Or maybe it means what it actually says (and note that neither Broccoli or Wilson are quoted in saying that anyway): that Bond will stay as being humanised and the female roles will be more fulfilling.
You're adding an awful lot of stuff which simply isn't there. Transgender issues, bisexuality, Bond's children, his childhood... I'm not sure where you're getting any of this from- it's certainly not in that article. It's all a bit bizarre.
By the way, when I try to edit my posts, and press "Save", the whole post is deleted. I then have to try to rewrite what I remember of it. Anyone else having this problem?
@emtiem Yes, Jack Sr becomes President (after a long and hardly believable trail) and more or less ages in real time (there are a few exceptions, possibly owing to other writers taking over after the death of Tom Clancy) while Jack Jr does more of the action these days.
@sirso I've found those posts and restored them. This is a problem we've had ever since the site makeover; it's to do with the length of time taken between starting and posting.
If the restored posts overlap with what you ended up saying, just delete them (or tell me and I'll do that).
I always try and highlight and copy any long posts as I'm writing them, that way it saves a lot of anguish if I delete in error or lose my work due to any site glitch.
I could see Bond going the same way with even greater involvement from the supporting cast and possibly introduce long term relationships, sub plots around the supporting cast and more heavy emotional 'baggage'. (TV detective and action dramas are now full of them).
Sadly, I just get the feeling BB wants to move further away from traditional Bond films of the first 50 years, to create her own path and legacy. I think there's a certain lack of confidence from the producers now, that today's audience will reject and just call out any Bond film without emotional drama. The sit back, relax and just enjoy escapism of a great Bond adventure has probably gone.
Sadly, I just get the feeling BB wants to move further away from traditional Bond films of the first 50 years, to create her own path and legacy. I think there's a certain lack of confidence from the producers now, that today's audience will reject and just call out any Bond film without emotional drama.
Well the thing about trad Bond films is... we've had loads of those. I've got them all on the shelf. I don't need any more, I want something fresh.
And emotional drama heightens the tension of any action and adventure in the things- if I don't care about the characters then I can't be hugely worried if they survive or not. I think that trying to make more than a load of fluff with stunts is an odd thing to be called 'a lack of confidence'. Certainly you look at something like Top Gun Maverick which was a huge hit with audiences, it had old fashioned excitement in there, but it was grounded in great characters going through an emotional change which the audience is really invested in. If we don't like Maverick, if we're not rooting for him in the interpersonal challenges he faces, then we can't punch the air when he starts flying awesomely.
People who just want to watch things explode can watch some cartoons- I want a film.
And if Bond fans don't like a bit of drama, I always wonder why OHMSS is rated so highly.
Maverick is a perfect example. They had the confidence to make what the audience wanted. BB/MGW have lost that I feel. They can't make a traditional Bond film anymore.
You really missed all of the emotional drama in that? It was pretty to the forefront so it would be odd if you did: Mavericks issues with Goose's son (which was the main plot), his deepening relationship with Jennifer Connelly, his maturing relationship with Iceman. And yes, that's what the audience want. BB/MGW have shown they know that very well.
Did you think it was just a load of planes flying around?
Spot on. The worry is that Bond films will become like TV detective "action" shows, which are quite boring, heavily character based, and shot in film-noir style.
It sounds like you want Bond to be hyper-realistic. Fair play. Personally I find the escapist and aspirational elements of the old films more interesting.
But just because Top Gun is like that doesn't mean Bond has to be.
I really don't think that many Bond film fans want character driven Bond adventures. Yes, have good acting, good scripts, interesting characters... but don't leave out why many male fans like Bond. They like him because he is (or was) the man they wanted to be. Who would want to be an emasculated, neurotic, mild-mannered Bond?
I mean, that's not what I said at all. With the greatest respect Sirso, it kind of feels like you have trouble with reading comprehension. You read one thing and decide it means something completely different. I did not say I want it hyper-realistic, the producers did not say they want to make Bond bisexual and all these other things you've imagined... I'm kind of scratching my head a bit trying to work out how to communicate with you. I feel like you'll read this and then ask me "I see, but why exactly do you say you prefer strawberry ice-cream?" 😂
I don't have a clue what you're on about now. If you can name me a popular movie made in the last 30 years which doesn't feature any kind of character story or emotional drama I'll be able to name you 30 more that do. It's simply what films are.
And yes, that includes any Bond movie made in the last 30 years.
If you read an Ian Fleming James Bond book they're always about his character being placed in conflict. The last few are all connected (oh no!) and deal with the murder of his wife and him going on a personal mission to avenge her. It's just what James Bond is, and has been for the last 60 years.
But I guess you think him trying to avenge his dead wife must mean he's gay or something, I give up.
