Roger Moore just died, and you will hear that he was the third, or second, or fourth, "James Bond." He wasn't. Here is the list of James Bond actors:
Barry Nelson, who played in "Casino Royale" in 1954. This was an episode in the "Climax!" TV anthology series, like they used to do a lot.
Sean Connery is often regarded as the "original" or "first" James Bond, and in a way he was, since he was the first to repeat the role in several movies. But he was actually the second actor to play the role in front of a camera. He did seven Jame Bonds.
David Niven, who played also in "Casino Royale," a movie directed by Ken Hughes. Peter Sellers and Ursala Andress were also in the movie.
George Lazenby played James Bond in tghe 1969 "James Bond: ON Her Majesty's Service."
Roger Moore, taking up the role as the fifth actor to do so, started in 1973 and played the role seven times.
Timothy Dalton played two Bonds in 1987 and 1989. Many claim, I'm told, that Dalton played the most true-to-the-novel Bond.
Pierce Bronsan started to be Bond in 1995 and played four times.
Daniel Craig played Bond starting in 2006 and has made four films.
An interesting trend in Bond films: The time between films has steadily (but not very uniformly) increased. Once the thing got going, there was about one a year, but this slowed to about one every two years and eventually about one every three years. The last one was two years ago.
Why do I even know this? Because I regard about half the James Bond films ever made to be among the worst things ever put on film, and to have fueled and developed the rape culture our patriarchy embraces. At the same time, I like spy films a lot. Therefore, I thing a handful of the Bond films are great, many should be erased from our cultural memory, and a few others are bla at best.
Even Sean Connery was repulsed by the way Bond treated women.
Liberal elite Hollywood at it's best...guns, violence and sexism.
David Niven wasn't Canon. I don't know about Barry. It could be both were not canon by not being licensed by the writer.
NOTE: David Niven also did a pastiche of James Bond in a movie called something like "The Brain", a secret agent whose brain was so big, heavy and powerful he could not always manage to hold his head up.
Batshit betty meanwhile has a head so empty he has to shove it up his arse to stop it floating off.
Roger Moore hated the way it was written and it's why the tone and tenor of the movies were very different from Sean's. He also is a big pacifist and drove it to humour for that very reason.
Pierce Brosnan not Bronsan
I once chatted to one of the starlets on a carrier deck in Port Everglades, Florida. Got the pic's too as my camera was used and I used it to shoot her sat on an aircraft towing tractor.
Niven's Bond was well after Connery had done several Bond movies; the movie was done as a comedy due to Connery having cemented Bond, in the public's eyes, as being Connery. So Connery was the second Bond.
BTW, trivia-wise, about 35 years ago I was in Italy and talked to a woman who said that in interviews, Roger Moore spoke beautiful Italian. Not just fluent, but in her words "beautiful".
JDM: Correct and corrected!
Wow - "a movie called something like “The Brain”
How ironic, Wow is unsure how to use his brain to find out if a movie is actually called "The Brain"
You should have your own movie Wow...."The Ignoramus"
Wasn't Casino Royale with David Niven from 1967? If so, Connery had already been Bond 3 or 4 times by then, making him the second Bond and not the third.
That film was indeed "The Brain". It was shown on South African Television years ago.
"Who's got a computer for a mind?"
"The Brain...The Brain."
I'm not a big fan of Moore's version of Bond, but I do like how he was willing to make fun of his Bond years (and himself) in Cannonball Run.
'Liberal elite Hollywood'...
Read the excellent book, 'Reel Power', and that myth is put into the bin. Hollywood is embedded in the neoliberal political order. That Betula thinks it's 'liberal' is just more evidence what a right wing loon he is.
I'll have to look at Reel Power (found it on Amazon so far). But, I would hope Hollywood has something of a "liberal bias" given that it is full of writers and film directors and artists of various sorts, all disciplined where being smart is a benefit. And smart people tend to be liberals. So ...
>developed the rape culture our patriarchy embraces.
Parents should stop sending their daughters to college given the epidemic of rape on campus that liberals claim is happening there.
Yes MikeN, by all means let's not try to stop a bad thing from happening by fixing a root cause....let's attack the symptoms/victims instead. God, your an ass.
