It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Again, Fleming would disagree, and I trust his judgement on this far more than anyone elses given he's the creator of Bond.
You have women doing their thing with the likes of Atomic Blonde, Jennifer Lawrence's Red Sparrow, Scarlett Johansson getting her own Black Widow film, Taraji P Henson's Proud Mary and of course there's the Wonder Woman franchise, the last movie making just a little less than SP and vastly much more critically acclaimed. Then there's Black Panther, a geopolitical scifi action thriller with a top calibre cast and crew and with the fair and appropriate backing of a budget and promotion that shamefully hasn't been afforded to a predominantly black/minority cast since FOREVER and is already tracking for an opening weekend of $120million at least.
Bond doesn't need to be black, Asian, mixed race, female or whatever. Characters of colour and of the female gender are slowly but surely getting their long overdue exposure. If anything, now more than ever Bond needs to stay in his lane, to not be derailed and be kept as he is.
Bond is as @ClarkDevlin said, a representation of that white colonial spirit. Thats something fundamentally that can't be messed with; just like Black Panther is built on the foundation of having successfully repelled colonialism and brings a rich African pride and culture that focuses on positive traits and aspects that subvert the cliches that Hollywood frustratingly prefers to convey and promote in films. Could there be a Black Bond, technically yes. Could there be a white Black Panther, again technically, yes but they wouldn't be the characters they're meant to be and what they represent.
Bond is British, has a higher-middle class (education), peasant scottish ancestry. Can you deviate from that. Yes, slightly, but we all know the basics. Saying 'nobody cares'about this is utter rubbish. If you don't care, fine, but you're not the general public. And again, if you take something away or say it's irrellevant, you need ARGUMENTS to do so.
There's just no way a black guy could blend into the world that Bond is living in, be it high society parties in Austria and Switzerland or Casinos in Macao etc and not look strangely out of place.
I leave it to Trevor Noah to explain to you the details:
Because there isn't. Could he change colour? Technically yes but SHOULD he? Absoloutly not.
I think that's a somewhat unfair assessment of what's largely transpired in this thread. The majority of the disposition towards this subject matter is driven by preference without adverse intentions towards race.
I have to disagree a bit here. The people that really care the most are long time ardent fans. Bond's background to many isn't some sacred element that overtly defines who he is, it's precisely one of the reasons why the conversation of a non white Bond exists and won't seem to go away.
By the same rules neither are you and nor is anyone else here on this forum. The general public surprisingly seem to be entertaining the idea of a non white Bond on a bigger scale than expected. What the general public know and acknowledge are the clichés; guns, sex, girls, cars, locations, villains and "Bond. James Bond." Bond is obviously more than that but the aforementioned is what I feel they want to see identified quite prominently to be able to overlook any importance of skin pigmentation.
Not sure you realise how silly this sounds and goes to show a lack of how the real world works because you'll find plenty of Black people at high society functions in Switzerland and the far east, particularly in China and Japan; which I personally can attest to.
That picture alone I posted above of King T'Challa takes place at a casino/bar South Korea.
In any case I get and agree with the gist of your point. Bond should just stay white.
Yep, it comes down to where you draw the line and I do respect a lot of the fans who want him to remain white.
It just confuses me when people go back to Fleming with it because I see the deviations they've made so far as much bigger changes than his skin colour. I agree with @Revelator.
Logically the only argument that makes sense to me is he's always been white, it's one of the few parts of the character that's stayed consistent for 55 years, so why change it. Which is decent enough reasoning in itself I guess (my argument would be that it might be worth making that change if an actor is good enough but then those against it would argue they shouldn't even be considered if they're not white, it's personal preference like you said), I just wish more people would come out and say that instead of going on about preserving the spirit of the original novels when it comes to this but then heaping praise on the films that completely butcher the books and the actors who are at times unrecognisable as the original character. Obviously this doesn't apply to the fans who are actually Fleming purists, I know there are a few.
