Topic: James Bond - No Time To Die (202something)

[Stockholm Syndrome]

And what type of person would Bond be in the current era? I'd rather they just give it to somebody who can act regardless of age, race, gender etc.

There are a number of diverse British actors who are both talented and would be good Bonds, and frankly I feel there is a better story to be told with a more diverse bond.

With Bond being a symbol of Britishness, you can really tell an interesting story about what it means to be of a minority in Britain today, and in particular with other races, the conflict between these ex-colonial cultures and the inherently globalist aims of Britain via people like Bond.

[AndyMuller]

There are a number of diverse British actors who are both talented and would be good Bonds, and frankly I feel there is a better story to be told with a more diverse bond.

With Bond being a symbol of Britishness, you can really tell an interesting story about what it means to be of a minority in Britain today, and in particular with other races, the conflict between these ex-colonial cultures and the inherently globalist aims of Britain via people like Bond.

Ok well give me names of the above then? Don't say Idris Elba either, he was only ever good as Stringer Bell.

[RedSince86]

Good choice, not A-list and at 32 can do 6-7 films easily.

Sadly the like of Elba and Hardy were 10-15 years to old for the role.

Interesting to see what direction they go, with Craig it was dark and gritty instead of the polished movies of before.

[El Lobo]

Yeah think thats a pretty good shout, just wasn't enthused by a bigger star like Hardy, Elba or Cavill.

[John_P]

Sounds like Aaron Taylor-Johnson will be the new Bond.

Initially read that as Anja Taylor-Joy and was very confused.

[Riquende]

I'd move away from having a single 'Bond'. Just pick and choose stories (remake some of the old books maybe, especially if their original movie versions were wildly different) and recast the role each time. Have a different creative team, and feel free to make them period pieces, or any sort of adaptation they want.

Sure, you'll get people annoyed that a great performance doesn't get a follow up, but it also means controversial choices won't hang about, and you won't get actors who become visibly bored of the role over a decade, or interminable gossip over whether "they'll be back for one more" etc.

Get back to Bond being about the films, rather than the franchise.

[Armand9]

There are a number of diverse British actors who are both talented and would be good Bonds, and frankly I feel there is a better story to be told with a more diverse bond.

With Bond being a symbol of Britishness, you can really tell an interesting story about what it means to be of a minority in Britain today, and in particular with other races, the conflict between these ex-colonial cultures and the inherently globalist aims of Britain via people like Bond.

im not sure what you mean exactly

whoever is cast, bond is a government dude, yeah he goes off script at times to get the job done but his job is upholding british government interests

are you saying by casting someone you view as more diverse enables a bond who subverts british government interests? or educates them to how wrong they are in their outlook on the world?

cos if that's the case, i see only one movie in that actor's future, cos he's getting fired 

[Stockholm Syndrome]

Ok well give me names of the above then? Don't say Idris Elba either, he was only ever good as Stringer Bell.

I would say like Sope Dirisu, John Boyega, Riz Ahmed, Dev Patel, Michaela Coel, Lashana Lynch (could even carry on the Daniel Craig continuity with that), Emily Blunt, Daniel Kaluuya. All would be more diverse Bonds, and I believe also good Bonds.

[Sheer Magnetism]

There are a number of diverse British actors who are both talented and would be good Bonds, and frankly I feel there is a better story to be told with a more diverse bond.

With Bond being a symbol of Britishness, you can really tell an interesting story about what it means to be of a minority in Britain today, and in particular with other races, the conflict between these ex-colonial cultures and the inherently globalist aims of Britain via people like Bond.

It's not Dickens, it's a series of movies about a cool guy getting drunk, shooting baddies, using great gadgets, delivering wisecracks, shagging hot women and saving the world. I'd like to see them inject a bit of fun and genuine adventure back into the series after the drearathon of the last few years. And then tell the story above in a different series of films.

Having said that, my personal vision was always that James Bond was a codename for 007 and the different actors playing Bond were all different people. In that regard, it would probably be fine to have a non-white Bond and possibly an ex-Bond as the villain. But then Phoebe Waller-Bridge ruined that.

