Idris Elba considered for James Bond

13468912

Comments

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    A few posts above that they're tired of this PC bullshit trend of recasting white characters. Is this a trend?

    Not just to white characters. It's happened to Black characters too.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,282
    aspie wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    aspie wrote: »

    So it's John Calley we have to thank for 4 of the worst Bond movies. No wonder Babs hated him. As she so succinctly put it, he sounds like an *sshole.
    Plus he's dead, leave it be.

    My thoughts also.
  • Sark wrote: »
    Race is a huge component, or even determinant of personality and character. What's more, race, be it black, white, Asian, etc. carries with it a huge amount of cultural freight. We have expectations of racial behavior that are deeply informed by personal experience, knowledge, and to a lesser degree, what we encounter in showbiz. A black Bond would be a fundamentally different Bond. The tonal change would be so tremendous that it would vitiate and destroy the character.

    Please, do tell. I believe that race plays next to no role in determining someone's personality and character. Now, societal expections and biases about race can definitely be an influence.

    Ha! Just listen to yourself. My, my, what a tolerant and decent chap you are. Send an application to the Vatican. Perhaps you can get a beatification out of it.

    And if you think American cinema is filled with nothing other than white heroes and black villains, you are willfully blind. Blacks are transfigured to laughable degrees--particularly when compared with reality--and white men are villains in huge numbers. Hell, slavery and anti-white racism porn is arguably the dominant theme in Hollywood and has been since the 90s. Wake up. If you care to, that is.
    I think post is more revealing than you intended. If you think movies about slavery in the US are 'anti-white' than your perspective is seriously warped. Also, there has been actual research done on this very topic. We can start posting some of it here if that would change your mind (I know it won't).
    Exactly. This is the classic straw man, and it is used to conceal an agenda. These people don't want the best actor, they want a black Bond to make them feel good about themselves.

    That's ****. You should try reading the posts again. Everyone willing to accept a black Bond has said they think it should only be done if he's obviously the best choice. No one here is arguing for an "affirmative action Bond".

    Mod edit: watch the language please.

    Demographics is destiny. Which means, among other things, and in microcosm, individuals of given races tend strongly to display certain behavioral characteristics, to possess certain physical characteristics and abilities, and to have--or not--certain aptitudes. These facts spring from the historical verity that groups of peoples (races) have distinct evolutionary/genetic histories that are conditioned by discrete environmental circumstances regnant in the continents in which they evolved. Our own eyes confirm these disparities, and Himalayan ranges of evidence cinch the observations.

    Yes, the overweening emphasis on the historical "evils" of whitey, while studiously ignoring the crushing mass of white male contributions to the civilization white males built bespeaks the obvious anti-white racism that suffuses the entertainment world. The obverse is the laughable cultural affirmative action which portrays blacks--almost without exception--as victims meriting pity, or as saintly, just and sapiental demi-gods the rest of us should bow down to and worship. If you cannot see this then you are blind, or, much the same, have been so brainwashed by the dominant culture that you are incapable of judging it.

  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    edited December 2014 Posts: 1,138

    Demographics is destiny. Which means, among other things, and in microcosm, individuals of given races tend strongly to display certain behavioral characteristics, to possess certain physical characteristics and abilities, and to have--or not--certain aptitudes. These facts spring from the historical verity that groups of peoples (races) have distinct evolutionary/genetic histories that are conditioned by discrete environmental circumstances regnant in the continents in which they evolved. Our own eyes confirm these disparities, and Himalayan ranges of evidence cinch the observations.

    Yes, the overweening emphasis on the historical "evils" of whitey, while studiously ignoring the crushing mass of white male contributions to the civilization white males built bespeaks the obvious anti-white racism that suffuses the entertainment world. The obverse is the laughable cultural affirmative action which portrays blacks--almost without exception--as victims meriting pity, or as saintly, just and sapiental demi-gods the rest of us should bow down to and worship. If you cannot see this then you are blind, or, much the same, have been so brainwashed by the dominant culture that you are incapable of judging it.

    Ladies and gentlemen, if you were to ask me to write an example of racism I'd come up with something like this. Frankly I'd be appalled if something like this were allowed to stay up. I'm sure I'm not the only person who thinks blatant racial prejudice is far more offensive than my use of a "bad word" that got censored by a mod. This is the type of thing I'd expect to read on Stormfront.
    "These days, you can't even write racial abuse in excrement on someone's car without the politically correct brigade jumping down your throat."

