#41  
Old 11-25-2012, 11:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycheoutsteve View Post
Read my words more carefully. I said that people OFTEN make those judgments, not that all people do. I didn't generalize, but the aforementioned subject is something that happens quite often in our society.

Spider man 3? Really? That's the example you revert to? It's clear that the intention of the filmmakers was not to have us support Peter's choices during those scenes because he wasn't in his right mind when he made them. It's less black and white with James Bond. As I said before, you can toss around all the explanations you want about why Bond sleeps around so much, but in the end they only give credit to the writers and their intent to explore Bond's psyche. The explanations DON'T JUSTIFY his actions, they merely make him a more dynamic character.

Bella's a one note character for sure, but why would anyone call her a slut when she didn't even cheat on anyone? She didn't even intend to hurt anyone, IMO. Also, I think you've pretty much just injected your own theories on the motivations and actions of her character instead of just translating what the movie presented them as.
Spider-Man 3 is the most recent love triangle in a major series I could think of. I could argue the almost nonexistent love triangle in Superman Returns. The infamous love triangle between Jean, Scott, and Wolverine or even The Hunger Games, but I gave the SM3 because--similar to Twilight--it focuses heavily on a love triangle in order to advance the plot.

And Bond's explanations do justify his actions because that's behavioral psychology. His history, which we barely know, could easily act as a catalyst for his promiscuous activities. But I don't want to theorize, I'll save that for another thread.

And once again, we have to define what a slut is. Because you mentioned Bella never cheating on someone or purposefully hurting someone concludes she isn't a slut, but a slut doesn't have to do either. A slut can be someone with loose sexual morals, which Bella has portrayed endlessly but particularly in New Moon.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 11-25-2012, 12:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123 View Post
Spider-Man 3 is the most recent love triangle in a major series I could think of. I could argue the almost nonexistent love triangle in Superman Returns. The infamous love triangle between Jean, Scott, and Wolverine or even The Hunger Games, but I gave the SM3 because--similar to Twilight--it focuses heavily on a love triangle in order to advance the plot.

And Bond's explanations do justify his actions because that's behavioral psychology. His history, which we barely know, could easily act as a catalyst for his promiscuous activities. But I don't want to theorize, I'll save that for another thread.

And once again, we have to define what a slut is. Because you mentioned Bella never cheating on someone or purposefully hurting someone concludes she isn't a slut, but a slut doesn't have to do either. A slut can be someone with loose sexual morals, which Bella has portrayed endlessly but particularly in New Moon.
Really didn't see any of the "loose sexual morals" you said were present in New Moon.

Behavioral psychology does not justify immoral acts or immoral treatment by mentally rational people. Bond, as far as I can tell, is rational. If he isn't, perhaps someone should ask the question why is a mentally unstable man working for an organization like MI6?
Talk about plot holes...

How many times have we seen Bond go to bed with a woman that loves him at the end of a movie, and then, as soon as a new movie starts, he's moved on? This type of male behavior is getting dated in spy films. If you want to portray a character who acts in such a way because of his psychological flaws, you have to go deeper than that. Even so, you can't really say to yourself as a viewer, "it's ok to treat women like toilet paper as long as your psychology includes a predisposition to that type of behavior." It just doesn't fly.

That's why, on the whole, I feel it's proper to label Bond a slut. I don't think it was ever the agenda of the earlier films to say "Bond is very human and flawed character, which justifies his behavior." I feel his behavior towards women was instilled in his character at a time when it was acceptable to treat women as inferior beings in society. Once it became canon in the franchise, the behavior was reproduced in all the subsequent films, so much so that people would gawk at the idea of a new Bond film that didn't include any "Bond women." That's probably why Bond fans still defend his antiquated behavior to this day.

I feel the Bond franchise didn't depict Bond as a truly flawed character until the Daniel Craig films. They even had him on the verge of retirement because of Eva Green in Casino Royale, so that should tell you that even they know that they have to bring Bond into this century a bit.

