4 ms·

James Bond is not great art. It has female characters with names like Pussy Galore. It's an adolescent fantasy that was mocked by the Austin Powers movies. Th

James Bond is not great art. It has female characters with names like Pussy Galore. It's an adolescent fantasy that was mocked by the Austin Powers movies. The character Q is a cheap plot device for resolving plot issues easily once the author has painted himself into a corner. Once in said corner, you go back in time and insert some gadget invented by some prescient genius that Bond will never use again and probably should have used at some earlier point but didn't. James Bond is dated and really no longer works well. He was originally a ladies man in a conservative era when women did not readily put out who saw so much action because his wife died and he was all heart broken over that and women knew he was the marrying kind and blah blah blah. Now that everyone goes on Tinder and casually hooks up with random strangers, there's nothing special about James Bond getting laid left, right and center. It's juvenile, it's out of date, it's misogynistic and generally ridiculous. It does not need anyone handwringing about trying to preserve its original form like there's something sacred there. Don't get me wrong, I certainly watch the movies. But, no, they are not high art that requires special protection for the benefit of future generations.

haswell 4y ago
I agree with most of this comment, but I'm struggling with the conclusion. What I find deeply concerning is not the distortion of the pristine original state of James Bond. What I find deeply concerning is the whitewashing of cultural artifacts and the implications of both the intent of such actions and the potential outcomes. The quality of the content itself does not reduce the cultural popularity and impact that the content had in its time, and altering the content can only cloud any modern examination of the past. Old content that ages poorly should do just that - age poorly. We should look back at it and roll our eyes and wonder what we were thinking. We should draw conclusions from this more modern examination that help guide the creation of future content that doesn't perpetuate the same problems. There is no progress without reflection and a place from which to move forward. And this quickly turns into a "First, they came for..." type of scenario, IMO.
- DoreenMichele 4y ago
  We routinely update Shakespeare. Westside Story is an updated version of Romeo and Juliette. Popular works being kept current so we can still enjoy them even though things have changed is nothing at all like "First they came for...." It's more like the opposite of that.
  - sam_lowry_ 4y ago
    We do not call these updates Romeo and Juliette for a reason. If anything, neo-copyright should protect the original works from alteration by the copyright holders.
    - op00to 4y ago
      Romeo + Juliet (1996) Leo DiCaprio / Claire Danes
  - Semaphor 4y ago
    > We routinely update Shakespeare. Do we? Further, than translating from English to a different version of English? > Westside Story is an updated version of Romeo and Juliette. It is not, it’s an adaption at best.
    - DoreenMichele 4y ago
      My general understanding is that Romeo and Juliet has come to mean essentially the opposite to people today from the original intent of the story. They are described as star crossed lovers which used to essentially mean it was a bad idea for them to get together and now we think it means fate and other people are keeping apart two people who belong together. It was a story about two foolish youth and their feuding families making stupid choices, a kind of warning of what not to do. Now, we think it's about true love or some nonsense.
    - op00to 4y ago
      > Do we? Yes. Literally what you said, right here. https://nosweatshakespeare.com/ebooks/shakespeare-for-kids/ https://nosweatshakespeare.com/ebooks/shakespeare-for-kids/
starkd 4y ago
<< James Bond is not great art Besides the point. A significant audience found value in its stories. Are you the arbiter of what is good or bad? You go down this road, there is no limit to what will be censored or deleted altogether. Even the stuff you personally find to be great art. It is literally trying to modify history.
imiric 4y ago
> It's an adolescent fantasy that was mocked by the Austin Powers movies. Why is that a negative? If it inspired other art, even as a parody, that makes it a valuable part of culture. James Bond has inspired countless imitations, and has resonated with generations of people around the world. It doesn't need to be high art to be enjoyed. Everyone watching the movies or reading the books today will have a different perception of the material, in the same way we view art produced centuries ago. Art exists within the context of its period, and changing it to suit new generations produces strange results, completely disrespecting the author's intention. Would you feel the same way if we started altering paintings someone considered offensive? That's as ridiculous as these changes. Of course, this isn't new with books. Popular works go through many editions throughout history. We should be able to go back and read older editions, but sometimes these become harder to find, as new ones become more prevalent. Let's hope that won't be the case here.

haswell 4y ago

I agree with most of this comment, but I'm struggling with the conclusion. What I find deeply concerning is not the distortion of the pristine original state of James Bond. What I find deeply concerning is the whitewashing of cultural artifacts and the implications of both the intent of such actions and the potential outcomes. The quality of the content itself does not reduce the cultural popularity and impact that the content had in its time, and altering the content can only cloud any modern examination of the past. Old content that ages poorly should do just that - age poorly. We should look back at it and roll our eyes and wonder what we were thinking. We should draw conclusions from this more modern examination that help guide the creation of future content that doesn't perpetuate the same problems. There is no progress without reflection and a place from which to move forward. And this quickly turns into a "First, they came for..." type of scenario, IMO.

DoreenMichele 4y ago
We routinely update Shakespeare. Westside Story is an updated version of Romeo and Juliette. Popular works being kept current so we can still enjoy them even though things have changed is nothing at all like "First they came for...." It's more like the opposite of that.
- sam_lowry_ 4y ago
  We do not call these updates Romeo and Juliette for a reason. If anything, neo-copyright should protect the original works from alteration by the copyright holders.
  - op00to 4y ago
    Romeo + Juliet (1996) Leo DiCaprio / Claire Danes
- Semaphor 4y ago
  > We routinely update Shakespeare. Do we? Further, than translating from English to a different version of English? > Westside Story is an updated version of Romeo and Juliette. It is not, it’s an adaption at best.
  - DoreenMichele 4y ago
    My general understanding is that Romeo and Juliet has come to mean essentially the opposite to people today from the original intent of the story. They are described as star crossed lovers which used to essentially mean it was a bad idea for them to get together and now we think it means fate and other people are keeping apart two people who belong together. It was a story about two foolish youth and their feuding families making stupid choices, a kind of warning of what not to do. Now, we think it's about true love or some nonsense.
  - op00to 4y ago
    > Do we? Yes. Literally what you said, right here. https://nosweatshakespeare.com/ebooks/shakespeare-for-kids/ https://nosweatshakespeare.com/ebooks/shakespeare-for-kids/

starkd 4y ago

<< James Bond is not great art Besides the point. A significant audience found value in its stories. Are you the arbiter of what is good or bad? You go down this road, there is no limit to what will be censored or deleted altogether. Even the stuff you personally find to be great art. It is literally trying to modify history.

imiric 4y ago

> It's an adolescent fantasy that was mocked by the Austin Powers movies. Why is that a negative? If it inspired other art, even as a parody, that makes it a valuable part of culture. James Bond has inspired countless imitations, and has resonated with generations of people around the world. It doesn't need to be high art to be enjoyed. Everyone watching the movies or reading the books today will have a different perception of the material, in the same way we view art produced centuries ago. Art exists within the context of its period, and changing it to suit new generations produces strange results, completely disrespecting the author's intention. Would you feel the same way if we started altering paintings someone considered offensive? That's as ridiculous as these changes. Of course, this isn't new with books. Popular works go through many editions throughout history. We should be able to go back and read older editions, but sometimes these become harder to find, as new ones become more prevalent. Let's hope that won't be the case here.