Concerning Waller-Bridge, I'm sure you can find those interviews very easily. We all know the link between Bond and the traditional gender stereotypes is obvious. Nethertheless, I don't understand what makes her think it has to be cut off.
What is the reason ?
Given I'm not American and I have absolutely nothing against feminism, I think your target is not the right one.
If you seriously think criticizing the evolution of the series and the screenwriting choices has something to do with any conspiracy theory, I'm afraid you're misjudging me...
My point was simple but it appears you didn't get it, so let me correct this misunderstanding.
Bond is described and showed as a classy man. Furthermore, as a "sexist, misogynist dinosaur", we can see him slapping women sometimes.
Connery's portrayal is nothing else than faithful to Fleming's works, which makes him the best Bond ever to me (I guess many people share this opinion).
If you're familiar with the novels, you should know Bond is a complex character. I think the vintage version with all the politically incorrect aspects of his personality is much more interesting than the new one. Does it mean I approve the way he behaves towards women ? Sorry body, but I don't see anything in my sentence showing I do...
My post was mostly made as a joke (it really was very much inspired by Mr Floppy), but I have to admit there was a grain of seriousness to it. Much of the negativity I've seen about Waller-Bridge has been anti-feminist, so I'm glad to hear you're not one of them. However I haven't seen any sources to back up your claims about Waller-Bridge and I'd like to see where you found them.
My post was mostly made as a joke (it really was very much inspired by Mr Floppy), but I have to admit there was a grain of seriousness to it. Much of the negativity I've seen about Waller-Bridge has been anti-feminist, so I'm glad to hear you're not one of them. However I haven't seen any sources to back up your claims about Waller-Bridge and I'd like to see where you found them.
Take the following quotes from an interview for Deadline.com (May 2019):
"There’s been a lot of talk about whether or not [the Bond franchise] is relevant now because of who he is and the way he treats women."
"I think that’s bollocks. I think he's absolutely relevant now. It has just got to grow. It has just got to evolve, and the important thing is that the film treats the women properly. He doesn’t have to. He needs to be true to this character."
The main problem is the contradiction between what she says, which is totally true, and what we saw in the trailers. After I heard Nomi talking to Bond like if he was a dog with the line "You get in my way, I will put a bullet in your knee", I was shocked by the impassive face of the man. I just thought "this is not the real James Bond", and the fact he doesn't give a damn about such a lack of respect from a young brand new 00 agent who has everything to learn is precisely what makes Nomi the kind of woman Waller-Bridge wants to bring.
In OHMSS, Bond doesn't hesitate to slap Tracy after her provocative answer, because it is the most likely reaction Ian Fleming's character would have had. Ironically, Tracy turns out to be the strongest and most memorable female character of the series with Vesper. I also think of Anya and Wai Lin.
I'm looking forward to seeing the movie because I'm very worried about a lot of things, especially this scene with Bond and Nomi in the room of the Jamaican house. Is James still James is the question that bothers me the most, after of course the one of Bond's possible death.
If, as you seem to be saying, Waller-Bridge’s views on Bond are that well known and that against him, then the Bond producers would also know. So why would they hire her? From what I’ve read she came on board to tweak the script and add humour.
You said: My point was simple but it appears you didn't get it, so let me correct this misunderstanding.
If you're familiar with the novels, you should know Bond is a complex character. I think the vintage version with all the politically incorrect aspects of his personality is much more interesting than the new one. Does it mean I approve the way he behaves towards women ? Sorry body, but I don't see anything in my sentence showing I do...
I don’t think I misunderstood, more like trying to understand.
You said it’s totally part of the charm which implies that it’s appealing, attractive.
Which is why I asked the question.
Flemming’s novels were written between 1953 and 1964. Times and attitudes have changed (eg Bond smoked and drove after drinking a fair bit) and if you want to continue making Bond films that appeal or connect to today’s audiences you can’t really stick with all the attitudes of life in the 50s. You need to find other things that are “part of the charm”, while still trying to keep Bond’s character.
I enjoyed Flemming’s novels and always enjoy Connery’s films. I would NOT like there to be a female Bond. Other 00’s can be female and as good as him but Bond should always remain male.
My post was mostly made as a joke (it really was very much inspired by Mr Floppy), but I have to admit there was a grain of seriousness to it. Much of the negativity I've seen about Waller-Bridge has been anti-feminist, so I'm glad to hear you're not one of them. However I haven't seen any sources to back up your claims about Waller-Bridge and I'd like to see where you found them.
