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
I always assumed that Tatiana knew that Rosa Klebb had defected to SPECTRE by that point.
Interesting thought @mtm … Peter’s did give off a much more playful vibe, and in this same film, I find it interesting that Fiona talks about Bond making love to a woman and that’s all he has to do to turn her back to the good side, like she’s mocking the particular scene we’ve been discussing…
How would Fiona know - are you suggesting that Goldfinger was part of SPECTRE?
Nope, not at all @Troy . What I am saying is that the writers, through the character, were mocking the stupidity of the barn scene.
Pity, indeed, @Troy
There’s this obsession to save this fictitious character from a few bad moves in his day, an obsession to blame a contradictory perspective of this barn scene on the sensitivities of today, to label anyone not in agreement of being vacuous ideologues who are “woke”.
The entire thing is ridiculous.
In the end, it was a terribly lazy scene, and, as I’ve called it repeatedly: deus ex machina via Bond’s penis. Lazy and stupid writing, and Bond isn’t cool, nor seductive.
The scene where Jill tells Bond that she’s beginning to like him is the field Bond should be playing in. From start to finish, that scene of embarrassing Goldfinger IS the absolute and unstoppable force that is James Bond, at his coolest and most seductive.
The other scene has rightly been exposed for what it is, on top of it being stupid and lazy writing….
With 007HallY mentioning May Day above, I hadn't quite twigged before that her turning at the end is the equivalent of Pussy turning (with AVTAK being a loose GF remake of course). She's the new version of Oddjob of course, but she's also Pussy too. I'd say that the way she turns to the good side is more convincingly done.
Yeah but, @mtm , MayDay turns not because she slept with Bond (that was business), but because she saw the corpses of her friends floating dead. Zorin had betrayed her and her friends. Thats why she turned. Unless I missed something?
Yes indeed, that's what I mean; her being betrayed by the baddie is a more satisfying reason for me than just falling for Bond.
Oh, absolutely. It’s a truthful and seamless transition based on events in the story…
Maybe to you, but there was a difference opinion shared and I was called the above. Not by you, but another poster. So….
1. No actually sex on screen. Nothing like DAD.
2. No sex upon early meetings with the primary Bond girl (nothing like Pam in LTK for example)
3. Few secondary Bond girls, and if they exist, they never overlap with the main Bond girl
4. More an attempt to play the romantic aspects of the relationship (Bond being protective, girl being vulnerable etc.)
5. Maybe an odd one but potentially the imperfections of Bond girls (Honey's broken nose or Domino's off-kilter legs)
Number 5 is certainly straight out of Fleming. I wonder if the producers would be willing to go there.
I’m not so sure about that because the accusations of sexism in Bond have been around for decades yet the filmmakers have never really lost sight that sex/promiscuity is one of the core tenants of the Cinematic Bond. That criticism has never really prevented any of the films from making money at the box office either no matter how loud certain people may proclaim it. Even Craig’s tenure leaned into that promiscuity to an extent before Madeline entered the films. Speaking personally, as a 26 year old Gen Z guy, I’m increasingly noticing that the idea of “open relationships” and “one night stands” has unfortunately somewhat become a social norm now. Even beyond that, we live in the age of “OnlyFans” and “Tinder” which regardless of how some feel about then has unfortunately affected the dating landscape in my generation. Do I think Bond films are going to reflect this change? I don’t know honestly, but I don’t think the cinematic Bond will be eventually rid of his promiscuity entirely.
No it's nothing new of course. But Tinder has made it a lot easier for anyone to find a date and hook up with them, even if it may not lead to any sort of meaningful relationship at all. It acts like a lot of other social media platforms in that it can feed on your dopamine/serotonin levels to where it can become somewhat addicting just continually swiping potential partners left or right in hopes of gaining pleasure if only for a short amount of time. OnlyFans on the other hand has somewhat normalized the idea of sex work being a "moral" (and I use that term very loosely) way to earn a living, and has provided plenty of young people with the incentive to make money posting extremely personal subject matter on the Internet behind a paywall. It's effects on the minds of young men in particular are similar to that of Pornography in that it can also feed on dopamine/serotonin levels to where it can become extremely unhealthy if an addiction is developed. This is inevitably the consequence of everyone having access to smartphones and the internet 24/7, and to relate it back to the series; this is the world that Bond #7 will be coming into.
