Advertisement
Have your say on the future of the 'Save Draft' feature in this poll
MODs please see this information notice in the mod's forum. Thanks!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

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

1282931333451

Comments



  • Some people seem very vexed with the amount of women (some of whom a black!!) in a film they haven't seen.

    Does that say more about the film, or the commentator?





  • If the black woman is Moneypenny, I think she's been an excellent addition.





  • This retconning of classic movies through current ‘woke’ standards is appalling. In the times these movies were made, the love scenes were essentially Mills and Boons books acted out on screen. The idea of the leading Lady ‘being swept off her feet by the dashing hero’ which was a staple of those movies and not some grubby rape scene in disguise, current morons would have you believe.

    One notable exception is the scene in Gone With The Wind, which made it clear what was happening.





  • I don't think you're calling me a moron, but ...? I don't think you are but assuming those who reassess these things as "woke" is as inaccurate and reductionist as calling what Bond did as "rape". Bond is more than 50 years old; it's older than some countries, laws, it's the oldest franchise going. It can survive a little examination and thought experiments, otherwise it's not much of a franchise if it's that brittle.

    Just cos something was the done thing, doesn't excuse the behaviour; even the most brazen PUA wouldn't try a tactic like Bond did with P Galore 🙂 you're going to kiss me, c'mere. Swoon? 😜

    Feel like with these conversations I should point out I do have a fondness for the franchise - lest people think I'm some woke troll out for crusading. I just have mixed feelings, the films are not an absolute for me, and can parse the good and what I see is as bad. But at 50 years of age, some stuff has aged better than others - that's just life. View to a Kill remains a favourite for instance, depsite the famously lopsided age difference between the leads.

    Actually anyone got a handy source for the comments ... cos I'd at least like to read the context, see if this is another case like with Scorcese vs. Marvel. Otherwise I'll dig it out myself.





  • Here's the link to the original article which is quite long.

    " Perhaps the biggest hurdle for the film was bringing its globe-trotting lothario into Hollywood’s post-#MeToo reality. After all, No Time to Die began development in 2016, before the industry embarked on a period of self-reflection in the wake of Harvey Weinstein’s downfall for predatory behavior. Though Craig’s oeuvre puts a greater emphasis on the quality of drinks than the quantity of women, the history of Bond includes casual misogyny and worse.


    “Is it Thunderball or Goldfinger where, like, basically Sean Connery’s character rapes a woman?” Fukunaga asks. “She’s like ‘No, no, no,’ and he’s like, ‘Yes, yes, yes.’ That wouldn’t fly today.” "



  • Advertisement


  • The Guardian also covered it and went into more detail on the scene in question.

    "Cary Fukunaga appeared to refer to a scene in 1965’s Thunderball in which Connery’s Bond forcibly kisses a nurse (played by Molly Peters) who has spurned his advances. In a later scene, Bond suggests he will keep quiet about information that could cost her her job if she sleeps with him. “I suppose my silence could have a price,” he says.


    Peter’s character backs away, saying: “You don’t mean … oh, no,” before Bond replies “Oh, yes”, pushes her into a sauna and takes off her clothes."





  • Thanks @FunLover18 (what happened the other 17 of you? 😁)

    I recall very little of Thunderball outside the trailblazing underwater scenes... but honestly it's unhelpful and misguided for Fukunaga to speak of "rape" when whatever else went down in Goldfinger - it wasn't rape. Not by any definition I'm aware of TBH. There are conversations about consent, basic skuzzyness, and contextual romantic behaviour of cinema at the time ... but it wasn't full blown, sexual assault IMO. At least not what we see on screen; maybe Fukunaga is talking about the implied.





  • Edit: Funlover covered it already.


    Not surprising given how much of a dickhead Fleming was. He wrote Pussy Galore as being a lesbian who "only needed the right man to come along … to cure her psycho-pathological malady".





