SPECTRE | 11/6/15 | Final Trailer on Page 126! | Twitter reactions coming in, STID 2.0?

[Avatree]

Lots of hype we have here. Agreed. Spectre over MJP2 WW?

http://forums.boxofficetheory.com/index.php?/topic/17027-to-predict-what-no-man-has-predicted-before-vol2-spectre-mockingjay-part-2-domosww/

[Accursed Arachnid!™]

QOS is still not in the bottom ten Bond films ever made. Let's do a head count, shall we?

 

No matter how bad QOS is, it's still better than...

 

Diamonds are Forever

The Man with the Golden Gun

Moonraker

Octopussy

A View to a Kill

Tomorrow Never Dies

Die Another Day

 

uh...

 

Never Say Never Again

 

um...

 

Casino Royale!

 

 

 

 

 

 

(...you know, the 1960's version)

 

Er...that's nine...wait...I got it...

 

Cannonball Run

 

So there...

Edited December 4, 2014 by Accursed Arachnid!™

[Ozymandias]

About fucking time they started this, I've been starting to get Bond withdrawal.   Now hopefully this is as good as CS and Skyfall and not another QoS.

[JohnnyGossamer]

The '67 version of Casino Royale is tripped out hilarity of the highest order. Wonderful camp. I beg to differ...

Edited December 4, 2014 by JohnnyGossamer

[RobinHood26]

Im in, bringing back SPECTRE Is a great call.

[Jake Gittes]

I hope Monica Bellucci is Blofeld. 

[Hatebox]

I think I'll pass on this. I have very little interest in Bond, it's just a bunch of silly, sexist action spectacle movies.

 

What's wrong with being sexy?

[TalismanRing]

The '67 version of Casino Royale is tripped out hilarity of the highest order. Wonderful camp. I beg to differ...

 

Yep.

 

I'd also put TND, DAD, DAF, MR, NSNA and OP above QOS.  Heck, even the other two bad as they are are more fun to re-watch.  QOS is the worst thing a Bond film can be - dreary and dull.

[Avatree]

What's wrong with being sexy?

It's not sexy, it's sexist...

 

The women characters are portrayed as inferior to the male ones. The "Bond girls" are useful for nothing other than Bond screwing them and the desperate male audience lapping it up. If they were good characters, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with them being sexualised. But it's the fact that they are reduced to nothing more than sex objects that I can't stand.

They are shown to be useless. Skyfall even featured a joke about how women can't drive. (Classy!)

 

If they got rid of the Bond girls and made their female characters useful and fleshed out then I would watch the film, but they haven't done that in the past 25 films and I'm not expecting them to start now.

[Jake Gittes]

Eva Green and Olga Kurilenko both played much stronger and more interesting characters than your typical "Bond girls". 

[Hatebox]

It's not sexy, it's sexist...

 

The women characters are portrayed as inferior to the male ones. The "Bond girls" are useful for nothing other than Bond screwing them and the desperate male audience lapping it up. If they were good characters, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with them being sexualised. But it's the fact that they are reduced to nothing more than sex objects that I can't stand.

They are shown to be useless. Skyfall even featured a joke about how women can't drive. (Classy!)

 

If they got rid of the Bond girls and made their female characters useful and fleshed out then I would watch the film, but they haven't done that in the past 25 films and I'm not expecting them to start now.

 

Not a Spinal Tap fan, huh?

 

But really, complaining about sexism in Bond is missing the boat by about 30 years. Frankly none of the characters are that fleshed out. Bond endures as a character precisely because they never really explore him beyond his pristine surface. His appeal is purely vicarious.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Untitled Hatebox Project

[TalismanRing]

It's not sexy, it's sexist...

 

The women characters are portrayed as inferior to the male ones. The "Bond girls" are useful for nothing other than Bond screwing them and the desperate male audience lapping it up. If they were good characters, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with them being sexualised. But it's the fact that they are reduced to nothing more than sex objects that I can't stand.

They are shown to be useless. Skyfall even featured a joke about how women can't drive. (Classy!)

 

If they got rid of the Bond girls and made their female characters useful and fleshed out then I would watch the film, but they haven't done that in the past 25 films and I'm not expecting them to start now.

 

All characters, male and female, are inferior to Bond in Bond's world.  The same way everyone is inferior to Katniss in her world. 

 

There are some terrible female characters in Bond movies but there are quite a few very good female characters in Bond movies, often quite skilled and helpful and Bond is often as sexualized as the women.  

 

Skyfall though I found more sexist, bordering on misogynistic than some Bond films decades older.  I find it shocking that Barbara Broccoli produced it. 

[Avatree]

All characters, male and female, are inferior to Bond in Bond's world.  The same way everyone is inferior to Katniss in her world. 

 

There are some terrible female characters in Bond movies but there are quite a few very good female characters in Bond movies, often quite skilled and helpful and Bond is often as sexualized as the women.  

 

Skyfall though I found more sexist, bordering on misogynistic than some Bond films decades older.  I find it shocking that Barbara Broccoli produced it. 

 

Not a Spinal Tap fan, huh?

 

But really, complaining about sexism in Bond is missing the boat by about 30 years. Frankly none of the characters are that fleshed out. Bond endures as a character precisely because they never really explore him beyond his pristine surface. His appeal is purely vicarious.

The other characters in the films are not designed for male pleasure... it's not even slightly similar, that's a dumb cop-out excuse, claiming that the male characters are weak.

[Hatebox]

The other characters in the films are not designed for male pleasure... it's not even slightly similar, that's a dumb cop-out excuse, claiming that the male characters are weak.

 

What? Are you saying part of Bond's appeal isn't because females are attracted to him? They didn't include that swimming shorts shot of Craig in CR for nothing...

Edited December 4, 2014 by Untitled Hatebox Project

[TalismanRing]

You've said yourself you're not a fan and have barely watched any of the movies.  You're making sweeping reductive statements about a series that has lasted over 50 years and spanned about 25 movies.   If you believe that every woman in the Bond films is merely there for sexual pleasure, serve no other narrative to the story and are weak then you're mistaken.

[Avatree]

What? Are you saying part of Bond's appeal isn't because females are attracted to him? They didn't include that swimming shorts shot of Craig in CR for nothing...

Whether he is sexualised or not is pretty irrelevant (and he isn't, by the way, it's nothing compared to the women). Context is what is important. The bond girls are there purely for male pleasure. If you're telling me that James Bond exists purely for female pleasure then you are lying. I know you're not trying to say this at all, but my point is, it's not the same thing. Bond is not treated the same as the women. (I can't bring myself to say "Bond girls" because it's such a disgusting phrase)

[Hatebox]

Bond is not treated the same as the women.

 

Of course he isn't - he's the star.

 

But your reading of the women only being there for male 'pleasure' is too simplistic. They also act as surrogates for female viewers to imagine themselves with Bond. Seriously, there's no way the series would have endured this long if the experience wasn't vicarious for both genders. I'm not going to pretend the series doesn't have sexist overtones, but neither will I pretend it matters. Everyone watches Bond knowing that's part of the deal and enjoy the films accordingly, because it lets everyone enter into that spy-world fantasy regardless of their sex.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Untitled Hatebox Project

[Avatree]

Of course he isn't - he's the star.

 

But your reading of the women only being there for male 'pleasure' is too simplistic. They also act as surrogates for female viewers to imagine themselves with Bond. Seriously, there's no way the series would have endured this long if the experience wasn't vicarious for both genders. I'm not going to pretend the series doesn't have sexist overtones, but neither will I pretend it matters. Everyone watches Bond knowing that's part of the deal and enjoy the films accordingly, because it lets everyone enter into that spy-world fantasy regardless of their sex.

So your argument boils down to, "it doesn't matter, because you know what you're getting into". That's pathetic.

If I made a film series that was consistently racist, would it be unreasonable for people to criticise it, given that they "know that's part of the deal"?

 

edit: Actually, don't bother answering that question. You seem like an sexist idiot so I have better things to do with my time than continuing this conversation.

Edited December 4, 2014 by treeroy

[Hatebox]

So your argument boils down to, "it doesn't matter, because you know what you're getting into". That's pathetic.

If I made a film series that was consistently racist, would it be unreasonable for people to criticise it, given that they "know that's part of the deal"?

 

If an overtly racist franchise made 1.1 billion with its last entry I'd be very surprised.

 

But apparently you don't want a reasonable discussion, so we'll leave it at that.

[Mulder]

I love the title.