303 replies to this topic

[Jim]

Somehow, I knew there'd be the inevitable detractors, completely missing the point...

Who is missing the point? Are you denying there are political aspects to the promotion?

My point is not about the right and wrongs of the message, but about its political nature. Personally, there is much in it that I would support, especially in its stand against violence towards women. However I find some of its use of UK statistics deliberately biased and simplistic.

For those of you chuffed to see Bond used in conjunction with this, I would say next time Ms Broccoli uses Bond in a campaign that you don't support you might be less pleased.

Keep the Bond image out of politics!

Nah, can't agree at all. The Bond series has a history of commenting on social/political issues in the films themselves:
- American deaths due to auto accidents in 1964 (Goldfinger)
- Smoking in 1967 (YOLT)
- The energy crisis in 1974 (TMWTGG)
- Bond depicted as having less sexual partners in response to the AIDS crisis in the '80's (TLD)
- Does anyone remember the 7-Up campaign in the '90's wherein the gun was removed from the famous Bond silhouette in the ads? It was supposedly in response to gun violence in America.

I'm sure there are other examples.

Any negative issue about this "Equals" ad is much ado about nothing.

That's interesting Tom, and true - and there's all the stuff - direct dialogue - about sexual harassment in GoldenEye, the Maxwell joke in Tomorrow Never Dies (admittedly not socio/political really, but "of its time" shall we say), the Millenium Bug payoff in TWINE (however ill-advised), stem cell research and genetic cloning in DUD, the various references to Colombian drug lords in Licence to Kill, A View to a Kill and its snood abundance, Thatch and her All Bran in For Your Eyes Only - the Bond series is a chocknockery of bits and pieces of populist political thought; this is no different.

There is a difference between being topical and fundamentally changing the conventions of the character of Bond. In all of these cases, I felt that I was watching a Bond film and that I was watching an actor portray James Bond. I no longer have that feeling. The conventions were changed for the Craig Era, and I wish that had never happened.

Fair enough; you don't have to like them.

"Conventions" is an interesting word.

[killkenny kid]

What you said about not wanting Bond to be tainted with politics is also a desire of this website.

Indeed.

[Lulu]

For those of you chuffed to see Bond used in conjunction with this, I would say next time Ms Broccoli uses Bond in a campaign that you don't support you might be less pleased.

Surely you don't think basic equality is an issue one can be pro or against.

Violence against women doesn't seem like a "political campaign," in the sense that saving the wetlands might -- more like an obvious fact modern civilized society has agreed is despicable, like slavery or child labor.

By your logic, then the only people offended by this are Bond fans who are for all of the horrible things listed in the PSA -- and who cares what those people think?

[cpt. sir dominic flandry]

Daniel Craig is cursed. After the success of Casino Royale we have had shoeliftgate, the disastrous Quantum of Solace and now Barbara humiliates him in an ill-conceived attempt to support a good cause.

[BJMDDS]

Barbara Brocolli certainly showed the world who wears the pants and the pan-ties when it comes to running the Bond franchise. The problem is she is not running the franchise but rather is ruining the franchise. Bond in drag with Jackman available? A real waste of talent indeed. I would love to know why MGW is missing in action in all of this? Has he been railroaded by his baby sister into going along with everything she wants? Has she emasculated him as well?

Edited by BJMDDS, 11 March 2011 - 10:57 PM.

[Jim]

Barbara Brocolli certainly showed the world who wears the pants and the pan-ties when it comes to running the Bond franchise. The problem is she is not running the franchise but rather is ruining the franchise. Bond in drag with Jackman available? a real waste of talent indeed. I would love to know why MGW is missing in action in all of this? Has he been railroaded by his baby sister into going along with everything she wants? Has she emasculated him as well?

I feel five-and-a-half-years younger, and without having to smear myself in unguent or eat celery.

Many thanks - you have just made an old man very happy.

[Capsule in Space]

Captain and BJ are right. The reboot idea has been a disaster, Craig has been a disaster, and now it is going to be a least four years before we have the next Bond film because studios are afraid to throw more money at EON. People who are James Bond fans must find these developments disconcerting.

[BJMDDS]

Celery and unguent won't cure Eon's problems Jim.

