Idris Elba considered for James Bond

16781012

Comments

  • Posts: 3,327
    bondjames wrote: »
    @jetsetwilly Bond hasn't been modernised at all? So why doesn't he smoke anymore? Or take benzedrine? Why does he happily work with female secret agents rather than be annoyed at "these blithering women who think they can do a mans work"?
    Bond is still a sexist dinosaur, still a womaniser, still a borderline alcoholic, and yes I know he doesn't smoke anymore on screen, but this is hardly a radical departure and a massive modernisation of the character from what Fleming wrote, and you know it.....



    Now we're getting into personal opinions about what is and is not significant and that again is not going to get us anywhere.

    At the end of the day, Bond smokes. It's a part of his character. They have removed that and made a big deal out of it in the pretitles of TND. I personally found that annoying. I find his sexism being toned down annoying (as I've said that is one of the reasons that I don't support a minority actor for the part, because I think his sexism will be even further toned down in that instance and I like his sexism very much. To me it's something that defines him as does his hard drinking and smoking).
    I personally think Bond should still smoke too, but I am a Fleming purist. I would even want to see Bond take the odd Benzedrine tablets too before going off on some adventure, but I doubt we will ever see that on film. EON wouldn't have the balls to do it.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    @jetsetwilly Bond hasn't been modernised at all? So why doesn't he smoke anymore? Or take benzedrine? Why does he happily work with female secret agents rather than be annoyed at "these blithering women who think they can do a mans work"?
    Bond is still a sexist dinosaur, still a womaniser, still a borderline alcoholic, and yes I know he doesn't smoke anymore on screen, but this is hardly a radical departure and a massive modernisation of the character from what Fleming wrote, and you know it.....



    Now we're getting into personal opinions about what is and is not significant and that again is not going to get us anywhere.

    At the end of the day, Bond smokes. It's a part of his character. They have removed that and made a big deal out of it in the pretitles of TND. I personally found that annoying. I find his sexism being toned down annoying (as I've said that is one of the reasons that I don't support a minority actor for the part, because I think his sexism will be even further toned down in that instance and I like his sexism very much. To me it's something that defines him as does his hard drinking and smoking).
    I personally think Bond should still smoke too, but I am a Fleming purist. I would even want to see Bond take the odd Benzedrine tablets too before going off on some adventure, but I doubt we will ever see that on film. EON wouldn't have the balls to do it.

    Point taken. Touche
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited December 2014 Posts: 16,359
    Bond did take pills and drank heavily in Skyfall...
  • Posts: 3,327
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @jetsetwilly Bond hasn't been modernised at all? So why doesn't he smoke anymore? Or take benzedrine? Why does he happily work with female secret agents rather than be annoyed at "these blithering women who think they can do a mans work"?
    Bond is still a sexist dinosaur, still a womaniser, still a borderline alcoholic, and yes I know he doesn't smoke anymore on screen, but this is hardly a radical departure and a massive modernisation of the character from what Fleming wrote, and you know it.....



    Now we're getting into personal opinions about what is and is not significant and that again is not going to get us anywhere.

    At the end of the day, Bond smokes. It's a part of his character. They have removed that and made a big deal out of it in the pretitles of TND. I personally found that annoying. I find his sexism being toned down annoying (as I've said that is one of the reasons that I don't support a minority actor for the part, because I think his sexism will be even further toned down in that instance and I like his sexism very much. To me it's something that defines him as does his hard drinking and smoking).
    I personally think Bond should still smoke too, but I am a Fleming purist. I would even want to see Bond take the odd Benzedrine tablets too before going off on some adventure, but I doubt we will ever see that on film. EON wouldn't have the balls to do it.

    Point taken. Touche
    No, I wasn't trying to get one over on you. I was agreeing with what you said....

  • @jetsetwilly Bond hasn't been modernised at all? So why doesn't he smoke anymore? Or take benzedrine? Why does he happily work with female secret agents rather than be annoyed at "these blithering women who think they can do a mans work"?
    Bond is still a sexist dinosaur, still a womaniser, still a borderline alcoholic, and yes I know he doesn't smoke anymore on screen, but this is hardly a radical departure and a massive modernisation of the character from what Fleming wrote, and you know it.....

    I never said it was a radical departure, I said it was an example of modernisation (because you said the character hadn't been modernised at all). Just like how (despite often being referred to as sexist) he doesn't really often say or do anything sexist anymore (Bond in CR the film for example didn't seem at all annoyed at Vesper being involved in the mission, unlike in the novel). Or take benzedrine, etc.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    @jetsetwilly Bond hasn't been modernised at all? So why doesn't he smoke anymore? Or take benzedrine? Why does he happily work with female secret agents rather than be annoyed at "these blithering women who think they can do a mans work"?
    Bond is still a sexist dinosaur, still a womaniser, still a borderline alcoholic, and yes I know he doesn't smoke anymore on screen, but this is hardly a radical departure and a massive modernisation of the character from what Fleming wrote, and you know it.....

    I never said it was a radical departure, I said it was an example of modernisation (because you said the character hadn't been modernised at all). Just like how (despite often being referred to as sexist) he doesn't really often say or do anything sexist anymore (Bond in CR the film for example didn't seem at all annoyed at Vesper being involved in the mission, unlike in the novel). Or take benzedrine, etc.

    He was annoyed at her when she didn't give him the backup money when he lost. :-??
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited December 2014 Posts: 12,480
    Daniel Craig hardly fits 100% the Bond physically described in the Fleming novels.
    This debate is so tiresome.

    Of course Bond has evolved and will continue; the changes in the series keep the series fresh.
  • Posts: 3,327
    Murdock wrote: »
    @jetsetwilly Bond hasn't been modernised at all? So why doesn't he smoke anymore? Or take benzedrine? Why does he happily work with female secret agents rather than be annoyed at "these blithering women who think they can do a mans work"?
    Bond is still a sexist dinosaur, still a womaniser, still a borderline alcoholic, and yes I know he doesn't smoke anymore on screen, but this is hardly a radical departure and a massive modernisation of the character from what Fleming wrote, and you know it.....

    I never said it was a radical departure, I said it was an example of modernisation (because you said the character hadn't been modernised at all). Just like how (despite often being referred to as sexist) he doesn't really often say or do anything sexist anymore (Bond in CR the film for example didn't seem at all annoyed at Vesper being involved in the mission, unlike in the novel). Or take benzedrine, etc.

    He was annoyed at her when she didn't give him the backup money when he lost. :-??
    Yes, and he was having a few sexist digs at her when they first meet, and with lines like `get the girl out!' and `go find Mathis', it's still very much the old-fashioned male dominated world that Bond sees around him.
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 3,327
    @jetsetwilly Bond hasn't been modernised at all? So why doesn't he smoke anymore? Or take benzedrine? Why does he happily work with female secret agents rather than be annoyed at "these blithering women who think they can do a mans work"?
    Bond is still a sexist dinosaur, still a womaniser, still a borderline alcoholic, and yes I know he doesn't smoke anymore on screen, but this is hardly a radical departure and a massive modernisation of the character from what Fleming wrote, and you know it.....

    I never said it was a radical departure, I said it was an example of modernisation (because you said the character hadn't been modernised at all). Just like how (despite often being referred to as sexist) he doesn't really often say or do anything sexist anymore (Bond in CR the film for example didn't seem at all annoyed at Vesper being involved in the mission, unlike in the novel). Or take benzedrine, etc.
    I should have said hardly modernised then.

    And sleeping with a few women just to get where he wants (even if they die in the process), and saying remarks like `you're not my type - single' indicates that he is still just as sexist as Fleming wrote him to be.

  • Posts: 3,327
    Daniel Craig hardly fits 100% the Bond physically described in the Fleming novels.
    This debate is so tiresome.

    Of course Bond has evolved and will continue; the changes in the series keep the series fresh.

    No, but his ethnic background would allow him to star in any true Fleming adapted Bond novel. A black actor could not. End of.
  • Except he's not just as sexist because unlike Fleming's Bond he has no problem with women doing jobs usually associated with men. He's still sexist to a degree but it's been toned down, modernised.
    Murdock wrote: »
    @jetsetwilly Bond hasn't been modernised at all? So why doesn't he smoke anymore? Or take benzedrine? Why does he happily work with female secret agents rather than be annoyed at "these blithering women who think they can do a mans work"?
    Bond is still a sexist dinosaur, still a womaniser, still a borderline alcoholic, and yes I know he doesn't smoke anymore on screen, but this is hardly a radical departure and a massive modernisation of the character from what Fleming wrote, and you know it.....

    I never said it was a radical departure, I said it was an example of modernisation (because you said the character hadn't been modernised at all). Just like how (despite often being referred to as sexist) he doesn't really often say or do anything sexist anymore (Bond in CR the film for example didn't seem at all annoyed at Vesper being involved in the mission, unlike in the novel). Or take benzedrine, etc.

    He was annoyed at her when she didn't give him the backup money when he lost. :-??

    I think you're missing my point. Her not giving him the back up money has nothing to do with her being a woman. In the book he was annoyed at her for being involved in the mission in the first place because he thought that women had no business doing "mans work".
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    Why does Bond have to be Black at all? What's wrong with him remaining white?
  • Murdock wrote: »
    Why does Bond have to be Black at all? What's wrong with him remaining white?

    I never said he had to be. I don't think anyone has said he has to be black. All I've said is that I wouldn't mind if he was. I also wouldn't mind if he remained white.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    It is completely fine for him to remain white, even forever, as far as I am concerned. I simply do not mind a Bond with a different racial background, as long as he is British. His being British is the part of Fleming that matters more to me. I think plenty of supporters of Idris being Bond, and plenty of supporters of Bond having a different skin color, would still be happy with Bond being white.

    There may be, probably are, some folks who think it is past time for Bond to be black and that in itself is an issue for them, but I do not read that on this forum. I realize I am repeating myself. Because the same things keep coming up.
  • Posts: 3,327
    Murdock wrote: »
    Why does Bond have to be Black at all? What's wrong with him remaining white?

    I never said he had to be. I don't think anyone has said he has to be black. All I've said is that I wouldn't mind if he was. I also wouldn't mind if he remained white.
    Fair enough. Let's leave it at that. I can accept fans of the series would be ok with a black actor playing Bond, as the franchise has evolved and modernised.

    What I find it hard to accept is that people can't understand Fleming purists wanting Bond white, because that is how Fleming wrote him.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2014 Posts: 23,883
    Murdock wrote: »
    Why does Bond have to be Black at all? What's wrong with him remaining white?

    I never said he had to be. I don't think anyone has said he has to be black. All I've said is that I wouldn't mind if he was. I also wouldn't mind if he remained white.
    Fair enough. Let's leave it at that. I can accept fans of the series would be ok with a black actor playing Bond, as the franchise has evolved and modernised.

    What I find it hard to accept is that people can't understand Fleming purists wanting Bond white, because that is how Fleming wrote him.

    There's nothing wrong with that. And there's nothing wrong with people who've not read the books wanting Bond to remain white due to their association with the character for 50 odd years in the movies. Those same fans were upset by the casting of a short, blond Bond and that is also their right. Craig has won most of them over, and then some (based on SF's box office) and a really good black actor can do the same, however like Craig, he has to be absolutely exceptional to get over the ingrained resistance to change that many (including I admit myself) have.

    It's not a racism or prejudice discussion. It's just the way some fans imagine their heroes that they've known and loved for years, which is absolutely fine either way.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    My final words on the subject.

    Bond should be white. Sorry but that's how I feel. Changing his ethnicity would be pissing on the character Fleming created. I don't give a toss about Moneypenny or Felix's changes because they aren't the reason I watch Bond films.

    That being said. If they ever remade Die Hard or Lethal Weapon. I would not want to see Officer Al Powell or Roger Martaugh played by non Black actors. I wouldn't want to see Mr. Sulu played by a non asian actor. Or Uhura played by a non black actress.

  • edited December 2014 Posts: 12,837
    Murdock wrote: »
    Why does Bond have to be Black at all? What's wrong with him remaining white?

    I never said he had to be. I don't think anyone has said he has to be black. All I've said is that I wouldn't mind if he was. I also wouldn't mind if he remained white.
    Fair enough. Let's leave it at that. I can accept fans of the series would be ok with a black actor playing Bond, as the franchise has evolved and modernised.

    What I find it hard to accept is that people can't understand Fleming purists wanting Bond white, because that is how Fleming wrote him.

    I don't find that hard to understand at all. What I don't understand is the people who (I know this doesn't apply to you) aren't Fleming purists, and happily accept the likes of MR and DAF (the films), yet say they don't want a black Bond because that's not how Fleming wrote him. If you're a a Fleming purist (like yourself), fair enough, but if not, I don't see the problem.

    I can understand your viewpoint too @bondjames. However, like you said, you think a black actor could be cast as Bond and you could see yourself being won over if he was good enough. What I don't really get is the people who aren't Fleming purists, yet are dead set against the idea and claim they would abandon the franchise if it happened. I don't get that at all.

    Basically, I don't understand the viewpoint of those who say a black Bond would be pissing on Fleming's grave but then say that they enjoy watching MR, TMWTGG, etc.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Murdock wrote: »
    Why does Bond have to be Black at all? What's wrong with him remaining white?

    I never said he had to be. I don't think anyone has said he has to be black. All I've said is that I wouldn't mind if he was. I also wouldn't mind if he remained white.
    Fair enough. Let's leave it at that. I can accept fans of the series would be ok with a black actor playing Bond, as the franchise has evolved and modernised.

    What I find it hard to accept is that people can't understand Fleming purists wanting Bond white, because that is how Fleming wrote him.

    I don't find that hard to understand at all. What I don't understand is the people who (I know this doesn't apply to you) aren't Fleming purists, and happily accept the likes of MR and DAF (the films), yet say they don't want a black Bond because that's not how Fleming wrote him. If you're a a Fleming purist (like yourself), fair enough, but if not, I don't see the problem.

    I can understand your viewpoint too @bondjames. However, like you said, you think a black actor could be cast as Bond and you could see yourself being won over if he was good enough. What I don't really get is the people who aren't Fleming purists, yet are dead set against the idea and claim they would abandon the franchise if it happened. I don't get that at all.

    It's just resistance to change @thelivingroyale. At the end of the day I don't think they'll abandon the franchise. There's nothing like it. The best!
  • Yeah. I think even those who are dead set against the idea would end up watching the new film if a black actor was cast, out of curiosity if nothing else.
  • Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Bane in TDKR has a mask most of the time and a foreign, somewhat Hispanic sounding accent (if I am not mistaken a nod to his comic book origins) . In any case, if the actor was a British white man, the character was not. They did turn Khan into a white Brit in the last Star Trek movie, and it was IMO a complete failure, whitewashing the villain into something generic and devoid of personality.

    Agree 100%. Khan in the last Star Trek was a complete shambles. They should not have done that. It was somewhat insulting to the character.

    And Cumberbatch is a great actor. He was just completely wrong for the role. I didn't expect another uberman on steroid looking Khan, but with a name like Khan and the previous actor in the role being Hispanic, one would have expected a more fitting casting than a skinny British white man.

    Cumberbatch as Khan in Star Trek Into Darkness was one instance of whitewashing that I believe was beneficial. As people noticed Into Darkness was basically one big allegory for a 9/11 conspiracy theory. Roberto Orci himself is a "truther". Can you imagine the controversy of a Indian actor or a actor clearly portraying a Indian man blowing up government buildings? Hell Khan's first scene in the movie was him forcing a suicide bomber to blowup a government weapons facility.

    The filmmakers of STID were damned if they did and damned if they didn't. By casting a white British man they were accused of white-washing. If they stayed truer to the Khan of the series/Wrath of Khan all the touchy P.C. types would up in arms calling it a racist movie with the only Indian character in the film being a ruthless terrorist.

    Cracked.com actually did a good job of pointing out the glaring agenda the film had.

    http://www.cracked.com/article_21552_5-famous-movies-with-political-agendas-you-didnt-notice.html

    Well, in that case all I can say is don't let your script be written by 9/11 truthers. They will get something as ridiculous as the "theory" they defend. If he wanted to avoid a controversy, he may as well have made the enemy another person than Khan. There is no point taking an original character and keeping nothing of him but his namem turning him into yet another generic British villain. There was a lot of wrong things about this pseudo-Khan, the casting was just one of them, but it certainly was one of them.

    Maybe the courageous thing would have been to stay faithful to the original character and has a talented Hispanic or even an Indian actor play the role. I have yet to see an actor shy away from playing a well written villainous role out of fear of stygmatising his ethnic group. Did any white actor refused to play Iago because he was racist? Or Black actor refused to play Othello because he strangles his wife to death?

    You're right about the 9/11 allegories being left out but it seemed like that'e the direction Orci was going in one way or another. As far as Khan not being the villain, just ask yourself, how many Star Trek villains can the average moviegoer name? Khan is far and away the most famous villain in Star Trek lore and it made business sense to use him in the film. The film business is just that. A business.

    In terms of casting, like I said they were damned if they did and damned if they didn't. If they did the "courageous thing" as you suggested I'd bet you dollars to donuts that they'd have a slew of overly P.C. tools with too much free time on their hands condemning the film as racist against Indians. They dodged a much bigger controversy by casting Cumberbatch.

    Speaking of Cumberbatch, I know I'm in the minority here but I preferred his version of Khan to Ricardo Montalban's. Montalban's Khan was campy as hell and felt like he belonged more in an episode of the Adam West 1960s Batman show. Whereas Cumberbatch's cold and calculating psychopath made for a far more compelling character IMHO. And there's the fact that Cumberbatch is one of the best actors working today and if people took off their rose-tinted nostalgia glasses I think they'd see he gave a far more layered performance than either of Montalban's and was hardly a "generic British villain".
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 4,617
    If you are looking for an actor to play a character who is 40 something and you turn down and actor who is 20, is that ageist? Or a guy who is four feet ten to play a basketball pro? I think we as a society are going through a phase of such intense political and social sensitivity when it comes to racial issues that we feel as if we have to tip toe around anything that goes near the area. (even to the point where some posters feel obliged to apologise for having the opinion that Bond should be white) Actors and actresses have to fit in with basic requirements re race, gender etc. Bond is white and there is simply no need to even think about changing that, in the same way we don't need to change his rough age or gender. Thats not to say that there are not many talented actors from other ethnic backgrounds but for this role, Bond is white. Its really a non issue IMHO
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    aspie wrote: »

    Thanks for updating us with this @aspie. I liked Elba's comments, and I liked his goofie photo. Having fun with the whole thing, as he should.

    Thanks also for starting this thread. I bet you couldn't have imagined how it would have created such contentious debate, all for good IMO. I've learned a lot from it.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    It is completely fine for him to remain white, even forever, as far as I am concerned. I simply do not mind a Bond with a different racial background, as long as he is British. His being British is the part of Fleming that matters more to me. I think plenty of supporters of Idris being Bond, and plenty of supporters of Bond having a different skin color, would still be happy with Bond being white.

    There may be, probably are, some folks who think it is past time for Bond to be black and that in itself is an issue for them, but I do not read that on this forum. I realize I am repeating myself. Because the same things keep coming up.

