Who should/could be a Bond actor?

15635645665685691229

Comments

  • parkert5 wrote: »
    It is acting. The actual race of the actor does not change the race of the character.
    Hmm. So the black actor could self-identify as the established white character.

    Or by extension an actress could self-identify as the established male character.

    I'd like a beer.

    They would not be self-identifying as anything. They would be acting. They would be playing a white character.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,318
    parkert5 wrote: »
    parkert5 wrote: »
    It is acting. The actual race of the actor does not change the race of the character.
    Hmm. So the black actor could self-identify as the established white character.

    Or by extension an actress could self-identify as the established male character.

    I'd like a beer.

    They would not be self-identifying as anything. They would be acting. They would be playing a white character.

    Just stop.
  • Posts: 6,709
    parkert5 wrote: »
    parkert5 wrote: »
    It is acting. The actual race of the actor does not change the race of the character.
    Hmm. So the black actor could self-identify as the established white character.

    Or by extension an actress could self-identify as the established male character.

    I'd like a beer.

    They would not be self-identifying as anything. They would be acting. They would be playing a white character.

    I understand a black man can act or play a white character. The question is, why not get a white man to play a white character? Are you really advocating the Mickey Rooney clause? Why would a white man play an asian one? Why would a black man want to play a white character? And yes, I prefer an Arab actor playing Othello than having Welles paint his face. Although to be fair, the rules in theatre are not the same as the ones in cinema, or Redmayne wouldn't have made a career in college playing pretty damsels on stage. All characters should be played as they are depicted in the works from which they derive from. Diversity and equality mean one should have white characters played by white actors, black character played by black actors, asian characters played by asian actors and so on, and only if the piece demands it, not to fill quotas. If I want to see Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, I really don't want to see black or white character just because they had to fill a racial quota. Having Javert in Les Miserables as black, as the BBC just did, is odd, because there were no black police inspectors in early 19th- century France. You don't need to hijack History and change just for the sake of woke quota targets. Just create new settings and pieces that speak of todays values. History can't be changed like that. If we change the past we sure won't learn from it.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited January 2020 Posts: 5,131
    parkert5 wrote: »
    parkert5 wrote: »
    It is acting. The actual race of the actor does not change the race of the character.
    Hmm. So the black actor could self-identify as the established white character.

    Or by extension an actress could self-identify as the established male character.

    I'd like a beer.

    They would not be self-identifying as anything. They would be acting. They would be playing a white character.

    Just stop.

    It is impossible for a black actor to play a white character. I agree....just stop. Absolutely lunatic suggestion/ trolling.

    Also they WOULD be self identifying as another race.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Benny wrote: »
    I know he's Australian, but I still think Chris Hemsworth would be worth screen testing.
    He has many of the qualities required for the role. He does have a lot of stuff in the pipeline so he'd be an outside chance at best.

    I can’t see it myself. He’s not a very good actor and I don’t want another none Brit.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Octopussy wrote: »
    z52_rYKgWYGJXlnbwsAf3oHQy2uNCfBlE6SpTqEMc2w.jpg?auto=webp&s=84196b3faec6bf70db22cd2b48d20c32b262e966

    I'll say it once and I'll say it again.


    Keep saying it. I agree mate.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,196
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Octopussy wrote: »
    z52_rYKgWYGJXlnbwsAf3oHQy2uNCfBlE6SpTqEMc2w.jpg?auto=webp&s=84196b3faec6bf70db22cd2b48d20c32b262e966

    I'll say it once and I'll say it again.


    Keep saying it. I agree mate.

    Now I don’t support continuing the Craig timeline, but Fassbender would be close enough in age to make it plausible , as opposed to casting an actor in his mid 30’s
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,318
    Fassbender is the typical one that got away. Alas.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I can't see them continuing timelines with new actors in the future. I think they will reboot with each actor.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,247
    parkert5 wrote: »
    parkert5 wrote: »
    It is acting. The actual race of the actor does not change the race of the character.
    Hmm. So the black actor could self-identify as the established white character.

    Or by extension an actress could self-identify as the established male character.

    I'd like a beer.

    They would not be self-identifying as anything. They would be acting. They would be playing a white character.

    Not too long ago (couple of years probably) there was outcry because hollywood had casted a white girl in the role of an asian girl, the film was an adaptation of a manga classic. Don't ask me which because I'm not very at home in that field.

    It goes to show that your premise is wrong, it's impossible to 'act' a different colour. The film flopped.

