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

15455565759

Comments

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited March 31 Posts: 8,472
    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.

    Duran Duran really changed the game when it comes to selecting artists based on popularity. John Barry would typically just have a songbird like Shirley Bassey, but then after Duran Duran that’s when we saw the trend of artists deliver songs on their own volition, rarely with the actual composer. That’s why it’s become so rare for the artists’ songs to appear in the score.
  • TheSkyfallen06TheSkyfallen06 Buenos Aires, Argentina.
    Posts: 1,178
    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.

    I honestly hope not. I'd rather they go back to the upbeat, electrifying theme songs, instead of another sad, melancholic one.
  • edited March 31 Posts: 4,942
    mtm 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...“

    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?

    I think as soon as you get Bond passing too much judgment on the real life locations he visits or gives direct, specific opinions on politics and society it’s only going to lose a portion of the audience. A bit like when your drunk Uncle or whoever at a family gathering begins to share their political views. It’s either divisive or awkward.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,472
    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.

    I mean, it’s pretty explicit.

    “Those terms included putting Oddjob and any other Korean firmly in his place, which, in Bond's estimation, was rather lower than apes in the mammalian hierarchy.”

    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.

    That he emphasizes her lesbianism, his point being that her being gay what got her killed. Especially taking into account when he realized why Tilly was not taking to his charm.
    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).

    It’s really the execution of it in GF that’s funny. Suddenly Pussy is acting subservient and taking commands from Bond. It’s definitely Fleming tapping into the “turning the lesbian” fantasy to an extreme, that a lesbian just needs a guy like Bond to turn her. That’s all before getting into Pussy bringing up why she was a lesbian, “my uncle raped me”.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 31 Posts: 17,620
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm 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...“

    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?

    I think as soon as you get Bond passing too much judgment on the real life locations he visits or gives direct, specific opinions on politics and society it’s only going to lose a portion of the audience. A bit like when your drunk Uncle or whoever at a family gathering begins to share their political views. It’s either divisive or awkward.

    Yep, agreed. If he said he hated going to Amsterdam or wherever, even though that's very book Bond, you're just annoying some people for no reason.
    I guess you can make it fun sometimes, like the TLD hamper thing or his reaction to the grotty hotel in QoS: those are good jokes at the expense of his snobbishness. Or Dalton pushing the substandard coffee away in TLD, although that does feel incredibly actorly to me!
    It’s really the execution of it in GF that’s funny. Suddenly Pussy is acting subservient and taking commands from Bond. It’s definitely Fleming tapping into the “turning the lesbian” fantasy to an extreme, that a lesbian just needs a guy like Bond to turn her. That’s all before getting into Pussy bringing up why she was a lesbian, “my uncle raped me”.

    Ah yes, men turn 'em gay, and a real man turns 'em back again. Basically it's all about men :))
  • edited March 31 Posts: 4,942
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm 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...“

    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?

    I think as soon as you get Bond passing too much judgment on the real life locations he visits or gives direct, specific opinions on politics and society it’s only going to lose a portion of the audience. A bit like when your drunk Uncle or whoever at a family gathering begins to share their political views. It’s either divisive or awkward.

    Yep, agreed. If he said he hated going to Amsterdam or wherever, even though that's very book Bond, you're just annoying some people for no reason.
    I guess you can make it fun sometimes, like the TLD hamper thing or his reaction to the grotty hotel in QoS: those are good jokes at the expense of his snobbishness. Or Dalton pushing the substandard coffee away in TLD, although that does feel incredibly actorly to me!
    )

