These tabloids and YouTubers are tying to gin up controversy to make money. It's nothing new. But we don't have to support them.
I remember the "woke" panic on this board when Phoebe Waller-Bridge was brought in as a writer on NTTD. What did the finished film include? A black female 007 who is clearly not the agent Bond is. If you think the real MI-6 doesn't employee black women, I am sorry to be the bearer of harsh news.
If anything, having Rami Malek play a vaguely Asiatic villain is a throwback to the days of Fu Manchu. (I know he's supposed to be Russian, but they made a choice about having his island be in the Sea of Japan or wherever.) Talk about politically incorrect!
And yet you do assume bags of bonkers stuff about movies which haven't been made yet, like Bond being bisexual and being abused as a child and questioning his gender etc.
If I'm wrong and it isn't racist then I'm sure someone will correct me; doesn't seem to have happened yet though 😏
I'm sure their issue with Nomi being in the film was purely about her choice of lipstick or something perfectly innocent like that...
Your assumption was, though, that because "right-wing videos" are critical of the last Bond film, all criticism of it is right wing. If that is the case, who is allowed to criticise the film without being called right-wing?
Yeah I thought it was rather hilarious when we finally got to see the film after a couple of years of hearing folk say 'actually my problem is that no-one else should be 007, I don't have a problem with black women blah blah' and that they hated the 'woke' idea of her showing Bond up and getting the better of him, proving how much better women are than men etc. - and it turned out in the film that she gets the upper hand on him not one single time, with her looking miffed in the background every time he turns up and effortlessly beats her! All of that gnashing of teeth turned out to be pointless, and the motivations behind it looked even more suspect. I also haven't seen one single person say they hated the film because someone else had the 007 number in it for a little while, even though that seemed to be a terrible problem before it came out...
One can indeed have legitimate criticism of the films without being racist, but the criticism of the films which is racist should be pointed out as such, don't you think? Ms Lynch herself said she got a load of racist abuse, I guess she was wrong too was she?
It's so funny how often these things come down to people arguing that there is no racism or sexism involved, and it's funny how the word 'woke' pops up when people are complaining about a black person in a film.
As you will recall from my earlier posts, my "complaint" was about the Craig era indulging in psychological navel-gazing and Barbara's desire to make him more emotional when all the past Bonds have been emotional anyway. See earlier posts of photos from past films showing this.
My complaint had nothing to do with the last film having black cast members. So I'd appreciate it if you didn't lump me in with the racists.
You still haven't answered my question, though: Are people who don't think Bond should be played by a black actor racist?
That's an attempt at a stupid gotcha question which has nothing to do with what we are talking about and is designed to drag the topic off in another direction, away from whether there was racist criticism or not, and you were claiming that it's a 'card' being played to silence criticism, which rather seems to suggest you don't think it's valid to call it out as such. So you're kind of choosing to lump yourself in there, or at least to try and defend them.
And still you talk about this 'desire to make him more emotional' as if it hasn't been pointed out to you several times that she did not say that. It is a headline, nothing more. The actual quote was that he'll keep on evolving. You've decided, in your own bonkers style, that means that he'll start fancying men, but that has nothing to do with what was actually said.
I am actually bored of this now, it's a stupid conversation based on nothing but inaccuracy and hysteria. Invent whatever madcap fantasies you like about the next series of films, it has no bearing on reality.
That you won't answer the question, suggests you think a black actor should play him, and that you fear saying this in case people might not agree. There was a thread here around 12 years ago, discussing this very matter. No one then was afraid of discussing it.
Again, let me remind you of what Eon's actual position is, as quoted in another article than the one you say is "hostile":
"Both Wilson and Broccoli, who is a director of the U.K. chapter of women’s advocacy org Time’s Up, have left their mark on Bond, particularly in humanizing the once-womanizing spy and ensuring more fulfilling, meatier roles for the female stars of the franchise. These are qualities that will continue in the next films, says Broccoli."
