Would you rather have a car with revolving license plates OR a watch with magnetic powers?

1116117119121122151

Comments

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,281
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @Scaramanga1974
    In what way is OP racist?

    It's racist to clowns.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,041
    And gorillas.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,136
    Also tigers.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    meshypushy wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @Scaramanga1974
    In what way is OP racist?
    I actually happened to watch OP in the last week (not prompted by this thread) - the only thing that stood out to me was Bond’s comment ‘that should keep you in curry for a few weeks’ after winning at the casino.

    So yes, that's poking fun at a minor aspect of what many in the West associate with Indian culture. I don't see that as discriminatory or deliberately offensive, though. Look, I don't want to be "that guy", I'm just troubled by accusations of racism, which is a very serious thing. We have become very careful when zooming in on specific parts of someone else's culture for shits and giggles, recognizing the possibility of coming off as insensitive and whatnot. And it's a good thing that we have. But in my humble opinion there's a huge gap between emphasizing unfortunate stereotypes and being blatantly racist. The latter implies that you're treating people as inferior, that you're excluding them from the freedoms we should all share, merely on the basis of their culture or ethnicity.

    Films often use stereotypes as narrative shorthand; OP is no exception. India is a fairly exotic destination for 007. The film emphasizes that by exaggerating the obvious differences between the Western world and this beautiful part of Asia. OP also makes Americans look a bit silly, Russians almost savage, and women mere objects of lust. But is TLD any better in that regard? Afghan people look like warring sages (apart from the one that received an Oxford education…), Americans are gun-worshipping capitalists, chesty women are an obvious distraction, and so on. Surely, most of this didn’t bother us when we were a lot younger. Such stereotypes often helped us to understand what was going on.

    All I’m saying is – and apologies for going so lengthy here – that while I recognize the insensitivities of OP, I don’t think it’s racist, let alone more racist than TLD (or most other Bond films, for that matter.)
  • meshypushymeshypushy Ireland
    Posts: 143
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    meshypushy wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @Scaramanga1974
    In what way is OP racist?
    I actually happened to watch OP in the last week (not prompted by this thread) - the only thing that stood out to me was Bond’s comment ‘that should keep you in curry for a few weeks’ after winning at the casino.

    So yes, that's poking fun at a minor aspect of what many in the West associate with Indian culture. I don't see that as discriminatory or deliberately offensive, though. Look, I don't want to be "that guy", I'm just troubled by accusations of racism, which is a very serious thing. We have become very careful when zooming in on specific parts of someone else's culture for shits and giggles, recognizing the possibility of coming off as insensitive and whatnot. And it's a good thing that we have. But in my humble opinion there's a huge gap between emphasizing unfortunate stereotypes and being blatantly racist. The latter implies that you're treating people as inferior, that you're excluding them from the freedoms we should all share, merely on the basis of their culture or ethnicity.

    Films often use stereotypes as narrative shorthand; OP is no exception. India is a fairly exotic destination for 007. The film emphasizes that by exaggerating the obvious differences between the Western world and this beautiful part of Asia. OP also makes Americans look a bit silly, Russians almost savage, and women mere objects of lust. But is TLD any better in that regard? Afghan people look like warring sages (apart from the one that received an Oxford education…), Americans are gun-worshipping capitalists, chesty women are an obvious distraction, and so on. Surely, most of this didn’t bother us when we were a lot younger. Such stereotypes often helped us to understand what was going on.

    All I’m saying is – and apologies for going so lengthy here – that while I recognize the insensitivities of OP, I don’t think it’s racist, let alone more racist than TLD (or most other Bond films, for that matter.)
    Agreed - no Bond movie offends me in the slightest. I understand that people have issues with aspects of the older movies (up to SF, apparently) but Bond is inherently a bastard and all art is a product of its time. Different times and all that.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    meshypushy wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    meshypushy wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @Scaramanga1974
    In what way is OP racist?
    I actually happened to watch OP in the last week (not prompted by this thread) - the only thing that stood out to me was Bond’s comment ‘that should keep you in curry for a few weeks’ after winning at the casino.