    Now earlier you stated something about GI Joe I think. 1. it isn't a character with a worldwide following (at best a vague memory for people my age on this continent) and 2. it wasn't the main character. And as we've seen with Bond, far more is allowed with secondary characters as they don't change the main character. So Moneypenny could be a 60y/o drag from Nigeria and people will just frown and wonder what happened to HR at MI6, but Bond himsel can't be changed in any way like that.

    And for those who go 'but Barbra said..', she also said at the end o the interview 'it's the fans that decide'. So will there be a black Bond. Nope. Njet, Negative, Nein, Nee, Mais non! no. Not gonna happen.

    Neither will American actors be allowed. Has to be from the Commonwealth. At least, British isles preferably.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,196
    Getafix wrote: »
    I can't see them continuing timelines with new actors in the future. I think they will reboot with each actor.

    I agree and also hope for a reboot and a fresh start.
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 611
    Fassbender for Bond, abso-bloody-lutely. He would be terrific, I don't think his profile is too big to exclude him either.
    My feeling, and I live in hope, is that given how successful Bond has been at the box office under Craig's tenure EON would want to keep the momentum going with a new man in the role. Therefore I think it would be a bit risky to introduce a new Bond in 4-5 years as per the modern gap. Bond 26 will be released in around 3 years. Fassbender is 42 currently , so at 45ish he would not be too old, not at all.
    As I say, I live in hope.
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    edited January 2020 Posts: 1,081
    cwl007 wrote: »
    Fassbender for Bond, abso-bloody-lutely. He would be terrific, I don't think his profile is too big to exclude him either.
    My feeling, and I live in hope, is that given how successful Bond has been at the box office under Craig's tenure EON would want to keep the momentum going with a new man in the role. Therefore I think it would be a bit risky to introduce a new Bond in 4-5 years as per the modern gap. Bond 26 will be released in around 3 years. Fassbender is 42 currently , so at 45ish he would not be too old, not at all.
    As I say, I live in hope.

    Agree. What happened to the days where every film had the same supporting cast despite the introduction of a new Bond? Why does every time they introduce a new actor to play Bond that they need to reboot the franchise? It’s tiresome.

    They’ve found a sweet spot with Fiennes, Harris and Whishaw, IMO. The return of M’s office at the end of Skyfall signalled (or should’ve) a return to a more traditional formula. They should introduce a new Bond without rebooting the franchise as per Connery, Lazenby, Moore and Dalton. You feel like Brosnan’s introduction was a reboot without it being strictly stated. They shouldn’t keep all of the trappings of the Craig era, but I certainly think retaining the current supporting cast as a start would be beneficial, IMO.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited January 2020 Posts: 8,196
    Keeping all of the other players while bringing in a as new Bond just isn’t going to work in this timeline too much has been made of Bonds age.
    I definitely don’t want another situation as was done with Judy Dench where she was M but not the same M.
    It’s time to start fresh with a new James Bond and supporting characters.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    talos7 wrote: »
    Keeping all of the other players while bringing in a as new Bond just isn’t going to work in this timeline too much has been made of Bonds age.
    I definitely don’t want another situation as was done with Judy Dench where she was M but not the same M.
    It’s time to start fresh with a new James Bond and supporting characters.

    It's actually the only way, right, @talos7. This era is insulated. And, as you have said too many times: having a young guy step in and continue the Craig storylines is just not feasible. It wouldn't make sense. Modern audiences would absolutely be confused!

    Whatever Eon does in the future is whatever they do, but I think it is clear they will have to re-boot with the new fella after craig...
  • Posts: 11,425
    Well with Craig they kept Dench as M which was a smart move and one that I think 95% were happy with. So while I think they will reboot in terms of timelines, that doesn't mean everyone has to be recast. I know that might seem contradictory but really anyone who gets too hung up on continuity in Bond is setting themselves up for a fall.

    EON can (and have in the past) pretty much do whatever they want.

    I personally really like Whishaw as Q. Even if he was the only actor they kept I'd be happy with that.

    There's also something nice about having an unbroken link back to 62 in terms of there always being at least one actor carried over.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    I will be fine either way. If they have completely fresh cast or if ben/Naomie/Ralph gets continued with.
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    Posts: 1,081
    Getafix wrote: »
    Well with Craig they kept Dench as M which was a smart move and one that I think 95% were happy with. So while I think they will reboot in terms of timelines, that doesn't mean everyone has to be recast. I know that might seem contradictory but really anyone who gets too hung up on continuity in Bond is setting themselves up for a fall.