The direction of travel, if this quote is accurate, is that the character will, indeed, evolve... in the direction of being more sensitive and caring. But as has been pointed out by others, past Bond's (especially Moore's) were like that already. Thus, it's a pointless statement from Eon.
My thoughts that Barbara might want to bring out more of Bond's bisexual side, as she hinted that he had in Skyfall, is merely an educated guess based on Barbara's hint. Maybe that idea will be ditched at some point. Who knows.
My first paragraph was pointing out explicitly how much I dislike the direction the Craig era took, so I'm more than happy to indulge in a mutual bashing, so long as the criticisms are more legitimate than "WOKE!..."
On that front, I just watched that video you posted in full, and will hold my hands up and admit I was a little too hasty to dismiss it because a number of the flaws he pointed out are reasonable, and to be fair, were not merely right-wing talking points.
Although he is clearly baiting that audience with some of the clickbaity titles and thumbnails on the channel.
That you won't answer the question, suggests you think a black actor should play him, and that you fear saying this in case people might not agree. There was a thread here around 12 years ago, discussing this very matter. No one then was afraid of discussing it.
See what I mean? It doesn't matter what anyone actually writes, you just make up your own stories about what they mean, even if that has no connection with reality.
Again, let me remind you of what Eon's actual position is, as quoted in another article than the one you say is "hostile":
"Both Wilson and Broccoli, who is a director of the U.K. chapter of women’s advocacy org Time’s Up, have left their mark on Bond, particularly in humanizing the once-womanizing spy and ensuring more fulfilling, meatier roles for the female stars of the franchise. These are qualities that will continue in the next films, says Broccoli."
And again, let me remind you that: that isn't an actual quote; it does not say that he will be 'more in touch with his feelings'; and all it actually says is that he'll remain as being humanised and that there will be better roles for women. You then invented your own crackers interpretation of that, which was that Bond would be increasingly feminised and the women would become more masculine. It doesn't say anything like that, but you still read it that way regardless.
The direction of travel, if this quote is accurate, is that the character will, indeed, evolve... in the direction of being more sensitive and caring. But as has been pointed out by others, past Bond's (especially Moore's) were like that already. Thus, it's a pointless statement from Eon.
Absolute nonsense. If they were to say he'd keep shooing people would that be a pointless statement too? I have no idea what you're actually complaining about here and I get the feeling you don't either.
My thoughts that Barbara might want to bring out more of Bond's bisexual side, as she hinted that he had in Skyfall, is merely an educated guess based on Barbara's hint. Maybe that idea will be ditched at some point. Who knows.
It's a wild hysterical guess based on nothing, and the bizarre connection of the concept of 'humanising' a character as meaning they will become bisexual.
In my opinion Bond doesn't have a bisexual side and he shouldn't have one. The scene in SF was an interrogation situation. Imagine what would happen if Bond had shouted: "Don't do that, it's disgusting! No, stop it! 😱". That's basically telling the interrogation what buttons to push. Bond's respons was basically: "I'm not upset. This simply won't work."
"See what I mean? It doesn't matter what anyone actually writes, you just make up your own stories about what they mean, even if that has no connection with reality."
I simply asked you if you think people who don't think Bond should be played by a black actor are racist. You refused to answer, this left me no option but to make an assumption as to your silence. That you still won't answer such a harmless question is puzzling.
"And again, let me remind you that: that isn't an actual quote; it does not say that he will be 'more in touch with his feelings'; and all it actually says is that he'll remain as being humanised and that there will be better roles for women. "
But were not the Bond films post Octopussy doing this already? Yes, Craig's Bond films have taken it further. But seeing as he is already doing this, I think that the Eon statement is redundant. Am I not allowed to say this?
"You then invented your own crackers interpretation of that, which was that Bond would be increasingly feminised and the women would become more masculine."
Am I not allowed to speculate about the direction of travel. Time will tell if I am wrong.
