Sure - i take your point. that said, you could say its using the real world to tell an invincible adventure story and I can easily say it uses an invincible adventure story to talk about the real world - perhaps its become more of the latter as time goes on (certainly post Moore, I’d say they’ve become inarguably less escapist)
The dictionary definition is “the tendency to seek distraction and relief from unpleasant realities, especially by seeking entertainment or engaging in fantasy.” - to me, the fact that the films engage in the unpleasant reality to tell their stories makes me think they are not pure escapism and usually have some sort of commentary on the world to offer. So to me, they are in some kind of middle ground between escapism and something else, if you get what I mean
Escapism has to be defined by that which we wish to escape. This emotional, intellectual, geopolitical ‘prison’ is no doubt different and particular to each individual. But the constant is that we all turn to fiction to excise the stresses of the things we can’t change.
To this extent all fiction is escapism unless it’s either Documentary, or perfectly mirrors out experience of reality. Bond will always be escapism because it will never (intentionally) accomplish either of these two criteria.
In that context, no matter how fanciful a story’s subject it could be said that those stories which don’t make sense - the ones that don’t answer questions in their resolution - the ones that in the final act make an inexplicable hairpin turn out of nowhere, causing audiences to hate it - they are realism and all else is escapism.
We enjoy stories because they impart the fantasy of meaning, or resolution lacking in our real lives. Bond, incorruptible, ultimately foils the villain and gets the girl. Pure escapism no matter how politically relevant or emotionally true it attempts to be.
Oh sure I think they do it in a way that is accessible and makes it possible to be ignored if you so wish - I actually think dealing with these issues in a fantastical kinda way actually helps some people to think about the real world equivalent better than being a realistic and serious portrayal of an issue which can turn people off. I’m not advocating Bond loses what makes it special - just saying its basis in reality and acknowledgement of these issues gives them more layers than other films and to me saying its pure escapism kind of undermines one of the things that’s great about 007
That’s an interesting idea; surely both directions would work. Though the statements of, say, Fowl’s Moving Castle or Lord of the Rings about the real world differ from those DIE ANOTHER DAY makes about our fantasies.
But I would tend to follow Kingsley Amis’ point about escapism: it needs a basis, however small, in reality to work in the desired way. And Bond films are patently not depicting anything like our reality. They mirror only shiny surfaces, everything is styled to the tiniest detail according to a design vocabulary that befits the marketing partners. Even the elements meant to be repulsive are done in a stylised manner that we would never see in real life outside an advertisement.
There are no supermarkets in Bond films, no soiled toilets, no used preservatives. And it’s not just that these things are not shown - the characters haven’t seen them either because they don’t exist in their world.
I was hoping for something, anything to ease this agonizing wait, and then that…
Can’t say I’m surprised, but a slight bit disappointed. Guess all the The Death Collector and Sparrow’s Tears and other guesses will commence again.
Unless it says “It’s hot” . Anyway, “Shatterhand” sounds great but it was a bad idea for a title in a first place. Why pick up one that immediately spoils the plot (like, say, “SPECTRE”, though it was never meant to be a surprise obviously)?
I’ve long felt Shatterhand would be a good title, but maybe this wasn’t the right time. The reports all said it was a working title after all. Hopefully we won’t have to wait too much longer for the real one.
Just a reminder to cheer everyone up: Principal photography on THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND lasted from 1970-1976, and the film was finally completed and released in 2018. It was the best film of 2018, and is one of the two or three best movies of the last three decades. Greatness takes time (friendly amendment from Orion: or sometimes it doesn’t).
Not necessarily. They’ve cannibalized aspects of various novels throughout their tenure. The option to make Dr. Guntram Shatterhand into a new, stand-alone character is available should they choose to exercise it.
FWIW, I think it’s a good title and a great main villain name, but since we’ve already had two back-to-back one-word titles, I’d rather they wait on it for now.
I don’t think, although I can really only speak for myself, that anyone who is arguing for them to go more in depth with these types of serious topics is really calling for Bond to go in and solve a huge global problem like human trafficking. I do think, however, that they can go a bit further with what they do with these types of issues without having to go all the way to that extreme. To use Taken again as an example, they wade much further into the topic than Bond has probably ever dreamed of doing. Yes, it’s a Liam Neeson revenge film (although, I’m not sure that’s a fair pigeonhole for the film considering this film started that genre rather than followed on from it), and that’s what the audience is there for, but it never delves so deeply into the seediness of the issues surrounding the story to get you off that point and worrying about the social statement potentially being made by the film. You still have the fantastical element of Neeson somehow being able to work his way through the entire trafficking ring in a span of 2-3 days. The issue, though, does get some spotlight and also serves to inform the hero of the film by making his plight even more just in the eyes of the viewer without pulling the audience out of a more fantastical or, if you’d like, escapist mode.
Well, if not a diversionary tactic (because, well, Eon just isn’t very good at those) then fine. Great title of course, but always struck me as a bit generic in this day and age of big budget action endeavors. As long as they steer away from using “Die” or “Kill” and rare words like “Quantum” or “Solace”, we’ll be fine. Oh, and DEFINITELY don’t use the word “Revoked” because American audiences are too stupid to understand what it means.
I’m not even sure Shatterhand was a working title - probably rather a fellow fan whose wishful thinking got picked up by the media. And plenty of outlets never mentioned the ‘working’ part either, they just ran with Shatterhand as official title.
Anyway, BOND 25 is still BOND 25; one more reveal fans can await eagerly.
Yes, you’re right. Whether that’s a good idea is another issue. If they now use Dr. Shatterhand as a stand-alone character, we’ll never see a proper You Only Live Twice adaptation. Alas.
Anyway, like @Dustin, I, too, believe that Shatterhand was never a working title. As far as I remember that rumour started in a Daily Mail article on August 2017. I remember thinking back then that whoever wrote this article (it wasn’t Baz) must’ve been reading our forum because the title popped up here as an idea, nothing more.
. Anyway, “Shatterhand” sounds great but it was a bad idea for a title in a first place. Why pick up one that immediately spoils the plot (like, say, “SPECTRE”, though it was never meant to be a surprise obviously)?