    So yes, that's poking fun at a minor aspect of what many in the West associate with Indian culture. I don't see that as discriminatory or deliberately offensive, though. Look, I don't want to be "that guy", I'm just troubled by accusations of racism, which is a very serious thing. We have become very careful when zooming in on specific parts of someone else's culture for shits and giggles, recognizing the possibility of coming off as insensitive and whatnot. And it's a good thing that we have. But in my humble opinion there's a huge gap between emphasizing unfortunate stereotypes and being blatantly racist. The latter implies that you're treating people as inferior, that you're excluding them from the freedoms we should all share, merely on the basis of their culture or ethnicity.

    Films often use stereotypes as narrative shorthand; OP is no exception. India is a fairly exotic destination for 007. The film emphasizes that by exaggerating the obvious differences between the Western world and this beautiful part of Asia. OP also makes Americans look a bit silly, Russians almost savage, and women mere objects of lust. But is TLD any better in that regard? Afghan people look like warring sages (apart from the one that received an Oxford education…), Americans are gun-worshipping capitalists, chesty women are an obvious distraction, and so on. Surely, most of this didn’t bother us when we were a lot younger. Such stereotypes often helped us to understand what was going on.

    All I’m saying is – and apologies for going so lengthy here – that while I recognize the insensitivities of OP, I don’t think it’s racist, let alone more racist than TLD (or most other Bond films, for that matter.)
    Agreed - no Bond movie offends me in the slightest. I understand that people have issues with aspects of the older movies (up to SF, apparently) but Bond is inherently a bastard and all art is a product of its time. Different times and all that.

    Very well said, thank you.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,433
    Correct @DarthDimi there are many stereotypes at play within this movie. I doubt we'd find a man lying on a bed of nails within a market. Or a sword swallower. Snake charmers greeting people coming off their helicopter? I could go on with the stereotypes but to suggest that this film is racist or a "touch racist", is not aligned with what I see.

    I get tired of people taking today's standards and thoughts and applying them to the past. Scary slope we are on, because guess what? In the near future some thought we hold on to now will be deemed to be short sighted or not appropriate.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,585
    The thing is, people mistake racism for taking the mickey. One comes from a place of hatred through misunderstanding, while the other shows acknowledgement of one's culture through humour and even affection.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    thedove wrote: »
    Correct @DarthDimi there are many stereotypes at play within this movie. I doubt we'd find a man lying on a bed of nails within a market. Or a sword swallower. Snake charmers greeting people coming off their helicopter? I could go on with the stereotypes but to suggest that this film is racist or a "touch racist", is not aligned with what I see.

    I get tired of people taking today's standards and thoughts and applying them to the past. Scary slope we are on, because guess what? In the near future some thought we hold on to now will be deemed to be short sighted or not appropriate.

    THIS^^^!!!
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited July 14 Posts: 3,789
    thedove wrote: »
    Correct @DarthDimi there are many stereotypes at play within this movie. I doubt we'd find a man lying on a bed of nails within a market. Or a sword swallower. Snake charmers greeting people coming off their helicopter? I could go on with the stereotypes but to suggest that this film is racist or a "touch racist", is not aligned with what I see.

    I get tired of people taking today's standards and thoughts and applying them to the past. Scary slope we are on, because guess what? In the near future some thought we hold on to now will be deemed to be short sighted or not appropriate.

    It's not about Politics for me, the thing is, this is a Bond film and these things just doesn't fit, they looked like something out of a comedy or a slapstick film, just doesn't fit for Bond.

    I don't care if it's racist or not (after all, we have race stereotypes in older Bond films like YOLT and LALD, and yes, I could call OP one in here), the problem is, I don't want to see these things in a Bond film, It's just way too much.

