›

Will Bond, as we know him, survive today's culture?

24567

Comments

  • delfloriadelfloria
    Posts: 1,859
    mtm wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Is that not a bit of a kneejerk, and against something which hasn't even happened?

    Not just yet perhaps but, make no mistake, there is a very different generation of young people coming up through the ranks.

    I'm just pointing out the slight irony of complaining about a kneejerk reaction when the accuser is themselves leaping to a prejerk reaction :)
    As you say, it's up to the producers to make sure Bond changes enough to suit the times.

    Yep, my comment is a bit of a knee jerk but it's more analysis than reaction. I'm just pontificating that, given what's been happening recently in Woke Culture, that Bond could very well end up being a target. Bond has, over the years changed from my Bond, a hedonistic secret service operative that we know almost nothing about in the films during the sixties to a man with a past and driven by emotion. That in itself has been a major change that I have had to live with as Bond changes to suit the culture around him. To me, NTTD will be another step away from my Bond IF he does not sleep with Nomi first in Jamaica and THEN finds out she is 007.
  • delfloriadelfloria
    edited April 2021 Posts: 1,859
    MajorDSmythe wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    The Matt Helm of the films was a travesty, especially when compared to the character in the novels.

    You can say that again. The Helm film that has been in development since Adam was a boy, doesn’t look like it will be gaining traction anytime soon. Would make for a tidy series for an actor, they don’t have to make them all, but pick a handful of the books to adapt.

    I read the script and it was way more serious than the Martin films but........................if the character had not been named Matt Helm I would never in a million years recognized him as Eric. Total misfire.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    delfloria wrote: »
    MajorDSmythe wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    The Matt Helm of the films was a travesty, especially when compared to the character in the novels.

    You can say that again. The Helm film that has been in development since Adam was a boy, doesn’t look like it will be gaining traction anytime soon. Would make for a tidy series for an actor, they don’t have to make them all, but pick a handful of the books to adapt.

    I read the script and it way more serious than the Martin films but........................if the character had not been named Matt Helm I would never in a million years recognized him as Eric. Total misfire.

    So it's a bullet dodged, then? That's a shame. There's more than enough room for a new, more faithful, Matt Helm film series.
  • delfloriadelfloria
    Posts: 1,859
    MajorDSmythe wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    MajorDSmythe wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    The Matt Helm of the films was a travesty, especially when compared to the character in the novels.

    You can say that again. The Helm film that has been in development since Adam was a boy, doesn’t look like it will be gaining traction anytime soon. Would make for a tidy series for an actor, they don’t have to make them all, but pick a handful of the books to adapt.

    I read the script and it way more serious than the Martin films but........................if the character had not been named Matt Helm I would never in a million years recognized him as Eric. Total misfire.

    So it's a bullet dodged, then? That's a shame. There's more than enough room for a new, more faithful, Matt Helm film series.

    Yes, a bullet dodged. Hopefully, someone will do Helm justice in the future.
  • DeathToSpies84DeathToSpies84 Newton-le-Willows, England
    Posts: 257
    mtm wrote: »
    DeathToSpies84 wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    I find the 'cancel culture' movement to be more than a little annoying. I'm sure eventually James Bond will be under their spotlight. Be it Bonds interactions with Quarrel in DN, his slapping of Tania in FRWL, the slap in Dink's bottom in GF, or the line about keeping Sadruddin in curry in OP.The problem I have is that these are a sign of the times in which these films came out. They're either a passing line with no emphasis on the story, or they're a small part of keeping the story moving. I don't think anyone would condone these actions, or act them out in real life. Those that would be offended by such actions would be in the minority. So why should a majority of people be imposed the cutting of such lines or scenes.
    You can't cancel history or the past. But you can learn from past mistakes and stop them happening again. Erasing things, doesn't make it better.

    Sadly, the cancel culture mob don’t want to learn from the past. They want to erase it and pretend it never happened. As a 36 year old white heterosexual male, i’m glad I grew up in a time where people weren’t getting outraged or seeing racism in everything day in and day out. But these days?

    The thing is, as white males we’re really not the ones to pronounce whether something isn’t racist. It doesn’t affect us other than to be the beneficiaries of it in many ways: let’s respect the victims of racism or sexism rather than telling them they’re wrong.

    Actual ‘learning from the past’ means that you have to acknowledge the problems in society and try to move beyond them. Flags and statues aren’t ‘learning from the past’.
    MayDayDiVicenzo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Bond has already changed several times over the years (Dalton/TLD is a big fan favourite despite his womanising being nearly entirely missing from the film) - he stopped smoking decades ago. So it’s nothing new and nothing to be afraid of. He didn’t survive the culture of the 70s intact, never mind today’s culture! :)

    I think the films could happily take some better roles for women; maybe NTTD has done that, the signs are positive.

    This I agree with, and I think it also worth mentioning that since 1995, Bond has gradually adapted remarkably well to our more attuned society. I think it’s no exaggeration that Dame Judi’s “sexist misogynist dinosaur” spiel marked a distinct change to a new era, and I think Eon have done marvellously well with this balancing act of letting Bond do what Bond does and (rightly) do some things differently to be more accommodating of social-political changes outside the film itself.

    Yes indeed, although I think really he’d been changing in that way since the early 80s. The dinosaur speech was almost to try and convince us he was the out of date guy from the 60s rather than actually show us! :) Brosnan’s was maybe a little more misogynistic in GE than Dalton was -I’m thinking of him hitting on his evaluator in Monaco and Moneypenny: Dalton patronised ‘Penny but never really tried it on!
    MayDayDiVicenzo wrote: »
    Conversely, future releases could risk going too far down the route of change for change’s sake,

    I don’t think there’s any reason to worry about that though. There’s no sign of it.

    The trouble is - if you’re a straight white heterosexual man or someone with common sense, you’re seen as a monster and should be demonised, dehumanised and treated as such. But if you’re a woman, a non-white, an immigrant, or an LGBT member, you’re virtuous and pure and should be exhalted and worshipped as a hero and are entirely blameless. While I agree that real victims of racism and sexism should be respected, a tiny minority of them fabricate such claims to get sympathy and claim victimhood while ruining their accuser’s life.

    Just my two cents. I’m not trying to stir things up. I’m just fed up of victimhood being used by the cancel culture mob.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited April 2021 Posts: 5,970
    DeathToSpies84 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    DeathToSpies84 wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    I find the 'cancel culture' movement to be more than a little annoying. I'm sure eventually James Bond will be under their spotlight. Be it Bonds interactions with Quarrel in DN, his slapping of Tania in FRWL, the slap in Dink's bottom in GF, or the line about keeping Sadruddin in curry in OP.The problem I have is that these are a sign of the times in which these films came out. They're either a passing line with no emphasis on the story, or they're a small part of keeping the story moving. I don't think anyone would condone these actions, or act them out in real life. Those that would be offended by such actions would be in the minority. So why should a majority of people be imposed the cutting of such lines or scenes.
    You can't cancel history or the past. But you can learn from past mistakes and stop them happening again. Erasing things, doesn't make it better.

    Sadly, the cancel culture mob don’t want to learn from the past. They want to erase it and pretend it never happened. As a 36 year old white heterosexual male, i’m glad I grew up in a time where people weren’t getting outraged or seeing racism in everything day in and day out. But these days?

    The thing is, as white males we’re really not the ones to pronounce whether something isn’t racist. It doesn’t affect us other than to be the beneficiaries of it in many ways: let’s respect the victims of racism or sexism rather than telling them they’re wrong.

    Actual ‘learning from the past’ means that you have to acknowledge the problems in society and try to move beyond them. Flags and statues aren’t ‘learning from the past’.
    MayDayDiVicenzo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Bond has already changed several times over the years (Dalton/TLD is a big fan favourite despite his womanising being nearly entirely missing from the film) - he stopped smoking decades ago. So it’s nothing new and nothing to be afraid of. He didn’t survive the culture of the 70s intact, never mind today’s culture! :)

    I think the films could happily take some better roles for women; maybe NTTD has done that, the signs are positive.

    This I agree with, and I think it also worth mentioning that since 1995, Bond has gradually adapted remarkably well to our more attuned society. I think it’s no exaggeration that Dame Judi’s “sexist misogynist dinosaur” spiel marked a distinct change to a new era, and I think Eon have done marvellously well with this balancing act of letting Bond do what Bond does and (rightly) do some things differently to be more accommodating of social-political changes outside the film itself.

    Yes indeed, although I think really he’d been changing in that way since the early 80s. The dinosaur speech was almost to try and convince us he was the out of date guy from the 60s rather than actually show us! :) Brosnan’s was maybe a little more misogynistic in GE than Dalton was -I’m thinking of him hitting on his evaluator in Monaco and Moneypenny: Dalton patronised ‘Penny but never really tried it on!
    MayDayDiVicenzo wrote: »
    Conversely, future releases could risk going too far down the route of change for change’s sake,

    I don’t think there’s any reason to worry about that though. There’s no sign of it.

    The trouble is - if you’re a straight white heterosexual man or someone with common sense, you’re seen as a monster and should be demonised, dehumanised and treated as such. But if you’re a woman, a non-white, an immigrant, or an LGBT member, you’re virtuous and pure and should be exhalted and worshipped as a hero and are entirely blameless. While I agree that real victims of racism and sexism should be respected, a tiny minority of them fabricate such claims to get sympathy and claim victimhood while ruining their accuser’s life.
    What does this mean? That a lot of people who are "cancelled" are mostly people with common sense?

    Do I agree that sometimes cancelling can be taken too far? Yes. Has it seemingly taken over some online agendas? Yes. But does a small percentage of fabrication mean that truly horrible people shouldn't get what's coming to them or that appropriate change shouldn't be made? No.
  • TracyTracy
    Posts: 1,708
    Bond isnt a role model , i mean he kills people for goodness sake , so he should not be pc and smoke and if he feels like slapping a womans butt as a joke , so be it
  • DeathToSpies84DeathToSpies84 Newton-le-Willows, England
    Posts: 257
    Denbigh wrote: »
    DeathToSpies84 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    DeathToSpies84 wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    I find the 'cancel culture' movement to be more than a little annoying. I'm sure eventually James Bond will be under their spotlight. Be it Bonds interactions with Quarrel in DN, his slapping of Tania in FRWL, the slap in Dink's bottom in GF, or the line about keeping Sadruddin in curry in OP.The problem I have is that these are a sign of the times in which these films came out. They're either a passing line with no emphasis on the story, or they're a small part of keeping the story moving. I don't think anyone would condone these actions, or act them out in real life. Those that would be offended by such actions would be in the minority. So why should a majority of people be imposed the cutting of such lines or scenes.
    You can't cancel history or the past. But you can learn from past mistakes and stop them happening again. Erasing things, doesn't make it better.

    Sadly, the cancel culture mob don’t want to learn from the past. They want to erase it and pretend it never happened. As a 36 year old white heterosexual male, i’m glad I grew up in a time where people weren’t getting outraged or seeing racism in everything day in and day out. But these days?

    The thing is, as white males we’re really not the ones to pronounce whether something isn’t racist. It doesn’t affect us other than to be the beneficiaries of it in many ways: let’s respect the victims of racism or sexism rather than telling them they’re wrong.

    Actual ‘learning from the past’ means that you have to acknowledge the problems in society and try to move beyond them. Flags and statues aren’t ‘learning from the past’.
    MayDayDiVicenzo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Bond has already changed several times over the years (Dalton/TLD is a big fan favourite despite his womanising being nearly entirely missing from the film) - he stopped smoking decades ago. So it’s nothing new and nothing to be afraid of. He didn’t survive the culture of the 70s intact, never mind today’s culture! :)

    I think the films could happily take some better roles for women; maybe NTTD has done that, the signs are positive.

    This I agree with, and I think it also worth mentioning that since 1995, Bond has gradually adapted remarkably well to our more attuned society. I think it’s no exaggeration that Dame Judi’s “sexist misogynist dinosaur” spiel marked a distinct change to a new era, and I think Eon have done marvellously well with this balancing act of letting Bond do what Bond does and (rightly) do some things differently to be more accommodating of social-political changes outside the film itself.

    Yes indeed, although I think really he’d been changing in that way since the early 80s. The dinosaur speech was almost to try and convince us he was the out of date guy from the 60s rather than actually show us! :) Brosnan’s was maybe a little more misogynistic in GE than Dalton was -I’m thinking of him hitting on his evaluator in Monaco and Moneypenny: Dalton patronised ‘Penny but never really tried it on!
    MayDayDiVicenzo wrote: »
    Conversely, future releases could risk going too far down the route of change for change’s sake,

    I don’t think there’s any reason to worry about that though. There’s no sign of it.

    The trouble is - if you’re a straight white heterosexual man or someone with common sense, you’re seen as a monster and should be demonised, dehumanised and treated as such. But if you’re a woman, a non-white, an immigrant, or an LGBT member, you’re virtuous and pure and should be exhalted and worshipped as a hero and are entirely blameless. While I agree that real victims of racism and sexism should be respected, a tiny minority of them fabricate such claims to get sympathy and claim victimhood while ruining their accuser’s life.
    What does this mean? That a lot of people who are "cancelled" are mostly people with common sense?

    Do I agree that sometimes cancelling can be taken too far? Yes. Has it seemingly taken over some online agendas? Yes. But does a small percentage of fabrication mean that truly horrible people shouldn't get what's coming to them or that appropriate change shouldn't be made? No.

    Common sense means assessing a situation and using good judgement from a practical viewpoint. Today’s generation has none of that.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2021 Posts: 16,382
    DeathToSpies84 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    DeathToSpies84 wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    I find the 'cancel culture' movement to be more than a little annoying. I'm sure eventually James Bond will be under their spotlight. Be it Bonds interactions with Quarrel in DN, his slapping of Tania in FRWL, the slap in Dink's bottom in GF, or the line about keeping Sadruddin in curry in OP.The problem I have is that these are a sign of the times in which these films came out. They're either a passing line with no emphasis on the story, or they're a small part of keeping the story moving. I don't think anyone would condone these actions, or act them out in real life. Those that would be offended by such actions would be in the minority. So why should a majority of people be imposed the cutting of such lines or scenes.
    You can't cancel history or the past. But you can learn from past mistakes and stop them happening again. Erasing things, doesn't make it better.

    Sadly, the cancel culture mob don’t want to learn from the past. They want to erase it and pretend it never happened. As a 36 year old white heterosexual male, i’m glad I grew up in a time where people weren’t getting outraged or seeing racism in everything day in and day out. But these days?

    The thing is, as white males we’re really not the ones to pronounce whether something isn’t racist. It doesn’t affect us other than to be the beneficiaries of it in many ways: let’s respect the victims of racism or sexism rather than telling them they’re wrong.

    Actual ‘learning from the past’ means that you have to acknowledge the problems in society and try to move beyond them. Flags and statues aren’t ‘learning from the past’.
    MayDayDiVicenzo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Bond has already changed several times over the years (Dalton/TLD is a big fan favourite despite his womanising being nearly entirely missing from the film) - he stopped smoking decades ago. So it’s nothing new and nothing to be afraid of. He didn’t survive the culture of the 70s intact, never mind today’s culture! :)

    I think the films could happily take some better roles for women; maybe NTTD has done that, the signs are positive.

    This I agree with, and I think it also worth mentioning that since 1995, Bond has gradually adapted remarkably well to our more attuned society. I think it’s no exaggeration that Dame Judi’s “sexist misogynist dinosaur” spiel marked a distinct change to a new era, and I think Eon have done marvellously well with this balancing act of letting Bond do what Bond does and (rightly) do some things differently to be more accommodating of social-political changes outside the film itself.

    Yes indeed, although I think really he’d been changing in that way since the early 80s. The dinosaur speech was almost to try and convince us he was the out of date guy from the 60s rather than actually show us! :) Brosnan’s was maybe a little more misogynistic in GE than Dalton was -I’m thinking of him hitting on his evaluator in Monaco and Moneypenny: Dalton patronised ‘Penny but never really tried it on!
    MayDayDiVicenzo wrote: »
    Conversely, future releases could risk going too far down the route of change for change’s sake,

    I don’t think there’s any reason to worry about that though. There’s no sign of it.

    The trouble is - if you’re a straight white heterosexual man or someone with common sense, you’re seen as a monster and should be demonised, dehumanised and treated as such. But if you’re a woman, a non-white, an immigrant, or an LGBT member, you’re virtuous and pure and should be exhalted and worshipped as a hero and are entirely blameless. While I agree that real victims of racism and sexism should be respected, a tiny minority of them fabricate such claims to get sympathy and claim victimhood while ruining their accuser’s life.

    No. That’s a very twisted point of view.

    We are not the victims of racism and sexism: don’t try and flip it around and claim we are.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited April 2021 Posts: 5,970
    DeathToSpies84 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    DeathToSpies84 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    DeathToSpies84 wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    I find the 'cancel culture' movement to be more than a little annoying. I'm sure eventually James Bond will be under their spotlight. Be it Bonds interactions with Quarrel in DN, his slapping of Tania in FRWL, the slap in Dink's bottom in GF, or the line about keeping Sadruddin in curry in OP.The problem I have is that these are a sign of the times in which these films came out. They're either a passing line with no emphasis on the story, or they're a small part of keeping the story moving. I don't think anyone would condone these actions, or act them out in real life. Those that would be offended by such actions would be in the minority. So why should a majority of people be imposed the cutting of such lines or scenes.
    You can't cancel history or the past. But you can learn from past mistakes and stop them happening again. Erasing things, doesn't make it better.

    Sadly, the cancel culture mob don’t want to learn from the past. They want to erase it and pretend it never happened. As a 36 year old white heterosexual male, i’m glad I grew up in a time where people weren’t getting outraged or seeing racism in everything day in and day out. But these days?

    The thing is, as white males we’re really not the ones to pronounce whether something isn’t racist. It doesn’t affect us other than to be the beneficiaries of it in many ways: let’s respect the victims of racism or sexism rather than telling them they’re wrong.

    Actual ‘learning from the past’ means that you have to acknowledge the problems in society and try to move beyond them. Flags and statues aren’t ‘learning from the past’.
    MayDayDiVicenzo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Bond has already changed several times over the years (Dalton/TLD is a big fan favourite despite his womanising being nearly entirely missing from the film) - he stopped smoking decades ago. So it’s nothing new and nothing to be afraid of. He didn’t survive the culture of the 70s intact, never mind today’s culture! :)

    I think the films could happily take some better roles for women; maybe NTTD has done that, the signs are positive.

    This I agree with, and I think it also worth mentioning that since 1995, Bond has gradually adapted remarkably well to our more attuned society. I think it’s no exaggeration that Dame Judi’s “sexist misogynist dinosaur” spiel marked a distinct change to a new era, and I think Eon have done marvellously well with this balancing act of letting Bond do what Bond does and (rightly) do some things differently to be more accommodating of social-political changes outside the film itself.

    Yes indeed, although I think really he’d been changing in that way since the early 80s. The dinosaur speech was almost to try and convince us he was the out of date guy from the 60s rather than actually show us! :) Brosnan’s was maybe a little more misogynistic in GE than Dalton was -I’m thinking of him hitting on his evaluator in Monaco and Moneypenny: Dalton patronised ‘Penny but never really tried it on!
    MayDayDiVicenzo wrote: »
    Conversely, future releases could risk going too far down the route of change for change’s sake,

    I don’t think there’s any reason to worry about that though. There’s no sign of it.

    The trouble is - if you’re a straight white heterosexual man or someone with common sense, you’re seen as a monster and should be demonised, dehumanised and treated as such. But if you’re a woman, a non-white, an immigrant, or an LGBT member, you’re virtuous and pure and should be exhalted and worshipped as a hero and are entirely blameless. While I agree that real victims of racism and sexism should be respected, a tiny minority of them fabricate such claims to get sympathy and claim victimhood while ruining their accuser’s life.
    What does this mean? That a lot of people who are "cancelled" are mostly people with common sense?

    Do I agree that sometimes cancelling can be taken too far? Yes. Has it seemingly taken over some online agendas? Yes. But does a small percentage of fabrication mean that truly horrible people shouldn't get what's coming to them or that appropriate change shouldn't be made? No.

    Common sense means assessing a situation and using good judgement from a practical viewpoint. Today’s generation has none of that.
    So the people that are being cancelled for whatever reason are “good at assessing a situation” and “using good judgment”? And today’s generation is just stupid?

    That’s just ridiculous and a sweeping remark about a generation of people you obviously have no idea about. Whether you like the ‘cancel culture’ or not. To say that anyone who actually has been “cancelled” has common sense is what’s stupid IMO .

    People aren’t being “cancelled” because they hate the concept and oppose it, it happens because they’ve done something illegal or morally wrong that should be punished accordingly. Simple as.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,711
    Denbigh wrote: »
    DeathToSpies84 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    DeathToSpies84 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    DeathToSpies84 wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    I find the 'cancel culture' movement to be more than a little annoying. I'm sure eventually James Bond will be under their spotlight. Be it Bonds interactions with Quarrel in DN, his slapping of Tania in FRWL, the slap in Dink's bottom in GF, or the line about keeping Sadruddin in curry in OP.The problem I have is that these are a sign of the times in which these films came out. They're either a passing line with no emphasis on the story, or they're a small part of keeping the story moving. I don't think anyone would condone these actions, or act them out in real life. Those that would be offended by such actions would be in the minority. So why should a majority of people be imposed the cutting of such lines or scenes.
    You can't cancel history or the past. But you can learn from past mistakes and stop them happening again. Erasing things, doesn't make it better.

    Sadly, the cancel culture mob don’t want to learn from the past. They want to erase it and pretend it never happened. As a 36 year old white heterosexual male, i’m glad I grew up in a time where people weren’t getting outraged or seeing racism in everything day in and day out. But these days?

    The thing is, as white males we’re really not the ones to pronounce whether something isn’t racist. It doesn’t affect us other than to be the beneficiaries of it in many ways: let’s respect the victims of racism or sexism rather than telling them they’re wrong.

    Actual ‘learning from the past’ means that you have to acknowledge the problems in society and try to move beyond them. Flags and statues aren’t ‘learning from the past’.
    MayDayDiVicenzo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Bond has already changed several times over the years (Dalton/TLD is a big fan favourite despite his womanising being nearly entirely missing from the film) - he stopped smoking decades ago. So it’s nothing new and nothing to be afraid of. He didn’t survive the culture of the 70s intact, never mind today’s culture! :)

    I think the films could happily take some better roles for women; maybe NTTD has done that, the signs are positive.

    This I agree with, and I think it also worth mentioning that since 1995, Bond has gradually adapted remarkably well to our more attuned society. I think it’s no exaggeration that Dame Judi’s “sexist misogynist dinosaur” spiel marked a distinct change to a new era, and I think Eon have done marvellously well with this balancing act of letting Bond do what Bond does and (rightly) do some things differently to be more accommodating of social-political changes outside the film itself.

    Yes indeed, although I think really he’d been changing in that way since the early 80s. The dinosaur speech was almost to try and convince us he was the out of date guy from the 60s rather than actually show us! :) Brosnan’s was maybe a little more misogynistic in GE than Dalton was -I’m thinking of him hitting on his evaluator in Monaco and Moneypenny: Dalton patronised ‘Penny but never really tried it on!
    MayDayDiVicenzo wrote: »
    Conversely, future releases could risk going too far down the route of change for change’s sake,

    I don’t think there’s any reason to worry about that though. There’s no sign of it.

    The trouble is - if you’re a straight white heterosexual man or someone with common sense, you’re seen as a monster and should be demonised, dehumanised and treated as such. But if you’re a woman, a non-white, an immigrant, or an LGBT member, you’re virtuous and pure and should be exhalted and worshipped as a hero and are entirely blameless. While I agree that real victims of racism and sexism should be respected, a tiny minority of them fabricate such claims to get sympathy and claim victimhood while ruining their accuser’s life.
    What does this mean? That a lot of people who are "cancelled" are mostly people with common sense?

    Do I agree that sometimes cancelling can be taken too far? Yes. Has it seemingly taken over some online agendas? Yes. But does a small percentage of fabrication mean that truly horrible people shouldn't get what's coming to them or that appropriate change shouldn't be made? No.

    Common sense means assessing a situation and using good judgement from a practical viewpoint. Today’s generation has none of that.
    So the people that are being cancelled for whatever reason are “good at assessing a situation” and “using good judgment”? And today’s generation is just stupid?

    That’s just ridiculous and a sweeping remark about a generation of people you obviously have no idea about. Whether you like the ‘cancel culture’ or not. To say that anyone who actually has been “cancelled” has common sense is what’s stupid IMO .

    People aren’t being “cancelled” because they hate the concept and oppose it, it happens because they’ve done something illegal or morally wrong that should be punished accordingly. Simple as.

    I don't want to sign on to everything DeathToSpies84 is saying, but it is trivially easy to find stories of people being fired or abused for nonsensical, unfair reasons, or outright lies. Again, these are normal people, and not celebrities for the most part, and it's not relevant to the future of Bond.

    But just as it's wrong and dangerous to get upset when people rightly pay a price for horrible actions, it's wrong and dangerous to see that someone got doxxed/fired and assume they must have earned it.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,382
    Yes to say ‘all cancel culture is bad’ or that ‘they all must have deserved it’ are both far too sweeping generalisations. Each example is different and should be assessed separately.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited April 2021 Posts: 5,970
    mtm wrote: »
    Yes to say ‘all cancel culture is bad’ or that ‘they all must have deserved it’ are both far too sweeping generalisations.
    +1 to both what you and @ProfJoeButcher have said. It's a difficult subject to discuss, but I just wanted to make sure we weren't trying to explore the idea that because of examples of fabrication, it somehow makes all people accused victims and all accusers liars.
  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    Posts: 2,266
    Yes. Plain and Simple.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    Just don't be a dick and you'll have nothing to worry about. It's not difficult.
  • delfloriadelfloria
    edited April 2021 Posts: 1,859
    Could someone be reprimanded or fired if a co-worker was upset that they were a Bond fan and had 007 imagery up at their work place? Very hypothetical but.....................................
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited April 2021 Posts: 18,270
    delfloria wrote: »
    Could someone be reprimanded or fired if a co-worker was upset that they were a Bond fan and had 007 imagery up at their work place? Very hypothetical but.....................................

    If they put people on unpaid leave for wearing a visible cross around their neck at their place of work (such as that case involving British Airways) then I suppose that anything is possible nowadays. Thankfully the lady involved in that case was eventually vindicated at the European Court of Human Rights however:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eweida_v_United_Kingdom

    I suppose it would all depend on the policies in place in the particular workplace and if the employee could be held to be in breach of any of these policies from a Human Resources point of view. Personally, I try to keep my private fan passions private if I can and not get too familiar with any of my coworkers. I certainly don't go around telling everyone that I'm a Bond fan or shoving my fandom in people's faces. It may be the best policy in the long run.
  • DeathToSpies84DeathToSpies84 Newton-le-Willows, England
    Posts: 257
    Denbigh wrote: »
    DeathToSpies84 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    DeathToSpies84 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    DeathToSpies84 wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    I find the 'cancel culture' movement to be more than a little annoying. I'm sure eventually James Bond will be under their spotlight. Be it Bonds interactions with Quarrel in DN, his slapping of Tania in FRWL, the slap in Dink's bottom in GF, or the line about keeping Sadruddin in curry in OP.The problem I have is that these are a sign of the times in which these films came out. They're either a passing line with no emphasis on the story, or they're a small part of keeping the story moving. I don't think anyone would condone these actions, or act them out in real life. Those that would be offended by such actions would be in the minority. So why should a majority of people be imposed the cutting of such lines or scenes.
    You can't cancel history or the past. But you can learn from past mistakes and stop them happening again. Erasing things, doesn't make it better.

    Sadly, the cancel culture mob don’t want to learn from the past. They want to erase it and pretend it never happened. As a 36 year old white heterosexual male, i’m glad I grew up in a time where people weren’t getting outraged or seeing racism in everything day in and day out. But these days?

    The thing is, as white males we’re really not the ones to pronounce whether something isn’t racist. It doesn’t affect us other than to be the beneficiaries of it in many ways: let’s respect the victims of racism or sexism rather than telling them they’re wrong.

    Actual ‘learning from the past’ means that you have to acknowledge the problems in society and try to move beyond them. Flags and statues aren’t ‘learning from the past’.
    MayDayDiVicenzo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Bond has already changed several times over the years (Dalton/TLD is a big fan favourite despite his womanising being nearly entirely missing from the film) - he stopped smoking decades ago. So it’s nothing new and nothing to be afraid of. He didn’t survive the culture of the 70s intact, never mind today’s culture! :)

    I think the films could happily take some better roles for women; maybe NTTD has done that, the signs are positive.

    This I agree with, and I think it also worth mentioning that since 1995, Bond has gradually adapted remarkably well to our more attuned society. I think it’s no exaggeration that Dame Judi’s “sexist misogynist dinosaur” spiel marked a distinct change to a new era, and I think Eon have done marvellously well with this balancing act of letting Bond do what Bond does and (rightly) do some things differently to be more accommodating of social-political changes outside the film itself.

    Yes indeed, although I think really he’d been changing in that way since the early 80s. The dinosaur speech was almost to try and convince us he was the out of date guy from the 60s rather than actually show us! :) Brosnan’s was maybe a little more misogynistic in GE than Dalton was -I’m thinking of him hitting on his evaluator in Monaco and Moneypenny: Dalton patronised ‘Penny but never really tried it on!
    MayDayDiVicenzo wrote: »
    Conversely, future releases could risk going too far down the route of change for change’s sake,

    I don’t think there’s any reason to worry about that though. There’s no sign of it.

    The trouble is - if you’re a straight white heterosexual man or someone with common sense, you’re seen as a monster and should be demonised, dehumanised and treated as such. But if you’re a woman, a non-white, an immigrant, or an LGBT member, you’re virtuous and pure and should be exhalted and worshipped as a hero and are entirely blameless. While I agree that real victims of racism and sexism should be respected, a tiny minority of them fabricate such claims to get sympathy and claim victimhood while ruining their accuser’s life.
    What does this mean? That a lot of people who are "cancelled" are mostly people with common sense?

    Do I agree that sometimes cancelling can be taken too far? Yes. Has it seemingly taken over some online agendas? Yes. But does a small percentage of fabrication mean that truly horrible people shouldn't get what's coming to them or that appropriate change shouldn't be made? No.

    Common sense means assessing a situation and using good judgement from a practical viewpoint. Today’s generation has none of that.
    So the people that are being cancelled for whatever reason are “good at assessing a situation” and “using good judgment”? And today’s generation is just stupid?

    That’s just ridiculous and a sweeping remark about a generation of people you obviously have no idea about. Whether you like the ‘cancel culture’ or not. To say that anyone who actually has been “cancelled” has common sense is what’s stupid IMO .

    People aren’t being “cancelled” because they hate the concept and oppose it, it happens because they’ve done something illegal or morally wrong that should be punished accordingly. Simple as.

    I never said today’s generation is stupid. Since when did I say that? I don’t understand the concept of the cancel culture mob trawling through people’s past (Twitter being the most glaring example) and dragging up old tweets that could be classified as offensive. I refuse to go on Twitter because it’s an absolute cesspool.
  • DeathToSpies84DeathToSpies84 Newton-le-Willows, England
    Posts: 257
    mtm wrote: »
    DeathToSpies84 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    DeathToSpies84 wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    I find the 'cancel culture' movement to be more than a little annoying. I'm sure eventually James Bond will be under their spotlight. Be it Bonds interactions with Quarrel in DN, his slapping of Tania in FRWL, the slap in Dink's bottom in GF, or the line about keeping Sadruddin in curry in OP.The problem I have is that these are a sign of the times in which these films came out. They're either a passing line with no emphasis on the story, or they're a small part of keeping the story moving. I don't think anyone would condone these actions, or act them out in real life. Those that would be offended by such actions would be in the minority. So why should a majority of people be imposed the cutting of such lines or scenes.
    You can't cancel history or the past. But you can learn from past mistakes and stop them happening again. Erasing things, doesn't make it better.

    Sadly, the cancel culture mob don’t want to learn from the past. They want to erase it and pretend it never happened. As a 36 year old white heterosexual male, i’m glad I grew up in a time where people weren’t getting outraged or seeing racism in everything day in and day out. But these days?

    The thing is, as white males we’re really not the ones to pronounce whether something isn’t racist. It doesn’t affect us other than to be the beneficiaries of it in many ways: let’s respect the victims of racism or sexism rather than telling them they’re wrong.

    Actual ‘learning from the past’ means that you have to acknowledge the problems in society and try to move beyond them. Flags and statues aren’t ‘learning from the past’.
    MayDayDiVicenzo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Bond has already changed several times over the years (Dalton/TLD is a big fan favourite despite his womanising being nearly entirely missing from the film) - he stopped smoking decades ago. So it’s nothing new and nothing to be afraid of. He didn’t survive the culture of the 70s intact, never mind today’s culture! :)

    I think the films could happily take some better roles for women; maybe NTTD has done that, the signs are positive.

    This I agree with, and I think it also worth mentioning that since 1995, Bond has gradually adapted remarkably well to our more attuned society. I think it’s no exaggeration that Dame Judi’s “sexist misogynist dinosaur” spiel marked a distinct change to a new era, and I think Eon have done marvellously well with this balancing act of letting Bond do what Bond does and (rightly) do some things differently to be more accommodating of social-political changes outside the film itself.

    Yes indeed, although I think really he’d been changing in that way since the early 80s. The dinosaur speech was almost to try and convince us he was the out of date guy from the 60s rather than actually show us! :) Brosnan’s was maybe a little more misogynistic in GE than Dalton was -I’m thinking of him hitting on his evaluator in Monaco and Moneypenny: Dalton patronised ‘Penny but never really tried it on!
    MayDayDiVicenzo wrote: »
    Conversely, future releases could risk going too far down the route of change for change’s sake,

    I don’t think there’s any reason to worry about that though. There’s no sign of it.

    The trouble is - if you’re a straight white heterosexual man or someone with common sense, you’re seen as a monster and should be demonised, dehumanised and treated as such. But if you’re a woman, a non-white, an immigrant, or an LGBT member, you’re virtuous and pure and should be exhalted and worshipped as a hero and are entirely blameless. While I agree that real victims of racism and sexism should be respected, a tiny minority of them fabricate such claims to get sympathy and claim victimhood while ruining their accuser’s life.

    No. That’s a very twisted point of view.

    We are not the victims of racism and sexism: don’t try and flip it around and claim we are.

    I regret opening this can of worms. It was never my intention to piss anyone off on here.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited April 2021 Posts: 5,970
    DeathToSpies84 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    DeathToSpies84 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    DeathToSpies84 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    DeathToSpies84 wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    I find the 'cancel culture' movement to be more than a little annoying. I'm sure eventually James Bond will be under their spotlight. Be it Bonds interactions with Quarrel in DN, his slapping of Tania in FRWL, the slap in Dink's bottom in GF, or the line about keeping Sadruddin in curry in OP.The problem I have is that these are a sign of the times in which these films came out. They're either a passing line with no emphasis on the story, or they're a small part of keeping the story moving. I don't think anyone would condone these actions, or act them out in real life. Those that would be offended by such actions would be in the minority. So why should a majority of people be imposed the cutting of such lines or scenes.
    You can't cancel history or the past. But you can learn from past mistakes and stop them happening again. Erasing things, doesn't make it better.

    Sadly, the cancel culture mob don’t want to learn from the past. They want to erase it and pretend it never happened. As a 36 year old white heterosexual male, i’m glad I grew up in a time where people weren’t getting outraged or seeing racism in everything day in and day out. But these days?

    The thing is, as white males we’re really not the ones to pronounce whether something isn’t racist. It doesn’t affect us other than to be the beneficiaries of it in many ways: let’s respect the victims of racism or sexism rather than telling them they’re wrong.

    Actual ‘learning from the past’ means that you have to acknowledge the problems in society and try to move beyond them. Flags and statues aren’t ‘learning from the past’.
    MayDayDiVicenzo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Bond has already changed several times over the years (Dalton/TLD is a big fan favourite despite his womanising being nearly entirely missing from the film) - he stopped smoking decades ago. So it’s nothing new and nothing to be afraid of. He didn’t survive the culture of the 70s intact, never mind today’s culture! :)

    I think the films could happily take some better roles for women; maybe NTTD has done that, the signs are positive.

    This I agree with, and I think it also worth mentioning that since 1995, Bond has gradually adapted remarkably well to our more attuned society. I think it’s no exaggeration that Dame Judi’s “sexist misogynist dinosaur” spiel marked a distinct change to a new era, and I think Eon have done marvellously well with this balancing act of letting Bond do what Bond does and (rightly) do some things differently to be more accommodating of social-political changes outside the film itself.

    Yes indeed, although I think really he’d been changing in that way since the early 80s. The dinosaur speech was almost to try and convince us he was the out of date guy from the 60s rather than actually show us! :) Brosnan’s was maybe a little more misogynistic in GE than Dalton was -I’m thinking of him hitting on his evaluator in Monaco and Moneypenny: Dalton patronised ‘Penny but never really tried it on!
    MayDayDiVicenzo wrote: »
    Conversely, future releases could risk going too far down the route of change for change’s sake,

    I don’t think there’s any reason to worry about that though. There’s no sign of it.

    The trouble is - if you’re a straight white heterosexual man or someone with common sense, you’re seen as a monster and should be demonised, dehumanised and treated as such. But if you’re a woman, a non-white, an immigrant, or an LGBT member, you’re virtuous and pure and should be exhalted and worshipped as a hero and are entirely blameless. While I agree that real victims of racism and sexism should be respected, a tiny minority of them fabricate such claims to get sympathy and claim victimhood while ruining their accuser’s life.
    What does this mean? That a lot of people who are "cancelled" are mostly people with common sense?

    Do I agree that sometimes cancelling can be taken too far? Yes. Has it seemingly taken over some online agendas? Yes. But does a small percentage of fabrication mean that truly horrible people shouldn't get what's coming to them or that appropriate change shouldn't be made? No.

    Common sense means assessing a situation and using good judgement from a practical viewpoint. Today’s generation has none of that.
    So the people that are being cancelled for whatever reason are “good at assessing a situation” and “using good judgment”? And today’s generation is just stupid?

    That’s just ridiculous and a sweeping remark about a generation of people you obviously have no idea about. Whether you like the ‘cancel culture’ or not. To say that anyone who actually has been “cancelled” has common sense is what’s stupid IMO .

    People aren’t being “cancelled” because they hate the concept and oppose it, it happens because they’ve done something illegal or morally wrong that should be punished accordingly. Simple as.
    Twitter because it’s an absolute cesspool.
    I mean on that we can agree. I also completely get that now it has become a bit more a thing for some people to want to "cancel" people for the sake of it.

    Anyway, to move on and answer the question the thread puts forward, I think Bond can survive. History has proven so. If by this we are addressing the lack of too much mainstream enthusiasm for the franchise, I think it's definitely there but not a killer to the future of the franchise.

    The world has changed massively between now and when Casino Royale was released. It's why this is the best time for Craig to go. He's done incredibly well, and people still love the films even if they're not jumping at the chance to express it. It's just now we need a new actor and new stories to get a whole other possible audience involved.
  • DeathToSpies84DeathToSpies84 Newton-le-Willows, England
    Posts: 257
    Denbigh wrote: »
    DeathToSpies84 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    DeathToSpies84 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    DeathToSpies84 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    DeathToSpies84 wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    I find the 'cancel culture' movement to be more than a little annoying. I'm sure eventually James Bond will be under their spotlight. Be it Bonds interactions with Quarrel in DN, his slapping of Tania in FRWL, the slap in Dink's bottom in GF, or the line about keeping Sadruddin in curry in OP.The problem I have is that these are a sign of the times in which these films came out. They're either a passing line with no emphasis on the story, or they're a small part of keeping the story moving. I don't think anyone would condone these actions, or act them out in real life. Those that would be offended by such actions would be in the minority. So why should a majority of people be imposed the cutting of such lines or scenes.
    You can't cancel history or the past. But you can learn from past mistakes and stop them happening again. Erasing things, doesn't make it better.

    Sadly, the cancel culture mob don’t want to learn from the past. They want to erase it and pretend it never happened. As a 36 year old white heterosexual male, i’m glad I grew up in a time where people weren’t getting outraged or seeing racism in everything day in and day out. But these days?

    The thing is, as white males we’re really not the ones to pronounce whether something isn’t racist. It doesn’t affect us other than to be the beneficiaries of it in many ways: let’s respect the victims of racism or sexism rather than telling them they’re wrong.

    Actual ‘learning from the past’ means that you have to acknowledge the problems in society and try to move beyond them. Flags and statues aren’t ‘learning from the past’.
    MayDayDiVicenzo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Bond has already changed several times over the years (Dalton/TLD is a big fan favourite despite his womanising being nearly entirely missing from the film) - he stopped smoking decades ago. So it’s nothing new and nothing to be afraid of. He didn’t survive the culture of the 70s intact, never mind today’s culture! :)

    I think the films could happily take some better roles for women; maybe NTTD has done that, the signs are positive.

    This I agree with, and I think it also worth mentioning that since 1995, Bond has gradually adapted remarkably well to our more attuned society. I think it’s no exaggeration that Dame Judi’s “sexist misogynist dinosaur” spiel marked a distinct change to a new era, and I think Eon have done marvellously well with this balancing act of letting Bond do what Bond does and (rightly) do some things differently to be more accommodating of social-political changes outside the film itself.

