EoN sells up - Amazon MGM to produce 007 going forwards

Mendes4Lyfe

MakeshiftPython wrote: »

I think Bond should remain male and still fancy women, 100%. I don’t mind his ethnicity changing, because in the 2020s it really doesn’t matter what his ethnicity is, especially since few stories ever make that relevant to the plot. Did being white in TOMORROW NEVER DIES bear any relevance?

If his whiteness did factor in anything recently it’s probably SKYFALL, which leaned into the idea of Bond being a symbolic representation of the British Empire. A man out of time, which Silva mocks during the interrogation. If future films lean further into that conceit, that’s a solid argument to stick to Bond being white.

Of course the easiest argument would be setting the films back in the 1950s to Fleming’s era, in which case a black James Bond would look out of place in that time period.

Sorry if my “wokeness” offended anyone here.

By that logic it shouldn't matter what his gender or sexuality is either, just saying. :-??

MakeshiftPython

buddyoldchap wrote: »

MakeshiftPython wrote: »

Daltonforyou wrote: »

You say it doesn't matter, then why change it in the first place if it doesn't matter?

Why are you asking me? It’s not my decision to make. I really don’t care if they keep him white or make him black. That’s how much of a non-issue Bond’s ethnicity is to me, at least when it comes to a story or plot where his skin color bears no relevance.

But what do I know? I accepted a Bond with blonde hair and was accused of not being a true fan for that.

Exactly, to you

I already said that.

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

MakeshiftPython wrote: »

I think Bond should remain male and still fancy women, 100%. I don’t mind his ethnicity changing, because in the 2020s it really doesn’t matter what his ethnicity is, especially since few stories ever make that relevant to the plot. Did being white in TOMORROW NEVER DIES bear any relevance?

If his whiteness did factor in anything recently it’s probably SKYFALL, which leaned into the idea of Bond being a symbolic representation of the British Empire. A man out of time, which Silva mocks during the interrogation. If future films lean further into that conceit, that’s a solid argument to stick to Bond being white.

Of course the easiest argument would be setting the films back in the 1950s to Fleming’s era, in which case a black James Bond would look out of place in that time period.

Sorry if my “wokeness” offended anyone here.

By that logic it shouldn't matter what his gender or sexuality is either, just saying. :-??

If you think the gender and sexuality of the character doesn’t matter, fair enough.

Mendes4Lyfe

MakeshiftPython wrote: »

buddyoldchap wrote: »

MakeshiftPython wrote: »

Daltonforyou wrote: »

You say it doesn't matter, then why change it in the first place if it doesn't matter?

Why are you asking me? It’s not my decision to make. I really don’t care if they keep him white or make him black. That’s how much of a non-issue Bond’s ethnicity is to me, at least when it comes to a story or plot where his skin color bears no relevance.

But what do I know? I accepted a Bond with blonde hair and was accused of not being a true fan for that.

Exactly, to you

I already said that.

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

MakeshiftPython wrote: »

I think Bond should remain male and still fancy women, 100%. I don’t mind his ethnicity changing, because in the 2020s it really doesn’t matter what his ethnicity is, especially since few stories ever make that relevant to the plot. Did being white in TOMORROW NEVER DIES bear any relevance?

If his whiteness did factor in anything recently it’s probably SKYFALL, which leaned into the idea of Bond being a symbolic representation of the British Empire. A man out of time, which Silva mocks during the interrogation. If future films lean further into that conceit, that’s a solid argument to stick to Bond being white.

Of course the easiest argument would be setting the films back in the 1950s to Fleming’s era, in which case a black James Bond would look out of place in that time period.

Sorry if my “wokeness” offended anyone here.

By that logic it shouldn't matter what his gender or sexuality is either, just saying. :-??

If you think the gender and sexuality of the character doesn’t matter, fair enough.

Ha, no. Never said it. Just holding you to own logic, and wondering why it shouldn't apply.

If you don't feel like answering, that's fine by me. ;)

MakeshiftPython

I wouldn’t necessarily say ethnicity, sexuality, and gender are the same thing.

Though as far as sexuality goes, I’d only go as far as being open to Bond being bisexual, as that at least appeals to his hedonistic predilections and opens more avenues in terms of him being a manipulator.

Stamper

James Bond: What are they burning?
Hotel Porter: Secrets. Wishes. Letting go of the past. Getting rid of old things, in come the new.

SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷

Stamper wrote: »

James Bond: What are they burning?
Hotel Porter: Secrets. Wishes. Letting go of the past. Getting rid of old things, in come the new.

All of a sudden, NTTD does feel poignant and melancholic now. I never saw that coming. Hmmm.

Mendes4Lyfe

MakeshiftPython wrote: »

I wouldn’t necessarily say ethnicity, sexuality, and gender are the same thing.

Though as far as sexuality goes, I’d only go as far as being open to Bond being bisexual, as that at least appeals to his hedonistic predilections and opens more avenues in terms of him being a manipulator.

They're not the same thing, but your logic of "its the 2020's, it shouldn't matter" should apply equally.

Is there any reason why it shouldn't?

mtm

MakeshiftPython wrote: »

I think Bond should remain male and still fancy women, 100%. I don’t mind his ethnicity changing, because in the 2020s it really doesn’t matter what his ethnicity is, especially since few stories ever make that relevant to the plot. Did being white in TOMORROW NEVER DIES bear any relevance?

If his whiteness did factor in anything recently it’s probably SKYFALL, which leaned into the idea of Bond being a symbolic representation of the British Empire. A man out of time, which Silva mocks during the interrogation. If future films lean further into that conceit, that’s a solid argument to stick to Bond being white.

Of course the easiest argument would be setting the films back in the 1950s to Fleming’s era, in which case a black James Bond would look out of place in that time period.

Sorry if my “wokeness” offended anyone here.

My goodness, your shocking foul mouthed rant has deeply upset me, how could you be such a brute 😜

Agreed about Skyfall: I guess Bond being the ‘old way’ is really a theme of the whole series: he’s all wood-panelling and classic suits where the villains are all modernist lairs and nehru collars. Regardless, and as much as I enjoyed it in SF, I wouldn’t mind them not stressing his old dog ways too much again as it feels a bit done.

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

MakeshiftPython wrote: »

I think Bond should remain male and still fancy women, 100%. I don’t mind his ethnicity changing, because in the 2020s it really doesn’t matter what his ethnicity is, especially since few stories ever make that relevant to the plot. Did being white in TOMORROW NEVER DIES bear any relevance?

