Bond...Chad Bond  

New2Midlo 52M  
759 posts
10/10/2021 8:34 am

Last Read:
10/20/2021 1:35 pm

Bond...Chad Bond

The latest James Bond film finally being released has, as expected, brought with it the various pundits and their perpetual complaints of how Bond is a misogynist and a symbol of wealthy, white male privilege. On the former, they point to instances such as Connery's Bond shooing a woman away, by slapping her bum and saying 'man talk'. , this happened in a movie released before I was born, so it's really fucking old. If I cared enough to look, I'm willing to bet I could find a dozen equivocal vignettes in other contemporary films. His boss is a woman, who he treats with respect, even if he breaks into her house occasionally. The critics also point to how Bond would remove (several different) women's clothing, acting in an almost predatory or coercive manner, and have sex with them. As Bond's promiscuity, that's been gone for decades. They decided to have only one sexual partner in a film back when Pierce Brosnan played Bond. The predation argument is bullshit, as well. Bond oozed charisma and danger, such that women wanted to sleep with him. In many instances, there was an imminent threat of death to both parties; might as well fuck. Not to mention it's not as though he walked up to women on the street and disrobed them.

On to the potentially touchy topic of wealthy white male privilege. Actually, there's not much to say about this beyond, have you looked around at who's running things? In the western world, it's wealthy white males. The first two people on private flights to space were wealthy white males. To be clear, I'm very much in favor of giving more work to talented non white male actors. However, I'm not in favor of modifying the foundation of an icon to do so. I read the new 007 is an African American woman. (the movie is set five years after Bond retires) Great that new talent is getting cast in important roles, and women are being portrayed as strong characters, but you can't pretend the franchise won't radically change with it.

Amazon has announced plans to buy MGM, who owns the Bond franchise. There have already been suggestions to the effect that new business daddy may want to improve the profitability of the franchise by expanding it beyond standalone Bond films. My fear is that Amazon will do to Bond what Disney did to another iconic film empire, Star Wars. Perhaps I'm old and grumpy, but there have been so many ancillary Star Wars vehicles launched, that I've stopped paying attention. The last Star Wars movie was crap, so why would I think the raft of new shit would be different? At least I think it was the last movie, because who cares, it was crap? The movie about Lando was also lukewarm on a good day, only not being crap because I had low expectations going in. Anyway, that was the last bit of the franchise that I consumed and have no plans to change that. Fuckers.

As for Amazon, they've already pissed me off mightily with their movie, Tom Clancy's Without Remorse. Of course, Tom Clancy had nothing to do with it because he's been dead for eight years. Those who are Clancy fans likely recall his book, Without Remorse, which is the origin story of John Clark, a recurring CIA operative character, in Clancy's original works. It was brutal, gritty, and full of very ugly deeds. The movie is ostensibly the same, yet has a completely different plotline. Being old and grumpy, my position on that is WTF?? While they were fucking it up, Amazon sugar coated the whole damned thing. Without Remorse was not a feel good book!!! A Tom Clancy work, titled Without Remorse, already exists. You can't choose the same title and make it something completely fucking different!

If fucking up iconography is suddenly okay, you may as well get started on Bond films. Our hero now utilizes collaboration, inclusiveness, and mediation to negotiate with the baddies in order to create a win win scenario for all<b> parties </font></b>involved. Same outcome, after all. The James Bond character was brutal, violent, and liberally exercised his license to kill. How long before he's a dude with patches on his elbow talking about feelings? Is that where we're headed?

New2Midlo 52M  
1064 posts
10/10/2021 8:36 am

And I'm really pissed that Q no longer immediately conjures up images of Desmond Llewelyn.

BiggLala 49F  
30157 posts
10/10/2021 6:29 pm could argue that 007 is *technically* just a call sign for an(y) agent. Just like M or Q, it's not the person, it's the title. That said...yeah...I'm kinda with you on the need to change the Bond franchise.

Of course, IF they do make the new bond an African American woman, I think they need to cast Katherine Renee Turner (Agent Wallace on FB. To me, she's the epitome of a badass super hero...I mean BAD...ASS!!!

Need a way to message ALL members? here for helpful instructions in setting up a private messaging blog post.

New2Midlo replies on 10/11/2021 8:02 pm:
Apparently, the 007 designation was reissued to the AA woman who I've never heard of and don't feel like looking up at the moment. Geeking out, 00 is used for agents with a license to kill. The number at the end denotes that specific agent.

I think you may have misunderstood the gist of my post, my love. While I'm incredibly progressive, I remain a middle age white man, so fucking with JB is unthinkable to me. Sorry... The franchise is built on a character, who happens to be a white dude. That's not to say there can't be other 00 agents who aren't white dudes. IMHO, Bond is much less relevant now than he was in the past.

Jules1590 53F
8118 posts
10/11/2021 6:09 pm

Whoa. LOTS to unpack here. Great post and well diatribed as always. (And yes, I read all the way through. Had to take a potty break and grab a snack midway, but read it all the way through nonetheless.

I agree that Bond is iconic and should be played by a male. I actually had heard rumours that Idris Elba might be the next Bond after Craig and was pleased with the selection. He could absolutely pull it off. In the same way I wouldn't put a woman as Indiana Jones. Neither of those scenarios work. To deviate from a male as Bond would make it a completely different movie experience. Hard Pass on that.

I can relate to the plight of Tom Clancy even though I have not read him. I had this problem with Cruise being cast as Jack Reacher. Lee Child portrays Reacher as this physical monster of a male specimen at 6'5" with hands the size of dinner plates, weighing in at 230-250lbs.... Ummmm... yeah... that would make Cruise what... oh yeah, his Mini-me.
" You can't choose the same title and make it something completely fucking different!" NOPE. Ya can't.

Sorry. I couldn't even read the books after the movie came out.

New2Midlo replies on 10/11/2021 8:10 pm:
This post wasn't that long, Jules. Don't be mean; I cry easily.

Speaking of mean, thanks for the Jack Reacher trigger! I lost my shit when I found out an actor who lacked one of Reacher's critical attributes was cast in the role. To your point, Jack is a big MOFO; Cruise is not.
In all fairness, the movie wasn't so bad (desperation for treadmill entertainment) and the Reacher books have become the poster child for formulaic. On the other hand, Clancy's books were ground breaking when they came out. Fun fact, my parents used to live about a mile from Clancy, in Frederick, Maryland. They were also in close proximity to Stephen King, when they lived in Florida. My mother used to interact with him pretty regularly. And here in Johnson County, Kansas, they live around a bunch of no name white bread who act more entitled than King does. But I digress, as you knew I would.

New2Midlo 52M  
1064 posts
10/11/2021 8:14 pm

BTW, I'm at a bit of a loss how this post has gotten 5x the one about the right wing media, which has a much more interesting title. On that topic, if you want to laugh your ass off, go read the comments section on OAN news. Those with brains troll the living shit out of the (still need a name for these people) with facts, with responses that immediately turn insulting, only to have their asses handed to them again. I literally laughed out loud a few times.

lindoboy100 59M  
23968 posts
10/12/2021 9:31 am

I LOVE a good Bondie......but they are what they are, not much more than pantomime. You need to have your tongue firmly in your cheek and see the films for the relatively lightweight camp nonsense that they are. On the other hand, if there's some subliminal messaging that can be incorporated which might help t bring them up to date, well that cannae be a bad thing either.

Good rant McMid. I'm looking forward to seeing the new film, and I'll be interested to see how an african american women plays the role. If it doesn't work, for whatever reason (she could be shit at acting, but that never held Sir Sean back) I don't think they'll persevere for too long.

New2Midlo replies on 10/13/2021 11:27 am:
To a degree, Bond movies almost began to be parodies of themselves, but nice entertainment to escape for a few hours.

My knee jerk thought on the whole thing is 'make new franchises that are more inclusive but don't screw stuff that's already established'. Within limits, of course.

BiggLala 49F  
30157 posts
10/12/2021 5:59 pm

I think you may have misunderstood the gist of my post, my love.
-No, I didn't misunderstand. I wasn't clear in what I wrote (I see that now after re-reading)...yanno...typos. I meant to say, "...I'm kinda with you on the need to NOT change the Bond franchise." My bad!

I hadn't heard they've finalized a "new" bond selection. Actually, someone did a post about this the same day as yours. They stated that old Babs is adamant the next Bond will NOT be female.

I did know what the 00 designation meant. Although, I now find it interesting other 00s were never introduced. Then again...003 doesn't sound as cool.

Need a way to message ALL members? here for helpful instructions in setting up a private messaging blog post.

New2Midlo replies on 10/13/2021 11:40 am:
So, you fucked up. Still love you just the same.

They still haven't chosen a replacement for Daniel Craig as James Bond. The woman in the movie was given his agent designation. I'll wait until the movie comes out on demand. Got a damned theater downstairs it would be nice to use before I leave Kansas.

On the other 00's, I recalled a few being mentioned in a few movies, but seemed to remember another 00 appearing in From Russia With Love. Of course, there's a website for that, which reminded me about The Living Daylights, where 007 is accompanied by 002 and 004 on a training exercise. Also, the villain in Golden Eye is the former 006. I remembered that one, but didn't recall him being a 00. Geek mode: off

rh1972 49M  
611 posts
10/13/2021 3:39 pm

It's pathetic cucks like you, pretending some intellectual and moral superiority over normal people, who caused the degradation and deconstruction of cultural icons, norms, and values.

Please, do go on feeling smug and superior to those OAN viewers though. Chances are, you'll be lining up to get your booster shot every six months, hoping your virtue will be noticed and you'll get laid, while us normal people will laugh at you and actually have a life worth living.

Just remember to let us all know when you've developed AIS - Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome - and need to wear a full body condom just to live.

New2Midlo replies on 10/13/2021 6:03 pm:
You do realize this post was about James Bond, right?

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I present exhibit A with respect to the character and intellect of OAN viewers.
You people would make me laugh if you weren't extending a pandemic.

missthee 55F  
4482 posts
10/18/2021 2:40 am

I'm not for forcing everything in the fictional sphere - novels, poetry, film, tv series, comics, song lyrics, etc - to become aligned with political correctness. After all, it's fiction.
Not only does it take away from the complexity and the 3dimensionality of fictional creations like Bond, it also takes away the opportunity for a discussion about the not-so-palatable aspects of these fictional characters. They aren't meant to be role models, they are created primarily for entertainment. Sometimes the dark/controversial aspects of a fictional character serves to make them more realistic, more like us. Analysis and debate about the unsavory elements of a fictional character or the fictional narrative as a whole, potentially can lead to introspection and a closer look at one's own flawed humanity.

New2Midlo replies on 10/18/2021 8:26 am:
Well said.
Not every lead character in fiction needs to exhibit role modelesque virtues and behavior. In fact some of the most memorable pieces were led by antiheroes, who were quite the opposite. From Tony Montana (Scarface) to Han Solo (who shot first, get over it), John Wick, Walter White (Breaking Bad), and the entire Simpson family. None of those works would have been worth watching, had those antiheroes been upstanding individuals, who valued inclusivity and diversity. What's good for society frequently causes works of fiction to be garbage.

Become a member to create a blog