› ›

Where does Bond go after Craig?

1…747748749750751753»

Comments

  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,416
    007HallY wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    TheSkyfallen06 wrote: »

    Bingo.

    If she shays no it meansh yesh

    'You want to shlap a woman with an open palm, not a fist..."

    Anyway, I'm being facetious again. I've only skimmed through the video so I might be way off the guy's analysis, but I'm not sure I fully agree with him when he talks about the Bond not being a 'hedonist' as of late and not engaging with the culture of where he's at (I guess since the Craig films?) You get Bond switching hotels in QOS (which I think is a great joke in a Bond film I'm mixed on), him commenting on the lamb in CR, and even ordering his specific cocktail in both films. One thing I loved about SF was that we saw Bond very easily drinking with locals and doing the scorpion drinking game (it's actually one of those weird things I can't imagine any cinematic Bond doing apart from Craig without looking totally uncomfortable, and yet I can imagine Fleming's Bond, perhaps a bit tipsy, doing the same thing and really applying himself to it in the right circumstance).

    I think the next Bond film has to do a bit better than Bond simply turning his nose up at a certain kind of brandy or immediately knowing the kind of vintage of wine he's drinking. Or having been to Oxford and studied however many languages (unless it's done in a certain way that just comes off as bulls*it nowadays). It's a fine line between making an onscreen Bond look like a pretentious ars*hole and making him out to be cultured, but moreover well travelled and interesting.


    The scorpion drinking game is something Rambo would do.

    I think Bourne spent his time having street fights.

    It may be the nature of "killing machines".

    That's fine. Love that scene. I like the idea of bond engaging in more dangerous 'local practices' like that. Really emphasises his love of danger.

    I always have to think back to one film podcast talking about Skyfall. In their "nitpicking" section, they mention how in 2012 that 100% would have ended up on YouTube. "Sick scorpion trick on Turkish Beach!" Maybe keep a lower profile, if you want the SIS to think you're dead? On the other hand, the point of the scene is that Bond can't stand doing nothing. So he does that...

    Do love the scene though. To me - if that makes sense - it's utterly Bond and yet something only Craig's version would have done.
  • BurgessBurgess
    edited June 17 Posts: 454
    007HallY wrote: »
    Oh yeah, I find it very Fleming esque too. The whole idea of Bond being in his own little exile is great. You know Bond’s said to himself he’s going to drink until he gets horribly drunk (which is something the literary Bond certainly decided to do on occasion!) Alcoholic behaviour in reality certainly, and SF doesn’t shy away from emphasising Bond’s state of mind, but at the same time there’s something weirdly cool about the scorpion scene and even him looking haggard and putting money in for that McCallan as the sun comes up. Like we’ve stopped short of seeing Bond sleeping on a bench or heaving up the next morning. It gets that balance right.
    Burgess wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    TheSkyfallen06 wrote: »

    Bingo.

    If she shays no it meansh yesh

    'You want to shlap a woman with an open palm, not a fist..."

    Anyway, I'm being facetious again. I've only skimmed through the video so I might be way off the guy's analysis, but I'm not sure I fully agree with him when he talks about the Bond not being a 'hedonist' as of late and not engaging with the culture of where he's at (I guess since the Craig films?) You get Bond switching hotels in QOS (which I think is a great joke in a Bond film I'm mixed on), him commenting on the lamb in CR, and even ordering his specific cocktail in both films. One thing I loved about SF was that we saw Bond very easily drinking with locals and doing the scorpion drinking game (it's actually one of those weird things I can't imagine any cinematic Bond doing apart from Craig without looking totally uncomfortable, and yet I can imagine Fleming's Bond, perhaps a bit tipsy, doing the same thing and really applying himself to it in the right circumstance).

    I think the next Bond film has to do a bit better than Bond simply turning his nose up at a certain kind of brandy or immediately knowing the kind of vintage of wine he's drinking. Or having been to Oxford and studied however many languages (unless it's done in a certain way that just comes off as bulls*it nowadays). It's a fine line between making an onscreen Bond look like a pretentious ars*hole and making him out to be cultured, but moreover well travelled and interesting.