[Stockholm Syndrome]

im not sure what you mean exactly

whoever is cast, bond is a government dude, yeah he goes off script at times to get the job done but his job is upholding british government interests

are you saying by casting someone you view as more diverse enables a bond who subverts british government interests? or educates them to how wrong they are in their outlook on the world?

cos if that's the case, i see only one movie in that actor's future, cos he's getting fired 

I mean more it gives a fair degree of wiggle room to tell the story of what it means to be British and Asian or African or Carribean via one of the most British symbols in cinema.

And I wasn't thinking of a bond subverting British government interests, but more you can have a bond who (with use of a good foil villain) can tell a story of conflict between the aspect of Bond that is the best of what Britain can be, and also the worst.

I am not suggesting a Bond that subverts British government interests, but maybe a Bond who has to face a conflict between his duty and his heritage (again via a good villain foil that challenges this split) and explore what it means to be of different heritage but also British

[AndyMuller]

I would say like Sope Dirisu, John Boyega, Riz Ahmed, Dev Patel, Michaela Coel, Lashana Lynch (could even carry on the Daniel Craig continuity with that), Emily Blunt. All would be more diverse Bonds, and I believe also good Bonds.

I'll give you Riz Ahmed out of that lot at a push. Lashana is ruled out due to what happened towards the end of NTTD I think, what is the fascination with a female Bond when we have films like Atomic Blonde, Red Sparrow, The 355 etc already?

John Boyega would probably be the most uncool Bond ever by the way, the lad looks startled in front of danger in nearly every movie I've seen him in.

[Stockholm Syndrome]

It's not Dickens, it's a series of movies about a cool guy getting drunk, shooting baddies, using great gadgets, delivering wisecracks, shagging hot women and saving the world. I'd like to see them inject a bit of fun and genuine adventure back into the series after the drearathon of the last few years. And then tell the story above in a different series of films.

Having said that, my personal vision was always that James Bond was a codename for 007 and the different actors playing Bond were all different people. In that regard, it would probably be fine to have a non-white Bond and possibly an ex-Bond as the villain. But then Phoebe Waller-Bridge ruined that.

You can tell a story like that while still being a cool fun action movie. Take the Black Panther series for example - pure Marvel action movie schlock, while also telling a story about oppressed people, with interesting villains because they have a point.

Hell even the best recent bond IMHO (Skyfall) is really good because it has a villain who has a point, and asks Bond a question about what he does and why he does it. It also happens to be an amazing action movie.

[Sheer Magnetism]

But you see, Stockholm, this is why people like you should be nowhere near a property like Bond. Because you don't like or respect the character and are desperate to change him into something else. John Boyega? Emily Blunt? Michaela Coel? You've just named a bunch of non-white male actors you like for a role where they'd have to be the baddest action star on earth who can also deliver a great wisecrack - a role they would be entirely unsuitable for.

And Black Panther wasn't a story about oppressed people, it was a story about a country that kept all its wealth and resources to itself and more or less returned to the status quo once it had cast out the outsider who challenged their monarchy and who was depicted as being violent and unstable. It's a predominantly conservative film that people interpreted as the opposite solely because of the ethnicity of its characters.

[killer-heels]

Good choice that. Bit of a question of whether he has the charisma to lead such a movie but a much better choice than some of the obvious names that were put forward.

[Stockholm Syndrome]

But you see, Stockholm, this is why people like you should be nowhere near a property like Bond. Because you don't like or respect the character and are desperate to change him into something else. John Boyega? Emily Blunt? Michaela Coel? You've just named a bunch of non-white male actors you like for a role where they'd have to be the baddest action star on earth who can also deliver a great wisecrack - a role they would be entirely unsuitable for.

And Black Panther wasn't a story about oppressed people, it was a story about a country that kept all its wealth and resources to itself and more or less returned to the status quo once it had cast out the outsider who challenged their monarchy and who was depicted as being violent and unstable. It's a predominantly conservative film that people interpreted as the opposite solely because of the ethnicity of its characters.

I mean I should be nowhere near it because I'm some knobhead on the internet. End of the day that's it really, we're all just chatting bollocks on a forum aren't we 

I wouldn't necessarily say Aaron-Taylor Johnson was the baddest action star on the planet either, or even the baddest British action star. I wouldn't have said Daniel Craig was either before taking the role. I wouldn't say Piers Brosnon was. You need a British actor to play Bond, and with some level of action experience and perhaps specifically spy experience, but mainly Blockbuster experience.

