The Abundance of Personal Missions in Modern Bond Movies

SilentSpy · February 2014

I don't know how many of you guys caught on to the abundance of personal missions that Bond goes on now. I mentioned it in my Skyfall review.

http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/42411/your-bond-anniversary-items-my-skyfall-review/

Starting with Licence to Kill:

1. Licence to Kill - Revenge mission for what happened to Felix and his wife.

2. Goldeneye - Turns into a kind of revenge mission when Bond finds out what's going on.

3. Tomorrow Never Dies - The addition of Bond's old girlfriend and her death. Then it's kind of personal.

4. The World is Not Enough - Personal after the events of the opening and the actions of Elektra.

5. Die Another Day - Personal after Bond's betrayal by Frost in the opening and M's lack of belief in Bond.

6. Casino Royale - Kind of personal in that Bond doesn't let the bomber's trail go cold. And then gets into it with Vesper.

7. Quantum of Solace - Supposed to be a personal revenge mission but doesn't really feel like it.

8. Skyfall - Personal after Bond's injury / accident ordered by M. And his need to finish that job. Which in turn makes the whole movie personal with M and her relationship with Silva.

My point is what happened to the simple missions? They were better and more fun. Licence to Kill is the best in that list that feels like a Bond movie. Although Casino Royale is still good but not truly a Bond movie.

Thunderpussy · February 2014

I think it proves not to piss off Bond or he'll come after you !

) after all, .....
" His bad side is a dangerous place to be "

screename · February 2014

SilentSpy wrote:

Although Casino Royale is still good but not truly a Bond movie.

I'm just going to pretend I didn't read that.

SilentSpy · February 2014

Thunderpussy wrote:

I think it proves not to piss off Bond or he'll come after you ! ) after all, .....
" His bad side is a dangerous place to be "

I've used that line many times in real life.

screename wrote:

SilentSpy wrote:

Although Casino Royale is still good but not truly a Bond movie.

I'm just going to pretend I didn't read that.

Don't pretend. Daniel Craig doesn't become Bond till the end of Casino Royale. And even then it's arguable if he's 007 yet with the events of Quantum of Solace and Skyfall. People saying well he's Bond at the end of Quantum of Solace now. And then Skyfall, he's Bond I guess in the opening but injured and somehow out of shape after that. I guess he's Bond again at the end of Skyfall. Who knows what direction the next one will take. You can't say this sort of thing with any of the other Bond actors.

screename · February 2014

I agree with the statement that Skyfall isn't a Bond film, but CR stays so close to the book and Craig's performance is so close to the book, that to call CR not a bond film would be to call the novel not a bond novel, which I can understand why someone would say that. After CR Fleming's character does change and become softer and more refined, or maybe Fleming just couldn't find a way to include that in his first novel.

Thunderpussy · February 2014

IMHO, at the end of Skyfall Bond is refreshed and raring to go. All the familiar faces
are in place, Moneypenny, Q and M, even the old office is back. -{
The previous films were a way of showing the growth in Bond's character from a
skilled intelligence agent, to 007. It's just the first time the producers have decided to
show it, hence why none of the previous actors have shown this side of Bond's Id.

screename · February 2014

Yes, but one of my main gripes about SF is that it took a whole film for him to get there. We already had two "origin story" films. If Craig was doing 7 and SF was his fifth or so, then I might like it more, but I don't think it makes much sense where it was made.

Firemass · February 2014

"Although Casino Royale is still good but not truly a Bond movie."

One thing I've learned is not to add controversial statements that don't relate to your main argument.

Anyway....good points. Some of those are a bit more of a stretch than others. (not convinced that TND and DAD are overly personal)

In the old days, Bond would be simply taken off the mission if M felt things were getting too personal. One quick moment of revenge occurs in Octopussy when Rog kills Grishka with a knife and says coldly. "...and that's for 009"

I agree the M storyline in Skyfall is very redundant of TWINE and LTK was the prototype for modern 007 films.

Number24 · February 2014

I agree with Silentsspy about there being too many of personal missions, even though he exagerates when he calls TND and TWINE personal missions. Anyway, it's time 007 gets his mission in M's new (old?) office, blows up the villan's lair, kills the villan and gets the girls at the end again.

Barbel · February 2014

Number24 wrote:

it's time 007 gets his mission in M's new (old?) office, blows up the villan's lair, kills the villan and gets the girls at the end again.