Parents should stop sending their daughters to college given the epidemic of rape on campus that liberals claim is happening there.
Rape statistics are fairly simple. Are you too stupid to understand them?
Greg @13, even though"Hollywood" is as centralized as it once was ("stars" are no longer under restrictive contracts with studios, for example) the real power is still with the people who fund movies, and their motive is profit. Philosophy there might not be as liberal as with the writers/actors/actresses.
Greg - "it is full of writers and film directors and artists of various sorts, all disciplined where being smart is a benefit. And smart people tend to be liberals. So …"
Well, according to the "smart" scientist "Hardley", you're wrong. So...
dean - "the real power is still with the people who fund movies, and their motive is profit. Philosophy there might not be as liberal as with the writers/actors/actresses"
Right, because the last thing the writers/actors/actresses would want is to see their movies make a profit...
>Rape statistics are fairly simple. Are you too stupid to understand them?
Yes, I have been told the stats. Colleges are nightmares to which women should not be sent, worse rape stats than any urban ghetto.
So you've been told but will not or cannot make any attempt at rational thought, or at anything other than blaming victims. Got it.
I'm not sure whether you've really looked at the statistics and choose the standard conservative interpretation of "blame the woman" or whether you simply don't care to make the attempt to find them and understand.
Given your track record the reasonable assignment of probability is 50% to each possibility.
Betula, you won't find anywhere where I said what you're trying to put into my mouth.
Think (a new concept for you, clearly) who would have more power: executives or the majority of writers/performers.
So posts are vanishing?
Dean, posts are bring held in moderation by a mysterious force. I don't know why.
James Bond could figure it out.
Interesting. Thanks for the response.
Who's blaming victims? Is it blaming victims when I suggest to stay away from a crime zone? Better to use the stats to make an informed decision.
" and choose the standard conservative interpretation of “blame the woman"
He's chosen the standard conservative interpretation of "blame the liberal".
"Mike", you were so believable I can't understand why people got the idea you were complaining.
Oh, that was sarcasm too?
dean - "Betula, you won’t find anywhere where I said what you’re trying to put into my mouth."
You did a fine job of putting the words in your own mouth, now you want to spit them out.
No, you don't seem to understand anything except how to be dishonest.
"Who’s blaming victims?"
You, with the standard "If they weren't there they wouldn't get raped" bullshit.
Greg, I'm interested in which of the movies you think are the worst. I have a difficult time telling the pre-Daniel Craig movies apart. They all seem so damn awful in a very repetitive homogeneous way.
Dr. No was very differently paced. It wasn't an action movie, it was a thriller. And therefore probably closest to the style of the books.
There's a reason why movies compare to James Bond, and it's not because they're damn awful. And depending on what you want to do with it, every movie is repetetive and homogenous. The Greeks knew how little there was in story types, and if you break everything down you can have them all fit in the 7 (and I've heard four) types, making them all homogenous.
If you listen to Anita Sarkeesian, there's only one trope: damsel in distress.
dean - "No, you don’t seem to understand anything except how to be dishonest"
Oh, so then you feel writers/actors/actresses do look at profit as a motive, and therefore their "Philosophy" isn't much different than the people who fund the movies?
Which is it?
You can't have it both ways and then call me "dishonest" for calling you out.....unless of course, you are dishonest.
Does anyone know on average how much CO2 is emitted during the making of a movie? Or the average CO2 emitted from those traveling to see the movie, plus the average amount of energy put out annually from a movie theater?
How about the Bond movies in particular?
I'm just wondering, because much like Li D, It makes me bitter when I think of Hollywood's lack of concern for The Great Barrier Reef...
Oh, so then you feel writers/actors/actresses do look at profit as a motive, and therefore their “Philosophy” isn’t much different than the people who fund the movies?
It is simple, although apparently not as simple as you. If you believe that there is no difference in aspirations between the people who create the content and the people charged with financing it, you are an idiot--which, after examining the crap you spread around in your comments in general, is the surest assessment.
Also if batshit betty doesn't think there is a difference in aspiration, it rather kills their opening gambit about how hollywood is all liberal.
Self defeating arguments are betty's speciality.
