Tears are such a weird idea. It’s like: when you’re distressed, your first recourse for communicating this to others is vocalization. If it’s too strong for that, you get involuntary facial contortions for emphasis. But if that’s not enough either? You secrete a special distress communication fluid.
Normalize talking about code with less precision. Less precision is often good.
The entire point of a function is to allow us to think about code with less precision, and thus accomplish more.
Yes, sometimes you need precision. Often, it just gets in the way.
Because Bond is essentially a defender of the status quo. An ordered, predictable system where not everyone is on top, but everyone knows their place. His villains aren't revolutionaries exactly, but already wealthy and powerful people who want a higher place in that hierarchy. OK, why should we care which rich asshole is in charge? Because these ones, unlike the ones we've got, are dangerously unreliable.
And it strikes me that this is the very essence of what makes them bond villains. It's not that they kill people -- Bond typically does a lot more killing than the villains in these flicks. It's that they kill people after saying they wouldn't. You can't be sure that you know where you stand with these people. It creates the opposite of a sense of security. And that makes it the opposite of what Bond stands for.
One thing bond villains do a lot: Someone concludes their business with the villain, either by completing their contract or by saying "I want out". The villain says they're free to go. Then, when they leave, the villain has them killed -- often by means of a mechanism like a chute, making it clear that this is routine enough for the villain to have had a chute installed. This is first done in Thunderball, but first done up-close and personal in Goldfinger.
Best bond girl: Diana Rigg as Countess Theresa ("Tracy") in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. She's basically the only bond girl where I felt like she and Bond actually liked and respected each other. Generally speaking, bond girls are either Bond's clear inferior or some kind of rival who he basically seduces in order to defeat her.
James Bond does a lot more skiing than I was aware of. I never thought of ski chases as a major recurring theme in James Bond films but it totally is.
Best villain in the flicks I've seen: Goldfinger, definitely. Much of the film is a dick-measuring contest between him and Bond, but he's basically the only one whose scheme is novel enough to not be obvious.
I think people generally think of the Roger Moore era as the period when James Bond got silly, but it was already getting pretty silly by the end of the Connery era. Diamonds Are Forever is extremely silly in places, even venturing into outright self-parody.
I've always thought of Live and Let Die (the Blaxploitation-inspired one with the voodoo rituals) as the most racist Bond film, but You Only Live Twice (the one where Bond has to "become Japanese") gives it a run for its money.
Also, I found it striking that the first time Q gives Bond special gear for his mission, it's all extremely *plausible*. No watches with powerful electromagnets or dart guns disguised as cigarette cases or anything. It's just a suitcase with some hidden compartments for weapons and stuff. The only out-of-the-ordinary thing about it is that it's rigged to set off a gas grenade if opened wrong.
As usually the case when watching the development of a cultural touchstone, I find it fascinating to see how it developed, and in particular, how slow the series is to invent the idioms we associate with Bond. Like, everyone knows that James Bond drives a car with built-in weapons and other gadgets. That's core. You pretty much have to have a spy-car scene in every Bond film nowadays. But only one film from the Connery era contains such a car.
peterb