I sail small ships. This shouldn't be one of them.
I sail small ships.
This is nothing new. I am used to watching a film or a show, falling in love with the chemistry between two characters and then finding out that few others feel the way I do. Granted, a lot of these non-existent fandoms make sense why they don't exist since they come from not very popular films or cancelled shows.
This is not one of those occasions. This small ship should, by rights, be a Man-O-War with an enormous crew.
Sometime earlier this year I finally watched Skyfall. Brilliant fucking film. Classic James Bond.
Like anyone else who has been on the internet at any point since five minutes after the first screening of the film, I knew going in that everyone had collectively lost their shit over the Bond/Q pairing. From the reaction I was expecting their scenes together to play out like the sort of scenes they had with Bond & Moneypenny. Instead you had standard Q interactions with a bit more playful banter highlighting the new tech savvy generation vs. the old war dog field agents.
In short, I don't get Bond/Q.
Watching Skyfall as a stand alone film and not taking into account Bond canon, you can walk away from the film with two rather obvious pairings based on chemistry and story interactions: Bond/Moneypenny and my ship, Bond/Mallory.
Bond & Moneypenny always flirt but it has much more potential to be played with in this film because the flirtation goes on throughout the movie rather than being kept to one scene.
Bond & Mallory are two equals who've been thrown together, assessing each other, until they finally come to the conclusion that they like each other. For fucks sake people, they have an entire relationship story arch that is canonically part of the picture! More on that later >.>
Bond/Moneypenny has no chance because traditionally and canonically Bond & Moneypenny never get together. I'm assuming that's the reason the pairing is so rare on AO3 that it doesn't warrant an entry on the relationship list in any of the Bond subcategories. There's the more obvious conclusion that the majority of Bond fandom residents are slashers, but that wouldn't explain the film's 2nd or 3rd most popular pairing(3rd in Craig films, 2nd in all Bond) which is a heterosexual pairing and definitely not the work of slashers.
Bond/Mallory (which a few very optimistic people dubbed 00Mallory in late 2012) does warrant an entry on the relationship list (only in the Skyfall and Craig Movies subcategories) but only by the skin of its teeth and is edged out in popularity by a pairing of Bond & a character that was killed off two films beforehand. I even made the mistake of thinking that perhaps people had adopted his new title for the pairing offering. 20 minutes later I realised that Bond/M will always mean the author pictured James Bond getting it on with his mother-figure.
I mean, aside from linking two good looking guys together or going with the precedent that the actor has played a queer character before (a shout out to all five people who have seen Cloud Atlas!), there's no basis for the Bond/Q pairing. Going by interaction you have a better argument for Bond/Tanner because there is at least some depth of feeling there.
Sleep for now. Tomorrow, a Bond/Mallory Meta.
This is nothing new. I am used to watching a film or a show, falling in love with the chemistry between two characters and then finding out that few others feel the way I do. Granted, a lot of these non-existent fandoms make sense why they don't exist since they come from not very popular films or cancelled shows.
This is not one of those occasions. This small ship should, by rights, be a Man-O-War with an enormous crew.
Sometime earlier this year I finally watched Skyfall. Brilliant fucking film. Classic James Bond.
Like anyone else who has been on the internet at any point since five minutes after the first screening of the film, I knew going in that everyone had collectively lost their shit over the Bond/Q pairing. From the reaction I was expecting their scenes together to play out like the sort of scenes they had with Bond & Moneypenny. Instead you had standard Q interactions with a bit more playful banter highlighting the new tech savvy generation vs. the old war dog field agents.
In short, I don't get Bond/Q.
Watching Skyfall as a stand alone film and not taking into account Bond canon, you can walk away from the film with two rather obvious pairings based on chemistry and story interactions: Bond/Moneypenny and my ship, Bond/Mallory.
Bond & Moneypenny always flirt but it has much more potential to be played with in this film because the flirtation goes on throughout the movie rather than being kept to one scene.
Bond & Mallory are two equals who've been thrown together, assessing each other, until they finally come to the conclusion that they like each other. For fucks sake people, they have an entire relationship story arch that is canonically part of the picture! More on that later >.>
Bond/Moneypenny has no chance because traditionally and canonically Bond & Moneypenny never get together. I'm assuming that's the reason the pairing is so rare on AO3 that it doesn't warrant an entry on the relationship list in any of the Bond subcategories. There's the more obvious conclusion that the majority of Bond fandom residents are slashers, but that wouldn't explain the film's 2nd or 3rd most popular pairing(3rd in Craig films, 2nd in all Bond) which is a heterosexual pairing and definitely not the work of slashers.
Bond/Mallory (which a few very optimistic people dubbed 00Mallory in late 2012) does warrant an entry on the relationship list (only in the Skyfall and Craig Movies subcategories) but only by the skin of its teeth and is edged out in popularity by a pairing of Bond & a character that was killed off two films beforehand. I even made the mistake of thinking that perhaps people had adopted his new title for the pairing offering. 20 minutes later I realised that Bond/M will always mean the author pictured James Bond getting it on with his mother-figure.
I mean, aside from linking two good looking guys together or going with the precedent that the actor has played a queer character before (a shout out to all five people who have seen Cloud Atlas!), there's no basis for the Bond/Q pairing. Going by interaction you have a better argument for Bond/Tanner because there is at least some depth of feeling there.
Sleep for now. Tomorrow, a Bond/Mallory Meta.