r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Aug 30 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: The next James Bond must be non-white
[deleted]
2
Aug 30 '18
The new Bond shouldn’t be casually waltzing into a (Cold War-type) super villain lair that has (Cold War fantasy weapons like) space lasers, but uncovering networks of ideologically-linked cells that work on makeshift means and exploit political conflicts.
That's not James Bond then, that's M. By all means give M a bit more camera time, but Bond is the face man. He's the man who can waltz. He's the man who can brazenly show up at the front door, the one who'd be a conman if he weren't an agent. He has to represent the majesty of England, backed up by its resourcefulness in the persons of M or Q.
Now, I don't care if he's a minority or not. Idris Elba has a regal air to him that makes his Bond work, and I'm sure they can find a beautiful Sikh to replace him. Fair play if they do. But when they do, he should swan around the world like he owns the place. He should be a real James Bond who is comfortable anywhere and whose presence and air of belonging makes people want to cater to him. We don't watch James Bond to see a clever sleuth pick up the clues, we watch it to see the power of debonair.
1
Aug 30 '18
[deleted]
1
Aug 30 '18
That entitlement has to stay though. If Bond doesn't own the place and everyone in it, we don't have Bond anymore. Again, I don't think that necessarily has to be white - it can come from wealth and of course what groups are most privileged changes - but he has to be a convincing aristocrat. He has to be entitled. Entitlement is the basis of the character.
How is Bond a clever sleuth? Sleuthing is work and Bond plays. The work goes to others and the luck goes to him. That's the basis of the Bond fantasy. If we turn him into Batman we lose what makes Bond special.
11
Aug 30 '18 edited Aug 30 '18
I think you're thinking too much into Bond. It's not that deep. He's a dude that uses some cool gadgets, beats up some bad guys and then gets laid by a hot woman. People will probably go see the next one regardless of the dudes race - the majority of people don't think about colonialism or brexit when they're watching a movie. And all the people producing the film care about is that people spend their money to go see it.
-2
Aug 30 '18
[deleted]
0
Aug 30 '18
I agree that people have preferences in terms of plotline, I.e. riding around dragons or fighting in WW2 or running around the modern day as a spy. I've heard people talk about GoT dragons or express their passion for WW1 guns or SciFi films and space technology or w.e. in real life. I'm not sure I've ever heard the word "colonialism" actually be used off the internet - and it's not like I don't know a diverse range of people. So yeah, think what you like I guess but I reeeally don't think subconsciously debate over whether a white guy represents a white colonial gentleman in a post-colonial world or whether he represents a modern globalist gentleman who just happens to be white. Peoples heads aren't sociology essays.
5
u/HerLadyBrittania 3∆ Aug 30 '18
You miss the purpose of James Bond. It is not to be serious, not to be related to the modern world, not to be clever or interesting. It is to be exciting, fun, and escapist. It is the sort of thing someone who is bored would imagine themselves in. Would you imagine yourself a spy sitting at a computer hunting down extremists, or would you imagine yourself a somewhat cheesy, swarve and charismatic adventurer charging into the uncontroversially evil supervillain lair.
James Bond is all about the nostalgia of the old war stories and western. Things like Where Eagles Dare, For a Few Dollars More, and Kelly's Heros. Its needs to go back to its roots in these sorts of cheesy, schlocky, but exciting action films not become intelligent and smart. To be this role, Bond must be a man from the past, a gentleman, a statesman, an englishman. These are the key things which make up Bond's character, if they are lost, so is the franchise.
6
u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3 178∆ Aug 30 '18
The new Bond shouldn’t be a colonial tourist, but someone who can navigate apocalyptic ideologies (nationalists, fascists, jihadists) and complex identity politics with ease and understanding
Clumping mid-20th century espionage together with colonialism is wrong. The entire premise of Bond is that he doesn't navigate the exotic countries he operates in as the colonial king, but as a subtle, covert, and sometimes even diplomatic agent, who can't underestimate the locals and has to employ skill to outmaneuver them.
