Is James Bond Too Offensive? 

In the U.S. in late 80s, the groups who tried to take music with obscene lyrics or imagery off the shelves found they couldn't remove them, so a compromise was made to put Parental Warning stickers on them so people knew what to expect. It actually made those albums more enticing to young people. It's better to add a warning than to remove or alter the art.

The trigger warnings are silly but as long as they do not edit the movies in any way,I can live with it

They are the same films/books they've always been. The only thing has changed is the audience. If you go through life being offended by things you don't agree with that happened before you were born, it would be better if you just didn't leave the house.

Bond is a product of his time and of his author. I don't have to agree with every damned thing that a character does or is to enjoy the book or film. We, that is: humanity need to realize that we have the ability of critical reasoning and use it, otherwise we're drones, easy to manipulate whatever way.

I'd argue that the content warnings on older films with outdated (and potentially offensive) sensibilities is perfectly fine. It's not being "woke" to be cognizant of the fact that harmful racial stereotypes are, in fact, harmful. I personally love the Bond films, however, many things have become very dated or otherwise somewhat offensive. Bond has never been too bad in terms of racial stereotypes (Early western animation and Disney are far more rife with this, with a lot of minstrel imagery, see basically the entirety of Song of the South, the Siamese cats in Lady and the Tramp, etc), but to deny the problematic elements is to deny the problem. While I won't get into specifics here, James Bond as portrayed by the late, great Sean Connery is absolutely sexist, misogynist asshole. He's a charming character, yes, but the cultural norms of the time said that casual sexism is not just normal, it's something to look up to as a man. Where I entirely draw the line is modifying the films to remove the offending material. The warnings are fine so long as the film is unaltered for content, the content should ABSOLUTELY stay the same, especially for films like The French Connection, the character of Jimmy Doyle was SUPPOSED to be a racist asshole, you aren't really supposed to like him, you're supposed to understand that he's not a hero. Removing even just the tiny bits they did remove, removes important context for the character. There is a good middle ground for this, sensibilities have changed over the years, what's right and wrong have changed, our attitudes to treatment of minorities, women, and those with different sexualities or gender identities have changed. By and large, that is a very good thing, in the western world, we have, for the most part, become more accepting of people, whoever they are. We should never shy away from our art, our art is our history, in many ways. The history of film documents the evolution of our society in the modern age, and changing it is tantamount to erasure of that history, and a refusal to enter a dialog with it. The addition of a content warning can give context to the world it was made in, that what you're about to see reflects a much different era. While our film franchises have gotten worse and worse over the years, and there is indeed a certain class of people explicitly making that happen (hint: not the general populous), much of that blame can largely be aimed squarely at marketing execs and producers who want to either chase what they perceive as profitable, or attempt to pander to certain demographics in order to make more money. Of course, they've also not helped by leaning into the culture war (with itself is stupid as hell, we're better than that, as humans) with things like calling everyone who dislikes films like the ghastly Ghostbusters reboot, or even a single character in a film racists or sexists only amplifies this. It's all about the money, they go where the money is, if it's more profitable to tout left wing ideology, they will. If it were more profitable to tout right wing ideology, they'll do that too. Sometimes, they'll even play both sides. The best thing to do, in my eyes, is not to get distracted by that. Most people, whether left wing or right wing, or somewhere in between, generally agree with each other on most everything. We're all more similar than we are dissimilar. Look at something like South Park, a show that has been made into a juggernaut because they make everyone look dumb, because at the extreme ends of everything, they ARE dumb as hell. And everyone (unless they're offended by the humor, in which case, that's their problem) can just laugh at everyone getting the piss taken out of them. This got a lot more long winded than I originally intended, sorry 'bout that. The TL;DR version of this is basically: Content warnings are fine, so long as the film is intact. They are a fine middle ground in an ever changing landscape. Censorship of the content in the films, books, or anything else, is NOT fine. Art is a lens into history. If we avert our eyes to the uncomfortable bits, we lose perspective of how things actually were in that time period. That perspective is important. We shouldn't condemn the best middle ground we have between the two extremes for being negative, when the alternatives are either present them without context, or butcher the hell out of them.

"No Time To Die" was offensive. 99.9999% of everything prior to that dumpster fire was not.

Where do you draw the line with warnings about character flaws? Should the Star Wars sequels have trigger warnings that Finn is a serial deserter? Snake Pliskin is a nihilist. In Raiders, Marion Ravenwood has an unhealthy relationship with alcohol. In Jaws, Quint has a dangerous aversion to flotation devices. These are traits and flaws that keep us interested, for whatever reason. We don’t have to admire them and we don’t even have to agree with the filmmakers' intent for the characterisations. Alan Moore addressed this in his introduction to The Dark Knight Returns and he said "we need new heroes" but he also said that doesn't mean we can't enjoy the old ones. 40 years later this is still true.

If you don’t like Bond films and find offensive don’t watch it don’t destroy the franchise for of us who are true fans , again don’t like the character then don’t watch him . I have been a fan since I was five when I seen Diamonds Are Forever in the theater.. I was 5 and have been a fan ever since ..

The character was created from the WWII experiences of Ian Fleming, who worked for British Intelligence during the war. To peaceable folks, the realities of Cold War skulduggery are distasteful, as it sometimes involves muder, manipulation, dishonesty, and other nasty skills necessary for that purpose. Some people must do some unsavory things to make the world a liveable place for the rest of us. That said, the James Bond universe is great entertainment, but far from reality. Most folks would be highly uncomfortable with the reality.

No. Stop it.

In all fairness Bond was always toned down for the movies. The book Bond was always more problematic. It may seem hard to believe that even Connery's Bond was the PC version of Bond for the time. Bond as originally imagined was a 50's character, much like a noir detective like Mike Hammer, which is ironic since Ian Fleming hated Spillane's novels for brutality, then goes ahead and makes a character in the same vein.

I hope with all of my heart that the producers will do exactly what they said about the James Bond new timeline... Making it for the Modern Audiences! Lifelong Agent 007 fan here, I miss watching the movies in the 80s and 90s with my late father who also loved them! the new audience they are looking for Dont look for a character as Archaic as Bond is!Womanizer, a bit of a drinker, smoking and is very masculine!hopefully they drop 200-250 mill dollars in to the big new movie that will bomb at the box office!

The question is: are people these days mentally stable enough, to watch old movies? 🤔

No .

Films dated before the mentally unstable audience were acknowledged should remain untouched. Don’t edit for the young and fragile. It’s insulting and disrespectful to the people who created these movies. Let the intolerant audience create their own boring and hateful fantasies. And I include all, I mean all forms of creative endeavor.

It’s offensive to those who want to be offended.

Wokies are offensive. I find them all thoroughly offensive with their incessant complaining and mindless babble.

What Bond films would you recommend?

I'm to offended

Only to people with skin as thin as toilet paper.

The Bond are not offensive except to the juvenile minded trying to pass themselves off as adults.

Have people become far too easily offended?