    I'm actually happy they've removed the flying carpet scene in TLD, magic and superhuman things just doesn't fit for Bond (sure, again, we have voodoo cult in LALD, but it's not as explicit as in OP, the film doesn't focus on rituals and etc., Meanwhile in this film (OP), the film really delved into the Indian beliefs like you've said, @thedove ), and for a Bond film, they looked out of place, and comical.

    Let alone they even have a concrete plan to do it, OP looks like they just want to bring Bond to India, that's all, we have convoluted plot and uncertain story (it even has many endings, and they don't even know how to use some of the characters, what they've done with Magda? What was really Octopussy's role in the third act? The connection between Kamal Khan and General Orlov was unpolished and not at all clear, it's way too complicated, for example, this film just doesn't have a certain goal for its story or plot, it's mostly a bad travelogue of a film), they just want to show Bond in an Indian culture, it's not even came from a Fleming novel to begin with.

    OP even has two plots and one of them could be in a separate Bond film, and those two plots failed to connect with one another (TLD has two villains, but they're connected, those other things in the film were subplots or side plots, but the main plot remained certain, about Whittaker, in OP, both plots are main and doesn't seem to connect).

    With YOLT and LALD, they came from a Fleming novel, so there's a plot already, they're given a reason to bring Bond in such countries, and they already have a solid backbone, while both films strayed away from the books, at least they have certain directions, there's a guide in how to do it, there are the characters with already given roles, a background, a story, all things served some purpose to the plot or story, they're all connected in there, it's up to them to modify some aspects of it.

    With OP, they're starting from scratch, no books to act as a guide (guidance), so when they thought of a culture that they may bring Bond in, they have no idea how to do it, how to start, so what we've ended up with? Showing all types of Indian Culture stereotypes without it serving any purpose to the story or plot like those found in Fleming novels, they've been just put in there without any sense.

    It now came to my conclusion that OP is the unplanned Bond film, just full of uncertainties, maybe because they didn't expected NSNA to come out and they've all rushed to make a Bond film unexpectedly to counter with NSNA? And here it is, if my memory serves, even Moore's return was also not expected and the plan was to have this as the new Bond actor's first film, but NSNA surprised them and convinced Moore to return.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    @SIS_HQ
    That's a very good post, thank you. And the OP stereotyping really is a bit much. I don't detect any racism in, but I'm not enjoying it all either, mainly because I don't think it's very funny. The Tarzan yell is where the film lost me. The clown suit, by contrast, works for me
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,041
    I'd like to add that the "keep you in curry" remark is not at all poking fun at the Indian population, but I take it rather as a satirical comment on the stuck-up attitude of its former colonial rulers, who think that everything is alright if you throw the people a bone from time to time. Potato jokes aren't inherently anti-Irish, anti-Polish or anti-German either.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,136
    meshypushy wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    meshypushy wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @Scaramanga1974
    In what way is OP racist?
    I actually happened to watch OP in the last week (not prompted by this thread) - the only thing that stood out to me was Bond’s comment ‘that should keep you in curry for a few weeks’ after winning at the casino.

    So yes, that's poking fun at a minor aspect of what many in the West associate with Indian culture. I don't see that as discriminatory or deliberately offensive, though. Look, I don't want to be "that guy", I'm just troubled by accusations of racism, which is a very serious thing. We have become very careful when zooming in on specific parts of someone else's culture for shits and giggles, recognizing the possibility of coming off as insensitive and whatnot. And it's a good thing that we have. But in my humble opinion there's a huge gap between emphasizing unfortunate stereotypes and being blatantly racist. The latter implies that you're treating people as inferior, that you're excluding them from the freedoms we should all share, merely on the basis of their culture or ethnicity.

