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
There's no way the new Bond is going to be juggling spying and parenting. It just would feel off in the ongoing series.
Firstly, his age - his continuity requires an older actor, which wouldn’t make sense in terms of longevity, and to change it to fit a younger actors age makes no sense. His story - it’s gonna end in No Time to Die, whether he dies or not, so to continue that continuity with a different actor, would negate everything the new film is going to be, and what the entire Craig era is.
I thought they would just carry on with the same storyline, like from older Moore to younger Dalton. But Craig's Bond from SF on has a lot of baggage which, ironically, CR tried to sweep away (#stupidmendes).
I do wish they'd contrive a way to keep Bond away from the crutch that is now MI6. Take his phone away, put him in a remote location, make his lose his memory...anything that doesn't allow him to have Moneypenny/Q/Tanner on speed dial at any crisis point.
My reservation about another reboot is that it might start to seem frivolous/craven, like the endless Spiderman reboots. I never need to see another Spiderman origin story.
For example, Bond has never retired before, and his age has never really been addressed. Craig’s Bond has done both those things, so to keep that continuity with a “younger” actor next, is quite a strange jump.
I also think it just offers more respect to Craig by not treading on his toes by trying to carry on “his thing” with someone else.
Also I’ll again stress that a reboot doesn’t mean origin story. They are both different things, and yes they overlap sometimes but they don’t have to. I’ll again use The Batman as an example which is going to be a second year Batman played by Robert Pattinson, so it’s not an origin story but it is a reboot.
It was all much simpler in the Roger years...
It would also negate everything Craig’s era achieved and is, in terms of how it was shaped by Craig as an actor, not to mention the obvious reasons why doing a “soft-reboot” follow-up or even a sequel to this film with Craig (based on what we seem to know), would cause too many issues
I’ll also say again cause I can feel it coming - reboot doesn’t mean origin story.
I actually see Dalton as a different incarnation of Bond. As they did with Dench, some of the same actors are still present, but it’s a different timeline/incarnation.
I want them to wipe the slate clean for 26 with an established Bond in his prime.
The next Bond could pick up where QOS left off — there is a well known theory that all Bonds take place between QOS and Skyfall. Perhaps keep a few references to Vesper, Mathis, Le Chiffre and just move forward into straight missions...
To me, the Craig-era is a focus on that characters important life moments. We see him in high moments of personal crisis, not on standard missions which I assume just take place in between, and to try and mess with that with the next guy by trying to overlap the continuity in anyway, just feels unjustified, so I’d rather they just reboot it and do something original to actor they choose.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/film-academy-board-set-postpone-oscars-ceremony-extend-eligibility-window-1298202
You can just google it. Jesus m8.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/new-york-gov-andrew-cuomo-threatens-reinstate-closings-1298349
I'm sorry the idea of a black Bond depresses you. lol
:Edit: There are way too many people here taking continuity too seriously.
Before the Daniel Craig era, the films were essentially standalone with some minor references to previous instalments. After he's gone they will likely revert back to that format.
All the previous Bond's have had their own "thing" and Craig's is a continuous storyline.
Connery set the template for the series with increasingly more over the top adaptations of the Fleming stories.
Lazenby was a try at going back to Fleming's slightly more naturalistic and continuity-heavy storytelling.
Moore's films represented an attempt to lighten up the franchise and create a humorous spectacle-driven series of films.
Dalton was an attempt at mixing the gritty Bond of the books with the more upbeat blockbuster style of the films with the balance weighted more towards the grittiness.
Brosnan was also an attempt at mixing the gritty Bond of the books with the more upbeat blockbuster style of the films with the balance being weighted more towards the upbeat spectacle.
Not wanting a black Bond is different from not wanting a black doctor or a black newscaster. Perhaps you can't see that difference, and that's okay. But this has been discussed a lot on here and I've nothing new to add, but I I will say I don't appreciate your snide finger wagging.
Keep laughing, smiler!
I don't think Bond should be played by a black actor, just like I don't think Shaft should be played by a white actor.
I get pretty pissed off at being told I've somehow got dodgy views on race, because of me thinking that.
James Bond, on the other hand, was created as a white man, yes, but was created to represent British culture, not “white culture”, and to me, British culture is also represented in how multicultural we’ve become and continue to be. So to me, James Bond becoming a black man makes way more contextual sense than casting a white man as Shaft ever could.
Why do I never see any article advocating for an Indian Bond? Or a Pakistani Bond?
=D> =D> =D>
But he doesn't say a god dam word about all the mass gatherings of protests and riots going on in NYC. Cuomo is a massive hypocrite.
I don't think this is accurate at all, I'm afraid. He's an agent of the crown, and they're certainly not multi-cultural despite the appearances they put out to the contrary. Bond represents them, not British culture as a whole. There's no way of disconnecting Fleming's ideals from the character's no matter how hard you try, and the truth is that Fleming hated most people and was a top-tier snob. If the Bond of the books lived to see the day, he likely would have been pro-Brexit, too. It's simultaneously one of the things that is dislikable about the guy, but also one of the things that makes him interesting as a protagonist.
Of course, the films have taken many liberties with the character already over the last 60 years so it's relatively moot now anyway; a Bond of a different race is inevitable and I think we will have to just accept it as we have accepted deviations from the source more times than not over 25 films in 60 years. But taken from that same source, Bond's rather snobbish, old-fashioned British superiority is a fundamental part of his character and that's what makes his whiteness as important to him as Shaft's Harlem origins and the sense of place in his stories are to that character.
It would not be a particularly bad thing to do, of course - change is something that happens to everything at some point - but to dress it up as anything other than a massive fundamental change to the character is not really correct, imo.
This is true. You can have a black Bond with his daughter in a papoose and say he's 'representative of British culture in 2020'. But you can't say he's also Ian Fleming's James Bond.