No Time to Die **Spoilers from post #1449 onward**

FunLover18

silverharp wrote: »

do you not think something like Dexter had a better gender balance with kick ass male and female characters? all the male characters in Killing Eve apart from the handler guy were written as being very weak

It depends on what you mean by weak. I think the male characters in KE are well written and they're strong in that I know who they are and what they want, I believe in them as characters. Personally that's always what I want from a show, I want characters I can connect with. Gender balance to me isn't characters of both gender getting to do an equal amount of ass kicking, it's about characters of both gender getting the same amount of characterisation.

FunLover18

py2006 wrote: »

I'm no Bond connoisseur but I dont get the misogynist label. He has a troubled past, stunning women find him irrestiable and he isn't into relationships. That doesn't mean he hates women?

The word is used far to flippantly in recent times.

He doesn't have to hate women to be a misogynist. Bond has an old fashioned view of women, throughout the franchise he is patronising and condescending to them in a way he isn't to other male characters. Like I said I think this is a big part of Bond's character and shouldn't be ditched but neither should it be treated as the norm.

py2006

FunLover18 wrote: »

He doesn't have to hate women to be a misogynist. Bond has an old fashioned view of women, throughout the franchise he is patronising and condescending to them in a way he isn't to other male characters. Like I said I think this is a big part of Bond's character and shouldn't be ditched but neither should it be treated as the norm.

By definition it is a hatred of women. Although it's meaning has been diluted in recent years.

He is also patronising to the bad guys too?

FunLover18

py2006 wrote: »

By definition it is a hatred of women. Although it's meaning has been diluted in recent years.

He is also patronising to the bad guys too?

Hatred is one facet, contempt for women, prejudice against women and mistrust of women can alse categorised as misogynistic and I would say that Bond has demonstrated these, not so much in the recent films. We can quibble over semantics but his attitude towards women is a flaw in his character.

The Late Late Show

py2006 wrote: »

I'm no Bond connoisseur but I dont get the misogynist label. He has a troubled past, stunning women find him irrestiable and he isn't into relationships. That doesn't mean he hates women?

The word is used far to flippantly in recent times.

Plenty debate on Bond and misogyny. Are these concerns over the top or have they legitimacy?

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/film/james-bond-has-always-been-a-misogynist-dinosaur-now-he-has-to-change-1.3375210
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/jan/30/times-up-for-james-bond-is-007-too-brutish-for-the-me-too-era

Some have even called for Bond films to be cancelled. As often is the case, a big deal is made about what are essentially fictional films.

Bond has hit, threatened to strangle, shot dead and launched a rocket at women in various films. Judi Dench's M had this to say to Bond in Goldeneye: sexist, misogynist dinosaur, a relic of the cold war. Some of the humour like women drivers comments in The Spy Who Loved Me was misogynist.

But we also must remember Bond also saved the lives of countless women along the way. Most of the Bond girls' lives turned out better because Bond decided to help them.

The extreme misogyny in Bond films though comes from the villains. In Thunderball, you have a women tortured by a Mafia don who is the main bad guy in that film. In Licence to Kill, the villain is a drug dealer who abuses his girlfriend. In The Man With The Golden Gun, Bond may have hit a woman but the same woman is shot dead later by the film's villain.

Bond was meant to be a sort of a sophisticated thug who Ian Fleming refused to pin down as good or bad. If Bond was threatening to strangle a woman in Diamonds Are Forever and hit a woman in The Man With The Golden Gun, he wasn't doing anything that wasn't being done in other films of the time. In The Enforcer, Dirty Harry runs the spectrum from being a hated misogynist to a staunch ally in the eyes of Tine Daly's character. Dirty Harry in many ways was an American answer to Bond and a cop form of Bond. As with Bond, Harry often was up against misogynists and even went as far as turning a blind eye to a woman who was killing a group of rapists who raped her and her sister in Sudden Impact.

Sometime around the late 1970s, a lot was done to change the Bond character and the films. Roger Moore's 2 first films have a very different feel to his later ones. You can bet that by 1977, the film's producers were heeding the criticism some had about the first 9 films of the franchise and their often misogynist elements.

