Where does Bond go after Craig?

1197198200202203513

Comments

  • edited September 2022 Posts: 12,243
    As long as we all agree that men / women aren’t inherently more or less qualified for the job and are open to any choice as long as they’re good, I don’t see what the problem is here? We’ve hashed it through extensively. And I haven’t seen any hateful stuff.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,260
    slide_99 wrote: »
    20 or even 10 years ago I would've been fine with a woman directing, but today a female director would only be selected for the purpose of subverting and deconstructing the character even more. I mean, Babs has been producing these movies since 1995 but even she recently succumbed to infusing these movies with ideological subtexts that are completely inappropriate. Besides, how many good female directors are there who can direct action, apart from Kathryn Bigelow? Patty Jenkins? Yikes.

    I’m going to bump one of my replies from earlier, because it seems to cover a bit of @slide_99 and his perspectives (even though he criticizes a film he will never watch):
    I’d like to make sure I understand this correctly. Is this to say a man’s gaze can’t be “seductive and romantic?” That a woman’s is more likely to be?

    @FoxRox … not at all. Just different. I honestly don’t see this conversation as “man vs woman (grrr!)”

    Presently I’m knee deep in an option of a book.

    Leading into this I was reading a genre where both women and men are very prolific. In this very intense and anecdotal experience of mine, I found myself drawn to most of the female writers. They collectively, yet very individually, captured something lacking in the stories that came from men. It was a different understanding of the human condition that captured characters in this genre with far more wit and sophistication (where men would often write characters more as tropes of this particular genre (but excelled in other aspects)); from that was born some genuine sexiness and romanticism definitely lacking in the other novels written by men.

    One was not necessarily better than the other. However, one was far more interesting and unique, to me.

    I think a talented director, who happens to be a woman, would execute a Bond film with a unique “voice” that we haven’t been exposed to all that often in the action genre….

    We are entering a new era for this character. Perhaps it’s time to open up the doors to all talented people (no matter their sex, race, gender, ethnicity)… The world is a big place, and the more voices we can play with and spitball with, I think, the better. Different perspectives from different voices could definitely spur the creative rivers (and Im not implying that this means changing “who” James Bond is. The challenges (and extreme enjoyment) of script writing are there are rules to storytelling; talented writers know how to stay within the boundaries of these rules and still create unique stories. The same applies to James Bond: there are certain archetypal traits to the character, but a talented writer will know how to keep these, while presenting a fresh perspective of who this new 007 is).


  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    Posts: 2,161
    I don’t agree.
  • Posts: 12,243
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I don’t agree.

    ?
  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    Posts: 2,161
    For me Bond, as Fleming intended, has always been a Boy's adventure fantasy. Name a female director and honestly I won't bother. I know that is extreme, as opposed to @DarthDimi innocuous stance, but I feel Barbara Broccoli (admittedly, along with Wilson and Craig) has screwed things up enough over the past 25 years. I don't need that angry feminist perspective in the director's chair as well. She wants Bond to evolve as men have evolved? That is as much of a clue as I need to know that my favorite character has left the building. What we will get will be a gross facsimile.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited September 2022 Posts: 7,518
    Birdleson wrote: »
    For me Bond, as Fleming intended, has always been a Boy's adventure fantasy. Name a female director and honestly I won't bother. I know that is extreme, as opposed to @DarthDimi innocuous stance, but I feel Barbara Broccoli (admittedly, along with Wilson and Craig) has screwed things up enough over the past 25 years. I don't need that angry feminist perspective in the director's chair as well. She wants Bond to evolve as men have evolved? That is as much of a clue as I need to know that my favorite character has left the building. What we will get will be a gross facsimile.

    What do you make of Phoebe Waller Bridge's involvement, and her saying that she wants to protect the classic (misogynistic, violent etc) characteristics of the character Bond, while updating the stories / characters that surround Bond?

    It seems to align with your ideology because she's not looking for Bond to evolve as men have evolved... but for the stories and supporting characters to evolve along with modern times.
  • edited September 2022 Posts: 784
    I don't know. Many modern female directors I know of have proven themselves better capable at bringing out a FRWL type of groundedness, and are better versed in the arthouse genre then men. I think a female director would be able to bring out a less cartoony, more romantic Bond with much more real than narcissistic charm.

