The Future of Sex in the Bond films

1910111315

Comments

  • Posts: 342
    Tatiana killed Rosa Klebb, so...

    I always assumed that Tatiana knew that Rosa Klebb had defected to SPECTRE by that point.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    mtm wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Bond kills baddies, @DEKE_RIVERS , and he’s supposed to seduce love interests, not force himself on them. I don’t think I ever thought the barn yard scene was cool in any way— and I’m talking about when I was a kid. Confused maybe, but not cool….

    Bond and Jill (I’m beginning to like you, Mr. Bond), was cool.

    Thinking more about Guy Hamilton and how he tackled various these scenes across his Bond movies, I do look at the Molly Peters scene in TB (directed by Terence Young of course) where Bond comes on pretty strong in a way we wouldn't approve of now, but how despite that, I would say she is giving some actual playful vibes and it's arguably not quite as one-sided as some other scenes. The direction is knocking the edges off it I'd say. I wonder if someone else like Young had directed GF, the barn scene might not have been quite so much of an assault.

    Interesting thought @mtm … Peter’s did give off a much more playful vibe, and in this same film, I find it interesting that Fiona talks about Bond making love to a woman and that’s all he has to do to turn her back to the good side, like she’s mocking the particular scene we’ve been discussing…
  • Posts: 342
    peter wrote: »

    Interesting thought @mtm … Peter’s did give off a much more playful vibe, and in this same film, I find it interesting that Fiona talks about Bond making love to a woman and that’s all he has to do to turn her back to the good side, like she’s mocking the particular scene we’ve been discussing…

    How would Fiona know - are you suggesting that Goldfinger was part of SPECTRE?
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Troy wrote: »
    peter wrote: »

    Interesting thought @mtm … Peter’s did give off a much more playful vibe, and in this same film, I find it interesting that Fiona talks about Bond making love to a woman and that’s all he has to do to turn her back to the good side, like she’s mocking the particular scene we’ve been discussing…

    How would Fiona know - are you suggesting that Goldfinger was part of SPECTRE?

    Nope, not at all @Troy . What I am saying is that the writers, through the character, were mocking the stupidity of the barn scene.
  • Posts: 342
    Pity…I thought we had a whole new topic….
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Troy wrote: »
    Pity…I thought we had a whole new topic….

    Pity, indeed, @Troy

    There’s this obsession to save this fictitious character from a few bad moves in his day, an obsession to blame a contradictory perspective of this barn scene on the sensitivities of today, to label anyone not in agreement of being vacuous ideologues who are “woke”.

    The entire thing is ridiculous.

    In the end, it was a terribly lazy scene, and, as I’ve called it repeatedly: deus ex machina via Bond’s penis. Lazy and stupid writing, and Bond isn’t cool, nor seductive.

    The scene where Jill tells Bond that she’s beginning to like him is the field Bond should be playing in. From start to finish, that scene of embarrassing Goldfinger IS the absolute and unstoppable force that is James Bond, at his coolest and most seductive.

    The other scene has rightly been exposed for what it is, on top of it being stupid and lazy writing….
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 11 Posts: 16,502
    I don't hate the idea of Bond turning Pussy in order to help him, but it could have been done better: with her giving him an occasional look or something to hint to the audience that she's softening, a bit of a progression through the film. As it is, she's still fighting him with all of her strength in the barn, and I don't know if that's the best way to do it. It's sort of funny in the way that James is tongue-in-cheek presented as the most sexy man in the universe, but you probably could have kept that gag if she'd just wilted to him a bit more over time and left out the assault.

    With 007HallY mentioning May Day above, I hadn't quite twigged before that her turning at the end is the equivalent of Pussy turning (with AVTAK being a loose GF remake of course). She's the new version of Oddjob of course, but she's also Pussy too. I'd say that the way she turns to the good side is more convincingly done.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    mtm wrote: »
    I don't hate the idea of Bond turning Pussy in order to help him, but it could have been done better: with her giving him an occasional look or something to hint to the audience that she's softening, a bit of a progression through the film. As it is, she's still fighting him with all of her strength in the barn, and I don't know if that's the best way to do it. It's sort of funny in the way that James is tongue-in-cheek presented as the most sexy man in the universe, but you probably could have kept that gag if she'd just wilted to him a bit more over time and left out the assault.

