It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Yeah this is an excellent post- all of that sounds good to me. Personally I want more interesting female characters (and I'm not sure Craig's films entirely kept up with some of the others out there), not because of dull culture war stuff, but because... why wouldn't you want interesting characters in a film you're watching?
Yep, I’ve also mentioned before I can excuse NTTD for the lack of womanizing as the romance was a focal point. But it’ll be pretty solidified and obvious if we get a monogamous Bond two straight films here. I think there’s fret over the “problematic” elements even though it really doesn’t have to be that way at all. Bond 26 will be the true test, but I’m very wary.
I'd only be concerned about bigger and riskier changes if another company was taking over from EON, which will hopefully never happen.
I see what people mean when they say that Bond's seductions of Severine and Lucia could look a bit dubious. I don't think they were, though. Both women had been trapped in loveless, dead relationships for years. No one's touched them with any real desire for a long time. Suddenly, here's CraigBond with his old skool masculinity and raging T-levels, making an unexpected entrance into their little drama, and for the first time in a long time someone's not scared of Silva or Sciarra and actively wants them. Why wouldn't they respond, positively?
Hey, better them than Disney, that’s for sure!
I think Severine's I'm slightly itchy about just because she'd been exploited in the sex trade and that felt an odd place to put Bond because although Severine was clearly willing, it kind of felt that she'd been conditioned into that and Bond was taking advantage of a damaged person. Which, y'know; he's not always a good person, and I can deal with that, but that's maybe a grey area I'd prefer him not to step into. But I had no issue with Lucia, and I think she acted it very well- you could tell that she was as attracted to Bond as he was to her.
What I did like about NTTD was that apart from Bond literally being retired, the film didn't treat him as an outdated relic with old-fashioned values, which perhaps the previous couple of films did. Skyfall was interesting for doing that with all the 'old dog' stuff, but perhaps made it feel that Bond as a character didn't have much of a future; but I think NTTD showed that he can work perfectly well in today's world without seeming like a relic. A Bond that still fancies women but also occasionally respects one he can work with, and has some emotional intelligence, is still Bond.
Even a very similar character like Solange felt more nuanced and developed than Lucia.
That comparison isn’t applicable. Bond is more of an anti-hero than a superhero. His licence to kill is what gives him that distinction. Why are you trying to rile yourself up by making up a future audience that might start to wag their finger over violence in movies?
I was already riled up since it seemed to me other Bond fans aren’t as adamant as I am about characteristics I see as essential to his character, that’s all. Anyhow, Batman’s not exactly an orthodox “superhero” himself, since he doesn’t have superhuman powers and still is a pretty dark guy himself in most incarnations I’ve seen.
I think that's why I was so up for Fukunaga's return initially because I felt he'd perfectly captured tonally what worked in both the Craig era and those early more traditional adventures with Connery and Moore in so many areas of the film, so felt giving him a blank slate would lead to an even better James Bond adventure.
Batman is dark character, but he still more a superhero than Bond is in many ways. Where Bond has a licence to kill and does so on many occasions, Batman has for the most part* been someone who emphasizes on bringing criminals to justice, which partly why he has his no kill rule.
*=of course, there’s exceptions like how Zack Snyder straight up turned Batman into Punisher that just straight up kills people left and right.
To be fair, the opening to CR spells it out too.
Yeah. Honestly things are going way off-topic now, but I enjoy both the usual non-killing Batman and Tim Burton's casual murdering one! I've heard people argue a Batman who kills isn't interesting, but for me anyway it was an interesting dynamic how Burton's was essentially just as psychotic as his villains, it makes a unique setup IMO.
Not to mention................."a license to kill is useless, unless one can set up the target".
“Hey, I just saw water right over there in walking distance.”
Not a bad idea.
That was my immediate thought in the cinema. They've just walked from there- it's not that far!!
Camille didn’t seem to care either for what it’s worth.