This is a reasonable interpretation. But a lot of the media at the time were speculating that Eon was using that scene to signal a future "character reveal" about Bond. Yes, it was only speculation, but after I read about Barbara being "right on" and something of a gender activist, I thought maybe the speculation wasn't that speculative after all. Again, these are only my opinions. I have never asserted them as anything but.
Yes, the early Bond films did indeed have strong roles for women. It's a pity many people think that it was only in the Craig era and the Brosnan era that women had good roles.
Well, I did watch that video. I'm going to call out as offensive and, yes, sinister, anyone who on social media chooses to manipulate images of black women actors in order to parody so-called 'wokism'. At that stage, a line is crossed and it's no longer the point whether I happen to agree with any of the guy's particular criticisms of the film or not.
Critics and material I don't need. I haven't changed my act in 53 years.
I've just looked at the video you thought offensive, and couldn't find anything offensive in it. You mentioned in a previous post that the video was racist, I never found anything remotely racist in it.
Indeed, it is rather complimentary about the last Bond film, and says that apart form a few "woke" things, it is better than was expected.
Indeed, it has made me revise my opinion about the film. I had avoided seeing it due to negative reviews, but regret that now. But the video is a fair assessment of the film.
Because that right there, in conjunction with the commentary, throws into a context the bits before with the three question marks above the head of the reception guy in NTTD and with the isolated sound effect over Kananga's explosion, implying... As, I say... I'm out....
Critics and material I don't need. I haven't changed my act in 53 years.
If I watch a Jason Bourne movie for example I want to see an ultra driven serious character doing all he can to put all the pieces together from his past, I DON'T want to see women, 1 liners, cool, suave, sophistication, Armani, charisma just NON of that
If I watch a Bond movie (the ultra cool Iconic gentleman spy) I want to see everything that MADE him Iconic, lots of women, outrageous villains, charisma, charm, suave sophistication, 1 liners, fun and ESCAPISM, getting the girls and saving the world
Connery Moore and Brosnan portrayed that character and it's the only reason why Bond lasted for over 40 years ( despite the 2 Dalton movies squeezed in the middle)
If you want a serious more realistic Bond of the novels then watch Dalton and Craig, the problem is they would never have gotten past Dr No, all the fun and escapism was gone, now Bond has retired TWICE in the space of 4 movies because he's fallen in love
Bond should just be left alone to be Bond, just like I want characters like Bourne to be their character, we can all watch and enjoy serious dark action movies to our hearts content because there's 100s of them
To be frank, though, I think Bond is more or less finished as a film franchise. I sense Barbara sees this, hence she and the team of writers trying desperately to make Bond significant to potential female audiences, who are simply not interested in action films.
This us an interesting point @sirso but it isn't the character's emotional capabilities they should be worried about but the action. If you take the Le Carre adaptation of The Night Manager, emotions were frankly surface depth only, what drove the narrative was the clever and involving story which used tension rather than out-and-out violence [although that did come in spurts] to excite its audience. Many of my female acquaintances of several ages loved it. So, a return to something more akin to FRWL or OHMSS where the story builds through differeng levels of suspense might be a better option.
I think the idea that Bond is "more or less finished" as a franchise is complete and utter nonsense.
I agree that EON isn't showing sufficient stewardship given the increasingly absurd gaps between films, but the Craig era has done phenomenally well at the box office and no reason to suggest audiences are done with it.
These are borne of cold hard facts, irrespective of how I feel about the last few films as a fan.
Comments
These tabloids and YouTubers are tying to gin up controversy to make money. It's nothing new. But we don't have to support them.
I remember the "woke" panic on this board when Phoebe Waller-Bridge was brought in as a writer on NTTD. What did the finished film include? A black female 007 who is clearly not the agent Bond is. If you think the real MI-6 doesn't employee black women, I am sorry to be the bearer of harsh news.
If anything, having Rami Malek play a vaguely Asiatic villain is a throwback to the days of Fu Manchu. (I know he's supposed to be Russian, but they made a choice about having his island be in the Sea of Japan or wherever.) Talk about politically incorrect!