    I think the video creator makes the case that the Bond films should not simply bring back the cultural flourishes of older entries, but immerse audiences in a time, in a place and with a people. Bond’s knowledge and tastes are cultivated from a life well lived. I’d argue that a well-lived man is inquisitive and curious and, in many ways, multicultural in his thinking and behavior.

    That’s not to say that Bond’s view of the world isn’t (or shouldn’t) be filtered through British eyes, but Bond’s love and enjoyment of other peoples and customs is a clear motivation and explanation of why he chose to be Britain’s blunt instrument of justice. Fleming’s Bond is a type of colonial or Edwardian Briton that doesn’t (and maybe shouldn’t) exist anymore, but he can be recontextualized.

    The video creator is smart to cite Anthony Bourdain as a possible inspiration for Bond’s modernization. Bourdain was explorative, compassionate and adventurous. Fleming and Bourdain, though separated by time, place, class and politics, shared a love for the unexplored corners of any city. In modern parlance, these two men were always looking for a vibe: a satisfying meal, a stiff drink, a good smoke, interesting people and dynamic living.




    I’ll need to give the video a proper watch. I’d say a big difference between the literary Bond and cinematic one is that the latter doesn’t express many opinions on other cultures/where he visits (partially due to the character’s internal thoughts being overt in the books, but I think there’s an element that Bond can come off as a bit of a snobbish d*ckhead if he starts voicing certain opinions. I’m thinking of the Beatles/earmuffs line in GF - bizzare line which takes me out of the film and briefly makes Bond come off as insufferable).

    Rather than shy away from Bond’s snobbery, writer’s should offer counterpoints within the narrative. Bond’s sexism has been brilliantly commented upon and woven into his interactions with other characters. The same could be done for his snobbery. Or writer’s could do a better job at making Bond more Bourdain than Edwardian in his approach.

  • StamperStamper
    Posts: 433
    Why, Bond is referring to women screaming their lungs out at Beatles gigs. It's not about the music.
  • BurgessBurgess
    Posts: 454
    Stamper wrote: »
    Why, Bond is referring to women screaming their lungs out at Beatles gigs. It's not about the music.

    To be fair, if that interpretation is correct, it’s not reflected in how the line is structured or delivered.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited June 17 Posts: 5,420
    Burgess wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Oh yeah, I find it very Fleming esque too. The whole idea of Bond being in his own little exile is great. You know Bond’s said to himself he’s going to drink until he gets horribly drunk (which is something the literary Bond certainly decided to do on occasion!) Alcoholic behaviour in reality certainly, and SF doesn’t shy away from emphasising Bond’s state of mind, but at the same time there’s something weirdly cool about the scorpion scene and even him looking haggard and putting money in for that McCallan as the sun comes up. Like we’ve stopped short of seeing Bond sleeping on a bench or heaving up the next morning. It gets that balance right.
    Burgess wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    TheSkyfallen06 wrote: »

    Bingo.

    If she shays no it meansh yesh

    'You want to shlap a woman with an open palm, not a fist..."

    Anyway, I'm being facetious again. I've only skimmed through the video so I might be way off the guy's analysis, but I'm not sure I fully agree with him when he talks about the Bond not being a 'hedonist' as of late and not engaging with the culture of where he's at (I guess since the Craig films?) You get Bond switching hotels in QOS (which I think is a great joke in a Bond film I'm mixed on), him commenting on the lamb in CR, and even ordering his specific cocktail in both films. One thing I loved about SF was that we saw Bond very easily drinking with locals and doing the scorpion drinking game (it's actually one of those weird things I can't imagine any cinematic Bond doing apart from Craig without looking totally uncomfortable, and yet I can imagine Fleming's Bond, perhaps a bit tipsy, doing the same thing and really applying himself to it in the right circumstance).

    I think the next Bond film has to do a bit better than Bond simply turning his nose up at a certain kind of brandy or immediately knowing the kind of vintage of wine he's drinking. Or having been to Oxford and studied however many languages (unless it's done in a certain way that just comes off as bulls*it nowadays). It's a fine line between making an onscreen Bond look like a pretentious ars*hole and making him out to be cultured, but moreover well travelled and interesting.

    I think the video creator makes the case that the Bond films should not simply bring back the cultural flourishes of older entries, but immerse audiences in a time, in a place and with a people. Bond’s knowledge and tastes are cultivated from a life well lived. I’d argue that a well-lived man is inquisitive and curious and, in many ways, multicultural in his thinking and behavior.

    That’s not to say that Bond’s view of the world isn’t (or shouldn’t) be filtered through British eyes, but Bond’s love and enjoyment of other peoples and customs is a clear motivation and explanation of why he chose to be Britain’s blunt instrument of justice. Fleming’s Bond is a type of colonial or Edwardian Briton that doesn’t (and maybe shouldn’t) exist anymore, but he can be recontextualized.

    The video creator is smart to cite Anthony Bourdain as a possible inspiration for Bond’s modernization. Bourdain was explorative, compassionate and adventurous. Fleming and Bourdain, though separated by time, place, class and politics, shared a love for the unexplored corners of any city. In modern parlance, these two men were always looking for a vibe: a satisfying meal, a stiff drink, a good smoke, interesting people and dynamic living.




    I’ll need to give the video a proper watch. I’d say a big difference between the literary Bond and cinematic one is that the latter doesn’t express many opinions on other cultures/where he visits (partially due to the character’s internal thoughts being overt in the books, but I think there’s an element that Bond can come off as a bit of a snobbish d*ckhead if he starts voicing certain opinions. I’m thinking of the Beatles/earmuffs line in GF - bizzare line which takes me out of the film and briefly makes Bond come off as insufferable).

    Rather than shy away from Bond’s snobbery, writer’s should offer counterpoints within the narrative. Bond’s sexism has been brilliantly commented upon and woven into his interactions with other characters. The same could be done for his snobbery. Or writer’s could do a better job at making Bond more Bourdain than Edwardian in his approach.

    I think in general, yes that's a good way of leaning into Bond's traits without completely sanitising him. But I also think there's always consideration for Bond's sexism and snobbery. CR was never going to have Craig's Bond angrily claiming women have no place in the field and should stay in the kitchen (even Fleming downplayed this aspect of Bond by MR, and I suspect even in the 60s that line wouldn't fly). Movie Bond can be a bit of an arrogant womanising b*stard, but he can't have that outright dislike of women. Same for Bond's snobbishness. Go too far, even with a counterpoint, and the audience turn against Bond.
    Burgess wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    Why, Bond is referring to women screaming their lungs out at Beatles gigs. It's not about the music.

    To be fair, if that interpretation is correct, it’s not reflected in how the line is structured or delivered.

    No, and even if that were the 'joke' it'd still mean Bond is being dismissive of The Beatles. It's a weird line in the sense that it's aged horribly and doesn't make Bond look good. It's a line more suited to something like Mad Men in just how ironic and out of touch it is with that hindsight.
  • BurgessBurgess
    Posts: 454
    007HallY wrote: »
    Burgess wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Oh yeah, I find it very Fleming esque too. The whole idea of Bond being in his own little exile is great. You know Bond’s said to himself he’s going to drink until he gets horribly drunk (which is something the literary Bond certainly decided to do on occasion!) Alcoholic behaviour in reality certainly, and SF doesn’t shy away from emphasising Bond’s state of mind, but at the same time there’s something weirdly cool about the scorpion scene and even him looking haggard and putting money in for that McCallan as the sun comes up. Like we’ve stopped short of seeing Bond sleeping on a bench or heaving up the next morning. It gets that balance right.
    Burgess wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    TheSkyfallen06 wrote: »

    Bingo.

    If she shays no it meansh yesh

    'You want to shlap a woman with an open palm, not a fist..."

    Anyway, I'm being facetious again. I've only skimmed through the video so I might be way off the guy's analysis, but I'm not sure I fully agree with him when he talks about the Bond not being a 'hedonist' as of late and not engaging with the culture of where he's at (I guess since the Craig films?) You get Bond switching hotels in QOS (which I think is a great joke in a Bond film I'm mixed on), him commenting on the lamb in CR, and even ordering his specific cocktail in both films. One thing I loved about SF was that we saw Bond very easily drinking with locals and doing the scorpion drinking game (it's actually one of those weird things I can't imagine any cinematic Bond doing apart from Craig without looking totally uncomfortable, and yet I can imagine Fleming's Bond, perhaps a bit tipsy, doing the same thing and really applying himself to it in the right circumstance).

    I think the next Bond film has to do a bit better than Bond simply turning his nose up at a certain kind of brandy or immediately knowing the kind of vintage of wine he's drinking. Or having been to Oxford and studied however many languages (unless it's done in a certain way that just comes off as bulls*it nowadays). It's a fine line between making an onscreen Bond look like a pretentious ars*hole and making him out to be cultured, but moreover well travelled and interesting.

    I think the video creator makes the case that the Bond films should not simply bring back the cultural flourishes of older entries, but immerse audiences in a time, in a place and with a people. Bond’s knowledge and tastes are cultivated from a life well lived. I’d argue that a well-lived man is inquisitive and curious and, in many ways, multicultural in his thinking and behavior.

    That’s not to say that Bond’s view of the world isn’t (or shouldn’t) be filtered through British eyes, but Bond’s love and enjoyment of other peoples and customs is a clear motivation and explanation of why he chose to be Britain’s blunt instrument of justice. Fleming’s Bond is a type of colonial or Edwardian Briton that doesn’t (and maybe shouldn’t) exist anymore, but he can be recontextualized.

    The video creator is smart to cite Anthony Bourdain as a possible inspiration for Bond’s modernization. Bourdain was explorative, compassionate and adventurous. Fleming and Bourdain, though separated by time, place, class and politics, shared a love for the unexplored corners of any city. In modern parlance, these two men were always looking for a vibe: a satisfying meal, a stiff drink, a good smoke, interesting people and dynamic living.




    I’ll need to give the video a proper watch. I’d say a big difference between the literary Bond and cinematic one is that the latter doesn’t express many opinions on other cultures/where he visits (partially due to the character’s internal thoughts being overt in the books, but I think there’s an element that Bond can come off as a bit of a snobbish d*ckhead if he starts voicing certain opinions. I’m thinking of the Beatles/earmuffs line in GF - bizzare line which takes me out of the film and briefly makes Bond come off as insufferable).

    Rather than shy away from Bond’s snobbery, writer’s should offer counterpoints within the narrative. Bond’s sexism has been brilliantly commented upon and woven into his interactions with other characters. The same could be done for his snobbery. Or writer’s could do a better job at making Bond more Bourdain than Edwardian in his approach.

    I think in general, yes that's a good way of leaning into Bond's traits without completely sanitising him. But I also think there's always consideration for Bond's sexism and snobbery. CR was never going to have Craig's Bond angrily claiming women have no place in the field and should stay in the kitchen (even Fleming downplayed this aspect of Bond by MR, and I suspect even in the 60s that line wouldn't fly). Movie Bond can be a bit of an arrogant womanising b*stard, but he can't have that outright dislike of women. Same for Bond's snobbishness. Go too far, even with a counterpoint, and the audience turn against Bond.

    I completely agree. It’s clear that giving Bond a backstory for his distrust of women in CR made some un-modern or anachronistic aspects of his personality more palatable for audiences. Context matters. Characterization matters. Audiences will pick up on these things but they have to exist within the narrative.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,268
    Burgess wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    Why, Bond is referring to women screaming their lungs out at Beatles gigs. It's not about the music.

    To be fair, if that interpretation is correct, it’s not reflected in how the line is structured or delivered.

    Ha! That's a better way of phrasing it than anything I could think of :)
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 2,118
    007HallY wrote: »
    Burgess wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »

    No, and even if that were the 'joke' it'd still mean Bond is being dismissive of The Beatles. It's a weird line in the sense that it's aged horribly and doesn't make Bond look good. It's a line more suited to something like Mad Men in just how ironic and out of touch it is with that hindsight.

    Older people didn't like the Beatles. That's all.

