Who should/could be a Bond actor?

13393403423443451231

Comments

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,217
    The comparison to casting anyone but a black male in the role of Shaft is spot on ; saying that it isn’t because actors who look completely different have been cast as Bond is not a valid argument.
    There is no doubt that if 7 actors had played Shaft, all would be black, and there’s a good chance the would look different from each other.
    Everyone has a different line of what they find acceptable. For anyone open to Bond’s Gender and race changing, could an Asian lesbian play Shaft?
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    edited January 2018 Posts: 2,730
    00Agent wrote: »
    I think anything done that would make fleming turn in his grave shouldn’t be done. Period. That’s an easy way of knowing what’s too far.

    Well, i would argue that somewhere between DAF and MR we have long crossed that line...

    Absolutely it happens and I think it’s bad and shouldn’t

  • Posts: 2,918
    I think anything done that would make fleming turn in his grave shouldn’t be done. Period. That’s an easy way of knowing what’s too far.

    Then almost half of the Bond films should never have been made, starting with You Only Live Twice. And kiss the Roger Moore era goodbye too.
    Nevertheless, Fleming was a pragmatist when it came to who played Bond. He accepted Sean Connery, despite Connery not being close to his vision, and afterward he made Bond half-Scottish. He even contemplated Jimmy Stewart in the role. I don't think Fleming be offended by a black actor in the part today, provided the actor could project suavity and toughness.

    Bringing up Shaft comparison, is beside the point. That character is tied to and defined by inner-city ghetto culture, which was (and still is) predominantly African American. Having an African American actor play Shaft as a classical scholar in suburban New England would feel just as wrong as having a white actor play him. Beyond that, Shaft was created as an action film hero for African American audiences because there weren't any (until the Blaxploitation craze took off, but it proved short-lived). And there still aren't many, whereas white heroes remain predominant. I suspect that as Anglo-American society grows more multi-racial and diverse onscreen, white audiences will be put in the position of minority audiences and ask for heroes they "can relate to." That would be the most honest reason to want Bond to remain white. But there's no longer any logical reason why he couldn't be another race, since Britishness no longer automatically means whiteness, and--despite the doom and gloom--whiteness is no longer synonymous with being upper class. Eton has a far more diverse student body than it used to. Society is changing fast.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,266
    First off, you people are discussing this the wrong way. The questionis not 'why not', the question is'why would you'. And I haven't read a single argument that holds any ground at all. Not caring about Bond's heritage (I do but I think @PropertyOfALady ) doesn't, isn't a reason to change him. The fact that seven different actors played him isn't a reason to change his skin colour. try to find seven different white actors who look the same....

    Oh and remember Daniel Craig's casting? 'Blonde Bond'? DanielCraigIsNotBond.com? The only reason to cast a black actor as Bond is to be able to call everyone who oppoeses it to be racist.

    'Batmans is old money (in the US FFS!!!!) so he can't be black? Or less so then Bond? what utter rubbish! Bond has a Scottish peasant background and they were predominantly white. Even more so then 'old money' in the US.

    But if Bond's ancestry doesn't count, why should Batmans'? Even more so Batman lives in a fictional world which is far easier to change then the actual world Bond comes from. So it isn't hard at all to change Batman's background to Black. Or Asian (which makes more sense, I guess there are 'old money' families a plenty in countries like Japan or Korea. Far older then anything in the US anyway.).

    But Bond's ancestry and legacy do count. And that's the long and the short of it. Changing Bond in such a fundamental way would destroy 66 years of storytelling.

    Anyway, you're all too Hollywood focussed, because there's already an Asian Bond:

    Jatt%20James%20Bond2909841.jpg?maxheight=350
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Thank you, @CommanderRoss!
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    First off, you people are discussing this the wrong way. The questionis not 'why not', the question is'why would you'. And I haven't read a single argument that holds any ground at all. Not caring about Bond's heritage (I do but I think @PropertyOfALady ) doesn't, isn't a reason to change him. The fact that seven different actors played him isn't a reason to change his skin colour. try to find seven different white actors who look the same....

    Oh and remember Daniel Craig's casting? 'Blonde Bond'? DanielCraigIsNotBond.com? The only reason to cast a black actor as Bond is to be able to call everyone who oppoeses it to be racist.

    'Batmans is old money (in the US FFS!!!!) so he can't be black? Or less so then Bond? what utter rubbish! Bond has a Scottish peasant background and they were predominantly white. Even more so then 'old money' in the US.

    But if Bond's ancestry doesn't count, why should Batmans'? Even more so Batman lives in a fictional world which is far easier to change then the actual world Bond comes from. So it isn't hard at all to change Batman's background to Black. Or Asian (which makes more sense, I guess there are 'old money' families a plenty in countries like Japan or Korea. Far older then anything in the US anyway.).

    But Bond's ancestry and legacy do count. And that's the long and the short of it. Changing Bond in such a fundamental way would destroy 66 years of storytelling.

    Anyway, you're all too Hollywood focussed, because there's already an Asian Bond:

    Jatt%20James%20Bond2909841.jpg?maxheight=350

    Asian Bond = Awful and utterly pointless.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Revelator wrote: »
    I think anything done that would make fleming turn in his grave shouldn’t be done. Period. That’s an easy way of knowing what’s too far.

    Then almost half of the Bond films should never have been made, starting with You Only Live Twice. And kiss the Roger Moore era goodbye too.
    Nevertheless, Fleming was a pragmatist when it came to who played Bond. He accepted Sean Connery, despite Connery not being close to his vision, and afterward he made Bond half-Scottish. He even contemplated Jimmy Stewart in the role. I don't think Fleming be offended by a black actor in the part today, provided the actor could project suavity and toughness.

    Bringing up Shaft comparison, is beside the point. That character is tied to and defined by inner-city ghetto culture, which was (and still is) predominantly African American. Having an African American actor play Shaft as a classical scholar in suburban New England would feel just as wrong as having a white actor play him. Beyond that, Shaft was created as an action film hero for African American audiences because there weren't any (until the Blaxploitation craze took off, but it proved short-lived). And there still aren't many, whereas white heroes remain predominant. I suspect that as Anglo-American society grows more multi-racial and diverse onscreen, white audiences will be put in the position of minority audiences and ask for heroes they "can relate to." That would be the most honest reason to want Bond to remain white. But there's no longer any logical reason why he couldn't be another race, since Britishness no longer automatically means whiteness, and--despite the doom and gloom--whiteness is no longer synonymous with being upper class. Eton has a far more diverse student body than it used to. Society is changing fast.

    Im not convinced by this arguament at all. Bond is a white character and his roots, background and education define such. Fleming was not really a pragmatist at all? It's pretty clear he wasn't in his writing?

  • 001001
    edited January 2018 Posts: 1,575
    Potential next Bond. He's very popular. God like.........

    nintchdbpict000121596428.jpg?strip=all&w=640
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Looks like a European soccer player.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Looks like he's about to start crying too.
  • edited January 2018 Posts: 17,757
    001 wrote: »
    Potential next Bond. He's very popular. God like.........

    nintchdbpict000121596428.jpg?strip=all&w=640

    He's 42. Too old! :D
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Looks like a football coach. He wears their uniform.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Yep!
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,138
    A 5'8" Scouser. Yeah that'd work.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Benny wrote: »
    A 5'8" Scouser. Yeah that'd work.

    Not to mention his drug habit!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Murdock wrote: »
    Looks like he's about to start crying too.
    He should be perfect for future P&W melodrama then.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    bondjames wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Looks like he's about to start crying too.
    He should be perfect for future P&W melodrama then.

  • edited January 2018 Posts: 12,837
    So, in a way, it’s the act of feminism that’s trying to destruct that “male ego” which Bond embodies. More the reasons why I will always be against the idea of Bond being anything else than white straight Anglo-Saxon sophisticated alpha male.

    What does feminism have to do with it? And wouldn't Brosnan and Connery be celts rather than anglo-saxons?

    I'm not an "SJW" who's out to destroy all your white heroes. I just don't see any reason why the modern Bond has to be white. Isn't what Fleming wrote? Okay but the films and actors have already strayed really far from Fleming to the point that some are unrecogniseable. The only real argument I can think of for him having to be white is that he always has been up to this point, which I don't think is a good argument for him to stay white because his appearance and personality change all the time.

