Where does Bond go after Craig?

1389390392394395692

Comments

  • edited October 2023 Posts: 1,428
    I don’t think there’s going to be a dramatic shift in tone because it’s not 2008 anymore and they couldn’t shift any further without going full Roger Moore (and they’ll never do that again, nobody else could pull it off). We’ve had gadgets, bad puns, invincible henchmen, meglomaniac baddies, bulletproof super cars, secret bases. Some fans might have decided those tropes don’t count if the same film has a sad ending or a contrived half arsed brother angle for the baddy, but I don’t think they’re going to stop trying to do different things with it, and Bond has always had tonal variety. You keep saying make a whole film like Cuba @Mendes4Lyfe, but I don’t think any Bond film is like that all the way through. Even the Moore films weren’t.

    I watched OHMSS the other day and some of the bits would make Roger Moore blush like "he branched off", the newfoundland arriving at the end, "fancy meeting you here fraulein". For a large part of the film he walks around in a kilt with a funny voice banging the various women, and yet it still manages to be one of the most grounded, emotionally affecting entries in the series. There's no reason why a Bond film with gadgets and quips, and a lively, breezy feel to it can't also have a complex character at the centre. When I say they should make a Bond based on the paloma scenes of Bond 25, I don't mean literally make every scene with that exact tone, but make it so a scenes like that no longer stands out like a sore thumb in contrast to the rest of the film.

    I understand why 2006 was a special exception, it was like starting the franchise over again, but I just don't think it warrant that treatment this time, especially since how Bond 25 ended on such a downer. Bond needs to come roaring back into life, and I don't think putting the forumla in the cupboard is the right way to achieve that.

    I think the Hilary Gray stuff feels more out of place than the Pamela scene does to be honest. Felt too carry on for that film. I agree, there’s no reason a Bond film like that can’t have a complex character at the centre, I remember saying similar myself. But I was saying that after QoS. The last three haven’t been consistently good but they’ve felt like Bond films imo.

    That's Lazenby's fault.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,440
    I don’t think there’s going to be a dramatic shift in tone because it’s not 2008 anymore and they couldn’t shift any further without going full Roger Moore (and they’ll never do that again, nobody else could pull it off). We’ve had gadgets, bad puns, invincible henchmen, meglomaniac baddies, bulletproof super cars, secret bases. Some fans might have decided those tropes don’t count if the same film has a sad ending or a contrived half arsed brother angle for the baddy, but I don’t think they’re going to stop trying to do different things with it, and Bond has always had tonal variety. You keep saying make a whole film like Cuba @Mendes4Lyfe, but I don’t think any Bond film is like that all the way through. Even the Moore films weren’t.

    I watched OHMSS the other day and some of the bits would make Roger Moore blush like "he branched off", the newfoundland arriving at the end, "fancy meeting you here fraulein". For a large part of the film he walks around in a kilt with a funny voice banging the various women, and yet it still manages to be one of the most grounded, emotionally affecting entries in the series. There's no reason why a Bond film with gadgets and quips, and a lively, breezy feel to it can't also have a complex character at the centre. When I say they should make a Bond based on the paloma scenes of Bond 25, I don't mean literally make every scene with that exact tone, but make it so a scenes like that no longer stands out like a sore thumb in contrast to the rest of the film.

    I understand why 2006 was a special exception, it was like starting the franchise over again, but I just don't think it warrant that treatment this time, especially since how Bond 25 ended on such a downer. Bond needs to come roaring back into life, and I don't think putting the forumla in the cupboard is the right way to achieve that.

    I think the Hilary Gray stuff feels more out of place than the Pamela scene does to be honest. Felt too carry on for that film. I agree, there’s no reason a Bond film like that can’t have a complex character at the centre, I remember saying similar myself. But I was saying that after QoS. The last three haven’t been consistently good but they’ve felt like Bond films imo.

    I think the difference is simply a lack of imagination and ingenuity.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    I don’t think there’s going to be a dramatic shift in tone because it’s not 2008 anymore and they couldn’t shift any further without going full Roger Moore (and they’ll never do that again, nobody else could pull it off). We’ve had gadgets, bad puns, invincible henchmen, meglomaniac baddies, bulletproof super cars, secret bases. Some fans might have decided those tropes don’t count if the same film has a sad ending or a contrived half arsed brother angle for the baddy, but I don’t think they’re going to stop trying to do different things with it, and Bond has always had tonal variety. You keep saying make a whole film like Cuba @Mendes4Lyfe, but I don’t think any Bond film is like that all the way through. Even the Moore films weren’t.

