OO7 as Antihero (and what some recent audiences fail to appreciate)

There is a particular thread of criticism that has prevailed, particularly through Daniel Craig's tenure as Bond, and I’d like to address it, give my feelings and hear your thoughts as a community.

It’s the issue of Bond not being a very nice chap, and how audiences are dealing with it.

I’m sure we can agree that the literary character qualifies on some level as an antihero, as he fits certain criteria: owning certain ‘villainous’ qualities such as misogyny, bigotry and cold-bloodedness, and lacking certain heroic traits such as honour and a sense of morality (eg the ends justifying the means), and perhaps even idealism (do we ever find out if he does what he does because he believes in it? Or is it just to avoid boredom?)

After 50 years of the character on our screens, I am glad that we can turn to the most recent film, Skyfall, and see these traits well expressed. His treatment of Severine and sangfroid at her passing is not an enviable characteristic, but it is characteristic of Bond. When viewers complain that the shower scene is “a bit rapey”, they are absolutely correct. The scene should make you feel uncomfortable, as should the barn scene in Goldfinger, and any of the slaps Connery dishes out. However out of step with civilised society Bond is, these are Bond’s ways.

Or at least they used to be.

Under Roger Moore’s tenure Bond became the quintessential English gentleman adventurer in the mould of Buchan’s Richard Hannay, and to some point an extension of Moore himself: a lovely chap whose upstanding we can all rightly admire, romping from one resort to the next. This is not who Bond is. Moore showed flashes of Bond’s brutality, but all too infrequently.

This in turn led to the sanitisation of Bond. Audiences turned on Dalton’s cigarette-smoking revenge killer, and lapped up a decade of Brosnan’s well-coiffed boy scout. The cigarette smoking was phased out with the misogyny and the sadism and Bond became another cardboard cut-out hero, but wearing the dinner jacket almost in parody of himself. Unfortunately for Brosnan, who has shown in 'the Matador' and 'the Tailor of Panama' that he is capable of more complicated personae, this led to a series of staid, formulaic run-throughs with requisite tie-straightenings sprinkled throughout.

In my view the productions starring Craig have done a wonderful job of returning us to the antihero we fell in love with in the first place. Bond gives his name upon arriving at the Casino Royale – he doesn’t care who knows who he is (as is his operational prerogative, he prefers to let the bad guys come to him), but this fault of transparency perpetually puts his colleagues in mortal danger. He is unmoved by Solange’s death, by Severine’s death, they were a means to an end. Slate’s death is often compared with the Bourne films, which is to miss the point – the Bourne films were presenting elements that are present in films like FRWL that had since been forgotten by Eon.

Antiheroes are interesting studies in human nature, and Craig gives us what Lazenby had attempted all those years ago: A killer who is capable of love, but the more he loves, the more he invites death, and the colder and more distant from humanity he becomes.

So to all those who dislike these dirty moments in Bond films, (a) I think that’s perhaps the point, (b) congratulations you are a human being, and (c) you don’t get to decide what the character of James Bond should be, that was the job of a man named Ian Fleming.
«13

Comments

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Yes, we live in a world that's gotten too pathetically soft. When Dr.No was released it invited controversy, interest and resonated with audiences very well all in equal measure. Here we had a protagonist that wasn't the white hat wearing cowboy or the puritanical police officer. He was a man who had a job to do and with it he was able to utilise his talents fuelled by his own characteristics that interestingly enough made him more of a human character than his contemporary protagonists. He was a man. He was flawed. He made mistakes and he had moral and ethical vices that unlocked and emancipated the desires and fantasies of how we'd like to be at some stages in our lives.

    Now, the world we live in is smaller and increasingly less black and white and having a hero who is morally ambiguous is not only far more interesting but fits well within the sort of world we live in today. There's an honesty and earnestness about the sort of character Bond is and the more flawed he is in conjunction with the heroic feats he pulls off just makes him all the more appealing and underpins why a character like him has survived a cinematic career for over 50 years.

