Are Bond films heavily biased to cater for U.S. audiences?

1246

Comments

  • edited July 2013 Posts: 6,396
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Tuulia wrote:
    ^^ Oh, you just worry for no specific reason? Oh ok then. :)
    Dragonpol wrote:
    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.

    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.

    Or Connery's pink tie in DAF perhaps? ;-)

    I think some people are reading way too much into that scene though. It's pschological, not sexual. To think because the screenwriter is gay therefore he'll want to explore Bond's "gay" side is doing Logan a massive disservice. Bryan Singer is gay and there aren't any themes of homosexuality running through X-Men or Valkyrie or The Usual Suspects?
  • However American box office dominance seems to be on the wane - particularly with Bond. I'm sure Suivez will correct me but didn't TDKR take something like 50% of its money domestically whereas with SF it was only in the upper 30's.

    Yes (40% rather than 50% actually) but I'm afraid that people have already forgotten that much marketing of TDKR for overseas markets was halted because of a tragic event in the US (mass shooting in a cinema).

    It happened after the opening of TDKR in US, but before the opening of TDKR in many, many other markets. For example, in France, everything was cancelled within hours of the tragedy. No premiere. No interview of the cast on TV. Marion Cotillard was not seen anywhere on promotion duties. Etc.. How much more would have TDKR done if marketing could have had all its impact ? We'll never know.


  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited July 2013 Posts: 18,333
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Tuulia wrote:
    ^^ Oh, you just worry for no specific reason? Oh ok then. :)
    Dragonpol wrote:
    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.

    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.

    Or Connery's pink tie in DAF perhaps? ;-)

    I think some people are reading way too much into that scene though. It's pschological, not sexual. To think because the screenwriter is gay therefore he'll want to explore Bond's "gay" side is doing Logan a massive disservice. Bryan Singer is gay and there aren't any themes of homosexuality running through X-Men or Valkyrie or The Usual Suspects?

    Yes, but didn't he say something about wanting to explore this perceived homo-eroticism in an interview that was widely publicised. That's what we're getting at in this thread, I think. No smoke without fire and all that jazz. We're much too subtle to use the scatter-gun approach here on MI6 Community.
  • edited July 2013 Posts: 342
    [quote="WillyGalore"
    Please lets stick to the topic in hand and not turn this into a bout of UK vs US bashing.[/quote]

    Spoilsport

    Makes a nice change from bashing the French

  • Troy wrote:
    [quote="WillyGalore"
    Please lets stick to the topic in hand and not turn this into a bout of UK vs US bashing.

    Spoilsport

    Makes a nice change from bashing the French

    [/quote]

    :))
  • Posts: 6,396
    Nothing wrong with a little homo-eroticism between friends but I too would not want to see any suggestion that Bond could be bisexual or has had a dabble in the past. Like many, I would like to see Logan stay as faithful to the character as possible. I will certainly give him benefit of the doubt for the time being.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,333
    Troy wrote:
    [quote="WillyGalore"
    Please lets stick to the topic in hand and not turn this into a bout of UK vs US bashing.

    Spoilsport

    Makes a nice change from bashing the French

    [/quote]

    Indeed. You can't do enough of that in my book.
  • Posts: 2,081
    Dragonpol wrote:
    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.

    I see... sort of.

    But. You write about "...John Logan exploring further Bond's potentially homosexual past and his bisexual experiences, say." Eh??? And what do you mean by "further"???

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,333
    Tuulia wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    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.

    I see... sort of.

    But. You write about "...John Logan exploring further Bond's potentially homosexual past and his bisexual experiences, say." Eh??? And what do you mean by "further"???

    By that I mean simply the implication behind "What makes you think it's my first time?" and the general Silva perving Bond scene a la Colonel Rosa Klebb and Tatiana Romanova in FRWL.

    Do you get the photo now?
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,356
    This went off topic quickly.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    It's already been confirmed that Bond is going to get a boner in his first scene with the new M. Only for it to be surpressed by Q's anti-erection chip. Small enough to fit into the tip of a...
  • Posts: 6,396
    Samuel001 wrote:
    This went off topic quickly.

    What makes you say that? ;-)

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,333
    Samuel001 wrote:
    This went off topic quickly.

    What makes you say that? ;-)

    Well, it can happen on internet forums despite all of our best efforts.
  • edited July 2013 Posts: 3,494
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Tuulia wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    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.

    I see... sort of.

    But. You write about "...John Logan exploring further Bond's potentially homosexual past and his bisexual experiences, say." Eh??? And what do you mean by "further"???

    By that I mean simply the implication behind "What makes you think it's my first time?" and the general Silva perving Bond scene a la Colonel Rosa Klebb and Tatiana Romanova in FRWL.