    EON can (and have in the past) pretty much do whatever they want.

    I personally really like Whishaw as Q. Even if he was the only actor they kept I'd be happy with that.

    There's also something nice about having an unbroken link back to 62 in terms of there always being at least one actor carried over.

    Agree, particularly with the bold statement. As mentioned previously, Judi Dench was still M in Casino Royale despite the film being a reboot of the franchise and this doesn't detract from the film, IMO. Bernard Lee, Lois Maxwell and Desmond Llewelyn all remained the same over the course of 3 actors slipping into the role of Bond and it had no impact at all. In fact I personally think it makes their transitions more seamless. The reality is that until now the Bond films never had much in the way of continuity. They were pretty much all standalone films until the Craig era. I personally preferred when they were individual films and I feel that whoever the next Bond is that they need to return to making individual adventures. I do believe that a new portrayal of Bond can exist with the current supporting cast remaining the status quo.
  • Posts: 3,327
    parkert5 wrote: »
    parkert5 wrote: »
    It is acting. The actual race of the actor does not change the race of the character.
    Hmm. So the black actor could self-identify as the established white character.

    Or by extension an actress could self-identify as the established male character.

    I'd like a beer.

    They would not be self-identifying as anything. They would be acting. They would be playing a white character.

    You are starting to come across as trolling now, pal.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,196
    To bring in a significantly younger actor to play Bond, while keeping the rest of the Craig era cast, would look silly . This era may have plot holes but there is a continuity of time passing.
  • edited January 2020 Posts: 3,327
    talos7 wrote: »
    To bring in a significantly younger actor to play Bond, while keeping the rest of the Craig era cast, would look silly . This era may have plot holes but there is a continuity of time passing.

    Well its been done before. Moore took over the mantle, and was a more youthful looking version than Connery in 71, and yet the trio of Q, Moneypenny and M remained in their roles.

    Likewise Dalton in 87 with Q and M, and Brosnan's reign with the same Q.
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    Posts: 1,081
    talos7 wrote: »
    To bring in a significantly younger actor to play Bond, while keeping the rest of the Craig era cast, would look silly . This era may have plot holes but there is a continuity of time passing.

    Generally speaking, Bond has always typically been younger then M, Q and Moneypenny? Keeping in mind that Whishaw and Harris are both younger then previous incarnations of their characters, I don't think that it would make much of a difference. Bernard Lee was much older then Connery in Dr. No and that's what adds to the authority of his character. Lazenby who was the youngest actor to play Bond, doesn't look out of place around the original supporting cast, IMO. Why should the next actor be any different?
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,196
    Well, Moore , Lazenby and Connery are contemporaries and are the “same” James Bond. The young Bond in 62’s Dr No is the same Bond as the old one in 85’s AVTAK. I actually consider Dalton, because of his age, the first re-boot. His Bond is not the same Bond as the previous 3. Brosnan is a continuation of Daltons Timeline; then there is Craig’s
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    edited January 2020 Posts: 1,081
    talos7 wrote: »
    Well, Moore , Lazenby and Connery are contemporaries and are the “same” James Bond. The young Bond in 62’s Dr No is the same Bond as the old one in 85’s AVTAK. I actually consider Dalton, because of his age, the first re-boot. His Bond is not the same Bond as the previous 3. Brosnan is a continuation of Daltons Timeline; then there is Craig’s

    Fair enough. I guess I've never viewed the franchise in this light and that's why it doesn't bother me. I've always seen them as complete standalone films regardless of the actors age. Continuity is only achieved when their is an underlying story arc across films such as Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace or Spectre and No Time To Die, IMO.
  • edited January 2020 Posts: 3,327
    talos7 wrote: »
    Well, Moore , Lazenby and Connery are contemporaries and are the “same” James Bond. The young Bond in 62’s Dr No is the same Bond as the old one in 85’s AVTAK. I actually consider Dalton, because of his age, the first re-boot. His Bond is not the same Bond as the previous 3. Brosnan is a continuation of Daltons Timeline; then there is Craig’s

    Actually Dalton's is the same timeline. In LTK Felix references Bond being married once, due to Bond's reaction to Stella when she throws her garter to him.

    Couple that with Felix being played by the same actor that appeared in LALD.

    I'd say it was a soft reboot, as Dalton was visibly younger than Moore.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I think that the first 20 have always been part of the same timeline, EON just weren't that bothered with continuity.