If his whiteness did factor in anything recently it’s probably SKYFALL, which leaned into the idea of Bond being a symbolic representation of the British Empire. A man out of time, which Silva mocks during the interrogation. If future films lean further into that conceit, that’s a solid argument to stick to Bond being white.

Of course the easiest argument would be setting the films back in the 1950s to Fleming’s era, in which case a black James Bond would look out of place in that time period.

Sorry if my “wokeness” offended anyone here.

By that logic it shouldn't matter what his gender or sexuality is either, just saying. :-??

That’s definitely different logic. They’re not the same thing, and some aspects of Bond’s makeup are more important than others. By the logic you’re using that everything is of equal importance we could say Dalton was all wrong for Bond as he was the wrong shoe size.
That Bond is a man or desires women is much more important to the stories and his personality than his eye, hair or skin colour, which are just incidental details, especially in the modern day.

Mendes4Lyfe

mtm wrote: »

MakeshiftPython wrote: »

I think Bond should remain male and still fancy women, 100%. I don’t mind his ethnicity changing, because in the 2020s it really doesn’t matter what his ethnicity is, especially since few stories ever make that relevant to the plot. Did being white in TOMORROW NEVER DIES bear any relevance?

If his whiteness did factor in anything recently it’s probably SKYFALL, which leaned into the idea of Bond being a symbolic representation of the British Empire. A man out of time, which Silva mocks during the interrogation. If future films lean further into that conceit, that’s a solid argument to stick to Bond being white.

Of course the easiest argument would be setting the films back in the 1950s to Fleming’s era, in which case a black James Bond would look out of place in that time period.

Sorry if my “wokeness” offended anyone here.

My goodness, your shocking foul mouthed rant has deeply upset me, how could you be such a brute 😜

Agreed about Skyfall: I guess Bond being the ‘old way’ is really a theme of the whole series: he’s all wood-panelling and classic suits where the villains are all modernist lairs and nehru collars. Regardless, and as much as I enjoyed it in SF, I wouldn’t mind them not stressing his old dog ways too much again as it feels a bit done.

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

MakeshiftPython wrote: »

I think Bond should remain male and still fancy women, 100%. I don’t mind his ethnicity changing, because in the 2020s it really doesn’t matter what his ethnicity is, especially since few stories ever make that relevant to the plot. Did being white in TOMORROW NEVER DIES bear any relevance?

If his whiteness did factor in anything recently it’s probably SKYFALL, which leaned into the idea of Bond being a symbolic representation of the British Empire. A man out of time, which Silva mocks during the interrogation. If future films lean further into that conceit, that’s a solid argument to stick to Bond being white.

Of course the easiest argument would be setting the films back in the 1950s to Fleming’s era, in which case a black James Bond would look out of place in that time period.

Sorry if my “wokeness” offended anyone here.

By that logic it shouldn't matter what his gender or sexuality is either, just saying. :-??

That’s definitely different logic. They’re not the same thing, and some aspects of Bond’s makeup are more important than others. By the logic you’re using that everything is of equal importance we could say Dalton was all wrong for Bond as he was the wrong shoe size.
That Bond is a man or desires women is much more important to the stories and his personality than his eye, hair or skin colour, which are just incidental details, especially in the modern day.

That Bond enjoys casual sex is certainly a key element, but the genders seems like another arbitrary characteristic, again if we're working on the logic of "its the 2020's so it shouldn't matter". What changes about TND, to use makeshifts example if Bond is nonbinary? I'm not seeing what justification makes it different, other than you just stating that it is the case.

mtm

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

mtm wrote: »

MakeshiftPython wrote: »

I think Bond should remain male and still fancy women, 100%. I don’t mind his ethnicity changing, because in the 2020s it really doesn’t matter what his ethnicity is, especially since few stories ever make that relevant to the plot. Did being white in TOMORROW NEVER DIES bear any relevance?

If his whiteness did factor in anything recently it’s probably SKYFALL, which leaned into the idea of Bond being a symbolic representation of the British Empire. A man out of time, which Silva mocks during the interrogation. If future films lean further into that conceit, that’s a solid argument to stick to Bond being white.

Of course the easiest argument would be setting the films back in the 1950s to Fleming’s era, in which case a black James Bond would look out of place in that time period.

Sorry if my “wokeness” offended anyone here.

My goodness, your shocking foul mouthed rant has deeply upset me, how could you be such a brute 😜

Agreed about Skyfall: I guess Bond being the ‘old way’ is really a theme of the whole series: he’s all wood-panelling and classic suits where the villains are all modernist lairs and nehru collars. Regardless, and as much as I enjoyed it in SF, I wouldn’t mind them not stressing his old dog ways too much again as it feels a bit done.

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

MakeshiftPython wrote: »

I think Bond should remain male and still fancy women, 100%. I don’t mind his ethnicity changing, because in the 2020s it really doesn’t matter what his ethnicity is, especially since few stories ever make that relevant to the plot. Did being white in TOMORROW NEVER DIES bear any relevance?

If his whiteness did factor in anything recently it’s probably SKYFALL, which leaned into the idea of Bond being a symbolic representation of the British Empire. A man out of time, which Silva mocks during the interrogation. If future films lean further into that conceit, that’s a solid argument to stick to Bond being white.

Of course the easiest argument would be setting the films back in the 1950s to Fleming’s era, in which case a black James Bond would look out of place in that time period.

Sorry if my “wokeness” offended anyone here.

By that logic it shouldn't matter what his gender or sexuality is either, just saying. :-??

That’s definitely different logic. They’re not the same thing, and some aspects of Bond’s makeup are more important than others. By the logic you’re using that everything is of equal importance we could say Dalton was all wrong for Bond as he was the wrong shoe size.
That Bond is a man or desires women is much more important to the stories and his personality than his eye, hair or skin colour, which are just incidental details, especially in the modern day.

That Bond enjoys casual sex is certainly a key element, but the genders seems like another arbitrary characteristic, again if we're working on the logic of "its the 2020's so it shouldn't matter". What changes about TND, to use makeshifts example if Bond is nonbinary? I'm not seeing what justification makes it different, other than you just stating that it is the case.