    It wouldn't be deconstructing the character but rather making him real. If you add a bit of darkness you've got Fleming. I still think the character should be cheekier than Dalton's depiction. His performance was great but his films could have been better and his character too.

    I would rather see something that doesn't scream Hollywood blockbuster despite being one. Nolan is the only one to pull off grandiose well, but he needs too much stuff to do it.
  • Posts: 1,693
    Birdleson wrote: »
    For me Bond, as Fleming intended, has always been a Boy's adventure fantasy. Name a female director and honestly I won't bother. I know that is extreme, as opposed to @DarthDimi innocuous stance, but I feel Barbara Broccoli (admittedly, along with Wilson and Craig) has screwed things up enough over the past 25 years. I don't need that angry feminist perspective in the director's chair as well. She wants Bond to evolve as men have evolved? That is as much of a clue as I need to know that my favorite character has left the building. What we will get will be a gross facsimile.

    My favorite character left the building back in 1970. Since then i just show up to see what the latest interloper is doing.
  • edited September 2022 Posts: 784
    Birdleson wrote: »
    For me Bond, as Fleming intended, has always been a Boy's adventure fantasy. Name a female director and honestly I won't bother. I know that is extreme, as opposed to @DarthDimi innocuous stance, but I feel Barbara Broccoli (admittedly, along with Wilson and Craig) has screwed things up enough over the past 25 years. I don't need that angry feminist perspective in the director's chair as well. She wants Bond to evolve as men have evolved? That is as much of a clue as I need to know that my favorite character has left the building. What we will get will be a gross facsimile.

    What do you make of Phoebe Waller Bridge's involvement, and her saying that she wants to protect the classic (misogynistic, violent etc) characteristics of the character Bond, while updating the stories / characters that surround Bond?

    It seems to align with your ideology because she's not looking for Bond to evolve as men have evolved... but for the stories and supporting characters to evolve along with modern times.

    As far as I know she was brought in to spice up the dialogue. To me it could have done with even more spice.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    Birdleson wrote: »
    For me Bond, as Fleming intended, has always been a Boy's adventure fantasy. Name a female director and honestly I won't bother. I know that is extreme, as opposed to @DarthDimi innocuous stance, but I feel Barbara Broccoli (admittedly, along with Wilson and Craig) has screwed things up enough over the past 25 years. I don't need that angry feminist perspective in the director's chair as well. She wants Bond to evolve as men have evolved? That is as much of a clue as I need to know that my favorite character has left the building. What we will get will be a gross facsimile.

    What do you make of Phoebe Waller Bridge's involvement, and her saying that she wants to protect the classic (misogynistic, violent etc) characteristics of the character Bond, while updating the stories / characters that surround Bond?

    It seems to align with your ideology because she's not looking for Bond to evolve as men have evolved... but for the stories and supporting characters to evolve along with modern times.

    As far as I know she was brought in to spice up the dialogue. To me it could have done with even more spice.

    Totally, but I think there were some press interviews or something with PWB where she made clear how she should Bond / the franchise should evolve (or not evolve... hard to know which in your pyjamas...[I know that makes no sense but I couldn't resist]).
  • Posts: 12,243
    Birdleson wrote: »
    For me Bond, as Fleming intended, has always been a Boy's adventure fantasy. Name a female director and honestly I won't bother. I know that is extreme, as opposed to @DarthDimi innocuous stance, but I feel Barbara Broccoli (admittedly, along with Wilson and Craig) has screwed things up enough over the past 25 years. I don't need that angry feminist perspective in the director's chair as well. She wants Bond to evolve as men have evolved? That is as much of a clue as I need to know that my favorite character has left the building. What we will get will be a gross facsimile.

    I empathize with feeling like Bond / men in general now aren’t allowed to be players. There’s definitely a noticeable lack of gratifying male heterosexuality nowadays as compared to the past, and that contradicts a big staple of what Bond’s about. And believe me, I also have had serious doubts based on what’s been said lately, and think there’s a reasonable chance the next era of Bond may not be for me either. But I do think it’s not fair to give up entirely before seeing what happens, including if a female director comes on board. Who knows, maybe she will advocate for more sex again? I like to base things on individuals as much as I can, not collective genders / groups.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    "I empathize with feeling like Bond / men in general now aren’t allowed to be players."

    I can certainly see why this is the case but it makes me a bit sad I think, hardly be it for me to speak for women, but I think all they want is consent, and also to be allowed to be players as well without being shamed and called "sluts" or whatever.

    Think about how we have no real hard hitting word for "male slut", lol
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,260
    @Birdleson , I'm not picking a fight, I'm genuinely curious: what did BB say that was an angry feminist perspective?

    And have you seen this perspective in the last 25 years in these films?

    I repeat-- (since things can get lost in translation): I'm genuinely curious.

    My Dad was old school and a Connery-or-nobody Bond fan (although I'm convinced he would have loved Craig); I was accepting of the other actors as Bond, but agreed with my old man's assessment that Connery was King (and we religiously watched his films on home video, over and over (and then the others).

    As I "mature", I've grown a soft spot for Roger, OHMSS was always my favourite Bond film (until recently),Tim was solid, and, although I didn't really gel with Brozz, I fully know he was the right man for the job, at that time. I connected to Craig on some visceral, emotional level (that was unexpected). My point is, I've watched the evolution of this character through the changing decades, but I've never felt anything angry about the depiction of James Bond.

    So I'm very interested to read what you mean...
  • edited September 2022 Posts: 784
    "I empathize with feeling like Bond / men in general now aren’t allowed to be players."

    I can certainly see why this is the case but it makes me a bit sad I think, hardly be it for me to speak for women, but I think all they want is consent, and also to be allowed to be players as well without being shamed and called "sluts" or whatever.

    Think about how we have no real hard hitting word for "male slut", lol

    Fuccboi.

    There still are male players, they are just the strong silent types. I still want Bond to be modestly cocky, talkative and funny, but I think a woman's perspective could help make it more believable and mature in this day and age.
  • Posts: 12,243
    "I empathize with feeling like Bond / men in general now aren’t allowed to be players."

    I can certainly see why this is the case but it makes me a bit sad I think, hardly be it for me to speak for women, but I think all they want is consent, and also to be allowed to be players as well without being shamed and called "sluts" or whatever.

    Think about how we have no real hard hitting word for "male slut", lol

    Yup, it should be another simple, common sense thing we’re all after here. Any amount of consensual sex shouldn’t be cared about in the least, man or woman, no one should be shamed for having 20 consensual partners a year nor for never having any partners at all.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited September 2022 Posts: 7,518
    I think
    "I empathize with feeling like Bond / men in general now aren’t allowed to be players."

    I can certainly see why this is the case but it makes me a bit sad I think, hardly be it for me to speak for women, but I think all they want is consent, and also to be allowed to be players as well without being shamed and called "sluts" or whatever.

    Think about how we have no real hard hitting word for "male slut", lol

    Fuccboi.

    There still are male players, they are just the strong silent types. I still want Bond to be modestly cocky, talkative and funny, but I think a woman's perspective could help make it more believable and mature in this day and age.

    lol yeah, fair enough. I still might argue that "fuckboy" is a fairly new term, whereas "slut" has been around probably since Eve dumped Adam and hooked up with someone else. Yeah I agree, and I just think it would be interesting enough to see it from a different perspective. It's interesting though because I imagine Bond more the strong, silent type, man of few words etc, rather than talkative, but that's just me.
  • I think
    "I empathize with feeling like Bond / men in general now aren’t allowed to be players."

    I can certainly see why this is the case but it makes me a bit sad I think, hardly be it for me to speak for women, but I think all they want is consent, and also to be allowed to be players as well without being shamed and called "sluts" or whatever.

    Think about how we have no real hard hitting word for "male slut", lol

    Fuccboi.

    There still are male players, they are just the strong silent types. I still want Bond to be modestly cocky, talkative and funny, but I think a woman's perspective could help make it more believable and mature in this day and age.

    lol yeah, fair enough. Yeah I agree, and I just think it would be interesting enough to see it from a different perspective. It's interesting though because I imagine Bond more the strong, silent type, man of few words etc, rather than talkative, but that's just me.

    Silent works if he is slightly cruel and sinister as well. Otherwise it becomes really uninteresting.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 2022 Posts: 14,861
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I’d gladly welcome a female director, provided they had the resume + personality for the job. Much better that than a male who had no / bad resume and didn’t fit. What bothers me about all2 this is that it reinforces stereotypes, choosing a woman for the sake of her being a woman that is. Obviously, men and women are more likely than one another to go through life in different ways thanks to societal norms, but there’s never a guarantee of anything.

    For instance, a man can be as “feminine” as a woman, and a woman as “masculine” as a man, as people call it. Though it isn’t treated as seriously, a man can go through rape or domestic abuse as a woman can. Both men and women are victims of toxic masculinity. So on and so forth. I guess I just yearn for a day when everyone is able to look past surface qualities when it comes to things like this and everyone gets treated as an individual. Men and women both get unfairly chosen and disqualified for jobs because of their genders, and this is a significant barrier in equality.

    I suppose, (and this is getting a bit off topic) but to continue to push that "both men and women have it tough" really undermines how significantly harder women have had it in society, I think.

    You are right, though, things like toxic masculinity hurt both men and women, and of course, we all yearn for this day when everyone is able to look past surface qualities etc etc, but unfortunately that isn't the reality of society right now. The pendulum has swung so far towards the men, that as part of the correction, it will have to swing hard the other direction.

    Bo Burnam said something great to this effect, it was something like, "it's unfair to expect the solution to unfairness to be perfect".

    I don’t disagree women have had and still have it harder, I know better; the abortion issue should be proof enough of that for everyone. But I don’t agree that that makes it right to downplay the problems men face too. As for the “pendulum” having to swing hard the other way, it sounds something like revenge on the surface to me. Maybe it wasn’t meant this way, but I know a lot of progressives feel this need to “get even” essentially to make things “fair,” though I don’t think two wrongs make a right. And I also think it will be much harder gaining male support for the right cause in using ways that make them feel lesser.


    And let's not forget: all that was said was that it might be nice for a woman to get a job, and we've had two or three pages now of huffing and puffing and people (men) taking issue with that. That kind of shows the issue they still face, doesn't it?

    I've seen men 'huffing and puffing' about how the films can be directed by men or women and it's fine, but some don't want people chosen based on their identity. And I've seen you conflating that position with apparently being opposed to a woman directing. I've yet to see anyone say they don't think a woman can or should direct a Bond, but I do skim sometimes.

    I think you've skimmed a bit too much then, because some of that you've said is plain untrue, and some is just missing the point. If you're saying that no-one has taken issue with Mendes' suggestion that it would be good if a woman got the job, I don't know what to say to you.

    Dont know what to say? You could have just quoted one. Would have been real easy. I've just seen a few people say they don't want someone chosen because of their identity, like all the folks you replied to. And you're conflating that with something worse, per usual.

    Edit: ooh, there's slide_99 with the first. You can go on about him and you'll finally be approaching a point.

    You're not reading what I'm saying. You've decided that I've said that people don't want a woman as director, but what I actually said was people have "taken issue with Mendes' suggestion that it would be good if a woman got the job". Which means, quite literally, that they have been upset by his statement. That's what this conversation is, discussing his statement, and some have objected to it. Which is not the same thing as them thinking that a woman shouldn't do it, and at no point have I said they have thought that, much as you're trying to frame it that way. What they are taking issue mainly with is the idea of selecting someone based on their gender. That's what's caused the huffing and puffing. Which is, let me repeat, taking 'issue with Mendes' suggestion that it would be good if a woman got the job'.
    I hope that's cleared it up for you.
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I've just seen a few people say they don't want someone chosen because of their identity, like all the folks you replied to. And you're conflating that with something worse, per usual.

    That's it.

    That is indeed it, but Prof Joe has the wrong end of the stick about what I've been saying.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 2022 Posts: 14,861
    Birdleson wrote: »
    For me Bond, as Fleming intended, has always been a Boy's adventure fantasy. Name a female director and honestly I won't bother. I know that is extreme, as opposed to @DarthDimi innocuous stance, but I feel Barbara Broccoli (admittedly, along with Wilson and Craig) has screwed things up enough over the past 25 years. I don't need that angry feminist perspective in the director's chair as well. She wants Bond to evolve as men have evolved? That is as much of a clue as I need to know that my favorite character has left the building. What we will get will be a gross facsimile.

