Who’s your vote for the next James Bond?

[Ruin Explorer]

Yeah the idea that Bond only makes sense in the 60's was placed during Brosnan and Craig eras where they are told they are dinos, but still get it done. I think thats just fantasy for aging out boomers.

Yeah "only in the past could you be a cool sexy superspy, modern times are too woke for cool sexiness which relies on being a big creep/rapist" seems to be the subtext, but that already got disproven with Craig-Bond, who got told he was a dinosaur a lot but, I dunno, never actually seemed to be a dinosaur in any meaningful way (even when they pushed it they had to basically make it be "But you prefer human intelligence approaches over drones and hacking!", which like, obviously, it's a spy action movie, good luck making one about drones and hacking that isn't an awful bore! I'm sure it'll be done eventually but what a silly thing to try and emphasize).

I wouldn’t have a problem with that, especially as a TV show.

I would, it's just playing into Boomer nonsense, and we could do with less "When men were men and women were women" stuff, frankly. I mean, for god's sake, Douglas Adams was lampooning that in 1978, over 46 years ago (with "In those days spirits were brave, the stakes were high, men were real men, women were real women and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri."). Do we really need start repeating stuff that was so dumb it was funny nearly 50 years ago?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I would, it's just playing into Boomer nonsense, and we could do with less "When men were men and women were women" stuff, frankly. I mean, for god's sake, Douglas Adams was lampooning that in 1978, over 46 years ago (with "In those days spirits were brave, the stakes were high, men were real men, women were real women and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri."). Do we really need start repeating stuff that was so dumb it was funny nearly 50 years ago?

His minor characters Shooty and Bang Bang, the hyper-violent cops who expect to unnecessarily kill the heroes but then agonize about it later to their girlfriends, are sadly also with us today in nearly every cop show and action movie.

Not a prolific man, our Douglas, but a great satirist.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I would, it's just playing into Boomer nonsense, and we could do with less "When men were men and women were women" stuff, frankly

I was thinking of a more… critical approach than that.

Anyway, my memory of the 60s was Mrs Peel giving the men a good kicking.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

His minor characters Shooty and Bang Bang, the hyper-violent cops who expect to unnecessarily kill the heroes but then agonize about it later to their girlfriends, are sadly also with us today in nearly every cop show and action movie.

Not a prolific man, our Douglas, but a great satirist.

Christ just reading their descriptions is making me laugh out loud a lot. Eff King Arthur, when are Douglas and Pratchett going to rise from beneath the hill to save Britain? Do we have to put Neil Gaiman in a wickerman or something? I'll bring the torches and I don't hate folk music!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I was thinking of a more… critical approach than that.

Oh good luck with that.

The sort of showrunner who would be super-into making a 1950s or 1960s-set Bond is not the sort of showrunner who is into making it more than mildly critical of that period's attitudes. More likely they'd just straight-up whitewash them.

 

[Guest 85555]

Oh good luck with that.

The sort of showrunner who would be super-into making a 1950s or 1960s-set Bond is not the sort of showrunner who is into making it more than mildly critical of that period's attitudes. More likely they'd just straight-up whitewash them.

I don't think people should read wanting bond to be shamelessly of his era, as not being critical or trying to white wash. Part of the enjoyment of Bond is how out of step he is with the times of the audience. Even when I was a kid, he was a dinosaur, which is the attraction I think. And his antics are almost self parody. me and my wife rewatched some of the first bonds recently and the number of women he sleeps with in just one movie, is obviously is so high, that its absurd (to the point that he risks being lost at see so he can have a little time doing that at the end rather than be towed to shore). I think the movies have never really been meant to be taken all that seriously (or has having a serious message)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't think people should read wanting bond to be shamelessly of his era, as not being critical or trying to white wash.

I think you should though!

I absolutely think that. Having re-watched most of the older Bond movies, and listened to discussion of them, I'm sorry old-Bond is straight-up a rapist repeatedly in the Connery era. Less so Moore but his movies include one of the most hilariously straight-faced racist movies ever made (Live and Let Die - which includes the suggestion that basically all Black people are in a gang together against white people lol).

His era was an extremely racist, extremely rape-y (possibly actually more rape-y than prior eras even), wildly homophobic and so on. So if you truly have him "shamelessly of his era", he's basically a vile antagonist, not even an anti-hero.

I think the movies have never really been meant to be taken all that seriously (or has having a serious message)

So? The movies have absolutely psychotic things going on in them, like Pussy Galore (a deviant lesbian!) basically being raped straight. It doesn't really matter if you're "meant to be taken seriously" or not when things are that demented, or when the racism and sexism/misogyny are so thick you could cut it with a knife!

And they're way less sexist/racist/homophobic than the books!

The only cute thing about the early movies is that they're weirdly less xenophobic re: the Soviet Union than a lot of work from that era (there seems to be a bit of a feeling that the Soviets were "reasonable" or "honorable" on the whole) and even from 1980s stuff.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Christ just reading their descriptions is making me laugh out loud a lot. Eff King Arthur, when are Douglas and Pratchett going to rise from beneath the hill to save Britain? Do we have to put Neil Gaiman in a wickerman or something? I'll bring the torches and I don't hate folk music!

I can only imagine what they'd have to say about Neil at this point.

 

[Kaodi]

The only cute thing about the early movies is that they're weirdly less xenophobic re: the Soviet Union than a lot of work from that era (there seems to be a bit of a feeling that the Soviets were "reasonable" or "honorable" on the whole) and even from 1980s stuff.

Is the "other work from the era" here primarily written by Americans or also by people with similar backgrounds to Fleming? I wonder if that could account for some of the difference.

 

[Guest 85555]

I think you should though!

I absolutely think that. Having re-watched most of the older Bond movies, and listened to discussion of them, I'm sorry old-Bond is straight-up a rapist repeatedly in the Connery era. Less so Moore but his movies include one of the most hilariously straight-faced racist movies ever made (Live and Let Die - which includes the suggestion that basically all Black people are in a gang together against white people lol).

His era was an extremely racist, extremely rape-y (possibly actually more rape-y than prior eras even), wildly homophobic and so on. So if you truly have him "shamelessly of his era", he's basically a vile antagonist, not even an anti-hero.


So? The movies have absolutely psychotic things going on in them, like Pussy Galore (a deviant lesbian!) basically being raped straight. It doesn't really matter if you're "meant to be taken seriously" or not when things are that demented, or when the racism and sexism/misogyny are so thick you could cut it with a knife!

And they're way less sexist/racist/homophobic than the books!

The only cute thing about the early movies is that they're weirdly less xenophobic re: the Soviet Union than a lot of work from that era (there seems to be a bit of a feeling that the Soviets were "reasonable" or "honorable" on the whole) and even from 1980s stuff.

I don't want to get too deep into the weeds on this one, but I am not saying we will get a Pussy Galore situation again. But I think whether people take the movies seriously and if they are serious, matters a great deal. People are amused by Bond, because he is so regressive, because he is a dinosaur and he does things that no responsible secret agent would do. That doesn't mean they agree with what he does. The movies are pretty ridiculous so I think that part of our brain that we use to engage comedy, is often at work when we are engaging a bond film. I suspect if you filed down he edges too much, you are just going to see audiences less interested in him