first novels - just giving Bond a target and letting him go after it.
At this point in the films, I agree. Having the first two delve into Bond's early years is fine, but by the third film, they needed to get up to speed. Daniel Craig is nearing 50 -- at what point does he finally become James Bond as opposed to the nascent fellow with so many personal history issues?
I think he's already "become" James Bond. Delving into his past doesn't necessarily mean that he isn't fully formed yet. But if you read the books I think it's clear that Bond has always been a man with personal history issues (but I haven't read the books in quite a while so I could just be projecting Craig's Bond onto Fleming). I do think there are some valid points being made here that Mendes may be focusing a little too much on Bond's past instead of letting him living in the present, but he's also making a valiant effort to really tap into Fleming in order to get to the heart of Bond's character, which is what makes the whole franchise tic IMO.
The Casino Royale film made a point to tell the story of how Bond becomes Bond, and by the end he is supposedly the fully-formed character. But the following two films are still about Bond becoming himself. I'm not sure if Craig's Bond will ever mature. He's always finding himself, which is something that characters in modern films do. I don't see that in Fleming's novels.
There was a story arc to Fleming's Bond books. He's betrayed by Vesper, rejected by Gala Brand, and Tiffany Case, walks away from Vivienne Michel, and when he finds the woman of his dreams she is murdered and he goes off the deep end.
Bond in some ways is really sex, in that it is all about the present and shutting out the rest of it. But Craig's Bond doesn't do that, it's more dwelling on the past, and not even in a useful way - I mean, stuff gets referenced in CR that doesn't quite follow in SF for instance, eg his sponsorship by a rich guardian. They might be heading for Spoiler if I'm correct in this speculative post
Great Expectations territory where Pip finds out latterly that his 'guardian' is not whom he thought
but it's another way of eking it out.
The trailer just feels quite melancholy to me.
"Bond in some ways is really sex."
Good job of taking a complicated character and making him completely one-dimensional. And that's what the radical feminists think of Bond as well, so you're not alone.
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,541MI6 Agent
There was a story arc to Fleming's Bond books. He's betrayed by Vesper, rejected by Gala Brand, and Tiffany Case, walks away from Vivienne Michel, and when he finds the woman of his dreams she is murdered and he goes off the deep end.
There really wasn't. Even Fleming said he wrote them book by book. After finishing one, he had no idea where the next would come from. He was winging it. He never thought the series would go beyond the first or second book, and certainly not the fifth. Bond never went off at the deep end. He was cold and clinical even then. Revenge never controlled his actions. Look at all the women he had and discarded in between the significant ones. There was never a need for attachment, but when it happened he went with it, it was never a pursuit of Bonds.
There was a story arc to Fleming's Bond books. He's betrayed by Vesper, rejected by Gala Brand, and Tiffany Case, walks away from Vivienne Michel, and when he finds the woman of his dreams she is murdered and he goes off the deep end.
There really wasn't. Even Fleming said he wrote them book by book. After finishing one, he had no idea where the next would come from. He was winging it. He never thought the series would go beyond the first or second book, and certainly not the fifth. Bond never went off at the deep end. He was cold and clinical even then. Revenge never controlled his actions. Look at all the women he had and discarded in between the significant ones. There was never a need for attachment, but when it happened he went with it, it was never a pursuit of Bonds.
Cold and calculating, eh. We are talking about James Bond in YOLT, right? The guy who's become such a screw up that even Moneypenney looks at him with "ill-concealed hostility" and M takes away his double 0 status.
OK.
And by the time we get to TMWTGG, he's been so brainwashed by the Soviets he tries to kill M. I think "cold and calculating" means something different than you think it means.
Gassy Man, that's a very well written, thoughtful and insightful piece. -{ I would agree with everything except that Daniel Craig's Bond is not joyless. Although he takes a lot of what happens to heart, he also takes pleasure from aspects if his missions (particularly women); perhaps like Fleming's Bond, he's of an age that doesn't display it quite as much as some, though.