    With 007HallY mentioning May Day above, I hadn't quite twigged before that her turning at the end is the equivalent of Pussy turning (with AVTAK being a loose GF remake of course). She's the new version of Oddjob of course, but she's also Pussy too. I'd say that the way she turns to the good side is more convincingly done.

    Yeah but, @mtm , MayDay turns not because she slept with Bond (that was business), but because she saw the corpses of her friends floating dead. Zorin had betrayed her and her friends. Thats why she turned. Unless I missed something?

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 11 Posts: 16,502
    peter wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I don't hate the idea of Bond turning Pussy in order to help him, but it could have been done better: with her giving him an occasional look or something to hint to the audience that she's softening, a bit of a progression through the film. As it is, she's still fighting him with all of her strength in the barn, and I don't know if that's the best way to do it. It's sort of funny in the way that James is tongue-in-cheek presented as the most sexy man in the universe, but you probably could have kept that gag if she'd just wilted to him a bit more over time and left out the assault.

    With 007HallY mentioning May Day above, I hadn't quite twigged before that her turning at the end is the equivalent of Pussy turning (with AVTAK being a loose GF remake of course). She's the new version of Oddjob of course, but she's also Pussy too. I'd say that the way she turns to the good side is more convincingly done.

    Yeah but, @mtm , MayDay turns not because she slept with Bond (that was business), but because she saw the corpses of her friends floating dead. Zorin had betrayed her and her friends. Thats why she turned. Unless I missed something?

    Yes indeed, that's what I mean; her being betrayed by the baddie is a more satisfying reason for me than just falling for Bond.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    mtm wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I don't hate the idea of Bond turning Pussy in order to help him, but it could have been done better: with her giving him an occasional look or something to hint to the audience that she's softening, a bit of a progression through the film. As it is, she's still fighting him with all of her strength in the barn, and I don't know if that's the best way to do it. It's sort of funny in the way that James is tongue-in-cheek presented as the most sexy man in the universe, but you probably could have kept that gag if she'd just wilted to him a bit more over time and left out the assault.

    With 007HallY mentioning May Day above, I hadn't quite twigged before that her turning at the end is the equivalent of Pussy turning (with AVTAK being a loose GF remake of course). She's the new version of Oddjob of course, but she's also Pussy too. I'd say that the way she turns to the good side is more convincingly done.

    Yeah but, @mtm , MayDay turns not because she slept with Bond (that was business), but because she saw the corpses of her friends floating dead. Zorin had betrayed her and her friends. Thats why she turned. Unless I missed something?

    Yes indeed, that's what I mean; her being betrayed by the baddie is a more satisfying reason for me than just falling for Bond.

    Oh, absolutely. It’s a truthful and seamless transition based on events in the story…
  • edited April 18 Posts: 2,008
    deleted
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    CrabKey wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    There’s this obsession to save this fictitious character from a few bad moves in his day, an obsession to blame a contradictory perspective of this barn scene on the sensitivities of today, to label anyone not in agreement of being vacuous ideologues who are “woke”.

    Merely a difference of opinion.

    Maybe to you, but there was a difference opinion shared and I was called the above. Not by you, but another poster. So….
  • edited April 18 Posts: 2,008
    deleted
  • I'd imagine this is what we see:
    1. No actually sex on screen. Nothing like DAD.
    2. No sex upon early meetings with the primary Bond girl (nothing like Pam in LTK for example)
    3. Few secondary Bond girls, and if they exist, they never overlap with the main Bond girl
    4. More an attempt to play the romantic aspects of the relationship (Bond being protective, girl being vulnerable etc.)
    5. Maybe an odd one but potentially the imperfections of Bond girls (Honey's broken nose or Domino's off-kilter legs)
  • Posts: 12,489
    Bond will not have sex with more than one woman per film anymore, I’m almost certain. They will absolutely continue to tone down or entirely do away with the idea of him being promiscuous. Even though it’s not inherently “problematic” to want open relationships / see several people, they will be scared off by continued / anticipated accusations of sexism in Bond’s character. Easiest solution is just to make him become a one or no woman man now.
  • Posts: 2,008
    I'd imagine this is what we see:
    1. No actually sex on screen. Nothing like DAD.
    2. No sex upon early meetings with the primary Bond girl (nothing like Pam in LTK for example)
    3. Few secondary Bond girls, and if they exist, they never overlap with the main Bond girl
    4. More an attempt to play the romantic aspects of the relationship (Bond being protective, girl being vulnerable etc.)
    5. Maybe an odd one but potentially the imperfections of Bond girls (Honey's broken nose or Domino's off-kilter legs)

    Number 5 is certainly straight out of Fleming. I wonder if the producers would be willing to go there.
  • Posts: 12,489
    I hope #5 happens.
  • edited April 17 Posts: 2,277
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Bond will not have sex with more than one woman per film anymore, I’m almost certain. They will absolutely continue to tone down or entirely do away with the idea of him being promiscuous. Even though it’s not inherently “problematic” to want open relationships / see several people, they will be scared off by continued / anticipated accusations of sexism in Bond’s character. Easiest solution is just to make him become a one or no woman man now.