Getting back to the topic at hand, I find it very interesting that people are willing to jump all over a character in a poorly written young adult novel adaptation, whose only real fault is being boring, but are unwilling to come to terms with the fact that one of the most beloved male film icons of all time has some deeply inherent flaws rooted all the way back to the beginnings of his franchise. Do some people overlook or find Bond's behavior acceptable because his stories and character are of better quality, or is it because he's a man? Would people call a female Bond a slut?
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 11-25-2012, 01:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycheoutsteve View Post
Really didn't see any of the "loose sexual morals" you said were present in New Moon.

Behavioral psychology does not justify immoral acts or immoral treatment by mentally rational people. Bond, as far as I can tell, is rational. If he isn't, perhaps someone should ask the question why is a mentally unstable man working for an organization like MI6?
Talk about plot holes...

How many times have we seen Bond go to bed with a woman that loves him at the end of a movie, and then, as soon as a new movie starts, he's moved on? This type of male behavior is getting dated in spy films. If you want to portray a character who acts in such a way because of his psychological flaws, you have to go deeper than that. Even so, you can't really say to yourself as a viewer, "it's ok to treat women like toilet paper as long as your psychology includes a predisposition to that type of behavior." It just doesn't fly.

That's why, on the whole, I feel it's proper to label Bond a slut. I don't think it was ever the agenda of the earlier films to say "Bond is very human and flawed character, which justifies his behavior." I feel his behavior towards women was instilled in his character at a time when it was acceptable to treat women as inferior beings in society. Once it became canon in the franchise, the behavior was reproduced in all the subsequent films, so much so that people would gawk at the idea of a new Bond film that didn't include any "Bond women." That's probably why Bond fans still defend his antiquated behavior to this day.

I feel the Bond franchise didn't depict Bond as a truly flawed character until the Daniel Craig films. They even had him on the verge of retirement because of Eva Green in Casino Royale, so that should tell you that even they know that they have to bring Bond into this century a bit.
As you mentioned, a truly flawed human dynamic wasn't brought to the character until Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, with the latter focusing heavily on Bond's broken heart. Prior to this, each Bond filmed lacked any sort of continuity so a follow-up with his previous 'hook-up' would have been an unnecessary inclusion and wouldn't have done anything to advance the plot.

Bond's psyche can be questioned. He seems rational only because of his constant goal driven behavior, which of course one would expect from someone working for British Secret Services. But then again, there have been plenty of sociopaths who were 00s for MI6 (006 from Goldeneye and Silva from Skyfall) who were very close to M, and, if anything, were crazy all along. And when I watch a Bond film, I don't applaud Bond for catching another girl in his while pursing a life of espionage nor do I find it utterly repulsive because Bond seems aware of his actions, as well as the consequences that generally follow.

A true archetype of a slut off the top of my head would be the oldest of the Sex in the City women (her name escapes me).

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycheoutsteve View Post
Getting back to the topic at hand, I find it very interesting that people are willing to jump all over a character in a poorly written young adult novel adaptation, whose only real fault is being boring, but are unwilling to come to terms with the fact that one of the most beloved male film icons of all time has some deeply inherent flaws rooted all the way back to the beginnings of his franchise. Do some people overlook or find Bond's behavior acceptable because his stories and character are of better quality, or is it because he's a man? Would people call a female Bond a slut?
I recognize Stewart's general inability to portray more than two or three facial expression which result in many viewers misidentifying what she truly is trying to portray. However, I'm not using the word slut because of lack of a better term, but, in my eyes, she portrays a teenage slut. Bond's behavior is deemed acceptable more often than not because of the quality of his films as well as his mission of protecting people. I don't believe it's because he's a man (refer back to my Sex in the City example), but I understand how you could see it as such because of the society we're in where a man's devious behavior is not as frequently seen as a negative or deemed inappropriate as much as a woman's.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 11-25-2012, 07:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123 View Post
I definitely disagree when you generalize that all movie watchers will easily identify a woman who participates in a love triangle as a slut but if it were a man we'd probably praise him or simply see it as typical. Spider-Man 3 comes to mind as being the easiest example of this act in practice. Peter was infected by a foreign goo (Venom) that increased both his testosterone and hormone levels which in essence created a completely different Peter Parker thus him getting a sudden interest in Gwen having only recently breaking up with MJ.

With James Bond, yes he is a slut, and it's been mentioned in numerous movies as an ongoing element of his character, but to a certain extent, Bond isn't in the wrong here. Every time he sleeps with a woman it's normally not under false pretenses that he's in love with her and wants to make her Mrs. Bond, it's typically a one-night stand. Whereas with Bella, at least how she's portrayed in the movies, as someone who can't seem to make up her mind about what she wants and in the end, it doesn't matter who she hurts just as long as she's happy. Bella is labeled as a slut by many who watch the movies--not just a group of secretly repressed misogynists--because of her constant need for affection from the 'loner' who seems different from the rest who don't really notice her. Once she obtains this attention, and is later abandoned by this lover, she seeks companionship with her best friend who is secretly in love with her. Now, this is what best friends are for of course, but Bella makes the decision to take this relationship one step further and explore the possibilities of being with this best friend. Later, upon numerous reckless behavioral acts, she decides she'll abandon this best friend in an effort to reclaim her former lover.

I guess, like most things, words have conceptual definitions that aren't applicable in all contexts and should be first defined before a proper discussion can be conducted in order to avoid going on endless rants
Well l have to agree that james Bond is a sleasy man who gets the women in his 007 movies but l would not consider bella a slut you dint see her going to bed with a diffrent bloke every night like Mr james Bond
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 11-25-2012, 08:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycheoutsteve View Post
I appreciate your perspective on this topic, but I feel like that logic doesn't quite hold up for me. Whenever Bond or some other male character causes a love triangle or has several brief flings with women, society typically deems it charm. If a female character engages in the same situations, society typically deems it manipulation. As long as the male character is of consenting age, no one really cares exactly how young or old he is. On the other hand, for some reason it's an especially big deal if the main character is a young woman.

Providing logic for why James Bond frequently sleeps around and uses women to satisfy some psychological/carnal need doesn't make his actions more justifiable than Bella's. It makes him a more dynamic character because the story he's in is more detailed, interesting, and compelling, but that's all.

Also, I should think that choosing one full time relationship with one of two possible candidates would be more morally permissible than just using a bunch of people for sex, but that's just me.
Well Bond isn't exactly USING them for sex. He just charms a woman and the night ends with two consenting adults. They generally don't expect a long and loving relationship. Bella is emotionally manipulative. Bond just likes to have fun. If Bella slept around with random guys, I wouldn't have a problem. But she plays with people's heartstrings. That, to me, is worse and makes her incredibly unlikable.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 11-25-2012, 10:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123 View Post
As you mentioned, a truly flawed human dynamic wasn't brought to the character until Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, with the latter focusing heavily on Bond's broken heart. Prior to this, each Bond filmed lacked any sort of continuity so a follow-up with his previous 'hook-up' would have been an unnecessary inclusion and wouldn't have done anything to advance the plot.

Bond's psyche can be questioned. He seems rational only because of his constant goal driven behavior, which of course one would expect from someone working for British Secret Services. But then again, there have been plenty of sociopaths who were 00s for MI6 (006 from Goldeneye and Silva from Skyfall) who were very close to M, and, if anything, were crazy all along. And when I watch a Bond film, I don't applaud Bond for catching another girl in his while pursing a life of espionage nor do I find it utterly repulsive because Bond seems aware of his actions, as well as the consequences that generally follow.

A true archetype of a slut off the top of my head would be the oldest of the Sex in the City women (her name escapes me).



I recognize Stewart's general inability to portray more than two or three facial expression which result in many viewers misidentifying what she truly is trying to portray. However, I'm not using the word slut because of lack of a better term, but, in my eyes, she portrays a teenage slut. Bond's behavior is deemed acceptable more often than not because of the quality of his films as well as his mission of protecting people. I don't believe it's because he's a man (refer back to my Sex in the City example), but I understand how you could see it as such because of the society we're in where a man's devious behavior is not as frequently seen as a negative or deemed inappropriate as much as a woman's.
Let's see...can't respond to the Sex and the City example because I've never really followed the show. As for the continuity issues with each Bond film, I don't believe they absolve the character of his womanizing and his slutty behavior. It's true that each Bond film basically fails to acknowledge the adventure that came before it, but even if you give Bond a clean slate for each new film, the behavior keeps repeating with no evolution to the character whatsoever, (sans recent installments). I've seen Bond bed two or three women in one film. His relationships, if you can even call them that, are superficial and are mostly initiated by a "in the heat of the moment" decision. He most certainly is a slut.

Bella is nowhere near his level of promiscuity.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 11-26-2012, 08:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by magjournal View Post
Well Bond isn't exactly USING them for sex. He just charms a woman and the night ends with two consenting adults. They generally don't expect a long and loving relationship. Bella is emotionally manipulative. Bond just likes to have fun. If Bella slept around with random guys, I wouldn't have a problem. But she plays with people's heartstrings. That, to me, is worse and makes her incredibly unlikable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycheoutsteve View Post
Let's see...can't respond to the Sex and the City example because I've never really followed the show. As for the continuity issues with each Bond film, I don't believe they absolve the character of his womanizing and his slutty behavior. It's true that each Bond film basically fails to acknowledge the adventure that came before it, but even if you give Bond a clean slate for each new film, the behavior keeps repeating with no evolution to the character whatsoever, (sans recent installments). I've seen Bond bed two or three women in one film. His relationships, if you can even call them that, are superficial and are mostly initiated by a "in the heat of the moment" decision. He most certainly is a slut.

Bella is nowhere near his level of promiscuity.
magjournal said it perfectly.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 11-26-2012, 08:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bondgirl View Post
Well l have to agree that james Bond is a sleasy man who gets the women in his 007 movies but l would not consider bella a slut you dint see her going to bed with a diffrent bloke every night like Mr james Bond
He's a sleazy man because he sleeps with different women, with their consent? Or is he a sleazy man because he has several, inconsistent sexual, hookups with no indication of wanting a longterm relationship?

Bond embodies the adventurous spy stereotype that drives a bunch of fast cars, drinks top shelf liquors, wears expensive clothes, and sleeps around. That's who he is, and never, any Bond besides Casino Royale, did I see him directly manipulate a woman into sleeping with him--they typically throw themselves at him.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 11-27-2012, 06:37 PM
Really, I've been harder on The Transformer series than I have the Twilight series.

Folks, even when Twilight goes away, it will be something else. It's the same thing with these pop stars... As annoying as someone like Justin Bieber is, if it wasn't him it would be someone else. When teens get over him there will be a new teen boy that the girls go crazy over.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 11-28-2012, 07:09 PM
It's hard to really call Twilight movies "movies" because all they do is pose in them.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 11-29-2012, 02:45 AM
Kristin Stewart's ugly fucking, emotionless mug....


Enough to AT LEAST dislike 'Twilight.'


Same with my hatred for most anything having Emily Watson....yet another lifeless, emotionless, and horrid actress. Thank goodness 'Equilibrium' was a decent movie...but my disgust with that woman is a whole 'nother rant.

Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 11-29-2012, 12:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the clever guy View Post
Kristin Stewart's ugly fucking, emotionless mug....


Enough to AT LEAST dislike 'Twilight.'


Same with my hatred for most anything having Emily Watson....yet another lifeless, emotionless, and horrid actress. Thank goodness 'Equilibrium' was a decent movie...but my disgust with that woman is a whole 'nother rant.

Jennifer Lawrence's emotional range of a brick face is no better.

The problem is all of these shitty tween novels are getting greenlit while they are still on the bestseller lists and everyone is directing them to be EXACTLY like the fucking books, which all sucked in the first place. The result is supposedly beautiful people posing with extreme long pauses that look horrible on film or TV and the actors have almost ZERO emotional range. (For an even better example of this see Gossip Girl, or better yet, don't.)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump