EoN sells up - Amazon MGM to produce 007 going forwards (Heyman and Pascal confirmed as producers)

15455565860

Comments

  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited March 30 Posts: 9,545
    peter wrote: »
    I think people didn't like Indy being broken down and worn down, and playing second fiddle to a strong powerful woman who can karate chop a man and he'll fall to the ground.
    Lightyear, Strange Worlds, The Marvels, Indiana Jones 5? Have you heard of them? No, they didn't make much money as they were just "bad" movies.

    I’m sure YouTube has all the answers. Regarding INDY 5, I can personally understand why that bombed: it was flat out boring.

    Really? You think that's why Indy 5 bombed? Because it was boring? There's plenty of bad movies that aren't boring. You guys just keep coming up with excuses when the answer is right in front of you.

    How is thinking it’s boring an “excuse”?
    Because Indy movies aren't typically described as boring.

    This may be why you didn't like it, but, apart from a rabid micro-minority of Breitbart readers who seem to be so insecure that "girl bosses" in films really intimidates them (after all, what the hell was Marion Ravenwood if not a girl boss? She drinks grown men under the table and she slugs out Indiana himself-- and that was in1981. So this idea that a "girl boss" was responsible for sinking the fortunes of the latest film is absolute and absurd nonsense) , the reality behind Indy 5's failure can be found in:

    1/a massive budget; due to injuries and delays, the budget ballooned.
    2/over-estimated appeal for the character: Indy's heyday was in the 80s, and pretty much stayed there. The gaps in between films really saw to that.
    3/nostalgia factor: this targeted older men and really did nothing to bring on new fans.

    The actual reason for DoD flopping had zero to do with the PWB''s participation.

    Marion Ravenwood wasn't a "girlboss". How much did Crystal Skull make? Again, you're just an excuse factory for this movie for some reason. I swear you guys all sound like you work at the Guardian.

    Listen, Dalton, whatever you want to believe, you have a right to.

    But there are actual facts to why DoD failed at the box office, and not one of those reasons was due to PWB's role in the film, and had everything to do with an inflated budget and a creaky character whose heyday was in the 80s and pretty much stayed there.
    On another note -- do we think we will be free from Purvis and Wade as writers now?

    Yes, I'd assume with all certainty that they won't be back.
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    Posts: 769
    None of those are "facts". That's complete crap. There's no "heyday". Crystal Skull made a lot of money. In 2008. The indy five budget was astronomical, Yes. But so was Spectre.

    You are not the arbiter of truth for the film industry.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,463
    On another note -- do we think we will be free from Purvis and Wade as writers now?

    No, we should get a female writer to prove how manly we all are and how we're not scared by a little old woman. Stick it to those sexist fools like Ian Fleming, Sean Connery and Cubby Broccoli!

    Male fragility is a hell of a thing.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 30 Posts: 17,609
    You are not the arbiter of truth for the film industry.

    As long as you accept that you aren't either.

    It's really hard to get solid reasons for any films' success or failure without seeing the research which I presume the studios plough megabucks into to understand these things. But Peter's reasoning holds up to logic way more to me than 'had a woman in it'; you may disagree which is fine, but then nobody here is the arbiter of truth for the movie industry. Peter does actually work in the movie industry and make movies though, so I trust his judgement much more as he's putting his money where his mouth is.
    None of those are "facts". That's complete crap. There's no "heyday".

    Apart from one of the production companies behind the new Bond film! :D
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,545
    None of those are "facts". That's complete crap. There's no "heyday". Crystal Skull made a lot of money. In 2008. The indy five budget was astronomical, Yes. But so was Spectre.

    You are not the arbiter of truth for the film industry.

    Oh Jesus, whatever. You've got a short wick, my friend. Calm down. Stop making ad hominems and make a case against what I said.

    If you can't make a case, please don't make assumptions about who or what I am, and ignore me instead. It's that simple.

    In the end, I could care less whether you think a girl boss sunk the last film (and yes, Dalton, Marion, as played in Raiders, would today, be accused of being a girl boss). You're wrong, and I explained why, but you're all warm and cosy in your silo.

    Have a fine Sunday evening!

  • Posts: 65
    I could pen my own lines. It'd be more authentic

  • edited March 30 Posts: 575
    -deleted-
  • Posts: 695
    No, we should get a female writer to prove how manly we all are and how we're not scared by a little old woman. Stick it to those sexist fools like Ian Fleming, Sean Connery and Cubby Broccoli!
    Oh boy, this thread is really going downhill.
  • Posts: 12,568
    Certainly 2 very good Producer choices!
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,463
    Being woke is a good thing.

