"Yes I do hate James Bond"

Skip to 30:18 here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01jhltk/Newsnight_31_05_2012/

At the end there's an in-studio showdown between PC Bond hater "Bidisha" and informed defender of Fleming, Anthony Horowitz.

Any thoughts?

Can't watch it in my country.

Bond would become boring if he suddenly became the perfect role model, it is his flaws that make him human and make him the character that we love and have always loved. Best just to ignore that bunch of do-gooder, feminazi, health and safety orientated, overly PC spoilsports, the more attention that they get, negative or positive, the more prominent that they will become.

I can't watch the interview, but completely agree with Brooky.

Flaws add to and supplement characterization. When you take away inconsistencies and flaws, you get one-dimensional characters like those in Michael Bay or Brett Ratner films.

I like Bond because he's capable of being looked up to, envied, and hated, all at the same time.

(I just hate him because he gets more pussy than I do and drives a better car...)

Brooky, you may just have found a home.

In addition to that, lets give Bond atleast two shags a film and lets see him start smoking again :twisted:

I can't watch it either, but I'm sure I agree with Brooky and Brown. 8)

Bond is rasis, misoggyness, and homerphobic. I think he should be banned because he doesn't reflect tolerant community values.

P. Diddy for James Bond #7

Don't plant any seeds, Brownster.

CJB wrote:

Bond is rasis, misoggyness, and homerphobic. I think he should be banned because he doesn't reflect tolerant community values.

The big 3, new spellings have a catchy ring to them Yes Bond is an intolerant oaf.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Don't plant any seeds, Brownster.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zByX8-lZENY&t=46s

The sad thing is it's people reading too much reality into fiction that is stifling imagination and attempting to railroad our sensibilities into their own ideals. Apparently we, either as readers or viewers, can't be trusted, we'll get the wrong idea, we'll assume the wrong set of values.....self righteous self appointed contolling wannabes are imposing their will on literature, film and art, they are sanctioning the rewriting of history and the redeployment of old world values to the point where we will lose sight of all the lessons time has imparted to us.

Bond is the hero of the books, he's the hero of the films...there does seem a curious theme in the piece that only Americans can be hero's today which in itself is kind of a racist idea. But the real point is that Bond is different, Bond stands apart from most modern fictional hero's, he is flawed, he isn't idealised or sanitised which is all to the good for its only when we cease to see those flaws that it can ever become a problem. Yet the pressure is still to hide or shy away from any evidence of such distinction.

We live in a narowminded and condescending society that increasingly wants to control not just what we do but also what we think......pretty much the ambition of your average maniacle super villian, the books are a warning from history indeed.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Any thoughts?

Yes. It really annoys me when people (and particularly people who ought to know better) assume that the Fleming novels are exactly the same as the Eon films. Despite what many people seem to believe, the Bond of the books doesn't sleep with three women and visit five countries per adventure, and he isn't constantly uttering quips, demanding that his drink be "shaken, not stirred" and popping down to Q Branch to collect a bunch of amazing gadgets.

As Alan Partridge would say: STOP GETTING THE LITERARY JAMES BOND WRONG!!!!!!!!

lachesis wrote:

. But the real point is that Bond is different, Bond stands apart from most modern fictional hero's, he is flawed, he isn't idealised or sanitised which is all to the good for its only when we cease to see those flaws that it can ever become a problem.

Aren't flawed heroes pretty much de riguer these days? And I thought everyone here is complaining about Bond being protrayed as a flawed character?

Loomis wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Any thoughts?

Yes. It really annoys me when people (and particularly people who ought to know better) assume that the Fleming novels are exactly the same as the Eon films. Despite what many people seem to believe, the Bond of the books doesn't sleep with three women and visit five countries per adventure, and he isn't constantly uttering quips, demanding that his drink be "shaken, not stirred" and popping down to Q Branch to collect a bunch of amazing gadgets.

As Alan Partridge would say: STOP GETTING THE LITERARY JAMES BOND WRONG!!!!!!!!

The public perception of Bond is a caricature of the Connery-Moore movies. It is much easier to suggest that it is what Bond should be, whether or one is a Bond fan or not.

Triviachamp wrote:

lachesis wrote:

. But the real point is that Bond is different, Bond stands apart from most modern fictional hero's, he is flawed, he isn't idealised or sanitised which is all to the good for its only when we cease to see those flaws that it can ever become a problem.

Aren't flawed heroes pretty much de riguer these days? And I thought everyone here is complaining about Bond being protrayed as a flawed character?

Depends on what you mean. A lot of people would like to see a lighter tone to the films, or at least a reduction in the hamfisted emotional drama that's permeated through the Craig films (and perhaps some of the Brosnan films). However, few would say that Bond should be without vices (drinking, gambling, women, smoking etc.)

CJB wrote:

Depends on what you mean. A lot of people would like to see a lighter tone to the films, or at least a reduction in the hamfisted emotional drama that's permeated through the Craig films (and perhaps some of the Brosnan films). However, few would say that Bond should be without vices (drinking, gambling, women, smoking etc.)

Vices aren't neccessarily flaws. I wouldn't really say the Connery/Moore movies portrayed those vices you listed as character flaws. The criticique that CraigBond isn't someone you want to be and James Bond should be the man every man wants to be and the one every woman wants to screw seems to suggest that Bond shouldn't be flawed.

Personally I have nothing against a ligher tone as the GRIMDARKness has been a bit much lately (I mean this generally, not specifically to Bond), however I don't like it when that is used a crutch for bad writing (the same applies for GRIMDARK) or a call for some postmodern hipster ironic take on the caricature of Connery/Moore movies. You know I have nothing against the quips, but I want good quips, not ironically bad ones.

Now I'm no fan of PC but I do find it interesting that the movies of DN and FRWL made SPECTRE the baddies and GF and YOLT made Maoist China during the Sino-Soviet split the real baddies, which were quite PC for their time. Need I mention the lack of the USSR in the film of LALD and the inclusion of JW Pepper and Samedi apparently being immortal? Or how OP and TLD created Kamal Khan and Brad Whittaker to distract from the fact that the real baddies are rogue Soviet generals? In fact the only Bond film to show the USSR as being the baddies was FYEO which still ended with a sop to the detente (like TSWLM) and how the Soviets aren't really all that bad, quite PC for the time. None of the Bond films were like Red Dawn or Invasion USA which were quite unPC for their time.

True, the films never directly demonised the Soviets to the extent the books did.

Still less PC than these days when there's practically no mention of the fact Britain has been at war for a decade.

CJB wrote:

Still less PC than these days when there's practically no mention of the fact Britain has been at war for a decade.

True. Wouldn't acknowledging the WOT get Micolli thrown in jail in the UK for hate crimes?

Triviachamp wrote:

lachesis wrote:

. But the real point is that Bond is different, Bond stands apart from most modern fictional hero's, he is flawed, he isn't idealised or sanitised which is all to the good for its only when we cease to see those flaws that it can ever become a problem.

Aren't flawed heroes pretty much de riguer these days? And I thought everyone here is complaining about Bond being protrayed as a flawed character?

Loomis wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Any thoughts?

Yes. It really annoys me when people (and particularly people who ought to know better) assume that the Fleming novels are exactly the same as the Eon films. Despite what many people seem to believe, the Bond of the books doesn't sleep with three women and visit five countries per adventure, and he isn't constantly uttering quips, demanding that his drink be "shaken, not stirred" and popping down to Q Branch to collect a bunch of amazing gadgets.

As Alan Partridge would say: STOP GETTING THE LITERARY JAMES BOND WRONG!!!!!!!!

The public perception of Bond is a caricature of the Connery-Moore movies. It is much easier to suggest that it is what Bond should be, whether or one is a Bond fan or not.

Flawed. But not in any way that would offend the PC set. Any "hero" that does that is automatically a villain. Thus, in order for Bond to remain a hero, Micolli have gone a fair way toward turning him into a generic, cardboard Hollywood action hero. And while I haven't read Carte Blanche, I gather Jeffrey Deaver did the same to Bond in that piece.

I literally stopped reading Carte Blanche after Blairite "Bond" (internally) huffed and puffed over a South African innocuously using the term "coloured."

I imagine Deaver's dull-as-dishwater "Bond" spends his nights posting in The Guardian's comments section about what a fascist Ian Fleming was.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Thus, in order for Bond to remain a hero, Micolli have gone a fair way toward turning him into a generic, cardboard Hollywood action hero.

How is this different from making sure that Bond doesn't hate the Soviets too much or making sure that LALD has a redneck Southerner and a black man having the last laugh? Seems Broccolman (Saltzolli?) were busy trying to appeal to the PC types of their time.

Also should Bond be flawed, even with flaws that are non-PC? Connery/Moore Bond isn't very PC today but I wouldn't say they are flawed. And DeaverBond is apparently (I haven't read Carte Blanche) too much of a goodygoody which is the exact opposite of being flawed.

And didn't Fleming Bond like to brood all the time about women and killing people, which sounds a lot like the "Emo" attitude that everyone on the internet is complaining about these days despite being fond of GRIMDARKness.

CJB wrote:

I literally stopped reading Carte Blanche after Blairite "Bond" (internally) huffed and puffed over a South African innocuously using the term "coloured."
I imagine Deaver's dull-as-dishwater "Bond" spends his nights posting in The Guardian's comments section about what a fascist Ian Fleming was.

Deaver's Bond was a piece of work. I think I'd laugh at him if I ever met him.

"Got a light there Jimmy?"

" No I don't smoke and I never have, xxx number of people die from smoking related diseases every year..."

"Actually, I just wanted to fire up the bbq, but thanks anyway for the lecture"

"Ahh, those are low-fat burgers, I trust?"

"Yes of course, they're from low-fat cows, now buzz off"

===

I would never accuse Bonds 1-14 of being pc. Rather Eon attempted to be politically quiet, not quite neutral, but not provocative either. In GF and YOLT, GF and Blofeld were the big villains. The Chinese were only their clients. It was perfectly understandable in that decade, that the Red Chinese Communists would be happy to take advantage of the services of these super-villains for hire. I don't think anyone batted an eyelash. In otherwords there were no howls of outrage from anyone complaining that Bond was pc. Now we do have reason to howl.