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
I don't think she's ever said anything about a gay Bond though.
As it applies to changing Bond to anything but a straight, white male, her comments are diplomatic politeness.
"I think the role could easily be played by a black actor, because the character created by Ian Fleming in the Fifties has undergone a great deal of evolution and continues to be updated," Craig told the Agi news agency.
"She (Broccoli) didn't go as far as to say that the next 007 will definitively be non-white and/or a woman, but she is very much open to it, saying "anything is possible."
"These films tend to reflect the times so we always try to push the envelope a little bit. Anything is possible. Right now it's Daniel Craig, and I'm very happy with Daniel Craig, but who knows what the future will bring?"
"Craig himself weighed in on the idea of a gay Bond three years ago after a torture scene in 2012’s Skyfall sparked speculation that his take on 007 might be bisexual. "
Although some in the know including this very site have said the idea of EON selling can't be dismissed as heresay I'm inclinded to think that BB & MGW are not selling.
I feel that like @RC7 says this more likely a chance to bring the Craig era to the end and EON to pick up with a new Bond and timeline.
I kind of hope they aren't quitting because as much as some of you are getting excited about the idea and the opportunities, this series without the guardianship of the original family who bought it to the world they won't see it in the same way.
What I'm saying be it WB with Nolan etc or whoever would win the bidding, the idea that Bond is unique and just standalone I'm afraid would likely be a thing of the past.
Anyone that pays for what is likely a pretty penny is going to want to stretch the brand and do others things outside of Bond films.
Look as much as I like Craig I would like to take SPECTRE down a back alley and give it a jolly good kicking and despair at how that last film went where it did, saying that I think our Mr Bond is in the safest possible hands it can be.
This series is unique in the fact it's run mostly by one particular family with assistance from a film studio, although they get far more say than anyone else would at a studio like say Nolan if he was handed the guardianship of it.
Fair enough if you are happy with this happening and see a brave new world for Fleming's new creation because even if Nolan is bought into shepherd this, maybe directing then producing and providing storylines with his brother or whoever. It's not Nolan who will be paying for it, he might be guiding it but the real decisons will be made whoever the studio is that acquires it, they'll be taking it and doing more than just main event and Nolan will have no power to stop even if he wants to.
It comes down to whether you want Bond to stay pure to itself or you don't because it slips out of the control of it's current guardians it will then be in the hands of those that won't be so precious with your beloved James Bond.
Just look at what happened with Star Wars and Disney, it won't be a small independent that will pony up the cash for 007 it will be one of the big boys and they won't be purchasing it just to make a film every 2 - 3 years, guaranteed they'll stretch the brand as far as they can irregardless of whether Bond actually lends itself to this or not.
So lets stop acting like spoilt children because we aren't getting our own as the situation under the control of others could drift so much far away what you perceive is Bond that the recent decision made by EON will be put in the shade.
Jesus Christ. Reading anything at all from these comments is beyond me. Also, Babs saying "Anything is possible" can't be counted as facts as far as them wanting to make Bond gay/female/black.
So let's wait and see what else is in store for us. Based on the evidence to date, the only thing we can reasonably expect is the unexpected.
It's no coincidence that Craig's top comments came in an interview which talked about Obama winning the presidency. Pure politics, just like his answer to the Bond question.
That means, of course, that people would have to not take his comments at face value. Which people continuously prove to be incapable of.
The same goes for the Bond being bi-sexual. He's not. That scene was just pure mind-games. Again, unless you just take it at face value.
There's no facts there, just interpretation of politically correct answers. Even if Daniel Craig wasn't Bond - if it were some other white man - the answers would still be the same. Because it'd be rude to say otherwise.
Lets hope this is true!!
Have you ever thought that part of this is just placating people, the amount of flak BB or DC would get for saying vehmently this would not be the case.
The press seems obsessed with asking these questions all the time and you get yourself into dangerous territory when you suggest anything that challenges it.
The truth is that no one really knows what she is thinking and I think she's far more protective of it and has boundaries of where she'll take it but has to give the impression that she's open to this latest fad of taking the character away from what it was established as the publicity it would gain from the wrong answer wouldn't be good for EON.
