In my opinion there are two characters who shouldn't change gender: miss Moneypenny and Bill Tanner. Probably Felix Leiter too. Obviously one character must never ever change gender: James Bond.
I don't think I'd care about Tanner particularly. His character has been different every time he's appeared in the films, and I don't think he's ever been much like the Tanner from the books, so I wouldn't mind hugely what they did with him. I don't really love Felix as a character all that much (as with Tanner: he's different each time) but it does add a nice dynamic for Bond to have a male friend.
Tanner was pretty much doing Moneypenny's job anyway, taking M's calls for him and other such banal office organization tasks. while Moneypenny was running round conspiring with Bond and Q and pointing a gun whenever needed. She still seems to be a field agent whenever onscreen whatever her job title actually is.
I don't think they've ever shown Tanner as he is in the books, Bond's best friend in the service. If they did this and had (to put it simple) Tanner as Bond's friend at home and Leiter as his friend abroad and in the field it could bring something new to future films that's also rooted in Fleming.
I don't think we'll see much if any sexual tension moving forward. They were already phasing out his womanising in the Craig era and it probably won't be a part of the character in the next iteration. Too risky.
I think it can be argued this has often been the case since DN. Many of the women in the 60's Bond movies were portrayed as unusually sexually agressive for movies at the time. But mistakes have been made even in recent times. The scene were Bond walks into the shower where a former child prostitute is with no invitation at all isn't good. It could easily have been fixed by having her smile and wave at him, signaling for him to join her. I can't say you're wrong in your prediction because we don't know what EON will do, but I'm pretty sure womanizing will still be a part of Bond's character in the future.
In complete agreement about the Skyfall scene. Don't get me wrong, I'm not of the opinion Bond ought to have his edges sanded down, and to gradually strip the character of his defined traits in the name of imagined political correctness, until he's an amorphous blob of nothingness is a rather hellish worst case scenario... But I think the Skyfall shower scene might be the worst Bond has ever been portrayed in that department, even though it was probably unintentional.
One might point to the Goldfinger barn scene as more egregious, but taken in the context of 1964 sexual politics and the playful staging of one-upmanship between Bond and Pussy, there was never a sense of repugnancy to it until years passed, sensibilities changed and we began to project modern attitudes onto it. Severine however left a bad taste in the mouth on arrival in 2012, given we'd just learned about her traumatic history of child prostitution, juxtaposed with an already-naked Bond entering her shower cubicle, seemingly unannounced. She may well have left a note for Bond saying "hey hun, care to join me in the shower?" but even so there's an ickiness to it given what the audience has just been told.
However, this does not mean there was anything remotely wrong with Bond and Wai Lin, Natalya, Pam, Holly, Jinx, Melina, Kara, Honey et al having consensual sexual relationships. The problem is that pop-culturally, depictions of casual heterosexuality have seemingly become taboo as a result of historic abuses of power and objectification in the very industry making these films. Hollywood is keen to clean up its image in light of #MeToo and the most obvious way to achieve this is through superficial means. Barbara and Michael are also acutely aware they're running a franchise that has been accused of perpetuating misogyny for decades, and will prioritise destigmatising it even moreso given the present cultural landscape.
Sadly, I predict this will spell an overcorrection in which Bond will be almost completely desexualised, leaving no room for flirtation with Moneypenny or fellow agents. Any women he encounters exempt from this will be "meaningful pursuits", which means yet more personal stakes, more falling in love and more retiring. But I hope you're right!
In what way were they phasing out his womanising? In NTTD it’s true that he only really hit on one new woman, but there wasn’t a lot of space otherwise. In the previous films he was doing the standard amount though…?
Theyve actually had different strategies for handling the heterosexual fantasy element since MooreBond was so surprised to find Dr Goodhead was a woman. I dont think the challenge is new, but with each actor its been handled differently
I think with CraigBond, we are not meant to see him as a role model. He is depicted as a flawed character, but one needed to do an unusual job. in his first film he states he is only attracted to married women. in his last film he is paranoid and abusive towards the mother of his child. The shower scene in SkyFall is creepy if you think about it, but maybe thats the point, Craig's Bond is a bit creepy.
