Where does Bond go after Craig?

1216217219221222512

Comments

  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited January 2023 Posts: 2,895
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I very much enjoyed the Paloma scene, not the underlying message. What was thinking in writing that scene? The idea of Bond having sex with a younger woman is no longer acceptable?
    No, I don't think it's that (unlike Sir Rog and Bibi in FYEO). In NTTD, Bond was just making a joke at Paloma's expense because of the way it looked. He didn't really think that she was undressing him to have sex, but he could see the potential to crack wise and did so. That's all it was. IMO, obviously. Also, I don't think that little face that Paloma pulled was her thinking that it'd be gross to have sex with a bloke in his 50s, it was just because she was embarrassed after the gag. I really don't think that scene was intended to undermine Bond at all, tbh.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2023 Posts: 14,861
    I thought it was quite refreshing for Bond to just be friends with a beautiful woman for a change, a bit of Steed and Peel stuff. It didn't destroy his character or make him a cuck or whatever else those awful people on YouTube go on about.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,834
    If Bond having sex with a younger woman was no longer acceptable, then what about Lea Seydoux? There's only three years between Seydoux and Armas.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited January 2023 Posts: 2,895
    Good point, Denbigh. There's only four years between Craig and Ben Affleck, who Ana de Armas was in an actual relationship with at the time, too. I honestly don't see that scene as an an attempt to undermine or emasculate Bond. I don't think that Madeleine being 'on top' during the Matera hotel scene or Bond riding pillion on Nomi's scooter were either.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Venutius wrote: »
    Good point. There's only four years between Craig and Ben Affleck, who Ana de Armas was in an actual relationship with at the time, too. I honestly don't see that scene as an an attempt to undermine or emasculate Bond. I don't think that Madeleine being 'on top' during the Matera hotel scene or Bond riding pillion on Nomi's scooter were either.

    People don't think that, do they? What's wrong with folk now.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited January 2023 Posts: 2,895
    Can't remember where I read it now, but there were some anti-Craig types griping about exactly this (and a supposed lost scene where Nomi took Bond's gun in Jamaica, hence the 'disarming young woman' line) and claiming that BrozzaBond would've shown those wenches the superiority of the Y chromosome or some such shizzle (not literally, but that was the gist of their argument). Makes yer tired, dunnit.
  • edited January 2023 Posts: 12,242
    Speaking for myself, my own concern has nothing to do with age gaps, nor the whole “powerful female character” thing that shouldn’t be a complaint at all, just that Bond moving forward may not be polygamous anymore. Having him be “in love” or in a relationship is the easy way for the producers to have their cake and eat it too if they don’t want Bond becoming asexual. There’s nothing wrong with it once in a while, but it happened twice this last era. Bond is supposed to be promiscuous. But my guess is we won’t see him sleeping with more than one woman per film now.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,889
    mtm wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Good point. There's only four years between Craig and Ben Affleck, who Ana de Armas was in an actual relationship with at the time, too. I honestly don't see that scene as an an attempt to undermine or emasculate Bond. I don't think that Madeleine being 'on top' during the Matera hotel scene or Bond riding pillion on Nomi's scooter were either.

    People don't think that, do they? What's wrong with folk now.

    Emasculate? No, not at all, but both show a shift in tone for the series, particularly the Madeleine scene.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,834
    Dont let those same people see You Only Live Twice then. Who knew they were so woke back in the 1960s?

  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    Posts: 554
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Blackmailing the lady at Shrublands to sleep with him springs to mind immediately...

    Pulling Marie's bra over her neck in DAF feels a bit 'off' too.
    That one plays a little better if you view it with OHMSS in mind (of course, every single following scene plays better if you ignore it and treat YOLT as the last film).
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Blackmailing the lady at Shrublands to sleep with him springs to mind immediately...

    Pulling Marie's bra over her neck in DAF feels a bit 'off' too.
    That one plays a little better if you view it with OHMSS in mind (of course, every single following scene plays better if you ignore it and treat YOLT as the last film).