Take the following quotes from an interview for Deadline.com (May 2019):
"There’s been a lot of talk about whether or not [the Bond franchise] is relevant now because of who he is and the way he treats women."
"I think that’s bollocks. I think he's absolutely relevant now. It has just got to grow. It has just got to evolve, and the important thing is that the film treats the women properly. He doesn’t have to. He needs to be true to this character."
The main problem is the contradiction between what she says, which is totally true, and what we saw in the trailers. After I heard Nomi talking to Bond like if he was a dog with the line "You get in my way, I will put a bullet in your knee", I was shocked by the impassive face of the man. I just thought "this is not the real James Bond", and the fact he doesn't give a damn about such a lack of respect from a young brand new 00 agent who has everything to learn is precisely what makes Nomi the kind of woman Waller-Bridge wants to bring.
In OHMSS, Bond doesn't hesitate to slap Tracy after her provocative answer, because it is the most likely reaction Ian Fleming's character would have had. Ironically, Tracy turns to be the strongest and most memorable female character of the series with Vesper. I also think of Anya and Wai Lin.
I'm looking forward to seeing the movie because I'm very worried about a lot of things, especially this scene with Bond and Nomi in the room of the Jamaican house. Is James still James is the question that bothers me the most, after of course the one of Bond's possible death.
It's only natural that there is some friction and competition between Bond and Nomi, both because he used to ba a 00-agent and she's a new one and because they are both alphas. We don't know Bond's reaction to Nomi's line until we've seen the movie, there is a lot of editing in a trailer. I understand why they have included Nomi's line in the trailer because she's a new character and they have to establish her character as though and having a competitive attitude towards Bond. Bond doesn't have to be established like that in the trailer because he's Bond.
If, as you seem to be saying, Waller-Bridge’s views on Bond are that well known and that against him, then the Bond producers would also know. So why would they hire her? From what I’ve read she came on board to tweak the script and add humour.
You said: My point was simple but it appears you didn't get it, so let me correct this misunderstanding.
If you're familiar with the novels, you should know Bond is a complex character. I think the vintage version with all the politically incorrect aspects of his personality is much more interesting than the new one. Does it mean I approve the way he behaves towards women ? Sorry body, but I don't see anything in my sentence showing I do...
I don’t think I misunderstood, more like trying to understand.
You said it’s totally part of the charm which implies that it’s appealing, attractive.
Which is why I asked the question.
Flemming’s novels were written between 1953 and 1964. Times and attitudes have changed (eg Bond smoked and drove after drinking a fair bit) and if you want to continue making Bond films that appeal or connect to today’s audiences you can’t really stick with all the attitudes of life in the 50s. You need to find other things that are “part of the charm”, while still trying to keep Bond’s character.
I enjoyed Flemming’s novels and always enjoy Connery’s films. I would NOT like there to be a female Bond. Other 00’s can be female and as good as him but Bond should always remain male.
I don't think the classiness of Bond has anything to do with the concept of slapping women. Given your question turned out to mean that, I wondered if the fact I used these words side by side in the same sentence could explain the misunderstanding.
Nevertheless, like I said, I clearly prefer the vintage version of the character than the new one. But you're right, times have changed and I know it's impossible to put Connery's Bond in a 2020 movie. I accept it but I also regret it a lot, because the sixties appear to be the golden period of the series to me...
I'm hoping for a great send off for DC
and a great Bond film
My fears
That the film is too woke
Bond is the butt of jokes
That's about it.
-{
I think you've summarised a lot of fears there TP.
I want a balance. I don't want Bond slapping any women around (he hasn't done so since MWTGG) but I don't want the film to talk down to the audience, or pretend that Nomi is the only strong women to ever appear in the series (Heck, Honey Ryder killed someone with a spider and swam with a giant knife on her belt.)
“The scent and smoke and sweat of a casino are nauseating at three in the morning. "
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
I'm hoping for a great send off for DC
and a great Bond film
My fears
That the film is too woke
Bond is the butt of jokes
That's about it.
-{
I think you've summarised a lot of fears there TP.
I want a balance. I don't want Bond slapping any women around (he hasn't done so since MWTGG) but I don't want the film to talk down to the audience, or pretend that Nomi is the only strong women to ever appear in the series (Heck, Honey Ryder killed someone with a spider and swam with a giant knife on her belt.)