    Films often use stereotypes as narrative shorthand; OP is no exception. India is a fairly exotic destination for 007. The film emphasizes that by exaggerating the obvious differences between the Western world and this beautiful part of Asia. OP also makes Americans look a bit silly, Russians almost savage, and women mere objects of lust. But is TLD any better in that regard? Afghan people look like warring sages (apart from the one that received an Oxford education…), Americans are gun-worshipping capitalists, chesty women are an obvious distraction, and so on. Surely, most of this didn’t bother us when we were a lot younger. Such stereotypes often helped us to understand what was going on.

    All I’m saying is – and apologies for going so lengthy here – that while I recognize the insensitivities of OP, I don’t think it’s racist, let alone more racist than TLD (or most other Bond films, for that matter.)
    Agreed - no Bond movie offends me in the slightest. I understand that people have issues with aspects of the older movies (up to SF, apparently) but Bond is inherently a bastard and all art is a product of its time. Different times and all that.

    Well said, the both of you. At least on here most people can put things in perspective. Wish the real world could do the same more often.
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    I'd like to add that the "keep you in curry" remark is not at all poking fun at the Indian population, but I take it rather as a satirical comment on the stuck-up attitude of its former colonial rulers, who think that everything is alright if you throw the people a bone from time to time. Potato jokes aren't inherently anti-Irish, anti-Polish or anti-German either.

    My thoughts exactly. Always considered it more self-mockery from Bond than anything else.
  • Posts: 1,368

    Yes, it's more or less racist, but it's not the worst joke in the movie.

  • Posts: 728
    meshypushy wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @Scaramanga1974
    In what way is OP racist?
    I actually happened to watch OP in the last week (not prompted by this thread) - the only thing that stood out to me was Bond’s comment ‘that should keep you in curry for a few weeks’ after winning at the casino.

    Exactly
  • Octopussy has a lot of fantastic subtle things going on that are easily missed on a first watch. The funny elements tend to stick out (clown, gorilla, tarzan, tiger) but the movie is also full of legitimate espionage and intrigue straight from Fleming.
  • edited July 14 Posts: 1,368
    I don't know, Is OP the least Fleming-esque movie of the 80s?
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,281
    I don't know, Is OP the least Fleming-esque movie of the 80s?

    I'd imagine that AVTAK would be that. It didn't adapt anything from Fleming's work bar the amended short story title and the use of Paris as a location. I know people say it's like a remake of Goldfinger but there is very little Fleming content in the film.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited July 14 Posts: 3,789
    I don't know, Is OP the least Fleming-esque movie of the 80s?

    I could argue, yes, maybe AVTAK, but AVTAK at least have serious moments, OP is just straight out fantastical, even by Bond standards (while Fleming had his shares of outlandishness in his books, it's mostly done as sarcasm or mockery some sort of, there's still some seriousness blended into it and I think AVTAK got that: Max Zorin is an example of that, maybe Fleming would have approved of May Day, she's like the female version of Oddjob or another form of Rosa Klebb like grotesqueness in terms of description).

    OP is just way too cartoonish with all of the Indian Street Performing acts (Snake Charmer, Man on the nail bed, Man with the sword magic, the clown disguise and etc.,), I just can't imagine Fleming writing about those, let alone putting Bond in those kind of environment without any purpose, Fleming also liked to do some precise details about cultures and do some research about them, realistically, so those things happened in OP wouldn't pass Fleming's standards.
  • Two of the most confusing plots in Bond I think. It took me a second watch of both and some reading to finally get what both villains were after.

    It's TLD though for me. As someone who read mostly Bond literature (even many continuation novels) before getting in the films, Dalton's first probably is the first that I saw the mix between the stunt and action and the accurate potrayal of Bond
  • Posts: 1,917
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    I don't know, Is OP the least Fleming-esque movie of the 80s?

    I could argue, yes, maybe AVTAK, but AVTAK at least have serious moments, OP is just straight out fantastical, even by Bond standards (while Fleming had his shares of outlandishness in his books, it's mostly done as sarcasm or mockery some sort of, there's still some seriousness blended into it and I think AVTAK got that: Max Zorin is an example of that, maybe Fleming would have approved of May Day, she's like the female version of Oddjob or another form of Rosa Klebb like grotesqueness in terms of description).

