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
Be that as it may, sleeping with her is a definite possibility in his mind.
I don’t know about that. There seems to be a cultural shift where it’s been looked down upon for men to be like James Bond and get a lot of action now. It’s always been backwards anyway; in the old days, if you were a guy and got lots of action, well done player, it you were a woman you were a slut. Now I feel the attitude is more a woman is empowered for having multiple partners and men are pigs for it.
Smoking and having tons of sex with different people are both risky to one’s health. I don’t understand all these double standards. We can’t watch James Bond or The Penguin in Batman smoke anymore god forbid, but who cares when they do things like killing people? So backwards what makes people sensitive.
I guess it depends what you're being sensitive about. I don't hugely mind any of that happening, and it doesn't seem to have happened to Bond anyway.
The news articles always b*tch about Bond’s womanizing, not his killing. That’s why I say that. There’s no consistency to what gets the masses ticked off. In my opinion, it’d be novel to just leave fiction alone altogether and be mature about the fact that not everything you see on a screen is inherently “encouraging” or “evil” to real world extents.
I think folks have to accept that Bond does influence people though. He's unlikely to make you go out and start assassinating people for the British Government, but he is known for being and looking cool, and he may well make you go out and buy the clothes or watches or cars he shows off. Which is why brands, like Aston Martin or Omega for example, associate with him, and why lots of people analyse what he wears and often copy it. So if he makes smoking look cool, people will be influenced, and thus sometimes, some things you see on screen can be encouraging to real world extents. If it wasn't true there would be no marketing.
I hate the argument that the sex is more offensive for “being more realistic.” Really? Bedding that many beautiful women all the time without consequence? Give me a break.
Not really, it just means they're not robots and have different values. I'm sure you've watched a bunch of adverts in an ad break and found that some of the products appeal to you and some don't- that doesn't make you gullible or conveniently selective, it just means you're a human being.
In NTTD I liked James Bond's lovely Omega watch a lot, but I didn't like his long duster coat thing. I don't feel like I'm being conveniently selective, I just have my own taste and judgements.
And are there many Bond fans who don't think Connery looks incredibly cool lighting his cigarette?
Again, this isn't something which has happened in the Bond films.
I'm not sure who you're arguing with or quoting, though. Do you not think it's a touch ironic that you're saying that others are too sensitive and yet whatever this is really seems to have touched a nerve with you?
I was arguing with you just now saying it isn’t more likely for people to kill as Bond for the fantasy of it. Sure it’s ironic, but I’m sensitive because it’s a character I’ve loved since childhood that some people want to change just to “fit society” and the times. There’s been a war on fiction in general trying to censor, sanitize, or alter things. It makes me sensitive because art is my one big passion.
That's a good point you've made. The Brosnan era seems to have all the leading Bond girls wanting to get shagged and instigating it (with the possible exception of maybe Wai Lin).
@mtm I’d like to offer a friendly, silly wager if you are game…
Perfectly put, Peter - a lot of scope for future character-driven Bond stories, there.
To use the brainwashing nearly killing M element as a ay to reintroduce Bond M and it could be a good trilogy
Let's not make false equivalences: sex is natural and part of human nature. Heck it's essential to the human species. Smoking is not. It's unhealthy even in small quantity: there's literally no moderation for it. And if it's been looked down upon it's for health reasons and objective, verifiable facts. Sex on the contrary has become far less taboo. As long as it's dome between two fully consenting adults, I don't think anyone objects, except religious fanatics and a few radical feminists. Regarding Bond himself, I'd applied the old principle Raymond Chandler used for his own Philip Marlowe: neither an eunuch nor a satyr, who may seduce a duchess, but will not dishonour a virgin.
Idris Elba for Bond?
In fact, that is why Bond is thrown into certain situations. He might not be this, he might not be this, but he is another thing - vagueness is so fun - and that is why he is just right for some things.
I'd like one around the recent Mission Impossible level of grit: a touch of drama but still loads of heart-pumping, thrilling fun.
You didn’t address the killing part. Is that in the “part of human nature” or “unhealthy even in small quantity” category? I said and stand by what I said about riskiness regarding unprotected sex; technically we never know one way or another with Bond other than Madeleine of course if he protects himself to be fair. At any rate, this is all being performed on a screen as fiction. If killing people and having sex can be faked, why not smoking? It’s all art as I said - people have themselves to blame if they take the initiative to emulate what they see on screen.
Did you really just ask if murder is unhealthy? :D
Why not? XP just trying to get everything straight and see if others are on board with consistency and holding people accountable for their choices rather than blaming the entertainment :P you never got back to me about my silly wager; PM if interested!
I'm not sure where you're going with it. Killing is pretty much a moot point: villains murder (generally) Bond does so in self-defence, or at least he does it for Queen and Country, thus for selfless reasons. He doesn't enjoy it. It doesn't matter whether smoking is fake or not: it's no longer seen as glamorous. Far less than fine wines or decades old scotch, or high quality cocktails. With the possible exception of cigars. As for sex, not sure where you're going with protected/unprotected. For all we know Bond has a stash of condoms in his briefcase. In any case, it's the public general attitude towards sex that is now very permissive overall I think.
Ok. So your argument is that Bond doesn’t / shouldn’t smoke anymore because of public perception, correct? It the public decided we shouldn’t glamorize sex or violence anymore (violence in these films is shown both realistically and glamorized for what it’s worth), they should no longer be part of Bond’s character either? Or if public attitude shifted against alcohol more or more in the future.
Edit: Bond also clearly says in TMWTGG he admits killing Scaramanga would be a pleasure, and often quips one-liners and grins after killing (he had to fly MR, Carlos in CR, etc). Seems he enjoys it at least sometimes!
The Bond team may want that reliable box office delivery, if they think they can get the formula as tight as Marvel's. This gives them absolute power over writers and most of creative, which means it's all on them to get the formula right, so they can just point to it for whoever the next team is and know what they're getting.
On the other end of the market, you have Eon as I think they are now, which is very open to shifting cultural winds and brings in big-name talent to match the tastes of the moment, which has also worked pretty gangbusters for them, but limits their ultimate control over the Bond project as a greater narrative, though they don't seem to need a consistent formula to perform well at the box office.
Their own success, both critically and financially, muddies the waters on what the best approach for the future is. It looks like we may be in the early stages of the Marvel wind-down, with a series of disappointments and lower box office, and even considering covid, poorer critical response to recent movies and characters. Maybe relying on a formula only takes you so far.
Then again, Sony's Spider-Man and Venom universe, and the DC Comics franchise, are chaotic, the last of which is even volatile to investors with its throw-it-at-the-wall approach to see what sticks, though they've had plenty of stuff stick.
I think it's wide open. Batman could influence the decision. Nolan, or another filmmaker, maybe Fukunaga, or any big name with an idea could shake things up in one meeting. Or it could just come down to the team they're familiar with, and who they have right in front of them already, Lee Morrison developing stunts, which are half the movie, and Phoebe Waller-Bridge there to at least start a draft. Who knows.
I also think the hand-wringing over people constantly repeating "They killed Bond! They can't do that!" to be a bit...over-the-top. Sure they can. They own the rights. They can send him to space, they can make him Japanese, and yes, they can kill him.
Did people complain when they rebooted the character last time? No. I don't recall reading, "But what about Goldfinger? What about Tracy? Did none of that happen? Waa!" Zzz...