    To be honest, I can't imagine Bond liking hippies either, so I don't think the line has aged.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 2,118

    007HallY wrote: »
    Burgess wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Oh yeah, I find it very Fleming esque too. The whole idea of Bond being in his own little exile is great. You know Bond’s said to himself he’s going to drink until he gets horribly drunk (which is something the literary Bond certainly decided to do on occasion!) Alcoholic behaviour in reality certainly, and SF doesn’t shy away from emphasising Bond’s state of mind, but at the same time there’s something weirdly cool about the scorpion scene and even him looking haggard and putting money in for that McCallan as the sun comes up. Like we’ve stopped short of seeing Bond sleeping on a bench or heaving up the next morning. It gets that balance right.
    Burgess wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    TheSkyfallen06 wrote: »

    Bingo.

    If she shays no it meansh yesh

    'You want to shlap a woman with an open palm, not a fist..."

    Anyway, I'm being facetious again. I've only skimmed through the video so I might be way off the guy's analysis, but I'm not sure I fully agree with him when he talks about the Bond not being a 'hedonist' as of late and not engaging with the culture of where he's at (I guess since the Craig films?) You get Bond switching hotels in QOS (which I think is a great joke in a Bond film I'm mixed on), him commenting on the lamb in CR, and even ordering his specific cocktail in both films. One thing I loved about SF was that we saw Bond very easily drinking with locals and doing the scorpion drinking game (it's actually one of those weird things I can't imagine any cinematic Bond doing apart from Craig without looking totally uncomfortable, and yet I can imagine Fleming's Bond, perhaps a bit tipsy, doing the same thing and really applying himself to it in the right circumstance).

    I think the next Bond film has to do a bit better than Bond simply turning his nose up at a certain kind of brandy or immediately knowing the kind of vintage of wine he's drinking. Or having been to Oxford and studied however many languages (unless it's done in a certain way that just comes off as bulls*it nowadays). It's a fine line between making an onscreen Bond look like a pretentious ars*hole and making him out to be cultured, but moreover well travelled and interesting.

    I think the video creator makes the case that the Bond films should not simply bring back the cultural flourishes of older entries, but immerse audiences in a time, in a place and with a people. Bond’s knowledge and tastes are cultivated from a life well lived. I’d argue that a well-lived man is inquisitive and curious and, in many ways, multicultural in his thinking and behavior.

    That’s not to say that Bond’s view of the world isn’t (or shouldn’t) be filtered through British eyes, but Bond’s love and enjoyment of other peoples and customs is a clear motivation and explanation of why he chose to be Britain’s blunt instrument of justice. Fleming’s Bond is a type of colonial or Edwardian Briton that doesn’t (and maybe shouldn’t) exist anymore, but he can be recontextualized.

    The video creator is smart to cite Anthony Bourdain as a possible inspiration for Bond’s modernization. Bourdain was explorative, compassionate and adventurous. Fleming and Bourdain, though separated by time, place, class and politics, shared a love for the unexplored corners of any city. In modern parlance, these two men were always looking for a vibe: a satisfying meal, a stiff drink, a good smoke, interesting people and dynamic living.




    I’ll need to give the video a proper watch. I’d say a big difference between the literary Bond and cinematic one is that the latter doesn’t express many opinions on other cultures/where he visits (partially due to the character’s internal thoughts being overt in the books, but I think there’s an element that Bond can come off as a bit of a snobbish d*ckhead if he starts voicing certain opinions. I’m thinking of the Beatles/earmuffs line in GF - bizzare line which takes me out of the film and briefly makes Bond come off as insufferable).

    Rather than shy away from Bond’s snobbery, writer’s should offer counterpoints within the narrative. Bond’s sexism has been brilliantly commented upon and woven into his interactions with other characters. The same could be done for his snobbery. Or writer’s could do a better job at making Bond more Bourdain than Edwardian in his approach.

    I think in general, yes that's a good way of leaning into Bond's traits without completely sanitising him. But I also think there's always consideration for Bond's sexism and snobbery. CR was never going to have Craig's Bond angrily claiming women have no place in the field and should stay in the kitchen (even Fleming downplayed this aspect of Bond by MR, and I suspect even in the 60s that line wouldn't fly). Movie Bond can be a bit of an arrogant womanising b*stard, but he can't have that outright dislike of women. Same for Bond's snobbishness. Go too far, even with a counterpoint, and the audience turn against Bond.
    Burgess wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    Why, Bond is referring to women screaming their lungs out at Beatles gigs. It's not about the music.

