Who should/could be a Bond actor?

16096106126146151235

Comments

  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I was gonna post this in a discussion but I'm just gonna put it here. So this includes one of my top choices for James Bond, Callum Turner, although I know a lot of you are sceptical about him, I just think he has a lot of potential, and could be a possible dark horse. But I've also included some other choices I'd go for - for other characters.

    The other cast I would choose includes Lennie James as M, Vanessa Kirby as Moneypenny, Riz Ahmed as Q, Joel Edgerton as Felix Leiter, and Daniel Bruhl as Ernst Stavro Blofeld. I think the only thing about this that is unrealistic is Callum and Vanessa appearing in those roles together, as they used to date, so I don't think that would end up happening, but I believe these would be pretty solid choices.

    Some of you may have seen this before by the way.

    https://www.imdb.com/list/ls098102981/

    Looks like he could be a good Gustav Graves when he grows up. ;)

    Reminds me a little of Simon Quarterman from Westworld for some reason.
    https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0702945/?ref_=tt_cl_t10
    I think it's just his face a little, but apart from that they're very different haha :D
    I just Callum Turner has something, like I've said before, I wouldn't cast him now, but in four or five years time, I think he'd be great and could potentially be a mixture of Craig and Brosnan in terms of tone and style. This image was six years ago, and he's become a bit more of a leading man already in a few years so given more I think we have a potential James Bond. He has a good voice too - again in my opinion.

    queen-anatomy-videoSixteenByNine3000.jpg

    I firmly believe that Bond should always be, and portrayed by, a Caucasian, British male ; with that said, I would cast Idris Elba as Bond before ever casting Callum Turner. Turner has a shifty, rat like quality that is very off putting. No, no and no....

    Now we're talking! This man is 007.....a Bond film starring Idris Elba is a $1 billion success story in the making. I'm certain Eon are weighing up this idea. Though it does go against much of their instincts. Usually they case with the 'franchise' in mind. Essentially, someone to be the figurehead of the series for the next 10 years.

    However, the changing landscape with blockbuster films means they now have more competition than ever. If the Craig era is anything to go by, then I think Eon have adopted a more filmmaker-friendly approach. Opposed to go down the Marvel route where sequels are knocked out quickly.

    But if they wanted to get a big name director and hire Elba, then that would be a surefire way to distinguish themselves from the competition. I mean, imagine the hype of a Christopher Nolan-directed Bond film starring Elba!!!

    I'd even think that they'd rehire Fukunaga/Waller-Bridge and get them to continue the story of Bond with an actor of a similar age. In that respect, Elba could quickly pick up that mantle.

    If Eon release in time for the 60th anniversary, than Elba will be 48.....if anything the thing holding him back from the Bond role is less his age and more the sheer amount of over-exposure he's had in recent years.

    This photoshoot could be from a Bond film...love the outfit

    Idris-Elba-08-2019-cover.jpg
    There's no point in hiring a new Bond who will be over 50 before his second film.
    This is the main reason I never wanted Elba too, plus I personally don't think he would ever be Bond, he'd be Idris Elba doing the things that Bond does - if that makes sense.

    I don’t know, he’s an actor capable of changing what he does; as long as he could posh up his accent a bit he’d be good: and his brooding sort of smoothness is hardly a bad fit for Bond. And I’d say neither Roger or Pierce were really Bond either, it was Roger and Pierce doing the things Bond does, and they worked.

    I could see Elba’s Bond being a little gritty though, and I don’t know if that’s where they should go. A new Roger Moore would be amazing, but I don’t know where you’d find him.

    Unfortunately he can’t ‘act’ his way to being a white character. Auto-reject.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2020 Posts: 16,614
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    What about Jeremy Irvine? He's 30. 6ft. British.

    Not a bad thought at all. I don't remember him stunning me, but I'm not sure I've seen him in anything where he had the opportunity (I saw the first couple of Treadstones but he didn't get to do much more than fight and run). If he isn't on the audition list I'd be stunned.
    Especially as he played the young Brosnan in Mamma Mia!
    :D
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    I was using him for shock and logic dynamics. I wasn't being literal. The point I was trying to make is that people (well...one) in this thread is proposing names (well...one) that just don't fit the character. I don't go around dribbling balls in football just because I think it's valid. There are some things that are game, others are not. I'm not interested in ruining institutions just to earn social kudos. Destruction and reinvention aren't always the things one must go for. And this is coming from a liberal.

    +1. Well said, I agree.

    If an actor can’t fulfil the bare minimum criteria below they should be an auto rejection (absolute no exceptions):

    - White British
    - Actor
    - Height 5ft 10in as a minimum
    - Age 35 - 50 (depending on looks)

    That criteria would rule both George Lazenby and Pierce Brosnan out from playing Bond!

    Indeed, and it's funny how the the 'short black hair with a comma over his eye' doesn't feature on the essential list... and that the minimum height just happens to coincide with Craig's height...
    ;)

    Yes Brosnan was a push and we certainly don’t want another Australian. Lazenby’s odd accent was his main weakness.

    Because options to change hair colour are available I didn’t include such a rigid criteria, but sticking to Fleming is the preference for sure.

    5ft 10in is exactly UK average height. Below this is short and below average. Bond is not short. Nothing to do with Daniel Craig.


    Yeah, sure ;)
    There are indeed options to change hair colour, but notice they have never taken it up because it doesn't matter. If sticking to Fleming is so important how come you don't mention the facial scar?

    I find these odd priorities. Lazenby's main weakness was his acting and screen presence, aesthetics really are less important.

    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I was gonna post this in a discussion but I'm just gonna put it here. So this includes one of my top choices for James Bond, Callum Turner, although I know a lot of you are sceptical about him, I just think he has a lot of potential, and could be a possible dark horse. But I've also included some other choices I'd go for - for other characters.