The Spy Who Loved Me changed the Bond girl type. She is more than a match for Bond and is in the thick of the action as a female Soviet equivalent of Bond. Moonraker continued that tradition as well. So did For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy, the Dalton films and the Brosnan films. The Bond girl became more than just Bond's girlfriend and often had a pivotal role in helping Bond defeat the enemy. But one can also go back to Goldfinger, You Only Live Twice and On Her Majesty's Secret Service to see the same. We cannot forget either than the Bond girl killed the Mafia villain in Thunderball.

Craig's Bond had a different take. He becomes obsessed with Vesper who we find out has secrets. In his next 2 films, he barely has any relationships. He meets his equivalent of Tracy from On Her Majesty's Secret Service in SPECTRE.

This was a famous video clip doing the rounds:

https://youtu.be/L7qn5Iw5TDM

Is the concern about misogyny in Bond films legit or is it just another over the top PC gone mad hype.

FunLover18

Sexist may be a more appropriate term than misogynistic but whatever you call it, you can't say it's ok because he also saved loads of women. Like I've said before though I don't Bond or his sexism to be cancelled but they need to address it in the films (eg that M quote).

The Late Late Show

FunLover18 wrote: »

Sexist may be a more appropriate term than misogynistic but whatever you call it, you can't say it's ok because he also saved loads of women. Like I've said before though I don't Bond or his sexism to be cancelled but they need to address it in the films (eg that M quote).

I believe there were several attempts to address misogyny, sexism, etc. in Bond films. Bond girl names in the early films always had a double meaning dimension. Think of Honey Rider, Pussy Galore, Plenty O'Toole, Mary Goodnight, XXX, and Octopussy. Plus the female Bond villain Xenia Onatopp.

Each Bond girl could arguably be called Ofjames if one was to go all out Gilead on it. But the whole irony of it is a Bond film without Bond would turn into The Handmaid's Tale with a villain taking over the world or a nation and setting up a dictatorship. You notice too with Bond villains, they often are out and out misogynists (look at the likes of Goldfinger, Largo, Dr Kananga, Scaramanga, Stromberg, Drax, Kristatos, Kamal Khan, Zorin, and Sanchez, you see each and every one of them mistreat women often their own girlfriends).

The question for the future remains how can Bond films be changed to tone down misogyny in the Bond character. Quantum of Solace ditched completely the traditional Bond girl role and Skyfall more or less did as well. Less misogynist humour also in modern Bond films too. The reforms in Craig's films though have not been welcomed by all fans of Bond. Some have accused the films of being generic spy thrillers that are no different to the non-Bond ones and that the 'Bondier' elements have been taken out in attempts to modernise the franchise.

This begs the question of 'what is a Bond film?'. What is essential and what can be left out? What sensible suggestions (not this female Bond, etc. radical suggestions) can be made to improve the franchise and is the dropping of the misogynist humour, the more respectful towards women Bond we see in SPECTRE, and the dropping of the suggestive names enough?

CinemaGuy45

The Late Late Show wrote: »

And where does all this rubbish about 'reinventing' franchises come from? It is foolish and never works. This whole issue of killing off iconic characters in films is another unhelpful trend of late too. Han Solo, Luke Skywalker, etc. have been killed off so it is possible someone gets the daft idea to do same with Bond and replace him with a 007 of the choosing of whatever agenda the writer holds.

Where does all this drivel lead is the thing? Ruination of franchises people enjoyed for years as the original writer intended. Suddenly, films, TV series and books people enjoyed in the past become something different: female 007 lead to Dirty Harriet, Mad Martha and The Handboy's Tale and female Indiana Jones and Wonderman and so on!! Remake of Love/Hate then with Nigella played by Amy Hubermann!!

That trick here is don't budge an inch don't give a penny and do not apologise.
I am finished with the 007 franchise.

py2006

Aren't the villains predominantly male? Are they all beaten up and killed? Is that misandry?

FunLover18

py2006 wrote: »

Aren't the villains predominantly male? Are they all beaten up and killed? Is that misandry?

No

The Late Late Show

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

That trick here is don't budge an inch don't give a penny and do not apologise.
I am finished with the 007 franchise.

Bond fans originally followed the films and the books before them because they were Bond. As the series went on, certain issues entered them that were not ever part of the original Ian Fleming conception. Here's some of Bond's biggest shifts away from the original concept:

1. Die Another Day's invisible car has to top the list. Sure there were many over the top car chases in the franchise but this was a different matter entirely. It would be ok in a Knight Rider reboot and the like but not in a Bond thriller.
2. Decisions to radically alter Fleming's material. This first raised its head in the decision to make You Only Live Twice before On Her Majesty's Secret Service. YOLT was radically altered from Fleming and this has been the norm ever since. OHMSS is actually the last faithful adaptation of Fleming's original book.
3. Moonraker's foray into space. There is no getting away from it but this film is 00 Jedi and 100% inspired by the success of 1977's Star Wars. Final ray gun shootout is pure Star Wars. It is amazing that Q didn't design a light saber for Bond!
4. The use of silent movie style music during the drip in the bashed up van in the desert scene in The Spy Who Loved Me. This took the edge off of things and one couldn't take things as serious.
5. The constant joking with Q. Imagine if Aunt Lydia or Serena Joy were joking like this with June/Offred in The Handmaid's Tale? It wouldn't sound appropriate. Why then is it done in Bond, a franchise with equally dead serious roots. These scenes are so not Fleming. The quips from Q and the incompetence of his successor called R in the Brosnan era belong more in Austin Powers or that 1967 comedy take on Casino Royale.
6. Deciding to do an almost completely original screenplay for The Spy Who Loved Me. Apart from the use of the Horror character from Fleming's novel (renamed Jaws in the film), none of what was Fleming's most feminist Bond novel (where Bond abandons a mission to help a troubled woman out of the kindness of his heart and where she is actually the main character and narrator) was used. The book was very different and almost a Margaret Atwood-style strong piece of fiction told by an ordinary woman in the first person caught up in a nightmare world. Arguably, it was a lot better than the film of the same name which was essentially a version of the YOLT film. TSWLM film marked the point where Bond films began copying previous Bond films.

Fleming's book of TSWLM was an experiment and it sold poorly and was received poorly because it was so different. Can't help but wonder if it was written by Margaret Atwood 20 years later, how would it have been received!

7. Remaking Thunderball and Gondfinger followed. What was not robbed from Star Wars in Moonraker was reimagined Thunderball. And if the plot to destroy Silicon valley and dropping those who disagreed about it out of a plane felt familiar, it was because it was a variation of Goldfinger and Fort Knox. Even Connery got in on the act with Never Say Never Again, an official remake of guess what? Thunderball.
8. If you hear some music in some of the films and find them very familiar, that is because you did hear them before! The themes of films like The Magnificent Seven and Lawrence of Arabia can be plainly heard in some of the 1970s films.
9. The one-liners from Bond became too cliched. Sure, they were there from the start and the likes of 'shocking, positively shocking' were apt and edgy. But by Brosnan's era and 16/17 films later, they became predictable and as unfunny as the Q 'humour'. It felt like as if Bond was enjoying being a bit of a comedian on the side a little too much!
10. Stereotypes of characters. There are way too much stereotype characters in Bond. A major example is the blondie silent East German in For Your Eyes Only.

CinemaGuy45

The Late Late Show wrote: »

Bond fans originally followed the films and the books before them because they were Bond. As the series went on, certain issues entered them that were not ever part of the original Ian Fleming conception. Here's some of Bond's biggest shifts away from the original concept:

