Skyfall Discussion (spoilers allowed)

[James]

Babs will gave up her power.

Excuse me, I meant to say Babs will never gave her power.

I've said a few times that considering how long Michael Wilson has been with the series, he should certainly know better. If only he would wake up and stop Barbara from ruining the series further with her politically correct/artistic ideas, kind of like how Darth Vader comes to his senses and destroys the Emperor.

[video][/video]

Oh no, I'm not suggesting that Michael should throw Barbara into a volcano or anything horrible like that. I just wish he wouldn't go along with everything Barbara does, and tell her (to quote Alan Partridge) "Stop getting Bond wrong!"

I hope I don't appear flippant here but I thought MGW looked a bit confused and past it as far back as 2006 when they first announced DC. He is 70 now so I think he's letting Barbara wear the trousers and have her fun. His comments on Bond are increasingly bizarre lately. Craig being better than Connery, beating Roger Moore's run of seven films etc. Bonkers.

[Kristatos]

I think MGW has always been in full agreement with his stepsister. He wanted to reboot as long ago as TLD.

[The Saint 007]

I think MGW has always been in full agreement with his stepsister. He wanted to reboot as long ago as TLD.

Perhaps it would have been better if the reboot had been done back in 1987. They would have had Timothy Dalton as Bond, as well as Albert Broccoli and the some of the older film crew.

[FormerBondFan]

I think MGW has always been in full agreement with his stepsister. He wanted to reboot as long ago as TLD.

Perhaps it would have been better if the reboot had been done back in 1987. They would have had Timothy Dalton as Bond, as well as Albert Broccoli and the some of the older film crew.

TLD was a semi-reboot, considering Bond was younger again. The same can be said with GE.

[Napoleon Solo]

I think MGW has always been in full agreement with his stepsister. He wanted to reboot as long ago as TLD.

To be technical, she's his half-sister. Same mother, different fathers.

On the other point, yes. MGW had spent time with Richard Maibaum on a treatment how "Bond came to be" as a first try at a story for The Living Daylights. Albert R. Broccoli vetoed it. So, years later, MGW talked about how Casino Royale was an "origin" story penned by Fleming. The thing is, Bond was hardly a rookie agent in the novel. But it was at long last a chance to MGW to do that "origin" take so that's how he described the book.

[The Saint 007]

I think MGW has always been in full agreement with his stepsister. He wanted to reboot as long ago as TLD.

Perhaps it would have been better if the reboot had been done back in 1987. They would have had Timothy Dalton as Bond, as well as Albert Broccoli and the some of the older film crew.

TLD was a semi-reboot, considering Bond was younger again. The same can be said with GE.

What I'm saying is that a film about Bond's beginning would have probably been better if it was done in 1987, since you would have had Timothy Dalton as Bond, and Albert Broccoli/older film crew producing it.

[Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry]

I don't think MGW wanted Craig as Bond; he wanted Julian McMahon I think.

[FormerBondFan]

I think MGW has always been in full agreement with his stepsister. He wanted to reboot as long ago as TLD.

Perhaps it would have been better if the reboot had been done back in 1987. They would have had Timothy Dalton as Bond, as well as Albert Broccoli and the some of the older film crew.

TLD was a semi-reboot, considering Bond was younger again. The same can be said with GE.

What I'm saying is that a film about Bond's beginning would have probably been better if it was done in 1987, since you would have had Timothy Dalton as Bond, and Albert Broccoli/older film crew producing it.

I don't think Cubby wanted a complete reboot.

[Kristatos]

I don't think MGW wanted Craig as Bond; he wanted Julian McMahon I think.

I thought he wanted Sam Worthington, Amy Pascal wanted Clive Owen (who wasn't interested) and Martin Campbell wanted Henry Cavill. I could be wrong though.

[dickmojo]

I wondered why the plot in Quantum of Solace was about something so mundane and trivial as the water rights to the utility services in Bolivia. I mean, this is James Bond we're talking about here, the greatest spy in the world. His job is prevent global nuclear war, or to stop the largest depository of gold in the world from being blown up, or to stop some maniacal plan to destroy cities with a satellite laser beam weapon. But Bolivian Water Rights?!? Why is such a mundane plot even in a Bond movie?

