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
Have you seen many Roger Moore Bond movies? :)
All of them, many times over
And he was responsible plenty of scenes that are not what I like to see from James Bond and that I'd rather he hadn't done
Diverting from Fleming, as every single Bond film has done so far, is fine.
I would say it's necessary even if we want the character to remain relevant.
In fact, Dicko Henderson on screen was much changed from the novel even in the 60's.
Ah, but it's a great read. Bond's dinner has just crawled across the table, much to his chagrin.
And the idea that Bond’s heritage makes him what his is doesn’t really fit with what we know of his actual cultural background: his dad worked for Vickers and seemed to get his money from that, his mum was Swiss and young James seems to have been out of place at Fettes and Eton. It’s not like he’s a duke from a long line or anything, there’s nothing in that which requires a particular race in today’s Britain.
It was un-filmable then, hence Roald Dahl
It just had a great title for a Bond film
In Japan it self?
You might be surprised...
Yes, as I said - "We will each have our own opinion on that, based on our own life experiences and cultural history."
And my opinion is different to yours
But I think in this case it goes a bit deeper than just Rog-Bond's puerile sense of humour
Fair point, Bond being, or feeling like, an "outsider" from childhood, is an asset in that regard
However what about visa versa, how would having a different ethnic background or sexual orientation influence the character?
Or are you suggesting the producers should ignore that aspect and have Bond continue to think and behave like a white upper middle class male, only with a token veneer of a different skin colour or sexual orientation?
Or that other characters in the movie should continue to treat him in the same way that they would a white upper middle class male, presenting some sort of idealised World which doesn't actually exist?
Do you imagine everyone is the same these days and that the history and experience our different racial or sexual groups have no influence on how a character will views things, the decisions they make or how they react and express themselves in certain situations?
For example, depending on what form this new James Bond takes, how did racial prejudice or sexism effect him in the past, when he was growing up, and shape his character going forward?
Will Bond be allowed to experience racial prejudice or sexism first hand on screen?
If not, then what would be the point of the exercise? (other than to shock the audience for publicity value)
But since they did YOLT out of order, of course they could only keep so many plot elements from the novel but discard the story.
People are always bringing up "relevance" when it comes to James Bond for some reason
That never seems to happen to Sherlock Holmes (or Ethan Hunt or Batman...)
Is it because he originated in the Cold War?
But there were spies and secret agents before the Cold War and after there continue to be as many as ever, so he will always be relevant as a secret agent
Or is it because of the Alpha Male aspects of his behaviour?
Which can, and have, been modified over the years, because James Bond always needs to remain a "person" of his time, whatever time that currently is.
Also, I don't think Batman ever blackmailed anyone into sex, committed acts that today would be seen as blatant sexual assault, was borne out of novels that used the N-word, etc.
He's a product of his time, so it is what it is and as you both have sort of said, changes can and have been made to bring the character into the modern era, but it's for these reasons that the relevance of Bond specifically is brought up more.
As you said in that very same post, we have different opinions, so there’s no point discussing it. That was the point you were making. I’m not sure why you say we have different opinions in an attempt to stop debate and then try to engage me in one, very odd.
But to answer your question, the point would be to get a really good actor and not worry about the details in his appearance; just like there was no ‘point’ to hiring a blond actor. And another ‘point’ would be to increase the acceptance of diversity in culture in general, just like there was no dramatic ‘point’ in Bond giving up smoking, just a sense of social responsibility. And before you mention it: no, killing villains is not the same thing. If you don’t treat black people as you do white then perhaps that would be useful.
Book Bond also thinks rape is an attractive prospect and frequents brothels if he's short of time or doesn't get lucky...
Sherlock Holmes openly takes cocaine?
No-one in the media ever complains, but then I guess the setting is generally historical, and the idea of highlighting the self professed morality of Victorian age with the lack of restrictions on hard drugs is considered too intriguing to ignore.
On the other hand Benedict Cumberbatch's modern version is actually a recovering addict, which makes him acceptable to the PC police
As you suggest Batman (representing all vigilante super-heros in general) has his place in the World considered by Christopher Nolan as part of that movie, but I haven't really heard of anyone discussing it much in the real World.
Batman is acknowledged to be one big bag of neuroses, but no-one wants to change him.
Whereas the relevance of James Bond is an ongoing negative theme in certain sections of the media, mainly due to the sexual politics aspect of it, but that issue has never really been confronted in the movies themselves.
Rather, his behaviour has just been incrementally "adjusted" over the years to make it more acceptable to the PC police.
"Ethan Hunt" is really just an avatar for "Tom Cruise" the actor, and so far the character has no separate existence of it's own, or relevance, outside of that.
Most people don't know who Ethan Hunt is...I'd argue even Jason Bourne has had a larger cultural impact than Hunt.
@Seve, It's very astute to say that Ethan Hunt is an avatar of Tom Cruise. Most people think: "Wow, Tom Cruise hung off the edge of that plane!"
No one thought: "Roger Moore parachuted off that cliff!" They thought: "James Bond did."
Although, ironically, I feel that Moore was playing himself more than Bond, more than any of the other actors did (maybe Lazenby).
Don't get me wrong. I like Moore in the role. It's just that he brought a lot of his own personality to the role.
I remember the "rape" reference from the books -- not one of Fleming's finer moments IMHO -- but when did he depict Bond as frequenting brothels?
But that's just the point, I'm not talking about the "appearance" of the actor, however all you seem able to comprehend are shallow surface details.
The thread is not about the "appearance" of the actor, it's about making the character "non-binary"
"Blond" is not a culture
"Smoking" is not what makes a character tick.
