›

The What if Bond is modernized from a straight white male in the next film adventure?

1…646566676870»

Comments

  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,491
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    Troy wrote: »
    How can you make a film about a character named Bond if the character being portrayed as different?

    And if modernising means changing, then why go for the traditional black actor, who are the go-to non-White ethnicity despite making up a very small proportion of UK population. How about a bisexual trans woman of Chinese descent? That would enable the sex scenes to be more inclusive.

    Or maybe a Muslim whose parents are from Pakistan? Who doesn’t drink alcohol, who doesn’t believe in sex outside marriage, and opposes nationalism - in particular anti-colonial?

    And the name James Bond is very Anglo Saxon - not really suited to a progressive world view.

    I was wondering if any other fictional characters get this constant scrutiny about changing their ethnicity/gender/sexuality...?

    Or is it just our dear James? And if so, why is that..?

    I do know Doctor Who was scrutinized when changes were made. The Sam version of Captain America existed in the comic books from what I am told. There was still some push back on why not Bucky instead of Sam to carry the mantle.

    As to why Bond? I think because he has strong links to the Queen and Country likely makes him a target for some. This is all theorizing on my part.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,089
    thedove wrote: »
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    Troy wrote: »
    How can you make a film about a character named Bond if the character being portrayed as different?

    And if modernising means changing, then why go for the traditional black actor, who are the go-to non-White ethnicity despite making up a very small proportion of UK population. How about a bisexual trans woman of Chinese descent? That would enable the sex scenes to be more inclusive.

    Or maybe a Muslim whose parents are from Pakistan? Who doesn’t drink alcohol, who doesn’t believe in sex outside marriage, and opposes nationalism - in particular anti-colonial?

    And the name James Bond is very Anglo Saxon - not really suited to a progressive world view.

    I was wondering if any other fictional characters get this constant scrutiny about changing their ethnicity/gender/sexuality...?

    Or is it just our dear James? And if so, why is that..?

    I do know Doctor Who was scrutinized when changes were made. The Sam version of Captain America existed in the comic books from what I am told. There was still some push back on why not Bucky instead of Sam to carry the mantle.

    As to why Bond? I think because he has strong links to the Queen and Country likely makes him a target for some. This is all theorizing on my part.

    Theorise away @thedove it's always intrigued me why Bond gets this treatment.

    I'm pretty protective of the character, so all this nonsense from the mainstream media gets pretty predictable and tedious...
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,624
    CrabKey wrote: »
    What value is added to the series? If Bond's race is changed, will non-whites now flock to a Bond film whereas they didn't before? Have gay men not been seeing Bond films because Bond is not gay? Why stop there. Perhaps the next Bond could be Muslim. Is the purpose of a film these days to appease those who feel aggrieved?

    Changes to supporting characters have worked successfully. I vey much like Whitshaw and Harris, but Bond. Why?

    You get a good actor who's good at playing the role, and not ruling out anyone because of something arbitrary. No change involved.
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I'm with @CrabKey on this. Too often I've heard people ask "Why not?" The real question, however, ought to be "Why?" What could possibly be the added value of any significant change to Bond? Is there anything wrong, outdated, or impossible to connect with when it comes to Bond as he is? Have we exhausted the "formula"? It's one thing to give Bond blonde hair; it's another thing to change his DNA. I'm not here to instigate a culture war, merely to search for the real motives behind suggesting that Bond become a different person.

    All of the 007 actors have had different DNA so far. Sounds glib but it's not.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,396
    CrabKey wrote: »
    For me all this talk is nonsense. It keeps the name Bond out there. But if it is a real consideration, why? Does Bond's change of race or sexual orientation occur without explanation. Might someone ask, "Didn't he used to white?" Yes, but this is a Bond in a different timeline. "In other words, he's not the same Bond. He's just a new bloke with Bond's name!"

    What value is added to the series? If Bond's race is changed, will non-whites now flock to a Bond film whereas they didn't before? Have gay men not been seeing Bond films because Bond is not gay? Why stop there. Perhaps the next Bond could be Muslim. Is the purpose of a film these days to appease those who feel aggrieved?