    The other cast I would choose includes Lennie James as M, Vanessa Kirby as Moneypenny, Riz Ahmed as Q, Joel Edgerton as Felix Leiter, and Daniel Bruhl as Ernst Stavro Blofeld. I think the only thing about this that is unrealistic is Callum and Vanessa appearing in those roles together, as they used to date, so I don't think that would end up happening, but I believe these would be pretty solid choices.

    Some of you may have seen this before by the way.

    https://www.imdb.com/list/ls098102981/

    Looks like he could be a good Gustav Graves when he grows up. ;)

    Reminds me a little of Simon Quarterman from Westworld for some reason.
    https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0702945/?ref_=tt_cl_t10
    I think it's just his face a little, but apart from that they're very different haha :D
    I just Callum Turner has something, like I've said before, I wouldn't cast him now, but in four or five years time, I think he'd be great and could potentially be a mixture of Craig and Brosnan in terms of tone and style. This image was six years ago, and he's become a bit more of a leading man already in a few years so given more I think we have a potential James Bond. He has a good voice too - again in my opinion.

    queen-anatomy-videoSixteenByNine3000.jpg

    I firmly believe that Bond should always be, and portrayed by, a Caucasian, British male ; with that said, I would cast Idris Elba as Bond before ever casting Callum Turner. Turner has a shifty, rat like quality that is very off putting. No, no and no....

    Now we're talking! This man is 007.....a Bond film starring Idris Elba is a $1 billion success story in the making. I'm certain Eon are weighing up this idea. Though it does go against much of their instincts. Usually they case with the 'franchise' in mind. Essentially, someone to be the figurehead of the series for the next 10 years.

    However, the changing landscape with blockbuster films means they now have more competition than ever. If the Craig era is anything to go by, then I think Eon have adopted a more filmmaker-friendly approach. Opposed to go down the Marvel route where sequels are knocked out quickly.

    But if they wanted to get a big name director and hire Elba, then that would be a surefire way to distinguish themselves from the competition. I mean, imagine the hype of a Christopher Nolan-directed Bond film starring Elba!!!

    I'd even think that they'd rehire Fukunaga/Waller-Bridge and get them to continue the story of Bond with an actor of a similar age. In that respect, Elba could quickly pick up that mantle.

    If Eon release in time for the 60th anniversary, than Elba will be 48.....if anything the thing holding him back from the Bond role is less his age and more the sheer amount of over-exposure he's had in recent years.

    This photoshoot could be from a Bond film...love the outfit

    Idris-Elba-08-2019-cover.jpg
    There's no point in hiring a new Bond who will be over 50 before his second film.
    This is the main reason I never wanted Elba too, plus I personally don't think he would ever be Bond, he'd be Idris Elba doing the things that Bond does - if that makes sense.

    I don’t know, he’s an actor capable of changing what he does; as long as he could posh up his accent a bit he’d be good: and his brooding sort of smoothness is hardly a bad fit for Bond. And I’d say neither Roger or Pierce were really Bond either, it was Roger and Pierce doing the things Bond does, and they worked.

    I could see Elba’s Bond being a little gritty though, and I don’t know if that’s where they should go. A new Roger Moore would be amazing, but I don’t know where you’d find him.

    Unfortunately he can’t ‘act’ his way to being a white character. Auto-reject.

    No, not auto-reject at all. Skin colour is irrelevant to Bond.
    You remind me a bit of the 'Craig Not Bond' folks of a few years back.
  • edited May 2020 Posts: 6,710
    edited I made a long post, but that would be me being redundant by this point.

    So I'll only ask this: What you lot are saying is that race is not a fundamental characterisation point. Is that it?
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    What about Jeremy Irvine? He's 30. 6ft. British.

    Not a bad thought at all. I don't remember him stunning me, but I'm not sure I've seen him in anything where he had the opportunity (I saw the first couple of Treadstones but he didn't get to do much more than fight and run). If he isn't on the audition list I'd be stunned.
    Especially as he played the young Brosnan in Mamma Mia!
    :D
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    I was using him for shock and logic dynamics. I wasn't being literal. The point I was trying to make is that people (well...one) in this thread is proposing names (well...one) that just don't fit the character. I don't go around dribbling balls in football just because I think it's valid. There are some things that are game, others are not. I'm not interested in ruining institutions just to earn social kudos. Destruction and reinvention aren't always the things one must go for. And this is coming from a liberal.

    +1. Well said, I agree.

    If an actor can’t fulfil the bare minimum criteria below they should be an auto rejection (absolute no exceptions):

    - White British
    - Actor
    - Height 5ft 10in as a minimum
    - Age 35 - 50 (depending on looks)

    That criteria would rule both George Lazenby and Pierce Brosnan out from playing Bond!

    Indeed, and it's funny how the the 'short black hair with a comma over his eye' doesn't feature on the essential list... and that the minimum height just happens to coincide with Craig's height...
    ;)

    Yes Brosnan was a push and we certainly don’t want another Australian. Lazenby’s odd accent was his main weakness.

    Because options to change hair colour are available I didn’t include such a rigid criteria, but sticking to Fleming is the preference for sure.

    5ft 10in is exactly UK average height. Below this is short and below average. Bond is not short. Nothing to do with Daniel Craig.


    Yeah, sure ;)
    There are indeed options to change hair colour, but notice they have never taken it up because it doesn't matter. If sticking to Fleming is so important how come you don't mention the facial scar?

    I find these odd priorities. Lazenby's main weakness was his acting and screen presence, aesthetics really are less important.