    If you are not making a Bond movie, of course.
    Or a Dirty Harry movie.
    Or...

    Left leaning folks can enjoy James Bond and Dirty Harry just fine.
  • baerrttbaerrtt United kingdom
    Posts: 17
    On another note -- do we think we will be free from Purvis and Wade as writers now?

    No, we should get a female writer to prove how manly we all are and how we're not scared by a little old woman. Stick it to those sexist fools like Ian Fleming, Sean Connery and Cubby Broccoli!

    I haven't been here In ages so just popped over to see how the recent news was being received amongst fans and whilst I'm going to be banned for this Dalton please shut the fuck up and log off.
  • Posts: 517
    Bond wrote: »
    If the internet as it is today with social media existed in 1995, it would have been glorious to see all the calm reactions to Judi Dench calling Bond a “sexist, misogynist dinosaur”.

    Glorious indeed.

    It was a different time, I don't think you can really compare. It never felt like GoldenEye as a whole was trying to portray M's opinion as gospel, it was just her opinion... the script still treated Bond with respect and not as a misogynist dinosaur worthy of contempt. Same with Terminator 2 in 1991 where Sarah Connor goes on a rant against men, the script and theme of the film as a whole wasn't pushing the same message of what she was saying, or if it was, it was at least subtle. At the time it was understood that these characters were representing only themselves and weren't necessarily vehicles for the writers' opinions. We also hadn't yet had "Mary Sue girlboss power" overload at that point.

    Yes social media has changed everything, but regardless of that all subtlety has disappeared in much of Hollywood's writing in recent years, and some people have come to instinctively groan and roll their eyes now when things like that are said in movies or shows because usually it'll be accompanied by other obvious progressive pushing narratives in the film and (now tired) tropes such as the Mary Sue and in addition the press will likely be gushing about it and how it's "first female" this or "powerful feminist" that and praising the film based on that rather than its merits. It's calmed down a bit in the last couple of years, but that's how it's been in the last decade or so.

    Goddangit, the post is strong with this one. Literally no fat and all truth. Impressive. Let me hand you this digital brewski 🍺
    Thanks old chap! Just my 2 cents on the matter. Segments of general audiences weren't always trigger-happy about so-called "progressive" points of view or characters existing in movies, it's just when they increasingly take over the whole narrative both on screen and behind the scenes without any hint of subtlety that it's become a hot button issue. Obviously you can't blame the failures of movies and shows on solely this, but I think audience fatigue of unambiguous agenda-pushing in film and TV has certainly contributed to some recent backlash and failures.
  • Posts: 575
    Bond wrote: »
    Bond wrote: »
    If the internet as it is today with social media existed in 1995, it would have been glorious to see all the calm reactions to Judi Dench calling Bond a “sexist, misogynist dinosaur”.

    Glorious indeed.

    It was a different time, I don't think you can really compare. It never felt like GoldenEye as a whole was trying to portray M's opinion as gospel, it was just her opinion... the script still treated Bond with respect and not as a misogynist dinosaur worthy of contempt. Same with Terminator 2 in 1991 where Sarah Connor goes on a rant against men, the script and theme of the film as a whole wasn't pushing the same message of what she was saying, or if it was, it was at least subtle. At the time it was understood that these characters were representing only themselves and weren't necessarily vehicles for the writers' opinions. We also hadn't yet had "Mary Sue girlboss power" overload at that point.

    Yes social media has changed everything, but regardless of that all subtlety has disappeared in much of Hollywood's writing in recent years, and some people have come to instinctively groan and roll their eyes now when things like that are said in movies or shows because usually it'll be accompanied by other obvious progressive pushing narratives in the film and (now tired) tropes such as the Mary Sue and in addition the press will likely be gushing about it and how it's "first female" this or "powerful feminist" that and praising the film based on that rather than its merits. It's calmed down a bit in the last couple of years, but that's how it's been in the last decade or so.

    Goddangit, the post is strong with this one. Literally no fat and all truth. Impressive. Let me hand you this digital brewski 🍺
    Thanks old chap! Just my 2 cents on the matter. Segments of general audiences weren't always trigger-happy about so-called "progressive" points of view or characters existing in movies, it's just when they increasingly take over the whole narrative both on screen and behind the scenes without any hint of subtlety that it's become a hot button issue. Obviously you can't blame the failures of movies and shows on solely this, but I think audience fatigue of unambiguous agenda-pushing in film and TV has certainly contributed to some recent backlash and failures.
    I think you nailed it on the head. Well worded.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,626
    Fleming's Bond could be sexist, racist, and homophobic. That was 70 years ago.

