›

The What if Bond is modernized from a straight white male in the next film adventure?

1…656667686971»

Comments

  • DewiWynBondDewiWynBond
    Posts: 991
    Stubble is cool. His character is sophisticated, and rugged. It can set up a shaving scene!
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,117

    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Craig's unshaven look early on in SF fit his mood at that point. I agree, however, that an actual beard would be several steps too far.

    Yep, I was relieved when Moneypenny got busy with the razor...😁
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,060
    DewiWynBond wrote: »
    Stubble is cool. His character is sophisticated, and rugged. It can set up a shaving scene!

    You planning on stubble for one of your films? I think it shouldn't be the first one. That subversion should come later.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,272
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Craig's unshaven look early on in SF fit his mood at that point. I agree, however, that an actual beard would be several steps too far.

    Yep, I was relieved when Moneypenny got busy with the razor...😁

    I was concerned at that point that she'd slit his throat. Such razors frighten me.
  • CrabKeyCrabKey
    Posts: 2,031
    For some Bond can be any race, even gay. But can he be short? Say 5'5." If not, then Bond really can't be anything.
  • DewiWynBondDewiWynBond
    Posts: 991
    mattjoes wrote: »
    DewiWynBond wrote: »
    Stubble is cool. His character is sophisticated, and rugged. It can set up a shaving scene!

    You planning on stubble for one of your films? I think it shouldn't be the first one. That subversion should come later.
    If the plot requires it. Never to the office.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,088
    CrabKey wrote: »
    For some Bond can be any race, even gay. But can he be short? Say 5'5." If not, then Bond really can't be anything.

    Sizeism? Or is it heightism? And it can be cured with appropriate heels :-).
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,117
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Craig's unshaven look early on in SF fit his mood at that point. I agree, however, that an actual beard would be several steps too far.

    Yep, I was relieved when Moneypenny got busy with the razor...😁

    I was concerned at that point that she'd slit his throat. Such razors frighten me.

    Me too. My barber uses one to shave the back of my neck. It makes me nervous 😁
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,403
    mtm wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    But by all means let Hollywood create all the spy series they want, with characters more diverse than we can imagine. I welcome more spy films, regardless of who plays what character. But again, why must Bond be changed? Why him? It's the most fundamental question in this debate, at least in my humble opinion. Have we run out of suitable candidates for the role? Are we 'curious' to see what the result might be? Is it indeed a case of allowing others to "see Bond as themselves" the way @LucknFate intelligently suggests? I'm trying to understand it, but I can't. The idea that "it wouldn't matter" doesn't sit well with me. Of course, I'd notice. Of course, it'd matter. Of course, it wouldn't be the same.

    It's never the same when a new person takes over. I guess the question to ask yourself is why does it matter to you, as you have been.

    I don't think he 'must' be changed, just that he could, and I wouldn't mind. It's not about 'running out of suitable candidates' but more just allowing more men to be seen as potentially suitable.
    Today there's absolutely nothing about Bond which requires him to be of any particular race.

    I agree with that. Nothing requires Bond to be of any particular race. Hence, there's also nothing that requires him to change the race he's always had - in books, comics, video games and over sixty years of film. There's no reason not to change him (other than tradition), but there's also no reason to change him (other than your valid points, @mtm). That's what makes this somewhat frustrating: there's only opinion, taste and personal motives, but nothing objective. ;-) I guess we're all coming from different views here.

    Yeah that's fair, ultimately it doesn't matter either way.
    Nothing is lost, I would perhaps argue that there's something slightly gained in kind of promoting the UK as a multi-cultural society, which is something I'm fairy proud of as a Brit; but it's also not like 007 is the only way of doing that so it's not essential to do it with him. Tradition is neither here nor there for me.
    I think it's basically up to whether they find the perfect candidate and what his background is. It's not like they went looking for a blond Bond last time: it just wasn't an issue to them, as it shouldn't be the next time, as perhaps race shouldn't be either. I'm in the camp who think Elba would have made a pretty perfect Bond, but I'm also very happy that we had Craig for that time.

    The "tradition" argument is often merely coded racism or sexism or homophobia, to justify exclusion by the majority.

    They should simply find the best person for the role.

    For example, Rupert Everett circa My Best Friend's Wedding might have been great as Bond.

    Whishaw was, arguably, the best person for Q. And while some get upset that Q is going on a date with a guy in NTTD because it's not "traditional" or "right" to show Q's personal life, no one complains about Q saying he "made one of these for the kids last Christmas" in DAF. The message of exclusion is clear.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,164
    Craig as Bond had such a strong place in UK popular culture at the time of SF that sales of straight razors increased by over 400% within a month of the film opening!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,631
    echo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    But by all means let Hollywood create all the spy series they want, with characters more diverse than we can imagine. I welcome more spy films, regardless of who plays what character. But again, why must Bond be changed? Why him? It's the most fundamental question in this debate, at least in my humble opinion. Have we run out of suitable candidates for the role? Are we 'curious' to see what the result might be? Is it indeed a case of allowing others to "see Bond as themselves" the way @LucknFate intelligently suggests? I'm trying to understand it, but I can't. The idea that "it wouldn't matter" doesn't sit well with me. Of course, I'd notice. Of course, it'd matter. Of course, it wouldn't be the same.

    It's never the same when a new person takes over. I guess the question to ask yourself is why does it matter to you, as you have been.

    I don't think he 'must' be changed, just that he could, and I wouldn't mind. It's not about 'running out of suitable candidates' but more just allowing more men to be seen as potentially suitable.
    Today there's absolutely nothing about Bond which requires him to be of any particular race.

    I agree with that. Nothing requires Bond to be of any particular race. Hence, there's also nothing that requires him to change the race he's always had - in books, comics, video games and over sixty years of film. There's no reason not to change him (other than tradition), but there's also no reason to change him (other than your valid points, @mtm). That's what makes this somewhat frustrating: there's only opinion, taste and personal motives, but nothing objective. ;-) I guess we're all coming from different views here.

    Yeah that's fair, ultimately it doesn't matter either way.
    Nothing is lost, I would perhaps argue that there's something slightly gained in kind of promoting the UK as a multi-cultural society, which is something I'm fairy proud of as a Brit; but it's also not like 007 is the only way of doing that so it's not essential to do it with him. Tradition is neither here nor there for me.
    I think it's basically up to whether they find the perfect candidate and what his background is. It's not like they went looking for a blond Bond last time: it just wasn't an issue to them, as it shouldn't be the next time, as perhaps race shouldn't be either. I'm in the camp who think Elba would have made a pretty perfect Bond, but I'm also very happy that we had Craig for that time.
    Whishaw was, arguably, the best person for Q. And while some get upset that Q is going on a date with a guy in NTTD because it's not "traditional" or "right" to show Q's personal life, no one complains about Q saying he "made one of these for the kids last Christmas" in DAF. The message of exclusion is clear.

    To be fair I'm not sure I remember seeing anyone complain about Q's sexuality. I'm sure it probably happened somewhere (doubtless those grifters on YouTube got some click money out of it) but I don't recall it being an issue here at least.
    Venutius wrote: »
    Craig as Bond had such a strong place in UK popular culture at the time of SF that sales of straight razors increased by over 400% within a month of the film opening!

    Is that right? That's amazing (although I guess they might not have sold all that much: 400% of a small number is still quite small! :D ).
Sign In or Register to comment.