Sean Connery’s James Bond a rapist says current director
06 Apr 2022, 12:31 pm
I just don't see how saying that the first James Bond is a rapist is supposed to help promote the franchise.
That would be like a police force wanting to attract new candidates and they put up an advertisement saying "police officer Derek Chauvin was a murderer... Come join the police!"
Bradleigh
Veteran
Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia
09 Apr 2022, 8:40 pm
ironpony wrote:
I just don't see how saying that the first James Bond is a rapist is supposed to help promote the franchise.
That would be like a police force wanting to attract new candidates and they put up an advertisement saying "police officer Derek Chauvin was a murderer... Come join the police!"
That would be like a police force wanting to attract new candidates and they put up an advertisement saying "police officer Derek Chauvin was a murderer... Come join the police!"
I don't know, wouldn't it be acknowledging a problematic past, with the promise of not repeating it in future, which could encourage people to see a movie that they might have already felt the franchise was a little skeevy? More like acknowledging a past product had a defect, which they won't repeat in the future. It is basic marketing.
_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall
10 Apr 2022, 12:28 pm
if that was the intention though, it feels like they are overstating the obvious as the Connery Bond movies were from the '60s and it's been a long time since then and they haven't repeated Bond being that way since the 70s. so it comes off as they're preaching to the choir at this point if that makes sense?
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,415
Location: Long Island, New York
03 Jan 2023, 1:58 pm
Another issue that is part of the appeal of the franchise is the gadgets. Today with all of our devices they do not have as much of a wow factor as they did in the ‘60s and ‘70s
I am going to discuss crucial plot elements of the last Bond movie ‘No Time To Die’ which have major implications for the character.
In the movie the last Danial Craig Bond he is definitively killed. Yet as the credits are rolling it has the usual “James Bond will return”.
Next Bond film will be ‘complete reinvention’ but won’t shoot for ‘at least two years’
Lead characters coming back after they were seemingly killed is common in movies. But usually that is after they have miraculously escaped, usually with superpowers involved. Bond has no superpowers, as noted he uses gadgets. He is both poisoned and on an island that is blown up with dozens of missiles. Any miraculous escape would defy credulity.
In the movie while Bond was “retired” he was replaced a new Agent 007 Nomi a black women who gave the 007 designation back to Bond. Since they are going all in inclusive why not have Nomi transition and renamed James Bond?
There was lot of speculation in the thread that the director made a mistake. Now it is obvious those remarks were no slip of the tongue.
This was the first post #MeToo Bond. This Bond would find out he is the father of a child conceived with a “Bond Girl”. So the sexism was largely out, replaced by a relationship of sorts. Don’t worry this was still primarily an action flick.
I don’t think this can work. They will lose most of the core baby boomer audience which is what is wanted but I have my doubts about about gaining new younger fans. While updating legacy franchises have been done successfully the results have been mixed. Considering everything this is more then then usual ask.
The James Bond franchise has had a very successful, unusually long run. Nothing lasts forever. The ending with him sacrificing himself to save the world one last time would have been a shocking but perfect way to say goodbye.
Next Bond film will be ‘complete reinvention’ but won’t shoot for ‘at least two years’
Quote:
The 26th official James Bond film is unlikely to be in cinemas before 2025, according to the series’ producer, Barbara Broccoli.
Speaking at a dinner to honour Broccoli and her half-brother Michael G Wilson after the presentation of their BFI Fellowships, the gatekeeper of all things 007 (and daughter of Cubby Broccoli) said they had not yet cast the actor who will replace Daniel Craig in the tux.
“Nobody’s in the running,” she said in a speech first reported by Deadline. “We’re working out where to go with him, we’re talking that through. There isn’t a script and we can’t come up with one until we decide how we’re going to approach the next film because, really, it’s a reinvention of Bond. We’re reinventing who he is and that takes time. I’d say that filming is at least two years away.”
The sale of studio MGM to Amazon has also meant the intellectual property rights over Ian Fleming’s character exert a looser grip than in previous years. Broccoli and Wilson are producing a new reality series, 007’s Road to a Million, which will be Amazon Prime Video’s debut TV show.
The siblings were presented with their fellowships by Bond regulars Ralph Fiennes and Naomie Harris, who play M and Moneypenny. Noting the fate of Bond in the most recent film, Fiennes joked: “Naomie and I are the people to fix it. You find him and we’ll train him.”
Broccoli has previously confirmed that the new Bond will be male, after calls for the character to undergo a Doctor Who-style reinvention
Speaking at a dinner to honour Broccoli and her half-brother Michael G Wilson after the presentation of their BFI Fellowships, the gatekeeper of all things 007 (and daughter of Cubby Broccoli) said they had not yet cast the actor who will replace Daniel Craig in the tux.
