Who should/could be a Bond actor?

RC7

I thought that Dark Tower trailer was instantly forgettable

Thunderfinger

You said it. I know I saw it, but cannot remember a thing about it.

peter

The trailer looks brutal

RC7

Brutally forgettable.

suavejmf

tanaka123 wrote: »

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.

+1.

Revelator

I'm betting that Craig will return for one last film, so by the time EON starts seriously looking for a new Bond, Elba will be too old. As a Fleming-fan, I have no objection to a non-white Bond, as long as he's still British. I do find it curious that the media has decided Elba is the only Black actor who could play the role.

Ludovico

tanaka123 wrote: »

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 ...

He didn't play a White Othello.

tanaka123

Ludovico wrote: »

tanaka123 wrote: »

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 ...

He didn't play a White Othello.

I didn't say he did, did I? Let's see what did I actually wrote, hmmm

'Well, Laurence Olivier played Othello ...'

Nope didn't say he played a white Othello chum.

bondjames

doubleoego wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, what are people's thoughts on Charlie Hunnam?

He was actually asked about it yesterday while promoting King Arthur:
http://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/803619/James-Bond-007-casting-Charlie-Hunnam-King-Arthur-Conan-Daniel-Craig

tanaka123

Ludovico wrote: »

tanaka123 wrote: »

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 ...

He didn't play a White Othello.

I didn't say he did, did I? Let's see what did I actually write, hmmm

'Well, Laurence Olivier played Othello ...'

Mope didn't say he played a white Othello chum.

bondjames wrote: »

doubleoego wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, what are people's thoughts on Charlie Hunnam?

He was actually asked about it yesterday while promoting King Arthur:
http://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/803619/James-Bond-007-casting-Charlie-Hunnam-King-Arthur-Conan-Daniel-Craig

I'd sooner have his co-star David Beckham, he will never be Bond.

Dragonpol

tanaka123 wrote: »

Ludovico wrote: »

tanaka123 wrote: »

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 ...

He didn't play a White Othello.

I didn't say he did, did I? Let's see what did I actually wrote, hmmm

'Well, Laurence Olivier played Othello ...'

Nope didn't say he played a white Othello chum.

You implied it though, perhaps?

Ludovico

@tanaka123 Then why make the comparison?

tanaka123

Ludovico wrote: »

@tanaka123 Then why make the comparison?

I'd forgotten I made it - who know what I was thinking some days ago - no idea.

Dragonpol

Surely it was to suggest that a white actor could play a black character role and vice versa?

tanaka123

Dragonpol wrote: »

Surely it was to suggest that a white actor could play a black character role and vice versa?

Probably - hasn't the conversation on this thread moved on from a comment I made days ago?! I think I was actually joking about the idea of Idris Elba playing Bond - guess no one got the joke ...

Dragonpol

tanaka123 wrote: »

Dragonpol wrote: »

Surely it was to suggest that a white actor could play a black character role and vice versa?

Probably - hasn't the conversation on this thread moved on from a comment I made days ago?! I think I was actually joking about the idea of Idris Elba playing Bond - guess no one got the joke ...

Well, as you referred back to it yourself only over an hour ago I assumed commenting on now it was fair game, old chap. Seems I was mistaken. By what (unwritten) rules are we to discuss this matter?

ClarkDevlin

What about Rowan Atkinson? Surely he has the physique, mannerism and posture? ;)

bondjames

Further to Caspar Salmon's article in The Guardian from a few days back, Nicola Bishop (Lecturer in English/Film and Television, Manchester Metropolitan University) chimes in.

Not sure if I agree with all of her conclusions but I appreciate the effort.

http://theconversation.com/james-bond-needs-a-new-attitude-not-a-new-actor-77572

ClarkDevlin

James Bond needs to go back to what and who he was. Not a new attitude. Surely I hope she doesn't mean to come to a conclusion to make him a hipster?

DaltonCraig007

Just a reminder that Denzel Washington is nearly 20 years older than Idris Elba. Not only is Elba getting old now to make a 1st outing as Bond, but he also doesn't look as young as Sir Rog looked in LALD despite being in his mid 40's.

barryt007

In order to change the subject,or stop a brewing arguement, maybe this chap should play Bond next ?

ClarkDevlin

@barryt007, may I suggest the next chap, who is CGI, to be the next Bond? ;)

barryt007

Hahaha @ClarkDevlin ....well,if you can get HIM for us !!

Ludovico

I cannot believe I never saw the parallels between Tracy and Madeleine before I read this article @bondjames. Still I would rather have her go the way of Tiffany Case in the novels. Anyway back on topic: still not convinced by any names brought forward.

Dragonpol

After Craig does his next one (or two if we're really lucky) might I suggest Michael Fassbender as his successor in the Bond role?

barryt007

Dragonpol wrote: »

After Craig does his next one (or two if we're really lucky) might I suggest Michael Fassbender as his successor in the Bond role?

That all sounds lovely,as Bond said to C.

But on a serious note,2 more CraigBonds and then a FassbenderBond,sounds good to me.

bondjames

Ludovico wrote: »

I cannot believe I never saw the parallels between Tracy and Madeleine before I read this article @bondjames. Still I would rather have her go the way of Tiffany Case in the novels. Anyway back on topic: still not convinced by any names brought forward.

Indeed @Ludovico, the parallels are clear. In fact, she's a sort of parallel universe Tracy, but that doesn't mean she will necessarily have to suffer that fate.

"Author of all your pain" means that Blofeld in this universe is responsible for Vesper's (the BIG one), and not necessarily Madeline's death. So she can indeed be forgotten a'la Tiffany going forward.

It just didn't work out, Bond is difficult to live with. End of story. Reference it and move on without belabouring it.

tanaka123

Dragonpol wrote: »

tanaka123 wrote: »

Dragonpol wrote: »

Surely it was to suggest that a white actor could play a black character role and vice versa?

Probably - hasn't the conversation on this thread moved on from a comment I made days ago?! I think I was actually joking about the idea of Idris Elba playing Bond - guess no one got the joke ...

Well, as you referred back to it yourself only over an hour ago I assumed commenting on now it was fair game, old chap. Seems I was mistaken. By what (unwritten) rules are we to discuss this matter?

Erm .. someone else did old chap. It was a JOKE!!!! Let me repeate JOKE - i was taking mick out of the notion of Idris Elba playing Bond IT WAS A JOKE

AGAIN IT WAS A JOKE!!!

ClarkDevlin

Now now, gents. Let's calm ourselves down. @tanaka123 is known for his sarcastic and comedic jokes (I personally enjoy his sense of humour). Not everything said on this forums has to be taken seriously.

Only one or two firm members here would fight to death for a non-Anglo Bond. Tanaka certainly isn't one of them.

Dragonpol

tanaka123 wrote: »

Dragonpol wrote: »

tanaka123 wrote: »

Dragonpol wrote: »

Surely it was to suggest that a white actor could play a black character role and vice versa?

Probably - hasn't the conversation on this thread moved on from a comment I made days ago?! I think I was actually joking about the idea of Idris Elba playing Bond - guess no one got the joke ...

Well, as you referred back to it yourself only over an hour ago I assumed commenting on now it was fair game, old chap. Seems I was mistaken. By what (unwritten) rules are we to discuss this matter?

Erm .. someone else did old chap. It was a JOKE!!!! Let me repeate JOKE - i was taking mick out of the notion of Idris Elba playing Bond IT WAS A JOKE

AGAIN IT WAS A JOKE!!!

Ah, I see. I will laugh now then.