The future of James Bond

johnny_ultimate

Drumpot wrote: »

They could just as easily make Bond a woman.

They couldn’t, actually. A certain old-fashioned, shall we say ‘traditional’ masculinity is baked into the foundations of Bond, that has persisted across the regular changes in actors and approaches to the series.

With a black Bond, there’d be little need to change such characteristics unless they wanted a fresh start creatively (frankly needed at this stage in quite a stale series)... but in theory Elba or anyone else could fill the role written for, say, Craig without much alterations being needed (allowing for the inevitably different interpretations from two different actors). These broad stroke characteristics couldn’t be translated to an actress without more radically changing their meaning or interpretation, or - if things stayed pretty much the same - making a curious and radical statement in the process (I’d be fascinated to see it, I hasten to add). Which isn’t to say that it couldn’t or shouldn’t be done in the future... just straight-up replacing any of the existing Bond performances with a woman would alter the text quite significantly, whereas if it was a black actor the only thing that would change is the skin colour of the character and the specifics of the performance itself (potentially some of the cultural contexts would shift as well, but on a reasonably minor scale).

A woman can of course be a charming, hyper masculine, hard hitting womaniser... but I think it’s fair to say that character would be a pretty bold step for a major Bond blockbuster even in 2018

Tony EH

Speaking as a non Bond fan, I really couldn't care less about the franchise (even if I do enjoy a few of the films here and there), but people expect to see certain things when they go to a Bond film. Bond fans are used to seeing Bond as a straight, white, British, male, who is a spy working for MI6.

That's been the ONE constant in decades of movies. Change that and I'll guarantee it'll cause ripples amongst Bond fans, to put it mildly. And it's not because of "racism", or "sexism" or any other "ism" that popular to throw at people. It's simply because they are primed to see that single unifying factor in a film series that essentially reboots itself every few years, or so.

If people want to see a non-straight, white, British "Bond", make a new spy series, that features someone like that and see if it has its own legs. Bond doesn't NEED a sex, nationality or race change, just for the sake of it.

MayoSalmon

pixelburp wrote: »

So what if it's "political correct"? In all the time I've seen that term thrown around I've never once seen a single coherent explanation of why this is somehow, explicitly a bad thing. What precise thing leaves people the lesser for just switching Bonds race.

Well there is definitely varying degrees of PC however when most people speak about Political Correctness there are usually referring to the direct impact on freedom of speech and expression which is constantly attacked once somebody gets "Offended".

It is in this form a dangerous thing especially when PC liberals starting writing laws to protect peoples "feelings" under the guise of hate speech or whatever fad term you want to label it as.

El_Duderino 09

MayoSalmon wrote: »

pixelburp wrote: »

So what if it's "political correct"? In all the time I've seen that term thrown around I've never once seen a single coherent explanation of why this is somehow, explicitly a bad thing. What precise thing leaves people the lesser for just switching Bonds race.

Well there is definitely varying degrees of PC however when most people speak about Political Correctness there are usually referring to the direct impact on freedom of speech and expression which is constantly attacked once somebody gets "Offended".

It is in this form a dangerous thing especially when PC liberals starting writing laws to protect peoples "feelings" under the guise of hate speech or whatever fad term you want to label it as.

Ah. You could equally say the offended party here is the group who couldn’t tolerate a non white Bond. Elba could make a good bond but the PC thing to do is cast a white Bond to pacify those who might be ‘offended’ in one way or another by a non white Bond.

Drumpot

pixelburp wrote: »

So what if it's "political correct"? In all the time I've seen that term thrown around I've never once seen a single coherent explanation of why this is somehow, explicitly a bad thing. What precise thing leaves people the lesser for just switching Bonds race.

And the comparison in another post about Black Panther doesn't track, considering that film was explicitly ABOUT black Africa(ns),l and cooonialism, race was integral to the story. The James Bond franchise is about product placement. Let's be brutally honest here - there is no story, no arc, no characterisation, just wish fulfillment by way of a 90 minute advert for Sony, Tom Ford et al...

Forcing people to digest political statements at the expense of a much loved, in this case childhood character will lead to resentment. Look at how some fanboys reacted to Star Wards when they tried to change elements of the mythology. I don't see any difference here. There was blowback on Craig because of his hair, but like mentioned as soon as the movie was accepted as an improvement people accepted it. The problem is that, like Ghostbusters, many of the politically correct statements being made don't add or even match the original material. As such people are extremely dubious of any decisions to make drastic changes to an already existing universe.

I didn't make the Black Panther statement and actually think that's a perfect example of where an original character was so successful and popular for the right reasons.

You can say "people shouldn't care" or something to that affect, but people care about original material and movies/franchises they love. So whether its changing race, gender or mythology you will get a reaction when you threaten the perceived continuity or quality of the world you are changing.

And in terms of political correctness, changing the gender/race of a character, like in this example, is a political statement. Asking people whats wrong in a "are you racist/sexist" sort of way is implying its politically incorrect to even question the change in character/story. When a studio is saying "Look, James Bond is black, we can be down with this sort of stuff" it doesn't feel progressive or for the good of the story. And lets not pretend the success of Black Panther wouldn't of played a role so lets not pretend the studios are all about doing whats right . . There is no chance we would be even discussing it in the 80s so its a political statement in an age when equality and race is facing a huge political shift.

Sad Professor

Bond is a British imperialist white male fantasy whose adventures usually involve him riding roughshod through former European colonies as if colonialism never ended while screwing their women. Why any black person would want a black man to play him is beyond me.

I used to be critical of how Mendes returned the character to his roots, but I've come around to it. Bond should stay a white misogynist as a reminder of what his character always represented. There's a growing audience of nativist nationalists for this kind of thing anyway.

Elba deserves better than Bond. Give him his own original franchise in which the villain is a Bond-like character. I want to see him beat the crap out of Bond and blow up MI6.

Dividend Accrual

Sad Professor wrote: »

Bond is a British imperialist white male fantasy whose adventures usually involve him riding roughshod through former European colonies as if colonialism never ended while screwing their women. Why any black person would want a black man to play him is beyond me.

I used to be critical of how Mendes returned the character to his roots, but I've come around to it. Bond should stay a white misogynist as a reminder of what his character always represented. There's a growing audience of nativist nationalists for this kind of thing anyway.

Elba deserves better than Bond. Give him his own original franchise in which the villain is a Bond-like character. I want to see him beat the crap out of Bond and blow up MI6.

If anything Bond is a misandrist, his treatment of men is far worse than his treatment of women. An orgasm is generally preferable to bullet in the head.

MayoSalmon

Sad Professor wrote: »

Bond is a British imperialist white male fantasy whose adventures usually involve him riding roughshod through former European colonies as if colonialism never ended while screwing their women. Why any black person would want a black man to play him is beyond me.

.

All people bound by similar skin tone should have a collect group think on certain issues pertaining to race, is that the thought process here?!

Very strange logic.

Avatar MIA

Tony EH wrote: »

Bond doesn't NEED a sex, nationality or race change, just for the sake of it.

But can you imagine the explosion of praise it would get, 'brave', 'forward thinking', 'of it's time'. It would definitely appeal to some execs. Will it be enough to dissuade more traditionalists than new target market from going to the cinema?

As for Black panther being different, because it's set in Africa etc ... Has anyone read Flemming's books and seriously make this argument? A black Bond could not be cannon.

But, if you're going to go mad, make it a female Bond, where Bond still beds the ladies

Sad Professor

MayoSalmon wrote: »

All people bound by similar skin tone should have a collect group think on certain issues pertaining to race, is that the thought process here?!

Very strange logic.

Good thing I didn't say that then.

GreeBo

Tony EH wrote: »

Speaking as a non Bond fan, I really couldn't care less about the franchise (even if I do enjoy a few of the films here and there), but people expect to see certain things when they go to a Bond film. Bond fans are used to seeing Bond as a straight, white, British, male, who is a spy working for MI6.

That's been the ONE constant in decades of movies. Change that and I'll guarantee it'll cause ripples amongst Bond fans, to put it mildly. And it's not because of "racism", or "sexism" or any other "ism" that popular to throw at people. It's simply because they are primed to see that single unifying factor in a film series that essentially reboots itself every few years, or so.

If people want to see a non-straight, white, British "Bond", make a new spy series, that features someone like that and see if it has its own legs. Bond doesn't NEED a sex, nationality or race change, just for the sake of it.

I think forcing a straight, white, british actor to play Bond is an -ism, its Bondism (if you'll pardon the term) and Im fine with that.

Its a bit like casting a Gingerbread man in the titular role of The Snowman and arguing that he can just as easily act the same parts...Im sure he can, but it wouldnt be The Snowman.

MayoSalmon

Sad Professor wrote:

Good thing I didn't say that then.

Pretty sure I quoted what you said..

conorhal

Sad Professor wrote: »

Bond is a British imperialist white male fantasy whose adventures usually involve him riding roughshod through former European colonies as if colonialism never ended while screwing their women. Why any black person would want a black man to play him is beyond me.

I used to be critical of how Mendes returned the character to his roots, but I've come around to it. Bond should stay a white misogynist as a reminder of what his character always represented. There's a growing audience of nativist nationalists for this kind of thing anyway.

Elba deserves better than Bond. Give him his own original franchise in which the villain is a Bond-like character. I want to see him beat the crap out of Bond and blow up MI6.