“The scent and smoke and sweat of a casino are nauseating at three in the morning. "
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,746Chief of Staff
Concerning Waller-Bridge, I'm sure you can find those interviews very easily. We all know the link between Bond and the traditional gender stereotypes is obvious. Nethertheless, I don't understand what makes her think it has to be cut off.
What is the reason ?
Actually, I can’t...I can’t find them at all ?:)
Can you please link to them for me...particularly where she states the “vintage version of Bond is so disgusting it has to be destroyed once and for all”... thanks.
I'd like to know if all those who are concerned with Phoebe Waller-Bridge being involved in Bond 25 have actually watched any of her shows. From what I've seen the content she's written has been fantastic and a joy to watch. Fleabag is great and to have some of that unique style brought to Bond would be something fresh.
From what I have read she herself has stated that it was not her intention to change the Bond character. She has hinted that the film's need to evolve to keep up with the times but don't we all agree with that anyway? And in many ways isn't what Bond has been about in the past?
I too want to know where all these interviews are coming from that hint otherwise.
The film is in good hands I am sure. It's where they go after Craig leaves that bothers me more even if I do agree it's his time to go.
I think there will be PC moments. I think we will see Bond poked a little. But as long as he's the hero and there aren't any disappointing (why oh why...) surprises, then I'm sure all will be fine.
Why is that PC? Can't women shine in a non-sexual way in Bond movies without the momnet being PC? Isn't it possible it can just be interesting characters and a good plot?
I've tried to watch a couple of Waller-Bridge's programmes and gave up after a few minutes. I have lot's of concern about this film but fingers crossed it will be alright on the night.
Why is that PC? Can't women shine in a non-sexual way in Bond movies without the momnet being PC? Isn't it possible it can just be interesting characters and a good plot?
Absolutely. The film needs strong and interesting characters (male and female) and a good plot and script.
In the same way the film no longer needs butt slapping and the like, it doesn't need to take itself too seriously and over-compensate/ apologise in the space of 160 mins for years of anti-PC moments in Bond history (on screen and off).
Connery's portrayal is nothing else than faithful to Fleming's works, which makes him the best Bond ever to me (I guess many people share this opinion).
This is simply untrue. Connery's Bond was physically and emotionally invulnerable.
Fleming's Bond, on the other hand, was frequently injured physically and emotionally. He's rejected by Gala Brand and Tiffany Case, betrayed by Vesper and then when he meets the love of his life, she's murdered.
He's injured at the end of Live and Let Die, hospitalized at the end of The Man with The Golden Gun, injured and suffering from amnesia at the end of You only Live Twice, and dead at the end of From Russia with Love.
In the books, Bond is a nicotine addict, an alcoholic, a drug abuser, and frequently depressed.
Connery's Bond is an interesting character but he's not Fleming's Bond.
I'd say both Dalton and Craig portrayed Bond more faithful to Fleming than Connery ever did.
In my opinion Fleming's Bond is heavy drinker, no doubt. He's probably a problem drinker, but I don't consider him an alcoholic.
I would say that the drinking issue was actually touched upon in the Brosnan films to an extent, especially the first two.
IMO, from what I have read here and there in interviews with Brosnan, if he had had his way, his Bond would have been a darker character. Regarding Waller-Bridge, everyone is entitled to their opinion and can have at it, but when it goes into a "Craig Not Bond- like" flights of what feels like deep seated enmity supported by phantom interview quotes, for me anyway, that just makes me a little uncomfortable (but that's social media for ya').
In my opinion Fleming's Bond is heavy drinker, no doubt. He's probably a problem drinker, but I don't consider him an alcoholic.
One detail about Fleming that often gets glossed over, probably because of all the cigarettes, is that he himself was alcoholic. I suspect he knew that Bond was, too.
As Gala Brand noted, the Bond of the novels is a deeply flawed man.
The Bond of the films, for all the dark touches to suggest a troubled inner life, is pure fantasy.
Interesting. Off the top of my head I can only think of two moments where the filmic Bond is shown to be an alcoholic in a way that actually affects his character; when Bond is drinking vodka in the hotel room in TND, and when Bond is drunk on the plane in QoS. On both occasions, Bond is clearly struggling to cope with the demands of his task and drinking because of this, in a similar way to how Fleming has Bond drink in order to get over the psychological stress of killing the assassin at the start of the literary version of Goldfinger.