    I'm not saying he has to be black or asian or anything else either. I'm saying it doesn't matter either way to me and frankly I don't get why it's such a big deal to so many. I've read comments from some saying they'd stop watching the films. Stop watching the films we all love so much because the actor is a different colour. Moonraker, Brofeld and other deviations from Fleming are fine, as is the actor looking nothing like Fleming's Bond as long as he's still white, but changing Bond's skin colour is apparently the line. To me that's mental. Wouldn't have any more of an impact on his character than changing his hair colour imo.
    Celts are still Anglos. The difference between Celts and Saxons is a mere point of slight difference, sharing almost the same heritage. Operative word being "almost". As for feminism, when SJW people want Bond to be female, it's only a feminist dream to crush that "male ego" and get a peace of that cultural cake by turning it their own.

    White characters are seen as "defaults", so changing them to another ethnic image is okay by the SJW crowd. But, if vice versa happens, the outcry of "whitewashing" is to be heard loud and the filmmakers/authors/creators are to be demanded to be burned at the stake. Why not cast a white actor to play Shaft, hmm? Because his world is in the ghetto underworld and that only applies to black people? Do contradictors mean that a white person can't be a hero in the ghetto underworld? Isn't that racist? (I'm speaking hypothetically here, not exactly responding to a quote that refers to something you said.)

    I'm not here to spew hate upon anybody because that's the last thing I would ever think of. These "unwritten rules" that are referred to above by other members is there to apply on properties you can't corrupt or pervert. When things are created as they are, it's hideously atrocious to change it just to please a few minority groups. Don't mess with a creation's outlines. Bond is... let me spell it... white straight alpha male working for the British government and the main canon is that Fleming retconned him to be of Scottish-Swiss descent despite considering himself as an Englishman. That's canon and don't change it.

    Now, my apologies in advance if you take my comments in a rather offensive manner because I don't mean any offense to begin with. Some things however should not be tampered with because ultimately they will lose their image, template, presentation and place. Let's not do that.

    It's the don't mession with the creations outline comment I don't get. I read a comment from you in the Moonraker appreciation thread earlier and that film completely butchered the source material.

    I guess it just depends where you draw the line at the end of the day but nowadays, where it'd have no bearing on the film itself, I think changing his race would be fairly miniscule in comparison to all the other massive deviations from the books they've taken over the years. It basically comes down to changing his appearance (which has been done many times before) and his ancestry (which has never been relevant). So I just don't see it as crossing the line like you do, it wouldn't be tampering with the original character anymore than they have done already imo.

    The whole cast the right person for the job thing is difficult because there are definitely prerequisites. He's a bloke obviously and he's always been defined by his masculinity and sexuality (a gay actor could play him though and also, I'm not sure why black Bond/gay Bond are being written as equivalents by some in this thread; one would require them to work it into the script and actually change Bond's character, the other is just a matter of casting someone with a darker skin tone). Unmistakeably British. Needs to be good looking to make him getting the girl believeable and shouldn't look visibly out of shape because it's a physical job. Shouldn't be too young or too old. But does he really have to be white? I don't think so, at least not now, because it'd have no bearing on the films themselves. The only reason it seems that there's an "unwritten rule" is because it wouldn't have worked in the older films and hasn't happened yet in the new ones imo.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited January 2018 Posts: 8,217
    When all is said and done it's all a matter of personal preference. The most open minded, non-racist, non-sexist, non-homophobic person in the world may have a personal preference, along with other reasons, that Bond remain a white male.
    What I find offensive is that if a person wants Bond to remain male and white, there are those who paint them with a broad brush as intolerant and I some cases hateful. I have many black and female friends who do not want to see a change I gender of ethnicity, would they be accused of the same prejudices?
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    talos7 wrote: »
    When all is said and done it's all a matter of personal preference. The most open minded, non-racist, non-sexist, non-homophobic person in the world may have a personal preference, along with other reasons, that Bond remain a white male.
    What I find offensive is that if a person wants Bond to remain male and white, there are those who paint them with a broad brush as intolerant and I some cases hateful. I have many black and female friends who do not want to see a change I gender of ethnicity, would they be accused of the same prejudices?

    Well said. My GF is black. I've read Fleming. My preference is stick to Fleming and tradition and keep Bond as the white character he's always been. Period.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited January 2018 Posts: 15,423
    So, in a way, it’s the act of feminism that’s trying to destruct that “male ego” which Bond embodies. More the reasons why I will always be against the idea of Bond being anything else than white straight Anglo-Saxon sophisticated alpha male.

