›

Does being a James Bond fan mean you are a fan of violence?

chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
edited December 2012 in Bond Movies Posts: 17,804
Are we fans of a violent world?
When I was a kid I made a film titled "The Lathe Of Fury" which attempted to explore the idea that violence was preferable to boredom in the human psyche, but ended up being merely a dumb actioner.
Still, being a lifelong 007 aficionado, I have to question whether we as Bond fans are enablers of a more violent society, or whether we just like the anti-heroic conflict resolution inherent in the fiction in a harmless way.

Or, am I just thinking too much?
«1

Comments

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,306
    I would say no, or at least not necessarily. Personally I like the espionage and travelogue elements of the books and movies the most. And I have never liked when Bond suddenly takes up semi-automatic weapons, as in GE--it seems too easy, somehow.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    But in general, aren't we loving Bond's violent dispatch of the villain? And isn't that an indication of the sickness in our society? Something we need to evolve beyond?
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    No simply the world of James Bond is an Escapist Fantasy world. I really never pay attention to the killing rather than the exciting elements that surround him. His interactions with the world, the women, the vehicles and the atmosphere. I'm not a violent person nor do I condone violence in the real world, but in movies and tv it's not real unless it's based on a true story in which it's unsettling but No, We just want to spend 2 hours in the shoes of a fictional spy who's goal is to take down the bad guys who threaten our world in the cinematic universe.
  • craigrulescraigrules
    Posts: 284
    I think you can enjoy fictional volence and still detest violence in the real world.
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    Posts: 4,813
    IF YOU LIKE JAMES BOND YOU ARE THE DEVIL.

    Nah- it all narrows down to fun fantasy- food defeating evil
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited December 2012 Posts: 24,187
    Firstly, I don't consider the Bond films to be all that violent on the scale of all violent films that exist out there. They are fairly modest when it comes to violence, both in term of the frequency by which violent scenes occur and in terms of the level of violence said scenes provide.

    Secondly, what we enjoy in films doesn't necessarily typify us as real-life persons. We can enjoy spiritual elements in fiction, yet be extremely sober and scientific in our average day thinking about the universe. The same goes for 'violence'. We can allow the adrenaline to give us a kick when watching a film, but be downright repulsed by violence in newspapers and on CNN.

    Bottom line, neither do I consider the Bond films overflowing with violence, nor do I believe that we are violent people because we watch and enjoy our Bonds. Crazies always exist, of course, who might abuse whatever sensations the Bonds give them as a reason to pick up a gun and go ape in the real world. They are the minor few who can't tell fiction from reality, who can't deal with escapism and catharsis correctly and who will find everything, from a butcher wielding a kitchen knife to the wind blowing up some leaves, a valid reason for causing mayhem in the streets.

    And now if you'll excuse me, I have an embassy to shoot up. >:)
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,281
    I don't think James Bond films are violent per se, but I do think that there may be a vicarious element to why some peoiple watch violent films, including Bond. The Bonds have become noticably more violent since about AVTAK onwatrds, IMHO. SAW 1-5, now that's violence from what I've heard (never seen any of them!). I think it really just depends on your character and your mentality - how gullible and easily led you are to copycat violent acts you see in films/computer games. See A Clockwork Orange (a classic, though, IMHO) for further details on the vicaruious nature of big screen violence and copycat trends!
  • fire_and_icefire_and_ice
    Posts: 6,432
    I watch bond for pure escapism, i enjoy the violence and action from an aesthetic point of view. I hate violence, though appreciate a good fight scene on a technical level and how dramatic it can be when done well. Bonds fights with Red Grant, Peter Franks and the Ugandans in casino royale in the stair well are superbly choreographed.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    No not at all, it just means that you enjoy abit of harmless escapism that's all. And in my opinion i think we all need some of that with how stressful life can be.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,281
    fire_and_ice wrote:
    I watch bond for pure escapism, i enjoy the violence and action from an aesthetic point of view. I hate violence, though appreciate a good fight scene on a technical level and how dramatic it can be when done well. Bonds fights with Red Grant, Peter Franks and the Ugandans in casino royale in the stair well are superbly choreographed.

    Would agree on said scenes - it's exhilirating to watch. Base instincts and all that...
  • fire_and_icefire_and_ice
    Posts: 6,432
    Dragonpol wrote:
    fire_and_ice wrote:
    I watch bond for pure escapism, i enjoy the violence and action from an aesthetic point of view. I hate violence, though appreciate a good fight scene on a technical level and how dramatic it can be when done well. Bonds fights with Red Grant, Peter Franks and the Ugandans in casino royale in the stair well are superbly choreographed.

    Would agree on said scenes - it's exhilirating to watch. Base instincts and all that...

    That's what i like about DC's bond, certainly in his first two outings. Craig does not mess about, there is a intensity and a focus to what his bond does, it draws you as a viewer into the action. Plus because he does many of his own stunts you also respect Craig for what he is doing, you know he has trained his @$$ off to do these movies.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,281
    fire_and_ice wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    fire_and_ice wrote:
    I watch bond for pure escapism, i enjoy the violence and action from an aesthetic point of view. I hate violence, though appreciate a good fight scene on a technical level and how dramatic it can be when done well. Bonds fights with Red Grant, Peter Franks and the Ugandans in casino royale in the stair well are superbly choreographed.

    Would agree on said scenes - it's exhilirating to watch. Base instincts and all that...

    That's what i like about DC's bond, certainly in his first two outings. Craig does not mess about, there is a intensity and a focus to what his bond does, it draws you as a viewer into the action. Plus because he does many of his own stunts you also respect Craig for what he is doing, you know he has trained his @$$ off to do these movies.

    Yes, the scenes in SF where he kills the guards after Severine is shot and where he shoots the hole in the ice, sinking himself and the guard near the end, come to mind as being of this particular category!
  • fire_and_icefire_and_ice
    Posts: 6,432
    Dragonpol wrote:
    fire_and_ice wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    fire_and_ice wrote:
    I watch bond for pure escapism, i enjoy the violence and action from an aesthetic point of view. I hate violence, though appreciate a good fight scene on a technical level and how dramatic it can be when done well. Bonds fights with Red Grant, Peter Franks and the Ugandans in casino royale in the stair well are superbly choreographed.

    Would agree on said scenes - it's exhilirating to watch. Base instincts and all that...

    That's what i like about DC's bond, certainly in his first two outings. Craig does not mess about, there is a intensity and a focus to what his bond does, it draws you as a viewer into the action. Plus because he does many of his own stunts you also respect Craig for what he is doing, you know he has trained his @$$ off to do these movies.

    Yes, the scenes in SF where he kills the guards after Severine is shot and where he shoots the hole in the ice, sinking himself and the guard near the end, come to mind as being of this particular category!

    Only watched Skyfall once and still have mixed views about the movie. I am looking forward to buying it on bluray, I suspect i may view the film in a more positive light and pick up on much more that goes on in the film.
  • SpectreNumberOneSpectreNumberOne
    edited December 2012 Posts: 129
    I think Bond in general is what I would characterise as stylised violence more intimated at than graphic. However in the Craig era it has become more visceral like in QoS when he kills Mr Slate by puncturing his femoral artery with a pair of scissors then checks his pulse until he bleeds out, that to me was brutal.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,281
    SpectreNumberOne wrote:
    I think Bond in general is what I would characterise as stylised violence more intimated at than graphic. However in the Craig era it has become more visceral like in QoS when he kills Mr Slate but puncturing his femoral artery with a pair of scissors then checks his pulse until he bleeds out, that to me was brutal.

    Agreed - too violent to an almost sickening degree!

  • SpectreNumberOneSpectreNumberOne
    Posts: 129
    Dragonpol wrote:
    SpectreNumberOne wrote:
    I think Bond in general is what I would characterise as stylised violence more intimated at than graphic. However in the Craig era it has become more visceral like in QoS when he kills Mr Slate but puncturing his femoral artery with a pair of scissors then checks his pulse until he bleeds out, that to me was brutal.

    Agreed - too violent to an almost sickening degree!

    Certainly for the more impressionable younger viewers.
  • myworldisenoughmyworldisenough
    edited December 2012 Posts: 1,143
    Bond movies are like little children holding cute puppies compared to actual films which could be considered actually violent. There are the exceptions, such as the pressure chamber scene in LTK. Most of the time though its playful fists and bang bang your dead no blood shooting. Very tame on the whole. The appeal of Bond is not all about the killing or perceived violence but the escapism, the gadgets, the cars, the girls and exotic locations.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    Dragonpol wrote:
    SpectreNumberOne wrote:
    However in the Craig era it has become more visceral like in QoS when he kills Mr Slate but puncturing his femoral artery with a pair of scissors then checks his pulse until he bleeds out, that to me was brutal.
    Agreed - too violent to an almost sickening degree!
    It sort of took me out of the Bond moment & put me in the EWWWUE moment. I like it a bit more fanciful myself.

  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    It's a film at the end of the day. You could enjoy Bond killing all the baddys and be completely against any violence in the real world, it's not real.

    I'd say the only Bond films that are properly violent are LTK, CR and QOS. Most of the Bond films have deaths and fights but aren't really that violent. Apart from in the 3 films I mentioned, you don't see much blood and the deaths are mostly shootings, there're no deaths that are really graphic.
  • mdo007mdo007 Katy, Texas
    Posts: 259
    Fan of Bond=fan of violence

    that doesn't make any sense, Bond is not about violence. It's about espionage, the debatoir life, and also how to pick up the ladies. That what's people watch Bond films (and also read the novels) for.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    No, is all that needs to be said on this issue. And how many genuinely violent Bond adventures has there been anyway. License to Kill would first come to mind, and the Craig era for the most part, and maybe Brosnan a little, Tomorrow Never Dies for example, but even that was few and far between

    People go to see Bond because they are fans of the series, they go to see glamorous women, elaborate gadgets, exotic locations, exciting set pieces and action etc, not necessarily because of any violent scenes or episodes. Bond has become more violent the last 15 years or so, or not how we remember it, but it's merely moving with the times. To suggest you like or admire the franchise because of violence presented is a bit of a nonsense all said. And above all else, it's nothing too violent is it, that gets shown with each release. We had the F word for the first time ever this year, and while not violence, was merely a use of profanity you wouldn't expect to find in the James Bond series, and who's to know what they'll include for subsequent releases. But once again, what we get each time, is nothing overly violent or that would cause any real offense
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited December 2012 Posts: 17,804
    Can you imagine a Bond movie in which there are NO physical confrontations? Car chases, gadgets, girls, intrigue yes, but NO human-to-human violence? :-?
  • SpectreNumberOneSpectreNumberOne
    Posts: 129
    Yes I could, Box Office UK £000.00 & USA $000.00 :))
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    Done correctly as a one off, I think it could work...
  • SpectreNumberOneSpectreNumberOne
    Posts: 129
    Sorry but it sounds like an episode of the original "A-Team" where millions of bullets get fired & no one dies? ;))
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    Just ONCE a Bond with no gunfire. C'mon, no writers or director could make it work? It would be historic!
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    No. It would be a non-event. It'll never see the light of day, especially in this day and age
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    I'm not saying no threatening situations, no danger, no gun drawn, no discussion of violent happenings, just no actual violence onscreen because of a story in which it just doesn't happen. Is violence such a vital ingredient that Bond can't have even ONE adventure without it? Just one using his wits, cunning, detective expertise, and his sexuality?
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Yes, it can happen, but they simply won't go along with it, and (most) audiences wouldn't think much of it either. They want to see these kinds of things, in that a certain level of violence is evident, if you do away with all of that, it's not going to be much of a viewing experience. Craig has made Bond that little more violent and aggressive since his introduction, and if this was to occur, which it won't, it won't be with Craig in the role. I suppose it depends on how one defines violence, or what they see as acceptable, but once again, the picture you're painting, isn't likely to happen any time soon
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    Yeah. Well I thought it might be worth discussing a bit, but I admit it's not gonna ever happen. Kurosawa did a Samurai movie with no onscreen violence- it was pretty good. But, while Bond movies can survive tinkering with the gunbarrel, they need the violence like Christmas movies need snow.
Sign In or Register to comment.