Where does Bond go after Craig?

1648649651653654688

Comments

  • Posts: 1,396
    Well, he is nicer to Solitaire and that's saying a lot.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Well, he is nicer to Solitaire and that's saying a lot.

    Uhm….😶
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,228
    @peter What do you believe is the make up of the initial “Creative Team” ?
  • CrabKey wrote: »
    @007ClassicBondFan - Recall Bond gives Quarrel the option not to go to Crab Key, as he is obviously fearful. Yes, Bond makes light of Quarrel's fear of the dragon, as he does of Honey as well. Making fun of one's fear is not racist.

    Okay, here’s the thing; none of those examples hold up. Bond gives Quarrel the option not to go to Crab Key sure, but once Quarrel does decide to come along, he still treats him like shit. If you tell a person of another color to “fetch your shoes” then I’m sorry but you come across as a dick doing that. Do you treat people like this?
    CrabKey wrote: »
    At the point Quarrel is killed, he turns to his deceased friend to pay his respects, but one of the men from the dragon vehicle stops him and says, "We ain't got no flowers." An obvious acknowledgment of Bond mourning Quarrel's death.

    Even though that scene really isn’t played out like that. Bond looks at Quarrel’s corpse for a few seconds, but nothing about Connery’s composure suggests mourning. Rather it’s the face of somebody who’s disgusted by the sight/smell of burning flesh. The only hint of regret Bond has was during the dinner scene where he casually remarks he’d love to avenge Strangways and Quarrel.
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I recognize that racism is often subtle. But I don't think there's an underlying subtext of racism and elitism in DN. This was a film that featured multiple races as main characters. Actually quite inclusive, even if the main character was a Chinese played by a Caucasian.

    This was also a movie set against the backdrop of British colonialism in Jamaica, and I really only count 1 other race as a main character (Quarrel) because I don’t count White People being given Yellow Face as “inclusive.”
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Is the absence of actors of African origin in FRWL racist?

    Well no because no characters of African origin are written into the film. So that doesn’t really make sense.
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Racism is real and worthy of talking about. That I don't share your view about DN doesn't make you right and me ignorant. If you want to have a conversation about racism, then have it without attacking those who disagree with you. It is conversation that can be had. We don't have to dance around it. And it might go into areas that make some uncomfortable.

    No what makes you ignorant is your continued pushback on ideas that have been explored throughly in this stupid debate. What makes you ignorant is the fact that you believe that by me pointing out the flaws of a film/character that’s over 60 years old that I’m unleashing a relentless attack when I’ve made it quite clear that I still enjoy the film and Connery’s performance. What makes you ignorant is when you pushback against the ideas of basic human decency.

    See the problem @CrabKey is that I don’t think you’re capable of having a discussion like this because you’re too attached to these films. The fact you made such a big song and dance over “fetch my shoes” proves it. If you are capable, then I’d love to see your take on the Barn scene on Goldfinger? How about the numerous times Bond has openly slapped women? Got any defenses for those?

    Or perhaps it’s time to admit that these movies you grew up watching having not aged well. I mean I’ve done just that! I grew up on the Connery era just as much as you did. I might not have been around for when those films were playing the theaters, but that doesn’t mean I haven’t experienced them. That doesn’t mean that I didn’t endlessly watch those movies on repeat. But I’m at an age now where I can recognize dated attitudes and still enjoy the final film. Whereas I’m not quite sure you’ve reached that point based off our interactions.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,657
    007HallY wrote: »
    Yeah, I’m not sure where the Campbell wanting P&W fired thing comes from. It’s a bit tricky firing writers who have already done their job. Maybe he wanted Haggis and others to take over later drafts, but that’s not quite the same as getting them fired.

    It was in the Some Kind of Hero book. Sorry, I should have used that as a source. It did say that he was hard on them, for better material. Even P&W have both said that, in retrospect. So, it is a PART of the creative process, some people don't always see eye to eye. But it worked out in the end. If EON had a problem with any of them, they would have taken action.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited October 4 Posts: 1,658
    talos7 wrote: »
    @peter What do you believe is the make up of the initial “Creative Team” ?