    What does feminism have to do with it? And wouldn't Brosnan and Connery be celts rather than anglo-saxons?

    I'm not an "SJW" who's out to destroy all your white heroes. I just don't see any reason why the modern Bond has to be white. Isn't what Fleming wrote? Okay but the films and actors have already strayed really far from Fleming to the point that some are unrecogniseable. The only real argument I can think of for him having to be white is that he always has been up to this point, which I don't think is a good argument for him to stay white because his appearance and personality change all the time.

    I'm not saying he has to be black or asian or anything else either. I'm saying it doesn't matter either way to me and frankly I don't get why it's such a big deal to so many. I've read comments from some saying they'd stop watching the films. Stop watching the films we all love so much because the actor is a different colour. Moonraker, Brofeld and other deviations from Fleming are fine, as is the actor looking nothing like Fleming's Bond as long as he's still white, but changing Bond's skin colour is apparently the line. To me that's mental. Wouldn't have any more of an impact on his character than changing his hair colour imo.
    Celts are still Anglos. The difference between Celts and Saxons is a mere point of slight difference, sharing almost the same heritage. Operative word being "almost". As for feminism, when SJW people want Bond to be female, it's only a feminist dream to crush that "male ego" and get a peace of that cultural cake by turning it their own.

    White characters are seen as "defaults", so changing them to another ethnic image is okay by the SJW crowd. But, if vice versa happens, the outcry of "whitewashing" is to be heard loud and the filmmakers/authors/creators are to be demanded to be burned at the stake. Why not cast a white actor to play Shaft, hmm? Because his world is in the ghetto underworld and that only applies to black people? Do contradictors mean that a white person can't be a hero in the ghetto underworld? Isn't that racist? (I'm speaking hypothetically here, not exactly responding to a quote that refers to something you said.)

    I'm not here to spew hate upon anybody because that's the last thing I would ever think of. These "unwritten rules" that are referred to above by other members is there to apply on properties you can't corrupt or pervert. When things are created as they are, it's hideously atrocious to change it just to please a few minority groups. Don't mess with a creation's outlines. Bond is... let me spell it... white straight alpha male working for the British government and the main canon is that Fleming retconned him to be of Scottish-Swiss descent despite considering himself as an Englishman. That's canon and don't change it.

    Now, my apologies in advance if you take my comments in a rather offensive manner because I don't mean any offense to begin with. Some things however should not be tampered with because ultimately they will lose their image, template, presentation and place. Let's not do that.

    It's the don't mession with the creations outline comment I don't get. I read a comment from you in the Moonraker appreciation thread earlier and that film completely butchered the source material.

    I guess it just depends where you draw the line at the end of the day but nowadays, where it'd have no bearing on the film itself, I think changing his race would be fairly miniscule in comparison to all the other massive deviations from the books they've taken over the years. It basically comes down to changing his appearance (which has been done many times before) and his ancestry (which has never been relevant). So I just don't see it as crossing the line like you do, it wouldn't be tampering with the original character anymore than they have done already imo.

    The whole cast the right person for the job thing is difficult because there are definitely prerequisites. He's a bloke obviously and he's always been defined by his masculinity and sexuality (a gay actor could play him though and also, I'm not sure why black Bond/gay Bond are being written as equivalents by some in this thread; one would require them to work it into the script and actually change Bond's character, the other is just a matter of casting someone with a darker skin tone). Unmistakeably British. Needs to be good looking to make him getting the girl believeable and shouldn't look visibly out of shape because it's a physical job. Shouldn't be too young or too old. But does he really have to be white? I don't think so, at least not now, because it'd have no bearing on the films themselves. The only reason it seems that there's an "unwritten rule" is because it wouldn't have worked in the older films and hasn't happened yet in the new ones imo.
    Moonraker's film adaptation may have "butchered" the outline of the story, but you're referring to a story here, not the central protagonist or the character. Could you imagine how awfully wooden the film would've looked like had they kept the slightly modified V-2 Rocket as the main MacGuffin of the plot? By that sense that you speak of, the films entirely butchered the source material, including the beloved OHMSS and CR.

