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 we really are getting into politics now so shouldn't really go any further, but your points conflict a bit there: just because the truth of the situation may have been how you laid it out there, it doesn't mean that was the communicated benefit from those campaigning for leaving, and I think a lot of that was done on the basis that people thought they'd be seeing fewer foreigners coming in. I don't think we can exactly say, hand-on heart, that no one at all voted to leave from a position of bigotry. As you say, for a change of that nature the onus should be on the ones making the change as to why it would be beneficial.
For a change of the nature we're talking about here, I'd argue it isn't much of a change at all; it seems to matter very little. And the onus would be on those who reject it to convince folks like me as to why it matters.
We were, well I was anyway, talking about historical accuracy. I mentioned it in my 2nd post on this page. So it is a separate matter.
They are from that part of the world, it's their history. What I am saying, is that I would believe the developers, over people who are criticising the game, just grifting for clicks.
I don't see what would be 'disingenuous'. I remember before, when you got the bit between your teeth and said something about fighting against those Youtubers, they spread lies about films that harm the industry, and we should call them out to protect films. I remember thinking that that sounded like all that culture war silliness that I avoid.
No, because it doesn't.
Of course. "People" complaining about something, that they admit they are not interested in, to be changed to suit their view, makes no sense. Neither does your reaction to who I don't watch. I just think it's pointless.
Another aspect of the Variety article was that Amazon is pushing for "content" (which Barbara apparently bristles at). Currently EON is winning or at least resisting the pressure from Amazon for the content route.
Amazon is likely also pitching that Bond become a streaming vehicle and not be about hitting the "big screen". Lets explore this, what if Bond becomes a streaming model going forward and doesn't do theatrical releases?
What if Amazon wins and Bond content is created for Prime?
I thought you were talking about how the left or anti-wokers or whatever we're calling them are as bad as the other side.
As I say, I'm going by what historians have apparently been saying rather than trusting the guys whose work it is, because of course they'd say it was right. It just seems there's a debate around it, as there often is around history.
So you thought you'd say I have a boner and jerk off about it? I mean, that really is culture war silliness isn't it? Insulting people because you don't like their point of view?
I didn't realise you actually were aiming it at me specifically, but you seem to confirm that you were. That's kind of horrible.
Even looking at that page here I can't see what you're talking about. I (and others) were just pointing out that they were telling lies.
Is it that you think their lies don't harm things? We see their point of view and specific lies repeated a lot. I hate the culture wars too, which is why I mention it. Just ignoring it doesn't make it go away.
I mean, that is still the same thing, so it's not really cleared up there.
I don't have a reaction to who you watch or you don't: it's your choice. But you were passing an opinion on who I can talk and complain about, which is what seemed disingenuous as you phrased it as an 'I don't care', but in fact you seem to be saying you did indeed intend it as an attack.
1) Quality will drop.
2) The audience's interest will drop.
3) Bond will become tainted goods.
4) No more Bond in a long time.
I'm not losing anything! I've said twice now I'm fine with a nonwhite actor for Bond. This argument isn't about me and my opinions, but ultimately about what tradition is, and why it is important to the fanbase, and not always a bad thing.
Of course race and weight are not the same issue. But the reason you (and many others) don't want an overweight Bond is because of tradition! Because of how it has mostly been done in the past! And you didn't even mention the female aspect of it. There is clamour from some to see a female Bond. Gregg Wilson seems to be also OK with that. So why not cast a woman? The answer is always going to come down to tradition. Some aspects of tradition are more crucial than another. Again same thing with the gunbarrel sequence. Some were fine with it being moved in Skyfall because of the opening shot. Many were fine with it being moved in CR because of the significance of earning 00 status. But ultimately if it was removed entirely, I don't think anybody would be happy because we would be losing a key part of Bond's brand.
These examples are all to say that tradition is tradition because it is beneficial. Bond being white in itself is not beneficial, but it's beneficial because it provides a superficial connection back to the novels. Same thing as black hair for example. In my opinion, tradition should be broken because otherwise we limit the actor pool from potentially great actors. We broke the black hair tradition for Craig because he was a good actor, similar to how we could break the racial tradition.
