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
Indeed, and not to mention the real world rivalries that exist between MI6 and its sister service MI5 and other agencies such as GCHQ. Of course this rather petty rivalry often hampers their combined work together to the detriment of the safety and security of the country and its citizens. This rivalry between MI6 and MI5 is referenced in the John Gardner Bond continuation novels so it has crossed over into Bond's fictional world as well. This was all part of Gardner's successful attempt to bring the Bond novels up to date with what was happening in real world British Intelligence.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/security-service-turf-wars-hamper-war-against-crime-9130333.html?amp
That would be pretty interesting 🤔
Actually, not, because MI6 is on the chopping block. And for good reason, right? The opposition to MI6 says they're "a bunch of antiquated idiots running around, fighting a war (they) don't understand." That sounds like the same sort of criticism being levied at police departments around the country.
I wouldn’t mind, but I don’t see the harm in throwing him a few easy shags personally. Obviously he can’t go round treating women like he did in some of the old films anymore, but there’s nothing wrong with consenting adults having fun imo.
But anyway, I think too many people make the mistake of confusing the internet for real life. The “SJWs” have apparently been taking over for years now, but right wing governments are still in power all over the world. And Hollywood is a business. As long as the films are making money Bond will be fine, regardless of the “culture” we’re in. The films will, quite rightly, move with the times as they always have done, but it’s like Pheobe Waller Bridge said. You don’t have to change the character, just the world around him.
I guess because of that, I could see them leaning into the idea of Bond as an anti-hero more. Right now, they pay lots of lip service to the idea that he’s a dinasour. But then he’s always portrayed as right/necessary in the end. We still get those big heroic moments where the theme kicks in and he saves the day. In the future I could see the films getting a lot more morally murky, portraying Bond as someone you’re not really meant to like rather than a heroic modern day Saint George sort of figure, but I wouldn’t mind that personally. One of the things that sets Bond apart from most blockbusters is its edge, and while I do love a bit of Roger Moore, I think Bond generally works better as a darker character anyway.
But it doesn't sound like much fun for a Bond film.
Not really as they are completely different, fundamentally. And always have been.
Are pointless, PG-13 sex scenes with nameless women that have nothing to do with the story any more fun than Bond wooing a beautiful woman as part of his mission?
I dare say they aren't.
I'm not advocating for Bond to be spayed, but I wouldn't have a problem with him having one single beautiful woman to "get to grips" with per film should that ever happen.
Apologies if you understood that, @CraigMooreOHMSS, I couldn't tell from your response.
Ah, well then you have my apologies, @RichardTheBruce :)
Even if you did then go on to insult me by mixing me up with someone else. ;)
Happens to us all, my friend!
I think people have a problem with Nomi because her part reads like pandering woke fanfiction. We've all seen enough in trailers to get a sense in for the character, and it seems like half her lines are deliberately intended to "one up" Bond and put him in place. If she does take the 007 status, then what point does that have to it, other than
to put him down further? Why would fans wish for that?
But then some will say, oh you just don't like to see black faces on screen? Actually thats not true at all, since I have viewed JDW in Tenet many times already and never thought his character should be played by a white guy. But that doesn't have the same headline grabbing power of "007 is a black woman". Fanbases are getting baited way too easily, ever since ghostbusters 2016 in my opinion. The classy thing to do is to pull a James Rolfe and simply refuse to see it. Don't take the bait.
Racism isn’t exactly logical.
But it is at least consistent, usually.
No, not even that.
Indeed, it's a highly malleable term which can be applied to almost anything. Liking all the Black characters in Bond except one, giving Anthony Hopkins an Oscar in the wrong year, considering variables other than race when viewing disparities between groups, NOT considering variables other than race when viewing disparities between groups: all can be considered racist if that's what you want. There's nothing consistent about it.
These critiques work like improvisational comedy and are equally performative: current events, popular entertainment, and people's comments can all be treated as prompts to tell whatever story you like with whatever meaning.
It's actually a fun mental exercise to practice. Live and Let Die may be racist because it plays on white fears of black men taking "our" women. So imagine Solitaire was Black, and see how easy it is to concoct an even more damning critique of the hypothetical film's racism. It has no explanatory value whatsoever (not unlike informing people of their "real" reasons for their opinions), but it certainly can be fun.
Thanks for providing the most sensible post I've seen on this thread.
The moral ambiguity of Bond has always been one of the most interesting aspects of this character to my mind. I first became a Bond fan around 1964, at the ripe old age of 10, and the thought that this film series was far more "adult" than was really appropriate for me was certainly part of the appeal at that time. The fact that Bond can be part St. George and part assassin, part sinner and part --well, if not saint then certainly on the side of the angels-- is one of the reasons that Bond appeals to so many people. It makes him more three-dimensional.
It's in part humor of course. Still she's in direct competition with Bond, presents herself with a huge ego and attitude (maybe a requirement for OOs), may have inherited his number, and openly threatens to shoot him in the knee. [Don't think James himself could get away with that last bit.]
So I don't think she will be a double agent. She may or may not be an ongoing annoyance like Franco in DAD. But just going by what's revealed so far if she's not warming everyone's heart the character should be entertaining.
Well like you said, those were very different sort of characters. The secretary who couldn’t handle field work and Bond’s American mate who relies on him for help every now and again. Nomi is another 00, Bond’s equal. It’d be entirely possible for someone racist to tolerate black people in minor roles, but not like us being portrayed as on par with the lead white hero.
As for what the point is? It’s a coming out of retirement film, so a new 007 is easy shorthand to show things have changed since we’ve last seen Bond, and it ties nicely into him being a disposable blunt instrument, a common theme of the Craig films, in a way that her being 006 or something wouldn’t. And it’ll probably lead to a fun dnyamic betwen them too. What’s more interesting? Two characters trying to one up eachother, competing to see who the “real” 007 is? Or just having them working in perfect partnership constantly, or having her fall at Bond’s feet straight away? Personally I think notorious sexist James Bond being replaced by a woman sounds like it could make for some fun moments of humour. And of course they’ll inevitably earn eachother’s respect by the end, so I’m not sure why there’s been so much pearl clutching about it. She’s not replacing Bond and they’re not going to stop making Bond films.
It’s really not the end of the world. Bond’s lost his codename a few times before (even Fleming gave him a new one in YOLT) and the series has been critiquing Bond’s character through the lens of the modern world for years, for good reason. They can’t just act like it’s still 1962. They can either have a critical portrayal of him, or sand off those hard edges completely. Call him out for being a sexist assassin, or change him so he isn’t one. And personally I’m with @BeatlesSansEarmuffs, I think Bond’s anti-hero aspects are part of what makes him so interesting, so I definitely prefer the former option.
How long do we think we can get away, creatively, with critical portrayals of your main character before that aspect also becomes stale in itself? I suppose it's not a question that can be given a definitive answer, as there are obviously lots of variables involved, but just something to ponder.
This is a good question. This sort of stuff has happened to varying degrees in Goldeneye, Die Another Day, Casino Royale, and Skyfall, and it could be a bit tired. But I do think the Nomi situation in NTTD provides an opportunity to do it better than those films did it, if indeed it must be done again.
I always thought M's "sexist, misogynist dinosaur" speech in Goldeneye was less effective than was probably intended, given that it was a personal response to Bond correctly pointing out that the new female M had been completely wrong every step of the way with regard to the EMP weapons. I'm not sure what the writers thought they were doing there exactly.
I also don't really want to see Bond teamed up with a peer, so I didn't like any aspect of the 006 thing. But whereas in Goldeneye it was a weird retcon to pretend Bond regularly teamed up with another 00, in NTTD, it makes perfect sense. If they have to dabble in meta narratives again, this could be the best one yet.
I think there’s different ways of doing critical portrayals really. Right now, I’d say the GE esque approach of Bond being called out by other characters is getting a bit stale. NTTD seems like it’ll take that approach as far as it could possibly go with Nomi, so hopefully they’ll put it to bed after that.
But there are still other ways of portraying Bond critically. One idea I mentioned above would be to go a bit darker again, and really lean into his anti-hero side, make him someone you’re not necessarily supposed to like. Then you wouldn’t need to critique his character in such an explicit way, because his actions would speak for themselves.
I think there’s different aspects of him they can critique too. The focus is usually on the sexism and his emotional detachment to killing. But he’s also a snob, he’s immensley priviliged in terms of class whether he fit in at school or not, and he doesn’t just do what he does out of a desire to protect his country, there is also a part of him that’s addicted to the danger, which is pretty messed up when you think about how many people he’s killed in getting that “fix”. He’s a fascinatingly flawed character in a lot of ways, so I think there’s still some mileage in more critical portrayals.
And I do think your idea of just having one girl a film might be a good way of moving past criticism of his womanising side. Fleming’s Bond was a bit of a romantic anyway underneath that old fashioned sexism, and it’s not like the current Bond really mistreats women the way he used to. The only reason they still have to critique his womaniser side is because he’s still shagging multiple girls a film, seeing them as disposable. And personally I‘d happily live without that if it meant we could move on from those GE esque speeches.
You essentially just laid out why Aidan Turner should be the next Bond. He has the dark, handsome, stranger thing going one with a hint of danger. And Then There Were None is really the best audition I've seen so far. He plays the anti-hero role great in that.
Terrific post. When was the last time Bond even displayed real snobbery in the films? I'm thinking Tim recoiling at his diner coffee in TLD...? I hope they make a choice to bring some of that back, and move on from critiquing behaviors that haven't fully been on display in recent films anyway.
EDIT: Also in TLD: "The brand on the list was questionable..." One of my favorite Bond lines, actually.
No, not that. I think it's a bit odd to see the term 'racist' as the problem rather than the people.
It's extremely clear what it means, but it is a totally illogical mindset: to expect consistency is unrealistic. You've really never experienced someone you know happily using racist terms and then having a friend or colleague from a racial minority who, for some reason, is 'okay' to them?