    An example of Bond giving his opinion that doesn’t work I think is the Beatles line from GF and exemplifies the issue of Bond having direct opinions even just on popular culture. It always takes people out of the film nowadays because The Beatles is considered arguably the best band of all time. It’s a bit strange hearing Bond randomly being snarky about them and it makes him look snobbish in a pretty unattractive way. I suspect even at the time it was a random dig.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,620
    Oh yeah good point, that is a good example and it does seem like the kind of thing bookBond would say, and I have the same reaction to you at it: I kind of think James is being a bit of a dick and he's just wrong.
    Dr No was released the very same day that Love Me Do, the Beatles' first single came out, fact fans :)
  • edited March 31 Posts: 4,942
    I do wonder why they even included the line. Ironically GF’s the film when I think they perfected how to convey Bond’s more opinionated (dare I say snobbish) side seen in the books (moments like him being knowledgable about the brandy etc). It’s a bit awkward as well considering how 10 years later we’d get McCartney and Martin doing LALD.
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    Posts: 769
    Funny how I'm never the one bringing this crap up. Maybe you guys ought to think about that. You must tire yourselves thinking about racism and sexism all day along and getting up in arms about it all the time.

    This is a James Bond forum, can we talk about something we actually like about the character instead of trying to sanitize him and turn him into a choir boy?
  • Posts: 4,942
    Funny how I'm never the one bringing this crap up. Maybe you guys ought to think about that. You must tire yourselves thinking about racism and sexism all day along and getting up in arms about it all the time.

    This is a James Bond forum, can we talk about something we actually like about the character instead of trying to sanitize him and turn him into a choir boy?

    Genuine question mate: are you ok?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,472
    Funny how I'm never the one bringing this crap up. Maybe you guys ought to think about that. You must tire yourselves thinking about racism and sexism all day along and getting up in arms about it all the time.

    This is a James Bond forum, can we talk about something we actually like about the character instead of trying to sanitize him and turn him into a choir boy?

    No need to get triggered.
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    edited March 31 Posts: 769
    Now I know why so many long-standing members are no longer here. This forum desperately needs some new blood.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,472
    I recommend you go to Bond and Beyond forum. There’s folk there that share your kind of sensitivity.
  • edited March 31 Posts: 4,942
    For what it's worth I wasn't trying to pick a fight with my question - it just seemed like the conversation was organically moving on and one can always not comment until it's moved on (I actually don't prefer to talk about racism/homophobia in Bond and try to stay away from politics - hell, my own political opinions are still being thought through at this point by myself and I suspect always will be). Asking publicly to stop speaking about something more than once in a communal setting when they're ignoring you and lashing out just always seems like something else to me. Like, a Bond discussion shouldn't be too personal I suppose... I dunno.

    Anyway, no need for hate :)
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,472
    A forum dedicated to James Bond by definition puts every possible aspect on the table for discussion. It can be simple, complex, controversial, whatever. For example, do I think Wint & Kidd are on some level problematic in DAF? Yes. Do I find them highly entertaining? Hell yes. On that note, I was a bit bummed to hear of Bruce Glover's passing, as he played one of my favorite henchmen in this franchise and from what I saw was a funny quirky guy in real life.

    Cheers.


    then-and-now-mr-kidd-and-mr-wint-v0-m1y8mqq1kx5e1.jpeg?width=1176&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=07a29243958f0cac1b5b1b09ba3fb5fcf9ae8159
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    edited March 31 Posts: 8,652
    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.

    I mean, it’s pretty explicit.

    “Those terms included putting Oddjob and any other Korean firmly in his place, which, in Bond's estimation, was rather lower than apes in the mammalian hierarchy.”
    Oh I'm not saying it isn't explicit, I'm just saying he's very explicit because of the circumstances he's in. Ask an average Ukrainian right now where Russians stand in the hierarchy (as if there is one) of mammals, and I expect you'll get a similar answer.
    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.

    That he emphasizes her lesbianism, his point being that her being gay what got her killed. Especially taking into account when he realized why Tilly was not taking to his charm.
    Yes, he's definately a sore loser. Again, if I recall correctly, he wasn't too kind on Gala Brand as soon as he found out she was engaged, and when the love of his life died he said 'the bitch is dead'. He distances himself from emotions, and he does so in a harsh and brutal way.
    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).