So preferring him to remain white is fine, but I think it is personal preference. There's a difference between saying "he's always been white and I'd like him to keep it that way" and "Fleming wrote Bond as a white man he's white end of". I think the latter is a fine argument if you really believe in the films only being Bond as Fleming wrote him, but you could come across as a hypocrite depending on your taste in the movies so far. I also think it's silly comparing a fictional spy who's race doesn't really define him anymore to real life civil rights activists.
You should try reading a book by Ian Fleming then, since Bond in fact does have a sense of humor--try Diamonds Are Forever, Goldfinger, and You Only Live Twice.
No, I don't think Fleming's Bond was "vague". Could it be that you're butchering the character as well?
So now your argument is based on hypothetical visions of the future? I look forward to your instructions on how Bond should adapt to the singularity.
No need for mysticism. Bond's core identity in the 1950s was that of a British white straight male. Whiteness is no longer synonymous with Britishness, ergo it's possible to have a non-white Bond without violating the character's identity.
Then why is the character popular all over the world, even in non-white places that resent having been occupied by the British Empire? These films make most of their money abroad, after all. Fleming obviously mourned the shrinking of British influence, but he was too subtle to write books about Bond reclaiming the empire (why go to Suez or Kenya when you can go to Jamaica or the south of France?).
Piffle. The films have been soft-soaping Fleming's more Imperial and racist (and anti-Russian) sentiments for years, which might explain part of their worldwide popularity. The facts are that modern audiences do not flock to the big screen because they want to watch the "white colonial spirit" in action. They're quite happy with that aspect of the character taken away, and the Craig films have hardly represented it (QoS was in fact anti-colonial).
All of that's fine with me. As I've written before, the films have to occasionally depart from Fleming's books, and they will occasionally depart from Fleming's conception of the character, which Fleming himself departed from. Even as a Fleming fan, I accept that the films must reflect their times and update their material. Sometimes they've done an excellent job (the first three Connery films, FYEO, CR, etc), and sometimes a lousy one (Moonraker!). In any case, changes will happen. So I bridle when I see people reject the idea of a non-white Bond because of Fleming, yet defend the least Flemingian Bond films. Stop pretending you're Fleming purists and find a better justification for your feelings.
If Fleming could entertain the idea of an American actor as Bond and later on completely change Bond's nationality in the 1960s, I would be less sure that he'd be against a non-white Bond in the 2010s. A non-white Bond would not have worked in the early 1960s. Times change.
I must have missed the big laser gun battle in space...
I hate to break it to you, but Moonraker is still outright science fiction. It doesn't "update" any part of the novel, since it barely has anything to do with it beyond sharing the names of the characters. And I doubt you'll find many Fleming fans that agree with your warped perspective.
The way I look at it in comparison to the other "xxx Bond" ideas people throw around in response is this: if in the Daniel Craig movies he was a woman, would that have made a difference? Yeah. If he was portrayed as gay would it have made a difference? Yeah. If his skin colour was darker or his eyes were slanted would it have made a difference? No, the films wouldn't have to be rewritten at all, the only difference it would make is visually. If the scripts don't have to be tailored around that change then I don't see it as a massive change.
What they've been doing with the supporting characters (Felix, MP) is more likely to remain the case. I've asked the question before: now that both are black, when the roles are recast should they remain so? Will there possibly be an outcry if not? Perhaps not if another minority group gets a shot.
I wouldn't be surprised if M is the next to change colour. After all, he's changed sex already.
@bondjames To be fair most of what we discuss on here is pointless. It's all hypothetical. Does feel a bit played out at this point but I think it's going to keep bought up until it actually happens or until EON come out and say we're never going to cast a minority actor (which obviously would be publicity suicide). So I wouldn't expect the discussion to end any time soon.
The new Dynamite comic series had a black M for almost 2 years now, and it works well actually. He will get a one issue spinoff in February
Having said that, I just don't see the change happening until another major character goes first. As I said, EON don't lead anymore. They follow. I realize that Pascal was caught in the leaks speculating about Elba, but I don't believe Babs was involved in that conversation.
Of course, if there's a sale of the rights to someone else, that's when something radical is more likely to occur.
EDIT: I was not aware of that. In my view then it becomes even more likely.
