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
Yep, I was relieved when Moneypenny got busy with the razor...😁
You planning on stubble for one of your films? I think it shouldn't be the first one. That subversion should come later.
I was concerned at that point that she'd slit his throat. Such razors frighten me.
Sizeism? Or is it heightism? And it can be cured with appropriate heels :-).
Me too. My barber uses one to shave the back of my neck. It makes me nervous 😁
The "tradition" argument is often merely coded racism or sexism or homophobia, to justify exclusion by the majority.
They should simply find the best person for the role.
For example, Rupert Everett circa My Best Friend's Wedding might have been great as Bond.
Whishaw was, arguably, the best person for Q. And while some get upset that Q is going on a date with a guy in NTTD because it's not "traditional" or "right" to show Q's personal life, no one complains about Q saying he "made one of these for the kids last Christmas" in DAF. The message of exclusion is clear.
To be fair I'm not sure I remember seeing anyone complain about Q's sexuality. I'm sure it probably happened somewhere (doubtless those grifters on YouTube got some click money out of it) but I don't recall it being an issue here at least.
Is that right? That's amazing (although I guess they might not have sold all that much: 400% of a small number is still quite small! :D ).
Two sides of the coin called art, I'd wager.
Exactly. Talk about put a negative spin on a benign word..!
I have been very impressed with the thoughtful commentary on both sides. I have learned quite a bit from both sides of the arguments. Well done folks!
And I don't see how the logical opposite of that is 'anything goes', because that's simply just not the opposite of that at all: tradition isn't the thing preventing anarchy, that's nonsense.
I'm not sure that's entirely fair, @echo, my friend. I remember many Bond fans wanting the Gun Barrel sequence reinstalled, Q and MP revived, and the Bond Theme back in action after QOS —all in the name of "tradition." How did racism, sexism or homophobia factor in? I also think that racism, sexism and homophobia are strong words. How one takes his Bond should not immediately lead to such accusations.
Like I said before, "tradition" is an excellent argument to some and an empty one to others. This is one of those things where we'll end up agreeing to disagree, I guess.
I think "tradition" in the Bond context (or maybe any context) is a vague word at best. It can mean so many things. I want to keep or bring back a lot of Bond traditions: the finer things in life, the Bond girls, the eroticism, the espionage, the older and larger than life villain, the glamorous settings, the Bond theme, the gunbarrel, Blofeld, etc. And that's on the top of my head. But I could easily do with less or without some traditions: the gadgets for one.
The male part I'm less ready to change. Bond is perhaps the biggest and longest lasting symbol for masculinity over the past 60 or so years and swapping Bond to a woman forces the film to acknowledge the change and changes the character significantly.
I mean as stated above I would accept a non-white Bond but this logic doesn't really make sense. So many questions kind of follow this road. Are you going to tell an actress to her face she can't play Bond because she's a woman? Are you going to tell an overweight man to his face he can't play Bond because of his weight? Are you to tell an actress to her face she can't be a Bond girl because she's not conventionally attractive?
All of these are controversial grounds for denial and ultimately all can be soothed with "You aren't the image I wanted for such and such character."
In some ways it kind of makes sense for Bond: it means even more meaningless sex! :D
But, as I said before, I wouldn't be averse to Bond perhaps seducing some guy to get something he needs; perhaps it would be in a slightly colder, more cynical way than he does with the ladies (see stuff like the Fourth Protocol or Day of the Jackal), but I think it could work. And it'd create some headlines, which isn't a bad thing.
@ muzz100 Funny that's a good question I don't know for sure? Anyone know if he was?
That wasn't racist at all no not at all nothing to see here.
You can be a multicultural society while still keeping culture just create new characters and Fleming did give description of the character it's in the books maybe read them.
And Amazon wants spin offs!
@HitchBondUSA
I agree with the first part of your statement but not necessarily with the second. Fleming's description of Bond remains vague at best. Also, Fleming wrote books. We are talking about the cinematic Bond, which is not the same thing. His books were furthermore published in the '50s and early '60s in a completely different world. Lastly, "maybe read them" was uncalled for; whether @mtm has or hasn't read the novels is irrelevant to his opinion of the actor playing Bond. Slavishly following Fleming is something even the earliest Bond films have chosen not to do.
Many fans barely accept NSNA.