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
Well it's obviously not meant to be taken literally, but her point is that people would see a Bond no matter who (within reason of course) is playing 007, but I'm not sure that's quite true. Or rather: it helps an awful lot if they really like or enthused by the actor.
Well no, the 'final trailer' and the 'final international trailer' were released on the same day and they're different trailers.
People didn't want a blonde James Bond until they got one who absolutely killed it.
The one thing I will say, which is more to do with Lynch's personal opinion on the subject, I would agree that biggest backlash would come from making James Bond female, because that's the most drastic change anyone could make to the character.
Yeah I guess that's what she means, you're right.
Yes, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that a female Bond would be a turn-off because almost his entire character is built around his sexuality and gender. A blond or non-white James Bond is still Bond, but a female Bond isn't Bond at all.
That doesn't apply to every character- I can imagine a female version of, say, Sherlock pretty easily because he's not really defined by his gender (I'm talking the modern day Cumberbatch version) but Bond's personality (and iconography) is just too rooted in his being a man. Broccoli and Craig have both said the same thing.
Yeah, that's exactly why a man of color Bond would be fine for me but genderbending wouldn't. The character's genesis and ethos is in masculinity, good and bad. It wouldn't work tonally with a woman. Which is why I'm certain Nomi will be quite a different agent with quite different struggles than Bond or Silva.
You and I both. They casually announced a sequel a long while back but I've heard zero developments since. That one was very thrilling to me and I instantly wanted to see more after leaving the theater upon release.
I would say that a Nomi spinoff could be a potentially interesting route as she does seem like quite a cool character; but she would just be in Bond plots taking orders from M, which seems kind of pointless to me. You may as well just make a Bond film.
Yeah. I guess all the weird universe stuff that the superheroes are doing now wouldn't make it too weird, but it would feel less coherent.
Nearly 70 years on and the old misogynist with his infantile projections is finally getting the symbolic castration he has long deserved. In the much-delayed Bond movie No Time to Die, the new 007 (Nomi, played by the British actor Lashana Lynch) tells the old one: “The world has moved on, Commander Bond.” While Daniel Craig’s Bond has been furloughed, Nomi has replaced him at MI6, taking his licence to kill in the process.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
“You get in my way, I will put a bullet in your knee,” Nomi tells Bond, before adding brutally: “The one that works.” The implication is clear: British intelligence is no longer best served by a pale, male and stale former public schoolboy, but by a young woman of colour with more firepower, one imagines, than a Beretta in her stocking top. (Who knows, Nomi may even get a surname.) And she is right: the world has changed and Bond may no longer be fit for purpose.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
But it did not seem to matter that 007 was racist, sexist, homophobic and increasingly silly. Along with the Beatles and swinging London, the franchise had become one of Britain’s best sources of soft power.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
When Craig’s Bond and the Queen parachuted into the Olympic Stadium for the 2012 opening ceremony (both stunt doubles – their insurance premiums would have trebled the national debt), it was a symbolic moment. Two brands, both of which had arguably outlived their historical usefulness.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It is arguable that the descent of Her Majesty and her tuxedoed lickspittle was a sign of what was to come in British politics, possessing the same unabashed patriotism and insistence on British exceptionalism that fuelled the daydreams for which we will be paying for decades. Now the 25th Bond movie arrives in a strange new world. In 1953, Britain still had an empire. In 2015, when the last film, Spectre, was released, we were still in the EU. Today a postcolonial, post-Brexit Britain is a geopolitical nonentity: friendless in Europe, clinging to the US, and humiliated in a recent postage stamp dispute by, with all due respect, a dot in the Indian Ocean called Mauritius.
As I read that sneering tripe, I thought "That must be a Guardian piece.."
Then I clicked the link... well whadya know!
Sure...why not. Since CR, they made the Bond character more and more weak for each movie, forcing him to deal with his past, having family issues, quitting his job several times, having an inner struggle etc. And now he is a family man who can't figure women or life out.
Can’t have a suave unethical gambling self-assure single masculine womanizer roaming the silver screen anymore. I will miss you, James!
