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
Why would he, though? It was perfect for that particular case (Silva) and instance (Silva interacting with Bond), absolutely brilliant writing (and acting and directing), IMO. Why would Logan (a good writer) wish to repeat himself with new films/characters?
Oh, I completely agree with that statement. And it worked really well because it was a very original thought in the context of the scene. I'm sure it wasn't part of Bond's training, because Silva would have known that it was. We've had Wint and Kidd so it's not like these kinds of references are new to the series. My concern is that being gay himself, Logan will want more of these type of references and I just don't feel they are necessary.
I'm sure you don't mean it as offensive, but that's certainly how it comes across.
Just because Logan is gay why would that possibly mean he'd write "more of these types of references"?
At long as it stops at that - a sort of male version of the Klebb/Tatiana scene in FRWL, that's fine. As Sir Henry says, I don't want to see it continuing into further Bond films as this has never been a part of the Fleming Bond character. Well, apart from Cyril Connolly's 'Bond Strikes Camp' of course where M no less tries to seduce Bond in disguise!
The sexuality of the villains are of course a different matter, but I don't feel that Bond should pretend in future that he has dabbled in this when he clearly hasn't. "How do you know it's my first time?" indeed!
That's the farthest thing from the truth when you have truly read my thoughts and not keyed in on a negative like I have some sort of hidden agenda behind my words. But I suppose my distaste for the term "yank" could be seen the same way. I'm a real life Hexenmeister (master witch in German) and I know what it is to face discrimination from intolerant monotheist zealots and fanatics.
Maybe I have taken a Logan statement that I read out of context, but he made what I feel was a reference to more homoerotic elements and situations being introduced in future scripts. I simply don't feel it's necessary to inject his personal preferences into Bond films without serious rhyme and reason such as we saw in Skyfall just because it suits him.
I'm still flabbergasted by the amount of people who ignore the subtleties of this and point blank accept that it means Bond has categorically dabbled. It's a beautifully written scene.
I couldn't agree more. It's a scene that has nothing to do with sexuality. It's purely one person trying to make the other as uncomfortable as possible. And in that context it works brilliantly. As an audience you share Bond's unease at the situation he's in. His response is his defence mechanism. It's another way of saying "I know you're trying to get in my head, but it isn't going to work".
Exactly. Bond's response is a simple and effective representation of how the modern sophisticated man would deal with such a situation. It's class. It's certainly better than some of the responses the antiquated alpha-males on here would give - 'Look mate, I'm not fooking gay, alright?'
I also give SirHenry the benefit of doubt - he must mean something other than what it sounds like - he's a very intelligent and interesting poster, so I'm confused here...
Oh and Wint and Kidd are somewhat comic characters, and not in a benevolent way exactly, they're sorta ridiculous and laughable. That's my impression and memory, anyway - haven't seen the film that many times as I dislike it. Silva is nothing like them, not even gay as far as I can tell, nor would I call the Silva-Bond first meeting as a gay scene like some do. It's just a way to try to threaten, intimidate, influence a prisoner. He knew physical violence wouldn't work on Bond - he'd been there before and did not, indeed, yield, and Silva, of course knew that. What might work? So... and it actually did, to an extent.
You can't mean that, either?
Like I said above, Silva's tactic worked to an extent - Bond definitely felt uncomfortable. His reply meant he got the upper hand and beat Silva at tactics.
I guess that I badly misunderstood that scene. I've only saw parts of the film since seeing it in the cinema so forgive me for not having got all of the subtle nuances there.
If my post came across as homophobic or anti-gay in any way, that was not how I meant it or intended it to come across. Let me state that quite plainly for the avoidance of doubt.
And that reply would have pleased Silva, I'm sure - I can just imagine him grinning and carrying on.
Not homophobic, just misinterpretation of the scene, I think.
=)) Considering the context of the thread, yep, we need more Brit-centric scripts! Fookin' hilarious!
Oh, well I'm glad you took it the way it was intended, then!
God, these quote boxes do go on on a bit, don't they?!
They do indeed. Or one can also do what I just did here... :P
Silly me. That's what I should have done. Apologies. :)
Gay men are known to have pro-homosexual agendas. Perhaps Logan does not, but it's hardly farfetched and not out of the question that he would insinuate that agenda--if he has it--nto future Bond scripts.
Indeed. My thoughts exactly and that's what worries me. This fixation with things that are in no way Flemingesque. But then I'm a Fleming purist - a vanishing species, so I'm told.
Don't be silly. ;) No need to apologize, people here use the quote boxes in full all the time, so you obviously can as well. I didn't mean to criticize at all.
But actually, I prefer shorter quotes (or no quotes when not needed) - one does more reading than scrolling that way, but it's maybe just what one is used to. I'm trying to get used to the system here and use longer quotes myself more often, just for the heck of it. :D
To put it another way: use of long quote boxes is accepted here, and not so on some other forums. On some forums endless quoting is not even technically possible. I can see benefits to both systems, I'm just used to not-that-much-quoting before I came here.
One of the reasons Lord Shark over on our old BaB gave when banning me was that my posts were "antiquated". Get your head around that one. But look at their forum to see who the loser really was.
That's some statement to make I give you that. Any examples?
Why would he? Bond's not gay. I think you're worrying about nothing, personally.
He's probably got 'loads of gay friends'.
Yes, well, I guess that makes sense in a way... after all, most heterosexual males are known to have pro-heterosexual agendas. :P
Why anyone would worry about Logan's potential agendas on the basis of SF I have no idea, though.
I think that he perhaps means in the context of creative writing on a film or a book. The crime writer Val McDairmud comes to mind as an example, albeit from the fairer sex.
Because I'm a born worrier and I worry about stuff like that. ;)
What and whose fixation, and with which things?
Yes. I worry.
By the "fixation with things that are in no way Flemingesque" I mean to say that I worry about John Logan exploring further Bond's potentially homosexual past and his bisexual experiences, say. As this was not a part of the original Fleming character construct that is James Bond I would have to say I am against this type of thing very much as it only serves to create controversy among the Fleming purists like myself and has little if any, place in the world of the cinematic Bond precisely because it was never a part of the literary Bond that forms the source material. Though, I guess one could count Moore Bond in LALD wearing a vest while fishing as fairly camp...
I hope this has made my statements clearer to you. I am happy to elaborate on any point that you wish, @Tuulia.