1. Die Another Day's invisible car has to top the list. Sure there were many over the top car chases in the franchise but this was a different matter entirely. It would be ok in a Knight Rider reboot and the like but not in a Bond thriller.
2. Decisions to radically alter Fleming's material. This first raised its head in the decision to make You Only Live Twice before On Her Majesty's Secret Service. YOLT was radically altered from Fleming and this has been the norm ever since. OHMSS is actually the last faithful adaptation of Fleming's original book.
3. Moonraker's foray into space. There is no getting away from it but this film is 00 Jedi and 100% inspired by the success of 1977's Star Wars. Final ray gun shootout is pure Star Wars. It is amazing that Q didn't design a light saber for Bond!
4. The use of silent movie style music during the drip in the bashed up van in the desert scene in The Spy Who Loved Me. This took the edge off of things and one couldn't take things as serious.
5. The constant joking with Q. Imagine if Aunt Lydia or Serena Joy were joking like this with June/Offred in The Handmaid's Tale? It wouldn't sound appropriate. Why then is it done in Bond, a franchise with equally dead serious roots. These scenes are so not Fleming. The quips from Q and the incompetence of his successor called R in the Brosnan era belong more in Austin Powers or that 1967 comedy take on Casino Royale.
6. Deciding to do an almost completely original screenplay for The Spy Who Loved Me. Apart from the use of the Horror character from Fleming's novel (renamed Jaws in the film), none of what was Fleming's most feminist Bond novel (where Bond abandons a mission to help a troubled woman out of the kindness of his heart and where she is actually the main character and narrator). The book was very different and almost a Margaret Atwood-style strong piece of fiction told by an ordinary woman in the first person caught up in a nightmare world. Arguably, it was a lot better than the film of the same name which was essentially a version of the YOLT film. TSWLM film marked the point where Bond films began copying previous Bond films.

Fleming's book of TSWLM was an experiment and it sold poorly and was received poorly because it was so different. Can't help but wonder if it was written by Margaret Atwood 20 years later, how would it have been received!

7. Remaking Thunderball and Gondfinger followed. What was not robbed from Star Wars in Moonraker was reimagined Thunderball. And if the plot to destroy Silicon valley and dropping those who disagreed about it out of a plane felt familiar, it was because it was a variation of Goldfinger and Fort Knox. Even Connery got in on the act with Never Say Never Again, an official remake of guess what? Thunderball.
8. If you hear some music in some of the films and find them very familiar, that is because you did hear them before! The themes of films like The Magnificent Seven and Lawrence of Arabia can be plainly heard in some of the 1970s films.
9. The one-liners from Bond became too cliched. Sure, they were there from the start and the likes of 'shocking, positively shocking' were apt and edgy. But by Brosnan's era and 16/17 films later, they became predictable and as unfunny as the Q 'humour'. It felt like as if Bond was enjoying being a bit of a comedian on the side a little too much!
10. Stereotypes of characters. There are way too much stereotype characters in Bond. A major example is the blondie silent East German in For Your Eyes Only.

The younger generation are morons with the attention span of tics.

The bond film with the most tension has to be From Russia with Love the whole section on the Train was just brilliant.
The girl says her mouth is too big and bond says not it's just the right size now that was funny.:D

The Late Late Show

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

The younger generation are morons with the attention span of tics.

The bond film with the most tension has to be From Russia with Love the whole section on the Train was just brilliant.
The girl says her mouth is too big and bond says not it's just the right size now that was funny.:D

Agree From Russia With Love and especially the train scene was excellent. This was pure real Bond before the series became too much of an advertising opportunity for products and where the stories became almost caricatures of itself.

The mistakes in the Bond franchise began when they decided to get away more and more from Fleming's material. Some of the subsequent films insisted on expanding the corny often misogynist humour and the coldblooded hitman of the films was played down in favour of a more cutesy agent.

Again we need to look at Bond and we do need to put him into the context of his times. The early Bond films of the 1960s films were truly groundbreaking but in the 1970s and 1980s, other franchises came along as groundbreaking as Bond was and excited audiences more: Dirty Harry, Star Wars, Mad Max, Indiana Jones, Batman. Each often overshadowed Bond films in the year they were released. Bond films made in 1977, 1981, 1985 and 1989 for example (and yes, some of these Bond films were quite good) could not compete often against the other blockbusters and cult classics of the time.

When Brosnan released Goldeneye, this film appeared fresh compared to Batman Forever, the 2nd sequel to 1989's excellent Batman which overshadowed Licence to Kill. But that was to be shortlived when the slide downwards came about in 1999 and especially in 2002. By the mid 2000s, grittier films like Batman Begins and The Bourne Identity were giving fans of action thrillers a lot more of what they wanted than a Bond film with an invisible car.

