James Bond's long-serving producers give control to Amazon

[Techwright]

11 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

Having watched all of the Bond movies, most of them when they originally came out in theaters, I vehemently disagree with your assertion that he's a sociopath or a misogynist.

 

First, he appears to care a great deal about the people of his country, so much so that he risks his life on a daily basis to protect them. Sociopaths, by definition, lack empathy and the capacity to care about others. Also, he exhibits none of the anger management issues typical of sociopaths. As for misogynist. Well, people now days throw that word around at the drop of a hat. Men now days get accused of misogyny for simply looking in the general direction of a woman.

 

So yeah. I disagree with your entire premise and stand by what I said. James Bond is a hero, perhaps a morally gray one, but a hero nonetheless, and I disagree with trying to rewrite him as Hanibal Lector in a tuxedo.

 

I would point out that @JKCarrier begins his Bond description with the phrase "book-accurate".  Now I've not read the books, but I gather there's a difference.  It sounds like everything JKC is describing comes from that viewpoint, and JKC was hoping they'd bring that to the screen.  Your perspective seems completely centered on the movies, which appear to have a different interpretation of the character.

[ShardWarrior]

On 2/21/2025 at 2:06 PM, JKCarrier said:

You could get a pretty interesting movie by positioning a book-accurate, borderline-sociopathic Bond as the villain. MI-6 looks the other way because he's useful and effective, but eventually he goes too far and they decide they have to take him off the board. The story is told from the point of view of the agent sent to take him out, and they wrestle with the fact that this guy is legit a hero who saved the world multiple times, but also a loathsome human being.

 

Bond is not a villain and attempting to make him into one does not work.

 

On 2/22/2025 at 7:59 PM, El D said:

I don't understand how portraying Bond accurately - and thusly having him be a misogynistic sociopath who does terribly violent things in the name of his country - counts as rewriting. That's not rewriting that's just who Bond is. A flawed, dynamic character who is fun to watch but also a vile person who does vile things. Also he's not a hero, he's just the protagonist. Fleming himself never even considered Bond a 'good guy.' He's explicitly a weapon of his government and a distilled product of his era. 

 

I do not think Bond is a sociopath in the strictest clinical sense.  He is like any other solider who is on occasion required to do terrible things in defense of their country.  A flawed and dynamic charter, yes.  A vile sociopath?  I would disagree.  Fleming himself also never considered Bond "the bad guy" either.

 

I would also argue he is not a misogynist either as that entails a loathing and hatred of women.  I think it very safe to say Bond does not hate women.  He is more a male chauvinist than misogynist in my opinion. 

[PeregrineFalcon]

1 hour ago, Techwright said:

I would point out that @JKCarrier begins his Bond description with the phrase "book-accurate".  Now I've not read the books, but I gather there's a difference.  It sounds like everything JKC is describing comes from that viewpoint, and JKC was hoping they'd bring that to the screen.  Your perspective seems completely centered on the movies, which appear to have a different interpretation of the character.

Perhaps I should clarify that I have never read the books. So my impression of James Bond is entirely from the movies. It seems like that makes a difference.

 

I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of the Bond movie audience has never read the books either. So if Amazon gives Bond the "Power of maaaaaany" make over and tries to make him into a secretly villainous Jedi or a not so villainous Sith, they're going to lose money on those movies just like they've lost money on the last couple of series they've done that got unceremoniously canceled.

 

28 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

I would also argue he is not a misogynist either as that entails a loathing and hatred of women.  I think it very safe to say Bond does not hate women.  He is more a male chauvinist than misogynist in my opinion. 

That's certainly possible. Or, it's possible that he just uses the women he encounters in order to complete his mission. Either way, audiences love this bad-ass, extremely charismatic man who kills men and seduces women. That's the formula that has made a ton of money for the Bond franchise over the last 70 years. And that's the formula that's made James Bond as famous as Captain Kirk, Darth Vader and Elvis. If Amazon screws that up it'll be yet another sure money making IP that Amazon has lost money on due to their own incompetence.

[ShardWarrior]

35 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

That's certainly possible. Or, it's possible that he just uses the women he encounters in order to complete his mission.

 

That is how I read the Bond character.  My point was that the definition of misogyny includes "hatred of or contempt of" women.  Bond clearly did not hate Vesper Lynd, in both the original novel and Casino Royale film as he fell in love with her.  Bond also did get married in both the novel and film adaption of On Her Majesty's Secret Service.  Describing him as a "misogynistic sociopath" is not accurate.