Dean - "If you believe that there is no difference in aspirations between the people who create the content and the people charged with financing it"
If you "create" a movie that doesn't profit, you will most likely lose financing for another one, since the "content" wasn't what enough people wanted to pay to see...
I would imagine the people who create movies would like to remain in the movie business to make more movies....and that would involve making movies that profit.
Also, since we are talking about liberals, you seem to jump to the conclusion that the people financing the movies aren't liberals, or have a different philosophy about "content". Yet, If they didn't like the content, they wouldn't think the movie would profit, so why would they finance it?
It would be the equivalent of financing a movie about Wow....obviously you wouldn't want to do that because the content screams failure.
In the end, profit is the motive for all involved.
It's just like the hope for profit was one of the motivating factors to buy into Westmill Solar....and profit it does. Just think, Wow shares in those profits, and he is as liberal as they come...
I rest my case.
“If they weren’t there they wouldn’t get raped”
That is a past tense statement about what already happened. I am talking about in the future, should parents send their daughters to places that are statistically likely to be raped?
MikeN, the reason you are blaming the victim is simple: you are saying that the way to keep women from being raped is to limit their access to something.
I would think that even someone as limited as you could see the stupidity in that.
Betula, good thing you rested. You've made yourself as big an ass as the internet can take.
Dean - "MikeN, the reason you are blaming the victim is simple: you are saying that the way to keep women from being raped is to limit their access to something"
It appears Dean would refuse to limit a child's access to a sex offender for fear of being accused of blaming a victim...
Oh, and speaking of "ass"....why don't you parade yours around in a prison courtyard, I'm sure you can obtain access.
Don't worry, I promise not to blame you for your stupidity, you're too "limited" to know any better...
#36 The answer to your question is No, nobody knows that. For one thing, who would be monitoring worldwide moviegoers' distances from movie theatres and how they travel to them? I'd be surprised if a reasonable estimate was even possible given the number of movies made and distributed worldwide.
It might be possible to estimate CO2 emissions for a movie indirectly from a movie company's energy costs but if you're interested in the fixing the Hollywood movie industry's responsibility for the Great Barrier Reef's plight I doubt if it would come close to being as significant as the combined other activities of Earth's 7+ billion people. In any case, the Bond films are made by a British company although there are tie-ins of various kinds with U.S. companies for distribution etc.
Are you a libertarian betula, because that's the level of stupidity you demonstrate.
Asserting that allowing children to go to a pedophile is directly comparable to allowing women go to college in terms of danger to each? You are not helping your case. I'm not surprised that you are on the side of defending pedophiles and rapists, mind you, given your posting history.
Dean - "Asserting that allowing children to go to a pedophile is directly comparable to allowing women go to college in terms of danger to each?"
Nope. Here's what you said:
"you are saying that the way to keep women from being raped is to limit their access to something"
That was never asserted by Mike - of course they could still be raped "somewhere", but why send them to a place where Liberals claim rape is a big problem?
Also note that you said..."limit their access to something"
By inserting "something", you opened the door to interpretation. Allowing your child access to a sex predator is allowing access to "something". Allowing your daughter to roam the prison grounds is allowing her to roam "something", allowing your daughter to walk a busy highway at night is allowing her to access to "something", allowing your daughter into a drug den is allowing her access to "something"
According to your own logic, if yout limit her access to these places (something) then you yourself are "blaming the victim" (see #41)
Now put your own words back in your mouth...
"I would think that even someone as limited as you could see the stupidity in that."
Betula, there was a context in mikeNs comment. I used it, you ignore it. Now you lie -- again.
MikeN at least tries to address issues honestly. It is clear you are not willing to do so. Perhaps you've been so dismissive of facts for so long you actually believe what you say makes sense. People who exhibit your lack of integrity can fool themselves.
I'm sure you'll continue your off topic and reality free comments and continue to dismiss issues facing people who aren't you. You've demonstrated that you're too vile and dishonest to respond to -- a poster child for the modern right wing, making decent people everywhere feel sorry for you.
Look at all those words you used without saying anything.....all claims without any examples to back them up.
There's a good reason for that.....you can't.