[Matt_13]

They have resurfaced at long last. You weren't missed.

[jaguar007]

Captain and BJ are right. The reboot idea has been a disaster, Craig has been a disaster, and now it is going to be a least four years before we have the next Bond film because studios are afraid to throw more money at EON. People who are James Bond fans must find these developments disconcerting.

CR has sold more BO tickets of any Bond film since LALD, was the only Bond film to receive a BAFTA nomination for Best Picture and Craig is the only actor to receive a BAFTA nomination for Best Actor playing Bond. Hardly a disaster. Like Craig or not, one honestly CANNOT say that the studio is afraid to throw money at EON. It is solid fact that MGM's financial trouble had nothing to do with Bond, as Bond and The Hobbit were the most valuable assets MGM had.

If you don't like Craig or the reboot, that is fine. Everybody has their own opinion and I will not fault you for that. However to make clearly false accusations blaming Bond for MGM's financial situation causing Bond #23's delays is just undermining your own credibility and makes you come across as a troll. Even Craig's biggest detractors cannot honestly say his films have not been financially successful.

[Capsule in Space]

Captain and BJ are right. The reboot idea has been a disaster, Craig has been a disaster, and now it is going to be a least four years before we have the next Bond film because studios are afraid to throw more money at EON. People who are James Bond fans must find these developments disconcerting.

CR has sold more BO tickets of any Bond film since LALD, was the only Bond film to receive a BAFTA nomination for Best Picture and Craig is the only actor to receive a BAFTA nomination for Best Actor playing Bond. Hardly a disaster. Like Craig or not, one honestly CANNOT say that the studio is afraid to throw money at EON. It is solid fact that MGM's financial trouble had nothing to do with Bond, as Bond and The Hobbit were the most valuable assets MGM had.

If you don't like Craig or the reboot, that is fine. Everybody has their own opinion and I will not fault you for that. However to make clearly false accusations blaming Bond for MGM's financial situation causing Bond #23's delays is just undermining your own credibility and makes you come across as a troll. Even Craig's biggest detractors cannot honestly say his films have not been financially successful.

BO ticket comparisons with 1973's Live and Let Die mean very little to this debate. It is all about the bottom line. Yes Casino Royale did well financially. We hadn't had a Bond film in four years and a new actor was playing Bond. A lot of curious moviegoers came out to see what all the hype was about. Well, people saw what all the hype was about, and a lot of those people didn't like what they saw. That's witnessed two years later by the under-performance of Quantum of Solace. It had disappointing profit margins because despite grossing $600 million, its profit margins were slime because of the hundreds of millions it took to produce the film, and the hundreds of millions more it took for promotion and advertisements. This is one reason why MGM is in dire straits. It had projected better profit margins from QOS, and their projected goals weren't met. Furthermore, the DVD sales for the QOS were not as good as hoped, and in fact it turned out to be one of the weakest home video sales for a Bond film in the last several years. This is why studios are balking at the notion of throwing more money at EON. Everyone knows the problem is Craig, but he's got a longterm deal and Broccoli loves him. It's quite the quandary, and that's why it is taking four or more years for the next Bond. If the studios knew they had a guaranteed hit that would produce good profit margins then they would have greenlighted a Bond film sooner. Even through the financial hardships these studios haven't ceased business.

All of this information is available throughout the web. Websites that deal with the entertainment business, or business in general, have covered this problem. Go to Box Office Mojo, and see some of the statistics yourself.

So, you can rest your laurels on the success of one film (Casino Royale) and some BAFTA nominations (that nobody outside of the United Kingdom care about), but it doesn't detract from the problems EON faces with dollars and cents.

[jaguar007]

Everyone knows the problem is Craig, but he's got a longterm deal and Broccoli loves him. It's quite the quandary, and that's why it is taking four or more years for the next Bond. If the studios knew they had a guaranteed hit that would produce good profit margins then they would have greenlighted a Bond film sooner. Even through the financial hardships these studios haven't ceased business.

Dead Wrong. MGM could not have financed the next Bond sooner because they did not have the money to finance it. The reason CR did well was not because of the gap and curiosity of a new actor (afterall, it sold more tickets than GE, six year gap with a new actor the public wanted earlier). In fact in the US, CR had a softer opening than DAD because people were skeptical of the new actor. However after the positive word of mouth, CR had longer legs in the box office than than most recent Bond films. Yes, QoS divided the public, but had by far the biggest opening weekend of any Bond film in ages because of the popularity and success of CR. Also CR was one of the best selling Bond movies on home video. CR was the 7th top selling DVD in 2007 (QoS was the 10th top selling DVD in 2009 )
http://www.infopleas...sales-2007.html
http://www.infopleas...-dvds-2009.html

[SecretAgentFan]

Well, people saw what all the hype was about, and a lot of those people didn't like what they saw. That's witnessed two years later by the under-performance of Quantum of Solace. It had disappointing profit margins because despite grossing $600 million, its profit margins were slime because of the hundreds of millions it took to produce the film, and the hundreds of millions more it took for promotion and advertisements. This is one reason why MGM is in dire straits. It had projected better profit margins from QOS, and their projected goals weren't met. Furthermore, the DVD sales for the QOS were not as good as hoped, and in fact it turned out to be one of the weakest home video sales for a Bond film in the last several years. This is why studios are balking at the notion of throwing more money at EON. Everyone knows the problem is Craig, but he's got a longterm deal and Broccoli loves him. It's quite the quandary, and that's why it is taking four or more years for the next Bond. If the studios knew they had a guaranteed hit that would produce good profit margins then they would have greenlighted a Bond film sooner. Even through the financial hardships these studios haven't ceased business.

All of this information is available throughout the web. Websites that deal with the entertainment business, or business in general, have covered this problem. Go to Box Office Mojo, and see some of the statistics yourself.

Wow. You really know what´s going on. Thank you for your essential insight. And you got it by surfing the internet. If I had know that it is so easy...

[Capsule in Space]

Everyone knows the problem is Craig, but he's got a longterm deal and Broccoli loves him. It's quite the quandary, and that's why it is taking four or more years for the next Bond. If the studios knew they had a guaranteed hit that would produce good profit margins then they would have greenlighted a Bond film sooner. Even through the financial hardships these studios haven't ceased business.

Dead Wrong. MGM could not have financed the next Bond sooner because they did not have the money to finance it. The reason CR did well was not because of the gap and curiosity of a new actor (afterall, it sold more tickets than GE, six year gap with a new actor the public wanted earlier). In fact in the US, CR had a softer opening than DAD because people were skeptical of the new actor. However after the positive word of mouth, CR had longer legs in the box office than than most recent Bond films. Yes, QoS divided the public, but had by far the biggest opening weekend of any Bond film in ages because of the popularity and success of CR. Also CR was one of the best selling Bond movies on home video. CR was the 7th top selling DVD in 2007 (QoS was the 10th top selling DVD in 2009 )
http://www.infopleas...sales-2007.html
http://www.infopleas...-dvds-2009.html

Great opening weekend for QOS, 7th in DVD sales, that's nice for any old film, but not good enough for MGM's profit margins. The opening weekend boosted QOS' earnings, but it experienced a drop off after word of mouth and negative reviews. The profit margins are what they are and that is why studios are hesitant. You can't argue about the numbers. Maybe the next Bond will do better, and it will justify the Craig era, but studios aren't counting on this and that is why there is much hesitation from the studios.

Well, people saw what all the hype was about, and a lot of those people didn't like what they saw. That's witnessed two years later by the under-performance of Quantum of Solace. It had disappointing profit margins because despite grossing $600 million, its profit margins were slime because of the hundreds of millions it took to produce the film, and the hundreds of millions more it took for promotion and advertisements. This is one reason why MGM is in dire straits. It had projected better profit margins from QOS, and their projected goals weren't met. Furthermore, the DVD sales for the QOS were not as good as hoped, and in fact it turned out to be one of the weakest home video sales for a Bond film in the last several years. This is why studios are balking at the notion of throwing more money at EON. Everyone knows the problem is Craig, but he's got a longterm deal and Broccoli loves him. It's quite the quandary, and that's why it is taking four or more years for the next Bond. If the studios knew they had a guaranteed hit that would produce good profit margins then they would have greenlighted a Bond film sooner. Even through the financial hardships these studios haven't ceased business.