 

35 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

Either way, audiences love this bad-ass, extremely charismatic man who kills men and seduces women. That's the formula that has made a ton of money for the Bond franchise over the last 70 years. And that's the formula that's made James Bond as famous as Captain Kirk, Darth Vader and Elvis. If Amazon screws that up it'll be yet another sure money making IP that Amazon has lost money on due to their own incompetence.

 

I agree that sticking with the source material is the best route to go as that is what endeared people to these characters in the first place.  I very highly doubt this is what Amazon will do unfortunately.  What they have done to the Tolkien work is truly an abomination in my opinion.  I foresee them doing the same thing with Bond and it is also only a matter of time before the same is done to Stargate and other properties they now own.

Edited Monday at 05:18 PM by ShardWarrior

[battlewraith]

2 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

That is how I read the Bond character.  My point was that the definition of misogyny includes "hatred of or contempt of" women.  Bond clearly did not hate Vesper Lynd, in both the original novel and Casino Royale film as he fell in love with her.  Bond also did get married in both the novel and film adaption of On Her Majesty's Secret Service.  Describing him as a "misogynistic sociopath" is not accurate.

 

This is largely semantics. You're resorting to a simple, constrained dictionary definition of misogyny and then saying Bond doesn't fit with it. The usage and meaning has expanded since the Greeks, whether you agree with it or not. And it doesn't follow that someone being a misogynist can't love ANY woman. Internal contradictions are common among people. Even Vesper Lynd--that story ends with Bond declaring that the bitch is dead.

 

I mean, yeah it's not accurate because we're talking about a fictional character comes across to different audiences. But quibbling about whether Bond is a chauvinist (I'd go with possibly a psycopath) or a misogynist sociopath is like complaining that the oven is set to 325 rather than 350.

[ZacKing]

37 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

This is largely semantics. You're resorting to a simple, constrained dictionary definition of misogyny and then saying Bond doesn't fit with it.

 

LOL!  What?  Allow me to introduce you to something you may not know about.  It's called the dictionary and it tells you what words mean.

 

Misogynist

/mɪˈsɒdʒɪnɪst/

noun

noun: misogynist; plural noun: misogynists

1. a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.

   "a bachelor and renowned misogynist"

[ZacKing]

39 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

(I'd go with possibly a psycopath)

 

You might want to familiarize yourself with the meaning of that word too.  That's not Bond.

[battlewraith]

28 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

 

LOL!  What?  Allow me to introduce you to something you may not know about.  It's called the dictionary and it tells you what words mean.

 

Misogynist

/mɪˈsɒdʒɪnɪst/

noun

noun: misogynist; plural noun: misogynists

1. a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.

   "a bachelor and renowned misogynist"

You are so very basic. And why would you lecture me on what a dictionary is when it's referenced in the post you quoted.

Words change meaning over time, and are used differently in various contexts. And no, your favorite dictionary is not the arbiter of language. It's just a tool to help the uninformed. 

[PeregrineFalcon]

43 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

It's called the dictionary and it tells you what words mean.

What?!?

 

How daaaaaaare you use the accepted definition of a word! How daaaaare you use a word in the same way that over a billion English speakers on the planet use it! You're supposed to use that word the way that this one person on this one forum defines it as. Because he's the "arbiter of language", not the dictionary!

 

Do I really need to add /s?

[ZacKing]

15 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

You are so very basic. And why would you lecture me on what a dictionary is when it's referenced in the post you quoted.

Words change meaning over time, and are used differently in various contexts. And no, your favorite dictionary is not the arbiter of language. It's just a tool to help the uninformed. 

 

Right so the accepted source used in schools all over the globe that defines the meanings of words isn't correct... but you are, and everyone else is "misinformed".  LOL!  Do you even know what a dictionary is?

 

Dictionary

 

dic·tion·ar·y

/ˈdikSHəˌnerē/

 

noun

noun: dictionary; plural noun: dictionaries

1. a book or electronic resource that lists the words of a language (typically in alphabetical order) and gives their meaning, or gives the equivalent words in a different language, often also providing information about pronunciation, origin, and usage.

 

It seems to me that you could use some back to school time because you appear to be struggling with the concept of words having defined meanings. 

 

[GM_GooglyMoogly]

ad hominem

adjective   formal

us  /ˌædˈhɑː.mɪ.nəm/ uk  /ˌædˈhɒm.ɪ.nəm/

(of a criticism, etc.) directed against a person, rather than against what that person says

Can we please address the topic and not each other?

[El D]

5 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

I do not think Bond is a sociopath in the strictest clinical sense.  He is like any other solider who is on occasion required to do terrible things in defense of their country.  A flawed and dynamic charter, yes.  A vile sociopath?  I would disagree.  Fleming himself also never considered Bond "the bad guy" either.

