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
Still was never explicitly monogamous - a crucial difference. This is yet another thing getting desexualized.
You felt punished by that film? How exactly? A film about a womanising heterosexual man with his pick of exceptionally attractive women. Try for one second, and I know it's clearly hard for you, to remember, if you feel punished by that, that culture had been dominated by 'warm blooded heterosexuals for its history. And still is. And Bond still is. So I'm honestly asking, where was your problem because you seem shy about being specific, which makes one wonder. If you really need a film to get your kicks that much, go to therapy, because the reason you can't get women and the reason films showing a bit of equality anger you are probably closely connected. Sorry, it's not 'wokeness', it really is you.
Your argument is basically that only your taste can ever be represented, because I know even if it's not Bond and another character, you'll always have a problem with it.
Terrible. Craig's walk and pose were extremely goofy and videogame-like, while the aesthetic changes only detracted from the impact of the sequence (which is heavily nostalgic) for no apparent reason, not to mention looking really cheap and ugly. I'm not necessarily against changing the gunbarrel and some previous changes have been successful (making the barrel 3D and animated in the Brosnan films) while others have not (the CGI bullet in DAD) but in most cases I can see why those changes might have been made, even if they ultimately didn't work. The changes in NTTD were not only detrimental, but there was no discernable reason why they were made. Unless there's a meaningful reason to change or update it, it's beloved for a reason and there's no need to screw around with it just for the sake of changing stuff.
Also, while the transition from the Universal logo to the circles might have worked had it been seamless (maybe had the logo zoomed out until it was the size of a regular gunbarrel circle), but it introduced a cut/edit into the gunbarrel sequence! I mean, who seriously thought that was a worthwhile idea?
You think Bond will stay monogamous for the rest of the franchise? I think that’s an overreaction.
I’m not at all surprised that Bond only gets with Lea Seydoux. I’m more surprised people expected otherwise, given that this film is about reconnecting with a former flame that Bond thought betrayed him. I guess we should have had a token lay for him aka SKYFALL with that Greek bird.
With the way culture is now, it feels like a more than plausible shift. There was plenty potential for Bond to have a traditional “lay” in between his falling out with her character which would have perfectly made sense.
Honestly, just go and watch porn, and the rest of us can watch a grown up film.
Afraid you read me wrong. I felt punished by your words, not the film. And I still do. I've never even used the term "wokeness" as you put it. And you are distorting and amplifying my words quite hysterically. Please don't.
The defenses over Bond’s treatment of Pat and Pussy Galore in the past week is telling.
We had the exact same criticism about Bond's monogamy over thirty years ago with TLD and the press attributing it to the 'AIDS crisis' when in truth it wouldn't have served the plot for Dalton's Bond to continually dump Kara from his protection to bonk a random woman.
I also have a work colleague whom refuses to accept OHMSS as canon because Bond marries in it. I've pointed out numerous times it was Bond's own creator whom married Bond in the original novel but that still holds no sway. "Bond doesn't marry".
I wasn't around in 1955 but I very much doubt the literary fans were bemoaning the end of the character because he didn't sleep with Gala Brand in MR.
Regardless of what manufactured outrage the tabloid press or half-arsed fans on You Tube say about the direction of the series I'd personally judge the films on what actually occurs in them. None of the 'woke Bond' criticism truly manifested in NTTD either. I discern a few of these online critics are now quite peeved that they can't slam the film on that premise.
There’s still the woman in the PTS. It’s still made clear and allows Dalton Bond to be a player. The difference between 1 and 2 still means everything, or at least clearly interested in more (QOS). It’s just hard to shake the feeling they’re giving into pressure and want to take that part of his character away.
Indeed, in their mind everything is OK as long as it's someone like them acting out their fantasy, whoever it hurts, and no-one should complain.
But if someone dares suggest others have the right to be represented, watch how quickly they go full snowflake!
The type who think everything has to be as it was pre 1960s because change is woke. And yet they are strangely reluctant to go back a bit further and respect that white people taking over was pretty woke once.
I strongly believe that is the case, stronger now than ever before.
Please tell me how a gay character appearing in something punishes you for your sexuality. Please, as a fellow heterosexual male, make it make sense for me.
Hence my “interested in more,” since he only beds one in QOS, but it’s still obviously not a “monogamous Bond.”
He got married in OHMSS, dude… Unless
you’re suggesting his plan with Tracy was to have an open marriage?
Because he was monogamous in ONE film? The fact that he would've slept with Nomi had his suspicions of her being sent by MI-6 been wrong aside...good grief. Did you think watching DAD that the franchise was at risk of having Bond surf a tsunami in every film afterwards? Because the two ideas are about equally ridiculous.
I strongly believe that is the case, stronger now than ever before.
I never said that. It's not there in what I wrote, and I don't even agree with that. So what on earth are you talking about? I was talking about it not being wrong to have Bond be a womaniser. That's all. Why are you guys talking about gay characters? I have no problem with gay characters. Are we getting mixed posts here?
Yes - and he wasn’t monogamous for the entirety of the film. He’s with Madeleine at the beginning of NTTD, but it’s like clear they’re done until much later in the movie, so Bond not having any sex in between doesn’t make as much sense.
I think he was, and it was implied, and I had no problem with that whatsoever.
Man, if GE came out today, there would be the traditionalists/sticklers complaining loudly about Moneypenny going out on a date.
“SHE SHOULD ONLY PINE FOR BOND! THIS IS AN UTTER BETRAYAL OF CUBBY’S LEGACY! DAMN WOKE/FEMINISTS!!!”
I do love how whether they shagged or not in SF is open ended. It really could have gone either way depending on how you want to see it.
Lois Maxwell once said she liked to imagine the two went on a holiday somewhere for a couple days, and maybe they did or maybe they didn't, and either way they let it be afterwards save for their playful flirtations.
For what it's worth, the DAD sequence enrages me. The idea that Moneypenny looks at Bond like he's internet porn is ridiculous and such a condescending betrayal of the character. To BOTH characters, actually.
When it first appeared and I saw the Universal logo transition into the gunbarrel sequence, I thought hey, that's cool and creative.. But then it quickly went downhill the moment the dots appeared, sort of breaking off the seamlessness and then Bond walked into the frame with the new look. I was like what the heck was that. And then to top it off, no blood flow.