Hey LeonardPine, good to see you back! I noticed your absence here!
In all fairness, and this has been discussed ad nauseam, Ian Fleming's James Bond ended up as broken as it gets, getting bruised beyond measure, physical and emotionally. And he always, always was an ethical guided St. George, even if his ethics were somewhat out of date and fallacious. In the novels, he tried to quit his job several times, there isn't a book where he doesn't at least consider it. He had always inner struggles, carried within family issues, which the service very well used and abused for their gain, and he never quite figured women out - does anyone? - that's part of their appeal, IMMMO (that's in my married-man opinion). So I'd say this tenure has been quite Bondian, if not the sugar rush gold plated cinema hero version many are used to. I, for one, like a good balance of the two, and for now, I'm thinking NTTD has that balance nailed.
I do understand these sort of comments, they are fear-based. And that's normal, as we stand so close to an unknown future (quite redundant, that). But fear not. In Babs we trust. Or, at least, we must.
It sure does, @Birdleson, it sure does :)
Thank you, Mr. Roark ;)
After all, Sir. James Moloney had serious worries about Bond, and so did M when he called him trying to know something about his agent behind the ethical psychiatrical curtain.
James Bond was one of the first anti-heroes, one who carried with him his injuries and a sad broken side who dangled him between a life of a bon-vivant, and the one of a alcohol, substance and sex dependent.
He had clearly a borderline personality subdued by the trappings of service, by the rules and laws for Queen and Country, in place of Mom and Dad. When everything he hold dear failed, he went down the proverbial drain. That's why he always was St. George, because he had to fight for the bigger picture he lost as a Child. So it was always about family, as it always is.
As he fought an Oedipian triangulation against "bad fathers", he protect his own "motherland", and at the same time, he gathered archetypical surrogate figures around him as loyal "family" members. And when all of that failed, his foot was on the psychotic end of things, away from the neurotic safer yet obsessive ground, and he found his dependent ways to escape reality. Hence, the borderline conundrum, one foot on the reality side, the other on oblivion, to paraphrase Safin.
But hey, that's just a quick analysis from a, well, psychoanalyst ;)
That's fair. And it's the beauty of the series, we all are fans of the same things, yet of different versions of the same thing. Quite humane and beautiful, I'd say.
Thanks @Mathis1 it's nice to be missed 😁
I've had a busy few months, a change of job and other things to deal with so I just haven't had the time. Hopefully I can frequent these discussions more now I'm settled.
I've had to trawl back through all the comments I've missed, which took ages. Looking forward to seeing the new film and the reactions on here 👍
I've always assumed if this happened, it'd be a one-off (unless massively successful) between the presumably 4-5 year gap between NTTD/26.
Possibly, but I think one of the nice things about the Bond franchise is that actors overlap. It provides a sense of continuity.
So for example when M dies at the end of Skyfall it is, literally, the death of the same M that we saw in Goldeneye, under a completely different Bond. Dench’s M interacts with two different Bonds.
Similarly when Leiter disagrees with something that ate him in LTK it’s the same Leiter we saw in LALD yet Bond himself was a different actor.
And a load of other examples too, that we can all think of.
So I don’t think it really matters.
Even Judi Dench's M (in my mind anyway) is a completely different M to the one we saw in the Brosnan-era, so while it wouldn't be a massive issue to carry things over, it would bring up a lot of questions, especially since before Daniel Craig's James Bond no other actor had been given a self-contained arc.
And with Nomi herself, if her character goes through an arc herself alongside Craig's Bond, you'd be completely undoing that to then have her interact with a new 007, with who she hasn't had that same relationship, therefore is her reintroduction even necessary, because it technically wouldn't be the same person that people may love in No Time to Die.
Also, if the rumours are true, and she is 007, how would that work in terms of a new James Bond, who would also probably be 007? You couldn't just take that away from her in a reboot, because again it's not the same person. And again, Judi Dench was easier to carry over because there was nothing to be taken away from her in the reboot, where she could just be a new M, and doesn't need what came before in the Brosnan-era.