    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I was gonna post this in a discussion but I'm just gonna put it here. So this includes one of my top choices for James Bond, Callum Turner, although I know a lot of you are sceptical about him, I just think he has a lot of potential, and could be a possible dark horse. But I've also included some other choices I'd go for - for other characters.

    The other cast I would choose includes Lennie James as M, Vanessa Kirby as Moneypenny, Riz Ahmed as Q, Joel Edgerton as Felix Leiter, and Daniel Bruhl as Ernst Stavro Blofeld. I think the only thing about this that is unrealistic is Callum and Vanessa appearing in those roles together, as they used to date, so I don't think that would end up happening, but I believe these would be pretty solid choices.

    Some of you may have seen this before by the way.

    https://www.imdb.com/list/ls098102981/

    Looks like he could be a good Gustav Graves when he grows up. ;)

    Reminds me a little of Simon Quarterman from Westworld for some reason.
    https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0702945/?ref_=tt_cl_t10
    I think it's just his face a little, but apart from that they're very different haha :D
    I just Callum Turner has something, like I've said before, I wouldn't cast him now, but in four or five years time, I think he'd be great and could potentially be a mixture of Craig and Brosnan in terms of tone and style. This image was six years ago, and he's become a bit more of a leading man already in a few years so given more I think we have a potential James Bond. He has a good voice too - again in my opinion.

    queen-anatomy-videoSixteenByNine3000.jpg

    I firmly believe that Bond should always be, and portrayed by, a Caucasian, British male ; with that said, I would cast Idris Elba as Bond before ever casting Callum Turner. Turner has a shifty, rat like quality that is very off putting. No, no and no....

    Now we're talking! This man is 007.....a Bond film starring Idris Elba is a $1 billion success story in the making. I'm certain Eon are weighing up this idea. Though it does go against much of their instincts. Usually they case with the 'franchise' in mind. Essentially, someone to be the figurehead of the series for the next 10 years.

    However, the changing landscape with blockbuster films means they now have more competition than ever. If the Craig era is anything to go by, then I think Eon have adopted a more filmmaker-friendly approach. Opposed to go down the Marvel route where sequels are knocked out quickly.

    But if they wanted to get a big name director and hire Elba, then that would be a surefire way to distinguish themselves from the competition. I mean, imagine the hype of a Christopher Nolan-directed Bond film starring Elba!!!

    I'd even think that they'd rehire Fukunaga/Waller-Bridge and get them to continue the story of Bond with an actor of a similar age. In that respect, Elba could quickly pick up that mantle.

    If Eon release in time for the 60th anniversary, than Elba will be 48.....if anything the thing holding him back from the Bond role is less his age and more the sheer amount of over-exposure he's had in recent years.

    This photoshoot could be from a Bond film...love the outfit

    Idris-Elba-08-2019-cover.jpg
    There's no point in hiring a new Bond who will be over 50 before his second film.
    This is the main reason I never wanted Elba too, plus I personally don't think he would ever be Bond, he'd be Idris Elba doing the things that Bond does - if that makes sense.

    I don’t know, he’s an actor capable of changing what he does; as long as he could posh up his accent a bit he’d be good: and his brooding sort of smoothness is hardly a bad fit for Bond. And I’d say neither Roger or Pierce were really Bond either, it was Roger and Pierce doing the things Bond does, and they worked.

    I could see Elba’s Bond being a little gritty though, and I don’t know if that’s where they should go. A new Roger Moore would be amazing, but I don’t know where you’d find him.

    Unfortunately he can’t ‘act’ his way to being a white character. Auto-reject.

    No, not auto-reject at all. Skin colour is irrelevant to Bond.
    You remind me a bit of the 'Craig Not Bond' folks of a few years back.

    Skin colour is relevant to Bond?

    He was called a ‘honkey’ in LALD. That is as clear as day.

    Touché. You remind me of someone who has never read Fleming.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Univex wrote: »
    edited I made a long post, but that would be me being redundant by this point.

    So I'll only ask this: What you lot are saying is that race is not a fundamental characterisation point. Is that it?


    It is probably as fundamental as can be IMO.

    I can understand the general public not agreeing. But it is shocking that Bond fans welcome such a drastic shift.

    It’s like casting Colin Firth as Shaft! Or Hugh Grant as Luther! 🤣
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2020 Posts: 16,614
    Univex wrote: »
    edited I made a long post, but that would be me being redundant by this point.

    So I'll only ask this: What you lot are saying is that race is not a fundamental characterisation point. Is that it?

    Not in Bond, no. Is Moneypenny's race a fundamental characterisation point? Either of the non-white Felixes?
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    What about Jeremy Irvine? He's 30. 6ft. British.

    Not a bad thought at all. I don't remember him stunning me, but I'm not sure I've seen him in anything where he had the opportunity (I saw the first couple of Treadstones but he didn't get to do much more than fight and run). If he isn't on the audition list I'd be stunned.
    Especially as he played the young Brosnan in Mamma Mia!
    :D
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    I was using him for shock and logic dynamics. I wasn't being literal. The point I was trying to make is that people (well...one) in this thread is proposing names (well...one) that just don't fit the character. I don't go around dribbling balls in football just because I think it's valid. There are some things that are game, others are not. I'm not interested in ruining institutions just to earn social kudos. Destruction and reinvention aren't always the things one must go for. And this is coming from a liberal.

    +1. Well said, I agree.

    If an actor can’t fulfil the bare minimum criteria below they should be an auto rejection (absolute no exceptions):

    - White British
    - Actor
    - Height 5ft 10in as a minimum
    - Age 35 - 50 (depending on looks)

    That criteria would rule both George Lazenby and Pierce Brosnan out from playing Bond!

