48 replies to this topic

[Santa]

Yep, that smoker's cough every morning is well cool.

[marktmurphy]

We've seen one person in this thread alone who said they tried smoking because Bond looked cool doing it; if it means saving lives then I'm really not going to worry if every single aspect of Bond doesn't make it to the silver screen.

Surely by that logic, then, Bond shouldn't do all sorts of things dangerous to one's health? If some silly idiot starts smoking purely on the basis that Bond smokes that is the idiot's own fault, one can hardly start blaming a popular mainstream film for another person's lifestyle choices. What about driving fast cars in an incredibly haphazard manner? Or the sex with numerous different partners? Or the shooting and killing of other people? Aren't these attributes of Bond that some may consider 'cool'? Should we jettison them too?

That's a pretty idiotically simplistic point of view. These aspects are not quite as attainable or addictive as smoking, and are far more integral to Bond's character. You have to assume people have some sense of intelligence in knowing what's dangerous and stupid, but present Bond wearing a smart suit and looking cool and there's no reason to think that's a bad thing. Obviously people know the dangers of smoking, but if you present smoking as being desirable then you are stepping into a moral minefield which is nowhere near as simplistic as you present it. It's very similar to saying that having annorexic fashion models does no harm; in principle it shouldn't, but in the real world (which is where we live) it does. And having the right to show a very thin girl looking cool is, in my eyes, not worth the very real effect of killing young girls with eating disorders. When people start dying it's time to change; and sacrificing an element of a movie character's makeup which is extremely peripheral is easily acceptable when compared to the risks it presents to the lives of many people. You'd be mad to think it was.

[Daniel Craig the cool 007]

Take superman for instance, he flies ok?I do not see many youngsters out there pretending to be superman and gathering speed on a building to lift off and ends up on the down pavements....The same applies to spiderman and many other characters out there!Its fiction and do think that the audience(in this time and age,2006) is mature enough to decide what to do and what not to do....Its a choice with many risks incorporated in it to smoke and we all know(even teenagers that smoking is very harmful to the health and all)..its not because of Bond smoking(if he did/does?)in Casino Royale that teens will begin smoking...The 007 movies wont influence the choice of teens to light up coz many other characters smoked in old movies and new movies coming out that does not impact on teens....Its an independant factor and do think that we are mature and wise enough to decide if we need to smoke or not and its not a movie that gonna decide for us what we should do coz we arent that dumb....On this factor im more pro smoking than against it...but i do understand the implications which might occur due to it...Its a controversial topic to say the least...

[Santa]

I'm not tangled up in any ethical complications here, if people choose to smoke, knowing it's dangerous, that's their choice and nothing to do with me. The bit I don't understand is where smelling bad, coughing and getting yellow teeth became cool and glamourous? I'm lost. Can someone explain it to me?

[Jim]

Take superman for instance, he flies ok?I do not see many youngsters out there pretending to be superman and gathering speed on a building to lift off and ends up on the down pavements....The same applies to spiderman and many other characters out there!Its fiction and do think that the audience(in this time and age,2006) is mature enough to decide what to do and what not to do....Its a choice with many risks incorporated in it to smoke and we all know(even teenagers that smoking is very harmful to the health and all)..its not because of Bond smoking(if he did/does?)in Casino Royale that teens will begin smoking...The 007 movies wont influence the choice of teens to light up coz many other characters smoked in old movies and new movies coming out that does not impact on teens....Its an independant factor and do think that we are mature and wise enough to decide if we need to smoke or not and its not a movie that gonna decide for us what we should do coz we arent that dumb....On this factor im more pro smoking than against it...but i do understand the implications which might occur due to it...Its a controversial topic to say the least...

Yes, but Superman people expect to see fly. Would be a rum deal, a Superman film in which he does not.

But do people really go to the cinema to watch James Bond smoke? It's years since he did and even then it was never that often, in the films. Cars and women and things going wee-bang - that would be a rum sort of Bond film without them, but smoking? Is it that essential? Really? Is it so much they don't want to show it as they don't need to show it?

[Skudor]

Really what they should do is dump the cigs and let JB pop some Ecstasy. After all he used to pop some other pills, benzowhatever. I'm sure he'd be popping something these days.

[Daniel Craig the cool 007]

Bond should be under ecstasy pills and sniff some coke like in layercake...That would be cool...Of course, im joking coz that would be the fall of the Bond legacy...Thats a good point, which allows me to say that im against hard drugs but not against softer one like cigarretes which are in the realm of reality and people can relate to...Bond has killed more baddies and vilains in all of the 007 flicks than cancer...im joking again but it is a fact that in the trailer, Vesper says to Bond if it does not bother him killing all these people which Bond respond by saying that it would not make him good at his job...Here again, Bond kills villains,hench men, other baddies like Cancer would kill somebody....So i think its a good metaphor which im gonna let you medidate on...Cheers!

[Jim]

Here again, Bond kills villains,hench men, other baddies like Cancer would kill somebody....

Yes, just like that. Staggeringly similar. I've been a fool not to notice it before.