    IN:
    Barbara Broccoli
    Greg Wilson
    Purvis & Wade

    MAYBE:
    MGW

    OUT:
    Chris Corbould (said he was pivoting from SFX to directing)
  • Posts: 1,396
    CrabKey wrote: »
    @007ClassicBondFan - Recall Bond gives Quarrel the option not to go to Crab Key, as he is obviously fearful. Yes, Bond makes light of Quarrel's fear of the dragon, as he does of Honey as well. Making fun of one's fear is not racist.

    Okay, here’s the thing; none of those examples hold up. Bond gives Quarrel the option not to go to Crab Key sure, but once Quarrel does decide to come along, he still treats him like shit. If you tell a person of another color to “fetch your shoes” then I’m sorry but you come across as a dick doing that. Do you treat people like this?
    CrabKey wrote: »
    At the point Quarrel is killed, he turns to his deceased friend to pay his respects, but one of the men from the dragon vehicle stops him and says, "We ain't got no flowers." An obvious acknowledgment of Bond mourning Quarrel's death.

    Even though that scene really isn’t played out like that. Bond looks at Quarrel’s corpse for a few seconds, but nothing about Connery’s composure suggests mourning. Rather it’s the face of somebody who’s disgusted by the sight/smell of burning flesh. The only hint of regret Bond has was during the dinner scene where he casually remarks he’d love to avenge Strangways and Quarrel.
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I recognize that racism is often subtle. But I don't think there's an underlying subtext of racism and elitism in DN. This was a film that featured multiple races as main characters. Actually quite inclusive, even if the main character was a Chinese played by a Caucasian.

    This was also a movie set against the backdrop of British colonialism in Jamaica, and I really only count 1 other race as a main character (Quarrel) because I don’t count White People being given Yellow Face as “inclusive.”
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Is the absence of actors of African origin in FRWL racist?

    Well no because no characters of African origin are written into the film. So that doesn’t really make sense.
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Racism is real and worthy of talking about. That I don't share your view about DN doesn't make you right and me ignorant. If you want to have a conversation about racism, then have it without attacking those who disagree with you. It is conversation that can be had. We don't have to dance around it. And it might go into areas that make some uncomfortable.

    No what makes you ignorant is your continued pushback on ideas that have been explored throughly in this stupid debate. What makes you ignorant is the fact that you believe that by me pointing out the flaws of a film/character that’s over 60 years old that I’m unleashing a relentless attack when I’ve made it quite clear that I still enjoy the film and Connery’s performance. What makes you ignorant is when you pushback against the ideas of basic human decency.

    See the problem @CrabKey is that I don’t think you’re capable of having a discussion like this because you’re too attached to these films. The fact you made such a big song and dance over “fetch my shoes” proves it. If you are capable, then I’d love to see your take on the Barn scene on Goldfinger? How about the numerous times Bond has openly slapped women? Got any defenses for those?

    Or perhaps it’s time to admit that these movies you grew up watching having not aged well. I mean I’ve done just that! I grew up on the Connery era just as much as you did. I might not have been around for when those films were playing the theaters, but that doesn’t mean I haven’t experienced them. That doesn’t mean that I didn’t endlessly watch those movies on repeat. But I’m at an age now where I can recognize dated attitudes and still enjoy the final film. Whereas I’m not quite sure you’ve reached that point based off our interactions.

    OMG, he has licence to kill. Slap women is nothing.

    Sure It can't be done now, but, man, he has licence to Kill. It's a movie.

  • OMG, he has licence to kill. Slap women is nothing.

    Sure It can't be done now, but, man, he has licence to Kill. It's a movie.


    Sorry you missed a few letters.
  • Posts: 1,396
    Bond is not your father and he is not your friend. He's a killer. ;)
  • Posts: 2,008
    @ClassicBondFan - This is not a debate. You've made it too personal with insults and hyperbole. I am not ignorant, obsessive, pushing back against basic human decency, engaging in a song and dance, nor incapable.

  • edited October 4 Posts: 2,277
    CrabKey wrote: »
    @ClassicBondFan - This is not a debate. You've made it too personal with insults and hyperbole. I am not ignorant, obsessive, pushing back against basic human decency, engaging in a song and dance, nor incapable.

