Bond 26 (202X)

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Ordinarily, yes. But when the film's been sitting on the shelf for a year, not using this time effectively so to bounce back when all of this is over (or when we adjust to a new covid normal) is poor management.

Perhaps in your view, but I think she wants to consider how NTTD performed before jumping ahead. EON under Mike and Babs have always approached one film at a time, never really looking beyond that. That's just how it's always been for them, and at least financially speaking it hasn't backfired.

Quote :

Also another talking point in the article: Babs noted she intends to reinvent the wheel again so to not simply repeat the direction of the Craig era and to do something different...which I'm absolutely on board with. However, she's not ruling out a black actor in the role (which to me sounds like she won't pass up on the opportunity for another '1st' in the series and virtue signal at the same time). She's firm on creating roles for women without turning male characters into female characters (hence discounting the Jane Bond idea) so why can't the same logic apply to black actors? She also went to great lengths in Skyfall establishing Bond's ethnic background. Changing that would certainly fuel the codename theory, no?

If the new Bond is in his own continuity from his predecessors, then it doesn't really matter what Bond's skin color is. Of course a few fans will cry foul if a black Bond is cast like when a blond actor was cast (CraigNotBond.com), but I think they're worth losing.

The only advantage to changing Bond's ethnicity will be seeing the woke types squirm from still wanting to criticise the *problematic* elements, but being terrified of being accused of racism for doing so.

Makeshift Python wrote:

If the new Bond is in his own continuity from his predecessors, then it doesn't really matter what Bond's skin color is. Of course a few fans will cry foul if a black Bond is cast like when a blond actor was cast (CraigNotBond.com), but I think they're worth losing.

I don't think many people will cry foul publicly, but no doubt those "Deplorables" will get blamed if the film tanks.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

The only advantage to changing Bond's ethnicity will be seeing the woke types squirm from still wanting to criticise the *problematic* elements, but being terrified of being accused of racism for doing so.

I don't know about that. There's definitely a hierarchy on the oppressor/victim pyramid Eg. the neo-Marxists will tell you that white cisgender gay men now have a privileged status roughly equal to straight white males.

A black Bond (character and actor) will probably get called an Uncle Tom by some Guardianistas. The great thing about Cultural Marxism is that there's really no endsieg. Nothing will ever fully satisfy the bloodlust.

CJB wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

If the new Bond is in his own continuity from his predecessors, then it doesn't really matter what Bond's skin color is. Of course a few fans will cry foul if a black Bond is cast like when a blond actor was cast (CraigNotBond.com), but I think they're worth losing.

I don't think many people will cry foul publicly, but no doubt those "Deplorables" will get blamed if the film tanks.

Big if.

Besides, "deplorables" was a reference to extremists like white supremacists, and if they couldn't make an impact on LALD I doubt they could make much today.

Makeshift Python wrote:

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Ordinarily, yes. But when the film's been sitting on the shelf for a year, not using this time effectively so to bounce back when all of this is over (or when we adjust to a new covid normal) is poor management.

Perhaps in your view, but I think she wants to consider how NTTD performed before jumping ahead.

Why? It's going to be a fresh slate anyway. A new lead actor, a different direction... NTTD will make money because it's attached to the James Bond series. It doesn't indicate, in any way, what audiences might want - if it did, QOS would have been more highly regarded at the time.

Makeshift Python wrote:

Quote :

Also another talking point in the article: Babs noted she intends to reinvent the wheel again so to not simply repeat the direction of the Craig era and to do something different...which I'm absolutely on board with. However, she's not ruling out a black actor in the role (which to me sounds like she won't pass up on the opportunity for another '1st' in the series and virtue signal at the same time). She's firm on creating roles for women without turning male characters into female characters (hence discounting the Jane Bond idea) so why can't the same logic apply to black actors? She also went to great lengths in Skyfall establishing Bond's ethnic background. Changing that would certainly fuel the codename theory, no?

If the new Bond is in his own continuity from his predecessors, then it doesn't really matter what Bond's skin color is. Of course a few fans will cry foul if a black Bond is cast like when a blond actor was cast (CraigNotBond.com), but I think they're worth losing.

That's an 'if' that shouldn't even be discussed. Why do we need to have a separate continuity?

Also, that's not very inclusive of you, MP.

BI wrote:

The only advantage to changing Bond's ethnicity will be seeing the woke types squirm from still wanting to criticise the *problematic* elements, but being terrified of being accused of racism for doing so.

Exactly. How does one reconcile a black man having the same dirty qualities of the cis white male? Unthinkable!

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Ordinarily, yes. But when the film's been sitting on the shelf for a year, not using this time effectively so to bounce back when all of this is over (or when we adjust to a new covid normal) is poor management.

Perhaps in your view, but I think she wants to consider how NTTD performed before jumping ahead.

Why? It's going to be a fresh slate anyway. A new lead actor, a different direction... NTTD will make money because it's attached to the James Bond series. It doesn't indicate, in any way, what audiences might want - if it did, QOS would have been more highly regarded at the time.