    Yes indeed, although I think really he’d been changing in that way since the early 80s. The dinosaur speech was almost to try and convince us he was the out of date guy from the 60s rather than actually show us! :) Brosnan’s was maybe a little more misogynistic in GE than Dalton was -I’m thinking of him hitting on his evaluator in Monaco and Moneypenny: Dalton patronised ‘Penny but never really tried it on!
    MayDayDiVicenzo wrote: »
    Conversely, future releases could risk going too far down the route of change for change’s sake,

    I don’t think there’s any reason to worry about that though. There’s no sign of it.

    The trouble is - if you’re a straight white heterosexual man or someone with common sense, you’re seen as a monster and should be demonised, dehumanised and treated as such. But if you’re a woman, a non-white, an immigrant, or an LGBT member, you’re virtuous and pure and should be exhalted and worshipped as a hero and are entirely blameless. While I agree that real victims of racism and sexism should be respected, a tiny minority of them fabricate such claims to get sympathy and claim victimhood while ruining their accuser’s life.
    What does this mean? That a lot of people who are "cancelled" are mostly people with common sense?

    Do I agree that sometimes cancelling can be taken too far? Yes. Has it seemingly taken over some online agendas? Yes. But does a small percentage of fabrication mean that truly horrible people shouldn't get what's coming to them or that appropriate change shouldn't be made? No.

    Common sense means assessing a situation and using good judgement from a practical viewpoint. Today’s generation has none of that.
    So the people that are being cancelled for whatever reason are “good at assessing a situation” and “using good judgment”? And today’s generation is just stupid?

    That’s just ridiculous and a sweeping remark about a generation of people you obviously have no idea about. Whether you like the ‘cancel culture’ or not. To say that anyone who actually has been “cancelled” has common sense is what’s stupid IMO .

    People aren’t being “cancelled” because they hate the concept and oppose it, it happens because they’ve done something illegal or morally wrong that should be punished accordingly. Simple as.
    Twitter because it’s an absolute cesspool.
    I mean on that we can agree. I also completely get that now it has become a bit more a thing for some people to want to "cancel" people for the sake of it.

    Anyway, to move on and answer the question the thread puts forward, I think Bond can survive. History has proven so. If by this we are addressing the lack of too much mainstream enthusiasm for the franchise, I think it's definitely there but not a killer to the future of the franchise.

    The world has changed massively between now and when Casino Royale was released. It's why this is the best time for Craig to go. He's done incredibly well, and people still love the films even if they're not jumping at the chance to express it. It's just now we need a new actor and new stories to get a whole other possible audience involved.

    I agree. Craig has done all he can as Bond. The franchise itself will endure and adapt as it has done many times before.
  • BT3366BT3366
    Posts: 1,917
    With all the focus on gun violence, I can see future Bond advertising and promotional material playing down the gun motif on the 007 logo, no more posing with a Walther on posters or promo shots and wouldn't be surprised if the gunbarrel was eliminated altogether in future films.
  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    Posts: 2,266
    BT3366 wrote: »
    With all the focus on gun violence, I can see future Bond advertising and promotional material playing down the gun motif on the 007 logo, no more posing with a Walther on posters or promo shots and wouldn't be surprised if the gunbarrel was eliminated altogether in future films.

    I don’t really see any of that. Yes, perhaps there is too much of a focus on the Gun Violence we see in society today, but that doesn’t mean they’ll start censoring guns out of every single 007 related product. Plus, I highly doubt people blame the Gun Violence we see today on the James Bond franchise.
  • ThrasosThrasos
    edited April 2021 Posts: 1,469
    We have John Wick films, so I suspect we'll still have the gunbarrel, which was synonymous with Bond way before Wick. Sure Dems in the U.S. want to try to limit gun violence--emphasis on try--but gun ownership will still be a reality.
  • delfloriadelfloria
    Posts: 1,859
    Actually we already see some of the 007 logo on merchandise without the gun barrel on the 7. Those recent sneakers come to mind. Another facet of this discussion could be the changing attitudes of the Bond fans themselves and how much that has allowed for Bond's character changes over the years.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,382
    Thrasos wrote: »
    Sure Dems in the U.S. want to try to limit gun violence--emphasis on try--but gun ownership will still be a reality.

    You mean limit gun violence in films? Because surely everyone wants to limit it in real life! :)
    Gun ownership in real life rather than films, presumably.
  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    Posts: 2,266
    delfloria wrote: »
    Actually we already see some of the 007 logo on merchandise without the gun barrel on the 7. Those recent sneakers come to mind. Another facet of this discussion could be the changing attitudes of the Bond fans themselves and how much that has allowed for Bond's character changes over the years.

    Really? I haven’t seen any images, I’ll have to check it out. Even then, I highly doubt we’ll see Bond using less and less guns because of all this real world violence. Not with, as mentioned above, other films like John Wick and others. The films would’ve been censored long ago if that was ever truly an issue, at least I feel that.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2021 Posts: 16,382
    I guess there's a chance we might see fewer Bond film posters with him posing with the gun, looking cool. I suppose someone looking good with a gun, using it as a sort of stylish accessory, might be something to move away from in future as that is a powerful bit of imagery. Maybe that would be more important in the US than the UK as you can't buy pistols legally here.
    There have been a couple of PPK-less NTTD posters already.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited April 2021 Posts: 5,970
    I think gun violence or otherwise only becomes a problem in media if the context of the violence relates too closely to something that's happened in real life. I think sometimes if this has happened the media has been delayed or edited. It's usually not met with much controversy unless it's extremely distasteful.

    I believe an episode of American Horror Story: Cult was delayed or edited, with two versions available to watch, because it was too close to something horribly similar that occurred in real life.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,382
    I could see it going the same way as the smoking: in that Bond made smoking look very cool (just look at Connery with a fag on: he looks awesome :D ) so really he had to stop it. In a similar way maybe posing with a gun in a sharp suit and looking incredibly suave and stylish does glamorise it a bit, so I could imagine perhaps fewer posters and photos of him doing the crossed-arms Bond pose in future. That's not to say he couldn't still hold a gun on posters, but maybe more in action poses than 'cool' ones. Obviously it's not quite the same as the cigarettes in that he'll still have to use a gun in the films! :)
    This may well not happen though as I don't think it's a massive problem.
Sign In or Register to comment.