BOND No. 25 (Big Yawn!)

[-Ian-]

Another Dalton fan here, in fact I'd go so far as to say he was the best Bond. I've never read the books but Dalton's portrayal seems to me a more believable interpretation of the psyche of someone who has done what a real life Bond would have had to do. 

 

On 4/10/2021 at 1:12 PM, Vince1159 said:

The thing with Roger Moore as Bond was he took the role into a more family friendly role

I agree with that, certainly as a child/teen the Roger Moore Bond films were my favourites with their over the top gadgets, action scenes and silly humour, watching them again in middle age they're my least favourite of the franchise.

 

 

[spruecutter96]

On 7/10/2021 at 11:03 AM, Beermonster1958 said:

Bond was actually a pretty unpleasant character

Ian Fleming described JB as a "gentleman thug". 

 

Chris. 

[JPuente54]

The Bond films still put the producer as the one or ones in charge. None are ever labeled "A film by..." with the director's name on it; such as Martin Campbell(who directed 2 or 3 Bond movies). This is not a shot at Mr. Campbell; it's just that it was and is considered that "Albert Broccolli(my spelling may be wrong, correct me , please) Presents" and with his death his daughter and stepson use "Albert Broccolli's Eon Productions Present" at the beginning of the opening credits. It was always the producer's idea as to how the actor should present Bond. It should be remembered that Roger Moore and Sean Connery both tried for the Bond role at the beginning with Mr. Connery getting the nod. When Sean Connery left; he suggested Moore to replace him. I believe that the two were very good friends. Again I recommend the watching "The Road to Casino Royale" special/bonus feature on the Blu ray(Disc Two). As to who is the "Best Bond"? Oh, I am NOT joining that argument. No winners with that one.

Joe

[JPuente54]

The new James Bond film is getting an October 8 release date here in the USA.

[Black Knight]

September 30th here in N.I.

but. . . . but. . . . our cinemas are still closed!

[stevehnz]

I was reading in our local rag today, same story as in Guardian link, https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/sep/23/james-bond-no-time-to-die-cary-fukunaga-thunderball & all over the Googlesphere, that Fukunaga, the director of this one says Bond, as played by Sean Connery was basically a rapist. No doubt we can expect a very PC adventure. 

Steve.

[-Ian-]

51 minutes ago, stevehnz said:

I was reading in our local rag today, same story as in Guardian link, https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/sep/23/james-bond-no-time-to-die-cary-fukunaga-thunderball & all over the Googlesphere, that Fukunaga, the director of this one says Bond, as played by Sean Connery was basically a rapist. No doubt we can expect a very PC adventure. 

Steve.

He's not wrong.

 

I watched all the Bond films back to back on BluRay a few years ago,  probably the first time I'd seen a lot of the older ones this century. Some of the scenes in the earlier Bond films were very uncomfortable to watch with Bond basically forcing himself on women who blatantly did not want his attentions, often attempting to physically push him away.

 

Of course this is 1960s movie world where if a man persists with his unwanted sexual advances for long enough, the woman would eventually change her mind. 

[malpaso]

The books are also very non-PC, with similar scenes described or inferred; but then all books, films and so forth reflect the mores of the period of their creation rather than when they are set - even the most researched and careful historical “artwork” of whatever media is laden with the creator’s biases, both conscious and unconscious.

[bentwaters81tfw]

I have read all the books, seen all the films, more than once, and come to one conclusion: It's fiction.

What about all the countless other films that depict violence, slavery and death? Some people need to get over themselves, applying their ideals to books and films made in the pre-woke era.

 

As a footnote, all Bond's 'conquests' seem eminently satisfied with the outcome.

[spruecutter96]

What a very strange world we live in.... It is entirely acceptable for Bond to shoot, maim and kill any number of bad-guys in explosions and the like, but heaven-forfend he should have sex with a woman. Human values make no real sense to me whatsoever....

 

Chris. 

Edited September 24, 2021 by spruecutter96
Correcting a typo.

