Where does Bond go after Craig?

1222223225227228523

Comments

  • Posts: 1,706
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Guys, that’s a screenrant.com article. They’re not a serious website/publication. They’re notorious for click baiting. Stop giving them attention.

    It’s about more than just the one article though. Clearly this is the attitude of plenty of people now - more neutrality or negativity around sex. Especially male heterosexuality has come under question and been seen negatively a lot more recently I think. And it’s a lot more likely than not the producers will terminate this iconic element of Bond to get the most young audiences on board as possible. My ultimate hope is society is just going through a transitional phase of being hyper wary of the bad things that can come with / from certain subjects, and someday hopefully things can be more fun and easygoing again in real life and entertainment.

    One can only hope.
  • edited January 2023 Posts: 9,767
    So is this a family site …. Because I will tell you the same thing I told the young attractive woman behind the counter at an adult store

    “I am afraid you caught me with more then my hands up”

    And then proceeded to yell

    “Nicknack Tabasco”
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,988
    All the brave new world changes swimming around the same James Bond works for me.

    That's what the producers have done and will keep doing is my thinking

    CourteousImperfectHornet-max-1mb.gif
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2023 Posts: 14,930
    echo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I suppose the question in that case becomes is Blofeld's inability to recognise Bond in OHMSS more a continuity issue or a case against the idea that Bond films can be more serialised in format? For what it's worth I suppose strictly speaking it's a continuity error, but one which I have no doubt everyone working on the film was aware of. I think what makes it more palatable as well is the fact that it's a different Bond actor.

    It is odd because Bond is chasing Blofeld in the film: Blofeld is 'something of a must' with him. Which we assume is because of all the previous times we've seen them do battle, and indeed meet- it has become personal for him. So it's weirdly a case of the filmmakers wanting us to remember what happened in the films with the 'other fella', and yet forget the last one as well. It's all a bit strange.
    It shows their attitude to continuity in general, really: it's there when they want it and to be ignored if not convenient. Which is probably a healthy attitude overall, but there is a limit probably.

    That is an interesting point about "Blofeld is something of a 'must.'"

    Minus the original Bond-undergoes-plastic surgery idea (resurrected in DAF), I am guessing that Hunt found the Bond infiltrating Piz Gloria--as a gay man no less--too juicy to pass up just for save continuity.

    And I'd argue Hunt was right.

    Which is also a complete reversal of Fleming’s book, since Bond was writing in his resignation because he thought searching for Blofeld was a waste of time.

    Ah I’d forgotten that; yes that it is an interesting point. So they even had a chance to kind of ignore previous continuity with that one but chose to embrace it. A head scratcher!
    Risico007 wrote: »
    https://screenrant.com/bond-26-one-night-stand-girl-stop-romance-007/


    Am I the only one who thinks that some people have too much time on their hands and not enough facts?


    Heck even in the first film I would argue Sylvia trench is a strong character who doesn’t die at the end so that disproves this article already

    Well, that’s just someone’s opinion, much the same of any of us here, so no more or less important. But I must admit, if Bond cut down on the ladykilling I wouldn’t actually care. Not for any modern political reasons, it’s just not a part of Bond films I’ve ever particularly been that interested in. That Roger copped off with every woman he met was kind of funny, but beyond that I don’t find it massively interesting: in films like TLD or QOS or NTTD I don’t miss the high shag count at all. I like all the spy and adventure stuff more. Put me down as ‘not bothered’.
  • Posts: 12,258
    It’d certainly be one of the quickest ways to make it less distinct from other action / spy films.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,527
    Bond's womanizing is fine for the occasional 'spy move' that gains him another clue, but when it feels a bit too random or too 'loud', I don't need it. Sir Hillary seemingly sleeping with half the Piz Gloria patients isn't a necessary detail in my opinion, but romancing Donna Lucia makes perfect sense since he does get useful information out of it. I've never understood the point of making out with Manuela just to 'kill some time', but sleeping with Corinne brings him undeniably closer to Drax's safe. The womanizing has, of course, never bothered me as such, but I was never overtly impressed by it either. A little of it is fine; it's also part of the 'joke' of the Bonds. But I like it better if Bond acts intelligently to get his clues.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 1,363
    I also agree with you guys. I'm not that keen on Bond's womanizing side....I like it when it's subtle. I think Dalton & Craig were good at being subtle with it.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited January 2023 Posts: 3,389
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Bond's womanizing is fine for the occasional 'spy move' that gains him another clue, but when it feels a bit too random or too 'loud', I don't need it. Sir Hillary seemingly sleeping with half the Piz Gloria patients isn't a necessary detail in my opinion, but romancing Donna Lucia makes perfect sense since he does get useful information out of it. I've never understood the point of making out with Manuela just to 'kill some time', but sleeping with Corinne brings him undeniably closer to Drax's safe. The womanizing has, of course, never bothered me as such, but I was never overtly impressed by it either. A little of it is fine; it's also part of the 'joke' of the Bonds. But I like it better if Bond acts intelligently to get his clues.

    To be honest, some of the womanizing in the 60's doesn't really makes sense to be honest (with the exception of Tatiana Romanova) he did most of those because of pleasure and lust (think of him making out with Fiona Volpe or with Ling in YOLT), even Bond making out with Miranda Frost in Die Another Day, doesn't make any sense either, because we all know that she's a villainess and therefore would not going to give Bond any information, he just did it, because it's part of the formula, yes, I do agree.

    I don't even get the fascination about Bond making out with Martine Blanchaud (the Log Cabin Girl in TSWLM) either, because at the end of it, she did betrayed him still by calling those Russian agents.

    When it comes to Bond seducing villainesses, I'm not much keen on it, especially those who were loyal to the villains, for me, it's getting looked a bit dated like really? Bond's ***** can convert or turn those villainesses into good ones? Think of Pussy Galore and May Day, oh my! Those things didn't aged well.

    That's why I really liked the banter between Bond and Xenia, he doesn't need to sleep with her, he just being straight to the point and interrogated Xenia about the whereabouts of Janus/Alec Trevelyan.

    Because at the end they all have one plan, to kill Bond and use sex as a distraction.

    The only thing that makes sense were yes, Lucia Sciarra, Corrine Clery, Andrea Anders, and maybe, Magda, to be honest in the case of Bond sleeping with Ruby Bartlett did makes sense because it's when he discovered them being brainwashed, but when it comes to Nancy, yes, it doesn't make any sense.

    If he didn't slept with Ruby Bartlett, he wouldn't know what Blofeld was really doing, he would have no idea what Blofeld was up to, he wouldn't likely to discover that they're being brainwashed and hypnotized, so, it's still a part of gathering information, but he shouldn't made out with Nancy, the scene with Nancy was redundant.

    But the one with Ruby Bartlett, it's important because he's investigating what Blofeld was up to regards to those women, had he only made out with Ruby, it's understandable, but not with Nancy, he shouldn't visited her.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,930
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Bond's womanizing is fine for the occasional 'spy move' that gains him another clue, but when it feels a bit too random or too 'loud', I don't need it. Sir Hillary seemingly sleeping with half the Piz Gloria patients isn't a necessary detail in my opinion, but romancing Donna Lucia makes perfect sense since he does get useful information out of it. I've never understood the point of making out with Manuela just to 'kill some time', but sleeping with Corinne brings him undeniably closer to Drax's safe. The womanizing has, of course, never bothered me as such, but I was never overtly impressed by it either. A little of it is fine; it's also part of the 'joke' of the Bonds. But I like it better if Bond acts intelligently to get his clues.

    Yeah it can be funny, it can benefit the plot, it can on rare occasion be even a bit sexy (the Donna Lucia one is one of the few, I'd say), but it can also be a bit of a chore at times. In the films where it's pared down to one or two women I don't hugely miss it. Daniel Craig actually only ended one of his five films with a 'Bond gets the girl' ending and that worked fine for me.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,527
    I must confess that I bought the romance between Bond and Kara so much when I first saw TLD in '92 that I absolutely wanted the next film to continue that romance (and make Kara his "Madeleine" so to speak.) We know that didn't happen, but I wouldn't have minded a version of LTK with Kara still at his side. Part of my being so invested in their romance is that Bond only has eyes for Kara in TLD (discarding the PTS boat girl as anything more than a wink-wink to the audience.) She's "the one" so to speak, and I figured that any random fling with another girl would mock this warm relationship. Lo and behold, it takes Bond and Pam nothing more than a quick rumble in a dirty nightclub to go down together, and then there's his, what? "caring" for Lupe that seems to be more her desire than his? No matter how much I like LTK, Bond's relationships with the women in that film present some seriously missed opportunities IMO.

