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

16566676870

Comments

  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,492
    Troy wrote: »
    How can you make a film about a character named Bond if the character being portrayed as different?

    And if modernising means changing, then why go for the traditional black actor, who are the go-to non-White ethnicity despite making up a very small proportion of UK population. How about a bisexual trans woman of Chinese descent? That would enable the sex scenes to be more inclusive.

    Or maybe a Muslim whose parents are from Pakistan? Who doesn’t drink alcohol, who doesn’t believe in sex outside marriage, and opposes nationalism - in particular anti-colonial?

    And the name James Bond is very Anglo Saxon - not really suited to a progressive world view.

    I was wondering if any other fictional characters get this constant scrutiny about changing their ethnicity/gender/sexuality...?

    Or is it just our dear James? And if so, why is that..?

    I do know Doctor Who was scrutinized when changes were made. The Sam version of Captain America existed in the comic books from what I am told. There was still some push back on why not Bucky instead of Sam to carry the mantle.

    As to why Bond? I think because he has strong links to the Queen and Country likely makes him a target for some. This is all theorizing on my part.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,116
    thedove wrote: »
    Troy wrote: »
    How can you make a film about a character named Bond if the character being portrayed as different?

    And if modernising means changing, then why go for the traditional black actor, who are the go-to non-White ethnicity despite making up a very small proportion of UK population. How about a bisexual trans woman of Chinese descent? That would enable the sex scenes to be more inclusive.

    Or maybe a Muslim whose parents are from Pakistan? Who doesn’t drink alcohol, who doesn’t believe in sex outside marriage, and opposes nationalism - in particular anti-colonial?

    And the name James Bond is very Anglo Saxon - not really suited to a progressive world view.

    I was wondering if any other fictional characters get this constant scrutiny about changing their ethnicity/gender/sexuality...?

    Or is it just our dear James? And if so, why is that..?

    I do know Doctor Who was scrutinized when changes were made. The Sam version of Captain America existed in the comic books from what I am told. There was still some push back on why not Bucky instead of Sam to carry the mantle.

    As to why Bond? I think because he has strong links to the Queen and Country likely makes him a target for some. This is all theorizing on my part.

    Theorise away @thedove it's always intrigued me why Bond gets this treatment.

    I'm pretty protective of the character, so all this nonsense from the mainstream media gets pretty predictable and tedious...
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,628
    CrabKey wrote: »
    What value is added to the series? If Bond's race is changed, will non-whites now flock to a Bond film whereas they didn't before? Have gay men not been seeing Bond films because Bond is not gay? Why stop there. Perhaps the next Bond could be Muslim. Is the purpose of a film these days to appease those who feel aggrieved?

    Changes to supporting characters have worked successfully. I vey much like Whitshaw and Harris, but Bond. Why?

    You get a good actor who's good at playing the role, and not ruling out anyone because of something arbitrary. No change involved.
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I'm with @CrabKey on this. Too often I've heard people ask "Why not?" The real question, however, ought to be "Why?" What could possibly be the added value of any significant change to Bond? Is there anything wrong, outdated, or impossible to connect with when it comes to Bond as he is? Have we exhausted the "formula"? It's one thing to give Bond blonde hair; it's another thing to change his DNA. I'm not here to instigate a culture war, merely to search for the real motives behind suggesting that Bond become a different person.

    All of the 007 actors have had different DNA so far. Sounds glib but it's not.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,403
    CrabKey wrote: »
    For me all this talk is nonsense. It keeps the name Bond out there. But if it is a real consideration, why? Does Bond's change of race or sexual orientation occur without explanation. Might someone ask, "Didn't he used to white?" Yes, but this is a Bond in a different timeline. "In other words, he's not the same Bond. He's just a new bloke with Bond's name!"

    What value is added to the series? If Bond's race is changed, will non-whites now flock to a Bond film whereas they didn't before? Have gay men not been seeing Bond films because Bond is not gay? Why stop there. Perhaps the next Bond could be Muslim. Is the purpose of a film these days to appease those who feel aggrieved?