    "these days you can't even say that someone's skin color determines their personality without the PC brigade jumping down your throat." ;)
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Sark wrote: »
    Race is a huge component, or even determinant of personality and character. What's more, race, be it black, white, Asian, etc. carries with it a huge amount of cultural freight. We have expectations of racial behavior that are deeply informed by personal experience, knowledge, and to a lesser degree, what we encounter in showbiz. A black Bond would be a fundamentally different Bond. The tonal change would be so tremendous that it would vitiate and destroy the character.

    Please, do tell. I believe that race plays next to no role in determining someone's personality and character. Now, societal expections and biases about race can definitely be an influence.

    Ha! Just listen to yourself. My, my, what a tolerant and decent chap you are. Send an application to the Vatican. Perhaps you can get a beatification out of it.

    And if you think American cinema is filled with nothing other than white heroes and black villains, you are willfully blind. Blacks are transfigured to laughable degrees--particularly when compared with reality--and white men are villains in huge numbers. Hell, slavery and anti-white racism porn is arguably the dominant theme in Hollywood and has been since the 90s. Wake up. If you care to, that is.
    I think post is more revealing than you intended. If you think movies about slavery in the US are 'anti-white' than your perspective is seriously warped. Also, there has been actual research done on this very topic. We can start posting some of it here if that would change your mind (I know it won't).
    Exactly. This is the classic straw man, and it is used to conceal an agenda. These people don't want the best actor, they want a black Bond to make them feel good about themselves.

    That's ****. You should try reading the posts again. Everyone willing to accept a black Bond has said they think it should only be done if he's obviously the best choice. No one here is arguing for an "affirmative action Bond".

    Mod edit: watch the language please.

    Demographics is destiny. Which means, among other things, and in microcosm, individuals of given races tend strongly to display certain behavioral characteristics, to possess certain physical characteristics and abilities, and to have--or not--certain aptitudes. These facts spring from the historical verity that groups of peoples (races) have distinct evolutionary/genetic histories that are conditioned by discrete environmental circumstances regnant in the continents in which they evolved. Our own eyes confirm these disparities, and Himalayan ranges of evidence cinch the observations.

    Yes, the overweening emphasis on the historical "evils" of whitey, while studiously ignoring the crushing mass of white male contributions to the civilization white males built bespeaks the obvious anti-white racism that suffuses the entertainment world. The obverse is the laughable cultural affirmative action which portrays blacks--almost without exception--as victims meriting pity, or as saintly, just and sapiental demi-gods the rest of us should bow down to and worship. If you cannot see this then you are blind, or, much the same, have been so brainwashed by the dominant culture that you are incapable of judging it.

    Wow.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Sark wrote: »

    Demographics is destiny. Which means, among other things, and in microcosm, individuals of given races tend strongly to display certain behavioral characteristics, to possess certain physical characteristics and abilities, and to have--or not--certain aptitudes. These facts spring from the historical verity that groups of peoples (races) have distinct evolutionary/genetic histories that are conditioned by discrete environmental circumstances regnant in the continents in which they evolved. Our own eyes confirm these disparities, and Himalayan ranges of evidence cinch the observations.

    Yes, the overweening emphasis on the historical "evils" of whitey, while studiously ignoring the crushing mass of white male contributions to the civilization white males built bespeaks the obvious anti-white racism that suffuses the entertainment world. The obverse is the laughable cultural affirmative action which portrays blacks--almost without exception--as victims meriting pity, or as saintly, just and sapiental demi-gods the rest of us should bow down to and worship. If you cannot see this then you are blind, or, much the same, have been so brainwashed by the dominant culture that you are incapable of judging it.

    Ladies and gentlemen, if you were to ask me to write an example of racism I'd come up with something like this. Frankly I'd be appalled if something like this were allowed to stay up. I'm sure I'm not the only person who thinks blatant racial prejudice is far more offensive than my use of a "bad word" that got censored by a mod. This is the type of thing I'd expect to read on Stormfront.

    Agreed. Monumentally idiotic and depressing rhetoric couched in pseudo-intellectual vernacular. Mind-blowing ignorance.
  • CASINOROYALECASINOROYALE Somewhere hot
    Posts: 1,003
    Can't really voice my opinion without someone saying I am a racist...
    Honestly he just isn't Bond and will never be Bond to me... I think he could be in a Bond film yeah. He is a decent actor but he shouldn't play James Bond.

