Where does Bond go after Craig?

1120121123125126523

Comments

  • Posts: 14,816
    I don’t know if I would say he is eager. This is very much up for interpretation, but to me it seemed a bit more like him trying on an old suit and it not fitting exactly (let alone the suit not actually being interested in him at all). He goes through the moves he would do when actually picking someone up, but to me he is always at a remove and seemingly thinking „Are we actually doing this? I guess we are.“
    To me, the scene reads like he hasn’t done this in quite some time and is more going along with it than actually instigating anything.

    Be that as it may, sleeping with her is a definite possibility in his mind.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 2022 Posts: 14,917
    Yeah I think him taking a girl (20 years younger than him who he's barely met) home for a shag even though he's not particularly in the mood is pretty much standard James.
  • edited March 2022 Posts: 12,248
    Ludovico wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I fear Bond won’t be much of a womanizer anymore thanks to modern sensitivity.

    I think he still will be, but women will be more assertive. Think more Solange and less Solitaire.

    We’ll see. To me, even though I can let it slide since it’s part of the love plot, NTTD made it look like the series is transitioning to “fit the times,” with no casual sex or sexy women in the title credits. They already took away Bond’s smoking, so taking away his sexual lust isn’t at all a far fetched idea, especially since in the eyes of many he’s evil and misogynistic just for having casual consensual encounters.

    Smoking is no longer seen glamorous and hasn't been for a long time though. Except maybe cigars. Maybe. Which is why they make an appearance in NTTD, albeit Bond doesn't smoke one. Seduction, providing it's not done in a sleazy or creepy manner, is still seen as sexy and part of an hedonistic living. There's a very good reason why it was seriously toned down in NTTD: it would have cheapened the relationship between Bond, Madeleine and Mathilde. Otherwise, when Bond is single in Jamaica and unaware of the existence of his daughter, he seems as womanising as he was before his relationship with Madeleine. Or at least he seems eager to sleep with Nomi.

    I don’t know about that. There seems to be a cultural shift where it’s been looked down upon for men to be like James Bond and get a lot of action now. It’s always been backwards anyway; in the old days, if you were a guy and got lots of action, well done player, it you were a woman you were a slut. Now I feel the attitude is more a woman is empowered for having multiple partners and men are pigs for it.

    Smoking and having tons of sex with different people are both risky to one’s health. I don’t understand all these double standards. We can’t watch James Bond or The Penguin in Batman smoke anymore god forbid, but who cares when they do things like killing people? So backwards what makes people sensitive.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 2022 Posts: 14,917
    FoxRox wrote: »
    So backwards what makes people sensitive.

    I guess it depends what you're being sensitive about. I don't hugely mind any of that happening, and it doesn't seem to have happened to Bond anyway.
  • Posts: 12,248
    mtm wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    So backwards what makes people sensitive.

    I guess it depends what you're being sensitive about. I don't hugely mind any of that happening, and it doesn't seem to have happened to Bond anyway.

    The news articles always b*tch about Bond’s womanizing, not his killing. That’s why I say that. There’s no consistency to what gets the masses ticked off. In my opinion, it’d be novel to just leave fiction alone altogether and be mature about the fact that not everything you see on a screen is inherently “encouraging” or “evil” to real world extents.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 2022 Posts: 14,917
    I'm not sensitive about what these articles say, they have to find something to talk about.

    I think folks have to accept that Bond does influence people though. He's unlikely to make you go out and start assassinating people for the British Government, but he is known for being and looking cool, and he may well make you go out and buy the clothes or watches or cars he shows off. Which is why brands, like Aston Martin or Omega for example, associate with him, and why lots of people analyse what he wears and often copy it. So if he makes smoking look cool, people will be influenced, and thus sometimes, some things you see on screen can be encouraging to real world extents. If it wasn't true there would be no marketing.
  • edited March 2022 Posts: 12,248
    Well then that just makes people gullible and conveniently selective what they like to copy. People make the choices; a movie or any of piece of art is how you interpret it and take from it. *You’re* deciding what’s good or bad. But if people figure no smoking, no sex, no vices whatsoever other than being a killer is cool, whatever I guess.

