What I find the most irritating about these movies is the complete incompetence of 007. Without plot armor that dude wouldn’t have made it past his 30’s. Just how many times has he snuck into the enemy compound armed with a pistol and wearing a suit only to be immediately caught by a random guard and then the only thing saving his life is the fact that the enemy boss wants to give his revenge speech first rather than just shooting him on sight.

With always good lines

Oh, no. His lines were not always good.

Kills bad guy with electricity

“Shocking. Positively shocking.”

Man, you miss the entire history of it, the history and tropes of spy fiction, all of it and Moore.

You’d scraping the surface of Bond and wondering why you can’t see bone.

Bond goes back to the post ww2 era, and the cold war. Without an understanding of that era, it won’t make any sense except maybe the Craig era Bond.

Gentlemen spies, using their wits as much as their guns to keep their country safe. It’s action and intrigue mixed with stunts and (eventually) sci-fi level gadgets. It’s escapism as much as Conan the Barbarian is. As much as d&d is.

Tbh, go back and read the first two or three books. Then rewatch the first few movies. It’ll hit totally different.

Late Connery era and the Moore era got a little cartoony for sure, and that diverged from book Bond a lot. But those early films were much more about the kind of spies that started in the OSS and SOE during ww2.

It evolved from there, but without understanding the origins of Bond, the Ian Flemming Bond, it’s hard to see how even the silliest movies were a reaction to changing times, and still rooted in the idea of gentlemen serving their country by doing the dirty, ugly jobs that no one else could.

The women and cars and guns were window trappings, not the meat. They came about as a generation that had largely left the cold war behind as a fear saw the action as fun escapism. Bond was the first action hero franchise.

Is there some of the misogyny of that era still in there? Absolutely, and it makes some scenes hard to watch now. But the rest of it is standard action movie in any given era. It’s not meant to be realistic any more than a Michael Bay Transformers movie is. Or something like the A-Team, or True Lies.

Bond was not only a heavily influential action franchise, he was an example of the competent hero that fell out of popularity. Flawed heroes barely surviving is just as valid, but a competent hero surviving with grace is more fun, it changes the stakes a little.

That’s what you’re missing, that there was an evolution to it all, and it seems weird if you didn’t have a shared cultural background to view it with. Us old fucks that grew up watching Connery and then Moore, we had grandparents that survived the era that led to Bond existing in the first place.

Which is fine! It isn’t for everyone. You aren’t obligated to enjoy it just because others do. But that’s what most of us enjoy: the escapism and flash of it. Very, very few people think of Bond as a role model, or want to be him.

deleted by creator

It’s cool spy and action stuff. You’re overthinking it

I think several factors play into its lasting popularity.

1. The series was written and first made into movies at a different time. A time when being a misogynists alpha male was aspirational for many, many more men. The unexpected success of the first movies created the foundation to an intellectual property that generations of mostly fathers introduced to their mostly sons. It never went away. Even in years where lawsuits prevented making new movies or when the latest installment of the franchise was considered controversial for whatever reason, the popularity stayed high. And the older the series gets, the more controversial everything becomes.

2. Very few movies have what I would call a great coherent plot. They are going through checklists: we need a bonkers villain, a weird henchperson, a fancy car, at least one love interest, a gadget, a plan for world domination, and a witty line or two. Throw in a location in the Caribbean or the snowy Alps and that’s the formula. It’s Batman from MI-6 in London, really. It’s a comic book story that tries to seem somewhat realistic, in each movie’s release year’s contemporary time. And the more time passes the less jarring the obvious differences to reality become, and the more they are enjoyable as “leave your brain at the door”-popcorn-eating entertainment. Also, I think, the fact that many actors have played different roles over the years, sometimes overlapping with other cast changes, mostly unaddressed in the films why that happened, added to this “brain at the door”-ishness.

3. They’ve gone with the time - to an extent. Where Sean Connery bedded every (young) woman he met and discarded them with a pad on the butt saying things like “man talk,” Daniel Craig’s lady conquest numbers were much lower and the sex less gratuitous - within the formula. Pierce Brosnan’s Bond was called a misogynist pig by his female boss. Under the stewardship of Broccoli/Wilson, the second generation in charge of the franchise, they have incrementally changed the formula.

4. Because the series is so long lasting, there is tons of free publicity in the media, e.g. who will be the next Bond? Will be be less sexist? Will the female lead be more than a conquest? They don’t really need to buy ads for this. Also, there are plenty of companies willing to product place for a hefty price. If there ever was a time when the makers were considering if this was still of the time, the economic interests will surely push those progressive thoughts aside.

I think that if we lived in a world where the Ian Fleming idea had not been adapted into film during the early years of the cold war, nobody would greenlight this project today. And it is its entrenchment in popular culture that keeps it going.

The appeal is definitely more male but I know women who like Bond movies as well. I know this is very stereotypical: men look at the Aston Martin, the gadgets, and the boobs, women at the dresses, the pretty scenery, and how well the Bond girl stands up for herself. And while I’m sure that a subgroup of men looks at the Bond character as a role model, I would say the majority knows this is fiction and just a tad less comic-bookish than Ironman. It’s the male version of a cheap romance novel on a silver screen with more mass appeal.

If this has not become clear from this dissertation: I’m a fan. I can enjoy these movies without wanting to revert to 1960s gender role models. I also know it’s not for everyone.

One article I read put it this way- The appeal of James Bond is that he has enough skill to handle himself in any situation. Competence is his superpower

It doesn’t matter if he is playing high stakes poker or being in a gunfight. Skiiing or ordering a drink. Using high tech gadgets or driving a classic sports car. Going to a formal party or swimming at night in SCUBA gear to get there. He can do it all and look cool doing it

The movies are still way too over the top for me but from that lens I can understand the character

I never understood it, and I grew up on 80s action movies. Love Arnie, Bruce, Sylvester (before maga), even Chuck. But never got into James Bond at all.

Some of them are really well done despite the simple premise. Goldeneye is a fucking kickass movie. And Casino Royale is tense and a lot of the movie is him playing poker lol. It’s great. Have you seen those two? Some of the other movies aren’t as good. Also Goldeneye was one of the best games ever made. It’s an absolute classic and led to Perfect Dark.

Guns=cool Cars=cool Explosions=cool Attractive women=cool Saving the world from certain destruction=cool

They are only slightly more sophisticated than a transformers movie. You’re there for the spectacle and “fun” of it not the deep meaning of life or art of film making necessarily.

Its just a cool movie with ok script.

spy thriller. gadgets. babes. gratuitous pew pews and judo chops. not necessarily in that order.

It’s escapism, albeit rather dated at this point.

I suspect one of the reasons for the delay in announcing the new Bond is trying to figure out how to navigate Bond around more modern sensibilities. There were rumours that they might go back to being less serious but, after the Amazon takeover, who knows what will happen. Other than a massive glut of Bond media.

Most popular culture is bad.