    It’s really the execution of it in GF that’s funny. Suddenly Pussy is acting subservient and taking commands from Bond. It’s definitely Fleming tapping into the “turning the lesbian” fantasy to an extreme, that a lesbian just needs a guy like Bond to turn her. That’s all before getting into Pussy bringing up why she was a lesbian, “my uncle raped me”.
    But is the 'turning lesbian straight' fantasy anti gay? Or just a fantasy?


    AFAK the Beatles remark was a friendly jab, and definately fit the times. But you'd have to ask people like @Since62 and @BeatlesSansEarmuffs about that one.
    Now I know why so many long-standing members are no longer here. This forum desperately needs some new blood.

    Sorry, but again I can't follow your logic: you're saying old forum members have left because we need younger ones instead? You do know that that's not how the internet works?
    And by the way, why are you so against women anyway? You do know your mother is one, right?
  • edited March 31 Posts: 4,942
    [


    AFAK the Beatles remark was a friendly jab, and definately fit the times. But you'd have to ask people like @Since62 and @BeatlesSansEarmuffs about that one.

    That's interesting. It's always been such a weird line to me, probably in hindsight. I mean, from my point of view as a kid in the late 2000s/reading about this second hand Bondmania and Beatlemania were very much at the same time. Not interchangeable, and I suspect different audiences, but kinda cut from the same cloth. So it was always odd to me.
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    edited March 31 Posts: 769
    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.

    I mean, it’s pretty explicit.

    “Those terms included putting Oddjob and any other Korean firmly in his place, which, in Bond's estimation, was rather lower than apes in the mammalian hierarchy.”
    Oh I'm not saying it isn't explicit, I'm just saying he's very explicit because of the circumstances he's in. Ask an average Ukrainian right now where Russians stand in the hierarchy (as if there is one) of mammals, and I expect you'll get a similar answer.
    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.

    That he emphasizes her lesbianism, his point being that her being gay what got her killed. Especially taking into account when he realized why Tilly was not taking to his charm.
    Yes, he's definately a sore loser. Again, if I recall correctly, he wasn't too kind on Gala Brand as soon as he found out she was engaged, and when the love of his life died he said 'the bitch is dead'. He distances himself from emotions, and he does so in a harsh and brutal way.
    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).

    It’s really the execution of it in GF that’s funny. Suddenly Pussy is acting subservient and taking commands from Bond. It’s definitely Fleming tapping into the “turning the lesbian” fantasy to an extreme, that a lesbian just needs a guy like Bond to turn her. That’s all before getting into Pussy bringing up why she was a lesbian, “my uncle raped me”.
    But is the 'turning lesbian straight' fantasy anti gay? Or just a fantasy?


    AFAK the Beatles remark was a friendly jab, and definately fit the times. But you'd have to ask people like @Since62 and @BeatlesSansEarmuffs about that one.
    Now I know why so many long-standing members are no longer here. This forum desperately needs some new blood.

    Sorry, but again I can't follow your logic: you're saying old forum members have left because we need younger ones instead? You do know that that's not how the internet works?
    And by the way, why are you so against women anyway? You do know your mother is one, right?

    You are unbelievably thick. And I think when you start bringing up people's mothers is when you should go log off and get some sunshine. Please don't let the door hit you on the way out, whoreson.









    I just don't remember this endless discussion about race and gender on this forum ten years ago, It's become like an obsession for some to talk about it seems.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,472
    I just don't remember this endless discussion about race and gender on this forum ten years ago, It's become like an obsession for some to talk about it seems.

    How is it an obsession? We're not talking about it on this forum 24/7, or is talking about it at all that triggering for you?
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,652

    You are unbelievably thick. And I think when you start bringing up people's mothers is when you should go log off and get some sunshine. Please don't let the door hit you on the way out, whoreson.
    I'm sorry, but up until now you've been the one talking about superiority, dominating, and all other talking points insecure men talk about, and in the meantime you've made snetences that make little sense. I'm just pointing out the facts. I don't really get why that would make you swear at me.





    I just don't remember this endless discussion about race and gender on this forum ten years ago, It's become like an obsession for some to talk about it seems.

    The fact that you can't remember discussions like this, doesn't mean they weren't there.
    https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/13367/racism-homophobia-sexism-in-james-bond

    ten years old, there you go.

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,626
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm 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...“

    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?

    I think as soon as you get Bond passing too much judgment on the real life locations he visits or gives direct, specific opinions on politics and society it’s only going to lose a portion of the audience. A bit like when your drunk Uncle or whoever at a family gathering begins to share their political views. It’s either divisive or awkward.

    What a good way to put it. No one wants to see "drunk uncle Bond."

    I don't think people in 2025 want to see Dink slapped on the arse, or Tracy hit by Bond and Draco.

    The world has moved forward from that.
  • edited March 31 Posts: 4,942
    echo wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm 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...“

    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?

    I think as soon as you get Bond passing too much judgment on the real life locations he visits or gives direct, specific opinions on politics and society it’s only going to lose a portion of the audience. A bit like when your drunk Uncle or whoever at a family gathering begins to share their political views. It’s either divisive or awkward.

    What a good way to put it. No one wants to see "drunk uncle Bond."

    I don't think people in 2025 want to see Dink slapped on the arse, or Tracy hit by Bond and Draco.

    The world has moved forward from that.

    I get what you're saying. It'd be uncomfortable if your friend slapped a random girl on the bum in real life in your presence (many may even call out this behaviour, and not unreasonably so). If you heard they'd slapped their significant other you'd be worried.

    I don't think it's a sign of our times either. When was the last time Bond slapped a woman? The films have done their hardest to keep his encounters consensual as possible too, and again not unreasonably (ie. we don't have Bond tricking girls into sleeping with him as in LALD, and even 'no-no-uh...yes' situations like in GF haven't been there in quite the same way even if Bond's womanising and seduction have remained, and certainly always should be there).

    No reason Bond nowadays needs to be an outright sexist or highly 'old fashioned' in my opinion (at least in the 'women belong in the kitchen' way he was in Fleming's CR - and worth noting he was far more relaxed about working with a woman colleague by MR). He's a womaniser, a gambler, a drinker, an adventurer, and even quite arrogant. But he's also a young man in the modern world in his mid 30s - or will be in this next film presumably. Why would he slap women in a fit of anger or scoff at them working with him, or coerce them into sex? He's not an abuser and if anything Bond is a man highly adept at social interactions with women. Bond hasn't done those things in over 40 years. Why would they be his flaws now?
  • edited March 31 Posts: 424
    It seems that for some, actions and behaviors deemed racist and sexist fall within a narrow band of conduct that is further constricted by a high degree of skepticism. I think that’s a problem but many others don’t, so fair enough.

    The Bond novels are racist and sexist. They’re also incredibly well-written and, at times, nuanced in their depictions and commentary. Fleming’s Bond (like Fleming himself) is a creation of Edwardian England. Yes, Bond was written in the new Elizabethan Age, but his thoughts, manners, attitudes and worldview were already anachronistic in 1953. That’s not a bad thing if an author can “pull it off.” Fleming pulls it off.

    The problem with trying to cut around Bond’s own actions and attitudes from those of the third person omniscient Narrator is that both Bond and the Narrator are Fleming. Of course, it’s Fleming with a big helping of fantasy, but the novels very much reflect Fleming’s personality and hobbies and preferences. It’s disingenuous to equivocate between Fleming’s Narrator and Fleming’s Characters because they’re inseparable, on the whole, from who he was and how he thought. Fleming wasn’t the most racist or the most sexist for his time but he certainly was racist and sexist, even by the standards of that time.

    The films have to contend with that aspect of Fleming’s legacy as much as it leverages the strength and popularity of the books. The Bond novels give the film series an air of cultural and historical legitimacy. In turn, the books have longevity and relevance because of the film series. Serious study of both must consider and speak to the racism and sexism contained in both. That doesn’t delegitimize Fleming or Bond. Facing the critiques head on, makes Bond worthy of scholarship.

    I think Phoebe Waller Bridge summed it all up quite nicely: “It has just got to evolve, and the important thing is that the film treats the women properly. [Bond] doesn’t have to. He needs to be true to this character.”

    The film’s have to address these things. Audiences in 2025 have different expectations in what a movie depicts and how a movie depicts than those in 1965. That’s just a fact. But it doesn’t mean that Bond isn’t a hero. It just means that the world around Bond needs to react to Bond’s presence as Bond, in turn, responds to how the world perceives him (or men like him). That’s what it means to have a well rounded character in 2025. This concurrent commentary shouldn’t be pedantic or heavy handed. It can be but it doesn’t need to be. This is where character, motivations, theme, motif and subtext all come together to say something. It may be as simple as a line of dialogue from a female M, robustly written Bond Girls and plots with personal stakes, like in GE, or a film for which the central idea is to explain why Bond doesn’t trust women, like in CR.







  • K2WIK2WI Europe
    Posts: 30
    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.

    Wouldn’t say no, but she’s probably not in my ‘top 10 choices’ for the job.
  • Posts: 424
    Burgess wrote: »
    It seems that for some, actions and behaviors deemed racist and sexist fall within a narrow band of conduct that is further constricted by a high degree of skepticism. I think that’s a problem but many others don’t, so fair enough.

    The Bond novels are racist and sexist. They’re also incredibly well-written and, at times, nuanced in their depictions and commentary. Fleming’s Bond (like Fleming himself) is a creation of Edwardian England. Yes, Bond was written in the new Elizabethan Age, but his thoughts, manners, attitudes and worldview were already anachronistic in 1953. That’s not a bad thing if an author can “pull it off.” Fleming pulls it off.

    The problem with trying to cut around Bond’s own actions and attitudes from those of the third person omniscient Narrator is that both Bond and the Narrator are Fleming. Of course, it’s Fleming with a big helping of fantasy, but the novels very much reflect Fleming’s personality and hobbies and preferences. It’s disingenuous to equivocate between Fleming’s Narrator and Fleming’s Characters because they’re inseparable, on the whole, from who he was and how he thought. Fleming wasn’t the most racist or the most sexist for his time but he certainly was racist and sexist, even by the standards of that time.

    The films have to contend with that aspect of Fleming’s legacy as much as it leverages the strength and popularity of the books. The Bond novels give the film series an air of cultural and historical legitimacy. In turn, the books have longevity and relevance because of the film series. Serious study of both must consider and speak to the racism and sexism contained in both. That doesn’t delegitimize Fleming or Bond. Facing the critiques head on, makes Bond worthy of scholarship.

    I think Phoebe Waller Bridge summed it all up quite nicely: “It has just got to evolve, and the important thing is that the film treats the women properly. [Bond] doesn’t have to. He needs to be true to this character.”

    The film’s have to address these things. Audiences in 2025 have different expectations in what a movie depicts and how a movie depicts than those in 1965. That’s just a fact. But it doesn’t mean that Bond isn’t a hero. It just means that the world around Bond needs to react to Bond’s presence as Bond, in turn, responds to how the world perceives him (or men like him). That’s what it means to have a well rounded character in 2025. This concurrent commentary shouldn’t be pedantic or heavy handed. It can be but it doesn’t need to be. This is where character, motivations, theme, motif and subtext all come together to say something. It may be as simple as a line of dialogue from M and robustly written villains and Bond Girls, like in GE, or a film for which the central idea is to explain why Bond doesn’t trust women, like in CR.