    I think the Craig era has done a decent job in making Bond less of the idealistic hero in terms of morality and I think they can go further with it without going overboard. As for the Severing shower scene, I refuse to accept that as rape or anything negative. This has been discussed to death already but I'll say this; Severin put out an invitation to Bond back at the casino. They're both consenting adults irrespective of wet her she was previously a prostitute and when Bond does show up on her yacht, not once does she resist or object to his advances; it's the complete opposite in fact. However, where a case can be made are a few instances in the Conner era but whatever, people today are ironically way too soft, uptight, prudish and hypocritical when it comes to sex.
    People need to stop making a big deal about nothing or just go away and watch a pic at movie instead.
  • edited September 2014 Posts: 11,425
    Agree with you to an extent. I think you also have to recognise though that there is a point at which the anti-hero can just become an unpleasant or repellant character with which you have no sympathy. Amoral or immoral actions combined with a lack of personal charm can = someone people just don't like. I'm not saying Craig's Bond falls into that category, just that the anti-hero walks a tightrope between still having our sympathy and losing it.

    I think the shower scene in SF was for a lot of people just a bit weird/creepy, particularly after the discussion about her being a child sex worker. It was not that Bond sleeps with Severine that was weird - of course this is what we expect and are cheering for. We all know (apologies for the un-PC sexism in advance) that nothing is going to cheer her up and heal her psychologically like a night in the sack with Bond - he's basically doing his good deed for the day. It was just the way he arrives in her shower, starkers. We know he's irresistible to all women, but come on, half the fun of Bond is some kind of seduction scene. Any way, this particular scene has been discussed enough.
  • edited September 2014 Posts: 4,622
    PalkoPalko wrote:

    I’m sure we can agree that the literary character qualifies on some level as an antihero, as he fits certain criteria: owning certain ‘villainous’ qualities such as misogyny, bigotry and cold-bloodedness, and lacking certain heroic traits such as honour and a sense of morality (eg the ends justifying the means), and perhaps even idealism (do we ever find out if he does what he does because he believes in it? Or is it just to avoid boredom?)
    I'm sure we can't agree. Right off the bat, you betray your biases and prejudices labeling Bond as misgonynist, bigoted, lacking heroic traits such as honor and morality. Yawn. As someone who has read Fleming many times over, you are wrong on all accounts. In fact the opposite is true on all accounts, but you would have to have read the books to know that. Sorry to burst your bubble on what you would like to pass off as unassailble assumptions, but we tend to get this nonsense from those who don't read the books, but rather read about the books.
    And even cold-blooded. Please. Fleming to a fault almost, takes pains to portray Bond as anything but cold-blooded. His failure to act, even gets him killed a couple of times, most notably in DN and TMWTGG.
    @getafix has a handle on the Severine shower scene. The scene is simply off-putting. It wasn't well conceived. No-one is schocked that he would sleep with her, rather its the transition from revelations of sex-slavery to shower seduction that wasn't as smooth as it could have been. Compare with Fleming's DAF. Bond encounters a similar wounded bird ensnared by crime, in Tiffany Case. Fleming's Bond (the one with no honor of course) is decidedly hands off, until Miss Case warms to his charms, all on her very own. In fact it is qualities of honor and bravery and other good stuff, that ultimately draws her to him.

    And if you think the rather lightheated Bond-Pussy movie scene even remotely resembles rape, then you don't know much about rape.
  • Severine was gagging for it though. She was coming onto him in the casino and then she told him to meet her on the boat, then she was sitting there wearing nothing but a dressing gown waiting with champagne and everything and seemed disappointed when she thought Bond wasn't coming.

    I do agree though that there is a difference between an anti hero and just a plain unlikeable character. Bond is an example of an anti hero done right. He sometimes does questionable stuff and can be pretty cold blooded and sexist but he always has charm and likeability, and he's a good person really. He's caring and he tries to do the right thing.

    I think a recent example of an anti hero not done right is the new Doctor Who, who I'm pretty disappointed in. They've tried to make him an anti hero so now he's cold blooded and he kills people and all the rest of it. That's fine, in fact I think it's a good thing (I thought David Tennant and Matt Smith were a bit too light hearted and wimpy at times). But then he's also a grumpy old dickhead. He's mean, inconsiderate, uncaring and hypocritical. He's cold blooded and he does dark stuff (in the first episode of the new series he chucked someone off a roof, sending them falling and impaling them on a church spire) which is cool, but unlike Bond, I don't think he has the likeability to balance it out and make me root for him.
  • @timmer We disagree then.
  • edited September 2014 Posts: 4,622
    I don't think Bond even remotely fits the notion of anti-hero.
    The anti-hero is motivated by selfish intent. Any good he might do is only incidental to looking out for his own hide.
    Bond on the other hand exhibits the characteristics of the noble warrior. Bond continually puts himself ahead of others. He is willing to sacrifice for the greater good. He is ready to die for others on numerous occasions in Fleming's books. He has code. He has morality. He has sense of both duty and honor. He is loyal.
    Just beause he womanizes and indulges other vices such as booze, tobacco and gambling just makes him human. Just like the rest of us who like to indulge our indulgences.
    In fact given his dangerous line of work, facing imminent death, he is understandably more inclined to live a little large. Time may not be on his side.

    Fleming did reference Bond as anti-hero occasionally, but understand Fleming lived vicariously through Bond. Fleming like any self aware non-delusional human being, is only too aware of his own shortcomings. Fleming had a degree of healthy humility. He understandably did not want Bond to be romanticized. In fact he dedicated an entire book (or half a book) TSWLM, warning impressionable women about getting mixed up with characters like Bond.
    The true hero does not see himself as heroic. That is left for others.The actual hero is only too aware of his own foibles.
    Thus Fleming, in true heroic fashion, did not romanticize Bond as hero.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Having admitedly read only one novel - MR - I have to say I don't recognise the description of the character given by @PalkoPalko at all.

    Surely also the anti-hero is somehow detached from the establishment, whereas Bond puts his life on the line defending it.
  • edited September 2014 Posts: 54
    Doesn't he take drugs before the bridge show-down? I'm not saying he's villainous, but he fits the model of anti-hero that we see in Philip Marlowe and the like.

    Edit: I said 'backgammon' but meant 'bridge', sorry
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Honestly don't see the problem with the whole Severing thing at all. @thelivingroyale pretty much summed it up. So what if Bond unraveled she was a former child prostitute. It's not like she's still 13 and Bond a fully grown man boinks her. Obviously, people take issue with it but I think to do so is just silly. As for the Bond/pussy barn scene, well, the screen presents the facts, which is Bond forcing sexual contact on a woman who objects, rejects and resists him before succumbing to Bond's manly magnetism. That is fact and people can and have make of that what they will but honestly, if I really cared I'd say the Bond/pussy scene is wholly more offensive than the Bond/Severing segment.

    And yet all this we're dealing with a series where the leading actor has been 45, 54 and 58 with his leading ladies being 22, 24 and 30 respectively.

    Clearly, this is ultimately a non issue.
  • edited September 2014 Posts: 4,622
    PalkoPalko wrote: »
    Doesn't he take drugs before the bridge show-down? I'm not saying he's villainous, but he fits the model of anti-hero that we see in Philip Marlowe and the like.

    Edit: I said 'backgammon' but meant 'bridge', sorry
    Yes Bond indulges uppers and downers or bennies or whatever. Can't remember. But this is just consistent with his prodigious alchohol intake. Bond enjoys his indulgences. Fleming is living vicariously thru Bond.
    Fleming was alcoholic himself, at least towards the end it seems he was.
    So call him anti-hero if you want, free world, as he's no boyscout. He frequents brothels too occasionally. But there is no denying his heroic qualities, never mind actions. The anti-hero is only ever a reluctant hero. Bond on the other hand, is motivated by heroic qualities such as honor, duty, morality.

    re pussy in the barn.There is nothing even remotely resembling rape going on with Pussy in the barn. An understanding of the male female mating ritual is required I guess. Ergo, Bond and Pussy were flirting since the moment they first met on the plane..
    In the barn Bond did what guys do when they see their opportunity with a woman they have been openly and reciprocally flirting with. He attempted to kiss her as conclusion to a friendly fight. His pressing down was consistent with the fighting that they had engaged in. Her initial resistance is also consistent with the fighting. Its also consistent with a natural female tendency to not appear to be too eager. This is the male female dance.
    However unlike an actual rape victim, Pussy succumbed and fully engaged the moment. Their seduction ritual had come full circle. They live happily ever after, ie she helps Bond save the gold and put the bastard GF away.
    Why does this even need explaining? Its all so obvious. Movie audiences have been enjoying the scene for 50 years.