Hopefully with the next actor theyll come up with yet another angle to contextualize the womanizing while still populating the film with plenty of beautiful women, just as later Moore, Dalton and Brosnan each had their own unique strategies. I would hate to see the films become as asexual as Marvel or Star Wars.
Actually the director or producers (I can't remember who, really) said they struggled with that scene because they didn't want Bond to look like a " sex pest". Unfortunately they failed.
The Severine one? Yeah I agree there, it was badly handled. They should have just taken out the stuff about her being abused in the sex trade: as it is it looks like Bond is taking advantage of saying who has been conditioned to never say no.
And although it is very classily shot, getting your double-o out of your pants when a lady doesn't even know you're there is a bit of a no-no.
She does invite him on the boat, and the implication is real that she wants to sleep with him (if he survives) . Which doesn't excuse the aforementioned ickiness of her being a former child prostitute who is currently under the complete control of an abusive psychopath in Silva.
As an aside, I always find it funny that people whine about the rough edges being removed from DC's Bond for the sake of political correctness.
In CR he seduces Solage after humiliating her husband. He then uses her for information, not caring how giving her his real name might end in her death.
In QoS he seduces Fields, a naive junior office worker in the embassy, and again, pulls her into circumstances that lead to her murder.
In SF we have the Severine sequence in which, by following her to the yacht after casually agreeing to kill Silva, he helps precipitate her murder. Or at leasts hastens it. (Poor Severine was always destined for a bad end.)
In SP he forces himself on the widow of a man he just killed. She proves receptive, but there are few clues beforehand that she will be.
In NTTD he's an untrusting bastard with Madeleine.
If this pattern is politically correct, I obviously no longer understand what that term means.
I wasn't referring to the Craig era when discussing hypothetical political correctness - it was speculation about the future of the series since we have only one post-#MeToo era film in NTTD to judge any shifted sensibilities on, which is difficult considering the film continues the narrative of Bond being in love with Swann.
I also want to state for the record, in case you're under the assumption I'm some Daily Mail reading gammon frothing at the mouth, that I'm not crying 'political correctness' as various idiots did in the 90s when a female M was cast. Rather, I'm concerned the character will be visibly sanitised in a renewed push to be more in line with an increasingly risk-averse media landscape.
That's the key difference here: GoldenEye acknowledged culture had changed by surrounding Bond by powerful women who'd call him out on his bullshit, but despite the world around him evolving, he was still fundamentally the same character. Personally, I don't believe the producers deem this sufficient anymore and you only need look up Barbara's recent quote regarding Bond evolving alongside and possibly faster than men to read the tea leaves.
Granted, the Brosnan era was torn between 90s girl power and lad mag culture - undeniably strong female characters but whose actresses would still be expected to pose for Playboy magazine. I'm not lamenting the fact times have changed, I just don't take the view that a franchise centred around a cold-blooded killer ought to be neutered.
Like it or not, sexuality is both an undeniable component to Bond and the iconography of the series itself. While like anything, it can be portrayed distastefully, at the end of the day these films aren't made for kids and in my opinion, homogenising it into generic action fare devoid of distinguishing characteristics and spice would be a tragedy.
Again, speculation on what may happen next. Not saying it will.
In CR he seduces Solage after humiliating her husband. He then uses her for information, not caring how giving her his real name might end in her death.
In QoS he seduces Fields, a naive junior office worker in the embassy, and again, pulls her into circumstances that lead to her murder.
In SF we have the Severine sequence in which, by following her to the yacht after casually agreeing to kill Silva, he helps precipitate her murder. Or at leasts hastens it. (Poor Severine was always destined for a bad end.)
In SP he forces himself on the widow of a man he just killed. She proves receptive, but there are few clues beforehand that she will be.
In NTTD he's an untrusting bastard with Madeleine.
_______________________________
good list, and thats most of the women slept with except for Vesper, and Moneypenny (if we assume they had sex) and whoever was the lady briefly glimpsed in his bed while he was "enjoying death". if theres a "P.C" aspect to these cumulative examples, it is that they consistently make this straight white male look very bad, someone a woman would be better off avoiding. Quite different from the easy heroic conquests of Connery and Moore that we were supposed to admire
I do hope the next Bond can get some action without being such a creep
I think you’re right that NTTD is the only post #MeToo film in the series. And the plot of that one didn’t lend itself to Bond having an hour in the sack with Paloma (not to mention she seemed young enough to be his daughter). It’s hard to know what they’ll do going forward. Personally I’m not sure you can square the circle with 007 without him becoming another character entirely.
