Controversial opinions about Bond films

14950525455707

Comments

  • edited August 2013 Posts: 23
    I like Jinx ?. She admirebly straddles the line between tough CIA chick and 12 year old boy . ;;)
  • chrisisall wrote:
    Dalton was and is the best cinematic Bond portrayal of Bond and will never be topped.
    I've always thought this too. I like Connery but... I dunno, he doesn't really feel like he's "into" the character to me. With Dalton you can tell he's working his arse off to really BE James Bond, like he genuinely gives a shit about getting Fleming's version of the character right.

    I've always thought the biggest travesty of the Bond series is that Dalton never got to make more movies.
  • Murdock wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    No because it strays way to far from the source material and changes the character completely.

    I think they did that a long, long time ago.

    How is Roger Moore's Bond not changing the character completely? His skin colour is the same sure but he's nothing like Flemings Bond. Same goes for Brosnan and even Connery.

    Making him black is only changing his appearance. You could get a black Bond and make the movies closer to the source material than ever if you got the right story and if he played a Fleming type Bond.

    Roger still looked enough like Fleming's Bond. Middle Aged white male. Even if a Black actor could pull off a Flemingesque performance it wouldn't be James Bond. Like @SirHenry said, If they want a Black spy, create a new Franchise. Hollywood needs some new tentpole franchises anyway.

    He didn't even look like Flemings Bond! He was white and (for his first few films anyway) the same age and that's where the similarities end. He was a completely different character.

    So a white man that looked and acted nothing like Flemings Bond would be close enough to the source material than you but a black actor who really bought Flemings Bond to life wouldn't? I can't agree with that at all.

    Maybe I've read this wrong (and sorry if I have) but it seems like you don't really care about actors being close to Fleming, as long as they have the same skin colour as his Bond.

    There's much more to Fleming's Bond than his race. A black actor playing a Flemingesque Bond would be much closer to the source material than Moore or Brosnan and that's a fact.
  • Some times, late at night, I wonder how controversal my Bond opionions are .
  • Posts: 1,052
    Murdock wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    No because it strays way to far from the source material and changes the character completely.

    I think they did that a long, long time ago.

    How is Roger Moore's Bond not changing the character completely? His skin colour is the same sure but he's nothing like Flemings Bond. Same goes for Brosnan and even Connery.

    Making him black is only changing his appearance. You could get a black Bond and make the movies closer to the source material than ever if you got the right story and if he played a Fleming type Bond.

    Roger still looked enough like Fleming's Bond. Middle Aged white male. Even if a Black actor could pull off a Flemingesque performance it wouldn't be James Bond. Like @SirHenry said, If they want a Black spy, create a new Franchise. Hollywood needs some new tentpole franchises anyway.

    He didn't even look like Flemings Bond! He was white and (for his first few films anyway) the same age and that's where the similarities end. He was a completely different character.

    So a white man that looked and acted nothing like Flemings Bond would be close enough to the source material than you but a black actor who really bought Flemings Bond to life wouldn't? I can't agree with that at all.

    Maybe I've read this wrong (and sorry if I have) but it seems like you don't really care about actors being close to Fleming, as long as they have the same skin colour as his Bond.

    There's much more to Fleming's Bond than his race. A black actor playing a Flemingesque Bond would be much closer to the source material than Moore or Brosnan and that's a fact.

    Always find this argument bizarre, if a character that has always been played by a black actor was replaced by a white actor the uproar would be thunderous.

    Why does this alway come up with Bond and not Sherlock Holmes, Batman, Superman, Indiana Jones, Rambo etc etc?
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    Some times, late at night, I wonder how controversal my Bond opionions are .

    Depends how controversial you intend to be.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117


    There's much more to Fleming's Bond than his race. A black actor playing a Flemingesque Bond would be much closer to the source material than Moore or Brosnan and that's a fact.

    No thats an opinion.

