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 wonder if the mother & father tattoos are a real tradition in the service across the world? It seems like it must be.
The golden "bomb", like on my badges.
Having tattoos doesn't make someone riffraff. BUT it displays the perception of such, whether fact or not. E.g. Having a tattoo adversely affect job prospects in certain white collar careers. This could be thought of as wrong. But it is a common fact.
Very true and they CGI/ cover them up for Bond as it projects the wrong image.
Connery is the the best Bond by far and one of my all time favourite actors. But his off-screen persona and apparent women bashing (if true) would make him riffraff. Connery was common before Young and wealth educated him. Which would explain certain style choices.
I wonder if the mother & father tattoos are a real tradition in the service across the world? It seems like it must be.
Being ex-military also hurts your job prospects (worry of PTSD, etc), so people who dare to serve and have tattoos of their unit must really be screwed. There's no accounting for human error and misplaced paranoia. What a crazy world we'd live in if people got jobs simply because they were qualified for it instead of losing it all over some ink.
Yeah... it's a lot different. Silva's dialogue - written by a gay man - is VERY gay. And gloriously so.
Support this post 110%.
Hollywood has perpetuated a myth that such films don't "travel" which is bullshit but they insist on undercutting the progress of the industry and deliberately failing to create or allow for opportunities. Its insane at how uneven the landscape is. So in as much as I maintain and believe Bond should stay a white character it's not hard to fathom why some people outside of those who couldn't care less what skin colour Bond is would want to see a black Bond or whatever. Some of these people just want a platform to be able to showcase that there's a lot more to be offered than flooding the tentpole market with the typical bland and all too familiar movies with either the same interchangable white leads or mediocre talent that gets put over because of racial privelage. The white Shaft argument doesn't really work because it misses the point completely. For every Shaft there is, how many similar mainstream or well known white counterparts are there? You have your John McClaines, your dirty Harries etc where Shaft's character was created for the very purpose that @Brady's point was suggesting and who's ethnicity carries more weight to the character unlike Bond.
If Hollywood weren't too busy perpetuating lies, flexing stupid and bothered to make more of an even playing field then there wouldn't be any talk of a non white Bond or potentially race-bending characters and yet, till today ironically white washing is alive and well...white actor Zach McGowan was earlier this month cast as Hawaiian native Benehakaka “Ben” Kanahele in the upcoming WWII film “Ni’ihau." It was relatively recently that Hollywood came under fire for casting Emma Stone as an Asian/Pacific Islander and then Hollywood goes and does this and unlike Bond these are actual real people.
People who complained about the Oscars so white failed to understand the nature of the movement and why it needed to be done. Hollywood are largely still with this black-back of the bus bullshit thinking and people obviously don't appreciate that.
$75Million is the biggest budget allocated to a movie featuring black leads and a predominantly black cast and that movie was Dreamgirls; a musical which came out in 2006! Meanwhile $75Million is nothing when thrown at your average run of the mill blockbuster movie that comes out every other week. Now once again Marvel Studios has to lead the way and show Hollywood how it's done with Black Panther, a commercial blockbuster film with a budget of over $100Million. The disparity of it all is breathtaking.
*In a perfect world every white, black, asian character (etc) would have a corresponding racial actor playing them, but this isn't a perfect world. It's unfortunate that the Ghost in the Shell film didn't have an asian lead, for example, but an asian lead also isn't Scarlett Johansson and doesn't have her star power. She brings in the money, so she was picked, which is often the case with these controversies and outrage over casting. Hollywood follows the money to make profit on their massive productions that are harder and harder to keep afloat, and major stars bring in those funds. If Hollywood ran their business to meet every PC standard by releasing a blockbuster movie every year targeting to each minority-gay/lesbian, transgender, black, asian-they would be going bankrupt every week because it wouldn't make money back. We need to work to build minority stars so that they can be as profitable as the big name stars, then those movies will come that bring in the big bucks. An all black cast just blew up the Oscars, so let's not fret just yet. Unless you're going to argue that it was a delicate move by the Academy to save their asses from the previous year to give the black community a pity trophy.
People in society tire of PC agendas being pushed in their entertainment and everywhere they go, and I for one have had my fill of people telling me and other white people like me that we can't know struggle or judgement because we were born with the "right" skin color. This white privilege bullshit is exactly that, and if people of the PC brigade want to be listened to, they need to first stop acting like the very same accusers they label everybody else as. It's racist for Hollywood to cast white people in a blockbuster, but it's somehow not racist for the PC agenda-pushers to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about because I was born white? These kinds of people are treated like the triggered fools they frankly deserve to be.
We live in a world where we've had a black president in politics, where an overwhelming number of governments have finally thrown the bible out the window and respected the human rights of the LGBT community and where perceived gender and races gaps are positively fluctuating the way they should've been at the beginning of time. There's a lot of work still to be done, sure, but I don't think that the best way to make minorities feel like they matter is by making sure that movies with minority casts make big bucks at the box office. I think these people would rather have a good job and representation in politics so that real and important change could be made that actually matters in their lives. Movies and TV are changing in favor of minorities in great ways, and that'll keep coming. But it's the human rights allotted to us by our governments that should be taking precedence over anything else. Normal middle class people don't give a shit if Denzel Washington makes as much as his white co-star (he probably makes more, anyway), they worry about their own pockets and real-life families. Let's work on that, the rest will come as a bonus.
(*DISCLAIMER: I am posting as a white man who is full of shit whenever I speak on non-white issues like the above. Read at your own risk.)
I don't want Mendes back as a director again. Ever. And I want Arnold to return.
I'm not bothered really whether Craig returns or not. The lead actor for me isn't the big issue with Bond anymore. It is the silly storylines and direction, although a breaking point for me would be a daft casting choice - a black actor in the role, or a woman in the role. Basically any type of casting that goes completely against what Fleming wrote.
For TV sure but for film not so much.
And like I said, that's some people rather than a majority and as much as I agree with you, I understand why they have this mindset. If the playing field can't be evened out and if film studios refuse to make original content/chatacters its not hard to fathom why some people would want or suggest that taking an already established property and making such changes is the next best thing; and yeah they'll complain if a character like shaft gets changed because like I mentioned, Shaft is one character buried amongst an ocean of more popular white counterparts. Where changing a character like Bond is sought for overall creative progress, changing Shaft, considering the plethora of other available preexisting white characters would come off looking like it was done out if spite. It obviously doesn't make all of this right right but it's easy to see why and understand where they're coming from with that perspective.
I don't think people need various racial counterparts or are looking for a perfect world, they just want a fairer one than the one we currently have.
That's an excuse I can't ever support. I understand the business side of it as a conceptual model for films in general but it's bs. Look what happened to the film, on a budget of $110Million before M+A it only made $170Million. That's a mega flop. Where's all the money she was supposed to bring? If you can't get the appropriate leads for roles then they have no business making the film in the first place. If it's so essential to have white actors in the film then put them in supporting roles. Simple.
I agree if this was still the 1990s. Star Power isn't the same as it once was. These days it's mainly all about the studio brand (This may exclusively apply to Marvel Studios), behind the scenes talent and what the film is exactly that brings in the profits. Look at life of Pi; a beautiful film with mainly an Asian cast, an unknown Asian lead, great visual effects and directed by Angela Lee. It went on to make over $600Million!
And meeting every PC standard isn't something that's being rabbidly demanded but simultaneously people want a lot more fairness and better diversity and representation than what's currently the case.
Hollywood NEED to create opportunities and be more fair with their casting and not try to circumvent the situation with buffer casting like they usually do to try and avoid negativity. Minority actors can bring in monet, I used life of Pi as an example, then there's films like Get Out with a black lead in Daniel Kalluuya, who's relatively unknown with a $4Million budget that made over $200million. Again, all this bullshit about "minority" actor movies can't travel is a myth and absolutely false.
Not at all. Moonlight deserved the win but that's a very different situation from the point being argued. Moonlight's not a commercial blockbuster film.
I can't comment on your struggles but what I can comment on is that people are sick to death of the institutional disparity that goes on in the industry and the more than apparent lack of fairness afforded to minority talent. Yes, things shouldn't be forced but at the same time things shouldn't be as absent as they are.
Yes, a whole lot more work needs to be done but minorities arent looking to feel like they matter via being cast in mega block buster Box office juggernauts; that's not what's happening at all. The movie industry is just one aspect of a very big picture and it just so happens to be the focus being discussed. As film is such an integral part of like and helps shape the imaginative minds of people, it's only reasonable that minorities have an issue when they're not represented at all or if they're misrepresented and resigned to gross stereotypes.
Yes but that's a seperate matter entirely and even then, the situation there is not too dissimilar to positions and opportunities or lack thereof in Hollywood.
In the grand scheme of things most people don't give a shit about any comparatively superfluous things in life and that includes film and television and even then that whole family life dynamic has been worked on for long enough and yet over the decades very little traction has occurred.
Felt more camp than gay to be honest. None of Silva's dialogue states that he wants to have sex with a man. Wint and Kidd are more obviously 'gay' - hey let's call it homosexual because gay actually means a state of happiness. They hold hands with one another - obvious homosexuality - so much so that Diamonds Are Forever is now a '12'.
Change has to come incrementally, and at times Hollywood is in a tough spot to make those strategic PR moves. As I said, some films will have stars attached in the hopes that it makes loads of money, even if the project is called out for whitewashing. A film about the Great Wall of China being under siege is more easily marketable to global audiences when Matt Damon is attached than a random eastern actor that most of the world doesn't know and who doesn't have a proven box office success rate.
At times the star power isn't enough, but the obvious attempt is for studios to make as much money as possible on the brand of the actors that prove to be safe bets. Tom Cruise doesn't get massive work on a lark, it's because he's got a proven record and studios know they can toss him in anything and they'll be printing money before long. A lot of this racism being called out can be seen as business moves. They're slimy and it's a shame that casting has to operate like that, but Hollywood can't just run on pennies with minority films that fail to make any money. The big names are needed to push the product and give them some semblance of profit, and at times a whitey does have to be cast in a role that, in a perfect world, they shouldn't be.
At the end of the day, though, the entertainment world shouldn't factor into a lot of these discussions. Making a movie won't change what people see as systematic racism in the public sector, government and beyond, and none of these actors or directors from Hollywood on high are going to change it either as they accept their awards in twelve thousand dollar dresses and suits, complaining about how rough they have it in their acceptance speeches (looking at you, Meryl). All these things are distractions from real issues and real problems we see happening in the world. An all-black cast winning an Oscar won't send lasting ripples, but community programs getting wronged African American neighborhoods in touch with their police force would help to show people that the racism bloated by the media isn't as widespread in the world as it's perceived to be, and that change can happen when two groups understand one another.
We've never been in a better place, and it's only going to get better. The old bastards that helped to make such bad practices stick around will die, and soon they'll be overwhelmed and replaced by the people who grew up with the immediate knowledge that gender and skin color doesn't matter a lick. We're coming out of the stone ages, and into the kind of acceptance-driven era we've been long overdue for. In a world where Obama had two full terms and where sweeping change is happening for other minority groups, it's hard for me to be too cynical. But I am white.
I'm tired of seeing the same minority names being brought up for certain roles; I'm tired of seeing the same type of certain minority roles etc. In any case bringing things back to the ToD I think we can both agree that race/gender-bending Bond or any other long established and iconic character/role should absolutely not happen for a number of reasons. However, at the same time movies in general at the very least can make some larger and tentpole blockbuster films to portray a realistic and diverse group of inhabitants. TV is doing an incredible job and you can see the effort but film have a long way to go. Time will tell.
Hollywood will sadly only move its ass when it smells money, so it'll be on big films like Black Panther to show them that all black casts (or at least partial casts) in bigger films will be worthwhile risks that'll pay off later. It's that kind of result that'll change what we see happening now with certain representations being undervalued. It is also important to note that films in general are in a rough time, and not even proven names or genres are doing swimmingly. It's a very unpredictable time where profit doesn't come easy, and we see failures coming indiscriminately from a wide range of films and casts that you would assume would be slam dunks.
Hollywood will need to do a lot of stuff better beyond casting in the coming times, including getting better with their budgets, actually supporting original ideas, and taking risks on films and IPs that aren't surefire hits, but that would push the industry forward anyway if it pulled off. The sad thing is that the climate right now is a very static and safe one where those leaps aren't being made enough, and that's partly down to what I stated above, where the need to profit is first and foremost and any move that sustains the industry is made before any others in the name of self preservation. Like true capitalism, it's all product and profit, and how the latter can be increased by any means necessary.
Very true. I want those HBO or BBC adaptations of the novels, though.
With Paul Greengrass or Christopher Nolan i wil not visit the movie in the cinema. I even consider not watchting Bond 25 in cinema if Sam Mendes returns. Whyle i sometimes understand what there doing and enjoy QOS and DAD, last good Bond movie be The World Is Not Enough.
Watching a movie where some people be killd on stairs with to much blood, in not something i whant to see again in cinema. In my opnion Casino Royale crossing the line with this and should be R-16+ rated. After (QOS) is much more intresting then another trater story.
Skyfall is this moment 23/23, lower then Thunderball and not have update list yet with Spectre.
I think LTK had the most blood factor, but even in its case I think the content of the gore was needed for the story, and it was used to create the reality of the things Bond and those around him were facing. It's not pretty, but if Felix was shark meat, he should look like he'd just had a bite taken out of him. Kilifer's death can be argued as too much for Bond, but it fit what the story was aiming for.
I don't think Bond has stepped over the line with the violence or gore, the sin of which would be violence for its own sake. The blood and violence always has a point and function beyond the shock factor, and I love that. I also think there's nothing wrong with the films having an adult side to them, as they did in the 60s with the sexual and violent themes. These sometimes aren't movies for the kids.
I had to do a double take to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding what I was reading. We are polar opposites in our views @M_Balje!
If it was Tarantino I get that, as he really gets off on showing the action in gruesome detail. But I think what has always separated Bond in that category is that the action is there to be felt, and not as much to dazzle. When Bond is in it, he's in it and we feel the punches. I think on the whole the films have done well to keep this tone. Instead of glorying violence or making it a centerpiece, they use it to make the audience feel what Bond is. The Craig era is a great example of this. It's rough, brutal, sometimes hard to watch, and very visceral.
Other stunts are another story, but the close combat has this consistent feeling to me, though there are times when the physical action is used for jokes as well, like in the Moore films. But on the whole, it's played straight and nasty.