The Rhythm Section (EON Productions)

The posters are up on the London tube. The image is nice - going for a classy European angle (no offence to the US), but the tagline was pretty cheesy; something about ‘witnessing the birth of an assassin’ – sorry, the tube door closed before i could take it all in :grimacing:

1 Like

Work harder to read it!!

But, yes, it probably is very generic,

1 Like

This is really starting to annoy me. In the article Broccoli says:

And that’s exactly what’s been done here. Unlike a lot of people in Hollywood she’s actually putting her money where her mouth is. But is there any mention of The Rhythm Section in the article? Nope, it’s all focused on the idea of a female Bond. People seem to think that a female bond is some kind of step forward for women but the idea is overshadowing actual female led projects.


I wouldn’t say “People seem to think”. That just refers to some clickbait which started the topic which was kept going by lazy online reporters and enraged message boards.

I’m sure that even despite the denial of EON articles about the next Bond being female will keep on being posted. That’s just life in the internet age.

But I’m glad that EON spoke out officially now (I remember that BB already denied it previously but - hey, this is the internet age and the flood of information quickly steamrolls over any facts). And I LOVE their idea of casting a wider net, including the possibility of a Bond of color. Not (just) to stick it to those nationalist right wingers (already whining about it) but also because it reflects the reality of Great Britain today.


It is a shame that THE RHYTHM SECTION had the bad luck of being delayed until now. But I’m afraid it was always going to be largely overshadowed by Bond anyway, even if it hadn’t been pushed back. The only way for a non-Bond Eon spy film not to fall down the Bond hole would be to make it a spin-off - and even then most of the public focus would be on 007.

THE RHYTHM SECTION now needs to be an interesting, captivating little thriller that finds and entertains its audience not because of but in spite of Bond. Fingers crossed here.

1 Like

It also goes to show how extremely difficult it is to launch an original film without pre-established market value if even EON cannot really push this film enough.

Or - it might already be decided to delay it again.

Or - it might have been already written off.

But why should there be a Bond of any colour? It´s the same lazy argument as female Bond. I´m waiting since ten years for a well made John Rain Movie who is japanese btw for those not knowing the books, but nothing is happening.

1 Like

For those who haven’t seen the Underground poster


Point is, there’s nothing in the books that specifies white in terms of the characters role. Whilst Fleming made a few remarks regarding appearance, he would happily change details on a whim - Bond only became Scottish when Fleming met Connery.

The main thing to remember; this is not a democracy. There won’t be a female Bond because the practice of gender switching male characters is not one BB cares for, she’d rather make a new film for a woman (hence The Rhythm Section) but doesn’t have any qualms regarding ethnicity so if she likes an actor for the role, he will be cast regardless of what the studio, “fans” or click bait articles think.


The thing is that, from an audience’s perspective, it doesn’t matter whether Bond is perhaps of African or Indian ethnicity*; this is just not an issue for the average moviegoer. Sure, the argument that Bond was written differently 70 years ago is valid - only hardly anybody cares what film-Bond’s background is or isn’t supposed to be any more. Few of the audiences have even read Fleming - like few of the Holmes audiences in theatres or the BBC have read ACD. The adaptation of fictional characters in more or less original storylines is not supposed to be ‘authentic’ any more. If it ever was.

*Seldom mentioned in the context is that Bond could just as well have a part of his ancestry in India - what would be the difference for the audience?


Something I do lament, as both Fleming and ACD were fantastic writers.


It’s also likely that number 7 has been on EON and specifically BBs radar for some time now, it seems to be the way she operates, particularly after reading Campbell’s initial thoughts on DC.
It would be very unlikely that a succession plan weren’t in place albeit in the background for at least the last 3 years.


No doubt - but while people still do read they read slightly different stuff today; size and formats have changed, genres have developed. At Fleming’s time a work like Lord of the Rings was cut into three books and considered a milestone of the genre - today bigger doorstops are published every month. Series characters went from pulp to 600 or 800 pages - while the entire Sherlock Holmes would fit into one tome.

Readers come to a book with different expectations than film audiences do. And many of these film audiences hardly pick up books at all nowadays, especially the younger ones. The translation from page to screen, from the imagination to the image has become the major cultural deciphering effort for large parts of the populace.


Funnily enough my eldest son was given a suggested reading list to then have a discussion in class about styles of writing, his English teacher included Baskerville’s, Casino Royale and The Big Sleep. Which delighted both my son and I as some of the course work for homework discussion can be a slog (for me) it may be that they shall start to be properly reassessed as historical literature.


Well, but for the most important part (the money) it is a democracy. If the next film does only half box office or less like Ghostbusters or Men in Black … the voters have spoken.

Of course he could. It is still about keeping the sophisticated british end up :wink: , but with only 2 percent of GB being indian it´s not very likely to find someone like SC…

Depends if you are looking for a Sean Connery in the first place - I don’t think that is the case any more. The Connery benchmark has been considered as the gold standard of Bond. But trying to follow it has shown to be more restrictive than helpful.

Today, you would first look at acting abilities, charisma and presence - not trying to find some chap who happens to resemble Connery in one or two departments, simply to find him wanting in the end anyway. If you’re looking to recast you need to find an actor whose presence and range can incorporate everything from charming to dangerous, from ironic to serious, depending on the particular direction you want the next Bond to take.

And once you found that candidate you open your eyes, that’s how easy it is.


Are half the audience KKK members?

I think you can refuse the idea of a Bond outside the traditional casting pattern for a variety of reasons, just look at Craig’s example. Some of these reasons would be in the range of ‘but…but…MY BOND!blubberblubber’ - and some would be reasoned and solid arguments. Both is possible as we continue to see since 2006. Some people never got warm with Craig, in spite of being longtime fans. And it didn’t hurt the franchise at all. Maybe the next actor will charm them again, who knows?

What seems increasingly obvious is that audiences as a whole put much less importance on matters a limited number of hardcore fans considers as point of identification with a franchise. Even with the added help of internet trolling and shouting matches most targeted productions find their audience - provided the quality is there.

For Bond I think the idea of a non-white actor in the role would be much less of a dealbreaker than tabloids would make us believe. If it’s somebody bringing the charm and charisma that befits the role and the specific film there’s every chance people will want to see it.


Probably true, but would BB bet the farm on it?