    I watched OHMSS the other day and some of the bits would make Roger Moore blush like "he branched off", the newfoundland arriving at the end, "fancy meeting you here fraulein". For a large part of the film he walks around in a kilt with a funny voice banging the various women, and yet it still manages to be one of the most grounded, emotionally affecting entries in the series. There's no reason why a Bond film with gadgets and quips, and a lively, breezy feel to it can't also have a complex character at the centre. When I say they should make a Bond based on the paloma scenes of Bond 25, I don't mean literally make every scene with that exact tone, but make it so a scenes like that no longer stands out like a sore thumb in contrast to the rest of the film.

    I understand why 2006 was a special exception, it was like starting the franchise over again, but I just don't think it warrant that treatment this time, especially since how Bond 25 ended on such a downer. Bond needs to come roaring back into life, and I don't think putting the forumla in the cupboard is the right way to achieve that.

    I think the Hilary Gray stuff feels more out of place than the Pamela scene does to be honest. Felt too carry on for that film. I agree, there’s no reason a Bond film like that can’t have a complex character at the centre, I remember saying similar myself. But I was saying that after QoS. The last three haven’t been consistently good but they’ve felt like Bond films imo.

    I think the difference is simply a lack of imagination and ingenuity.

    And you watch these films.... because??

    Maybe another series would suit your elite tastes?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,440
    peter wrote: »
    I don’t think there’s going to be a dramatic shift in tone because it’s not 2008 anymore and they couldn’t shift any further without going full Roger Moore (and they’ll never do that again, nobody else could pull it off). We’ve had gadgets, bad puns, invincible henchmen, meglomaniac baddies, bulletproof super cars, secret bases. Some fans might have decided those tropes don’t count if the same film has a sad ending or a contrived half arsed brother angle for the baddy, but I don’t think they’re going to stop trying to do different things with it, and Bond has always had tonal variety. You keep saying make a whole film like Cuba @Mendes4Lyfe, but I don’t think any Bond film is like that all the way through. Even the Moore films weren’t.

    I watched OHMSS the other day and some of the bits would make Roger Moore blush like "he branched off", the newfoundland arriving at the end, "fancy meeting you here fraulein". For a large part of the film he walks around in a kilt with a funny voice banging the various women, and yet it still manages to be one of the most grounded, emotionally affecting entries in the series. There's no reason why a Bond film with gadgets and quips, and a lively, breezy feel to it can't also have a complex character at the centre. When I say they should make a Bond based on the paloma scenes of Bond 25, I don't mean literally make every scene with that exact tone, but make it so a scenes like that no longer stands out like a sore thumb in contrast to the rest of the film.

    I understand why 2006 was a special exception, it was like starting the franchise over again, but I just don't think it warrant that treatment this time, especially since how Bond 25 ended on such a downer. Bond needs to come roaring back into life, and I don't think putting the forumla in the cupboard is the right way to achieve that.

    I think the Hilary Gray stuff feels more out of place than the Pamela scene does to be honest. Felt too carry on for that film. I agree, there’s no reason a Bond film like that can’t have a complex character at the centre, I remember saying similar myself. But I was saying that after QoS. The last three haven’t been consistently good but they’ve felt like Bond films imo.

    I think the difference is simply a lack of imagination and ingenuity.

    And you watch these films.... because??

    Maybe another series would suit your elite tastes?

    Not to worry, I'm sure EON can step their game up with the next film, we're just at a point where a fresh start is very much overdue. ;)
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited October 2023 Posts: 2,181
    It's always been the mix of TLD & GE for Bond 26, for me. Maybe even the entire era of Bond 7. TLD & GE gets the perfect balance of cold and light James Bond.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    I'm not worried.

    I wasn't exactly a Brosnan fan. I went to everyone in the cinema, and I always walked out really disappointed.

    But never did I once think that this is where Bond stops. I just knew it wasn't my cup of tea, and a new era would come along which would be hopefully more in tune with what I needed from Bond.

    That's why I've never understood the doom and gloom I have read on this site.

    The sun will rise tomorrow...

  • peter wrote: »
    The sun will rise tomorrow...