Personally speaking, I'd want to consider how well (and not well) NTTD performed and learn something from that. I can't claim this is exactly her thinking, but it's one I'd understand. Lessons are always learned with each new Bond film.

Quote :

That's an 'if' that shouldn't even be discussed. Why do we need to have a separate continuity?

It's really no big deal to me. I've seen many different iterations of characters in other works with separate continuities over the years. If I had my way, there would be TWO different lines of Bond works in live action medium right now.

Quote :

Also, that's not very inclusive of you, MP.

Too bad.

If Bond were to remain white, there would only be two reasons IMO to maintain that:

1) It sets Bond apart from the modern world, reinforcing Fleming's idea of a man out of time, fighting for an Empire that no longer is. This was a theme Fleming presented in his novels, and only Brosnan and Craig have really played that up, being referred as antiquated. It sets up for Bond to rise to the challenge. I think keeping a white actor is vital if you want to maintain that throughline.

2) If it's set in the 1950s, so obviously Bond remains white to be true to the period.

If Bond were to be played by a black man or of any other ethnicity, they can't use that same dynamic from the two points I brought up. Just doesn't work. So you might as well go back to the classic Connery/Moore mold where Bond was more of an unflappable cool agent, without any of the themes of him being out of date and such. After having that with Brosnan and especially Craig, it would feel refreshing to go back to that classic formula.

Whatever direction EON does go, I just hope it's entertaining. That's ultimately all I want, regardless of skin color.

I'm fine with the first one. The subject matter of Bond and Q's art gallery chat in Skyfall basically being the basis of the series' future direction would do nicely.

The notion of being out of time is part of the character DNA as being the true lone wolf outsider. Bond is out of step with society and humanity because he can never be close to anyone nor fully engage with the normal world. You can go down the route of the tarnished yet still shining knight and the St. George legend or the dark intelligence agent loner route-or best of all have elements of both!
Dalton did this but it never really gets mentioned. I think there's flashes of it in GE as well.

Ah...I remember the days of craignotbond.com with fondness. Long before I was ever on a forum-It was as if I was not alone! It was such a delight to find after I had spent my free period in high school that day playing with superimposing Dalton on the CR ads.....of course now knowing it was apparently spearheaded by Craig's former talent agency is disheartening...and here I always thought it was dedicated fans who were as dismayed as I was that they chose the dude from Layer Cake and Tomb Raider...

Makeshift Python wrote:

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Also, that's not very inclusive of you, MP.

Too bad.

Ahh, the hypocrisy of the left on full display.

Makeshift Python wrote:

If Bond were to remain white, there would only be two reasons IMO to maintain that:

1) It sets Bond apart from the modern world, reinforcing Fleming's idea of a man out of time, fighting for an Empire that no longer is. This was a theme Fleming presented in his novels, and only Brosnan and Craig have really played that up, being referred as antiquated. It sets up for Bond to rise to the challenge. I think keeping a white actor is vital if you want to maintain that throughline.

While the idea of the rest of the paragraph is fine, your first thought is jarring. Bond being white sets him apart from the modern world? What kind of nonsense is that? You might be a masochist but Bond isn't.

BI wrote:

I'm fine with the first one. The subject matter of Bond and Q's art gallery chat in Skyfall basically being the basis of the series' future direction would do nicely.

Quite. Between GE and SF especially, we've established and maintained why Bond is relevant today, even if he is up against modern sensibilities.

HGTB wrote:

of course now knowing it was apparently spearheaded by Craig's former talent agency is disheartening...and here I always thought it was dedicated fans who were as dismayed as I was that they chose the dude from Layer Cake and Tomb Raider...

Was it really his old management team?

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Also, that's not very inclusive of you, MP.

Too bad.

Ahh, the hypocrisy of the left on full display.

If it makes me hypocritical to not want the KKK included in anything, then so be it. Donald Trump can have them all he likes, but not me.

Quote :

Makeshift Python wrote:

If Bond were to remain white, there would only be two reasons IMO to maintain that:

1) It sets Bond apart from the modern world, reinforcing Fleming's idea of a man out of time, fighting for an Empire that no longer is. This was a theme Fleming presented in his novels, and only Brosnan and Craig have really played that up, being referred as antiquated. It sets up for Bond to rise to the challenge. I think keeping a white actor is vital if you want to maintain that throughline.

While the idea of the rest of the paragraph is fine, your first thought is jarring. Bond being white sets him apart from the modern world? What kind of nonsense is that? You might be a masochist but Bond isn't.

The point is when you have Bond being portrayed as white and British, you connect him to the colonial days of the British Empire, which is what plays into the "man out of time" aspect. If you cast Bond with a black actor (or any other ethnicity), that whole aspect no longer works. But that's okay, because the 60s films didn't really play much with that idea anyway. The closest thing we got from that decade was Bond dismissing the Beatles, but I doubt that was intended to show that Bond was not merely hip with the times, but more of a general sentiment 33 year old men would have held in 1964. Like if Daniel Craig Bond had dismissed One Direction in SF.

Given who did LALD's song, I guess Paul McCartney doesn't bear grudges.

