It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Cretins. Just to upset the little dears, Bond needs to start acting like he does in the books. Don't like Bond just for being a white man? Then wait until you hear his views on women agents in the field.
I don't see what point you're trying to make? Connery is from another era, there's a difference between him talking about hitting women years ago and somebody doing it today. Are you saying things shouldn't have changed and we should be okay with men openly admitting to hitting women? Not trying to accuse you of that I just don't know what to make of your comment. What you're basically saying is "attitudes have changed", and not sure if you're trying to imply that's a bad thing.
Respectfully, I don't see a bit of trying to condone, only a simple observation that is accurate.
If today there was an actor being considered for the role and he was on record saying what Sean had said, chances are he would not be cast.
+1
Especially because people love connery as bond and think he’s perfect for the role.
Personal life should be kept separate from art if you think connery is a good bond.
For me it depends on context. Connery is an old man from another time, that's excusable. But if a young actor today was going around saying it's fine to slap your wife/girlfriend around then that isn't the same thing.
It's the "personal life should be kept separate from art" concept that's led to Roman Polanski getting away with rape. If I went on social media and started going on about how I hit my wife, but only with an open hand, I'd get in trouble at work because the company wouldn't want to be associated with someone like me. Celebrities should live by the same rules as the rest of us imo. Don't care how good an actor they are, they shouldn't be able to get away with whatever they like. As I said, different story in Connery's day because he's from a generation where that was more common. But now? No excuse. And I wouldn't blame EON for not wanting the franchise tied to that sort of person.
I do see your point. All it takes is a misjudged comment or a joke to be taken the wrong way and an actor could be blacklisted. But I think you should have picked a less severe example than "it's fine to hit women".
Why is that not an acceptable answer? I don't think it's hard to understand. Older generations have some outdated beliefs, doesn't mean those beliefs should be seen as fine now, nor does it mean going back and erasing those people from history. Connery shouldn't be demonised for it but equally, an actor today saying the same thing wouldn't be a comparable situation because the world has changed.
There's a difference. It's like the difference between an older person innocently using an outdated word and instances of actual verbal racism. You wouldn't want an old white lady who still thinks blacks are called "coloured" to get in trouble would you. But that doesn't mean we should excuse an uneducated dickhead being abusive to every black guy he meets on the street.
More generally, I try to separate the personal from the professional. At the end of the day if what someone does is illegal they can be dealt with by the law. If it's just morally questionable or inappropriate, then I couldn't care less. I'm not here to pass moral judgment on their personal life. As an example, I have no interest in what Tom Cruise gets up to with his pseudo religion. That's up to him. I'm glad he makes decent films that entertain me and I wouldn't want to lose that.
I think the problem lies in that many people get away with misconduct (not the jucial term, but from misbehaviour even to murder) because of their social status. I can still see the beauty of the work someone has made, but that doesn't mean he/she should not be punished exactly the same way as a non-artist would. So in Polanski's case you may enjoy the fact that he's still making films, but at the same time that's condoning that there's no fair legal system and all are not equal under the law. Knowing that would actually spoil my enjoyment of any art. If he was punished like he should've been (and in his case it wouldn't have been life in the first place) it would've been fine. But now you're basically saying 'I don't care about him destroying the life of a thirteen year old girl, because he makes very good films'. Who knows what talents this young girl might have had?
(the 'you're saying' here is meant in a conversationally manner, not as an insult or blaming)
Well said
That’s what I’m trying to say
Well in the case of Polanski he was sentenced, but he got away in time because he found out in time the sentence was more harsh than he anticipated. All in all, it wasn't the public, but the American justice system sentencing him.
That's something completely different from i.e. Kevin Spacey, where allegations apparently are enough to end the man's career.
When we track it back to Connery, it would be interesting to see what he'd say now about his words back then. Back then it wasn't outrageous or strange, but we wouldn't condone that now. And then again it's only an opinion, not the execution of the deed. All in all, way too little to condemn a man about. I completely disagree with Clint Eastwood's political views, but that doesn't make his films bad.
Isn't that exactly the US'Judicial system? Isn't every person supposed to do jury duty? ;-)
Regarding Connery: If he made those comments today I still wouldn't judge him on it (even if I disagree). Everything is about context and meaning. Just as Matt Damon was recently (and unfairly) vilified for opining on #MeToo, I think only when someone is put within a judicial system and asked to clarify can one understand fully what was done and what one's intention is and was. Apart from that it's just an opinion and he is entitled to it.
I realize it's become fashionable to have a go at anything American these days, but I think the system as devised is fine. However, it wasn't designed to operate in such a politically charged & polarized environment, where everything is weaponized and taken to extremes of thought and opinion to deliberately sow discord. In such an environment, even the judiciary may become ineffective, potentially compromised and unable to operate impartially. That's a scary thought.
I think, when there's a lot of money involved, the powers that be are not that inclined to follow the path of fairness at all. Why would a big corporation's manager care about the plight of a 13y/o girl if there's millions to be made? Polanski isn't the only one hiding in plain sight.
Other thne that I think were're mostly in agreement.
and my jab on the American judicial system I could make on England's as well, I just don't like the jury system. But that's a completely different discussion all together.
EDIT: I would just like to add that I agree with you that in the US (and in some colonizing European countries for that matter) it's ultimately money that makes the world go round. Follow the money and you will find the source of the problem. That's the case with the gun situation being debated on another thread too. It's just big business, that's all.
Cillian Murphy odds slashed on taking over from Daniel Craig as James Bond.
Cillian Murphy could soon be taking on one of the most coveted roles in cinema to replace Daniel Craig as James Bond.
The Irish actor, 41, has had his odds slashed from 33/1 to 12/1 to play the iconic 007 agent after it was reported Danny Boyle is in talks to direct Craig’s final outing as the British spy.
Jessica Bridge of Ladbrokes said: “Boyle and Murphy have collaborated in the past, and the betting suggests punters are putting two and two together for the next 007 film.
“Fans of Peaky Blinders would love to see Tommy Shelby become James Bond.”
Boyle and Murphy previously collaborated on 28 Days Later and Sunshine.
Variety reported earlier this week that Boyle has long been a favourite of MGM and Eon to helm Bond 25. The franchise has a history of directors working on multiple titles including Sam Mendes, Terence Young and Guy Hamilton.
Tom Hardy, who starred alongside Murphy in hit BBC show Peaky Blinders, recently had his odds slashed to take over from James Norton in the race to play the famous spy.
Hardy and Norton are the current joint 3/1 favourites. Fellow actor Jack Huston is the third favourite with odds of 6/1.
Norton previously shut down talk of taking on Bond, telling fans to “keep you money in your pockets” after he became the odds on favourite to replace Craig in the wake of his role in BBC spy drama, McMafia.
Speaking to Radio Times in December he said: “It’s really humbling and flattering, but to have my name [talked up for Bond] next to the likes of Tom Hardy and Michael Fassbender is just mad.
“If you’re thinking of putting a bet on me, keep your money in your pocket.”
The latest odds come weeks after Craig confirmed his return to the role after months of speculation. The actor has enjoyed four outings as the British spy in Skyfall, Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and Spectre.
Announcing the news on US chat show The Late Show, he told host Stephen Colbert: “I just want to go out on a high note, and I can't wait.”
The as-of-yet untitled 25th film is set for release in November 2019.
Especially with that face!
Tomorrow it will turn out that Elvis Presley faked his death, will be coming out of hiding and will return to motion picture acting at the age of 83 to replace Craig as 007.
I agree that Murphy is not the man for Bond. Too slight.
Do tell. ;)