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
...and some good points there @Matt007 It's a difficult subject to try and talk about on here but I can't help but remain happy to see the developments being made with this film, and the idea of PWB possibly staying on for Bond 26 just makes me even happier :)
Good point – and they definitely could. Wow, Craig will look old in this film compared to a lot of the cast, won't he! :))
Indeed.
Won't be surprised to see age being a theme though. I mean, Craig portrayed a seasoned spy by his third film, so it shouldn't be a surprise if that's present in NTTD.
Yes, yes, yes.
Also, some guy at Pinewwod took this. He hasn't tagged anything which is weird, and to me this stairs/wall looks fake, like a set which makes me wonder if this is part of a NTTD-set
Edit: Guy who took the pic is Gary Tomkins, Art Director
The Voyage of Doctor Dolittle (Senior Art Director) (post-production)
Solo: A Star Wars Story (senior art director)
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (senior art director)
Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (senior art director)
All Harry Potter-movies
It should not have been touched on until his 5th film, if at all.
In NTTD I believe it will be a theme inherent within the narrative but not the main theme of the film like in SF. I hope, at least, since all that "It's a young man's game", "Sometimes the old ways are the best", "The inevitability of time, don’t you think?", "Age is no guarantee of efficiency" were quite tedious since Mendes brought it up too many times, depriving the Bond back to basis concept of its substance. My main complain regarding SF: too stressed.
Think I'm on to something here...
At the time of his third film, age should not have been mentioned at all; the focus could have been placed on Bond's feeling disillusioned and being betrayed, " take the bloody shot". Making age an issue this early on painted them into a corner. I'd rather not hear it mentioned in this film . Everyone knows his age.
Funny comparison, @Matt007. :)
My point is that a Bond film isn't the right entry point for a discussion about feminism at all. That's like lashing out against the NRA when promoting the next Terminator film. It means that people are taking something which, within this particular context, is fairly innocent and weightless, far too seriously, only to turn it into a deep political or sociological debate next. Nobody benefits from that.
It's also not needed since it's very doubtful that what people take away from more than five decades of the cinematic James Bond--still branded as safe, fun and cosy family-friendly entertainment--would be the risk of instilling wrong and unbalanced gender stereotypes in the minds of our youngsters.
And I can only support that. Which is why I believe it's important to teach every child who grows up watching movies, reading books, playing video games, reading newspapers ... about
What the Connery Bond did in '64--say, smacking Dink on the bottom--was not so unacceptable then as it is now; it's not something we should ever do, but after having had a few conversations with our children about that, it can be approached with a safe wink-wink rather than with fury while watching GF. It's certainly not something that every next actress has to start railing against in promoting the next Bond film. Those slip-ups, mistakes, errors, ... (whatever you want to call them), can be quietly left behind in one Bond film and never repeated again in a future one. It's not necessary to press the issue over and over, decades later. We wouldn't appreciate it if Daisy Ridley took every new Star Wars release as an opportunity to express her loathing of Leia's slave costume in Ep. VI either, or if the lack of black people in Ep. IV, with only the bad guy completely black, kept being brought up by every non-white actor in every subsequent Star Wars film. We know it, we get it, we never asked for it and they won't make this mistake again. Can we please just go on enjoying Star Wars?
Same with the women in the Bond films. We get it. Bond doesn't hit them anymore, nor should he. We find such treatment of women despicable in 2019. "Quarell, fetch my shoes," is likewise a horrible line in 2019 but in '62 "no-one" cared. So when watching DN or FRWL or GF or TB with someone in his formative years, you can point out that this is not the way to go. You admit that it was once considered acceptable even though the mistreated fraction was simply silenced. You emphasise that said fraction, fortunately, stood up for itself in later years and managed to change all of this. Hence, we're no longer doing things this way and that's a good thing.
I would class myself as a pacifist who doesn't believe in guns and would like to have the NRA and all its unethical principles abolished along with the far too flexible interpretation of the "second amendment". But when watching a Bond film, a Terminator film, a John Wick film, ... I understand the gun violence presented in it as an element of the film and not as something that I should copy in real life nor get worked up over. It certainly doesn't mean that I need to be lectured time and again about it. Some things go without saying.
Again, you're right. And again, that's in the past, it'll stay there and we should inform our youngsters that the filmmakers and actors of the time never meant any harm with this and most likely wouldn't make these critical errors anymore if they were active today. It's a good thing to have more Vespers, Tracies and Eves today and fewer Goodnights.
My point is simply this: actresses, please stop lecturing us with every next release. Stop emphasising how 'strong' this 'women' (not 'girl') is and how much of an 'equal' to Bond she is. Strong, yes. A woman, fine. (Even though Honor Blackman has gone on record saying it's just silly that we can't even use the term 'Bond girl' anymore.) But Bond's equal? Look, a Bond "girl" can be talented and tough, but if she's handling the case now like Captain Marvel and Bond's just along for the ride, it's not a Bond film anymore, now is it. In the end, as with Madeline, Bond has to save the day. Natalya was instrumental in defeating Alec, but first, Bond had to rescue her from captivity. Yes, Bond talked Fields into his bed pretty easily, but then he is a good looking guy and she's attracted to him. Happens with people who are attracted to other people in real life too so surely nothing's wrong with that. He doesn't force himself on a woman anymore.
I'm saying we're in a different place than we used to be. And back then, it wasn't too big an issue yet. When it became one, the Bond films willingly adjusted themselves. In that sense, they're an organically self-correcting structure. I don't think many Bond fans are upset about that or would rather see things be different. All I'm saying is, as long as Bond films are Bond films, James Bond is still the numero uno and that has nothing to do with a lack of gender equality or positive female stereotypes; and also, we can grow sick and tired of the hidden lectures by newcomers stressing how "strong" and "equal to Bond" they are.
I didn't hear Gal Gadot complain about flaunting her curves in the trenches in Wonder Woman, or about her using her perfectly formed bottom to get a guy's fingerprints in one of the Fast And Furious films. Why wasn't Nathalie Emmanuel advocating "strong, female types" as a warning that her character in the same film series shouldn't be taken for granted simply because she's a class A hacker doing all her magic while sunbathing in a microbikini? What is it about the Bond films that invites this particular brand of hidden criticism? Halle Berry brought up the "strong" woman thing in '02. Must we go through this routine again and again?
And hasn't Bond been going for some eye candy in the Craig era too? Imagine if Craig kept assuring us that he's still a "strong" and independent male despite the well-trained chest featuring prominently in CR... If every film from now on has to be either meticulously balanced regarding gender, sexual preferences, etnicity, ... or come with a "social justice" manual, I'm out. I would also start my own brand of activism, calling myself insulted by those who are clearly considering me intellectually incapable of handling two hours of perfectly innocent fiction.
Tell me that we are getting a proper villain's lair in this one!!
Also, yeah, the points made over the "evolution" of the Bond girl feel so passé, we've had Bond girls involved in the action (and not just a woman for Bond to save and bed) for a long long time now, it just hasn't been a staple in the Craig era, except for Camille getting into a fistfight with General Medrano in QOS. Also I guess Moneypenny in the opening of SF counts?
I think the trick will be making "Nomi" a memorable character, and not just the Bond girl who wielded guns alongside Craig's Bond (and presumably takes his codename). This is where PWB hopefully comes in and saves the day.
I grew up on Bond films. I always thought it was fantasy on how easy it was to get girls like that and the constant flirting in the workplace.Now that I am in my mid-twenties and in a professional work environment and do go to bars, wow was I wrong.
Women want sex just as much as guys do. They can be raunchy and flaunt themselves like the girls in the films. Now is every woman like that? Absolutely not.
If you watch CR you'll notice it was right before the era where everyone got offended and me too'ed. Bond flirts with the ocean club girl, the tennis girls check him out, him and solange get it on and him and Vesper are establishing a relationship.
After "CR", things changed. Notice how he doesn't flirt with every girl in sight? It seems like they have drastically toned the sex stuff down also. Women don't wear low cut tops and are covered. Watch "SF" and "SP" for example. Even "QOS".
I think people forget that this is a fantasy series aimed towards boys and our stupid fantasies. I really hope they don't go too PC.
+1
Truer words have never been spoken!
The PC world can dance around him, it just plays up the Bond character.
QOS, It was only Fields. I wouldn't call the receptionist scene flirting. Olga and him were never a good match and he just wanted info from her. They had a quick peck at the end but in an old Bond film they would've had sex in the cave scene.
Since Craig has been married he seems pretty uncomfortable being around women in scenes. No wonder they had a sex/chemistry coach for him and Ana..
Craig is married to Rachel Weisz, basically a real life Bond girl.
I cannot wait until 4/8/20!!!
Not as much as when he did the shower suprise on severine in skyfall
To me a proper lair would be the inside of a massive vulcano-like cave a la the 60's decore.
The stairs looks like it could be at MI6 HQ
You're completely right about that.
Definitely agree, on all points.