That Bond is extremely alpha male masculine and personifies both the best and worst traits of that is absolutely key to him, I feel like you must be aware of this, even if you don’t know what all the films are called ;)

What is never important to the stories or his character is the colour or shape of bits of him. Well okay, we can infer some bits of him are probably quite large from “my mouth is too big” ( :D ) and funnily enough his eye colour does come up in NTTD with Madeline(!) but if it were green it wouldn’t change anything.

George_Kaplan

Oh dear, this old chestnut again. Look, whatever one's views on this topic are, Bond WILL be depicted as a POC in an officially released product at some point. Some may not like it and that's fine. It doesn't make you a racist, but this is the way things are (slowly) heading. And if it's not the next guy, it'll be the guy after, or the guy after that, but it will happen. So, it's probably a good idea to use this interim period to start getting used to the idea, because, like I said, it will happen eventually.

Mendes4Lyfe

mtm wrote: »

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

mtm wrote: »

MakeshiftPython wrote: »

I think Bond should remain male and still fancy women, 100%. I don’t mind his ethnicity changing, because in the 2020s it really doesn’t matter what his ethnicity is, especially since few stories ever make that relevant to the plot. Did being white in TOMORROW NEVER DIES bear any relevance?

If his whiteness did factor in anything recently it’s probably SKYFALL, which leaned into the idea of Bond being a symbolic representation of the British Empire. A man out of time, which Silva mocks during the interrogation. If future films lean further into that conceit, that’s a solid argument to stick to Bond being white.

Of course the easiest argument would be setting the films back in the 1950s to Fleming’s era, in which case a black James Bond would look out of place in that time period.

Sorry if my “wokeness” offended anyone here.

My goodness, your shocking foul mouthed rant has deeply upset me, how could you be such a brute 😜

Agreed about Skyfall: I guess Bond being the ‘old way’ is really a theme of the whole series: he’s all wood-panelling and classic suits where the villains are all modernist lairs and nehru collars. Regardless, and as much as I enjoyed it in SF, I wouldn’t mind them not stressing his old dog ways too much again as it feels a bit done.

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

MakeshiftPython wrote: »

I think Bond should remain male and still fancy women, 100%. I don’t mind his ethnicity changing, because in the 2020s it really doesn’t matter what his ethnicity is, especially since few stories ever make that relevant to the plot. Did being white in TOMORROW NEVER DIES bear any relevance?

If his whiteness did factor in anything recently it’s probably SKYFALL, which leaned into the idea of Bond being a symbolic representation of the British Empire. A man out of time, which Silva mocks during the interrogation. If future films lean further into that conceit, that’s a solid argument to stick to Bond being white.

Of course the easiest argument would be setting the films back in the 1950s to Fleming’s era, in which case a black James Bond would look out of place in that time period.

Sorry if my “wokeness” offended anyone here.

By that logic it shouldn't matter what his gender or sexuality is either, just saying. :-??

That’s definitely different logic. They’re not the same thing, and some aspects of Bond’s makeup are more important than others. By the logic you’re using that everything is of equal importance we could say Dalton was all wrong for Bond as he was the wrong shoe size.
That Bond is a man or desires women is much more important to the stories and his personality than his eye, hair or skin colour, which are just incidental details, especially in the modern day.

That Bond enjoys casual sex is certainly a key element, but the genders seems like another arbitrary characteristic, again if we're working on the logic of "its the 2020's so it shouldn't matter". What changes about TND, to use makeshifts example if Bond is nonbinary? I'm not seeing what justification makes it different, other than you just stating that it is the case.

That Bond is extremely alpha male masculine is absolutely key to him, I feel like you must be aware of this, even if you don’t know what all the films are called ;)

Can't you just have an alpha female though? Or alpha nonbinary? Is that Alpha energy locked up in him using he/him pronouns, that the second he changes it goes away like Austin Powers losing his mojo. Can't he maintain the same temperament, the same traits just with different genitalia? Why would something arbitrary like what he has downstairs make the difference? Is him being a man really what matters, or having traits that are traditionally asscoiated with masculinity, because you know anyone can have those, right? It is the 2020's afterall, it shouldn't matter, should it?

Jordo007

SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ wrote: »

Stamper wrote: »

James Bond: What are they burning?
Hotel Porter: Secrets. Wishes. Letting go of the past. Getting rid of old things, in come the new.

All of a sudden, NTTD does feel poignant and melancholic now. I never saw that coming. Hmmm.

That's the one thing that's come out of this deal is it's given NTTD a different light. It did feel melancholic during first viewing, but I reasoned that was as it was Craig's finale.

Perhaps the Dr No dots in the title sequence held more significance than we realised, for example.

buddyoldchap

George_Kaplan wrote: »

Oh dear, this old chestnut again. Look, whatever one's views on this topic are, Bond WILL be depicted as a POC in an officially released product at some point. Some may not like it and that's fine. It doesn't make you a racist, but this is the way things are (slowly) heading. And if it's not the next guy, it'll be the guy after, or the guy after that, but it will happen. So, it's probably a good idea to use this interim period to start getting used to the idea, because, like I said, it will happen eventually.

At the end of the day, whichever day in the future it may be, Bond shouldn't be a vehicle for false 'emancipatory' (woke) ideas. Bond is a white character with lore et all, just like Shaft has his. No one EVER in the future will even BEGIN to think to make Shaft white instead. That is pure hypocrisy. Somehow some people push for these changes because we 'owe' it to minorities. I stress Bond owes nothing to anyone, Bond is white and should remain so. He isn't there to serve perverse ideological agendas concocted by others who don't care.

mtm

George_Kaplan wrote: »

Oh dear, this old chestnut again. Look, whatever one's views on this topic are, Bond WILL be depicted as a POC in an officially released product at some point. Some may not like it and that's fine. It doesn't make you a racist, but this is the way things are (slowly) heading. And if it's not the next guy, it'll be the guy after, or the guy after that, but it will happen. So, it's probably a good idea to use this interim period to start getting used to the idea, because, like I said, it will happen eventually.

To be honest I think it’s a bit moot as, without wanting to be accused of going on an outrageous tirade that might make more delicate folks faint, we’re where we are in the current politicised world order and due to who owns him he’s going to stay white this time I would expect.
I’m not even passing comment on whether that’s a good or bad or indifferent thing.

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

mtm wrote: »

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

mtm wrote: »

MakeshiftPython wrote: »

I think Bond should remain male and still fancy women, 100%. I don’t mind his ethnicity changing, because in the 2020s it really doesn’t matter what his ethnicity is, especially since few stories ever make that relevant to the plot. Did being white in TOMORROW NEVER DIES bear any relevance?