Is it blaming the victim if I advise someone not to live in a high crime area? I get your point if I say this after he is robbed, but to do so beforehand?
Two possible vacation choices, Uruguay and Damascus. I hear both are lovely. Any ideas which one is better?
Batty, will you please give your fuckwittery
a holiday. Its becoming really wearing.
MikeN, i can provide you with many examples in
line with your very skewed logic but i dont think
you would like em.
Mmmm Should i start with guns in the home,
or maybe white collar crime or oooohhhhh
violence in pubs. Alcohols always a goodie.
So is domestic violence. I wouldnt wanna put my
daughter in a domestic situation would I? " Dad, can i
marry this bloke? No fucking way sweetheart. Do you know
what goes on behind closed doors? "
You silly muppet.
If MikeN is correct why not stop men from going to school instead? That would be fairer, but still a purile solution.
Because the people doing the stopping are the parents of the child going to school. Why would they avoid sending their boy when it is the girls being raped?
Feeling like im in a twilight zone movie.
Boys shouldnt go to school in case they
assault a girl.
Thats not really rational is it. In fact its nuts.
But its fairer on girls ( The uncontested innocent party ) than your idea.
Keeping anyone from going to college because of a fear of violence is counterproductive. It just makes the college administration more likely to hide any violent crimes that do occur and may even encourage potential perpetrators.
Surely our society should be able to come up with a better solution than that. Or are we as impotent in that case as we seem to be with coping with other problems intelligently?
It's also a story of "MY Daughter can't be allowed to go there!", not "My DAUGHTER doesn't want to go there".
Property ownership, the only slavery that rightwingers pining for the old days can cling to today.
Wow - "Property ownership, the only slavery that rightwingers pining for the old days can cling to today"
So rightwingers are pining for the old Democrat days? How does that work?
Meanwhile, you are collecting "corrupt" profits from Westmill Solar on a quarterly basis and hoping that no one will notice...
If you listen to Anita Sarkeesian, there’s only one trope: damsel in distress.
Interesting, but perhaps a bridge too far, although Lady Macbeth, I suppose, at a stretch... Not convinced, really.
#36: I know it sounds ridiculous but there are Neo-Confederate apologists for slavery in the U. S. right now. Not long ago an Arkansas legislator made such a statement, justifying it on the grounds that Jesus didn't say anything against it.
If you care to look into it, you'd see that it is hard to exaggerate how far backward parts of the GOP base are looking.
BTW, it IS ridiculous to imply that the party labels in the 1860s have anything at all to do with the modern parties.
Jesus never said anything against homosexuality, either. That was Leviticus and Paul.
And for "Banana man", if the banana was intelligently designed by god because it fits in your hand, what about the "big banana" men keep in their trousers? I never recalled Jesus saying anything against masturbation, either. that was OT, and actually a retribution not against onanism but of Onan's disobedience for honouring his sister-in-law and his brother's memory by not banging his dead brothers' wife..
" Lady Macbeth, I suppose, at a stretch"
Actually, it's one of Anita's problematic screeds is the fitting in anything to the "It's a damsel in distress.Lame!", most recently and illogically with the latest Legend of Zelda.
But on Mrs Macbeth, she was a major protagonist and was the one Mr Macbeth turned to when he thought "I like the king. Surely it's a bad idea to try to kill him. Maybe I should give up?", and she told him to stop pu55ying about and get on with it.
Then went batshit.
If anyone (apart from the completely innocent king) is a victim, it's Macbeth. He got completely trolled and set up.
Fun fact: Tolkien said that the image of the wood coming to Dunsinane fired his imagination, which was dashed when it was as mundane a thing as "sticking a stick in your hat", so he wrote the March of the Ents.
"If MikeN is correct why not stop men from going to school instead? "
For people like betula the reason is simple: women are inferior and their education doesn't matter, since all they are good for is reproduction. For people like him rights only exist for men.
I'm not sure what mikeN is getting at. He has some odd views, but I'm not sure he's crazy enough to really believe the way to address a problem is by restricting the rights of victims. I have a feeling that his stance is more a statement that the problem is overblown, or really doesn't exist, than anything else.
> I have a feeling that his stance is more a statement that the problem is overblown, or really doesn’t exist, than anything else.
Yea it is. However, assuming the problem is not overblown, then it seems silly for any parent to send their daughter to college. 20%+ chance of being raped(is that annual or over four years)? Who volunteers for something like this?
Don;t send your sons to university and women won't get raped, since it's only women there.
Or start teaching sex ed to all of them at a young age and therefore they won't be learning all that shit when they first get away fro the controlling parents and getting it wrong at a higher rate.
Your stance, "mike" is no different than "Tell men no to t rape", just pointed to a different sex.
>Don;t send your sons to university and women won’t get raped, since it’s only women there.
False. There would then be one less man there.
You would have to explicitly turn the college into an all-girls college, which only the administrators could do, not the parents.
" >Don;t send your sons to university and women won’t get raped, since it’s only women there.
Wrong. If you don't send your sons there then they will be women only education centers, dumbass.
Unless you think there are sons that have no parents, which is logically impossible since they would not be sons, having no parents ever, being sprung from nothing fully formed and ready ti go to college...
"You would have to explicitly turn the college into an all-girls college"
No you wouldn't, you'd just have to not send sons there.
"Yea it is."
Since you choose not to believe statistics that show there is a problem, simply because you have a problem with statistics in general, why should anyone believe you are trying to discuss things in good faith?
There's some problem with the definition of rape and the concept of rape.
Rather like child porn, theoretically it could be anyone under the age of consent. But paedophilia is the sexual attraction to the pre-pubescent (there's a different term for post-pubescent). However, "paedo ring" and "paedophile" will be used for any child porn case. That's problematic not because it's less wrong for post- than pre- (and I can delineate exactly why this would be wrong, other than "it's against the law" which can change just by changing the law, and it covers "coercion" as just as wrong too, even if it's by a power disparity rather than overt force) but because when the rules for sentencing come out it's the "fucking a four year old" that people are imagining and designing the law for, but it will be applied to two teenagers sexting each other. The law is so badly worded in part BECAUSE nobody wants the one abusing the four year old to get away on a technicality. But the lw doesn't add "only for pre-pubescent" and definitely not "four year olds".
What makes university worse is that asshole adults who don't want to actually parent or "think" that abstinence is the only allowed method until after marriage send their children off without knowing WHAT the whole sex thing is and they're going to get it wrong.
Either by feeling they are being raped while the other thinks their being encouraged, because the expectations are different, or because they're still held back by a system that refuses to let adolescents grow up so keep them adolescent until they finally manage to leave home, at which point they're still "raging against the machine" and doing dumb shit just to define themselves as an adult.
If you teach your children about sex, or let them be taught about it at a young age, they can handle the oddness of the concept easier, and there'll be less of a culture shock when they're stuck around a moderately homogenous group of young adults. If you let them grow up earlier and accept they belong to themselves, you're just responsible for them, not their owner, they'll define themselves before they leave home and won't still be stuck as "old angsty teen" when they're 20.
The latter is made harder when schools are treating them like children more and more, and doubly so when the universities themselves keep treating their students like they're still little kids that need orders.
So I see three problems, all fixable outside university:
1) Lack of sex ed makes young adults uncertain what is supposed to happen, what is expected of them and from them. And when that gets wrong in a sexual situation, you get more rape. Because one or the other party doesn't know how to deal with this.
2) Constriction to childish roles means the university goers will not know who they are and will experiment, risking more frequent dangerous situations.
3) Women need to say no. And men have to accept it. Hey, dude, if she gets scared by the consequences or changes her mind and you have to walk off blue-balled, DO SO. Sure, call her names and swear never to bother again because you're pissed off (and you're justified with it), but that DOES NOT mean you're entitled to any form of assault. Hate her if you want, but that's as far as you go.
But repressing sex drives never works. See RCC priesthood. And demonising sex or women or even men doesn't work, it merely makes it easier to justify being a demon.
"I'm a sinful man, therefore every time I DON'T rape is proof I'm trying to be better!"
"I'm a woman and I'm supposed to submit to what the man says" until regret and distance make them realise what REALLY happened.
"Women are the cause of the downfall of mankind, they're all evil!" leads to Jack the Ripper.