Hi all, first time to the site so I apologize if this specific question has been posed.
I have been perusing some of the threads about 007 builds and alignment, and after drinking a nice rosé with a friend, I got to thinking. Who is 007???
I know when we assign alignment to our characters, we hopefully consider the why. Usually, if there are no restrictions, I would assign an alignment that gives me flexibility in my actions and how I am, for the most part, respected in our extensive town sessions. But when we consider the "who" of the character, the heart and soul of the character, sometimes there is a disconnect.
When considering Bond beyond his actions, what type of person is he??
Yes he does good for king and country, but it takes a certain type of a person to kill, deceive, manipulate, and philander. He can even be seen as very similar to some of his enemies (Scaramanga, Dr. No i.e.). Is he somewhere in the middle? I don't find him to necessarily be indifferent or amoral...but espionage does take a lot of compartmentalization and removal from others.
He seems to have a code, but he seems to violate other standards. I don't find him psychologically disorganized or reckless, so I don't find him chaotic (but undoubtedly damaged).
Perhaps Neutral something....
Again all, I'm curious to hear how you find his CHARACTER, his inner dynamics, primary to his behavior.
he's a sexy killer....
started as lawful neutral and over the course of his life, started to lean towards chaotic neutral.
don't think he has caught and brought any of his enemies to a court of law yet....lol
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ironic Neutral.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on the portrayal.
Book Bond: LN, N, or NE.
Connery: LN/LE starting out, probably more LN near the end of his run - Like the book he's 'a bastard, but our bastard' and his primary focus is always on the mission. He does what he does for queen and country, but he's not especially moral and is willing to sacrifice people to accomplish his goals.
Moore: LG or NG.
Moore's Bond is basically 'The Saint' moreso then Bond and tends to be focused on justice, his position as a law enforcement guy and rescuing the innocent.
Lazenby:
Don't know enough about this. haven't seen his movie in forever.
Dalton:
CG or CN
Dalton's Bond was typically more focused on revenging harm done to those he cared about. Also killing drug dealers.
Brosnan
CG
Generally not a good team player and focused more on doing what's right then doing what the mission demands. Also, has the highest body count of the Bonds.
Craig
LE, LN, N or NE
I'd argue Craig's portrayal leans more to NE or LN. He is cold, brutally direct. He has a deep seated anger that is held back by control and professionalism. Like Connery's portrayal loyalty is a watch word for this guy.
So far, he's the Bond with the least love scenes. Take that as you will.
Ironic Neutral.
lol.......my bird brother from another mother!!!
|
LN. Mission is first and foremost, and he has the home country legal clearance and training to do whatever is necessary to achieve the mission even on foreign soil. Parameters of the mission include a complete washing of hands from the home country if he is caught, and the agent is keenly aware of it when accepting the mission. No ambiguity IMO.
As mentioned above, the only time I would tag him outside of LN is when he diverges from a mission for personal reasons.
Moore's Bond was LG. The Adam West Batman of Bonds.
Dalton's seemed pretty CG. He wasn't operating in any fashion other than revenge for his friend and wife, but he didn't put innocents in danger and went out of his way to save those he could.
Craig's is on that corner between N/NE and CN. While ruthless, he doesn't peg me as trying to harm for harm's sake, simply not holding much above his own goals. I'd go with NE.
Nicely put guys. I agree that classifying the Bond portrayals vary when they are lined up next to each other. I am inclined to doubt that Bond is in an of him self Evil, if we consider evil axiomatically as selfishness. Though he is dutiful, he is not predictable (except for drinking and fornicating as soon as possible), but he has direction; not lawful not chaotic, I'd say he is True Neutral, Neutral Good.
I'd also input that I can see Bond choosing to continue in the secret service after the Navy was not due to an inner need to rectify the world but because it was a lifestyle for him. Lacking connectivity, maybe even empathy, makes him proficient even though he is not malevolent.
However, on the same token, having no substantial relationships growing up, I'd imagine that that prosocial stagnation had a lasting effect on him, yielding the apathy, but that intrinsic need for kinship may have driven him towards being good and to see good and thus feel good, feel important. Not to sound too psychoanalytical lol.
LN-N
|
|
Nicely put guys. I agree that classifying the Bond portrayals vary when they are lined up next to each other. I am inclined to doubt that Bond is in an of him self Evil, if we consider evil axiomatically as selfishness. Though he is dutiful, he is not predictable (except for drinking and fornicating as soon as possible), but he has direction; not lawful not chaotic, I'd say he is True Neutral, Neutral Good.