But then I researched it, and I discovered why: its because the main script-writer for that film, Paul Haggis, is an out-and-out fanatical extremist Marxist, and it seems this whole Bolivian Water Rights thing is some sort of cause célèbre amongst radical left-wing Marxist fanatics.

Apparently it actually happened in 1999: the Bolivian Government tried to sell the Water supply rights to the third largest city in Bolivia to a private company. Now, of course, any kind of capitalism or private enterprise is like a red flag to a bull as far as Marxists are concerned, and they protested and demonstrated and howled and screamed and in the end they won and forced the government not to sell the Water Rights after all. As a corollary, to this day there are water shortages in that city, because the necessary dams and infrastructure which would have been built by the private enterprise, never got built by the Government, and thus the poor people in Bolivia are far worse off for of the activism of fanatical extremist Marxists than they would have otherwise been if a private company had just been allowed to provide profitably for their needs.

But of course, committed Marxist extremists like Paul Haggis don't see it that way, and thus it makes sense now why such a stupid plot was written.

I wondered why in Quantum of Solace and Skyfall, Bond seems so asexual, and the interactions between Bond and various different women are so unnatural, and, well, un-Bond-like.

You see, in all the previous films, Bond's sexual exploits have been an integral part of the story, and, they are used in very specific ways: sex is usually seen as a celebration, a life-affirming and joyous act, a fitting ending for the triumphant Bond to rejoice and celebrate the villain's defeat by making beautiful love to a beautiful, doe-eyed woman.

Sometimes, Bond uses sex as a weapon to further his investigations, such as with Miss Taro in Dr. No, or other times the villainess uses sex to get closer to Bond so as to distract him and get a chance to kill him, such as with Fiona Volpe in Thunderball.

Once, in Goldfinger, Bond's (forcible) seduction of a lesbian (Pussy Galore) ends up saving the day, because it "appealed to her maternal instinct", and switched her allegiance over to the good side. 60 000 people would have died instantly, and untold economic damage would have been wrought, we are to believe, except for that, luckily, Bond had the presence of mind to rape a lesbian when he had half the chance to.

(N.B. I don't think Bond is actually a rapist, I think he's just a good old sexually assertive traditional alpha male. Its just, I know that's what modern feminists seeing that Goldfinger scene in the Barn would squeal, especially since Pussy Galore is supposed to be a lesbian)

But in Quantum of Solace and Skyfall, none of these types of sexual exploits are incorporated in meaningful ways in the script. Instead, Bond's sex scenes are just tacked on as they're an after thought, as if they are included almost under duress. When Bond has sex in QoS and SF, its not a celebration or a life-affirming act at all. In QoS, it seems like Bond is just bored, and just decides to have sex (with agent Fields) because he "can't find his stationary" (wtf?) Fields is promptly then disposed of and we find out was completely superfluous to the plot in the first place. Quantum of Solace was the first Bond film ever in which Bond didn't have sex with the main female protagonist (the "Bond Girl").

(which I think is an act of vandalism to a fine tradition)

In Skyfall its even worse. When Bond is shown having sex with an anonymous Turkish woman at the start, its used to portray the exact opposite meaning of the sort of life-affirming celebration that sex is supposed to portray in Bond films. The script-writers want us to believe that Bond has descended into a dark, dark place of alcoholism and despair, neglecting his duty and letting everyone think he's dead. And by showing bond having sex in this way, the implication is that its something dirty, something that he should be ashamed of.

Then when he meets Severine in the casino later on, he interacts with her in the most creepy, unnatural and unnerving way. "You were a child prostitute, I can tell", sheesh Bond~ way to charm the ladies! (/sarc) And then he just creeps naked into her shower without saying a word.

Then he promptly lets her die, a metaphor for his powerlessness and impotence with women (although as soon as she's dead, oh NOW he's somehow able to kill all the henchmen and capture the villain...)

I wondered why the script-writers didn't show Bond actually creating attraction, being cocky and witty and charming, developing a sexual rapport with the opposite character.

But then I researched it, and I discovered why: John Logan, the main script writer for Skyfall, is openly gay. He doesn't know the first thing about male-female sexual dynamics, and that deficiency of knowledge really comes out in his work on this Bond film. So instead, the only sexual dynamic in the film is between two men, Bond and the villain. Honestly, when Bond said something like "How do you know its my first time?", I felt my skin crawl. It was really uncomfortable for me. Because you know, I've seen every Bond film, and I KNOW what Bond is like. It was a disturbing scene.

Look, there is a reason why all this matters, there is a serious reason why these corruptions of our hero must be opposed. When Fleming created the character, he said his books were for "warm-blooded heterosexuals", and for 50 years, James Bond has been the leading archetype of warm-blooded white anglo-saxon male heterosexuals, and James Bond films have been the glorification of that archetype.

Human beings need archetypes they can identify with, it is a deep-seated psychological need. But the condition of being white and male and straight has come to be seen by the bien pensant leftist cultural elite as the enemy, as something to be torn down and trampled. It is the patriarchy! it is the oppressor! It must not be glorified; it must be belittled, diminished and destroyed! (they believe)

But what happens when you take away a group of people's identifying archetype, and marginalise and alienate them, is they go crazy! They retreat into an introspective world of confusion and psychosis. This is the direct cause of the spate of mass shootings: intelligent young white heterosexual males who have been alienated by society and deprived of their identity! Society doesn't realise what they're doing to this cohort of people! They are driving erstwhile capable and contributive members of society into a darkly introverted psychosis, in which space, inevitably, some of them snap and go postal, as it seems to be the only expression left for the pent up and constrained emotions they are feeling.

Yet if they just had an archetype they could identify with as a hero, who could exemplify the distinction between good and evil, whilst simultaenously giving expression to all the passions that come naturally to white male heterosexuals, such horrific senseless violence in our schools and universities could be avoided!

That heroic archetype is James Bond, and that is why he MUST be restored to culture in his original, intended incarnation. We must fight the good fight and not give in to the forces of Marxist-feminism, for they know not what evil they do create.

[The Saint 007]

I don't think Cubby wanted a complete reboot.

I know he was against the idea of making a film based on Bond's beginning at the time. But if Albert Broccoli actually did go along with the idea, then I think it probably would have turned out better than what we got with this reboot.

[Kristatos]

Welcome, dickmojo, a very well thought out first post. But I don't think it's right to assume that a gay writer knows nothing about heterosexual relationships. Logan presumably has a mother and father, and heterosexual friends and relatives. Speaking as a writer myself, it would be pretty limiting for a writer to only write about characters who were exactly like them in every respect. And are gay relationships really that different to heterosexual ones? There are differences, sure, but plenty of commonalities as well. I'm not gay, but I assume that gay couples have to develop a rapport, and all the other features of relationships that you mention, just as straight couples do.

[The Saint 007]

Welcome to the forum, dickmojo, and great first post.

[Omega]

Great post dickmojo!!!

[bjmdds]

Dickmojo nailed it correctly. Eon is feminizing Bond into something Fleming would not recognize. The final descent with Idris Elba as a non-white, bisexual Bond in 2021 by the green vegetable will nail the coffin shut permanently on the Fleming vision. Kris, would a straight author be better at writing about homosexual relationships than a gay author? If one's frame of reference is their source of their literary muse, why not choose a more apprpriate writer for Bond? Dickmojo is correct. Socialistic, anti-capitalistic ,homosexual writers would be better served delving into non-Bond creations. Welcome Dick my boy, you have found a home here

[Kristatos]

Kris, would a straight author be better at writing about homosexual relationships than a gay author?

Well, he wouldn't be writing from personal experience, but it shouldn't be impossible for a straight author to write gay characters. And the two cases are not exactly equivalent anyway, since heterosexuals are in the majority. Chances are, a gay writer knows more straight people than a straight writer knows gay people. It is too simplistic just to say that Logan's problems writing Bond are due to him being gay. I think it has more to do with him being a lousy writer.

[bjmdds]

So why did the masses spend me to see this film?

[FormerBondFan]

The final descent with Idris Elba as a non-white, bisexual Bond in 2021 by the green vegetable will nail the coffin shut permanently on the Fleming vision.