Makeshift Python wrote:

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

While the idea of the rest of the paragraph is fine, your first thought is jarring. Bond being white sets him apart from the modern world? What kind of nonsense is that? You might be a masochist but Bond isn't.

The point is when you have Bond being portrayed as white and British, you connect him to the colonial days of the British Empire, which is what plays into the "man out of time" aspect.

Didn't realise being an indigenous Briton in Britain was now some sort of anachronism...

CJB wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

While the idea of the rest of the paragraph is fine, your first thought is jarring. Bond being white sets him apart from the modern world? What kind of nonsense is that? You might be a masochist but Bond isn't.

The point is when you have Bond being portrayed as white and British, you connect him to the colonial days of the British Empire, which is what plays into the "man out of time" aspect.

Didn't realise being an indigenous Briton in Britain was now some sort of anachronism...

...



Uh. Sure. Yes, that's exactly my point. If you're just white and British, you're obsolete. [/sarcasm]

CJB wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

While the idea of the rest of the paragraph is fine, your first thought is jarring. Bond being white sets him apart from the modern world? What kind of nonsense is that? You might be a masochist but Bond isn't.

The point is when you have Bond being portrayed as white and British, you connect him to the colonial days of the British Empire, which is what plays into the "man out of time" aspect.

Didn't realise being an indigenous Briton in Britain was now some sort of anachronism...

MP wrote:

The point is when you have Bond being portrayed as white and British, you connect him to the colonial days of the British Empire, which is what plays into the "man out of time" aspect. If you cast Bond with a black actor (or any other ethnicity), that whole aspect no longer works. But that's okay, because the 60s films didn't really play much with that idea anyway. The closest thing we got from that decade was Bond dismissing the Beatles, but I doubt that was intended to show that Bond was not merely hip with the times, but more of a general sentiment 33 year old men would have held in 1964. Like if Daniel Craig Bond had dismissed One Direction in SF.

But the character of the 60s embraced virtually everything else about the character so losing one thing isn't a big deal. If we subtract Bond's ethnicity, vices, physicality, personality, etc. we fast rid of the character that has endured and been embraced for decades across different mediums. He becomes unrecognisable.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

But the character of the 60s embraced virtually everything else about the character so losing one thing isn't a big deal. If we subtract Bond's ethnicity, vices, physicality, personality, etc. we fast rid of the character that has endured and been embraced for decades across different mediums. He becomes unrecognisable.

If his ethnicity is the only thing that's different about a potential black Bond, it's not really much of a deal breaker for me. Whatever color, I just want a good actor that makes the role his own like his predecessors.

The point is that it won't be the only thing that changes since the character now, as written for Craig, is almost unrecognisable to the character that he was. Skyfall offered hope to a return to form but it was short-lived.

We'll see what happens.

Blow some dust off this thread and wonder aloud, what is the roadmap now for Bond 26 with Bond 25 kicked back almost another year?

I'm not sure how planning a Bond film goes in a pandemic but things like a new actor and so on can only now, I imagine, be postponed until 2022.

"We'll be unveiling our new health care plan in two weeks."

"No Time To Die: coming February / April / November 2020 / April / October 2021 / ..."

Are we even sure Eon produced anything more than a trailer?

Well, at this rate Eon will have shown the film purely out of trailer clips.

Bond 26 will be about Bond working from home and conferencing M, Moneypenny et al on Zoom.

Top half - Tom Ford navy suit
Bottom half - Balls hanging loose

I can only hope that the time the pandemic has given them has been used for script/screenplay development and next-Bond casting work.

The Current Difficulties make me even more nostalgic for when big-screen Bond was a regular occurrence every 2/3 years.

As I've said countless times here, it makes sense that they would use this time to develop the next Bond film screenplay.... though I'm no longer convinced Babs has the foresight or desire to think about Bond 26 without her main squeeze.

Step 1: take all the "new fresh exciting" ideas that are insane or stolen from other properties aside and shove them in a furnace.
Step 2: Take all this time and bang out the story and really sweat over it, bleed on the pages, argue it to death in the writer's room with MGW and oh hell I can't think of any good writers to suggest screw it let's just say MGW and Len Deighton with Raymond Benson are the writer's room.
Step 3: Make the final picture MOVE. It has to be meaningful and fun and MOVE with the energy Bond requires.
Step 4: Make the picture well but don't go with such a bloated budget. Keep it lean but put all the money on the screen the way they used to-and then actually get it out in two years!
Step 5: Make Bond a proper event release again. Really do a proper campaign-and you can sell the picture on one big thing-JAMES BOND IS BACK. NO CGI. NO EQUAL. Make the film for real on film with no CG whatsoever and you've got instant sellable/marketable PR built in plus audience interest will be piqued and confirmed-and you'd break the bubble of the Nolanverse/Mission Impossible series by showing the imitators how it's really done instead of imitating the imitators.

Nailed on accurate, Boots. Especially the last line about imitating others. Think CR and QOS in particular did so, especially around the time of Bourne.

As I say off-forum I think we have the nous here to make our own Bond film.