[Pete in Lincs]

They keep raving about the music of this latest film on the radio.

It's dreadfully boring. Bring back the John Barry stuff is what I say. Proper music.

[spruecutter96]

Yep, all the hype over the Bond theme with each new release gets pretty tedious, doesn't it? I heard the new track on the radio recently and concluded that it could have been sung / written by any reasonably-talented singer.

 

I still think they will never beat the Live And Let Die theme - Paul McCartney at his absolute best! A great "mood-piece" and an extremely memorable pop-song. At the risk of sounding like my Dad, "they don't make 'em like that anymore..."

 

Chris.   

[-Ian-]

3 hours ago, spruecutter96 said:

What a very strange world we live in.... It is entirely acceptable for Bond to shoot, maim and kill any number of bad-guys in explosions and the like, but heaven-forfend he should have sex with a woman. Human values make no real sense to me whatsoever....

 

Chris. 

Well you're totally missing the point.

 

Nothing wrong with Bond having sex with a woman.

Everything wrong with Bond forcing himself on a woman, and persisting after she has made it very clear she's not interested, a scene repeated in a number of the films.

Of course the writers excused that by peddling the myth that if a woman says no repeatedly, all a man has to do is continue forcing himself upon her and eventually she'll say yes and thoroughly enjoy the experience.

 

Having said that I can look past those aspects of films of the films as simply reflecting common attitudes at the time, in many other ways they stand up very well today and are still enjoyable well made films. 

 

 

[spruecutter96]

12 minutes ago, -Ian- said:

Well you're totally missing the point.

I'm not, if truth be told. My earlier comment was not specifically about the now-socially-unacceptable (with very good reason) practice Bond used to force himself upon women. Clearly, such behaviour is simply not acceptable, then or now. For me, the most unfortunate aspect of what he did was that, the next morning, the women were ALWAYS totally infatuated with Bond. Is that really how these things work? After one night...? 

 

Ian Fleming described his fictional agent as a "gentleman thug". That is not intended to excuse the way he acted, but in his original form, Bond's a product of a VERY different time. 

 

It's an often-quoted theory that the advent of AIDS put paid to Bond's promiscuity. I have never subscribed to the idea that people take their behavioural cues from movies and TV. People who want to sleep with six different people a night (whether gay or straight) will act in that way, regardless of the actions of a highly fictional film character. Conversely, people who are not overly bothered about such things will not have their behaviour radically changed by a Bond movie. Movies are much less of an influence to society than the academics or politicians would like us to think.

 

Rape and murder existed a very long time before they invented the film-camera. Some people have the ability to act in such terrible ways buried deep within them, whilst other folks would be deeply repelled by the idea of commiting such acts. 

 

Chris. 

[stevehnz]

Taking this back to the original premise. I saw the movie with my sons last weekend, thought it was fantastic. Not giving anything away but for my money, Fukunaga delivered a thoroughly enjoyable, nuanced movie with some very clever plot contrivances that worked well on several levels, the 15 year old & the 66 year old me both enjoyed it. I've liked Craig as Bond from his first one, this one was no let down. Imho, of course.

Steve.

[alt-92]

On 9/24/2021 at 10:54 PM, spruecutter96 said:

I have never subscribed to the idea that people take their behavioural cues from movies and TV.

Up for discussion  

One could say the short attention span people have today is influenced by popularisation of music videos. 

Popular misconceptions of historic events are another continuing theme - can't say Pearl Harbor (2001) is an accurate portrayal, yet the general public laps it up. 

 

Those things tend to stick unconsciously.  You wouldn't believe how many visitors to for instance the Normandy D-Day beaches are absolutely convinced Omaha was a complete massacre and near-disaster the entire day.  Or that the US Army liberated the Netherlands (narrator: no they didn't - Canadians and Poles played the largest part). Both influenced by Ryan's books and movies based on those books.

[spruecutter96]

To be frank, I think there's a HUGE gulf between the concept that people can form false impressions of historical events (I would agree with that) or the idea that a person can watch a sexually-explicit or graphically-violent film and then commit acts of rape or murder, as a result. The middle-ages were extremely bloody and violent times, but not many folks were going to the cinema in those days.  