    Changing the storyline and character are light years different compartments to touch. The excuse with the idea to get away with saying "he's a fictional character, not a historical one" is invalid, I'm very sorry to say. So, unless we completely go ethnic-blind upon everything, then I will have no objections to a black Bond, or Alex Cross being white. It's a two-way street. His background matters as much as any character's background matters. In the Bond adventures, the star is Bond himself - the hero people root for - averting evil schemes by a notorious villain. Bond matters. Not the change in the story. Updating it to "modern-day" means one has to update the narrative of the adventure and the cases, not radically change the character but tell the same story.

    I don't get why Bond should be anything but white. Is it because white characters are "default" characters so as long in the west there's quite the diversity Bond has to change, too? I've no problem personally if a gay actor plays Bond as long as the character is kept straight. But, doing vice versa just criminally slams the character just as much making him a female just for the hell of it. This doesn't help fight the social wars. This just makes the problem go farther into expansion and I sure as hell don't want to start ethnic wars because a group or the other doesn't get it their way.

    If that "unwritten rule" about not working it in the older films and haven't been tried in the new films applies to Bond, then it applies to any character. Any person in a story whether fictionalized version of historical events or just pure fiction, like making JFK black, for example, and Malcolm X a middle eastern. The sensible substitute to making a black and/or gay/woman Bond is to create new characters and new franchises. Why not make twenty more Atomic Blonde films, for instance?
    talos7 wrote: »
    When all is said and done it's all a matter of personal preference. The most open minded, non-racist, non-sexist, non-homophobic person in the world may have a personal preference, along with other reasons, that Bond remain a white male.
    What I find offensive is that if a person wants Bond to remain male and white, there are those who paint them with a broad brush as intolerant and I some cases hateful. I have many black and female friends who do not want to see a change I gender of ethnicity, would they be accused of the same prejudices?
    Thank you! I've a lot of black friends (one of my best friends is black whom I look up to more often than I could count) who are against the idea of changing character ethnicities/backgrounds just for the sake of it. And we all know Hollywood does things for the sake of things.
  • Posts: 15,125
    suavejmf wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    When all is said and done it's all a matter of personal preference. The most open minded, non-racist, non-sexist, non-homophobic person in the world may have a personal preference, along with other reasons, that Bond remain a white male.
    What I find offensive is that if a person wants Bond to remain male and white, there are those who paint them with a broad brush as intolerant and I some cases hateful. I have many black and female friends who do not want to see a change I gender of ethnicity, would they be accused of the same prejudices?

    Well said. My GF is black. I've read Fleming. My preference is stick to Fleming and tradition and keep Bond as the white character he's always been. Period.

    For a moment I thought you meant you imagined Goldfinger as a black man reading the novel.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,807
    It's simply because James Bond is an established character linked to his creator Ian Fleming and events of the 20th Century like WWI and the Cold War. That's why Bond is white and I hope he remains that for a long, long time. And male, and heterosexual, and a couple other basic things.

    The idea that James Bond's race doesn't matter is mainly allowed to fly because he's white. A target. Changing another other-than-white established character's race would be approached differently, likely with outcry and offense because race does matter in that case (e.g. Shaft). And yes, I'm aware of experiments with Othello and variations on Green Lantern.

    Gay actor. I understand the concept of acting, but to me that would be an unnecessary distraction. Not unlike an American actor. And it goes back to making the character authentic on screen, not to pull him apart with differences in our real world mixed into the production.

    Beyond fiction, historical figures should be out of bounds to change basic characteristics, specifically race. Not sure where that concept comes from.

    Lastly, the idea that "race doesn't matter" flies in the face of the diversity effort to recognize and celebrate race and culture.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,217
    Ludovico wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    When all is said and done it's all a matter of personal preference. The most open minded, non-racist, non-sexist, non-homophobic person in the world may have a personal preference, along with other reasons, that Bond remain a white male.
    What I find offensive is that if a person wants Bond to remain male and white, there are those who paint them with a broad brush as intolerant and I some cases hateful. I have many black and female friends who do not want to see a change I gender of ethnicity, would they be accused of the same prejudices?

    Well said. My GF is black. I've read Fleming. My preference is stick to Fleming and tradition and keep Bond as the white character he's always been. Period.

    For a moment I thought you meant you imagined Goldfinger as a black man reading the novel.

    Lol +1

  • 001001
    Posts: 1,575
    How about this guy as a villian.......
    Look at the lunacy in his eyes.