    Yes. And it will shine very brightly the day Chris Nolan is annouced to write and direct Bond 26. :)
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited October 2023 Posts: 5,970
    I'm intrigued @Colonel_Venus, hypothetically lets say Nolan directs Bond 26, who would you want to take over after him for Bond 27 just out of interest? Because its very unrealistic he'd do another and I'm also interested to hear if there are other directors out there who you would personally like to see cause it seems you're putting all your eggs in one basket and possibly setting yourself up for disappointment?
  • edited October 2023 Posts: 2,288
    peter wrote: »
    I'm not worried.

    I wasn't exactly a Brosnan fan. I went to everyone in the cinema, and I always walked out really disappointed.

    But never did I once think that this is where Bond stops. I just knew it wasn't my cup of tea, and a new era would come along which would be hopefully more in tune with what I needed from Bond.

    That's why I've never understood the doom and gloom I have read on this site.

    The sun will rise tomorrow...

    That’s where I’m at really. Love CR, enjoy SF, but I wish I could’ve enjoyed more of the Craig era. But like you say, the sun always rises!
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,164
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I'm intrigued @Colonel_Venus, hypothetically lets say Nolan directs Bond 26, who would you want to take over after him for Bond 27 just out of interest? Because its very unrealistic he'd do another and I'm also interested to hear if there are other directors out there who you would personally like to see cause it seems you're putting all your eggs in one basket and possibly setting yourself up for disappointment?

    At this stage @Colonel_Venus is just baiting every time they mention Nolan. It's got to the point where they're basically trolling.
  • edited October 2023 Posts: 580
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I'm intrigued @Colonel_Venus, hypothetically lets say Nolan directs Bond 26, who would you want to take over after him for Bond 27 just out of interest? Because its very unrealistic he'd do another and I'm also interested to hear if there are other directors out there who you would personally like to see cause it seems you're putting all your eggs in one basket and possibly setting yourself up for disappointment?
    There are many directors I would be very happy with when it comes to Bond 27. Denis Villeneuve, Steve McQueen and Tom Ford would probably be my top 3. The thing about Bond 26 is that if Nolan does not direct it, then he likely won't direct a Bond film ever.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited October 2023 Posts: 5,970
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I'm intrigued @Colonel_Venus, hypothetically lets say Nolan directs Bond 26, who would you want to take over after him for Bond 27 just out of interest? Because its very unrealistic he'd do another and I'm also interested to hear if there are other directors out there who you would personally like to see cause it seems you're putting all your eggs in one basket and possibly setting yourself up for disappointment?
    There are many directors I would be very happy with when it comes to Bond 27. Denis Villeneuve, Steve McQueen and Tom Ford would probably be my top 3. The thing about Bond 26 is that if Nolan does not direct it, then he likely won't direct a Bond film ever.
    I would agree that if you're gonna get Nolan, it's probably best to get him to direct the first of a new era as I can't see him wanting to step in and work under slight restrictions, even though if he was to come in after one or two films, the only real restrictions he'd have are the casting of Bond and the MI6 regulars, which I think is the beauty of the franchise in the sense that with each film, the creatives involved are given a chance to really shape their version of a Bond film, which can be quite rare in franchise moviemaking.

    Although, what I will say is that the thing I wonder about with Nolan is whether he'd be up for working alongside EON. I'm sure he has great respect for Barbara and Michael, as he should, but directing Bond I think would be a job unlike any he's had before in terms of the amount of freedom he gets, not to say that EON wouldn't give him as much as possible (like I said above), but this is their franchise and something they've been a part for longer than he's been making movies, so they're not gonna fully hand over the reins and nor should they.
  • Denbigh wrote: »

    Although, what I will say is that the thing I wonder about with Nolan is whether he'd be up for working alongside EON. I'm sure he has great respect for Barbara and Michael, as he should, but directing Bond I think would be a job unlike any he's had before in terms of the amount of freedom he gets, not to say that EON wouldn't give him as much as possible (like I said above), but this is their franchise and something they've been a part for longer than he's been making movies, so they're not gonna fully hand over the reins and nor should they.

    I find myself wondering about that too, but from the way Nolan has discussed his love for the series, I don’t find it too difficult to imagine that perhaps him and EON would hit it off more than fans would believe, and perhaps his vision for the future (assuming it’s not a period piece) could align somewhat with Barbara and Michael’s. Let’s not forget Nolan somehow was able to convince WB to do a semi realistic take on Batman during a time when that film franchise was dead and buried, and amazingly he was given so much creative control from a studio that had, and continues to interfere in directors visions for some films. The Bond series luckily has never had this share of issues I think, so I can’t imagine EON being worse to work for than WB.
  • Posts: 4,281

    mtm wrote: »
    As I say, NTTD basically filtered out his attitude to women and no-one noticed. Yes he was up for a bit of action with Nomi before he found out who she was, but it wasn't in a sleazy way and she was coming onto him more.

    It certainly worked for an older Bond. But beyond CR (where as I said he just seemed to be arrogant/prone to sleeping around with married women) Craig’s Bond wasn’t an outright misogynist but a man who used women for his own means, whether sexual or for the purposes of the mission. This was adequately scrutinised in the films themselves.

    The newer films could default to Bond ‘falling in love’ with these women/his affairs more often than previously. More akin to the novels. But ultimately he’ll still be a womaniser and will still have an ofd relationship with women. It just friends upon how these Bond girls are depicted.
  • Posts: 2,023
    peter wrote: »
    @CrabKey et al who is misremembering Barbara Broccoli’s quote.

    She’s not looking at Goldeneye for inspiration; she said she looks back at this time in history when the world said that James Bond wasn’t needed or relevant:

    “I go back to GoldenEye when everyone was saying ‘the cold war is over, the wall is over, Bond is dead, no need for Bond, the whole world’s at peace and now there’s no villains’ – and boy was that wrong!” she said…

    I stand corrected.
  • Posts: 7,532
    peter wrote: »
    I'm not worried.

    I wasn't exactly a Brosnan fan. I went to everyone in the cinema, and I always walked out really disappointed.

    But never did I once think that this is where Bond stops. I just knew it wasn't my cup of tea, and a new era would come along which would be hopefully more in tune with what I needed from Bond.

    That's why I've never understood the doom and gloom I have read on this site.

    The sun will rise tomorrow...

    Oh, I agree with you @peter and I was the same went to every one of Brossas, and came out in despair! My problem though was that I was convinced Brossa was going to be around for at least another 2 or 3 films, and that Sun didnt seem to be rising anytime soon! My elation when I heard he was out was massive, and then when I saw the trailer fot CR!!.. . Zippeedeedoohdah, Zippeeday, my oh my what a won........ Ok, I'll stop there!
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,248
    So @peter , you have an insight into “ how the sausage is made” that most of us lack; broadly speaking, at this point , what do you think has actually been done on the next incarnation of Bond?

    I tend to believe that work has been done, just nothing that they care to disclose.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited October 2023 Posts: 3,155
    Nolan's been pretty definite in the past about wanting a high level of control if he was to direct a Bond film: 'You wouldn’t want to take on a film not fully committed to what you could bring to the table creatively. So, as a writer, casting, everything, that’s the full package... Otherwise, I’m very happy to be first in line to see whatever they do.'
    I'd take that to mean that Nolan wants a guarantee that EON would give him that control and not take it back or pressure him to change course (like they did with Boyle?) once they'd started work. Otherwise, he'd rather not do it at all. That does seem to pretty much in line with what I've read about Nolan, so he's probably not bluffing. Bearing in mind that Mendes said that BB and MGW sat watching him film and passed him suggestion notes between takes, are EON likely to hand over that level of control to Nolan? Especially with all that's riding on a new Bond's first outing?
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    As I told someone else, @talos7 , I’m really at a loss.

    They have been all in on the series and the game. That’s their brand and they surprisingly (to me), have been very busy shepherding these two projects. Unfortunately, these two things have little interest to me.

    I think more was cooking before the strikes, than post.

    I have to imagine they’re back to script development, but I do have a feeling, and it’s mine, that they’re back at square one. That’s all I’ve really mined from what my one main source of info has fed me (bread crumbs).

    I have to be clear, I’ve never felt so unsure of where they’re at. Usually I have a clearer sense, but not this time.

    My hunch is, if they were moving out of script development, I think I would have been told.

    So that’s the best I can guess: they haven’t moved out of script development as far I know. And I do believe a little more action was gearing up in late ‘22. But the strikes did have an effect (and the actors haven’t climbed out of their own work stoppage). I can’t stress enough how bad these strikes have hurt the entire industry, especially so soon after Covid.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,248
    Thanks. You, as much as anyone, know how disruptive the past several years have been; hopefully things will soon settle down and there will be a bit more stability .
    Unfortunately there will be lasting scars and casualties.
  • Posts: 4,281
    Venutius wrote: »
    Nolan's been pretty definite in the past about wanting a high level of control if he was to direct a Bond film: 'You wouldn’t want to take on a film not fully committed to what you could bring to the table creatively. So, as a writer, casting, everything, that’s the full package... Otherwise, I’m very happy to be first in line to see whatever they do.'
    I'd take that to mean that Nolan wants a guarantee that EON would give him that control and not take it back or pressure him to change course (like they did with Boyle?) once they'd started work. Otherwise, he'd rather not do it at all. That does seem to pretty much in line with what I've read about Nolan, so he's probably not bluffing. Bearing in mind that Mendes said that BB and MGW sat watching him film and passed him suggestion notes between takes, are EON likely to hand over that level of control to Nolan? Especially with all that's riding on a new Bond's first outing?

    It is worth saying that even Nolan has worked under a similar system with his Batman films - he did have to work with studios/third party producers with specific ideas for these films, and wasn’t just given the freedom to do anything he wanted (he was given a good deal of creative freedom, but no director on such a film is given carte blanche).

    I think no matter the director we’ll get much the same approach as EON have done in the past - they come up with the direction, ideas, what they want to explore, and work with their writers/directors to realise this creative concept. If their way of working isn’t in line with these individuals it won’t matter whether it’s Nolan or Danny Boyle, they simply won’t work with them. We won’t get any pitches from directors, and even if a director is granted a good deal of freedom/input I don’t see them deviating from this broad format.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    talos7 wrote: »
    Thanks. You, as much as anyone, know how disruptive the past several years have been; hopefully things will soon settle down and there will be a bit more stability .
    Unfortunately there will be lasting scars and casualties.

    You’re absolutely right @talos7 … the damage will be long lasting, and my jaw dropped when I heard one of the biggest and one of the first casualties of the strikes, was Metropolis. I mean this series was pushing, full steam ahead! They had already sunk a small fortune into development and preproduction:
    https://deadline.com/2023/10/sam-esmail-comment-metropolis-tv-seres-canceled-apple-ucp-strike-1235583713/
  • Cinema is slowly dying sadly
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,440
    Never thought I'd see the day a Indiana Jones film starring Harrison Ford would flop at the boxoffice.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,693
    Never thought I'd see the day a Indiana Jones film starring Harrison Ford would flop at the boxoffice.

    I think a lot of people were surprised. Honestly though, Lucasfilm hasn’t been looked at positively by its “fans” lately. It’s a shame, I thought DOD was fun, and that’s the main thing I wanted out of it. People are upset at Kathleen Kennedy for one reason, or another, it seems. The main two problems that people had with Indy 5 were an 80 year old action hero, and Phoebe Waller-Bridge pushing her unique humor and being the real hero of the film. I honestly, think that Indiana Jones could have been Lucasfilm’s answer to James Bond. There’s always an adventure and artifact that Indy could go after. George Lucas blew it honestly, but forcing everyone that aliens had to be in Indy 4. Or have someone other than Spielberg direct. In the 90s, for sure. But that’s what life is at times from a CEO and their company’s business practices.

    As for Bond and EON, they aren’t as badly controlled as Lucasfilm has been. Even EON knows that James Bond will be relevant in the modern world. They’ll always bring him back. And with the many problems in the world today with wars and egos, we need him now more than ever.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited October 2023 Posts: 8,440
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Never thought I'd see the day a Indiana Jones film starring Harrison Ford would flop at the boxoffice.

    I think a lot of people were surprised. Honestly though, Lucasfilm hasn’t been looked at positively by its “fans” lately. It’s a shame, I thought DOD was fun, and that’s the main thing I wanted out of it. People are upset at Kathleen Kennedy for one reason, or another, it seems. The main two problems that people had with Indy 5 were an 80 year old action hero, and Phoebe Waller-Bridge pushing her unique humor and being the real hero of the film. I honestly, think that Indiana Jones could have been Lucasfilm’s answer to James Bond. There’s always an adventure and artifact that Indy could go after. George Lucas blew it honestly, but forcing everyone that aliens had to be in Indy 4. Or have someone other than Spielberg direct. In the 90s, for sure. But that’s what life is at times from a CEO and their company’s business practices.