The sexuality and womanizing is part of what what sets the James Bond films apart in the crowd. I don't recall seeing Jason Bourne, Ethan Hunt or even the leads in the F& F series in bed with a beautiful woman or hitting on several women in the same movie. As I've said before: there isn't anything in feminism that this is wrong as long as the women too are willing and equally at ease with their sexuality. In fact the general attitude towards sex and women's sexuality in the 60's Bond movies was before its time
There were of course bad examples in these movies too ........ "man talk". (slap!)
Yes I knew Q'ute is from the continuation novels. The idea would be that the film would be centered on Q'ute and Bond is the sidekick as they track down some danger tech or something that Q'ute would be able to neutralise and the entire film is Bond being put down with remarks from Q'ute.
But why do you think it could happen ? Having a female character playing some new version of Desmond Llewelyn's Q has nothing to do with having Q (or Q'ute) as an operative working in the field like Bond.
My first reaction was "Pass the salt, please!". But then I looked at her Wikipedia entry. She is the lead in a Neil Marshall movie and she has a respectable list of awards and nominations to her name. Kirk is also a screenwriter and producer. I think I can say this: if this is true it's a strong indication that the producers aren't just casting Scooby Gang members anymore, they also have some kind of a plot.as the Spartans would have put it: If.
Comments
In my opinion there are two characters who shouldn't change gender: miss Moneypenny and Bill Tanner. Probably Felix Leiter too. Obviously one character must never ever change gender: James Bond.
I don't think I'd care about Tanner particularly. His character has been different every time he's appeared in the films, and I don't think he's ever been much like the Tanner from the books, so I wouldn't mind hugely what they did with him. I don't really love Felix as a character all that much (as with Tanner: he's different each time) but it does add a nice dynamic for Bond to have a male friend.
Tanner was pretty much doing Moneypenny's job anyway, taking M's calls for him and other such banal office organization tasks. while Moneypenny was running round conspiring with Bond and Q and pointing a gun whenever needed. She still seems to be a field agent whenever onscreen whatever her job title actually is.
I don't think they've ever shown Tanner as he is in the books, Bond's best friend in the service. If they did this and had (to put it simple) Tanner as Bond's friend at home and Leiter as his friend abroad and in the field it could bring something new to future films that's also rooted in Fleming.
I don't think we'll see much if any sexual tension moving forward. They were already phasing out his womanising in the Craig era and it probably won't be a part of the character in the next iteration. Too risky.
I think it can be done as long as it's made very clear that the women are active, willing and equal partners in the .... relationship.
You could argue that's been the case for the last 30+ years but I don't think it'll make a difference.
I think it can be argued this has often been the case since DN. Many of the women in the 60's Bond movies were portrayed as unusually sexually agressive for movies at the time. But mistakes have been made even in recent times. The scene were Bond walks into the shower where a former child prostitute is with no invitation at all isn't good. It could easily have been fixed by having her smile and wave at him, signaling for him to join her. I can't say you're wrong in your prediction because we don't know what EON will do, but I'm pretty sure womanizing will still be a part of Bond's character in the future.
In complete agreement about the Skyfall scene. Don't get me wrong, I'm not of the opinion Bond ought to have his edges sanded down, and to gradually strip the character of his defined traits in the name of imagined political correctness, until he's an amorphous blob of nothingness is a rather hellish worst case scenario... But I think the Skyfall shower scene might be the worst Bond has ever been portrayed in that department, even though it was probably unintentional.
One might point to the Goldfinger barn scene as more egregious, but taken in the context of 1964 sexual politics and the playful staging of one-upmanship between Bond and Pussy, there was never a sense of repugnancy to it until years passed, sensibilities changed and we began to project modern attitudes onto it. Severine however left a bad taste in the mouth on arrival in 2012, given we'd just learned about her traumatic history of child prostitution, juxtaposed with an already-naked Bond entering her shower cubicle, seemingly unannounced. She may well have left a note for Bond saying "hey hun, care to join me in the shower?" but even so there's an ickiness to it given what the audience has just been told.
However, this does not mean there was anything remotely wrong with Bond and Wai Lin, Natalya, Pam, Holly, Jinx, Melina, Kara, Honey et al having consensual sexual relationships. The problem is that pop-culturally, depictions of casual heterosexuality have seemingly become taboo as a result of historic abuses of power and objectification in the very industry making these films. Hollywood is keen to clean up its image in light of #MeToo and the most obvious way to achieve this is through superficial means. Barbara and Michael are also acutely aware they're running a franchise that has been accused of perpetuating misogyny for decades, and will prioritise destigmatising it even moreso given the present cultural landscape.
Sadly, I predict this will spell an overcorrection in which Bond will be almost completely desexualised, leaving no room for flirtation with Moneypenny or fellow agents. Any women he encounters exempt from this will be "meaningful pursuits", which means yet more personal stakes, more falling in love and more retiring. But I hope you're right!
In what way were they phasing out his womanising? In NTTD it’s true that he only really hit on one new woman, but there wasn’t a lot of space otherwise. In the previous films he was doing the standard amount though…?
Theyve actually had different strategies for handling the heterosexual fantasy element since MooreBond was so surprised to find Dr Goodhead was a woman. I dont think the challenge is new, but with each actor its been handled differently
I think with CraigBond, we are not meant to see him as a role model. He is depicted as a flawed character, but one needed to do an unusual job. in his first film he states he is only attracted to married women. in his last film he is paranoid and abusive towards the mother of his child. The shower scene in SkyFall is creepy if you think about it, but maybe thats the point, Craig's Bond is a bit creepy.
Hopefully with the next actor theyll come up with yet another angle to contextualize the womanizing while still populating the film with plenty of beautiful women, just as later Moore, Dalton and Brosnan each had their own unique strategies. I would hate to see the films become as asexual as Marvel or Star Wars.
Actually the director or producers (I can't remember who, really) said they struggled with that scene because they didn't want Bond to look like a " sex pest". Unfortunately they failed.
The Severine one? Yeah I agree there, it was badly handled. They should have just taken out the stuff about her being abused in the sex trade: as it is it looks like Bond is taking advantage of saying who has been conditioned to never say no.
And although it is very classily shot, getting your double-o out of your pants when a lady doesn't even know you're there is a bit of a no-no.
They could've taken out the sex trade part and/or make it clear that she invites him into the shower.
She does invite him on the boat, and the implication is real that she wants to sleep with him (if he survives) . Which doesn't excuse the aforementioned ickiness of her being a former child prostitute who is currently under the complete control of an abusive psychopath in Silva.
As an aside, I always find it funny that people whine about the rough edges being removed from DC's Bond for the sake of political correctness.
In CR he seduces Solage after humiliating her husband. He then uses her for information, not caring how giving her his real name might end in her death.
In QoS he seduces Fields, a naive junior office worker in the embassy, and again, pulls her into circumstances that lead to her murder.
In SF we have the Severine sequence in which, by following her to the yacht after casually agreeing to kill Silva, he helps precipitate her murder. Or at leasts hastens it. (Poor Severine was always destined for a bad end.)
In SP he forces himself on the widow of a man he just killed. She proves receptive, but there are few clues beforehand that she will be.
In NTTD he's an untrusting bastard with Madeleine.
If this pattern is politically correct, I obviously no longer understand what that term means.
Somebody above said that his womanising had been phased out during his films as well: I do kind of wonder if folks see what they've decided to see.
Being invited onboard their boat means an open invitation to sex? I wish someone had told me that before! 😁
I wasn't referring to the Craig era when discussing hypothetical political correctness - it was speculation about the future of the series since we have only one post-#MeToo era film in NTTD to judge any shifted sensibilities on, which is difficult considering the film continues the narrative of Bond being in love with Swann.
I also want to state for the record, in case you're under the assumption I'm some Daily Mail reading gammon frothing at the mouth, that I'm not crying 'political correctness' as various idiots did in the 90s when a female M was cast. Rather, I'm concerned the character will be visibly sanitised in a renewed push to be more in line with an increasingly risk-averse media landscape.