Yeah, yeah, we get it, you're 'finna woke', but you're also absolutely correct Bond is the epitomie of chauvinist (misogynists hate women, Bond does not) patriarchal, class based elitist, male fantasy wish-fulfilment.
As much as people like to pretend otherwise or simply not admit it, that's Bond's character to the core. If he's not that, he's not Bond.

People complaining that' it's time' for a female Bond or a POC Bond are really just people like youself that don't actually like James Bond.
So why are some (not you obviously) insisting a character be changed into some bland virtue signal in a suit who is not James Bond?

IMO it's because they're just resentful and have no interest in doing anything other then taking a swipe a 'straight white men'.
Why not ask for a Felix Leiter movie or a spin-off 008 agent of color, or actually just be honest and campaign to 'ban Bond' all together as the epitome of 'toxic masculinity'?

I suspect they campaign for 'black Bond' like a broken record because they're not interested in representation so much as a win, that sort are never happy with representation unless it's achieved by taking something they don't even like or care about away, from people they resent, as some kind of 'cultural reparation' scalp or trophy in the culture war.
Not exactly the kind of motivation you want in creative control of a property that's for sure. These kind of people should be roundly told to piss off rather then entertained and pandered to, otherwise Bond will just be another franchise that gets woke and goes broke.

mikhail

I see Bond as being (a) British and (b) male wish fulfillment. I don't really see the British national identity as being exclusively white any more, and agree with johnny_ultimate - it'd be a much smaller change to choose a non-white actor than an actress. I'd certainly be taken aback if they chose, e.g. Chris Pine over a black English actor. Was Brosnan controvertial in his time? I don't remember, but then the internet wasn't as mainstream so the fan hysteria over this stuff was less visible.

Goodshape

When Bond started in the 50s/60s it might have been unreasonable to assume a person of colour could play the role of a seemingly wealthy, upper class, sophisticated, British spy.

It's simply not unreasonable anymore. Idris Elba is a seemingly wealthy, upper class, sophisticated, British spy guy. He'd be great in the role.... although, maybe, a little old now :-(

Royale with Cheese

I think Elba would be pretty good at it. He has the style, charisma + looks required. However he's too old now for a good run at the role, and I think casting another black British actor purely for the sake of it would be ridiculous.

Goodshape

Well while we've all been talking he's apparently confirmed he's not taking the role – https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/movies/idris-elba-confirms-he-wont-be-the-next-bond/news-story/9a5038bbf493a08062c5d649cbf36b26

mewso

As a Bond fan I would have no problem with the likes of Elba getting the role. Outside of the extremes on both sides screaming at each other on twitter if it's a good actor then fine. I would have serious misgivings if the role went to a female simply because it makes no sense. A male person of colour (is that what we have to say these days) being a secret agent makes perfect sense. Its a job and he gets trained and hired for it because he has the skill to do it. People get too mired up in disliking something just because it's a supposed victory for the other side of the argument. Sit in the middle like all sensible people and take it on its merits.

Some people want an all female Ghostbusters? Who cares about which side brought it about, the motivations etc.? Is the movie good or bad?

The BBC want a female Doctor Who. Time to go on the warpath against this pandering. Who cares ffs? Is she good or bad in the part? Does it work or not?

Tony EH

mewso wrote: »

Is the movie good or bad?

This IS all that should matter.

However, these forced sex and race changes are usually the front and centre promotional item and whether the product is actually good or not takes a back seat, while the bleating about such, so called "progressive", attitudes are trumpeted, with a wagging finger delivered to those who aren't loudly on board from the get go.

'Ghostbusters' was a perfect example of this. Too much was made of "Look, it's all women now, aren't we great...look, it's women! Women are great. That's means we're great too. Aren't we great! If you don't think new 'Ghostbusters' is great, then you're an -ist of some sort."

The film was still absolute shite though. Because the only concept was a sex change and the final goal was a cash in on an already familiar title.

This is why, when studios lead with a sex/race change concept for the latest instalment of an already familiar franchise, before anything else is established, people roll their eyes.

And they're completely correct to do so.

Dades

I've been a huge Bond fan since I was a kid. All I ask in any new casting is that Bond is male, and young enough to get a decent run of movies before bowing out. Changing every few movies isn't good for continuity. Give me Chiwetel Cjiofor, or Henry Cavill and I'll be happy.

All I ask in terms of plot/tone is that Bond remain a rogue ladies man, equipped with gadgets and has a sense of humour. Otherwise the franchise is in danger of completely morphing into the other JB - Jason Bourne. (It could be argued the Mission Impossible movies have more in common with Bond of old, than the latest offerings do...)

Sal Butamol

Why is there such an interest in casting a black actor for the role of character that is the son of a Scottish father, Andrew Bond, of Glencoe, and a Swiss mother, Monique Delacroix, of the Canton de Vaud and who attended Eton?

It is preposterous.

Hurrache

Adoption.

loyatemu

Sal Butamol wrote: »

the son of a Scottish father, Andrew Bond, of Glencoe, and a Swiss mother, Monique Delacroix, of the Canton de Vaud and who attended Eton?

most people watching the movies don't give a damn about these details & I'm sure black and asian people have attended Eton.

British, well-educated, suave ladies man, looks good in a tux, badass - these are the important characteristics (I still think Elba's too old though).

Varik

Dades wrote: »

I've been a huge Bond fan since I was a kid. All I ask in any new casting is that Bond is male, and young enough to get a decent run of movies before bowing out. Changing every few movies isn't good for continuity. Give me Chiwetel Cjiofor, or Henry Cavill and I'll be happy.

Would rather another The Man from U.N.C.L.E instead if it was Cavill.

GavRedKing

Dades wrote: »

All I ask in terms of plot/tone is that Bond remain a rogue ladies man, equipped with gadgets and has a sense of humour. Otherwise the franchise is in danger of completely morphing into the other JB - Jason Bourne. (It could be argued the Mission Impossible movies have more in common with Bond of old, than the latest offerings do...)

The first 3 Bournes and the latest MI's have been better, IMO, than pretty much any recent Bond.

Bourne has substance to it that Bond just doesnt have, IMO, it plays the super assassin card in a more gritty tone, with an interesting back story and context that should have been wrapped up with the 3rd film and on the opposite end, MI's serve us with the insane stunts and stunning locations that have blown Bond out of the water, Cruise for all his personal madness, knows how to get a good MI done, except for II that was awful.

I like the Bond franchise but I've got seriously no interest for another outing with Daniel Craig as Bond

SimonTemplar

GavRedKing wrote: »

The first 3 Bournes and the latest MI's have been better, IMO, than pretty much any recent Bond.

Bourne has substance to it that Bond just doesnt have, IMO, it plays the super assassin card in a more gritty tone, with an interesting back story and context that should have been wrapped up with the 3rd film and on the opposite end, MI's serve us with the insane stunts and stunning locations that have blown Bond out of the water, Cruise for all his personal madness, knows how to get a good MI done, except for II that was awful.

I like the Bond franchise but I've got seriously no interest for another outing with Daniel Craig as Bond

I agree with everything except the last line. I would like to see one more movie from him because even if the scripts isn't very good, I think he himself is quite good in the role. So it is a gamble of a 50/50 chance of a good script with a proven good actor or a 50/50 chance of a good script with a new actor who might not be as good as Craig.

The only problem I would have with Elba is that he is probably a little too old for the role now especially if they want the actor to remain with the series for about 10 years or so.

I wouldn't be keen on a female Bond simply because it would fundamentally change the nature of the character (unlike Doctor Who whose masculinity was never really a defining attribute of the character).


As I said before, I'd love a female 00 agent such as Gillian Anderson. It seems like a perfect opportunity to build a successful universe that so many studios crave now.

Dades

Sal Butamol wrote: »

Why is there such an interest in casting a black actor for the role of character that is the son of a Scottish father, Andrew Bond, of Glencoe, and a Swiss mother, Monique Delacroix, of the Canton de Vaud and who attended Eton?

It is preposterous.

Part of me wants to agree, but we don't own Bond.

That backstory was never really mentioned on the screen until very recently. Roger Moore never raised an eyebrow at anyone referring to his childhood. With the exception of Bond historians, it wouldn't be missed.

Varik wrote: »

Would rather another The Man from U.N.C.L.E instead if it was Cavill.

I enjoyed that, but I'd forgo a sequel to see him as 007.

MarkAOReilly

James Bond is sort of an outdated character in my eyes.

They need to do something new with him so a bold casting choice would be welcome.

Dades

MarkAOReilly wrote: »

James Bond is sort of an outdated character in my eyes.

They need to do something new with him so a bold casting choice would be welcome.

There are certain tropes that have to be retained maintain any identity for the franchise.

If you do something totally new with Bond... then surely it'll turn into Jason Bourne/Ethan Hunt/Jack Reacher... or just a generic spy action movie.

alchemist33

Dades wrote: »

I've been a huge Bond fan since I was a kid. All I ask in any new casting is that Bond is male, and young enough to get a decent run of movies before bowing out. Changing every few movies isn't good for continuity. Give me Chiwetel Cjiofor, or Henry Cavill and I'll be happy.

All I ask in terms of plot/tone is that Bond remain a rogue ladies man, equipped with gadgets and has a sense of humour. Otherwise the franchise is in danger of completely morphing into the other JB - Jason Bourne. (It could be argued the Mission Impossible movies have more in common with Bond of old, than the latest offerings do...)

I agree with this. I see Bond as male, hypersexual and British. British doesn't mean white anymore so I wouldn't have to suspend disbelief at a black actor. If Bond was a woman or gay he wouldn't be Bond anymore.