    As for Bond and EON, they aren’t as badly controlled as Lucasfilm has been. Even EON knows that James Bond will be relevant in the modern world. They’ll always bring him back. And with the many problems in the world today with wars and egos, we need him now more than ever.

    If Dial of Destiny had been made in 2008 instead of Crystal Skull and they were able to do things more practically with Ford doing more stunts himself, then I don't think it would be far off the original trilogy, at least for me.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2023 Posts: 16,578
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    The main two problems that people had with Indy 5 were an 80 year old action hero, and Phoebe Waller-Bridge pushing her unique humor and being the real hero of the film.

    Such a weird take on it. That film is entirely about Indiana Jones; no-one else is the hero.
    Not even sure what 'pushing her unique humour' means - I don't know how an actor 'pushes' their performance onto people more than others just act; I think a lot of the people who thought that had decided it would be like that before they saw it, if they even did.
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Never thought I'd see the day a Indiana Jones film starring Harrison Ford would flop at the boxoffice.

    I think a lot of people were surprised. Honestly though, Lucasfilm hasn’t been looked at positively by its “fans” lately. It’s a shame, I thought DOD was fun, and that’s the main thing I wanted out of it. People are upset at Kathleen Kennedy for one reason, or another, it seems. The main two problems that people had with Indy 5 were an 80 year old action hero, and Phoebe Waller-Bridge pushing her unique humor and being the real hero of the film. I honestly, think that Indiana Jones could have been Lucasfilm’s answer to James Bond. There’s always an adventure and artifact that Indy could go after. George Lucas blew it honestly, but forcing everyone that aliens had to be in Indy 4. Or have someone other than Spielberg direct. In the 90s, for sure. But that’s what life is at times from a CEO and their company’s business practices.

    As for Bond and EON, they aren’t as badly controlled as Lucasfilm has been. Even EON knows that James Bond will be relevant in the modern world. They’ll always bring him back. And with the many problems in the world today with wars and egos, we need him now more than ever.

    If Dial of Destiny had been made in 2008 instead of Crystal Skull and they were able to do things more practically with Ford doing more stunts himself, then I don't think it would be far off the original trilogy, at least for me.

    You won't like Temple of Doom then, because he's barely in it! :)
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited October 2023 Posts: 8,204
    delfloria wrote: »
    Welcome to a whole new world. One that is not as fun as the one I grew up in. Maybe if Bond doesn't change, he can show them the way.

    A new UCLA study of teens and young adults ages 13-24 has found a significant portion of them, as much as 47.5%, think physical intimacy and romance are too prominent in both movies and TV shows.

    44.3% cite romance in media as being ‘overused’, 51.5% want to see more content focused on friendships and platonic relationships, and 39% say they want to see more aromantic and/or asexual characters on screen.

    I probably would have felt that way about older films/TV back in the day, where romance between men and women was a prerequisite in writing because the men have to be desired by every woman to fulfill some sort of silly male fantasy. The idea of featuring lead men and women in platonic friendships was an extremely rare thing.
  • Posts: 1,428


    delfloria wrote: »
    Welcome to a whole new world. One that is not as fun as the one I grew up in. Maybe if Bond doesn't change, he can show them the way.

    A new UCLA study of teens and young adults ages 13-24 has found a significant portion of them, as much as 47.5%, think physical intimacy and romance are too prominent in both movies and TV shows.

    44.3% cite romance in media as being ‘overused’, 51.5% want to see more content focused on friendships and platonic relationships, and 39% say they want to see more aromantic and/or asexual characters on screen.

    I probably would have felt that way about older films/TV back in the day, where romance between men and women was a prerequisite in writing because the men have to be desired by every woman to fulfill some sort of silly male fantasy. The idea of featuring lead men and women in platonic friendships was an extremely rare thing.

    James Bond is a silly male fantasy!
    Wrong forum, man.
  • Posts: 567
    delfloria wrote: »
    Welcome to a whole new world. One that is not as fun as the one I grew up in. Maybe if Bond doesn't change, he can show them the way.

    A new UCLA study of teens and young adults ages 13-24 has found a significant portion of them, as much as 47.5%, think physical intimacy and romance are too prominent in both movies and TV shows.

    44.3% cite romance in media as being ‘overused’, 51.5% want to see more content focused on friendships and platonic relationships, and 39% say they want to see more aromantic and/or asexual characters on screen.

    Putting 13 year olds in the same demographic bucket as 24 year olds seems like bad methods to me...
Sign In or Register to comment.