my idea for EON for James Bond's future

[Peyton Westlake]

That’s not a valid comparison as Black Panthers ethnicity actually is important to the character, whereas Bonds ethnicity really doesn’t matter as long as he’s British.

You know what I am alluding to I assume, then make it Blade.

 

[VictusMortuus]

lol, sure take one of the few black characters and make him white. I don’t think you understand the racial disparity in movies, comics and novels especially older ones. I’d argue further but there’s a wall I can bash my head into instead that’ll accomplish the same thing as arguing with you.

 

[Peyton Westlake]

lol, sure take one of the few black characters and make him white. I don’t think you understand the racial disparity in movies, comics and novels especially older ones. I’d argue further but there’s a wall I can bash my head into instead that’ll accomplish the same thing as arguing with you.

It seems you may not fully grasp the concepts others are attempting to communicate. It's possible that a significant ego might lead one to dismiss the opinions or ideas of others. It appears we have reached a point where we must agree to disagree.

 

[Da-Scribe]

27 Bond flicks with a white dude. I don't think a handful featuring a not-white-dude is that big of a deal.

 

[Peyton Westlake]

You are right Da-scribe. The ethnicity of James Bond is not crucial; one could reimagine him as a non-white character without negatively impacting his adventures. However, the question arises: why should we alter his race? This notion reminds me of a child desiring a toy simply because another has had it for too long. Instead, why not create a new, non-white character who could rival and perhaps eclipse Bond's cinematic legacy? Wouldn't that be a more significant achievement than merely altering Bond's race? To me, changing him seems like a shortcut, and I wonder what it truly accomplishes. Is this the kind of victory we want to celebrate?

 

[Da-Scribe]

You are right Da-scribe. The ethnicity of James Bond is not crucial; one could reimagine him as a non-white character without negatively impacting his adventures. However, the question arises: why should we alter his race? This notion reminds me of a child desiring a toy simply because another has had it for too long. Instead, why not create a new, non-white character who could rival and perhaps eclipse Bond's cinematic legacy? Wouldn't that be a more significant achievement than merely altering Bond's race? To me, changing him seems like a shortcut, and I wonder what it truly accomplishes. Is this the kind of victory we want to celebrate?

It's not an either-or. One doesn't have an innate value over the other and there's more than enough cinematic room to accommodate both. You can diversify Bond's legacy AND create an entirely new IP.

I also find the toy analogy intellectually dishonest. It implies that the child with the toy loses something when the other child finally gains something. The fact is, the child has twenty-seven toys to play with and they aren't going anywhere just because the other child gets one. But even that ignores the ugly heritage of filmmaking. A more appropriate analogy would be a child desiring a toy because he's largely been given hypodermic needles to play with while another child refuses to relent on his ever-expanding collection and cries that he doesn't have enough.

 

[Drizzle]

My question is, what else does James Bond have to offer as a franchise after 60+ years and 25 movies, especially after going on a whole journey with Daniel Craig and his take on a more modern Bond? I've thought about this since No Time to Die. The Bond franchise doesn't have the luxury of a vast universe of characters to explore like Marvel or Star Wars. It has to adhere to a specific core formula that's been established through the years, even if the changing times are reflected.

The way I see it, why not cast a non-white actor as the next Bond? At the very least it'd change things up and make things interesting. I'd certainly be more interested if, say, Dev Patel were the next Bond than I would be if it was Aaron Taylor Johnson.

 

[Peyton Westlake]

It's not an either-or. One doesn't have an innate value over the other and there's more than enough cinematic room to accommodate both. You can diversify Bond's legacy AND create an entirely new IP.

I also find the toy analogy intellectually dishonest. It implies that the child with the toy loses something when the other child finally gains something The fact is, the child has twenty-seven toys to play with and they aren't going anywhere just because the other child gets one. But even that ignores the ugly heritage of filmmaking. A more appropriate analogy would be a child desiring a toy because he's largely been given hypodermic needles to play with while another child refuses to relent on his ever-expanding collection and cries that he doesn't have enough.

I believed the subject of James Bond was singular. EON Productions appears to own just one intellectual property, to my knowledge, so I'm uncertain about the other 'toys' mentioned. Is it possible that all historical cinema is now open to reinterpretation? If that's what will satisfy the masses, so be it.

 

[Da-Scribe]

I believed the subject of James Bond was singular. EON Productions appears to own just one intellectual property, to my knowledge, so I'm uncertain about the other 'toys' mentioned. Is it possible that all historical cinema is now open to reinterpretation? If that's what will satisfy the masses, so be it.

I'm discussing James Bond. His catalogue includes 27 films over the course of 60 years. He is portrayed as a straight white male in every instance. There is nothing to be lost with deviating from the norm at this point.