    Well there's one for Joe I guess if that's what he's really after. I disagree entirely with this and I don't agree with calling the feminist perspective 'angry'.

    As for evolving, I'd say that Bond has been evolving the mid-70s onscreen; we haven't seem him kiss a lesbian until she likes it or smack around a bikini-wearing bimbo since then - and I actually tend to think Guy Hamilton's 70s movies were even a bit of a backward step from where even the 60s Bond movies had moved to at that point. Roger's Bond became more human and caring (ironically for one who became more known for pressing buttons and being a smarmy superspy) and the character has been moving slowly that way ever since. I don't think the character stopped being Bond 40 years ago at all.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    mtm wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    For me Bond, as Fleming intended, has always been a Boy's adventure fantasy. Name a female director and honestly I won't bother. I know that is extreme, as opposed to @DarthDimi innocuous stance, but I feel Barbara Broccoli (admittedly, along with Wilson and Craig) has screwed things up enough over the past 25 years. I don't need that angry feminist perspective in the director's chair as well. She wants Bond to evolve as men have evolved? That is as much of a clue as I need to know that my favorite character has left the building. What we will get will be a gross facsimile.

    Well there's one for Joe I guess if that's what he's really after. I disagree entirely with this and I don't agree with calling the feminist perspective 'angry'.

    As for evolving, I'd say that Bond has been evolving the mid-70s onscreen; we haven't seem him kiss a lesbian until she likes it or smack around a bikini-wearing bimbo since then - and I actually tend to think Guy Hamilton's 70s movies were even a bit of a backward step from where even the 60s Bond movies had moved to at that point. Roger's Bond became more human and caring (ironically for one who became more known for pressing buttons and being a smarmy superspy) and the character has been moving slowly that way ever since. I don't think the character stopped being Bond 40 years ago at all.

    Feminism seems to have a different definition for every person, unfortunately. And just like every single other group of people on the planet, there are "good" feminists and "bad" feminists.

    For me, feminism simply means: the pursuit towards men and women having equal freedoms, rights, and opportunities (not made up by me). And we're definitely not there yet.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,898
    Surely Phoebe Waller Bridge wasn't hired because she's a woman, though - she was hired because she writes great dialogue, she's damn funny and EON/Craig got on really well with her. They wanted the qualities that she brought to NTTD. Being a woman wouldn't have influenced their decision, would it?
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    Venutius wrote: »
    Surely Phoebe Waller Bridge wasn't hired because she's a woman, though - she was hired because she writes great dialogue, she's damn funny and EON/Craig got on really well with her. They wanted the qualities that she brought to NTTD. Being a woman wouldn't have influenced their decision, would it?

    I think you're right. I didn't mean to suggest she was brought on for that reason, I was just wondering what Birdleson's opinion was on her thoughts on Bond.
  • edited September 2022 Posts: 12,243
    Unfortunately, a lot of modern “feminists” are actually misandrists and in pursuit of superiority, not equality. The worst part is they turn away people from being real “feminists” and damage the good cause of creating a better world for both sexes. Another thing a lot of men don’t realize too is women getting on the same ground as them is a good and healthy thing that will benefit them as well, not a bad one that takes away.
  • edited September 2022 Posts: 784
    I think more photographers should become cinematographers. I am seeing a lot of uninspired shots and unnecessary camera movement lately.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    "Unfortunately, a lot of modern “feminists” are actually misandrists and in pursuit of superiority, not equality."

    The optimist in me dares to challenge if it really is a lot, or just a vocal minority. But who knows.
  • edited September 2022 Posts: 12,243
    "Unfortunately, a lot of modern “feminists” are actually misandrists and in pursuit of superiority, not equality."

    The optimist in me dares to challenge if it really is a lot, or just a vocal minority. But who knows.

    “A lot” is a purposefully vague term. I’m not saying “most,” just plenty to where it’s an unfortunately noticeable issue hurting the image and true progress.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited September 2022 Posts: 2,898
    Venutius wrote: »
    Surely Phoebe Waller Bridge wasn't hired because she's a woman, though - she was hired because she writes great dialogue, she's damn funny and EON/Craig got on really well with her. They wanted the qualities that she brought to NTTD. Being a woman wouldn't have influenced their decision, would it?

