I don't even understand what he means by that. A woman cannot be a 007 agent because it doesn't fulfill a male fantasy... what?
No Time to Die (2021)
bring itCollins wrote: ↑July 15th, 2019, 4:10 pmhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmende ... 3028d37b17The first trailer presumably dropping before Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw.
also
that means we'll finally get a title
I wouldn't be surprised if it's going to be James Bond
lol
Can't wait for the Logan trailer mashup videos.
His point was that 007 series is oriented around a male-centric power fantasy, and that by casting a female as 007, it negates the essence of the franchise. I'm not saying his point is right, but that's what it is.
Well, to hell with the essence of the franchise if it's something as frivolous as that.
Decades of male fantasy oriented stories, and they still feel violated if the next one is not exactly that.
Fragility at its finest.
Decades of male fantasy oriented stories, and they still feel violated if the next one is not exactly that.
Fragility at its finest.
I'm fine with everything as long as it doesn't venture into any dumb "James Bond is just a codename" bullshit.
Shapiro is, of course, wrong insofar as what it's actually "about", but it is along the same track - it was Fleming's vicarious fantasy, but rather pointedly it was wracked with self-loathing. That is the essence of Bond itself - that he is something of a pig but a necessary one. He is not an aspirational fantasy, but rather the one we can't have. The post-Cubby period of films has, to varying degrees of success, examined how the character is out of alignment with the modern world, and how that can be reconciled.Master Virgo wrote: ↑July 16th, 2019, 1:41 pmWell, to hell with the essence of the franchise if it's something as frivolous as that.
Decades of male fantasy oriented stories, and they still feel violated if the next one is not exactly that.
Fragility at its finest.
However, the world of Bond has been expanded hugely and exponentially in recent years, so it feels like there is room for more characters within the mythos beyond James Bond himself. This feels legitimate now in a way it didn't in 2002, when Stephen Frears was going to do Jinx.
Posts: 55632
Joined:
May 2010
Oh my god, I just remembered Jinx. The idea of it.ArmandFancypants wrote: ↑July 17th, 2019, 4:36 amShapiro is, of course, wrong insofar as what it's actually "about", but it is along the same track - it was Fleming's vicarious fantasy, but rather pointedly it was wracked with self-loathing. That is the essence of Bond itself - that he is something of a pig but a necessary one. He is not an aspirational fantasy, but rather the one we can't have. The post-Cubby period of films has, to varying degrees of success, examined how the character is out of alignment with the modern world, and how that can be reconciled.Master Virgo wrote: ↑July 16th, 2019, 1:41 pmWell, to hell with the essence of the franchise if it's something as frivolous as that.
Decades of male fantasy oriented stories, and they still feel violated if the next one is not exactly that.
Fragility at its finest.
However, the world of Bond has been expanded hugely and exponentially in recent years, so it feels like there is room for more characters within the mythos beyond James Bond himself. This feels legitimate now in a way it didn't in 2002, when Stephen Frears was going to do Jinx.
Couldn't agree more with this.ArmandFancypants wrote: ↑July 17th, 2019, 4:36 amShapiro is, of course, wrong insofar as what it's actually "about", but it is along the same track - it was Fleming's vicarious fantasy, but rather pointedly it was wracked with self-loathing. That is the essence of Bond itself - that he is something of a pig but a necessary one. He is not an aspirational fantasy, but rather the one we can't have. The post-Cubby period of films has, to varying degrees of success, examined how the character is out of alignment with the modern world, and how that can be reconciled.Master Virgo wrote: ↑July 16th, 2019, 1:41 pmWell, to hell with the essence of the franchise if it's something as frivolous as that.
Decades of male fantasy oriented stories, and they still feel violated if the next one is not exactly that.
Fragility at its finest.
However, the world of Bond has been expanded hugely and exponentially in recent years, so it feels like there is room for more characters within the mythos beyond James Bond himself. This feels legitimate now in a way it didn't in 2002, when Stephen Frears was going to do Jinx.
