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
Sigh. Different media, Deke, different media. I hope that helps.
Spin-offs: They rarely work, and would need some strong writing for our side characters.
Modernization: A more tech-savvy spy, more philosophical, immense skillset (I was thinking he could have the best photographic memory in the service) etc.
Isn't NSNA a movie now? ;)
Not particularly interested in being spoken to like that. What reading then did tell me however, is that an awful lot of things have changed between book and screen without the world ending, including the physical description of Bond himself, several times. I think seeing just his skin colour as ‘culture’ is a little odd.
Well, we've had SF with Bond's 'what makes you think this is my first time?' which gets Silva to back off. Not quite the same (Craig plays that part of the scene with a 'gritted teeth' vibe which tells you how Bond feels in that moment) but I think that worked. The only time I can imagine Bond needing to 'seduce' a man would be in such a perilous situation with a villain, and I don't think it would go beyond dialogue. And it'd be very much for Bond's survival and for ulterior motives.
Anyway, I'd say no to Bond swinging both ways. In the academic sense of the word I'm not sure there's all that much that's 'Queer' about Bond as a character (despite his profession and lifestyle being somewhat out of the norm) that would give room for that creative decision in a way that adheres to but builds upon the fundamentals of the character's personality. But that's just me.
5 words guaranteed to drive a steak through the heart of an already dormant IP. Want to revive an IP for a new audience that won't even show up? Just slap those 5 words onto a press release, and then blame the OG fans on release.
Yeah, whereas I can see a situation where he would do it, I don’t think I could imagine him taking pleasure in it as he does when he beds all of his women. It would be different, probably a bit crueller than his normal seductions and more clearly for ulterior motives as you say. But, I dunno, that SF moment did make me think that a more perhaps ‘open-minded’ Bond would be fine.
It's pretty much what destroyed BBC's Robin Hood from the beginning.
Robin of Sherwood added a Muslim character in the 80s, imagine how we’d never hear the end of that today because everyone is being told to hate. We’ve gone backwards.
There were people complaining that the Christmas Blankety Blank on BBC One had a drag queen on as a contestant. 20 years ago it was being hosted by Lily Savage.
I remember that scene from SF getting a bit of criticism at the time for different reasons. I'm sure it still does. On the one hand it makes a bisexual villain look like a psychopathic murderer/abuser, which isn't an uncommon trope, and bisexuality hasn't always been depicted positively in Bond. So yes I can see why people would have issues with it. On the other some people didn't like the implication that Bond swung both ways. I don't think that's what was going on at all. It's more about the power play between Silva and Bond in a very dangerous situation. It's sexualised in this scenario, but it's not a million miles away from, say, Bond trying to play to Goldfinger's ego/bargain with him in the novel's Pressure Room scene with Bond. And Bond really looks uncomfortable and even shows anger immediately after getting untied in the SF scene so there's nothing innately curious or pleasurable about the interaction.
For me it's a pretty out there scene, but it pretty much adheres to the fundamentals of the character and these stories (for better or for worse!) So I think that justifies it. At the very least it's a dark twist on typical Bond/villain interactions.
Reminds me of this Morgan Freeman quote:
I quite like that approach.
Do they ever literally say that though? Did anyone say that putting Nomi in NTTD was an exciting slap to the face of the establishment? That giving Indiana Jones his fourth female sidekick, just like the other ones, was a revolution? I don't remember those things being said, and yet I do remember all of the grifters on YouTube trying to suggest that men are being replaced, and lots more racist and sexist stuff. They may have said those characters were strong, or new to the series, but what's wrong with that? Are film promoters supposed to downplay the big new movie they're trying to sell?
There was an Indiana Jones videogame out recently: all that the makers ever said about that was that it would be old-school Indy fun which would try and capture the spirit of the movies etc. - they put out a making-of video which featured several of the people making the game. One of those happened to be a trans person -nothing was mentioned about that, no line was drawn between the identity of this person and the game- and all of those grifters made their nasty little videos saying how the new game was 'woke' and destroying Indiana Jones etc. just because of the few seconds of that person being visible onscreen in a behind the scenes video. Absolutely pathetic and hideous. They don't need a reason to launch their attacks, they'll find anything.