“Nobody’s in the running,” she said in a speech first reported by Deadline. “We’re working out where to go with him, we’re talking that through. There isn’t a script and we can’t come up with one until we decide how we’re going to approach the next film because, really, it’s a reinvention of Bond. We’re reinventing who he is and that takes time. I’d say that filming is at least two years away.”
The sale of studio MGM to Amazon has also meant the intellectual property rights over Ian Fleming’s character exert a looser grip than in previous years. Broccoli and Wilson are producing a new reality series, 007’s Road to a Million, which will be Amazon Prime Video’s debut TV show.
The siblings were presented with their fellowships by Bond regulars Ralph Fiennes and Naomie Harris, who play M and Moneypenny. Noting the fate of Bond in the most recent film, Fiennes joked: “Naomie and I are the people to fix it. You find him and we’ll train him.”
Broccoli has previously confirmed that the new Bond will be male, after calls for the character to undergo a Doctor Who-style reinvention
Lead characters coming back after they were seemingly killed is common in movies. But usually that is after they have miraculously escaped, usually with superpowers involved. Bond has no superpowers, as noted he uses gadgets. He is both poisoned and on an island that is blown up with dozens of missiles. Any miraculous escape would defy credulity.
In the movie while Bond was “retired” he was replaced a new Agent 007 Nomi a black women who gave the 007 designation back to Bond. Since they are going all in inclusive why not have Nomi transition and renamed James Bond?
There was lot of speculation in the thread that the director made a mistake. Now it is obvious those remarks were no slip of the tongue.
This was the first post #MeToo Bond. This Bond would find out he is the father of a child conceived with a “Bond Girl”. So the sexism was largely out, replaced by a relationship of sorts. Don’t worry this was still primarily an action flick.
I don’t think this can work. They will lose most of the core baby boomer audience which is what is wanted but I have my doubts about about gaining new younger fans. While updating legacy franchises have been done successfully the results have been mixed. Considering everything this is more then then usual ask.
The James Bond franchise has had a very successful, unusually long run. Nothing lasts forever. The ending with him sacrificing himself to save the world one last time would have been a shocking but perfect way to say goodbye.
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
It is Autism Acceptance Month
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
06 Jan 2023, 4:16 pm
There was once a spoof film in which the central comic conceit was that a swingin' 60s spy dropped into the present day would seem out of place and inappropriate. That film was called "Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery." It came out in 1997. (Even in that film, they went out of their way to show that Austin wouldn't take advantage of Vanessa when she was drunk.)
ironpony wrote:
if that was the intention though, it feels like they are overstating the obvious as the Connery Bond movies were from the '60s and it's been a long time since then and they haven't repeated Bond being that way since the 70s. so it comes off as they're preaching to the choir at this point if that makes sense?
This just seems to be how movie marketing works now. Generate buzz about the new movie by announcing you fixed a problem from a movie that came out 60+ years ago. I haven't seen the Bond films, but I assume if the problem was more recent, they'd be announcing "Daniel Craig's Bond was a Rapist."
10 Jan 2023, 7:51 pm
This type of marketing doesn't seem logical though, because older Bond fans would like the original Connery ones and not care, and newer fans who did not see the older ones, wouldn't have made it a problem, if you didn't tell them. It's like apologizing for the movie you've made and that never looks good as a marketing ploy. It would be like a company saying that their product is better than Asbestos as a marketing ploy, or it would be like a cruiseship saying their ship is better than the Titanic.
11 Jan 2023, 1:04 am
^
I think it's an extremely off-putting way to market your film. I never saw the Bond films, so I don't really care in this case, but whenever Disney trots out an actor to reassure us that their latest live-action remake will fix all the problems with the original, it makes me NOT want to go see it.
I don't know if it's actually effective on the general public, or if the studios just think it is. As an industry outsider, my guess is that they're going after the demographic that's offended at older movies, because those people have money, too. Maybe they figure the people who like the older movies will complain, but go anyway. Marketing this way also gets them an internet mob that will defend the newer film against all legitimate criticism.
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,415
Location: Long Island, New York
11 Jan 2023, 5:15 am
vividgroovy wrote:
^
I think it's an extremely off-putting way to market your film. I never saw the Bond films, so I don't really care in this case, but whenever Disney trots out an actor to reassure us that their latest live-action remake will fix all the problems with the original, it makes me NOT want to go see it.
I don't know if it's actually effective on the general public, or if the studios just think it is. As an industry outsider, my guess is that they're going after the demographic that's offended at older movies, because those people have money, too. Maybe they figure the people who like the older movies will complain, but go anyway. Marketing this way also gets them an internet mob that will defend the newer film against all legitimate criticism.
I think it's an extremely off-putting way to market your film. I never saw the Bond films, so I don't really care in this case, but whenever Disney trots out an actor to reassure us that their latest live-action remake will fix all the problems with the original, it makes me NOT want to go see it.
I don't know if it's actually effective on the general public, or if the studios just think it is. As an industry outsider, my guess is that they're going after the demographic that's offended at older movies, because those people have money, too. Maybe they figure the people who like the older movies will complain, but go anyway. Marketing this way also gets them an internet mob that will defend the newer film against all legitimate criticism.
Older people go to movies less often and if they do they get senior discounts. Also older people are usually not going to be buying products related to the main character of the movie. Also most advertisers don’t want old people because of the belief they are set in their ways and thus are not persuadable. Gen Z is just much more diverse be it race, sexuality, gender identity. If they are not non binary they know somebody who is. If you are going to market to them you have to put these type characters in.
Updating a franchise that is dated can be done well. Batman and Spiderman have prospered through several iterations. But many times in adding elements of diversity/wokeness it is obviously forced, it is obvious it is being made by older people trying and failing to be current.
The Bond character is rooted in a male dominated sexist era. How is a woke Bond going to compete with newer diverse characters favored by younger audiences?
We will see what they come up with.
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
It is Autism Acceptance Month
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
12 Jan 2023, 12:29 am
ASPartOfMe wrote:
Older people go to movies less often and if they do they get senior discounts. Also older people are usually not going to be buying products related to the main character of the movie. Also most advertisers don’t want old people because of the belief they are set in their ways and thus are not persuadable.
I can kind of see that. Currently, I have the lowest interest in current movies that I've ever had in my life. I don't know if that's because I'm old, or because of the quality of the movies, or because of the extreme politicization of movie discussion on the internet, or all of the above.
Quote:
Gen Z is just much more diverse be it race, sexuality, gender identity. If they are not non binary they know somebody who is. If you are going to market to them you have to put these type characters in.
Updating a franchise that is dated can be done well. Batman and Spiderman have prospered through several iterations. But many times in adding elements of diversity/wokeness it is obviously forced, it is obvious it is being made by older people trying and failing to be current.
The Bond character is rooted in a male dominated sexist era. How is a woke Bond going to compete with newer diverse characters favored by younger audiences?
We will see what they come up with.
Updating a franchise that is dated can be done well. Batman and Spiderman have prospered through several iterations. But many times in adding elements of diversity/wokeness it is obviously forced, it is obvious it is being made by older people trying and failing to be current.
The Bond character is rooted in a male dominated sexist era. How is a woke Bond going to compete with newer diverse characters favored by younger audiences?
We will see what they come up with.
I'm in favor of there being more diversity among characters. I don't want movies with just white, straight people.
At one point there was a rumor on the internet that Idris Elba might be the next Bond. I thought, "He seems cool. He'd probably be good." Other people were like, "No, he can't be Bond! Bond is white!" And I'm like, "So what? If you want to see a white James Bond, there are, like, a million movies where he's white."
Of course, that casting didn't even wind up happening (EDIT: apparently, it is still a rumor?). But the reaction that studio marketing seems to want from their inclusiveness isn't "so what?" It's "WOW! This is the most revolutionary-est thing ever done on film!! ! I'm going to go see it ten times to do my part in the struggle against the Status Quo!! !"
ironpony wrote:
It would be like a company saying that their product is better than Asbestos as a marketing ploy, or it would be like a cruiseship saying their ship is better than the Titanic.
Continuing the Asbestos metaphor, it's like if there was a building that was an amazing feat of architecture, but it had Asbestos in it. So many years ago, people protested and the building was remodeled to remove the Asbestos. But now, the company that owns the building is tearing it down and replacing it with a new, bland commercial building. Some people like the old building better, and so the company is like, "Well, you know it had Asbestos in it 60 years ago!" And the fans of the new building design are like, "Yeah, anyone who criticizes the new design is a filthy Asbestos-lover!" But then, there are other fans who really do say, "Any building built without Asbestos is woke garbage!"
Last edited by vividgroovy on 12 Jan 2023, 1:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
12 Jan 2023, 12:49 am
ironpony wrote:
It would be like a company saying that their product is better than Asbestos as a marketing ploy, or it would be like a cruiseship saying their ship is better than the Titanic.
Continuing the Asbestos metaphor, it's like if there was a building that was an amazing feat of architecture, but it had Asbestos in it. So many years ago, people protested and the building was remodeled to remove the Asbestos. But now, the company that owns the building is tearing it down and replacing it with a new, bland commercial building. Some people like the old building better, and so the company is like, "Well, you know it had Asbestos in it 60 years ago!" And the fans of the new building design are like, "Yeah, anyone who criticizes the new design is a filthy Asbestos-lover!" But then, there are other fans who really do say, "Any building built without Asbestos is woke garbage!"[/quote]
Well it's just that the director doesn't seem to like the franchise that much from saying that, and the people he is trying to cator to probably don't like Bond that much either therefore. So why hire someone that doesn't seem to think that much of the franchise to direct a movie and advertise and cater it to people that do not think highly of it either...