Just to name a few scenes where he's far from joyless:
His scenes with Agent Fields - he is clearly enjoying the banter and his intimacy with her
The scene with Vesper on the train - he's clearly relishing the dialogue
His recovery at the health clinic with Vesper, not to mention the scene with M. Mendel
The scenes in the hotel room and subsequently the Floating Casino with Moneypenny
Btw - Naomi Harris as Moneypenny is superb. She's an excellent actress and I've loved her since the Pirates of the Caribbean films. -{
I see what you're saying, but even then, he doesn't seem to express much joy. It's more like he's amused, if that makes sense.
After SF I was hoping they were going to make B24 more in the vein of a GF or TB or MR - he's given a mission to investigate the villain, ends up outwitting and defeating him and ends up with the heroine. Now it seems, this film is just another extension of the first three and SF in particular as is still references his past and Dench.
You're right about the literary vs EON's character as far as how much time he dwells on his past. I think what EON and Mendes is now trying to do is allowing Craig to reveal the novel Bond over EON's past superspy creation through all the backstory narrative because EON spent all these decades only showing an action hero with no personal life and they figured when they got CR they could go full throttle with the literary spy.
Hopefully, they will do just that in Bond 25.
I felt the same way. By the third film, Bond could easily have become himself again. To me, Skyfall seems more like it should have been Craig's last Bond outting, when he is at his oldest point playing the part. Then the burnout and so forth would have made sense. Even taking him back to his childhood might have served as an interesting bookend.
As it stands, they have the most compelling actor to play the role since Connery, and then seem to -- in my opinion -- be wasting a lot of time and what he can offer with pedestrian stories that substitute mostly trivia for actual character development while keeping the character in very much the same place he has been.
But, again, I think they're taking a lot of cues from Nolan's Batman films.
I may be or may not be the first AJB'er to see the SPECTRE teaser trailer in a proper theater but I'm pretty sure I might be the first to see it in IMAX. On Thursday evening I decided on the spur of the moment to go see "Furious 7" at the local IMAX. It's a digital IMAX but a good one with a 70' wide screen. Much to my pleasant surprise, the first IMAX trailer was SPECTRE. Given there is no real action in the trailer, it really packs quite a punch on that big IMAX screen and the end reveal of the SPECTRE title/octopuss/gunshot effect was just really effective with the jacked up sound and visuals. The trailer for the new Mission Impossible film was also shown after one or two other trailers. I pretty much was the only geezer in a packed house of around 500 that was pretty much all older teens and college age folks. During the SPECTRE trailer the previously noisy audience became quiet and then reacted with an "ooh" when the SPECTRE title effect at the end of the trailer. During the MI trailer, which was loaded with all kinds of pumped up action scenes (it appeared that every big action/effects scene was in the trailer) there were more than a few in the audience who appeared to be mocking the film and Cruise (which I also look forward to seeing and have no ill will toward the MI series or Cruise). It's very interesting how a well crafted trailer with no action can appear to be more compelling to an audience than one with wall to wall action, explosions, etc.
After SF I was hoping they were going to make B24 more in the vein of a GF or TB or MR - he's given a mission to investigate the villain, ends up outwitting and defeating him and ends up with the heroine. Now it seems, this film is just another extension of the first three and SF in particular as is still references his past and Dench.
You're right about the literary vs EON's character as far as how much time he dwells on his past. I think what EON and Mendes is now trying to do is allowing Craig to reveal the novel Bond over EON's past superspy creation through all the backstory narrative because EON spent all these decades only showing an action hero with no personal life and they figured when they got CR they could go full throttle with the literary spy.
Hopefully, they will do just that in Bond 25.
I felt the same way. By the third film, Bond could easily have become himself again. To me, Skyfall seems more like it should have been Craig's last Bond outting, when he is at his oldest point playing the part. Then the burnout and so forth would have made sense. Even taking him back to his childhood might have served as an interesting bookend.