    I don't want to overthink this either. I guess that like Jason Voorhees' body count, Bond's wild-night count was a thing in the '60s, working the pelvic consumptions all the way up to 4? 5? girls in TB, depending on whether we include the French colleague and Paula. Since then, it's been an almost by-default matter in Bond films that 007 enjoys a bit of horizontal pleasure between two kills, sometimes "serious", often not. I've always let it slide since it is James Bond and it seems to be the thing that James Bond does. And also because teenage me wasn't entirely "not jealous" of him. ;-)

    And then I started reading Fleming in my teens and discovered that his Bond doesn't necessarily end up with a couple of docile girls in his bed every book (Goldfinger notwithstanding). There's plenty of sex in Fleming's books without having to rely on literal acts of intercourse with different partners every fifty pages. Thus, when Craig's Bond went kinda monogamous from CR onwards, I bought it and didn't feel betrayed or "unbonded". The next Bond doesn't have to be a voracious ladykiller either. I want strong spy stuff with a few perks on the side, but not checklist films that demand 2, 3, ... scenes of Bond seducing gorgeous women just because that's "the thing" with Bond.
  • Posts: 12,258
    I can’t wait for when Bond’s killing is seen by the majority as “not acceptable” next. The rationale will probably go something like “well, Batman doesn’t usually kill, so why should Bond! It’s not heroic to kill!” Clearly, bit by bit, people are fine with him becoming a different character.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2023 Posts: 14,930
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I can’t wait for when Bond’s killing is seen by the majority as “not acceptable” next. The rationale will probably go something like “well, Batman doesn’t usually kill, so why should Bond! It’s not heroic to kill!” Clearly, bit by bit, people are fine with him becoming a different character.

    Well as Dimi said, the ladykilling isn't really part of bookBond. Neither are the wisecracks, the plethora of high tech gadgets or indeed the expansive luxury wardrobe even. It depends which version of the character you see as being the correct one from which it can no longer change, really. Roger Moore's one, who never smoked a cigarette, drove an Aston Martin or ordered a Vodka Martini, maybe?
    In one of his films he only killed a single person, incidentally. I presume you're on record as saying that doesn't count as a Bond film? ;)

    With all these slightly hysterical 'they're going to change Bond into something wrong!' posts recently, it feels like we're doing the CraigNotBond thing again, but even before the guy has been cast this time. It's going to be a nightmare, isn't it.
  • Posts: 12,258
    Yep, like I said, if every characteristic is malleable to people then I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before he’s not an assassin either. Perhaps eventually society’s horror of violence in film can catch up to the sex.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,930
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Yep, like I said, if every characteristic is malleable to people then I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before he’s not an assassin either.

    Arguably he's not been an assassin in the films for most of their run: usually he's an investigator, and it's only been in a couple of brief flashes in a Dalton and a Craig film where he's had a straight assassination job that I can think of. So, if you were happy with the vast majority of Bond films up until now, then I'm sure that change isn't a problem.
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Perhaps eventually society’s horror of violence in film can catch up to the sex.

    Well, it would be the healthier way around.
  • edited January 2023 Posts: 12,258
    He kills people. Period. Sorry if the semantics bother you so much that’s the only point I’m trying to make and how it’s easy to see people will want this removed in time too. And what would be healthiest is if people stopped being so pearl clutching and outraged about anything “explicit” in fiction.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2023 Posts: 14,930
    FoxRox wrote: »
    He kills people. Period. Sorry if the semantics bother you so much that’s the only point I’m trying to make and how it’s easy to see people will want this removed in time too.

    I don't think you actually read my posts. Nothing bothers me in what you've said because it's all imagination: and also I've pointed out how Bond has changed constantly over the years. Including that film where he only killed a single person, which came out way over 40 years ago. The world continued to turn.

    You take the example of Roger's Bond not driving an Aston etc. as proof that all characteristics are malleable, and extrapolate that into a nonsensical extreme that has no basis. It's like me saying that Craig's Bond wore jeans therefore Bond will probably become a non-binary Grime music star in the next film and everyone will probably think that's great because *these days*.
    There's just no reason to think that.
    FoxRox wrote: »
    And what would be healthiest is if people stopped being so pearl clutching and outraged about anything “explicit” in fiction.