Though fair enough if you want to use this as another reason to attack EON go ahead but the idea of doing something like this is far more likely to happen when another studio has the property than where it currently is now.
If that's true then it should stop, as it makes a mockery of Bond(!) and Fleming in the first place. Indeed the media have a big role in this as well. Fleming was the man who gave us Bond, if you extrapolate that he's God within that universe and his vision was clear and Bond his heritage (along with countless details) are clear as crystal, too. I detest political correctness and some things shouldn't be meddled with, like frontrunner Babs potentially is able to do. We as Bond fans/followers/adepts are the ones who keep things in check and that I will do until the day they carry me to the grave.
That's all well and good but unfortunately not realistic in the world we live in right now. They have to play the game. The negative reprecussions that would come from saying "no" to these things would be far too great.
Yes, Fleming would disapprove of the very notion of any of that. But Fleming isn't around anymore. That's not to say they should abandon him, au contraire. I don't want any of those things listed above for James Bond, ever.
But if the price of continuing to make Bond films is to play political correctness media-print warfare games, then that's the price we pay. I have many issues with Eon, but that most certainly isn't one of them.
A very valid point, hurts to say, but it is what it is at the end of the day.
That sounds like a slippery slope. Where will it end?
I never heard of this. The James Bond Archives or Some Kind of Hero would mention such a thing. The only alternative ending they shot had Bond kill Mr. White and interrogate Guy Haines.
Also, I can't see EON killing off Bond after he made only two movies (and I'm pretty sure Craig was contracted for a third film).
RE: Bond was hinted as bisexual in Skyfall
No, he wan't. He was mocking Silva and possibly reference the torture scene from Casino Royale. Period. Enough with BS. Don't watch movies if you're too stupid to figure out what's going on the screen.
Making it personal are we? Flagged
What about it is a slippery slope? To me, the real slippery slope would be actually implementing the changes suggested in the media.
It doesn't end because it's just politeness. Nothing more to it.
Do you think there's someone at EON reading all of this? At this point I don't know who's making the fool out of themselves, them or us. It's all very foolish. But then again, all people are.
I just said Mendes as an example. It could be Demange or one of the others. Point is, either someone valiantly swoops in and saves the film as it is, or the whole thing goes **** up.
Remember Fleming did something similar twice! Bond 'dies' in the FRWL and YOLT novels. When he wrote both those novels, Fleming intended to stop writing the novels but he was tempted back due to popular demand and money.
FRWL: Later, in Paris, after successfully delivering Romanova and the booby-trapped Spektor to his superiors, Bond meets Rosa Klebb. She is captured but manages to kick Bond with a poisoned blade concealed in her shoe; the story ends with Bond fighting for breath and falling to the floor.
YOLT:Bond eventually kills Blofeld by strangling him with his bare hands in a fit of violent rage, then blows up the castle. Upon escaping, he suffers a head injury, leaving him an amnesiac living as a Japanese fisherman with Kissy, while the rest of the world believes him dead; his obituary appears in the newspapers.
The real question is how they execute this in the final film.
It could got for Dark Knight rises cop-out:
...or go full Logan:
Time will tell. Not writing this film off just yet. Maybe they'll get the perfect no-nonsense action director on board, whoever that may be.
You're right of course, and it's way better then giving in to all those suggested changes. But... those suggestions will keep on coming and coming (with more and more pressure) if you don't push back at all I'm afraid.
But the current strategy is probably for the best.
If they kill Bond, even temporarily, I may have to consider contemplating what Craig said he'd do during the press rounds for SP.
This is really an idiotic idea imho, and played out. It's been rumoured to death (forgive the pun) in the media for over a year, so it won't be a surprise any more, but rather will be as tired as the Waltz isn't Blofeld shtick.
I know, but as long as a replacement isn't confirmed (officially) I'll live in the hope that an action director might be chosen. ;-)
@Thunderfinger Mr. White was never supposed to kill Bond in that alternate ending (Craig was indeed contracted for 3 films at the time). It was supposed to be the other way around, and the omission of that scene is what allowed White to return two films later.
EON are never going to kill Bond off, even if they end up selling.