Funny you should say that since that little accusation you made seems to indicate towards you rather than me. Perhaps you should get down to reading the books, preferably starting with Fleming.
No different than your emplacement in the stats you've been shoehorning just so you'd come off rather clever about it, which, I'd hate to break it you again, holds the opposite effect.
No need for ostentatious proclamations. Bond is as he has been. Described and confirmed by the rest of the members who know more about the character than someone who would only cite a quote or two from a certain interview.
I don't need to repeat myself. Wouldn't hurt to lift the page up and see what others have said and reaffirmed what has been a long lasting logic people making this argument don't seem to possess. Perhaps it'd be plausible if you also look at the western pop culture striking popularity on the rest of the world since the Cold War and why Bond has been the white colonial hero even foreigners seem to like.
The Craig films have played it out the way the threats of the modern times would try and incapacitate nations. The colonist era is long gone, but the mannerism remains in many people, despite not wanting to come off imperialist dictators since that's what the Cold War obliterated. That white colonial spirit of the secret agent has his way in taking down a villain posing as a menace to the globe. If anything, the Bond series have always had the sovereignty where Britain is grand and the rest of the world is all foreign, despite eliminating any sort of bad blood other countries might have, and definitely not showing any national snobbery. But, that never takes any spirit of white colonialism away from the Bond character.
Didn't you say that anything Fleming didn't write wouldn't be considered "Fleming-esque" not too long ago where everybody in the thread cited how worn out your argument would be around them? Like I said... I don't need to repeat myself. The only reflection of the modern times the stories could ever face are none other than the stories themselves, not what the character represents.
How do you know Fleming would have entertained the idea since he was quite the conservative albeit moderate British? I am more than sure he wouldn't have. I'd argue furthermore that Bond's Scottish side didn't come from Connery but Fleming himself.
You must have missed a lot of things. Looking up and around wouldn't hurt to gather further information to support or carry out the inverse of what you think you know.
Warped perspective? Coming from the one who thinks How To Eat A Girl would make a stellar title for a James Bond film? Please.
I am sure there are many similarities, if not by large numbers, from the novel that you deliberately seem to love to jettison since it doesn't support your narrative.
@doubleoego these threat seems to be 'civilised' up until now, but at the same time I've seen this sort of reasoning many times before, and it all transpired to the anti-white-man racism, packed into 'you're a racist' argument.
It goes like this:
You take some part of history and then claim 'we are now in XXXX (depending on the year) so it should change'. If you're white man (WM) you may say you don't like the change, i.e. for historic reasons. Then you hear that the history was racist because in the past WM held slaves (exaggerating a bit here). So anything you say after that is racist, because WM in the past held slaves or oppressed other people or whatnot.
For now the discussion has been walking the line, but the underlaying sentiments are the same:
1. 'Ian Fleming wrote him as a white man'.
2. 'Ian Fleming's material has been changed often enough so it holds no ground'.
1. 'It's his heritage in the books'.
2. The books are incompareable with the films and anyway it's 2018 now'.
2. The general public doesn't care about heritage.
Note that the only actual fact used by 2, is the date whilst 1 keeps on telling absolute facts. . But 2 keeps on implying that beeing a white man is an outdated concept.
I will tell you this: the general public often cares more about heritage then the 'elite'. Again, you may remember 'craignotbond.com'? And that was about his haircolour! Do you have any idea what the reactions would be on both sides if it were his skincolour? Lets put it this way: anti-racism protesting professionals would have a field day and subsidies for the next 20 years!
Can't question his intensity, that's for sure! :D
You might be right about someone else having to go first before EON consider it, I just can't really think of another character that has similarly frequent recasts and different takes like Bond does. One of the supheroes probably.
Again, Fleming would disagree, and I trust his judgement on this far more than anyone elses given he's the creator of Bond.
[/quote]
Agreed.
Great post.
I have nothing new to add on the 007 casting front and am just happy to see Craig back.
BUT, after watching Molly's Game over the weekend I consider Jessica Chastain to be a great candidate for Bond's leading lady in the next film.
Forget it. I can't imagine Chastain wanting to settle for a Bond Girl role.