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
Just wanted to join the chorus and say this was wonderfully said.
I've spoken of women here in the past and my observations of my journey regarding how I went from being a high school loser until my senior year, when I began to transform my looks and style, into that of a man who has since had Bondian moments with women who were hotter than some women who were actually in a Bond movie. It took a lot of time and effort for me to do that, although being a rock musician sure didn't hurt! Bond is Hollywood and real life seldom follows that path. Don't worry about being a superhero, just be yourself.
In actual fact, there are many military-trained individuals in the (real) world who can run, drive and ski to an 'exceptionally high' level - my cousin (a former soldier/bodyguard) being one of them.
But just because he can do these things well doesn't make him Usain Bolt, Sebastian Vettel or Franz Klammer - which I alluded to by stating that Bond is not the best in the world by any means in these disciplines.
What is boils down to is this - I believe that Bond works best when he is depicted as an ordinary man who applies himself and as a result is able to accomplish extraordinary things, rather than the 'amazing', superheroic-style character you appear to prefer.
Please don't take this as a criticism - far from it, the Bond universe would be a very dull place if we all loved exactly the same things about the character. At the end of the day, we all love Bond, whatever version we may prefer individually. :)
No respect for Daddy. >:P
WHAT? You actually see similarities in those scenes?
What Bond does with Pussy Galore was disgusting. She had repeatedly said no verbally, and fought back as much as her strength allowed physically. That actually WAS sexual assault. He used zero charm or seduction, he just forced himself on her by superior physical force. And this was the big hero of the piece. Yuk.
Severine was actually interested and basically invited Bond to come to her, and Bond did not use any physical force whatsoever. How the heck is THAT an assault?
As for your question, well guess which one I prefer?
My thoughts exactly. He is not softer, and he's a killer alright - maybe even more than any of the previous Bonds - but he is human. Actions (his as well as other people's) have consequences for him. That makes him far more interesting as a character.
That was just awesome. *applauds*
It's not assault but one could consider it slightly unsavoury. He's just determined she's effectively been a sex slave since she was 12 and is clearly emotionally and psychologically damaged. It doesn't sit well with some people. After all, if Bond is supposed to be this man of the 21st century, you can't just throw in moves like this and expect people to shrug it off as old school. I think it's what is known as trying to have your cake and eat it.
Fair point but it is typical Bond behaviour. He's no doubt taken advantage of knowing her back story and sees the opportunity to be intimate with her for his own gains. He's on a mission and he is going to have sex with her as a means to an end.
I think that is the key. If one can't identify with or relate to a character in a movie then why would one care one bit what ultimately happens to him?
I agree, it is in a Fleming book. But then Fleming books have moments of racism and casual homophobia. I laughed at this scene but it did seem at odds with the 'new' Bond and I can see why people would think it isn't very tasteful.
Well he obviusly is.
Yes, the novels were written back in not so enlightened times and attitudes were different back then, certainly in how they were expressed.
Of course one can feel uncomfortable with certain elements but I feel the scene didn't make me uncomfortable as I expect Bond to make such choices as he is 007.
"As a means to an end"? How come? He couldn't get to Silva's lair on Severine's boat without having sex with her? Anyway, Severine isn't only a victim, and I don't think Bond is taking advantage of her. She wants him, too. And since she does - rather obviously, IMO - I don't see how Bond is doing something morally wrong by having sex with her (unless one counts his promiscuity as morally wrong, of course).
Him knowing her background and potential state of mind makes it a moral choice. In reality how do you think she felt tied up waiting to be shot? She believed Bond may save her, instead he shagged her and then let her die. The final nail in the coffin of her frankly awful existence. I think it's fair to say Bond has few morals, particularly re. women or at least in SF. This ties in with moments in Fleming's Bond. Whether that is appropriate in 2012 is debatable.
I don't think you can compare Vesper to Severine. They are poles apart. The Vesper relationship blossomed before it became physical. Severine and Bond had no relationship. For a woman whose body has been 'used' her entire her life I wouldn't think she'd appreciate her apparent knight in shining armour treating her in the same way. Like you say, this is the Bond of the books and as such it works on that level. In 2012 I'm unsure.
"She didn't seem to be in a fragile state of mind" did you not see her at the Casino physically shaking??
I'm not comparing the relationships, of course there's a huge difference.
As for "treating her in the same way" I don't think that was the case, since to me he wasn't taking advantage of her sexually. I don't find it inconceivable that she wanted to have sex with him despite her past or current situation.
It's not the same scene, though. Plus obviously it wasn't Bond she was scared of, either.
And Vesper was? I know it wasn't the same scene but it immediately followed. I have no issue with the sex scene which followed and Bond did not force himself on her but he knew following the previous scene her background and vunrability / fragile state of mind and took advantage. He knew she would not resist, she was preprogrammed to accept the advances of others. Also she may have believed he would be her knight in shining armour.
For Bond, his intentions weren't simply to satisfy his sexual desire but was also to seal the deal so to speak - to get her on side. She may have helped aid him on the island if things had turned out differently and she'd not got shot!
Of course Vesper wasn't afraid of Bond, either. Where did that question come from?
Your interpretation of the scene with Severine does make sense to me, I just didn't see it the same way.
Bond charms Severin by getting a bit of banter going, some flirtation at the casino. She's aware Bond killed Patrice, so she already knows that he can handle himself and that he could possibly help her. She informs Bond where to find her if he makes it out of the casino alive (implying Bond to come over and "admire the view") and back on her boat, she has champagne ready for her and Bond ( I doubt she's merely looking to toast his victory abd escape frim those 3 Chinese goons) and she's dressed like she's ready to be undressed. She's a consenting adult irrespective of her past and current situation and not only does she consent but she wants to sleep with Bond. Wether Bond should or shouldn't have shagged her doesn't really come into it. Bond finds her attractive enough to get busy and does so without any fuss.