As it stands, they have the most compelling actor to play the role since Connery, and then seem to -- in my opinion -- be wasting a lot of time and what he can offer with pedestrian stories that substitute mostly trivia for actual character development while keeping the character in very much the same place he has been.
But, again, I think they're taking a lot of cues from Nolan's Batman films.
Perhaps with the spectre trailer going for mystery rather than explosions etc
this may help it stand out from the other trailers at the moment.
I think EON has accomplished exactly what you said with the SPECTRE teaser. All the other IMAX trailers were just huge cacophonies of mindless mayhem that pretty much all blended together. The SPECTRE teaser effectively created an atmosphere of mystery and the foreboding of violence and impending death that could even be understood by an audience that is not typically considered the target for that level of nuance. I have to credit EON with respecting and not underestimating the intelligence of their audience. That all being said, I believe that the next trailer will include glimpses of action and violence as EON continues to build anticipation for SPECTRE and the 3rd and final trailer glimpses of some of the stunts and large action set-pieces.
After SF I was hoping they were going to make B24 more in the vein of a GF or TB or MR - he's given a mission to investigate the villain, ends up outwitting and defeating him and ends up with the heroine. Now it seems, this film is just another extension of the first three and SF in particular as is still references his past and Dench.
You're right about the literary vs EON's character as far as how much time he dwells on his past. I think what EON and Mendes is now trying to do is allowing Craig to reveal the novel Bond over EON's past superspy creation through all the backstory narrative because EON spent all these decades only showing an action hero with no personal life and they figured when they got CR they could go full throttle with the literary spy.
Hopefully, they will do just that in Bond 25.
I felt the same way. By the third film, Bond could easily have become himself again. To me, Skyfall seems more like it should have been Craig's last Bond outting, when he is at his oldest point playing the part. Then the burnout and so forth would have made sense. Even taking him back to his childhood might have served as an interesting bookend.
As it stands, they have the most compelling actor to play the role since Connery, and then seem to -- in my opinion -- be wasting a lot of time and what he can offer with pedestrian stories that substitute mostly trivia for actual character development while keeping the character in very much the same place he has been.
But, again, I think they're taking a lot of cues from Nolan's Batman films.
I had read somewhere that Craig had considered making SF his last film and with how they did it and what you say, it would have made sense. Especially the last scene in M.s office. They seemed to have hinted at him ready to move on, and at the same time it seems to have been set up as if it were the the last act of his three act film arc and they were leaving it open for the next actor. I don't know. Perhaps it was written differently with more finality but they decided to change it to leave it more open.
disagree. the point of SF, was everyone telling him he was too old to be doing it and then proving them wrong. And at that last scene its like hes just getting started.
set up as if it were the the last act of his three act film arc and they were leaving it open for the next actor. I don't know. Perhaps it was written differently with more finality but they decided to change it to leave it more open.
I never got the impression people were telling Bond he was too old in SF, but
rather he was too run down and not up to the riggers of the "OO" section any
more. Telling him he was more or less " Burnt out" ?
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I think the idea in SF was that Bond was supposed to be obsolete. This was underscored in the scene in the art museum where Bond and Q view the Fighting Temeraire, which of course had been the 2nd ship of the line behind the Victory at the Battle of Trafalgar. In the painting, it is being taken away to be scrapped as no longer useful (like Bond).
However, at the end of the movie there is a painting on Mallory's wall of the Victory and other ships at Trafalgar (where the Temeraire captured two other ships), the message being that the old war ship had been resurrected (God, how Mendes flogged that theme to death).
I think there's also an idea that you can be reborn by going into your past.
The muddy writing of both Quantum of Solace and Skyfall notwithstanding, it's pretty clear in the museum scene they are talking about issues of age, not just because they literally use terms like "old" (which is used specifically to describe the ship), "age" and "youth," refer to "the inevitability of time" and how the service doesn't "go in for things like that anymore," and have a smarmy young Q and a wistful older Bond, but because the point is that Bond's years have made him, like the ship's, obsolete. He is not obsolete because of his skills or job description (both of which can change) but specifically his age. He is simply past it.
The idea gets repeated when Moneypenny -- herself a younger agent representing the next generation -- says "old dog, new tricks" and Silva jibes about how Bond's knees "must be killing you" from all of the chasing people, a common assumption about age.
After SF I was hoping they were going to make B24 more in the vein of a GF or TB or MR - he's given a mission to investigate the villain, ends up outwitting and defeating him and ends up with the heroine. Now it seems, this film is just another extension of the first three and SF in particular as is still references his past and Dench.
You're right about the literary vs EON's character as far as how much time he dwells on his past. I think what EON and Mendes is now trying to do is allowing Craig to reveal the novel Bond over EON's past superspy creation through all the backstory narrative because EON spent all these decades only showing an action hero with no personal life and they figured when they got CR they could go full throttle with the literary spy.
Hopefully, they will do just that in Bond 25.
I felt the same way. By the third film, Bond could easily have become himself again. To me, Skyfall seems more like it should have been Craig's last Bond outting, when he is at his oldest point playing the part. Then the burnout and so forth would have made sense. Even taking him back to his childhood might have served as an interesting bookend.
As it stands, they have the most compelling actor to play the role since Connery, and then seem to -- in my opinion -- be wasting a lot of time and what he can offer with pedestrian stories that substitute mostly trivia for actual character development while keeping the character in very much the same place he has been.
But, again, I think they're taking a lot of cues from Nolan's Batman films.
I had read somewhere that Craig had considered making SF his last film and with how they did it and what you say, it would have made sense. Especially the last scene in M.s office. They seemed to have hinted at him ready to move on, and at the same time it seems to have been set up as if it were the the last act of his three act film arc and they were leaving it open for the next actor. I don't know. Perhaps it was written differently with more finality but they decided to change it to leave it more open.
If Skyfall had been, say, Daniel Craig's sixth or seventh film, it would have been a wonderful swan song. As it stands, though, it felt forced to me. We were supposed to have imagined all these adventures that Bond had been on that led him to that point as opposed to actually having seen some of them instead. It reminds me of the second Star Trek film, which has many of the same themes though they are played out much, much better, in part because the TV series and previous film made the issues relevant and believable. I also think the irony of a 50-something Bond, as opposed to a 40-something one (who may actually be younger than Craig) having to go back to where he started would have given things a poetic sense. Instead, as with so many contemporary things, it just seems shoehorned in to the Bond series.
a swan song would imply that he really was too old to be doing this anymore. The point was that he wasn't and that he still has relevance in this time. As you can see at the last scene, in Mallory's office, a new painting (of the broken down war ship) is now a new batallion ready for battle. So he proves he is just getting started.
Top all that off with the theme of the movie, which was not getting older, but 'Resurrection'. the first half is a re-do of You Only Live Twice, where he fakes his death and goes to Japan (Asia is land of the rising sun - metaphor).
it is a lot like those john wayne westerns, like true grit, where the girl tells him he is too old and then he jumps on the horse, jumps over the fence and rides off into the sunset
For Nolan's Trilogy, Batman only has like 3 years of the job under his belt, between begins and dark knight. After that he goes dormant for 8 years, comes out of retirement one time. So just 3 years of being batman?
I felt the same way. By the third film, Bond could easily have become himself again. To me, Skyfall seems more like it should have been Craig's last Bond outting, when he is at his oldest point playing the part. Then the burnout and so forth would have made sense. Even taking him back to his childhood might have served as an interesting bookend.
As it stands, they have the most compelling actor to play the role since Connery, and then seem to -- in my opinion -- be wasting a lot of time and what he can offer with pedestrian stories that substitute mostly trivia for actual character development while keeping the character in very much the same place he has been.
But, again, I think they're taking a lot of cues from Nolan's Batman films.
I had read somewhere that Craig had considered making SF his last film and with how they did it and what you say, it would have made sense. Especially the last scene in M.s office. They seemed to have hinted at him ready to move on, and at the same time it seems to have been set up as if it were the the last act of his three act film arc and they were leaving it open for the next actor. I don't know. Perhaps it was written differently with more finality but they decided to change it to leave it more open.