    174562.jpg
  • edited January 2018 Posts: 2,918
    Moonraker's film adaptation may have "butchered" the outline of the story, but you're referring to a story here, not the central protagonist or the character. Could you imagine how awfully wooden the film would've looked like had they kept the slightly modified V-2 Rocket as the main MacGuffin of the plot? By that sense that you speak of, the films entirely butchered the source material, including the beloved OHMSS and CR.

    That's stretching things. Moonraker butchered the letter and spirit of Fleming, it didn't merely add new plot elements to a mostly Flemingian storyline, as OHMSS and CR did. None of the characters in the film of Moonraker bear much resemblance to Fleming's originals, and while the modified V-2s needed updateding, that was hardly justification for turning the plot into a braindead outer-space science fiction extravaganza that again had absolutely nothing to with any manifestation of Fleming, just as the film's juvenile humor and stupid jokes had nothing to do with Fleming (or did I miss the double-taking pigeon in the novel?). A film like Moonraker remains a far greater offense against Fleming than a non-white James Bond.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited January 2018 Posts: 15,423
    Revelator wrote: »
    Moonraker's film adaptation may have "butchered" the outline of the story, but you're referring to a story here, not the central protagonist or the character. Could you imagine how awfully wooden the film would've looked like had they kept the slightly modified V-2 Rocket as the main MacGuffin of the plot? By that sense that you speak of, the films entirely butchered the source material, including the beloved OHMSS and CR.

    That's stretching things. Moonraker butchered the letter and spirit of Fleming, it didn't merely add new plot elements to a mostly Flemingian storyline, as OHMSS and CR did. None of the characters in the film of Moonraker bear much resemblance to Fleming's originals, and while the modified V-2s needed updateding, that was hardly justification for turning the plot into a braindead outer-space science fiction extravaganza that again had absolutely nothing to with any manifestation of Fleming, just as the film's juvenile humor and stupid jokes had nothing to do with Fleming (or did I miss the double-taking pigeon in the novel?). A film like Moonraker remains a far greater offense against Fleming than a non-white James Bond.
    Then, neither does The Spy Who Loved Me, which is even a greater offense to what Fleming created by the sense you’re inking down. It never had any connection to the book, after all...

    The “stupid jokes” that you seem to refer to have been existent since the very beginning of the film franchise, which was an actual improvement over a character Connery himself referred to as dull. I’m guessing you would just rather have Bond not say “I think they were on their way to a funeral” upon killing the Three Blind Mice gang, but rather stand there, have a shock in silence that someone got killed in a horrible way and reflect upon his career as a spy.

    Who knows? Maybe in the near future, the double take pigeon, a two second scene that doesn’t even play a key element in the story would be more offensive than an Android Bond. Some logic.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,807
    That's a lot of straw men in one post.

    There's a big difference between the dark humor referenced in Dr. No versus outright cartoonish, slapstick humor in Moonraker the film. I like Moonraker the film, but that's based on familiarity. Different from appreciating quality content true to its source.

    Fleming himself asked that the story of The Spy Who Loved Me not be filmed. So they made a Bond movie with the title. I don't think anyone objects to that.
  • Posts: 2,918
    Then, neither does The Spy Who Loved Me, which is even a greater offense to what Fleming created by the sense you’re inking down. It never had any connection to the book, after all.

    Degrading a Fleming novel is far more offensive than compiling a pastiche of greatest hits from previous Bond films, especially since Fleming's novel couldn't be used for TSWLM.
    The “stupid jokes” that you seem to refer to have been existent since the very beginning of the film franchise, which was an actual improvement over a character Connery himself referred to as dull.

    No, the "stupid jokes" haven't. The early Bond films had the sense to go easy on puns, had occasional moments of witty verbal humor, and avoided the childish sight gags of the Moore years.
    As for Connery, he read only two Fleming books, and though I greatly admire his acting I couldn't care less about his literary opinions.
    I’m guessing you would just rather have Bond not say “I think they were on their way to a funeral” upon killing the Three Blind Mice gang, but rather stand there, have a shock in silence that someone got killed in a horrible way and reflect upon his career as a spy.

    You've guessed wrong. I don't mind a witty line to lighten an intense action sequence and I doubt Fleming's Bond would have wasted much shock on the deaths of men who tried to kill him and killed Strangways.
    Who knows? Maybe in the near future, the double take pigeon, a two second scene that doesn’t even play a key element in the story would be more offensive than an Android Bond. Some logic.