+1

Jarvio · February 2014

TLD could also qualify for this IMO - "stuff my orders I only kill professionals"

NeverSayDie · February 2014

The answer is a screen writing technique. If you make the goal of the protagonist something personal to them it drives them forward thus driving the story forward. The character has more to lose or gain and can be affected emotionally. We don't think of Bond films as emotional but hidden under all the girls, guns and explosions the best ones are. I've been reading alot of screen writing books recently. :-)

I'd add OHMSS to that list too.

SilentSpy · February 2014

screename wrote:

I agree with the statement that Skyfall isn't a Bond film, but CR stays so close to the book and Craig's performance is so close to the book, that to call CR not a bond film would be to call the novel not a bond novel, which I can understand why someone would say that. After CR Fleming's character does change and become softer and more refined, or maybe Fleming just couldn't find a way to include that in his first novel.

I think Bond isn't as harsh in the books after Casino Royale. I recall a lot of stuff about women in the book that was pretty rough. But in the movie, what the setup is, is the origin of Bond. It's talked about in the commentaries too. That by the end of the movie we now have the 007 we know. That's why at the end is where he gets the music. He was only getting pieces of it during the movie. And doing small Bond things.

Firemass wrote:

"Although Casino Royale is still good but not truly a Bond movie."

One thing I've learned is not to add controversial statements that don't relate to your main argument.

Anyway....good points. Some of those are a bit more of a stretch than others. (not convinced that TND and DAD are overly personal)

In the old days, Bond would be simply taken off the mission if M felt things were getting too personal. One quick moment of revenge occurs in Octopussy when Rog kills Grishka with a knife and says coldly. "...and that's for 009"

I agree the M storyline in Skyfall is very redundant of TWINE and LTK was the prototype for modern 007 films.

What I tried to do is still say that Casino Royale is good. But not truly a Bond movie because of the setup. I've mentioned this before around here. But in every Bond movie, Bond is Bond at the beginning. I don't think any origin movie that I can remember has the main known character fully become the character at the end. A lot of people use Batman Begins as the example. But mid-movie he's Batman. Casino Royale is the only one I can think of where the character is supposed to be the character we know from previous movies at the end.

And Die Another Day is definitely personal. They even sold it as personal from all the lines in the trailer about going after the person that set him up.

Thunderpussy wrote:

The previous films were a way of showing the growth in Bond's character from a
skilled intelligence agent, to 007. It's just the first time the producers have decided to
show it, hence why none of the previous actors have shown this side of Bond's Id.

I would be fine with that if the movies were setup as a true trilogy. Which they weren't. I would be fine with Casino Royale on it's own. Quantum of Solace and Skyfall is where things get messy.

Number24 wrote:

I agree with Silentsspy about there being too many of personal missions, even though he exagerates when he calls TND and TWINE personal missions. Anyway, it's time 007 gets his mission in M's new (old?) office, blows up the villan's lair, kills the villan and gets the girls at the end again.

Maybe Tomorrow Never Dies isn't as personal as the others. But it is personal. From having to deal with Paris and her death. To Bond making sure to save Wai Lin and how they were going to finish the mission together.

And The World is not Enough is personal. It starts off personal with M and the bombing. Then Bond wanting to get on the job. Add in Elektra who is almost the perfect Bond woman until we find out she's behind it all.

MooseWithFleas · February 2014

Number24 wrote:

I agree with Silentsspy about there being too many of personal missions, even though he exagerates when he calls TND and TWINE personal missions. Anyway, it's time 007 gets his mission in M's new (old?) office, blows up the villan's lair, kills the villan and gets the girls at the end again.

Here here! I did enjoy all of the personal missions, but I wouldn't mind getting back to an old school flavor with a new school twist.

Firemass · February 2014

Silentspy,

Good point about D.A.D. I forgot that Pierce went rogue like LTK to continue his vendetta against Zao.

superado · February 2014

To play devil's advocate, the obligatory sacrificial lamb as Raymond Benson pointed out, was meant to create anger and sympathy from audiences, to show how sinister a villain may be and of course, to make the villain's death more satisfying and the sacrificial lamb appeared in every Bond movie. With that said though, I agree that the personal mission has become a staple, along with Bond's growing insubordination to M, which used to be a more of a naughty schoolboy act before Dalton. After following Connery's long reign, Lazenby's Bond going rogue was novel, interesting and it became novel again when Dalton did it, which was actually very refreshing. But after Dalton, it seemed that every Bond actor just had to be made to do it to prove their mettle, lest they become branded as "Moore-like" I would guess.