    Changes to supporting characters have worked successfully. I vey much like Whitshaw and Harris, but Bond. Why?

    Whishaw proves the point. He probably *was* the best actor for the role, regardless of his sexuality.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,236
    I'm not really sure the question in the headline is appropriately phrased, to be honest - unless straight white males are an inherently unmodern concept.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,491
    Yes @CraigMooreOHMSS I took the wording out of the article in Variety. I hope this doesn't sour you from contributing.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,236
    thedove wrote: »
    Yes @CraigMooreOHMSS I took the wording out of the article in Variety. I hope this doesn't sour you from contributing.

    Ah fair enough. I'm not too fragile about it! And I see similar ground has already been covered, regardless. Mea culpa.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,677
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I'm with @CrabKey on this. Too often I've heard people ask "Why not?" The real question, however, ought to be "Why?" What could possibly be the added value of any significant change to Bond? Is there anything wrong, outdated, or impossible to connect with when it comes to Bond as he is? Have we exhausted the "formula"? It's one thing to give Bond blonde hair; it's another thing to change his DNA. I'm not here to instigate a culture war, merely to search for the real motives behind suggesting that Bond become a different person.

    For me, its not a big deal if Bond is nonwhite, because race does not impact ability. Being a woman... does... so there's that line for myself. Different shape, different chemistry, women are too different, but skin color? That doesn't change Bond's job much, unless we want to explore Bond exposed to racism. Which could be interesting! I think the main point for myself is giving other people the opportunity to "see themselves" as James Bond. I think so many people saw Idris Elba as a good Bond candidate because, well, he was! There was nothing stopping him from being Bond except Daniel Craig probably. I saw there people can get excited about a race-bent Bond, and it inspires people who may not be inspired by a white guy. That's something new for the franchise I think, and new for me as a fan, without interrupting any of my other expectations for the character and franchise.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited December 25 Posts: 24,266
    I agree that Bond's skin doesn't impact ability. However, your point about people seeing themselves as Bond makes a lot of sense, @LucknFate. Perhaps subconsciously I became a Bond fan partly because I could see 007 as an older version of myself. Perhaps that's why Bond is "my guy" and why I'd love to see him stay that way. I'd happily enjoy Bond-like spies in different film series with different cultural backgrounds, ethnicity, gender, and so forth, but those spies would be a little less "like me". I'm protective of James Bond because the character is that important to me, and always has been. Hence why, against many solid and rational arguments presented here, I must admit my emotional weakness and simply say that I want Bond to stay white, male, heterosexual, and so forth. Even if I have no good or valid reasons to want that, I still want that. Childish? Perhaps.

    But by all means let Hollywood create all the spy series they want, with characters more diverse than we can imagine. I welcome more spy films, regardless of who plays what character. But again, why must Bond be changed? Why him? It's the most fundamental question in this debate, at least in my humble opinion. Have we run out of suitable candidates for the role? Are we 'curious' to see what the result might be? Is it indeed a case of allowing others to "see Bond as themselves" the way @LucknFate intelligently suggests? I'm trying to understand it, but I can't. The idea that "it wouldn't matter" doesn't sit well with me. Of course, I'd notice. Of course, it'd matter. Of course, it wouldn't be the same.

    I'm much less protective of any other character, by the way. A black Batman? Sure. A gay Q? Absolutely no problem. An Asian Ethan Hunt? Why not? A transgender M? Couldn't care less. It's just Bond himself that I'm so protective of. Again, I'm showing my hand: my case is weak, I have no arguments other than emotional ones. In this debate, I'm not the better man, and I have not trouble admitting it.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    edited December 25 Posts: 4,089
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I agree that Bond's skin doesn't impact ability. However, your point about people seeing themselves as Bond makes a lot of sense, @LucknFate. Perhaps subconsciously I became a Bond fan partly because I could see 007 as an older version of myself. Perhaps that's why Bond is "my guy" and why I'd love to see him stay that way. I'd happily enjoy Bond-like spies in different film series with different cultural backgrounds, ethnicity, gender, and so forth, but those spies would be a little less "like me". I'm protective of James Bond because the character is that important to me, and always has been. Hence why, against many solid and rational arguments presented here, I must admit my emotional weakness and simply say that I want Bond to stay white, male, heterosexual, and so forth. Even if I have no good or valid reasons to want that, I still want that. Childish? Perhaps.