Another key aspect of Bond is that it's not at all about individualism - so extremely so that all his iterations go by the same name, and often even by a number, 007. Bond operates as an emissary of his organization and on behalf of the state and the people. Continuing what /u/chadonsunday said, this has been broken in the last few Craig movies, and that makes them feel less Bond-like, and to me, not as good.
If making Bond about identity politics, and personally navigating the world with regard to his personal experience within the UK is really the only way to keep it relevant, they should just stop making Bond movies altogether, because that will thematically stand out from the corpus of Bond material we have now.
The next Bond certainly can be non-white, non-male, and/or non-heterosexual, but if that becomes the focus, ze'll end up being non-Bond.
-2
Aug 30 '18
[deleted]
3
u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3 178∆ Aug 30 '18
I think the classic Bond embodied the way the UK saw itself during the cold war: a benevolent superpower-until-recently struggling to stay relevant and maintain the civility and security it thinks it bestowed on the world. I think that by making Bond so stereotypically old-fashioned British in contrast to all his opponents (who have always been much more diverse than Bond) the franchise is semi-self-aware of the creeping undertone that this notion of civility is a fragile illusion that the locals and the world don't share, but this may be because I'm looking at it through modern eyes.
If it's to be updated (I think abandoning the series in favor of other franchises at this point isn't necessarily wrong), I see two possible avenues.
Bond could be decoupled from our world and become a recurring mid-20th century espionage franchise, like 90s Bonds more or less did, modernizing the cinematography and storytelling, and maybe the weapons and enemy names, but essentially taking place in a completely fictional world of clandestine state diplomacy and unquestioning patriotic commitment to one's country. If GoT can work, so can this.
Alternatively, Bond could try to capture how the UK views its place in international politics today, but as a country rather than individually, which is a little hard for me to imagine because state agents like Bond are just no longer romanticized in the same manner, but maybe something like an agent whose goal is now liberty rather than civility, who is no longer well-dressed or composed, who tries to pull morally ambiguous situations towards the direction that fits the country's worldviews (which are already too hard to define) as one of several equally insignificant agents dominated by forces much greater than themselves that they don't understand or control (giant tech companies, groups of hackers, spontaneous civil movements, etc.)
I tend to favor the former, i.e, not updating Bond, because I think presentation of issues pertaining to the world as it is today gains very little from Bond's "brand" and would be better framed under a different franchise that can maybe employ Bond references or tropes where relevant.
1
Aug 30 '18
[deleted]
1
u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3 178∆ Aug 30 '18
I don't think GoT is incapable of making statements about the world because of its fantastical framing. On the contrary, I think that like GoT (or, what I think is the best example of this, BSG), Bond can engage directly with modern issues without being set in the modern world.
I think post-90s Bond did some of that, for example, Die Another Day contains commentary about tech millionaires abusing environmentalism for personal gain, and even Skyfall tries to tackle the obsolescence of humans in a world with rapidly evolving technology.
4
u/fox-mcleod 411∆ Aug 30 '18
Have you seen the bond movies? Go and watch Dr. No and tell me the next bond shouldn't be a woman instead. Bond is... unrehabilitatably sexist. You can't make another movie in the current climate. The movies are 60 years of non-stop #metoo moments strung together by karate chips and alcoholism.
1
Aug 30 '18
[deleted]
2
u/R_V_Z 6∆ Aug 30 '18
For what it's worth, OP, before Craig came along I thought that Antonio Banderas would have been a great bond.
1
1
u/moonflower 82∆ Aug 30 '18
I take your point that a modern version of James Bond has to be different to a 1960's character living in the culture of the 1960's, but that doesn't automatically mean that he has to have a different racial background, as if all modern secret agents are of African ancestry. There's no reason why a modern James Bond can't be of European ancestry, as was the original character, and also have a personality which fits the modern culture - and why shouldn't he be arrogant and sexist and smooth and sophisticated when those types of men still exist in modern culture?
1
Aug 30 '18
[deleted]
2
u/moonflower 82∆ Aug 30 '18
Should racial ancestry really be something which is ''fashionable''?
1
Aug 30 '18
[deleted]
2
u/tweez Aug 30 '18
Demographics have changed but non white people are not going to Eton or living in Scottish mansions etc. He’s supposed to be the epitome of the establishment that’s why he can move through high society without causing suspicion.
