Where does Bond go after Craig?

1196197199201202680

Comments

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,297
    I don't think that's it. I think it's more that everyone wants equal opportunities, instead of preferential treatment for white men, which has been the default for centuries.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited September 2022 Posts: 7,547
    echo wrote: »
    I don't think that's it. I think it's more that everyone wants equal opportunities, instead of preferential treatment for white men, which has been the default for centuries.

    Yes. I think, of course, that is the end goal.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 2022 Posts: 16,383
    FoxRox wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I’d gladly welcome a female director, provided they had the resume + personality for the job. Much better that than a male who had no / bad resume and didn’t fit. What bothers me about all this is that it reinforces stereotypes, choosing a woman for the sake of her being a woman that is. Obviously, men and women are more likely than one another to go through life in different ways thanks to societal norms, but there’s never a guarantee of anything.

    For instance, a man can be as “feminine” as a woman, and a woman as “masculine” as a man, as people call it. Though it isn’t treated as seriously, a man can go through rape or domestic abuse as a woman can. Both men and women are victims of toxic masculinity. So on and so forth. I guess I just yearn for a day when everyone is able to look past surface qualities when it comes to things like this and everyone gets treated as an individual. Men and women both get unfairly chosen and disqualified for jobs because of their genders, and this is a significant barrier in equality.

    I suppose, (and this is getting a bit off topic) but to continue to push that "both men and women have it tough" really undermines how significantly harder women have had it in society, I think.

    You are right, though, things like toxic masculinity hurt both men and women, and of course, we all yearn for this day when everyone is able to look past surface qualities etc etc, but unfortunately that isn't the reality of society right now. The pendulum has swung so far towards the men, that as part of the correction, it will have to swing hard the other direction.

    Bo Burnam said something great to this effect, it was something like, "it's unfair to expect the solution to unfairness to be perfect".

    I don’t disagree women have had and still have it harder, I know better; the abortion issue should be proof enough of that for everyone. But I don’t agree that that makes it right to downplay the problems men face too. As for the “pendulum” having to swing hard the other way, it sounds something like revenge on the surface to me. Maybe it wasn’t meant this way, but I know a lot of progressives feel this need to “get even” essentially to make things “fair,” though I don’t think two wrongs make a right. And I also think it will be much harder gaining male support for the right cause in using ways that make them feel lesser.

    It's easy for those who are used to having an advantage to feel like they're being disadvantaged when efforts are made to make things fairer.

    And let's not forget: all that was said was that it might be nice for a woman to get a job, and we've had two or three pages now of huffing and puffing and people (men) taking issue with that. That kind of shows the issue they still face, doesn't it?
  • edited September 2022 Posts: 784
    echo wrote: »
    Whatever his faults, I did like the casual diversity Fukunaga brought to NTTD. For one, if you placed an undercover agent in Jamaica, it makes sense for her to be black.

    And I think he did an admirable job in presenting more well-rounded female roles, and a gay character, than any other Bond film.

    Jinx, Miranda Frost, Vesper, Camille and Dench’s M were much more “well-rounded” than the bullshit they wrote for Naomi Harris, Lashana Lynch and Lea Seydoux.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,547
    I really don't think Jinx is more well rounded than any of these characters.
  • edited September 2022 Posts: 784
    At least she was a strong, competent and capable female character.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,547
    What movies were you watching where Nomi, Eve, and Madeleine weren't strong and capable female characters? And also, what does that have to do with well roundedness?

    I want you to know it's nothing personal; I wouldn't take as much issue with your opinions if you didn't always present them as facts from an uberprofessional and talented writer/director that could do things so much better than these filmmakers.
  • edited September 2022 Posts: 12,466
    mtm wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I’d gladly welcome a female director, provided they had the resume + personality for the job. Much better that than a male who had no / bad resume and didn’t fit. What bothers me about all this is that it reinforces stereotypes, choosing a woman for the sake of her being a woman that is. Obviously, men and women are more likely than one another to go through life in different ways thanks to societal norms, but there’s never a guarantee of anything.