If his whiteness did factor in anything recently it’s probably SKYFALL, which leaned into the idea of Bond being a symbolic representation of the British Empire. A man out of time, which Silva mocks during the interrogation. If future films lean further into that conceit, that’s a solid argument to stick to Bond being white.

Of course the easiest argument would be setting the films back in the 1950s to Fleming’s era, in which case a black James Bond would look out of place in that time period.

Sorry if my “wokeness” offended anyone here.

My goodness, your shocking foul mouthed rant has deeply upset me, how could you be such a brute 😜

Agreed about Skyfall: I guess Bond being the ‘old way’ is really a theme of the whole series: he’s all wood-panelling and classic suits where the villains are all modernist lairs and nehru collars. Regardless, and as much as I enjoyed it in SF, I wouldn’t mind them not stressing his old dog ways too much again as it feels a bit done.

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

MakeshiftPython wrote: »

I think Bond should remain male and still fancy women, 100%. I don’t mind his ethnicity changing, because in the 2020s it really doesn’t matter what his ethnicity is, especially since few stories ever make that relevant to the plot. Did being white in TOMORROW NEVER DIES bear any relevance?

If his whiteness did factor in anything recently it’s probably SKYFALL, which leaned into the idea of Bond being a symbolic representation of the British Empire. A man out of time, which Silva mocks during the interrogation. If future films lean further into that conceit, that’s a solid argument to stick to Bond being white.

Of course the easiest argument would be setting the films back in the 1950s to Fleming’s era, in which case a black James Bond would look out of place in that time period.

Sorry if my “wokeness” offended anyone here.

By that logic it shouldn't matter what his gender or sexuality is either, just saying. :-??

That’s definitely different logic. They’re not the same thing, and some aspects of Bond’s makeup are more important than others. By the logic you’re using that everything is of equal importance we could say Dalton was all wrong for Bond as he was the wrong shoe size.
That Bond is a man or desires women is much more important to the stories and his personality than his eye, hair or skin colour, which are just incidental details, especially in the modern day.

That Bond enjoys casual sex is certainly a key element, but the genders seems like another arbitrary characteristic, again if we're working on the logic of "its the 2020's so it shouldn't matter". What changes about TND, to use makeshifts example if Bond is nonbinary? I'm not seeing what justification makes it different, other than you just stating that it is the case.

That Bond is extremely alpha male masculine is absolutely key to him, I feel like you must be aware of this, even if you don’t know what all the films are called ;)

Can't you just have an alpha female though? Or alpha nonbinary? Is that Alpha energy locked up in him using he/him pronouns, that the second he changes it goes away like Austin Powers losing his mojo. Can't he maintain the same temperament, the same traits just with different genitalia? Why would something arbitrary like what he has downstairs make the difference? Is him being a man really what matters, or having traits that are traditionally asscoiated with masculinity, because you know anyone can have those, right? It is the 2020's afterall, it shouldn't matter, should it?

You’re just saying random stuff to be argumentative now, none of that makes sense. If you think a woman being masculine is the same thing as a man being masculine then I can’t help you.

Jordo007 wrote: »

SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ wrote: »

Stamper wrote: »

James Bond: What are they burning?
Hotel Porter: Secrets. Wishes. Letting go of the past. Getting rid of old things, in come the new.

All of a sudden, NTTD does feel poignant and melancholic now. I never saw that coming. Hmmm.

That's the one thing that's come out of this deal is it's given NTTD a different light. It did feel melancholic during first viewing, but I reasoned that was as it was Craig's finale.

Perhaps the Dr No dots in the title sequence held more significance than we realised, for example.

Oh gosh yes, I hadn’t thought of that. Whether intended or not, it does work as a bookend.

Mendes4Lyfe

mtm wrote: »

George_Kaplan wrote: »

Oh dear, this old chestnut again. Look, whatever one's views on this topic are, Bond WILL be depicted as a POC in an officially released product at some point. Some may not like it and that's fine. It doesn't make you a racist, but this is the way things are (slowly) heading. And if it's not the next guy, it'll be the guy after, or the guy after that, but it will happen. So, it's probably a good idea to use this interim period to start getting used to the idea, because, like I said, it will happen eventually.

To be honest I think it’s a bit moot as, without wanting to be accused of going on an outrageous tirade that might make more delicate folks faint, we’re where we are in the current politicised world order and due to who owns him he’s going to stay white this time I would expect.
I’m not even passing comment on whether that’s a good or bad or indifferent thing.

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

mtm wrote: »

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

mtm wrote: »

MakeshiftPython wrote: »

I think Bond should remain male and still fancy women, 100%. I don’t mind his ethnicity changing, because in the 2020s it really doesn’t matter what his ethnicity is, especially since few stories ever make that relevant to the plot. Did being white in TOMORROW NEVER DIES bear any relevance?

If his whiteness did factor in anything recently it’s probably SKYFALL, which leaned into the idea of Bond being a symbolic representation of the British Empire. A man out of time, which Silva mocks during the interrogation. If future films lean further into that conceit, that’s a solid argument to stick to Bond being white.

Of course the easiest argument would be setting the films back in the 1950s to Fleming’s era, in which case a black James Bond would look out of place in that time period.

Sorry if my “wokeness” offended anyone here.

My goodness, your shocking foul mouthed rant has deeply upset me, how could you be such a brute 😜

Agreed about Skyfall: I guess Bond being the ‘old way’ is really a theme of the whole series: he’s all wood-panelling and classic suits where the villains are all modernist lairs and nehru collars. Regardless, and as much as I enjoyed it in SF, I wouldn’t mind them not stressing his old dog ways too much again as it feels a bit done.

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

MakeshiftPython wrote: »

I think Bond should remain male and still fancy women, 100%. I don’t mind his ethnicity changing, because in the 2020s it really doesn’t matter what his ethnicity is, especially since few stories ever make that relevant to the plot. Did being white in TOMORROW NEVER DIES bear any relevance?

If his whiteness did factor in anything recently it’s probably SKYFALL, which leaned into the idea of Bond being a symbolic representation of the British Empire. A man out of time, which Silva mocks during the interrogation. If future films lean further into that conceit, that’s a solid argument to stick to Bond being white.

Of course the easiest argument would be setting the films back in the 1950s to Fleming’s era, in which case a black James Bond would look out of place in that time period.

Sorry if my “wokeness” offended anyone here.

By that logic it shouldn't matter what his gender or sexuality is either, just saying. :-??

That’s definitely different logic. They’re not the same thing, and some aspects of Bond’s makeup are more important than others. By the logic you’re using that everything is of equal importance we could say Dalton was all wrong for Bond as he was the wrong shoe size.
That Bond is a man or desires women is much more important to the stories and his personality than his eye, hair or skin colour, which are just incidental details, especially in the modern day.

That Bond enjoys casual sex is certainly a key element, but the genders seems like another arbitrary characteristic, again if we're working on the logic of "its the 2020's so it shouldn't matter". What changes about TND, to use makeshifts example if Bond is nonbinary? I'm not seeing what justification makes it different, other than you just stating that it is the case.

That Bond is extremely alpha male masculine is absolutely key to him, I feel like you must be aware of this, even if you don’t know what all the films are called ;)

Can't you just have an alpha female though? Or alpha nonbinary? Is that Alpha energy locked up in him using he/him pronouns, that the second he changes it goes away like Austin Powers losing his mojo. Can't he maintain the same temperament, the same traits just with different genitalia? Why would something arbitrary like what he has downstairs make the difference? Is him being a man really what matters, or having traits that are traditionally asscoiated with masculinity, because you know anyone can have those, right? It is the 2020's afterall, it shouldn't matter, should it?

You’re just saying random stuff to be argumentative now, none of that makes sense. If you think a woman being masculine is the same thing as a man being masculine then I can’t help you.

Just vaguely gesturing at a difference without actually having any means of putting it into words.

mtm

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

mtm wrote: »

George_Kaplan wrote: »

Oh dear, this old chestnut again. Look, whatever one's views on this topic are, Bond WILL be depicted as a POC in an officially released product at some point. Some may not like it and that's fine. It doesn't make you a racist, but this is the way things are (slowly) heading. And if it's not the next guy, it'll be the guy after, or the guy after that, but it will happen. So, it's probably a good idea to use this interim period to start getting used to the idea, because, like I said, it will happen eventually.

To be honest I think it’s a bit moot as, without wanting to be accused of going on an outrageous tirade that might make more delicate folks faint, we’re where we are in the current politicised world order and due to who owns him he’s going to stay white this time I would expect.
I’m not even passing comment on whether that’s a good or bad or indifferent thing.

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

mtm wrote: »

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

mtm wrote: »

MakeshiftPython wrote: »

I think Bond should remain male and still fancy women, 100%. I don’t mind his ethnicity changing, because in the 2020s it really doesn’t matter what his ethnicity is, especially since few stories ever make that relevant to the plot. Did being white in TOMORROW NEVER DIES bear any relevance?

If his whiteness did factor in anything recently it’s probably SKYFALL, which leaned into the idea of Bond being a symbolic representation of the British Empire. A man out of time, which Silva mocks during the interrogation. If future films lean further into that conceit, that’s a solid argument to stick to Bond being white.

Of course the easiest argument would be setting the films back in the 1950s to Fleming’s era, in which case a black James Bond would look out of place in that time period.

Sorry if my “wokeness” offended anyone here.

My goodness, your shocking foul mouthed rant has deeply upset me, how could you be such a brute 😜

Agreed about Skyfall: I guess Bond being the ‘old way’ is really a theme of the whole series: he’s all wood-panelling and classic suits where the villains are all modernist lairs and nehru collars. Regardless, and as much as I enjoyed it in SF, I wouldn’t mind them not stressing his old dog ways too much again as it feels a bit done.

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

MakeshiftPython wrote: »

I think Bond should remain male and still fancy women, 100%. I don’t mind his ethnicity changing, because in the 2020s it really doesn’t matter what his ethnicity is, especially since few stories ever make that relevant to the plot. Did being white in TOMORROW NEVER DIES bear any relevance?

If his whiteness did factor in anything recently it’s probably SKYFALL, which leaned into the idea of Bond being a symbolic representation of the British Empire. A man out of time, which Silva mocks during the interrogation. If future films lean further into that conceit, that’s a solid argument to stick to Bond being white.

Of course the easiest argument would be setting the films back in the 1950s to Fleming’s era, in which case a black James Bond would look out of place in that time period.

Sorry if my “wokeness” offended anyone here.

By that logic it shouldn't matter what his gender or sexuality is either, just saying. :-??

That’s definitely different logic. They’re not the same thing, and some aspects of Bond’s makeup are more important than others. By the logic you’re using that everything is of equal importance we could say Dalton was all wrong for Bond as he was the wrong shoe size.
That Bond is a man or desires women is much more important to the stories and his personality than his eye, hair or skin colour, which are just incidental details, especially in the modern day.

That Bond enjoys casual sex is certainly a key element, but the genders seems like another arbitrary characteristic, again if we're working on the logic of "its the 2020's so it shouldn't matter". What changes about TND, to use makeshifts example if Bond is nonbinary? I'm not seeing what justification makes it different, other than you just stating that it is the case.

That Bond is extremely alpha male masculine is absolutely key to him, I feel like you must be aware of this, even if you don’t know what all the films are called ;)

Can't you just have an alpha female though? Or alpha nonbinary? Is that Alpha energy locked up in him using he/him pronouns, that the second he changes it goes away like Austin Powers losing his mojo. Can't he maintain the same temperament, the same traits just with different genitalia? Why would something arbitrary like what he has downstairs make the difference? Is him being a man really what matters, or having traits that are traditionally asscoiated with masculinity, because you know anyone can have those, right? It is the 2020's afterall, it shouldn't matter, should it?

You’re just saying random stuff to be argumentative now, none of that makes sense. If you think a woman being masculine is the same thing as a man being masculine then I can’t help you.

Just vaguely gesturing at a difference without actually having any means of putting it into words.

Yes you are failing to put your argument into words, glad we agree.
Look, either you can see how the world and people function or you can’t, it’s not my job to educate you. I think you know you’re talking a load of nonsense, especially as you’re taking the position of something you don’t actually believe in by simplistic over extrapolation where everything is the same as everything else in order to try and make some sort of childish point. It’s a stupid conversation.

SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷

Jordo007 wrote: »

SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ wrote: »

Stamper wrote: »

James Bond: What are they burning?
Hotel Porter: Secrets. Wishes. Letting go of the past. Getting rid of old things, in come the new.

All of a sudden, NTTD does feel poignant and melancholic now. I never saw that coming. Hmmm.

