this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2025
-13 points (34.9% liked)

No Stupid Questions

37544 readers
757 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I don't understand it: an alpha male with always good lines who gets every woman he wants drives the newest and most expensive car and saves the world.

Something completely realistic, right?

It's like producers know what make men insecure and cater to this audience, but if I'm right there are several millions of men feeling like losers looking for something to compensate.

Suddenly I feel only incels watch this.

Maybe some women like these movies for some other reasons?

all 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 18 points 21 hours ago

Man, you miss the entire history of it, the history and tropes of spy fiction, all of it and Moore.

You'd scraping the surface of Bond and wondering why you can't see bone.

Bond goes back to the post ww2 era, and the cold war. Without an understanding of that era, it won't make any sense except maybe the Craig era Bond.

Gentlemen spies, using their wits as much as their guns to keep their country safe. It's action and intrigue mixed with stunts and (eventually) sci-fi level gadgets. It's escapism as much as Conan the Barbarian is. As much as d&d is.

Tbh, go back and read the first two or three books. Then rewatch the first few movies. It'll hit totally different.

Late Connery era and the Moore era got a little cartoony for sure, and that diverged from book Bond a lot. But those early films were much more about the kind of spies that started in the OSS and SOE during ww2.

It evolved from there, but without understanding the origins of Bond, the Ian Flemming Bond, it's hard to see how even the silliest movies were a reaction to changing times, and still rooted in the idea of gentlemen serving their country by doing the dirty, ugly jobs that no one else could.

The women and cars and guns were window trappings, not the meat. They came about as a generation that had largely left the cold war behind as a fear saw the action as fun escapism. Bond was the first action hero franchise.

Is there some of the misogyny of that era still in there? Absolutely, and it makes some scenes hard to watch now. But the rest of it is standard action movie in any given era. It's not meant to be realistic any more than a Michael Bay Transformers movie is. Or something like the A-Team, or True Lies.

Bond was not only a heavily influential action franchise, he was an example of the competent hero that fell out of popularity. Flawed heroes barely surviving is just as valid, but a competent hero surviving with grace is more fun, it changes the stakes a little.

That's what you're missing, that there was an evolution to it all, and it seems weird if you didn't have a shared cultural background to view it with. Us old fucks that grew up watching Connery and then Moore, we had grandparents that survived the era that led to Bond existing in the first place.

Which is fine! It isn't for everyone. You aren't obligated to enjoy it just because others do. But that's what most of us enjoy: the escapism and flash of it. Very, very few people think of Bond as a role model, or want to be him.

[–] False 32 points 1 day ago

It's cool spy and action stuff. You're overthinking it

[–] [email protected] 2 points 14 hours ago

What I find the most irritating about these movies is the complete incompetence of 007. Without plot armor that dude wouldn't have made it past his 30's. Just how many times has he snuck into the enemy compound armed with a pistol and wearing a suit only to be immediately caught by a random guard and then the only thing saving his life is the fact that the enemy boss wants to give his revenge speech first rather than just shooting him on sight.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 day ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

One article I read put it this way- The appeal of James Bond is that he has enough skill to handle himself in any situation. Competence is his superpower

It doesn't matter if he is playing high stakes poker or being in a gunfight. Skiiing or ordering a drink. Using high tech gadgets or driving a classic sports car. Going to a formal party or swimming at night in SCUBA gear to get there. He can do it all and look cool doing it

The movies are still way too over the top for me but from that lens I can understand the character

[–] NeoNachtwaechter 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

You forgot one skill that may be quite important for his popularity ;-)

He can make every woman want him in her bed ASAP.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 12 hours ago
[–] Lemming421 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Something completely realistic, right?

Buddy, the world is a dumpster fire right now and it’s only getting worse.

I don’t watch films for realism. I want the billionaires to get fed into their drug crushing machine*, or sucked out of the window of their private jet, or get minced by their giant drill or blown up in their yachts.

I want the good guys to win for a change.

*yes, I know this was a henchman. Don’t @ me

[–] [email protected] 3 points 16 hours ago

With always good lines

Oh, no. His lines were not always good.

Kills bad guy with electricity

"Shocking. Positively shocking."

[–] [email protected] 14 points 22 hours ago

I think several factors play into its lasting popularity.