[ACE]

Of the 20 films so far, it is implicit or explicit that Bond smokes in 14 of them (including 4 of the last 6!). I don't think a Bond film with no smoking takes anything away from filmBond. Hell, in the Gardner and Benson books, it is hardly mentioned. There is not that visceral, nicotine hunger Fleming gave him. Have you noticed that the alcohol intake in recent films has increased and varied? I like Bond drinking whisky as well as martinis.

[spynovelfan]

He'll be wearing a smoking, anyway. One that cost ten grand, I read somewhere recently, can't remember where.

It's a bit of a dead issue, isn't it? Bond has a scar on his face and the armourer is called Boothroyd in Fleminng's books - they never did those, either. I agree that it's hypocritical in that he drinks, kills and screws fairly indiscriminately... but that's the market, not them. Smoking would mean protests, ratings problems, less money ultimately. Simple as that, really. It is just pizness.

[Lazenby880]

That's a pretty idiotically simplistic point of view.

It *is* possible to disagree without this, y'know.

These aspects are not quite as attainable or addictive as smoking, and are far more integral to Bond's character. You have to assume people have some sense of intelligence in knowing what's dangerous and stupid, but present Bond wearing a smart suit and looking cool and there's no reason to think that's a bad thing. Obviously people know the dangers of smoking, but if you present smoking as being desirable then you are stepping into a moral minefield which is nowhere near as simplistic as you present it. It's very similar to saying that having annorexic fashion models does no harm; in principle it shouldn't, but in the real world (which is where we live) it does. And having the right to show a very thin girl looking cool is, in my eyes, not worth the very real effect of killing young girls with eating disorders. When people start dying it's time to change; and sacrificing an element of a movie character's makeup which is extremely peripheral is easily acceptable when compared to the risks it presents to the lives of many people. You'd be mad to think it was.

You're sidestepping the issue here. Your original contention was that some people may start smoking purely on the basis that they see Bond smoking in a film, and that smoking should therefore not be portrayed on the screen. This is quite silly. If someone is going to start something that he knows adversely affects his health I don't think it is reasonable to blame a film; Bond smokes a cigar in Die Another Day and I very much doubt that there was an upsurge in cigar sales. There are always going to be people who, for whatever reason or combination of reasons, choose to smoke or participate in some other dangerous activity; stopping Bond smoking in films does not affect this. And in any event, just because smoking is shown in a film does not necessarily mean it will be portrayed as 'cool' or 'desirable'. In the Die Another Day scene, for instance, I don't think there is anything particularly 'cool' about the way smoking is presented to the viewer.

Your 'anorexic model' analogy is a paper tiger. An eating disorder is a disease which (usually) affects young people who are incredibly vulnerable and not in anyway comparable to smoking. Anyway, if you are going to start dictating what type of model can and cannot walk down a catwalk for fear of contributing to the prevalence of eating disorders surely you should object to thin singers or actresses who are underweight too.

Had you argued that smoking should not be allowed *at all* I would have seen your point. There is a consistency in that argument. A degree of paternalism has its place, however the sort for which you are actually arguing is a bit much. I'm not saying that I especially want to see Bond smoking, or that a successful cinematic interpretation of the character requires the depiction of smoking. I'm just tired of the fuzzy logic employed by those who vociferously oppose any smoking in Bond films, or films in general.

[Forever007]

I'll admit when I saw his name in the running I was very surprised, due to most of the photos I've seen of him were not in a "Bond" context. Mostly due to the fact he did not have a Bond-like role until Layer Cake. My brother and I argued repeatedly about his suitability to the role as I much prefered Gerard Butler and Clive Owen. After seeing Layer Cake, and especially Munich, I started to see why he was choisen for the role. There was still doubt in my mind mostly on his physical traits not really lining up with the Bond mold of the past. Then the first publicity shots came out, then the teaser and finally the spectacular trailer which I believe has done more to win over doubters than any other medium out there. Today I firmly believe Daniel Craig will deliver a smashing performance as James Bond and create a new generation of fans to carry the legacy on and on.

One other thought. I think changing the mold or at least looking at more choices for Bond was a smart move by EON. After Craig eventually retires the mold change will allow EON to have a wider range of actors to choose from and not simply look for "the model looking" Bond. Limiting casting to pure good looks would narrow the field too much and likely lead to a lesser quality casting. Now they will be able to sit back and choose the best "actor" for the part which will ensure better quality films. Lets face it, EON better keep coming up with very good scripts or there is no way Craig will stay on longer or any other reputable actor for that matter. Raising the bar talent wise also raised the bar creative-wise for EON which can only be a good thing.

Edited by Forever007, 20 September 2006 - 04:04 PM.

[OmarB]

Yeah really, I hate this politically correct sanitizing of every damn thing around us. He's a literary character, one who smokes, why change that? He kills, he beds everything within sight but they sanitize that. Should we go back and clean up every bad habit every character in liturature and movies just because it's not healthy? Let him smoke in the movies.

Oh, and by the way, hand rolled cigs rule. Though I do have two rollig machines.

Flemming's character erred on the side of ridiculous when it came to personal fitness. Smoking was part of this. it went beyond fantasy and became nonsensical.

In OHMSS he has Bond deciding to wake up early one morning to do 15 minutes of press ups: to get in shape for a possible escape. In another novel ( I forget which) he has him cutting down from 60 a day to 40 (for health reasons).

Its daft and makes the character look daft. I understand that "smoking is cool" is a subjective statement, but i think it would throw the character off kilter if they rebooted him and yet still retrained his statistically odd habit which given his background of being an innovative underwater swimmer would be stretching reality too far.

Honestly: in 21st century Britain how many super fit 38 year old blokes are gonna smoke (even assuming the character could keep up with what Flemming had him smoking). it just looks daft. "Bond, James Bond" while wafting the smoke away,,,,Isht don't think so.

If they are to truly ground the character in some for of reality then he has to stop smoking. it belongs to another era and doesn't chime with the super fit SBS 38 year old bloke they have ruinning round the bahamas.

Well if he erred on the side of ridiculous as you say then let him smoke. It's not like anything really rings true in a Bond movie even when they try to be realistic it's still the fantastic. If your argument against smoking is based on that then he shouldnt drink either.

How about this, let's have Sherlock Holmes not smoke either, or Mike Hammer.

[Bondian]

Well. I prefer James Bond to smoke.

If violence, sex and in some cases buggery accepted in a movie, then why not smoking as well. Surely you'd last longer if you smoked than being shot at by an automatic sub-machine gun. However. Maybe the fact that cigarettes are cheaper than sub-machine guns is were the problem lies.

I started smoking through one of my friends, and not because someone was smoking in a movie.

It's down to parents to control their offspring.

Cheers,


Ian

[scottright]

Honestly, smoking in the movies is the least of society's worries (I remember the furor when "Licence To Kill" had to have a cigarette warning in the closing credits telling audiences "This is a bad habit" yet there was no such disclaimer for say, cocaine, shootings, and of course, fork lifts).

That said, these are different times than the 60s and smoking, while something one can still pull off with panache...is not a habit anyone ought to be boasting about. And as much as Fleming's Bond was a smoker and a drinker...Fleming himself died at 56 because of the smoking and drinking. Proof that the Bond lifestyle isn't a long lifestyle...

Bottom line - Bond doesn't need to smoke to be Bond anymore than Sherlock Holmes needs the silly pipe or hat.

[Captain Grimes]

Both sides of this argument, when pushed to their logical extremes, end up being ridiculous. That's what makes debating it so difficult.

Do filmmakers have a moral responsibility vis a vis the content of their films? Yes, to some extent. We obviously wouldn't want, say, a kid's film to feature a detailed demonstration of how to build a simple bomb with which to blow up schools.

Should filmmakers excise all material that might, potentially, in one way or another, bring harm to someone? Obviously not. That would mean the end to James Bond movies, for one thing ("But Pierce looks so cool with that machine gun!"), and to most other movies as well.

So everyone has to draw their own line in the sand. Obviously, for most of us on this forum, mild violence and implied sex are A-OK. Some of us, including myself, think smoking on screen is perfectly fine.

In fact, I think smoking is far less objectionable than violence of any sort. I would much rather have my hypothetical child watch two hours of James Bond chain-smoking than two hours of him shooting, punching, and judo-chopping the living daylights out of people.

But there's really no rational way for me to justify where I draw the line. It's just the way I see things.

[Broadsword]

I think this is getting abit silly.

If a 12 year old kid sees JB off a bad guy with an electric cord the chances of that kid going out and killing someone in the same way are lets be honest, quite small.

Bond chain smoking thorugh a film is a far more accessible habit and reinforces what many people in society do anyway ( as opposed to the that common sighting of people driving really fast and shooting people with machine guns hidden in headlights).

So the debate is not comparable.

But lighting up a cigarette on screeen in a 'cool' way presents an easily imitable habit which many people have copied through the ages.

Cigareete consumption went through the roof between 1900 and 1920.

WHY?

MOVIES.

to deny that movies don't encourage people to smoke is abit silly.

OF course they do. And they may encourage the odd nutter to go and kill someone. But the difference in number as to who it affects is simply not comparable.

Have a look here: very informative

http://www.ncbi.nlm....p;dopt=Citation

and here

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed_Citation

Fairly definitive, and supports comonsense.,

The debate should be about whether we are prepared to let JB smoke while knowing this WILL encourage others to smoke. I don't think it is necessary for the character to smoke, so I would just say NO.

okay kids?

Just say NO.

Edited by Broadsword, 21 September 2006 - 04:41 AM.

[AgentPB]

Well to get back to the question. I don't think Craig should smoke in Casino because it's a reboot. He's a new charcter with a new birthdate and everything. I doubt he would smoke if it was not for his WWII expiernces. So if we are talking strictly from a charcter stand point I don't think he would smoke. Do I think he should no. But a cigar or something I think could apease both sides. It could be a victory cigar or something from M.

Edited by AgentPB, 21 September 2006 - 05:50 AM.

[Broadsword]

good point.