  • Ah, right Thunderball ain't great Yeah but ... Yikes, I hadn't known that about Fleming's writing of Galore. That's more than a bit shít. Surprised that doesn't get more air time, especially in this day and age. That was James Bond, the novels really: Fleming self inserting himself in a bunch of fantasy trips.

    But again. People. Pussy Galore. A lot of energy is spent defending a film series with character names beneath a Carry On. Or indeed deconstructing them, but that at least feels earned against where the world exists now.





  • Having rewatched it back, it is rape, it’s clear from the build-up with the forced kiss that she’s not interested and then he essentially blackmails her into sleeping with him. They’re going for the she doesn’t want to but she really does trope but it’s poorly executed. If it was IRL she would 100% have a case. Anyway I do say all this as a Bond fan, and Connery is actually my favourite, but I don’t hold to this notion that as fans we can’t criticise or acknowledge the flaws of the thing we’re a fan of.



  • Advertisement


  • the whole thing seems contrived trying to be offended by films form the 60's or that it should have any bearing on a film made today. Anyone in their 40's has only ever seen a Dalton, Brosnan or Craig Bond in the cinema and Dalton is arguably the most accurate representation of Bond, based on the books





  • Its not rape.

    Do you not see her fluttering her eyelashes at Bond just before they enter the sauna and she is even smiling when she says "Oh No you dont mean".

    She is obviously flirting with him, even in the earlier part of the scene when she says I can see there is only one way to keep you quiet Mr Bond.





  • "But, your honour she, was fluttering her eyelids and smiling when she said no to my suggestion that she sleep with me to buy my silence".

    Flirting ≠ consent

    I'm not offended or trying to cancel Bond, I'm a fan but this is rape.





  • Criticism is not the same thing as offence. Nobody's offended. That's an unfair painting of a little retrospective reflection (broadly in good spirits here as well) as irrational bitterness or rage.

    There's no cancellation going on, just wonderment at how times change, what's was considered "charming" now hostile and nonconsensual. And that criticism can happily sit alongside an enjoyment of the film franchise as a whole; a little dissonance is healthy, and as myself and FunLover said we're still fans.

    I mean, by all accounts, if some here think it is nothing behaviour, they're free to try Bond's methods next time they're out on the pull. Share the results once they're released from jail 😁





  • it was more a comment on the director or whoever is bringing it up now and if this means it influenced choices in this film as an excuse for some kind of counter weight?

    A Bond film is not meant to be a dating manual for men but the fantasy element is if a particular man was the tip of the spear of a global reach spy organisation, who had frequent contact with counter spies & criminal organisations where manipulation was the name of the game then seduction would be part of this. I'd have to watch the old films again but Bond just hitting the nite clubs to pick up chicks wasnt a thing, the women were either Russian spies, or tended to be somehow connected to the villain of the film, so if he can kill them, seducing them is moot. The only difference im guessing from an old "Mills and Boom" books is that as Bond ia a fast pace spy film we dont watch the film from the female perspective as its not relevant anymore then we care about the thoughts and aspirations of the numerous people Bond kills in the films.





  • As a James Bond fan, I am looking forward to seeing this.





  • Is the rape of a meaningless side character worse than killing faceless goons and megalomaniacs with evil intentions? I would say the latter is expected in a Bond movie.

    Bond literally has a licence to kill and his murders and driving offences are always done in the service of his mission. Rape isn't. Honestly shocked I have to explain that.









  • I literally just stated my opinion that is was rape and have merely defended that opinion from people who want me to be outraged when they themselves are the ones reaching for flimsy excuses like fluttering eyelids and playing whataboutery with his driving offences, give me a break.

    Bond is a multimillion dollar franchise and we're talking about a scene from the third movie of 25. Bond isn't going to be cancelled (even if I wanted it to which I don't) so what harm does it do to point out the problematic nature of Bond raping someone?





  • The treatment of women in the JB series certainly reflected the times in how women were portrayed in a lot of media including print and TV- you only have to look at the “well respected” Michael Parkinson interview from the early 1970s with a very capable Helen Mirren to know just how badly women were treated and thought of in the arts by their male contemporaries. Totally worth watching from a cringfest perspective if you’ve never seen it

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gmlP_cFOoAM

    The first time from my own memory that the treatment of women changed in the JB series was The Living Daylights

    Just did a Google and found this article from 1987 which highlights the “one partner” for Bond, taking into account the AIDS crisis at the time- I remember this well as a big deal was made of this aspect in the press at the time.

    https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1987-06-25-8702160902-story,amp.html

    I think both the Connery and the Moore years portrayed women as very submissive ultimately to “Bond” but the Connery years were far more aggressive- Connery’s Bond “took” the woman- Moore’s Bond seduced or sometimes chased the woman- submissiveness was always ultimately assumed in the Bond storylines of these times from a paying viewer perspective but the “chase” was portrayed differently, depending on what Bond version you were watching.


    Uncomfortable watching I have to admit in 2021 but we live in more enlightened times thankfully.

    On a similar theme, I grew up watching the 1968 film Oliver in the early 80s on TV- it was classed as a children’s programme. Years later as an adult, I happened across it playing on TV one day and it was incredibly violent, the way only a 1960s UK made film can be - certainly not something you wanted your own young people or those of your family watching in the 1990s and 2000s.

    It’s still a classic and powerful film but it hasn’t aged well - I would t “cancel” it but I also would t buy it for children’s viewing today- it’s of it’s time and that time has passed.



  • Advertisement


  • As I said I'm a fan of Bond and I'm well aware of the way the series has treated it's female characters. I don't see the problem with thinking it's not ideal to have your main protagonist (who is idolised by many) rape someone or seeing as it's 50 years too late, acknowledging that it's not a good look.





  • Seeing as this conversation has jumped the shark with mention of Bond's driving habits, I've always found this move particularly reckless.

    Any number of civilians could have been squashed by that over-large saloon car, never mind the falling rubble from the wall it burst through.


    The thing is, unlike Bond's dodgy treatment of women, nobody is going to be encouraged to emulate this particular move thinking if Bond can do it - it's Kool and the Gang.





  • Watching that video is a reminder of just how much of Helen Mirran's time in the Hollywood A-List has been spent as an older lady; to the extent that watching the (very cringe-inducing) Parkinson clip caused a double-take; of course she used to be a young woman. Obviously: but it's like seeing photos of young Morgan Freeman; I'm so used to him always being some older fella, it's almost bizarre to contemplate he was ever young.

    I remember Die Hard 5 was a particularly bad example of this: John McClane chases the bad guys in a truck (I think?), and the film gleefully showed our "hero" drive over and on-top of commuters' cars on the Russian motorway. Sometimes the collatoral damage is just too hard to ignore to simply "turn the brain off" as the saying goes.





  • Ok we're agreed it's not ideal and yet you're still trying to justify it for some reason ...





  • As I've said before fighting and car chases are part of the formula (again Bond literally has a licence to kill) and there's usually some way that they're tied into the narrative.

    Honestly I really didn't think "Bond shouldn't rape people" would be this controversial an opinion.





  • No Bond shouldnt rape Women and he never did.

    Where you see rape most level headed people see consensual sex.






  • I always found Solitaire and the rigged deck of tarot cards in Live and Let Die to be very dodgy. Even the first time I saw it (which would have been in the 90s long before meToo and such like) it didn't seem right. Fooling a clearly unstable woman into sex because she believes in what the cards tell her. I suspect it would be 'rape by deception' nowadays.





  • Most level headed people would discuss the actual topic rather than deflecting with nonsense whataboutery. If you don't think it's rape, that's fine, we disagree and have different views on what counts as consent.



  • Advertisement


  • Premiere is tonight in London and the review embargo is lifted at midnight so we should have some reviews soon.



Advertisement