James Bond 1
Nov. 5th, 2015 02:50 pmYour Bond leans closer to Fleming’s classic interpretation of the character—a character very deliberately of his own time. What was it like taking that character—with ideals and manners that might be seen as dated today, such as Bond’s approach to women—and bringing him into the 21st Century?
Ellis: As I say—different baseline. He’s not a fossil. You have to bring him forward into the modern day without altering his personality. His mores and ethics in the books are formed by the times—you can alter those simply by stating, well, he wasn’t born before World War 2, so why would they be the same? His core personality, though—the callousness, the vengefulness, the misanthropy—can stay the same. And I do tend to think of it as misanthropy rather than misogyny. Yes, certainly, Bond expresses misogyny in the books and the films, but it’s also worth noting that in the books he has one single friend. One. I don’t think it’s softening or dismissing his misogyny to state that Bond in fact hates almost all people. He has specific issues with women, but he has specific issues with almost everybody.
That said: moving the timeline forward, even Bond, as an “ordinary man” as expressed by Fleming, can work with women and people of color without blatantly frothing at the mouth. Still doesn’t make him a nice guy. Just a product of his time and society, just as Fleming’s Bond was a product of his. Does that make sense?
I enjoyed this issue, even though it was pretty much the set up of the main story. After a brief trip to Finland to kill a man who murdered a fellow 00 agent, Bond returns to London for his next assignment...




If there's one downside to this series, it's that after watching the show Archer there are little bits of characterisation that (although originally from Bond) become doubly funny when reflected back off of Sterling Archer. Bond's annoyance over being forced to follow modern day rules regarding firearms (previously 00 agents were allowed to carry guns where ever they liked, now he has to officially sign it out when he needs it, for example), or the fact that he'll have to fly to Germany on a standard airline instead of the expensive ones he's used to.
He's a snob, hilariously so. And yet not as thoroughly unpleasant as original book flavour Bond (who was a drunken homophobic rapist, as Alan Moore inelegantly pointed out). Looking forward to seeing where this story goes.
Ellis: As I say—different baseline. He’s not a fossil. You have to bring him forward into the modern day without altering his personality. His mores and ethics in the books are formed by the times—you can alter those simply by stating, well, he wasn’t born before World War 2, so why would they be the same? His core personality, though—the callousness, the vengefulness, the misanthropy—can stay the same. And I do tend to think of it as misanthropy rather than misogyny. Yes, certainly, Bond expresses misogyny in the books and the films, but it’s also worth noting that in the books he has one single friend. One. I don’t think it’s softening or dismissing his misogyny to state that Bond in fact hates almost all people. He has specific issues with women, but he has specific issues with almost everybody.
That said: moving the timeline forward, even Bond, as an “ordinary man” as expressed by Fleming, can work with women and people of color without blatantly frothing at the mouth. Still doesn’t make him a nice guy. Just a product of his time and society, just as Fleming’s Bond was a product of his. Does that make sense?
I enjoyed this issue, even though it was pretty much the set up of the main story. After a brief trip to Finland to kill a man who murdered a fellow 00 agent, Bond returns to London for his next assignment...




If there's one downside to this series, it's that after watching the show Archer there are little bits of characterisation that (although originally from Bond) become doubly funny when reflected back off of Sterling Archer. Bond's annoyance over being forced to follow modern day rules regarding firearms (previously 00 agents were allowed to carry guns where ever they liked, now he has to officially sign it out when he needs it, for example), or the fact that he'll have to fly to Germany on a standard airline instead of the expensive ones he's used to.
He's a snob, hilariously so. And yet not as thoroughly unpleasant as original book flavour Bond (who was a drunken homophobic rapist, as Alan Moore inelegantly pointed out). Looking forward to seeing where this story goes.
no subject
Date: 2015-11-05 08:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-11-05 09:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-11-05 09:34 pm (UTC)Heh, it's kind of like how Daniel Craig said that the reason why Bond was retooled to be more Jason Bourne-ish in Casino Royale is because Austin Powers had spoilt the original version of Bond's formula, so they had to change things around to prevent it being a parody of itself.
Didn't stop people complaining about the lack of snide quips and gadgets, but still.
no subject
Date: 2015-11-06 12:01 am (UTC)Or, the opposite. Because this looks quite good.
no subject
Date: 2015-11-06 06:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-11-05 10:51 pm (UTC)Liked the cold open, where it was a monster movie where the monster was Bond.
And hey the "blunt instrument" line popped up again, which was how Ellis always described the character.
no subject
Date: 2015-11-06 12:39 am (UTC)