    One could easily say it'd be great if people stop being so pearl-clutching and getting upset about culture war things which have only happened in their minds. He killed plenty of folk in the last Bond movie and there's no sign of that changing.
  • edited January 2023 Posts: 12,258
    I do, and I know it or nothing else could bother you as you are clearly on board for any and all changes possible to the series the producers decide on. Movie-Bond was a womanizer from Day 1, and just because he doesn’t have sex with 3+ women every film doesn’t mean the ones he doesn’t in don’t still make it clear that’s a part of his character through dialogue or subtle actions. Just like it’s made 100% clear in “that one movie Bond ONLY kills one person” that he kills multiple people. You and everyone else on here is on board for it to be dropped from Bond’s character before the next film has even begun, so why on Earth should I not be speculating about what else you all want changed moving forward before the films come out too? Or maybe we’re just only allowed to speculate from optimistic angles?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,930
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I do, and I know it or nothing else could bother you as you are clearly on board for any and all changes possible to the series the producers decide on.

    That's the opposite of what I wrote. *Sigh*
    FoxRox wrote: »
    You and everyone else on here is on board for it to be dropped from Bond’s character before the next film has even begun,

    Uh-huh, yeah that's right 8-|

    FoxRox wrote: »
    so why on Earth should I not be speculating about what else you all want changed moving forward before the films come out too? Or maybe we’re just only allowed to speculate from optimistic angles?

    You can speculate all you like, but you have to be prepared to be called out as a pearl-clutcher, that's all.
    And if you want to speculate about 'what else we all want changed', it'd probably be easier to ask us. Or you could just say what you'd like to change/keep. That'd be nicer than putting words in everyone else's mouths and complaining about it.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,527
    Barely six films in, Peter Hunt was very clear about trying to chew off some of the "formula" already established. He went low on jokes and all but removed the gadgets from what many consider a superior Bond film. He introduced an emotional Bond (whom some today might condescendingly call an "emo" Bond) and who, furthermore, flirted with insubordination, which I can imagine was not as cool then as it is now in the age of rogue spies in popular fiction. My point is that various iterations of the character of Bond were presented to us even in the '60s. As long as the "essence of Bond", which is a subjective thing no doubt, remains, I am fine with a little tinkering with some of his characteristics. Regarding the topic of a womanizing Bond, I very much want the films to stay sexy, but I don't think we need blatant skirt-chasing to make that happen.
  • edited January 2023 Posts: 12,258
    mtm wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I do, and I know it or nothing else could bother you as you are clearly on board for any and all changes possible to the series the producers decide on.

    That's the opposite of what I wrote. *Sigh*
    FoxRox wrote: »
    You and everyone else on here is on board for it to be dropped from Bond’s character before the next film has even begun,

    Uh-huh, yeah that's right 8-|

    FoxRox wrote: »
    so why on Earth should I not be speculating about what else you all want changed moving forward before the films come out too? Or maybe we’re just only allowed to speculate from optimistic angles?

    You can speculate all you like, but you have to be prepared to be called out as a pearl-clutcher, that's all.
    And if you want to speculate about 'what else we all want changed', it'd probably be easier to ask us. Or you could just say what you'd like to change/keep. That'd be nicer than putting words in everyone else's mouths and complaining about it.

    I don’t care what you think about me, you can call me a pearl-clutcher for wanting a 60+ year old movie character to resemble his basic form all you’d like. Go ahead please, have the floor. What to you even makes James Bond James Bond? What in your eyes CAN’T be changed for him to be James Bond? Or is everything on the table to be changed, in which case it doesn’t really matter if it’s the same character or not? I’m genuinely curious, please tell me. Anyone else is welcome to jump on this question too and tell me what of Bond’s basic characteristics, if any, should stay.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2023 Posts: 14,930
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Barely six films in, Peter Hunt was very clear about trying to chew off some of the "formula" already established. He went low on jokes and all but removed the gadgets from what many consider a superior Bond film. He introduced an emotional Bond (whom some today might condescendingly call an "emo" Bond) and who, furthermore, flirted with insubordination, which I can imagine was not as cool then as it is now in the age of rogue spies in popular fiction. My point is that various iterations of the character of Bond were presented to us even in the '60s. As long as the "essence of Bond", which is a subjective thing no doubt, remains, I am fine with a little tinkering with some of his characteristics. Regarding the topic of a womanizing Bond, I very much want the films to stay sexy, but I don't think we need blatant skirt-chasing to make that happen.

    Yeah, part of the joke of Bond is that we know when he sees an attractive woman, he's going to try it on with her. And it's good fun because we know him, but likewise you can have too much of a good thing and when they use their secret sauce in the right amounts I enjoy it more.
    Plus often, in truth when he shacks up with a conquest it does often mean stopping the plot for a bit while he gets his trousers back on. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

    FoxRox wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I do, and I know it or nothing else could bother you as you are clearly on board for any and all changes possible to the series the producers decide on.

    That's the opposite of what I wrote. *Sigh*
    FoxRox wrote: »
    You and everyone else on here is on board for it to be dropped from Bond’s character before the next film has even begun,

    Uh-huh, yeah that's right 8-|

    FoxRox wrote: »
    so why on Earth should I not be speculating about what else you all want changed moving forward before the films come out too? Or maybe we’re just only allowed to speculate from optimistic angles?

    You can speculate all you like, but you have to be prepared to be called out as a pearl-clutcher, that's all.
    And if you want to speculate about 'what else we all want changed', it'd probably be easier to ask us. Or you could just say what you'd like to change/keep. That'd be nicer than putting words in everyone else's mouths and complaining about it.

    I don’t care what you think about me, you can call me a pearl-clutcher for wanting a 60+ year old movie character to resemble his basic form all you’d like. Go ahead please, have the floor. What to you even makes James Bond James Bond? What in your eyes CAN’T be changed for him to be James Bond? Or is everything on the table to be changed, in which case it doesn’t really matter if it’s the same character or not? I’m genuinely curious, please tell me. Anyone else is welcome to jump on this question too and tell me what of Bond’s basic characteristics, if any, should stay.

    Well I already asked you which version of Bond is the correct one, so you tell me. Is it Roger's or Sean's or Pierce's, or Ian Fleming's...? Because they're not all the same guy. And if you can point to where anybody suggested he should stop killing people, go for it.
    Regardless, that there have been films where he's only killed one person, or only shagged one woman, and almost no-one noticed, maybe shows that Bond is a bit less of a kit of essential parts than you may think.

    He doesn't even wear a dinner jacket and dickie bow tie in a couple of them! #NotMyBond :))
  • Posts: 1,706
    Well, at this point there are so many version of Bond, from print to screen, everyone can pick and chose there favorite characteristics and embrace them to define who Bond is. The new film version will add to the list. I do find it interesting that some people don't get Bond's womanizing. If you are possibly going to die tomorrow, shagging is a very good way to keep your mind off that and a lot of other things as well.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2023 Posts: 14,930
    I don't know if anyone doesn't get it; it's just not always that fascinating to watch! :D
    A bit like how the one which have big armies of people fighting at the end aren't my favourite :)

    It makes him a more interesting character than someone like the fairly chaste Ethan Hunt, but also sometimes it's something you kind of have to get through.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited January 2023 Posts: 2,923
    Whisper it, but there actually are women who're up for one-night stands. Er, so I've heard.
    Don't they deserve representation in cinema too? ;)
  • edited January 2023 Posts: 12,258
    I brought up the killing as an only slightly sarcastic point when it seemed to me so obvious that it and womanizing were key traits that are *at least* talked about / hinted at if not thoroughly depicted in all the movies. And no one here but me seems to mind if it stays part of the franchise anymore. I never said any two incarnations of Bond are 100% the same, but the same general ingredients are always there. Therefore, 100% taking out the sexually promiscuous aspect to Bond would be a drastic departure. Within CR and OHMSS, two films he “falls in love,” there’s still plenty to show that’s not normally him and won’t be afterwards. Having read all the Fleming novels myself, I thought it was still pretty obvious Bond was a bit loose, even if it’s not to the same extent as the movies.

    As noted before, taking it away will be an easy path to make this series and character less distinguishable. But if the majority don’t care that’s what we’ll get. If the tides are turning as it looks, Bond’s fate at the end of NTTD will certainly be extra symbolic for me :D

  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited January 2023 Posts: 2,923
    While he was writing the QOS script, Paul Haggis said 'My Bond's different to all the other Bonds. My Bond's an actual assassin.' Not sure, but that might have been the first time it was spelled out so explicitly. But, as Haggis said, that was 'his' Bond - it doesn't mean that the others were or that the next one will be. There's so many aspects to the character that could be emphasised or under-played next time out. Part of the anticipation this time is wanting to see where they've gone with him.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited January 2023 Posts: 5,869
    So while all of this talk is hypothetical as we don't know what EON will be doing in terms of modern changes to the character of James Bond, I feel if they make any they won't be big. I think Bond will still be a womanizer who flirts and sleeps with women, it just won't be in the same way it has been. I say this because I feel they will make an active effort to make sure the Bond girls themselves are more important than their bedding.