    For instance, a man can be as “feminine” as a woman, and a woman as “masculine” as a man, as people call it. Though it isn’t treated as seriously, a man can go through rape or domestic abuse as a woman can. Both men and women are victims of toxic masculinity. So on and so forth. I guess I just yearn for a day when everyone is able to look past surface qualities when it comes to things like this and everyone gets treated as an individual. Men and women both get unfairly chosen and disqualified for jobs because of their genders, and this is a significant barrier in equality.

    I suppose, (and this is getting a bit off topic) but to continue to push that "both men and women have it tough" really undermines how significantly harder women have had it in society, I think.

    You are right, though, things like toxic masculinity hurt both men and women, and of course, we all yearn for this day when everyone is able to look past surface qualities etc etc, but unfortunately that isn't the reality of society right now. The pendulum has swung so far towards the men, that as part of the correction, it will have to swing hard the other direction.

    Bo Burnam said something great to this effect, it was something like, "it's unfair to expect the solution to unfairness to be perfect".

    I don’t disagree women have had and still have it harder, I know better; the abortion issue should be proof enough of that for everyone. But I don’t agree that that makes it right to downplay the problems men face too. As for the “pendulum” having to swing hard the other way, it sounds something like revenge on the surface to me. Maybe it wasn’t meant this way, but I know a lot of progressives feel this need to “get even” essentially to make things “fair,” though I don’t think two wrongs make a right. And I also think it will be much harder gaining male support for the right cause in using ways that make them feel lesser.

    It's easy for those who are used to having an advantage to feel like they're being disadvantaged when efforts are made to make things fairer.

    And let's not forget: all that was said was that it might be nice for a woman to get a job, and we've had two or three pages now of huffing and puffing and people (men) taking issue with that. That kind of shows the issue they still face, doesn't it?

    I don’t feel mistreated or disadvantaged whatsoever about the same opportunities being offered to both sexes. All I said in detail was how I felt about it being off to me to base it solely on the sex itself. I also said I’d be happy with a good female director. Don’t try to make me out as the bad guy.

    And obviously going back to what Nick said I’m also in favor of giving *more* attention to the problems women are going through, as they are going through *more* problems, it’s logical. All I said there was that men’s issues shouldn’t be treated as less an issue, which isn’t the same as not giving more attention to more problems. If one man and one woman both go through the same horrible thing, neither should be looked at as less or more important than the other. But since women as a collective are facing more specific issues, yes I agree more attention needs to be placed there. I fail to see where I’ve been illogical or bigoted anywhere here.
  • edited September 2022 Posts: 784
    What movies were you watching where Nomi, Eve, and Madeleine weren't strong and capable female characters? And also, what does that have to do with well roundedness?

    I want you to know it's nothing personal; I wouldn't take as much issue with your opinions if you didn't always present them as facts from an uberprofessional and talented writer/director that could do things so much better than these filmmakers.

    Nomi was petty and lacked EQ. Eve was a bad field agent and a suck up to James. And Madeleine was a damsel in distress.

    That is an ad hominem masquerading as a comment on conversational etiquette. I haven’t presented anything as fact. Jesus Christ.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited September 2022 Posts: 7,547
    Nomi was petty and lacked EQ:
    You're too hung up on the first scene where she says mean things to Bond. I would say the rest of the film very well indicates that Nomi is very strong, and very capable. Not sure what you're referring to by EQ but if you mean her emotional quotient, I'm not 100% sure what that has to do with anything.
    Eve was a bad field agent and a suck up to James:
    Making mistakes doesn't make a person not strong and capable. And I feel like her entire arc was about how you can be strong and capable and not necessarily be a field agent. She's instrumental in Spectre and NTTD, if not Skyfall.
    Madeleine was a damsel in distress:
    Not when she was nine years old or whatever. Not when she strikes off and makes her own life after being dumped by Bond. Not when she raises her daughter by herself. Not when she attacks Primo.

