Nature abhors a vacuum...and clearly anything will be said to fill a void of silence 8-) Meanwhile, Tom is secretly slamming down protein shakes and hitting the free weights )
Neither is being too old, after all sir Roger was 82 when he did his last bond
Ya know, it baffles me how people always joke about Moore's age in AVTAK, saying he was far too old, yet people are willing to accept a female bond??? Doesn't make sense.
I never paid attention to those people. And I don't think there are too many. AVTAK is a perfectly good 007 classic.
So long as it's a young, sexy female Bond, and not an old bird !
Although I find it frightening to think I'm not far off Sir Roger's age )
sems so long ago I first watched AVTAK.
Well just saying, a slightly overage bond is nowhere near as ridiculous as a female bond. A blonde bond is nowhere near as ridiculous as a female bond. Everything has a line. For example, murder is far worse than GBH. Bestiality is far worse than homosexuality (which was seen as an illness several years ago). Etc.
Not saying GBH is good by the way lol.... just trying to illustrate my point.
Just imagine it:
Blonde Bond to Black Bond to Female Bond to Black Female Bond to Homosexual Male Bond to Lesbian to Bond in a wheelchair to Bond with learning disabilities to transgender Bond to a Chimpanzee.... see how ridiculous it could potentially get??
Yes, a chimpanzee - we are all animals right?
That's the problem - when you change Bond, it opens up a whole can of worms, and people demand Bond becomes a woman, homosexual, transgender, black, Asian, lesbian woman etc all just to seem 'politically correct'. I've always thought casting an actor based on where they're from or what gender they are, just for the sake of it, is more patronising than equal.
Maybe it's just me, but there is nothing wrong with being gay, or female...
The only way for Bond to really return to his roots would be if the movies were set in the 1960's again. But they're not, and cinematic Bond has been moving away from the literary Bond, in small increments, ever since Dr No. it may be convenient to blame it on political correctness, but it misses the point. Bond has stopped smoking not to be politically correct, but to reflect 21st century. Likewise, we no longer see gender identity in binary categories, but as a continuum. Not many of us want to see movies in black and white only, literally and figuratively. So why not a female Bond? It should not be about whether the next Bond actor is male or female, but whether they are up to the job.
I'm just saying making Bond a female (or homosexual, or black or whatever) would just make for one or two good movies. I'm not saying Bond never went with their times, because they always do. There's no more women slapping on their butt, Bond doesn't smoke anymore, we've had a female M, we had a black Moneypenny etc etc.
But lets just say you turn Bond into a woman, in the first film, everybody is probably really going to like it. There can be great gags of a female Bond actually using men for pleasure, using her brains and beauty to seduce men and get information and such, it's a new and original gimmick, and it would probably get praised. But then what? In the next movie, that gimmick won't be that original anymore, they still need to come up with original adventures for our female Bond to go through, you know what I mean? There's no way you can go back to Fleming, or make Bond all authentic again when you have a female Bond. It would just end up being a phase that probably starts off with fireworks, but soon tires out since it's not James Bond.
Let's keep Bond "Fleming's Bond" (or you know, at least close to something he envisioned) not "Policital expecation meeting Bond"
Just my two cents...
A white male Bond has lasted for a couple dozen movies, so I don't see why a change would only last two, however who says we can't go back, or move on to something different. If EON do it, then they will be able to claim intellectual property on a lot more ideas and characters when Bond becomes public domain soon.
The Gillian Anderson-James Bond thing highlights something I've been thinking for a few years now: I sort of wish 007 was a public domain character. While it's fun to have a Big Bond Movie every few years, I think it would be exciting to see a variety of interpretations of the character, like we've seen with Sherlock Holmes. We could have Gillian Anderson Bond. Idris Elba Bond. Quentin Tarantino could do the black & white Cold War Bond he wanted to do with Pierce Brosnan. Rupert Everett once said he wanted to do a Bond film exploring 007's sexuality. Lars von Trier expressed interest in doing a dark, twisted Bond film. Imagine if we could see all of those! I think it would be fascinating, and probably more interesting than half of the EON films.
Sure, as with Holmes and Dracula, some public domain James Bond movies would be terrible. But then again, some "official" James Bond movies are terrible.
UPDATE: I didn't see that there was a whole thread on this very topic. My apologies for the redundancy!
—Le Samourai
A Gent in Training.... A blog about my continuing efforts to be improve myself, be a better person, and lead a good life. It incorporates such far flung topics as fitness, self defense, music, style, food and drink, and personal philosophy. Agent In Training
I believe that the True 50 Year Tradition of James Bond should be a Man who I believe is qualified, The Look, Debonair Atitude and that touch of Cool which every Bond has shown from the beginning. A character that could be Cool and get the Job done. The Last (Daniel Craig) Bond had all and more as a Bond which I believe is going to be hard to duplicate and replace. I am Sorry to hear that he will leave and I also Believe that if he was to leave the Tradition ,that he should be able to leave and he would be able to help and pick his predescessor Tom Hiddleston which I believe would be a Very Good Bond for years to come.
I believe that the True 50 Year Tradition of James Bond should be a Man who I believe is qualified, The Look, Debonair Atitude and that touch of Cool which every Bond has shown from the beginning. A character that could be Cool and get the Job done. The Last (Daniel Craig) Bond had all and more as a Bond which I believe is going to be hard to duplicate and replace. I am Sorry to hear that he will leave and I also Believe that if he was to leave the Tradition ,that he should be able to leave and he would be able to help and pick his predescessor Tom Hiddleston which I believe would be a Very Good Bond for years to come.
I think you mean DC's successor. -{
Pussy Galore: “My name is Pussy Galore.”
Bond: “I must be dreaming.”
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I belong to a Facebook fan group that today put an embargo on all talk of lead actor change...which I find curious. There was a lot of hostility there toward any notion that Craig might not be back. Seems like a lot of wasted energy.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I belong to a Facebook fan group that today put an embargo on all talk of lead actor change...which I find curious. There was a lot of hostility there toward any notion that Craig might not be back. Seems like a lot of wasted energy.
Isn't it kind of the same here? Except for the embargo...
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I belong to a Facebook fan group that today put an embargo on all talk of lead actor change...which I find curious. There was a lot of hostility there toward any notion that Craig might not be back. Seems like a lot of wasted energy.
Isn't it kind of the same here? Except for the embargo...
True. We can disagree on Craig, but I'm prepared to look forward. Life goes on
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Donkey wants Michael Fassbender to be the next 007.....there I've said it!
For some reason I can't quite put my finger or hoof on he appears to be the epitome of Fleming's writing -{
Tried to post earlier The latest runout is Jamie Bell( I've never heard of him) apparently he starred as Billy Elliot . I prefer to believe BBC that Daniel still deciding.
Well just saying, a slightly overage bond is nowhere near as ridiculous as a female bond. A blonde bond is nowhere near as ridiculous as a female bond. Everything has a line. For example, murder is far worse than GBH. Bestiality is far worse than homosexuality (which was seen as an illness several years ago). Etc.
Not saying GBH is good by the way lol.... just trying to illustrate my point.
Just imagine it:
Blonde Bond to Black Bond to Female Bond to Black Female Bond to Homosexual Male Bond to Lesbian to Bond in a wheelchair to Bond with learning disabilities to transgender Bond to a Chimpanzee.... see how ridiculous it could potentially get??
Yes, a chimpanzee - we are all animals right?
That's the problem - when you change Bond, it opens up a whole can of worms, and people demand Bond becomes a woman, homosexual, transgender, black, Asian, lesbian woman etc all just to seem 'politically correct'. I've always thought casting an actor based on where they're from or what gender they are, just for the sake of it, is more patronising than equal.
Maybe it's just me, but there is nothing wrong with being gay, or female...
Nothing wrong with being gay or female. I don't think anybody here has said/implied that.
As many have said, I am sure we would all welcome a gay/female secret agent as a separate character to bond, or a separate series. Nobody would have any objections to that I'm sure.
But the character James Bond is a womanizing male. That is his character. Why change that when you can just invent a new character instead?
But the character James Bond is a womanizing male. That is his character. Why change that when you can just invent a new character instead?
Because that seems to take too much imagination for some people.
I do find it interesting that James Bond seems to be the one character that people call for to change sex, colour and sexuality. I don't believe that there has been a massive outcry to make other male heroes change.
When the rumoured Indiana Jones reboot was being mooted a few years ago, the candidates were Chris Pratt and Bradley Cooper. Pretty much carbon copies of Harrison Ford. I don't recall acres of press concerned with recasting Indiana as a black actor, or a woman, or making him gay.
Same with Superman. Same with Batman.
And ironically none of those characters colour, sex, or sexuality define them or matter in the long run. But with Bond it is his very English whiteness, his very misogynistic sexuality, and indeed his maleness are what define him as a character, and if you change any of those things then he is no longer James Bond as he has existed for the last 60 odd years, but a whole new character. Yes some things have changed (like his smoking), but the very basic tenets of his character have not changed so why should they now?
I wonder what it is about Bond that makes people think they should completely change his character, when now he is as popular as he was back in the 60's.
Tried to post earlier The latest runout is Jamie Bell( I've never heard of him) apparently he starred as Billy Elliot . I prefer to believe BBC that Daniel still deciding.
Jamie Bell played the youngest brother to Craig in "Defiance". Good actor. At 5'7" (on a good day) and with boyish looks not a contender IMO for Bond.
But the character James Bond is a womanizing male. That is his character. Why change that when you can just invent a new character instead?
Because that seems to take too much imagination for some people.
I do find it interesting that James Bond seems to be the one character that people call for to change sex, colour and sexuality. I don't believe that there has been a massive outcry to make other male heroes change.
When the rumoured Indiana Jones reboot was being mooted a few years ago, the candidates were Chris Pratt and Bradley Cooper. Pretty much carbon copies of Harrison Ford. I don't recall acres of press concerned with recasting Indiana as a black actor, or a woman, or making him gay.
Same with Superman. Same with Batman.