    But by all means let Hollywood create all the spy series they want, with characters more diverse than we can imagine. I welcome more spy films, regardless of who plays what character. But again, why must Bond be changed? Why him? It's the most fundamental question in this debate, at least in my humble opinion. Have we run out of suitable candidates for the role? Are we 'curious' to see what the result might be? Is it indeed a case of allowing others to "see Bond as themselves" the way @LucknFate intelligently suggests? I'm trying to understand it, but I can't. The idea that "it wouldn't matter" doesn't sit well with me. Of course, I'd notice. Of course, it'd matter. Of course, it wouldn't be the same.

    I'm much less protective of any other character, by the way. A black Batman? Sure. A gay Q? Absolutely no problem. An Asian Ethan Hunt? Why not? A transgender M? Couldn't care less. It's just Bond himself that I'm so protective of. Again, I'm showing my hand: my case is weak, I have no arguments other than emotional ones. In this debate, I'm not the better man, and I have not trouble admitting it.

    "Why must Bond be changed?" Exactly. Why does Bond get so much scrutiny regarding his ethnicity/gender/sexuality..?

    Leave my favourite fictional character alone, and make your own damn fictional characters, with the identity you prefer....

    I like Bond the way he was written. No apologies from me.
  • TroyTroy
    Posts: 349
    LeonardPine wrote: »

    I was wondering if any other fictional characters get this constant scrutiny about changing their ethnicity/gender/sexuality...?

    Or is it just our dear James? And if so, why is that..?

    Good question - apart from Doctor Who, I am struggling to think of a lead character who was changed
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,087
    It may be Bond because he is "a sexist, misogynist dinosaur. A relic of the Cold War" - while, say Superman isn't? (Just saying why people may be picking on Bond. Not saying he should change accordingly.)
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,603
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I agree that Bond's skin doesn't impact ability. However, your point about people seeing themselves as Bond makes a lot of sense, @LucknFate. Perhaps subconsciously I became a Bond fan partly because I could see 007 as an older version of myself. Perhaps that's why Bond is "my guy" and why I'd love to see him stay that way. I'd happily enjoy Bond-like spies in different film series with different cultural backgrounds, ethnicity, gender, and so forth, but those spies would be a little less "like me". I'm protective of James Bond because the character is that important to me, and always has been. Hence why, against many solid and rational arguments presented here, I must admit my emotional weakness and simply say that I want Bond to stay white, male, heterosexual, and so forth. Even if I have no good or valid reasons to want that, I still want that. Childish? Perhaps.

    But by all means let Hollywood create all the spy series they want, with characters more diverse than we can imagine. I welcome more spy films, regardless of who plays what character. But again, why must Bond be changed? Why him? It's the most fundamental question in this debate, at least in my humble opinion. Have we run out of suitable candidates for the role? Are we 'curious' to see what the result might be? Is it indeed a case of allowing others to "see Bond as themselves" the way @LucknFate intelligently suggests? I'm trying to understand it, but I can't. The idea that "it wouldn't matter" doesn't sit well with me. Of course, I'd notice. Of course, it'd matter. Of course, it wouldn't be the same.

    I'm much less protective of any other character, by the way. A black Batman? Sure. A gay Q? Absolutely no problem. An Asian Ethan Hunt? Why not? A transgender M? Couldn't care less. It's just Bond himself that I'm so protective of. Again, I'm showing my hand: my case is weak, I have no arguments other than emotional ones. In this debate, I'm not the better man, and I have not trouble admitting it.

    "Why must Bond be changed?" Exactly. Why does Bond get so much scrutiny regarding his ethnicity/gender/sexuality..?

    Leave my favourite fictional character alone, and make your own damn fictional characters, with the identity you prefer....

    I like Bond the way he was written. No apologies from me.

    I agree. Bond has been portrayed at a white English or Australian actor for 60+ plus years.