    Indeed, and it's funny how the the 'short black hair with a comma over his eye' doesn't feature on the essential list... and that the minimum height just happens to coincide with Craig's height...
    ;)

    Yes Brosnan was a push and we certainly don’t want another Australian. Lazenby’s odd accent was his main weakness.

    Because options to change hair colour are available I didn’t include such a rigid criteria, but sticking to Fleming is the preference for sure.

    5ft 10in is exactly UK average height. Below this is short and below average. Bond is not short. Nothing to do with Daniel Craig.


    Yeah, sure ;)
    There are indeed options to change hair colour, but notice they have never taken it up because it doesn't matter. If sticking to Fleming is so important how come you don't mention the facial scar?

    I find these odd priorities. Lazenby's main weakness was his acting and screen presence, aesthetics really are less important.

    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I was gonna post this in a discussion but I'm just gonna put it here. So this includes one of my top choices for James Bond, Callum Turner, although I know a lot of you are sceptical about him, I just think he has a lot of potential, and could be a possible dark horse. But I've also included some other choices I'd go for - for other characters.

    The other cast I would choose includes Lennie James as M, Vanessa Kirby as Moneypenny, Riz Ahmed as Q, Joel Edgerton as Felix Leiter, and Daniel Bruhl as Ernst Stavro Blofeld. I think the only thing about this that is unrealistic is Callum and Vanessa appearing in those roles together, as they used to date, so I don't think that would end up happening, but I believe these would be pretty solid choices.

    Some of you may have seen this before by the way.

    https://www.imdb.com/list/ls098102981/

    Looks like he could be a good Gustav Graves when he grows up. ;)

    Reminds me a little of Simon Quarterman from Westworld for some reason.
    https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0702945/?ref_=tt_cl_t10
    I think it's just his face a little, but apart from that they're very different haha :D
    I just Callum Turner has something, like I've said before, I wouldn't cast him now, but in four or five years time, I think he'd be great and could potentially be a mixture of Craig and Brosnan in terms of tone and style. This image was six years ago, and he's become a bit more of a leading man already in a few years so given more I think we have a potential James Bond. He has a good voice too - again in my opinion.

    queen-anatomy-videoSixteenByNine3000.jpg

    I firmly believe that Bond should always be, and portrayed by, a Caucasian, British male ; with that said, I would cast Idris Elba as Bond before ever casting Callum Turner. Turner has a shifty, rat like quality that is very off putting. No, no and no....

    Now we're talking! This man is 007.....a Bond film starring Idris Elba is a $1 billion success story in the making. I'm certain Eon are weighing up this idea. Though it does go against much of their instincts. Usually they case with the 'franchise' in mind. Essentially, someone to be the figurehead of the series for the next 10 years.

    However, the changing landscape with blockbuster films means they now have more competition than ever. If the Craig era is anything to go by, then I think Eon have adopted a more filmmaker-friendly approach. Opposed to go down the Marvel route where sequels are knocked out quickly.

    But if they wanted to get a big name director and hire Elba, then that would be a surefire way to distinguish themselves from the competition. I mean, imagine the hype of a Christopher Nolan-directed Bond film starring Elba!!!

    I'd even think that they'd rehire Fukunaga/Waller-Bridge and get them to continue the story of Bond with an actor of a similar age. In that respect, Elba could quickly pick up that mantle.

    If Eon release in time for the 60th anniversary, than Elba will be 48.....if anything the thing holding him back from the Bond role is less his age and more the sheer amount of over-exposure he's had in recent years.

    This photoshoot could be from a Bond film...love the outfit

    Idris-Elba-08-2019-cover.jpg
    There's no point in hiring a new Bond who will be over 50 before his second film.
    This is the main reason I never wanted Elba too, plus I personally don't think he would ever be Bond, he'd be Idris Elba doing the things that Bond does - if that makes sense.

    I don’t know, he’s an actor capable of changing what he does; as long as he could posh up his accent a bit he’d be good: and his brooding sort of smoothness is hardly a bad fit for Bond. And I’d say neither Roger or Pierce were really Bond either, it was Roger and Pierce doing the things Bond does, and they worked.

    I could see Elba’s Bond being a little gritty though, and I don’t know if that’s where they should go. A new Roger Moore would be amazing, but I don’t know where you’d find him.

    Unfortunately he can’t ‘act’ his way to being a white character. Auto-reject.

    No, not auto-reject at all. Skin colour is irrelevant to Bond.
    You remind me a bit of the 'Craig Not Bond' folks of a few years back.

    Skin colour is relevant to Bond?

    He was called a ‘honkey’ in LALD. That is as clear as day.

    They're not making LALD. That's like saying that they can't be set in the 21st century because Bill Fairbanks got killed in '69. It's meaningless.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Touché. You remind me of someone who has never read Fleming.

    I can't think why considering the amount of references to Bond's version of Fleming I've made, so you'd be completely wrong to think so.

    I just happen to understand what's important in Fleming and what isn't. If you're claiming that having been called a honky once is a core part of his personality then I'd suggest more research on the character. These are adaptations, total fidelity is impossible and unnecessary and, what's more, has never been achieved. If you want to see the books, read them.
    I don't understand the weird snobbishness some Bond fans display about having read a few paperback thrillers. They're not exactly impenetrable Tolstoy: it's not hugely impressive that we've read these books.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Your entitled to your opinion @mtm.

    I think Bond should always remain white (based on Fleming and franchise history/ legacy), you don’t. The FACT is that both fleming and the films do describe Bond’s ethnicity. That’s not my opinion, it’s fact.

    But as we’ll never a agree, this is a rather pointless debate to carry on.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,614
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    edited I made a long post, but that would be me being redundant by this point.