It's time for James Bond to be diversified once DC retires and NO exceptions. Considering the Skyfall Virus has transformed most of world's population (especially here in the US) into minions, the traditional handsome tall and dark-haired Bond is no longer relevant.....PERMANENTLY. If the world needs a handsome James Bond, make him Black, make him Asian, make him Indian, make him Arabic, make him Hispanic, make him bald, give him an eye-patch, give him a prosthetic arm, or whatever. Skin color and appearance don't matter anymore. The James Bond we know from 1962 - 2002 (or 1954 - 2002, considering Barry Nelson has a classic look, and the same can be said with David Niven and Peter Seller in some degree), or better the say, the future Bonds in the likes of Henry, Fassbender or any other classic handsome actors DO NOT MIX with Babs' regime. If she thinks she can get away with what she did to Pierce by dismissing him (leaving him without a great Bond aside from GE) and then hire DC as well as giving him (not Pierce) the good stuff (leaving those minions to bashing Pierce like it's his fault even he has no control over the content given as he wanted a great Bond with a dark and gritty atmosphere), she might as well diversify the Bond role for everyone to play him. If DC's Bond films get mad-world praise and nomination(s) even those in the US, why not Bond films from Idris or someone like Marty Feldman (as far as the freaks are concerned)? Babs wants Idris as Bond? Let's give it her. Naomi Harris wants him to be Bond also? Let's give it her as well. And Idris himself wants to be Bond. It's all his. I could say this a billion times.

[bjamesobrad]

Sorry FBF but I have to disagree with you. I do not believe that babs gave Brosnan s**t and Craig the good stuff, and thats the point. Craigs movies suck just as bad as his interpritation of the iconic charactor.
Pierce did get a raw deal however when they threw him out like yesterdays news paper

[The Saint 007]

The final descent with Idris Elba as a non-white, bisexual Bond in 2021 by the green vegetable will nail the coffin shut permanently on the Fleming vision.

It's time for James Bond to be diversified once DC retires and NO exceptions. Considering the Skyfall Virus has transformed most of world's population (especially here in the US) into minions, the traditional handsome tall and dark-haired Bond is no longer relevant.....PERMANENTLY. If the world needs a handsome James Bond, make him Black, make him Asian, make him Indian, make him Arabic, make him Hispanic, make him bald, give him an eye-patch, give him a prosthetic arm, or whatever. Skin color and appearance don't matter anymore. The James Bond we know from 1962 - 2002 (or 1954 - 2002, considering Barry Nelson has a classic look, and the same can be said with David Niven and Peter Seller in some degree), or better the say, the future Bonds in the likes of Henry, Fassbender or any other classic handsome actors DO NOT MIX with Babs' regime. If she thinks she can get away with what she did to Pierce by dismissing him (leaving him without a great Bond aside from GE) and then hire DC as well as giving him (not Pierce) the good stuff (leaving those minions to bashing Pierce like it's his fault even he has no control over the content given as he wanted a great Bond with a dark and gritty atmosphere), she might as well diversify the Bond role for everyone to play him. If DC's Bond films get mad-world praise and nomination(s) even those in the US, why not Bond films from Idris or someone like Marty Feldman (as far as the freaks are concerned)? Babs wants Idris as Bond? Let's give it her. Naomi Harris wants him to be Bond also? Let's give it her as well. And Idris himself wants to be Bond. It's all his. I could say this a billion times.

I've mentioned before that making secondary characters black could be a way that the producers are slowly trying to introduce a black Bond. I know that I can't actually prove this, but it's just a hunch I have. What I do know is that if a black actor is ever cast to play Bond, Sweeney will be joining forces with us.

If people really want a Bond-like spy who is black, Indian, Asian, or whatnot, then just make a whole new series. Why alternate the character of James Bond? Video game developers also do these similar kinds of things. They come up with crazy ideas/gimmicks, and instead of using them to make a new game, they incorporate them into an already popular series. It's almost like they know their ideas are ridiculous, and so they hide behind a popular name to have a better chance of customers accepting it.

While the series hasn't yet reached the point where it's beyond saving, its future does seem rather uncertain. Hence that's why I say Bond is currently in limbo. Some people have read between the lines and see the red flags, while there are many others that can't. Either that or they just simply don't care. Was the Brosnan era really THAT bad to some people, that they can just willingly accept all these bizarre ideas being incorporated into Bond? The Brosnan era wasn't perfect, but then again, neither were the others. I honestly don't think Die Another Day is worth rebooting the series, or screwing it up with all sorts of ideas/alternations.