And ironically none of those characters colour, sex, or sexuality define them or matter in the long run. But with Bond it is his very English whiteness, his very misogynistic sexuality, and indeed his maleness are what define him as a character, and if you change any of those things then he is no longer James Bond as he has existed for the last 60 odd years, but a whole new character. Yes some things have changed (like his smoking), but the very basic tenets of his character have not changed so why should they now?
I wonder what it is about Bond that makes people think they should completely change his character, when now he is as popular as he was back in the 60's.
But the character James Bond is a womanizing male. That is his character. Why change that when you can just invent a new character instead?
Because that seems to take too much imagination for some people.
I do find it interesting that James Bond seems to be the one character that people call for to change sex, colour and sexuality. I don't believe that there has been a massive outcry to make other male heroes change.
When the rumoured Indiana Jones reboot was being mooted a few years ago, the candidates were Chris Pratt and Bradley Cooper. Pretty much carbon copies of Harrison Ford. I don't recall acres of press concerned with recasting Indiana as a black actor, or a woman, or making him gay.
Same with Superman. Same with Batman.
And ironically none of those characters colour, sex, or sexuality define them or matter in the long run. But with Bond it is his very English whiteness, his very misogynistic sexuality, and indeed his maleness are what define him as a character, and if you change any of those things then he is no longer James Bond as he has existed for the last 60 odd years, but a whole new character. Yes some things have changed (like his smoking), but the very basic tenets of his character have not changed so why should they now?
I wonder what it is about Bond that makes people think they should completely change his character, when now he is as popular as he was back in the 60's.
To throw some crap in the fan
This all started when EON decided to go with a Blonde with protuding ears and so short that he needs heel lifts instead of sticking with the formula.
Or did it all start with a constantly crying actor in the 80s? :v
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
As life goes on, things don't always get better. What if the next actor is announced and I find I liked Craig better? It's entirely possible!
I can have fun with that :v
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Comments
You're probably right!!!
I never paid attention to those people. And I don't think there are too many. AVTAK is a perfectly good 007 classic.
Maybe it's just me, but there is nothing wrong with being gay, or female...
A white male Bond has lasted for a couple dozen movies, so I don't see why a change would only last two, however who says we can't go back, or move on to something different. If EON do it, then they will be able to claim intellectual property on a lot more ideas and characters when Bond becomes public domain soon.
Sure, as with Holmes and Dracula, some public domain James Bond movies would be terrible. But then again, some "official" James Bond movies are terrible.
UPDATE: I didn't see that there was a whole thread on this very topic. My apologies for the redundancy!
A Gent in Training.... A blog about my continuing efforts to be improve myself, be a better person, and lead a good life. It incorporates such far flung topics as fitness, self defense, music, style, food and drink, and personal philosophy.
Agent In Training
I think you mean DC's successor.
Bond: “I must be dreaming.”
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I've been out for decades!!! B-)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Isn't it kind of the same here? Except for the embargo...
True. We can disagree on Craig, but I'm prepared to look forward. Life goes on
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
We always have, Loeff! {[]
I must say that the fool nailed it perfectly! {[] {[] {[]
We should listen more to intellectually underpriviledged people like him
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Have you banned him, Barbel
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
For some reason I can't quite put my finger or hoof on he appears to be the epitome of Fleming's writing -{
Nothing wrong with being gay or female. I don't think anybody here has said/implied that.
As many have said, I am sure we would all welcome a gay/female secret agent as a separate character to bond, or a separate series. Nobody would have any objections to that I'm sure.
But the character James Bond is a womanizing male. That is his character. Why change that when you can just invent a new character instead?
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
Because that seems to take too much imagination for some people.
I do find it interesting that James Bond seems to be the one character that people call for to change sex, colour and sexuality. I don't believe that there has been a massive outcry to make other male heroes change.
When the rumoured Indiana Jones reboot was being mooted a few years ago, the candidates were Chris Pratt and Bradley Cooper. Pretty much carbon copies of Harrison Ford. I don't recall acres of press concerned with recasting Indiana as a black actor, or a woman, or making him gay.
Same with Superman. Same with Batman.
And ironically none of those characters colour, sex, or sexuality define them or matter in the long run. But with Bond it is his very English whiteness, his very misogynistic sexuality, and indeed his maleness are what define him as a character, and if you change any of those things then he is no longer James Bond as he has existed for the last 60 odd years, but a whole new character. Yes some things have changed (like his smoking), but the very basic tenets of his character have not changed so why should they now?
I wonder what it is about Bond that makes people think they should completely change his character, when now he is as popular as he was back in the 60's.
Twitter: @mybudgetbond1
Jamie Bell played the youngest brother to Craig in "Defiance". Good actor. At 5'7" (on a good day) and with boyish looks not a contender IMO for Bond.
Agree 100%
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
To throw some crap in the fan
This all started when EON decided to go with a Blonde with protuding ears and so short that he needs heel lifts
Or did it all start with a constantly crying actor in the 80s? :v
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I can have fun with that :v
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Bond to Silva in Skyfall. Who is obviously more open-minded to homosexuality than some on this thread!! ;%