    So I'll only ask this: What you lot are saying is that race is not a fundamental characterisation point. Is that it?


    It is probably as fundamental as can be IMO.

    But all you can offer is him being called a 'honky' once?
    suavejmf wrote: »
    It’s like casting Colin Firth as Shaft! Or Hugh Grant as Luther! 🤣

    It's not like Shaft, no: he was in part defined by his race because that was a Blaxploitation film. That was half of the point of that, for better or worse. I haven't seen a lot of Luther but I don't recall much in it that says he couldn't be played by an actor of any race. I'm not an expert on him though I admit.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited May 2020 Posts: 5,131
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    edited I made a long post, but that would be me being redundant by this point.

    So I'll only ask this: What you lot are saying is that race is not a fundamental characterisation point. Is that it?


    It is probably as fundamental as can be IMO.

    But all you can offer is him being called a 'honky' once?
    suavejmf wrote: »
    It’s like casting Colin Firth as Shaft! Or Hugh Grant as Luther! 🤣

    It's not like Shaft, no: he was in part defined by his race because that was a Blaxploitation film. That was half of the point of that, for better or worse. I haven't seen a lot of Luther but I don't recall much in it that says he couldn't be played by an actor of any race. I'm not an expert on him though I admit.

    Your right....Hoagy Carmichael was black too!! 🤣😂🤣😂

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2020 Posts: 16,614
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Your entitled to your opinion @mtm.

    I think Bond should always remain white (based on Fleming and franchise history/ legacy), you don’t. The FACT is that both fleming and the films do describe Bond’s ethnicity. That’s not my opinion, it’s fact.

    So what? They mention him having black hair too, and yet...

    gty-roger-moore-ps-170523_16x9_992.jpg

    casino-royale.jpg?quality=50&width=1800&ratio=16-9&resizeStyle=aspectfill&format=jpg


    It's a FACT that he's got black hair. Apart from when he hasn't. Not my opinion, FACT.

    :D

    And let's not get started on his blue/grey eyes...

    DNJamesBond4.jpg
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    edited I made a long post, but that would be me being redundant by this point.

    So I'll only ask this: What you lot are saying is that race is not a fundamental characterisation point. Is that it?


    It is probably as fundamental as can be IMO.

    But all you can offer is him being called a 'honky' once?
    suavejmf wrote: »
    It’s like casting Colin Firth as Shaft! Or Hugh Grant as Luther! 🤣

    It's not like Shaft, no: he was in part defined by his race because that was a Blaxploitation film. That was half of the point of that, for better or worse. I haven't seen a lot of Luther but I don't recall much in it that says he couldn't be played by an actor of any race. I'm not an expert on him though I admit.

    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Your entitled to your opinion @mtm.

    I think Bond should always remain white (based on Fleming and franchise history/ legacy), you don’t. The FACT is that both fleming and the films do describe Bond’s ethnicity. That’s not my opinion, it’s fact.

    So what? They mention him having black hair too, and yet...

    gty-roger-moore-ps-170523_16x9_992.jpg

    casino-royale.jpg?quality=50&width=1800&ratio=16-9&resizeStyle=aspectfill&format=jpg


    It's a FACT that he's got black hair. Apart from when he hasn't. Not my opinion, FACT.

    :D


    Not an Afro though is it.

    I’m with Yaphet.....

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/film/2015/apr/08/former-007-villain-yaphet-kotto-says-james-bond-cannot-be-black
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2020 Posts: 16,614
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    edited I made a long post, but that would be me being redundant by this point.

    So I'll only ask this: What you lot are saying is that race is not a fundamental characterisation point. Is that it?


    It is probably as fundamental as can be IMO.

    But all you can offer is him being called a 'honky' once?
    suavejmf wrote: »
    It’s like casting Colin Firth as Shaft! Or Hugh Grant as Luther! 🤣

    It's not like Shaft, no: he was in part defined by his race because that was a Blaxploitation film. That was half of the point of that, for better or worse. I haven't seen a lot of Luther but I don't recall much in it that says he couldn't be played by an actor of any race. I'm not an expert on him though I admit.


    Is that supposed to be some devastating truth that makes me see the fundamental flaw? It's some guy I don't know on youtube trying to be funny. So what?
    Why quote me if you're not able to reply to what I've said?
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Your entitled to your opinion @mtm.

    I think Bond should always remain white (based on Fleming and franchise history/ legacy), you don’t. The FACT is that both fleming and the films do describe Bond’s ethnicity. That’s not my opinion, it’s fact.

    So what? They mention him having black hair too, and yet...

    gty-roger-moore-ps-170523_16x9_992.jpg

    casino-royale.jpg?quality=50&width=1800&ratio=16-9&resizeStyle=aspectfill&format=jpg


    It's a FACT that he's got black hair. Apart from when he hasn't. Not my opinion, FACT.

    :D


    Not an Afro though is it.

    I'm really trying my best not to feel like that's getting close to a racist comment.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited May 2020 Posts: 5,131
    It isn’t a rasist term at all.

    Given that my wife and half my family is Black, I know this as a fact. It’s a commonly used term to describe African hair type.

    And the video is amusing and makes some light hearted valid points.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2020 Posts: 16,614
    In short, there's nothing key to Bond's character which requires him to be white in my opinion. There are lines which can't be crossed: making him a woman would be crazy because his gender very much is a huge part of his character; but this isn't one of them.
    But the idea that a non-white actor can't play a sexy, suave, dangerous, English superspy is as inherently ridiculous as the idea that one who has blond hair can't. There's zero about what's important about him which requires a particular shade of hair or skin.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    mtm wrote: »
    In short, there's nothing key to Bond character which requires him to be white in my opinion. There are lines which can't be crossed: making him a woman would be crazy because his gender very much is a huge part of his character; but this isn't one of them.
    But the idea that a non-white actor can't play a sexy, suave, dangerous, English superspy is as inherently ridiculous as one who has blond hair can't. There's zero about what's important about him which requires a particular shade of hair or skin.

    In short, Fleming and EON made the character white and it should stay that way.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2020 Posts: 16,614
    suavejmf wrote: »
    It isn’t a rasist term at all.

    Given that my wife and half my family is Black, I know this as a fact. It’s a commonly used term to describe African hair type.

    FFS, the term isn't racist in itself, I'm not that oblivious. It's the usage.
    And now we're doing 'some of my best friends are black actually'...

    I think you were right about leaving this now. I'm not enjoying it and it's leaving a bad taste in my mouth.

  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited May 2020 Posts: 5,131
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    It isn’t a rasist term at all.

    Given that my wife and half my family is Black, I know this as a fact. It’s a commonly used term to describe African hair type.

    FFS, the term isn't racist in itself, I'm not that oblivious. It's the usage.
    And now we're doing 'some of my best friends are black actually'...

    I think you were right about leaving this now. I'm not enjoying it and it's leaving a bad taste in my mouth.

    Agreed. You did seem slightly oblivious. I apologise. We’ll leave it there 👍

    I didn’t use friends....I used family and spouse.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited May 2020 Posts: 5,970
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    What about Jeremy Irvine? He's 30. 6ft. British.

    Not a bad thought at all. I don't remember him stunning me, but I'm not sure I've seen him in anything where he had the opportunity (I saw the first couple of Treadstone but he didn't get to do much more than fight and run). If he isn't on the audition list I'd be stunned. Especially as he played the young Brosnan in Mamma Mia! :D

    Yeah he wouldn't be my first choice @mtm, or even in my Top 5, but still a suggestion nonetheless.

    I've been shot down consistently but in my eyes Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Callum Turner are two guys that should at least get auditions in a few years time - obviously depending on where EON actually wanna take the franchise. Again, if The Batman and Tenet are really successful, I think they'll consider a younger actor around Pattinson's age.
  • edited May 2020 Posts: 6,710
    So, race is always an important characterisation point, except for the Bond cinematic universe.

    If a fictional character of a renowned literary-based franchise is fully described as being of a certain race, it is ok for them to have an actor of a different race play the part, because race bares no importance in characterisation.

    Is that what you are saying? Just to make it clear.
    mtm wrote: »
    In short, there's nothing key to Bond's character which requires him to be white in my opinion.

    I'm not talking about psychological character. I'm talking about him being A literary character, fully described and inscribed in paper.
    mtm wrote: »
    But the idea that a non-white actor can't play a sexy, suave, dangerous, English superspy is as inherently ridiculous

    No one is saying that. He just can't play the white character of Ian Fleming's James Bond. No more than blackface should have ever been a thing.

    Plus, the fact that you are comparing hair to race is incredibly ridiculous. Race is more important than hair. But as you are on the subject, let me tell you, I'd rather have a black hair actor play Bond, blue-eyed too. The depiction is on the page. How hard is to follow that the best they can? And this is coming from a Craig fan.

    But I'm tired of making these points.

    So, again, what you're saying is that race is always an important characterisation point, except for the Bond cinematic universe.

    Is that correct?
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    edited May 2020 Posts: 280
    I don't understand why the next Bond has to be over 35 (especially now, as B26 is likely a long ways off). Connery was 31 when filming Dr. No, and everyone loves him. In fact, it's his performances from when he was OVER 35 (YOLT and DAF) that are more divisive. Of course, correlation =/ causation, but it's something to observed.

    As for a black actor, eh. Bond has always been a white character. It could be done well, of course, but perhaps his race has a little more bearing on the character than some suggest. 007 is a remnant of the British Empire. An exemplar of the old British way. As M says in GE, he's a dinosaur. But he's a dinosaur that's still needed. Although I have issues with the Old Man Bond segment of SF, it does get across that he is and will likely always be relevant, even as the world changes more and more. He's part of a different era, but that's the point. His race is a part of that.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited May 2020 Posts: 5,970
    Agent_One wrote: »
    I don't understand why the next Bond has to be over 35 (especially now, as B26 is likely a long ways off). Connery was 31 when filming Dr. No, and everyone loves him. In fact, it's his performances from when he was OVER 35 (YOLT and DAF) that are more divisive. Of course, correlation =/ causation, but it's something to observed.

    As for a black actor, eh. Bond has always been a white character. It could be done well, of course, but perhaps his race has a little more bearing on the character than some suggest. 007 is a remnant of the British Empire. An exemplar of the old British way. As M says in GE, he's a dinosaur. But he's a dinosaur that's still needed. Although I have issues with the Old Man Bond segment of SF, it does get across that he is and will likely always be relevant, even as the world changes more and more. He's part of a different era, but that's the point. His race is a part of that.
    Exactly my point regarding age @AgentOne

    As for the race debate, I think it'll make more sense in the future because there will come a time when Bond is at an age and a time where he would've been brought up in a more multicultural society, and it would make more sense for his character to be black, but maybe not the next Bond? Just not never - although personally it's not something that would bother me if they wanted to. As long as the actor was good enough.

    Again to clarify as we get older and time moves on it's gonna be difficult to keep all of what originally characterised Bond, they can adapt it sure, but he can't always be a product of the British Empire and the war because we're getting further and further away. Look the next Bond at this point could have been born in the 90s for all we know? People that age aren't characterised in the same way that original Bond actors could be moulded as - even if he's white.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,614
    Univex wrote: »
    So, race is always an important characterisation point, except for the Bond cinematic universe.

