John Logan: “I think Skyfall demonstrated that they want more layers to that character"

John Logan wrote:

“Fleming’s courage in showing Bond’s fear and vulnerability and depression was really interesting and something that a modern audience can accept,” said Logan. “I think Skyfall demonstrated that they want more layers to that character. And those are the layers that Fleming wrote.”

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/03/09/screenwriter-john-logan-gives-a-bond-24-update

Tiffy won't be happy.

Python wrote:

Tiffy won't be happy.

Yes, less layers please. Sean Connery layer quotient enough. Laz in OHMSS is max. Thank You.

Largo's Shark wrote:

John Logan wrote:

“Fleming’s courage in showing Bond’s fear and vulnerability and depression was really interesting and something that a modern audience can accept,” said Logan. “I think Skyfall demonstrated that they want more layers to that character. And those are the layers that Fleming wrote.”

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/03/09/screenwriter-john-logan-gives-a-bond-24-update

I think SF demonstrated that the new Bond film was the "it" film of latter half 2012. And it was a damn good film with a stellar cast and and director. You get your 12 bucks worth. Of course people went to see it in droves. It was a no-brainer. I don't think anyone gave a crap about the "layers" though.
Here they are using Fleming again to justify their editorial conceits. Please make these films your own, not some faux noble tribute to Fleming. I'm sure none of these guys have read the complete Fleming oeuvre. Possibly Mendes, but even then I'm not sure.

I just want to have decent actioner with the next 007 outing if it is an intelligent one, that too is welcome. Almost anything is better than QoB and not too much effort is needed to improve upon SF. imho

tiffanywint wrote:

I think SF demonstrated that the new Bond film was the "it" film of latter half 2012. And it was a damn good film with a stellar cast and and director. You get your 12 bucks worth. Of course people went to see it in droves. It was a no-brainer. I don't think anyone gave a crap about the "layers" though.
Here they are using Fleming again to justify their editorial conceits. Please make these films your own, not some faux noble tribute to Fleming. I'm sure none of these guys have read the complete Fleming oeuvre. Possibly Mendes, but even then I'm not sure.

SKYFALL was everything that I complained about leading up to the release of the film: Dench was the lead Bond Girl....film had less action than compared to others....plot IS derivative of other Bond plots......Moneypenny is Eve...everyone, including M, is armed and dangerous......and yet I didn't mind it, and I have found the film gets even better when watching it on Blu-Ray. I can't explain it. Actually, I can. Mendes seems to know how to use Craig in this film in a way that he hadn't been used before; Craig's Bond is allowed to lighten up a bit, and the humor almost never feels forced or contrived, but simply flows out organically from the situation that the characters are in. Examples: Craig's face when he tells train conductor, repeatedly: "Open the door!", or when Bond reaches down to his gear shift to subtly suggest to M that he'll use the ejector seat on her if she continues to complain (gets probably the biggest laugh out of the audience). It's those light touches that made the film much more enjoyable than the awful, brooding, pretentious QUANTURDS OF SOLACE.

At this point, SF is definitely in my TOP 5 Bond films. It's a pleasure to watch. I actually enjoy sitting through it and watching it. It's not tiresome or laborious like LICENSE REVOKED.

SF should be the blue-print for the last two Craig films. The tone is just right. The villainy just fun enough to remind you it's a Bond film, but not over the top. I do think BOND 24 should finally give us a Bond Girl that makes it to the end with Bond and the film wraps up in a more conventional way. Let's go a bit lightly on the dead Bond Girls in the next one; let 'em both live for once.

I've agreed with you on just about everything that has been done to this series by Babs in the past few years, but on SKYFALL I just can't agree with you.

The question is...what is left to layer in Craig's Bond that hasn't been layered already?

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I've agreed with you on just about everything that has been done to this series by Babs in the past few years, but on SKYFALL I just can't agree with you.

Actually I don't think we do disagree in any profound way. I'm happy to acknowledge SF's strengths as a film. It does I find get better with each viewing, simply because one accepts it for what it is as opposed to what one wishes it might have been. I've now seen it 6 time with more viewing planned. It looks great in hi-def blu.
But I don't care how good it is, it's just not my cup of Bond. It's really about preference. And I do find all the talk of connecting with Fleming circa YOLT to be tedious. Just take ownership of the film and stop peddling this nonsense that the film is some great tribute to Fleming. Bond was down in the dumps in YOLT because Blofeld had just blown away his wife, not because crazed Mommy had ordered Eve to "take the bloody shot," sending Bond plunging to what should have been his death. In YOLT Bond was not in revolt against the secret service or M.

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

The question is...what is left to layer in Craig's Bond that hasn't been layered already?

The combination of Logan and Craig will think of something I'm sure. Logan is masterminding the next two films it seems. The drama continues for what could be a two parter. He can go full throttle with more "As the Bond Turns", and of course explain that's its all about doing justice to Fleming. Sigh.

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

The question is...what is left to layer in Craig's Bond that hasn't been layered already?

Bond as a father. Bring the James Suzuki character into the Craig timeline (or a variation of the character; doesn't have to necessarily be from Kissy). Then end the last film of the Craig series sort of like THE DARK KNIGHT RISES; Bond finds true love, retires, and hand off the series to the new kid, as he inherits the mantle of 007.

I think what Logan is getting at is more moments like the opening of SKYFALL, where Bond tries his best to stop Ronson's bleeding and stabilise him before medical evac arrives. He reluctantly has to leave him, and gives him a knowing look before moving on - knowing it's probably the last time he'll see him.

That fierce loyalty to one's friends is derived from Fleming, and is why Mathis's death in QOS jars so badly. Bond is a sentimental man at heart.

Largo's Shark wrote:

I think what Logan is getting at is more moments like the opening of SKYFALL, where Bond tries his best to stop Ronson's bleeding and stabilise him before medical evac arrives. He reluctantly has to leave him, and gives him a knowing look before moving on - knowing it's probably the last time he'll see him.

That fierce loyalty to one's friends is derived from Fleming, and is why Mathis's death in QOS jars so badly. Bond is a sentimental man at heart.

This level of layering is acceptable, although I am also quite fine with the layer leveling we got from Rog in Spy Who Loved Me, and Moonraker too.

tiffanywint wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

I think what Logan is getting at is more moments like the opening of SKYFALL, where Bond tries his best to stop Ronson's bleeding and stabilise him before medical evac arrives. He reluctantly has to leave him, and gives him a knowing look before moving on - knowing it's probably the last time he'll see him.

That fierce loyalty to one's friends is derived from Fleming, and is why Mathis's death in QOS jars so badly. Bond is a sentimental man at heart.

This level of layering is acceptable, although I am also quite fine with the layer leveling we got from Rog in Spy Who Loved Me, and Moonraker too.

Which, if you recall, calls for the weakest Bond performances. Bond's sentimentality toward Anya could have been genuine had Moore did a better job.

FieldsMan wrote:

Which, if you recall, calls for the weakest Bond performances. Bond's sentimentality toward Anya could have been genuine had Moore did a better job.

Yes of course but Rog is Rog. He's a good TV actor who adapted his Saint persona to Bond and that's about it. As for Bach, lets be nice and just say that as an actress, she fills out an evening dress rather well.
But the Bond/Anya relationship such as it was, even if acted out by the likes of Connery and Eva Green for example, wasn't supposed to be too deep anyway. They were a couple of spies thrown together for a mission tryst and nothing more.

I think Logan is going in the right direction with these comments. I do agree the SKYFALL proved audiences will respond to an actual character on the screen - they don't necessarily want a character with all the depth of a carboard cut-out, and a plethora of explosions to make up the difference.

tiffanywint wrote:

But the Bond/Anya relationship such as it was, even if acted out by the likes of Connery and Eva Green for example, wasn't supposed to be too deep anyway. They were a couple of spies thrown together for a mission tryst and nothing more.

So that justifies it all?

If it wasn't supposed to be anything, it would have been what was there between Bond and Holly... Nothing.

The filmmakers definitely tried to make something out of the angle with Bond being the killer of Anya's lover, they were just half assed about it and didn't give it any more thought. Probably just how Tiffy prefers Bond films to be, pure formula that doesn't rock the boat too much.

I think Anya is probably one of the most confused characters in Bond canon. For instance, she is presented as "Triple X", a Russian female equivalent of Bond, but she's completely helpless when fighting Jaws and doesn't actually do anything of use in the field (except get caught). She is surprised by the way the Lotus Esprit turns into a submarine, but then claims to have previously stolen the blueprints to the car and displays a knowledge of the gadgetry that suggests that she should have known it was a submarine all along. And while she is angry enough with Bond to want to kill him, and even swears to kill him in revenge once their mission is over, Bond does nothing to change her mind except save her when she forgets all of her training and becomes a damsel in distress.

In retrospect, I think her inconsistencies are a by-product of TSWLM's tumultuous production. Bits and pieces of her character seem to have been salvaged from various drafts and shoehorned together. It really represents the problems with TSWLM's entire premise: it's a half-assed retread of YOLT. I often wondered if EON set up a similar premise in MR to have another go at making a coherent film.

I actually prefer MR a lot more than the other Gilbert films. It feels less confused, it knows it's a brainless spectacle and embraces it without trying to add any half-assed pathos. In fact, Goodhead proves to be a more competent agent than Anya.

Python wrote:

Goodhead proves to be a more competent agent than Anya.

But a more obnoxious one. At least Bach maintains a degree of class.

Out of all the agent Bond girls, Wai Lin and Camille are my favourites. And out of Gilbert's three Bond films YOLT wins out for 60s charm, Connery and my possibly my favourite production design of the entire series.

There is an explanation for Anya being an agent that makes sense: that she is working on behalf of Moscow's equivalent of Q-branch. Recognising that the technical blueprints are a complex and highly-sensitive piece of information, Gogol assigns Anya to work alongside Sergei - the real Triple X - in retreiving them. With her scientific mind, Anya can readily identify the blueprints for what they are, but lacks the field experience necessary to handle situations that arise over the course of the film, hence requiring her to team up with Bond.

With regards to the Wet Nellie, I always gathered that she didn't think that the British would have made such a car. Anyone would have a semblance of shock when a car plummets into the ocean. Upon noticing the underwater features, she knows where everything is because she saw the blueprints.

http://screenmusings.org/CasinoRoyale/pages/CR_0532.htm
Statue: So guys what we should come up next ?


Casino Royale (Mirror twist)


Skyfall

Vulnerability, occasional melancholy and one bout of depression, but I don't recall Fleming's Bond experiencing a great deal of fear. Far more prominent was his courage. But I suppose that wouldn't resonate with "modern" audiences.

Largo's Shark wrote:

I think what Logan is getting at is more moments like the opening of SKYFALL, where Bond tries his best to stop Ronson's bleeding and stabilise him before medical evac arrives. He reluctantly has to leave him, and gives him a knowing look before moving on - knowing it's probably the last time he'll see him.

That fierce loyalty to one's friends is derived from Fleming, and is why Mathis's death in QOS jars so badly. Bond is a sentimental man at heart.

Bingo. Bloody bingo.

tiffanywint wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

I think what Logan is getting at is more moments like the opening of SKYFALL, where Bond tries his best to stop Ronson's bleeding and stabilise him before medical evac arrives. He reluctantly has to leave him, and gives him a knowing look before moving on - knowing it's probably the last time he'll see him.

That fierce loyalty to one's friends is derived from Fleming, and is why Mathis's death in QOS jars so badly. Bond is a sentimental man at heart.

This level of layering is acceptable, although I am also quite fine with the layer leveling we got from Rog in Spy Who Loved Me, and Moonraker too.

Honestly, I don't feel they layered it on very thickly in SF. To a certain extent, they did more of this in QOS, although they tended to apply the wrong shellac.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

I think Anya is probably one of the most confused characters in Bond canon. For instance, she is presented as "Triple X", a Russian female equivalent of Bond, but she's completely helpless when fighting Jaws and doesn't actually do anything of use in the field (except get caught). She is surprised by the way the Lotus Esprit turns into a submarine, but then claims to have previously stolen the blueprints to the car and displays a knowledge of the gadgetry that suggests that she should have known it was a submarine all along. And while she is angry enough with Bond to want to kill him, and even swears to kill him in revenge once their mission is over, Bond does nothing to change her mind except save her when she forgets all of her training and becomes a damsel in distress.

In retrospect, I think her inconsistencies are a by-product of TSWLM's tumultuous production. Bits and pieces of her character seem to have been salvaged from various drafts and shoehorned together. It really represents the problems with TSWLM's entire premise: it's a half-assed retread of YOLT. I often wondered if EON set up a similar premise in MR to have another go at making a coherent film.

A terrible, really unforgivable gaffe. Hard believe this made it into the final product. A slipshod effort by all involved.