    I really can't help but feel like you're seeing what you want to see because you need to be validated with regards to your dislike of NTTD. Just say, "I don't like NTTD, my opinion is valid, and it's okay if not everyone agrees with me", and move on.

    EDIT: It isn't ad hominem, I'm not talking about who you are/attacking your character like you did with other users, I'm talking about what you're doing. I'm beginning to think this isn't the place to have these conversations.
  • edited September 2022 Posts: 784
    If anyone is presenting their opinions as fact right now it’s you. You are describing very averagely written characters barely displaying everyday heroisms off camera. They were more well-rounded than every woman pre-brosnan sure.

    I mean what was the point of Paloma besides being pretty?
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,547
    I have nothing more to add to this.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,711
    mtm wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I’d gladly welcome a female director, provided they had the resume + personality for the job. Much better that than a male who had no / bad resume and didn’t fit. What bothers me about all this is that it reinforces stereotypes, choosing a woman for the sake of her being a woman that is. Obviously, men and women are more likely than one another to go through life in different ways thanks to societal norms, but there’s never a guarantee of anything.

    For instance, a man can be as “feminine” as a woman, and a woman as “masculine” as a man, as people call it. Though it isn’t treated as seriously, a man can go through rape or domestic abuse as a woman can. Both men and women are victims of toxic masculinity. So on and so forth. I guess I just yearn for a day when everyone is able to look past surface qualities when it comes to things like this and everyone gets treated as an individual. Men and women both get unfairly chosen and disqualified for jobs because of their genders, and this is a significant barrier in equality.

    I suppose, (and this is getting a bit off topic) but to continue to push that "both men and women have it tough" really undermines how significantly harder women have had it in society, I think.

    You are right, though, things like toxic masculinity hurt both men and women, and of course, we all yearn for this day when everyone is able to look past surface qualities etc etc, but unfortunately that isn't the reality of society right now. The pendulum has swung so far towards the men, that as part of the correction, it will have to swing hard the other direction.

    Bo Burnam said something great to this effect, it was something like, "it's unfair to expect the solution to unfairness to be perfect".

    I don’t disagree women have had and still have it harder, I know better; the abortion issue should be proof enough of that for everyone. But I don’t agree that that makes it right to downplay the problems men face too. As for the “pendulum” having to swing hard the other way, it sounds something like revenge on the surface to me. Maybe it wasn’t meant this way, but I know a lot of progressives feel this need to “get even” essentially to make things “fair,” though I don’t think two wrongs make a right. And I also think it will be much harder gaining male support for the right cause in using ways that make them feel lesser.


    And let's not forget: all that was said was that it might be nice for a woman to get a job, and we've had two or three pages now of huffing and puffing and people (men) taking issue with that. That kind of shows the issue they still face, doesn't it?

    I've seen men 'huffing and puffing' about how the films can be directed by men or women and it's fine, but some don't want people chosen based on their identity. And I've seen you conflating that position with apparently being opposed to a woman directing. I've yet to see anyone say they don't think a woman can or should direct a Bond, but I do skim sometimes.
  • Posts: 12,466
    Nomi was petty and lacked EQ:
    You're too hung up on the first scene where she says mean things to Bond. I would say the rest of the film very well indicates that Nomi is very strong, and very capable. Not sure what you're referring to by EQ but if you mean her emotional quotient, I'm not 100% sure what that has to do with anything.
    Eve was a bad field agent and a suck up to James:
    Making mistakes doesn't make a person not strong and capable. And I feel like her entire arc was about how you can be strong and capable and not necessarily be a field agent. She's instrumental in Spectre and NTTD, if not Skyfall.
    Madeleine was a damsel in distress:
    Not when she was nine years old or whatever. Not when she strikes off and makes her own life after being dumped by Bond. Not when she raises her daughter by herself. Not when she attacks Primo.

    I really can't help but feel like you're seeing what you want to see because you need to be validated with regards to your dislike of NTTD. Just say, "I don't like NTTD, my opinion is valid, and it's okay if not everyone agrees with me", and move on.

    EDIT: It isn't ad hominem, I'm not talking about who you are/attacking your character like you did with other users, I'm talking about what you're doing. I'm beginning to think this isn't the place to have these conversations.

    +1. All the women in NTTD were good characters, and for a variety of reasons for each one.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited September 2022 Posts: 6,297
    I'd watch a Young Madeleine spinoff. She was interesting.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,547
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Nomi was petty and lacked EQ:
    You're too hung up on the first scene where she says mean things to Bond. I would say the rest of the film very well indicates that Nomi is very strong, and very capable. Not sure what you're referring to by EQ but if you mean her emotional quotient, I'm not 100% sure what that has to do with anything.
    Eve was a bad field agent and a suck up to James:
    Making mistakes doesn't make a person not strong and capable. And I feel like her entire arc was about how you can be strong and capable and not necessarily be a field agent. She's instrumental in Spectre and NTTD, if not Skyfall.
    Madeleine was a damsel in distress:
    Not when she was nine years old or whatever. Not when she strikes off and makes her own life after being dumped by Bond. Not when she raises her daughter by herself. Not when she attacks Primo.

    I really can't help but feel like you're seeing what you want to see because you need to be validated with regards to your dislike of NTTD. Just say, "I don't like NTTD, my opinion is valid, and it's okay if not everyone agrees with me", and move on.

    EDIT: It isn't ad hominem, I'm not talking about who you are/attacking your character like you did with other users, I'm talking about what you're doing. I'm beginning to think this isn't the place to have these conversations.

    +1. All the women in NTTD were good characters, and for a variety of reasons for each one.

    Yeah, totally, I think so too. They all added something different.
  • edited September 2022 Posts: 784
    The actresses did, the writers didn't.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,547
    The actresses did, the writers didn't.

    Who drew your profile pic? It’s an awesome representation of Bond.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited September 2022 Posts: 9,509
    At least she was a strong, competent and capable female character.

    Jinx was a cartoon.
    I’d like to make sure I understand this correctly. Is this to say a man’s gaze can’t be “seductive and romantic?” That a woman’s is more likely to be?

    @FoxRox … not at all. Just different. I honestly don’t see this conversation as “man vs woman (grrr!)”

    Presently I’m knee deep in an option of a book.

    Leading into this I was reading a genre where both women and men are very prolific. In this very intense and anecdotal experience of mine, I found myself drawn to most of the female writers. They collectively, yet very individually, captured something lacking in the stories that came from men. It was a different understanding of the human condition that captured characters in this genre with far more wit and sophistication (where men would often write characters more as tropes of this particular genre (but excelled in other aspects)); from that was born some genuine sexiness and romanticism definitely lacking in the other novels written by men.

    One was not necessarily better than the other. However, one was far more interesting and unique, to me.

    I think a talented director, who happens to be a woman, would execute a Bond film with a unique “voice” that we haven’t been exposed to all that often in the action genre….

    We are entering a new era for this character. Perhaps it’s time to open up the doors to all talented people (no matter their sex, race, gender, ethnicity)… The world is a big place, and the more voices we can play with and spitball with, I think, the better. Different perspectives from different voices could definitely spur the creative rivers (and Im not implying that this means changing “who” James Bond is. The challenges (and extreme enjoyment) of script writing are there are rules to storytelling; talented writers know how to stay within the boundaries of these rules and still create unique stories. The same applies to James Bond: there are certain archetypal traits to the character, but a talented writer will know how to keep these, while presenting a fresh perspective of who this new 007 is).
  • edited September 2022 Posts: 784
    peter wrote: »
    At least she was a strong, competent and capable female character.

    Jinx was a cartoon.

    True, but the others were still underdeveloped.
    The actresses did, the writers didn't.

    Who drew your profile pic? It’s an awesome representation of Bond.

    It's from one of the 007 comics books. Dunno which one, but I am guessing early Dynamite.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    It's from Hammerhead.
  • edited September 2022 Posts: 784
    I had this thought about soullessness surrounding digital filmmaking. Despite producing crisper images and more natural movements at 60 FPS new productions still feel very off. With old film the grain gives the image and the skin of the characters texture, as opposed to digital where everything is too smooth. Wouldn't it be better if digital filmmakers embraced the accuracy of reality and skipped the 50 layers of make up and tidy setpieces etc. so you can see every pore, sweat gland, blemish and discolouration. Wouldn't it feel less flat?


    This obviously pertains to lower budget productions.


    It seems everyone overcompensates for this with too much camera movement.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited September 2022 Posts: 7,547
    I had this thought about soullessness surrounding digital filmmaking. Despite producing crisper images and more natural movements at 60 FPS new productions feel very off. With old film the grain gives the image texture to the skin of the characters, as opposed to digital where everything is too smooth. Wouldn't it be better if filmmakers embraced the more accurate depiction of reality and skipped 50 layers of make up etc. so you can see every pore, sweat gland, blemish and discolouration.


    This obviously pertains to lower budget productions.

    Totally agree. I don't think I've seen anything in 60fps (wasn't The Hobbit shown this way or something?) but 24 is the way to go.
    Murdock wrote: »
    It's from Hammerhead.

    Thanks!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,383
    mtm wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I’d gladly welcome a female director, provided they had the resume + personality for the job. Much better that than a male who had no / bad resume and didn’t fit. What bothers me about all this is that it reinforces stereotypes, choosing a woman for the sake of her being a woman that is. Obviously, men and women are more likely than one another to go through life in different ways thanks to societal norms, but there’s never a guarantee of anything.

    For instance, a man can be as “feminine” as a woman, and a woman as “masculine” as a man, as people call it. Though it isn’t treated as seriously, a man can go through rape or domestic abuse as a woman can. Both men and women are victims of toxic masculinity. So on and so forth. I guess I just yearn for a day when everyone is able to look past surface qualities when it comes to things like this and everyone gets treated as an individual. Men and women both get unfairly chosen and disqualified for jobs because of their genders, and this is a significant barrier in equality.

    I suppose, (and this is getting a bit off topic) but to continue to push that "both men and women have it tough" really undermines how significantly harder women have had it in society, I think.

    You are right, though, things like toxic masculinity hurt both men and women, and of course, we all yearn for this day when everyone is able to look past surface qualities etc etc, but unfortunately that isn't the reality of society right now. The pendulum has swung so far towards the men, that as part of the correction, it will have to swing hard the other direction.

    Bo Burnam said something great to this effect, it was something like, "it's unfair to expect the solution to unfairness to be perfect".

    I don’t disagree women have had and still have it harder, I know better; the abortion issue should be proof enough of that for everyone. But I don’t agree that that makes it right to downplay the problems men face too. As for the “pendulum” having to swing hard the other way, it sounds something like revenge on the surface to me. Maybe it wasn’t meant this way, but I know a lot of progressives feel this need to “get even” essentially to make things “fair,” though I don’t think two wrongs make a right. And I also think it will be much harder gaining male support for the right cause in using ways that make them feel lesser.


    And let's not forget: all that was said was that it might be nice for a woman to get a job, and we've had two or three pages now of huffing and puffing and people (men) taking issue with that. That kind of shows the issue they still face, doesn't it?

    I've seen men 'huffing and puffing' about how the films can be directed by men or women and it's fine, but some don't want people chosen based on their identity. And I've seen you conflating that position with apparently being opposed to a woman directing. I've yet to see anyone say they don't think a woman can or should direct a Bond, but I do skim sometimes.