The main story of Black Panther 1 is about Black suffering across the world and this nation for centuries chosing not to assist, and Black Panther 2 is about western nations exploiting other nations resources throughout history. I would say that's a story about oppressed people's.

[lionel_messias]

But you see, Stockholm, this is why people like you should be nowhere near a property like Bond. Because you don't like or respect the character and are desperate to change him into something else. John Boyega? Emily Blunt? Michaela Coel? You've just named a bunch of non-white male actors you like for a role where they'd have to be the baddest action star on earth who can also deliver a great wisecrack - a role they would be entirely unsuitable for.

And Black Panther wasn't a story about oppressed people, it was a story about a country that kept all its wealth and resources to itself and more or less returned to the status quo once it had cast out the outsider who challenged their monarchy and who was depicted as being violent and unstable. It's a predominantly conservative film that people interpreted as the opposite solely because of the ethnicity of its characters.

Way too political all this.

James Bond is a male character. End of. He also has to possess a whiff of danger, to kill a person if need be and
also a rough-hewn charm for the ladies. Which is why, where it not for his age ruling him out now, Londoner Idris Elba would have been a good choice.

That said, casting him a few years back would have been surrounded by a din of political moralising and back slapping. I think the gender of the character is sacrosanct but the actor's DNA and ancestry less of an issue but you don't cast for that reason, you cast for the actor and what they bring to the table.

[Riquende]

You need a British actor to play Bond

Fully 1/3 of the Bonds in official movies were not British.

Connery - British
Lazenby - Australian
Moore - British
Dalton - British
Brosnan - Irish
Craig - British

[Sheer Magnetism]

I mean I should be nowhere near it because I'm some knobhead on the internet. End of the day that's it really, we're all just chatting bollocks on a forum aren't we 

I wouldn't necessarily say Aaron-Taylor Johnson was the baddest action star on the planet either, or even the baddest British action star. I wouldn't have said Daniel Craig was either before taking the role. I wouldn't say Piers Brosnon was. You need a British actor to play Bond, and with some level of action experience and perhaps specifically spy experience, but mainly Blockbuster experience.

People like you, people who don't like or respect the character and who want to replace him with an entirely different character but with the same name.

Johnson has played soldiers, multiple superheroes and came to fame heading an action franchise. Brosnan was the star of an action TV show and had a Bond image for years beforehand. Craig had been in Tomb Raider, Layer Cake and Munich before and was built like a brick shithouse. I've said before I'm not a Craig fan but I never thought the idea of him beating a bunch of thugs up was ridiculous, the way it would be for someone like Blunt or Coel.

Anyway, my choice has always been Cavill, someone who ticks every box - action, comedy, acting and hotness. If he doesn't get picked it'll be the greatest wasted opportunity since Clive Owen.

[AndyMuller]

Genuinely never understood the Idris Elba hype train. One good role as Stringer Bell, somebody convince me otherwise?

I also don't see it with Cavill either besides the good looks and being built like a brick shithouse. He is decent at Superman and great as The Witcher but he doesn't bring any wise cracking or charm to either of those roles in my opinion.

[Stockholm Syndrome]

People like you, people who don't like or respect the character and who want to replace him with an entirely different character but with the same name.

Johnson has played soldiers, multiple superheroes and came to fame heading an action franchise. Brosnan was the star of an action TV show and had a Bond image for years beforehand. Craig had been in Tomb Raider, Layer Cake and Munich before and was built like a brick shithouse. I've said before I'm not a Craig fan but I never thought the idea of him beating a bunch of thugs up was ridiculous, the way it would be for someone like Blunt or Coel.

Anyway, my choice has always been Cavill, someone who ticks every box - action, comedy, acting and hotness. If he doesn't get picked it'll be the greatest wasted opportunity since Clive Owen.

I don't want to go off on too much of a tangent but yes I agree I think Cavill would have been legitimately excellent as Bond.

I do feel even if we don't go with a non white male bond, that at least it should be like the perfect cast (Cavill) or it should be someone where the role would be a really defining role, it would make someone a mega star - a somewhat unknown or rising star.

I just feel Aaron Taylor -Johnson is a very safe pick without being the perfect pick. As I first said, a bit uninspired.