    No one wants to see all of that in a modern-day film in 2025 and beyond. It's offensive and not entertaining.
  • Posts: 4,930
    Snow White is really getting it rough, though. But sometimes, I wonder why some filmmakers don't stop to ask themselves questions like "Are people really eager to see this film, when it's not even the festive period?". Also, I think filmmakers should at least have a vague idea, if the film they're making is going to be a hit or not. For example, Pascal & Heyman already know Bond 26 would be a hit. It's just a matter of them adding the usual things that Bond fans know and love.

    If they have any sense, they won't p*** off the fan base. Bring originality, sure, but don't try and fix what isn't broke.

    To be honest, I suspect anything that whoever’s in charge of Bond will do will piss off a portion of the fan base! Even if they’re trying to make the best film they can.

    I don’t know what ‘Bring originality, sure, but don't try and fix what isn't broke’ means in this instance (happy to hear you out incidentally) but I suspect it could mean a lot of thing dependent on the hypothetical film and I don’t think it’s possible to create a new Bond movie that’ll appeal to everyone/not piss even a minority off.
  • Posts: 2,169
    To be honest, I suspect anything that whoever’s in charge of Bond will do will piss off a portion of the fan base! Even if they’re trying to make the best film they can.

    Of course that will happen. I suspect there are critics already writing their negative reviews well before the film has a script. There will be those who will not like the film for a variety of reasons. And others who will enjoy it. That's the way it goes, isn't it?

    Imagine being in charge of a $250 mlllion dollar project that 'must' be entertaining enough to be commercially (financially) successful. Plenty of pressure there. Add to it the demands of a diverse public who require their specific interests and causes be appropriately represented.

    As for DoD. I don't dislike the film. It was okay. PWB had nothing to do with how I feel about the film. I wanted more than I got. The de-aging felt like a gimmick and the CGI at the beginning was too much. For a guy who is a little younger than HF, I didn't need to see him ranting in his underpants. I'm not there yet.

    Women in front of the camera or behind, I'm fine with. Not a fan of the female character who at 25 years old has twelve PhD's, is skilled in all martial arts, has combat experience, flies fighter jets, is an expert on everything, speaks a dozen languages fluently, and is witty. That obvious exaggeration always hits the wrong note with me. Not to say women are not be equal to and better than men, but so often such characters come across as characatures and cartoons rather than as believable. For me, Dr. Goodhead and Christmas Jones are two characters I never believe. (These two come to mind. There are probably others.)

    Diversity is not an issue with me. It is how individuals are scripted and portrayed. For example, when we learn Q is gay, does that feel natural or does it scream "got to have a gay character"? Sometimes it works, other times it feels forced, calling attention to itself.
    Why did a black Felix and a black Moneypenny work beautifully, whereas a black female 007 in NTTD felt unnatural. But then Blofeld and Safin didn't work for me either.
  • Posts: 2,225
    I'm not sure if this has already been posted in this thread (I had a flick through the last few pages), but if not, Variety have their own article on Salke's departure.

    https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/jen-salke-amazon-exit-james-bond-clashes-1236351571/

    The Bond bit:

    As Variety recently noted, Broccoli is believed to have told others that she did not feel inspired by working with Salke. Things came to a head when the WSJ published an article in December about the Bond standstill. That caused a high alert within the studio that Salke’s relationship on the film side was lacking and that she didn’t have the creative chops to land the plane on one of the biggest franchises in Hollywood history. (It also helped to accelerate to Amazon’s deal to buy out the Broccolis, after negotiations began in early 2024.)

    Sources said Salke wanted to make Bond into a broader, less dangerous character who could star in TV shows and carry video games. But her desire to make 007 into a cuddly hero for Middle America made Broccoli wince, according to multiple sources. Insiders snarked that Salke’s vision of Bond suggested him as a rebellious cookie-cutter spy out of an NBC drama, not serious IP that only a handful of the most esteemed directors could tackle.

    Last month, Broccoli and her half-brother, Michael Wilson, ultimately signed off on that deal giving Amazon control of the franchise — but perhaps they also had a hint that the structure inside the company was about to change.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,648
    echo wrote: »
    Fleming's Bond could be sexist, racist, and homophobic. That was 70 years ago.