    I personally feel that SF should have been the GF of this era and totally separate, the same Bond but moved on from the arc of the first 2.

    Then if they need to retrofit SPECTRE (Quantum is so obviously P&W's SPECTRE they just didn't have the rights at the time) to have SP & NTTD to the continuation of this arc.

    The dodgy ring scanning nonsense aside if they hadn't tied SF into the arc to make it all connected and it might not have appeared so lame.

    Very much like what happened with Connery with DN FRWL & TB and following with YOLT.

    The idea of trying SF in makes the retro fitting look even worse.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited January 2020 Posts: 8,196
    talos7 wrote: »
    Well, Moore , Lazenby and Connery are contemporaries and are the “same” James Bond. The young Bond in 62’s Dr No is the same Bond as the old one in 85’s AVTAK. I actually consider Dalton, because of his age, the first re-boot. His Bond is not the same Bond as the previous 3. Brosnan is a continuation of Daltons Timeline; then there is Craig’s

    Actually Dalton's is the same timeline. In LTK Felix references Bond being married once, due to Bond's reaction to Stella when she throws her garter to him.

    Couple that with Felix being played by the same actor that appeared in LALD.

    I'd say it was a soft reboot, as Dalton was visibly younger than Moore.

    But what they did with Dench, and M, throws all of that into doubt;
    you see, just because certain people and events are referenced , doesn’t mean it’s the same timeline, it only means that those things existed, and happened within both timelines. For me, personally, there is no way that I can accept Dalton being the same Bond as Moore, Lazenby or Connery; the shift in age is too jarring .

    Judy Dench plays two different Ms in two different timelines, for me this was done in The Living Daylights, but on a much larger scale .

    I realize I’m in the minority in how I see this, but it works for me. 😁

  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,247
    talos7 wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Well, Moore , Lazenby and Connery are contemporaries and are the “same” James Bond. The young Bond in 62’s Dr No is the same Bond as the old one in 85’s AVTAK. I actually consider Dalton, because of his age, the first re-boot. His Bond is not the same Bond as the previous 3. Brosnan is a continuation of Daltons Timeline; then there is Craig’s

    Actually Dalton's is the same timeline. In LTK Felix references Bond being married once, due to Bond's reaction to Stella when she throws her garter to him.

    Couple that with Felix being played by the same actor that appeared in LALD.

    I'd say it was a soft reboot, as Dalton was visibly younger than Moore.

    But what they did with Dench, and M, throws all of that into doubt;
    you see, just because certain people and events are referenced , doesn’t mean it’s the same timeline, it only means that those things existed, and happened within both timelines. For me, personally, there is no way that I can accept Dalton being the same Bond as Moore, Lazenby or Connery; the shift in age is too jarring .

    Judy Dench plays two different Ms in two different timelines, for me this was done in The Living Daylights, but on a much larger scale .

    I realize I’m in the minority in how I see this, but it works for me. 😁
    talos7 wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Well, Moore , Lazenby and Connery are contemporaries and are the “same” James Bond. The young Bond in 62’s Dr No is the same Bond as the old one in 85’s AVTAK. I actually consider Dalton, because of his age, the first re-boot. His Bond is not the same Bond as the previous 3. Brosnan is a continuation of Daltons Timeline; then there is Craig’s

    Actually Dalton's is the same timeline. In LTK Felix references Bond being married once, due to Bond's reaction to Stella when she throws her garter to him.

    Couple that with Felix being played by the same actor that appeared in LALD.

    I'd say it was a soft reboot, as Dalton was visibly younger than Moore.

    But what they did with Dench, and M, throws all of that into doubt;
    you see, just because certain people and events are referenced , doesn’t mean it’s the same timeline, it only means that those things existed, and happened within both timelines. For me, personally, there is no way that I can accept Dalton being the same Bond as Moore, Lazenby or Connery; the shift in age is too jarring .

    Judy Dench plays two different Ms in two different timelines, for me this was done in The Living Daylights, but on a much larger scale .

    I realize I’m in the minority in how I see this, but it works for me. 😁

    The main question is: why would the stories be consecutive? If you ask me EON sees them as Bond- stories. Which would result in basically all films falling in between CR and SF/SP. In the past storywise there've been only nods to previous/ other films.
  • Bar the Craig films a 'timeline' isn't a Bond thing, they are just separate films with the same character.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,196
    Bar the Craig films a 'timeline' isn't a Bond thing, they are just separate films with the same character.

    This is debatable...
Sign In or Register to comment.