    I’d say these last two pages prove otherwise.

    Here’s a suggestion; stop defending questionable behavior and maybe people won’t act questionable towards you.

    I wasn’t trying to insult you, nor am I actively trying to insult you now. But you when you get so damn adamant in defending dated attitudes then I really don’t know what else to call that other than ignorance at its finest, and that my friend is your problem.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    talos7 wrote: »
    @peter What do you believe is the make up of the initial “Creative Team” ?

    @talos7 :

    You’d certainly have the producers there, the writers and I imagine they have script consultants/script editors on staff; as it gets deeper in development, you’d add the director and executives representing the distributors.
  • peter wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    @peter What do you believe is the make up of the initial “Creative Team” ?

    @talos7 :

    You’d certainly have the producers there, the writers and I imagine they have script consultants/script editors on staff; as it gets deeper in development, you’d add the director and executives representing the distributors.

    When do you think they’ll get around to set design? Do you think it’ll be before casting or concurrent to the casting process?
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    peter wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    @peter What do you believe is the make up of the initial “Creative Team” ?

    @talos7 :

    You’d certainly have the producers there, the writers and I imagine they have script consultants/script editors on staff; as it gets deeper in development, you’d add the director and executives representing the distributors.

    When do you think they’ll get around to set design? Do you think it’ll be before casting or concurrent to the casting process?

    Set designs happen in preproduction…
  • edited October 4 Posts: 387
    peter wrote: »
    But I don't think there's an underlying subtext of racism and elitism in DN

    Telling anyone to “fetch” anything is elitist.

    That it was ordered to a man of colour, may not be racist to you, but it was the casual racism that did exist.

    There’s also the fact that non-Asian actors play Asian characters, including Dr. No himself. Now, I think Wiseman’s performance is top notch. He’s the prototypical Bond villain; as much of an innovator on how to play Bond’s nemesis as Connery is for playing Bond. But it’s still yellow face. I don’t think the racism in Dr. No is intentional, but it’s still there.

  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited October 4 Posts: 9,509
    CrabKey wrote: »
    @007ClassicBondFan - Recall Bond gives Quarrel the option not to go to Crab Key, as he is obviously fearful. Yes, Bond makes light of Quarrel's fear of the dragon, as he does of Honey as well. Making fun of one's fear is not racist.

    Okay, here’s the thing; none of those examples hold up. Bond gives Quarrel the option not to go to Crab Key sure, but once Quarrel does decide to come along, he still treats him like shit. If you tell a person of another color to “fetch your shoes” then I’m sorry but you come across as a dick doing that. Do you treat people like this?
    CrabKey wrote: »
    At the point Quarrel is killed, he turns to his deceased friend to pay his respects, but one of the men from the dragon vehicle stops him and says, "We ain't got no flowers." An obvious acknowledgment of Bond mourning Quarrel's death.

    Even though that scene really isn’t played out like that. Bond looks at Quarrel’s corpse for a few seconds, but nothing about Connery’s composure suggests mourning. Rather it’s the face of somebody who’s disgusted by the sight/smell of burning flesh. The only hint of regret Bond has was during the dinner scene where he casually remarks he’d love to avenge Strangways and Quarrel.
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I recognize that racism is often subtle. But I don't think there's an underlying subtext of racism and elitism in DN. This was a film that featured multiple races as main characters. Actually quite inclusive, even if the main character was a Chinese played by a Caucasian.

    This was also a movie set against the backdrop of British colonialism in Jamaica, and I really only count 1 other race as a main character (Quarrel) because I don’t count White People being given Yellow Face as “inclusive.”
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Is the absence of actors of African origin in FRWL racist?

    Well no because no characters of African origin are written into the film. So that doesn’t really make sense.
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Racism is real and worthy of talking about. That I don't share your view about DN doesn't make you right and me ignorant. If you want to have a conversation about racism, then have it without attacking those who disagree with you. It is conversation that can be had. We don't have to dance around it. And it might go into areas that make some uncomfortable.