    No one wants to see all of that in a modern-day film in 2025 and beyond. It's offensive and not entertaining.

    You must've been reading different novels than I have. Bond himself isn't racist at all. For his time he's quite progressive i'd say. Or just humanist. I can't recall any remarks on gays of Bond himself. Yes, M and that psychiatrist (sorry, the name illudes me) have some strong opinions on gays, but again, it's part of the day and age.
    CrabKey wrote: »
    To be honest, I suspect anything that whoever’s in charge of Bond will do will piss off a portion of the fan base! Even if they’re trying to make the best film they can.

    Of course that will happen. I suspect there are critics already writing their negative reviews well before the film has a script. There will be those who will not like the film for a variety of reasons. And others who will enjoy it. That's the way it goes, isn't it?

    Imagine being in charge of a $250 mlllion dollar project that 'must' be entertaining enough to be commercially (financially) successful. Plenty of pressure there. Add to it the demands of a diverse public who require their specific interests and causes be appropriately represented.

    As for DoD. I don't dislike the film. It was okay. PWB had nothing to do with how I feel about the film. I wanted more than I got. The de-aging felt like a gimmick and the CGI at the beginning was too much. For a guy who is a little younger than HF, I didn't need to see him ranting in his underpants. I'm not there yet.

    Women in front of the camera or behind, I'm fine with. Not a fan of the female character who at 25 years old has twelve PhD's, is skilled in all martial arts, has combat experience, flies fighter jets, is an expert on everything, speaks a dozen languages fluently, and is witty. That obvious exaggeration always hits the wrong note with me. Not to say women are not be equal to and better than men, but so often such characters come across as characatures and cartoons rather than as believable. For me, Dr. Goodhead and Christmas Jones are two characters I never believe. (These two come to mind. There are probably others.)

    Diversity is not an issue with me. It is how individuals are scripted and portrayed. For example, when we learn Q is gay, does that feel natural or does it scream "got to have a gay character"? Sometimes it works, other times it feels forced, calling attention to itself.
    Why did a black Felix and a black Moneypenny work beautifully, whereas a black female 007 in NTTD felt unnatural. But then Blofeld and Safin didn't work for me either.

    It seems everybody is beeing pissed off anyway, as some people find it necessary to go back to the 1890's and before, whilst others seem to need to attack everything that has ever come before, not noticing they're doing exactly what they say they're against: excluding others on the basis of sex, 'race', etc. Both sides are pretty sad imo.

    I'm not a fan of any 25 y/o character beeing able to all that, man or woman. Why you wouldn't believe Dr. Goodhead or C. Jones, though, I don't get. As both are hardly martial arts specialists. Goodhead is a scientist recruited by the CIA, Jones is just a scientist. The latter dresses perhaps a little provocative, but that's it. she doesn't seem to be in control in any of the action scenes. (the sole reason I'm not buying Dr. Goodhead is her(lack of) actin
    I also disagree with Nomi as a character isn't convincing. Far from it, she does seem very adequate as an agent. Far more so than Rosie, i.e. The 007 storyline is just a gimmick, showing that it's indeed just a number. Obviously it's unlikely the 007 number would be used that quickly again, as we've hardly seen any other 00's in recent years, but to my mind it doesn't really make a difference.
    The logic nowadays is that if a woman had a central role, and she isn't subservient to men in some way, it's woke and that's why it flopped.

    I would say most of the women of James bond have been subservient to him. Do you have a problem with that?

    You definately have been watching different films than I have. It's 'James Bond', not 'James Bondage'. IF you're watching the films on a platform that starts with P. and ends with..hub, I'll tell you, that's not the films we're discussing here.
  • Posts: 1,782
    Being woke is a good thing.

    If you are not making a Bond movie, of course.
    Or a Dirty Harry movie.
    Or...

    Left leaning folks can enjoy James Bond and Dirty Harry just fine.


    It's not that difficult, is it?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited March 31 Posts: 8,463
    echo wrote: »
    Fleming's Bond could be sexist, racist, and homophobic. That was 70 years ago.

    No one wants to see all of that in a modern-day film in 2025 and beyond. It's offensive and not entertaining.

    You must've been reading different novels than I have. Bond himself isn't racist at all. For his time he's quite progressive i'd say. Or just humanist. I can't recall any remarks on gays of Bond himself.

