ill watch whatever, i don't give a shit. but part of the bond character is that he's one of those oxbridge ass pedigree "for king and country" douchebags who conquers exotic locales and their booba-havers.

trying to do representation or whatever with the character i think is a weird move, since he's basically the personification of empire. it makes sense, because how is the character going to stay relevant as the literal west collapses? post soviet collapse, they did a lot of bond villains critiquing arms proliferation, wealthy moguls, and even some blowback with Bardem's villain. but i think they're stuck in a self-eating loop and they know it, so this is their "shake it up" play.

admittedly, it has less reactionary potential than reimagining the world of james bond in the past and keeping the stories stuck in an idealized golden age and doing some kind of retrofuturistic thing.

but, again, i'll watch anything with Idris Elba and probably watch whatever bond slop they barf out.

[–] MaxOS@hexbear.net 52 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's kind of funny in Goldeneye where M calls him a "sexist, misogynist dinosaur, a relic of the Cold War."

[–] TraschcanOfIdeology@hexbear.net 33 points 1 day ago

They tried and failed to play with that concept in skyfall, too. The problem is that the writers can't commit to bond being an anachronistic pig who is fun to watch, or an avatar for all that is good and honest

[–] 7bicycles@hexbear.net 9 points 1 day ago

trying to do representation or whatever with the character i think is a weird move, since he's basically the personification of empire. it makes sense, because how is the character going to stay relevant as the literal west collapses? post soviet collapse, they did a lot of bond villains critiquing arms proliferation, wealthy moguls, and even some blowback with Bardem's villain. but i think they're stuck in a self-eating loop and they know it, so this is their "shake it up" play.

what if he just becomes asian again