Poll reveals little support for diversified Bond (1 Viewer)

[Martin Dew]

Martin Dew submitted a new blog post

Poll reveals little support for diversified Bond

Continue reading the Original Blog Post.

 

[Tommy R]

I think Bond should be EXACTLY how Ian Fleming describes him in the books!!!!!! They should just stick with that!!!!!!

Therefor they should have an actor born in the early 1920’s to play him!!!!!

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I don't care what race Bond is, but he should always be male and heterosexual because those are core traits of the character.

 

[Tommy R]

I’d also like him to always be British. Not that the actor necessarily needs to be, but the character being British I think is a core trait enough to stay that way.

As far as a woman being “Bond”, I feel that it is definitely more a suggestion to have a woman be “007” and not “James Bond”. It would definitely take on more of a spin-off aspect that saying outright that “a woman is James Bond”

 

[MartinP.]

From that article I put myself in this camp:

"Respondents were more likely to agree that the Bond series is a classic and nothing should change (51%) than they are to say it should change with the times, and feature a more diverse cast (34%)."

Even so, as a gay person that survey makes me feel bad in that response.

 

[Walter Kittel]

I still recall some of the discussion when Will Smith played James West in the film adaptation of the Wild Wild West. I'm not certain where I stand on the topic. (What is okay and what is too far for recasting established fictitious personages?)

Don't care about race, but I do think British and Male are definitely required. I do think that womanizing is part of the character as well, so if they wanted to push the boundaries in that department; maybe make Bond bisexual?

I've read that Idris Elba has ruled out playing Bond, but I would have been okay with him taking on the role.

- Walter.

 

[Tommy R]

I vaguely recall a line from Skyfall where Bond either insinuated or didn’t deny having had homosexual experiences.

 

[Keith Cobby]

Bond badly needs a reboot. Go back to the books. Should be male but I can easily envisage a separate Jane Bond series of films.

 

[Sam Favate]

Honestly, and I say this as a huge fan of the series for 40+ years, what Bond needs are new producers. Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli haven’t done the series any favors, and many of their choices are very uninspired (using Purvis & Wade as writers for 20 years, etc.).

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I hate to concur because I don't want to be disloyal to the folks who have brought us Bond movies for all these years, but I agree - I'm not sure if Wilson and Broccoli need to go so much as they need additional partners who can bring some fresh passion to it, and who could serve as another voice in the room to counter against some of their more inexplicable and disappointing decisions, like continuing to hire Purvis & Wade. I think that Wilson and Broccoli have gotten a lot right over the years, and I love the choice of Daniel Craig as Bond - but they haven't given him material as good as he is.

They've felt behind the trends in recent years, and like they've been copying other franchises instead of innovating on their own. Whether its the constant return to the "this time it's personal" well, the "going rogue" well, aping the "villain plans to be caught as part of his master plan" trope that The Dark Knight popularized, or the ridiculous "Blofeld and Bond are long lost brothers" conceit that seemed to be ripped from a Fast & Furious movie, it feels like they're sputtering in their wheels. Which is a shame, because the films have also had a lot going for them - Daniel Craig is outstanding in the role, and the direction by Sam Mendes and cinematography by Roger Deakins for Skyfall were both so good that most people didn't even notice the plot holes. We'll probably never know the truth behind Danny Boyle's aborted attempt - if they couldn't agree on the script, as has been reported - did Boyle come up with something truly terrible, or are Wilson and Broccoli no longer able to identify a good story when they see one?

 

[Osato]

I hate to concur because I don't want to be disloyal to the folks who have brought us Bond movies for all these years, but I agree - I'm not sure if Wilson and Broccoli need to go so much as they need additional partners who can bring some fresh passion to it, and who could serve as another voice in the room to counter against some of their more inexplicable and disappointing decisions, like continuing to hire Purvis & Wade. I think that Wilson and Broccoli have gotten a lot right over the years, and I love the choice of Daniel Craig as Bond - but they haven't given him material as good as he is.

They've felt behind the trends in recent years, and like they've been copying other franchises instead of innovating on their own. Whether its the constant return to the "this time it's personal" well, the "going rogue" well, aping the "villain plans to be caught as part of his master plan" trope that The Dark Knight popularized, or the ridiculous "Blofeld and Bond are long lost brothers" conceit that seemed to be ripped from a Fast & Furious movie, it feels like they're sputtering in their wheels. Which is a shame, because the films have also had a lot going for them - Daniel Craig is outstanding in the role, and the direction by Sam Mendes and cinematography by Roger Deakins for Skyfall were both so good that most people didn't even notice the plot holes. We'll probably never know the truth behind Danny Boyle's aborted attempt - if they couldn't agree on the script, as has been reported - did Boyle come up with something truly terrible, or are Wilson and Broccoli no longer able to identify a good story when they see one?