    The Severine scene is off-putting in the way that Bond was portrayed. He seems (operative word being seems), somewhat predatory and insensitve to her revelations of being a sex-slave. I say seems, because we know he isn't a cad. He has plenty of honorable and heroic moments in the film. The scene rather reflects on the schizophrenic and uneven nature of the filmamaking. The most guilty party being Mendes. His Bond is all over the map. But Mendes was trying to use the Bond palate to create some character-driven dramatic masterpiece.
    Fleming's Bond as we saw in DAF, was hands-off Tiffany Case because of her rape history. She eventually came to him. Craig's Bond is not as chivalrous.
    Personally I wouldn't make a move on a woman like Severine either. I think most guys of honorable intentions, would be inclined to take the Fleming Tiffany Case approach, until such time as it was apparent that she really "wanted it" and in a genuine way, "as opposed to an "I think I have to" way, to keep this guy.

    The Severine scene would have worked much better (a little Bond filmaking lesson for Mendes here. No charge) if it had been presented thusly.
    We know she is ready to sleep with him. She literally has the table set.
    Bond could have arrived, quickly sized up the scene and done the chivalrous thing, which would have been to wait for her to emerge from the shower. He knows he's in like flint anyway, there is no rush.
    She emerges with towel or nighty or something. A little gasp, when she sees him.
    Fan boys and girls move to the edge of their seat.
    Witty seductive repartee follows. They come together, and we have another great Bond love moment.
    Simple. Everyone's happy including Severine. :x For Bond, all in a days work.
    This is still kind of cheesy. In an ideal world he bides his time as Flemings Bond did with Tiffany, but this is filmmaking. Things have to move a little faster.
    The problem though is Mendes. The whole tone of this movie is wildly uneven.
    Oddly as a film, it all manages to hang together, despite being a big jumbled mess.
    But the movie truly is the sum of its parts. IMHO of course.
  • @timmer It strikes me that perhaps our disagreement is on the meaning of the term "anti-hero". I see that in recent interviews even Babs and Michael disagree on whether Bond fits the description or not. It is quite a nebulous term, but do we agree that Fleming's Bond is far from whiter-than-white?
  • Well, he is an agent working for MI6 with a licence to kill, so of course he's a bit of an anti hero, but not as much as you describe it. Let's take the death of Severine for example. Bond is being challenged by Silva, he's a bit insecure since he's still recovering from the wound he got in Istanbul. He fires and misses. That makes him even more insecure, but he does not want it to show. He keeps a straight face. Silva steps up, shoots and hits Severine who dies. Bond is at this point still trying to stay as cold as possible, cause if he does'nt stay cool, he's "fear" or "insecureness" will tell Silva that he actually managed to get Bond on fall, wich would make 007 the weak one of the two wich is exactly what Silva wants. He's doing he's job that's all. That's how I see it :)>-
  • edited September 2014 Posts: 11,425
    Bond does not miss by accident - he does it deliberately. He knows that the old flintlock pistol is totally inaccurate and he doesn't stand a chance of hitting the glass. He misses on purpose to avoid killing Severine, obviously.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited September 2014 Posts: 9,117
    I thought I was going to have to weigh in here but some sterling work by Timmer has saved me from having to type paragraph after paragraph - I wholeheartedly endorse about 95% of what he has said in his intelligent and well informed posts above.

    If there is one thing worse than someone who has never read any Fleming it's someone who only has the most superficial knowledge of Fleming trying to speak on topics such as this.
  • Getafix wrote: »
    Bond does not miss by accident - he does it deliberately. He knows that the old flintlock pistol is totally inaccurate and he doesn't stand a chance of hitting the glass. He misses on purpose to avoid killing Severine, obviously.

    That might be right, but we don't know for sure..
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited September 2014 Posts: 13,350
    Sam Mendes says so in the audio commentary. Bond misses on purpose, giving him the upper hand and explaining why he was so on target when taking Silva's goons out later.
  • @Samuel001 has it spot on.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    To ME, anti-hero means someone like Snake Plissken, not James Bond. ;)
  • ^ Exactly. Plissken, Jack Carter, Anthony Soprano. These are anti-heroes.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,328
    chrisisall wrote: »
    To ME, anti-hero means someone like Snake Plissken, not James Bond. ;)
    Or Paul Kersey. ;)
    0595379826.01.S001.LXXXXXXX.jpg

  • Samuel001 wrote: »
    Sam Mendes says so in the audio commentary. Bond misses on purpose, giving him the upper hand and explaining why he was so on target when taking Silva's goons out later.