Imagine this poster coming out today for the next Bond film:
Would that be taken as the 'pro' side saying how modern they are, 'us against them'?
You know it would be, those grifters would take it as some sort of provocation: a black woman being suggested as James Bond's match?! How dare they!!!!
And yet it's all part of history now, it wasn't a problem, and the intention at the time wasn't to start a massive hate campaign from weirdos, just to promote the film and make it look exciting. That's why I'm saying we've gone backwards. This poster would be taken as a declaration of war and a thousand YouTube videos would be launched with thumbnails of Roger Moore or Daniel Craig in an unflattering photo with googly eyes drawn on, it's pathetic. This poster doesn't show the bad attitude which you suggest, but it would certainly be accused of that thinking now, because peoples' viewpoints are discoloured by being told to hate all the time.
Funny to see Freeman come up: of course the Azeem character he played in Robin Hood Prince of Thieves was vaguely based on the Nasir character from Robin of Sherwood I was mentioning above (and almost caused a lawsuit as a result!). Again, a Muslim character being added to the Robin myth and raising no eyebrows at all: today, this would be an act of war again. They wouldn't even need to mention it, as with the Indy game example, just his presence would lead to hideous attacks.
One is called casting and one is called racism. You figure it out. If the role is male, you don't cast a woman. If the role is for a skinny person, you cast that. Fleming said Bond was white but now many many fans and even Eon are now saying he doesn't have to be a white guy, and people are upset. I'm just saying, that's the convo Eon won't have. They won't tell a black person or asian person they can't play a role that has zero reason to remain white except for tradition. If this is hard for you I am sorry, I feel bad for your nonwhite friends. The tradition argument in this thread literally sounds like children who refuse to share. It's sad.
The lead developer trolling the chumps on twitter (pre-Musk twitter btw), along with the games success.... mmmm, beautiful.
Very odd way of putting it. I certainly recall you saying we shouldn't bother having 'hate boners' for people like the Doomcocks of this world, but calling those people you refer to 'chumps' is fine I suppose.
I guess this game must be 100% perfectly historically accurate in every way, and not depict various peoples in controversial ways, miss out historical context for the tensions in that part of the world at that time, or inaccurately portray gender roles of the time.
Their words, not mine. I bought the game, and enjoyed it. I wish I could say that I bought it in the hopes of it being...... ultra based, just to upset the complainers. But it was the unique nature of the game that caught my eye. The accuracy is considerable. From architecture, to fashion and weaponry, it's one of the most cohesively developed worlds I have seen in a videogame. You barely survive at first, as the main character is a blacksmith's son, with no knowledge of weaponry. And he can't read at the beginning, but improves with time.
Doomcock? Why is that name familiar?
Well Gregg Wilson is saying that the sex of the character doesn't matter. That's the "male" part of straight white male being modernised. People getting annoyed with that however isn't sexism. Similarly, with your logic, you equally could say that Bond is a white role, so you cast that. Bond is supposed to skinny, but both Brosnan and Connery were overweight for certain films. So are you going to turn down the overweight actor when the series has precedence for such casting? Now you could easily make the case that Brosnan and Connery's cases were different, but then what's the reason for not casting the overweight actor?
People simply draw arbitrary lines because they want the character they enjoy to stay how they enjoyed said character in the past. That's ultimately what "tradition" means. Keep it the same for the same (relatively) positive results. Many key facets stay in Bond because of "tradition." What the hell is the point of the gunbarrel sequence on the story? We've seen it 25 times, each time Bond shoots his mark. Never mind keeping it at the start, why keep it?
Some people draw their arbitrary line at race. I very much made clear that I don't. So you don't have to feel sorry for anyone. But I think it's a poor argument that it would difficult to say no to certain actors because of a superficial reason; because that happens all the time. I also think that doing something because of tradition is not bad at all. Traditions however, must be flexible and able to change, and I believe the tradition of the Bond actor being white is one of those.
Well I've never heard of it, but a quick google shows there's lots of controversies about the accuracy of how it depicts the various nationalities involved, such as the Cumans and Hungarians (I'm not talking racially).