And yet you do assume bags of bonkers stuff about movies which haven't been made yet, like Bond being bisexual and being abused as a child and questioning his gender etc.
If I'm wrong and it isn't racist then I'm sure someone will correct me; doesn't seem to have happened yet though 😏
I'm sure their issue with Nomi being in the film was purely about her choice of lipstick or something perfectly innocent like that...
Your assumption was, though, that because "right-wing videos" are critical of the last Bond film, all criticism of it is right wing. If that is the case, who is allowed to criticise the film without being called right-wing?
Yeah I thought it was rather hilarious when we finally got to see the film after a couple of years of hearing folk say 'actually my problem is that no-one else should be 007, I don't have a problem with black women blah blah' and that they hated the 'woke' idea of her showing Bond up and getting the better of him, proving how much better women are than men etc. - and it turned out in the film that she gets the upper hand on him not one single time, with her looking miffed in the background every time he turns up and effortlessly beats her! All of that gnashing of teeth turned out to be pointless, and the motivations behind it looked even more suspect. I also haven't seen one single person say they hated the film because someone else had the 007 number in it for a little while, even though that seemed to be a terrible problem before it came out...
The danger of playing "the race card" to silence criticism of the Craig era Bonds is going down a slippery slope, in my view.
One can have legitimate criticism of the films, without being in the Klu Klux Klan, in my view.
Out of interest, would you call someone a racist if they thought Bond should not be played by a black actor?
One can indeed have legitimate criticism of the films without being racist, but the criticism of the films which is racist should be pointed out as such, don't you think? Ms Lynch herself said she got a load of racist abuse, I guess she was wrong too was she?
It's so funny how often these things come down to people arguing that there is no racism or sexism involved, and it's funny how the word 'woke' pops up when people are complaining about a black person in a film.
As you will recall from my earlier posts, my "complaint" was about the Craig era indulging in psychological navel-gazing and Barbara's desire to make him more emotional when all the past Bonds have been emotional anyway. See earlier posts of photos from past films showing this.
My complaint had nothing to do with the last film having black cast members. So I'd appreciate it if you didn't lump me in with the racists.
You still haven't answered my question, though: Are people who don't think Bond should be played by a black actor racist?
That's an attempt at a stupid gotcha question which has nothing to do with what we are talking about and is designed to drag the topic off in another direction, away from whether there was racist criticism or not, and you were claiming that it's a 'card' being played to silence criticism, which rather seems to suggest you don't think it's valid to call it out as such. So you're kind of choosing to lump yourself in there, or at least to try and defend them.
And still you talk about this 'desire to make him more emotional' as if it hasn't been pointed out to you several times that she did not say that. It is a headline, nothing more. The actual quote was that he'll keep on evolving. You've decided, in your own bonkers style, that means that he'll start fancying men, but that has nothing to do with what was actually said.
I am actually bored of this now, it's a stupid conversation based on nothing but inaccuracy and hysteria. Invent whatever madcap fantasies you like about the next series of films, it has no bearing on reality.
That you won't answer the question, suggests you think a black actor should play him, and that you fear saying this in case people might not agree. There was a thread here around 12 years ago, discussing this very matter. No one then was afraid of discussing it.
Again, let me remind you of what Eon's actual position is, as quoted in another article than the one you say is "hostile":
"Both Wilson and Broccoli, who is a director of the U.K. chapter of women’s advocacy org Time’s Up, have left their mark on Bond, particularly in humanizing the once-womanizing spy and ensuring more fulfilling, meatier roles for the female stars of the franchise. These are qualities that will continue in the next films, says Broccoli."
The direction of travel, if this quote is accurate, is that the character will, indeed, evolve... in the direction of being more sensitive and caring. But as has been pointed out by others, past Bond's (especially Moore's) were like that already. Thus, it's a pointless statement from Eon.
My thoughts that Barbara might want to bring out more of Bond's bisexual side, as she hinted that he had in Skyfall, is merely an educated guess based on Barbara's hint. Maybe that idea will be ditched at some point. Who knows.
My first paragraph was pointing out explicitly how much I dislike the direction the Craig era took, so I'm more than happy to indulge in a mutual bashing, so long as the criticisms are more legitimate than "WOKE!..."
On that front, I just watched that video you posted in full, and will hold my hands up and admit I was a little too hasty to dismiss it because a number of the flaws he pointed out are reasonable, and to be fair, were not merely right-wing talking points.
Although he is clearly baiting that audience with some of the clickbaity titles and thumbnails on the channel.
That you won't answer the question, suggests you think a black actor should play him, and that you fear saying this in case people might not agree. There was a thread here around 12 years ago, discussing this very matter. No one then was afraid of discussing it.
See what I mean? It doesn't matter what anyone actually writes, you just make up your own stories about what they mean, even if that has no connection with reality.
Again, let me remind you of what Eon's actual position is, as quoted in another article than the one you say is "hostile":
"Both Wilson and Broccoli, who is a director of the U.K. chapter of women’s advocacy org Time’s Up, have left their mark on Bond, particularly in humanizing the once-womanizing spy and ensuring more fulfilling, meatier roles for the female stars of the franchise. These are qualities that will continue in the next films, says Broccoli."
And again, let me remind you that: that isn't an actual quote; it does not say that he will be 'more in touch with his feelings'; and all it actually says is that he'll remain as being humanised and that there will be better roles for women. You then invented your own crackers interpretation of that, which was that Bond would be increasingly feminised and the women would become more masculine. It doesn't say anything like that, but you still read it that way regardless.
The direction of travel, if this quote is accurate, is that the character will, indeed, evolve... in the direction of being more sensitive and caring. But as has been pointed out by others, past Bond's (especially Moore's) were like that already. Thus, it's a pointless statement from Eon.
Absolute nonsense. If they were to say he'd keep shooing people would that be a pointless statement too? I have no idea what you're actually complaining about here and I get the feeling you don't either.
My thoughts that Barbara might want to bring out more of Bond's bisexual side, as she hinted that he had in Skyfall, is merely an educated guess based on Barbara's hint. Maybe that idea will be ditched at some point. Who knows.
It's a wild hysterical guess based on nothing, and the bizarre connection of the concept of 'humanising' a character as meaning they will become bisexual.
I really am done now.
In my opinion Bond doesn't have a bisexual side and he shouldn't have one. The scene in SF was an interrogation situation. Imagine what would happen if Bond had shouted: "Don't do that, it's disgusting! No, stop it! 😱". That's basically telling the interrogation what buttons to push. Bond's respons was basically: "I'm not upset. This simply won't work."
That's at least how I read the scene. I guess it's one of the strengths of the script that the audience can read it how they want to.
I'm glad you looked at the video and saw that it made some valid criticisms.
I would never knowingly post links to sites that were potentially offensive to people here.
"See what I mean? It doesn't matter what anyone actually writes, you just make up your own stories about what they mean, even if that has no connection with reality."
I simply asked you if you think people who don't think Bond should be played by a black actor are racist. You refused to answer, this left me no option but to make an assumption as to your silence. That you still won't answer such a harmless question is puzzling.
"And again, let me remind you that: that isn't an actual quote; it does not say that he will be 'more in touch with his feelings'; and all it actually says is that he'll remain as being humanised and that there will be better roles for women. "
But were not the Bond films post Octopussy doing this already? Yes, Craig's Bond films have taken it further. But seeing as he is already doing this, I think that the Eon statement is redundant. Am I not allowed to say this?
"You then invented your own crackers interpretation of that, which was that Bond would be increasingly feminised and the women would become more masculine."
Am I not allowed to speculate about the direction of travel. Time will tell if I am wrong.
This is a reasonable interpretation. But a lot of the media at the time were speculating that Eon was using that scene to signal a future "character reveal" about Bond. Yes, it was only speculation, but after I read about Barbara being "right on" and something of a gender activist, I thought maybe the speculation wasn't that speculative after all. Again, these are only my opinions. I have never asserted them as anything but.
