Who’s your vote for the next James Bond?

[Ryujin]

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

The entire premise of the "Austin Powers" movies, in a nutshell.

 

[Guest 85555]

The entire premise of the "Austin Powers" movies, in a nutshell.

Yes, and that is why that film resonated so much I think (this had long been how people were viewing the series)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Yes, and that is why that film resonated so much I think (this had long been how people were viewing the series)

That said, Austin Powers itself is now 24 years old. I don't think we can say that what audiences thought was funny or appropriate in 2002 is necessarily how they feel about things in 2025.

 

[Morrus]

The entire premise of the "Austin Powers" movies, in a nutshell.

Austin Powers is You Only Live Twice.

 

[Morrus]

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 do agree that older Bond flicks have problematic elements, but your hyperbole here is pretty over the top. I get that's your 'idiom' (at least online) but sometimes you really need to tone it down. All you're doing is starting fires, and it's not you who has to put them out, is it?

 

[Guest 85555]

That said, Austin Powers itself is now 24 years old. I don't think we can say that what audiences thought was funny or appropriate in 2002 is necessarily how they feel about things in 2025.

But the point is people found those elements of funny in Austin Powers because they would have been seen as inappropriate by modern standards. That is why the whole fish out of water concept works. My point isn't James Bond never evolves or should never change. But the character is always regressive or out of date for the time each movie comes out. I think most people engage that by finding it amusing. Which is what gave Austin Powers fuel in my opinion.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I do agree that older Bond flicks have problematic elements, but your hyperbole here is pretty over the top. I get that's your 'idiom' (at least online) but sometimes you really need to tone it down. All you're doing is starting fires, and it's not you who has to put them out, is it?

I'm genuinely sorry for any problems I've caused with this discussion, @Morrus but to be clear I'm not exaggerating re: my specific points, I'm factually correct about both the Pussy Galore and Live and Let Die points. Pussy Galore is repeatedly implied to be lesbian (as is her "flying circus"), and Bond forces her into sex and bangs her straight (or at least bi), a classic male fantasy of the era (and which still knocks around, albeit not as much as it once did), even expressed in a couple of inexplicably well-respected literary novels of the era (or even the 1970s, I forget). Live and Let Die literally suggests all Black people period or at least most Black people in New York, depending on how you interpret it, are organised some sort of conspiracy against white people. Repeatedly. There are actually people who would argue it's not even the most racist Moore-Bond film either (though I would politely disagree).

If those points aren't what the issue is, I apologise further. I'm guessing you're not suggesting the 1950s and 1960s weren't extremely sexist, full of deeply predatory attitudes towards women and for that matter, female children (very often expressed in movies/song), absolutely full of casual and some quite vehement racism, and near ever-present homophobia, despite also seeing progress in all three spaces, so that's probably not it.

I can (but won't avoid causing problems, unless you'd like me to - and I do mean you, I won't just because someone else wants them!) provide many, many other examples of really deeply problematic stuff in the Connery-era Bond movies. The misogyny drops off quite a bit when Moore gets involved (indeed Moore's Bond is almost paternal towards some younger female characters, rather than predatory - an attitude reflected by Moore himself being disgusted by some of this stuff), but if anything the casual racism gets kicked up a notch (albeit less is coming out of Bond's mouth and more from the movies themselves). By the Dalton era it's mostly gone or is pretty tame (albeit plenty of hyperviolence is present in one of the two Dalton movies), and stays gone in the Brosnan era apart from a more mild continuing sexism and the odd weird outbreak of dodgy racist attitudes or just really "Oh boy" problematic stuff.

(Homophobia is a separate issue in Bond - Felix Leiter is seemingly lightly implied to be in at least one older incarnation, and doesn't seem to be judged for it, but Rosa Klebb for example is a fairly pure example of homophobia of the most literal kind.)

(Also maybe I am completely missing the real issue - I admit I often obtuse, it's been a quality that's hurt and helped me through my life. Sorry if that's it!)