Casino Royale was a breath of fresh air at the time. Gone were the corny jokes with Q and the OTT gadgets. Instead, we got a film that used Fleming source material and a Bond character in the style Fleming would have envisaged. Often, reboots and the likes can be risky and unnecessary but was welcome here because of all the pollution that had got into the Bond franchise over the course of 44 years of films. Just like Batman Begins saved Batman, Casino saved Bond.

Quantum of Solace got a mixed reaction but some were longing for a return to the more traditional film Bond things. Both the acclaimed Skyfall and the less acclaimed SPECTRE did bring back elements common in the pre-Casino Royale films. Of late, Bond's misogyny as discussed here has been brought to the fore. But what remains is: From Russia With Love that pivotal second film may have been sometimes equalled but never bettered. This is pure Bond.

eviltimeban

The Late Late Show wrote: »

This was a famous video clip doing the rounds:

https://youtu.be/L7qn5Iw5TDM

Is the concern about misogyny in Bond films legit or is it just another over the top PC gone mad hype.

Those examples are pretty insane if you think about it; in a few cases he's literally FORCING himself on to women. Different times.

Then again, you could argue that initially at least the Bond movies were meant for a male audience - cool spy fighting bad guys, wearing sharp suits, driving cool cars, and being able to have any woman you wanted - plays into the ultimate male fantasy.

FunLover18

eviltimeban wrote: »

Those examples are pretty insane if you think about it; in a few cases he's literally FORCING himself on to women. Different times.

Then again, you could argue that initially at least the Bond movies were meant for a male audience - cool spy fighting bad guys, wearing sharp suits, driving cool cars, and being able to have any woman you wanted - plays into the ultimate male fantasy.

Even the newer films have faced criticism for example in Skyfall when Bond slips into the shower with Severine uninvited only moments after she'd told him about her past as a sex worker. Then in Spectre when he seduces Monica Belucci's character on the day of her husband's funeral, that one made me feel particularly uneasy although I also think it was badly filmed and acted. The films tend to treat women as objects that are there to be rescued or shagged and even when they do have some semblance of character it's so that it can serve Bond's arc. Vesper in CR is one of the strongest female characters in the franchise but it's only so Bond can fall in love with her and his reaction to her demise becomes stronger. Dench's M is a good character but in Skyfall she is utilised in a way that allows the plot to deal with Bond's issues. Far too often it feels that women are there to serve the plot rather than be a part of it.

pixelburp

The Connery stuff hasn't aged well at all, especially Connery's own views on women (IIRC saying in an interview that a woman needs a good slap now and again - though he may have walked it back later). Those moments were at least 'justified' insofar as those films really leaned into the Male Fantasy of the time; he the hero, irresistible to women, no matter how much they might fight. Hasn't aged, but it tracked within the allure of Classic Bond.

As said, that moment in Skyfall was just ... oooh god. It was all sorts of wrong & I was genuinely surprised it got OK'ed at all. At best I wonder if there was an interstitial that didn't make it to the final film, one that added some context; instead we saw Bond sympathetically listen to a woman's miserable former life as a sex worker, the sneaks onto her yacht to surprise bone her in the shower (oh and then she gets shot in a perverted game of William Tell).

I don't think this is necessarily a Bond problem either: it's a Main Character & Bad Writing problem. You see it elsewhere in shows & films even to this day, where the writers excessively make the protagonist the centre of the internal universe, the rest of the world fitting them, rather than the other way around. Decisions made by them are justified or waved away because ... they're the Main Character. Even though in context it might be hugely selfish (I know others don't agree, but I count Stark's decision in EndGame an example)

silverharp

pixelburp wrote: »

Tim Burton's Batman is 30 yeas old, and was checking out the sequel, Batman Returns out of nostalgia. Realistically, it's Michelle Pfeiffer's movie as she becomes catwoman, but what struck me was just how aggressively overt it was with exactly the kind of thing only now apparently present in Hollywood: this 1992 film ('simpler times' to use the phrase of someone else) had male characters acting like dumb neanderthals when Pfeiffer walks into scene, with the latter then making clichéd "I am woman, here me roar" (including that very line) remarks before kicking their ass.

Point being: if that film was released today, based on the conclusions presumed over something as milquetoast as Captain Marvel, those outraged by that would go BANANAS. Or is it just the fact Pfeiffer dressed in a S&M fetish costume that ameliorated that angst of misandry (honestly, I'd say it probably is. I'd be lying if I didn't say it was my bag, but her character really is 'militant' and then some)?

Look, I get some people are fed up reading about this topic (and it is off-topic too) - so am I! There's literally 2 separate threads now of whining about SJW/misandry/ between here and the James Bond thread - but IMO it's a valid topic; if people insist it exists, then it's fair game to discuss the whys, hows, and that ... yah know, perhaps it's not the great modern politicisation that some would say it is.

It hurts my brain to ponder how old movies would be received today, maybe its feasible as its about a time travel movie but anyhoo. I guess it comes back to a couple of questions , are a % of the traditional audience for certain movies being alienated and if so is it just movie makers calculating that they are acceptable losses because they anticipate more growth from other demographics? At the end of the day people like what they like and have no obligation to buy the next product. Secondly if a TV show or movie goes “woke” does it increase the chances of the show objectively being less good. Or a side point are the movie companies deliberately putting out contentious trailers/info to generate “outrage” so that more people write articles that they wouldn’t have done otherwise in the hope that it puts more bums on seats in the end? What amuses me about the progressive press is that they end up trying to out woke each other and start attacking the movie and actors anyway
I watched Captain Marvel on a flight recently (so didn’t pay for it ha) , it was grand as far as Marvel movies go, one thing they seem to be doing though is pretending they are breaking new ground when they aren’t. The next Bond be may end up being cookie cutter or it may not who knows.

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

I don't think this is necessarily a Bond problem either: it's a Main Character & Bad Writing problem.

It's a problem that stems from committee film decision making. Scenes are decided on because a movie has to hit certain beats at certain times and it plagues everything from Star Wars to James Bond.

This kind of thing hampers a writer terribly and the quality of writing for Hollywood movies has already plummeted deep enough, as far as I'm concerned.

I long for movie business like the 70's where writers could write pretty much what and how they damn well pleased.

pixelburp

silverharp wrote: »

It hurts my brain to ponder how old movies would be received today, maybe its feasible as its about a time travel movie but anyhoo. I guess it comes back to a couple of questions , are a % of the traditional audience for certain movies being alienated and if so is it just movie makers calculating that they are acceptable losses because they anticipate more growth from other demographics? At the end of the day people like what they like and have no obligation to buy the next product. Secondly if a TV show or movie goes “woke” does it increase the chances of the show objectively being less good. Or a side point are the movie companies deliberately putting out contentious trailers/info to generate “outrage” so that more people write articles that they wouldn’t have done otherwise in the hope that it puts more bums on seats in the end? What amuses me about the progressive press is that they end up trying to out woke each other and start attacking the movie and actors anyway
I watched Captain Marvel on a flight recently (so didn’t pay for it ha) , it was grand as far as Marvel movies go, one thing they seem to be doing though is pretending they are breaking new ground when they aren’t. The next Bond be may end up being cookie cutter or it may not who knows.

Dude you somehow quoted my post from the other "SJWs are stealing our toys" thread Which probably says a great deal about the nature of the discussion

pixelburp

Tony EH wrote: »

It's a problem that stems from committee film decision making. Scenes are decided on because a movie has to hit certain beats at certain times and it plagues everything from Star Wars to James Bond.

This kind of thing hampers a writer terribly and the quality of writing for Hollywood movies has already plummeted deep enough, as far as I'm concerned.

I long for movie business like the 70's where writers could write pretty much what and how they damn well pleased.

Naw, I think you're forgiving a lot of inherently bad writers and passing the blame. Alex Kurtzman does not get an out in this conversation for his shíttyness as a writer

I've read in enough media to know that Bad Writers don't need external influences to make them fall in 'love' with their own creations & characters. Need only look at output like 50 Shades et al. Bad writing forgives a lot of character misdeeds if the author has their own biases or preferences. Plenty of long running series fall prey to that, fan favourites essentially muscling their way to the forefront.

But I think you're pining for a period of Hollywood that never existed: writers have always been undervalued and considered to be a tool cheaper by the dozen. 'Pulp' as a pejorative for that disposable churn of trashy writing predates Hollywood, it only industrialised it further than the publishing industry.