    Don't allow them to intimidate and silence you with that tactic. There is a great deal of very important truth in this world that is not spoken for the simple fear of social ostracism, loss of livelihood, and in some nations, juridical persecution. Say what you believe, and force their hypocrisy to come into the open where everybody can see it.


    Thanks!! I have had issues with this in past threads.
  • RC7RC7
    edited December 2014 Posts: 10,512
    Can't really voice my opinion without someone saying I am a racist...
    Honestly he just isn't Bond and will never be Bond to me... I think he could be in a Bond film yeah. He is a decent actor but he shouldn't play James Bond.

    Don't allow them to intimidate and silence you with that tactic. There is a great deal of very important truth in this world that is not spoken for the simple fear of social ostracism, loss of livelihood, and in some nations, juridical persecution. Say what you believe, and force their hypocrisy to come into the open where everybody can see it.


    Thanks!! I have had issues with this in past threads.

    You're both total idiots and I don't care if I get banned. I don't like sharing space with bigoted morons.


    Mod edit: Watch the language.
  • Posts: 15,127
    timmer wrote: »
    Craig is good for at least one more, maybe two more Bonds. But that's it.
    I don't want 007 portrayed by 50-year old actors.
    It didn't work well with Moore IMO.
    Bond is ideally young man 30-45.
    2 more for Craig max. Then goodbye.
    Re-cast with mature 28-31 year old, and milk 5 prime age movies out the guy. No old dog.

    Idris Elba btw would make a great older version of Fleming's Mr. Big.
    A young Sean Connery or George Lazenby lookalike, would make a great new James Bond.
    Do I really need to explain?

    Completely agree and oh yes, completely agree about Elba for Mr Big too. If there is one Bond villain he could play, it is this one.
  • Posts: 15,127
    A few posts above that they're tired of this PC bullshit trend of recasting white characters. Is this a trend? In fact I'd say the opposite is true more than anything. Recasting characters as white actors has become a trend recently, and nobody seems to give a shit about that (Bane was apparently South American in the comics but he was played by a white Englishman in TDKR, and I didn't see anyone threatening to abandon the Batman franchise then, and then of course you have stuff like the new Ridley Scott film, with Bale and co playing Egyptians, and Cloud Atlas with people like Hugo Weaving in yellowface, and Johnny Depp playing an Indian in The Lone Ranger remake, etc).

    .

    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.
  • Posts: 15,127
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    The age is irrelevant and holds no water as an argument with Craig only being 46. We have a 50 year old Bond girl. Dalton was 45 when he did LTK and had he stayed to do GE he would have been 51. Craig is in excellent shape, pretty much looks the same as he did in CR and as others have said, EON 's say is the only one that matters when it comes to casting and Babs isn't letting go of Craig any time soon.

    People here have mentioned
    the collage of flashbacks of events from CR, QOS and SF for SPECTRE's PTS is proof that this is Craig's last. Bullshit. Fast and furious 6 did the same thing, it was evidence of nothing coming to an end

    Also I love how some people and the media keep citing one throwaway, facetious comment about Craig wanting to quit the role since CR when he has on many occasions declared how much he lives making these movies and how he looks forward to taking things further. Craig will definitely do his contracted 5th movie and I won't be surprised if he goes on to make a 6th and a possible 7th. Damon is doing another Bourne movie in 2 years and he'll do a couple more and he's already 44. Colin Firth is 54 looks good and will be kicking ass in secret service and there's Tom Cruise. Age at 46 for an established Bond actor isn't even an argument.

    At the end of the day, speculating conjecture while ignoring the facts is somewhat silly and off kilter. The fact is, Craig is doing a 5th and the shape he's in can keep him in the role for years to come.

    Age is very relevant: the oldest actor cast as Bond was Roger Moore, and that was back in the early 70s, when they could still make Bond on a yearly basis. Now it is more every three years. Moore and Brosnan started showing their age and did not go on to become geriatric Bond. Bellucci is an exception when it comes to the Bond girl and as far as we know she is not a recurring character.

    Generally speaking age is relevant but not in the case of Craig who I have already given multiple reasons why and I will reiterate from my last post; he's an established Bond actor with 3 films under his belt and is only 46. If a 46 year old today was being cast for his first Bond movie it just wouldnt happen. Some of the older guys I've mentioned look great and credible in the role and as mentioned Craig looks relatively the same as he did 8 years ago. Look at the gaps in years for the MI movies and even taken. I'm not saying I want to see Bond as a late 50s/60 year old man however, his looks at 52 wouldn't have changed drastically compared to how he looked at 38. This isn't a Roger Moore type situation and like you said in response to what I said about Bellucci, Craig is an exception. Everything about his involvement with the Bond movies compared to his predecessors is an exception. Brosnan's age had nothing to do with him not coming back for a 5th movie that most people would have been happy with and were expecting. His age only played a factor because the series was starting over and needed to be told from the perspective of Bond 's 00 roots. As for the gaps, SF had a 4 year gap for reasons I don't need to go into and SPECTRE'S 3 year gap could have been shortened to two years but with the producers not deciding on a director sooner in the hopes of Mendes returning which obviously did but only after he was ready to come back, well we're now where we are. A 2 year cycle is definitely doable and there are movie productions with equally large productions if not bigger that can have a shorter turn around time but even with 3 year cycles, Craig can easily squeeze in Bond 25 and 26.

    It is highly unlikely that they will choose a successor to Craig in his 50s, however good looking and fit he may be for his age.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    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.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    In the Battlestar Galactica reboot they made Colonel Tigh a white man who was originally black and Boomer (Who was also a black male) Into an Asian woman. And Starbuck from a white man to a white woman.

    Elementary (The American Sherlock Holmes reboot) made Watson a woman.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    Can't really voice my opinion without someone saying I am a racist...
    Honestly he just isn't Bond and will never be Bond to me... I think he could be in a Bond film yeah. He is a decent actor but he shouldn't play James Bond.

    Don't allow them to intimidate and silence you with that tactic. There is a great deal of very important truth in this world that is not spoken for the simple fear of social ostracism, loss of livelihood, and in some nations, juridical persecution. Say what you believe, and force their hypocrisy to come into the open where everybody can see it.


    Thanks!! I have had issues with this in past threads.

    You're both total idiots and I don't care if I get banned. I don't like sharing space with bigoted morons.


    Mod edit: Watch the language.

    No f-word allowed, but racist diatribes, absolutely fine. Good to know.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Ludovico wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    The age is irrelevant and holds no water as an argument with Craig only being 46. We have a 50 year old Bond girl. Dalton was 45 when he did LTK and had he stayed to do GE he would have been 51. Craig is in excellent shape, pretty much looks the same as he did in CR and as others have said, EON 's say is the only one that matters when it comes to casting and Babs isn't letting go of Craig any time soon.

    People here have mentioned
    the collage of flashbacks of events from CR, QOS and SF for SPECTRE's PTS is proof that this is Craig's last. Bullshit. Fast and furious 6 did the same thing, it was evidence of nothing coming to an end

    Also I love how some people and the media keep citing one throwaway, facetious comment about Craig wanting to quit the role since CR when he has on many occasions declared how much he lives making these movies and how he looks forward to taking things further. Craig will definitely do his contracted 5th movie and I won't be surprised if he goes on to make a 6th and a possible 7th. Damon is doing another Bourne movie in 2 years and he'll do a couple more and he's already 44. Colin Firth is 54 looks good and will be kicking ass in secret service and there's Tom Cruise. Age at 46 for an established Bond actor isn't even an argument.

    At the end of the day, speculating conjecture while ignoring the facts is somewhat silly and off kilter. The fact is, Craig is doing a 5th and the shape he's in can keep him in the role for years to come.

    Age is very relevant: the oldest actor cast as Bond was Roger Moore, and that was back in the early 70s, when they could still make Bond on a yearly basis. Now it is more every three years. Moore and Brosnan started showing their age and did not go on to become geriatric Bond. Bellucci is an exception when it comes to the Bond girl and as far as we know she is not a recurring character.

    Generally speaking age is relevant but not in the case of Craig who I have already given multiple reasons why and I will reiterate from my last post; he's an established Bond actor with 3 films under his belt and is only 46. If a 46 year old today was being cast for his first Bond movie it just wouldnt happen. Some of the older guys I've mentioned look great and credible in the role and as mentioned Craig looks relatively the same as he did 8 years ago. Look at the gaps in years for the MI movies and even taken. I'm not saying I want to see Bond as a late 50s/60 year old man however, his looks at 52 wouldn't have changed drastically compared to how he looked at 38. This isn't a Roger Moore type situation and like you said in response to what I said about Bellucci, Craig is an exception. Everything about his involvement with the Bond movies compared to his predecessors is an exception. Brosnan's age had nothing to do with him not coming back for a 5th movie that most people would have been happy with and were expecting. His age only played a factor because the series was starting over and needed to be told from the perspective of Bond 's 00 roots. As for the gaps, SF had a 4 year gap for reasons I don't need to go into and SPECTRE'S 3 year gap could have been shortened to two years but with the producers not deciding on a director sooner in the hopes of Mendes returning which obviously did but only after he was ready to come back, well we're now where we are. A 2 year cycle is definitely doable and there are movie productions with equally large productions if not bigger that can have a shorter turn around time but even with 3 year cycles, Craig can easily squeeze in Bond 25 and 26.

    It is highly unlikely that they will choose a successor to Craig in his 50s, however good looking and fit he may be for his age.

    I didn't say that it would or could happen.
    Murdock wrote: »
    In the Battlestar Galactica reboot they made Colonel Tigh a white man who was originally black and Boomer (Who was also a black male) Into an Asian woman. And Starbuck from a white man to a white woman.

    Elementary (The American Sherlock Holmes reboot) made Watson a woman.

    A woman of Chinese descent.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    In the Battlestar Galactica reboot they made Colonel Tigh a white man who was originally black and Boomer (Who was also a black male) Into an Asian woman. And Starbuck from a white man to a white woman.

    Elementary (The American Sherlock Holmes reboot) made Watson a woman.

    A woman of Chinese descent.

    Shambolic travesties in all cases, in terms of pissing on the characters, no matter how good the performances by the actors.
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 12,837
    @RC7 and @Sark well said, both of you. I love coming on here but you do have to question a site which will give you a warning for swearing but then allows racist bullshit like what @Khan posted above. I seem to remember him posting something similar on another thread and when a member quite rightly called him out on it he was accused of starting a witch hunt and was pretty much bullied off the site.
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 1,661
    I don't know if Idris Elba should be the next Bond but I do know one thing - whoever leaked that Amy Pascal Sony email is now Elba's new best friend. The amount of free publicity he's got! If I believed in crop circles and Elvis on the moon I'd say he hacked Sony just so he could promote himself. :P
  • Posts: 15,127
    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.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    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.

    If only Benicio Del Toro didn't turn down the role...
  • Posts: 2,402
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Can't really voice my opinion without someone saying I am a racist...
    Honestly he just isn't Bond and will never be Bond to me... I think he could be in a Bond film yeah. He is a decent actor but he shouldn't play James Bond.

    Don't allow them to intimidate and silence you with that tactic. There is a great deal of very important truth in this world that is not spoken for the simple fear of social ostracism, loss of livelihood, and in some nations, juridical persecution. Say what you believe, and force their hypocrisy to come into the open where everybody can see it.


    Thanks!! I have had issues with this in past threads.

    You're both total idiots and I don't care if I get banned. I don't like sharing space with bigoted morons.


    Mod edit: Watch the language.

    No f-word allowed, but racist diatribes, absolutely fine. Good to know.

    Good god, man, this is what I come back to? You know something, there are four or five different reasons I don't think Idris is a good actor for Bond and the least important of those reasons is his skin colour. But I guess that makes me a regular Hitler then?
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 1,778
    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
  • Posts: 725
    Agree. I don't like Elba either, and I too have many reasons other than his race.

    Elba has been pushing too hard for Bond for 2 years and has been making all kinds of self serving comments in the press. He's been campaigning way to hard. Now Pascal gives him a big assist in a way that I fear will hurt Spectre as the press could treat Craig like a lame duck Bond. That undermines Spectre. I'm now waiting for Al Sharpton (Pascal's new adviser on race) to make an idiot statement about this that will counteract the RUsh Limbaugh idiot statement. We'll then have two of the US's biggest gas bags making this mess worse.

    The key point frequently noted by others in this thread, is that he is simply too old. No matter how hard Elba and his fans campaign for him to be Bond, he will be pushing 50 when Bond 26 comes out if Craig does Bond 25. The press is swooning over this leak because the press will always swoon over the next shiny new piece of gossip, until another newer shiny piece of gossip comes up.

    If Craig wants to continue, it would seem that EON would want to make it clear that he is contracted for Bond 25, and that any casting decision at that time will require an actor that can make a 10 year plus commitment which would disqualify Elba, not his race. Why would EON replace Craig, an already proven draw as Bond, with an actor almost the same age and why would EON go through another always risky reboot or recast with an actor that will only last for one or two films because he is getting too old. There are other younger, very talented black actors that are potential Bonds if EON wants to take that step.

    But, who knows, it could be that Chiwetel Ejiofor didn't get the Villian role, not because of money which I never believed, but because EON has another more important role for him in mind if indeed Craig does not continue.
  • Posts: 2,402
    smitty wrote: »
    Agree. I don't like Elba either, and I too have many reasons other than his race.

    Elba has been pushing too hard for Bond for 2 years and has been making all kinds of self serving comments in the press. He's been campaigning way to hard. Now Pascal gives him a big assist in a way that I fear will hurt Spectre as the press could treat Craig like a lame duck Bond. That undermines Spectre. I'm now waiting for Al Sharpton (Pascal's new adviser on race) to make an idiot statement about this that will counteract the RUsh Limbaugh idiot statement. We'll then have two of the US's biggest gas bags making this mess worse.

    The key point frequently noted by others in this thread, is that he is simply too old. No matter how hard Elba and his fans campaign for him to be Bond, he will be pushing 50 when Bond 26 comes out if Craig does Bond 25. The press is swooning over this leak because the press will always swoon over the next shiny new piece of gossip, until another newer shiny piece of gossip comes up.

    If Craig wants to continue, it would seem that EON would want to make it clear that he is contracted for Bond 25, and that any casting decision at that time will require an actor that can make a 10 year plus commitment which would disqualify Elba, not his race. Why would EON replace Craig, an already proven draw as Bond, with an actor almost the same age and why would EON go through another always risky reboot or recast with an actor that will only last for one or two films because he is getting too old. There are other younger, very talented black actors that are potential Bonds if EON wants to take that step.

    But, who knows, it could be that Chiwetel Ejiofor didn't get the Villian role, not because of money which I never believed, but because EON has another more important role for him in mind if indeed Craig does not continue.

    I love Idris. He's one of the UK's finest actors (and there are dozens to speak of working today) IMO. But he isn't right for James Bond.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Can't really voice my opinion without someone saying I am a racist...
    Honestly he just isn't Bond and will never be Bond to me... I think he could be in a Bond film yeah. He is a decent actor but he shouldn't play James Bond.

    Don't allow them to intimidate and silence you with that tactic. There is a great deal of very important truth in this world that is not spoken for the simple fear of social ostracism, loss of livelihood, and in some nations, juridical persecution. Say what you believe, and force their hypocrisy to come into the open where everybody can see it.


    Thanks!! I have had issues with this in past threads.

    You're both total idiots and I don't care if I get banned. I don't like sharing space with bigoted morons.


    Mod edit: Watch the language.

    No f-word allowed, but racist diatribes, absolutely fine. Good to know.

    Good god, man, this is what I come back to? You know something, there are four or five different reasons I don't think Idris is a good actor for Bond and the least important of those reasons is his skin colour. But I guess that makes me a regular Hitler then?

    @StirredNotShaken, I don't see your name in any of those quotes, so thanks for playing the victim, but as you very well know, nobody here is making such accusations. Don't start twisting peoples words. Thanks.

  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited December 2014 Posts: 13,978
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Can't really voice my opinion without someone saying I am a racist...
    Honestly he just isn't Bond and will never be Bond to me... I think he could be in a Bond film yeah. He is a decent actor but he shouldn't play James Bond.

    Don't allow them to intimidate and silence you with that tactic. There is a great deal of very important truth in this world that is not spoken for the simple fear of social ostracism, loss of livelihood, and in some nations, juridical persecution. Say what you believe, and force their hypocrisy to come into the open where everybody can see it.


    Thanks!! I have had issues with this in past threads.

    You're both total idiots and I don't care if I get banned. I don't like sharing space with bigoted morons.


    Mod edit: Watch the language.

    No f-word allowed, but racist diatribes, absolutely fine. Good to know.

    If you have seen anything that contravenes the forum rules, flag it and we will take the appropriate action.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Can't really voice my opinion without someone saying I am a racist...
    Honestly he just isn't Bond and will never be Bond to me... I think he could be in a Bond film yeah. He is a decent actor but he shouldn't play James Bond.

    Don't allow them to intimidate and silence you with that tactic. There is a great deal of very important truth in this world that is not spoken for the simple fear of social ostracism, loss of livelihood, and in some nations, juridical persecution. Say what you believe, and force their hypocrisy to come into the open where everybody can see it.


    Thanks!! I have had issues with this in past threads.

    You're both total idiots and I don't care if I get banned. I don't like sharing space with bigoted morons.


    Mod edit: Watch the language.

    No f-word allowed, but racist diatribes, absolutely fine. Good to know.

    Here is one more thing you should know: Being "black and proud" is encouraged, or any color/culture really, except white/European. Try being "white and proud" haha and see what happens.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Can't really voice my opinion without someone saying I am a racist...
    Honestly he just isn't Bond and will never be Bond to me... I think he could be in a Bond film yeah. He is a decent actor but he shouldn't play James Bond.

    Don't allow them to intimidate and silence you with that tactic. There is a great deal of very important truth in this world that is not spoken for the simple fear of social ostracism, loss of livelihood, and in some nations, juridical persecution. Say what you believe, and force their hypocrisy to come into the open where everybody can see it.


    Thanks!! I have had issues with this in past threads.

    You're both total idiots and I don't care if I get banned. I don't like sharing space with bigoted morons.


    Mod edit: Watch the language.

    No f-word allowed, but racist diatribes, absolutely fine. Good to know.

    Here is one more thing you should know: Being "black and proud" is encouraged, or any color/culture really, except white/European. Try being "white and proud" haha and see what happens.

    Can anyone hear that tiny violin?
  • Posts: 15,127
    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?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2014 Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Can't really voice my opinion without someone saying I am a racist...
    Honestly he just isn't Bond and will never be Bond to me... I think he could be in a Bond film yeah. He is a decent actor but he shouldn't play James Bond.

    Don't allow them to intimidate and silence you with that tactic. There is a great deal of very important truth in this world that is not spoken for the simple fear of social ostracism, loss of livelihood, and in some nations, juridical persecution. Say what you believe, and force their hypocrisy to come into the open where everybody can see it.


    Thanks!! I have had issues with this in past threads.

    You're both total idiots and I don't care if I get banned. I don't like sharing space with bigoted morons.


    Mod edit: Watch the language.

    No f-word allowed, but racist diatribes, absolutely fine. Good to know.

    Here is one more thing you should know: Being "black and proud" is encouraged, or any color/culture really, except white/European. Try being "white and proud" haha and see what happens.

    In my opinion, that's because 'white and proud' is the default position. The others are encouraged to be 'proud' because they are minorities. I agree with this. They should all be proud. No one should feel less worthy due to race or colour or minority status. It is incumbent on the majority to be lenient and accomodating of this requirement in any situation, not just a racial one. Minority groups have to be encouraged by the majority to speak up and stand up just because they may be intimidated on the basis of numbers.

    However, this is completely different from suggesting that a minority group can play James Bond without potentially altering the character in a way that others may dislike. As I mentioned before, I'm sure that if a minority actor were to every play Bond, elements of his sexism will be watered down, because it would not look so proper on film, or be so sellable if a visual minority agent was also sexist. That would be a problem for me because I like Bond's sexism.

    I had no problem with Obama winning the election in 2008 as an example because his ethnicity did not in my estimation alter the character of the presidency in any way. He was the best man for the job out of the characters that were running. So he deserved the win, not on the basis of his race, but on the basis of his political capability. I never understood people making such a big deal about him being black and winning. As far as I saw it, the best man won.

    It's a bit different with Bond because I think they may alter the character. Some have argued on this very thread, correctly, that this has already happened in 50 + years of Bond on film. That's true, and I liked some characterizations better than others. However, it could be argued that in those cases, the characterizations were selected on the basis of the direction that the producers wanted to go in, rather than some inherent characteristic of the actor chosen, the exception perhaps being Daniel Craig's height. You could not credibly cast Famke Jansen opposite Craig for instance, because in heels she would dwarf him.
This discussion has been closed.