    I’ll add that the seemingly unarticulated (in this conversation) aspect of Fleming’s novels that could help us better frame our arguments is the classism in Fleming’s life and works. That’s not to say that all his novels invoke classism to the same degree but it’s there; it’s a key plot device in OHMSS and MR. That’s not to say that Fleming wasn’t magnanimous or loved or admired by the social classes that he (and we) would have deemed inferior.

    Classism is a bit opaque to Americans. Money, for us, makes the man because any man can (all things being equal) make money. But class is more than that: breeding, lineages, education, social networks and having enough money not to care that one has it. For those Victorian and Edwardian peers, and administrators and soldiers and sailors and merchants who considered themselves to have it, class could rise above perceived racial differences if the “other” was royal enough. If I remember correctly, Bond admired Mr. Big in LALD or, at least, there was a begrudging respect for an intellect as equal in its criminal brilliance as the international masterminds he’s dispatched to kill.

    Race mattered but royalty mattered more. Through the lense, I understand how racism in Fleming’s novels seems innocuous or superfluous. It comes across as matter-of-fact; as noticeable, yet shrug-able, as anything Bond takes in on any given day.

  • edited 1:40pm Posts: 203
    Should we create an official Bond 26 thread like in the past since its official now? @Benny
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited April 1 Posts: 3,874
    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 really feel sorry for Sarah Connor, the main character in Alien (forgot her name), Lara Croft in Tomb Raider, Alice in Resident Evil, and Uma Thurman in Kill Bill? I think the people didn't realized that this trope of "woman had a central role, and she isn't subservient to men" have been existing for so long now.

    I think the reasons people didn't liked those modern films are because of:

    1. CGI - This is the major complaint, really, many modern films flopped because of this.
    2. The storylines were not challenging or bad acting, seen those complaints in 'Resident Evil: The Raccoon City', I think those Dune films, along with Spiderman: No Way Home are loved because the stories were quite interesting.
    3. Rehashing old films and tropes.
    4. Repetitive or tiring ("this film is no different from that other film").
    5. Bad character lines.
    6. Miscast actors/actresses
    7. RECENCY BIAS They hate it because it's new, but 10 to 20 years from now, they would re-evaluate it, and people would be telling again of how the films in the past were better than the recent ones, it's a never ending cycle, they hate it now, they love it later and compare it with the new release, it tend to happen in Music too.

    Anyway, half of the Netflix movies were also flopping, and majority of them have nothing to do with 'Strong Women'.
    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?

    Not all Bond Girls have been subservient to Bond, is Wai Lin subservient to Bond? Is Holly Goodhead subservient to Bond? Anya Amasova? Vesper Lynd? Jinx? Octopussy? Madeleine Swann? Helga Brandt? Fiona Volpe? Pussy Galore? Camille Montes? Natalya Simonova? Xenia Onatopp? Cigar Girl in TWINE?

    Paris Carver even slapped Bond on the face 😅, Bambi and Thumper karate chopped Bond to the pool, Bond even became subservient to Elektra King, as she's the boss, not just Bond, but even Renard.

    The majority of Bond Girls showed animosity towards Bond upon meeting them, and even in the middle of the film, they're never subservient to him, actually, those women who were subservient to Bond were very few like Kara Milovy, Pam Bouvier, Kissy Suzuki, Mary Goodnight, Solitaire, Domino, Tatiana Romanova, or maybe Honey Ryder.

    Tracy and Melina both fall on the middle ground.
  • Junglist_1985Junglist_1985 Los Angeles
    edited April 1 Posts: 1,047
    I'd keep sharp eyes on Cinemacon... it's Amazon MGM's first showcase and there's been some buzz about new Bond related announcements. Now, it appears David Zaritsky is heading to Vegas "hoping the 007 news continues to flow". Hmmmm...
Sign In or Register to comment.