When Target Books published a range of novelisations of TV's 'Doctor Who' serials they described the show as "The children's own programme which adults adore." Perhaps that could be flipped for the Bond films: "The adults' own franchise which children adore." In my case I first saw DN and other violent Bond films when I was really quite young but I loved every minute of them.
I'd suggest it was mainly TSWLM and MR which positioned themselves as family entertainment - particularly if we bear in mind that, at the time, in the 70s, there was a broadly more permissive notion of what was appropriate for younger viewers, compared with today.
Critics and material I don't need. I haven't changed my act in 53 years.
Maybe, but then look at the amount of Bond toys there were in the 60s: the Corgi DB5 with the little plastic ejector seat. I’d say they were for kids from very early on.
Good point. And if Corgi saw an opportunity in the DB5, it's almost as if the submersile Lotus saw an opportunity in Corgi. I think the character of Jaws screams 'thrills for the kids' more than any other Bond icon.
Critics and material I don't need. I haven't changed my act in 53 years.
I think it's interesting that so many fans -I'm not talking about you Shady- look to deny that these films engage kids and are often made to do that, even though pretty much all of us started watching them when we were kids. Is it because we don't want to admit we're still interested in something that's fairly childish?
When Target Books published a range of novelisations of TV's 'Doctor Who' serials they described the show as "The children's own programme which adults adore." Perhaps that could be flipped for the Bond films: "The adults' own franchise which children adore." In my case I first saw DN and other violent Bond films when I was really quite young but I loved every minute of them.
I'd suggest it was mainly TSWLM and MR which positioned themselves as family entertainment - particularly if we bear in mind that, at the time, in the 70s, there was a broadly more permissive notion of what was appropriate for younger viewers, compared with today.
In my own case, it would be an adult who acts like a child )
When Target Books published a range of novelisations of TV's 'Doctor Who' serials they described the show as "The children's own programme which adults adore."
Ah, Target books... The seventies... I am cast back in time when 'family' meant 3 generations in the same room doing the same thing. Tho' it was only me who read Dr. Who.
I don't think they are, or should be, family films. I guess people have different definitions but for me, a family film has either children as its primary audience, with a couple of things for the adults to enjoy, or a very tame inoffensive film (e.g. The Sound of Music, though part of the tameness is in the songs).
Bond films are targeted at adults/teens but the OTT cartoon-esque nature of them has obvious child appeal and therefore merchandising capitalises on that.
I don't think they should be watered down to make them family films.
Comments
I'd suggest it was mainly TSWLM and MR which positioned themselves as family entertainment - particularly if we bear in mind that, at the time, in the 70s, there was a broadly more permissive notion of what was appropriate for younger viewers, compared with today.
In my own case, it would be an adult who acts like a child
.
I don't think they are, or should be, family films. I guess people have different definitions but for me, a family film has either children as its primary audience, with a couple of things for the adults to enjoy, or a very tame inoffensive film (e.g. The Sound of Music, though part of the tameness is in the songs).
Bond films are targeted at adults/teens but the OTT cartoon-esque nature of them has obvious child appeal and therefore merchandising capitalises on that.
I don't think they should be watered down to make them family films.