    Idris Elba would be a 🔥M though
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,396
    Ah, the old "tradition" argument...
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,256
    Last_Rat_Standing wrote: »
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I agree that Bond's skin doesn't impact ability. However, your point about people seeing themselves as Bond makes a lot of sense, @LucknFate. Perhaps subconsciously I became a Bond fan partly because I could see 007 as an older version of myself. Perhaps that's why Bond is "my guy" and why I'd love to see him stay that way. I'd happily enjoy Bond-like spies in different film series with different cultural backgrounds, ethnicity, gender, and so forth, but those spies would be a little less "like me". I'm protective of James Bond because the character is that important to me, and always has been. Hence why, against many solid and rational arguments presented here, I must admit my emotional weakness and simply say that I want Bond to stay white, male, heterosexual, and so forth. Even if I have no good or valid reasons to want that, I still want that. Childish? Perhaps.

    But by all means let Hollywood create all the spy series they want, with characters more diverse than we can imagine. I welcome more spy films, regardless of who plays what character. But again, why must Bond be changed? Why him? It's the most fundamental question in this debate, at least in my humble opinion. Have we run out of suitable candidates for the role? Are we 'curious' to see what the result might be? Is it indeed a case of allowing others to "see Bond as themselves" the way @LucknFate intelligently suggests? I'm trying to understand it, but I can't. The idea that "it wouldn't matter" doesn't sit well with me. Of course, I'd notice. Of course, it'd matter. Of course, it wouldn't be the same.

    I'm much less protective of any other character, by the way. A black Batman? Sure. A gay Q? Absolutely no problem. An Asian Ethan Hunt? Why not? A transgender M? Couldn't care less. It's just Bond himself that I'm so protective of. Again, I'm showing my hand: my case is weak, I have no arguments other than emotional ones. In this debate, I'm not the better man, and I have not trouble admitting it.

    "Why must Bond be changed?" Exactly. Why does Bond get so much scrutiny regarding his ethnicity/gender/sexuality..?

    Leave my favourite fictional character alone, and make your own damn fictional characters, with the identity you prefer....

    I like Bond the way he was written. No apologies from me.

    I agree. Bond has been portrayed at a white English or Australian actor for 60+ plus years.

    Idris Elba would be a 🔥M though

    I have been a proponent for Elba as M for some time.
  • HitchBondUSAHitchBondUSA USA
    edited December 25 Posts: 154
    echo wrote: »
    Ah, the old "tradition" argument...

    Make bond a mango and see how many people show up lol with rachel ziegler as the "Bond waman". 🤣 as she would say "weird weird weird weird"! 🤣🤣😂😭
  • muzz100muzz100
    Posts: 90
    Obvs I haven’t read the whole thread. Identity politics is a load of utter BS. The point about Bond is to see how the Bond character, which is and remains well defined despite everything, responds to a changing and changed society, not to change his character to fit that society. He is entirely at odds with society ffs.

    Anyway, I’m watching CR and changed myself a little bit by being able to spot the shots in the parkour sequences that are a stuntman and not DC. It’s still for me the quintessential Bond. And I loved seeing the quotes of Ken Adam’s sets in NTTD, fwiw.
  • HitchBondUSAHitchBondUSA USA
    Posts: 154
    muzz100 wrote: »
    Obvs I haven’t read the whole thread. Identity politics is a load of utter BS. The point about Bond is to see how the Bond character, which is and remains well defined despite everything, responds to a changing and changed society, not to change his character to fit that society. He is entirely at odds with society ffs.

    Anyway, I’m watching CR and changed myself a little bit by being able to spot the shots in the parkour sequences that are a stuntman and not DC. It’s still for me the quintessential Bond. And I loved seeing the quotes of Ken Adam’s sets in NTTD, fwiw.

    Someone say bingo! Ding ding ding!
  • muzz100muzz100
    Posts: 90
    Is that approval? And was Hitch a Bond fan?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,236
    Some fans lost their minds over Bond being played by an actor that had blond hair. Having him be anything other than a Caucasian??? Might be worth it just to see white fragility run rampant.
Sign In or Register to comment.