And where is the special edition of quantum of solace? It was completed and never released.

I’m ready for a new actor and a new creative team with the 007 films.

Hope Daniel’s final film is a good one. Final bonds for actors are....

 

[Sam Favate]

I think that Wilson and Broccoli have gotten a lot right over the years, and I love the choice of Daniel Craig as Bond - but they haven't given him material as good as he is.

...or the ridiculous "Blofeld and Bond are long lost brothers" conceit that seemed to be ripped from a Fast & Furious movie, it feels like they're sputtering in their wheels.

Pierce Brosnan also never got material worthy of him. And the Bond/Blofeld bit from Spectre is right out of Austin Powers: Goldmember. Bond is copying the series that spoofed him. Good grief.

I'm not sure Wilson/Broccoli have ever known a good story when they see one. Wilson's been in charge since Goldeneye, and I wouldn't hold up any movies since then as worthy of the first 25 years of Bond. They seem more concerned with product placement and marketing opportunities - which is not an invalid concern, especially when your studio (MGM) is bankrupt. But I don't feel either of them ever moved the creative needle much. Yes, Craig's a good choice and Casino was a good movie (marred by Purvis & Wade's absurdly complicated plot).

 

[Worth]

Pierce Brosnan also never got material worthy of him. And the Bond/Blofeld bit from Spectre is right out of Austin Powers: Goldmember. Bond is copying the series that spoofed him. Good grief.

I'm not sure Wilson/Broccoli have ever known a good story when they see one. Wilson's been in charge since Goldeneye, and I wouldn't hold up any movies since then as worthy of the first 25 years of Bond. They seem more concerned with product placement and marketing opportunities - which is not an invalid concern, especially when your studio (MGM) is bankrupt. But I don't feel either of them ever moved the creative needle much. Yes, Craig's a good choice and Casino was a good movie (marred by Purvis & Wade's absurdly complicated plot).

I'd say Wilson has been in charge longer than that. Ever since he became co-writer on For Your Eyes Only, the story lines have been needlessly convoluted. There's no reason for a Bond film to have a complicated plot - here's the villain, here's the master plan, connect the set-pieces.

Not that this would ever happen, but I'd love it if they would just hand the keys over to interesting filmmakers and let them do whatever they want. At this point, there are several generations of writers and directors who have been at least in part inspired by Bond - let them do their thing.

 

[Tommy R]

I'd say Wilson has been in charge longer than that. Ever since he became co-writer on For Your Eyes Only, the story lines have been needlessly convoluted. There's no reason for a Bond film to have a complicated plot - here's the villain, here's the master plan, connect the set-pieces.

Octopussy is a prime example of a plot that I feel makes absolutely no sense. They should have gone with either JUST the Orlov plot of JUST the Kamal Khan plot. But them plotting together, I just don’t get what the point was. It’s a movie that makes less sense every time I watch it.

There are other examples for sure but this is the most glaring for me. Even my beloved Craig era has some weird plot things, but upon repeated viewing I think that they aren’t quite as complex as they appear.

 

[Worth]

The Living Daylights is another one that makes no sense. It's so convoluted that there's a big exposition dump about three-quarters into the movie that attempts to explain the plot. Even then, I defy anyone to explain why Koskov fakes his defection at the start of the movie.

 

[Worth]

Double post.

 

[Sam Favate]

I'd say Wilson has been in charge longer than that. Ever since he became co-writer on For Your Eyes Only...

True. I was thinking of when the series began again after its 6-year hiatus. Cubby died in '96, Goldeneye came out in late '95. I doubt he had much to do with it.

I do think Cubby was more involved in the 80s.

 

[Sam Posten]

This is the dumbest poll ever. Designing art by committee will always result in the most mediocre of solutions.

"If I asked people what they wanted they would have told me a faster horse." Henry Ford.

 

[Tino]

This is the dumbest poll ever. Designing art by committee will always result in the most mediocre of solutions.

"If I asked people what they wanted they would have told me a faster horse." Henry Ford.

All these type of polls are useless.

 

[Tommy R]

The Living Daylights is another one that makes no sense. It's so convoluted that there's a big exposition dump about three-quarters into the movie that attempts to explain the plot. Even then, I defy anyone to explain why Koskov fakes his defection at the start of the movie.

They should have made it a Russian-plot from the beginning and gotten rid of Whittaker. Overall I think TLD is the most watchable Bond films of the 80’s, but yeah it’s quite convoluted.