The quality of the 1970s might persist, but check out the box offices and you'll find plenty of execrable trash. No era that produced "The Swarm" gets away scott free

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

Naw, I think you're forgiving a lot of inherently bad writers and passing the blame. Alex Kurtzman does not get an out in this conversation for his shyness as a writer

I've read in enough media to know that Bad Writers don't need external influences to make them fall in 'love' with their own creations & characters. Need only look at output like 50 Shades et al. Bad writing forgives a lot of character misdeeds if the author has their own biases or preferences. Plenty of long running series fall prey to that, fan favourites essentially muscling their way to the forefront.

But I think you're pining for a period of Hollywood that never existed: writers have always been undervalued and considered to be a tool cheaper by the dozen. 'Pulp' as a pejorative for that disposable churn of trashy writing predates Hollywood, it only industrialised it further than the publishing industry.

The quality of the 1970s might persist, but check out the box offices and you'll find plenty of execrable trash. No era that produced "The Swarm" gets away scott free

Sure, there will always be trash. But at least the 70's trash was interesting trash. I'll take 'Zombie Flesh Eaters' over 'Mega shark vs whateverthefuck" any day of the week.

And I'd be fairly certain that the 70's was the true golden age of cinema. That's not to say that every film was an absolute gem. But compared to other decades, Hollywood has never been better.

As for bad writers, yeh, there'll always be those knocking around too. But further hampering their already limited talent with by-the-numbers decisions from the suits isn't going to help.

silverharp

pixelburp wrote: »

Dude you somehow quoted my post from the other "SJWs are stealing our toys" thread Which probably says a great deal about the nature of the discussion

they are overlapping I guess, let me sort that out

The Late Late Show

I met a person the weekend who was giving out about all the misogyny in Bond films and that he hated Bond films for this reason. Then I asked him what his favourite films would be: 50 Shades of Grey and Mrs Brown D'Movie and their sequels was his answer. These 2 franchises are misogyny defined in film form.

I think anyone who knows the Bond franchise know that it is a very broad church. Everyone knows there is dated misogynist humour in there and that the films range from excellent (From Russia With Love, Casino Royale 2006) to abysmal (Casino Royale 1967) and a lot of iffy ones in between (Die Another Day, A View To A Kill).

Judging a film from 1964 or 1974 and basing it on today's standards is not fair. These films came from a different time that in some ways was better and in some ways was worse than now.

I agree with what many say here about writers having to acknowledge certain movements. Things can get into films from every angle: rightwing, leftwing, political, cultural, etc. And also just because something is popular in another franchise, it has to go on and get copied. In Bond, you have:

Karate films: The man with the Golden Gun.
Star Wars: Moonraker.
Indiana Jones elements: Octopussy.
Bond remaking previous Bonds: The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker, Tomorrow Never Dies and Die Another Day.

An agenda spouted today is the masculinisation of women. You see this all the time from adverts showing women doing rough jobs like construction to women in very masculine roles in films. A lot of people consider this as a new misogyny stating women have to act more like men than women to be equal.

Back to the new Bond film. The mystery is still the title. The strange thing is Bond film titles have been generic, have been named after the villain, named after the Bond girl, named after the terrorist group, named after secret service licences, named after the secret service, named after the operation or a business entity, and named after a place. They have never been named after Bond himself. We never had a film called Agent 007, 007, Bond in Action, or simply James Bond, etc.

Some have claimed the title will be either Shatterhand or Genoma of a Woman. It starts off apparently with a car chase in Italy. Quantum of Solace anyone?? Is this a type of Best of Bond type theme like Die Another Day tried? Is Craig going to put elements of all of his films into this one? This would make it Craig's 4th visit to Italy across 5 films and Bond's 8th visit across 25 official films.

What else can we expect? If Genoma of a Woman is the title, expect a cross between Bond, The Handmaid's Tale, Blade Runner and the whole transgender awareness movement. Madeleine Swann Bond discovers is not all she seems. She is an artificially created gender neutral person or allowed to be genetically modified after birth. She was lucky but she knows others who are sex slaves for evil men. You could see all the handmaids, replicants, etc. references. Bond would love Madeleine for who she is and be the hero of the new agenda. If it is to be Shatterhand, it will be another Blofeld story. Shatterhand was an assumed name for Blofeld in Fleming's original version of You Only Live Twice.