 

A well-adjusted person doesn't react to horrific acts of violence - especially ones they directly caused - with a witty one-liner. It makes him a fantastic spy and action movie protagonist in that he's capable of committing incredible violence when the situation calls for it in a way that entertains the audience, but it's pretty sociopathic. As is reckless behavior, disregard for authority, rampant sexual activity, lack of empathy, likeliness to abuse alcohol, and a disregard for social norms. A lot of which is heavily enabled by MI6 and his work as a spy, certainly, but it's still a pretty solid checklist for Bond's character (really only missing 'English accent, tuxedo, and gun').

 

5 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

I would also argue he is not a misogynist either as that entails a loathing and hatred of women.  I think it very safe to say Bond does not hate women.  He is more a male chauvinist than misogynist in my opinion. 

 

Overall that feels like splitting hairs (and not from black to blonde, like when they went from Brosnan to Craig) but I will concede that - at least in-regard to Bond's personal outlook - the distinction is fair enough. He's not a member of the He-Man Woman-Haters Club or some raging incel, but he still has a pretty steady disregard for women, mostly seeing them as sex objects or distractions. Though, that being a reflection of Bond's own MI6 warped perceptions rather than a personal belief would be an interesting avenue to explore. Bond sees himself only as a 'useful weapon' so that's how he comes to view everyone else. The Craig era went into that - Bond himself being disposable for MI6 and what the work takes from the spies - but didn't really delve into that beyond 'And thinking about that makes him quit and retire. Again. It'll stick this time, we're sure.'

 

I don't want them to change Bond or remove these things, I just want them to do more with those aspects by this point. Explore these things in the actual narrative, rather than just go through the motions or gloss them over.

[battlewraith]

 

1 hour ago, ZacKing said:

Right so the accepted source used in schools all over the globe that defines the meanings of words isn't correct... but you are, and everyone else is "misinformed".  LOL!  Do you even know what a dictionary is?

 

Yeah but apparently you don't.  Like I said, words acquire meaning through usage. That usage varies over time and in different contexts and communities. A dictionary is a record of usages that the editors of the dictionary have compiled. The very fact that there are multiple meanings commonly associated with words is indicative of how, when people start using a word differently the meaning changes. The addition of a new word or a new meaning often substantially lags the use of that word or meaning as the dictionaries take time to establish whether or not to update. So no, the fact that someone may use a word in a way not sanctioned by your dictionary doesn't mean it's wrong.

 

Which is really besides the point because your reading comprehension is horrible. I replied to Shardwarrior who wrote that the definition of misogyny includes "hatred of or contempt of" women. I said the usage and meaning has expanded--it has. YOUR cited definition expands it (lol):

 

2 hours ago, ZacKing said:

a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.

"a bachelor and renowned misogynist"

 

The OED doesn't even include strongly:

 

"Hatred or dislike of, or prejudice against women."

 

Is Bond prejudiced against women? Sure seems to fit the bill in some of the narratives. Anyway, there is probably continuing education available if you want to build on what you learned in high school.

[ShardWarrior]

15 hours ago, El D said:

A well-adjusted person doesn't react to horrific acts of violence - especially ones they directly caused - with a witty one-liner.

 

Using this as the standard would make just about every action movie hero from Schwarzenegger, Stallone and Bruce Willis up to Indiana Jones and Iron Man a "sociopath".  As far as I know, Fleming never expressly stated Bond was a sociopath or a psychopath.  He would have to be able to compartmentalize his emotions in order to be an effective spy and do what he needs to do.

 

15 hours ago, El D said:

Overall that feels like splitting hairs (and not from black to blonde, like when they went from Brosnan to Craig) but I will concede that - at least in-regard to Bond's personal outlook - the distinction is fair enough. He's not a member of the He-Man Woman-Haters Club or some raging incel, but he still has a pretty steady disregard for women, mostly seeing them as sex objects or distractions.

 

It is not splitting hairs, it is using the correct words to describe the character.  Again, there is a difference between a misogynist and a chauvinist.  Bond quite clearly did not have a hatred or loathing of women, so he is not a misogynist. 

 

15 hours ago, El D said:

don't want them to change Bond or remove these things, I just want them to do more with those aspects by this point. Explore these things in the actual narrative, rather than just go through the motions or gloss them over.

 

I completely agree with you here. 

[Excraft]

15 hours ago, battlewraith said:

Like I said, words acquire meaning through usage. That usage varies over time and in different contexts and communities. A dictionary is a record of usages that the editors of the dictionary have compiled. The very fact that there are multiple meanings commonly associated with words is indicative of how, when people start using a word differently the meaning changes. The addition of a new word or a new meaning often substantially lags the use of that word or meaning as the dictionaries take time to establish whether or not to update.