As thelivingroyale very intelligently pointed out, that Felix and Moneypenny are non-white and are in subservient roles to Bond may well go some way to explaining the situation if you need to find logic in it.
Massively agree. Even at the time I thought the GoldenEye dinosaur routine was a little clumsy, but it made from a great soundbite to put in clips and sold the film well, so I can't say it didn't do its job.
I agree that keeping Bond as a sort of unlikeable a-hole we guiltily like is the way to go about it. And the films had been doing that for years: I don't believe for a second that the famous "a woman" line from Moonraker wasn't intended at the time to be something we laughed at James for: he was being a dick and we were supposed to know it! :)
I agree that we can easily lose him shagging his way around- it's not really an important aspect.
All the time. His turning on his heel and walking straight out of Fields' choice of hotel in QoS was possibly the only gag in that film which landed for me.
I can walk and chew gum at the same time. Racism is a problem wherever it exists. I'm not defining one problem to the exclusion of another.
I can gladly report that I don't really know people who happily (or unhappily for that matter) use racist terms, but I can imagine what you're talking about, sure. The example doesn't suggest to me that if someone dislikes a single black character that it necessarily stems from racism. We just disagree on this: I think it's fair for someone to make assumptions about what a white screenwriter will do with a POC character in a film and to disapprove. I'm not one of them, but I'm not gonna make blanket assumptions about them.
But we don't have to trade epistles about it again! ;)
EDIT: How about this? When the film comes out and the Nomi-Bond dynamic is just fine, as I think it will be, I'll be a bit more willing to assume the worst about folks who still really don't like Nomi.
I just don't get trying to find reasons to excuse it or to vilify the use of the term. As I said, the word isn't the problem.
That's incredibly weak sauce. Certain people hate the idea of seeing black people in films but it's okay because they only do so because they're written by white people? Who are you kidding.
Again, you're making the weird mistake, as you did right from the beginning, that I'm saying everyone who reacted badly to the character is racist. I can't remember how many times I've told you this isn't the case, but it never seems to go in. You just keep on trying to say that none of it is racist: and now you're painting the people who call out racism as the problem. I disagree in the strongest terms.
I don't know why you aren't willing to listen to the actual person who experienced it.
Lashana Lynch: "I am one Black woman – if it were another Black woman cast in the role, it would have been the same conversation, she would have got the same attacks, the same abuse"
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/culture/culture-news/a34517814/lashana-lynch-black-female-007-interview/
You're arguing in a circle. I don't take the position that I am excusing racism. I agree that excusing racism is bad. I have said that there are easy-to-understand non-racist reasons to be skeptical of the Nomi character, though I myself don't have them.
I don't know why this is all so hard to follow, but certain things can sometimes be expected when women/POC are cast in less serious films at the moment (more with women than POC though, I'd say). Omnicompetent female characters, for example, are en vogue. I'm not talking about "people who hate the idea of seeing black people in films." You are, because you seem to think that's what accounts for most of the anti-Nomi sentiment.
I know you keep saying you don't think they're all racist, but when you equate the presentation of an alternative explanation with "excusing racism", and people who don't like the idea of Nomi with "people who hate the idea of seeing black people in films", you seem to be talking out both sides of your mouth.
I haven't said none of it is racist, and have said the opposite. Here, I can break down three (of many potential) categories of people who might not like the Nomi idea.
1. Racists who don't want to see Black people in movies.
2. Racists who tolerate Black people in movies, but not if they have more power than a white guy.
3. People who suspect that a Black female 00 working alongside Bond in a 2021 film will likely outshine Bond repeatedly and humiliate the character to some degree due to a meta narrative.
I'm not in any of these groups, but I think (3) is the largest. You seem to think it's the smallest, or perhaps does not exist. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
My hypothesis is largely testable too: if the film comes out, and these concerns appear to be misplaced, as I think they are, most of this anti-Nomi sentiment will vanish. We'll just have to see.
I'm not really sure how I'm not willing to listen to Lashana. I'm sure she did receive racist/sexist abuse from the dregs of society.
This is such a great response, @thelivingroyale! I agree with pretty much every word. I do love that aspect of GE but at the same time it feels very 90s in a sense and has run its course. I wonder if NTTD will be the natural endpoint for modern day Bond when talking about that aspect. It only took twenty-five years, but we got there.
As for the snobbery - you make a good case. I love it for almost contradictory reasons, as it makes Bond seem like a bit of a dick but at the same time I'm jealous because he seemingly knows a bit of everything about everything and that is naturally enviable.
Yeah, I definitely feel multiple women a film isn't a key ingredient. When I suggested it at first, I wasn't quite sure, but I've thought about it even more since then and I've convinced myself of its plausibility. As you say, Fleming managed to make the books quite sexy with one female partner throughout most of the time. No reason the films can't work in the same way, as long as they're well written and directed.
Good man, Mark! I'm glad you agree. ;)