All of this information is available throughout the web. Websites that deal with the entertainment business, or business in general, have covered this problem. Go to Box Office Mojo, and see some of the statistics yourself.

Wow. You really know what´s going on. Thank you for your essential insight. And you got it by surfing the internet. If I had know that it is so easy...

This message must be for jaguar007, because he used Internet sources for his rebuttal. Would you prefer people use microfiche to research information?

[jaguar007]

It is true that QoS did have a big drop off and critics, fans and the public did not like it as much as CR, but it still sold a heck of alot of seats and was a box office success (it does not matter how much the film cost, it still sold alot of tickets). Bond was about the only success that MGM had, and they had to split the profits of the 2 Craig films with co-distributor Sony. No studio is afraid to throw money at Bond, that is why Sony was so eager to be the distributor for Bond 23.

As I said earlier, I'm not criticizing you for not liking the Craig era, I'm criticizing you for distorting the facts to support your opinion.

Nobody (except you) is calling the Craig era a flop.

[Napoleon Solo]

Re: MGM getting into financial trouble.

That goes back to the complicated deal where MGM was purchased by a group with a lot of borrowed money. So that ownership started out with a lot of debt ($3.7 billion shows up in most of the stories written about MGM's situation). Then, DVD prices fell. That hurt incoming revenue. The New York Times did a story saying MGM was worth much less because of the DVD issue. When the studio was put up for sale, potential buyers didn't offer enough to cover the debt. There were reports, for example, that Time Warner offered about $1.5 billion for MGM.

That's why MGM ended up doing a more complicated transaction, where Spyglass Entertainment's co-founders took control without buying MGM outright, MGM did the pre-packaged bankruptcy, with debt holders getting equity, etc., etc, etc.

Re: financial performance of Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace.

According to this Web site: http://www.the-numbe...s/JamesBond.php

The two films had a similar gross. QoS did slightly better in the U.S. than CR, but CR had a slightly higher worldwide gross than QoS. However, the reported budget for Quantum was much higher, more than twice as much. Presumably, that meant lower profits overall; you're spending a lot more to get roughly the same amount of revenue. (Why QoS had to cost so much more is another issue; I'm not claiming to know).

Still, you can't say QoS's performance at the box office sunk MGM. The studio didn't have a lot of hits, and Quantum (regardless of one's opinion about it) was one of the few MGM could point to. MGM's basic financial structure (declining revenue, high debt) was the problem.

[cpt. sir dominic flandry]

Captain and BJ are right. The reboot idea has been a disaster, Craig has been a disaster, and now it is going to be a least four years before we have the next Bond film because studios are afraid to throw more money at EON. People who are James Bond fans must find these developments disconcerting.

CR has sold more BO tickets of any Bond film since LALD, was the only Bond film to receive a BAFTA nomination for Best Picture and Craig is the only actor to receive a BAFTA nomination for Best Actor playing Bond. Hardly a disaster. Like Craig or not, one honestly CANNOT say that the studio is afraid to throw money at EON. It is solid fact that MGM's financial trouble had nothing to do with Bond, as Bond and The Hobbit were the most valuable assets MGM had.

If you don't like Craig or the reboot, that is fine. Everybody has their own opinion and I will not fault you for that. However to make clearly false accusations blaming Bond for MGM's financial situation causing Bond #23's delays is just undermining your own credibility and makes you come across as a troll. Even Craig's biggest detractors cannot honestly say his films have not been financially successful.

BO ticket comparisons with 1973's Live and Let Die mean very little to this debate. It is all about the bottom line. Yes Casino Royale did well financially. We hadn't had a Bond film in four years and a new actor was playing Bond. A lot of curious moviegoers came out to see what all the hype was about. Well, people saw what all the hype was about, and a lot of those people didn't like what they saw. That's witnessed two years later by the under-performance of Quantum of Solace. It had disappointing profit margins because despite grossing $600 million, its profit margins were slime because of the hundreds of millions it took to produce the film, and the hundreds of millions more it took for promotion and advertisements. This is one reason why MGM is in dire straits. It had projected better profit margins from QOS, and their projected goals weren't met. Furthermore, the DVD sales for the QOS were not as good as hoped, and in fact it turned out to be one of the weakest home video sales for a Bond film in the last several years. This is why studios are balking at the notion of throwing more money at EON. Everyone knows the problem is Craig, but he's got a longterm deal and Broccoli loves him. It's quite the quandary, and that's why it is taking four or more years for the next Bond. If the studios knew they had a guaranteed hit that would produce good profit margins then they would have greenlighted a Bond film sooner. Even through the financial hardships these studios haven't ceased business.