[Sheer Magnetism]

Genuinely never understood the Idris Elba hype train. One good role as Stringer Bell, somebody convince me otherwise?

I also don't see it with Cavill either besides the good looks and being built like a brick shithouse. He is decent at Superman and great as The Witcher but he doesn't bring any wise cracking or charm to either of those roles in my opinion.

He's great in The Man from Uncle and I also think he brings a movie star presence that Johnson doesn't. I'd love to see him do one with Guy Ritchie, who's very hit and miss but who'd be perfect for a Bond movie.

And just as a cap on the other conversation, I'd like to see a non-white male actor helm a spy action franchise, I just don't want to see them shoehorned into the 'shaken not stirred, the name's Bond, Q and M' framework. I'd rather it be something that feels fresh, original, modern and authentic to the actor/actress. There's room for both!

[Stockholm Syndrome]

He's great in The Man from Uncle and I also think he brings a movie star presence that Johnson doesn't. I'd love to see him do one with Guy Ritchie, who's very hit and miss but who'd be perfect for a Bond movie.

And just as a cap on the other conversation, I'd like to see a non-white male actor helm a spy action franchise, I just don't want to see them shoehorned into the 'shaken not stirred, the name's Bond, Q and M' framework. I'd rather it be something that feels fresh, original, modern and authentic to the actor/actress. There's room for both!

I think ultimately that's an issue as to why there aren't many black a d Asian  actors and actresses (or actresses in general) who seem like perfect bonds, because no one is hiring them for any spy films, or for women, and action films at all. Hence why my list was most people who have just turned up in action or blockbusters.

Like the only one I know playing anything vaguely spy like is Sope Dirisu in Gangs of London as an undercover cop, with The Raid style action.

[Sheer Magnetism]

I think ultimately that's an issue as to why there aren't many black a d Asian  actors and actresses (or actresses in general) who seem like perfect bonds, because no one is hiring them for any spy films, or for women, and action films at all. Hence why my list was most people who have just turned up in action or blockbusters.

Like the only one I know playing anything vaguely spy like is Sope Dirisu in Gangs of London as an undercover cop, with The Raid style action.

But this is exactly the point I'm making. James Bond isn't just a generic action blockbuster role, it's a very distinct character and none of the people you named are even remotely like him. If you make James Bond a woman, he isn't James Bond anymore.

As for the other, there are barely any spy films being released in general because it's not a big genre. It's basically Bond and Mission Impossible right now. There have been plenty of action spy films led by women and there's no reason why you couldn't make one with a non-white lead. But every time people act like it's just Bond, it gets shuffled off into the future somewhere.

[Stockholm Syndrome]

But this is exactly the point I'm making. James Bond isn't just a generic action blockbuster role, it's a very distinct character and none of the people you named are even remotely like him. If you make James Bond a woman, he isn't James Bond anymore.

As for the other, there are barely any spy films being released in general because it's not a big genre. It's basically Bond and Mission Impossible right now. There have been plenty of action spy films led by women and there's no reason why you couldn't make one with a non-white lead. But every time people act like it's just Bond, it gets shuffled off into the future somewhere.

Yeah I agree. I am saying since it is just Mission Impossible (which probably HAS to be Tom Cruise) and James Bond, then yeah someone has to make a Spy movie with a non-white lead, or cast non-white actors in a bond like role, or the James Bond franchise have to take a leap of faith on someone.

This is more a comment on diversity in Hollywood blockbusters to be fair, but someone should do it at some point, if not James Bond.

Mainly because as I have said before, I think you can tell different more interesting stories with more diverse action/spy stars and a different view on the genre, rather than Bond, MI, and then cheap copies/parodies of those series as most other spy films tend to be.

Other views of Spy films help Bond as well. Modern Bond wouldn't be as it is without the Bourne series. If that more gritty style is wearing a bit thin now as it's been close to 20 years, maybe another type of spy films has to be made to shake the genre up again.

[AndyMuller]

I'd say Tenet was the last spyish/time travel type film with a non-white lead.

[Stockholm Syndrome]

I'd say Tenet was the last spyish/time travel type film with a non-white lead.

Yeah that's probably it. Somewhat forgotten because the plots is a bit confusing, and the pandemic and such, but yes.

I can't think of may others without it drifting too far away from the spy genre that it is no longer a spy movie

Well if you want to talk about a literal spy there is Judas and the Black Messiah, but of course that's a movie about a 'spy' rather than a spy movie

[AndyMuller]

Also going back to my recent completion of a Bond marathon, it was mad how similar in plot that The World Is Not Enough is to The Dark Knight Rises. I know Nolan is a big Bond fan so he definitely took a lot of inspiration from it.

[El Lobo]

Bond marathons? Questionable music taste?

Jackanackanory.

[AndyMuller]

Bond marathons? Questionable music taste?

Jackanackanory.

Questionable music taste since when?

Your favourite human being is Ricky Gervais ffs.

[Sangria]

when i watched The Bourne Identity, apart from being wowed at how excellent i thought it was, my immediate reaction when the titles came up was 'bond is a dinosaur, dude is dead'

in fairness it came out near the end of Brosnan's tenure, which i thought was weak anyway (apart from Goldeneye) and even tho thought of as an ideal bond, as im not a fan of the actor in general it didn't work for me (after Connery, Dalton is my next fav bond - on my own there i think - and they totally weren't into that for some reason and moved on quickly)

It tickles me that Dalton's favourite film acting experience was playing a supermarket manager, and he played it like a dark version of Bond.

[S]

The other two are alright but The Bourne Identity is a near perfect action film. I don’t think it actually changed Bond that much though. Casino Royale was essentially a reboot after Brosnan and the character is still totally different to Bourne in nearly every way. Skyfall mimicking the Batman films is a lot more blatant.

[Fortneef]

And Black Panther wasn't a story about oppressed people, it was a story about a country that kept all its wealth and resources to itself and more or less returned to the status quo once it had cast out the outsider who challenged their monarchy and who was depicted as being violent and unstable. It's a predominantly conservative film that people interpreted as the opposite solely because of the ethnicity of its characters.

legitimate power comes from a mandate from the people, not some dubious cultist flinging enchanted salad

[Fortneef]

basically Bond has to  a) look right in a tuxedo  and  b) look like he would headbutt someone if he needed to

[Armand9]

I mean more it gives a fair degree of wiggle room to tell the story of what it means to be British and Asian or African or Carribean via one of the most British symbols in cinema.

And I wasn't thinking of a bond subverting British government interests, but more you can have a bond who (with use of a good foil villain) can tell a story of conflict between the aspect of Bond that is the best of what Britain can be, and also the worst.

I am not suggesting a Bond that subverts British government interests, but maybe a Bond who has to face a conflict between his duty and his heritage (again via a good villain foil that challenges this split) and explore what it means to be of different heritage but also British

ok

but that's not Bond

you can do all those and more if you want, it's a called a new story new character - Bourne films are a prime of example of doing this and they were fucking great

that's why a lot of rebranding (for want of a better word) of well established characters/stories to suit someone's world view is somewhat redundant to me - and let's be frank, it's not a world view, cos Rings of Power banged on about that and i hardly saw someone asian in it, there were none iirc in prominant roles, and asians make up the majority of the human race lol (it's the film world's view, which is very much a bubble centred around big studios in hollywood/L.A)

there is way too much leaning on the past in rebooting the hell out of cinema from yesteryear and fundamentally changing characters and stories makes me wonder if you didn't like it in the first place so you feel the need to tamper it to fuck, why are you remaking it? Go find another good story to tell that has all those elements in it that you want us to see - and the world is your oyster cos you can literally make shit up as you go along, in fact you have to! Perfect.

Like i said earlier, for me Connery if by far the best Bond we've had, he is the quintessential Bond - go make a movie with that Bond in it and make sure it's a good fucking story. Will some people be pissed off cos he fucks a lot of eye candy, sure, that he smokes indoors, im sure some will lol, will lots of people love it - if it's a good story and good actors, i'd bet my fucking house on it. In fact im sure many will see it as a breath of fresh air where the story featuring a much beloved character was told for the story's sake and not for politcal agendas (whether real or imagined).

Some movies are statements, others are just entertainment - Bond is the latter, let him live there in all his masculine glory and if some of that appears inappropriate, well maybe it is, he's flawed you see... not that you'd know it when he's kicking your ass in a tux while waiting for his martini (shaken, not stirred, of course)

[SamAteTheRedAcid]

there is way too much leaning on the past

But then you go on to say 'make it just like the old ones'. Isn't that just leaning on the past too?