    Do you get the photo now?

    I'm sort of thinking that, like many parts of SF and the 50th anniversary, the scene was a subtle nod to the past.

    Your comment about French bashing (I leave French ladies out of that, I generally like them for being far more down to earth and less irksome in my experience) just raised my positive view of you even more :))

    Can you imagine a French-centric Bond film? Nevermind. I forgot about Moonraker and how Jaws more resembles Inspector Clouseau than a serious villain :))

    @Sam- just wait until the great and powerful Oz, er, Wiz checks in. I'm sure we'll get back on topic.



  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,333
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Tuulia wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    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.

    I see... sort of.

    But. You write about "...John Logan exploring further Bond's potentially homosexual past and his bisexual experiences, say." Eh??? And what do you mean by "further"???

    By that I mean simply the implication behind "What makes you think it's my first time?" and the general Silva perving Bond scene a la Colonel Rosa Klebb and Tatiana Romanova in FRWL.

    Do you get the photo now?

    I'm sort of thinking that, like many parts of SF and the 50th anniversary, the scene was a a subtle nod to the past.

    Your comment about French bashing (I leave French ladies out of that, I generally like them for being far more down to earth and less irksome in my experience) just raised my positive view of you even more :))

    Can you imagine a French-centric Bond film? Nevermind. I forgot about Moonraker and how Jaws more resembles Inspector Clouseau than a serious villain :))

    @Sam- just wait until the great and powerful Oz, er, Wiz checks in. I'm sure we'll get back on topic.



    Well, I'm very glad an MI6 Community stalwart has such a good view of me. I'm humbled.
  • Posts: 2,081
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Tuulia wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    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.

    I see... sort of.

    But. You write about "...John Logan exploring further Bond's potentially homosexual past and his bisexual experiences, say." Eh??? And what do you mean by "further"???

    By that I mean simply the implication behind "What makes you think it's my first time?" and the general Silva perving Bond scene a la Colonel Rosa Klebb and Tatiana Romanova in FRWL.

    Do you get the photo now?

    Oh, we're back at that.

    But you've read the discussion above about that comment by Bond (you're taking it too literally instead of getting why he's saying it) and that whole scene (it's power play).

    There can be no "further" exploration of something that hasn't been previously explored. There is no actual suggestion of "Bond's potentially homosexual past and his bisexual experiences", so worrying there will be more of it is rather pointless, I think. ;)
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,333
    Tuulia wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Tuulia wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    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.

    I see... sort of.

    But. You write about "...John Logan exploring further Bond's potentially homosexual past and his bisexual experiences, say." Eh??? And what do you mean by "further"???

    By that I mean simply the implication behind "What makes you think it's my first time?" and the general Silva perving Bond scene a la Colonel Rosa Klebb and Tatiana Romanova in FRWL.

    Do you get the photo now?

    Oh, we're back at that.

    But you've read the discussion above about that comment by Bond (you're taking it too literally instead of getting why he's saying it) and that whole scene (it's power play).

    There can be no "further" exploration of something that hasn't been previously explored. There is no actual suggestion of "Bond's potentially homosexual past and his bisexual experiences", so worrying there will be more of it is rather pointless, I think. ;)

    Yes, you are correct and I see your point. Storm in a teacup, then.
  • Posts: 2,081
    I forgot about Moonraker and how Jaws more resembles Inspector Clouseau than a serious villain :))

    He does indeed.

  • Posts: 6,396
    Anyone want to be proactive and get us away from this 'gayness' and back on topic? :-)
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,333
    Anyone want to be proactive and get us away from this 'gayness' and back on topic? :-)

    I'm all for that as the "straight man" here. :D
  • Posts: 6,396
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Anyone want to be proactive and get us away from this 'gayness' and back on topic? :-)

    I'm all for that as the "straight man" here. :D

    You're the 'Ernie Wise' of the MI6 Community aren't you

    B-)
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,333
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Anyone want to be proactive and get us away from this 'gayness' and back on topic? :-)

    I'm all for that as the "straight man" here. :D

    You're the 'Ernie Wise' of the MI6 Community aren't you

    B-)

    More of the Stewart Lee of MI6 Community - a bit more subtle with the humour.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,823
    Only Americans like J.W. Pepper need Americanizations of British shows or movies, y'heah buoy??
  • Bryan Singer is gay and there aren't any themes of homosexuality running through X-Men or Valkyrie or The Usual Suspects?

    Well, the X2 scene of Iceman coming out of the closet was almost too much in that matter, so much that the overall mutantphobia = homophobia meaning was then not subtle enough...
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Yes, but didn't he say something about wanting to explore this perceived homo-eroticism in an interview that was widely publicised. That's what we're getting at in this thread, I think. No smoke without fire and all that jazz. We're much too subtle to use the scatter-gun approach here on MI6 Community.