    I think you've skimmed a bit too much then, because some of that you've said is plain untrue, and some is just missing the point. If you're saying that no-one has taken issue with Mendes' suggestion that it would be good if a woman got the job, I don't know what to say to you.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,547
    Maybe we can all slide along from this, there doesn't seem to be any resolution ahead.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited September 2022 Posts: 693
    20 or even 10 years ago I would've been fine with a woman directing, but today a female director would only be selected for the purpose of subverting and deconstructing the character even more. I mean, Babs has been producing these movies since 1995 but even she recently succumbed to infusing these movies with ideological subtexts that are completely inappropriate. Besides, how many good female directors are there who can direct action, apart from Kathryn Bigelow? Patty Jenkins? Yikes.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    edited September 2022 Posts: 1,711
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I’d gladly welcome a female director, provided they had the resume + personality for the job. Much better that than a male who had no / bad resume and didn’t fit. What bothers me about all2 this is that it reinforces stereotypes, choosing a woman for the sake of her being a woman that is. Obviously, men and women are more likely than one another to go through life in different ways thanks to societal norms, but there’s never a guarantee of anything.

    For instance, a man can be as “feminine” as a woman, and a woman as “masculine” as a man, as people call it. Though it isn’t treated as seriously, a man can go through rape or domestic abuse as a woman can. Both men and women are victims of toxic masculinity. So on and so forth. I guess I just yearn for a day when everyone is able to look past surface qualities when it comes to things like this and everyone gets treated as an individual. Men and women both get unfairly chosen and disqualified for jobs because of their genders, and this is a significant barrier in equality.

    I suppose, (and this is getting a bit off topic) but to continue to push that "both men and women have it tough" really undermines how significantly harder women have had it in society, I think.

    You are right, though, things like toxic masculinity hurt both men and women, and of course, we all yearn for this day when everyone is able to look past surface qualities etc etc, but unfortunately that isn't the reality of society right now. The pendulum has swung so far towards the men, that as part of the correction, it will have to swing hard the other direction.

    Bo Burnam said something great to this effect, it was something like, "it's unfair to expect the solution to unfairness to be perfect".

    I don’t disagree women have had and still have it harder, I know better; the abortion issue should be proof enough of that for everyone. But I don’t agree that that makes it right to downplay the problems men face too. As for the “pendulum” having to swing hard the other way, it sounds something like revenge on the surface to me. Maybe it wasn’t meant this way, but I know a lot of progressives feel this need to “get even” essentially to make things “fair,” though I don’t think two wrongs make a right. And I also think it will be much harder gaining male support for the right cause in using ways that make them feel lesser.


    And let's not forget: all that was said was that it might be nice for a woman to get a job, and we've had two or three pages now of huffing and puffing and people (men) taking issue with that. That kind of shows the issue they still face, doesn't it?

    I've seen men 'huffing and puffing' about how the films can be directed by men or women and it's fine, but some don't want people chosen based on their identity. And I've seen you conflating that position with apparently being opposed to a woman directing. I've yet to see anyone say they don't think a woman can or should direct a Bond, but I do skim sometimes.

    I think you've skimmed a bit too much then, because some of that you've said is plain untrue, and some is just missing the point. If you're saying that no-one has taken issue with Mendes' suggestion that it would be good if a woman got the job, I don't know what to say to you.

    Dont know what to say? You could have just quoted one. Would have been real easy. I've just seen a few people say they don't want someone chosen because of their identity, like all the folks you replied to. And you're conflating that with something worse, per usual.

    Edit: ooh, there's slide_99 with the first. You can go on about him and you'll finally be approaching a point.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,547
    Maybe we can all slide along from this, there doesn't seem to be any resolution ahead.
  • Posts: 2,161
    I've just seen a few people say they don't want someone chosen because of their identity, like all the folks you replied to. And you're conflating that with something worse, per usual.

    That's it.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    edited September 2022 Posts: 1,711
    Maybe we can all slide along from this, there doesn't seem to be any resolution ahead.

    I'll try: I'd like them to actually continue linking movies up a bit, but maybe with subplots exclusively. The last three films all had MI6 under attack to some extent, or screwing up themselves. That sort of drama can run through the next few films, in the background, but have the widely requested return to standalone stories for the main plots...
Sign In or Register to comment.