    Oh really? I did'nt know that. :)
  • I thought I was going to have to weigh in here but some sterling work by Timmer has saved me from having to type paragraph after paragraph - I wholeheartedly endorse about 95% of what he has said in his intelligent and well informed posts above.

    If there is one thing worse than someone who has never read any Fleming it's someone who only has the most superficial knowledge of Fleming trying to speak on topics such as this.

    Second this sooo much! When I read the OP I was afraid I had to do some lengthy typing on my IPad (which indeed is not one of my strong suits).
    Thanks a lot @timmer! I mean it!!
  • If there is one thing worse than someone who has never read any Fleming it's someone who only has the most superficial knowledge of Fleming trying to speak on topics such as this.

    ... and surely the only thing worse than that is someone who has read Fleming and holds a different opinion.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    PalkoPalko wrote: »
    ... and surely the only thing worse than that is someone who has read Fleming and holds a different opinion.
    I think the problem here is your own personal take on what an anti-hero is, @PalkoPalko. You might look up the definition, as the term fits Bond in only the most peripheral of ways IMO.

  • PalkoPalko wrote: »
    If there is one thing worse than someone who has never read any Fleming it's someone who only has the most superficial knowledge of Fleming trying to speak on topics such as this.

    ... and surely the only thing worse than that is someone who has read Fleming and holds a different opinion.

    Also if (and that's a big if) you have really read your Fleming you might as well read the last two or three pages of CR. You will find just about everything about Bonds motivation you need to know.
  • edited September 2014 Posts: 11,425
    timmer wrote: »
    PalkoPalko wrote: »
    Doesn't he take drugs before the bridge show-down? I'm not saying he's villainous, but he fits the model of anti-hero that we see in Philip Marlowe and the like.

    Edit: I said 'backgammon' but meant 'bridge', sorry
    Yes Bond indulges uppers and downers or bennies or whatever. Can't remember. But this is just consistent with his prodigious alchohol intake. Bond enjoys his indulgences. Fleming is living vicariously thru Bond.
    Fleming was alcoholic himself, at least towards the end it seems he was.
    So call him anti-hero if you want, free world, as he's no boyscout. He requents brothels too occasionally. But there is no denying his heroic qualities, never mind actions. The anti-hero is only ever a reluctant hero. Bond on the other hand, is motivated by heroic qualities such as honor, duty, morality.

    re pussy in the barn.There is nothing even remotely resembling rape going on with Pussy in the barn. An understanding of the male female mating ritual is required I guess. Ergo, Bond and Pussy were flirting since the moment they first met on the plane..
    In the barn Bond did what guys do when they see their opportunity with a woman they have been openly and reciprocally flirting with. He attempted to kiss her as conclusion to a friendly fight. His pressing down was consistent with the fighting that they had engaged in. Her initial resistance is also consistent with the fighting. Its also consistent with a natural female tendency to not appear to be too eager. This is the male female dance.
    However unlike an actual rape victim, Pussy succumbed and fully engaged the moment. Their seduction ritual had come full circle. They live happily ever after, ie she helps Bond save the gold and put the bastard GF away.
    Why does this even need explaining? Its all so obvious. Movie audiences have been enjoying the scene for 50 years.

    The Severine scene is off-putting in the way that Bond was portrayed. He seems (operative word being seems), somewhat predatory and insensitve to her revelations of being a sex-slave. I say seems, because we know he isn't a cad. He has plenty of honorable and heroic moments in the film. The scene rather reflects on the schizophrenic and uneven nature of the filmamaking. The most guilty party being Mendes. His Bond is all over the map. But Mendes was trying to use the Bond palate to create some character-driven dramatic masterpiece.
    Fleming's Bond as we saw in DAF, was hands-off Tiffany Case because of her rape history. She eventually came to him. Craig's Bond is not as chivalrous.
    Personally I wouldn't make a move on a woman like Severine either. I think most guys of honorable intentions, would be inclined to take the Fleming Tiffany Case approach, until such time as it was apparent that she really "wanted it" and in a genuine way, "as opposed to an "I think I have to" way, to keep this guy.

