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
Why is this so upsetting to you?
If you watch closely the first four Connery Bonds, his not a rapist at any time, and in fact, from the get go in Dr. No, he encounters Sylvia Trench who is what you might call the rapist, as she breaks into his house, put one of his shirts on, and force him into sex.
That's it's first sexual encounter in the series, and a woman instigate it.
Now, in TB, remember he beds Fiona Volpe, and sometime later, she capture him and gives him a good earful when he tries to convince her he did for Queen and country (which you know is wrong, he really enjoyed it). She also breaks into his room to get him.
In YOLT, he is raped by Helga Brandt after having been tied up to a chair. Some rapist!
Now, remains Goldfinger and the infamous barn scene. One can't say he rapes Pussy, because a) They put Bond opposite the manliest woman in the world then, she just had spent two seasons of The Avengers bashing men into oblivion, she's Bond equal from the get go b) From the moment she appears, she and Bond have interplay where she clearly says one thing "I'm immune, not attracted" while her body language and interest in him says another which is a game SHE instigate and that Bond hops happily in c) by the time they get to the barn, they have a fight and she throws him on the floor before Bond "force" himself onto her which is just an extension of the SM relationships she clearly enjoy. It might be frowned upon but it's very Flemingian, and again, Bond never at any point has the upper hand, he just gets into the play game until what he wants happens.
Back to Fukunaga, his take on the series (not having seen OHMSS etc.) might have seem refreshing doubled with his talks, but as with all narcissistic perverts, I'm sure after a point his game his exposed to people around him, and they rather work with someone else on the next project.
Playing it safe would be bringing back Campbell indeed.
Exactly. That's it. Campbell must have at least crossed Barbara's mind for Bond 26, she knows what GE & CR did for the franchise.
That she’s a strong woman is not a reason to force oneself upon her.
If they say no, it means no. And when he’s forcing his kisses on her, her body language clearly says that she doesn’t want it, in that she’s actually struggling.
‘Being Flemingian’ isn’t a defence against the observation that it’s very creepy though.
I’ve no idea how you’ve decided she likes SM. I love Bond films, but this bit doesn’t date well and I don’t defend it.
Like @thelivingroyale above, Gareth Evens is my choice. I see a Gareth Evans directed Bond pulling away from the melodrama that became to fixated on in the Craig era (a little drama is fine, just reign it in), and putting more emphasis on water cooler action sequences, that are done for real which would be talked about for years. When was the last time we had that? The parkour sequence in CR?
Denis is tied up on Dune. Nolan's tied up on Oppenheimer (although they could theoretically wait for him).
I suspect the B26 director will end up being a new 'name' on the rise, who can bring something unique that aligns with (presumably) the fairly significant refresh of the franchise they'll be aiming to achieve.
Possibly Edgar Wright, he's free, never heard any new projects from him this time.
Well, his last one was the Last Night In Soho, but a new one? Haven't heard of any.
It's the same problem with Tarantino directing a Bond film - he wouldn't strive to make a good Bond film but a great Tarantino film. It'd have shades of brilliance but overall it'd probably end up being a mess. I suspect it would have been the situation had Boyle gone ahead with his proposed Bond 25.
Now, this doesn't mean we should go for a John Glen type (I've talked about this on another thread but I don't think all of his directorial decisions were effective and the standard has improved since his tenure) but someone who can balance creativity/a willingness to do something new with a craftsman-like approach to how it should be done. Nolan does not fit this category and he infamously has a very sloppy, untechnical approach to things like sound design in his films (Tenet being the most obvious culprit). He'd probably have the same problem that Boyle did and butt heads with the producers/others on the production over the creative vision of the film.
Team them up with a great second unit to keep the over all tone consistent and we could have tighter budget Bond films, made with workan-like efficiency, without losing action, story and character...
This is exactly the sort of thing I'd be interested in seeing. There's plenty of talent out there and I'd love to be surprised by the next directorial hiring.
It isn't. It's humorous.
He's also not a very good movie director.
I guess that pretty much is Fukunaga's origin too.
Wouldn't mind seeing Mohamed Diab take a crack. He most recently worked with some of the NTTD stunt team on Moon Knight.
Jesse Armstrong writing one could be very, very good. And I can remember a Bond nod in Succession, and a couple in Peep Show, so maybe he’s a fan.
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1312919/
Speaking of creepy fetishes with Bond, Purvis and Wade are both that with Bond leaving MI6. If only they would leave EON that way.
I'd love to see Alex Garland have a crack at writing/directing. But isn't there a separate thread for this sort of discussion? ;)