If Skyfall had been, say, Daniel Craig's sixth or seventh film, it would have been a wonderful swan song. As it stands, though, it felt forced to me. We were supposed to have imagined all these adventures that Bond had been on that led him to that point as opposed to actually having seen some of them instead. It reminds me of the second Star Trek film, which has many of the same themes though they are played out much, much better, in part because the TV series and previous film made the issues relevant and believable. I also think the irony of a 50-something Bond, as opposed to a 40-something one (who may actually be younger than Craig) having to go back to where he started would have given things a poetic sense. Instead, as with so many contemporary things, it just seems shoehorned in to the Bond series.
Only my opinion, but CR and QOS were the same story told over two films, so
Bond was evolving into an experienced agent. In SF Bond was shown as an
Experienced agent, due to his injuries he was underperforming, but as soon as
He removed the bullet fragments, he was back to his old self.
In SF, I think DC played Bond, as the other actors. He was suave and funny with
a few great one-liners, walked with a swagger and seemed to be having fun.
So I think Craig's Bond is fully formed, of course he'll have new experiences and
Adventures. Which I'm certain will show Bond as human, less superman, dealing
With his Demons., as although he's fully formed, it doesn't mean he can't learn
anything.
I agree, TP. Craig's Bond is far from "emotionless" and "one-dimensional". I believe that by the end of SF we see a Bond who is confident, committed to his job as a Double 0, and ready to tackle his next mission. I don't think that will necessarily change just because we will get further insight into Bond and his background in Spectre.
Comments
Bond in some ways is really sex, in that it is all about the present and shutting out the rest of it. But Craig's Bond doesn't do that, it's more dwelling on the past, and not even in a useful way - I mean, stuff gets referenced in CR that doesn't quite follow in SF for instance, eg his sponsorship by a rich guardian. They might be heading for Spoiler if I'm correct in this speculative post
The trailer just feels quite melancholy to me.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
After SF I was hoping they were going to make B24 more in the vein of a GF or TB or MR - he's given a mission to investigate the villain, ends up outwitting and defeating him and ends up with the heroine. Now it seems, this film is just another extension of the first three and SF in particular as is still references his past and Dench.
You're right about the literary vs EON's character as far as how much time he dwells on his past. I think what EON and Mendes is now trying to do is allowing Craig to reveal the novel Bond over EON's past superspy creation through all the backstory narrative because EON spent all these decades only showing an action hero with no personal life and they figured when they got CR they could go full throttle with the literary spy.
After OHMSS and to the end of TMWTGG, I think Fleming was trying to figure out what to do with Bond. His success with the character by that point was really padding his estate, but at the same time I think he was bored by the whole thing and got tired of trying to come up with more original stories. That's why we got TSWLM and Bond getting married in OHMSS then the whole personal vendetta with Blofeld running to the end of YOLT. I don't think he planned on resurrecting Bond after YOLT, but he relented and did the last novel - and by that time he was sick and was having his stress filled homelife, which is why I believe TMWTGG was one of his weakest works.
With the reboot, they basically went from CR to OHMSS (QOS - with it's revenge plot - but instead of Tracy/Blofeld it was Vesper/Quantum) then to YOLT/MWTGG (I mean SF - Bond almost dying, his obit and childhood covered and being resurrected). Now we have this film and now instead of moving on, they are still going into Bond's past. Yes, I would have preferred a film without this tact and the fact they are using this narrative to explain the real sinister background going on behind the first three in order to tie them all up, but there it is. Just have to hope it will be done really well, as I'm sure it will. The only silver lining for me personally is that at least EON is showing Bond's backstory and now even to the extent of showing his new flat. I think it was smart on their part to only show him sitting around a lot of boxes in an unfurnished (save for the sofa) home. It still leaves a lot of mystery as far as his tastes in furnishings and personal effects and it really isn't integral to the story. They show him at home, but it gives me the impression it would never really be a home - only a personal space outside his work life. At least his backstory and his new digs are out there permanently in the series so future viewers won't be left with just the old superspy one dimensional character who just shows up to get a new mission then saves the woman and the rest of humanity.
I can't say that Fleming may not have gone the same route had he survived his last novel. Perhaps he may have brought up Bond's earlier life in other novels and have it haunt his present - because Fleming seemed to be trying different approaches to the last novels - except TMWTGG. He seemed to be reverting back to the younger Bond in that one since he basically gave him a standard plot from his first novels - just giving Bond a target and letting him go after it.
Hopefully, they will do just that in Bond 25.
SPECTRE TEASER TRAILER (MUSIC ONLY)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SR1ccj26IOU
SPECTRE TEASER TRAILER (DIALOGUE ONLY)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvyloRA1OYI
There was a story arc to Fleming's Bond books. He's betrayed by Vesper, rejected by Gala Brand, and Tiffany Case, walks away from Vivienne Michel, and when he finds the woman of his dreams she is murdered and he goes off the deep end.
"Bond in some ways is really sex."
Good job of taking a complicated character and making him completely one-dimensional. And that's what the radical feminists think of Bond as well, so you're not alone.
There really wasn't. Even Fleming said he wrote them book by book. After finishing one, he had no idea where the next would come from. He was winging it. He never thought the series would go beyond the first or second book, and certainly not the fifth. Bond never went off at the deep end. He was cold and clinical even then. Revenge never controlled his actions. Look at all the women he had and discarded in between the significant ones. There was never a need for attachment, but when it happened he went with it, it was never a pursuit of Bonds.
Cold and calculating, eh. We are talking about James Bond in YOLT, right? The guy who's become such a screw up that even Moneypenney looks at him with "ill-concealed hostility" and M takes away his double 0 status.
OK.
And by the time we get to TMWTGG, he's been so brainwashed by the Soviets he tries to kill M. I think "cold and calculating" means something different than you think it means.
As it stands, they have the most compelling actor to play the role since Connery, and then seem to -- in my opinion -- be wasting a lot of time and what he can offer with pedestrian stories that substitute mostly trivia for actual character development while keeping the character in very much the same place he has been.
But, again, I think they're taking a lot of cues from Nolan's Batman films.
How to take a successful book series and turn it into a festering turd...
this may help it stand out from the other trailers at the moment.
I had read somewhere that Craig had considered making SF his last film and with how they did it and what you say, it would have made sense. Especially the last scene in M.s office. They seemed to have hinted at him ready to move on, and at the same time it seems to have been set up as if it were the the last act of his three act film arc and they were leaving it open for the next actor. I don't know. Perhaps it was written differently with more finality but they decided to change it to leave it more open.
rather he was too run down and not up to the riggers of the "OO" section any
more. Telling him he was more or less " Burnt out" ?
However, at the end of the movie there is a painting on Mallory's wall of the Victory and other ships at Trafalgar (where the Temeraire captured two other ships), the message being that the old war ship had been resurrected (God, how Mendes flogged that theme to death).
I think there's also an idea that you can be reborn by going into your past.
The idea gets repeated when Moneypenny -- herself a younger agent representing the next generation -- says "old dog, new tricks" and Silva jibes about how Bond's knees "must be killing you" from all of the chasing people, a common assumption about age.
Top all that off with the theme of the movie, which was not getting older, but 'Resurrection'. the first half is a re-do of You Only Live Twice, where he fakes his death and goes to Japan (Asia is land of the rising sun - metaphor).
it is a lot like those john wayne westerns, like true grit, where the girl tells him he is too old and then he jumps on the horse, jumps over the fence and rides off into the sunset
I agree, TP. Craig's Bond is far from "emotionless" and "one-dimensional". I believe that by the end of SF we see a Bond who is confident, committed to his job as a Double 0, and ready to tackle his next mission. I don't think that will necessarily change just because we will get further insight into Bond and his background in Spectre.