› ›

Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1…282283285287288…1229

Comments

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    More:

    http://lwlies.com/articles/obama-era-cinema-star-wars-black-stormtrooper/

    Unsurprising. There's a strata of egotistical white folk who get a hardon by wallowing in guilt. Normal people recognise inequality and don't perpetuate it. Clowns like this try to find it in every nook and cranny and positively want to divide.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    RC7 wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    More:

    http://lwlies.com/articles/obama-era-cinema-star-wars-black-stormtrooper/

    Unsurprising. There's a strata of egotistical white folk who get a hardon by wallowing in guilt. Normal people recognise inequality and don't perpetuate it. Clowns like this try to find it in every nook and cranny and positively want to divide.
    I was just about to post something similar. I couldn't agree more.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,264
    Just thought it was worth sharing as similar work of his!
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Even if people like these live in a world where their idea of utter utopia is a reality, they'll still find something to complain about, even in their accomplishments.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,264
    Of course, such is the purpose of the Gruniad.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    I'm willing to bet he's never spent a day in college in his life.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    jake24 wrote: »
    I'm willing to bet he's never spent a day in college in his life.
    More like never explored the reality of the outside life.
  • RC7RC7
    edited May 2017 Posts: 10,512
    He drinks coffee out of an old reebok trainer. Swag.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    RC7 wrote: »
    He drinks coffee out of an old reebok trainer. Swag.

    Excellent.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    It's like 1995 all over again ... the PC brigade hits back

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2017/may/09/idris-elba-james-bond-joanna-lumley
  • barryt007barryt007
    edited May 2017 Posts: 19,339
    What a stupid article...whoever Casper Salmon is,he should be shot.......preferably by 007.

    I mean talk about twisting Joanna Lumley's words,forcing Idris Elba into a conversation he didn't need to be constantly quoted in,and blatantly insulting Prince Philip !!!
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,106
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I deliberately looked up a picture of him and he's exactly as you'd imagine.

    p12Nwm8Y.jpg

    My eyes! The goggles do nothing!
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    barryt007 wrote: »
    What a stupid article...whoever Casper Salmon is,he should be shot.......preferably by 007.

    Do you mean shot dead?
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited May 2017 Posts: 13,978
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I deliberately looked up a picture of him and he's exactly as you'd imagine.

    p12Nwm8Y.jpg

    That photo has Sex Pest written all over it.
  • barryt007barryt007
    edited May 2017 Posts: 19,339
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    What a stupid article...whoever Casper Salmon is,he should be shot.......preferably by 007.

    Do you mean shot dead?

    AHA !!! i'm not saying anything re that online,old buddy he he ;)

    Nice try .

  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited May 2017 Posts: 5,131
    Revelator wrote: »
    The Guardian has reacted to the Lumley/Elba controversy in its usual manner:
    Joanna Lumley is right: Idris Elba shouldn’t play Bond – in fact, no one should
    by Caspar Salmon

    An emotionless character that belongs to a grotesque tradition should be shelved, and all speculation over who should play him needs to end.

    In an interview with the Radio Times this week, actor, documentarian, campaigner and city planner Joanna Lumley opined that Idris Elba, long rumoured to be the next James Bond, should not play the role as he does not fit Ian Fleming’s original description of the character.

    In this Joanna Lumley is correct, although perhaps unintentionally so. What would Bond look like, if he had actually existed and been allowed to age? Bond scholars have it that the character would have been born in 1920 or 1921, educated at Eton and Fettes College, later doing a stint in the navy, famously racist, sexist and homophobic, and given to emitting embarrassing quips at the most inopportune moments. Which means that Bond, if he were alive today, would be 96 and look exactly like Prince Philip. The similarities between the two men are astonishing when you pause to look at them: same year of birth, public schooling and international education, military background, and a lifetime spent in unquestioning service to the queen. The two men’s best one-liners are routinely anthologised by tabloids and lads’ mags. The only significant difference between the two men is that Prince Philip has had the decency finally to retire.

