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
I agree with you. So do a lot of other people on here.
I'd like to answer that, but I don't have a big enough ego. Anyone else want to take a punt at answering for me?
Bingo. Thank you.
I feel bad for her as well. As I said before, she has right to take the role; who wouldn't? But let's be honest about her role in this entire situation: she's being used as a tool by people in positions of power for their own political agenda.
She is a good actress, in a role in a Bond film and it looks to be an interesting role.
No problem at all with her, her role, any of it. Geez.
Who cares how many there are? Why does representation in a FICTIONAL world matter? For me, as a biracial person (Mexican father, American mother), seeing someone on screen that looks like me means less than nothing. I enjoy superheroes and characters like James Bond because they are fun, exciting, well-written archetypes.
Let's go further with the Superman example. He's 6' 4", dark hair, handsome, etc. Oh, and an alien! He looks nothing like me (or most people) and so what? I still love him as a character because of his other traits. Also, how far would you be willing to go in regards to changing a character? If Supes was played by someone 5' 1" with red hair, would he still be the same character? His physical characteristics don't matter in this case, right? He would still have super powers, still be strong, have flight, be bulletproof, etc, correct? He could be the size of a baby and still pound villains into the ground with ease.
Again, how far can we change a character until it's not the same character?
And possibly too much coffee ...
Haha! That's definitely true. :))
Even this morning I would have given breathing room to your train of thought, @MajorDSmythe. I even posted something similar myself a couple of times, even though I'm all for the idea of Lashana as 007.
But unfortunately there have been several rather questionable (borderline racist) statements posted since then that have made that position untenable, I think. I'm sure there are a number of people who genuinely just see Bond and 007 as inextricably linked and wouldn't have welcomed any character regardless of race or gender to assume that number, but those who have let their inner prejudices slip (as they do) have really darkened this entire issue to the point where it doesn't really matter anymore.
I don’t feel bad for her. Because I sincerely doubt she considers herself a political tool. I’d suggest she’s extremely brave to take the role, considering she’d be likely fully aware of the kind of backlash it would generate - the backlash you’re a part of. But I’d say she’s taking the role not just because it’s a good role but precisely because it is a statement. Good for her. Is there a political agenda here? Absolutely. Because it’s damn time women and women of colour were properly represented and I think this is a bold and positive move by the producers. You feel sorry for her? I’m sure she doesn’t want your pity. Christ. I suspect that as a black female actress she’s worked hard to overcome the kind of barriers that people such as yourself are throwing up.
That's not the point. She's not quite convincing as a double 0 in that outfit, she doesn't look sharp. But that's just a random picture and in the Jamaica videoblog she looks good, as I said before.
You (and a lot of others) seem to have confused the idea of a character having the job number of '007' and being the star of this film, which for this film (and Die Another Day) isn't the same thing.
Okay, let’s go point by point.
1) Why does representation in a fictional world matter? Because our media is what shapes our cultural and societal viewpoints. If women and people of colour are under-represented, or represented in a negative light in media and entertainment, that’s how we are informing our society. The fact that you are bi-racial and personally don’t care about how you’re represented is ignoring the fact that many people do care and it affects them in the real world. To believe otherwise is naive. Representation means “less than nothing” to you, so it should mean the same to millions of others who are marginalised and disenfranchised? That’s literally saying “doesn’t bother me so why should I care?” Being bi-racial doesn’t make that stance any more palatable.
2) This whole “what if Superman was a 5’ 1” redhead?” argument is ridiculous. And you know why? Because we’ve already had it with Bond. The physical archetype for Bond is over 6’, dark hair, and movie star handsome. That’s how Fleming wrote him. He also wrote him as a character who smoked 50 a day and did drugs to stay focused. Craig’s Bond is under 6’. He’s blond and, (no disrespect to Mr. Craig), he’s not conventionally handsome. He doesn’t smoke or do drugs. On top of which, they entirely re-wrote his backstory. Oh, yeah, remember that this is an entirely different character now. He’s not even supposed to be the same Bond that Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan played. You asked how far we can change a character before it’s not the same character anymore? They already did it.
Ah yes....the nefarious political agenda of greater ethnic and gender representation.
Again, how far is too far?
So your argument is traditional representation? Just checking...
So, let’s just get this straight. They’ve cast a black woman in the role of a “00” agent. She’s not Bond, nor is she likely to be “007” after this film. She’s literally taken his number after Bond retired and has been gone for a few years. And this is what you’re losing your lunch over? If anyone has gone too far, I’d say it’s you.
I still don't understand how people are misunderstanding this. Pure fear? Or plain stupidity? Or both.
If Connery's Bond had the same thing happening to him, with an Emma Peel type in the 60s, that would make for some fun, wouldn't it? I bet we'd love to see that. I would have.
Indeed. Or imagine a scene where we meet Bond's opposite number in Russia: a superspy to rival our own 007. We see a couple in bed, and suddenly a secret radio in the bedside cabinet sparks to life, the KGB chief on the other end asking for his top agent. The ruggedly handsome, hairy chested man reaches to the radio... and gets up! Allowing his beautiful female lover to answer the call! It turns out she's Agent XXX! A woman!!
Oh hang on, they did this years ago and it was fine.
She sure was ;)
I’m sure if that was done in 1967 it would have become so ingrained in what we know about Bond films for the next 50 years that we don’t even second guess it in 2019. We would just accept that’s what they did back in the day. Just like future generations will look back today. “Oh yeah the one with the female 007 right?”.
Just like how people got over a blond James Bond a decade ago, people will get over this.