Being black (or Asian or anything else) goes deeper than mere skin colour
Being LGBT etc is also more than skin deep and would surely need to be addressed in terms of the characters behaviour?
I'm just saying it's something to be considered carefully. You seem to think that James Bond is some sort of barbie doll, that can be dressed up any way people want and still be James Bond, I don't think it's as simple as that.
You're right that Bond giving up smoking has no dramatic point one way or the other as far as the character goes, it's just a minor detail of no importance. In a World that smoked, Bond smoked. Times changed, now he doesn't.
But I think the racial or sexual nature of Bond is a much deeper issue than that, not to be taken lightly, and there does need to be a point to it.
You seem to want to pretend we are (metaphorically) all the same inside. but we are not.
Acknowledging that people from different cultures often have different ways of looking at things is not to suggest they are right or wrong, better or worse, it's just reality.
You evidently weren't paying much attention to Batman in the late-60s to early-70s. I was, and I can tell you, you're way off-base here.
"Relevance" was a big phase in the comics world of that time...and the post-Adam West Batman got changed substantially, largely due to the efforts of writer Dennis O'Neill and his various artistic collaborators (particularly including Neal Adams) all under the care of editor Julius Schwartz. Even now, real-world discussions rage, with some folks holding to the "big bag of neuroses" theory you espouse, and others insisting that Batman is the sanest of people in an insane world. I'm not here to promote either of those viewpoints...only to state that if your view of Batman is dependent solely upon the movies of Christopher Nolan, you have an exceptionally limited framework from which to view that very complex character.
He goes to a couple in YOLT, with Dicko Henderson, and possibly later with Tiger. Though it could be argued it was part of his job, as he was there as a diplomat.
Bond never raped anyone of course. The phrase 'sweet tang of rape' was in CR if I remember right. Unfortunate wording, but it doesn't make him a rapist.
You must give me the name of your oculist.
As I recall it's in one of the short stories possibly "The Living Daylights"?
He thinks about times when he has done it in the past, but in the actual story he decides not to on this occasion
(I'll check and update later)
If you’re having to resort to insults about what I can ‘comprehend’ then you’re clearly uncertain of your own position. A shame you lack confidence to this extent, I wonder why you persist.
My point about Bond’s cultural background not affecting his ability to ride a hovercraft gondola was a glib but apposite attempt to point out that Bond’s cultural background has very little affect on the person we see onscreen punching baddies and kissing girls. If you think the Bond movies are some investigation into social reality then you’re quite mistaken. Even the Craig films feature an incredibly unlikely Aston Martin-driving superhero (who bleeds a bit, sure) hanging out in only the most beautiful places defeating evil white cat-stroking villains who believe only in acquiring money -never politics or ideology- and being briefed directly by the head of the secret service himself. It’s nonsense, they’re not real people living in the real world and they have only the amount of real world problems the makers see fit. Racism doesn’t exist there, until such point when they decide a villain like Valdo should display some racism. Moneypenny or Felix can change race and experience no change in attitudes, because this isn’t the real world: there are hovercraft gondolas.
If they changed his race and decided to show some change in attitude towards him by someone.. well so what? Bond has the occasional villain holding his Englishness against him, how would that be a terrible change? But they can -and do- change the world around him. It has just as much effect on him as they want it to.
I’ve seen this ‘if you think they’re interchangeable then YOU’RE the racist!’ argument before, and it’s weak old sauce. I can get that on Laurence Fox’s Twitter feed every day.
But hey, as you said: we have different opinions on it. So why you keep on I have no idea.
My oculist would probably agree with yours. Geishas are not whores. Unless your oculist is off on the topic of rape, in which case we may want to consider the testimony of Miss Fearing in the movie version of Thunderball. We should leave aside the matter of Kerim Darko in Fleming's From Russia With Love novel, I think, as this is not Bond's behavior being discussed, but rather an issue of Fleming's content as a writer.
I meant relevant in the sense of speaking to an audience. The bottom smacking womanizer, for example, regardless of my own Bondian tastes, is tainted goods in this age.
I'll bow to your far greater in depth knowledge of the Dark Knight
However, in my defence, I was more meaning how the general public or media in general think of Batman, rather than the specific and intense World of fans who agonise over the minutiae of the character... as we are doing over James Bond.
Are you saying Bond didn't go whoring with Dicko Henderson? The place was called 'The House of Total Delight', after all.
Maybe they sold chocolates?
I can be totally delighted by the right chocolates...
It's a cultural thing. The training a geisha receives -- and the duties expected of one -- are not exactly the same as that given & expected of a whore. At least, that's the upshot I gathered from Fleming's prose.
...they are rather underdeveloped characters in the first place, so present a relatively blank canvass to work with
We'll have to wait and see won't we (if it ever comes to pass)
I'm not saying there would be anything wrong with it, just that there would be more consequences than people such as yourself seem to think, and they should be given some consideration before a decision is made
No, it has as much effect as the cinema going public decide it does
Never heard of him
Lol, The same reason you do I guess...
What Miss Fearing says in a "movie" version is irrelevant to what the character of "book" Bond may have gotten up to.
By the by, if you want to see some unintentionally inappropriate rape comments, I can recommend Clint Eastwood in "The Eiger Sanction" (1975) or James Coburn in "Waterhole #3" (1967) - guaranteed to make you flinch like chalk on a blackboard
I doubt Dicko and Bond would be allowed into a real Geisha house, as they are not intended for use by gaijin, so it probably was just a whorehouse.
But if he was accompanied by Tiger Tanaka on the other hand, he probably could
You don't consider sado-masochists are a significant demographic these days then?
Any way, here's wishing you all a Happy New Year and hopefully Omicron doesn't cramp your celebration style too much