Idris Elba considered for James Bond

16791112

Comments

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    It would just be best to create a totally new Character and Franchise at that point. And the movie industry could use some originality.
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 12,837
    @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.



  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    his race is an important part of the character, unlike Bond.

    Why? because nobody ever went up to Bond and said hey, You're that white secret agent.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Murdock wrote: »
    It would just be best to create a totally new Character and Franchise at that point. And the movie industry could use some originality.

    Easier said than done.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    RC7 wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    It would just be best to create a totally new Character and Franchise at that point. And the movie industry could use some originality.

    Easier said than done.

    Why?
  • 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.

    Nothing wrong with being white and proud. But white, black or any race and believing one race is superior to another is racist.

    If you read @Khans post, nobody is having a go at him for being white and proud. People are (rightly) criticising him for posting racist, bigoted bullshit.

  • edited December 2014 Posts: 3,327
    timmer wrote: »
    If Bond is cast as anything other than a white Englishman, then what we have is no longer Fleming's Bond but a reimagined Bond, a different character, just as both Leiter and Moneypenny have been reimagined.
    M on the other hand was not reimagined, as Judi Dench was never considered to play Miles Messervy. In order to cast Dench as M, a new character was created.
    M is a title.
    But there is only one Bond. He is not a code name or a title, despite what some might think (that's another discussion).
    Bond is as Fleming described. Sure you could re-imagine him, such is creative license, but you no longer have Flemings Bond. You no longer have James Bond as created.
    A Chinese-English Bond (ie Englishman of Chinese racial look and characteristics) would bring a different culural dynamic to the character too.
    What @khanners is going on about several posts back, essentially translates to ( and khanners often does need translation ;) ) is that race is not as benign a consideration as some would like to think it is.
    Race does participate in defining who one is. It does not make one bad or good. To believe so, would be actually racist, but it does help define who you are- not define one's humanity of course, but one's human identity. There is a big difference.
    If Elba, or any identifiably black actor, is cast as Bond, you can no longer do the Live and Let Die story. How does that make any sense?
    The LALD story demands that Bond be white and the villains be black, and that applies as much today as it did when the story was published and 20 years later when it was filmed.
    Black criminal gangs still exist in Harlem, and the Caribbean islands are still very much as described. A white person still stands out in Harlem. A black person blends in. Bond blending in is not part of the story. Simple. The racial tension is part of the narrative. Race matters here.
    Elba in 1954, 1973, 2014 or anytime, would have to be set aside for a white actor, so the story could be done.
    Why cast someone who can't actually play the character in one of the defining iconic stories?
    An Asian Bond would require a re-working of both Flemings GF and DN.
    Even a black Bond would probably be a problem for GF. Would Auric play a round of golf with a black man? The guy was basically a Nazi.

    Sure, cast a young Elba as Bond, but what you have done is reimagined the character.
    Bond is suddenly a different animal, with a whole new ethno-racial frame of reference.

    It would go over like a lead balloon IMO, not to mention make no sense whatsoever.

    Couldn't have said it better myself. Once you change Bond's ethnic background, he is no longer a product of Fleming's 1950's world, and this is reflected in several of the books, as you rightly mentioned above.

    By all means, EON could change this by casting a black actor as Bond, because this is modern Britain, and the Bond film franchise has modernised so a black man could be an MI6 agent today, but if the caption on the poster read - `Idris Elba is Ian Fleming's James Bond 007', it would be a blatant lie.

    Yes, he would be playing `James Bond', but he wouldn't be playing `Ian Fleming's James Bond'....
  • Murdock wrote: »
    his race is an important part of the character, unlike Bond.

    Why? because nobody ever went up to Bond and said hey, You're that white secret agent.

    Because the race of the modern James Bond doesn't define him anymore the same way it did in the 50s. It's possible for a black guy to come from the same background as Bond now so his skin colour is now no more important than his hair colour or eye colour.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Murdock wrote: »
    his race is an important part of the character, unlike Bond.

    Why? because nobody ever went up to Bond and said hey, You're that white secret agent.

    Because the race of the modern James Bond doesn't define him anymore the same way it did in the 50s. It's possible for a black guy to come from the same background as Bond now so his skin colour is now no more important than his hair colour or eye colour.

    So what I'm getting is because it's 2014. It's okay for anyone to play anyone?
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 3,327
    Murdock wrote: »
    his race is an important part of the character, unlike Bond.

    Why? because nobody ever went up to Bond and said hey, You're that white secret agent.

    Because the race of the modern James Bond doesn't define him anymore the same way it did in the 50s. It's possible for a black guy to come from the same background as Bond now so his skin colour is now no more important than his hair colour or eye colour.
    Yes, I agree.

    But once you go down this route, this is a definite departure from Ian Fleming's original creation, and until now, this is about the only thing that hasn't changed with the modernisation of Fleming's characters in the franchise.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    timmer wrote: »
    If Bond is cast as anything other than a white Englishman, then what we have is no longer Fleming's Bond but a reimagined Bond, a different character, just as both Leiter and Moneypenny have been reimagined.
    M on the other hand was not reimagined, as Judi Dench was never considered to play Miles Messervy. In order to cast Dench as M, a new character was created.
    M is a title.
    But there is only one Bond. He is not a code name or a title, despite what some might think (that's another discussion).
    Bond is as Fleming described. Sure you could re-imagine him, such is creative license, but you no longer have Flemings Bond. You no longer have James Bond as created.
    A Chinese-English Bond (ie Englishman of Chinese racial look and characteristics) would bring a different culural dynamic to the character too.
    What @khanners is going on about several posts back, essentially translates to ( and khanners often does need translation ;) ) is that race is not as benign a consideration as some would like to think it is.
    Race does participate in defining who one is. It does not make one bad or good. To believe so, would be actually racist, but it does help define who you are- not define one's humanity of course, but one's human identity. There is a big difference.
    If Elba, or any identifiably black actor, is cast as Bond, you can no longer do the Live and Let Die story. How does that make any sense?
    The LALD story demands that Bond be white and the villains be black, and that applies as much today as it did when the story was published and 20 years later when it was filmed.
    Black criminal gangs still exist in Harlem, and the Caribbean islands are still very much as described. A white person still stands out in Harlem. A black person blends in. Bond blending in is not part of the story. Simple. The racial tension is part of the narrative. Race matters here.
    Elba in 1954, 1973, 2014 or anytime, would have to be set aside for a white actor, so the story could be done.
    Why cast someone who can't actually play the character in one of the defining iconic stories?
    An Asian Bond would require a re-working of both Flemings GF and DN.
    Even a black Bond would probably be a problem for GF. Would Auric play a round of golf with a black man? The guy was basically a Nazi.

    Sure, cast a young Elba as Bond, but what you have done is reimagined the character.
    Bond is suddenly a different animal, with a whole new ethno-racial frame of reference.

    It would go over like a lead balloon IMO, not to mention make no sense whatsoever.

    Couldn't have said it better myself. Once you change Bond's ethnic background, he is no longer a product of Fleming's 1950's world, and this is reflected in several of the books, as you rightly mentioned above.

    By all means, EON could change this by casting a black actor as Bond, because this is modern Britain, and the Bond film franchise has modernised so a black man could be an MI6 agent today, but if the caption on the poster read - `Idris Elba is Ian Fleming's James Bond 007', it would be a blatant lie.

    Yes, he would be playing `James Bond', but he wouldn't be playing `Ian Fleming's James Bond'....

    I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    And I agree with much of what you wrote, RC7, as well as Sark and thelivingroyale.
    People are certainly allowed their own opinions, and Fleming purists may want Bond to stay as portrayed as a white male because that is how Fleming wrote him, and it is traditional. I can understand the desire to keep tradition. I like many traditions. But other reasoning on here, in terms of how our race defines us and a Bond with a different skin color would be ruining the series, goes far overboard - again, in my opinion.

    Bond's skin color does not bother me at all, that is not a factor. For me: keep Bond British (which can mean any skin color), with similar traits yes, and find the best actor at that time of casting.

    I think we're just going round in circles at this point (unless Khan has some more stormfront copypastas to enlighten us with), which is why my participation has dropped off a lot. Bond 7 will almost certainly be white exactly becaues of the furor this created. Which I'm perfectly fine with. So people can rest easy.

    And no, accusations of racism arne't be thrown "at the drop of a hat". People can certainly want to keep Bond white without changing having any racist tendencies. A Malian friend of mine thinks Bond should stay white as well (although he's the most casual of fans). In the 9 pages of this thread only one person has been accused of racism (and by proxy those who quoted his post approvingly) and that was because he literally said that one's race determines one's personality.
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 3,327
    RC7 wrote: »
    timmer wrote: »
    If Bond is cast as anything other than a white Englishman, then what we have is no longer Fleming's Bond but a reimagined Bond, a different character, just as both Leiter and Moneypenny have been reimagined.
    M on the other hand was not reimagined, as Judi Dench was never considered to play Miles Messervy. In order to cast Dench as M, a new character was created.
    M is a title.
    But there is only one Bond. He is not a code name or a title, despite what some might think (that's another discussion).
    Bond is as Fleming described. Sure you could re-imagine him, such is creative license, but you no longer have Flemings Bond. You no longer have James Bond as created.
    A Chinese-English Bond (ie Englishman of Chinese racial look and characteristics) would bring a different culural dynamic to the character too.
    What @khanners is going on about several posts back, essentially translates to ( and khanners often does need translation ;) ) is that race is not as benign a consideration as some would like to think it is.
    Race does participate in defining who one is. It does not make one bad or good. To believe so, would be actually racist, but it does help define who you are- not define one's humanity of course, but one's human identity. There is a big difference.
    If Elba, or any identifiably black actor, is cast as Bond, you can no longer do the Live and Let Die story. How does that make any sense?
    The LALD story demands that Bond be white and the villains be black, and that applies as much today as it did when the story was published and 20 years later when it was filmed.
    Black criminal gangs still exist in Harlem, and the Caribbean islands are still very much as described. A white person still stands out in Harlem. A black person blends in. Bond blending in is not part of the story. Simple. The racial tension is part of the narrative. Race matters here.
    Elba in 1954, 1973, 2014 or anytime, would have to be set aside for a white actor, so the story could be done.
    Why cast someone who can't actually play the character in one of the defining iconic stories?
    An Asian Bond would require a re-working of both Flemings GF and DN.
    Even a black Bond would probably be a problem for GF. Would Auric play a round of golf with a black man? The guy was basically a Nazi.

    Sure, cast a young Elba as Bond, but what you have done is reimagined the character.
    Bond is suddenly a different animal, with a whole new ethno-racial frame of reference.

    It would go over like a lead balloon IMO, not to mention make no sense whatsoever.

    Couldn't have said it better myself. Once you change Bond's ethnic background, he is no longer a product of Fleming's 1950's world, and this is reflected in several of the books, as you rightly mentioned above.

    By all means, EON could change this by casting a black actor as Bond, because this is modern Britain, and the Bond film franchise has modernised so a black man could be an MI6 agent today, but if the caption on the poster read - `Idris Elba is Ian Fleming's James Bond 007', it would be a blatant lie.

    Yes, he would be playing `James Bond', but he wouldn't be playing `Ian Fleming's James Bond'....

    I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

    And they are living in that nation today. Unfortunately we are discussing a character that was written way back in 1952, in a different era, and not in today's modern, accepting society......
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    timmer wrote: »
    If Bond is cast as anything other than a white Englishman, then what we have is no longer Fleming's Bond but a reimagined Bond, a different character, just as both Leiter and Moneypenny have been reimagined.
    M on the other hand was not reimagined, as Judi Dench was never considered to play Miles Messervy. In order to cast Dench as M, a new character was created.
    M is a title.
    But there is only one Bond. He is not a code name or a title, despite what some might think (that's another discussion).
    Bond is as Fleming described. Sure you could re-imagine him, such is creative license, but you no longer have Flemings Bond. You no longer have James Bond as created.
    A Chinese-English Bond (ie Englishman of Chinese racial look and characteristics) would bring a different culural dynamic to the character too.
    What @khanners is going on about several posts back, essentially translates to ( and khanners often does need translation ;) ) is that race is not as benign a consideration as some would like to think it is.
    Race does participate in defining who one is. It does not make one bad or good. To believe so, would be actually racist, but it does help define who you are- not define one's humanity of course, but one's human identity. There is a big difference.
    If Elba, or any identifiably black actor, is cast as Bond, you can no longer do the Live and Let Die story. How does that make any sense?
    The LALD story demands that Bond be white and the villains be black, and that applies as much today as it did when the story was published and 20 years later when it was filmed.
    Black criminal gangs still exist in Harlem, and the Caribbean islands are still very much as described. A white person still stands out in Harlem. A black person blends in. Bond blending in is not part of the story. Simple. The racial tension is part of the narrative. Race matters here.
    Elba in 1954, 1973, 2014 or anytime, would have to be set aside for a white actor, so the story could be done.
    Why cast someone who can't actually play the character in one of the defining iconic stories?
    An Asian Bond would require a re-working of both Flemings GF and DN.
    Even a black Bond would probably be a problem for GF. Would Auric play a round of golf with a black man? The guy was basically a Nazi.

    Sure, cast a young Elba as Bond, but what you have done is reimagined the character.
    Bond is suddenly a different animal, with a whole new ethno-racial frame of reference.

    It would go over like a lead balloon IMO, not to mention make no sense whatsoever.

    Couldn't have said it better myself. Once you change Bond's ethnic background, he is no longer a product of Fleming's 1950's world, and this is reflected in several of the books, as you rightly mentioned above.

    By all means, EON could change this by casting a black actor as Bond, because this is modern Britain, and the Bond film franchise has modernised so a black man could be an MI6 agent today, but if the caption on the poster read - `Idris Elba is Ian Fleming's James Bond 007', it would be a blatant lie.

    Yes, he would be playing `James Bond', but he wouldn't be playing `Ian Fleming's James Bond'....

    I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

    And they are living in that nation today. Unfortunately we are discussing a character that was written way back in 1952, in a different era, and not in today's modern, accepting society......

    We're discussing a character that has evolved. A character that exists in the 21st Century, not 1952.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2014 Posts: 23,883
    timmer wrote: »
    If Bond is cast as anything other than a white Englishman, then what we have is no longer Fleming's Bond but a reimagined Bond, a different character, just as both Leiter and Moneypenny have been reimagined.
    M on the other hand was not reimagined, as Judi Dench was never considered to play Miles Messervy. In order to cast Dench as M, a new character was created.
    M is a title.
    But there is only one Bond. He is not a code name or a title, despite what some might think (that's another discussion).
    Bond is as Fleming described. Sure you could re-imagine him, such is creative license, but you no longer have Flemings Bond. You no longer have James Bond as created.
    A Chinese-English Bond (ie Englishman of Chinese racial look and characteristics) would bring a different culural dynamic to the character too.
    What @khanners is going on about several posts back, essentially translates to ( and khanners often does need translation ;) ) is that race is not as benign a consideration as some would like to think it is.
    Race does participate in defining who one is. It does not make one bad or good. To believe so, would be actually racist, but it does help define who you are- not define one's humanity of course, but one's human identity. There is a big difference.
    If Elba, or any identifiably black actor, is cast as Bond, you can no longer do the Live and Let Die story. How does that make any sense?
    The LALD story demands that Bond be white and the villains be black, and that applies as much today as it did when the story was published and 20 years later when it was filmed.
    Black criminal gangs still exist in Harlem, and the Caribbean islands are still very much as described. A white person still stands out in Harlem. A black person blends in. Bond blending in is not part of the story. Simple. The racial tension is part of the narrative. Race matters here.
    Elba in 1954, 1973, 2014 or anytime, would have to be set aside for a white actor, so the story could be done.
    Why cast someone who can't actually play the character in one of the defining iconic stories?
    An Asian Bond would require a re-working of both Flemings GF and DN.
    Even a black Bond would probably be a problem for GF. Would Auric play a round of golf with a black man? The guy was basically a Nazi.

    Sure, cast a young Elba as Bond, but what you have done is reimagined the character.
    Bond is suddenly a different animal, with a whole new ethno-racial frame of reference.

    It would go over like a lead balloon IMO, not to mention make no sense whatsoever.

    Couldn't have said it better myself. Once you change Bond's ethnic background, he is no longer a product of Fleming's 1950's world, and this is reflected in several of the books, as you rightly mentioned above.

    By all means, EON could change this by casting a black actor as Bond, because this is modern Britain, and the Bond film franchise has modernised so a black man could be an MI6 agent today, but if the caption on the poster read - `Idris Elba is Ian Fleming's James Bond 007', it would be a blatant lie.

    Yes, he would be playing `James Bond', but he wouldn't be playing `Ian Fleming's James Bond'....

    Where this argument falls somewhat flat is as follows:

    1. Live and Let Die has already been made as a movie. Unless they are going to remake it, the issue is moot.
    2. Fleming's books have already been made into movies. If you're planning to remake them, that's one thing. Otherwise the issue is again moot.
    3. If you're planning to remake them, then by definition it implies that the the movies (e.g TSWLM) do not follow the novels. Which again suggests that Fleming's creation has been hacked to death already in the movies, and it has in more ways than one.

    So the above purist argument can be debunked.

    The key questions are as follows:

    1. Can James Bond be played by a black man today? The yes crowd says yes, and I tend to agree. There's nothing about today's James Bond that suggests the role cannot be played by a black man or minority.
    2. Should James Bond be played by a black man? Some of the yes crowd say yes. I don't agree on this one personally. I think James Bond should be played by a white man.

    Why? Purely because of the history of this storied franchise, in movies and books. I am of the opinion that if you want to reimagine the character's skin colour, then you can go ahead and recreate a suitable character (i.e. Ice Cube for XXX 2 as an example - although I admit a bad one).

    There is no need to reimagine his skin colour (although it should not matter), and there are several suitable white actors (on another thread) that can pick up the mantle much better than any black actor I have seen mentioned, including Elba. That is purely a statistical numbers question, as I have said time and time again.

    So the distinction is 'can' vs. 'should' in my opinion. Yes, he can be played by a minority, given how the purist Fleming interpretation has already been bastardized. I don't agree that he should though, and that' a purely a personal preference.
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 12,837
    @Murdock No, that's not what I meant at all. I'm struggling to come up with a decent example here to explain my point.

    Ok, Rocky. A black actor couldn't play Rocky. For one thing the Italian American background of the character is important, it's part of what defines him (the Italian Stallion) and for another thing, only Sylvester Stallone should ever play Rocky.

    But with Bond his background is never really adressed in the films and even if it was, it's possible for a black guy to come from the same background. Also, Bond's character and appearance has changed drastically over the years to the point where at times, he's been barely recognisable as Fleming's Bond. He's been a jokey playboy and he's been a brutal killer. He's been pretty, rugged, dark haired, light haired, blue eyed, brown eyed, lean, buff, sarcastic, campy, cold, caring, etc. The character has changed so much over the years and casting a black actor to play him wouldn't be deviating any further than the source material than making films like DAF, MR, TMWTGG, etc.

    It's the same with a Batman for example. He's changed loads, in appearance and character, and his race isn't an important part of his character. It doesn't affect his background or anything. So a black or Batman would be fine imo. It's not needed, it doesn't have to happen, but I wouldn't mind if it did. Same with Bond.



  • Posts: 3,327
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    timmer wrote: »
    If Bond is cast as anything other than a white Englishman, then what we have is no longer Fleming's Bond but a reimagined Bond, a different character, just as both Leiter and Moneypenny have been reimagined.
    M on the other hand was not reimagined, as Judi Dench was never considered to play Miles Messervy. In order to cast Dench as M, a new character was created.
    M is a title.
    But there is only one Bond. He is not a code name or a title, despite what some might think (that's another discussion).
    Bond is as Fleming described. Sure you could re-imagine him, such is creative license, but you no longer have Flemings Bond. You no longer have James Bond as created.
    A Chinese-English Bond (ie Englishman of Chinese racial look and characteristics) would bring a different culural dynamic to the character too.
    What @khanners is going on about several posts back, essentially translates to ( and khanners often does need translation ;) ) is that race is not as benign a consideration as some would like to think it is.
    Race does participate in defining who one is. It does not make one bad or good. To believe so, would be actually racist, but it does help define who you are- not define one's humanity of course, but one's human identity. There is a big difference.
    If Elba, or any identifiably black actor, is cast as Bond, you can no longer do the Live and Let Die story. How does that make any sense?
    The LALD story demands that Bond be white and the villains be black, and that applies as much today as it did when the story was published and 20 years later when it was filmed.
    Black criminal gangs still exist in Harlem, and the Caribbean islands are still very much as described. A white person still stands out in Harlem. A black person blends in. Bond blending in is not part of the story. Simple. The racial tension is part of the narrative. Race matters here.
    Elba in 1954, 1973, 2014 or anytime, would have to be set aside for a white actor, so the story could be done.
    Why cast someone who can't actually play the character in one of the defining iconic stories?
    An Asian Bond would require a re-working of both Flemings GF and DN.
    Even a black Bond would probably be a problem for GF. Would Auric play a round of golf with a black man? The guy was basically a Nazi.

    Sure, cast a young Elba as Bond, but what you have done is reimagined the character.
    Bond is suddenly a different animal, with a whole new ethno-racial frame of reference.

    It would go over like a lead balloon IMO, not to mention make no sense whatsoever.

    Couldn't have said it better myself. Once you change Bond's ethnic background, he is no longer a product of Fleming's 1950's world, and this is reflected in several of the books, as you rightly mentioned above.

    By all means, EON could change this by casting a black actor as Bond, because this is modern Britain, and the Bond film franchise has modernised so a black man could be an MI6 agent today, but if the caption on the poster read - `Idris Elba is Ian Fleming's James Bond 007', it would be a blatant lie.

    Yes, he would be playing `James Bond', but he wouldn't be playing `Ian Fleming's James Bond'....

    I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

    And they are living in that nation today. Unfortunately we are discussing a character that was written way back in 1952, in a different era, and not in today's modern, accepting society......

    We're discussing a character that has evolved. A character that exists in the 21st Century, not 1952.

    Agreed. So this would be James Bond 2014, but not Ian Fleming's James Bond. Can you not see the difference?
  • 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.

    Heh heh! Mind the doorknob on your way out, Nancy!



  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    I'd say just make a new rival franchise.
  • Posts: 3,327
    bondjames wrote: »
    timmer wrote: »
    If Bond is cast as anything other than a white Englishman, then what we have is no longer Fleming's Bond but a reimagined Bond, a different character, just as both Leiter and Moneypenny have been reimagined.
    M on the other hand was not reimagined, as Judi Dench was never considered to play Miles Messervy. In order to cast Dench as M, a new character was created.
    M is a title.
    But there is only one Bond. He is not a code name or a title, despite what some might think (that's another discussion).
    Bond is as Fleming described. Sure you could re-imagine him, such is creative license, but you no longer have Flemings Bond. You no longer have James Bond as created.
    A Chinese-English Bond (ie Englishman of Chinese racial look and characteristics) would bring a different culural dynamic to the character too.
    What @khanners is going on about several posts back, essentially translates to ( and khanners often does need translation ;) ) is that race is not as benign a consideration as some would like to think it is.
    Race does participate in defining who one is. It does not make one bad or good. To believe so, would be actually racist, but it does help define who you are- not define one's humanity of course, but one's human identity. There is a big difference.
    If Elba, or any identifiably black actor, is cast as Bond, you can no longer do the Live and Let Die story. How does that make any sense?
    The LALD story demands that Bond be white and the villains be black, and that applies as much today as it did when the story was published and 20 years later when it was filmed.
    Black criminal gangs still exist in Harlem, and the Caribbean islands are still very much as described. A white person still stands out in Harlem. A black person blends in. Bond blending in is not part of the story. Simple. The racial tension is part of the narrative. Race matters here.
    Elba in 1954, 1973, 2014 or anytime, would have to be set aside for a white actor, so the story could be done.
    Why cast someone who can't actually play the character in one of the defining iconic stories?
    An Asian Bond would require a re-working of both Flemings GF and DN.
    Even a black Bond would probably be a problem for GF. Would Auric play a round of golf with a black man? The guy was basically a Nazi.

    Sure, cast a young Elba as Bond, but what you have done is reimagined the character.
    Bond is suddenly a different animal, with a whole new ethno-racial frame of reference.

    It would go over like a lead balloon IMO, not to mention make no sense whatsoever.

    Couldn't have said it better myself. Once you change Bond's ethnic background, he is no longer a product of Fleming's 1950's world, and this is reflected in several of the books, as you rightly mentioned above.

    By all means, EON could change this by casting a black actor as Bond, because this is modern Britain, and the Bond film franchise has modernised so a black man could be an MI6 agent today, but if the caption on the poster read - `Idris Elba is Ian Fleming's James Bond 007', it would be a blatant lie.

    Yes, he would be playing `James Bond', but he wouldn't be playing `Ian Fleming's James Bond'....

    Where this argument falls somewhat flat is as follows:

    1. Live and Let Die has already been made as a movie. Unless they are going to remake it, the issue is moot.
    2. Fleming's books have already been made into movies. If you're planning to remake them, that's one thing. Otherwise the issue is again moot.
    3. If you're planning to remake them, then by definition it implies that the the movies (e.g TSWLM) do not follow the novels. Which again suggests that Fleming's creation has been hacked to death already in the movies, and it has in more ways than one.

    So the above purist argument can be debunked.

    The key questions are as follows:

    1. Can James Bond be played by a black man today? The yes crowd say's yes, and I tend to agree.
    2. Should James Bond be played by a black man? Some of the yes crowd say yes. I don't agree on this one personally. I think James Bond should be played by a white man.

    Why? Purely because of the history of this storied franchise, in movies and books. I am of the opinion that if you want to reimagine the character's skin colour, then you can go ahead and recreate a suitable character (i.e. Ice Cube for XXX 2 as an example - although I admit a bad one).

    There is no need to reimagine his skin colour (although it should not matter), and there are several suitable white actors (on another thread) that can pick up the mantle much better than any black actor I have seen mentioned, including Elba. That is purely a statistical numbers question, as I have said time and time again.

    So the distinction is 'can' vs. 'should' in my opinion. Yes, he can be played by a minority, given how the purist Fleming interpretation has already been bastardized. I don't agree that he should though, and that' a purely a personal preference.

    I don't think Timmer was saying that LALD or GF needs to be remade, but his points were that Bond as a character written by Fleming had gone through certain experiences as a character which would never had worked had he been anything other than white at the time. And like it or not, the character of Bond, right the way up until SF, hasn't really been modernised at all, unlike the characters around him, and the world around him.

    And the point Timmer was making is that yes you can update the Bond character to a modern day black MI6 agent, but this is a radical departure from the old-fashioned Fleming character.

    Why are people finding this so hard to grasp???
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 12,837
    @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"?
  • 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.

    Heh heh! Mind the doorknob on your way out, Nancy!



    How's the fourth reich shaping up?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2014 Posts: 23,883
    double post
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2014 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    timmer wrote: »
    If Bond is cast as anything other than a white Englishman, then what we have is no longer Fleming's Bond but a reimagined Bond, a different character, just as both Leiter and Moneypenny have been reimagined.
    M on the other hand was not reimagined, as Judi Dench was never considered to play Miles Messervy. In order to cast Dench as M, a new character was created.
    M is a title.
    But there is only one Bond. He is not a code name or a title, despite what some might think (that's another discussion).
    Bond is as Fleming described. Sure you could re-imagine him, such is creative license, but you no longer have Flemings Bond. You no longer have James Bond as created.
    A Chinese-English Bond (ie Englishman of Chinese racial look and characteristics) would bring a different culural dynamic to the character too.
    What @khanners is going on about several posts back, essentially translates to ( and khanners often does need translation ;) ) is that race is not as benign a consideration as some would like to think it is.
    Race does participate in defining who one is. It does not make one bad or good. To believe so, would be actually racist, but it does help define who you are- not define one's humanity of course, but one's human identity. There is a big difference.
    If Elba, or any identifiably black actor, is cast as Bond, you can no longer do the Live and Let Die story. How does that make any sense?
    The LALD story demands that Bond be white and the villains be black, and that applies as much today as it did when the story was published and 20 years later when it was filmed.
    Black criminal gangs still exist in Harlem, and the Caribbean islands are still very much as described. A white person still stands out in Harlem. A black person blends in. Bond blending in is not part of the story. Simple. The racial tension is part of the narrative. Race matters here.
    Elba in 1954, 1973, 2014 or anytime, would have to be set aside for a white actor, so the story could be done.
    Why cast someone who can't actually play the character in one of the defining iconic stories?
    An Asian Bond would require a re-working of both Flemings GF and DN.
    Even a black Bond would probably be a problem for GF. Would Auric play a round of golf with a black man? The guy was basically a Nazi.

    Sure, cast a young Elba as Bond, but what you have done is reimagined the character.
    Bond is suddenly a different animal, with a whole new ethno-racial frame of reference.

    It would go over like a lead balloon IMO, not to mention make no sense whatsoever.

    Couldn't have said it better myself. Once you change Bond's ethnic background, he is no longer a product of Fleming's 1950's world, and this is reflected in several of the books, as you rightly mentioned above.

    By all means, EON could change this by casting a black actor as Bond, because this is modern Britain, and the Bond film franchise has modernised so a black man could be an MI6 agent today, but if the caption on the poster read - `Idris Elba is Ian Fleming's James Bond 007', it would be a blatant lie.

    Yes, he would be playing `James Bond', but he wouldn't be playing `Ian Fleming's James Bond'....

    Where this argument falls somewhat flat is as follows:

    1. Live and Let Die has already been made as a movie. Unless they are going to remake it, the issue is moot.
    2. Fleming's books have already been made into movies. If you're planning to remake them, that's one thing. Otherwise the issue is again moot.
    3. If you're planning to remake them, then by definition it implies that the the movies (e.g TSWLM) do not follow the novels. Which again suggests that Fleming's creation has been hacked to death already in the movies, and it has in more ways than one.

    So the above purist argument can be debunked.

    The key questions are as follows:

    1. Can James Bond be played by a black man today? The yes crowd say's yes, and I tend to agree.
    2. Should James Bond be played by a black man? Some of the yes crowd say yes. I don't agree on this one personally. I think James Bond should be played by a white man.

    Why? Purely because of the history of this storied franchise, in movies and books. I am of the opinion that if you want to reimagine the character's skin colour, then you can go ahead and recreate a suitable character (i.e. Ice Cube for XXX 2 as an example - although I admit a bad one).

    There is no need to reimagine his skin colour (although it should not matter), and there are several suitable white actors (on another thread) that can pick up the mantle much better than any black actor I have seen mentioned, including Elba. That is purely a statistical numbers question, as I have said time and time again.

    So the distinction is 'can' vs. 'should' in my opinion. Yes, he can be played by a minority, given how the purist Fleming interpretation has already been bastardized. I don't agree that he should though, and that' a purely a personal preference.

    I don't think Timmer was saying that LALD or GF needs to be remade, but his points were that Bond as a character written by Fleming had gone through certain experiences as a character which would never had worked had he been anything other than white at the time. And like it or not, the character of Bond, right the way up until SF, hasn't really been modernised at all, unlike the characters around him, and the world around him.

    And the point Timmer was making is that yes you can update the Bond character to a modern day black MI6 agent, but this is a radical departure from the old-fashioned Fleming character.

    Why are people finding this so hard to grasp???

    Yes, absolutely. I understand that quite clearly.

    However, a legitimate counterargument has been made by several others in several posts on this thread that in the 50 years of the movies, the character has been reimagined and tweaked quite considerably by 6 different actors. There are definitely different interpretations and they are reasonably significant. If anyone can't see that then they are not being reasonable. Even Roger Moore changed his own interpretation during the 13 years that he was Bond.

    So while the purist argument is valid it is not the best one to use in this case to support the case. It is certainly a valid argument but I don't think it's the best one.
  • 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.....



  • Ok, I've "flagged" Khans post from before. Is any action actually going to be taken against him now or is it just going to be ignored, like last time this happened?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2014 Posts: 23,883
    @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).
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Elba would make a really cool 008 to keep Bond on his toes. ;)
  • Posts: 3,327
    Murdock wrote: »
    Elba would make a really cool 008 to keep Bond on his toes. ;)
    Yes, or why not make a new spy film with Elba in the main role. I think he would be great, as he has bags of charisma, and oozes cool. He could even be a womaniser and an alcoholic too. I would definitely watch a movie like that.



  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Murdock wrote: »
    Elba would make a really cool 008 to keep Bond on his toes. ;)
    Yes, or why not make a new spy film with Elba in the main role. I think he would be great, as he has bags of charisma, and oozes cool. He could even be a womaniser and an alcoholic too. I would definitely watch a movie like that.

    That's what I've been advocating but all the responses I get to that are "Easier said than done." Please. If Pierce could get his own rival spy series made. A spy series starring Elba could easily be made. And with his popularity from The wire. I don't see how it could fail.

This discussion has been closed.