    OP is just way too cartoonish with all of the Indian Street Performing acts (Snake Charmer, Man on the nail bed, Man with the sword magic, the clown disguise and etc.,), I just can't imagine Fleming writing about those, let alone putting Bond in those kind of environment without any purpose, Fleming also liked to do some precise details about cultures and do some research about them, realistically, so those things happened in OP wouldn't pass Fleming's standards.

    AVTAK has as many if not more blatantly outrageous comic, cartoonish moments and OP has as many if not more serious moments or ones that mean more. You're weighing way too much of your judgement on the Indian street scene.

    How can you discount the atmospheric stalking of 009 and his crashing through the ambassador's home; the Sotheby's auction is out of Fleming; the Russian meeting sets up a frightening premise; spying in the Monsoon Palace; Vijay's death; Bond's confrontation with Orlov on the train; Orlov's death; the suspense of trying to get to the base to stop the bomb; convincing Octopussy and the general to let Bond stop the bomb.

    The clown costume has become a lazy excuse against Moore and the scene. It wasn't done for laughs and this is one of the more dramatic scenes in the film, unlike the lazy excuse AVTAK uses by turning May Day from evil into martyr to stop that ticking bomb.

    A major problem with AVTAK, it has serious scenes that are spoiled by having to include comic moments way more than OP. Not saying OP doesn't have its overuse of useless humor intrusions, but it's a far better balance and less outrageous than some of what AVTAK serves up, with more believable villains, a much stronger heroine and actually incorporates actual Fleming into it.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    BT3366 wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    I don't know, Is OP the least Fleming-esque movie of the 80s?

    I could argue, yes, maybe AVTAK, but AVTAK at least have serious moments, OP is just straight out fantastical, even by Bond standards (while Fleming had his shares of outlandishness in his books, it's mostly done as sarcasm or mockery some sort of, there's still some seriousness blended into it and I think AVTAK got that: Max Zorin is an example of that, maybe Fleming would have approved of May Day, she's like the female version of Oddjob or another form of Rosa Klebb like grotesqueness in terms of description).

    OP is just way too cartoonish with all of the Indian Street Performing acts (Snake Charmer, Man on the nail bed, Man with the sword magic, the clown disguise and etc.,), I just can't imagine Fleming writing about those, let alone putting Bond in those kind of environment without any purpose, Fleming also liked to do some precise details about cultures and do some research about them, realistically, so those things happened in OP wouldn't pass Fleming's standards.

    AVTAK has as many if not more blatantly outrageous comic, cartoonish moments and OP has as many if not more serious moments or ones that mean more. You're weighing way too much of your judgement on the Indian street scene.

    How can you discount the atmospheric stalking of 009 and his crashing through the ambassador's home; the Sotheby's auction is out of Fleming; the Russian meeting sets up a frightening premise; spying in the Monsoon Palace; Vijay's death; Bond's confrontation with Orlov on the train; Orlov's death; the suspense of trying to get to the base to stop the bomb; convincing Octopussy and the general to let Bond stop the bomb.

    The clown costume has become a lazy excuse against Moore and the scene. It wasn't done for laughs and this is one of the more dramatic scenes in the film, unlike the lazy excuse AVTAK uses by turning May Day from evil into martyr to stop that ticking bomb.

    A major problem with AVTAK, it has serious scenes that are spoiled by having to include comic moments way more than OP. Not saying OP doesn't have its overuse of useless humor intrusions, but it's a far better balance and less outrageous than some of what AVTAK serves up, with more believable villains, a much stronger heroine and actually incorporates actual Fleming into it.

    OP is by far the superior film.

    AVTAK seems very rushed in some places and is quite a bit the lesser film in comparison to the previous film.

