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
One can only hope.
“I am afraid you caught me with more then my hands up”
And then proceeded to yell
“Nicknack Tabasco”
That's what the producers have done and will keep doing is my thinking
Ah I’d forgotten that; yes that it is an interesting point. So they even had a chance to kind of ignore previous continuity with that one but chose to embrace it. A head scratcher!
Well, that’s just someone’s opinion, much the same of any of us here, so no more or less important. But I must admit, if Bond cut down on the ladykilling I wouldn’t actually care. Not for any modern political reasons, it’s just not a part of Bond films I’ve ever particularly been that interested in. That Roger copped off with every woman he met was kind of funny, but beyond that I don’t find it massively interesting: in films like TLD or QOS or NTTD I don’t miss the high shag count at all. I like all the spy and adventure stuff more. Put me down as ‘not bothered’.
To be honest, some of the womanizing in the 60's doesn't really makes sense to be honest (with the exception of Tatiana Romanova) he did most of those because of pleasure and lust (think of him making out with Fiona Volpe or with Ling in YOLT), even Bond making out with Miranda Frost in Die Another Day, doesn't make any sense either, because we all know that she's a villainess and therefore would not going to give Bond any information, he just did it, because it's part of the formula, yes, I do agree.
I don't even get the fascination about Bond making out with Martine Blanchaud (the Log Cabin Girl in TSWLM) either, because at the end of it, she did betrayed him still by calling those Russian agents.
When it comes to Bond seducing villainesses, I'm not much keen on it, especially those who were loyal to the villains, for me, it's getting looked a bit dated like really? Bond's ***** can convert or turn those villainesses into good ones? Think of Pussy Galore and May Day, oh my! Those things didn't aged well.
That's why I really liked the banter between Bond and Xenia, he doesn't need to sleep with her, he just being straight to the point and interrogated Xenia about the whereabouts of Janus/Alec Trevelyan.
Because at the end they all have one plan, to kill Bond and use sex as a distraction.
The only thing that makes sense were yes, Lucia Sciarra, Corrine Clery, Andrea Anders, and maybe, Magda, to be honest in the case of Bond sleeping with Ruby Bartlett did makes sense because it's when he discovered them being brainwashed, but when it comes to Nancy, yes, it doesn't make any sense.
If he didn't slept with Ruby Bartlett, he wouldn't know what Blofeld was really doing, he would have no idea what Blofeld was up to, he wouldn't likely to discover that they're being brainwashed and hypnotized, so, it's still a part of gathering information, but he shouldn't made out with Nancy, the scene with Nancy was redundant.
But the one with Ruby Bartlett, it's important because he's investigating what Blofeld was up to regards to those women, had he only made out with Ruby, it's understandable, but not with Nancy, he shouldn't visited her.
Yeah it can be funny, it can benefit the plot, it can on rare occasion be even a bit sexy (the Donna Lucia one is one of the few, I'd say), but it can also be a bit of a chore at times. In the films where it's pared down to one or two women I don't hugely miss it. Daniel Craig actually only ended one of his five films with a 'Bond gets the girl' ending and that worked fine for me.
I don't want to overthink this either. I guess that like Jason Voorhees' body count, Bond's wild-night count was a thing in the '60s, working the pelvic consumptions all the way up to 4? 5? girls in TB, depending on whether we include the French colleague and Paula. Since then, it's been an almost by-default matter in Bond films that 007 enjoys a bit of horizontal pleasure between two kills, sometimes "serious", often not. I've always let it slide since it is James Bond and it seems to be the thing that James Bond does. And also because teenage me wasn't entirely "not jealous" of him. ;-)
And then I started reading Fleming in my teens and discovered that his Bond doesn't necessarily end up with a couple of docile girls in his bed every book (Goldfinger notwithstanding). There's plenty of sex in Fleming's books without having to rely on literal acts of intercourse with different partners every fifty pages. Thus, when Craig's Bond went kinda monogamous from CR onwards, I bought it and didn't feel betrayed or "unbonded". The next Bond doesn't have to be a voracious ladykiller either. I want strong spy stuff with a few perks on the side, but not checklist films that demand 2, 3, ... scenes of Bond seducing gorgeous women just because that's "the thing" with Bond.
Well as Dimi said, the ladykilling isn't really part of bookBond. Neither are the wisecracks, the plethora of high tech gadgets or indeed the expansive luxury wardrobe even. It depends which version of the character you see as being the correct one from which it can no longer change, really. Roger Moore's one, who never smoked a cigarette, drove an Aston Martin or ordered a Vodka Martini, maybe?
In one of his films he only killed a single person, incidentally. I presume you're on record as saying that doesn't count as a Bond film? ;)
With all these slightly hysterical 'they're going to change Bond into something wrong!' posts recently, it feels like we're doing the CraigNotBond thing again, but even before the guy has been cast this time. It's going to be a nightmare, isn't it.
Arguably he's not been an assassin in the films for most of their run: usually he's an investigator, and it's only been in a couple of brief flashes in a Dalton and a Craig film where he's had a straight assassination job that I can think of. So, if you were happy with the vast majority of Bond films up until now, then I'm sure that change isn't a problem.