    You are right to say theres more to Fleming's Bond than his race but the fact is that Flemings Bond was a product of the culture of the times. They were somewhat racist times thats true but if you are going to trace things back to being pure Fleming by being faithful to the old boy network, clubman, ex-Eton world that Fleming creates then theres no way that you cast a black man into that universe. Flemings M would be aghast for a start - or do you turn him black as well?

    But then I suppose you are going to say that you dont mean completely faithful to Fleming by doing a period piece but a modern Bond film which if Flemingesque in tone would be closer than an MR or a DAD with a white man?

    But that is not an argument about race, thats an argument about tone and script. A Flemingesque script with a black Bond would potentially be closer to Fleming than a DAD. But that same Flemingesque script would be even more faithful with a white Bond because Bond is white.

    Having a black man walk into Blades in the 50's would be as out of place as a white man playing Shaka Zulu.

    But this is a pretty tedious argument which never goes away and its been voiced so often it can hardly be classed as controversial anymore just boring.

    As for controversy - I've never been that big a fan of the DB5. Nice enough looking car and I can enjoy it for what it is in GF but that should have been it. For it to appear in TB was just about excusable but its resurrection in the modern era was just a pathetic comfort blanket for certain fans who love all the cliches to be ticked off.

    I bought into the nostalgia of if in SF and it is a great moment when he shoots the goons outside SF even if it makes zero narrative or timeline sense.

    Please God let it finally be gone now that Silva has blown it to shit.


  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited August 2013 Posts: 18,264


    There's much more to Fleming's Bond than his race. A black actor playing a Flemingesque Bond would be much closer to the source material than Moore or Brosnan and that's a fact.

    No thats an opinion.

    You are right to say theres more to Fleming's Bond than his race but the fact is that Flemings Bond was a product of the culture of the times. They were somewhat racist times thats true but if you are going to trace things back to being pure Fleming by being faithful to the old boy network, clubman, ex-Eton world that Fleming creates then theres no way that you cast a black man into that universe. Flemings M would be aghast for a start - or do you turn him black as well?

    But then I suppose you are going to say that you dont mean completely faithful to Fleming by doing a period piece but a modern Bond film which if Flemingesque in tone would be closer than an MR or a DAD with a white man?

    But that is not an argument about race, thats an argument about tone and script. A Flemingesque script with a black Bond would potentially be closer to Fleming than a DAD. But that same Flemingesque script would be even more faithful with a white Bond because Bond is white.

    Having a black man walk into Blades in the 50's would be as out of place as a white man playing Shaka Zulu.

    But this is a pretty tedious argument which never goes away and its been voiced so often it can hardly be classed as controversial anymore just boring.

    As for controversy - I've never been that big a fan of the DB5. Nice enough looking car and I can enjoy it for what it is in GF but that should have been it. For it to appear in TB was just about excusable but its resurrection in the modern era was just a pathetic comfort blanket for certain fans who love all the cliches to be ticked off.

    I bought into the nostalgia of if in SF and it is a great moment when he shoots the goons outside SF even if it makes zero narrative or timeline sense.

    Please God let it finally be gone now that Silva has blown it to shit.


    Lord Justice Wizard has delivered his sterling judgement. Lord Justice Dragonpol is in complete agreement with his learned friend on the black Bond and the Aston Martin DB5. Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Dragonpol wrote:


    There's much more to Fleming's Bond than his race. A black actor playing a Flemingesque Bond would be much closer to the source material than Moore or Brosnan and that's a fact.

    No thats an opinion.

    You are right to say theres more to Fleming's Bond than his race but the fact is that Flemings Bond was a product of the culture of the times. They were somewhat racist times thats true but if you are going to trace things back to being pure Fleming by being faithful to the old boy network, clubman, ex-Eton world that Fleming creates then theres no way that you cast a black man into that universe. Flemings M would be aghast for a start - or do you turn him black as well?

    But then I suppose you are going to say that you dont mean completely faithful to Fleming by doing a period piece but a modern Bond film which if Flemingesque in tone would be closer than an MR or a DAD with a white man?

