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
Good to hear @NicNac A mere coincidence sometimes seems more than it truly is. One must be cautious on the world wide web. Cheers to you, respected moderator, at least by me!
I think Bond 7 will be an interesting choice, one they must get right.
By that rationale you can pretty much rule out all the pretenders to the throne bandied around on here.
Some here don't want to hear it and will protest and demand that BB sells up to Warner so Nolan can take over but I can't think of a better place for Bond to be and that is with EON.
I don't want conveyor belt entries like some might, Bond films are a rarity in that they are an event. Marvel can't boast that its just the next film down the pipe, regardless of how epic and how many super heroes appear in it.
Star Wars has just turned into another property for Disney to wring out as much as they can.
Bond may well diversify out one day, BB doesn't rule it out but having a new film every 3 to four years means these films seem special and like I said an event not just another one after the other.
It certainly doesn't look like they're in a rush, an maybe we're in for an even longer wait as well. I'd rather they take their time finding the right candidate though, so I'm not concerned about the potential gap.
Dalton was in Brenda Starr, Moore had a failed film career, Connery was in Darby O'Gill and On The Fiddle playing a mentally challenged gypsy. Lazenby we all know what happened there.
That is why I endorse Henry Cabell as Bond.
Especially after The Witcher, which he looks ridiculous in in a wig, the man has debased and humiliated himself for years now. Flop after flop. The Superman CGI moustache fiasco. He is perfectly placed professionally the play Bond.
Henry Cabell?
Now there is a new one to add to the pile.
I've been feeling it will be a decade or more. Then B26 will be a one-off and 10-15 years later we get another film with a new Bond again.
The days of a complete Bond era featuring a current actor for multiple films ends with NTTD.
Damn that would be horrible. Sometimes though, these long gaps lead to me believe that's where the franchise will end up.
Yes, that is your opinion, however such comments are only ever going to have a negative effect.
In future it would be smarter to choice your words more carefully.
Agree, Turner should be screen tested.
Any American nomination should be automatically filed in the bin.
Good post. +1.
I’d bet that most of the ‘fans’ who want a diverse or PC take on Bond are American’s with the ‘woke’ obsession. At the end of the day, as a Brit he’s our character and we want him to stay the way Fleming created him IMO.
Not here to achieve anything. BB and MW claim to be conservators of Bond and yet it doesn't seem like it. This worries me extremely. Surely that mustn't be strange. Therefore I voice my unadulterated opinion about those who in the wake of woke support treason to the character of Bond. I honestly do not, I repeat do not for the life of me understand people, who claim to be real Bond fans, and want to change Bond into something he logically seen could never be. In this day and age of political pandering it seems the Hollywood thing to do and yet the vast majority doesn't want it. There are some members on here who seem to be lobbying time and time again for this 'miraculous profound change', and yet the majority of the members do not want it. At some point people like myself will bite back, one time, and will leave it at that. I have chosen my words as I see fit, didn't break rules and as I said will leave it at that.
I actually searched Henry Cabell on Google, what the hell. For a second I thought who's that? =))
William Henry Cabell came on the first page :))
He's American. Well, was... 150 years ago. And he looks too soft. So, no.
Bond as a character wouldn’t fundamental change if you changed his race. The character of Bond – a suave, cool, enigmatic, sophisticated, dangerous, charming killer with a taste for the finer things – doesn’t change if you make him black.
The best examples I can pose are the castings of Naomie Harris and Jeffrey Wright….both actors played roles previously played by white actors. The tradition associated with those characters didn’t change with those castings. They are still Leiter and Moneypenny.
The same would be the case with Bond.
However, I really don’t think 2020 is the right time to announce a black Bond. Maybe back in 2005 they could have got away with it. But not today with the left and right so politicised. It isn’t the right time. Howver…………….I think generally speaking if Idris Elba got cast, no one would care. I think people almost are willing it to happen.
I think you would find the opposite to be true. You're in a minority @Pierce2Daniel Perhaps there should be a poll to see what the consensus is.