 

So following your logic here, the accepted definition of misogyny includes words like hatred of, loathing toward and despising women to further explain the meaning and provide context.  According to you, that's the accepted meaning, so your entire argument here fails.  You're also failing to understand that if Bond were this woman hating man who despised women, that would make characters like Vesper Lynd complete morons.  They weren't. 

 

15 hours ago, battlewraith said:

So no, the fact that someone may use a word in a way not sanctioned by your dictionary doesn't mean it's wrong.

 

What?  Of course it does.  I can't point to a frog and say that's an elephant and because I said so that makes my word usage correct. 

 

16 hours ago, El D said:

I don't want them to change Bond or remove these things, I just want them to do more with those aspects by this point. Explore these things in the actual narrative, rather than just go through the motions or gloss them over.

 

I agree and as was said earlier, keeping true to the source material is what endeared people to the character to begin with.  I don't hold out any hope that Amazon will do it though.  I think we can near guarantee they will try to make Bond "more appealing to modern audiences."

[El D]

9 minutes ago, Excraft said:

I agree and as was said earlier, keeping true to the source material is what endeared people to the character to begin with.  I don't hold out any hope that Amazon will do it though.  I think we can near guarantee they will try to make Bond "more appealing to modern audiences."

 

I'd argue that's what the progression of the films have already done. Connery's Bond has scenes that absolutely wouldn't have flown with Brosnan's and Craig's, for example, and that's reflection of 'Well, it's been 30+ years since the first films were made and attitudes changed.' Been the same amount of time since Brosnan now, and likely Craig once Amazon's stuff ever comes out. Though having mentioned it, I wouldn't even mind them going back to the rougher content of Connery's Bond provided they actually contextualize it in the story. Have the woman Bond 'seduces' be in on it from the start, perhaps an informant, and they're both playing a role for the mission rather than Bond having his way with the umpteenth Bond girl because the script says they just can't resist him. Bonus points if it's also to play into the expectations of the antagonists.

 

As far as Amazon changes go, I'm willing to wait and see. Fallout and Reacher are pretty solid, earnest adaptations that don't shy away from more intense content (variances in tone aside). That makes me doubt they'd full on neuter Bond, at least not unless they do Casino Royale again...

[battlewraith]

1 minute ago, Excraft said:

So following your logic here, the accepted definition of misogyny includes words like hatred of, loathing toward and despising women to further explain the meaning and provide context.  According to you, that's the accepted meaning, so your entire argument here fails.  You're also failing to understand that if Bond were this woman hating man who despised women, that would make characters like Vesper Lynd complete morons.  They weren't. 

 

No you seemingly can't follow the logic. If the definition includes x and y, or z --it doesn't mean that x, y, and z are all being expressed when someone says a word. Often the meaning of a word is contingent on the rest of what's being said. You're basically cherry picking the meanings of the word to object to it being used in relation to Bond. 

 

What?  Of course it does.  I can't point to a frog and say that's an elephant and because I said so that makes my word usage correct. 

 

No, because presumably you're some random individual and aren't actually trying to express anything in this hypothetical. However, individuals (politicians, writers, artists, philosophers, scientists, etc.) may start a usage that catches on with a community and spreads. If it reaches a certain mass and displays staying power--it will eventually end up in a dictionary. There might be a million people routinely using a word in a certain way that is not reflected in a dictionary.

 

Look at something like the word "bear". It originally comes from a word that meant "the brown one" even though many bears are not brown. The word now can refer to the type of animal, a type of man, a general problem, a trend or type of investor in the stock market, and so on. Obviously the further back in time you go, the less these more current usages are going to be reflected in a dictionary.

[battlewraith]

34 minutes ago, El D said:

 

I'd argue that's what the progression of the films have already done. Connery's Bond has scenes that absolutely wouldn't have flown with Brosnan's and Craig's, for example, and that's reflection of 'Well, it's been 30+ years since the first films were made and attitudes changed.' Been the same amount of time since Brosnan now, and likely Craig once Amazon's stuff ever comes out. Though having mentioned it, I wouldn't even mind them going back to the rougher content of Connery's Bond provided they actually contextualize it in the story. Have the woman Bond 'seduces' be in on it from the start, perhaps an informant, and they're both playing a role for the mission rather than Bond having his way with the umpteenth Bond girl because the script says they just can't resist him. Bonus points if it's also to play into the expectations of the antagonists.

 

As far as Amazon changes go, I'm willing to wait and see. Fallout and Reacher are pretty solid, earnest adaptations that don't shy away from more intense content (variances in tone aside). That makes me doubt they'd full on neuter Bond, at least not unless they do Casino Royale again...

 

Yeah, I think the films have gotten worse of the years precisely because they try to sugarcoat Bond. In addition, the whole notion of a British spy saving the world for Queen and Country is just laughably out of date. I'd like to see them do it as a period piece where Q giving Bond a tracking device hidden in a cigarette lighter is still high tech and not like a default feature on an Iphone or something.

[PeregrineFalcon]

4 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

There might be a million people routinely using a word in a certain way that is not reflected in a dictionary.

Yes, and a million people clearly agree with your definition of misogyny as "any time a man doesn't worship a woman." Which is why I said, at the beginning of this thread that I entirely discount the use of the word misogyny because it's been changed to the point as to be meaningless, and it gets thrown around at the drop of a hat.

 

However, the more than a billion of us who agree that misogyny means "hatred of women" reject your new "current year ideology" definition of misogyny. And until the dictionary does get updated to reflect your new definition it's wrong. Because the dictionary is the arbiter of language, you are not.

 

PS. I rode my unicorn to work today. Actually I drove a car, but whatever. I can redefine words on a whim just like you can, right?

[battlewraith]

2 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

Yes, and a million people clearly agree with your definition of misogyny as "any time a man doesn't worship a woman." Which is why I said, at the beginning of this thread that I entirely discount the use of the word misogyny because it's been changed to the point as to be meaningless, and it gets thrown around at the drop of a hat.

 

However, the more than a billion of us who agree that misogyny means "hatred of women" reject your new "current year ideology" definition of misogyny. And until the dictionary does get updated to reflect your new definition it's wrong. Because the dictionary is the arbiter of language, you are not.

 

PS. I rode my unicorn to work today. Actually I drove a car, but whatever. I can redefine words on a whim just like you can, right?

 

This is your politics of aggrievement. You're mad because things change and you don't like it. And it's like arguing with someone who has ghosts in their brain. I did not define misogyny that way and I never said I can change words on a whim. In fact I just talked about how words change. It's not controversial, it's just an observation about the world. 

 

I think you should talk about unicorns more. Add some much needed whimsy Mr. Grumpy Downvoter.

[Excraft]

33 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

No you seemingly can't follow the logic. If the definition includes x and y, or z --it doesn't mean that x, y, and z are all being expressed when someone says a word. Often the meaning of a word is contingent on the rest of what's being said. You're basically cherry picking the meanings of the word to object to it being used in relation to Bond. 

...

Look at something like the word "bear". It originally comes from a word that meant "the brown one" even though many bears are not brown. The word now can refer to the type of animal, a type of man, a general problem, a trend or type of investor in the stock market, and so on.

 

 

Well no, the word misogyny doesn't have multiple meanings.  The word itself has its roots in the Greek words misos (hatred) and gunē (woman).  It's not a homonym or homophone like "bear" or "jam" that requires context in order to be understood properly. 

 

Again, as it applies to Bond, "misogynist" isn't really the correct word for him.  He's more a male chauvinist. 

[PeregrineFalcon]

21 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

You're mad because things change and you don't like it.

Ok, now you're just lying about me and I'm done responding to you.

[ShardWarrior]

1 hour ago, El D said:

I'd argue that's what the progression of the films have already done. Connery's Bond has scenes that absolutely wouldn't have flown with Brosnan's and Craig's, for example, and that's reflection of 'Well, it's been 30+ years since the first films were made and attitudes changed.' Been the same amount of time since Brosnan now, and likely Craig once Amazon's stuff ever comes out.

 

True.  I still think even the Brosnan's Bond is too "male chauvinist" for today.

 

1 hour ago, El D said:

Though having mentioned it, I wouldn't even mind them going back to the rougher content of Connery's Bond provided they actually contextualize it in the story. Have the woman Bond 'seduces' be in on it from the start, perhaps an informant, and they're both playing a role for the mission rather than Bond having his way with the umpteenth Bond girl because the script says they just can't resist him. Bonus points if it's also to play into the expectations of the antagonists.

 

Good point and at least to me, this worked well with Michelle Yeoh as Wai Lin in Tomorrow Never Dies and Halle Berry as Jinx in Die Another Day.

[battlewraith]

7 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

Ok, now you're just lying about me and I'm done responding to you.

There's a single tear rolling down my cheek right now.

[GM_GooglyMoogly]

This thread has completely gone off the rails.

 

Let's talk about something else.