What do you think of casting Emma Watson as the next James Bond?

Now: things are not always the same as their origins.

Yes, he is. Sean Connery didn’t actually non-consensually kiss Molly Peters. They were acting.

See, I just don’t know what Bond is good for, if he isn’t a sexy, charming bastard; and the thing about being a sexy, charming bastard these days is that you come across as merely a bastard.

Do Republicans realize that the power of the people is invested in 'representative government'? If so, why did they elect a pathological liar?

Bond only makes sense if he has this huge government organisation backing him up, supplying him with intel and gadgets and cool cars, and legitimating all the mook-slaughtering he does. (Did you count all the dead bodies in the casino shootout scene in No Time to Die? I didn’t.)

The Bond of the novels wasn’t always so grabby. In the original Moonraker, at one point, Bond and the novel’s resident sexy woman character Gala Brand (a police officer) go swimming in their underwear, but that’s as sexy as things get. The next thing they know, the bad guys blow up part of a chalk cliff above them, and Bond gets them out of the way of the rockfall just in time, but their remaining clothes get torn off.

Like, You wish you were this cool, don’t you? You wish you were so irresistible that the woman who fought you off ten minutes ago changes her mind, and lets you fuck her in the steam room.

What is a good comeback for when someone calls you flat?

But he is a fictional character who is being presented as if he is something for the male viewer to aspire to.

They certainly present a series of images of masculinity, but no man now can or should get away with behaving towards women the way Connery’s Bond does. In Thunderball he literally sexually assaults Patricia Fearing, grabbing her and kissing her when she obviously wishes he didn’t, and then later, more or less muscles her into the steam room and undresses her.

If we turn back the clock and pretend like it’s 1964, that would be a disgraceful failure of imagination. Make Bond Great Again. I don’t want to watch that, and I think only a shrill cohort of idiot male chauvinists want to watch that. A Bond who is doggedly masculine in an old-school way, in the teeth of a changed world, is just an asshole.

As a friend of Megan's who also watches Suits, would you advise her not to return to the show in order to protect her character's reputation?

I don’t want anyone to be the next James Bond. I think the franchise needs to end.

It can be argued that the Bond films project a positive image of (straight, white) masculinity, and (straight, white) men need such things, otherwise they might… I dunno, vanish, or something, as if masculinity is like Tinkerbell, only there as long as people believe in it, and so they serve a purpose.

Daniel Craig’s version represented, in my view, Bond’s crisis of masculinity.

What are some possible reasons for an unfaithful spouse to not confess their affair to their partner and instead end it without telling them?

I can see the end title card now.

Indeed, if she’d not been immune to him, we would have lacked respect for her, I think, just as if Ana de Armas as Paloma had needed rescuing by him, the way countless Bond girls have done for decades (honourable exception: Carey Lowell in Licence to Kill), she would have been far less fun. I greatly enjoyed Paloma’s combat pragmatism: hitting her enemies with her gun when she’d run out of ammunition, kicking the shit out of them when they’re down, and then flinging herself at them, knocking them over and shooting them with their own dropped guns.

In the end, the Bond films are dreams of power.

ADA Issues New MASLD Guidelines - Medscape

Fine. But actually, the Bond films don’t do this.

It’s time to end this fantasy. Let’s move on to other stories.

Pierce Brosnan’s version was the first one in which the franchise itself took shots at Bond’s persona, with Judi Dench’s M calling him a ‘sexist, misogynist dinosaur’. The Brosnan Bond differed in his character according to what scene he was in; sometimes he was more dark and brooding, at other time he was all charm and martinis and quips.

What have you learned from your parents' mistakes?

I like Emma Watson. I think she’s a good sort and a decent actor.

Roger Moore’s version was meaner towards women (Moore himself disliked this, but there wasn’t much he could do about it) but the stories became more campy, so it didn’t seem that serious. Timothy Dalton’s version was angry and vengeful and dark, but the films became, for those reasons, less entertaining.

This is hardly an original take. But Craig was the first Bond who behaved as though he didn’t want to be 007. This is a Bond who, when Silva starts getting rather ambiguously hot and heavy with him and remarks ‘First time for everything, yes?’, replies ‘What makes you think this is my first time?’ Impossible to imagine Connery doing that.

How do you feel about Donald Trump signing an executive order that says there are only two genders?

But how long can we go on having a Bond who doubts himself? The Bond of the books didn’t have the imagination to seriously doubt himself. He got depressed when his wife got killed, and he got brainwashed when the Russkies captured him, but he never seriously doubts whether he should be doing this or not. He just accepts that a certain jadedness is part of the job.

Connery had all the original character’s emotional unavailability, but overlaid it with a shiny veneer of laconic charm. He was an aspirational figure: someone who white straight men were encouraged to want to be like. In the words of Brooklyn Nine-Nine, he took down bad guys and looked good doing it.

So, is a Bond who isn’t someone who we are being enticed to admire, still Bond? What is the nature of the thrill we are supposed to get from him?

Vinicius Jr. and Brazil Draw Blank in Ancelotti’s Debut - Managing Madrid

The sexy and charming parts are blithely and rightly ignored, the way Lashana Lynch in No Time To Die was immune to the charms of Daniel Craig.

But as the years went by, and society changed, so Bond changed.

… HOWEVER RELUCTANTLY.’

Is anyone up to have a little conversation?

So then, the Bond movies become a study of a middle-aged man experiencing limited job satisfaction.

James Bond was a creation of the mid-20th century, invented by a man who was born in 1908. He was supposed to be a blunt instrument, a rather characterless killing machine who nevertheless had some vulnerabilities, as dramatised in the first novel, Casino Royale, in which he fell in love with his assistant agent and was heartbroken to discover that she was a double.

Now, the typical response from the male viewer who feels that it’s somehow unfair to point this out is usually B-but he’s a fictional character!

Not just genes: After 17 years of study, scientist discovers just 1 lifestyle change that could easily ad - Times of India

In spite of this, Bond neither appreciates Gala’s nudity nor makes a suggestive remark; they’re both too busy throwing up from shock and chalk dust ingestion. At the end of the book, she’s off to marry her policeman fiancé and he’s on with the next case. No sex, not even a regretful, would-that-things-had-been-otherwise kiss.

Now, this is where we get into a rather tiresome debate about representation.

‘JAMES BOND WILL RETURN.

What are some things that children used to wait for, but are no longer common in today's society?

By the time Bond was on the screen, he had metamorphosed into something more complex: a more humorous, more roguish figure, heavily influenced by Sean Connery’s screen presence, which was so influential that Fleming retconned Bond to be half-Scottish and half-Swiss so as to account for his accent.

Without that, he’s just a straight white male dude running around killing people.

Edit: That last bit’s not actually correct. Bond does force a kiss on Gala, before the cliff gets blown up on them, and she is not pleased about it.

How strict are your parents?