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 was something offhand in the recent podcast that hinted that Gregg Wilson recently did something wrong or off-putting from Eon's perspective (I doubt that this was his comment in the WSG about diversity because we know Barbara made similar comments). I have no idea what it was. Maybe he didn't have the same producer chops as Barbara and Michael, and they decided time was up.
I agree completely. Fleming was always trying to sell the rights to whatever story to any number of companies. For him, it came down to money.
Fleming was a bit like Robert DeNiro. "What's that, a script? I'll do it!"
If it's a contemporary Bond movie, Bond can be any race (supposedly by 2060, the UK will be majority-minority). There are, in fact, Black and Asian people at Eton, Oxford, etc.
If it's period, then I think he needs to be white because of the old boys club.
I love Fleming's novels and think that DNA should always be there with the cinematic character (with EON I think that thread is what made those films work in terms of what they built upon, and was always there, no matter how far they strayed) but I think it's a mistake to try and definitely say what Fleming would have wanted. Especially considering we're talking of hypotheticals and things he never had the chance to think about in the same way we do. His opinions towards his literary character were probably contradictory in interviews, and certainly how he felt about the first two Bond movies would not have been recognisable to us Bond fans. It certainly gives us no indication of this.
If fans want to stick to Fleming's text and believe that's the blueprint of casting, fine. But it's such a specific thing getting an actor with black hair, blue eyes, and is 6 foot. You discount actors like Moore or Craig (even Connery if you go further with his brown eyes and Scottish accent). I genuinely don't believe, and can't see, how it's an argument to hold validity on.
🤭
Anyway, here's an interesting article from Telegraph suggesting Amazon have made a Bond type product - Citadel - and it wasn't good.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/amazon-james-bond-citadel-russo-brothers/
Looking at it from a more positive perspective, it's possible the mistakes in Citadel may be avoided with Bond. If certain elements in Citadel - plot, casting, use of locations etc - didn't gel then Amazon will know what to avoid when making Bond 26. Citadel getting negative feedback may not automatically mean Bond 26 will be similar.
I want to know! They weren't spilling on the podcast...but why didn't they pass Eon to the next generation, or to a hybrid Barbara/Gregg situation? Somebody DM me.
Heck, Fleming only wrote in Bond’s Scottish lineage as a nod to Connery.
Does the actor look like he could hold his own in a fight, with all but the most physically privileged opponents?
Does he look like he could seduce any woman he wants? Bearing in mind, he doesn’t have to be conventionally attractive; Casanova had a big nose, scars, and a wart on his chin and he did just fine.
If the answer to both of these questions is ‘yes’, then he probably has the look to play Bond.
Things like hair, eye, and skin colour have no bearing on either of these qualities. A fair haired man can be just as sexually attractive and alluring as a dark haired one, and a brown-eyed man can be just as physically proficient as a blue-eyed one. What’s important is how Bond's appearance communicates aspects of his character.
In your opinion, was the essence of M changed?
Bingo.
Roger Moore couldn't take anyone in a fight.
Terry Madden suffered career-ending injuries during the filming of that sequence.
Again, Bond shouldn't be a vehicle for false 'emancipatory' (woke) ideas. Bond is a white character with lore et all, just like Shaft has his. No one EVER in the future will even BEGIN to think to make Shaft white instead. That is pure hypocrisy. Somehow some people push for these changes because we 'owe' it to minorities. I stress Bond owes nothing to anyone, Bond is white and should remain so. He isn't there to serve perverse ideological agendas concocted by others who don't care.
To me the most annoying element of this false 'progression' is that Bond should follow the trend, like a notch in a bed post, that has been going on for years in line with the woke agenda. Stop the gaslighting, it exists, the big boys aren't denying it either. It's called DEI and it sucks. When ideologies are forced upon people they become unattractive instantly, to most. Thankfully the trend is mostly on its return and common sense seeps in again, more and more.
Let Bond be Bond, in tact with his lore and background. Stop trying to make Bond a vehicle for false emancipation, as if he owes something to minorities or white liberals who to me aren't true fans of the character. Sorry not sorry, that's my opinion. Create your own, it's not that hard.
With the asterix in there that M isn't meant to be the Miles Messervy M of the older films, I'd actually say yes ultimately.
Oh dear... Maybe it's time to move on from this conversation. People seem to be getting wound up, haha.
Merely a mild pushback to the men in the echo chamber. It's an open forum, feel free to reply to whatever you wish.
At least Le Carré had few blunders compared with Ian Fleming who dubbed James Bond a "secret" agent yet simultaneously depicted 007 as an employee on MI6's payroll. You may say "so what" because Bond is fiction. So is Postman Pat but his creator John Cunliffe never called him an Uber or Deliveroo courier.
