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
Comments
Yes, from what I've been hearing and reading of Phoebe, she knows Bond has to be a straight white male with his own character flaws. It's the world around him that has evolved and he will have to deal with it. Heck, if you have to have new and current tech and current threads in Bond films, you have to have a clear footprint of a changing world. Bond himself is the one who doesn't have to change, and shouldn't. Show him as a relic, an escape goat for all the wrong doings of white males in the past decades for all I care. Make him a baddie that way, if you want to. A dinosaur. A relic. But the world around him, of course that has to change. A lot, I'd say.
When was the last time the world around Bond didn´t Change? Even Mendes ignored his SF ending with his second Bond film. I mean, come on. Ms. Waller Bridge hasn´t offered one single word that isn´t straight from the Bond production text book.
The grand irony is that back in the Connery days, Bond was the cool and current character at the centre of the story.
It's an interesting reversal and smart acknowledgement to subvert this notion.
No, I didn't say that. I actually defend that Bond films have always shown strong archetypes of women. Bond films have been pro women from day one. And if they openly showed this pseudo feminist craze that's been around, and has wrongly been confused with the honourable metoo movement, and if they blatantly criticised it in some way, along with the new wave censorship that's the PC crowd, I'd be one happy camper, for I abhor these social hysterical movements.
I meant that the world around Bond has to be shown as it is in the present, whatever it is. And that Bond should remain a relic that harkens back to the 50s. But not in a pastiche, cliche way, of course.
I'm not overreacting. @The_Reaper was, IMO.
I, for one, will remain optimistic until I see the film, or at least the bloody trailer. Then, if this was all for show, and Ms. Waller Bridge, as you call her, doesn't deliver the goods, I'll be a vocal critic. But only then. So far, I like what I hear and see.
I've been a Bond fan long enough to be fed up with the photocopied answers the actresses give to the press. "This time the Bond girl will be a Bond woman"; "This time she's Bond equal"; "This time she's not just a bimbo";... Hey, I know they've repeated themselves ad nauseam, when they should've defended the place of Bond girls in the strong women pantheon of film.
I'm not eluded. Nor will I be. But I won't call a quack to a talented writer who just happened to paraphrase Ian Fleming in an interview.
I´m usually very optimistic myself, and I was in fact very optimistic through all what happened during the winter, but for quite a while now I have a similar Feeling to the one I had when SP came out. Which doesn´t mean to say I expect anything in the veign of SP. But my Feelings currently flow between lack of interest and annoyance.
I´ll be all too happy to be proven wrong once this film turns out to be on par with 80% of the other films ;-).
Because they hired a single woman to polish a script already written by a half-dozen men? For the second time in franchise history?
Not even close.
Are people on the forum really complaining about this? It might seem like a very PC thing to do, but it might be a benefit to the production. For example, in the qualification test for the incentive scheme from the Norwegian Film Institute – in which a production must score points from both cultural and production criteria – having a production that "has a strategy for sustainable and green recording" will put the film closer to receiving incentives.
No, for many, many other reasons. Have you not been paying attention to, I dunno, the entire world around you for the last couple decades? Do you not understand what's happening in the Western culture right now and how frightened studios and filmmakers are in how they might be perceived?
Stop baiting people.
I want to talk about Bond 25, not your political insecurities. Please take it elsewhere.
So it's ripe that PC will dance around and confront the Bond character but I'm not seeing him being affected by it. It just plays up the difference while Bond beds women, lives the high life, and kills the bad guys. None of that has gone out of style.
A hedonist. With all the damn faults that this comes with.
Ian Fleming was.
And James Bond is.
He's a pleasure seeker. He seeks pleasure from danger. From women. From gambling and booze (and, at one time, cigarettes).
He's addicted to pleasure in whatever form it comes in.
He's not a woman hater. He's not even, necessarily, a relic. He's a pleasure-seeking hedonist. That's his weakness and his strength (since he derives pleasure from danger, there's a masochist in him that drives the stakes up and up until someone cracks...).
+1(000), Peter. People are just afraid to use that word - hedonism - nowadays, as if we live in a neo social prude society. When I called Bond a relic, I was referring to him being a product of the post war hedonistic crowd that would vacation at the côte d'azur, detaching themselves of war trauma with every form of pleasure. Characters who, used to the treat of death, found similar motions in racing, sex and other adrenaline pumping methods ;)
People nowadays are wimps compared to that generation. Put them in the battlefield, and they'll soil themselves and scream for their mommies. Their notion of pleasure is playing videogames, trimming their stylised beards, watching reality (scripted) tv, and...fighting political correct agendas as the castrated sons and daughter of absent parents they are. Sons with no "gods" to kill, projecting their angsts in listed subjects while still adhering to backward dogmas through religion and a poor and idiotic academic medium.
So, yeah, Bond is a relic. I hope I am as well.
A bit like yours truly. If only I had a Bentley/Aston ;)
Mine would drive it more than I would ;)
This isn't a political thread and that's a warning to both sides.
There was a stab at things getting PC after @Red_Snow posted the link, so I felt it was OK to write a little comment on how employing a sustainability manager (that title was new to me, to be honest) might benefit the production too. Of course any measure that benefits people in one way or another should be something any production should strive to achieve. If EON and Bond can be in the forefront for this, it's just a massive positive.
It has nothing to do with going out of style. The last four films were ages ago when compared to today's political climate. See, this big thing happened in 2016 that made the SJWs lost their minds. This is the last I'm gonna say about it and I'm not baiting, not complaining, just pointing out that Bond will be ruined soon (if not already with this upcoming film) like all the other film franchises out there. The MCU is the latest and the producers have already stated they will make the films more "diverse" and "inclusive."
With Bond, we already had a female M, a black Felix and MP; soon Bond will be black or female as well. Or gay. It's only a matter of time. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Q comes out in this or the next film since the actor is gay. EON is not above virtue signaling. Can we start an alternate thread about Bond and politics and leave this one for Bond 25 only?
SJW (not M) is a social justice warrior.