Obviously some people can go too far, but if one person is spreading hate and one is aiming for a positive message, even if they do it in a hectoring fashion, I'll always go for the one who is positive deep down.
When we were discussing his attacks on the Indiana Jones movie you said that you couldn't understand why people would have 'hate boners' for people like that and suggested it wasn't worth talking about them, but just to move on. Maybe you feel different about these 'chumps' who you enjoy the idea of being trolled.
All the modernism because a more historical approach would not appeal to "modern audiences". Making Robin utterly unheroic. Casting a more attractive, more charismatic actor for Guy of Gisburn. Not even bothering to hide the anachronism. Need I go on?
@DarthDimi vague? What is this franchise based off of then whatever people want?
Thing is q isn't the main character the foundation he is a character yes but Bond is a character that holds up the house so to speak that's the difference and if you do decide to change characters like that though you open that slippery slope of starting to change everything and I'm saying we don't need to start changing everything. And i guess you could say the blond hair thing with Daniel but I don't know just changing too many things and things don't look like Bond and what Fleming would have wanted. I like change once and a while but not too much change. I honestly wish they just keep james bond how he is and how the description has it.
@mtm @DarthDimi I'm sorry he can have his opinion i was just trying to point out that Ian Fleming wrote specifically how he wanted his character to look and the films are supposed to be off that but if they want to stear off that I guess that is fine but I'm just saying how much is it then james bond and "ian Flemingly" I guess I will see how audiences respond and still want to be for the ride but I don't really want to try the experiment out my opinion is that the more they stray from Fleming the less people will be interested. Honestly I don't know why this thread exists because this literally turns into political discourse and I thought that on this forum we were trying to avoid creating discussion around that and threads that would clearly turn into that. Maybe a suggestion would be to try to not make threads that are easy targets to invoke politics not saying you started this thread just in general to everyone I think we can agree on this. 🙂
Spreading hate doesn't factor into the accuracy, or lack of in the game. That's a separate matter entirely. And one I don't agree with. Given the lengths the developers went to in other aspects of the game, I am inclined to believe the developers, and the historians who backed up the developers racial colour palette of the game, that how they portray it, was how that part of the world was.
That's right, yes, now I think I remember (wait, how long ago was the hate boner comment? I feel like there have been legendary grudges that fizzled out in the time since that comment has been clung to like a dying man clinging to a life ring). I commented that I don't watch youtubers that I don't like. Once I got the measure of their channel, if I decided that I didn't like the channel, I backed away, and got on with my day. I don't know if you felt like I attacked but, but you refused to let it go. We went around this circle a few times, then I made the comment. It's coming back to me.
I tried to put it as straight forward as I could. I don't like <insert Youtuber here> so I don't watch them or complain about them repeatedly. There are scores of Youtubers that I don't like, but i'm not about to give them publicity. I just don't watch them, it's as simple as that. I can't dress it up any other way.
I mean, if people openly admit to complaining about something, that they have no intention of buying in the first place, even going as far as to petition it, then they deserve to be trolled. Wherever their politics might lie. I don't like Star Wars, but you don't see me trying to get Star Wars to be changed to appeal to me. I hear talk of Star Wars films 4th or 5th hand but I have nothing to say on them personally.
I mean, I don't really get what you're talking about to be honest. Modernism? Which versions of Robin Hood have been faithful to the time they were set in? You think a guy from the middle ages would have looked like Richard Greene or Errol Flynn or Jason Connery with his mullet? Or Kevin Costner with his? Or a wise-crackin' cartoon fox? It's always contemporary in both style and approach. The idea that Robin wasn't heroic either, I'm not sure which show you were watching. And what's the problem with casting a good looking guy to play a baddie? I'm a bit puzzled to be honest.
It feels like it's this repeated meme of a comment that 'everything is being made too modern now', but it's always been made for modern audiences. Who else are they going to make it for? Dead ones?
It was nearly twenty years ago now as well, I suspect it would look pretty dated now!
The hate spreading is literally what we're talking about, it's not a separate matter.
I mean I'm just literally saying what I've seen written about it this afternoon, that the historical accuracy of the game (in many ways) is very much up for debate, I'm not talking about taking it on trust.
That people would fight for it to ensure it's totally white over and above all other accuracy, well it certainly sounds like X/twitter, yes. Personally I think it's a bit like the Robin Hood thing above, most times when it comes to historical content in entertainment, the fidelity to the reality is less important than the effect it has on people today who are actually alive.
It felt a little disingenuous at the time, as if you were trying to shut down debate about them and accusing those who call them out for their hate and the damage they do as being the ones who were the jerk-offs (you made several comparisons to masturbation for some reason). Personally I don't sit there watching these people either, but I'm aware of what they do and the negative effect they have.
I'm sure none of us here were fans of the CraigNotBond people, but that doesn't mean that we can't talk about them and reject the way they did Bond harm back then, all just because we didn't visit their site and read their nonsense.
You can see why your point comes across as disingenuous though? I'm not trying to catch you out or anything, but the hate filled YouTubers who want films and games changed to suit their particular outlook should just be ignored and not complained about, whereas folks who want a game changed to suit their opposite outlook should be complained about, called chumps, and deserve trolling? Why not just not read about their comments and not complain about them too? There must be a difference between them which you see as deserving a different response.
I will think about a new What if scenario for us to ponder shortly.
@mtm that's not what I meant I don't really combine the two I was just using your wording on how you view race and spun it back at you and saying we can have all races and culture exist and not have to kill off one or the other to have them all exist and honestly has nothing to do with Bond and more politics. I view people as people and not by race. I wish Bond wasn't a race like sonic the hedgehog but since he was written as a white male well it's different just like how I wouldn't want black panther being played as a white male does that make me racist no I just don't like race swapping that doesn't make me racist. And maybe apologize for claiming i am? @mtm
@thedove i did and just because it's a what if or whatever doesn't give it a pass it's still getting into politics i guess if the moderators changed their minds then ok what whatever then.
Race and weight are not at all the same and society does not approach them the same, so Bond shouldn't. Come on. This is kindergarten playground stuff. Withstanding what you now define as a white tradition and leaving out black people is pretty clear cut on the racism scale. I don't think you are racist but I do think arguing for tradition is a very bad look to a nonwhite person. If you can't convince the white fans who are open to a nonwhite actor about your argument, you're not going to convince nonwhite fans at all that Bond can only ever be white. At the end of the day, Fleming is dead, and who but IFP and Eon have a say? Nobody. It's up to them, and both of them seem open to playing with the character's definitions. So you've already lost as a fan, I'm sorry.
Such characters - non-Caucasian, gay, drag etc. - have always been in the media. And the public were fine with that. But what is different to today is that we didn’t have to suffer virtue signallers constantly trying to change society by misrepresenting society, whilst denigrating the majority.
To argue that change is always good and anyone disagreeing is a bigot is just childish. Would be like arguing that Brexit was a great idea because it changed things, and anyone opposing was a racist by wanting to maintain overwhelmingly White immigration from the EU.
That feels quite distorted to me, almost like people having to blame their own prejudices on other people making them do it.
I don't think the majority are being denigrated at all, but to those who have prospered from being the right side of an unequal society, equality can feel like they're being sidelined when all it is is just a balancing of the scales.
If that AVTAK poster came out next year, would you see it as virtue-signalling?
I think this is a bit of a false equivalence and I'm not sure where you're going with the white immigration thing, but it depends specifically which change you're talking about when you say some change isn't good.
What I was trying to say is that all change is not necessarily good - the onus should be on those making the change to explain why it would be beneficial. I gave Brexit as an example of a change that should have demonstrated the benefits before making the change.
On the immigration point, I was (badly) making the point that Remain supporting media preferred to play the race card, with national newspapers like the Guardian and Independent claiming Brexiteers were racist, and therefore their readers should not vote for them. When actually, being in the EU meant half the immigration was overwhelmingly white, so Brexit actually led to a much more level playing field for different races to move to the UK - the implied opposite of the Guardian slurs. But then, when your argument is based on insulting your opponents, then you’ve probably lost the argument.