    Changes to supporting characters have worked successfully. I vey much like Whitshaw and Harris, but Bond. Why?

    Whishaw proves the point. He probably *was* the best actor for the role, regardless of his sexuality.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,236
    I'm not really sure the question in the headline is appropriately phrased, to be honest - unless straight white males are an inherently unmodern concept.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,492
    Yes @CraigMooreOHMSS I took the wording out of the article in Variety. I hope this doesn't sour you from contributing.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,236
    thedove wrote: »
    Yes @CraigMooreOHMSS I took the wording out of the article in Variety. I hope this doesn't sour you from contributing.

    Ah fair enough. I'm not too fragile about it! And I see similar ground has already been covered, regardless. Mea culpa.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,679
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I'm with @CrabKey on this. Too often I've heard people ask "Why not?" The real question, however, ought to be "Why?" What could possibly be the added value of any significant change to Bond? Is there anything wrong, outdated, or impossible to connect with when it comes to Bond as he is? Have we exhausted the "formula"? It's one thing to give Bond blonde hair; it's another thing to change his DNA. I'm not here to instigate a culture war, merely to search for the real motives behind suggesting that Bond become a different person.

    For me, its not a big deal if Bond is nonwhite, because race does not impact ability. Being a woman... does... so there's that line for myself. Different shape, different chemistry, women are too different, but skin color? That doesn't change Bond's job much, unless we want to explore Bond exposed to racism. Which could be interesting! I think the main point for myself is giving other people the opportunity to "see themselves" as James Bond. I think so many people saw Idris Elba as a good Bond candidate because, well, he was! There was nothing stopping him from being Bond except Daniel Craig probably. I saw there people can get excited about a race-bent Bond, and it inspires people who may not be inspired by a white guy. That's something new for the franchise I think, and new for me as a fan, without interrupting any of my other expectations for the character and franchise.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited December 25 Posts: 24,272
    I agree that Bond's skin doesn't impact ability. However, your point about people seeing themselves as Bond makes a lot of sense, @LucknFate. Perhaps subconsciously I became a Bond fan partly because I could see 007 as an older version of myself. Perhaps that's why Bond is "my guy" and why I'd love to see him stay that way. I'd happily enjoy Bond-like spies in different film series with different cultural backgrounds, ethnicity, gender, and so forth, but those spies would be a little less "like me". I'm protective of James Bond because the character is that important to me, and always has been. Hence why, against many solid and rational arguments presented here, I must admit my emotional weakness and simply say that I want Bond to stay white, male, heterosexual, and so forth. Even if I have no good or valid reasons to want that, I still want that. Childish? Perhaps.

    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.

    I'm much less protective of any other character, by the way. A black Batman? Sure. A gay Q? Absolutely no problem. An Asian Ethan Hunt? Why not? A transgender M? Couldn't care less. It's just Bond himself that I'm so protective of. Again, I'm showing my hand: my case is weak, I have no arguments other than emotional ones. In this debate, I'm not the better man, and I have not trouble admitting it.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    edited December 25 Posts: 4,116
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I agree that Bond's skin doesn't impact ability. However, your point about people seeing themselves as Bond makes a lot of sense, @LucknFate. Perhaps subconsciously I became a Bond fan partly because I could see 007 as an older version of myself. Perhaps that's why Bond is "my guy" and why I'd love to see him stay that way. I'd happily enjoy Bond-like spies in different film series with different cultural backgrounds, ethnicity, gender, and so forth, but those spies would be a little less "like me". I'm protective of James Bond because the character is that important to me, and always has been. Hence why, against many solid and rational arguments presented here, I must admit my emotional weakness and simply say that I want Bond to stay white, male, heterosexual, and so forth. Even if I have no good or valid reasons to want that, I still want that. Childish? Perhaps.

    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.

    I'm much less protective of any other character, by the way. A black Batman? Sure. A gay Q? Absolutely no problem. An Asian Ethan Hunt? Why not? A transgender M? Couldn't care less. It's just Bond himself that I'm so protective of. Again, I'm showing my hand: my case is weak, I have no arguments other than emotional ones. In this debate, I'm not the better man, and I have not trouble admitting it.