Dades

The Late Late Show wrote: »

I met a person the weekend who was giving out about all the misogyny in Bond films and that he hated Bond films for this reason. Then I asked him what his favourite films would be: 50 Shades of Grey and Mrs Brown D'Movie and their sequels was his answer. These 2 franchises are misogyny defined in film form.

I refuse to share a planet with a person whose two favourite movies are 50 Shades of Grey and Mrs Brown D'Movie, much less pay attention to anything they say.

The Late Late Show wrote: »

Some have claimed the title will be either Shatterhand or Genoma of a Woman.

Sounds like a mcguffin.

If the genetics of Madeline Swan form a key piece of the plot then why not call it "Property of a Lady"?
It's the title of a Flemming story, an unused Bond script and was even referenced in Octopussy.

The Late Late Show

Dades wrote: »

I refuse to share a planet with a person whose two favourite movies are 50 Shades of Grey and Mrs Brown D'Movie, much less pay attention to anything they say.

Sounds like a mcguffin.

If the genetics of Madeline Swan form a key piece of the plot then why not call it "Property of a Lady"?
It's the title of a Flemming story, an unused Bond script and was even referenced in Octopussy.

50 Shades of Grey, Mrs Brown D'Movie and their sequels and anything to do with both these franchises are the worst drivel ever. Sadly, there are fanatics devoted to both.

The Property of a Lady would make more sense and would clearly be a lot more catchy. The content of this of course featured in Octopussy as the Sotheby's auction. It was a Fleming short story in his last book, a collection of 3 short stories. It was also intended to be the title of the 3rd Timothy Dalton film that never got made. A lot of it ended up in what became the first (and renamed) Pierce Brosnan film Goldeneye. But more of that unused script remained unused.

Madeleine Swann is going to feature big in the new film. What way is yet to be determined. The name should be settled on and know by now as it usually is. Also, it may be time to get back to basics and use a lot of the unused Fleming material. Despite the films of the same name, the entire novel The Spy Who Loved Me was hardly used (the film was a You Only Live Twice (film version) derivative) and the entire From A View To a Kill short story was hardly used either (the film drop the word From and ignored the story apart from setting it in France and gave us a Goldfinger theme instead).

Scott Tenorman

The Late Late Show wrote: »

I met a person the weekend who was giving out about all the misogyny in Bond films and that he hated Bond films for this reason. Then I asked him what his favourite films would be: 50 Shades of Grey and Mrs Brown D'Movie and their sequels was his answer.

Yeah that didn't happen :rolleyes:

Dades

The Late Late Show wrote: »

Madeleine Swann is going to feature big in the new film. What way is yet to be determined. The name should be settled on and know by now as it usually is. Also, it may be time to get back to basics and use a lot of the unused Fleming material. Despite the films of the same name, the entire novel The Spy Who Loved Me was hardly used (the film was a You Only Live Twice (film version) derivative) and the entire From A View To a Kill short story was hardly used either (the film drop the word From and ignored the story apart from setting it in France and gave us a Goldfinger theme instead).

Yeah, I'd like to see some reference to original material, even it it's just a title. Bond has has lost enough identity as it is.

pixelburp

The Late Late Show wrote: »

Some have claimed the title will be either Shatterhand or Genoma of a Woman. It starts off apparently with a car chase in Italy. Quantum of Solace anyone?? Is this a type of Best of Bond type theme like Die Another Day tried? Is Craig going to put elements of all of his films into this one? This would make it Craig's 4th visit to Italy across 5 films and Bond's 8th visit across 25 official films.

First I've heard, who is this "some"? Sounds like silly season tattle to me.

The Late Late Show

Scott Tenorman wrote: »

Yeah that didn't happen :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, it did and fans of these 2 franchises DO exist. People like this also assume those who do not like these 2 things are prudes. That is NOT the issue: one is unprofessionally made and stupid, the other is like watching paint dry.

eviltimeban

The Late Late Show wrote: »

The Property of a Lady

Weird title for a Bond movie. Sounds more like a period drama.

Also, the song would be difficult to write.