 

Chris. 

[fatfingers]

Just finished watching No Time To Die. Found it dull and boring. Was never a fan of the Daniel Craig Bonds but in my view this is the worst one. Be interesting to see who gets the job next and which way the they go with it. 

Theme song is also dire! Nice bit of Louis Armstrong at the end though 😉

 

Regards,

 

Steve

[Hamster Volant]

Agreed - that's probably the least watchable Bond of all imho -

Craig's Bond in this one is no Bond as I appreciated him, he's just not "in" the role and looks bored by what he is doing.

For me the best are in order Connery, Brosnan, Dalton, Moore, Craig, Lazenby (though this one may be deserved by the OHMSS story).

 

As for the next one, I think they'll go for a woman in the role -they introduced a female 007 in the movie to test the public I guess and wouldn't be surprised they go that route.

 

Regarding the books (they are on the shelf at an arm length right now), I always saw them as quite separate from the movie character. Both enjoyable in their own style still.

Edited January 2, 2022 by Hamster Volant

[nheather]

19 minutes ago, Hamster Volant said:

 

 

As for the next one, I think they'll go for a woman in the role -they introduced a female 007 in the movie to test the public I guess and wouldn't be surprised they go that route.

 

Regarding the books (they are on the shelf at an arm length right now), I always saw them as quite separate from the movie character. Both enjoyable in their own style still.

I thought Barbara Broccoli has recently confirmed that the next Bond will be male.  That she has no interest in replacing 007 with a woman, preferring instead to introduce additional strong female roles.

 

For equality sake I think this is the right thing to do - all this gender swapping can be counter-productive, giving the impression that woman can’t be good characters in their own right.

 

Cheers,

 

Nigel

[cmatthewbacon]

Time for someone to make a serious foray into Modesty Blaise movies, I reckon. Well written female characters in Bond movies are one thing, but the best leading woman for action films ever written is quite another…

best,

M.

[JohnT]

On 15/11/2021 at 16:29, alt-92 said:

 Or that the US Army liberated the Netherlands (narrator: no they didn't - Canadians and Poles played the largest part). Both influenced by Ryan's books and movies based on those books.

 

it’s not new

 

Errol Flynn and "Objective Burma" anyone? Not a Brit in 1000 miles in the movie. 

[JohnT]

3 hours ago, nheather said:

I thought Barbara Broccoli has recently confirmed that the next Bond will be male.  That she has no interest in replacing 007 with a woman, preferring instead to introduce additional strong female roles.

 

For equality sake I think this is the right thing to do - all this gender swapping can be counter-productive, giving the impression that woman can’t be good characters in their own right.

 

Cheers,

 

Nigel

That’s what I read too

 

And if you are looking to do a movie with strong female characters then for heavens sake buy the movie rights and make this one

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-59566983
 

9 actors required and a damn good tale that should get a far wider audience. Note the claim 50% of French Resistance were female. That must be a treasure trove for movie work surely. I can only recall 1 and that’s an old Carve Her Name With Pride

 

 

[JohnT]

42 minutes ago, Beermonster1958 said:

 

Helen Mirrens superb performance as Elizabeth 1, 

not to forget Prime Suspect in which she was fantastic. Great acting

 

Totally agree that rather than gender swapping more great female roles are required. Apart from anything else lady actors deserve it

[IanHx]

5 hours ago, Beermonster1958 said:

That's a very good point.

There is tremendous scope for strong, female roles but, rightly or wrongly they have been largely and, possibly deliberately overlooked.

I'm wondering if there isn't a general gender bias among film and TV producers who may see strong female roles as somehow less attractive to prospective audiences and, therefore less profitable entertainment?

John

 

 

Instead of introducing strong female role models   ,  Hollywood's answer seems to be to neuter all the strong male role models..... 

 

Was not impressed with the ending.

 

 

Edited January 3, 2022 by IanHx