A comparison is for example a continuation novel. A continuation novel where Bond is black doesn't really gain much: the character doesn't gain from a race change and instead becomes further from Fleming's image: a negative. A film where Bond's actor is black has potential to gain: the actor has potential to give a great performance while also being a bit further from Bond's image: a positive.
For some, this distancing is too much and it becomes a negative. The loss in tradition is not made up by with a positive performance: similar to the gap if a woman took charge. If that is the case, then saying "no" to an actor I don't think is racism. It's just a differing view on what makes Bond Bond, and the importance of those factors.
Straight away you know the quality would drop. You'd lose that excitement feel of a no cinema release and lose prestige. Bond is high class.
Hmm..........a James Bond movie that I actually skip..........well there has to be a first time for everything.
A little dramatic, I suppose, but I'm awaiting a package from Amazon that was supposed to arrive yesterday.
I'd also add: Bond is diluted in various series featuring Q, Moneypenny, M, etc.
2. Cheaper.
3. More Fleming-esque
Basically what happened with Jack Reacher
Personally I'd miss my popcorn box and plastic cup collectible. Not to mention experiencing a brand new Bond film on a massive screen with friends and fans alike. Plus it gives the world a reason to get outside and touch grass.
It should always be seen on a big screen first giving the audience and fans alike the chance to see the latest Bond film in all its glory.
More than happy for it to join the streaming services like Prime, even getting a release on streaming sooner than is currently the norm, but a cinematic release only initially has to be the way to go.
What people needs to understand is that cinema movies doesn't mean automaticly good and steam movie doesn't mean automaticly bad film. I prefer 100 times to watch All Quiet on the Western Front (Netflix streaming) rather than a (cinema) purgatory like Red One.
If there is talentuous peoples behind (and in front) of camera, succes can be achieved in both way. The only difference I see is the budget : you don't earn the same money in a cinema and plateforom release, so the budget you are ready to spend is probably less and so you might have less thing in the screen.
Almost nobody here is born prior the sixty, we all discovered some Bond films in a TV screen (from TV channel bordcast of VHS/DVD): and didn't we liked them? And once we saw our contempory films in cinema, were do we re-watch them: well on a TV screen again since. If I want to see again Quantum of Solace, I have no choice to seen it on a TV screen since it been long cinema stoped to broadcast it.
So do I have a big problem with watching a Bond film on a TV screen? No, we all end up to watch them there one time of another.
And for the "prestige" side of Bond : the franchise survived James Bond Jr., Goldeneye Rogue Agent, 007 road to the million and I don't think any dimished the "value" of Bond in the end. No fan withdraw from the franchise cause of them, and no investisor withdraw cause of them.
Some will say Disney killed Star Wars, but people who lost interest in Star Wars know this franchise have potential and would be ready to come back to it anytime if they know this potential is in good good hans. Even if Amazon/EON fuck up Bond tomorrow, the franchise will not lost any value since people would still be ready to come back to it if they know there is change since the last time, because past episode prooved Bond can be great with the right decisions, and there will forever be hope.
But if it hypothetically did happen then I can imagine you’d get lower scale/budget films. It might give us that 50s Bond film some fans (but few general viewers) seem to want. Bond’s appeal would drop and I suspect fewer people would watch in this case.
That's one of my biggest nightmares, to be honest. We've seen it in the books already. The MP Diaries and now a set of Q books... At the risk of sounding childish, what's next? A five-book series about Tanner's college days?
Unlike Batman or Star Wars, the Bond universe narrows down to Bond himself. Peripheral characters matter very little without him. I don't mind a few spin-off excursions for M, MP, and Felix in a handful of comic book pages, but anything bigger -- books, TV series, films -- feels like utter exploitation, milking the cow dry so to speak. There's a difference between knowing about greed and seeing it so blatantly at work.
Michael Praed, who played Robin in ROS, once said that he'd been contacted by EON about playing Bond and that it had even got as far as them having him fitted for suits, etc, before they cut him loose. Given the period in which Praed was famous, that's most likely to have been either when Sir Rog and Cubby were having the back and forth about Roger doing another film or post-Moore/pre-Dalton. I don't think it'd've worked, tbh. I can see why they might've had him on their radar and Praed was right for Robin of Sherwood, but he's been pretty bad in everything else I've seen him in and he's the most awful thigh-slapping pantomime Prince Charming luvvie in real life. Still, assuming that his claim's true, we could've had something like this: