This Will Make Some Heads Explode (not really spoilers, but revelations) . . .
Purists clutch your pearls -- BB just said Bond can be of any race or ethnicity in the next film, so long as he's male. She also says she wants Fukunaga back, and I'm not exactly opposed. Visually, he did a good job (though I still find Campbell the best of the Craig directors overall). With a great script, he could pull of a truly Bondian adventure.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/bond-boss-wants-cary-fukunaga-230059357.html
Comments
BB has said the same thing about the next actor before ("Bond will always be a British and male, but British can mean a lot of differently things today". I'm quoting from memory), but she's clearer now.
I agree about Fukunaga. He did a great job.
Her comments shouldn't make anything explode. If they were being serious with the character Roger Moore or Daniel Craig would not have been cast as Bond. And I love those Roger Moore Bond movies. But he doesn't look anything like how Bond is supposed to look like. I think Timothy Dalton is the closest but few like his movies.
We'll see how they reboot it. There was a recent story about talks with Idris Elba to have a role. Most likely the villain I would guess. Which would be the easy route. I would be surprised if they made him the new M. But I would hope he would look for a more substantial role. Or perhaps a henchman that stays around like Jaws but not as comical.
Henry Cavill is also the easy route for the next Bond. He would be good but my gut reaction is that he might be closer to Pierce Brosnan's Bond with the action.
I know how I would handle the property but they aren't creative enough or willing to take the risk to go my way. I'll just say, if you love the Bond books and the classic Connery movies plus some of want Dalton did. You'll love what I would do.
PS - I wouldn't want Fukunaga back either. Some shots were good. Maybe it was his choice or the cinematographer. But many things were out of place. And I think Fukunaga worked on the script. So no.
Of note she actually said British male. Which rules out quite a few People’s faves that have been posited on these pages. Though I suspect British is a moveable feast. After all Sir Sean might be re-designated by the time of the next film!
The unwritten rule of Bond: any guy can play Bond as long as he is British, Welsh, Irish, Scottish, or Australian.
What about NZ?
Welsh and Scottish ARE British, as are Northern Irish.
if Ozzie, why not Canadian?
Mike Myers' other spy series seems to be dormant, and the BondFilms have borrowed his "Dr Evil I am your brother" storyline anyway...
My unfounded theory is that Barbara Broccoli is just stirring the publicity pot and will continue to sporadically drop buzz-inducing statements like this to keep Bond in public thought, especially nowadays when long stretches between films have become routine.
Why would she need to do that, say, this month?
And it's less her dropping statements than it is boring journalists asking the same clickbait questions over and over. Similar to asking veteran filmmakers like Scorsese about comic book movies so they can spin the answers into some sort of faux-outrage.
BB also said Bond could be non-binary in another sound-bite. I also think a lot of this is just publicity-bait and an attempt at not alienating any potential demographic by recognizing them when these kinds of questions are inevitably brought up. That said, I do wonder what Ian Fleming, or Albert Broccoli for that matter, would think about statements like this. They are obviously from another time and Bond was created in another era but I can't help thinking at what point is Bond no longer Bond if you gradually keep stripping away all the characteristics that initially defined him.
NTTD is still out in the theaters THIS MONTH and home video will become available THIS MONTH. Would that be reason enough for BB to stir up publicity, and any kind of publicity at that? With the next chapter in the franchise being in question, it will call for longer lasting social media fodder to keep public curiosity alive, even it means hinting at a non-binary Bond.
Barbara is protecting the brand, simultaneously for its fans and among the mass market.
Case in point, Nomi. Barbara, rather incredulously, is aware there is a push by some for a female James Bond. Everybody knows her stance on this issue. But, despite her headstrong focus, Barbara and the 007 brand is still vulnerable to incessantly inane criticism where there is a pressure to become more progressive (see Doctor Who, Star Trek, Marvel, DC, various trends in video games etc...).
In my view, creating the character of Nomi was Barbara's attempt at providing a tongue-in-cheek response to demand's to make Bond more progressive; yes, Barbara gave them a female "007", but absolutely enforced at all times that "007" is a transferable title to absolutely anybody suited to the role. James Bond, however, is not. James Bond is a specific kind of man, with a particular manner, informed by a certain upbringing and class sensibilities. In short, Barbara took her cake and also enjoyed it, which works splendidly for the fandom.
The concept of Bond being "non-binary" seems to follow from this mindset. I have heard the clip of Barbara saying this and, frankly, her tone in responding to this is VERY non-committal. From what I know, the host of the podcast was a feminist, so Barbara was "open" to the idea of Bond being "non-binary" for the sake of good PR. Not to mention the fact that she goes on to say that Bond will probably always be a man, anyway.
It was the biggest "yeah, but not really, and by that, I mean hell no" i've heard since the concept of a Beatles reunion since 1980.
A five-days-before-Christmas home video release, 30 days after you dropped a Bond film that sat on shelves for almost two years (and one in which you killed off James Bond) isn't exactly the climate in which you need to "drop buzz-inducing statements like this to keep Bond in public thought, especially nowadays when long stretches between films have become routine" as you said. It's the opposite of that.
So somehow it’s the journalists who tricked BB in giving the statements that she made so she can stir faux-outrage? Those journalists are more cleaver than you give them credit for. Yes, you are correct and your insight is impeccable that there would be no commercial gain on the producers’ part to take advantage of any free media publicity because there’s no longer any potential to persuade any consumer who might consider purchasing tickets for the film’s last weeks during this holiday season, or think of gifting the home video to people on their Christmas or Hanukkah list.