    I hate the argument that the sex is more offensive for “being more realistic.” Really? Bedding that many beautiful women all the time without consequence? Give me a break.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 2022 Posts: 14,917
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Well then that just makes people gullible and conveniently selective what they like to copy.

    Not really, it just means they're not robots and have different values. I'm sure you've watched a bunch of adverts in an ad break and found that some of the products appeal to you and some don't- that doesn't make you gullible or conveniently selective, it just means you're a human being.
    In NTTD I liked James Bond's lovely Omega watch a lot, but I didn't like his long duster coat thing. I don't feel like I'm being conveniently selective, I just have my own taste and judgements.

    And are there many Bond fans who don't think Connery looks incredibly cool lighting his cigarette?
    FoxRox wrote: »
    But if people figure no smoking, no sex, no vices whatsoever other than being a killer is cool, whatever I guess.

    Again, this isn't something which has happened in the Bond films.
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I hate the argument that the sex is more offensive for “being more realistic.” Really? Bedding that many beautiful women all the time without consequence? Give me a break.

    I'm not sure who you're arguing with or quoting, though. Do you not think it's a touch ironic that you're saying that others are too sensitive and yet whatever this is really seems to have touched a nerve with you?
  • Posts: 12,248
    I’m not very influenced by ads. I almost always know if I need / want something without them. I certainly never let them dictate my whole lifestyle. I mean that about liking the things collectively advertised versus his other vices. Doing some things to “be like Bond” and not others I guess. It’s hard to put into words. It just frustrates me people can’t just take all or leave all the character of Bond.

    I was arguing with you just now saying it isn’t more likely for people to kill as Bond for the fantasy of it. Sure it’s ironic, but I’m sensitive because it’s a character I’ve loved since childhood that some people want to change just to “fit society” and the times. There’s been a war on fiction in general trying to censor, sanitize, or alter things. It makes me sensitive because art is my one big passion.
  • Posts: 328
    talos7 wrote: »
    I believe Bond will be a womanizer, it’s an Integral part of the character, but it will be abundantly clear that the women are absolutely consenting participants. It will be more Brosnan than Connery or Moore.

    That's a good point you've made. The Brosnan era seems to have all the leading Bond girls wanting to get shagged and instigating it (with the possible exception of maybe Wai Lin).
  • Bond has to take on a Russian villain now.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,914
    mtm wrote: »
    In NTTD I liked James Bond's lovely Omega watch a lot, but I didn't like his long duster coat thing. I don't feel like I'm being conveniently selective, I just have my own taste and judgements.
    Yes, exactly. The suit that Bond wears back in London? Damn fine - I'd like that suit. The corduroy-looking outfit he wears in Matera? Not so much. The duster in Norway? Hell, no. But this is as it should be - we're not passive receptors being spoonfed, after all. Different elements appeal to us in different ways and to different extents. And that's a good thing.
  • Posts: 12,248
    Nothing wrong with picking and choosing what you personally like and want to do what Bond does. I’m just ticked off when people say and try to make his character different with extremely essential characteristics he had.

    @mtm I’d like to offer a friendly, silly wager if you are game…
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited March 2022 Posts: 2,914
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I’m just ticked off when people say and try to make his character different with extremely essential characteristics he had.
    Agreed - it would be a mistake to change Bond's essential nature in a futile attempt to pacify critics who don't even like the films anyway. Luckily, Phoebe Waller Bridge agrees - she said the films may evolve but 'Bond himself doesn't have to. He needs to be true to his character.' That's a good sign, no?
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,445
    @Venutius -- yes it's a good sign. Probably the most intelligent insight shared with us. And I find her to be absolutely correct. Let the world change, but Bond has his tool-box and his ways and that's his comfort zone. If he rubs modern sensibilities the wrong way, well that creates conflict, and conflict drives stories.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited March 2022 Posts: 2,914
    peter wrote: »
    If he rubs modern sensibilities the wrong way, well that creates conflict, and conflict drives stories.

    Perfectly put, Peter - a lot of scope for future character-driven Bond stories, there.

  • Posts: 9,766
    Risico007 wrote: »
    I know my idea of an adaption of The Man With the golden gun fell down faster then a balloon made of lead ... or a Zeppelin ;)

    What was your idea?


    To use the brainwashing nearly killing M element as a ay to reintroduce Bond M and it could be a good trilogy
  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    edited March 2022 Posts: 2,161
    I'd love to see a trilogy that more accurately followed three of Fleming's underused novels: MR, DAF & TMWTGG. Liberties can be taken (DAF would have to somehow get us to the a amnesiatic and lost Bond), update where necessary, but (as with the best Bond film adaptations) the core stories, characters and key events remain, with important pieces of dialogue retained as well.
  • Posts: 14,816
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I fear Bond won’t be much of a womanizer anymore thanks to modern sensitivity.

    I think he still will be, but women will be more assertive. Think more Solange and less Solitaire.

    We’ll see. To me, even though I can let it slide since it’s part of the love plot, NTTD made it look like the series is transitioning to “fit the times,” with no casual sex or sexy women in the title credits. They already took away Bond’s smoking, so taking away his sexual lust isn’t at all a far fetched idea, especially since in the eyes of many he’s evil and misogynistic just for having casual consensual encounters.

    Smoking is no longer seen glamorous and hasn't been for a long time though. Except maybe cigars. Maybe. Which is why they make an appearance in NTTD, albeit Bond doesn't smoke one. Seduction, providing it's not done in a sleazy or creepy manner, is still seen as sexy and part of an hedonistic living. There's a very good reason why it was seriously toned down in NTTD: it would have cheapened the relationship between Bond, Madeleine and Mathilde. Otherwise, when Bond is single in Jamaica and unaware of the existence of his daughter, he seems as womanising as he was before his relationship with Madeleine. Or at least he seems eager to sleep with Nomi.

    I don’t know about that. There seems to be a cultural shift where it’s been looked down upon for men to be like James Bond and get a lot of action now. It’s always been backwards anyway; in the old days, if you were a guy and got lots of action, well done player, it you were a woman you were a slut. Now I feel the attitude is more a woman is empowered for having multiple partners and men are pigs for it.

    Smoking and having tons of sex with different people are both risky to one’s health. I don’t understand all these double standards. We can’t watch James Bond or The Penguin in Batman smoke anymore god forbid, but who cares when they do things like killing people? So backwards what makes people sensitive.

    Let's not make false equivalences: sex is natural and part of human nature. Heck it's essential to the human species. Smoking is not. It's unhealthy even in small quantity: there's literally no moderation for it. And if it's been looked down upon it's for health reasons and objective, verifiable facts. Sex on the contrary has become far less taboo. As long as it's dome between two fully consenting adults, I don't think anyone objects, except religious fanatics and a few radical feminists. Regarding Bond himself, I'd applied the old principle Raymond Chandler used for his own Philip Marlowe: neither an eunuch nor a satyr, who may seduce a duchess, but will not dishonour a virgin.
  • Posts: 727
    I want bond to be even darker than he was on the Craig era. It’s possible.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I want bond to be even darker than he was on the Craig era. It’s possible.

    Idris Elba for Bond?
  • Posts: 1,550
    peter wrote: »
    @Venutius -- yes it's a good sign. Probably the most intelligent insight shared with us. And I find her to be absolutely correct. Let the world change, but Bond has his tool-box and his ways and that's his comfort zone. If he rubs modern sensibilities the wrong way, well that creates conflict, and conflict drives stories.

    In fact, that is why Bond is thrown into certain situations. He might not be this, he might not be this, but he is another thing - vagueness is so fun - and that is why he is just right for some things.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,917
    I want bond to be even darker than he was on the Craig era. It’s possible.

    I'd like one around the recent Mission Impossible level of grit: a touch of drama but still loads of heart-pumping, thrilling fun.
  • Posts: 12,248
    Ludovico wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I fear Bond won’t be much of a womanizer anymore thanks to modern sensitivity.

    I think he still will be, but women will be more assertive. Think more Solange and less Solitaire.

    We’ll see. To me, even though I can let it slide since it’s part of the love plot, NTTD made it look like the series is transitioning to “fit the times,” with no casual sex or sexy women in the title credits. They already took away Bond’s smoking, so taking away his sexual lust isn’t at all a far fetched idea, especially since in the eyes of many he’s evil and misogynistic just for having casual consensual encounters.

    Smoking is no longer seen glamorous and hasn't been for a long time though. Except maybe cigars. Maybe. Which is why they make an appearance in NTTD, albeit Bond doesn't smoke one. Seduction, providing it's not done in a sleazy or creepy manner, is still seen as sexy and part of an hedonistic living. There's a very good reason why it was seriously toned down in NTTD: it would have cheapened the relationship between Bond, Madeleine and Mathilde. Otherwise, when Bond is single in Jamaica and unaware of the existence of his daughter, he seems as womanising as he was before his relationship with Madeleine. Or at least he seems eager to sleep with Nomi.

    I don’t know about that. There seems to be a cultural shift where it’s been looked down upon for men to be like James Bond and get a lot of action now. It’s always been backwards anyway; in the old days, if you were a guy and got lots of action, well done player, it you were a woman you were a slut. Now I feel the attitude is more a woman is empowered for having multiple partners and men are pigs for it.

    Smoking and having tons of sex with different people are both risky to one’s health. I don’t understand all these double standards. We can’t watch James Bond or The Penguin in Batman smoke anymore god forbid, but who cares when they do things like killing people? So backwards what makes people sensitive.

    Let's not make false equivalences: sex is natural and part of human nature. Heck it's essential to the human species. Smoking is not. It's unhealthy even in small quantity: there's literally no moderation for it. And if it's been looked down upon it's for health reasons and objective, verifiable facts. Sex on the contrary has become far less taboo. As long as it's dome between two fully consenting adults, I don't think anyone objects, except religious fanatics and a few radical feminists. Regarding Bond himself, I'd applied the old principle Raymond Chandler used for his own Philip Marlowe: neither an eunuch nor a satyr, who may seduce a duchess, but will not dishonour a virgin.

    You didn’t address the killing part. Is that in the “part of human nature” or “unhealthy even in small quantity” category? I said and stand by what I said about riskiness regarding unprotected sex; technically we never know one way or another with Bond other than Madeleine of course if he protects himself to be fair. At any rate, this is all being performed on a screen as fiction. If killing people and having sex can be faked, why not smoking? It’s all art as I said - people have themselves to blame if they take the initiative to emulate what they see on screen.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 2022 Posts: 14,917
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I fear Bond won’t be much of a womanizer anymore thanks to modern sensitivity.

    I think he still will be, but women will be more assertive. Think more Solange and less Solitaire.

    We’ll see. To me, even though I can let it slide since it’s part of the love plot, NTTD made it look like the series is transitioning to “fit the times,” with no casual sex or sexy women in the title credits. They already took away Bond’s smoking, so taking away his sexual lust isn’t at all a far fetched idea, especially since in the eyes of many he’s evil and misogynistic just for having casual consensual encounters.

    Smoking is no longer seen glamorous and hasn't been for a long time though. Except maybe cigars. Maybe. Which is why they make an appearance in NTTD, albeit Bond doesn't smoke one. Seduction, providing it's not done in a sleazy or creepy manner, is still seen as sexy and part of an hedonistic living. There's a very good reason why it was seriously toned down in NTTD: it would have cheapened the relationship between Bond, Madeleine and Mathilde. Otherwise, when Bond is single in Jamaica and unaware of the existence of his daughter, he seems as womanising as he was before his relationship with Madeleine. Or at least he seems eager to sleep with Nomi.

    I don’t know about that. There seems to be a cultural shift where it’s been looked down upon for men to be like James Bond and get a lot of action now. It’s always been backwards anyway; in the old days, if you were a guy and got lots of action, well done player, it you were a woman you were a slut. Now I feel the attitude is more a woman is empowered for having multiple partners and men are pigs for it.

    Smoking and having tons of sex with different people are both risky to one’s health. I don’t understand all these double standards. We can’t watch James Bond or The Penguin in Batman smoke anymore god forbid, but who cares when they do things like killing people? So backwards what makes people sensitive.

    Let's not make false equivalences: sex is natural and part of human nature. Heck it's essential to the human species. Smoking is not. It's unhealthy even in small quantity: there's literally no moderation for it. And if it's been looked down upon it's for health reasons and objective, verifiable facts. Sex on the contrary has become far less taboo. As long as it's dome between two fully consenting adults, I don't think anyone objects, except religious fanatics and a few radical feminists. Regarding Bond himself, I'd applied the old principle Raymond Chandler used for his own Philip Marlowe: neither an eunuch nor a satyr, who may seduce a duchess, but will not dishonour a virgin.

    You didn’t address the killing part. Is that in the “part of human nature” or “unhealthy even in small quantity” category?

    Did you really just ask if murder is unhealthy? :D
  • Posts: 12,248
    mtm wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I fear Bond won’t be much of a womanizer anymore thanks to modern sensitivity.

    I think he still will be, but women will be more assertive. Think more Solange and less Solitaire.

    We’ll see. To me, even though I can let it slide since it’s part of the love plot, NTTD made it look like the series is transitioning to “fit the times,” with no casual sex or sexy women in the title credits. They already took away Bond’s smoking, so taking away his sexual lust isn’t at all a far fetched idea, especially since in the eyes of many he’s evil and misogynistic just for having casual consensual encounters.

    Smoking is no longer seen glamorous and hasn't been for a long time though. Except maybe cigars. Maybe. Which is why they make an appearance in NTTD, albeit Bond doesn't smoke one. Seduction, providing it's not done in a sleazy or creepy manner, is still seen as sexy and part of an hedonistic living. There's a very good reason why it was seriously toned down in NTTD: it would have cheapened the relationship between Bond, Madeleine and Mathilde. Otherwise, when Bond is single in Jamaica and unaware of the existence of his daughter, he seems as womanising as he was before his relationship with Madeleine. Or at least he seems eager to sleep with Nomi.

    I don’t know about that. There seems to be a cultural shift where it’s been looked down upon for men to be like James Bond and get a lot of action now. It’s always been backwards anyway; in the old days, if you were a guy and got lots of action, well done player, it you were a woman you were a slut. Now I feel the attitude is more a woman is empowered for having multiple partners and men are pigs for it.

    Smoking and having tons of sex with different people are both risky to one’s health. I don’t understand all these double standards. We can’t watch James Bond or The Penguin in Batman smoke anymore god forbid, but who cares when they do things like killing people? So backwards what makes people sensitive.

    Let's not make false equivalences: sex is natural and part of human nature. Heck it's essential to the human species. Smoking is not. It's unhealthy even in small quantity: there's literally no moderation for it. And if it's been looked down upon it's for health reasons and objective, verifiable facts. Sex on the contrary has become far less taboo. As long as it's dome between two fully consenting adults, I don't think anyone objects, except religious fanatics and a few radical feminists. Regarding Bond himself, I'd applied the old principle Raymond Chandler used for his own Philip Marlowe: neither an eunuch nor a satyr, who may seduce a duchess, but will not dishonour a virgin.

    You didn’t address the killing part. Is that in the “part of human nature” or “unhealthy even in small quantity” category?

    Did you really just ask if murder is unhealthy? :D

    Why not? XP just trying to get everything straight and see if others are on board with consistency and holding people accountable for their choices rather than blaming the entertainment :P you never got back to me about my silly wager; PM if interested!
  • Posts: 14,816
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I fear Bond won’t be much of a womanizer anymore thanks to modern sensitivity.

    I think he still will be, but women will be more assertive. Think more Solange and less Solitaire.

    We’ll see. To me, even though I can let it slide since it’s part of the love plot, NTTD made it look like the series is transitioning to “fit the times,” with no casual sex or sexy women in the title credits. They already took away Bond’s smoking, so taking away his sexual lust isn’t at all a far fetched idea, especially since in the eyes of many he’s evil and misogynistic just for having casual consensual encounters.

    Smoking is no longer seen glamorous and hasn't been for a long time though. Except maybe cigars. Maybe. Which is why they make an appearance in NTTD, albeit Bond doesn't smoke one. Seduction, providing it's not done in a sleazy or creepy manner, is still seen as sexy and part of an hedonistic living. There's a very good reason why it was seriously toned down in NTTD: it would have cheapened the relationship between Bond, Madeleine and Mathilde. Otherwise, when Bond is single in Jamaica and unaware of the existence of his daughter, he seems as womanising as he was before his relationship with Madeleine. Or at least he seems eager to sleep with Nomi.