    Goldfinger is a prime example. Bond regarding Koreans as being below apes, his thoughts on lesbians. When he comes across Tilly’s dead body he’s only lamenting about how she was a lesbian. "Poor little bitch. She didn't think much of men...“

    Then there’s the handling of Pussy Galore, which is honestly more hilarious than offensive.

    “I thought you didn’t like men?”
    “I never met a man.”

    :))

    Personally I don’t mind, because I’ve always thought of Bond as an anti-hero rather than an aspirational character. He’s not Steve Rogers. He’s a deeply troubled man who only gets a thrill out of courting death and ultimately fights for good. Eon has of course been wise to sand off his racist/homophobic bits and that’s fine because they’re not defining character traits in the novels the way his drinking and womanizing are.
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    Posts: 769
    There's nothing wrong with any of that. Can we get back on topic once every five pages on this thread? Obviously the mods are on vacation.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited March 31 Posts: 2,407
    Do we think Pascal & Heyman would bring back rock music as the title song?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited March 31 Posts: 8,463
    There's nothing wrong with any of that. Can we get back on topic once every five pages on this thread? Obviously the mods are on vacation.

    We are on topic.
  • edited March 31 Posts: 4,930
    echo wrote: »
    Fleming's Bond could be sexist, racist, and homophobic. That was 70 years ago.

    No one wants to see all of that in a modern-day film in 2025 and beyond. It's offensive and not entertaining.

    You must've been reading different novels than I have. Bond himself isn't racist at all. For his time he's quite progressive i'd say. Or just humanist. I can't recall any remarks on gays of Bond himself.

    Goldfinger is a prime example. Bond regarding Koreans as being below apes, his thoughts on lesbians. When he comes across Tilly’s dead body he’s only lamenting about how she was a lesbian. "Poor little bitch. She didn't think much of men...“

    Then there’s the handling of Pussy Galore, which is honestly more hilarious than offensive.

    “I thought you didn’t like men?”
    “I never met a man.”

    :))

    Personally I don’t mind, because I’ve always thought of Bond as an anti-hero rather than an aspirational character. He’s not Steve Rogers. He’s a deeply troubled man who only gets a thrill out of courting death and ultimately fights for good. Eon has of course been wise to sand off his racist/homophobic bits and that’s fine because they’re not defining character traits in the novels the way his drinking and womanizing are.

    I’d say Bond being more of a hero than an anti hero is a big reason why those things have been toned down. He has his flaws and vices, and some aspects of his values are arguably ‘outdated’ (although the films frame this more as his devotion to his duty/country, which is more fundamental to the character I’d argue anyway). The films certainly acknowledge him being associated with women can lead to their deaths, and as a man who has to kill ‘bad people’ he’s not exactly going to have a rosy view of the world. I don’t think you get that impression of such a flawed but essentially virtuous character if he sprouts off casually racist or homophonic things in a modern film though, or has particular ‘opinions’ on women and various demographics. I think the same would be true if he were preachy and liberal.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,463
    Do we think Pascal & Heyman would bring back rock music as the title song?

    Given its decline and only being propped up by bands well into their 50s, probably not.

    Get ready for Chappell Roan.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 31 Posts: 17,609
    echo wrote: »
    Fleming's Bond could be sexist, racist, and homophobic. That was 70 years ago.

    No one wants to see all of that in a modern-day film in 2025 and beyond. It's offensive and not entertaining.

    You must've been reading different novels than I have. Bond himself isn't racist at all. For his time he's quite progressive i'd say. Or just humanist. I can't recall any remarks on gays of Bond himself.

    Goldfinger is a prime example. Bond regarding Koreans as being below apes, his thoughts on lesbians. When he comes across Tilly’s dead body he’s only lamenting about how she was a lesbian. "Poor little bitch. She didn't think much of men...“

    Oh yes, someone was saying the other day (can't remember where I saw it) that in the first chapter or two of GF Bond had given his thoughts on.. and then they reeled off a surprisingly long list of the various minorities and types of people he'd passed scathing judgements on! :D

    There's nothing wrong with any of that.

    In reply to a post which includes 'Koreans are below apes'. Always something new to impress ;)
    007HallY wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Fleming's Bond could be sexist, racist, and homophobic. That was 70 years ago.

    No one wants to see all of that in a modern-day film in 2025 and beyond. It's offensive and not entertaining.

    You must've been reading different novels than I have. Bond himself isn't racist at all. For his time he's quite progressive i'd say. Or just humanist. I can't recall any remarks on gays of Bond himself.

    Goldfinger is a prime example. Bond regarding Koreans as being below apes, his thoughts on lesbians. When he comes across Tilly’s dead body he’s only lamenting about how she was a lesbian. "Poor little bitch. She didn't think much of men...“

    Then there’s the handling of Pussy Galore, which is honestly more hilarious than offensive.

    “I thought you didn’t like men?”
    “I never met a man.”

    :))

    Personally I don’t mind, because I’ve always thought of Bond as an anti-hero rather than an aspirational character. He’s not Steve Rogers. He’s a deeply troubled man who only gets a thrill out of courting death and ultimately fights for good. Eon has of course been wise to sand off his racist/homophobic bits and that’s fine because they’re not defining character traits in the novels the way his drinking and womanizing are.

    I’d say Bond being more of a hero than an anti hero is a big reason why those things have been toned down. He has his flaws and vices, and some aspects of his values are arguably ‘outdated’ (although the films frame this more as his devotion to his duty/country, which is more fundamental to the character I’d argue anyway). The films certainly acknowledge him being associated with women can lead to their deaths, and as a man who has to kill ‘bad people’ he’s not exactly going to have a rosy view of the world. I don’t think you get that impression of such a flawed but essentially virtuous character if he sprouts off casually racist or homophonic things in a modern film though, or has particular ‘opinions’ on women and various demographics. I think the same would be true if he were preachy and liberal.

    Yeah I guess of all of the differences between the films and the books, the way that Bond no longer really has any opinions at all is quite striking. Yes, he has thoughts on food and drink and fairly superficial stuff, he has preferences, and of course he has a moral sense of right and wrong, but that's kind of it. He doesn't even really pass judgement on the places he travels to, unlike the books; he just seems to take everything in his stride and not really have any thoughts about any of it. I wonder if the films would be improved if that was brought in? If he made it clear he hates tea would that make anyone think less of him?
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,407
    Do we think Pascal & Heyman would bring back rock music as the title song?

    Given its decline and only being propped up by bands well into their 50s, probably not.

    Get ready for Chappell Roan.

    Hmmmm. I'm not blown away by her, though. If not a rock song, I would prefer Goldfrapp. But it's likely going to be someone like Taylor Swift, if Pascal & Heyman want to continue what EON were doing.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,609
    Do we think Pascal & Heyman would bring back rock music as the title song?

    Given its decline and only being propped up by bands well into their 50s, probably not.

    Get ready for Chappell Roan.

    Hmmmm. I'm not blown away by her, though. If not a rock song, I would prefer Goldfrapp. But it's likely going to be someone like Taylor Swift, if Pascal & Heyman want to continue what EON were doing.

    At the moment my money's still on Raye, but things can change and we're still a couple of years off.
  • Posts: 631
    Olivia Rodrigo high energy rock Bond song.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,648
    echo wrote: »
    Fleming's Bond could be sexist, racist, and homophobic. That was 70 years ago.

    No one wants to see all of that in a modern-day film in 2025 and beyond. It's offensive and not entertaining.

    You must've been reading different novels than I have. Bond himself isn't racist at all. For his time he's quite progressive i'd say. Or just humanist. I can't recall any remarks on gays of Bond himself.

    Goldfinger is a prime example. Bond regarding Koreans as being below apes, his thoughts on lesbians. When he comes across Tilly’s dead body he’s only lamenting about how she was a lesbian. "Poor little bitch. She didn't think much of men...“

    Then there’s the handling of Pussy Galore, which is honestly more hilarious than offensive.

    “I thought you didn’t like men?”
    “I never met a man.”

    :))

    Personally I don’t mind, because I’ve always thought of Bond as an anti-hero rather than an aspirational character. He’s not Steve Rogers. He’s a deeply troubled man who only gets a thrill out of courting death and ultimately fights for good. Eon has of course been wise to sand off his racist/homophobic bits and that’s fine because they’re not defining character traits in the novels the way his drinking and womanizing are.

    I guess it's about reading the context. With OddJob, afar, Bond has already been through a lot, and he's just generalising his view of OddJob and Goldfinger's other henchmen. Not necessarily the Korean people as whole.
    The lamenting about Tilly, is that disdain for her sexuality, or is that his reaction to her running to Pussy instead of staying with him? I thought the latter.
    And indeed, the pussy line is just funny. I personally met a woman who'd been in relationships with other women, but now is in a relationship with a man (no, not me).
Sign In or Register to comment.