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
Then I think with respect, you're approaching it with the wrong mindset. They've always been 'pushing the agenda' of being British, of being a supercool rich man, of reducing the exposure to tobacco products to kids etc. But when you've decided to use words like 'engineered' and 'agenda' then you're kind of just winding yourself up and no-one else, because you'll never be able to unsee things in that way. You're approaching everything from your own agenda, which is to start from the position of hostility.
I'm not sure what 'in-your-face diversity project' is. They hired a female writer for the last one (just as they did for the very first movie, incidentally), have been making the roles for the women a bit more solid recently and that was all fine in terms of increasing diversity... at what point does it become 'in your face'?
They are entertainment but they're also being beamed directly into millions of peoples' minds all around the world, and there is responsibility with that power.
There's really no such thing as 'organically bringing diversity' because these people are often from minorities- which means there's fewer of them. So you have to decide to get them. Does anyone think De Amas or Lynch or Waller Bridge were terrible choices who made the film worse? Because you don't go through an open audition process for actors and actresses and just organically discover a beautiful actress of Cuban descent. It just so happens that a lot of people would say she was the best person for the job, though.
I doubt that Mendes has thought through his suggestion thoroughly to this extent, and I doubt it's a staunch position which is definitely right or wrong, but I think there are probably some benefits to the idea. Not least, just on the more cynical side of things, of publicity.
Agreed, I think Fukunaga didn't really get the feel of Bond.
Can you name some examples, please? Both directors and franchises. I’m curious what everyone thinks.
Yeah, and I know this is subjective, but even though Spectre is perhaps not the best film in the series, it still feels more 'Bond' to me than QoS or NTTD.
Similarly with directors for films, box office draw is always going to be more important than finding a director who "perfectly gets Bond", or who absolutely most apt for the job.
Voice is too feminine, so are his looks.
100% agree on this, espicially in comparison with NTTD, in some moments NTTD feels like a film on it's own that just happens to feature James Bond
I find it regrettable that you had to bring a word like "hostility" to our little discussion because now I don't feel like adding anything to it anymore.
Sure, but as we're all saying, no-one gets hired purely because they're the best, there are always many other different factors. Pierce Brosnan didn't do Living Daylights even though they picked him! :)
And no-one is suggesting hiring anyone without talent that the producers have faith in. But there are lots of talented directors around and there isn't just one single 'best' for the job.
Oh I'm genuinely sorry, I wasn't trying to annoy you. I didn't think it was a particularly emotive or loaded word, it just describes your position on the idea doesn't it? You don't like it; you're in opposition to it. It doesn't really mean anything other than that, not to me anyway.
You are welcome to the girls you pick to go out with :P
I think if you're a white man it's very easy to believe that there's a level playing field where everything is given on merit, but it's not really true and people are trying to change it. And Eon are more high profile than most in terms of their employment decisions, they don't exist in a vacuum of pure entertainment. And in fact they may find more of a future by continuing to be progressive, because the character of Bond does represent a problem to some.
Yeah, and maybe there is an argument that a Bond director should be British; perhaps you need that sense of humour, having grown up with Roger on the telly on bank holidays etc.
I'd like to think not, but who knows.
I think for some, diversity isn't enough, 'obvious engineering' is actually of equal importance: a mission statement ahead of time or something. It's insufficient for the Bond series to be about a British secret agent (and that happens to be appropriately diverse), it should be a series that is actually about showcasing the various types of humans that exist (and is also about a British secret agent).
I mean, as majorities of people become completely comfortable with all types of people on the screen, one's virtue signalling opportunities can decline in equal measure, and that's no fun! Gotta parse it until you have conflict.
I want to see them in a remake of The Parent Trap.
Oh, I didn't and wouldn't react at all to the identity of any future Bond director.
Instead of listening to other white men lecture on the minority experience, I'd rather hear from the minorities who are in those positions. Do they feel they are being excluded from opportunities? From the few I know in my field (a very predominantly male line of work), that has not been in the case. That said, I recognize my observation does not extrapolate to all fields of work and certainly isnt a substitute as a representation of my entire field of work.
Shooting action sequences is a huge team effort under the vision of the director, the leadership of the stunt coordinator and the second unit, but having a woman’s gaze behind the camera? Potentially very seductive and romantic.
But no one is suggesting a female director would be great *instead* of an excellent director who gets Bond.
And those of us who are saying, for argument's sake, that maybe a woman *should* direct Bond, it's not because of her chromosomes or her gadgets, and for me personally it isn't even because of a diversity push; it's because Director is an artistic (albeit ambiguous) job, and women by nature have a different experience of life than a man does, and could therefore bring that different perspective to Bond, and I think that would be interesting. As Mallory said, "for the sake of variety, might we actually *hear* from [the women]?"
But of course I'm not saying a woman director *in lieu* of a good director, of course, there are excellent directors of all shapes and sizes.
I’d like to make sure I understand this correctly. Is this to say a man’s gaze can’t be “seductive and romantic?” That a woman’s is more likely to be?
See my post above, but I think all people are saying, is that women bring a different life experience to what is an artistic, expressive job, as a director.
For instance, a man can be as “feminine” as a woman, and a woman as “masculine” as a man, as people call it. Though it isn’t treated as seriously, a man can go through rape or domestic abuse as a woman can. Both men and women are victims of toxic masculinity. So on and so forth. I guess I just yearn for a day when everyone is able to look past surface qualities when it comes to things like this and everyone gets treated as an individual. Men and women both get unfairly chosen and disqualified for jobs because of their genders, and this is a significant barrier in equality.
I suppose, (and this is getting a bit off topic) but to continue to push that "both men and women have it tough" really undermines how significantly harder women have had it in society, I think.
You are right, though, things like toxic masculinity hurt both men and women, and of course, we all yearn for this day when everyone is able to look past surface qualities etc etc, but unfortunately that isn't the reality of society right now. The pendulum has swung so far towards the men, that as part of the correction, it will have to swing hard the other direction.
Bo Burnam said something great to this effect, it was something like, "it's unfair to expect the solution to unfairness to be perfect".
Oh I like that :)
And I think he did an admirable job in presenting more well-rounded female roles, and a gay character, than any other Bond film.
Actually I'll try link that interview here if I can find it, I believe it was a director's roundtable with Burnam there (because he did Eighth Grade), as well as some old guard directors and one woman (IIRC). They get into some good discussion.
EDIT: Writers, sorry.
I think this is it, really recommend everyone give it a watch:
I don’t disagree women have had and still have it harder, I know better; the abortion issue should be proof enough of that for everyone. But I don’t agree that that makes it right to downplay the problems men face too. As for the “pendulum” having to swing hard the other way, it sounds something like revenge on the surface to me. Maybe it wasn’t meant this way, but I know a lot of progressives feel this need to “get even” essentially to make things “fair,” though I don’t think two wrongs make a right. And I also think it will be much harder gaining male support for the right cause in using ways that make them feel lesser.
Absolutely not. To use a possibly overused metaphor, if I left the stove on and went out and burned my casserole, and my neighbors house is on fire, I wouldn't tell the firefighters "it's wrong to downplay the problems I'm facing too." There is triage that needs to be done, and yes, society is failing men in many ways, but it's failing women to a much higher degree and that's where the focus needs to be. I'll never be on board with these so called "men's rights activists".
And it absolutely does not have anything to do with revenge. The pendulum swinging hard in the other direction metaphor, while maybe it does sound violent when I say it like that lol, just means that we as society should work to do better to the groups of people that we have made life difficult for.