    Entirely your own. That two second scene exemplifies the juvenile humor and prevailing mindlessness of a film that trashes not merely the plot but also the tone, characters, and ethos of its source. It's hypocritical to argue against a non-white Bond by saying it would be untrue to Fleming and yet defend Bond films that were outrageously untrue of Fleming.
    Arguing that the films have to occasionally depart from Fleming (which is true, though they don't have to depart into outer space) also means acknowledging that the films will occasionally depart from Fleming's conception of the character, which Fleming himself changed. Does that mean the next Bond should be non-white? Not particularly, unless a non-white actor appears who seems especially suited to the role. It also means that there's no logical prohibition against a non-white actor as Bond, though there's nothing wrong about personally preferring to follow tradition.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Revelator wrote: »
    Then, neither does The Spy Who Loved Me, which is even a greater offense to what Fleming created by the sense you’re inking down. It never had any connection to the book, after all.

    Degrading a Fleming novel is far more offensive than compiling a pastiche of greatest hits from previous Bond films, especially since Fleming's novel couldn't be used for TSWLM.
    The “stupid jokes” that you seem to refer to have been existent since the very beginning of the film franchise, which was an actual improvement over a character Connery himself referred to as dull.

    No, the "stupid jokes" haven't. The early Bond films had the sense to go easy on puns, had occasional moments of witty verbal humor, and avoided the childish sight gags of the Moore years.
    As for Connery, he read only two Fleming books, and though I greatly admire his acting I couldn't care less about his literary opinions.
    I’m guessing you would just rather have Bond not say “I think they were on their way to a funeral” upon killing the Three Blind Mice gang, but rather stand there, have a shock in silence that someone got killed in a horrible way and reflect upon his career as a spy.

    You've guessed wrong. I don't mind a witty line to lighten an intense action sequence and I doubt Fleming's Bond would have wasted much shock on the deaths of men who tried to kill him and killed Strangways.
    A lot of cherry-picking now, aren't you? I don't remember Fleming's Bond having slight bit of a humour nor have dropped "witty one liners" every moment he did something clever or overpowered a ghastly situation. Isn't that "butchering" the character when making him something he isn't? Fleming's literary character was always vague and straightforward, when none of the cinematic incarnations of the character (other than Craig to an extent, perhaps) have been. Aren't these all elements disgraceful to Fleming's creation? Hell, the entirety of the James Bond film franchise dishonours its source material in that sense, doesn't it?
    Revelator wrote: »
    Who knows? Maybe in the near future, the double take pigeon, a two second scene that doesn’t even play a key element in the story would be more offensive than an Android Bond. Some logic.

    Entirely your own. That two second scene exemplifies the juvenile humor and prevailing mindlessness of a film that trashes not merely the plot but also the tone, characters, and ethos of its source. It's hypocritical to argue against a non-white Bond by saying it would be untrue to Fleming and yet defend Bond films that were outrageously untrue of Fleming.
    Arguing that the films have to occasionally depart from Fleming (which is true, though they don't have to depart into outer space) also means acknowledging that the films will occasionally depart from Fleming's conception of the character, which Fleming himself changed. Does that mean the next Bond should be non-white? Not particularly, unless a non-white actor appears who seems especially suited to the role. It also means that there's no logical prohibition against a non-white actor as Bond, though there's nothing wrong about personally preferring to follow tradition.
    I'd hate to break it to you, but it's adapted entirely from an intellectual property of yours. When the day comes androids form a large portion of the British society as you might put it, it's only justified that Bond becomes an android, no?

    James Bond will always be a straight white alpha male because that part of his symbolism. He represents that white colonial spirit of the British infantry in the aftermath of World War II, regardless of the decade. That's the aspect of the character you can't take away, for otherwise he will lose his signification first and foremost. It's hypocritical to argue against this idea alone when it has been laid in front of you the whole time that you choose to ignore with comments that contradict one statement after another.

    As for Bond departing to the outer space, I am sure you may be old enough to remember the space sensation was being overseen to become reality, continued to a greater expansion under Reagan's reign via the Star Wars project, hence they put Bond then-presumably ahead of his own time. It doesn't "trash" any circumstantial aspect of Fleming's Bond but merely updates it with what would have appeared to be the threat of its own time.
Sign In or Register to comment.