I don't plan to engage much more in this discussion, but I have to bring one thing up: where have our female members gone?
It would be interesting to get their input on this issue (and many other things), but for some reason they're not here. I wonder if it's because of this debate,the nature of this debate or some completely other reason.
I generally agree that Bond could be played by a non-white man (Talk of changing Bond’s gender is absurd). But given the cultural moment in which we are now living, I fear that such a change would be quite cynical and done for the wrong reasons. If/when it happens, it needs to be because the person in question is right for the role - not to satisfy a bunch of people who have probably never watched a Bond film but love to spew “takes” on the internet.
As for the Nomi character as “007”, I don’t see the fuss. They’re going to either hard or soft reboot after Craig, so there won’t be any need to “explain” how Bond gets his number back, etc. Im shocked that people on this site are having trouble understanding that? There is no code name. The bond of 1962-2002 ended with Pierce. Craig Bond exists in his own universe. The same will almost certainly be true of the next Bond. It’s pretty black and white, pun not intended.
"The odds will betray you and They will replace you" #
If Bond has left the service his number will be given to another agent.
The fact that it happens to be a Black woman is of no concern to me.
I'm sure to get the 00 prefix, she is more than capable -{ ....... I only
hope she likes Safari suits, Aston Martins and innuendos
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I don't plan to engage much more in this discussion, but I have to bring one thing up: where have our female members gone?
It would be interesting to get their input on this issue (and many other things), but for some reason they're not here. I wonder if it's because of this debate,the nature of this debate or some completely other reason.
You are quite right i had noticed that the few active female contributors have been silent. This is a shame, come back please and stop this being a total boys club.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,754Chief of Staff
"The odds will betray you and They will replace you" #
If Bond has left the service his number will be given to another agent.
The fact that it happens to be a Black woman is of no concern to me.
I'm sure to get the 00 prefix, she is more than capable -{ ....... I only
hope she likes Safari suits, Aston Martins and innuendos
Correct {[]
YNWA 97
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
The James Bond license/franchise will outlive everyone on this board into eternity and as a property it will find a way to legally perpetuate in one form or another. As long as it can make money for someone through mass patronage...it lives! Whether with EON or beyond, current and future fans will see every iteration of the character in conformity to the ever changing social landscape...which means Bonds of different ethnicities, gender identification and perhaps even species and sentient life forms. AI Bond...can you imagine? )
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I expect Bond will continue to be a white 30-something to 40-something year old guy of varying hair colour.
However... If the producers decide to replace him in the franchise with a different character who is non-white, female, trans, gay, bi, furry or identifies as a tractor exhaust pipe, that's another matter.
The media has prepared the public for a non-white Bond. With all the talk of a black and female 007 (and people confusing that for a black and female Bond), a black male Bond no longer seems like a stretch. I think that how Nomi is played out in Bond 25 (and if she actually is 007) may depend on how the next Bond is cast. EON have shown that money comes first. They will be sure to cast the Bond they think will resonate best with worldwide audiences. Bond has never been about taking big risks. The choice for Daniel Craig was different, but it made sense at the time. What makes sense now to get the largest film-going audience interested in Bond?
Will more people watch Bond movies if Bond is played by a black actor? I don't know. I guess some people will watch because they feel the series has become PC, but I perhaps more people won't watch the movies because they feel it's become too PC. Both reasons are stupid in my opinion, but I suspect the group finding a black Bond too PC is the larger group.
Has this thread been dug up on its one year anniversary just for someone to say they hate woke? )
I think there's a chance the next one could be non-white. Wouldn't make any difference to me, anyone who refused to watch it based on that would be extremely unimpressive in my eyes. He's just got to be a good-looking, swaggery, great lead actor for my money.
Not about JB films per se, but a pretty good analysis (IMO) about the dangers of trying to score political points with the expense of slaved storytelling and alienating basic fan base.