    As for a physical description of his hero, Fleming calls his protagonist handsome while noting, somewhat contradictorily, that he resembles the singer Hoagy Carmichael. There we have it: Bond, such as he was described in a series of books written by a white man in the 60s, does not resemble Elba, a black man born in the 70s. Lumley, who was born to another pre-war, patriotic, military James (Major James Rutherford Lumley), in India, in the last year of British colonial rule, called it right.

    Lumley presumably holds this view because she cherishes the character, and the old-school British values of heroism and masculinity it connotes, and wants the actor playing him to be authentic. On the other hand, you could argue that if Elba cannot play a character, because he is too modern, too black, not upper-class enough, then the character should be shelved, much like his Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. We don’t need any more Bond films. We now know, in fact – not least because Bond is hero-worshipped by Piers Morgan – that the character is toxic.

    Bond belongs to a grotesque tradition, born of British Empire, of separating boys from their parents at a very young age to send them to be bullied and sometimes raped in public schools, in order to toughen them up. This results in Bond’s terrifying, emotionless nihilism, or the give-a-shit rudeness of Prince Philip. Philip Larkin surely had this tradition in mind when he wrote that “man hands on misery to man”. Elba does not belong to this world and cannot convincingly portray it. The character has been modernised over the years, particularly since Jason Bourne came along to make Pierce Brosnan’s bouffant look (more) preposterous; but in essence, the character stands for an idea of empire, of British heroism, that is rooted in very specific socio-historical circumstances.

    Can Elba play a handsome, exciting, sexy British spy? Damn right. But this would be to unclaw the character and sanitise his hideous, harmful trappings. Therefore, if Elba does not have the right profile to play a dinosaur, it seems obvious that we shouldn’t update the dinosaur, but consign it to history: let us shelve Bond as the museum artifact that he is, write Elba any number of other roles, and talk of 007 no more.

    In Moonraker, Gala Brand also makes the connection:

    Rather like Hoagy Carmichael in a way. That black hair falling down over the right eyebrow. Much the same bones. But there was something a bit cruel in the mouth, and the eyes were cold.

    In Casino Royale, it is Vesper Lynd who first makes this connection.

    ‘He is very good-looking. He reminds me rather of Hoagy Carmichael, but there is something cold and ruthless in his …’

    Thus, Joanna Lumley is bang on, Elba can't paly Bond because he doesn't look like Bond.

    Caspar Salmon needs to educate himself and read a book.

    Bond belongs to a royal, grand tradition of the British Empire.

    Elba can play Mr. Big or Quarrel Jr 2 if he likes....
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    MajorDSmythe wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I deliberately looked up a picture of him and he's exactly as you'd imagine.

    p12Nwm8Y.jpg

    That photo has Sex Pest written all over it.

    He looks like an ugly Lesbian addict on benefits. One of the great unwashed underclass known as chavs.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    The Guardian has reacted to the Lumley/Elba controversy in its usual manner:
    Joanna Lumley is right: Idris Elba shouldn’t play Bond – in fact, no one should
    by Caspar Salmon

    An emotionless character that belongs to a grotesque tradition should be shelved, and all speculation over who should play him needs to end.

    In an interview with the Radio Times this week, actor, documentarian, campaigner and city planner Joanna Lumley opined that Idris Elba, long rumoured to be the next James Bond, should not play the role as he does not fit Ian Fleming’s original description of the character.

    In this Joanna Lumley is correct, although perhaps unintentionally so. What would Bond look like, if he had actually existed and been allowed to age? Bond scholars have it that the character would have been born in 1920 or 1921, educated at Eton and Fettes College, later doing a stint in the navy, famously racist, sexist and homophobic, and given to emitting embarrassing quips at the most inopportune moments. Which means that Bond, if he were alive today, would be 96 and look exactly like Prince Philip. The similarities between the two men are astonishing when you pause to look at them: same year of birth, public schooling and international education, military background, and a lifetime spent in unquestioning service to the queen. The two men’s best one-liners are routinely anthologised by tabloids and lads’ mags. The only significant difference between the two men is that Prince Philip has had the decency finally to retire.

    As for a physical description of his hero, Fleming calls his protagonist handsome while noting, somewhat contradictorily, that he resembles the singer Hoagy Carmichael. There we have it: Bond, such as he was described in a series of books written by a white man in the 60s, does not resemble Elba, a black man born in the 70s. Lumley, who was born to another pre-war, patriotic, military James (Major James Rutherford Lumley), in India, in the last year of British colonial rule, called it right.

    Lumley presumably holds this view because she cherishes the character, and the old-school British values of heroism and masculinity it connotes, and wants the actor playing him to be authentic. On the other hand, you could argue that if Elba cannot play a character, because he is too modern, too black, not upper-class enough, then the character should be shelved, much like his Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. We don’t need any more Bond films. We now know, in fact – not least because Bond is hero-worshipped by Piers Morgan – that the character is toxic.

    Bond belongs to a grotesque tradition, born of British Empire, of separating boys from their parents at a very young age to send them to be bullied and sometimes raped in public schools, in order to toughen them up. This results in Bond’s terrifying, emotionless nihilism, or the give-a-shit rudeness of Prince Philip. Philip Larkin surely had this tradition in mind when he wrote that “man hands on misery to man”. Elba does not belong to this world and cannot convincingly portray it. The character has been modernised over the years, particularly since Jason Bourne came along to make Pierce Brosnan’s bouffant look (more) preposterous; but in essence, the character stands for an idea of empire, of British heroism, that is rooted in very specific socio-historical circumstances.

    Can Elba play a handsome, exciting, sexy British spy? Damn right. But this would be to unclaw the character and sanitise his hideous, harmful trappings. Therefore, if Elba does not have the right profile to play a dinosaur, it seems obvious that we shouldn’t update the dinosaur, but consign it to history: let us shelve Bond as the museum artifact that he is, write Elba any number of other roles, and talk of 007 no more.

    In Moonraker, Gala Brand also makes the connection:

    Rather like Hoagy Carmichael in a way. That black hair falling down over the right eyebrow. Much the same bones. But there was something a bit cruel in the mouth, and the eyes were cold.

    In Casino Royale, it is Vesper Lynd who first makes this connection.

    ‘He is very good-looking. He reminds me rather of Hoagy Carmichael, but there is something cold and ruthless in his …’

    Thus, Joanna Lumley is bang on, Elba can't paly Bond because he doesn't look like Bond.

    Caspar Salmon needs to educate himself and read a book.

    Bond belongs to a royal, grand tradition of the British Empire.

    Elba can play Mr. Big or Quarrel Jr 2 if he likes....

    But Tom Cruise played Jack Reacher ...
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    The Guardian has reacted to the Lumley/Elba controversy in its usual manner:
    Joanna Lumley is right: Idris Elba shouldn’t play Bond – in fact, no one should
    by Caspar Salmon

    An emotionless character that belongs to a grotesque tradition should be shelved, and all speculation over who should play him needs to end.

    In an interview with the Radio Times this week, actor, documentarian, campaigner and city planner Joanna Lumley opined that Idris Elba, long rumoured to be the next James Bond, should not play the role as he does not fit Ian Fleming’s original description of the character.

    In this Joanna Lumley is correct, although perhaps unintentionally so. What would Bond look like, if he had actually existed and been allowed to age? Bond scholars have it that the character would have been born in 1920 or 1921, educated at Eton and Fettes College, later doing a stint in the navy, famously racist, sexist and homophobic, and given to emitting embarrassing quips at the most inopportune moments. Which means that Bond, if he were alive today, would be 96 and look exactly like Prince Philip. The similarities between the two men are astonishing when you pause to look at them: same year of birth, public schooling and international education, military background, and a lifetime spent in unquestioning service to the queen. The two men’s best one-liners are routinely anthologised by tabloids and lads’ mags. The only significant difference between the two men is that Prince Philip has had the decency finally to retire.

    As for a physical description of his hero, Fleming calls his protagonist handsome while noting, somewhat contradictorily, that he resembles the singer Hoagy Carmichael. There we have it: Bond, such as he was described in a series of books written by a white man in the 60s, does not resemble Elba, a black man born in the 70s. Lumley, who was born to another pre-war, patriotic, military James (Major James Rutherford Lumley), in India, in the last year of British colonial rule, called it right.