AlphaOmegaSin · February 2014

I still wish Bond managed to kill Blofeld with his own bare Hands like in the YOLT Novel (Where Bond strangles him to death in a Fit of Bloody Rage)

JayCobb1045 · February 2014

I realize I'm not the first in the thread to say this, but I think the OP overstates how many of these are actually "personal" missions. That is, just because Bond becomes somewhat personally invested in beating the villain for one reason or another doesn't make the main driving force behind the mission personal. If so, then his efforts to save every Bond girl from Honey Ryder on can be said to add a personal element to his mission. I just think it's a bit of a stretch.

LTK is, indeed, very personal and I think that element is really the best part of that movie. Well, that and Wayne Newton.

GE certainly reveals a personal connection partway through, but I don't think I agree that somehow getting back at Trevelyan is what's driving Bond. If anything, the villain's plot is much more a personal mission to Trevelyan than thwarting it is a personal mission to Bond.

TND isn't really personal at all, in my opinion. Paris is an asset that he uses for information, knowing full well what the consequences would be. I don't think he really cares much. As for that odd moment where he lingers over her dead body? I just chalk that up to Brosnian overacting and/or a poor director's choice.

TWINE even less so - to me this is as pure a mission as he can get. The fact that Elektra turned out to be the baddie doesn't really drive Bond to act any differently or more aggressively than he did when he thought it was Renard. Nor do I think that saving M on its own is enough of a plot element to say that it is a "personal mission."

DAD - I won't argue that this one is personal, and again, that part of the storyline is one of the good elements in an otherwise pretty dumb movie.

CR - Not a personal mission. Does he get personally involved with Vesper? Of course. Is that love story an important and very compelling part of the film? Definitely. But that isn't really what's driving him through the mission at all. The mission itself is standard.

QOS - I'd at best give this a 70/30 ratio of formal mission to personal mission elements driving Bond. I think the movie is much more about taking down Quantum (or trying to) than about revenge for Vesper. They certainly bring those elements into the plot at critical points, which is why I'll agree to categorize this as a hybrid.

SF - Yes, personal, and all the better for it.

I suppose I could have made this response shorter by merely pointing out that just because any given Bond film has personal elements that develop as the film progresses isn't enough to categorize it as Bond being on a "personal mission." That's just Bond being treated as a fully fleshed out three dimensional character rather than merely a gun and a catchphrase. As I went through my thoughts on each film, I realized that in the few instances that I agree Bond was on a "personal mission," the film was better for it! Does this mean that I want them all to be personal from here on out? Not at all - but every now and then for the character to reveal the humanity behind the tuxedo (ok, now I'm getting carried away with myself) is not such a bad thing.

Smiert-Spionam · February 2014

If you're going to count Paris being killed and it becoming 'kinda personal' then you could probably put most of the Bond films where someone close to Bond has died in your list:

DN - Death of Quarrel
YOLT - Death of Aki
DAF - Follow on from Tracey's death?
FYEO - Death of Luigi and the way that Bond subsequently killed Loque.
TLD - Death of Saunders (you could tell Bond was pissed off)

All those I feel spurred Bond on to complete his mission.

Blackleiter · February 2014

JayCobb1045 wrote:

I realize I'm not the first in the thread to say this, but I think the OP overstates how many of these are actually "personal" missions. That is, just because Bond becomes somewhat personally invested in beating the villain for one reason or another doesn't make the main driving force behind the mission personal. If so, then his efforts to save every Bond girl from Honey Ryder on can be said to add a personal element to his mission. I just think it's a bit of a stretch.

LTK is, indeed, very personal and I think that element is really the best part of that movie. Well, that and Wayne Newton.

GE certainly reveals a personal connection partway through, but I don't think I agree that somehow getting back at Trevelyan is what's driving Bond. If anything, the villain's plot is much more a personal mission to Trevelyan than thwarting it is a personal mission to Bond.

TND isn't really personal at all, in my opinion. Paris is an asset that he uses for information, knowing full well what the consequences would be. I don't think he really cares much. As for that odd moment where he lingers over her dead body? I just chalk that up to Brosnian overacting and/or a poor director's choice.

TWINE even less so - to me this is as pure a mission as he can get. The fact that Elektra turned out to be the baddie doesn't really drive Bond to act any differently or more aggressively than he did when he thought it was Renard. Nor do I think that saving M on its own is enough of a plot element to say that it is a "personal mission."

DAD - I won't argue that this one is personal, and again, that part of the storyline is one of the good elements in an otherwise pretty dumb movie.