YouTube? That's not where I head for my dose of level-headed fair-minded analysis
Besides, Bond isn't really something based around a fanbase: it's a film series everyone goes to see. The fanbase (small that it is) got 'alienated' by a guy having blond hair a few years ago, if I were Eon I'd go on selling us expensive stuff and ignoring any opinion we have on the movies
YouTube? That's not where I head for my dose of level-headed fair-minded analysis
WHAT!? How can you say that about someone, whose channel in "tube" is named "Critical Drinker"!? Have you no decency?
My point is: you take the character or plot far enough away from the source material, and it's just a movie. It could be a critically acclaimed block buster, but it's still just a movie. Yes you could score some points making the lead character an african-american crippled lesbian in a wheel chair (just imagine all the gadgets that that would make possible), but that would not be a James Bond -movie. Just look at Bourne Legacy, is it entertaining? -yes, does it have "Bourne" in the title? -yes, is it a "Jason Bourne" -movie? -No, it's an Aaron Cross movie, with a name of a Jason Bourne novel!
If that felt a little blunt and poorly argued, it's because I just couldn't be arsed to go beyond a simple drive by. This is because it just burns me how serious this kind of discussion currently is. It should not be that difficult to stay "canon" when making movies or writing books.
"I mean, she almost kills bond...with her ass."
-Mr Arlington Beech
YouTube? That's not where I head for my dose of level-headed fair-minded analysis
WHAT!? How can you say that about someone, whose channel in "tube" is named "Critical Drinker"!? Have you no decency?
My point is: you take the character or plot far enough away from the source material, and it's just a movie. It could be a critically acclaimed block buster, but it's still just a movie. Yes you could score some points making the lead character an african-american crippled lesbian in a wheel chair (just imagine all the gadgets that that would make possible), but that would not be a James Bond -movie. Just look at Bourne Legacy, is it entertaining? -yes, does it have "Bourne" in the title? -yes, is it a "Jason Bourne" -movie? -No, it's an Aaron Cross movie, with a name of a Jason Bourne novel!
I think seeing the progression of society as just 'scoring points' is a pretty important point here though. Bond fans said the same thing about Bond no longer smoking or the women not being squealing helpless idiots in bikinis.
Making Bond a woman would indeed be changing the character into something it isn't. Making him a Scotsman or an Irishman or changing his eye colour or hair colour hasn't, and changing his skin colour wouldn't either. Your argument about 'points scoring' seems more based on a reaction to seeing a group of people on Twitter to claim it as a victory than it would actual damage to the character itself.
If that felt a little blunt and poorly argued, it's because I just couldn't be arsed to go beyond a simple drive by. This is because it just burns me how serious this kind of discussion currently is. It should not be that difficult to stay "canon" when making movies or writing books.
It just depends on what you think is important about canon. These are adaptations: they get -literally- adapted. Which means changed to fit the new medium, and it always has done. Sometimes keeping the style, tone or intention is enough to honour that, it doesn't mean he has to wear a Sea Island cotton shirt in every scene and drive a 1930s Bentley, because he'd look ridiculous doing that.
I've only seen a couple of his reviews, but based on scrolling through his reviews (that's propper research! ) ) it looks that he rarely likes movies with female protagonists.
It just depends on what you think is important about canon. These are adaptations: they get -literally- adapted. Which means changed to fit the new medium, and it always has done. Sometimes keeping the style, tone or intention is enough to honour that, it doesn't mean he has to wear a Sea Island cotton shirt in every scene and drive a 1930s Bentley, because he'd look ridiculous doing that.
Now that is where we differ the most: I really do believe, that the whole film series should go back to the source materiel and be made as period piece movies. But then again, I am a fundamentalist when it comes to Bond.
And what comes to "adaptations", it's not an adaptation if you change the very foundation of the lead character. If Bond seizes to be a Scotsman from the Great Britain, why not make him a CIA agent and then you could make him an African-American from the Bronx or Compton and have a real edge to his character.
For example: I have no objection, what so ever for casting Ice Cube as Darius Stone, the lead character in the second installment of the XXX -series, but that character has no history or continuity. Bond is different, it has continuity through several authors of several novels, as well as 7 type cast actors through 25 movies. The nature of the character is important, it is part of the story telling, you cast a white chick/guy as the lead for the next Shaft movie, and you'll ruin the whole story. Sam Jackson was perfect as the John Shaft Jr., here adaptation was done right.