    Yes, it's more vicious than creepy.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2023 Posts: 14,861
    Venutius wrote: »
    Can't remember where I read it now, but there were some anti-Craig types griping about exactly this (and a supposed lost scene where Nomi took Bond's gun in Jamaica, hence the 'disarming young woman' line) and claiming that BrozzaBond would've shown those wenches the superiority of the Y chromosome or some such shizzle (not literally, but that was the gist of their argument). Makes yer tired, dunnit.

    Jaysus.
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Good point. There's only four years between Craig and Ben Affleck, who Ana de Armas was in an actual relationship with at the time, too. I honestly don't see that scene as an an attempt to undermine or emasculate Bond. I don't think that Madeleine being 'on top' during the Matera hotel scene or Bond riding pillion on Nomi's scooter were either.

    People don't think that, do they? What's wrong with folk now.

    Emasculate? No, not at all, but both show a shift in tone for the series, particularly the Madeleine scene.

    Watch GoldenEye. OHMSS too, off the top of my head.
  • Posts: 1,478
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Bond moving forward may not be polygamous anymore. Bond is supposed to be promiscuous. But my guess is we won’t see him sleeping with more than one woman per film now.

    Do you have an opinion why this may be the direction the series goes? I ask not to be combative, but to attempt to understand why such expectations are placed on a fictional character.
  • edited January 2023 Posts: 12,242
    CrabKey wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Bond moving forward may not be polygamous anymore. Bond is supposed to be promiscuous. But my guess is we won’t see him sleeping with more than one woman per film now.

    Do you have an opinion why this may be the direction the series goes? I ask not to be combative, but to attempt to understand why such expectations are placed on a fictional character.

    It’s difficult to hit the nail directly on the head with this. But it certainly seems to me we’ve come to a point now where men being promiscuous is frowned upon, which for so long it seemed to be the opposite. I’ve long argued regarding both Bond’s character and real life, no one should be judged for however much or little consensual sex they have, be it praise or ridicule. Some people, like Bond, just prefer the polygamous lifestyle, and there really is nothing inherently wrong with that.

    As for where the conflict comes in, I believe that there is this feeling that automatically associates this behavior with belittling women, and in Bond’s case certainly he views many as “disposable pleasures” as put in CR. The thing is though, the films themselves are not belittling women. Plenty of three-dimensional female characters have come along in this series, and even if there is a problematic element in Bond’s mind regarding how he personally views them, he seems to treat a good many of them with respect. I’m all for moving on past particularly problematic moments like the barn in GF or shower in TB, but to me it’d be a step too far to remove polygamy altogether from Bond’s behavior.

    It also seems to me that for whatever reason, people nowadays are having a harder time separating the behaviors of characters within fiction from the film itself, as in, assuming when a lead character does “bad” things (which can be subjective even sometimes too), the film is glamorizing it or advocating for it. We end up with some pretty boring main characters this way to avoid including this. But yes, trying to sum up my response as best as I can, I think there is a fear of Bond being polygamous that automatically insults women, and obviously we’ve come to a time where things like sexism are rightfully put under the microscope. But from my humble opinion, art needs to be left alone and not serve as a moral guide every time for audiences to follow.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,921
    FoxRox wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Bond moving forward may not be polygamous anymore. Bond is supposed to be promiscuous. But my guess is we won’t see him sleeping with more than one woman per film now.

    Do you have an opinion why this may be the direction the series goes? I ask not to be combative, but to attempt to understand why such expectations are placed on a fictional character.

    It’s difficult to hit the nail directly on the head with this. But it certainly seems to me we’ve come to a point now where men being promiscuous is frowned upon, which for so long it seemed to be the opposite. I’ve long argued regarding both Bond’s character and real life, no one should be judged for however much or little consensual sex they have, be it praise or ridicule. Some people, like Bond, just prefer the polygamous lifestyle, and there really is nothing inherently wrong with that.