Well, it would be the healthier way around.
I don't think you actually read my posts. Nothing bothers me in what you've said because it's all imagination: and also I've pointed out how Bond has changed constantly over the years. Including that film where he only killed a single person, which came out way over 40 years ago. The world continued to turn.
You take the example of Roger's Bond not driving an Aston etc. as proof that all characteristics are malleable, and extrapolate that into a nonsensical extreme that has no basis. It's like me saying that Craig's Bond wore jeans therefore Bond will probably become a non-binary Grime music star in the next film and everyone will probably think that's great because *these days*.
There's just no reason to think that.
One could easily say it'd be great if people stop being so pearl-clutching and getting upset about culture war things which have only happened in their minds. He killed plenty of folk in the last Bond movie and there's no sign of that changing.
That's the opposite of what I wrote. *Sigh*
Uh-huh, yeah that's right 8-|
You can speculate all you like, but you have to be prepared to be called out as a pearl-clutcher, that's all.
And if you want to speculate about 'what else we all want changed', it'd probably be easier to ask us. Or you could just say what you'd like to change/keep. That'd be nicer than putting words in everyone else's mouths and complaining about it.
I don’t care what you think about me, you can call me a pearl-clutcher for wanting a 60+ year old movie character to resemble his basic form all you’d like. Go ahead please, have the floor. What to you even makes James Bond James Bond? What in your eyes CAN’T be changed for him to be James Bond? Or is everything on the table to be changed, in which case it doesn’t really matter if it’s the same character or not? I’m genuinely curious, please tell me. Anyone else is welcome to jump on this question too and tell me what of Bond’s basic characteristics, if any, should stay.
Yeah, part of the joke of Bond is that we know when he sees an attractive woman, he's going to try it on with her. And it's good fun because we know him, but likewise you can have too much of a good thing and when they use their secret sauce in the right amounts I enjoy it more.
Plus often, in truth when he shacks up with a conquest it does often mean stopping the plot for a bit while he gets his trousers back on. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
Well I already asked you which version of Bond is the correct one, so you tell me. Is it Roger's or Sean's or Pierce's, or Ian Fleming's...? Because they're not all the same guy. And if you can point to where anybody suggested he should stop killing people, go for it.
Regardless, that there have been films where he's only killed one person, or only shagged one woman, and almost no-one noticed, maybe shows that Bond is a bit less of a kit of essential parts than you may think.
He doesn't even wear a dinner jacket and dickie bow tie in a couple of them! #NotMyBond :))
A bit like how the one which have big armies of people fighting at the end aren't my favourite :)
It makes him a more interesting character than someone like the fairly chaste Ethan Hunt, but also sometimes it's something you kind of have to get through.
Don't they deserve representation in cinema too? ;)
As noted before, taking it away will be an easy path to make this series and character less distinguishable. But if the majority don’t care that’s what we’ll get. If the tides are turning as it looks, Bond’s fate at the end of NTTD will certainly be extra symbolic for me :D
While some will say that the franchise is ahead of its time when it comes to female characters, and while I think that's partly true, we have to admit that the franchise definitely has more than enough examples of writing in a female character for the sake of upping Bond's body count and I'm not talking about kills. The franchise also had examples of Bond sleeping with women in vulnerable positions, with Bond seemingly manipulating them into sex by using their vulnerabilities. It's even happened recently with Severine and Lucia Sciarra.
So if there are any changes, they'll be in terms of avoiding things like I've mentioned above. They'll make sure that Bond's sex life is necessary. We don't need Bond sleeping with women in vulnerable positions for information unless an effort is made narratively and in terms of character development to make us believe why this woman would sleep with Bond.
And if that's something you'll miss then honestly tough. What's more important to you that Bond is promiscuous or that he's promiscuous in quite manipulative ways? Because again I think the latter is what will be changed.
No-one actually suggested that though, did they. Not even the screenrant article.
I replied to your point about the killing by pointing out that there has been a film where he kills almost no-one (I guess admittedly I didn't count the one who somehow bleeds into his pistol in the gunbarrel sequence! :D )- to show you that your worries have already happened, and everything was fine.
Yeah, it's all about choosing what to accentuate and what to dial back. If he's stayed recognisably Bond after all this time of little adjustments here and there, it seems unlikely that suddenly no more tweaks can be made without him becoming a different character.
I’d be 1000% satisfied if this is what we were to get. That’s 1000% fair and by all means should please everyone, and yet, my gut says the producers are going to just take the easy route and sidestep it altogether. I’ve mentioned plenty times before how I’m happy with and it’s a good thing we don’t have the shadier moments like GF and TB ones anymore, or just women that are embarrassingly one-dimensional for the sex.
Paloma I think was more because of how late she was written and also because of timing. Having Bond sleep with Paloma wasn't necessary especially given how she only appears in one sequence and would've maybe felt like just a bed mate for Bond if they'd slept together. But again they made an effort to let us know that Bond would've been up for it otherwise.
So yeah they could go in either direction but for now we can rest easy that it's still just as likely for them to keep the promiscuousness of James Bond.