That's the key difference here: GoldenEye acknowledged culture had changed by surrounding Bond by powerful women who'd call him out on his bullshit, but despite the world around him evolving, he was still fundamentally the same character. Personally, I don't believe the producers deem this sufficient anymore and you only need look up Barbara's recent quote regarding Bond evolving alongside and possibly faster than men to read the tea leaves.
Granted, the Brosnan era was torn between 90s girl power and lad mag culture - undeniably strong female characters but whose actresses would still be expected to pose for Playboy magazine. I'm not lamenting the fact times have changed, I just don't take the view that a franchise centred around a cold-blooded killer ought to be neutered.
Like it or not, sexuality is both an undeniable component to Bond and the iconography of the series itself. While like anything, it can be portrayed distastefully, at the end of the day these films aren't made for kids and in my opinion, homogenising it into generic action fare devoid of distinguishing characteristics and spice would be a tragedy.
Again, speculation on what may happen next. Not saying it will.
chevarian said:
In CR he seduces Solage after humiliating her husband. He then uses her for information, not caring how giving her his real name might end in her death.
In QoS he seduces Fields, a naive junior office worker in the embassy, and again, pulls her into circumstances that lead to her murder.
In SF we have the Severine sequence in which, by following her to the yacht after casually agreeing to kill Silva, he helps precipitate her murder. Or at leasts hastens it. (Poor Severine was always destined for a bad end.)
In SP he forces himself on the widow of a man he just killed. She proves receptive, but there are few clues beforehand that she will be.
In NTTD he's an untrusting bastard with Madeleine.
_______________________________
good list, and thats most of the women slept with except for Vesper, and Moneypenny (if we assume they had sex) and whoever was the lady briefly glimpsed in his bed while he was "enjoying death". if theres a "P.C" aspect to these cumulative examples, it is that they consistently make this straight white male look very bad, someone a woman would be better off avoiding. Quite different from the easy heroic conquests of Connery and Moore that we were supposed to admire
I do hope the next Bond can get some action without being such a creep
😆😆😆
I think you’re right that NTTD is the only post #MeToo film in the series. And the plot of that one didn’t lend itself to Bond having an hour in the sack with Paloma (not to mention she seemed young enough to be his daughter). It’s hard to know what they’ll do going forward. Personally I’m not sure you can square the circle with 007 without him becoming another character entirely.
The sexuality and womanizing is part of what what sets the James Bond films apart in the crowd. I don't recall seeing Jason Bourne, Ethan Hunt or even the leads in the F& F series in bed with a beautiful woman or hitting on several women in the same movie. As I've said before: there isn't anything in feminism that this is wrong as long as the women too are willing and equally at ease with their sexuality. In fact the general attitude towards sex and women's sexuality in the 60's Bond movies was before its time
There were of course bad examples in these movies too ........ "man talk". (slap!)
He did think he'd pulled Nomi when she was in disguise though.
Yes I knew Q'ute is from the continuation novels. The idea would be that the film would be centered on Q'ute and Bond is the sidekick as they track down some danger tech or something that Q'ute would be able to neutralise and the entire film is Bond being put down with remarks from Q'ute.
But why do you think it could happen ? Having a female character playing some new version of Desmond Llewelyn's Q has nothing to do with having Q (or Q'ute) as an operative working in the field like Bond.
Indiana Jones.
That's never happened to Indy either. Marion and Willie were quite sassy with him but I wouldn't say it was the entire film.
Yet another casting rumor surfaced that suggests a - let’s be nice - rather unusal persona going thru casting…
There seems to be a pattern forming.
IG: @thebondarchives
Check it out, you won’t be disappointed
My first reaction was "Pass the salt, please!". But then I looked at her Wikipedia entry. She is the lead in a Neil Marshall movie and she has a respectable list of awards and nominations to her name. Kirk is also a screenwriter and producer. I think I can say this: if this is true it's a strong indication that the producers aren't just casting Scooby Gang members anymore, they also have some kind of a plot.as the Spartans would have put it: If.
True or not, I belive it falls onto me to post these photos of Charlotte Kirk: