It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Though ironically Xenia smoked cigars too which added to her sense of sophistication and dress sense.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone complain that he doesn't shag enough women in Living Daylights. Or indeed that he ends Skyfall alone- I'm not sure people care that much do they?
I don't think Bond has too much to worry about in that regard, as his lifestyle is a purely fantastical one. Where that kind of thing comes more into play is in depictions of law enforcement and corruption. I was watching Black And Blue with Naomi Harris recently - that film had a cold reception for a variety of reasons, but one that struck me was perhaps people are bored of those "one good cop takes down corruption" style stories that have stronger elements of real-life to them, and it's films like that which are more likely to be "victims" of changing attitudes, rather than something that's obviously based in fantasy like Bond is.
Just a thought.
No, and in fact I welcome Bond not bedding every woman he meets. It makes a refreshing change for him only to have one woman in a film. The toning down of the womanising in TLD was a direct response to the AIDS health crisis of the 1980s and the fears about unprotected sex and promiscuity. Of course there is also literary Bond precedent such as when Fleming had Gala Brand engaged to another man and Bond and the girl walking off into their separate lives at the end of Moonraker (1955). Bond of course had had other plans to whisk her away to France after his mission was completed. As Kingsley Amis wrote in The James Bond Dossier (1965) Bond had an average of one woman per adventure and that wasn't seen as excessive for the time, the Swinging Sixties, when the permissive society was first taking shape.
There are times where Bond almost seems to really not have his priorities in order in some of the films, as he stops investigating in order to do the deed with a woman he's just met. That scene with Fekkesh's secretary in The Spy Who Loved Me springs to mind. That sort of thing is just sex for sex's sake.
Granted, sleeping with someone to get information from them is understandable and has been a trait of spycraft since, well.....forever.
Some of the critics back in '87 complained about Bond being a one-woman man in TLD and I'm sure some fans were put off. Hard to say given those pre-Internet days, but maybe the letters section of 007 Magazine of the time would reveal that. I'd be willing to bet there were some people who used that as one of the reasons they didn't like Dalton's Bond.
I actually found it refreshing Bond didn't end up with the girl in the first 3 Craig movies. It was a nice change from the standard ending of Bond in a clinch with the girl and a cheesy line.
Therefore Bond changes to fit the current culture. At what point is he still Bond and not just some character named Bond who works for the Secret Service. Perhaps that is all that is needed..................the name James Bond. Minus the 007 license to kill, which he won't have this time around. Of course some of us think this has already happened occasionally depending on the actors taking up the mantle.
About Bond bedding women in the future, that would fit the character and the female characters who want him to bed them, but I think it might work best if it fits in with how the film story progresses, if it fits with the narrative, even the quick one en route.
I'm pretty sure you meant some of this as sarcasm, but to follow on, personally I think Eon will want to keep Bond's character as is, but tweak a few behaviors to satisfy current culture, my guess is about a 95%-5% ratio in that regard. I think some reasons why we won't see Bond stray too much from how he is today is because he's stood the test of time, and while he is a fantasy or film character, we men share some basic personality traits with him, except with him they're magnified, sometimes to the extreme. Obvious examples are love of a woman or women; love of good food and drink; liking our work but also sometimes wanting to tell off our boss or resign; disliking evil in the world; not shying away from a confrontation if required; enjoying repartee with someone; dressing well; staying fit (that one I'm working on).
Yes, there was a bit of tongue in cheek there. I do agree with you though. I think Bond will weather any criticism but it will be interesting to see if he does becomes a target, with the release of NTTD, of some vocal groups regarding cultural change.
Broccoli and Saltzman tried to make fans and moviegoers think he was during the promotion for LALD back in 1972-73, saying he was closer to Fleming's Bond than Connery was when all that time what you said held more true than it ever did.
It makes one wish social media had been around then to hear fans' reactions to such a statement from the producers. I also wonder what hardcore Fleming fans thought when they saw LALD the first time regarding that claim.
Indeed: in terms of being closer to Fleming, he was English... and that was about it! :)
That's not a criticism incidentally. He was terrific.
I always remember talking to one fan when all that 'Craig Not Bond' stuff was blowing up before Casino Royale, so many people incensed at the idea of Craig playing Bond in a non-conventional movie. I said would it really be so bad to have a fair-haired guy playing Bond in a film where he doesn't wear a dinner suit, doesn't drink martinis or smoke cigarettes, doesn't drive a British sportscar, uses a huge revolver instead of a PPK, doesn't go to MI6 HQ at any point, and Q doesn't appear at all? Naturally the guy said yes, that would be breaking the Precious Bond Formula!! And then, as I'm sure you've worked out, I explained which Bond movie I was talking about and how no Bond fans seem to have a problem with it... :D
Naturally he then said "that's different!" and didn't explain why, because you can't argue with these people.
Give it time and all terrible shocking new developments just become part of the history.
What's wrong with people in their underwear when it's tastefully done? I don't really understand why you'd feel insulted by it.
The same thing happened with the FYEO film poster. That's the one where Roger Moore is posing with his gun between a woman's legs. In Pakistan her skimpy outfit was adapted into a pair of shorts. So that's a much earlier example of censorship from 40 years ago, long before most of the so-called "woke brigade" was even born.
There are of course differences in how men and women are regarded in society however and what may be deemed an appropriate garment for a man to wear may be considered inappropriate for a woman to wear in certain contexts or especially on a book/magazine cover or film poster. It seems to me that women are often held to a higher degree of modesty simply because they are the fairer and more vulnerable sex. Of course that may be seen as an old-fashioned view nowadays but the key idea behind it still applies. So what men wear in comparison to women doesn't really come into it. If you'll forgive me, it's rather like comparing apples with oranges.
I don't know if that's quite the same, no.
That ad was a hot topic that summer. I wonder if there were any complaints in my town, which gained a very conservative reputation over the years. When the movie Showgirls came out in '94 or whenever it was, it was the first mainstream NC-17 film to play here and several people got upset and the cinema owner was forced to pull it early.
Bond's behavior at Shrublands is an outlier.
All in all, James Bond has rarely acted inappropriately toward everyday, civilian women. He has mostly used sex and charm in regards to a mark or asset. On the contrary, Bond has more often expressed concern for the safety of innocent civilians: think Tilly in GF or Plenty in DAF. He even risks his life to save Honey (a relative stranger) in DN. We might even put the shower scene in CR in that class--Vesper is a treasury agent and not accustomed to the violence she witnesses in the stairwell.
When people talk about James Bond clashing with "woke" culture, I am not sure what they are talking about, really. Yes, maybe the books. And they often point to Bond's "rape" of Pussy Galore, but even that is a stretch: Pussy was was on the verge of helping to plant a nuclear device at Fort Knox. She is hardly innocent. And Bond used the best tools he had (no pun intended) to convince her not to do it.
What tends to happen is that critics incorrectly attribute the treatment of women to the character of James Bond rather than the franchise. How female characters are dressed, portrayed, used in marketing materials is all part of the framing of character. But it isn't the character's doing. The recent controversy surrounding the comic book cover is a perfect example. https://mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/dynamite-comics-agent-of-spectre-cover-censorship?id=04868
Aaron Lopestri's defense of the cover gets it all wrong: "So here's the sad part... The girl in the underwear... Apparently, with the James Bond people getting all 'woke' and all, they don't want to show James Bond being a sexist character anymore?
DUDE...James Bond didn't dress that woman in underwear. YOU DID!!!!!
Just out of interest where were you living in at the time? I may be wrong but it doesn't sound like a Western country.
Ha! Very true :D
Yes, that's true. I was thinking it could be in the US as well.
the first silhouetted love sausage can be spotted. :D
Alan Partridge will have a whole new sketch sequence
Classic examples are discussions about violence in movies and games (It has no effect on me and my children, but those other children, they will be much more violent after seeing this), misogynistic and homophobic rap lyrics (I have the mental capacity to not let this influence me, but those kids in the ghetto are getting their mind fried by this) or the influence tabloids have (my position hasn't changed after reading this, but it is surely going to radicalize Joe Normalbloke, because he's an idiot).
In so many "culture wars" and "cancel culture" stories, the acting people themselves often are very adamant to stress that they themselves actually don't have a problem with whatever the hot topic is or at least couldn't possibly comment personally, but - you know - "THEY" do. There will be a shitstorm by "THEM". "THEY" will boycott. "THEY" will think James Bond is sexist, because a woman in underwear is on the cover. "THEY" will throw a fit if a black man is cast as James Bond. You and I would never think that. But "THEY" do. So we better get out it front, before "THEY" get angry.
I honestly think public discourse is trapped in some kind of 5D chess game where everyone assumes loads of things about other people and tries to get out infront of a reaction someone might have to something they were never even confronted with in the first place.
Well the Casino Royale titles were entirely silhouettes of men, with a quick glimpse of Vesper's face and that's it for women.
I imagine if you had told Bond fans beforehand that there'd be no dancing nudey ladies in the title sequence there would have been plenty who blew their tops about 'woke nonsense ruining everything' etc. etc. but funnily enough I've never seen any fans complain it after the event. Almost as if they get worked up about things without considering how they may turn out... ;)