I'm not arsed. It's like when someone does a cover version you don't like. The original still exists. Listen to that instead. If you want to watch a Connery Bond movie, there's loads out there that very much still exist.

Although I'm quite intrigued by the idea of Bond movie where he just gets told off for smoking indoors, and trying to work out how to pay the fines on various council websites around the globe.

At some point trying to retain old characters in a modern day setting doesn't work, it'll end up like California Man or whatever that film was where they defrosted a caveman. Another idea - Bond in his office, swearing at the computer, unable to log in to the MI6 servers. 'We just had paper records back in my day, what do you mean enter password? And how does this mouse work? Q, explain the fucking internet to me - you mean I can post pictures of cats and people all over the world can see it?' That's really staying true to the character. But somehow this is never what people mean. It's a mystery to me.

[bradders1011]

Bond discovering what you can find on the internet, like Quagmire.

[rafathegaffa83]

I quite like Aaron but that seems a rather uninspired choice

Yes. I think the fact that they want an actor to commit to the role for 10-12 years is a massive impediment and means you're less likely to get a bigger name or older actor. They want someone who can dedicate themselves almost solely to the role, including the rigorous physical training and post-release marketing activities.

[Armand9]

But then you go on to say 'make it just like the old ones'. Isn't that just leaning on the past too?

I'm not arsed. It's like when someone does a cover version you don't like. The original still exists. Listen to that instead. If you want to watch a Connery Bond movie, there's loads out there that very much still exist.

Although I'm quite intrigued by the idea of Bond movie where he just gets told off for smoking indoors, and trying to work out how to pay the fines on various council websites around the globe.

At some point trying to retain old characters in a modern day setting doesn't work, it'll end up like California Man or whatever that film was where they defrosted a caveman. Another idea - Bond in his office, swearing at the computer, unable to log in to the MI6 servers. 'We just had paper records back in my day, what do you mean enter password? And how does this mouse work? Q, explain the fucking internet to me - you mean I can post pictures of cats and people all over the world can see it?' That's really staying true to the character. But somehow this is never what people mean. It's a mystery to me.

leaning on the past as regards all the reboots was a general point about the lack of creativity imo that has existed for sometime esp in hollywood

the thread was talking about a new bond in the continuing bond franchise, i gave my opinion on what i'd like

having someone with the character of connery's bond doesn't mean he can't work the fucking internet lol, come on man, i think you know you're way too literal there - connery's bond comes with a dude who is up on the technology of the day (eg he can basically fly or pilot anything, given bond's resume), smart, savvy, high intellect, improvisation, application

all those lovely things that make bond an exceptional spy

if you can't see how someone could have the character of connery's bond but be computer literate at the same time, i dont know what to tell you

[mattD]

I watched From Russia With Love last night, one of the apparently 'great' Bond films, and it got me thinking.

There's no genuinely great Bond film. There's good ones, there's very good ones and there's the odd brilliant one here and there, but nothing that is a cinematic masterpiece. I thought From Russia With Love dragged at many times.

For a franchise as big as that, there's no film that comes close to a Lord of the Rings, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Alien, etc in terms of pure quality. All of them have a faint whiff of naffness and superficiality to it (the so called 'greatest' Bond film, Goldfinger, is complete cheeseballs, for good and bad), and not in the loving and intentional way that the Indiana Jones films (only counting the first three of course) have for example. And none of the films have had any genius directors, much of the direction of these films being blandly formulaic. Sam Mendes though comes closest with Skyfall which admittedly is a gorgeous looking film.

For a franchise with such potential, the majority of Bond films are crap too. The much revered Daniel Craig only has two good outings in his 15 years as Bond (Casino Royale and Skyfall). You can count on one hand the very good Bond films.

After 60 years of unbelievable financial success and pop culture significance, it's unbelievable to say that MGM and the Brocolli's still really ought to try harder with this series.

[TepidT2O]

Casino Royale was a magnificent film to be fair,,

Although, of course, Tarantino was pencilled in to direct the first Craig Bond film, but he fell out with the Broccolis ..  As did Danny Boyle for the last outing..

Now, Christopher Nolan says he is interested …. That might be the perfect combination maybe