    I don’t know about that. There seems to be a cultural shift where it’s been looked down upon for men to be like James Bond and get a lot of action now. It’s always been backwards anyway; in the old days, if you were a guy and got lots of action, well done player, it you were a woman you were a slut. Now I feel the attitude is more a woman is empowered for having multiple partners and men are pigs for it.

    Smoking and having tons of sex with different people are both risky to one’s health. I don’t understand all these double standards. We can’t watch James Bond or The Penguin in Batman smoke anymore god forbid, but who cares when they do things like killing people? So backwards what makes people sensitive.

    Let's not make false equivalences: sex is natural and part of human nature. Heck it's essential to the human species. Smoking is not. It's unhealthy even in small quantity: there's literally no moderation for it. And if it's been looked down upon it's for health reasons and objective, verifiable facts. Sex on the contrary has become far less taboo. As long as it's dome between two fully consenting adults, I don't think anyone objects, except religious fanatics and a few radical feminists. Regarding Bond himself, I'd applied the old principle Raymond Chandler used for his own Philip Marlowe: neither an eunuch nor a satyr, who may seduce a duchess, but will not dishonour a virgin.

    You didn’t address the killing part. Is that in the “part of human nature” or “unhealthy even in small quantity” category? I said and stand by what I said about riskiness regarding unprotected sex; technically we never know one way or another with Bond other than Madeleine of course if he protects himself to be fair. At any rate, this is all being performed on a screen as fiction. If killing people and having sex can be faked, why not smoking? It’s all art as I said - people have themselves to blame if they take the initiative to emulate what they see on screen.

    I'm not sure where you're going with it. Killing is pretty much a moot point: villains murder (generally) Bond does so in self-defence, or at least he does it for Queen and Country, thus for selfless reasons. He doesn't enjoy it. It doesn't matter whether smoking is fake or not: it's no longer seen as glamorous. Far less than fine wines or decades old scotch, or high quality cocktails. With the possible exception of cigars. As for sex, not sure where you're going with protected/unprotected. For all we know Bond has a stash of condoms in his briefcase. In any case, it's the public general attitude towards sex that is now very permissive overall I think.
  • edited March 2022 Posts: 12,248
    Ludovico wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I fear Bond won’t be much of a womanizer anymore thanks to modern sensitivity.

    I think he still will be, but women will be more assertive. Think more Solange and less Solitaire.

    We’ll see. To me, even though I can let it slide since it’s part of the love plot, NTTD made it look like the series is transitioning to “fit the times,” with no casual sex or sexy women in the title credits. They already took away Bond’s smoking, so taking away his sexual lust isn’t at all a far fetched idea, especially since in the eyes of many he’s evil and misogynistic just for having casual consensual encounters.

    Smoking is no longer seen glamorous and hasn't been for a long time though. Except maybe cigars. Maybe. Which is why they make an appearance in NTTD, albeit Bond doesn't smoke one. Seduction, providing it's not done in a sleazy or creepy manner, is still seen as sexy and part of an hedonistic living. There's a very good reason why it was seriously toned down in NTTD: it would have cheapened the relationship between Bond, Madeleine and Mathilde. Otherwise, when Bond is single in Jamaica and unaware of the existence of his daughter, he seems as womanising as he was before his relationship with Madeleine. Or at least he seems eager to sleep with Nomi.

    I don’t know about that. There seems to be a cultural shift where it’s been looked down upon for men to be like James Bond and get a lot of action now. It’s always been backwards anyway; in the old days, if you were a guy and got lots of action, well done player, it you were a woman you were a slut. Now I feel the attitude is more a woman is empowered for having multiple partners and men are pigs for it.

    Smoking and having tons of sex with different people are both risky to one’s health. I don’t understand all these double standards. We can’t watch James Bond or The Penguin in Batman smoke anymore god forbid, but who cares when they do things like killing people? So backwards what makes people sensitive.