All of this information is available throughout the web. Websites that deal with the entertainment business, or business in general, have covered this problem. Go to Box Office Mojo, and see some of the statistics yourself.

So, you can rest your laurels on the success of one film (Casino Royale) and some BAFTA nominations (that nobody outside of the United Kingdom care about), but it doesn't detract from the problems EON faces with dollars and cents.

Some valid observations capsule. We also have to factor in Daniel Craig's supply of fake tan. I know from reliable sources that it nearly doubled the budget for Quantum of Solace.

[SecretAgentFan]

Everyone knows the problem is Craig, but he's got a longterm deal and Broccoli loves him. It's quite the quandary, and that's why it is taking four or more years for the next Bond. If the studios knew they had a guaranteed hit that would produce good profit margins then they would have greenlighted a Bond film sooner. Even through the financial hardships these studios haven't ceased business.

Dead Wrong. MGM could not have financed the next Bond sooner because they did not have the money to finance it. The reason CR did well was not because of the gap and curiosity of a new actor (afterall, it sold more tickets than GE, six year gap with a new actor the public wanted earlier). In fact in the US, CR had a softer opening than DAD because people were skeptical of the new actor. However after the positive word of mouth, CR had longer legs in the box office than than most recent Bond films. Yes, QoS divided the public, but had by far the biggest opening weekend of any Bond film in ages because of the popularity and success of CR. Also CR was one of the best selling Bond movies on home video. CR was the 7th top selling DVD in 2007 (QoS was the 10th top selling DVD in 2009 )
http://www.infopleas...sales-2007.html
http://www.infopleas...-dvds-2009.html

Great opening weekend for QOS, 7th in DVD sales, that's nice for any old film, but not good enough for MGM's profit margins. The opening weekend boosted QOS' earnings, but it experienced a drop off after word of mouth and negative reviews. The profit margins are what they are and that is why studios are hesitant. You can't argue about the numbers. Maybe the next Bond will do better, and it will justify the Craig era, but studios aren't counting on this and that is why there is much hesitation from the studios.

Well, people saw what all the hype was about, and a lot of those people didn't like what they saw. That's witnessed two years later by the under-performance of Quantum of Solace. It had disappointing profit margins because despite grossing $600 million, its profit margins were slime because of the hundreds of millions it took to produce the film, and the hundreds of millions more it took for promotion and advertisements. This is one reason why MGM is in dire straits. It had projected better profit margins from QOS, and their projected goals weren't met. Furthermore, the DVD sales for the QOS were not as good as hoped, and in fact it turned out to be one of the weakest home video sales for a Bond film in the last several years. This is why studios are balking at the notion of throwing more money at EON. Everyone knows the problem is Craig, but he's got a longterm deal and Broccoli loves him. It's quite the quandary, and that's why it is taking four or more years for the next Bond. If the studios knew they had a guaranteed hit that would produce good profit margins then they would have greenlighted a Bond film sooner. Even through the financial hardships these studios haven't ceased business.

All of this information is available throughout the web. Websites that deal with the entertainment business, or business in general, have covered this problem. Go to Box Office Mojo, and see some of the statistics yourself.

Wow. You really know what´s going on. Thank you for your essential insight. And you got it by surfing the internet. If I had know that it is so easy...

This message must be for jaguar007, because he used Internet sources for his rebuttal. Would you prefer people use microfiche to research information?

No, Sir. You stated that everything we have to know can be found on the internet.

[BJMDDS]

Why has no interview been conducted of DC after this sham of a PSA to actually hear his thoughts as to why he was coerced into such a mockery by Barbara Brocolli?

[Safari Suit]

We seem to have had more new members, active new members anyway, over the last week than we normally would. Like it or not, it's certainly got people talking...

...about James Bond anyway. Whether it's got people talking about geneder equality is another matter.

[Matt_13]

It's honestly depressing how fired up you guys have gotten over this, as if it has somehow personally offended you. How on earth are you finding so much wrong with a positive ad campaign? Who gives a ? I bet if Craig had voiced his concern over child abuse you'd find fault with that too, since "Bond is a cold blooded killer and shouldn't be concerned with the plight of children." You do ing realize that Bond is a FICTIONAL CHARACTER, right, and that these are legitimate issues? Who cares if nothing gets done about it? They wanted to throw in their support, who are you to judge them for it? I cannot wrap my head around the enormous folly that this ad evidently represents. Where is the issue? And for sake Gravity cut the anti liberal . It's gotten so old. That is stupendous that you are so actively involved politics, and that you are passionate about your beliefs, I love it. But seriously, all you've done when anything remotely political has come up is belittle those who disagree with you (intentionally or unintentionally), as if all liberals/progressives/anyone else who isn't a bat insane conservative are incompetent fools. This forum is supposed to be fun, but all I'm seeing around here is petty argument and insecurity. Honestly, one individual has actually taken the time to hit -1 on all of my posts 5 times a day for no other reason than the fact that I'm left leaning (I'm still a Bond fan and like to see go boom, like we all do on here, so who gives a damn?). It was amusing for a while but honestly it's just draining now, and it makes sense that so many other members have stopped coming by. This forum never used to be like this. Christ, people.

[Chief of SIS]

I said about 4 pages ago that I was all for this ad and I'm glad it furthers discussion on female inequality but this...this is not what I meant by furthering discussion.

[Dustin]

BRING ON THE NEGATIVE RATINGS. I WANT TO BE DOWN TO -200 BY THE END OF THE WEEK. BRING IT ON!!!!!!

Gravy, obviously you aren't enjoying yourself here, are you? Or perhaps enjoying yourself too much for your own good?

Whichever it is, it would perhaps be less of a pain in the unmentionables for others if you decided to find shores where the climate is healthier for your complexion.


Just saying...

And no, I still don't bother with the stupid marks. They are for creeps in my personal view, but each to their own.

[Iroquois]

It's...only a forum guys, and it's also only an ad, not an official Bond film.

Gravity's Silhouette, if you are worrying this much about how PC Bond is supposedly becoming then I suggest you play the new Goldeneye game. You may say it's only a game but it is an official representation of the "New Age" Bond. Towards the end, Bond has the inevitable fight with Onnatop, during which he even punches her in the ribs. Now, I didn't want to bring that up as if it was a positive thing, as it intentionally makes for unpleasant viewing, but that's the thing isn't it? It's not PC at all. Therefore, I see it as a good thing that the Bond image can be used outside of the official canon to promote good things such as gender equality, and as I said it only works with the CONTRAST of what Bond is like during the films. It's just a gag that's all, and you are entitled to your opinion about it, but it's really not meant to be taken seriously in terms of Bond because it's just Craig...in drag. It's highlighting the difference between his fictional world and ours.

Edited by Iroquois, 13 March 2011 - 06:35 PM.

[Iroquois]

.. but it's really not meant to be taken seriously ....

Uh, yes it is. Just because it utilizes a fictional character doesn't make the intended message any less serious. Now in addition to boycotting THOR, I guess I'm going to have to boycott BOND-23 (in the theater; I'll probably illegally download both films just so the studio won't get any of my money).

And, quite frankly, it's shameless and pandering and it's beneath the dignity of Barbara and Michael. Clearly Barbara has taken the Elektra King approach to running the series if she gave Daniel Craig and Judi Dench permission to do this commercial.

You took my quote out of context, I said:

it's really not meant to be taken seriously in terms of Bond

I'll use this ad to help explain the point I'm making:



I mean, Craig is playing Bond in both ads in a way, but he's not 'in character' as Bond. If he were in the above advert, he would be getting the hell out of there. If he were in the 'Equals' advert, he would be providing witty retorts to M, as he does in his movies, and he would sure as hell refuse to dress in drag. He's there as Bond in the physical sense, as Bond's "image" as I put it. As he is not "in character", I can't see how this has any relevance to Bond's character itself. You can't compare Craig here to Connery in his movies because it's completely invalid, as Craig isn't "in character" as his Bond here. Now if you compared Craig in his movies to Connery in his movies, then you have a fair comparison.

I keep saying this, and I'll say it one last time: THE ADVERT ONLY WORKS IN CONTRAST TO WHAT WE SEE IN THE BOND FILMS.

It is indeed after shock value, and the audience has to acknowledge Bond's status as a Misogynist in order for the advert to work. THE ADVERT IS NOT ANNOUNCING A CHANGE IN THE BOND CHARACTER. In fact, you could say it ASSERTS the Bond's status as a misogynist to make it's point.

"Gender equality" does not exist. There is no such thing. There is no "equality" even among people of the same gender. We are all different.

That's your opinion, and I respect that. I think the video is promoting equality in terms of opportunities rather than encouraging the ignoring of their differences. Men are from Mars and Women from Venus, and I personally think that should be embraced, but I don't think that either sex should be any more restricted than the other, and that's just my opinion.

Edited by Iroquois, 13 March 2011 - 08:05 PM.

[Napoleon Solo]

And, quite frankly, it's shameless and pandering and it's beneath the dignity of Barbara and Michael. Clearly Barbara has taken the Elektra King approach to running the series if she gave Daniel Craig and Judi Dench permission to do this commercial.

I don't want to jump in the middle of the arguement. However:


Barbara Broccoli is the producer of the commercial, at least according to the press release about the commercial.

[jaguar007]

It's...only a forum guys, and it's also only an ad, not an official Bond film.

We understand that it's not an official Bond film; neither was NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN, but look how it lowered the prestige of the entire series. Just because it's not an official film doesn't mean that it can't do damage to the actual official series.

Except this is a 1 min video spot, not a feature length film. It holds as much impact on the Bond film series as this commercial (at least I hope)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN1DXQU-m3w

[Napoleon Solo]

It's...only a forum guys, and it's also only an ad, not an official Bond film.

We understand that it's not an official Bond film; neither was NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN, but look how it lowered the prestige of the entire series. Just because it's not an official film doesn't mean that it can't do damage to the actual official series.

Except this is a 1 min video spot, not a feature length film. It holds as much impact on the Bond film series as this commercial (at least I hope)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN1DXQU-m3w

While this is not a Bond spot, the following is an example of something similar, in this case a 1974 public service spot for the U.S. Labor Department

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Is5vIf7nwsU

Not a perfect comparison (the television show had been out of production for six years), but it does have cast members reprising roles (Adam West declined). The cause is somewhat similar to this Bond ad, though more narrowly drawn (it deals with pay in the workplace, not the broader equality issues of the new Bond ad).

[Jump James]

Fleming wrote the Bond books for money, Ann Fleming sold the Fleming manuscripts to America for money. It's all about money from the start. But Bond hasnt been sold out to Feminists, I suspect it was done for free for a charitable cause in this case.

[Iroquois]

Well, I don't feel as if I quoted you out of context. Because after all that you wrote, you still end up agreeing with me that:
#1 It is the character of James Bond that is being used to promote "gender equality"
#2 It is M that is talking down to 007
#3 That the 007 character is being used for "shock value"

You took my quote out of context... I mean, Craig is playing Bond in both ads in a way, but he's not 'in character' as Bond. If he were in the above advert, he would be getting the hell out of there. If he were in the 'Equals' advert, he would be providing witty retorts to M, as he does in his movies, and he would sure as hell refuse to dress in drag. He's there as Bond in the physical sense, as Bond's "image" as I put it. As he is not "in character", I can't see how this has any relevance to Bond's character itself. You can't compare Craig here to Connery in his movies because it's completely invalid, as Craig isn't "in character" as his Bond here. Now if you compared Craig in his movies to Connery in his movies, then you have a fair comparison.

#4 That the ad works most effectively when it is being compared with the 007 we know in the films

This is the point I'm making. If you compare the two, you realise they go against each other. THAT'S why Craig is not ACTUALLY 007 here. It goes against his portrayal as Bond as someone who would never agree to dress in drag. That's it, it's irony. You think it's Bond until he does something that he would never do and then you realise it's just a gag and that Craig is not playing Bond at all.