    But that is not an argument about race, thats an argument about tone and script. A Flemingesque script with a black Bond would potentially be closer to Fleming than a DAD. But that same Flemingesque script would be even more faithful with a white Bond because Bond is white.

    Having a black man walk into Blades in the 50's would be as out of place as a white man playing Shaka Zulu.

    But this is a pretty tedious argument which never goes away and its been voiced so often it can hardly be classed as controversial anymore just boring.

    As for controversy - I've never been that big a fan of the DB5. Nice enough looking car and I can enjoy it for what it is in GF but that should have been it. For it to appear in TB was just about excusable but its resurrection in the modern era was just a pathetic comfort blanket for certain fans who love all the cliches to be ticked off.

    I bought into the nostalgia of if in SF and it is a great moment when he shoots the goons outside SF even if it makes zero narrative or timeline sense.

    Please God let it finally be gone now that Silva has blown it to shit.


    Lord Justice Wizard has delivered his sterling judgement. Lord Justice Dragonpol is in complete agreement with his learned friend on the black Bond and the Aston Martin DB5. Appeal dismissed with costs.

    Really? I thought I would be really cop it for the DB5!

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,264
    Dragonpol wrote:


    There's much more to Fleming's Bond than his race. A black actor playing a Flemingesque Bond would be much closer to the source material than Moore or Brosnan and that's a fact.

    No thats an opinion.

    You are right to say theres more to Fleming's Bond than his race but the fact is that Flemings Bond was a product of the culture of the times. They were somewhat racist times thats true but if you are going to trace things back to being pure Fleming by being faithful to the old boy network, clubman, ex-Eton world that Fleming creates then theres no way that you cast a black man into that universe. Flemings M would be aghast for a start - or do you turn him black as well?

    But then I suppose you are going to say that you dont mean completely faithful to Fleming by doing a period piece but a modern Bond film which if Flemingesque in tone would be closer than an MR or a DAD with a white man?

    But that is not an argument about race, thats an argument about tone and script. A Flemingesque script with a black Bond would potentially be closer to Fleming than a DAD. But that same Flemingesque script would be even more faithful with a white Bond because Bond is white.

    Having a black man walk into Blades in the 50's would be as out of place as a white man playing Shaka Zulu.

    But this is a pretty tedious argument which never goes away and its been voiced so often it can hardly be classed as controversial anymore just boring.

    As for controversy - I've never been that big a fan of the DB5. Nice enough looking car and I can enjoy it for what it is in GF but that should have been it. For it to appear in TB was just about excusable but its resurrection in the modern era was just a pathetic comfort blanket for certain fans who love all the cliches to be ticked off.

    I bought into the nostalgia of if in SF and it is a great moment when he shoots the goons outside SF even if it makes zero narrative or timeline sense.

    Please God let it finally be gone now that Silva has blown it to shit.


    Lord Justice Wizard has delivered his sterling judgement. Lord Justice Dragonpol is in complete agreement with his learned friend on the black Bond and the Aston Martin DB5. Appeal dismissed with costs.

    Really? I thought I would be really cop it for the DB5!

    Well, I especially liked your very elegantly put last sentence:

    "Please God let it finally be gone now that Silva has blown it to shit."
  • Posts: 908
    LeighBurne wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    Dalton was and is the best cinematic Bond portrayal of Bond and will never be topped.
    I've always thought this too. I like Connery but... I dunno, he doesn't really feel like he's "into" the character to me. With Dalton you can tell he's working his arse off to really BE James Bond, like he genuinely gives a shit about getting Fleming's version of the character right.

    I've always thought the biggest travesty of the Bond series is that Dalton never got to make more movies.

    That is BECAUSE Dalton played Bond the closest to Flemings creation. Problem is that this Bond was a quite boring and slow wited fellow. Faults the great Richard Maibaum thankfully corrected from the beginning.
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 57
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    That is BECAUSE Dalton played Bond the closest to Flemings creation. Problem is that this Bond was a quite boring and slow wited fellow. Faults the great Richard Maibaum thankfully corrected from the beginning.
    My love for Dalton isn't so much because he was the closest to the literary version, but because you could tell he really gave a damn about being the character Fleming wrote. For better or worse, the other Bonds played the part their own way, to a large degree. Dalton played the role Fleming's way. The fact he was constantly reading the original novels on set shows how dedicated he was.
  • Posts: 686
    LeighBurne wrote:
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    That is BECAUSE Dalton played Bond the closest to Flemings creation. Problem is that this Bond was a quite boring and slow wited fellow. Faults the great Richard Maibaum thankfully corrected from the beginning.
    My love for Dalton isn't so much because he was the closest to the literary version, but because you could tell he really gave a damn about being the character Fleming wrote. For better or worse, the other Bonds played the part their own way, to a large degree. Dalton played the role Fleming's way. The fact he was constantly reading the original novels on set shows how dedicated he was.

    Dalton was closest to the Fleming Bond in TLD, but not in LTK. Licence to Kill's Dalton-Bond lack Bond's professionalism by refusing to go to Turkey.

    Then at the end of the movie he was let back in to the 00 service.
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 57
    Perdogg wrote:
    Dalton was closest to the Fleming Bond in TLD, but not in LTK. Licence to Kill's Dalton-Bond lack Bond's professionalism by refusing to go to Turkey.
    You say that, but I'm not so sure. The situation never really arose in Fleming's books, but if someone close to Bond had had something horrible done to them, I can completely see Fleming's Bond going against orders to get revenge. After all, in The Living Daylights Bond disobeys orders to kill the enemy sniper purely because he finds her attractive, and the story ends with him saying he hopes M fires him for it. Not very professional.
  • Posts: 686
    LeighBurne wrote:
    Perdogg wrote:
    Dalton was closest to the Fleming Bond in TLD, but not in LTK. Licence to Kill's Dalton-Bond lack Bond's professionalism by refusing to go to Turkey.
    You say that, but I'm not so sure. The situation never really arose in Fleming's books, but if someone close to Bond had had something horrible done to them, I can completely see Fleming's Bond going against orders to get revenge. After all, in The Living Daylights Bond disobeys orders to kill the enemy sniper purely because he finds her attractive, and the story ends with him saying he hopes M fires him for it. Not very professional.
    LeighBurne wrote:
    Perdogg wrote:
    Dalton was closest to the Fleming Bond in TLD, but not in LTK. Licence to Kill's Dalton-Bond lack Bond's professionalism by refusing to go to Turkey.
    You say that, but I'm not so sure. The situation never really arose in Fleming's books, but if someone close to Bond had had something horrible done to them, I can completely see Fleming's Bond going against orders to get revenge. After all, in The Living Daylights Bond disobeys orders to kill the enemy sniper purely because he finds her attractive, and the story ends with him saying he hopes M fires him for it. Not very professional.

    We are almost getting to a point where this is "legal" site rather than a Bond site. The two situations are not really that similar. Clearly Bond exercised professional discretion in TLD as opposed to alright dereliction of duty.
  • Posts: 908
    Perdogg wrote:
    LeighBurne wrote:
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    That is BECAUSE Dalton played Bond the closest to Flemings creation. Problem is that this Bond was a quite boring and slow wited fellow. Faults the great Richard Maibaum thankfully corrected from the beginning.
    My love for Dalton isn't so much because he was the closest to the literary version, but because you could tell he really gave a damn about being the character Fleming wrote. For better or worse, the other Bonds played the part their own way, to a large degree. Dalton played the role Fleming's way. The fact he was constantly reading the original novels on set shows how dedicated he was.

    Dalton was closest to the Fleming Bond in TLD, but not in LTK. Licence to Kill's Dalton-Bond lack Bond's professionalism by refusing to go to Turkey.

    Then at the end of the movie he was let back in to the 00 service.

    You are a 100% correct on this one.
  • Posts: 2,483
    Race is about far more than skin color. It's about the culture and behavior that, overwhelmingly in the main, correlate with race. And black culture and behavior do not accord with the posh, Anglo world of Fleming's creation. That is why changing Bond's race is so different from changing his hair color that the comparison is absurd on its face.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    Perdogg wrote:
    . Clearly Bond exercised professional discretion in TLD as opposed to alright dereliction of duty.
    Um, excuse me, but Bond RESIGNED. It's not dereliction of duty if you're on leave or gone from the company.
    B-)
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 686
    chrisisall wrote:
    Perdogg wrote:
    . Clearly Bond exercised professional discretion in TLD as opposed to alright dereliction of duty.
    Um, excuse me, but Bond RESIGNED. It's not dereliction of duty if you're on leave or gone from the company.
    B-)

    You are being legalistic instead of analyzing it in the proper context. Actually, if you want to be technical, he disobeyed the order PRIOR to resigning.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Murdock wrote:
    QoS is better than all the Bourne movies. ;)

    No it is a poor copy with shadows of better moments from much better done pieces in the 007 series, and the Bourne franchise seems to be the Craigs muse when it comes to his movies especially QoB which borrows everything from the competition including some key personal. In the hands of a seasoned director the movie might have been a more original vehicle Forster however prefered visual flair and vision over the content of an actionmovie.

    The Bourne movies have all been pretty good in all aspects, they even top the use of foreign locations which used to be something nobody did better than the 007 movies. The action in the Bourne series is excellent, and the fightscenes are really believable brutal. And the characterbuilding was very well done.

    In saying that QoB is better than the Bourne movies you seem to let your frustration about the lack of quality of this Bondmovie cloud your judgement.

  • edited August 2013 Posts: 3,494
    @thelivingroyale- assuming you realize that none of my comments were based in any sort of blatant or latent racism (if you think so at all, you have no idea how incorrect that assumption would be), there is a very big difference between nationality and ethnicity. Read on if you would.
    Make him Asian or Indian and you're changing his nationality. A black Bond would just mean changing his appearance, which has been done many times before.

    Him being gay would be changing the character completely. Changing his nationality or sexuality is not the same as changing his appearance (which again, has been done many times before).

    Because you are a black fellow, you can see a certain logic in a black Bond. I get that. But in that same line of thought, an Asian or Indian born in the UK could say exactly the same thing regarding their ethnicity. Are you advocating for that too? Sorry, I call BS on that. Please read on.

    :)) That's even better than the old "it's like a white Shaft!" line. No. It is NOTHING like a Roots remake with a white guy.

    I can see why you'd laugh out loud at that, and it was said to garner exactly that sort of reaction, but I assure you I find nothing about prejudice or enslaving another human being, which is what we all are here regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc, remotely amusing or tolerable. I will get to my ultimate point next, which should make it clear why I find your view here one that while you are entitled to, equally humorous and outrageous in conception.
    [And before anybody gives me the old "Fleming wrote Bond as a white man!" line, I'd like to say this.

    Fleming wrote Bond as a white man with blue grey eyes and short black hair that fell a bit on his forehead. He was a heavy drinker and smoker. He drove an old grey convertible Bentley. Vesper (?) said that he looked like this man

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoagy_Carmichael

    Fleming did not write Bond as a man who drove around in a gadget packed Aston Martin DB5, or a one liner spouting playboy who had an underwater car, or a ripped blonde hardman who didn't smoke and treated M like a surrogate mother, etc.

    If you're a Fleming purist then fine. Fair enough. But don't see who you can be fine with all of the above, but then treat changing his skin colour as a despicable act that would mean the end of the series.

    The key point in this is that indeed, Fleming wrote Bond as a white man, which is his ethnicity. For some Fleming, or even purists for the general appearance of Bonds before Craig regarding hair and eye color, this is something they get a hard on about. Which is goofy in my view because if that were the case, if someone is truly true to this ideal, then their fandom should have long ago ended when one Sir Roger Moore with his blue eyes and dirty blond hair showed up on the silver screen as Bond in 1973. And yet some people out there proudly display Moore along with all the other Bonds on their website but omit Craig out of a purely hypocritical stance. White people can naturally have hair color ranging from platinum blond to jet black. Eyes can range from blue, green, brown, and black. That does not change the fact that ethnically, they are white, or technically what is referred to as the Caucasian race. The rest for some people is the "devil in the details", and it's their problem if they choose to limit their fandom based on said details. For me, it's much more about having a great British, meaning from the UK not including Northern Ireland actor of white ethnicity who can make me believe he is Bond based on his portrayal and acting abilities. And at the end of the day, that works for me and for most people in general for a starting point. How good said actor is past that is, of course, up for debate.
    You've been a fan since the 60s. Nearly all your life. A View To A Kill, Die Another Day, none of this has stopped you from being a fan. But changing Bond's skin colour would?

    I assume I needn't explain myself any further :)




  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    Race is about far more than skin color. It's about the culture and behavior that, overwhelmingly in the main, correlate with race. And black culture and behavior do not accord with the posh, Anglo world of Fleming's creation. That is why changing Bond's race is so different from changing his hair color that the comparison is absurd on its face.
    You have a very narrow minded point of view if you assume that everyone of a certain race acts accordingly to some set of behavior rules that you have established for them.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    Perdogg wrote:
    Actually, if you want to be technical, he disobeyed the order PRIOR to resigning.
    If your employer gives you an order, and you refuse, your employer can take disciplinary action for your conduct UNLESS you subsequently resign. You are no longer disobeying since you no longer work for him. I you do not resign, you are actively disobeying him. Bond wasn't saying he would not go to Istanbul, just not at that moment since an urgent matter had come up he needed to deal with. Perdogg, you seem to NEED to see Bond as being non-Flemingesque here to support your dislike of the film, eh old man?
    ;)
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 908
    Murdock wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    No because it strays way to far from the source material and changes the character completely.

    I think they did that a long, long time ago.

    How is Roger Moore's Bond not changing the character completely? His skin colour is the same sure but he's nothing like Flemings Bond. Same goes for Brosnan and even Connery.

    Making him black is only changing his appearance. You could get a black Bond and make the movies closer to the source material than ever if you got the right story and if he played a Fleming type Bond.

    Roger still looked enough like Fleming's Bond. Middle Aged white male. Even if a Black actor could pull off a Flemingesque performance it wouldn't be James Bond. Like @SirHenry said, If they want a Black spy, create a new Franchise. Hollywood needs some new tentpole franchises anyway.

    He didn't even look like Flemings Bond! He was white and (for his first few films anyway) the same age and that's where the similarities end. He was a completely different character.

    So a white man that looked and acted nothing like Flemings Bond would be close enough to the source material than you but a black actor who really bought Flemings Bond to life wouldn't? I can't agree with that at all.

    Maybe I've read this wrong (and sorry if I have) but it seems like you don't really care about actors being close to Fleming, as long as they have the same skin colour as his Bond.

    There's much more to Fleming's Bond than his race. A black actor playing a Flemingesque Bond would be much closer to the source material than Moore or Brosnan and that's a fact.

    You see,the main Problem is,that Flemings Bond is deeply grounded in the british Establishment. Being black,this simply couldn't happen just because he would always had been subjected to whatever level of racism (even if his Family had had the financial means to send him to Eaton), which in Return would prevent him from moving with the casualness we expect from our Man. Also, at least in Europe you simply stand out too much if you aren't a white fellow (note, this also would apply to turks, asians, italians and whatever descendence strikes your fancy. Of course in a lesser way,since there are simply more of them running around here. Well,save the asians that is.)
  • Posts: 2,483
    pachazo wrote:
    Race is about far more than skin color. It's about the culture and behavior that, overwhelmingly in the main, correlate with race. And black culture and behavior do not accord with the posh, Anglo world of Fleming's creation. That is why changing Bond's race is so different from changing his hair color that the comparison is absurd on its face.
    You have a very narrow minded point of view if you assume that everyone of a certain race acts accordingly to some set of behavior rules that you have established for them.

    I said no such thing. But if you cannot see the obvious, namely that there are general cultural forms and patterns of behavior that cohere around race and ethnicity, then you are willfully blind.

  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    pachazo wrote:
    Race is about far more than skin color. It's about the culture and behavior that, overwhelmingly in the main, correlate with race. And black culture and behavior do not accord with the posh, Anglo world of Fleming's creation. That is why changing Bond's race is so different from changing his hair color that the comparison is absurd on its face.
    You have a very narrow minded point of view if you assume that everyone of a certain race acts accordingly to some set of behavior rules that you have established for them.

    I said no such thing. But if you cannot see the obvious, namely that there are general cultural forms and patterns of behavior that cohere around race and ethnicity, then you are willfully blind.

    That's a better way to phrase it. Of course there are forms of behavior and even stereotypes that we all adhere to but we must be careful to say that because a person is of a certain race he will act exactly like this as if it's a mathematical equation. That is how I perceived your statement.
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 686
    chrisisall wrote:
    Perdogg wrote:
    Actually, if you want to be technical, he disobeyed the order PRIOR to resigning.
    If your employer gives you an order, and you refuse, your employer can take disciplinary action for your conduct UNLESS you subsequently resign. You are no longer disobeying since you no longer work for him. I you do not resign, you are actively disobeying him. Bond wasn't saying he would not go to Istanbul, just not at that moment since an urgent matter had come up he needed to deal with. Perdogg, you seem to NEED to see Bond as being non-Flemingesque here to support your dislike of the film, eh old man?
    ;)

    I didn't dislike Dalton. I liked Dalton, but MG Wilson promised us a Fleming Bond and did not deliver:

    "As a secret agent who held the rare Double-O prefix—the license to kill in the Secret Service—it was his duty to be as cool about death as a surgeon. If it happened, it happened. Regret was unprofessional—worse, it was death-watch beetle in the soul." (Goldfinger - Ian Fleming)
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    Just gonna throw in here that Bond is not a Hassidic Jew either. Nor is he a dwarf. And he doesn't have autism. And he's not a time traveler.
    He's a stiff-a*s Brit. Just leave him as is, thanks.
    One more thing, we're all friends of sorts here, no need for animosity in any discussions; one should never simply assume malice is intended in comments. Just my two cents.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    chrisisall wrote:
    One more thing, we're all friends of sorts here, no need for animosity in any discussions; one should never simply assume malice is intended in comments. Just my two cents.

    I don't think anyone would assume that. I think it's just that there are clearly non-Caucasians who would consider themselves culturally very similar, almost identical, to their Caucasian counterparts. The only distinct difference being their skin colour. That's why this is a difficult subject. Bond's always been a white guy but it doesn't mean a black actor couldn't portray him. The racial stereotyping that is still prevalent in the media and within society in general makes it very difficult. I don't see anything about Idris Elba's Luther character that suggests he couldn't be played by a white man. The same way I don't particularly see anything about the modern Bond that suggests he couldn't be played by a black man.

    However if the whole thing becomes about tokenism it's pointless. There will probably be a day when it's not considered a 'PC move' as so many people insist on calling it, but a simple casting decision. Not for a while though, I surmise.
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 3,494
    @RC7- I agree in principle that there are many fine black actors, Brits included, who could play a Bond type of spy role. Perhaps someone should create such an opportunity if there is demand for it, because hijacking the character of James Bond in the name of cultural progress isn't necessary nor wanted.
Sign In or Register to comment.