Since before OP.
Well before.
Well, well before.
(I'll stop now)
Yes, the early Bond films did indeed have strong roles for women. It's a pity many people think that it was only in the Craig era and the Brosnan era that women had good roles.
Well, I did watch that video. I'm going to call out as offensive and, yes, sinister, anyone who on social media chooses to manipulate images of black women actors in order to parody so-called 'wokism'. At that stage, a line is crossed and it's no longer the point whether I happen to agree with any of the guy's particular criticisms of the film or not.
Which video are you referring to? There are several.
And if you found one that wasn't offensive to you, but said the same things you agreed with in the the offensive one, would you be happy then?
Logic is everything.
As you say, it's only an interpretation and I could be proven wrong in the future (but I really hope not).
Sorry, the video I meant was the second one linked in #54.
Well, there's plenty of discussion of the film around, so I'd go to sources I preferred or trusted and engage with them instead.
This is my last contribution to the thread.
I had an idea you mentioned the wrong video because I found nothing it in that could be so offensive to you.
I'll take a look at the other one now.
I've just looked at the video you thought offensive, and couldn't find anything offensive in it. You mentioned in a previous post that the video was racist, I never found anything remotely racist in it.
Indeed, it is rather complimentary about the last Bond film, and says that apart form a few "woke" things, it is better than was expected.
Indeed, it has made me revise my opinion about the film. I had avoided seeing it due to negative reviews, but regret that now. But the video is a fair assessment of the film.
2.56/ 2.57. After that, I don't want to know.
Because that right there, in conjunction with the commentary, throws into a context the bits before with the three question marks above the head of the reception guy in NTTD and with the isolated sound effect over Kananga's explosion, implying... As, I say... I'm out....
Tbh I don't feel like I recognize Bond anymore
If I watch a Jason Bourne movie for example I want to see an ultra driven serious character doing all he can to put all the pieces together from his past, I DON'T want to see women, 1 liners, cool, suave, sophistication, Armani, charisma just NON of that
If I watch a Bond movie (the ultra cool Iconic gentleman spy) I want to see everything that MADE him Iconic, lots of women, outrageous villains, charisma, charm, suave sophistication, 1 liners, fun and ESCAPISM, getting the girls and saving the world
Connery Moore and Brosnan portrayed that character and it's the only reason why Bond lasted for over 40 years ( despite the 2 Dalton movies squeezed in the middle)
If you want a serious more realistic Bond of the novels then watch Dalton and Craig, the problem is they would never have gotten past Dr No, all the fun and escapism was gone, now Bond has retired TWICE in the space of 4 movies because he's fallen in love
Bond should just be left alone to be Bond, just like I want characters like Bourne to be their character, we can all watch and enjoy serious dark action movies to our hearts content because there's 100s of them
In the world of today it seems too much to ask.
I agree. Let Bond be Bond.
To be frank, though, I think Bond is more or less finished as a film franchise. I sense Barbara sees this, hence she and the team of writers trying desperately to make Bond significant to potential female audiences, who are simply not interested in action films.
This us an interesting point @sirso but it isn't the character's emotional capabilities they should be worried about but the action. If you take the Le Carre adaptation of The Night Manager, emotions were frankly surface depth only, what drove the narrative was the clever and involving story which used tension rather than out-and-out violence [although that did come in spurts] to excite its audience. Many of my female acquaintances of several ages loved it. So, a return to something more akin to FRWL or OHMSS where the story builds through differeng levels of suspense might be a better option.
I think the idea that Bond is "more or less finished" as a franchise is complete and utter nonsense.
I agree that EON isn't showing sufficient stewardship given the increasingly absurd gaps between films, but the Craig era has done phenomenally well at the box office and no reason to suggest audiences are done with it.
These are borne of cold hard facts, irrespective of how I feel about the last few films as a fan.