But I don't think the films, certainly, make a regular thing out of Bond being an alcoholic or a problem drinker; as others have noted, it affects the fantasy/glamour element of the character.
No,Bond was an alcoholic. Part of it was the times--people drank more in the Sixties, the era of the three-martini lunch and a pitcher of cocktails in the evening.
But Bond's level of drinking was staggering. The best that can be said is that he was a functioning alcoholic.
In my Family Bond would be considered a light weight I'm the black sheep
as I only drink socially
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,535MI6 Agent
Bond wasn’t an alcoholic. Alcoholics cannot function without drinking from sun up to sunset. They can’t function to the level Bond does and they constantly crave drink, it dominates their thoughts and world. Bond is capable of not drinking for periods at a time without the need for it. That’s not an alcoholic. Bond is just a very heavy drinker.
Bond wasn’t an alcoholic. Alcoholics cannot function without drinking from sun up to sunset. They can’t function to the level Bond does and they constantly crave drink, it dominates their thoughts and world. Bond is capable of not drinking for periods at a time without the need for it. That’s not an alcoholic. Bond is just a very heavy drinker.
I’m sorry to have coopted this thread, but again I’m referring to Fleming’s Bond. I’m a recovering alcoholic, sober for a long time now, and I drank as hard as Bond for decades without thinking about my next drink every moment, was successful by most measures and suffered few consequences that might have slowed me down. But it’s a progressive disease (or if you prefer, disorder), as Fleming himself experienced. Call Bond whatever you want, a hard drinker, a problem drinker, pre-alcoholic, but his preoccupation with drink outstrips even the excesses of his era.
Connery's portrayal is nothing else than faithful to Fleming's works, which makes him the best Bond ever to me (I guess many people share this opinion).
This is simply untrue. Connery's Bond was physically and emotionally invulnerable.
Fleming's Bond, on the other hand, was frequently injured physically and emotionally. He's rejected by Gala Brand and Tiffany Case, betrayed by Vesper and then when he meets the love of his life, she's murdered.
He's injured at the end of Live and Let Die, hospitalized at the end of The Man with The Golden Gun, injured and suffering from amnesia at the end of You only Live Twice, and dead at the end of From Russia with Love.
In the books, Bond is a nicotine addict, an alcoholic, a drug abuser, and frequently depressed.
Connery's Bond is an interesting character but he's not Fleming's Bond.
I'm afraid you didn't get my point. It is the second time it occurs (the first time was not with you) and I start to wonder if I'm not the one to blame eventually. Perhaps I'm not clear enough or my words are not the right ones to express my point of view. I apologize for it.
To me, Sean Connery IS James Bond, and not only because he turns out to be the most charismatic and classy actor of the six who officially played the part. I put him just before Dalton who's a wonderful Bond - far better than Craig - tougher than Sean but with less charm.
The main reason I think he portrays the character so well is because when I see him, I believe it.
The various examples you take from some novels show Bond is human and knows what failure is. But is Connery responsible for the fact the situations he's involved in feature a man succeeding more often than he fails or gets injured ? I don't think so. It mainly depends on the screenwriters.
If you pay attention, there are some rare moments when Bond's weaknesses are showed, and Connery's very convincing. In the first four films, he's not "physically invulnerable": he barely stands in his cell after his torture session in Dr No's repair, Red Grant almost kills him on the Orient-Express (look at his hands just after the fight), in Fort Knox, Oddjob hits him with such a power he can hardly breathe and get up, and Largo dominates him on the Disco Volante (he owes his life to Domino).
"Emotionally invulnerable" as well ? I disagree. In GF, he's traumatized by Jill's death to the extent M points out his obsession with vengeance. In TB, when he reveals Derval's death to Domino, her sadness makes him quite upset and he hides his emotion behind sunglasses.
Concerning the fact Bond is a nicotine addict and an alcoholic, I think it's difficult to show it in the movies as suggestively as it is described in the novels, and it's even more true for the drug abuser and the frequently depressed aspects. Nevertheless, his propensity to smoke, his huge knowledge of wine and spirits (claret, champagne, brandy, saké, sherry...) and his addiction to dry martini leave no room for doubt: Sean's Bond is more than a heavy smoker and drinker.
When I say his portrayal of Bond is nothing else than faithful to Fleming's work, it is not supposed to be taken word for word. Of course there are differences between the novels and the movies but I just mean Connery doesn't changes the nature of the original character. When I think of the literary version of Bond, he couldn't be more credible to me, for many reasons. The fact Fleming himself was so impressed by his performance in Dr No he decided to give his heroe Scottish roots in the 1963 OHMSS novel proves it. If the creator felt betrayed by Connery's work, he wouldn't have done it.
Connery's portrayal is nothing else than faithful to Fleming's works, which makes him the best Bond ever to me (I guess many people share this opinion).
This is simply untrue. Connery's Bond was physically and emotionally invulnerable.
Fleming's Bond, on the other hand, was frequently injured physically and emotionally. He's rejected by Gala Brand and Tiffany Case, betrayed by Vesper and then when he meets the love of his life, she's murdered.
He's injured at the end of Live and Let Die, hospitalized at the end of The Man with The Golden Gun, injured and suffering from amnesia at the end of You only Live Twice, and dead at the end of From Russia with Love.
In the books, Bond is a nicotine addict, an alcoholic, a drug abuser, and frequently depressed.
Connery's Bond is an interesting character but he's not Fleming's Bond.
I'm afraid you didn't get my point. It is the second time it occurs (the first time was not with you) and I start to wonder if I'm not the one to blame eventually. Perhaps I'm not clear enough or my words are not the right ones to express my point of view. I apologize for it.
To me, Sean Connery IS James Bond, and not only because he turns out to be the most charismatic and classy actor of the six who officially played the part. I put him just before Dalton who's a wonderful Bond - far better than Craig - tougher than Sean but with less charm.
The main reason I think he portrays the character so well is because when I see him, I believe it.
The various examples you take from some novels show Bond is human and knows what failure is. But is Connery responsible for the fact the situations he's involved in feature a man succeeding more often than he fails or gets injured ? I don't think so. It mainly depends on the screenwriters.
If you pay attention, there are some rare moments when Bond's weaknesses are showed, and Connery's very convincing. In the first four films, he's not "physically invulnerable": he barely stands in his cell after his torture session in Dr No's repair, Red Grant almost kills him on the Orient-Express (look at his hands just after the fight), in Fort Knox, Oddjob hits him with such a power he can hardly breathe and get up, and Largo dominates him on the Disco Volante (he owes his life to Domino).
"Emotionally invulnerable" as well ? I disagree. In GF, he's traumatized by Jill's death to the extent M points out his obsession with vengeance. In TB, when he reveals Derval's death to Domino, her sadness makes him quite upset and he hides his emotion behind sunglasses.
Concerning the fact Bond is a nicotine addict and an alcoholic, I think it's difficult to show it in the movies as suggestively as it is described in the novels, and it's even more true for the drug abuser and the frequently depressed aspects. Nevertheless, his propensity to smoke, his huge knowledge of wine and spirits (claret, champagne, brandy, saké, sherry...) and his addiction to dry martini leave no room for doubt: Sean's Bond is more than a heavy smoker and drinker.
When I say his portrayal of Bond is nothing else than faithful to Fleming's work, it is not supposed to be taken word for word. Of course there are differences between the novels and the movies but I just mean Connery doesn't changes the nature of the original character. When I think of the literary version of Bond, he couldn't be more credible to me, for many reasons. The fact Fleming himself was so impressed by his performance in Dr No he decided to give his heroe Scottish roots in the 1963 OHMSS novel proves it. If the creator felt betrayed by Connery's work, he wouldn't have done it.
Fleming initially wasn't happy with the choice of Connery (who was hired because he was cheap).
"In an interview with Melvin Bragg to be shown on the South Bank Show on Wednesday, Sir Sean says he had little time for the secret agent’s creator.
He says: “I never got introduced to Fleming until I was well into the movie but I know he was not happy with me as the choice.
“What was it he called me, or told somebody? That I was an over-developed stunt man. He never said it to me. When I did eventually meet him he was very interesting, erudite and a snob – a real snob."
Fleming came around after the movies--and Connery--proved popular and that meant he could sell more books.
Fleming initially wasn't happy with the choice of Connery (who was hired because he was cheap).
"In an interview with Melvin Bragg to be shown on the South Bank Show on Wednesday, Sir Sean says he had little time for the secret agent’s creator.
He says: “I never got introduced to Fleming until I was well into the movie but I know he was not happy with me as the choice.
“What was it he called me, or told somebody? That I was an over-developed stunt man. He never said it to me. When I did eventually meet him he was very interesting, erudite and a snob – a real snob."