    I think you're right. I didn't mean to suggest she was brought on for that reason, I was just wondering what Birdleson's opinion was on her thoughts on Bond.
    Ah, got you; sorry, Nick. For myself, I thought that what she said about Bond was great - all those undercurrents of unease that were set off by PWB being hired, yet she came straight out and said that while the world had changed, Bond himself should be true to his character. I thought it was a breath of fresh air for someone to say something like that so unambiguously. I'm glad she was on board for NTTD and I hope she's involved in the next script too. 'Not the first thing I thought you'd take off' is a classic!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Venutius wrote: »
    Surely Phoebe Waller Bridge wasn't hired because she's a woman, though - she was hired because she writes great dialogue, she's damn funny and EON/Craig got on really well with her. They wanted the qualities that she brought to NTTD. Being a woman wouldn't have influenced their decision, would it?

    I sure you're right (wasn't she suggested by Craig himself?); I imagine there was probably an angle to it where they thought it would be quite good publicity too though, being a high profile name as she is. The quality of the film itself comes first and she'll have been hired because she's a good writer, but I think often these script doctors don't even get a credit, let alone get a mention in the newspapers. I'm sure they want to make sure Bond appeals to as many people as possible.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    Venutius wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Surely Phoebe Waller Bridge wasn't hired because she's a woman, though - she was hired because she writes great dialogue, she's damn funny and EON/Craig got on really well with her. They wanted the qualities that she brought to NTTD. Being a woman wouldn't have influenced their decision, would it?

    I think you're right. I didn't mean to suggest she was brought on for that reason, I was just wondering what Birdleson's opinion was on her thoughts on Bond.
    Ah, got you; sorry, Nick. For myself, I thought that what she said about Bond was great - all those undercurrents of unease that were set off by PWB being hired, yet she came straight out and said that while the world had changed, Bond himself should be true to his character. I thought it was a breath of fresh air for someone to say something like that so unambiguously. I'm glad she was on board for NTTD and I hope she's involved in the next script too. 'Not the first thing I thought you'd take off' is a classic!

    100%.
  • edited September 2022 Posts: 2,753
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    But then we would be pushing a diversirty agenda.

    Yep, and there's nothing wrong with that.
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I just want a good Bond film. I'd be happy with a combination of both as long as the director is chosen out of artistic rather than political considerations. I can think of several female directors who I'd love for a Bond film, but because I confide in their skills, not because they are women.

    If the result is a good film there's no problem then. Perhaps some of those directors you mention have their sensibilities informed by their experiences as women in society and wouldn't be the same if they weren't women. It is an artistic medium.
    Did it harm the Bond films that Cubby insisted on only British directors?

    Was Cubby's instance on this perhaps (I'm only speculating) more an issue of money and convenience rather than necessarily artistic?

    Probably (I suspect a tax reason). But that's even worse isn't it? Putting money above the art?

    If he really wanted to make the best films he should have been looking for the best director, no matter which country they were from.
    But nothing is really as simple as that- there are always many angles to play. He'd have been thinking of the money, so he could spend more to put on screen. And also there's an argument that a British voice does give a unique sensibility to what are semi-British films and make them what they are. So there are all sorts of reasons why you would decide to pick someone from this or that background.

    I agree, it's not a black and white issue. As for what a woman could bring to a Bond film creatively... it really depends on the potential director. I mean, someone like Kathryn Bigelow would likely make a different Bond movie than a director like, say, S. J Clarkson or Lesli Linka Glatter, even with the same script. The latter two are television directors (very much, 'for hire' directors, used to working quickly on shows that involve them picking up from other directors and fulfilling a set creative vision) and even then both have worked on different types of shows. Bigelow is also a different type of director too, having worked on films of different genres. I suspect the producers will look at the potential director's filmography alongside their own vision for Bond 26.

    In this sense, I can understand why it would be limiting to only consider female directors, and I do think it misses the point of looking for a director for the next Bond film. Not that anyone outside these forums has suggested it (Mendes didn't). It's clearly a... well, contentious issue, haha.
Sign In or Register to comment.