    No what makes you ignorant is your continued pushback on ideas that have been explored throughly in this stupid debate. What makes you ignorant is the fact that you believe that by me pointing out the flaws of a film/character that’s over 60 years old that I’m unleashing a relentless attack when I’ve made it quite clear that I still enjoy the film and Connery’s performance. What makes you ignorant is when you pushback against the ideas of basic human decency.

    See the problem @CrabKey is that I don’t think you’re capable of having a discussion like this because you’re too attached to these films. The fact you made such a big song and dance over “fetch my shoes” proves it. If you are capable, then I’d love to see your take on the Barn scene on Goldfinger? How about the numerous times Bond has openly slapped women? Got any defenses for those?

    Or perhaps it’s time to admit that these movies you grew up watching having not aged well. I mean I’ve done just that! I grew up on the Connery era just as much as you did. I might not have been around for when those films were playing the theaters, but that doesn’t mean I haven’t experienced them. That doesn’t mean that I didn’t endlessly watch those movies on repeat. But I’m at an age now where I can recognize dated attitudes and still enjoy the final film. Whereas I’m not quite sure you’ve reached that point based off our interactions.

    OMG, he has licence to kill. Slap women is nothing.

    Sure It can't be done now, but, man, he has licence to Kill. It's a movie.

    Sorry @DEKE_RIVERS hitting a woman is repugnant. Laying even one unasked finger on a woman should get that finger broken and the nail torn off.

    The only time I can recall that James Bond, as written by Fleming, slapped a woman was in the novel, TMWTGG. At 3 1/2 Love Lane Scaramanga shoots a young lady’s bird. She’s in shock and Bond tries to snap her out of it.

    There are better ways to get someone out of a shock, but, this action was supposed to be done as a positive or as help.

    But Fleming’s Bond never slapped a woman out in violence, as has been done in FRWL and others.

    If you think this kind of violent action isn’t sickening, then there’s no more to this discussion, is there. Do you have a mother? A sister? Daughters?
  • edited October 4 Posts: 1,396
    Well, Fleming's Bond is another animal.

    Sometimes he doesn't look like a professional. It's a war veteran doing this shitty job.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Well, Fleming's Bond is another animal.

    Sometimes he doesn't look like a professional. It's a war veteran doing this shitty job.

    No it’s a fictitious character.

    And there were other ways of doing a scene like From Russia With Love without smacking the crap out of a woman. Hell, it was based on a book where this same fictitious character didn’t lay a hand on Tatiana.
  • Posts: 1,396
    peter wrote: »
    Well, Fleming's Bond is another animal.

    Sometimes he doesn't look like a professional. It's a war veteran doing this shitty job.

    No it’s a fictitious character.

    And there were other ways of doing a scene like From Russia With Love without smacking the crap out of a woman. Hell, it was based on a book where this same fictitious character didn’t lay a hand on Tatiana.

    Fleming's Bond didn't fly either. so what?
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    peter wrote: »
    Well, Fleming's Bond is another animal.

    Sometimes he doesn't look like a professional. It's a war veteran doing this shitty job.

    No it’s a fictitious character.

    And there were other ways of doing a scene like From Russia With Love without smacking the crap out of a woman. Hell, it was based on a book where this same fictitious character didn’t lay a hand on Tatiana.

    Fleming's Bond didn't fly either. so what?

    You’re soooo right Deke! I never thought of that!! Brilliant how you compare apples to airplanes! Just brilliant!!
  • Posts: 1,396
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Well, Fleming's Bond is another animal.

    Sometimes he doesn't look like a professional. It's a war veteran doing this shitty job.

    No it’s a fictitious character.

    And there were other ways of doing a scene like From Russia With Love without smacking the crap out of a woman. Hell, it was based on a book where this same fictitious character didn’t lay a hand on Tatiana.

    Fleming's Bond didn't fly either. so what?

    You’re soooo right Deke! I never thought of that!! Brilliant how you compare apples to airplanes! Just brilliant!!

    It's fiction, Peter. You know that.
  • edited October 4 Posts: 387
    peter wrote: »
    Well, Fleming's Bond is another animal.

    Sometimes he doesn't look like a professional. It's a war veteran doing this shitty job.

    No it’s a fictitious character.

    And there were other ways of doing a scene like From Russia With Love without smacking the crap out of a woman. Hell, it was based on a book where this same fictitious character didn’t lay a hand on Tatiana.

    Fleming's Bond didn't fly either. so what?

    I think the point that’s being made is fictional characters can be guided by writers/creators to do all sorts of things. There are things a character can be made to do that tells us something insightful about their personality and background. Then there are things a character can be made to do that tells us more about the inner workings of the writers/creators. If a character performs a particularly deplorable action that a gives us no insight, then it probably should be excised.



  • Posts: 387
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Well, Fleming's Bond is another animal.

    Sometimes he doesn't look like a professional. It's a war veteran doing this shitty job.

    No it’s a fictitious character.

    And there were other ways of doing a scene like From Russia With Love without smacking the crap out of a woman. Hell, it was based on a book where this same fictitious character didn’t lay a hand on Tatiana.

    Fleming's Bond didn't fly either. so what?

    You’re soooo right Deke! I never thought of that!! Brilliant how you compare apples to airplanes! Just brilliant!!

    It's fiction, Peter. You know that.

    Is fiction free from responsibility or accountability to the culture/society in which it’s created?

    Should fiction not be subject to the judgments of taste and etiquette?

  • Posts: 1,396
    Burgess wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Well, Fleming's Bond is another animal.

    Sometimes he doesn't look like a professional. It's a war veteran doing this shitty job.

    No it’s a fictitious character.

    And there were other ways of doing a scene like From Russia With Love without smacking the crap out of a woman. Hell, it was based on a book where this same fictitious character didn’t lay a hand on Tatiana.

    Fleming's Bond didn't fly either. so what?

    I think the point that’s being made is fictional characters can be guided by writers/creators to do all sorts of things. There are things a character can be made to do that tells us something insightful about their personality and background. Then there are things a character can be made to do that tells us more about the inner workings of the writers/creators. If a character performs a particularly deplorable action that a gives us no insight, then it probably should be excised.



    It's fiction in any case and the truth is that it makes sense within fiction.
  • Posts: 387
    Burgess wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Well, Fleming's Bond is another animal.

    Sometimes he doesn't look like a professional. It's a war veteran doing this shitty job.

    No it’s a fictitious character.

    And there were other ways of doing a scene like From Russia With Love without smacking the crap out of a woman. Hell, it was based on a book where this same fictitious character didn’t lay a hand on Tatiana.

    Fleming's Bond didn't fly either. so what?

    I think the point that’s being made is fictional characters can be guided by writers/creators to do all sorts of things. There are things a character can be made to do that tells us something insightful about their personality and background. Then there are things a character can be made to do that tells us more about the inner workings of the writers/creators. If a character performs a particularly deplorable action that a gives us no insight, then it probably should be excised.



    It's fiction in any case and the truth is that it makes sense within fiction.

    But being that fiction is, by definition, whatever you need it or want it to be, then it could just as easily not include deplorable actions.

  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited October 4 Posts: 9,509
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Well, Fleming's Bond is another animal.

    Sometimes he doesn't look like a professional. It's a war veteran doing this shitty job.

    No it’s a fictitious character.

    And there were other ways of doing a scene like From Russia With Love without smacking the crap out of a woman. Hell, it was based on a book where this same fictitious character didn’t lay a hand on Tatiana.

    Fleming's Bond didn't fly either. so what?

    You’re soooo right Deke! I never thought of that!! Brilliant how you compare apples to airplanes! Just brilliant!!

    It's fiction, Peter. You know that.

    Wait, what? Fiction?? Are you serious??

    All condensation aside, when writing or producing anything, there is a duty and a responsibility in everything one creates.

    Fleming didn’t feel the need to smack out Tatiana. The filmmakers didn’t need to either. But i understand that there’s a sect of men out there, still obviously, who thinks slapping out a woman is just, what? A-ok?

    It’s fiction, you’re right. And that scene could have been done in any number of ways.

    EDIT: @Burgess — I didn’t see your post. Bravo, well stated (you have far more patience than myself in explaining this to Deke, 😂)!
  • edited October 4 Posts: 2,277
    peter wrote: »
    Well, Fleming's Bond is another animal.

    Sometimes he doesn't look like a professional. It's a war veteran doing this shitty job.