"I mean, she almost kills bond...with her ass."
-Mr Arlington Beech
It just depends on what you think is important about canon. These are adaptations: they get -literally- adapted. Which means changed to fit the new medium, and it always has done. Sometimes keeping the style, tone or intention is enough to honour that, it doesn't mean he has to wear a Sea Island cotton shirt in every scene and drive a 1930s Bentley, because he'd look ridiculous doing that.
Now that is where we differ the most: I really do believe, that the whole film series should go back to the source materiel and be made as period piece movies. But then again, I am a fundamentalist when it comes to Bond.
Well okay, I don't follow that thinking at all and I think we've moved beyond the books now, to that extent anyway. I'm a fan of the films, it sounds like they're not your cup of tea.
Felix has changed race a couple of times, M was a woman, Moneypenny started out as Canadian (?!) and changed race also... we all lived through it
And what comes to "adaptations", it's not an adaptation if you change the very foundation of the lead character. If Bond seizes to be a Scotsman from the Great Britain, why not make him a CIA agent and then you could make him an African-American from the Bronx or Compton and have a real edge to his character.
The very first screen adaptation did do exactly that: make him a CIA agent. Fleming himself appeared willing to go along with it.
For example: I have no objection, what so ever for casting Ice Cube as Darius Stone, the lead character in the second installment of the XXX -series, but that character has no history or continuity. Bond is different, it has continuity through several authors of several novels, as well as 7 type cast actors through 25 movies. The nature of the character is important, it is part of the story telling, you cast a white chick/guy as the lead for the next Shaft movie, and you'll ruin the whole story. Sam Jackson was perfect as the John Shaft Jr., here adaptation was done right.
There's no real continuity in the Bond films, no. I'm not even convinced he's the same guy in View To A Kill that he was in Live and Let Die: they're not connected. The nature of the character has changed with every actor to some extent: more jokey here, more serious there, more smarmy here, more impetuous there... I'm not seeing any basic reason it can't be done in this instance given we're not even talking about a style performance but just someone's appearance.
Has this thread been dug up on its one year anniversary just for someone to say they hate woke? )
I think there's a chance the next one could be non-white. Wouldn't make any difference to me, anyone who refused to watch it based on that would be extremely unimpressive in my eyes. He's just got to be a good-looking, swaggery, great lead actor for my money.
That criteria would have ruled DC out.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Well okay, I don't follow that thinking at all and I think we've moved beyond the books now, to that extent anyway. I'm a fan of the films, it sounds like they're not your cup of tea.
Felix has changed race a couple of times, M was a woman, Moneypenny started out as Canadian (?!) and changed race also... we all lived through it
The very first screen adaptation did do exactly that: make him a CIA agent. Fleming himself appeared willing to go along with it.
There's no real continuity in the Bond films, no. I'm not even convinced he's the same guy in View To A Kill that he was in Live and Let Die: they're not connected. The nature of the character has changed with every actor to some extent: more jokey here, more serious there, more smarmy here, more impetuous there... I'm not seeing any basic reason it can't be done in this instance given we're not even talking about a style performance but just someone's appearance.
I'm sorry, but you make it sound as if it's "anything goes" for you, as long as you are entertained. Don't you feel, that there should be some constants, that would differentiate Bond movies from every other spy flick with quips and gadgets?
What makes it a Bond movie for you, is it just the title, or is there something else?
"I mean, she almost kills bond...with her ass."
-Mr Arlington Beech
Well okay, I don't follow that thinking at all and I think we've moved beyond the books now, to that extent anyway. I'm a fan of the films, it sounds like they're not your cup of tea.
Felix has changed race a couple of times, M was a woman, Moneypenny started out as Canadian (?!) and changed race also... we all lived through it
The very first screen adaptation did do exactly that: make him a CIA agent. Fleming himself appeared willing to go along with it.
