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
I guess she couldn’t flat out oppose a non binary actor, because there’s literally no reason why one who was born male couldn’t play a man. But if she could get away with saying Bond is a man and we should make new characters for women, then I don’t see why she couldn’t get away with saying Bond is white and we should make new characters for people of colour.
Exactly.
You did specifically say female as part of your point about 'such things' though, so not really 'political correctness gone mad'.
I think non-white is more likely than non-binary as she's clearly thought about it a bit more; this non-binary thing feels like she's just batting it aside as it's been asked in an interview and has already made her position on Bond staying a man for the immediate future pretty clear.
Maybe you misunderstood my post. Or perhaps I wasn't clear.
Either way, I see this non-binary thing, to be in the same club as non-white Bond and female Bond. It's really a moot point.
Whilst we're very unsure who the next Bond will be, a non-binary actor, or portraying Bond as a non-binary character are very unlikely to happen.
If it does, I'll be one very surprised Bond fan.
Maybe, I understood "Similar to having a female Bond and a non-white actor play James Bond. EON are hardly likely to flat out say no to such things" to mean in part that they wouldn't say no to having a female Bond. If that's not what you meant then I guess I did misunderstand; I have trouble deciphering another meaning on the female part of that though.
My point is that to deduce that 'political correctness has gone mad' based on a list of items of which 50% aren't true makes the deduction look on shaky ground. I just disagree: I don't think these things are the same and I think EON are taking a thoughtful rather than a sweeping approach on this.
We do agree on the subject of the thread: I don't think there's going to be a non-binary Bond any time soon because that's essentially what Ms Broccoli says (and there's not exactly a long list of non-binary actors to choose from! :) ), I just don't think every other difference, specifically race, will be treated the same way.
I just listened to BB's part of the podcast in question and it does start to make me think they're being truthful about not starting the search (formally, anyway) until next year. Sort of surprising but I guess there's been plenty going on, and I notice they still haven't opened a company for B26 yet.
She also refers to EON as 'our organisation', which makes it sound slightly sinisterly SPECTRE-like! :))
It's time for Snoopy to become a hammerhead shark rather than a beagle.
The time has come. He's been a beagle longer than Bond has been in existence. .
It's time for a change. There's NO reason in this day an age that Charlie Brown couldn't have a hammerhead shark for a pet, so there it is.
As long as they don't jump the shark they should be OK. What? They already have? ;)
LOL! Well played!
Oh, very good, Dragon. :)) You saw blood in the water and went for the kill.
I never miss an opportunity to be a savage. It would be very bad for my reputation. ;)
Snoopy's already been a vulture. And a World War I flying ace. And a shortstop. And Joe Cool. And a novelist. "It was a dark and stormy night" when the WWI flying ace turned into a hammerhead shark...
True. Since Snoopy's been all those characters, perhaps it's his turn to take on the mantle of Bond.......................
But it's 2021. Clearly the next Bond should be played by a Fire truck. :P
He died nearly 60 years ago though, I think other people must’ve been writing Bond since.
Yeah, people are obviously allowed to be opposed to the idea of changing Bond’s race. He’s always been white and he’s a character many have identified with. Makes sense that some people might not want to see that change, and I do understand some of the arguments against it. The series has worked fine for this long with white guys after all. I don’t think changing his race would make any difference personally, so I think it’d be nice to draw from as wide a pool of actors as possible to try and find the best new take, but I do understand the “if it ain’t broke” mindset.
But what I’ve never really understood is the “it’s not what Fleming would’ve wanted” argument. That’s true, but Fleming also didn’t want Sean Connery and described Dr No as dreadful (if that’s how he felt about that one then I bet he would’ve hated CR, another one that gets praise for sticking close to the books). This site literally wouldn’t exist if we’d just stuck to the author’s wishes, and the series has a long history of deviating from them anyway. We’ve had Bond actors of varying builds heights hair colours and eye colours, adaptations that bear no resemblance to the novels, Roger Moore basically playing a whole new character, they turned Major Boothroyd into Q, gave Moneypenny a backstory as a field agent, cast a charismatic larger than life Scottish bodybuilder (before Bond was Scottish) who gave up on trying an RP accent after his first few films as Fleming’s slim dry old etonion civil servant, then they cast an Australian who couldn’t do a British accent at all, we’ve also had an Irish actor with a transatlantic accent as a Bond who drives beemers and uses American words like cell phones and station break, they’ve toned down Bond’s sexism, they’ve gotten rid of his racism and homophobia entirely, they’ve had him stop smoking and call it a “filthy habit” when the book Bond smoked 70 a day, etc.
I’ve been saying this for years, so I probably sound like a broken record, but I just still don’t get it. I really don’t understand why all those other liberties the films have taken are acceptable (or at least tolerable) to Bond fans, while changing his race would apparently cause many on this site to stop watching entirely.
I guess it's because Bond is like that steak with fries you like so much. People can change the plate, sauce, vegetables... Even the fries can be cooked differently. But the steak has to have that specific taste, texture, shape and thickness, or else you want nothing of it.
To some Bond fans, that perfect steak means one set of things, to others something else. Bond’s race may be a non-issue to some, while a major issue to others. There's no right or wrong, correct or false. What constitutes the perfect steak for me differs from what constitutes the perfect steak for my wife. And that's fine.
Nah I really hate this whenever it comes up: Shaft is a blaxploitation character- the whole point of him at that time was that he was from a minority. Races aren't reversible, which is rather the problem we're still in. So changing a white character to black is not the same thing as changing a black character to a white one. Maybe someday it will be, but not at the moment.
Honestly I think it's more similar to the blond Bond thing. If I had a preference I'd probably say the new Bond should have black hair too, but give me another actor who knocks it out of the park as well as Craig did and that pales into insignificance. I think that would probably happen with a lot of folks who say they'd prefer a white Bond too: if he's amazing enough at playing him then that preference slips away.
I mostly agree. I merely think that so some, hair color isn't quite as important as race, and to others, it is. Just recently, we've seen the same thing with the ending of NTTD. Some say it's just another story twist in an era of doing things differently; others are livid, repulsed, downright aggressive in their response. Solid arguments on both sides, no objective truth anywhere in the debate. I guess it's the same thing with Bond’s race. Some wouldn't care; others can be swayed if a remarkable actor steps in; others still would leave their Bond membership card at the door, call for Barbara Broccoli's retirement or worse, burn the film to the ground (and possibly not even watch the film). To some, it would make sense, to others, it wouldn't, no matter what you'd tell them.
The question is whether BB&MGW would risk another shockwave so soon...
No one else need apply.
It's not 'racist' to want an actor that resembles Fleming's description of James Bond.
If I said I don't want a black prime minister, or a black postman, that would be dodgy. Saying I don't want a black James Bond isn't dodgy. I know it sounds dodgy to say it, but any thinking person can see the difference.
If people engage their brains before their knee-jerked, life would be so much easier.
A 'comma of hair' wouldn't go amiss.
Why have I just started humming Stardust?