    I’m not so sure about that because the accusations of sexism in Bond have been around for decades yet the filmmakers have never really lost sight that sex/promiscuity is one of the core tenants of the Cinematic Bond. That criticism has never really prevented any of the films from making money at the box office either no matter how loud certain people may proclaim it. Even Craig’s tenure leaned into that promiscuity to an extent before Madeline entered the films. Speaking personally, as a 26 year old Gen Z guy, I’m increasingly noticing that the idea of “open relationships” and “one night stands” has unfortunately somewhat become a social norm now. Even beyond that, we live in the age of “OnlyFans” and “Tinder” which regardless of how some feel about then has unfortunately affected the dating landscape in my generation. Do I think Bond films are going to reflect this change? I don’t know honestly, but I don’t think the cinematic Bond will be eventually rid of his promiscuity entirely.
  • edited April 18 Posts: 2,008
    deleted
  • edited April 17 Posts: 2,277
    CrabKey wrote: »
    @007ClassicBondFan - Are you saying open relationships and one night stands are something new? Can you elaborate on how dating has been affected by Tinder and OnlyFans?

    No it's nothing new of course. But Tinder has made it a lot easier for anyone to find a date and hook up with them, even if it may not lead to any sort of meaningful relationship at all. It acts like a lot of other social media platforms in that it can feed on your dopamine/serotonin levels to where it can become somewhat addicting just continually swiping potential partners left or right in hopes of gaining pleasure if only for a short amount of time. OnlyFans on the other hand has somewhat normalized the idea of sex work being a "moral" (and I use that term very loosely) way to earn a living, and has provided plenty of young people with the incentive to make money posting extremely personal subject matter on the Internet behind a paywall. It's effects on the minds of young men in particular are similar to that of Pornography in that it can also feed on dopamine/serotonin levels to where it can become extremely unhealthy if an addiction is developed. This is inevitably the consequence of everyone having access to smartphones and the internet 24/7, and to relate it back to the series; this is the world that Bond #7 will be coming into.
  • Posts: 4,230
    I don’t think any of those things will change sex in Bond really. I don’t think they’ll even cause issues.

    I think we’ll still see Bond having one night stands/affairs (such as in SF or TND) or him having to seduce secondary female characters to get his job done. Maybe the framing of these situations will change a bit, but I think they’ll still be there.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    007HallY wrote: »
    I don’t think any of those things will change sex in Bond really. I don’t think they’ll even cause issues.

    I think we’ll still see Bond having one night stands/affairs (such as in SF or TND) or him having to seduce secondary female characters to get his job done. Maybe the framing of these situations will change a bit, but I think they’ll still be there.

    Yeah, exactly….

    I’m not sure why some seem concerned with Bond’s relationship with women… they may make tasteful adjustments, like in TLD (during the AIDS crisis), but even then, Bond had a quick dalliance with the woman on the boat and then involved himself with Kara.

    No matter what, women will always play a significant role in this character’s life, so it seems strange that this conversation keeps popping up as if James Bond films will suddenly become sexless…
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,054
    The inclusion of sex in Bond movies will be as it always was: namely, what the producers expect to draw (or repulse) the biggest audience. Bond movies have always followed the "zeitgeist". Right now, and in spite (or maybe because) of the avalanche of porn on the Internet, the general feeling about sex in daily life seems a lot more uptight to me than fifty years ago. This may change again, though I do not hope we will get back to our hero engaging in the kind of non-consensual affairs discussed in this thread. I'd definitely find that more likely than that Bond will ever become a smoker once more. Filthy habit.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,502
    peter wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I don’t think any of those things will change sex in Bond really. I don’t think they’ll even cause issues.

    I think we’ll still see Bond having one night stands/affairs (such as in SF or TND) or him having to seduce secondary female characters to get his job done. Maybe the framing of these situations will change a bit, but I think they’ll still be there.

