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’m going to bump one of my replies from earlier, because it seems to cover a bit of @slide_99 and his perspectives (even though he criticizes a film he will never watch):
@FoxRox … not at all. Just different. I honestly don’t see this conversation as “man vs woman (grrr!)”
Presently I’m knee deep in an option of a book.
Leading into this I was reading a genre where both women and men are very prolific. In this very intense and anecdotal experience of mine, I found myself drawn to most of the female writers. They collectively, yet very individually, captured something lacking in the stories that came from men. It was a different understanding of the human condition that captured characters in this genre with far more wit and sophistication (where men would often write characters more as tropes of this particular genre (but excelled in other aspects)); from that was born some genuine sexiness and romanticism definitely lacking in the other novels written by men.
One was not necessarily better than the other. However, one was far more interesting and unique, to me.
I think a talented director, who happens to be a woman, would execute a Bond film with a unique “voice” that we haven’t been exposed to all that often in the action genre….
We are entering a new era for this character. Perhaps it’s time to open up the doors to all talented people (no matter their sex, race, gender, ethnicity)… The world is a big place, and the more voices we can play with and spitball with, I think, the better. Different perspectives from different voices could definitely spur the creative rivers (and Im not implying that this means changing “who” James Bond is. The challenges (and extreme enjoyment) of script writing are there are rules to storytelling; talented writers know how to stay within the boundaries of these rules and still create unique stories. The same applies to James Bond: there are certain archetypal traits to the character, but a talented writer will know how to keep these, while presenting a fresh perspective of who this new 007 is).
?
What do you make of Phoebe Waller Bridge's involvement, and her saying that she wants to protect the classic (misogynistic, violent etc) characteristics of the character Bond, while updating the stories / characters that surround Bond?
It seems to align with your ideology because she's not looking for Bond to evolve as men have evolved... but for the stories and supporting characters to evolve along with modern times.
It wouldn't be deconstructing the character but rather making him real. If you add a bit of darkness you've got Fleming. I still think the character should be cheekier than Dalton's depiction. His performance was great but his films could have been better and his character too.
I would rather see something that doesn't scream Hollywood blockbuster despite being one. Nolan is the only one to pull off grandiose well, but he needs too much stuff to do it.
My favorite character left the building back in 1970. Since then i just show up to see what the latest interloper is doing.
As far as I know she was brought in to spice up the dialogue. To me it could have done with even more spice.
Totally, but I think there were some press interviews or something with PWB where she made clear how she should Bond / the franchise should evolve (or not evolve... hard to know which in your pyjamas...[I know that makes no sense but I couldn't resist]).
I empathize with feeling like Bond / men in general now aren’t allowed to be players. There’s definitely a noticeable lack of gratifying male heterosexuality nowadays as compared to the past, and that contradicts a big staple of what Bond’s about. And believe me, I also have had serious doubts based on what’s been said lately, and think there’s a reasonable chance the next era of Bond may not be for me either. But I do think it’s not fair to give up entirely before seeing what happens, including if a female director comes on board. Who knows, maybe she will advocate for more sex again? I like to base things on individuals as much as I can, not collective genders / groups.
I can certainly see why this is the case but it makes me a bit sad I think, hardly be it for me to speak for women, but I think all they want is consent, and also to be allowed to be players as well without being shamed and called "sluts" or whatever.
Think about how we have no real hard hitting word for "male slut", lol
And have you seen this perspective in the last 25 years in these films?
I repeat-- (since things can get lost in translation): I'm genuinely curious.
My Dad was old school and a Connery-or-nobody Bond fan (although I'm convinced he would have loved Craig); I was accepting of the other actors as Bond, but agreed with my old man's assessment that Connery was King (and we religiously watched his films on home video, over and over (and then the others).
As I "mature", I've grown a soft spot for Roger, OHMSS was always my favourite Bond film (until recently),Tim was solid, and, although I didn't really gel with Brozz, I fully know he was the right man for the job, at that time. I connected to Craig on some visceral, emotional level (that was unexpected). My point is, I've watched the evolution of this character through the changing decades, but I've never felt anything angry about the depiction of James Bond.
So I'm very interested to read what you mean...
Fuccboi.
There still are male players, they are just the strong silent types. I still want Bond to be modestly cocky, talkative and funny, but I think a woman's perspective could help make it more believable and mature in this day and age.
Yup, it should be another simple, common sense thing we’re all after here. Any amount of consensual sex shouldn’t be cared about in the least, man or woman, no one should be shamed for having 20 consensual partners a year nor for never having any partners at all.
lol yeah, fair enough. I still might argue that "fuckboy" is a fairly new term, whereas "slut" has been around probably since Eve dumped Adam and hooked up with someone else. Yeah I agree, and I just think it would be interesting enough to see it from a different perspective. It's interesting though because I imagine Bond more the strong, silent type, man of few words etc, rather than talkative, but that's just me.
Silent works if he is slightly cruel and sinister as well. Otherwise it becomes really uninteresting.
You're not reading what I'm saying. You've decided that I've said that people don't want a woman as director, but what I actually said was people have "taken issue with Mendes' suggestion that it would be good if a woman got the job". Which means, quite literally, that they have been upset by his statement. That's what this conversation is, discussing his statement, and some have objected to it. Which is not the same thing as them thinking that a woman shouldn't do it, and at no point have I said they have thought that, much as you're trying to frame it that way. What they are taking issue mainly with is the idea of selecting someone based on their gender. That's what's caused the huffing and puffing. Which is, let me repeat, taking 'issue with Mendes' suggestion that it would be good if a woman got the job'.
I hope that's cleared it up for you.
That is indeed it, but Prof Joe has the wrong end of the stick about what I've been saying.
Well there's one for Joe I guess if that's what he's really after. I disagree entirely with this and I don't agree with calling the feminist perspective 'angry'.
As for evolving, I'd say that Bond has been evolving the mid-70s onscreen; we haven't seem him kiss a lesbian until she likes it or smack around a bikini-wearing bimbo since then - and I actually tend to think Guy Hamilton's 70s movies were even a bit of a backward step from where even the 60s Bond movies had moved to at that point. Roger's Bond became more human and caring (ironically for one who became more known for pressing buttons and being a smarmy superspy) and the character has been moving slowly that way ever since. I don't think the character stopped being Bond 40 years ago at all.
Feminism seems to have a different definition for every person, unfortunately. And just like every single other group of people on the planet, there are "good" feminists and "bad" feminists.
For me, feminism simply means: the pursuit towards men and women having equal freedoms, rights, and opportunities (not made up by me). And we're definitely not there yet.
I think you're right. I didn't mean to suggest she was brought on for that reason, I was just wondering what Birdleson's opinion was on her thoughts on Bond.
The optimist in me dares to challenge if it really is a lot, or just a vocal minority. But who knows.
“A lot” is a purposefully vague term. I’m not saying “most,” just plenty to where it’s an unfortunately noticeable issue hurting the image and true progress.
I sure you're right (wasn't she suggested by Craig himself?); I imagine there was probably an angle to it where they thought it would be quite good publicity too though, being a high profile name as she is. The quality of the film itself comes first and she'll have been hired because she's a good writer, but I think often these script doctors don't even get a credit, let alone get a mention in the newspapers. I'm sure they want to make sure Bond appeals to as many people as possible.
100%.
I agree, it's not a black and white issue. As for what a woman could bring to a Bond film creatively... it really depends on the potential director. I mean, someone like Kathryn Bigelow would likely make a different Bond movie than a director like, say, S. J Clarkson or Lesli Linka Glatter, even with the same script. The latter two are television directors (very much, 'for hire' directors, used to working quickly on shows that involve them picking up from other directors and fulfilling a set creative vision) and even then both have worked on different types of shows. Bigelow is also a different type of director too, having worked on films of different genres. I suspect the producers will look at the potential director's filmography alongside their own vision for Bond 26.
In this sense, I can understand why it would be limiting to only consider female directors, and I do think it misses the point of looking for a director for the next Bond film. Not that anyone outside these forums has suggested it (Mendes didn't). It's clearly a... well, contentious issue, haha.