    As for where the conflict comes in, I believe that there is this feeling that automatically associates this behavior with belittling women, and in Bond’s case certainly he views many as “disposable pleasures” as put in CR. The thing is though, the films themselves are not belittling women. Plenty of three-dimensional female characters have come along in this series, and even if there is a problematic element in Bond’s mind regarding how he personally views them, he seems to treat a good many of them with respect. I’m all for moving on past particularly problematic moments like the barn in GF or shower in TB, but to me it’d be a step too far to remove polygamy altogether from Bond’s behavior.

    It also seems to me that for whatever reason, people nowadays are having a harder time separating the behaviors of characters within fiction from the film itself, as in, assuming when a lead character does “bad” things (which can be subjective even sometimes too), the film is glamorizing it or advocating for it. We end up with some pretty boring main characters this way to avoid including this. But yes, trying to sum up my response as best as I can, I think there is a fear of Bond being polygamous that automatically insults women, and obviously we’ve come to a time where things like sexism are rightfully put under the microscope. But from my humble opinion, art needs to be left alone and not serve as a moral guide every time for audiences to follow.

    Polygamy doesn't mean what you think it means.

    I think it's fine for Bond to be promiscuous, or a female character in the films, or anyone really.
  • Posts: 1,478
    FoxRox wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »

    Do you have an opinion why this may be the direction the series goes? I ask not to be combative, but to attempt to understand why such expectations are placed on a fictional character.



    But from my humble opinion, art needs to be left alone and not serve as a moral guide every time for audiences to follow.

    Agree. Thank you for your thoughtful response.


  • Posts: 1,693
    How much of Bond's evolution is a reflection of what men fantasize about wanting or aspiring to these days?
    Smoking, sleeping with multiple women whenever they want to to, being the alpha character/male in any situation, fine tailoring on and off the job, expensive cars, a license to kill, etc, etc. I grew up in the '50 and '60s and most of these still sit well with me, as a fantasy, but I always get the feeling that my younger friends don't find these things as important or acceptable anymore. Will Bond continue to reflect Fleming's era fantasies or..............will the new version of 007 continue to change with the times until he is no longer anything like the original James Bond?
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,914
    I truly expect Bond can abide while the world swirls around him in flux and contrast. Like a snake in a barrel of oil, in a good way.

    Casino Royale set that up well, calling out Bond in a flip way pursuing married women as uncomplicated for himself. True to the character, funny as presented, but not exactly worthy of real world emulation by the audience.

    Really the filmmakers are already on that path, the Bond character isn't so much on board with woke sensibilities (I can't think of a better description) as just doing things his way. Being respectful to obstinate coworkers like Nomi isn't in conflict with that, it's just good business at times. And recognizing concepts like duty sets the stage for the best of Fleming regardless of the latest political churn.

    My grown kids do react to some content not so aligned with modern sensibilities. Still some things like Bond are timeless and irresistible. So Bond can remain and be Bond.

  • Posts: 1,693
    I truly expect Bond can abide while the world swirls around him in flux and contrast. Like a snake in a barrel of oil, in a good way.

    Casino Royale set that up well, calling out Bond in a flip way pursuing married women as uncomplicated for himself. True to the character, funny as presented, but not exactly worthy of real world emulation by the audience.

    Really the filmmakers are already on that path, the Bond character isn't so much on board with woke sensibilities (I can't think of a better description) as just doing things his way. Being respectful to obstinate coworkers like Nomi isn't in conflict with that, it's just good business at times. And recognizing concepts like duty sets the stage for the best of Fleming regardless of the latest political churn.

    My grown kids do react to some content not so aligned with modern sensibilities. Still some things like Bond are timeless and irresistible. So Bond can remain and be Bond.

    I truly hope so.
  • Posts: 12,242
    echo wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Bond moving forward may not be polygamous anymore. Bond is supposed to be promiscuous. But my guess is we won’t see him sleeping with more than one woman per film now.

    Do you have an opinion why this may be the direction the series goes? I ask not to be combative, but to attempt to understand why such expectations are placed on a fictional character.

    It’s difficult to hit the nail directly on the head with this. But it certainly seems to me we’ve come to a point now where men being promiscuous is frowned upon, which for so long it seemed to be the opposite. I’ve long argued regarding both Bond’s character and real life, no one should be judged for however much or little consensual sex they have, be it praise or ridicule. Some people, like Bond, just prefer the polygamous lifestyle, and there really is nothing inherently wrong with that.

    As for where the conflict comes in, I believe that there is this feeling that automatically associates this behavior with belittling women, and in Bond’s case certainly he views many as “disposable pleasures” as put in CR. The thing is though, the films themselves are not belittling women. Plenty of three-dimensional female characters have come along in this series, and even if there is a problematic element in Bond’s mind regarding how he personally views them, he seems to treat a good many of them with respect. I’m all for moving on past particularly problematic moments like the barn in GF or shower in TB, but to me it’d be a step too far to remove polygamy altogether from Bond’s behavior.

    It also seems to me that for whatever reason, people nowadays are having a harder time separating the behaviors of characters within fiction from the film itself, as in, assuming when a lead character does “bad” things (which can be subjective even sometimes too), the film is glamorizing it or advocating for it. We end up with some pretty boring main characters this way to avoid including this. But yes, trying to sum up my response as best as I can, I think there is a fear of Bond being polygamous that automatically insults women, and obviously we’ve come to a time where things like sexism are rightfully put under the microscope. But from my humble opinion, art needs to be left alone and not serve as a moral guide every time for audiences to follow.

    Polygamy doesn't mean what you think it means.

    I think it's fine for Bond to be promiscuous, or a female character in the films, or anyone really.

    I didn’t use the word technically correctly no, but obviously you get what I meant.

    @CrabKey sure thing! Here’s hoping they don’t stray too far from the path.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    The part about him sleeping with multiple women is one of those things I don't really have strong feelings about. I would even say it would be a bit redundant to have Bond again fall for one woman completely from a narrative point of view. I know Craig was in his own pocket universe, but still, three of the last five films had him fall madly in love (didn't Craig at one point say these films are essentially love stories?) and be basically in a serious relationship, so I'm good on that front for now.
    However, I don't think the films ever really got one point about literary Bond: He does fall in love or at least serious infatuation very easily. When I read the novels, I see some serious affection he has for many of the leading ladies, not just Vesper and Tracy. There is something there that I have also seen in some men in my life. A certain distrust or maybe just distance to women in general, but when he falls, he falls hard and then kind of just as quickly it fizzles again. One of the greatest denouments in this regard is Moonraker, where he has constructed this entire fantasy of the romantic/sexy holiday he will take with Gala only for her to tell him she's engaged and there will be nothing more between the two.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2023 Posts: 14,861
    delfloria wrote: »
    How much of Bond's evolution is a reflection of what men fantasize about wanting or aspiring to these days?
    Smoking, sleeping with multiple women whenever they want to to, being the alpha character/male in any situation, fine tailoring on and off the job, expensive cars, a license to kill, etc, etc. I grew up in the '50 and '60s and most of these still sit well with me, as a fantasy, but I always get the feeling that my younger friends don't find these things as important or acceptable anymore. Will Bond continue to reflect Fleming's era fantasies or..............will the new version of 007 continue to change with the times until he is no longer anything like the original James Bond?

    It’s a point that folks say that Bond shouldn’t be treated as a role model, but will happily accept Chandler and Fleming’s famous statement of “Men want to be like him, women want to be with him”. What is that other than acceptance that he is a model that people fantasise of imitating and influences behaviour? And it doesn’t mean that they want to be murdering people or horribly tortured or have their wife killed, no: ‘men want to be like him’ rather obviously pertains to the good bits which are glamorous and/or more applicable to an everyday life, not a ‘moral guide’.