    While some will say that the franchise is ahead of its time when it comes to female characters, and while I think that's partly true, we have to admit that the franchise definitely has more than enough examples of writing in a female character for the sake of upping Bond's body count and I'm not talking about kills. The franchise also had examples of Bond sleeping with women in vulnerable positions, with Bond seemingly manipulating them into sex by using their vulnerabilities. It's even happened recently with Severine and Lucia Sciarra.

    So if there are any changes, they'll be in terms of avoiding things like I've mentioned above. They'll make sure that Bond's sex life is necessary. We don't need Bond sleeping with women in vulnerable positions for information unless an effort is made narratively and in terms of character development to make us believe why this woman would sleep with Bond.

    And if that's something you'll miss then honestly tough. What's more important to you that Bond is promiscuous or that he's promiscuous in quite manipulative ways? Because again I think the latter is what will be changed.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2023 Posts: 14,930
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I brought up the killing as an only slightly sarcastic point when it seemed to me so obvious that it and womanizing were key traits that are *at least* talked about / hinted at if not thoroughly depicted in all the movies. And no one here but me seems to mind if it stays part of the franchise anymore. I never said any two incarnations of Bond are 100% the same, but the same general ingredients are always there. Therefore, 100% taking out the sexually promiscuous aspect to Bond would be a drastic departure.

    No-one actually suggested that though, did they. Not even the screenrant article.

    I replied to your point about the killing by pointing out that there has been a film where he kills almost no-one (I guess admittedly I didn't count the one who somehow bleeds into his pistol in the gunbarrel sequence! :D )- to show you that your worries have already happened, and everything was fine.
    Venutius wrote: »
    While he was writing the QOS script, Paul Haggis said 'My Bond's different to all the other Bonds. My Bond's an actual assassin.' Not sure, but that might have been the first time it was spelled out so explicitly. But, as Haggis said, that was 'his' Bond - it doesn't mean that the next one will be. There's so many aspects to the character that could be emphasised or under-played next time out. Part of the anticipation this time is wanting to see where they've gone with him.

    Yeah, it's all about choosing what to accentuate and what to dial back. If he's stayed recognisably Bond after all this time of little adjustments here and there, it seems unlikely that suddenly no more tweaks can be made without him becoming a different character.
  • edited January 2023 Posts: 12,258
    @Denbigh

    I’d be 1000% satisfied if this is what we were to get. That’s 1000% fair and by all means should please everyone, and yet, my gut says the producers are going to just take the easy route and sidestep it altogether. I’ve mentioned plenty times before how I’m happy with and it’s a good thing we don’t have the shadier moments like GF and TB ones anymore, or just women that are embarrassingly one-dimensional for the sex.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited January 2023 Posts: 5,869
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I’d be 1000% satisfied if this is what we were to get. That’s 1000% fair and by all means should please everyone, and yet, my gut says the producers are going to just take the easy route sidestep it altogether. I’ve mentioned plenty times before how I’m happy with and it’s a good thing we don’t have the shadier moments like GF and TB ones, or just women that are embarrassingly one-dimensional for the sex.
    I think it's hard to tell what they want to do because I think No Time To Die was that first step to making a more active effort and because the script focused so heavily on the romance between Madeleine and Bond, I can understand why they left it out. Nomi as a character isn't written to be a love interest despite us knowing that Bond is initially attracted to her and would've slept with her if she didn't turn to be who she was.

    Paloma I think was more because of how late she was written and also because of timing. Having Bond sleep with Paloma wasn't necessary especially given how she only appears in one sequence and would've maybe felt like just a bed mate for Bond if they'd slept together. But again they made an effort to let us know that Bond would've been up for it otherwise.

    So yeah they could go in either direction but for now we can rest easy that it's still just as likely for them to keep the promiscuousness of James Bond.
Sign In or Register to comment.