I'd also input that I can see Bond choosing to continue in the secret service after the Navy was not due to an inner need to rectify the world but because it was a lifestyle for him. Lacking connectivity, maybe even empathy, makes him proficient even though he is not malevolent.
However, on the same token, having no substantial relationships growing up, I'd imagine that that prosocial stagnation had a lasting effect on him, yielding the apathy, but that intrinsic need for kinship may have driven him towards being good and to see good and thus feel good, feel important. Not to sound too psychoanalytical lol.
I still disagree here. Bond may believe that supporting his nation is always the best option, but he (like your average spy hero) is willing to step all over the things he purports to represent (such as freedom, the courts, etc). In the Connery and Craig portrayals he devours human beings as assets even while possibly feeling remorse for it. He's at his core an assassin. I have difficulty ascribing a Good alignment to anybody except Pierce, Brosnan and Moore (Moore's Bond is a boy scout).
Getting upset because people you like and have an emotional bond with get hurt isn't precisely a good trait. Bad guys have loved ones too. That being said, Bond in Goldfinger (to ruin my own point) seems to demonstrate a desire to bring Goldfinger down because of the way Goldfinder callously kills and discards people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread, even with its varying opinions, is much more cohesive and civil that any Batman alignment thread I have ever seen. Bravo!
I'd say LN to LE. He does what he does for King and Country. Breaking the law doesn't make someone non-lawful if they are following their own specific code, which I think Bond has.
I would say he very much follows that the ends justify the means and if that means killing someone to fulfill that, then he will.
|
|
I'd say LN to LE. He does what he does for King and Country. Breaking the law doesn't make someone non-lawful if they are following their own specific code, which I think Bond has.
I would say he very much follows that the ends justify the means and if that means killing someone to fulfill that, then he will.
I concur a bit with the lawful ethos. Even in his most rebellious, he comes when called for, obeys his initial orders (with laser like focus) and seems to get really, really, really cheesed by disloyalty in all incarnations.
This thread, even with its varying opinions, is much more cohesive and civil that any Batman alignment thread I have ever seen. Bravo!
[snooty] Well obviously, we're Bond fans. We're more sophisticated! :)[/snoooy]
|
It also helps that James Bond doesn't have nearly as many writers or interpretations over the years as Batman does, all in all being a more concise character without the baggage superheroes often have when it comes to the comics. That of the companies who own them and fans who don't often agree on the small of details.
James Bond can be broken up more easily based on the actors who have played him and the book series, having the alignments follow less uncertainty because of not having radically different takes by writers. -tired laugh-
So it is safe to say that bond is not good though he "does good." But I am inclined to purport that he is true neutral. I can agree he will follow his missions effectively but that does not necessarily constitute lawfulness. If he were predictable he would be a very unsuccessful in being a hero spy or assassin.
|
|
It's going to be tough to top Spook's analysis. Fortunately, I have seen On Her Majesty's Secret Service somewhat recently, so I can talk about Bond!Lazenby's alignment.
He's a bit more selfless than Connery's Bond, as he gets involved with the Contessa when she tries to run into the sea and kill herself. I can hardly imagine Connery's Bond caring that much about a woman he doesn't know and doesn't have information or access that he needs for the mission. I'd put him closer to Good than Neutral, just for this alone. As for Law/Chaos, it's harder to say, since we only have one film to draw on for inspiration, so I'd lean towards Neutral for that reason. NG.
Oh, and I'd say Connery's Bond is a well-intentioned monster. NE, considering how little remorse he shows for the sexual violence he visits upon Pussy Galore in Goldfinger and Patricia Fearing in Thunderball. It's really hard to watch those scenes today, doubly so when the women seem to come around to admire Bond for what he forced upon them.
Ah, the golden ages of cinema! Its remarkable what each generations deems acceptable kinds of sex and violence (and prejudices for that matter). Can you imagine what a 60s audience would think of Bond films like those of the last 20 years?
|
|
I do find it fascinating how our tastes change in so short a timespan as fifty years. Add to this the fact that cinema has only been an art form for a bit over a century, and Bond has been with it for half of that time. The story of how cinema's art form evolved, and how we tell stories with moving pictures, can be gleaned by watching the Bond films, and seeing how they capture the zeitgeist of the era.
That said, I'm sure they'd find Dalton and Craig monstrous in the same way I find Connery's Bond reprehensible. Hell, Dalton's actions in License to Kill are closer to the Craig films than Moore, and I think that's the real reason he didn't get to stay on very long. Dalton's Bond was twenty years too early. (Dalton's Bond, by the way, is CN. "You hurt Felix. I will now visit that hurt upon you and your organization tenfold.")