Moneypenny and Felix are SUPPORTING characters. Bond is the Brand, the glue that keeps it all together. Barbara and Michael know this. These guys are marketers.
Bond as a character WOULD change if you changed his race, that's if we are talking about the character that Fleming originally wrote.
If we are talking about being a generic screen action hero called Bond who works for MI6, and has a similar personality and traits that to the character that Fleming wrote, then you are absolutely right. The character wouldn't change if his race was changed.
Thanks for the vid, @suavejmf!
And...all my black friends think the same. I've got an Angolan friend that is a massive James bond fan and he says the exact same thing. I've got a 48yo friend from Mumbai who is fanatical about the novels and the films and he says that changing Bond's race is stupid. My wife, who is sort of an activist for human rights, often says that decharacterisation of intelectual property for the sake of diversity and/or gender quotas is as stupid as it gets and a symptom of an unintelligent society who has lost a grip on creativity. Just create new and interesting stuff based on current times. Don't go changing historical characters and fictional characters just for the sake of proving a current point. Do it now. Create something in the now. Something fresh and to the point. Don't hijack the past, learn from it sure, but don't hijack things that always worked and that are dear to thousands of people.
Well said!
I still don't know what people have got against trying to find an actor that closely resembles the character that Fleming wrote? Is having a dark haired white actor that difficult to comprehend playing the part of Bond?
If people find it that offensive for a white actor to play the part of Bond, then I don't believe they are true Bond fans.
Did Fleming get it so wrong in his description of Bond that it needs radically changing drastically?
Imagine the reaction if a remake of Shaft was made with a white male lead.
Exactly. And it seems as though you can't say someone isn't a true Bond fan here. It seems that is taboo. If some member comes along saying Bond is just a superspy that runs around in a tuxedo and shoots missiles from his wristwatch, we can't comment negatively on it, and we can't tell him he doesn't understand Bond or that he isn't a true fan.Apparently civility in forums is nodding in agreement to all opinions.
No, a so called fan who says Bond should be black is not a true Bond fan. A so called fan who says the cinematic Bond owes nothing to Fleming is not a true Bond fan. A so called fan who thinks Bond is just a suave superspy with gadgets and cars is not a true Bond fan. Why? Because he bloody well doesn't understand the character, its literary background, its decades long adaptation to screen and times, and the significance of an old world agent, a relic of the cold war, still relevant today, but not a product of today.
Bond should be a 50s spy living in the XXI century, because he's old school, he's a relic. Actually even in the 50s he was already living in the past, with a 30s car and many filthy old habits. The times change around him, he doesn't.
Facially, Bond resembles the composer, singer and actor Hoagy Carmichael. In Casino Royale, Vesper Lynd remarks, "Bond reminds me rather of Hoagy Carmichael, but there is something cold and ruthless." Likewise, in Moonraker, Special Branch Officer Gala Brand thinks that Bond is "certainly good-looking ... Rather like Hoagy Carmichael in a way. That black hair falling down over the right eyebrow. Much the same bones. But there was something a bit cruel in the mouth, and the eyes were cold."
In the novels (notably From Russia, with Love), Bond's physical description has always been consistent: slim build; a three-inch long, thin vertical scar on his right cheek; blue-grey eyes; a "cruel" mouth; short, black hair, a comma of which rests on his forehead. Physically he is described as being 6 feet in height and 168 lb in weight. After Casino Royale, Bond also had a faint scar of the Russian cyrillic letter "Ш" (SH) (for Shpion: "Spy") on the back of one of his hands, carved by a SMERSH agent.
This IS James Bond. Just find someone who looks the part and can act. How difficult can that be?
👏👏👍👍
I truly believe the producers were being diplomatic on this one. Could you imagine the uproar of saying, "James Bond will not be a woman and also the male actor that plays him will always be white" right before the new film is said to be released?
Give them some credit, they're just playing the game
This. They've got a new film coming out in just less than 3 months, why would you create bad publicity by inflaming snowflakes?
Yes, spot on!
Excellent post, dear @Univex