Bond 24: 10 Skyfall Flaws That Spectre Should Improve Upon

6. Giving Bond Too Much Backstory

There's something akin to a sense of betrayal the moment you start giving James Bond anything resembling a backstory: like M tells 007 in Casino Royale, he's a "blunt instrument," and although it's admirable that the filmmakers behind Skyfall felt compelled to shed a little light on Bond's history, for the most part it didn't work. That's not to say that Bond should remain an empty shell forever: purely that any character development should occur as a result of what happens in the movies - Bond should change as a result of what you see has happened, not just for the sake of it. Why did Skyfall go back to explore Bond's past? What did it have to do with the plot? What does ultimately reveal that made the character more interesting? Nothing. Whereas, in Casino Royale, you witness Bond's personality transformation into a far colder human being due to the death of Vesper Lynd, the Skyfall reveal in Skyfall merely succeeded in reducing Bond's mystery. Spectre would do wrong to try to open up on Bond's past in any further capacity. If he has to "change," or if it is necessary for us to perceive 007 differently, let it be on account of the narrative moving forwards: trying to shoehorn in any added details of a past best left alone will only end up making Bond a less desirable hero. You like Bond because he doesn't allow the past to play on his emotions; he's unrivalled in his ability to glide through a situation because he refuses to let "what happened" get in his way. Ultimately, Spectre needs to respect Bond as a man without a past.