That's the one thing that's come out of this deal is it's given NTTD a different light. It did feel melancholic during first viewing, but I reasoned that was as it was Craig's finale.

Perhaps the Dr No dots in the title sequence held more significance than we realised, for example.

Yes. Correct. Those DN dots too. Eilish's whispery, soulful Bond song, Bond's death feels emotional now. Everything about NTTD suddenly clicks and the film really does feels like the end of an era now.

jetsetwilly

Univex wrote: »

MajorDSmythe wrote: »

mtm wrote: »

MajorDSmythe wrote: »

mtm wrote: »

MajorDSmythe wrote: »

mtm wrote: »

MajorDSmythe wrote: »

ColonelAdamski wrote: »

Seve wrote: »

Also explains why NTTD ends as it does... Babs dropping the mic

I had the same thought when I heard the news.

Being one of the naysayers regarding NTTD, I'm not doing too much hand-wringing about this sale. People seem worried that Amazon will take the screen Bond in a direction they won't like, well that already happened for me.
I'm less worried, more interested. And I really couldn't imagine EON carrying on doing 'classic' style pre-Craig adventures. When you look at the long wait between Bonds, and them killing almost everyone off in the last film, this news isn't much of a surprise, is it?

Put it this way, I was bought up in the Moore years, with a new adventure every couple of years. Now, in 2025, I haven't enjoyed a big screen Bond film for ten years. If Amazon start pumping out regular fun Bond adventures with an eye on the books, to keep them grounded, I'll be quite happy.

I agree with you, to a point. I have never been a flag waving fan of the Craig era, but.... BUT, I do feel that worse can be done to Bond. It only takes a cursory glance at how characters have been cast/recast in recent years, to see what might be in store for Bond.

You mean with bad actors? There’s always those around.
I’m sure you don’t mean anything else.

Could you bookmark my post, i'd like to see it again in 2 years time. It'd be nice to see if i'm right or wrong.

Is there a reason you feel you can’t say what you mean explicitly?

Absolutely not.

Great: go ahead.

MajorDSmythe wrote: »

It's always nice to have old posts that I had forgotten about, being brought up. It's like having my own personal archivist.

I have a memory, yes, I don't think that's all that weird.

I think Bond should be straight, white and male.

Bond IS straight, white and male. Changing that would be changing Bond. If they want to change Bond, they can and will, nonetheless it will be changing Bond, so it won’t be Ian Fleming’s James Bond, and to a degree, it won’t be EON’s James Bond, but Amazon’s James Bond. Let’s just hope they’ll be one and the same. Why would they buy the golden goose just to kill it with experimentations? They’d be mad. But hey, maybe they are. Let’s just hope the person they put up to the task will have a lucid comprehension of what the character is all about. Maybe we’ll get a Fleming fan? Who knows? Too early to tell.

bondywondy wrote: »

I did some research on Amazon. It's mind boggling data.

Amazon is
second-largest company in the world (based on consolidated revenue according to the Fortune Global 500 2024 rankings),
12th-most visited website in the world,
second-largest private employer in the United
In 2021, it surpassed Walmart as the world's largest retailer outside of China,
As of 2023, it is the world's largest online retailer.

The second biggest revenue company in the world own James Bond - has full creative control. Eon had no chance to determine the direction of the franchise. How can you tell the second biggest company in the world "er, actually we don't think your ideas are good."

It was never going to happen.

Broccoli and Wilson were never going to win the creativity battle with Amazon. My guess is Cubby Broccoli would have tried to flatter Amazon. That might have led to a suitable compromise. Imagine going to Amazon studio meetings and not saying you're "f-king idiots" but doing the opposite. "Yes, your ideas about Bond not being a hero sound fascinating. I'm sure we can do a screenplay making Bond more heroic. And maybe you'll consider raising the budget?"

Something like that. Give Amazon the bullsh*t they wanna hear. Try to flatter their collective ego and that way they're more likely to compromise.

Barbara Broccoli is not as smart as some people claim. She was extremely stupid to kill off James Bond because that automatically led to zero plan moving forward. As soon as she agreed to kill off Bond that meant the franchise was in limbo. No clear idea what to do next. A monumental error of judgement.

And the second monumental error of judgement was not to try to appease Bezos, Salke and the other executives at Amazon MGM Studios. If she did call them "f-king idiots" that automatically dropped Amazon's respect for Eon. It's not a good business strategy because you show yourself to be too emotional or too unwilling to compromise. Barbara Broccoli could and did play hardball with the old MGM because they needed Eon but Amazon doesn't need Eon. All they need is Eon's 50 percent stake to completely own Bond or the next best option - own full creative control.

Said in hindsight, the Eon Bond film franchise was doomed when

1) Craig and Eon foolishly, recklessly killed off Bond and thereby sabotaged a clear way forward for the franchise (which I would consider gross negligence),

2) Refusing or unable to compromise with Amazon. Eon's legal team should have reminded Broccoli - "you're dealing with the second richest company on the planet. You better be prepared to be civil to them and compromise or it's game over. Amazon will file the most harsh lawsuit possible and potentially bankrupt you."

If she never adopted that approach she was doomed to failure.

It's possible she wanted to quit anyway so maybe it all worked out for her. Killing Bond is the most compelling evidence she wanted out.

My guess is Cubby Broccoli would have found a different way. He wouldn't have killed off Bond and he would have tried his very best to co-produce with Amazon. Sadly it wasn't meant to be.

Had Barbara made the decision to kill Bond off because she knew the Amazon deal was on the horizon, and she knew she would ultimately have to sell out, then I can understand a bit more the reason to kill Bond off at the end of NTTD. In some strange way I even respect it. Cinematic Bond was her family creation, born with her father and killed off by the daughter.

But, as others have mentioned here before, if the Amazon deal was not on the horizon, then I still do not understand the reckless need to kill off Bond in NTTD. For me it was unforgivable, the biggest single damage she did to her father's legacy.

This is why I am pleased, ecstatic even, that Amazon are taking over. It remains to be seen what they will do with it, but I am far more hopeful for Bond 26 now, than I was this time last week under EON's reign.

jetsetwilly

MakeshiftPython wrote: »

I think Bond should remain male and still fancy women, 100%. I don’t mind his ethnicity changing, because in the 2020s it really doesn’t matter what his ethnicity is, especially since few stories ever make that relevant to the plot. Did being white in TOMORROW NEVER DIES bear any relevance?

If his whiteness did factor in anything recently it’s probably SKYFALL, which leaned into the idea of Bond being a symbolic representation of the British Empire. A man out of time, which Silva mocks during the interrogation. If future films lean further into that conceit, that’s a solid argument to stick to Bond being white.

Of course the easiest argument would be setting the films back in the 1950s to Fleming’s era, in which case a black James Bond would look out of place in that time period.

Sorry if my “wokeness” offended anyone here.

If the character is still supposed to be Ian Fleming's James Bond, then I think it should stay as close to the literary description as much as possible - character traits, personality, description, everything.

If however, Amazon's reign presents the title poster of Bond 26 as simply `James Bond', rather than `Ian Fleming's James Bond', then yes you are right. They can do whatever they want with the character, they could make him Chinese or Indian origin, they could make him black, they could make him mixed race, they could make him gay, they could give him a massive long ginger beard, ZZ Top style.

They could scrap the suits and have his wardrobe now only consisting of faded Levi's jeans, Adidas sneakers and a hoodie, Axel Foley style, because they are working from a blank canvas, no longer restrained by the literary version, and no need to honour the previous cinematic versions either.

They could even scrap the Aston Martin and give Bond a Del Boy yellow Robin Reliant 3 wheeler van to drive around in.

I'm not sure how many fans they will win over in the process of doing this though, just because we are now in the 2020's...

Stamper

Man I expected them to KILL BOND in QOS!!!
Killing Bond was part of the novels and was long overdue coming in the films.
In the end, she did it at the right time I guess.
Now, everything in NTTD has a double entendre.

jetsetwilly

Stamper wrote: »

Man I expected them to KILL BOND in QOS!!!
Killing Bond was part of the novels and was long overdue coming in the films.
In the end, she did it at the right time I guess.
Now, everything in NTTD has a double entendre.

Killing Bond wasn't part of the novels. He only attempted it once in FRWL, but even then he left it open, and also rectified it in the next book by making sure Bond was saved.

NTTD did no such thing in its final scene with Bond. There was no ambiguity with Bond's death.

bondywondy

jetsetwilly wrote: »

Univex wrote: »

MajorDSmythe wrote: »

mtm wrote: »

MajorDSmythe wrote: »

mtm wrote: »

MajorDSmythe wrote: »

mtm wrote: »

MajorDSmythe wrote: »

ColonelAdamski wrote: »

Seve wrote: »

Also explains why NTTD ends as it does... Babs dropping the mic

I had the same thought when I heard the news.

Being one of the naysayers regarding NTTD, I'm not doing too much hand-wringing about this sale. People seem worried that Amazon will take the screen Bond in a direction they won't like, well that already happened for me.
I'm less worried, more interested. And I really couldn't imagine EON carrying on doing 'classic' style pre-Craig adventures. When you look at the long wait between Bonds, and them killing almost everyone off in the last film, this news isn't much of a surprise, is it?

Put it this way, I was bought up in the Moore years, with a new adventure every couple of years. Now, in 2025, I haven't enjoyed a big screen Bond film for ten years. If Amazon start pumping out regular fun Bond adventures with an eye on the books, to keep them grounded, I'll be quite happy.

I agree with you, to a point. I have never been a flag waving fan of the Craig era, but.... BUT, I do feel that worse can be done to Bond. It only takes a cursory glance at how characters have been cast/recast in recent years, to see what might be in store for Bond.

You mean with bad actors? There’s always those around.
I’m sure you don’t mean anything else.

Could you bookmark my post, i'd like to see it again in 2 years time. It'd be nice to see if i'm right or wrong.

Is there a reason you feel you can’t say what you mean explicitly?

Absolutely not.

Great: go ahead.

MajorDSmythe wrote: »

It's always nice to have old posts that I had forgotten about, being brought up. It's like having my own personal archivist.

I have a memory, yes, I don't think that's all that weird.

I think Bond should be straight, white and male.

Bond IS straight, white and male. Changing that would be changing Bond. If they want to change Bond, they can and will, nonetheless it will be changing Bond, so it won’t be Ian Fleming’s James Bond, and to a degree, it won’t be EON’s James Bond, but Amazon’s James Bond. Let’s just hope they’ll be one and the same. Why would they buy the golden goose just to kill it with experimentations? They’d be mad. But hey, maybe they are. Let’s just hope the person they put up to the task will have a lucid comprehension of what the character is all about. Maybe we’ll get a Fleming fan? Who knows? Too early to tell.

bondywondy wrote: »

I did some research on Amazon. It's mind boggling data.

Amazon is
second-largest company in the world (based on consolidated revenue according to the Fortune Global 500 2024 rankings),
12th-most visited website in the world,
second-largest private employer in the United
In 2021, it surpassed Walmart as the world's largest retailer outside of China,
As of 2023, it is the world's largest online retailer.

The second biggest revenue company in the world own James Bond - has full creative control. Eon had no chance to determine the direction of the franchise. How can you tell the second biggest company in the world "er, actually we don't think your ideas are good."

It was never going to happen.

Broccoli and Wilson were never going to win the creativity battle with Amazon. My guess is Cubby Broccoli would have tried to flatter Amazon. That might have led to a suitable compromise. Imagine going to Amazon studio meetings and not saying you're "f-king idiots" but doing the opposite. "Yes, your ideas about Bond not being a hero sound fascinating. I'm sure we can do a screenplay making Bond more heroic. And maybe you'll consider raising the budget?"

Something like that. Give Amazon the bullsh*t they wanna hear. Try to flatter their collective ego and that way they're more likely to compromise.

Barbara Broccoli is not as smart as some people claim. She was extremely stupid to kill off James Bond because that automatically led to zero plan moving forward. As soon as she agreed to kill off Bond that meant the franchise was in limbo. No clear idea what to do next. A monumental error of judgement.

And the second monumental error of judgement was not to try to appease Bezos, Salke and the other executives at Amazon MGM Studios. If she did call them "f-king idiots" that automatically dropped Amazon's respect for Eon. It's not a good business strategy because you show yourself to be too emotional or too unwilling to compromise. Barbara Broccoli could and did play hardball with the old MGM because they needed Eon but Amazon doesn't need Eon. All they need is Eon's 50 percent stake to completely own Bond or the next best option - own full creative control.

