I was implying that Craig's first entry into the Bond franchise (Casino Royale) was made much more violent, and Bond's character portrayal was of a much colder, emotionless Bond. A psychopathic streak that the Bond producers prefered to promote. The producer's of Bond back in 1989 (LIcence to Kill) mixed the elements of the old Bond with the sauvie, sophisticated character, with a slightly more coldier attitude, similar to what Craig's Bond became in Casino Royale in 2005.

Well, the way the James Bond franchise is going, Bond is already subserviant to a feminist hierarchy. He's viewed as a dinosaur of past masculinity, and has no position being an Alpha male Bond anymore. I suspect the new Bond will have feminim attributes, over the more masculine.

When I say castrated, I mean that his maculinity and Bond's true sexuality, hetrosexual, will no longer be apparent. If you get confused by that, then you are flipping well lost.

I thought the character in Casino Royale is quite emotional, something summed up by the final act with his resignation from MI6 to spend his life with Vesper and then his response to her death.

In this day and age, the Bond character as played by likes of Sean Connery, Roger Moore, and Timothy Dalton is 'a dinosaur of past masculinity', someone who, in the 21st-century, would be conspicuous and a bit like Austin Powers in terms of his ability to relate to those around him.

I don't know what you mean about his heterosexuality no longer being apparent as the previous Daniel Craig films have shown he's attractive to women and attracted to women. I'd be stunned if that doesn't continue.

He did imply a homosexual relationship in Skyfall when he was being tortured.

There was some emotion, but little on show throughout Craig's time as Bond. Casino marked a "final wave goodbye" to what was left of the Bond I certainly liked. Quantum, Spyfall and Spectre just didn't feel like Bond films. Overlong and at times quite boring. Not as stylistic or quick paced as Casino Royale nor as well written as some of the Bond films from the past.

Well it would be . There's no place in the new world for a James Bond that actually had a REAL SET OF BALLS. You've admitted it right there, in that sentence. So we come to the new James Bond film (2020) No Time To Die. Which way do you think Bond's character will go? Bond is going to be more obnoxiously woke and preachy than ever before in the upcoming film. Why, because we have a writer who was hired to alter the very nature/behaviour of Bond, and is none other than feminist TV writer Phoebe Waller-Bridge. Add to that Bond getting married to a bossy feminist who refuses to take his name. Sounds really entertaining, doesn't it. What audiences cannot stand are these sanctimonious the future is female lectures that are not “inclusive,” but instead divisive in how they insult and demean men. It seems the corporations making these films want to promote an agenda, but leave out central core of what made these films great. Bond has always been a masculine Alpha Male with a sophisticated side to his nature. The women involved with Bond understood his desires and needs, and often played up to his masculinity. Just look at Pussy Galore in Goldfinger. Both had a level playing field when it came to strong character types. Now it's Bond who's being emasculated in this new film, and the next James Bond outing after Craig leaves will follow a much more feminist line. Hetrosexuality is under attack, and feminism is a by-product of this process.

It sounds as if you'd rather have a James Bond film which seeks to demean and alienate women than one which seeks to be a little more inclusive and appeals to the widest possible audience. My question is: why?

I don't have a problem with the way women are or have ever been portrayed in Bond films. I dislike the way the films have become glorified, joyless, Bourne copycats which drag on thanks to a lack of action and bum numbing running times.

To me, Mission Impossible is the new Bond - fun, thrilling spectacles.

Obviously you like the feminist Bond. Some women enjoyed Bond's strong masculinity in his character, that came across in quite a few films. Today, there's no place for a strong archetypal character like James Bond. These films are aimed more at the younger demographic, who will be more accepting of it's inclusive messaging. It's sad to think that all of these great franchises have been burnt to the ground, including Star Wars. It's more about changing society now, than actually entertaining people. I don't need to be lectured by these studios or writers as to how I should view myself or others. If I want that, I'll go and join a political party. They seem to promote this crap constantly. If you like it Nosferatu, then good for you.

Didn't Ben~Hur (1959) have more drama, spectacle and action combined than Spectre. And what about Blofeld? What did they do to that great character.

It's bloody Teen Agent tonight then....:lol:

I think it's more about ticket sales than anything political, so a screenplay which is likely to lead to a film which appeals to a wide audience is going to be much more appealing to a studio than one which would have an audience almost exclusively of middle-aged and elderly men wishing they were watching something very similar to Never Say Never Again or The Living Daylights.

I guess that most people who go to the cinema are entertained as I was when I saw Little Women, 1917, The Personal History of David Copperfield, or anything else in recent months. If the trailer is in the to go by, I'll enjoy No Time To Die and hope you do too.

The most recent Mission: Impossible films have been excellent – it's a cracking series. :nod: