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
I can't forgive them for allowing M to call Bond misogynistic.
I'm fine with M calling Bond sexist or chauvinist, because in most instances it is true. But misogyny implies Bond hates women, which couldn't be any further from the truth. If that wasn't enough, then we have Moneypenny... there had to be a better way to handle the "It's the 90's" attitude.
Yes, we've talked about this before. At the risk of outing myself as anti-Craig (for want for a better term), if that is how he feels, then maybe he should back out of the role effective immediately, preferably in favour of an actor that would do their homework on Bond, and use that knowledge to defend the character when he is called out for being this or that. If that is what he truly feels, then why take the part on in the first place?
I can assure you we won't hear a peep out of him this time around. Mark my words. They've probably given him a good talking to.
We'll see. He has terminal 'foot in mouth' disease. He reminds me of Gerald Ratner in that way.
Mislabeling aside, the thing that irks me most about that scene is the obvious way it preemptively attempts to appease criticism without offering anything more than a surface-level soundbite. "Sexist, misogynist dinosaur" is there to do exactly what it has done for twenty years—turn up quoted whenever someone's going on about Bond and changing attitudes and women. It's a easy landmark that the filmmakers could point at and say, "Hey, we're aware. Don't equate us and him," without actually offering anything deeper. CR on the other hand has depth and ends up being far less in your face. It actually invites you to examine the character.
Hmm...I'm not entirely sure. Misogynist defined on Google as "strongly prejudiced against women". There are times when this occurs in the books (Bond's "pots and pans" rant). Bond may not have disliked women, but I think he had certain views on their places in society. Hence he could be misogynist.
@Strog the soundbite comment is a fair point.
Of what? I said in another post that misogyny implies a hatred of women. Bond doesn't hate women, most of the time he just uses them to satisfy his sexual appetite, those that he doesn't develop feelings for (beyond lust).
I’m with you on that. They size each other up but both have a respect for one another.
Misogyny is when a man is not only prejudiced but also has hatred towards women, viewing them as nothing better than objects who are not entitled to make decisions, "because they're always wrong". Misandry is the genders swapped.
Chauvinism applies for both, when a man thinks he's smarter, more intelligent and the better sex of the species, or a woman thinks that about men. Clearly, the Bond of the films is a chauvinist. The literary Bond on the other hand? Yes, he's a misogynist, at least in the first few novels, especially when he felt the hatred and rage towards Vesper when she was sent to be with him in the field.
Due to his age, he was prepared it might be his last, and asked for an assistant that could eventually take over.
I remember thinking that when I first saw the film in 1999.
During the last month I have watched all the Bond films together wth my girl friend. We have now finally come to watch QoS.
My opinion about QoS is probably never going to change much. I think it is a solid and generic modern action film with a relatively serious plot. However, it lacks everything that I love about the Bond films. I would even say that every Bondian element is missing here: gun barrel, Bondian song and TS, Q, Money penny, any kind of humour, witty one-liners, set pieces, well edited actions sequences, strong and memorable villains, interesting locations (what do we get to know about Bolivia?).
For a serious spy thriller I also miss any kind of plot twist. Most of the action is predictable. The characters are either entirely good or bad. The villains are uncharismatic and weak. The final scene where Greene admits that he told Bond everything he wanted to know about Quantum just shows what a fool he is. Is that how you make a deal? Tell everything and then hope the other one will let you go?
I also dislike that Bond is simply too clever and too strong compared to the villains. There is actually no scene where the villains are ahead of Bond.
I really like the down to earth plot. However, I miss the use of an impressive water supply realted set piece . As it is, the film could have easily been about oil, gold or diammonds. I also find that the film tries a bit too hard to be politically correct by showing the problems od the poor, the bad CIA, the bad capitalists. For being a clever spy thriller, this all is a bit too simple and uninventive. Then better watch films like "The Constant Gardener".
What do I like about it. Well, I guess that most actors did a fine job. The score is at least OK, and I appreciate the idea of introducing Quantum as a modern version of SPECTRE. There is some nice dialouge and I like the relationship between Matthis and Bond. On the contrary, I hate the permanent references to Vesper.
Well done.