There's no real continuity in the Bond films, no. I'm not even convinced he's the same guy in View To A Kill that he was in Live and Let Die: they're not connected. The nature of the character has changed with every actor to some extent: more jokey here, more serious there, more smarmy here, more impetuous there... I'm not seeing any basic reason it can't be done in this instance given we're not even talking about a style performance but just someone's appearance.
I'm sorry, but you make it sound as if it's "anything goes" for you, as long as you are entertained.
Then you're not reading properly: I've already pointed out several lines you can't go over.
But you make it sound like entertainment is somehow a separate purpose these films shouldn't aspire to...?
Don't you feel, that there should be some constants, that would differentiate Bond movies from every other spy flick with quips and gadgets?
I'v already said ways in which you can't change the character. To read that as 'well you don't care if Bond becomes a cactus, obviously!' is to misread my posts. And if you're saying that a black person can't do quips and gadgets, then I fail to follow your reasoning even more.
(The quips and gadgets aren't really in the books you're saying they should return to, by the way)
Has this thread been dug up on its one year anniversary just for someone to say they hate woke? )
I think there's a chance the next one could be non-white. Wouldn't make any difference to me, anyone who refused to watch it based on that would be extremely unimpressive in my eyes. He's just got to be a good-looking, swaggery, great lead actor for my money.
I think it's interesting what happened when Angelina Jolie was cast in Salt (2010). The part was origionally written as a man. In the commentary it was said that changing the sex of a lead character involves more than finding a new first name. Women function differently in social situations, especially in relationships. The scriptwriters had to rewrite parts of the script.
The same goes for Bond. Changing the gender of Bond requires more than changing the name to Jane Bond, it's a new character.
Bond must stay male, but I really hope he will face competition from a spy/action franchisewith an intersting female lead.
Yeah, you can't change Bond into a woman: his personality is just based too much around his own gender. Doctor Who, yes; and I actually think Sherlock Holmes could be (in a modern day adaptation, not a period one) without too much trouble. It depends on the character.
Comments
It would be interesting to get their input on this issue (and many other things), but for some reason they're not here. I wonder if it's because of this debate,the nature of this debate or some completely other reason.
As for the Nomi character as “007”, I don’t see the fuss. They’re going to either hard or soft reboot after Craig, so there won’t be any need to “explain” how Bond gets his number back, etc. Im shocked that people on this site are having trouble understanding that? There is no code name. The bond of 1962-2002 ended with Pierce. Craig Bond exists in his own universe. The same will almost certainly be true of the next Bond. It’s pretty black and white, pun not intended.
If Bond has left the service his number will be given to another agent.
The fact that it happens to be a Black woman is of no concern to me.
I'm sure to get the 00 prefix, she is more than capable -{ ....... I only
hope she likes Safari suits, Aston Martins and innuendos
You are quite right i had noticed that the few active female contributors have been silent. This is a shame, come back please and stop this being a total boys club.
Correct {[]
However... If the producers decide to replace him in the franchise with a different character who is non-white, female, trans, gay, bi, furry or identifies as a tractor exhaust pipe, that's another matter.
I think there's a chance the next one could be non-white. Wouldn't make any difference to me, anyone who refused to watch it based on that would be extremely unimpressive in my eyes. He's just got to be a good-looking, swaggery, great lead actor for my money.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVNDMuQtipo&t=217s
-Mr Arlington Beech
Besides, Bond isn't really something based around a fanbase: it's a film series everyone goes to see. The fanbase (small that it is) got 'alienated' by a guy having blond hair a few years ago, if I were Eon I'd go on selling us expensive stuff and ignoring any opinion we have on the movies
WHAT!? How can you say that about someone, whose channel in "tube" is named "Critical Drinker"!? Have you no decency?
My point is: you take the character or plot far enough away from the source material, and it's just a movie. It could be a critically acclaimed block buster, but it's still just a movie. Yes you could score some points making the lead character an african-american crippled lesbian in a wheel chair (just imagine all the gadgets that that would make possible), but that would not be a James Bond -movie. Just look at Bourne Legacy, is it entertaining? -yes, does it have "Bourne" in the title? -yes, is it a "Jason Bourne" -movie? -No, it's an Aaron Cross movie, with a name of a Jason Bourne novel!