CR - Not a personal mission. Does he get personally involved with Vesper? Of course. Is that love story an important and very compelling part of the film? Definitely. But that isn't really what's driving him through the mission at all. The mission itself is standard.

QOS - I'd at best give this a 70/30 ratio of formal mission to personal mission elements driving Bond. I think the movie is much more about taking down Quantum (or trying to) than about revenge for Vesper. They certainly bring those elements into the plot at critical points, which is why I'll agree to categorize this as a hybrid.

SF - Yes, personal, and all the better for it.

I suppose I could have made this response shorter by merely pointing out that just because any given Bond film has personal elements that develop as the film progresses isn't enough to categorize it as Bond being on a "personal mission." That's just Bond being treated as a fully fleshed out three dimensional character rather than merely a gun and a catchphrase. As I went through my thoughts on each film, I realized that in the few instances that I agree Bond was on a "personal mission," the film was better for it! Does this mean that I want them all to be personal from here on out? Not at all - but every now and then for the character to reveal the humanity behind the tuxedo (ok, now I'm getting carried away with myself) is not such a bad thing.

I'm glad I read your post before I weighed in with my comments, because I think you have nailed it. I believe one really oversimplies the plots of many of the films mentioned by merely chalking them up to being "personal" missions for Bond. And I was really quite stunned when the OP stated that Casino Royale isn't really a Bond movie. I understand his point that in CR we get Bond in his formative stages and not the familiar seasoned Bond that appears in the previous films. But Bond at the outset of his career is still Bond, and I think CR does a marvelous job of letting see a bit of what makes him tick and lays the groundwork for his evolution as 007. Not to mention that I think CR is one of the most interesting, intelligent and exciting Bond films of the entire series.

SilentSpy · February 2014

I agree with some here that the villain has to kill or do something bad to prove he is the bad guy. That's pretty standard. But what I'm getting at by saying personal is what happens usually early on or halfway into the movie.

Here is a little comparison with the first eight Bond movies to compare with the recent ones. They keep things simple.

1. Dr. No - Find out what happened to Strangways and stop what's going on with the rockets and radio beams.

2. From Russia With Love - Look into getting the Lektor.

3. Goldfinger - Observe Goldfinger. M even instructs Bond not to let it become personal after Goldfinger paints Jill gold.

4. Thunderball - Stop SPECTRE.

5. You Only Live Twice - Find out what's going on with the rockets. But it's basically stop SPECTRE again.

6. On Her Majesty's Secret Service - This is the first kind of personal mission as Bond is after SPECTRE. He says how they are a must with him and goes about locating them on his own.

7. Diamonds Are Forever - It starts with the SPECTRE hunt, goes to a standard mission, before going back to the SPECTRE again. But this is the first "light" Bond movie and Connery doesn't play it as harsh as he should after the events of On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

8. Live and Let Die - Investigate the deaths of the agents. But remember how lightly Moore's Bond takes this. Even cracks that line about having the same boot maker or something of that nature.

Yes personal stories can be more involving. But you can see what I'm getting at with this. Even if they are formulaic. That formula is usually good for a reason. You keep attempting to mess with the formula you will end up where we are now. Which is hopefully going back to what works.

superado · February 2014

I don’t think you can turn back the clock. The Connery Bonds got away with the straightforward romps because frankly, Connery was James Bond and the nonchalance was part of the charm, like when Bond barely batted an eyelash when Aki was killed. Moore continued with the nonchalance, but we started seeing some seriousness set in with his age I suppose, like the cautionary "two graves" lecture he gave to Melina. Dalton's getting in touch with his feminine side sort of set the standard and challenge for every new Bond and there was no looking back. Because of all that has passed, I don't think Bond can get away in being simplistic and happy-go-lucky and as I mentioned, consciously or not every new Bond actor will be pressured to deliver depth to the character, which would be incompatible to the early approach to the Bond character.

One way it can be done, however, should the producers think it's important enough to do that for whatever reason in the future, would be to hire a guy like Lazenby who is so egotistical that he wouldn't care what the world thought about his delivery; such a guy would be hired for his sheer b*lls, arrogance and ambivalence to his craft, and of course being granted total carte blanche by the film-makers to carry on that way. But because of their experience with Lazenby, I don't think they'd go out on the limb that way ever again and has since protected their interests with the contract stipulations they've placed on their leading men.

Colonel Shatner · February 2014

superado wrote:

The Connery Bonds got away with the straightforward romps because frankly, Connery was James Bond and the nonchalance was part of the charm, like when Bond barely batted an eyelash when Aki was killed.

Although putting on a cold and reserved mask, the brief look of shock and dismay shown by Connery's Bond said a lot - and not to give too much away, on S2 of Breaking Bad a female character died in a similar way to Aki, and three characters showed grief/guilt in different ways, from quiet reserved sadness up to explosive crying fits.

On Tomorrow Never Dies Brosnan's Bond cared enough to offer Paris safety from Carver (implied either to be sent to a MI6 safe-house or British consulate) and when driving back to his hotel room he steeled himself up after receiving Carver's threatening phone call.

Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall had Bond veering off the path a few times, but he didn't burn his bridge with MI6 as spectacularly as he did in Licence to Kill, while the more conservative Moore Bond still ended up on shakey ground a few times (being threatened to be called off the case in Moonraker after embarrassing a UK dignitary and ending up in a Paris jail or running from the SFPD in AVTAK).

Firemass · February 2014

Mark O'Connell's Memoirs of a Bond Fan book touches on this subject:

"There are no agendas of revenge or family legacies to safeguard here. Tomorrow Never Dies would be the last Bond film for a while that simply gives Bond a standalone mission without the hand-luggage of revenge."

superado · February 2014

Firemass wrote:

Mark O'Connell's Memoirs of a Bond Fan book touches on this subject:

"There are no agendas of revenge or family legacies to safeguard here. Tomorrow Never Dies would be the last Bond film for a while that simply gives Bond a standalone mission without the hand-luggage of revenge."

He obviously stepped out for popcorn during the Paris Carver hotel room scene! If it wasn't intended for Bond to have a personal aspect to the mission, they wouldn't have built up the romantic back-story between Bond and Carver and it's rare to show old girlfriends of Bond's.

superado · February 2014

Colonel Shatner wrote:

" ...he steeled himself... "

Sounds like a great episode title for Remington Steele!

)

Charmed & Dangerous · February 2014

Personally I don't mind these elements. As NeverSayDie notes, it's a good screenwriter's trick. Having a personal agenda - by the villain in some way hurting someone close to the hero - increases the stakes and in turn escalates the conflict and jeopardy, so audiences are really behind the hero.

Imagine in Gladiator if Maximus hadn't been enslaved and his family killed. How much of a stake would he have had in wanting to come face to face with the Emperor? Or in Braveheart if Wallace's wife hadn't been killed and hadn't witnessed such brutality in the way the English treated his friends and countrymen? How much of a stake would he have had in wanting to defeat the English?

Making it personal only strengthens the plot and helps us root for the hero. It hasn't always worked in the Bond films, eg in TND I could never get a sense of conviction in the Paris Carver scenes. Possibly this was because Bond was having far too much fun in the subsequent car chase so quickly after her death, and partly because I didn't feel much chemistry between them. But in both Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and in Skyfall I thought it significantly added to Bond's motivation, and some of the scenes which worked best for me were in Venice, Kazan and Skyfall Lodge respectively, when Bond was dealing with 'personal issues'.

Barbel · February 2014

So the tagline for the next movie should read-

"James Bond 007 is back. And this time it's NOT personal".

Charmed & Dangerous · February 2014

Barbel wrote:

So the tagline for the next movie should read-

"James Bond 007 is back. And this time it's NOT personal".

)

SilentSpy · February 2014

I just want a modern old fashioned Bond movie. Illustrated poster, Bond girl or girls*, a little bit of fun, good soundtrack, and not too much action for action sake. Is that too much to ask?

* This is another thing with the Daniel Craig ones although I've realized that the early Bond girls do die a lot. His movies follow that formula yet have no Bond girl at the end.

1. Casino Royale. Solange - dead. Vesper - dead.

2. Quantum of Solace. Fields - dead. Camille barely escapes and gives some speech to Bond in the end.

3. Skyfall. Sévérine - dead. Moneypenny more a tease than anything. No Bond girl in the end unless you count M who is dead.

Gassy Man · February 2014

Too many personal missions. It's a crutch to create emotional attachment even when the story provides none -- just say that Bond is supposed to be avenging someone or whatever, and some people in the audience will automatically say that the story is more meaningful and emotional as a result, even if the film itself does little more than go through the motions. This is not just a problem for Bond films but for most modern films overall.

The few where a personal issue is justified work because they closely follow Fleming's template -- Casino Royale and On Her Majesty's Secret Service, for instance. He understood how to create a plot around a legitimate personal issue and then develop it fully. The others largely flounder. Licence to Kill and Quantum of Solace are examples.

The Abundance of Personal Missions in Modern Bond Movies

Comments