›

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

2»

Comments

  • SpectreNumberOneSpectreNumberOne
    Posts: 129
    chrisisall wrote:
    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?

    Actually when you put it like that, with the right script it could work, liking the idea the more I think about it, good call.
  • craigrulescraigrules
    Posts: 284
    Baltimore_007 wrote:
    No. It would be a non-event. It'll never see the light of day, especially in this day and age

    It could happen if we get contiued mass shootings in the real world. R rated shoot em ups declined after Columbine.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    chrisisall wrote:
    Just ONCE a Bond with no gunfire. C'mon, no writers or director could make it work? It would be historic!

    Moonraker came extremely close with the exception of the Shotgun scene.

    Bond doesn't have his PPK at all in the film (It took a vacation.)
    Bond uses his wrist dart thing
    and in the space station everybody used lasers.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,827
    Nice points- but peeps still die...
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    chrisisall wrote:
    Nice points- but peeps still die...

    Well it's James Bond, people are going to die.
  • SpectreNumberOneSpectreNumberOne
    Posts: 129
    Interesting idea, yes people will die but not by Bond's hand, for the first time he brings the bad guy in alive, only for him to be taken away by some serious heavies for a fate worse than death, al la Rene Mathis in CR only with more threat.
  • thelordflasheartthelordflasheart
    Posts: 1,370
    Interestingly, someone was saying on the news in the last week that guns aren't the problem in the US, it's violent films.

    I always shake my head when someone says that. How many millions of people have watched violent films - far more violent than Bond - and NOT become violent people or murderers? If films were used to convert nice people into violent ones they're the most ineffective brainwashing device that I've ever seen...

    (This also doesn't take into account that violent films - especially big-budget Hollywood ones - are shown all over the world, so why don't other countries that get those films have huge increases in crime until they're at American levels?)
  • quantumofsolacequantumofsolace England
    Posts: 279
    Next year I will have been a Bond fanatic for no less than 40 years - and I am the gentlest, least violent person you could ever meet. I find violence for the sake of violence in movies and on TV extremely boring. It's just laziness and lack of imagination on the part of the writers/directors/producers. Nowadays it's become positively pornographic. By and large there's considerably less violent action in the Bond films than most other thrillers and action movies. If a million people watch a violent film and one of them goes out and commits murder then that one person is evil - the film isn't.
  • thelordflasheartthelordflasheart
    Posts: 1,370
    quantumofsolace wrote:
    Next year I will have been a Bond fanatic for no less than 40 years - and I am the gentlest, least violent person you could ever meet. I find violence for the sake of violence in movies and on TV extremely boring. It's just laziness and lack of imagination on the part of the writers/directors/producers. Nowadays it's become positively pornographic. By and large there's considerably less violent action in the Bond films than most other thrillers and action movies. If a million people watch a violent film and one of them goes out and commits murder then that one person is evil - the film isn't.

    I agree - I love a violent OTT action film as much as the next guy but I identify as a SNAG (Sensitive New Age Guy, according to an old girlfriend). I've only ever been in two fights as an adult and both were to protect people who were being assaulted. Funny that watching those films didn't turn me into one of the guys doing the assaulting...

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Q: Does being a Bond fan mean that you are a fan of violence?

    A: Absolutely not. I don't think any hard core Bond fans come to the films only for the violence. I know what I come for. The escapism and journey of Bond as a character, the gorgeous locations, the lovely women, the astounding set designs and cool cars, and more. The action/violence can be intense, but Bond handles it with more class than most film franchises or stand alone films back then and today. There is very little blood, there is no mindless gore, and the fights are well choreographed action pieces, the hand to hand fights like brutal dances (in the Craig era this shows best). Bond is so much more than an action franchise, and anyone that only comes for the action misses out on the best the films have to offer. The drama is intense, the characters and their motivations compelling, the music mesmerizing and the cinematography startling. Bond has never been and never will be just about the explosions and gunfire. The franchise will be the beautiful respite from all the mindless actioneers with no story or characterization, and that is exactly why people still go to Bond today for safety. That is a comforting thought.
  • SpectreNumberOneSpectreNumberOne
    edited December 2012 Posts: 129
    I've been in real fire fights, I've killed in defence of a nation & my team, that's what I've done without hesitation, but believe me as I've said on this site before it stays with you. I'm not a violent person by nature, but I've been trained & am capable of the ultimate violence when called on to defend myself, family, friends, team mates or the innocent.

    I'm a Bond aficionado not just a fan, do I like violence, NO NO & thrice NO, I would quiet happily live the rest of my life without any more confrontation & hopefully I can.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited December 2012 Posts: 17,827
    SpectreNumberOne wrote:
    I've been in real fire fights, I've killed in defence of a nation & my team, that's what I've done without hesitation, but believe me as I've said on this site before it stays with you.
    Not to seem like I'm at all trying to say I've experienced anything near what you have, sir, but to give a view from the lower end of the spectrum, as it were, I must say that the few fights (non lethal) that I've been in were strange in that I was cool & methodical during them, and somewhat nauseous after, even though I'd won the engagements. Overall, even winning isn't fun.
    Total respect here for your service, SpectreNumberOne. =D>
    thelordflasheart wrote:
    (This also doesn't take into account that violent films - especially big-budget Hollywood ones - are shown all over the world, so why don't other countries that get those films have huge increases in crime until they're at American levels?)

    It's the added hormones in our meats.
  • TracyTracy
    edited December 2012 Posts: 1,713
    "Human being is the most dangerous and violent animal"

    We've loved violence ever since gladiatorial days and before.......it's in our genes.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I don't think it matters really. Violence is part of nature and has been an instinctive attribute since day dot.

    That being said, comparing Bond movies to other Hollywood movies, hell, compare Bond movies to other international action movies, particularly Chinese, Hong Kong, Korean etc, Bond might as well be Sesame Street.

    At the end of the day, the violence conveyed is all an art form that can be appreciated. It doesn't necessarily mean one is a fan of violence and is instrumental in making one to go out into the real world and causing anarchy for the love of it. I think sane and civilised people can appreciate violence in any art form within certain degrees but not be influenced by it to a point where artistic violence spills over into their real lives.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    I don't see a general connection between Bond films and violence, although since AVTAK violent moments were more prominent. I see Bond films mostly as adventure films. They're action films, as opposed to violent films. Ithink Mad Max is a violent film, and I love that one. But that doesn't mean I love violent films in general.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited December 2012 Posts: 4,537
    The Casino Royale violence is one of the reasens/biggest reasen why i rank it lower. To violence introduction for a new Bond. In that case Witt, Baid and soundmixers inprove with Skyfall and it help we not get David Arnold, it be DC his 3th Bond movie and of course no left overs from events of Die Another Day.

    Casino Royale is the moost violence i have seen in the cinema, but on scool i have seen (as 14 or 15 years old) 3 movies who be classified for 16 or 18+ at the time who be more violence, so much that i think 18+ whas mabey stil a tow low rank and it be more then once. And i also have seen 24 and The Godfather on tv. That's why i make a difrence in violence at home or cinema, in my opnion the violence of CR is better to see the first time on tv.
Sign In or Register to comment.