    If a fictional character of a renowned literary-based franchise is fully described as being of a certain race, it is ok for them to have an actor of a different race play the part, because race bares no importance in characterisation.

    Is that what you are saying? Just to make it clear.
    mtm wrote: »
    In short, there's nothing key to Bond's character which requires him to be white in my opinion.

    I'm not talking about psychological character. I'm talking about him being A literary character, fully described and inscribed in paper.


    You mean how he's described to look? So blue/grey eyes, with a scar on his cheek, black comma of hair, scar on back of hand? Which of the actors who have played Bond haven't fitted that precisely? I'll give you a clue: none of them have.

    Univex wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    But the idea that a non-white actor can't play a sexy, suave, dangerous, English superspy is as inherently ridiculous

    No one is saying that. He just can't play the white character of Ian Fleming's James Bond.

    Yes he can. Just make Bond not white any more. If you do that what about him changes? What have you lost?
    Univex wrote: »
    Plus, the fact that you are comparing hair to race is incredibly ridiculous. Race is more important than hair.

    Says who?
    Univex wrote: »

    So, again, what you're saying is that race is always an important characterisation point, except for the Bond cinematic universe.

    Is that correct?

    Where did I say it's 'always' important?

    And to ask again, how has it affected Moneypenny?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2020 Posts: 16,614
    Agent_One wrote: »
    I don't understand why the next Bond has to be over 35 (especially now, as B26 is likely a long ways off). Connery was 31 when filming Dr. No, and everyone loves him. In fact, it's his performances from when he was OVER 35 (YOLT and DAF) that are more divisive. Of course, correlation =/ causation, but it's something to observed.

    Yeah I think they'd certainly hope to get someone early thirties to be honest, but as we saw with Craig, if they're really good then they wouldn't be too hard and fast about that. But late forties, I doubt.
    Agent_One wrote: »
    As for a black actor, eh. Bond has always been a white character. It could be done well, of course, but perhaps his race has a little more bearing on the character than some suggest. 007 is a remnant of the British Empire. An exemplar of the old British way. As M says in GE, he's a dinosaur. But he's a dinosaur that's still needed. Although I have issues with the Old Man Bond segment of SF, it does get across that he is and will likely always be relevant, even as the world changes more and more. He's part of a different era, but that's the point. His race is a part of that.

    He's also an outsider, if we go by Vesper's analysis of the Craig version of Bond's upbringing in Casino Royale: he was only at his posh school because of someone else's charity and has a chip on his shoulder because of it. An ex-SAS type who doesn't even decorate his flat... He's not really a remnant of the British Empire there. And it's not exactly unheard of to have posh non-white British families either.
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Again to clarify as we get older and time moves on it's gonna be difficult to keep all of what originally characterised Bond, they can adapt it sure, but he can't always be a product of the British Empire and the war because we're getting further and further away. Look the next Bond at this point could have been born in the 90s for all we know? People that age aren't characterised in the same way that original Bond actors could be moulded as - even if he's white.

    Yeah it's a great point: Fleming's Bond fought in WW2. These screen Bonds are related to that guy, but they aren't him. You can move him forward in time to a certain extent, but he ain't puffing on 100 fags a day any more.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Univex wrote: »
    So, race is always an important characterisation point, except for the Bond cinematic universe.

    If a fictional character of a renowned literary-based franchise is fully described as being of a certain race, it is ok for them to have an actor of a different race play the part, because race bares no importance in characterisation.

    Is that what you are saying? Just to make it clear.
    mtm wrote: »
    In short, there's nothing key to Bond's character which requires him to be white in my opinion.

    I'm not talking about psychological character. I'm talking about him being A literary character, fully described and inscribed in paper.
    mtm wrote: »
    But the idea that a non-white actor can't play a sexy, suave, dangerous, English superspy is as inherently ridiculous

    No one is saying that. He just can't play the white character of Ian Fleming's James Bond. No more than blackface should have ever been a thing.

    Plus, the fact that you are comparing hair to race is incredibly ridiculous. Race is more important than hair. But as you are on the subject, let me tell you, I'd rather have a black hair actor play Bond, blue-eyed too. The depiction is on the page. How hard is to follow that the best they can? And this is coming from a Craig fan.

    But I'm tired of making these points.

    So, again, what you're saying is that race is always an important characterisation point, except for the Bond cinematic universe.

    Is that correct?

    @Univex........thank you 👏👏👏👏👍
  • Posts: 6,710
    mtm wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    So, race is always an important characterisation point, except for the Bond cinematic universe.

    If a fictional character of a renowned literary-based franchise is fully described as being of a certain race, it is ok for them to have an actor of a different race play the part, because race bares no importance in characterisation.

    Is that what you are saying? Just to make it clear.
    mtm wrote: »
    In short, there's nothing key to Bond's character which requires him to be white in my opinion.

    I'm not talking about psychological character. I'm talking about him being A literary character, fully described and inscribed in paper.
    You mean how he's described to look? So blue/grey eyes, with a scar on his cheek, black comma of hair, scar on back of hand? Which of the actors who have played Bond haven't fitted that precisely? I'll give you a clue: none of them have.

    Doesn't mean they should stray from that path altogether and transform the character into another with a totally different set of physical characteristics.

    mtm wrote: »
    Just make Bond not white any more. If you do that what about him changes? What have you lost?

    A blatantly described characteristic that comes with its set of other characteristics. Cause then you wouldn't have the blue eyes, the black hair with a coma, the cruel thin mouth. And all the physical depictions that are on the page. The phenotype is just a set of written characteristics or physical atributes that build the character the writer intended to. If he'd written him as black and with all the characteristics that come with that, I'd be defending him being played by a black actor. I'm not a racist, I'm a writer who firmly believes in respecting intelectual property.
    mtm wrote: »
    Says who?