    Let's not make false equivalences: sex is natural and part of human nature. Heck it's essential to the human species. Smoking is not. It's unhealthy even in small quantity: there's literally no moderation for it. And if it's been looked down upon it's for health reasons and objective, verifiable facts. Sex on the contrary has become far less taboo. As long as it's dome between two fully consenting adults, I don't think anyone objects, except religious fanatics and a few radical feminists. Regarding Bond himself, I'd applied the old principle Raymond Chandler used for his own Philip Marlowe: neither an eunuch nor a satyr, who may seduce a duchess, but will not dishonour a virgin.

    You didn’t address the killing part. Is that in the “part of human nature” or “unhealthy even in small quantity” category? I said and stand by what I said about riskiness regarding unprotected sex; technically we never know one way or another with Bond other than Madeleine of course if he protects himself to be fair. At any rate, this is all being performed on a screen as fiction. If killing people and having sex can be faked, why not smoking? It’s all art as I said - people have themselves to blame if they take the initiative to emulate what they see on screen.

    I'm not sure where you're going with it. Killing is pretty much a moot point: villains murder (generally) Bond does so in self-defence, or at least he does it for Queen and Country, thus for selfless reasons. He doesn't enjoy it. It doesn't matter whether smoking is fake or not: it's no longer seen as glamorous. Far less than fine wines or decades old scotch, or high quality cocktails. With the possible exception of cigars. As for sex, not sure where you're going with protected/unprotected. For all we know Bond has a stash of condoms in his briefcase. In any case, it's the public general attitude towards sex that is now very permissive overall I think.

    Ok. So your argument is that Bond doesn’t / shouldn’t smoke anymore because of public perception, correct? It the public decided we shouldn’t glamorize sex or violence anymore (violence in these films is shown both realistically and glamorized for what it’s worth), they should no longer be part of Bond’s character either? Or if public attitude shifted against alcohol more or more in the future.

    Edit: Bond also clearly says in TMWTGG he admits killing Scaramanga would be a pleasure, and often quips one-liners and grins after killing (he had to fly MR, Carlos in CR, etc). Seems he enjoys it at least sometimes!
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited March 2022 Posts: 1,427
    On one end of the marketplace is Marvel, which churned out quite a few billion-dollar hits with basically one tried-and-true formula, except the added benefit of the team-up generating you a larger narrative the individual films don't need and only contribute to.

    The Bond team may want that reliable box office delivery, if they think they can get the formula as tight as Marvel's. This gives them absolute power over writers and most of creative, which means it's all on them to get the formula right, so they can just point to it for whoever the next team is and know what they're getting.

    On the other end of the market, you have Eon as I think they are now, which is very open to shifting cultural winds and brings in big-name talent to match the tastes of the moment, which has also worked pretty gangbusters for them, but limits their ultimate control over the Bond project as a greater narrative, though they don't seem to need a consistent formula to perform well at the box office.

    Their own success, both critically and financially, muddies the waters on what the best approach for the future is. It looks like we may be in the early stages of the Marvel wind-down, with a series of disappointments and lower box office, and even considering covid, poorer critical response to recent movies and characters. Maybe relying on a formula only takes you so far.

    Then again, Sony's Spider-Man and Venom universe, and the DC Comics franchise, are chaotic, the last of which is even volatile to investors with its throw-it-at-the-wall approach to see what sticks, though they've had plenty of stuff stick.

    I think it's wide open. Batman could influence the decision. Nolan, or another filmmaker, maybe Fukunaga, or any big name with an idea could shake things up in one meeting. Or it could just come down to the team they're familiar with, and who they have right in front of them already, Lee Morrison developing stunts, which are half the movie, and Phoebe Waller-Bridge there to at least start a draft. Who knows.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,944
    I find Marvel movies to be spectacles but soulless...Craig put more character work into his five films than there is in all the Marvel films combined.

    I also think the hand-wringing over people constantly repeating "They killed Bond! They can't do that!" to be a bit...over-the-top. Sure they can. They own the rights. They can send him to space, they can make him Japanese, and yes, they can kill him.

    Did people complain when they rebooted the character last time? No. I don't recall reading, "But what about Goldfinger? What about Tracy? Did none of that happen? Waa!" Zzz...
Sign In or Register to comment.