    And you do make a very good point: as that is and always has been seen as the core basis of his appeal, if he no longer does the things people dream of doing, what is the point of him? Or does he keep doing that but shift slightly, as he always has done, more into the appealing aspects of the day?
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited January 2023 Posts: 3,382
    The part about him sleeping with multiple women is one of those things I don't really have strong feelings about. I would even say it would be a bit redundant to have Bond again fall for one woman completely from a narrative point of view. I know Craig was in his own pocket universe, but still, three of the last five films had him fall madly in love (didn't Craig at one point say these films are essentially love stories?) and be basically in a serious relationship, so I'm good on that front for now.
    However, I don't think the films ever really got one point about literary Bond: He does fall in love or at least serious infatuation very easily. When I read the novels, I see some serious affection he has for many of the leading ladies, not just Vesper and Tracy. There is something there that I have also seen in some men in my life. A certain distrust or maybe just distance to women in general, but when he falls, he falls hard and then kind of just as quickly it fizzles again. One of the greatest denouments in this regard is Moonraker, where he has constructed this entire fantasy of the romantic/sexy holiday he will take with Gala only for her to tell him she's engaged and there will be nothing more between the two.

    Yes, there's Tiffany Case, Tatiana Romanova, and even Honey Ryder or heck even Tilly Masterton and of course Kissy Suzuki.

    But with these women, there's something about them that's worth falling for Bond, something that I don't really see in Madeleine.
  • MI6HQ wrote: »
    i.
    But with these women, there's something about them that's worth falling for Bond, something that I don't really see in Madeleine.
    The idea with Madeleine, if I recall well, was that, as the daughter of an assassin, she understands Bond better than anyone, explaining why he falls in love with her. All in all, I think the character had a lot of potential, and could have been the highlight of Spectre.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited January 2023 Posts: 3,382
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    i.
    But with these women, there's something about them that's worth falling for Bond, something that I don't really see in Madeleine.
    The idea with Madeleine, if I recall well, was that, as the daughter of an assassin, she understands Bond better than anyone, explaining why he falls in love with her. All in all, I think the character had a lot of potential, and could have been the highlight of Spectre.

    I think the Lucia Sciarra character from SPECTRE for me would have been the better option for this:

    1. Like Bond, her life was always in danger.
    2. She's a wife of a SPECTRE agent/assassin, so she at least had a bit understanding regarding those inside works, espionage, underground works and all.
    3. She knows how to handle Bond as it's no different than her husband (Marco Sciarra) who's again a SPECTRE agent and assassin.
    4. Given her connections, she could help Bond at his mission against SPECTRE, and in No Time To Die, if Bond suspected her of working for SPECTRE or betraying, it would have make sense given her connections. With Madeleine, it's impossible as it's obvious that she had no connections to SPECTRE, she's innocent of what's happening, she even had no idea about her father's whereabouts.
    5. Both Lucia Sciarra and Bond knows the world of these underground works.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,889
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    i.
    But with these women, there's something about them that's worth falling for Bond, something that I don't really see in Madeleine.
    The idea with Madeleine, if I recall well, was that, as the daughter of an assassin, she understands Bond better than anyone, explaining why he falls in love with her. All in all, I think the character had a lot of potential, and could have been the highlight of Spectre.

    This did have tremendous potential; unfortunately the chemistry between the two very talented actors was limited. It was handled better in NTTD, but the relationship felt very forced.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,382
    I will still stand by my point that Lucia Sciarra could have handle it better, the parallels and all.
  • MI6HQ wrote: »
    I think the Lucia Sciarra character from SPECTRE for me would have been the better option for this.
    I agree, in many ways, Spectre had two too similar female characters and, ultimately, preventing both from getting enough screen time to shine and be developed. Lucia seemed to be a leftover from earlier drafts when the character was supposed to be a SPECTRE agent; but by keeping her and making her an ally, she was ultimately too similar to Madeleine in terms of thematics and story potentials.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    I will still stand by my point that Lucia Sciarra could have handle it better, the parallels and all.

    White was a much more important character than Sciarra ever was though; Madeline has more resonance in the plot. I do think Spectre is full of good ideas: I like the idea of Bond telling his old enemy that he'll protect his daughter in return for information, that's a good direction. It's such a shame it never quite all fits together.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited January 2023 Posts: 5,834
    I still think it would have been interesting for Madeleine Swann to be the daughter of Hannes Oberhauser and for Waltz to be more of a Dexter Smythe.
Sign In or Register to comment.