    Lumley presumably holds this view because she cherishes the character, and the old-school British values of heroism and masculinity it connotes, and wants the actor playing him to be authentic. On the other hand, you could argue that if Elba cannot play a character, because he is too modern, too black, not upper-class enough, then the character should be shelved, much like his Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. We don’t need any more Bond films. We now know, in fact – not least because Bond is hero-worshipped by Piers Morgan – that the character is toxic.

    Bond belongs to a grotesque tradition, born of British Empire, of separating boys from their parents at a very young age to send them to be bullied and sometimes raped in public schools, in order to toughen them up. This results in Bond’s terrifying, emotionless nihilism, or the give-a-shit rudeness of Prince Philip. Philip Larkin surely had this tradition in mind when he wrote that “man hands on misery to man”. Elba does not belong to this world and cannot convincingly portray it. The character has been modernised over the years, particularly since Jason Bourne came along to make Pierce Brosnan’s bouffant look (more) preposterous; but in essence, the character stands for an idea of empire, of British heroism, that is rooted in very specific socio-historical circumstances.

    Can Elba play a handsome, exciting, sexy British spy? Damn right. But this would be to unclaw the character and sanitise his hideous, harmful trappings. Therefore, if Elba does not have the right profile to play a dinosaur, it seems obvious that we shouldn’t update the dinosaur, but consign it to history: let us shelve Bond as the museum artifact that he is, write Elba any number of other roles, and talk of 007 no more.

    In Moonraker, Gala Brand also makes the connection:

    Rather like Hoagy Carmichael in a way. That black hair falling down over the right eyebrow. Much the same bones. But there was something a bit cruel in the mouth, and the eyes were cold.

    In Casino Royale, it is Vesper Lynd who first makes this connection.

    ‘He is very good-looking. He reminds me rather of Hoagy Carmichael, but there is something cold and ruthless in his …’

    Thus, Joanna Lumley is bang on, Elba can't paly Bond because he doesn't look like Bond.

    Caspar Salmon needs to educate himself and read a book.

    Bond belongs to a royal, grand tradition of the British Empire.

    Elba can play Mr. Big or Quarrel Jr 2 if he likes....

    But Tom Cruise played Jack Reacher ...

    True. But I could care less about some so so American character. At least he's the correct race.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    suavejmf wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    The Guardian has reacted to the Lumley/Elba controversy in its usual manner:
    Joanna Lumley is right: Idris Elba shouldn’t play Bond – in fact, no one should
    by Caspar Salmon

    An emotionless character that belongs to a grotesque tradition should be shelved, and all speculation over who should play him needs to end.

    In an interview with the Radio Times this week, actor, documentarian, campaigner and city planner Joanna Lumley opined that Idris Elba, long rumoured to be the next James Bond, should not play the role as he does not fit Ian Fleming’s original description of the character.

    In this Joanna Lumley is correct, although perhaps unintentionally so. What would Bond look like, if he had actually existed and been allowed to age? Bond scholars have it that the character would have been born in 1920 or 1921, educated at Eton and Fettes College, later doing a stint in the navy, famously racist, sexist and homophobic, and given to emitting embarrassing quips at the most inopportune moments. Which means that Bond, if he were alive today, would be 96 and look exactly like Prince Philip. The similarities between the two men are astonishing when you pause to look at them: same year of birth, public schooling and international education, military background, and a lifetime spent in unquestioning service to the queen. The two men’s best one-liners are routinely anthologised by tabloids and lads’ mags. The only significant difference between the two men is that Prince Philip has had the decency finally to retire.

    As for a physical description of his hero, Fleming calls his protagonist handsome while noting, somewhat contradictorily, that he resembles the singer Hoagy Carmichael. There we have it: Bond, such as he was described in a series of books written by a white man in the 60s, does not resemble Elba, a black man born in the 70s. Lumley, who was born to another pre-war, patriotic, military James (Major James Rutherford Lumley), in India, in the last year of British colonial rule, called it right.

    Lumley presumably holds this view because she cherishes the character, and the old-school British values of heroism and masculinity it connotes, and wants the actor playing him to be authentic. On the other hand, you could argue that if Elba cannot play a character, because he is too modern, too black, not upper-class enough, then the character should be shelved, much like his Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. We don’t need any more Bond films. We now know, in fact – not least because Bond is hero-worshipped by Piers Morgan – that the character is toxic.

    Bond belongs to a grotesque tradition, born of British Empire, of separating boys from their parents at a very young age to send them to be bullied and sometimes raped in public schools, in order to toughen them up. This results in Bond’s terrifying, emotionless nihilism, or the give-a-shit rudeness of Prince Philip. Philip Larkin surely had this tradition in mind when he wrote that “man hands on misery to man”. Elba does not belong to this world and cannot convincingly portray it. The character has been modernised over the years, particularly since Jason Bourne came along to make Pierce Brosnan’s bouffant look (more) preposterous; but in essence, the character stands for an idea of empire, of British heroism, that is rooted in very specific socio-historical circumstances.

    Can Elba play a handsome, exciting, sexy British spy? Damn right. But this would be to unclaw the character and sanitise his hideous, harmful trappings. Therefore, if Elba does not have the right profile to play a dinosaur, it seems obvious that we shouldn’t update the dinosaur, but consign it to history: let us shelve Bond as the museum artifact that he is, write Elba any number of other roles, and talk of 007 no more.

    In Moonraker, Gala Brand also makes the connection:

    Rather like Hoagy Carmichael in a way. That black hair falling down over the right eyebrow. Much the same bones. But there was something a bit cruel in the mouth, and the eyes were cold.

    In Casino Royale, it is Vesper Lynd who first makes this connection.

    ‘He is very good-looking. He reminds me rather of Hoagy Carmichael, but there is something cold and ruthless in his …’

    Thus, Joanna Lumley is bang on, Elba can't paly Bond because he doesn't look like Bond.

    Caspar Salmon needs to educate himself and read a book.

    Bond belongs to a royal, grand tradition of the British Empire.

    Elba can play Mr. Big or Quarrel Jr 2 if he likes....

    But Tom Cruise played Jack Reacher ...

    True. But I could care less about some so so American character. At least he's the correct race.

    Well, Laurence Olivier played Othello ...
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited May 2017 Posts: 5,131
    Agreed. Correct skin (painted up) colour again. You need to think of a better comeback to get a proper reaction from me. If Elba will agree to 'white himself up' to look like the character then that's fine, no problem.
  • barryt007barryt007
    edited May 2017 Posts: 19,339
    "Ahhm Band, James Band..."

    o-74255418-570.jpg


    "Sheeaatt...they gave da gig to a friggin' milkman ?!?!"

    hoagy-carmichael.jpg

    "They certainly did,old boy !"

    604cd50c33b2d1e0ff3eb0f669ae473d.jpg

  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Ha ha. I've changed my mind.....Elba looks just the same! :)
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Agreed. Correct skin (painted up) colour again. You need to think of a better comeback to get a proper reaction from me. If Elba will agree to 'white himself up' to look like the character then that's fine, no problem.

    Reaction?
  • barryt007barryt007
    edited May 2017 Posts: 19,339
    This thread is turning into 'The Black and White Minstrel Show' atm :

    img_9416.jpeg
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    edited May 2017 Posts: 8,244
    Why do we spend two pages on this misfit who's racist, insults the woman who's been at the forefront of fighting for the rights of Gurka's, finds the need to insult your Prince Phillip too and somehow manages to come up with no fact-based opinion whatsoever.

    I always though the Guardian was a normal, decent paper. The fact that they publish this shouts the opposite.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Yin and Yang. ;)
  • fanbond123fanbond123
    Posts: 1,661
    Idris might be too busy for Bond if The Dark Tower is a hit. There could be seven sequels! The Dark Tower was an eight books series.




  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I have a feeling that's going to flop, even though I'll certainly be watching it.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    Idris might be too busy for Bond if The Dark Tower is a hit. There could be seven sequels! The Dark Tower was an eight books series.




    I don't think you have cause to worry, Idris Elba will never be James Bond.
Sign In or Register to comment.