    "Why must Bond be changed?" Exactly. Why does Bond get so much scrutiny regarding his ethnicity/gender/sexuality..?

    Leave my favourite fictional character alone, and make your own damn fictional characters, with the identity you prefer....

    I like Bond the way he was written. No apologies from me.
  • Posts: 349

    I was wondering if any other fictional characters get this constant scrutiny about changing their ethnicity/gender/sexuality...?

    Or is it just our dear James? And if so, why is that..?

    Good question - apart from Doctor Who, I am struggling to think of a lead character who was changed
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,088
    It may be Bond because he is "a sexist, misogynist dinosaur. A relic of the Cold War" - while, say Superman isn't? (Just saying why people may be picking on Bond. Not saying he should change accordingly.)
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,603
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I agree that Bond's skin doesn't impact ability. However, your point about people seeing themselves as Bond makes a lot of sense, @LucknFate. Perhaps subconsciously I became a Bond fan partly because I could see 007 as an older version of myself. Perhaps that's why Bond is "my guy" and why I'd love to see him stay that way. I'd happily enjoy Bond-like spies in different film series with different cultural backgrounds, ethnicity, gender, and so forth, but those spies would be a little less "like me". I'm protective of James Bond because the character is that important to me, and always has been. Hence why, against many solid and rational arguments presented here, I must admit my emotional weakness and simply say that I want Bond to stay white, male, heterosexual, and so forth. Even if I have no good or valid reasons to want that, I still want that. Childish? Perhaps.

    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.

    I'm much less protective of any other character, by the way. A black Batman? Sure. A gay Q? Absolutely no problem. An Asian Ethan Hunt? Why not? A transgender M? Couldn't care less. It's just Bond himself that I'm so protective of. Again, I'm showing my hand: my case is weak, I have no arguments other than emotional ones. In this debate, I'm not the better man, and I have not trouble admitting it.

    "Why must Bond be changed?" Exactly. Why does Bond get so much scrutiny regarding his ethnicity/gender/sexuality..?

    Leave my favourite fictional character alone, and make your own damn fictional characters, with the identity you prefer....

    I like Bond the way he was written. No apologies from me.

    I agree. Bond has been portrayed at a white English or Australian actor for 60+ plus years.

    Idris Elba would be a 🔥M though
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,403
    Ah, the old "tradition" argument...
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,258
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I agree that Bond's skin doesn't impact ability. However, your point about people seeing themselves as Bond makes a lot of sense, @LucknFate. Perhaps subconsciously I became a Bond fan partly because I could see 007 as an older version of myself. Perhaps that's why Bond is "my guy" and why I'd love to see him stay that way. I'd happily enjoy Bond-like spies in different film series with different cultural backgrounds, ethnicity, gender, and so forth, but those spies would be a little less "like me". I'm protective of James Bond because the character is that important to me, and always has been. Hence why, against many solid and rational arguments presented here, I must admit my emotional weakness and simply say that I want Bond to stay white, male, heterosexual, and so forth. Even if I have no good or valid reasons to want that, I still want that. Childish? Perhaps.

    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.

    I'm much less protective of any other character, by the way. A black Batman? Sure. A gay Q? Absolutely no problem. An Asian Ethan Hunt? Why not? A transgender M? Couldn't care less. It's just Bond himself that I'm so protective of. Again, I'm showing my hand: my case is weak, I have no arguments other than emotional ones. In this debate, I'm not the better man, and I have not trouble admitting it.

    "Why must Bond be changed?" Exactly. Why does Bond get so much scrutiny regarding his ethnicity/gender/sexuality..?

    Leave my favourite fictional character alone, and make your own damn fictional characters, with the identity you prefer....

    I like Bond the way he was written. No apologies from me.

    I agree. Bond has been portrayed at a white English or Australian actor for 60+ plus years.

    Idris Elba would be a 🔥M though

    I have been a proponent for Elba as M for some time.
  • edited December 25 Posts: 154
    echo wrote: »
    Ah, the old "tradition" argument...