    To be fair, if that interpretation is correct, it’s not reflected in how the line is structured or delivered.

    No, and even if that were the 'joke' it'd still mean Bond is being dismissive of The Beatles. It's a weird line in the sense that it's aged horribly and doesn't make Bond look good. It's a line more suited to something like Mad Men in just how ironic and out of touch it is with that hindsight.


    Older people didn't like the Beatles. That's all.

    To be honest, I can't imagine Bond liking hippies either, so I don't think the line has aged.

  • CrabKeyCrabKey
    Posts: 2,199
    Beatles fan that I was in 65, yes, the line irritated me. But imagining Bond listening to The Beatles then or now seems out of character. I can't imagine our new, young Bond listening to popular music. Bond doesn't seem the type.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Being chauffeured by Tibbett
    Posts: 805
    I guess it does make him seem like an out-of-touch elitist, but on the other hand, I don't really care if Bond likes The Beatles or not. I think even today, Bond would be above pop culture. He's just got more important things on his mind.

    I don't want to hear the next Bond talk about how much he loves Chappell Roan.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited 3:19am Posts: 3,954
    Bond should be neutral of Popular Culture, whether he's a fan of any musicians/artists or not, but he should be stirred clear of any talks, it's just a bit awkward to me.

    I just can't imagine Bond giving attention to popular culture, it's almost like breaking a fourth wall to me that they're making Bond saying those things just to show that the world he's living in seemed real (like "hey I'm updated to these things because I'm living in the same world as all of you" an ode to the audience), and just felt forced and yes, out of character.
    George_Kaplan wrote: »
    I guess it does make him seem like an out-of-touch elitist,
    I do think he really is, like you have the literary Bond being attached to Echoes of Paris' La Vie En Rose by George Feyer in 1956 (Diamonds Are Forever novel), granted, the song have personal connection to him via Vesper Lynd, but what if Tiffany Case played an Elvis Presley on her Turntable, instead of that song? I can't help but to think of what would be the reaction of the literary Bond? 😁

  • MonorailerMonorailer
    Posts: 43
    I sometimes wonder what the Beatles themselves would have made of that line. I imagine they would have laughed their socks off.
  • ColonelAdamskiColonelAdamski UK
    Posts: 1,158
    Whenever I see that scene, I always put it down to it being 1964, and the Beatles were pretty new, and 'just' a loud beat-group. Their more subtle, intricate and refined recordings were yet to come.
    I doubt if Bond would have said the same in 1970.
    It's never bothered me, and I think it very likely that James Bond, in 1964, would think the Beatles were a bit of a racket.
  • StamperStamper
    Posts: 433
    I always interpreted that line as being about screaming women, but then you also have to put it in context, The Beatles were often listened LOUD on mono record player, or small portable radios. Older people thought that was just noise. "Turn that down!" LOL

    At the time, they weren't the audiophile experience they are today, GF is 1964, so only 3 albums were out in the UK by the time GF came out, about the same in the US, and the Beatlemania phenomenon was in full swing, with Hard Day's Night out in the theaters about a month after GF.

    I'd say it was a meta wink from the writers at the film competition, and the line got a lots of laughs back then. Bond is not dismissive, he's just saying to enjoy them, you need some chillin', just like when enjoying Champagne.
  • ColonelAdamskiColonelAdamski UK
    Posts: 1,158
    The Beatles are now seen (quite rightly) as one of the greatest Bands ever, but in '64 they were part of the Merseybeat scene which was definitely geared towards teenagers. I couldn't imagine Bond in his thirties, with his military background in his Saville Row suits, liking all that racket.
    And of course, a few years later he'd find himself in New Orleans, watching a performance of a song written by a Beatle. And he wasn't wearing earmuffs then.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 2,118
    ColonelAdamski wrote: »
    The Beatles are now seen (quite rightly) as one of the greatest Bands ever, but in '64 they were part of the Merseybeat scene which was definitely geared towards teenagers. I couldn't imagine Bond in his thirties, with his military background in his Saville Row suits, liking all that racket.
    And of course, a few years later he'd find himself in New Orleans, watching a performance of a song written by a Beatle. And he wasn't wearing earmuffs then.

    "The things I do for England"
  • StamperStamper
    edited 12:04pm Posts: 433
    Hahaaa, yes my interpretation is that Bond doesn't mind new stuff, he just has the same attitude with The Beatles that he have with the Q gadgets. An earmuffs are one hell of a gadget!
    Remember in the 60's it was the 3 B, Bond, Beatles, Batman.
    I asked Grok about it, here's what it says:
    In the 1964 James Bond film *Goldfinger*, Sean Connery’s 007 delivers a memorable line while preparing to chill a bottle of Dom Perignon ’53: “My dear girl, there are some things that just aren’t done, such as drinking Dom Perignon ’53 above the temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit. That’s just as bad as listening to the Beatles without earmuffs!” This quote, often cited for its cultural significance, has sparked debate about whether Bond is genuinely dismissive of the Beatles or simply making a playful jab.[](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058150/quotes/)

    ### Context of the Quote
    The line occurs early in the film, during a scene where Bond is entertaining Jill Masterson in a Miami hotel room. It’s 1964, the height of Beatlemania, with the Fab Four dominating global pop culture. Their film *A Hard Day’s Night* had just premiered months before *Goldfinger*, and their music was inescapable. Bond, as a sophisticated, martini-sipping spy, embodies a more traditional, high-class masculinity, often associated with opera or jazz rather than the raucous energy of rock ‘n’ roll. The mention of “earmuffs” suggests the Beatles’ music is loud and overwhelming, potentially clashing with Bond’s refined tastes.[](https://ultimateclassicrock.com/james-bond-dissed-the-beatles/)

    ### Is Bond Dismissive?
    Several factors support the idea that the line is dismissive:
    - **Cultural Divide**: In 1964, the Beatles were seen as a youth phenomenon, appealing primarily to teenagers and young women. To older or more conservative audiences, their music was a noisy disruption. Bond, as a character in his 30s with a taste for luxury, might reflect this perspective, aligning with the “establishment” view that rock music was a passing fad. The scriptwriters, Richard Maibaum and Paul Dehn, likely crafted the line to position Bond as slightly out of touch with the younger generation’s obsession.[](https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-James-Bond-meant-when-he-said-thats-as-bad-as-listening-to-the-Beatles-without-earmuffs-in-the-movie-Goldfinger)[](https://spywhothrills.com/goldfinger)
    - **Character Consistency**: Bond’s persona in *Goldfinger* emphasizes sophistication and control. His critique of the Beatles parallels his disdain for improperly chilled champagne, framing both as violations of good taste. This fits his role as a cultural arbiter, dismissing what he sees as uncouth.[](https://wineintro.com/movies/bond/goldfinger.html)
    - **Historical Reception**: Some contemporary audiences, particularly older Bond fans, celebrated the line as a jab at the Beatles, reinforcing the idea that 007 preferred more “mature” entertainment. The quote also resonated with those who saw Bond as a counterpoint to the counterculture emerging in the ‘60s.[](https://masonandsons.com/blogs/the-periodical/bond-s-battle-with-the-beatles)

    ### Is It a Joke?
    On the other hand, the line can be read as a tongue-in-cheek jest, possibly hinting at Bond’s secret enjoyment of the Beatles:
    - **Bond’s Humor**: *Goldfinger* marks a shift in the Bond series toward self-aware humor, with director Guy Hamilton leaning into winks and nods to the audience. The “earmuffs” comment is exaggerated and absurd, suggesting Bond is poking fun rather than issuing a serious critique. His dry delivery could imply he’s aware of the Beatles’ cultural dominance and is simply having a laugh.[](https://thetwingeeks.com/2019/06/26/james-bond-retrospective-goldfinger/)
    - **Cultural Irony**: The filmmakers were savvy about pop culture. By 1964, the Beatles were already a global juggernaut, and dismissing them outright would seem comically out of step. The line might be a playful acknowledgment of their ubiquity, with Bond feigning irritation while secretly appreciating their appeal. The fact that *Goldfinger* and *A Hard Day’s Night* shared actors like Margaret Nolan and Richard Vernon further ties the two phenomena together, suggesting the filmmakers saw them as parallel cultural forces.[](https://www.womansworld.com/entertainment/movies/goldfinger-60-years-60-facts-about-the-third-james-bond-movie)[](https://ultimateclassicrock.com/james-bond-dissed-the-beatles/)
    - **Bond’s Adaptability**: Bond is a chameleon, adapting to any environment. While he projects snobbery, he’s not above engaging with popular trends. Later Bond films embraced Beatles connections, like Paul McCartney’s *Live and Let Die* theme in 1973, produced by George Martin, who also worked on *Goldfinger*’s score. This suggests the franchise wasn’t hostile to the Beatles, and the line might reflect Bond’s ability to jest about trends he’s secretly in tune with.[](https://masonandsons.com/blogs/the-periodical/bond-s-battle-with-the-beatles)

    ### Broader Cultural Significance
    The quote captures a fascinating moment when Bond and the Beatles were rival icons of British pop culture. Both debuted on October 5, 1962—Bond with *Dr. No* and the Beatles with “Love Me Do”—and by 1964, they were global sensations. The line reflects a playful tension between Bond’s old-school sophistication and the Beatles’ youthful rebellion, a tension that mirrored broader generational shifts. Ironically, the Beatles and Bond later intertwined: McCartney’s Bond theme, Ringo Starr’s marriage to Bond girl Barbara Bach, and George Martin’s work on both franchises bridged the gap.[](https://masonandsons.com/blogs/the-periodical/bond-s-battle-with-the-beatles)[](https://ultimateclassicrock.com/james-bond-dissed-the-beatles/)

    ### My Take
    The line is primarily a joke, designed to highlight Bond’s suave, slightly snobbish persona while winking at the audience. The absurdity of “earmuffs” and the pairing with a champagne faux pas suggest it’s not a serious dig but a playful exaggeration. However, it’s dismissive in tone, reflecting Bond’s curated image as a man above fleeting trends. I doubt Bond secretly enjoys the Beatles in this moment—his character in *Goldfinger* is too self-assured to admit liking something so populist—but the filmmakers likely included the line knowing it would age ironically, given the Beatles’ enduring legacy. It’s a snapshot of 1964’s cultural clash, delivered with Bond’s signature wit.

    If you’d like, I can dig deeper into specific scenes, analyze the script’s intent, or explore more Beatles-Bond connections!
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,777
    007HallY wrote: »
    I’m thinking of the Beatles/earmuffs line in GF - bizzare line which takes me out of the film and briefly makes Bond come off as insufferable).

    Ironically, I think this moment is Flemingesque. Do we think Fleming liked the Beatles?

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,268
    echo wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I’m thinking of the Beatles/earmuffs line in GF - bizzare line which takes me out of the film and briefly makes Bond come off as insufferable).

    Ironically, I think this moment is Flemingesque. Do we think Fleming liked the Beatles?

    It's a fair point, and kind of adds to 007HallY's point about the films probably being better off largely without the opinions which Bond would express in the books about people/places etc.
    As for whether Fleming liked the Beatles or not, I wouldn't be surprised if he had never heard of them! :)
  • StamperStamper
    Posts: 433
    Sadly Fleming died before the best Beatles album came out.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 1,049
    Stamper wrote: »
    Sadly Fleming died before the best Beatles album came out.

    Which album do you consider their best?
  • StamperStamper
    Posts: 433
    After the first four, the quality and evolution takes a quantum leap. I love the originals, but the legend was set with the next albums (from Rubber Soul, Revolver up to Abbey Road).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited 3:12pm Posts: 18,268
    sandbagger1 wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    Sadly Fleming died before the best Beatles album came out.

    Which album do you consider their best?

    Tough one, I think I'd have to say... The Best of the Beatles.
  • StamperStamper
    Posts: 433
    A collection of Beatles oldies, but goldies is the best because they erased it from history.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,777
    I love Rubber Soul.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 1,049
    The White Album and Abbey Road are the ones I like best as albums.
  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    Posts: 2,591
    White Album and Let it Be are my go-to’s.
Sign In or Register to comment.