    Yeah, exactly….

    I’m not sure why some seem concerned with Bond’s relationship with women… they may make tasteful adjustments, like in TLD (during the AIDS crisis), but even then, Bond had a quick dalliance with the woman on the boat and then involved himself with Kara.

    No matter what, women will always play a significant role in this character’s life, so it seems strange that this conversation keeps popping up as if James Bond films will suddenly become sexless…

    Moral panic panic.
  • edited April 17 Posts: 4,230
    peter wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I don’t think any of those things will change sex in Bond really. I don’t think they’ll even cause issues.

    I think we’ll still see Bond having one night stands/affairs (such as in SF or TND) or him having to seduce secondary female characters to get his job done. Maybe the framing of these situations will change a bit, but I think they’ll still be there.

    Yeah, exactly….

    I’m not sure why some seem concerned with Bond’s relationship with women… they may make tasteful adjustments, like in TLD (during the AIDS crisis), but even then, Bond had a quick dalliance with the woman on the boat and then involved himself with Kara.

    No matter what, women will always play a significant role in this character’s life, so it seems strange that this conversation keeps popping up as if James Bond films will suddenly become sexless…

    Yeah, womanising’s a part of Bond’s DNA. There’ll be things that will be done differently, but I really can’t see that aspect of the character dying out.

    Honestly, I think we’re more likely to see something like Bond having to walk out on a Bond girl at the end of a film or something (similar to him walking out on Viv in TSWLM) than him not having sex at all throughout a film to make him come across as more ‘virtuous’. Something that makes Bond look like a bit of a bastard within certain bounds, and subtly critiques how he forms relationships with certain women (not that these ideas are anything new in themselves). Actually that’d be quite an interesting ending.
  • edited April 17 Posts: 262
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I'd imagine this is what we see:
    1. No actually sex on screen. Nothing like DAD.
    2. No sex upon early meetings with the primary Bond girl (nothing like Pam in LTK for example)
    3. Few secondary Bond girls, and if they exist, they never overlap with the main Bond girl
    4. More an attempt to play the romantic aspects of the relationship (Bond being protective, girl being vulnerable etc.)
    5. Maybe an odd one but potentially the imperfections of Bond girls (Honey's broken nose or Domino's off-kilter legs)

    Number 5 is certainly straight out of Fleming. I wonder if the producers would be willing to go there.

    Potentially with all the publicity about beauty standards, and also criticism about the villains being disabled, the franchise could hit two birds with one stone
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    edited April 17 Posts: 575
    James Bond will have Tinder on his phone. You heard it here first! ;)

    I'm half serious, of course. We now live in a world where casual sex is more accepted and women are allowed to indulge with what I would hope is lesser judgement. It takes two to tango after all.

    I can see them leaning into a more "romance" angle perhaps but I don't think Bond's gun will remain holstered for an entire movie.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,334
    007HallY wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I don’t think any of those things will change sex in Bond really. I don’t think they’ll even cause issues.

    I think we’ll still see Bond having one night stands/affairs (such as in SF or TND) or him having to seduce secondary female characters to get his job done. Maybe the framing of these situations will change a bit, but I think they’ll still be there.

    Yeah, exactly….

    I’m not sure why some seem concerned with Bond’s relationship with women… they may make tasteful adjustments, like in TLD (during the AIDS crisis), but even then, Bond had a quick dalliance with the woman on the boat and then involved himself with Kara.

    No matter what, women will always play a significant role in this character’s life, so it seems strange that this conversation keeps popping up as if James Bond films will suddenly become sexless…

    Yeah, womanising’s a part of Bond’s DNA. There’ll be things that will be done differently, but I really can’t see that aspect of the character dying out.

    Honestly, I think we’re more likely to see something like Bond having to walk out on a Bond girl at the end of a film or something (similar to him walking out on Viv in TSWLM) than him not having sex at all throughout a film to make him come across as more ‘virtuous’. Something that makes Bond look like a bit of a bastard within certain bounds, and subtly critiques how he forms relationships with certain women (not that these ideas are anything new in themselves). Actually that’d be quite an interesting ending.

    +1. I think the critiques of "Bond can't have sex anymore in the 'woke' world" are really quite overblown and fanned by the tabloids for clicks.

    CR is a good example. Bond is supposed to be charismatic, and there are several women in that film who Bond doesn't sleep with who are still obviously attracted to him.

    Even SF...I get that Severine has a traumatic history as a child sex slave and that is probably too much for a Bond film which is meant to be escapist after all...but because of that history is she never supposed to have consensual sex again?

    That latter part is the weird moralizing part on the part of tabloids, as she is clearly shown to be at least intrigued by, and likely attracted to Bond, in the casino.
  • Posts: 342
    CrabKey wrote: »
    @007ClassicBondFan - Are you saying open relationships and one night stands are something new? Can you elaborate on how dating has been affected by Tinder and OnlyFans?

    No it's nothing new of course. But Tinder has made it a lot easier for anyone to find a date and hook up with them, even if it may not lead to any sort of meaningful relationship at all. It acts like a lot of other social media platforms in that it can feed on your dopamine/serotonin levels to where it can become somewhat addicting just continually swiping potential partners left or right in hopes of gaining pleasure if only for a short amount of time. OnlyFans on the other hand has somewhat normalized the idea of sex work being a "moral" (and I use that term very loosely) way to earn a living, and has provided plenty of young people with the incentive to make money posting extremely personal subject matter on the Internet behind a paywall. It's effects on the minds of young men in particular are similar to that of Pornography in that it can also feed on dopamine/serotonin levels to where it can become extremely unhealthy if an addiction is developed. This is inevitably the consequence of everyone having access to smartphones and the internet 24/7, and to relate it back to the series; this is the world that Bond #7 will be coming into.

    Social media may encourage more promiscuous behaviour, but mass media / authorities have certainly become more prudish.

    In the late 20th century, it was common to see topless women in network tv shows after 9pm, photos of topless 16yo’s in national newspapers, ‘schoolgirl’ fancy dress nights in night clubs, affairs at work etc. etc. Not anymore. No one talked about sex requiring a committed relationship.

    In the 1980s and 1990s, everyone went to nightclubs and tried for a one-night stand - the 15 minute period of slow dances at 1.45pm were eagerly anticipated in every nightclub.
  • Posts: 4,230
    Troy wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    @007ClassicBondFan - Are you saying open relationships and one night stands are something new? Can you elaborate on how dating has been affected by Tinder and OnlyFans?

    No it's nothing new of course. But Tinder has made it a lot easier for anyone to find a date and hook up with them, even if it may not lead to any sort of meaningful relationship at all. It acts like a lot of other social media platforms in that it can feed on your dopamine/serotonin levels to where it can become somewhat addicting just continually swiping potential partners left or right in hopes of gaining pleasure if only for a short amount of time. OnlyFans on the other hand has somewhat normalized the idea of sex work being a "moral" (and I use that term very loosely) way to earn a living, and has provided plenty of young people with the incentive to make money posting extremely personal subject matter on the Internet behind a paywall. It's effects on the minds of young men in particular are similar to that of Pornography in that it can also feed on dopamine/serotonin levels to where it can become extremely unhealthy if an addiction is developed. This is inevitably the consequence of everyone having access to smartphones and the internet 24/7, and to relate it back to the series; this is the world that Bond #7 will be coming into.

    Social media may encourage more promiscuous behaviour, but mass media / authorities have certainly become more prudish.

    In the late 20th century, it was common to see topless women in network tv shows after 9pm, photos of topless 16yo’s in national newspapers, ‘schoolgirl’ fancy dress nights in night clubs, affairs at work etc. etc. Not anymore. No one talked about sex requiring a committed relationship.

    In the 1980s and 1990s, everyone went to nightclubs and tried for a one-night stand - the 15 minute period of slow dances at 1.45pm were eagerly anticipated in every nightclub.

    I mean, people still have one night stands and go to nightclubs specifically for that… people still have affairs at work too. In the UK at least we still have (actually a rather odd amount) of nudity on Channel 4 after the watershed time on certain days (ie. Naked Attraction if you’ve never heard of it. Things like Babestation still exist too weirdly). I don’t know about topless 16 year olds in newspapers (and honestly, if that’s something nowadays we find unacceptable, then thank God for that). I’m not sure if I could imagine certain things depicted in an essentially mainstream film like, say, Saltburn, being something as easy to get away with in the 80s/90s.

    I don’t think it’s that mass media, or indeed people, are more prudish. If anything we’re actually less so nowadays about certain things. And there’s always been a level of self-censorship (or indeed censorship in general, and we’re certainly not in the days of the Hays Code) to avoid controversy.
Sign In or Register to comment.