    The Severine scene would have worked much better (a little Bond filmaking lesson for Mendes here. No charge) if it had been presented thusly.
    We know she is ready to sleep with him. She literally has the table set.
    Bond could have arrived, quickly sized up the scene and done the chivalrous thing, which would have been to wait for her to emerge from the shower. He knows he's in like flint anyway, there is no rush.
    She emerges with towel or nighty or something. A little gasp, when she sees him.
    Fan boys and girls move to the edge of their seat.
    Witty seductive repartee follows. They come together, and we have another great Bond love moment.
    Simple. Everyone's happy including Severine. :x For Bond, all in a days work.
    This is still kind of cheesy. In an ideal world he bides his time as Flemings Bond did with Tiffany, but this is filmmaking. Things have to move a little faster.
    The problem though is Mendes. The whole tone of this movie is wildly uneven.
    Oddly as a film, it all manages to hang together, despite being a big jumbled mess.
    But the movie truly is the sum of its parts. IMHO of course.

    Very interesting, particularly on how Mendes has managed to make a huge commercial hit out of what I agree is at heart a 'wildly uneven' and 'jumbled mess'. I guess he has gone for the broad brush-strokes, impressionistic approach, capturing overall mood and themes and for many people that really worked well.

    I get the sense with the Severine shower scene (as with quite a lot of other parts of the film - particularly those bits involving Severine) that there is material that has been cut and the whole thing has been really drastically edited. I always had the sense from first watching the film that Mendes was not keen on Marlohe's performance and cut a lot of her out. When you boil it down, she really only has one proper scene in the whole film - the casino.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    PalkoPalko wrote: »
    If there is one thing worse than someone who has never read any Fleming it's someone who only has the most superficial knowledge of Fleming trying to speak on topics such as this.

    ... and surely the only thing worse than that is someone who has read Fleming and holds a different opinion.

    And yet worse than even that is someone who insinuates they have read Fleming yet chooses to draw these conclusions:
    PalkoPalko wrote:

    I’m sure we can agree that the literary character qualifies on some level as an antihero, as he fits certain criteria: owning certain ‘villainous’ qualities such as misogyny, bigotry and cold-bloodedness, and lacking certain heroic traits such as honour and a sense of morality (eg the ends justifying the means), and perhaps even idealism (do we ever find out if he does what he does because he believes in it? Or is it just to avoid boredom?)

    The last page of MR tells you all you need to know about the character of James Bond. Possibly the most poignant moment Fleming wrote.

    This is a man who is alone, who can never have a normal life, never have a wife waiting for him at home, never spend some carefree spade and bucket days with his children on the beach.

    A man who has sacrificed any hope of normality and part of his soul to do some awful things to protect the rest of us and for me that is an honourable and heroic thing - how many of us would choose a lonely existence in the shadows with the threat of death our only true companion in the service of our country?

    To say Bond is cold blooded and lacking honour and morality is to miss the point by Chris Waddle penalty proportions.

    Yes he inhabits and dangerous and dirty world so sometimes has to do bad things. But for every cold killing such as the Robber he commits you can point to half a dozen examples (not wanting to shoot Trigger, ruling out slotting Scaramanga in the back of the head) where he shows distaste with his job.

    'James Bond didn't like killing. When he had to do it he did it as well as he knew how and then forgot about it'

    Who said that? Some bloke called Fleming I think but I may be mistaken.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    I'll weigh in more later. Just to say I was not for one moment put off by any interaction between Severine and Bond, including the entire shower scene. I enjoyed all of it, thought it fit the story just fine, and was surprised people had any issues with that.
  • I'll weigh in more later. Just to say I was not for one moment put off by any interaction between Severine and Bond, including the entire shower scene. I enjoyed all of it, thought it fit the story just fine, and was surprised people had any issues with that.

    Yes,but you also happen to think SF has a fine story.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    Your point being that we always disagree.
    And to that I say, ho hum, and so what?
Sign In or Register to comment.