Anyway I'll throw the brakes but I do think it's important to remember just how extremely sexist and racist the early Bonds were, and how the actual books are even worse (way, way, ridiculously worse - if you'll allow me one minor last example, the books on more than one occasion get into actual "race science" ideas, debunked and outdated even by that era).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But the point is people found those elements of funny in Austin Powers because they would have been seen as inappropriate by modern standards. That is why the whole fish out of water concept works. My point isn't James Bond never evolves or should never change. But the character is always regressive or out of date for the time each movie comes out. I think most people engage that by finding it amusing. Which is what gave Austin Powers fuel in my opinion.

Ironically Austin Powers itself has quite a lot of (totally unnecessary) blackface, at least one trans joke that, whilst not evil-intentioned, definitely lead to huge bullying of kids who who didn't fit gender stereotypes well enough, and a fair bit of other dodgy stuff. But it also skewers a lot of Bondian dodgy-ness pretty well and the first movie is still pretty funny and kinda charmingly jolly (increasingly less so the sequels).

Re: Bond being a dinosaur, my point is that he's not, actually, not even in the Craig era. He also definitely isn't in the Brosnan or Dalton eras. In fact Dalton-Bond (best Bond) is positively modern. And Moore and Connery are never really even suggested to be dinosaurs that I recall (maybe Moore is in A View to A Kill, by Max Zorin, but that's part of Zorin's characterisation, not Bond's).

They just keep saying he is in the Craig-era films. That's not the same as writing him to actually be one.

Saying that thrills men of a certain age who think they're like that (pffft). In terms of how he actually acts and behaves, though, Bond just isn't. He doesn't behave some "man out of time". He just behaves like a fairly typical modern action hero (he's always quipped like he was a Marvel movie all the way back too!). The only genuine point which makes him even theoretically unlike "modern" spies is as I mentioned that he favours human intelligence (i.e. talking to people, sneaking into places, etc.) over drones/hacking/bugs/etc. (but he's always used bugs and used to actually use a lot of hypermodern tech, only Brosnan and Craig have any conscious anachronisms tech-wise, and mostly around the cars). But that's true of pretty much all movie spies, whether they're Ethan Hunt or Jason Borne (Mission Impossible has a piece of magic hypertech, but it's just magic - the masks - and it serves to enable human intelligence). I can't think of a single movie spy who isn't a "dinosaur" by those standards.

 

[jian]

I kind of have to agree with Ruin Explorer here. Just taking the films by themselves, Connery Bond is a brutal misogynistic rapist, Moore Bond is better but he’s not above sexual harassment and racism (as a character, it’s not his fault that Live and Let Die is incredibly racist, but it sure as heck is the fault of his writers, who are also responsible for his choices). Dalton Bond is vastly better (respectful, thoughtful, ethical, empathic), better than Brosnan Bond (who also loves a bit of sexual brutality and harassment). Craig Bond is a bit of a thug but otherwise could be worse.

I don’t think Bond has to be regressive or out of date, it’s not part of his character in the films (in the books, yes). He’s just the most effective and destructive action-hero agent that the SIS has, who always gets the job done, assuming the job involves blowing stuff (and people) up. If you want subtlety or, God forbid, actual information, call George Smiley.

If Bond is recast in future - and I’m going to assume yes since Amazon are all over it - I’d much prefer some version of Dalton Bond, an action hero who thinks about what he’s doing and whether it’s right or wrong, treats others with respect, and spends as little time as possible in the toxic end of the masculinity pool. I think that’s a heroic representative of His Majesty’s Secret Service I could root for.

 

[jian]

Things people should say about Bond:

“Stop him! He’s just one man!”

“Why aren’t you dead yet?”

“Crap, they sent Bond. Well, that tears it, time to move to a different continent.”

Things people could say about Bond but I’d really rather he didn’t give them reason:

“You’re a mindless murderer who hates his country and whose country hates you.”

“Jesus, what a creep, ugh. Hands everywhere.”

“You’re such a bloody racist.”