The Bond films are a Sunday School picnic compared to some of the absolute garbage being called "movies" these days.
IMHO, Sean Connery was the best Bond, followed by Pierce Brosnan and then Roger Moore. I thought George Lazenby did a good job, but he was allegedly so difficult to work with he was fired as soon as the Bond movie he made was finished.

There is a series currently on Amazon based on the classic "Fallout" series of PC games. I only briefly played the first game (1997).

As I understand from the reviewers/fans, it's quite faithful to the Fallout series in general.

The big problem it has however (aside from acting), is the gratuitous violence spectacle and "shock factor" which seems to be at the core of the production. There are graphic decapitations, dismemberment, horrific gunshot injuries, cannibalism, etc, etc.

And that's all ok for 15 or 16 year olds to watch...

But as with anything which comes from the US: Don't you dare show a pair of breasts or "god forbid" a penis or vagina... i.e. natural bits of our anatomy, for fear of causing offence...

But yes you can have a graphic slow mo of a large calibre round entering someone's body and exiting, complete with gibs and bits of brain flying.

The base problem with legal concerns over media content is that there is no known direct connection to motivating real world activity. What stimulates one person, turns off someone else. Look up common behaviours of for example pedophiles and discover some of them are turned on by innocuous birthday party scenes and Girl Scout Manuals, just like some people are strongly attracted to the Sears Catalog underwear sections.

As for violence, I spent untold hours playing early ultra violent video games like the Quake series and found it challenging and fun but never once imagined it would be "interesting" to blow people up and listen to body parts splashing in a pond. People are just wired differently and unless you want a legal system for Future Crime like in the Sci Fi film "Minority Report", the Law needs to stay largely reactive. I really don't think any of us would enjoy being pulled over by a Trooper because "you looked like you were thinking of driving recklessly".

IMHO the only way to minimize crime is level the playing field so most don't see crime as attractive at all compared to the justifiably legal alternatives. Personally I would never even think of stealing a loaf of bread, excepting if I and my family were starving.Further I cannot even imagine solving a conflict by killing someone with ANY manner of weapon. However, I can imagine, if forced to, defending myself and my family, as well as my Country, but it wouldn't be with sticks and stones given any other, more effective choices.

I’m not seriously concerned that someone who is playing a “violent” video game is going to confuse it with real life.

But I sincerely do believe that part of your formal education should include at least one course where you are introduced to actual firearms. Where you are taught basic skills: how to carry them, store them, clean them and respect them. I would also love to see a return of “the varsity marksmanship team.”

What you see in games and movies isn’t real. You need to be shown what is.

This is what scares me: You decide you want a gun. You go into a store. “That one looks cool. I’ll take it.”

The above highlighted line I think is extremely important. As long ago as I can recall (too damned long!) and still to this day people on film get shot, grunt, and fall dead, little the worse for wear (other than faking death, often with eyes closed) other than maybe a bit of blood on their shirt. What can really happen is too gross for me to expand upon beyond saying if you've never gone elk hunting and seen an exit wound the size of a wastebasket you have no clue what real damage real firearms can do to flesh and bone. Death is never so clean and peaceful as it appears onscreen.

I have never been, nor wanted to be, "a hunter." A bow-hunter neighbor once asked our permission to hunt for deer on our land. We agreed, stipulating that he may take only one deer, and he must pay us with a pair of deer-skin gloves. And, that he must carry a pistol so that the animal would not suffer. A few months later, he presented us with a lovely pair of gloves. We never heard a pistol shot.

(We provide a mineral block to our deer year-round, but never ourselves hunt them. They greet me at first light many mornings as I am doing the chores.)

As I've repeatedly said, the only thing that truly scares me about firearms is: ignorance.

I've seen some "pretty crazy weapons" at pawn shops with $X,000(!!) price-tags on them. (Think about scenes from Men In Black.) So, I know that they are able to sell them. But I look at them and wonder: "how the hell would you clean them?" Best guess is that they will probably never be fired. At least, I hope not.

I have no moral objection to anyone shooting a pheasant or a deer for the pot. That's predation, no different from what a wolf or a lion does. And I have no problem either with a farmer who shoots a fox that has been at his hens. That's pest control. What I have never understood is people who kill animals for pleasure. That seems to me perverted. In this country, it's not usually done with guns but with hounds.

I just don't get it. If you want to ride around the country and jump over fences on a horse, go steeplechasing. And if you want to practice marksmanship and don't actually intend to eat what you shoot, shoot clay pigeons.

Problem is as well GTA (Grand Theft Auto) for PS Playstation (>= PS 4). ...

If you want to "hunt animals for pleasure," then eat them. And, only "harvest" the animals that you can and will actually eat.

I greatly dislike guns, and I only eat a little meat, but I wouldn't mind deer and wild boar being culled (by hunters with rifles presumably) for meat.

There are said to be large numbers of wild boar in Italy, and the Italian government is now encouraging culling.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-of-wild-boars

In the UK there are increasing numbers of deer, considered to be too many, and I see them in the countryside from time to time.

If I had a choice I would rather be re-incarnated in my next life as a deer or a wild-boar than as a cow or chicken, so it is more ethical to eat them.

I understand that most meat-chickens only live a few weeks before being killed, and never go outside and see the sky or peck at the grass. Similarly with some cows.

If venison and wild-boar was available in easy-to-cook portions in the supermarket, I'd try it. They are probably both low in fat, so they might be as healthy as chicken.

Game is very healthy. Tesco used to have venison steaks occasionally but I haven't seen them for a long time. And they were expensive. Maybe if deer were harvested on a more regular basis, the price would go down and ordinary people could enjoy this meat.

A killing shot is certainly more merciful than being hung upside down from a conveyor belt and electrically stunned. But what happens if the hunter misses and the deer runs away seriously wounded?

Long ago, I gave up on the "Bond" franchise. The Broccoli(!) family, which owns the thing, can do with it as they wish. I'm not buying tickets anymore.

It's not the actors and actresses. It's not the original idea. It's the scripts that now suck. I'm just not interested in where they have now decided to go with their storytelling, although it is of course their sovereign choice as "IP owners."

In general, I think that the various casting choices – both male and female – appeared to be consistently good ones. (Over the years, this "variety" of interpretation of fictional characters was always a highlight of the [early ...] films, even when the stories were pretty silly.) But the scripts today were probably impossible. "You can't make a silk purse ..."

A responsible hunter prepares for this. Unfortunately, of course it still happens. That's why we told our "bow-hunter" neighbor to also carry a pistol – but never heard a shot. (And received a pair of gloves.)

From a hunter's perspective, "if you don't make the 'clean kill,' you don't eat." You have, quite literally, "one shot at this."

And of course: "out there, there are also idiots."

There is no percentage in even imagining that there is any manner of dying for wild animals that isn't horrific and vastly worse than a bullet or arrow. Wild animals either die of slow starvation or debilitating disease or worse, are eaten while still alive. Elk and Deer males often die over weeks of time from courting competition wounds. I have never known a single person whom actually lives in the area of wild animals who hunted for sport, let alone pleasure. They all hunt to eat and justifiably so since they also feed many wild animals. I've witnessed it is commonplace for farmers to set out feed for wild animals mid winter let alone allow them to graze on their crops within reason. They and I also enjoy the hunt and some do collect trophies but the work is a given and eating the main reward.

True hunting is work. Only sport hunting for trophies avoids the work by taking only heads or antlers and leaving the bulk to rot. Some suits prefer to even avoid the search part of hunting and would like to "drive up to a trophy", and pretend they still are in touch with their "wild side" heritage. Harrumpf! How despicable!

We provide mineral blocks for the deer on our land, but do not provide feed. They have to learn to fend for themselves. They often graze. We are not doing this to attract them. We ourselves have no interest in hunting them.

In season, local meat processors usually have prepared game meat for sale by appointment – particularly organ meats. Take a number ...

We have several national forests in the area, and some of them hold hunting seasons specifically to help avoid overpopulation. If that's your "thing," they'd like you to come hunt – and take what you kill. There are very specific "tagging" requirements, weapons requirements and so on, and game wardens to legally enforce them. Some game species are naturally so fecund that they would exceed the grazing capacity if this were not done.

- - -

Proper, safe, and effective use of a firearm is a skill that must be learned and practiced. It does not come instinctively. If you have learned how to do it, you have legitimate "braggin' rights." And, if you are so inclined, "dinner on the table." I think that basic training on this subject is something that every student should be required to encounter in school. And, if "the 'marksmanship' bug" rubs off on them, as it happily did for me, so much the better. Here's something that even "the scrawniest, most un-athletic kid" (ahem ...) can become very good at: at first, competing only with himself.