I think we’ll still see Bond having one night stands/affairs (such as in SF or TND) or him having to seduce secondary female characters to get his job done. Maybe the framing of these situations will change a bit, but I think they’ll still be there.
Yeah, exactly….
I’m not sure why some seem concerned with Bond’s relationship with women… they may make tasteful adjustments, like in TLD (during the AIDS crisis), but even then, Bond had a quick dalliance with the woman on the boat and then involved himself with Kara.
No matter what, women will always play a significant role in this character’s life, so it seems strange that this conversation keeps popping up as if James Bond films will suddenly become sexless…
Moral panic panic.
Yeah, womanising’s a part of Bond’s DNA. There’ll be things that will be done differently, but I really can’t see that aspect of the character dying out.
Honestly, I think we’re more likely to see something like Bond having to walk out on a Bond girl at the end of a film or something (similar to him walking out on Viv in TSWLM) than him not having sex at all throughout a film to make him come across as more ‘virtuous’. Something that makes Bond look like a bit of a bastard within certain bounds, and subtly critiques how he forms relationships with certain women (not that these ideas are anything new in themselves). Actually that’d be quite an interesting ending.
Potentially with all the publicity about beauty standards, and also criticism about the villains being disabled, the franchise could hit two birds with one stone
I'm half serious, of course. We now live in a world where casual sex is more accepted and women are allowed to indulge with what I would hope is lesser judgement. It takes two to tango after all.
I can see them leaning into a more "romance" angle perhaps but I don't think Bond's gun will remain holstered for an entire movie.
+1. I think the critiques of "Bond can't have sex anymore in the 'woke' world" are really quite overblown and fanned by the tabloids for clicks.
CR is a good example. Bond is supposed to be charismatic, and there are several women in that film who Bond doesn't sleep with who are still obviously attracted to him.
Even SF...I get that Severine has a traumatic history as a child sex slave and that is probably too much for a Bond film which is meant to be escapist after all...but because of that history is she never supposed to have consensual sex again?
That latter part is the weird moralizing part on the part of tabloids, as she is clearly shown to be at least intrigued by, and likely attracted to Bond, in the casino.
Social media may encourage more promiscuous behaviour, but mass media / authorities have certainly become more prudish.
In the late 20th century, it was common to see topless women in network tv shows after 9pm, photos of topless 16yo’s in national newspapers, ‘schoolgirl’ fancy dress nights in night clubs, affairs at work etc. etc. Not anymore. No one talked about sex requiring a committed relationship.
In the 1980s and 1990s, everyone went to nightclubs and tried for a one-night stand - the 15 minute period of slow dances at 1.45pm were eagerly anticipated in every nightclub.
I mean, people still have one night stands and go to nightclubs specifically for that… people still have affairs at work too. In the UK at least we still have (actually a rather odd amount) of nudity on Channel 4 after the watershed time on certain days (ie. Naked Attraction if you’ve never heard of it. Things like Babestation still exist too weirdly). I don’t know about topless 16 year olds in newspapers (and honestly, if that’s something nowadays we find unacceptable, then thank God for that). I’m not sure if I could imagine certain things depicted in an essentially mainstream film like, say, Saltburn, being something as easy to get away with in the 80s/90s.
I don’t think it’s that mass media, or indeed people, are more prudish. If anything we’re actually less so nowadays about certain things. And there’s always been a level of self-censorship (or indeed censorship in general, and we’re certainly not in the days of the Hays Code) to avoid controversy.