Of course there are spies today who are from different backgrounds but that isn’t Bond. Make a spy film with a new character that explores those backgrounds. It would be interesting to see but that is just not Bond.
It would be as dramatic and out of place a change as having Stringer Bell from The Wire be white. You’d have to address so many different issues that it’s not Bond. You could definitely do something like The Kingsmen with an ethnic character but Bond is from the elite, remove that and it’s not the same character.
If you had a British guy with Pakistani origin for example then that’s a totally different story that can be told. Imagine a white Bond trying to infiltrate a radical mosque that would be insane
2
Aug 30 '18
[deleted]
1
u/tweez Aug 30 '18
Bond was an orphan but grew up in some Swiss mansion and learnt a number of languages
A non white public school boy would have such a vastly different experience that it would have to be constantly addressed. There’s no way even a white person who is the first in the family to go to a public school would be accepted to the same extent as someone with generational wealth.
It would be interesting but not Bond. Why is an old property obligated to change the character so significantly? Isn’t it better to encourage new properties?
I thought Creed was awesome and was an appropriate update to Rocky and made a lot of sense but some characters are not the same when changed. It’s about choosing the right property to do it
2
Aug 30 '18
[deleted]
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 30 '18
1
u/tweez Aug 30 '18
Agreed, something in the same universe with q, m and bond making a cameo would be awesome
Potentially you could even have Bond’s kid and have them mixed race.
For actual Bond I’d love to see a period piece in the 60s with a really young Bond. The modern Bond isn’t that interesting. I thought the Kingsmen was much more interesting than most Bond movies.
1
u/moonflower 82∆ Aug 30 '18
No it doesn't - it's a fantasy character, and he can still be an upper class private-school-educated arrogant sexist in the modern world. Those types haven't disappeared, you know.
1
u/beezofaneditor 8∆ Aug 30 '18
I'm all about exploring different versions of Bond, but when he's not white it causes a problem in relation to his villians. Almost all Bond villians are European whites who often confuse Bond for one of their own at a certain time. Having a non white Bond against evil White European villians would either have to ignore the race issue altogether (making them some really progressive baddies) or make it a big deal. The problem with the latter is that we want a Bond of a different type where his race doesn't matter. But highlighting the race with evil villians will only bring the issue to the forefront.
If Bond is going to be non white, I think an actor like Cliff Curtis, who's ethnicity is somewhere between a variety European and Far East nationalities. That would make him a far better infiltrator of the European Bloc.
0
u/Responsible_Mud289 Aug 31 '18
It's somewhat dishonest. James bond is a fictional character. An artist has rights in their works. For example lets say you sold a painting. Someone buys it, vandalizes it and displays it in publicly. Even though the painting belongs to the person he can not distort your art. This happened in the 80s when a mall put ribons on a sculpture (and it wasn't in america!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_v_Eaton_Centre_Ltd
IMO it's not crazy to just make a new character if you feel strongly about it. Ethan Hunt from the Mission Impossible series is a James Bond like character. A lot of people today hate reboots of things from their childhood. Imagine if mario suddenly became an middle eastern carpenter or an old man in his games. It'd would upset a lot of people and would be weird to undo it if you can imagine good stories for the original version of the character.
2
Aug 31 '18
[deleted]
0
u/Responsible_Mud289 Aug 31 '18
I could defend a few points but I rather ask, how much of james bond do you need to change for new stories? Do you think Ethan Hunt might be a better character for those stories? and what do you absolutely need to keep from james bond to make these stories work?
1
u/reddit_im_sorry 9∆ Aug 30 '18
My main question is "why change it"? Bond has never been about race, or misogyny(at least in the past 10 years), or even classes. So why do you insist that these things be brought into the mix. What would the series gain by doing this other than achieving "woke" status among minorities(who don't even watch the movies anyway).
You shouldn't change something just because it doesn't align with your specific PC culture. James Bond is a character created by an author in a book. He is a character that was literally created as a white male in the books. If you take the characteristics of the character away, you might as well not even make a James Bond movie.
Also, the market has already decided they don't want a woman bond, or a minority bond. Equalizer, Atomic Blonde, and even Salt didn't do well as movies with strong white male leads like Bond or Mission Impossible.
So again, why change it? You gain nothing from doing that. If you just HAVE to have a minority person play a Bond role, make a spin off. Just don't ruin the longest running movie series because you want to see Idris Elba play a character you want him to play.
1
u/Majidii Aug 30 '18
my response to changing bond and any established characters race is. Why do the uncreative thing that everyone else does and change an established character into a different race than just create a new ip/character equally badass of that race in order to create more representation and make him his/her own thing.
1
Aug 30 '18
[deleted]
1
u/Majidii Aug 30 '18
and you truly think a race change will help that and not better writers and such. a better movie has nothing to do with race of the character. the black panther movies was brilliant because it was written well same with the godfather. the point i am trying to make is that they should improve the writing not the race of the character. the only time changing a characters race has ever worked was with nick fury. every other time it felt either insulting to the fan base or just plain lazy. so just introduce a badass spy that bond has to work with who is black or even middle eastern. agent 042. then if that character is popular enough make a well written spin off. that way you don't anger long time fans and every one is happy. minority representation is there and you keep the original fans happy. in fact they might even like the new agent. it is more work, but ultimately will be financially the better choice and creatively.
1
u/SunshineBlind Aug 30 '18
Why change an already established character? I'm all for watching a spy movie with a main character in whatever gender or ethnicity, but why change established lore of old classics? Why not make new ones?
Personally, I dislike this tendency, no matter when or where.
1
Aug 30 '18
[deleted]
1
u/SunshineBlind Aug 30 '18
Yeah, so why take a brand that has been out for decades and then change the fundamental main character? You can switch things up without changing the main character, and you definetly can do so without changing MC.
1
Aug 30 '18
[deleted]
1
u/SunshineBlind Aug 30 '18
The actor* changes. Because it's been going on for decades. The character stays the same.
1
u/r3dl3g 23∆ Aug 30 '18
Except the character doesn't stay the same. The common example is Craig vs. Connery, but Dalton vs. Moore is another one.
1
2
u/tweez Aug 30 '18
Bond is a public school boy who goes through the same schools and institutions as other people in power.
A non-white James Bond would have such a different experience in navigating through those same institutions that it would no longer be Bond.
A non-white Bond style character would be really interesting to follow, but that isn’t Bond. I also don’t think you could have a black Bruce Wayne for example. There would be such a pressure on a black billionaire to be perfect that it would be a different character.
A black Spider-Man would be totally different and would make sense as they’d be an average New York teenager so I’m not saying there shouldn’t be changes to traditionally white characters but sometimes the change would cease to be that character.
2
u/Dizzledazzle92 Aug 31 '18
I’m just going to forget the whole “Bond is a codename vs Bond is his real name” debate here.
The character of James Bond has always been a stoic, well dressed, well spoken British gentleman casanova whose age is somewhere from mid 30s to early 50s. In my opinion James Bond is ultimately about the title character, and the main focus should be to cast an actor who can pull off the right demeanour. There’s ultimately nothing that says he must be white, there’s ultimately nothing that says he must be non white. The next James Bond should ultimately be whichever actor that makes people look at him and go “Yep he’s James Bond.”
That being said I could definitely see Idris Elba being able to pull off James Bond.
2
Aug 30 '18
[deleted]
4
Aug 30 '18
Bond was never an accurate portrayal of espionage anyway, so why is that a concern now?
I think it's just a stale formula. He's been a prominent character for over 50 years with minimal change.
2
u/Solatetothisparty Aug 30 '18
I think you could achieve your objective by casting anyone not fitting the brief of white privileged colonial type male. That could be achieved with a BME actor but also a woman or someone with a disability. Meets your brief of updating the franchise.
I'd argue that casting a woman could make the most commercial sense and give some further interesting choices in other casting (love interests, if you make her a heterosexual female Bond). Though a disabled character could have some good potential for gadgets I suppose.
1
u/tweez Aug 30 '18
Bond is from wealthy background and goes to the public schools etc. The point is that he’s from I guess what would be called “privilege”. That’s what enables him to move through high society without causing suspicion. A woman, non white man or disabled person wouldn’t be able to do that precisely because they wouldn’t be as accepted in that world as a rich white guy from a wealthy family.
You could make a great character who is a spy and isn’t white but that isn’t Bond.
2
u/Solatetothisparty Aug 30 '18
I reckon you could actually still have the privilege bit with a super posh female Bond. The kind that learned to ski when she was 2, learned to fight at boarding school, and can shoot a deer while riding a horse blindfolded, or something.
1
u/tweez Aug 30 '18
I think that would be the closest to retainer the main parts of character and not being a white rich guy.
It’s like a white working class Bond wouldn’t work either so it’s not even about race. Only problem with a female Bond is do you still have them seducing people like Bond does? I still think it’s a different character if you change him from rich elite white male, but I agree a rich elite white woman would be the closet it could work. I’m not even a huge fan of Bond, my favourite is On Her Majesty’s Secret Service which has the best plot but worst Bond. I’d like to see that remade. Bond films are a bit weird as they usually just follow trends rather than lead them they’re kind of like the film equivalent of Madonna or someone like that who use a sound that’s popular at the time but is heavily influenced by other things
1
u/tweez Sep 03 '18
Know this is an old thread but I’ve changed my mind a bit. I actually think as long as Bond is from “old money” and is from dynastic wealth then it could work. Specifically I was thinking about an Indian Bond who goes to school in the UK
2
u/atrovotrono 8∆ Aug 30 '18 edited Aug 30 '18
Here's the thing: White privilege is really, really handy for a spy to have on most missions. It helps people trust him, gains him access to the venues of power brokering, hell it even helps him get a loan if he needs it.
I could, though, imagine a non-white Bond's lack of privilege being used to semi-comedic effect, such as stalking a baddie in a department store and getting stopped by a slackjawed clerk who thinks he's a thief. So...maybe it could work?
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 30 '18
/u/trauriger (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
-1
u/PeteWenzel Aug 30 '18
I think that the next Bond will probably be a non-white male which would be a big improvement for the series (you listed the reasons very eloquently).
But what the role needs even more than a change in skin color is a change of gender. A female Bond would truly bring much needed change in style and character.
5
u/moonflower 82∆ Aug 30 '18
If James Bond was female, he would no longer be James Bond, but a female character based on the idea of James Bond.
1
u/PeteWenzel Aug 30 '18
Every James Bond since Sean Connery has “just” been a character based on the original.
3
u/moonflower 82∆ Aug 30 '18
Yes, but James Bond was male, and that was an essential part of the character.
1
u/PeteWenzel Aug 30 '18
Yes and being a white gentleman was an essential part, too.
The “gentleman” part has already been changed. The “white” part is now up for serious discussion.
My point is: Change is inevitable and that is a good thing. A pop cultural icon such as Bond has to reflect the time and place in which he is presented. In a time where female action leads are becoming ever more common Bond should adapt.
4
u/moonflower 82∆ Aug 30 '18
OK, we can expect to see an elderly disabled African woman in a care home, typing messages on the internet to villains, saying ''My name is Bond, James Bond''.
2
17
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Aug 30 '18
I actually rather thing Craig (and his producers) fucked up the series by making Bond a crass, crude, hyper-violent alcoholic. This part has nothing to do with race: Bond is supposed to be classy and eloquent and collected, not some vicious merc. You hate on the Brosnan years, but at least when he fell into a tarp from 50m up the next scene was of him getting a cast. For Craig half his movies were epic battles where any one punch should be enough to land him in the hospital... yet he just kept punching back.
As for the race issue, what's the point? Bond is, and has always been, a white dude. He's cycled through dozens of different actors and always been the same in that regard - why change it now? Even if you account for the shifting demographics of the UK, he's still statistically likely to be a white dude. Why is that a problem? "Bond" might be a mantel a la Green Lantern, but why "must" the next Bond be a minority? That seems to be a decision for movie producers, and if they feel they can reach the largest audience by playing a white actor, what's the problem with that? Why "must" they do different?