    Discard your grievances and listen to @4EverBonded. Bin off your testosterone. Women are always right.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Ha! to your last sentence, dear RC7. :D

    But I have to say, I think I have said more than enough times my perspective and opinion on this, so I will try to not continue further here.
    Leaving amicably now by the front door ...
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 11,425
    @TheWizardOfIce Nope. Shaft has been played by one actor. Samuel Jackson was his nephew and Roundtree had a cameo as the original Shaft :) It's not me defining the characters like that, it's what they're normally billed as. In articles, previews, etc, Bond is never called "white secret agent". He's called British secret agent. Shaft is called the black private dick in his own theme song and as @Getafix summed up nicely his race is an important part of the character, unlike the modern Bond.



    Precisely. In Dr No and many subsequent Bonds, his race is significant for various reasons. Even as Dr No was being filmed Jamaica was transitioning from a British colony to a black majority independent democracy. The fact Bond is white remains profoundly significant. The films play on the idea of the noble white man roaming a large, exotic, dangerous and racially diverse world, and keeping order.

    But with Craig and even Brosnan, so much has changed. Many of us mortals have travelled as extensively as Bond ever did. Many Britons have friends of multiple races and faiths. Far fewer people have the same bigoted views of racial superiority that once flourished. Concepts of Britishness have also altered massively, from essentially meaning white Protestant, to something that is almost the definition of inclusiveness. Who is going to tell film director Steve McQueen that he's not British? In Fleming's day, the suggestion that a black film director would be sweeping the Oscars would have been laughed at. The possibility that he might be British regarded as an impossibility.

    Things have changed fundamentally and profoundly. Most of the racial baggage that Fleming's Bond carried has been downplayed or simply disgarded over the years, to the point that Bond is now a pretty spot on politically correct modern urban British male. Brosnan probably personified the 90s metrosexual even more than Craig. To that extent I think the idea that film Bond has stayed true to Fleming is not correct. Bond has been subtly but significantly reimagined, as you'd expect over a 50 year period. If someone played Bond now as Connery did in 62, there'd be a lot of offended and not very happy audiences. Just as a 1962 audience would not have been open to the Bardem-Craig homo-erotic banter in SF (coincidentally apparently audiences in Jamaica booed that scene).

    Any way, my point is, Bond has evolved and concepts of Britishness have evolved. I suspect those in the know would tell us that we'd be surprised at how likely a British agent is to be black or Asian in the early 21st century. So I am not saying Bond has to be black, but that we've reached a point in history and the development of the Bond series where I think it could be done well and interestingly.

    There would be a different issue with casting a British Asian actor, because how many British Asians have names like James Bond, but fifty years from now, that will also have changed.

  • Posts: 6,601
    Imo, even though it brought him in the news and had the black community cheering ( of course, they would be thrilled) in the end it gave the prods an unexpected look into what they would have to deal with. They can now decide whether or not its worth the trouble or whether or not it would do the character any good. The whole film would always be surroundet by heated debate, like we have here and JB would have just a supporting role. Imo JB should be front and center of interest. I think, this leak killed any chance he might have had, apart from being too old anyway.

  • Posts: 6,601
    So far, they only played around a little bit with that quintessential Englishman like making him Scottish, Irish or blond. But making him black would turn the character upside down imo, because different ethics not only differ in color, they differ in how they move, how there is a very special sound in their voices etc.you would create a whole new character. Of course, you can do that. But why? IE is not the second coming to make it absolutely necessary to have him. I believe, there is enough potential out there and JB should not become a political statement.
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 11,425
    I have no doubt Idris Elba and his PR people are milking this for all it's worth. That's a seperate issue from whether there should or could be a black Bond. Have to say that I find the idea that the way black people speak and move disqualifies them from the part slightly odd.

    But then a lot of the mental contortions people are going through here to justify their belief that film Bond cannot be black are a bit strange.
This discussion has been closed.