I saw 'Top Gun: Maverick' recently. Despite all the emoting in it, I didn't feel the slightest bit invested in any of those narcissistic, self-regarding characters... they seemed as Reaganite as ever. I found myself rooting for the anonymised enemy! The great thing about trad cinematic Bond is that it never took itself so seriously.
Critics and material I don't need. I haven't changed my act in 53 years.
Ah okay, so Red Kind was wrong to say that Maverick is what Bond films should be, good to know. OHMSS was rubbish, LTK was rubbish, people don't watch any movies with characters in, Top Gun must've been a box office failure; they just want cars or explosions or something. We only want to watch stupid stuff and Ian Fleming was a terrible writer who took it all too seriously.
You misunderstand what people are saying. Yes, we want character and plot etc. We just don't want navel-gazing self-indulgent soap opera style episodic plotlines.
I didn't like NTTD save for the Cuba section (very original, I know!), have serious issues with the Craig era post-Quantum and would prefer Bond remain his old womanising self, BUT...
These lazily reactionary right-wing YouTube channels have no value other than pandering to their perpetually outraged, foaming-at-the-mouth audience who want to be told everything they love is now "woke". Just look at this dude's back catalogue of videos, it's embarrassing.
It's funny, back when I was an edgy teenager, I watched quite a lot of this anti-SJW stuff as they were saying some sensible things when pointing out the easily mockable excesses of the other side. However they soon became a mirror image of everything they purported to stand against. It is now a symbiotic relationship of crybaby idiocy.
I agree with that. In social media, 'anti-woke' brigands often hijack debates about trends in popular cinema, and value judgements about particular films, with deeply questionable, sinister or plain offensive agendas.
Critics and material I don't need. I haven't changed my act in 53 years.
I can't speak about the other videos the YouTube guy posts. I'm only agreeing with his views about the last Bond film. I try to go by arguments and not on assumptions about an argument's "hidden motivations". As you have said, you yourself had reservations about the last Bond movie. I would never assume that because you did your motivations were right-wing.
It's important not to assume criticisms of the last Bond film are necessarily "sinister". If that is done, then the last Bond film is prone to never being criticised.
Comments
Or maybe it means what it actually says (and note that neither Broccoli or Wilson are quoted in saying that anyway): that Bond will stay as being humanised and the female roles will be more fulfilling.
You're adding an awful lot of stuff which simply isn't there. Transgender issues, bisexuality, Bond's children, his childhood... I'm not sure where you're getting any of this from- it's certainly not in that article. It's all a bit bizarre.
Yes, that seems to be the thing these days.
By the way, when I try to edit my posts, and press "Save", the whole post is deleted. I then have to try to rewrite what I remember of it. Anyone else having this problem?
Jack Ryan ages in the books doesn't he? I'm sure I read that he became President: that'd certainly be an interesting twist for Bond! 😁
It's about as likely as all of the other things which have been suggested in this thread!
Her father made Moonraker: I don't think he prioritised fidelity to Ian Fleming over making cash! 😊
@sirso I'll check this out as soon as I can
@emtiem Yes, Jack Sr becomes President (after a long and hardly believable trail) and more or less ages in real time (there are a few exceptions, possibly owing to other writers taking over after the death of Tom Clancy) while Jack Jr does more of the action these days.
@sirso I've found those posts and restored them. This is a problem we've had ever since the site makeover; it's to do with the length of time taken between starting and posting.
If the restored posts overlap with what you ended up saying, just delete them (or tell me and I'll do that).
I always try and highlight and copy any long posts as I'm writing them, that way it saves a lot of anguish if I delete in error or lose my work due to any site glitch.
I could see Bond going the same way with even greater involvement from the supporting cast and possibly introduce long term relationships, sub plots around the supporting cast and more heavy emotional 'baggage'. (TV detective and action dramas are now full of them).
Sadly, I just get the feeling BB wants to move further away from traditional Bond films of the first 50 years, to create her own path and legacy. I think there's a certain lack of confidence from the producers now, that today's audience will reject and just call out any Bond film without emotional drama. The sit back, relax and just enjoy escapism of a great Bond adventure has probably gone.
Sadly, I just get the feeling BB wants to move further away from traditional Bond films of the first 50 years, to create her own path and legacy. I think there's a certain lack of confidence from the producers now, that today's audience will reject and just call out any Bond film without emotional drama.
Well the thing about trad Bond films is... we've had loads of those. I've got them all on the shelf. I don't need any more, I want something fresh.
And emotional drama heightens the tension of any action and adventure in the things- if I don't care about the characters then I can't be hugely worried if they survive or not. I think that trying to make more than a load of fluff with stunts is an odd thing to be called 'a lack of confidence'. Certainly you look at something like Top Gun Maverick which was a huge hit with audiences, it had old fashioned excitement in there, but it was grounded in great characters going through an emotional change which the audience is really invested in. If we don't like Maverick, if we're not rooting for him in the interpersonal challenges he faces, then we can't punch the air when he starts flying awesomely.