Said in hindsight, the Eon Bond film franchise was doomed when

1) Craig and Eon foolishly, recklessly killed off Bond and thereby sabotaged a clear way forward for the franchise (which I would consider gross negligence),

2) Refusing or unable to compromise with Amazon. Eon's legal team should have reminded Broccoli - "you're dealing with the second richest company on the planet. You better be prepared to be civil to them and compromise or it's game over. Amazon will file the most harsh lawsuit possible and potentially bankrupt you."

If she never adopted that approach she was doomed to failure.

It's possible she wanted to quit anyway so maybe it all worked out for her. Killing Bond is the most compelling evidence she wanted out.

My guess is Cubby Broccoli would have found a different way. He wouldn't have killed off Bond and he would have tried his very best to co-produce with Amazon. Sadly it wasn't meant to be.

Had Barbara made the decision to kill Bond off because she knew the Amazon deal was on the horizon, and she knew she would ultimately have to sell out, then I can understand a bit more the reason to kill Bond off at the end of NTTD. In some strange way I even respect it. Cinematic Bond was her family creation, born with her father and killed off by the daughter.

But, as others have mentioned here before, the Amazon deal was not on the horizon, then I still do not understand the reckless need to kill off Bond in NTTD. For me it was unforgivable, the biggest single damage she did to her father's legacy.

This is why I am pleased, ecstatic even, that Amazon are taking over. It remains to be seen what they will do with it, but I am far more hopeful for Bond 26 now, than I was this time last week under EON's reign.

I agree with you that killing off James Bond was "the biggest single damage she did to her father's legacy."

- and it tainted her tenure as producer. With her father passing she was able to cast whoever she wanted. She cast Daniel Craig and despite the naysayers the Craig era was a success. You have proven the critics wrong, the films are profitable and then you say "I got a great idea. Let's kill off our intellectual property! The fans will love and respect us for killing off a 60 year long action hero franchise!"

??????

A mad, self-destructive decision unless Eon had decided to call it a day when they were in pre production of NTTD. Maybe MG had said "that's it, I'm retiring after NTTD" and Barbara thought "shall I continue or not? Daniel has made it clear he's never coming back so I don't see any reason to continue. At some point after NTTD is released I'll retire."

Perhaps Barbara Broccoli will give an interview in a few years time and be asked if she made the decision to kill off Bond because she had decided to retire after NTTD?

NTTD was complete at the end of 2019 or very early 2020. The original release date was February 14th 2020 but covid happened and everything was delayed, but Eon had five years to work on a screenplay for Bond 26 and Broccoli said there is no script:

Dec 20, 2024
In a recent feature from The Wall Street Journal, Barbara Broccoli, the longtime steward of the 007 franchise, gave a bitter update on the status of the next Bond film, revealing that there’s “no script, no story and no new Bond.”

Her comments would suggest Eon had no enthusiasm to work on Bond 26. Zero development for almost five years. It's reasonable to assume Eon had decided No Time To Die/and Bond dying was their exit plan. Maybe the Amazon purchase of MGM changed the precise timing of Eon's exit. It's possible Eon's legal team suggested stalling Amazon for few years to make Amazon increase their offer to buy Eon's share or to buy creative control - or maybe Amazon had said "enough of this delay" and threatening legal action.

I think all the evidence - certainly the lack of any development of Bond 26 - suggest Eon had decided to retire after NTTD. Maybe killing off Bond was the way to facilitate Eon's retirement. By killing off Bond it resulted in five years of zero development of Bond 26 and Amazon 'persuading' Eon to relinquish creative control.

Jordo007

SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ wrote: »

Jordo007 wrote: »

SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ wrote: »

Stamper wrote: »

James Bond: What are they burning?
Hotel Porter: Secrets. Wishes. Letting go of the past. Getting rid of old things, in come the new.

All of a sudden, NTTD does feel poignant and melancholic now. I never saw that coming. Hmmm.

That's the one thing that's come out of this deal is it's given NTTD a different light. It did feel melancholic during first viewing, but I reasoned that was as it was Craig's finale.

Perhaps the Dr No dots in the title sequence held more significance than we realised, for example.

Yes. Correct. Those DN dots too. Eilish's whispery, soulful Bond song, Bond's death feels emotional now. Everything about NTTD suddenly clicks and the film really does feels like the end of an era now.

I haven't watched NTTD in probably over two years now, but I'll revisit it soon. I'm sure it'll take on a whole new meaning

SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷

Yeah, I agree @Jordo007 watching NTTD now would definitely hit differently.

Colonel_Venus

The future of Bond hasn't been this bright in over a decade. I'm very optimistic!

jetsetwilly

Colonel_Venus wrote: »

The future of Bond hasn't been this bright in over a decade. I'm very optimistic!

Same here! Best thing to happen to the franchise since CR.

Univex

I’ve got one foot on one side, and one foot on the other, I must say. Bipolar much? ;)
But, gotta say, the positivism is creeping in slowly, even if we don’t have nothing concrete as of yet. It can be quickly shot down, fragile as it is.

MakeshiftPython

buddyoldchap wrote: »

George_Kaplan wrote: »

Oh dear, this old chestnut again. Look, whatever one's views on this topic are, Bond WILL be depicted as a POC in an officially released product at some point. Some may not like it and that's fine. It doesn't make you a racist, but this is the way things are (slowly) heading. And if it's not the next guy, it'll be the guy after, or the guy after that, but it will happen. So, it's probably a good idea to use this interim period to start getting used to the idea, because, like I said, it will happen eventually.

At the end of the day, whichever day in the future it may be, Bond shouldn't be a vehicle for false 'emancipatory' (woke) ideas. Bond is a white character with lore et all, just like Shaft has his. No one EVER in the future will even BEGIN to think to make Shaft white instead. That is pure hypocrisy. Somehow some people push for these changes because we 'owe' it to minorities. I stress Bond owes nothing to anyone, Bond is white and should remain so. He isn't there to serve perverse ideological agendas concocted by others who don't care.

To be fair, Shaft’s skin color is a lot more ingrained to his stories than Bond’s. The closest I can think of Bond’s whiteness actually serving under any context may be LALD where he shows up as the outsider in Harlem, but that’s about as far as his skin color had held relevance to the plot. It’s never relevant otherwise in the conceit of a gentleman spy globetrotting the world.

Jordo007

My biggest worry is that if it doesn't work out, Amazon will shrug their shoulders and put Bond in drawer or worse stop making it a big screen experience.

EON needed Bond to work, that's the difference.