    Well those who fear we will be getting too much homoeroticism, should rememeber that John Logan himself thinks there are some homoerotic tension with Scaramanga in TMWTGG. If you didn't spot them yet, then why would you spot them in the next Bonds ? :)
  • Posts: 6,396
    Bryan Singer is gay and there aren't any themes of homosexuality running through X-Men or Valkyrie or The Usual Suspects?

    Well, the X2 scene of Iceman coming out of the closet was almost too much in that matter, so much that the overall mutantphobia = homophobia meaning was then not subtle enough...
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Yes, but didn't he say something about wanting to explore this perceived homo-eroticism in an interview that was widely publicised. That's what we're getting at in this thread, I think. No smoke without fire and all that jazz. We're much too subtle to use the scatter-gun approach here on MI6 Community.

    Well those who fear we will be getting too much homoeroticism, should rememeber that John Logan himself thinks there are some homoerotic tension with Scaramanga in TMWTGG. If you didn't spot them yet, then why would you spot them in the next Bonds ? :)

    Yes there's subtlety and then there's Top Gun ;-)

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,333
    Bryan Singer is gay and there aren't any themes of homosexuality running through X-Men or Valkyrie or The Usual Suspects?

    Well, the X2 scene of Iceman coming out of the closet was almost too much in that matter, so much that the overall mutantphobia = homophobia meaning was then not subtle enough...
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Yes, but didn't he say something about wanting to explore this perceived homo-eroticism in an interview that was widely publicised. That's what we're getting at in this thread, I think. No smoke without fire and all that jazz. We're much too subtle to use the scatter-gun approach here on MI6 Community.

    Well those who fear we will be getting too much homoeroticism, should rememeber that John Logan himself thinks there are some homoerotic tension with Scaramanga in TMWTGG. If you didn't spot them yet, then why would you spot them in the next Bonds ? :)

    Interestingly, Kingsley Amis made the same point on Scaramanga and Bond in a 1965 article entitled 'The Story Fleming Dared Not Tell!' on the original TMWTGG novel which he proof-read.
  • Posts: 2,483
    RC7 wrote:
    This may sound a bit homophobic on the surface, because I personally loathe prejudice and have gay friends besides, but I'm a bit more concerned that Logan will inject more of what we saw with Silva's mind games in Skyfall into future installments and future characters.

    Do you mean the more psychological aspects of that scene or the blatant homoerotic tension?

    I'm assuming that was the point though to make Silva's sexuality deliberately ambiguous and designed to make Bond feel uncomfortable.

    Oh, I completely agree with that statement. And it worked really well because it was a very original thought in context to 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"?

    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.

    Why would he? Bond's not gay. I think you're worrying about nothing, personally.

    I'm not worried, really. Just something to keep an eye out for.

  • Posts: 2,483
    RC7 wrote:
    Gay men are known to have pro-homosexual agendas.

    That's some statement to make I give you that. Any examples?

    He's probably got 'loads of gay friends'.

    Nary a one.

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,333
    RC7 wrote:
    This may sound a bit homophobic on the surface, because I personally loathe prejudice and have gay friends besides, but I'm a bit more concerned that Logan will inject more of what we saw with Silva's mind games in Skyfall into future installments and future characters.

    Do you mean the more psychological aspects of that scene or the blatant homoerotic tension?

    I'm assuming that was the point though to make Silva's sexuality deliberately ambiguous and designed to make Bond feel uncomfortable.

    Oh, I completely agree with that statement. And it worked really well because it was a very original thought in context to 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"?

    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.

    Why would he? Bond's not gay. I think you're worrying about nothing, personally.

    I'm not worried, really. Just something to keep an eye out for.

    Yes, much the same as I view it. Let's hope that it's not there, all the same.
  • edited July 2013 Posts: 2,081
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Yes, you are correct and I see your point. Storm in a teacup, then.

    Thanks. We agree for a while, then... ;)

    But really, there's only so much one can do when tied up like that, and at the mercy of a madman killer and his armed henchmen and no-one to offer help. Options: 1) do nothing, and 2) say something (hopefully something clever that maybe changes the situation - for the better instead of for the worse... which certainly would have happened with the line suggested above by RC7 :) ). Bond being Bond he indeed does something, and the only thing he can do is say something, and clever chap that he is, he says a clever line that destroys Silva's (also clever) tactic - there's no point to continue with a tactic that isn't working.

    "There is no satisfaction in hanging a man who does not object to it." - George Bernard Shaw

    Silva apparently has the same general view about the sexual harassment he tries on Bond.


Sign In or Register to comment.