It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I never said Q should be heterosexual. I said Q's sexuality should not enter into a Bond film.
But MP's did and the previous M's did. Is that ok?
As I noted earlier - The point was that it wouldn't be PC to see a similar scene to the MP phone scene, where instead Q had a bloke in his bed. Just because a character is gay doesn't mean it has to be their defining trait, it can be a subtle nod. No one is saying the pet shop boys have to be playing in the background.
OR this could be a big advantage of taking Bond back to the sixties as we dont have to deal with any of these issues, we can have our old fashioned Bond back where he belongs and all of the gays can stay firmly in the closet.
It may have escaped your notice but MP's been flirting with Bond in every single film. That's part of Bond.
M's husband being there was incidental. The difference is you want Q to be gay to make a political statement i.e. that the service is all modern and diverse now. That seems to me to be wrong.
Wander to all sorts of places. :)
Find me the comment where I said that. Go on. Find it.
Perfectly said.
Does anybody else wonder, where Marketto is? He posted his "I loved the film" short review and I haven't seen him ever since. Unusual IMO.
He is just back in Brazil. I'm assuming he'll be checking in soon. We spent some time together in London and on the red carpet where he got some superb photos!
@patb talks about the next step in updating bond. If you agree with him, then yes it's political. It's got nothing to do with character/plot development, you want to 'update' Bond to make it PC and stick two fingers up at those who like traditional Bond.
@patb Please don't call me defensive. I've already given the example of Wint and Kidd as characters who I don't have a problem being gay because guess what, it was relevant to their characters. They were a duo united by sadism and love. Having a gay wedding or a female 00 agent for the sake of being modern is utterly wrong. I'm baffled you can't see that.
It's not just "not far off the mark", it has hit the nail right on the head. The relationship between Bond and Swann is underdeveloped at best and reprehensibly treated at worst.
I've desisted from writing a review for the forum until I've had the chance to see the movie again (an extended trip to the US has prevented a sooner second watching), but my big reservation about SP on just one viewing is the two-dimensional character of Madeleine Swann and the poorly developed love affair between her and Bond. One moment, their relationship is prickly at best and the next they're sharing dirty martinis and one-liners. And then, Mr Hinx (is that his name? -- he's never acknowledged as such) breaks up the party with a completely gratuitous, if not well choreographed and executed, fight. After this, they jump into the sack and, wham, bam, thank you ma'am, we're expected to believe their love is as deep as that between Bond and Vesper in CR. This, in my opinion, is really what makes the "I love you" line in the later torture scene a real cringer, if ever there were one. Goodness me, it even outdoes "Yo momma" from DAD, and that's a huge admission because I believe that DAD is a rightly vilified movie.
A post-CR audience expects more from a Bond movie now than "Bond beds leading lady and she then falls in love with him" mentality. In this sense, CR is very much a victim of its own success when it comes to subsequent movies. Bond may have appealed to Pussy's implied Freudian maternal instincts back in 1965, but that is not the case now, fifty years later. I'm afraid now, Messrs Broccoli, Wilson, Mendes, Logan, etc., you've got to convince us of the "L" word before bandying it around as a one-liner and expecting us to swallow it.
The worst, I might say is, it seems, it lacks soul, of which SF had plenty, that could make up for all its flaws. But the lightness of touch was asked for by many and that's what we got. Noo some find it too light. somehow, they can't win.
Wonder, what i will think about it. Seeing it tonite.
I said 'Just because a character is gay doesn't mean it has to be their defining trait, it can be a subtle nod' ie. a nod to their character. If a man were seen in the back of shot in Q's bed, that would just be a little character moment. You say M's husband being there is incidental, well, so is this. Or do heterosexuals have a monopoly on incidental characters?
Anyhow this seems to have been blown out of all proportion. This was and still is the point I was making and it has now become a discussion about politicising Bond. It's not, it's just a discussion about character, variety and evolution.
I have called no individual withing the forum defensive. "how defensive some are" were my words.
Sir Hillary's wife was sorted all this (have you read about her plot for the next Bond) I agree with all your observations and the only way to sort them is to view them in a different light/context. Was Swann falling in love or seducing Bond for later exploitation? All of your observations are based on the assumption that she is genuine in her feelings for Bond. The "I love you" line could take on a whole different dimension if we go down the genius route of Sir Hillary's wifes concept.
These were characters that were included because they were an integral part of the plots, not because they wanted to be PC.
The day PC liberalism takes Bond for it's own is the day I stop watching modern Bond.
Q mentions he has two cats to feed, a throw away line but it made him more real. For many, having a boyfriend/girlfriend of the same gender as as natural as having a cat. That is the reality of modern life
as our society evolves and hopefully moves forwards (allowing people to be themselves) and our art forms attempt to reflect this, there will always be friction by some who may feel uncomfortable with such changes.
It's sad that you can't read what I'm saying and instead just imply I'm uncomfortable with change.
If I was gay or black I wouldn't want to be tokenised in the way you described.
I think the cinematrographic Q being asexual is a reason he was a kid's favorite character no ? We had to wait until Octopussy to see he didn't mind pretty women IIRC.
no he's too old lol.
Good point Suivez.
Yes, he's pretty asexual throughout. Desmond shagging was not something I considered as a kid.
Ha ha
No one actually called you anything, you were the one being accusatory. I've no idea who you are, your political leaning, sexuality and I don't really care, it's none of my business. But if you make statements such as...
You're going to get called out, because it is missing the point entirely. Neither of us are directly advocating it, just stating it's one of the many possibilities when approaching a new Bond film. Anyone is entitled to wallow in the status quo and staunchly defend it, that's their right, but they can't then complain when other people are happy to encourage a little variety. I fail to see how a female 00 agent would degrade the quality of the film and/or the legacy of Bond.
If a writer wants to include a female 00 agent because they feel the dynamic is interesting and one that hasn't been fully explored I'd like to think they could do that without people jumping down their throats and calling it PC nonsense etc, etc.