  1. The series was written and first made into movies at a different time. A time when being a misogynists alpha male was aspirational for many, many more men. The unexpected success of the first movies created the foundation to an intellectual property that generations of mostly fathers introduced to their mostly sons. It never went away. Even in years where lawsuits prevented making new movies or when the latest installment of the franchise was considered controversial for whatever reason, the popularity stayed high. And the older the series gets, the more controversial everything becomes.

  2. Very few movies have what I would call a great coherent plot. They are going through checklists: we need a bonkers villain, a weird henchperson, a fancy car, at least one love interest, a gadget, a plan for world domination, and a witty line or two. Throw in a location in the Caribbean or the snowy Alps and that's the formula. It's Batman from MI-6 in London, really. It's a comic book story that tries to seem somewhat realistic, in each movie's release year's contemporary time. And the more time passes the less jarring the obvious differences to reality become, and the more they are enjoyable as "leave your brain at the door"-popcorn-eating entertainment. Also, I think, the fact that many actors have played different roles over the years, sometimes overlapping with other cast changes, mostly unaddressed in the films why that happened, added to this "brain at the door"-ishness.

  3. They've gone with the time - to an extent. Where Sean Connery bedded every (young) woman he met and discarded them with a pad on the butt saying things like "man talk," Daniel Craig's lady conquest numbers were much lower and the sex less gratuitous - within the formula. Pierce Brosnan's Bond was called a misogynist pig by his female boss. Under the stewardship of Broccoli/Wilson, the second generation in charge of the franchise, they have incrementally changed the formula.

  4. Because the series is so long lasting, there is tons of free publicity in the media, e.g. who will be the next Bond? Will be be less sexist? Will the female lead be more than a conquest? They don't really need to buy ads for this. Also, there are plenty of companies willing to product place for a hefty price. If there ever was a time when the makers were considering if this was still of the time, the economic interests will surely push those progressive thoughts aside.

I think that if we lived in a world where the Ian Fleming idea had not been adapted into film during the early years of the cold war, nobody would greenlight this project today. And it is its entrenchment in popular culture that keeps it going.

The appeal is definitely more male but I know women who like Bond movies as well. I know this is very stereotypical: men look at the Aston Martin, the gadgets, and the boobs, women at the dresses, the pretty scenery, and how well the Bond girl stands up for herself. And while I'm sure that a subgroup of men looks at the Bond character as a role model, I would say the majority knows this is fiction and just a tad less comic-bookish than Ironman. It's the male version of a cheap romance novel on a silver screen with more mass appeal.

If this has not become clear from this dissertation: I'm a fan. I can enjoy these movies without wanting to revert to 1960s gender role models. I also know it's not for everyone.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

Some of them are really well done despite the simple premise. Goldeneye is a fucking kickass movie. And Casino Royale is tense and a lot of the movie is him playing poker lol. It's great. Have you seen those two? Some of the other movies aren't as good. Also Goldeneye was one of the best games ever made. It's an absolute classic and led to Perfect Dark.

[–] Rhynoplaz 4 points 20 hours ago

Facility. Pistols only. License to kill.

[–] Majorllama 5 points 23 hours ago

Guns=cool Cars=cool Explosions=cool Attractive women=cool Saving the world from certain destruction=cool

They are only slightly more sophisticated than a transformers movie. You're there for the spectacle and "fun" of it not the deep meaning of life or art of film making necessarily.

[–] SloppyPuppy 5 points 1 day ago

Its just a cool movie with ok script.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

Most popular culture is bad.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 23 hours ago

It's escapism, albeit rather dated at this point.

I suspect one of the reasons for the delay in announcing the new Bond is trying to figure out how to navigate Bond around more modern sensibilities. There were rumours that they might go back to being less serious but, after the Amazon takeover, who knows what will happen. Other than a massive glut of Bond media.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 20 hours ago

I never understood it, and I grew up on 80s action movies. Love Arnie, Bruce, Sylvester (before maga), even Chuck. But never got into James Bond at all.

[–] FuglyDuck 3 points 23 hours ago

spy thriller. gadgets. babes. gratuitous pew pews and judo chops. not necessarily in that order.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

The exposition kills my interest in Bond movies usually. Plus after the intro scene and long credits they usually spend 30 min or more on the Moneypenny and Q stuff. The sex isn't that sexy and the violence is that violent. Give me a Jason Statham movie.

I did like a few of the Daniel Craig Bond movies though.