    (btw, was NSNA “sprung” on the producers? I was under the impression they knew that McClory and Connery had been in the process of teaming up since 1977(?)? And I remember as a child that we had two Bond films soon coming out. And I’m sure when they went into production they were fully aware of the rival film (considering that EoN must have had their lawyers all over that production(?)).
  • Posts: 12,473
    I personally prefer AVTAK, but I understand why OP is generally preferred. The latter is more consistent, but the good things about AVTAK like the music and Walken and May Day really elevate it for me. It’s got its issues, but it’s got some really fun highs for me that OP didn’t have. All just taste anyway! Both are fun experiences but not close to my top tier.
  • OP vs AVTAK isn't even a fair match-up. Octopussy wins by FAR.

    It should be AVTAK vs FYEO. Both are the most boring 80's Bond films with lackluster plots. AVTAK has better villains and soundtrack, but FYEO has the better girl and better pacing. FYEO also has a certain charm to it whereas AVTAK just feels tired.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I personally prefer AVTAK, but I understand why OP is generally preferred. The latter is more consistent, but the good things about AVTAK like the music and Walken and May Day really elevate it for me. It’s got its issues, but it’s got some really fun highs for me that OP didn’t have. All just taste anyway! Both are fun experiences but not close to my top tier.

    @FoxRox theres NO DOUBT that Walken and Jones elevated AVTAK. They were unbelievable and I love all their scenes.

    The last time I watched the film, I really missed when at least one of these two weren’t on the screen.
  • peter wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I personally prefer AVTAK, but I understand why OP is generally preferred. The latter is more consistent, but the good things about AVTAK like the music and Walken and May Day really elevate it for me. It’s got its issues, but it’s got some really fun highs for me that OP didn’t have. All just taste anyway! Both are fun experiences but not close to my top tier.

    @FoxRox theres NO DOUBT that Walken and Jones elevated AVTAK. They were unbelievable and I love all their scenes.

    The last time I watched the film, I really missed when at least one of these two weren’t on the screen.

    I love psychotic villains that just have a screw loose like Zorin, Xenia and Fatima Blush.
    They just completely take over the scene.
  • Posts: 1,368
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    I don't know, Is OP the least Fleming-esque movie of the 80s?

    I could argue, yes, maybe AVTAK, but AVTAK at least have serious moments, OP is just straight out fantastical, even by Bond standards (while Fleming had his shares of outlandishness in his books, it's mostly done as sarcasm or mockery some sort of, there's still some seriousness blended into it and I think AVTAK got that: Max Zorin is an example of that, maybe Fleming would have approved of May Day, she's like the female version of Oddjob or another form of Rosa Klebb like grotesqueness in terms of description).

    OP is just way too cartoonish with all of the Indian Street Performing acts (Snake Charmer, Man on the nail bed, Man with the sword magic, the clown disguise and etc.,), I just can't imagine Fleming writing about those, let alone putting Bond in those kind of environment without any purpose, Fleming also liked to do some precise details about cultures and do some research about them, realistically, so those things happened in OP wouldn't pass Fleming's standards.


    Yes, OP has Johnny Quest vibes and it's not gritty enough.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    peter wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I personally prefer AVTAK, but I understand why OP is generally preferred. The latter is more consistent, but the good things about AVTAK like the music and Walken and May Day really elevate it for me. It’s got its issues, but it’s got some really fun highs for me that OP didn’t have. All just taste anyway! Both are fun experiences but not close to my top tier.

    @FoxRox theres NO DOUBT that Walken and Jones elevated AVTAK. They were unbelievable and I love all their scenes.

    The last time I watched the film, I really missed when at least one of these two weren’t on the screen.

    I love psychotic villains that just have a screw loose like Zorin, Xenia and Fatima Blush.
    They just completely take over the scene.

    Yes, absolutely! And both Zorin and May Day had these incredible genuine, authentically unhinged laughs. God they were superb!
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,281
    peter wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I personally prefer AVTAK, but I understand why OP is generally preferred. The latter is more consistent, but the good things about AVTAK like the music and Walken and May Day really elevate it for me. It’s got its issues, but it’s got some really fun highs for me that OP didn’t have. All just taste anyway! Both are fun experiences but not close to my top tier.

    @FoxRox theres NO DOUBT that Walken and Jones elevated AVTAK. They were unbelievable and I love all their scenes.

    The last time I watched the film, I really missed when at least one of these two weren’t on the screen.

    I love psychotic villains that just have a screw loose like Zorin, Xenia and Fatima Blush.
    They just completely take over the scene.

    I agree. I'd also add Max Largo from NSNA. If Eon ever film John Gardner's Never Send Flowers then David Dragonpol would be a great addition to that roster of truly mad and psychotic Bond villains.

    My 18,000th post here and it's on one of my favourite topics. 😉
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 14 Posts: 16,420
    meshypushy wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    meshypushy wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @Scaramanga1974
    In what way is OP racist?
    I actually happened to watch OP in the last week (not prompted by this thread) - the only thing that stood out to me was Bond’s comment ‘that should keep you in curry for a few weeks’ after winning at the casino.

    So yes, that's poking fun at a minor aspect of what many in the West associate with Indian culture. I don't see that as discriminatory or deliberately offensive, though. Look, I don't want to be "that guy", I'm just troubled by accusations of racism, which is a very serious thing. We have become very careful when zooming in on specific parts of someone else's culture for shits and giggles, recognizing the possibility of coming off as insensitive and whatnot. And it's a good thing that we have. But in my humble opinion there's a huge gap between emphasizing unfortunate stereotypes and being blatantly racist. The latter implies that you're treating people as inferior, that you're excluding them from the freedoms we should all share, merely on the basis of their culture or ethnicity.

    Films often use stereotypes as narrative shorthand; OP is no exception. India is a fairly exotic destination for 007. The film emphasizes that by exaggerating the obvious differences between the Western world and this beautiful part of Asia. OP also makes Americans look a bit silly, Russians almost savage, and women mere objects of lust. But is TLD any better in that regard? Afghan people look like warring sages (apart from the one that received an Oxford education…), Americans are gun-worshipping capitalists, chesty women are an obvious distraction, and so on. Surely, most of this didn’t bother us when we were a lot younger. Such stereotypes often helped us to understand what was going on.

    All I’m saying is – and apologies for going so lengthy here – that while I recognize the insensitivities of OP, I don’t think it’s racist, let alone more racist than TLD (or most other Bond films, for that matter.)
    Agreed - no Bond movie offends me in the slightest. I understand that people have issues with aspects of the older movies (up to SF, apparently) but Bond is inherently a bastard and all art is a product of its time. Different times and all that.

    This is true. I think LALD or the aforementioned Temple of Doom are more racist than Octopussy; they don't offend me per se as they are products of their time, but as we have all the people saying this stuff shouldn't be edited etc. as we 'should learn from it', then I think part of that learning means that you have be comfortable with calling it out as such.
    Jokes based on racial or nationality-based stereotypes are just a bit crass, we don't really go in for them anymore. They're not done with a mean spirit in this film, but that's not always the point: you can say something in what you think is a funny and friendly way and still offend someone who feels labelled in a reductive way by that. We learn from this stuff and move on; convincing ourselves that it's fine doesn't let us learn from it.
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I personally prefer AVTAK, but I understand why OP is generally preferred. The latter is more consistent, but the good things about AVTAK like the music and Walken and May Day really elevate it for me. It’s got its issues, but it’s got some really fun highs for me that OP didn’t have. All just taste anyway! Both are fun experiences but not close to my top tier.

    Well that is a reasonable point of view as AVTAK is the greatest movie ever made. It's not even subjective.
Sign In or Register to comment.