    You're genuinely saying that hair is as equally important as race? So you're brushing off race as being an important characterisation factor? And that isn't racist?

    mtm wrote: »
    Where did I say it's 'always' important?

    So, again, according to you, race is only important sometimes. And that isn't racist?

    Race is always important. Accepting there are different races with different atributes, characteristics, and cultural backgrounds and respecting that difference, loving that difference, depicting that difference as an all valid rainbow in a multicoloured, multicultural world is always important. You can't brush off a thing as race, and say it has the same weight as hair colour. You can't brush off race and say that white is the same as black. It is not. And it should not be. The rights all races should have are the same. Equal rights doesn't mean uniformity. Equality doesn't mean that race is not important, and that it should not define a person. Why shouldn't it? Race, Sir, matters. But not in defining people's rights. Not in defining their access to success, wealth, health,... The world is everyone's.

    Sir, you are not aware, I can tell, but you are advocating for bleaching it all to transparency. And I'm here saying that race matters, colour matters. And having a white personage (I won't say character so you won't get confused) played by a white actor is not racial discrimination. Not one bit.

    Just create brilliant roles with characters written as black. Write them well. Heck, a black person can have all the personality traits of James Bond, even more so than many of the actors that have portrayed him, but he doesn't fit the author's depiction of James Bond. That's all.

    And all of this can be said for gender. Gender matters. There should be brilliant roles for all genders and races. But transforming literary inscribed characters just because you think that is equality, is wrong. That is not equality, that is the worst kind of paternalistic reasoning.

  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Univex wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    So, race is always an important characterisation point, except for the Bond cinematic universe.

    If a fictional character of a renowned literary-based franchise is fully described as being of a certain race, it is ok for them to have an actor of a different race play the part, because race bares no importance in characterisation.

    Is that what you are saying? Just to make it clear.
    mtm wrote: »
    In short, there's nothing key to Bond's character which requires him to be white in my opinion.

    I'm not talking about psychological character. I'm talking about him being A literary character, fully described and inscribed in paper.
    You mean how he's described to look? So blue/grey eyes, with a scar on his cheek, black comma of hair, scar on back of hand? Which of the actors who have played Bond haven't fitted that precisely? I'll give you a clue: none of them have.

    Doesn't mean they should stray from that path altogether and transform the character into another with a totally different set of physical characteristics.

    mtm wrote: »
    Just make Bond not white any more. If you do that what about him changes? What have you lost?

    A blatantly described characteristic that comes with its set of other characteristics. Cause then you wouldn't have the blue eyes, the black hair with a coma, the cruel thin mouth. And all the physical depictions that are on the page. The phenotype is just a set of written characteristics or physical atributes that build the character the writer intended to. If he'd written him as black and with all the characteristics that come with that, I'd be defending him being played by a black actor. I'm not a racist, I'm a writer who firmly believes in respecting intelectual property.
    mtm wrote: »
    Says who?

    You're genuinely saying that hair is as equally important as race? So you're brushing off race as being an important characterisation factor? And that isn't racist?

    mtm wrote: »
    Where did I say it's 'always' important?

    So, again, according to you, race is only important sometimes. And that isn't racist?

    Race is always important. Accepting there are different races with different atributes, characteristics, and cultural backgrounds and respecting that difference, loving that difference, depicting that difference as an all valid rainbow in a multicoloured, multicultural world is always important. You can't brush off a thing as race, and say it has the same weight as hair colour. You can't brush off race and say that white is the same as black. It is not. And it should not be. The rights all races should have are the same. Equal rights doesn't mean uniformity. Equality doesn't mean that race is not important, and that it should not define a person. Why shouldn't it? Race, Sir, matters. But not in defining people's rights. Not in defining their access to success, wealth, health,... The world is everyone's.

    Sir, you are not aware, I can tell, but you are advocating for bleaching it all to transparency. And I'm here saying that race matters, colour matters. And having a white personage (I won't say character so you won't get confused) played by a white actor is not racial discrimination. Not one bit.

    Just create brilliant roles with characters written as black. Write them well. Heck, a black person can have all the personality traits of James Bond, even more so than many of the actors that have portrayed him, but he doesn't fit the author's depiction of James Bond. That's all.

    And all of this can be said for gender. Gender matters. There should be brilliant roles for all genders and races. But transforming literary inscribed characters just because you think that is equality, is wrong. That is not equality, that is the worst kind of paternalistic reasoning.

    Again brilliant post @Univex ......+1b! 👏👏👏👍
  • Posts: 6,710
    Thank you, @suavejmf, my friend. I do know we're on the same page. Fleming's page ;)
  • Posts: 928
    Very eloquently said, @Univex ! Those are the exact feelings I have.

    1. Respect the IP (at least the main character)
    2. Continue to create great roles for actors of all backgrounds... most of us can't wait to see what Lynch, Malek, and De Armas will bring to the table!
    3. There are plenty of new IP's being created... John David Washington is playing a Bond-meets-Inception role in Tenet. We got so many kickass female-driven espionage films too... Atomic Blonde, Killing Eve, etc. The more, the merrier!
  • Posts: 6,710
    1. Respect the IP (at least the main character)
    2. Continue to create great roles for actors of all backgrounds... most of us can't wait to see what Lynch, Malek, and De Armas will bring to the table!
    3. There are plenty of new IP's being created... John David Washington is playing a Bond-meets-Inception role in Tenet. We got so many kickass female-driven espionage films too... Atomic Blonde, Killing Eve, etc. The more, the merrier!

    +1 Exactly.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    Anyway - anyone got any new suggestions?
Sign In or Register to comment.