Fleming came around after the movies--and Connery--proved popular and that meant he could sell more books.
Once again, you are mixing everything !
Everyone knows Sean has never been a fan of Bond. He played the character with detachment but also with professionalism from DN to TB. He only read three novels by Fleming (TB, initially supposed to be the first movie of the series, LALD and FRWL) whereas Dalton, for instance, read all of his work.
For his part, Fleming wasn't thrilled by the choice of Connery. He wanted Cary Grant or David Niven but they were too old/expensive for Broccoli & Saltzman. Sean was not famous at that time and his 1953 Mister Universe title didn't help at all to convince the author who was mainly afraid EON would make Bond some kind of Playboy with such a guy.
Nevertheless, after the release of the movie, Fleming, not only relieved, but impressed by Connery's performance, decided to give Scottish roots to the character as a tribute.
I'm not entitled to my opinions, I'm just trying to explain my point of view using some facts. Everyone has the right to consider Fleming's work and the Bond franchise any way he likes. After all, "it's all a matter of perspective", isn't it ?
Comments
Concerning Waller-Bridge, I'm sure you can find those interviews very easily. We all know the link between Bond and the traditional gender stereotypes is obvious. Nethertheless, I don't understand what makes her think it has to be cut off.
What is the reason ?
@Number24
Given I'm not American and I have absolutely nothing against feminism, I think your target is not the right one.
If you seriously think criticizing the evolution of the series and the screenwriting choices has something to do with any conspiracy theory, I'm afraid you're misjudging me...
@The Spy Who Never Dies
My point was simple but it appears you didn't get it, so let me correct this misunderstanding.
Bond is described and showed as a classy man. Furthermore, as a "sexist, misogynist dinosaur", we can see him slapping women sometimes.
Connery's portrayal is nothing else than faithful to Fleming's works, which makes him the best Bond ever to me (I guess many people share this opinion).
If you're familiar with the novels, you should know Bond is a complex character. I think the vintage version with all the politically incorrect aspects of his personality is much more interesting than the new one. Does it mean I approve the way he behaves towards women ? Sorry body, but I don't see anything in my sentence showing I do...
Take the following quotes from an interview for Deadline.com (May 2019):
"There’s been a lot of talk about whether or not [the Bond franchise] is relevant now because of who he is and the way he treats women."
"I think that’s bollocks. I think he's absolutely relevant now. It has just got to grow. It has just got to evolve, and the important thing is that the film treats the women properly. He doesn’t have to. He needs to be true to this character."
The main problem is the contradiction between what she says, which is totally true, and what we saw in the trailers. After I heard Nomi talking to Bond like if he was a dog with the line "You get in my way, I will put a bullet in your knee", I was shocked by the impassive face of the man. I just thought "this is not the real James Bond", and the fact he doesn't give a damn about such a lack of respect from a young brand new 00 agent who has everything to learn is precisely what makes Nomi the kind of woman Waller-Bridge wants to bring.
In OHMSS, Bond doesn't hesitate to slap Tracy after her provocative answer, because it is the most likely reaction Ian Fleming's character would have had. Ironically, Tracy turns out to be the strongest and most memorable female character of the series with Vesper. I also think of Anya and Wai Lin.
I'm looking forward to seeing the movie because I'm very worried about a lot of things, especially this scene with Bond and Nomi in the room of the Jamaican house. Is James still James is the question that bothers me the most, after of course the one of Bond's possible death.
If, as you seem to be saying, Waller-Bridge’s views on Bond are that well known and that against him, then the Bond producers would also know. So why would they hire her? From what I’ve read she came on board to tweak the script and add humour.
You said: My point was simple but it appears you didn't get it, so let me correct this misunderstanding.
If you're familiar with the novels, you should know Bond is a complex character. I think the vintage version with all the politically incorrect aspects of his personality is much more interesting than the new one. Does it mean I approve the way he behaves towards women ? Sorry body, but I don't see anything in my sentence showing I do...
I don’t think I misunderstood, more like trying to understand.
You said it’s totally part of the charm which implies that it’s appealing, attractive.
Which is why I asked the question.
Flemming’s novels were written between 1953 and 1964. Times and attitudes have changed (eg Bond smoked and drove after drinking a fair bit) and if you want to continue making Bond films that appeal or connect to today’s audiences you can’t really stick with all the attitudes of life in the 50s. You need to find other things that are “part of the charm”, while still trying to keep Bond’s character.
I enjoyed Flemming’s novels and always enjoy Connery’s films. I would NOT like there to be a female Bond. Other 00’s can be female and as good as him but Bond should always remain male.
It's only natural that there is some friction and competition between Bond and Nomi, both because he used to ba a 00-agent and she's a new one and because they are both alphas. We don't know Bond's reaction to Nomi's line until we've seen the movie, there is a lot of editing in a trailer. I understand why they have included Nomi's line in the trailer because she's a new character and they have to establish her character as though and having a competitive attitude towards Bond. Bond doesn't have to be established like that in the trailer because he's Bond.
I don't think the classiness of Bond has anything to do with the concept of slapping women. Given your question turned out to mean that, I wondered if the fact I used these words side by side in the same sentence could explain the misunderstanding.
Nevertheless, like I said, I clearly prefer the vintage version of the character than the new one. But you're right, times have changed and I know it's impossible to put Connery's Bond in a 2020 movie. I accept it but I also regret it a lot, because the sixties appear to be the golden period of the series to me...
and a great Bond film
My fears
That the film is too woke
Bond is the butt of jokes
That's about it.
-{
I think you've summarised a lot of fears there TP.
I want a balance. I don't want Bond slapping any women around (he hasn't done so since MWTGG) but I don't want the film to talk down to the audience, or pretend that Nomi is the only strong women to ever appear in the series (Heck, Honey Ryder killed someone with a spider and swam with a giant knife on her belt.)
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
-{
I think you've summarised a lot of fears there TP.
I want a balance. I don't want Bond slapping any women around (he hasn't done so since MWTGG) but I don't want the film to talk down to the audience, or pretend that Nomi is the only strong women to ever appear in the series (Heck, Honey Ryder killed someone with a spider and swam with a giant knife on her belt.)
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
Actually, I can’t...I can’t find them at all ?:)
Can you please link to them for me...particularly where she states the “vintage version of Bond is so disgusting it has to be destroyed once and for all”... thanks.
From what I have read she herself has stated that it was not her intention to change the Bond character. She has hinted that the film's need to evolve to keep up with the times but don't we all agree with that anyway? And in many ways isn't what Bond has been about in the past?
I too want to know where all these interviews are coming from that hint otherwise.
The film is in good hands I am sure. It's where they go after Craig leaves that bothers me more even if I do agree it's his time to go.
Absolutely. The film needs strong and interesting characters (male and female) and a good plot and script.
In the same way the film no longer needs butt slapping and the like, it doesn't need to take itself too seriously and over-compensate/ apologise in the space of 160 mins for years of anti-PC moments in Bond history (on screen and off).
This is simply untrue. Connery's Bond was physically and emotionally invulnerable.
Fleming's Bond, on the other hand, was frequently injured physically and emotionally. He's rejected by Gala Brand and Tiffany Case, betrayed by Vesper and then when he meets the love of his life, she's murdered.
He's injured at the end of Live and Let Die, hospitalized at the end of The Man with The Golden Gun, injured and suffering from amnesia at the end of You only Live Twice, and dead at the end of From Russia with Love.
In the books, Bond is a nicotine addict, an alcoholic, a drug abuser, and frequently depressed.
Connery's Bond is an interesting character but he's not Fleming's Bond.
In my opinion Fleming's Bond is heavy drinker, no doubt. He's probably a problem drinker, but I don't consider him an alcoholic.
IMO, from what I have read here and there in interviews with Brosnan, if he had had his way, his Bond would have been a darker character. Regarding Waller-Bridge, everyone is entitled to their opinion and can have at it, but when it goes into a "Craig Not Bond- like" flights of what feels like deep seated enmity supported by phantom interview quotes, for me anyway, that just makes me a little uncomfortable (but that's social media for ya').
One detail about Fleming that often gets glossed over, probably because of all the cigarettes, is that he himself was alcoholic. I suspect he knew that Bond was, too.
As Gala Brand noted, the Bond of the novels is a deeply flawed man.
The Bond of the films, for all the dark touches to suggest a troubled inner life, is pure fantasy.
But I don't think the films, certainly, make a regular thing out of Bond being an alcoholic or a problem drinker; as others have noted, it affects the fantasy/glamour element of the character.
"The spectre of defeat..."
But Bond's level of drinking was staggering. The best that can be said is that he was a functioning alcoholic.
https://www.latimes.com/food/dailydish/la-dd-scientists-calculate-how-much-james-bond-drank-in-007-novels-20131212-story.html
as I only drink socially
I’ll drink to that.
I’m sorry to have coopted this thread, but again I’m referring to Fleming’s Bond. I’m a recovering alcoholic, sober for a long time now, and I drank as hard as Bond for decades without thinking about my next drink every moment, was successful by most measures and suffered few consequences that might have slowed me down. But it’s a progressive disease (or if you prefer, disorder), as Fleming himself experienced. Call Bond whatever you want, a hard drinker, a problem drinker, pre-alcoholic, but his preoccupation with drink outstrips even the excesses of his era.
I'm afraid you didn't get my point. It is the second time it occurs (the first time was not with you) and I start to wonder if I'm not the one to blame eventually. Perhaps I'm not clear enough or my words are not the right ones to express my point of view. I apologize for it.
To me, Sean Connery IS James Bond, and not only because he turns out to be the most charismatic and classy actor of the six who officially played the part. I put him just before Dalton who's a wonderful Bond - far better than Craig - tougher than Sean but with less charm.
The main reason I think he portrays the character so well is because when I see him, I believe it.
The various examples you take from some novels show Bond is human and knows what failure is. But is Connery responsible for the fact the situations he's involved in feature a man succeeding more often than he fails or gets injured ? I don't think so. It mainly depends on the screenwriters.
If you pay attention, there are some rare moments when Bond's weaknesses are showed, and Connery's very convincing. In the first four films, he's not "physically invulnerable": he barely stands in his cell after his torture session in Dr No's repair, Red Grant almost kills him on the Orient-Express (look at his hands just after the fight), in Fort Knox, Oddjob hits him with such a power he can hardly breathe and get up, and Largo dominates him on the Disco Volante (he owes his life to Domino).
"Emotionally invulnerable" as well ? I disagree. In GF, he's traumatized by Jill's death to the extent M points out his obsession with vengeance. In TB, when he reveals Derval's death to Domino, her sadness makes him quite upset and he hides his emotion behind sunglasses.
Concerning the fact Bond is a nicotine addict and an alcoholic, I think it's difficult to show it in the movies as suggestively as it is described in the novels, and it's even more true for the drug abuser and the frequently depressed aspects. Nevertheless, his propensity to smoke, his huge knowledge of wine and spirits (claret, champagne, brandy, saké, sherry...) and his addiction to dry martini leave no room for doubt: Sean's Bond is more than a heavy smoker and drinker.
When I say his portrayal of Bond is nothing else than faithful to Fleming's work, it is not supposed to be taken word for word. Of course there are differences between the novels and the movies but I just mean Connery doesn't changes the nature of the original character. When I think of the literary version of Bond, he couldn't be more credible to me, for many reasons. The fact Fleming himself was so impressed by his performance in Dr No he decided to give his heroe Scottish roots in the 1963 OHMSS novel proves it. If the creator felt betrayed by Connery's work, he wouldn't have done it.
You're entitled to your opinions.
"In an interview with Melvin Bragg to be shown on the South Bank Show on Wednesday, Sir Sean says he had little time for the secret agent’s creator.
He says: “I never got introduced to Fleming until I was well into the movie but I know he was not happy with me as the choice.
“What was it he called me, or told somebody? That I was an over-developed stunt man. He never said it to me. When I did eventually meet him he was very interesting, erudite and a snob – a real snob."
Fleming came around after the movies--and Connery--proved popular and that meant he could sell more books.
Once again, you are mixing everything !
Everyone knows Sean has never been a fan of Bond. He played the character with detachment but also with professionalism from DN to TB. He only read three novels by Fleming (TB, initially supposed to be the first movie of the series, LALD and FRWL) whereas Dalton, for instance, read all of his work.
For his part, Fleming wasn't thrilled by the choice of Connery. He wanted Cary Grant or David Niven but they were too old/expensive for Broccoli & Saltzman. Sean was not famous at that time and his 1953 Mister Universe title didn't help at all to convince the author who was mainly afraid EON would make Bond some kind of Playboy with such a guy.
Nevertheless, after the release of the movie, Fleming, not only relieved, but impressed by Connery's performance, decided to give Scottish roots to the character as a tribute.
I'm not entitled to my opinions, I'm just trying to explain my point of view using some facts. Everyone has the right to consider Fleming's work and the Bond franchise any way he likes. After all, "it's all a matter of perspective", isn't it ?