People who just want to watch things explode can watch some cartoons- I want a film.
And if Bond fans don't like a bit of drama, I always wonder why OHMSS is rated so highly.
Maverick is a perfect example. They had the confidence to make what the audience wanted. BB/MGW have lost that I feel. They can't make a traditional Bond film anymore.
You really missed all of the emotional drama in that? It was pretty to the forefront so it would be odd if you did: Mavericks issues with Goose's son (which was the main plot), his deepening relationship with Jennifer Connelly, his maturing relationship with Iceman. And yes, that's what the audience want. BB/MGW have shown they know that very well.
Did you think it was just a load of planes flying around?
Yes, this is good advice.
Thanks Barbel.
Spot on. The worry is that Bond films will become like TV detective "action" shows, which are quite boring, heavily character based, and shot in film-noir style.
It sounds like you want Bond to be hyper-realistic. Fair play. Personally I find the escapist and aspirational elements of the old films more interesting.
But just because Top Gun is like that doesn't mean Bond has to be.
I really don't think that many Bond film fans want character driven Bond adventures. Yes, have good acting, good scripts, interesting characters... but don't leave out why many male fans like Bond. They like him because he is (or was) the man they wanted to be. Who would want to be an emasculated, neurotic, mild-mannered Bond?
I mean, that's not what I said at all. With the greatest respect Sirso, it kind of feels like you have trouble with reading comprehension. You read one thing and decide it means something completely different. I did not say I want it hyper-realistic, the producers did not say they want to make Bond bisexual and all these other things you've imagined... I'm kind of scratching my head a bit trying to work out how to communicate with you. I feel like you'll read this and then ask me "I see, but why exactly do you say you prefer strawberry ice-cream?" 😂
I don't have a clue what you're on about now. If you can name me a popular movie made in the last 30 years which doesn't feature any kind of character story or emotional drama I'll be able to name you 30 more that do. It's simply what films are.
And yes, that includes any Bond movie made in the last 30 years.
If you read an Ian Fleming James Bond book they're always about his character being placed in conflict. The last few are all connected (oh no!) and deal with the murder of his wife and him going on a personal mission to avenge her. It's just what James Bond is, and has been for the last 60 years.
But I guess you think him trying to avenge his dead wife must mean he's gay or something, I give up.
I saw 'Top Gun: Maverick' recently. Despite all the emoting in it, I didn't feel the slightest bit invested in any of those narcissistic, self-regarding characters... they seemed as Reaganite as ever. I found myself rooting for the anonymised enemy! The great thing about trad cinematic Bond is that it never took itself so seriously.
Ah okay, so Red Kind was wrong to say that Maverick is what Bond films should be, good to know. OHMSS was rubbish, LTK was rubbish, people don't watch any movies with characters in, Top Gun must've been a box office failure; they just want cars or explosions or something. We only want to watch stupid stuff and Ian Fleming was a terrible writer who took it all too seriously.
You misunderstand what people are saying. Yes, we want character and plot etc. We just don't want navel-gazing self-indulgent soap opera style episodic plotlines.
See also:
"James Bond: No Time To FAIL | A Woke Marketing DISASTER"
Discussion of "Me too" Bond.
And:
"RIP James Bond. No Time To Die Sacrifices 007 on The Alter of MODERNITY"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtf56FoHyvI
I didn't like NTTD save for the Cuba section (very original, I know!), have serious issues with the Craig era post-Quantum and would prefer Bond remain his old womanising self, BUT...
These lazily reactionary right-wing YouTube channels have no value other than pandering to their perpetually outraged, foaming-at-the-mouth audience who want to be told everything they love is now "woke". Just look at this dude's back catalogue of videos, it's embarrassing.
It's funny, back when I was an edgy teenager, I watched quite a lot of this anti-SJW stuff as they were saying some sensible things when pointing out the easily mockable excesses of the other side. However they soon became a mirror image of everything they purported to stand against. It is now a symbiotic relationship of crybaby idiocy.
They became the snowflakes.
I agree with that. In social media, 'anti-woke' brigands often hijack debates about trends in popular cinema, and value judgements about particular films, with deeply questionable, sinister or plain offensive agendas.
Yep, I'm not going to click on that video because I don't doubt for a moment that it's simply going to be racist.
I can't speak about the other videos the YouTube guy posts. I'm only agreeing with his views about the last Bond film. I try to go by arguments and not on assumptions about an argument's "hidden motivations". As you have said, you yourself had reservations about the last Bond movie. I would never assume that because you did your motivations were right-wing.
I, myself, never assume things about videos I refuse to watch.
It's important not to assume criticisms of the last Bond film are necessarily "sinister". If that is done, then the last Bond film is prone to never being criticised.
I didn't mention anything about "hidden motivations". In fact, these videos are incredibly overt in their messaging.