If that felt a little blunt and poorly argued, it's because I just couldn't be arsed to go beyond a simple drive by. This is because it just burns me how serious this kind of discussion currently is. It should not be that difficult to stay "canon" when making movies or writing books.
-Mr Arlington Beech
Very entertaining and informative. {[]
I think seeing the progression of society as just 'scoring points' is a pretty important point here though. Bond fans said the same thing about Bond no longer smoking or the women not being squealing helpless idiots in bikinis.
Making Bond a woman would indeed be changing the character into something it isn't. Making him a Scotsman or an Irishman or changing his eye colour or hair colour hasn't, and changing his skin colour wouldn't either. Your argument about 'points scoring' seems more based on a reaction to seeing a group of people on Twitter to claim it as a victory than it would actual damage to the character itself.
It just depends on what you think is important about canon. These are adaptations: they get -literally- adapted. Which means changed to fit the new medium, and it always has done. Sometimes keeping the style, tone or intention is enough to honour that, it doesn't mean he has to wear a Sea Island cotton shirt in every scene and drive a 1930s Bentley, because he'd look ridiculous doing that.
I only ever play him on x1.5 speed to get rid of the stupid effect on his voice though
Sound like him. I follow a few
Guys who review movies.
I thought this post from page 1 of the thread was quite fun: he was right you know, and all it took was another three movies and 11 years
Now that is where we differ the most: I really do believe, that the whole film series should go back to the source materiel and be made as period piece movies. But then again, I am a fundamentalist when it comes to Bond.
And what comes to "adaptations", it's not an adaptation if you change the very foundation of the lead character. If Bond seizes to be a Scotsman from the Great Britain, why not make him a CIA agent and then you could make him an African-American from the Bronx or Compton and have a real edge to his character.
For example: I have no objection, what so ever for casting Ice Cube as Darius Stone, the lead character in the second installment of the XXX -series, but that character has no history or continuity. Bond is different, it has continuity through several authors of several novels, as well as 7 type cast actors through 25 movies. The nature of the character is important, it is part of the story telling, you cast a white chick/guy as the lead for the next Shaft movie, and you'll ruin the whole story. Sam Jackson was perfect as the John Shaft Jr., here adaptation was done right.
-Mr Arlington Beech
Well okay, I don't follow that thinking at all and I think we've moved beyond the books now, to that extent anyway. I'm a fan of the films, it sounds like they're not your cup of tea.
Felix has changed race a couple of times, M was a woman, Moneypenny started out as Canadian (?!) and changed race also... we all lived through it
The very first screen adaptation did do exactly that: make him a CIA agent. Fleming himself appeared willing to go along with it.
There's no real continuity in the Bond films, no. I'm not even convinced he's the same guy in View To A Kill that he was in Live and Let Die: they're not connected. The nature of the character has changed with every actor to some extent: more jokey here, more serious there, more smarmy here, more impetuous there... I'm not seeing any basic reason it can't be done in this instance given we're not even talking about a style performance but just someone's appearance.
That criteria would have ruled DC out.
I'm sorry, but you make it sound as if it's "anything goes" for you, as long as you are entertained. Don't you feel, that there should be some constants, that would differentiate Bond movies from every other spy flick with quips and gadgets?
What makes it a Bond movie for you, is it just the title, or is there something else?
-Mr Arlington Beech
Then you're not reading properly: I've already pointed out several lines you can't go over.
But you make it sound like entertainment is somehow a separate purpose these films shouldn't aspire to...?
I'v already said ways in which you can't change the character. To read that as 'well you don't care if Bond becomes a cactus, obviously!' is to misread my posts. And if you're saying that a black person can't do quips and gadgets, then I fail to follow your reasoning even more.
(The quips and gadgets aren't really in the books you're saying they should return to, by the way)
Eh?
The same goes for Bond. Changing the gender of Bond requires more than changing the name to Jane Bond, it's a new character.
Bond must stay male, but I really hope he will face competition from a spy/action franchisewith an intersting female lead.