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
Bond a sociopath?! Do you even know the meaning of the word? I suggest you look up the definition in a dictionary and then come back on here to explain how Bond is in any way sociopathic.
And I'm really not surprised my "logicalwise = irony" reference went right over your head.
A sociopath is someone who doesn't care about the fate of other People apart from himself (and maybe some others he has interest in for whatever reasons). You know just like the Guy in SF that watches 3 People getting killed while watching bored.
"And I'm really not surprised my "logicalwise = irony" reference went right over your head."
It's so much easier denigrating someone, than disarm his Arguments, isn't it? Well at least for you and a bunch of not so cerebral inclined in this Forum.
BTW, my offer still stands ...
How about I disarm this argument then?
A sociopath is defined as a person with a psychopathic personality, usually criminal and antisocial, who puts his own interests first with no regard to others. Self preservation is priority.
This may well apply to a character like Tony Soprano but not James Bond.
Bond may well possess some similar characteristics, (understandable given the job he does would mean he'd have to fit a certain psychological profile) but that doesn't define him as sociopathic.
He lives by his morals and won't compromise to reach his goals, which sets him apart from his enemies and he will not think twice about sacrificing himself for the good of Queen & Country.
I have to disagree with you: it might have happened in the past, but her rape had influenced her so much that she had changed sexual orientation and was still a lesbian when the events of GF occured. In fact, she became heterosexual a few pages before the end of the novel. For Honey Ryder, she was still a wild child years after her encounter. Bond had sex with two women who both had very traumatic sexual experiences and were deeply wounded by them. Yes, they were not sex slaves, but their experiences were in no way less traumatic and it did shaped them. And in FRWL, Bond has a threesome with two Gipsy girls that have been offered to him for the night by the chief of the tribe. They were not sex slaves, but they were certainly sexy toys. He had no problem in the same film (and novel) to make a gigolo of himself for Queen & Country. He did not hesitate one moment. Why is the seduction of Severine so different? Or, to be more precise, how is it intrinsically different than these cases I mentioned? There is a difference in degree, in circumstances too, but not in essence.
You made the assertion, you have the burden of proof.
My goodness this has descended into a maelstrom, what!
I'm going to respond to this since it isn't PC whining, and that you freely admit you are a neanderthal. That takes some courage ;)
Bolded statement #1- I'm afraid I still don't see this point. Severine is no longer a sex slave the moment she decided to be Silva's woman. She made a choice and left that behind. It sounds to me like he's more of a "sugar daddy" than anything else, or at least it started out that way, because she is actively aiding him as we see in Shanghai. This is why I say she is no innocent victim, she used Silva to escape the sex trade and she used Bond to get free from Silva. Which is why I keep asking, what is the difference between Severine and Andrea Anders? Both are afraid of and controlled by these respective men. No one seems capable of sufficiently giving a reason for that, yet somehow these strong similarities in their characters and motivations get glossed over in the name of PC.
Bolded statement #2- The PC'ers are hard at work again spinning the whole thing to suit their POV. I've seen two days worth of PC news here in Philly because Eagles WR Riley Cooper was drunk and used the "n word" after an altercation with a black security guard at a Kenny Chesney concert. The guy went and sincerely apologized to any and all listening including his teammates and took his medicine like a man. The team fined him and demanded he attend sensitivity classes. Day 2 of this, the PC'ers are now trying to tell the Eagles how to run their business and demanding he be fired. Yes, Cooper by my standards was clearly wrong and should have been punished as the team saw fit. But we have something here in this country that the PC'ers are trying very hard to remove- the right to freedom of speech. Racism is wrong but people still have the right to express how they feel and make idiots of themselves and hold themselves up to scorn and ridicule if that's what they choose to do. Now, regarding Bond and Severine, you've admitted that she plotted the whole seduction. So what is Bond supposed to say? This isn't under aged Bibi Dahl we're talking about here. This is a grown woman and Bond shouldn't have to make the decision whether she is in the right mental frame to have sex with him or anyone else. He makes the assumption, right or wrong, that she has reconciled her past and I see nothing so grievous that should make him consider otherwise. And it's not like he didn't try to see if she was damaged goods. He asked her about it and she told him "you know nothing" and clearly didn't feel the topic was up for discussion. What's he supposed to do? He sees she's afraid and offers to help. It's not his job whether she needs a shrink or not. His job is what it always has been, to go on a mission and get results by getting the bad guy. Did this ever stop Bond from taking pleasure in the arms of a beautiful woman? Again, I defer to Barb's judgement as a known bit of a feminist, in this matter.
@Helm- if I thought you were a troll I would have said so myself. An annoying and misguided twit who's so full of his own thoughts and impressions that no one can reason with you, most definitely. I'd be more than willing, as I was in the previous SF threads, to debate anything that doesn't make sense to you in SF and show you there is more than one way to see things. But I somehow don't think you really want that judging by the closed minded way you continue to non debate the other members and continue to insist you are right and we all are wrong. Just like that Dressed To Kill guy. Who's no longer here.
A psychopath would not shed tears at M's death, display horror at the bombing of MI6 on CNN News, show genuine empathy and concern for Ronson (and risk losing valuable time in an attempt to stop the bleeding). The nuances and small gestures in Craig's acting show that Bond has a heart, but is repressing any grief. If anything, Bond's callousness is an act.
Let's start with the PTS then. I think the bridge fall was too far fetched for my liking, but you knew that. Then again, I have bigger problems with the MR and GE PTS segments so once those have been let out of the bag, it's like trying to return s**t back where it came from. Let's start with where you think things started going wrong and work on it from there.
What's with the All the random upper Case Letters. Is your Keyboard broken?
And how convenient that you STILL haven't been able to argue against the logic of Mallory giving M the boot for being responsible for the ill fated mission in Istanbul
They both have earpieces and are in constant contact with MI6 HQ. What doesn't make sense?
=))
...with a liberal dash of Octopussy's plot thrown in for good measure!
The correct response to Mr.Helm's initial gambit. Earpieces and there's also GPS to navigate the town and it's environs. Should I start keeping score?
SF FANS- 1
MR. HELM AND SUPPORTERS- 0
Now we're cooking with gas!
As already mentioned this (just like Silvas thirst for revenge ) does nothing for or against SFs Storyline.
Istanbuls Traffic (and of course the notion,that Patrice should try to get away from the Crime scene and not driving around in circles).
Octopussy's plot is the best part of the whole Movie (well,apart from "All Time High" the last of the classic Bond Songs), at least in my opinion.
Let's first discuss your peeves scene by scene and see how many points people agree with you on, shall we? We can discuss the overall storyline when finished. As to point #1, this is an action segment and how boring would it truly be if there was a traffic jam? Wouldn't you rather not see another foot chase for the 3rd film in a row?
Everyone, let's stay calm, on point, and reasonable until we have reason to feel otherwise. I will, like I do in my "Originals" thread, moderate and keep a fair score.
Yes, but my point was that it becomes rather convoluted after a while. But I do love Octopussy.
What do you think of the PTS of FRWL while we are at it? How did SPECTRE convince the guy to wear that James Bond mask and go against Grant, how did they have a perfect mask of Bond's face? Sometimes movie have convenient (or conveneant as you say) moments like this, for the sake of plot fluidity or for dramatic effect.
And FRWL is still hailed as the best Bond by many.
Indeed, they are ultimately only films after all, and rather escapist ones at that. That needs to be borne in mind, I think. It's a point worth emphasising as they often don't conform to how things really are in the real world or in real life.