Now an MI6 secret agent would never have: (1) been an employee on MI6’s payroll who took holidays and submitted expense claims etc; (2) reported directly to the Head of MI6, had annual appraisals and been on extremely familiar terms with many other MI6 employees such as Q or Moneypenny; (3) been a frequent visitor to MI6 HQ and other MI6 buildings; and (4) even used his own name when he met ministers et al in Whitehall.
Given Ian Fleming's background in British naval intelligence in World War 11, that contradictory classification of 007 was about as absurd as calling a Brain Surgeon a Hair Dresser or a Navy Seal a Coastguard as noted in the latest intriguing news article in TheBurlingtonFiles (advert free) website which is a tad similar to a virtual espionage museum with no entry fee.
To quote from the article ... "As for 007 being “secret”, ... since everybody knew ... his favourite drink was shaken not stirred, I’m surprised he wasn’t poisoned more often … especially as he insisted on letting everyone know his name was “Bond, James Bond”! Perhaps Bond’s true skill lay in being so conspicuously ostentatious that no one believed he could genuinely be a spy!
He was awarded damages due to his injuries.
Seems to be deviating from the main topic, perhaps (yikes). Hopefully fans don't get into a woke fight!
;))
I'm sorry you feel that way :) And yes, it's an open forum. But sometimes I think there comes a point when a discussion's not a discussion anymore (or even a debate). I'm not sure anyone's going to be convinced by the other's arguments, and I'm not sure anyone wants to at this point.
But hey, anyone can reply as they wish.
Hence the two camps. It's been very obvious for years and years now on this forum, let alone the world.
I'm afraid I stopped reading here, 'echo chamber' is such a silly phrase used to aggressively weaponise the idea that sometimes some people agree on something, it's nonsense. In truth this whole forum can be regarded as an 'echo chamber' because it's a place where people who generally agree on the idea that James Bond films and books are good gather: and there are plenty of people in the world who would disagree on that. And there's nothing wrong with that, history is full of people who share interests gathering together, and yet 'echo chamber' implies there's something awful about that. As I say, utter nonsense. Sometimes people agree on something and just because someone finds themself on the outside of that it doesn't mean there's anything intrinsically wrong with those people who share an opinion, as 'echo chamber' attempts to imply. It's just silly.
He was indeed, very sad.
I'm sorry that's the way you see the world and that it upsets you :) I won't rile you up anymore or inadvertently do so, so I won't continue the discussion. Have a good day.
Quite the condescending tone there, chap.
@mtm You are entitled to your opinion
I apologise then. Genuinely. For what it's worth I wasn't trying to be. But you obviously have very strong opinions on this and it obviously goes beyond this particular discussion. I don't think you're going to listen to anyone else's thoughts about this, even if you disagree. That's just from my perspective and why I said what I said. I could well be wrong about that, but that's why I'm not engaging further with the general discussion. I'm not sure it's worth it, and any discussion should at least be an exchange of ideas to use a lofty term. Rather than an echo chamber. Fair?
Oh thank you for allowing me to have one, sir.
And 007HallY is the condescending one is he? ;)
Thanks for clearing that up. I have weighed who Bond is and what he entails for many years now. At some point one should stand firm if it's worth 'fighting' for. Bond is close to my heart, perhaps you can tell, this is just what it is. Not going to sugarcoat anything, for anyone. If that's fair, then sure.
@mtm /ignore
I've got a burning question anyway, so pay attention to ME now! (As I'm evidently trying to defuse the situation. :D)
With Amazon's recent deal, can they utilize absolutely anything from the film series? Iconic elements like the '007 Theme', original characters such as Jaws, some of the really famous Q gadgets and vehicles like Little Nellie? Or are there still boundaries they can't cross despite the deal?
Looking forward to your insights on this!
Well, I'm not sure it's something we have any control over one way or the other. So I don't know beyond having opinions on this how much 'fighting' for this is worth. I'd say the same about someone who went on these forums and claimed they were 'fighting' to make Bond non-white for a personal/political reason. But at the end of the day it's up to you.
I think sometimes as fans we have very specific ideas of Bond and can be annoyed (if not upset) if the people actually making these works deviate from that. We ourselves might not necessarily be 100% correct in our opinions about Bond either, or at least they can be challenged. It's likely happened many times throughout the series in many different ways. Sometimes we just have to concede we don't control the franchise and are only admiring these works from the sidelines.
I think they have control over the entire property. So yes.
Do you even grasp how bad Campbell's made-for-TV direction was in much of the film?
Go back and watch the embassy sequence and the airport chase sequence. Horrible. In particular...
And there's also the "Ford commercial" in the Bahamas. This is another unintentionally hilarious moment. "Bad" doesn't begin to describe it.
It is a ho-hum-directed film from a ho-hum director. I stand by that. And I stand by the statement: ANY DIRECTOR could have made CR a good film...because the script was that good and DC was that good. I thought Campbell's work in GE was better.
And yet, CR is still solidly in my Top 4.