    No it’s a fictitious character.

    And there were other ways of doing a scene like From Russia With Love without smacking the crap out of a woman. Hell, it was based on a book where this same fictitious character didn’t lay a hand on Tatiana.

    Fleming's Bond didn't fly either. so what?

    Wait a gosh darn minute here! Are you implying the Cinematic Bond CAN fly? 🤔
    Burgess wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Well, Fleming's Bond is another animal.

    Sometimes he doesn't look like a professional. It's a war veteran doing this shitty job.

    No it’s a fictitious character.

    And there were other ways of doing a scene like From Russia With Love without smacking the crap out of a woman. Hell, it was based on a book where this same fictitious character didn’t lay a hand on Tatiana.

    Fleming's Bond didn't fly either. so what?

    You’re soooo right Deke! I never thought of that!! Brilliant how you compare apples to airplanes! Just brilliant!!

    It's fiction, Peter. You know that.

    Is fiction free from responsibility or accountability to the culture/society in which it’s created?

    Should fiction not be subject to the judgments of taste and etiquette?

    Eloquently put!
  • Posts: 1,396
    Burgess wrote: »
    Burgess wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Well, Fleming's Bond is another animal.

    Sometimes he doesn't look like a professional. It's a war veteran doing this shitty job.

    No it’s a fictitious character.

    And there were other ways of doing a scene like From Russia With Love without smacking the crap out of a woman. Hell, it was based on a book where this same fictitious character didn’t lay a hand on Tatiana.

    Fleming's Bond didn't fly either. so what?

    I think the point that’s being made is fictional characters can be guided by writers/creators to do all sorts of things. There are things a character can be made to do that tells us something insightful about their personality and background. Then there are things a character can be made to do that tells us more about the inner workings of the writers/creators. If a character performs a particularly deplorable action that a gives us no insight, then it probably should be excised.



    It's fiction in any case and the truth is that it makes sense within fiction.

    But being that fiction is, by definition, whatever you need it or want it to be, then it could just as easily not include deplorable actions.
    Ok, I won't watch The Godfather anymore.

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Burgess wrote: »
    Burgess wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Well, Fleming's Bond is another animal.

    Sometimes he doesn't look like a professional. It's a war veteran doing this shitty job.

    No it’s a fictitious character.

    And there were other ways of doing a scene like From Russia With Love without smacking the crap out of a woman. Hell, it was based on a book where this same fictitious character didn’t lay a hand on Tatiana.

    Fleming's Bond didn't fly either. so what?

    I think the point that’s being made is fictional characters can be guided by writers/creators to do all sorts of things. There are things a character can be made to do that tells us something insightful about their personality and background. Then there are things a character can be made to do that tells us more about the inner workings of the writers/creators. If a character performs a particularly deplorable action that a gives us no insight, then it probably should be excised.



    It's fiction in any case and the truth is that it makes sense within fiction.

    But being that fiction is, by definition, whatever you need it or want it to be, then it could just as easily not include deplorable actions.
    Ok, I won't watch The Godfather anymore.

    That makes absolutely zero sense.

    Listen, Deke, you think a hero should go around slapping women, and you see nothing objectionable in these actions, bask in that glory. But stop moving goalposts and gaslighting with obscure comparisons.

    Just admit you think giving Tatiana a nice smack to the head is cool and be done with it.

    In the end, the creator of this character didn’t feel the need to have Bond slap around any women. And he was a fair bit tougher character on the page than he was in the films (how he survived all those tortures and beatings). And the filmmakers didn’t have to have him smack out Tatiana either. It didn’t have to happen. It didn’t move the story forward. It was an over the top reaction from the character and, quite frankly, it was stupid.

    Even as a kid I found that slap pretty shocking.

    Now as an adult man, it just disgusts me. It was a poor creative choice.
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    Posts: 556
    I believe that was in response to Bond thinking she might have just got Karem Bay killed.


    I don't think there's anything wrong with Bond giving a playful slap on the butt when they're on the train. That's how all relationships should be, playful but naughty. Nevermind, Bond asking Paloma to turn around when he's undressing. That's not Bond! Surely theres a happy medium.
Sign In or Register to comment.