38 replies to this topic

[Blue Eyes]

Brosnan is again asking for a kinkier Bond. I just posted the news on the main site. So what do you think?

Personally, if they escalated the sexuality of the Bond films to the extent of The Thomas Crown Affair I would have no problem. The only problem I could see is MGM thinking it would cut out a fair share of their audiences.

Any thoughts anyone?

[Blue Eyes]

Well I think a good actress etc... should become before 4. After all it's a part of a good story!!

[James Page]

Blue Eyes (07 Jun, 2001 01:17 a.m.):
Well what would come before it?

1 - A good story
2 - Some 3-dimensional characters
3 - Some NEW locations
4 - No nukes or sharks this time please
....

5 - Jiggle vision =)

[Blue Eyes]

Surely the US has an inbetween rating? I mean come on PG13 to NC17??? There's a couple of age gaps in there missing?

Is there no 15+??

And Russo is not a dirty old whore. If you're wife looks that good at that age well then good luck to you!

[spacebabe]

I'm a litle torn.

Personally (as a girl) I would love to see Bond sexier, kinkier and more violent, not in the extreme, but to TCA level would be perfect. It seems right for Bond.

On the other hand, I grew up watching Bond movies since I was pratically since I was a baby, like 4 years old, maybe some of it was a little unsuitable for that age but the thing about Bond movies is a child can watch them and the innuendo (I grew up during the Roger Moore period) goes right over their head, and they can enjoy the films on one level and adults on another.

But then, Bond movies were like that at that time, and things have moved on since, if I was a child now I probably wouldn't enjoy TWINE as much as I enjoyed, say, Octopussy. So yeah, strike a compromise, like say a 15 rating but not an 18.

[The Admiral]

I wouldn't mind having a kinkier Bond up to the "standard" of TCA. But, it will make the younger audiences annoyed like I was (being 11, I couldn't watch Goldeneye when it come out! I was so annoyed!). I know how it would feel for a 14 y/o not being able to watch Bond 20 if it was a 15 or something.

I can't think of anymore at the moment, I'll write more soon on the issue.

[Golden_Guy_007]

Added to the sexuality of the scene?!?!?! Rene Russo is a dirty old whore!!! Who the hell wants to see HER like that?!?! But on a serious note, I think the sexuality in Bond movies is just fine. Any more explicit (full on nudity) would be incredibly stupid on MGM's part. Do you realize how much of an audience they would lose?

[Blue Eyes]

White Persian (08 Jun, 2001 06:16 a.m.):
I still maintain, though, that acting ability is every bit as important as looks.

But they can find a good looking wonderful actress right?

[White Persian]

Sorry Golden Guy, no slight intended. I think I missed your "seriously though...".
Debbie McWilliams, Eon's casting director has stated that Denise Richards was forced on her (presumably by MGM) to appeal to the 13 to 18 y.o. male demographic. I hope Eon will be able to resist that sort of interference in future.
I agree late twenty to early thirties is about the right age to look right beside (or beneath or wherever) Pierce, though it depends on the character. I still maintain, though, that acting ability is every bit as important as looks.

[James Page]

White Persian (08 Jun, 2001 06:16 a.m.):
Debbie McWilliams, Eon's casting director has stated that Denise Richards was forced on her (presumably by MGM)

Hell, I wouldn't complain about Denise Richards being forced on me any day

[Jacques Nexus]

In the old days, 007 was bedding the babes in what seemed like every 5 minutes !. I don't mind full-on nudity but I don't think it's a good idea in the Bond films. I especially wouldn't want to see Brosnan's bum ! but a Bond girl's bum sounds good to me but I can't see it happening. What's needed is a return to very frequent bonking with very sexy babes. 007 should be irresistible to just about every woman he comes across.

[Blue Eyes]

James Page (06 Jun, 2001 01:38 a.m.):
Give us a taut story, strong characters, coupled with the craftsmanship of TWINE and nobody will care much about who the next actress is.

I think people should want people sexy. Put it this way James, she has to be believable as you said. But for a Bond film she has to be damn attractive as well.

If i gave you everything you asked for above and gave you Elizabeth Taylor as the Bond girl it's no great combination.

I'm not fussed about age. Elle McPherson is 41 and damn is she fine!

[Blue Eyes]

You've got a good point there R. Perhaps they could increase the 'innuendo' (after all, one day you have to make good on them ) of sexuality. But you have to admit that in TCA the see-through shiffon dress really added to the sexuality of the dance.

[Jacques Nexus]

Blue Eyes (08 Jun, 2001 10:54 p.m.):

White Persian (08 Jun, 2001 06:16 a.m.):
I still maintain, though, that acting ability is every bit as important as looks.

But they can find a good looking wonderful actress right?

I would like to see the next Bond girl closer to Brosnan's age. Over 30 sounds good to me. You can't tell me adolescents don't like to see more mature sexy actresses. And anyway, MGM can cast younger actresses for the minor roles to keep the kids happy.

[Blue Eyes]

You've made me think of something there Persian. Do they include people like Richards (popular with a younger audience cause of Star Ship Troopers etc...) because the younger audiences think that she has a great figure with big breasts? Or do they seriously sit down and look at talent?

I wish they had picked Milla Jokovich to play her role!!

[R]

I think we might be confusing "kinky" with "sexually explicit". The TV series "The Avengers" was incredibly kinky (what I wouldn't give to be Diana Rigg's catsuit fitter) but was considered a family adventure show. It's all in what you *don't* show or what you only allude to. The sexiest parts of Thomas Crown were *not* the nude scenes ("Do you wanna dance, or do you wanna dance?"), which might be the sort of thing that Brosnan's after.

[James Page]

You do hit the nail right on the head.

Take a look at OP, Moore is starting the wrinkle and he's paired up with contemporary Maud Adams. Now that would hardly get the adolescent audience going nowadays, would it?

Denise & Pierce, although separated by a fair few years (20+) do look a plausable pairing though.

But I can't see them getting away with that this time around, someone about 30 would seem to be a decent compromise, as long as she doesn't look out of place on Brosnan's arm, and she still presses the buttons of the younder male audience.

But when all is done and dusted, if you are after a tits-and- spree you shouldn't be watching a Bond. There are plenty of action movies out there (mostly American) to suit those ppl.

Give us a taut story, strong characters, coupled with the craftsmanship of TWINE and nobody will care much about who the next actress is.

=

[Blue Eyes]

Number 1 (26 Jun, 2001 07:57 p.m.):
Also brief nudity isn't too bad. I mean if Titanic could get a PG-13 rating and it had brief nudity (yeah, you all remember that, when Leonardo DiCaprio was drawing Kate Winslet and stuff. There was at least 10-20 seconds of nudity in that movie.), than a Bond movie should be able to get it too. Plus it would make it less frustrating for the actors, so they wouldn't have to do the scene over and over again to make it so there is not one second of nudity.

That's an excellent point there Number 1! I think everyone invovled would be happy with that!!

[Evil Doctor Cheese]

Jacques Nexus (02 Jun, 2001 12:23 p.m.):
In the old days, 007 was bedding the babes in what seemed like every 5 minutes !. What's needed is a return to very frequent bonking with very sexy babes. 007 should be irresistible to just about every woman he comes across.

Definitely! He needs to have sex with more women. It's about 3 a picture usually and (with the new Brosnan films) he just has a quicky at the beginning and then there's a femme fatale and a proper Bond female cohort. I know that Bond films are formulaic but come ON! We need more variety... vary the amount of "conquests". More sexy women... you were too busy hating Elektra to find her sexy and Dr Warmflash wasn't sexy enough for me (although it is nice to see Brosnan go for a woman more his own a age!!!)

[Blue Eyes]

That she was Persian. They changed the name. And then after they cast Richards I believe they changed the nationality and her heritage.

[Blue Eyes]

If they went to a 15 rating how would it turn away viewers? I think it just depends on how hardcore (perhaps the wrong word??) EON would go. Breasts, and not in the extreme, would be my suggestion for increasing Bond's sexiness but keeping a steady rating.

[Blue Eyes]

You couln't see GoldenEye? Sheez I wasn't much older but I still got in. It was M 15+ but you can get into that, you're just advised not to go.

[B5Erik]

I wouldn't go much further - Bond films are generally accepted as "family" films for the older kids. Add much more sexual content and you will lose more audience than you will gain. Brief nudity (losing the carefully placed sheets) might be ok, but extended love/sex scenes like Thomas Crown will cost MGM & Eon at the box office.

[White Persian]

I think Golden Guy inadvertently hit on the problem Eon face. MGM want to appeal to a thirteen year old audience to bring in the money, but that audience finds a heroine the right age for Brosnan (like the lovely Rene Russo) too old, so he gets saddled with immature bimbos like Denise Richards who made nonsense of the character as written, but was deemed a draw card for horny teenagers. By the same token, upping the sexual frankness is not on. If Bond gets too "down and dirty" with a young actress it starts to look sleazy, but a TCA style match up with a woman of the right age for Brosnan is judged a turn off to young male viewers - like thinking about your parents having sex.

[White Persian]

Time for a cold shower, Nexus!
Wasn't Christmas (then called Dr Holly Christmas) originally a Pacific Islander involved in monitoring disarmament?

[Number 1]

Um... Denise Richards was 27 when TWINE came out and Brosnan was 46, that's only 19 years, not 20+... Also, they should look for talent over anything else. Although a good looking girl with talent is always a plus :-). Also brief nudity isn't too bad. I mean if Titanic could get a PG-13 rating and it had brief nudity (yeah, you all remember that, when Leonardo DiCaprio was drawing Kate Winslet and stuff. There was at least 10-20 seconds of nudity in that movie.), than a Bond movie should be able to get it too. Plus it would make it less frustrating for the actors, so they wouldn't have to do the scene over and over again to make it so there is not one second of nudity.

[spacebabe]

[quote]Number 1 (26 Jun, 2001 07:57 p.m.):
Um... Denise Richards was 27 when TWINE came out and Brosnan was 46, that's only 19 years, not 20+... quote]

Excellent point, but perhaps how old the actress looks, and her overall maturity are as important as actual age? Denise Richards always seems to me to be barely out of her teens, although I know she is a lot older than that, and she does best when playing younger, ie Wild Things and Drop Dead Gorgeous (both as a high school kid).
I've heard actresses mentioned as potential Bond girls who are in their early 20s and gone No Way, but then seen them and reconsidered.

[Blue Eyes]

Well what would come before it?

[Blue Eyes]

B5Erik (02 Jun, 2001 06:53 a.m.):
but extended love/sex scenes like Thomas Crown will cost MGM & Eon at the box office.

You're right they would. But would the critics be much harsher if we saw the odd breast here and there?

Take one of my favourite films, Haunted. Starring Kate Beckinsale. If you haven't figured it out yet I'm in love with the woman

Anyhow it was rated Australia:M / Finland:K-16 / Portugal:M/16 / UK:15 / USA:R

I'm not exactly sure how those ratings work. But in Australia an M means that people under 15 aren't advised to go but they can still get in. Hence, it removed no box office opportunity.

Oh and yes the film included paranormal theses, nudity, sex scenes, adult themes etc...

[Blue Eyes]

That's a very strange situation. Thank you for clarifying it.

It seems strange that there is no inbetween rating, but then again in the States I believe you have a 21+ law or something along those lines? In Australia it's 18+ and that's it. Unless you want to insure a top model Ferrari, then you have to be 35. But that's not law anyhow.

If the situation has cracked down in the States then I can imagine MGM will not be too happy to rule out the younger audiences. After all the US is the biggest film market.