    Make bond a mango and see how many people show up lol with rachel ziegler as the "Bond waman". 🤣 as she would say "weird weird weird weird"! 🤣🤣😂😭
  • Posts: 90
    Obvs I haven’t read the whole thread. Identity politics is a load of utter BS. The point about Bond is to see how the Bond character, which is and remains well defined despite everything, responds to a changing and changed society, not to change his character to fit that society. He is entirely at odds with society ffs.

    Anyway, I’m watching CR and changed myself a little bit by being able to spot the shots in the parkour sequences that are a stuntman and not DC. It’s still for me the quintessential Bond. And I loved seeing the quotes of Ken Adam’s sets in NTTD, fwiw.
  • Posts: 154
    muzz100 wrote: »
    Obvs I haven’t read the whole thread. Identity politics is a load of utter BS. The point about Bond is to see how the Bond character, which is and remains well defined despite everything, responds to a changing and changed society, not to change his character to fit that society. He is entirely at odds with society ffs.

    Anyway, I’m watching CR and changed myself a little bit by being able to spot the shots in the parkour sequences that are a stuntman and not DC. It’s still for me the quintessential Bond. And I loved seeing the quotes of Ken Adam’s sets in NTTD, fwiw.

    Someone say bingo! Ding ding ding!
  • Posts: 90
    Is that approval? And was Hitch a Bond fan?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,243
    Some fans lost their minds over Bond being played by an actor that had blond hair. Having him be anything other than a Caucasian??? Might be worth it just to see white fragility run rampant.
  • Posts: 1,465
    Some fans lost their minds over Bond being played by an actor that had blond hair. Having him be anything other than a Caucasian??? Might be worth it just to see white fragility run rampant.

    They have already moved the Overton window. Look at all those ugly candidates.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,116
    echo wrote: »
    Ah, the old "tradition" argument...
    Is that bad then...?

    Traditionally King Kong is a giant Gorilla. Would you rather he was something else...?

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,272
    echo wrote: »
    Ah, the old "tradition" argument...
    Is that bad then...?

    Traditionally King Kong is a giant Gorilla. Would you rather he was something else...?

    I have to agree. Traditions mean a lot in relation to our beloved characters. There are changes we can take, changes we deem inevitable, and changes we might even welcome. But some changes simply go too far. Where we draw the line is, of course, different for all of us. I, for one, don't care that Bond stopped smoking a few decades ago, but I know that some fans would rather see him inhaling cigs again. I'm not accusing those fans of promoting bad habits; I respect that they want to keep as much as possible from the "original" Bond, be it Fleming's Bond or Connery's early Bond. Likewise, I prefer to keep Bond a male, heterosexual caucasian. I know that some fans don't care about, say, Bond's sexual preferences, but I do. The womanizing aspect of Bond has been a pretty big deal, even in the early Connery Bonds, and while times have somewhat changed, I'd still love to see him do well with the ladies. Hopefully, that doesn't invite accusations of gay-bashing because they would be unjust. I am merely treating that aspect of Bond's nature as essential to his persona. In other words, my Bond would lose something important if the womanizing suddenly stopped in full.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,628
    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.

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,272
    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. Ah well, I'm not going to die on this hill. In the end,
    1. I'll share my thoughts;
    2. but see whatever film they release anyway;
    3. and judge it on its own terms, not from prejudice or an anger worked up beforehand.
  • Keep his cultural origins, traits, preferences etc. It's his identity. He's too iconic, I wouldn't even let him have a beard.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,243
    Keep his cultural origins, traits, preferences etc. It's his identity. He's too iconic, I wouldn't even let him have a beard.

    Hahaha that reminds me when SF started shooting they shot all the scenes with Craig having a stubble first before shaving it off. The media ran with Craig Bond’s stubble being the “new look” for Bond as if that’s what he was supposed to look like throughout the film.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,628
    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.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,492
    Keep his cultural origins, traits, preferences etc. It's his identity. He's too iconic, I wouldn't even let him have a beard.

    Remember George growing a beard out for the premiere of OHMSS and the producers were none too happy. A beard would seem to be pushing it. I agree no beard for Bond.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,272
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.