› ›

Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1…871872874876877…1236

Comments

  • baerrttbaerrtt United kingdom
    Posts: 16
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    It makes me laugh how people will say that there's nothing wrong with bond changing race, but then dismiss tom hardy as "too short" or "too old". What? If we are looking past the race thing, how is it right to be heightist or ageist against actors on the same basis? Is there any reason why bond HAS to be 6 feet tall, or in that 35 - 40 age range? Isn't that just another type of discrimination, albeit one we are less prepared to confront at the present time? Once you chip away at the character enough, it all starts to seem arbitrary. Bond can look like anyone if you squint hard enough. I mean, we say that he has to remain a man because he's such a womaniser and that an essential component of the character, but I can easily see some twitter activist making the case that the idea of men having inherently greater sex drive is retrograde and sexist on its face. The way I look at it, for 30 years we had everyone in mi6 portrayed as the same race, gender, sexuality and no one blinked an eye. They didn't feel the need to change anything and no one even saw it as being a problem. Then in the next 30 years (from the 90's onwards) we've had a female M, a black moneypenny, a black felix lieter and now, as we discovered in B25, a gay Q. The only character in the main cast who hasn't gender/race/sexuality swapped has been Bond, although they did allude to some homosexuality in skyfall in silvas lair. And now people are saying that its inevitable that Bond changes race in future, and there's nothing we can do to avoid it. Then what do you call this force, if not slowly "going woke" over time? If every single character in the main cast HAS to be altered in some way just to continue existing then that's the very definition of bending to suit an ideological agenda. Is there any evidence to suggest that race swapping a character actually improves their standing with a given demographic? Do more black people watch bond now that felix is representing them on screen, and what does that even mean? I find the idea of race swapping to "improve the branding" a deeply cynical approach, not to mention a little creepy. It's the kind of thing that a board room full of executives would come up with, not some bold out of the box thinking.

    People who support this idea seem to think that it will do a lot to freshen up and modernise the franchise, while at the same time arguing that nothing will fundamentally change about it. Well, which is it then? How can we argue that this change would bring about so many positives and invigorate the series overall, and then say its as superficial as changing eye colour? It doesn't really make sense, and thats my issue. There's no collective experience surrounding people with brown eyes or blonde hair like there is around people of different races, so it's a silly comparison to even mention. I can only assume that by freshen up and "modernise" bond, we mean changing things beyond just skin colour. By representation, we don't just mean seeing the same skin tone on screen, but the same underlying experience being depicted. That's where the relatability comes from, correct? So that would mean a major divergence from the rest of the series, and the origin of the books, far greater than Craigs blonde hair ever caused.

    I always thought that killing off bond would be my final straw, but the fact that Craigs journey is now a closed book, put back on the shelf next to lazenby, connery, moore and brosnan and dalton where they can all be looked back on and appreciated by their respective fanbases, is enough to give the series another chance. I can happily move on, take what i find enjoyable about his first 3 entries, and forget that the 2013 - 2023 era even existed when it comes to Bond on the big screen. But if they decide that after all the changes they have made to the cast over the past decades to make it more accepting and inclusive that they have to start messing with Bonds fudamental character for the sake of twitter clout, and if its really true that making nomi the official 007 was babs idea of "testing the waters", then I have no reluctance in saying that I will be jumping ship before it sinks. The writing really is on the wall at that point.

    I personally think aidan turner is perhaps the best and only option right now, because he's the only one who is equally capable of doing both the light and the dark, and I think a balance of both is what's needed if the next era is to get off to a successful start. People say that he only has support because he has a certain bondian look about him, but as far as I'm concerned that's the last thing that qualifies him. His best attributes are not merely his looks, but his ability and natural talent. Anyone who has actually taken the time to watch "and then there were none" can attest to his inherent dark persona and classic rogueishness. he reminds me of early connery/dalton in bringing that raw intensity to the screen. But at the same time, if you watch any interview he does, he is such a light hearted, affable chap in the same way that brosnan and Moore would be off screen, and I feel he would do a much better job handling the press than Craig has done. The fact that he has both extremes, the dark, menacing, cruel side and the breezy, happy-go-lucky side means that whatever story direction they want to go in he is well equipt to take on. Personally I am very much looking forward to a Bond era that is more outside the characters head, and going on the journey with him but not from his perspective so much. The Craig era has its appeal, but I feel like we've been suffering bonds torment along with him for the past 20 years, and I want to get out of that space and back into seeing him from the outside looking in as a character with mystery, intrigue and some levity. That being said he should still have depth to him, and he needs that dangerous mystique, which turner can pull off in spades. If he doesn't at least get a good screen test in the next few years it would be a major travesty for the series, and I think many fans would view it as the one that got away considering how he is already a firm fan favourite.

    Wow you typed all that self important guff when you could've easily said 'I'm a racist' and moved on.....and on that note I'm not spending any more time on this forum.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,233
    Some people just overthink things.

    If Bond is played by a black actor, white actor, Asian actor… so what? What does that do TO YOU?
  • ColonelAdamskiColonelAdamski UK
    Posts: 1,088
    Some very sensible and reasoned points there Mendes4lyfe. It makes a refreshing change from the usual pot-shots from the 'who can I contradict today' one-line gang.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    edited January 2022 Posts: 1,318
    baerrtt wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    It makes me laugh how people will say that there's nothing wrong with bond changing race, but then dismiss tom hardy as "too short" or "too old". What? If we are looking past the race thing, how is it right to be heightist or ageist against actors on the same basis? Is there any reason why bond HAS to be 6 feet tall, or in that 35 - 40 age range? Isn't that just another type of discrimination, albeit one we are less prepared to confront at the present time? Once you chip away at the character enough, it all starts to seem arbitrary. Bond can look like anyone if you squint hard enough. I mean, we say that he has to remain a man because he's such a womaniser and that an essential component of the character, but I can easily see some twitter activist making the case that the idea of men having inherently greater sex drive is retrograde and sexist on its face. The way I look at it, for 30 years we had everyone in mi6 portrayed as the same race, gender, sexuality and no one blinked an eye. They didn't feel the need to change anything and no one even saw it as being a problem. Then in the next 30 years (from the 90's onwards) we've had a female M, a black moneypenny, a black felix lieter and now, as we discovered in B25, a gay Q. The only character in the main cast who hasn't gender/race/sexuality swapped has been Bond, although they did allude to some homosexuality in skyfall in silvas lair. And now people are saying that its inevitable that Bond changes race in future, and there's nothing we can do to avoid it. Then what do you call this force, if not slowly "going woke" over time? If every single character in the main cast HAS to be altered in some way just to continue existing then that's the very definition of bending to suit an ideological agenda. Is there any evidence to suggest that race swapping a character actually improves their standing with a given demographic? Do more black people watch bond now that felix is representing them on screen, and what does that even mean? I find the idea of race swapping to "improve the branding" a deeply cynical approach, not to mention a little creepy. It's the kind of thing that a board room full of executives would come up with, not some bold out of the box thinking.

    People who support this idea seem to think that it will do a lot to freshen up and modernise the franchise, while at the same time arguing that nothing will fundamentally change about it. Well, which is it then? How can we argue that this change would bring about so many positives and invigorate the series overall, and then say its as superficial as changing eye colour? It doesn't really make sense, and thats my issue. There's no collective experience surrounding people with brown eyes or blonde hair like there is around people of different races, so it's a silly comparison to even mention. I can only assume that by freshen up and "modernise" bond, we mean changing things beyond just skin colour. By representation, we don't just mean seeing the same skin tone on screen, but the same underlying experience being depicted. That's where the relatability comes from, correct? So that would mean a major divergence from the rest of the series, and the origin of the books, far greater than Craigs blonde hair ever caused.

    I always thought that killing off bond would be my final straw, but the fact that Craigs journey is now a closed book, put back on the shelf next to lazenby, connery, moore and brosnan and dalton where they can all be looked back on and appreciated by their respective fanbases, is enough to give the series another chance. I can happily move on, take what i find enjoyable about his first 3 entries, and forget that the 2013 - 2023 era even existed when it comes to Bond on the big screen. But if they decide that after all the changes they have made to the cast over the past decades to make it more accepting and inclusive that they have to start messing with Bonds fudamental character for the sake of twitter clout, and if its really true that making nomi the official 007 was babs idea of "testing the waters", then I have no reluctance in saying that I will be jumping ship before it sinks. The writing really is on the wall at that point.

    I personally think aidan turner is perhaps the best and only option right now, because he's the only one who is equally capable of doing both the light and the dark, and I think a balance of both is what's needed if the next era is to get off to a successful start. People say that he only has support because he has a certain bondian look about him, but as far as I'm concerned that's the last thing that qualifies him. His best attributes are not merely his looks, but his ability and natural talent. Anyone who has actually taken the time to watch "and then there were none" can attest to his inherent dark persona and classic rogueishness. he reminds me of early connery/dalton in bringing that raw intensity to the screen. But at the same time, if you watch any interview he does, he is such a light hearted, affable chap in the same way that brosnan and Moore would be off screen, and I feel he would do a much better job handling the press than Craig has done. The fact that he has both extremes, the dark, menacing, cruel side and the breezy, happy-go-lucky side means that whatever story direction they want to go in he is well equipt to take on. Personally I am very much looking forward to a Bond era that is more outside the characters head, and going on the journey with him but not from his perspective so much. The Craig era has its appeal, but I feel like we've been suffering bonds torment along with him for the past 20 years, and I want to get out of that space and back into seeing him from the outside looking in as a character with mystery, intrigue and some levity. That being said he should still have depth to him, and he needs that dangerous mystique, which turner can pull off in spades. If he doesn't at least get a good screen test in the next few years it would be a major travesty for the series, and I think many fans would view it as the one that got away considering how he is already a firm fan favourite.

    Wow you typed all that self important guff when you could've easily said 'I'm a racist' and moved on.....and on that note I'm not spending any more time on this forum.

    Good. Don't come back. Reported, by the way.
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Some people just overthink things.

    If Bond is played by a black actor, white actor, Asian actor… so what? What does that do TO YOU?

    Are you even serious? Have you ever heard of Fleming? Ever read the books? Do you even care about the legacy of Bond?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2022 Posts: 16,624
    ColonelAdamski wrote: »
    Some very sensible and reasoned points there Mendes4lyfe. It makes a refreshing change from the usual pot-shots from the 'who can I contradict today' one-line gang.

    It's notable that some gangs only seem to turn up when there's a race argument brewing.

    You say it's sensible and well-argued but I see a load of strawmen and invented opponents being argued against, together with totally made-up points like "making nomi the official 007 was babs idea of "testing the waters"". Just inventing quotes (another example is him quotes the phrase "improve the branding" at one point- who is he quoting?) and arguments to rail against is pretty much the opposite of 'sensible' to me. It's why I just ignored the post when it appeared.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited January 2022 Posts: 5,970
    I'm just gonna drop in Sam Claflin again to change the subject. I really think he'd be a good choice. He's a very versatile and talented actor so could see him going many routes for 007.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,255
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I'm just gonna drop in Sam Claflin again to change the subject. I really think he'd be a good choice. He's a very versatile and talented actor so could see him going many routes for 007.

    He’s high on my list of candidates and definitely deserves a look.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    talos7 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I'm just gonna drop in Sam Claflin again to change the subject. I really think he'd be a good choice. He's a very versatile and talented actor so could see him going many routes for 007.

    He’s high on my list of candidates and definitely deserves a look.
    He really does, and because of the reasons I said above, I could see EON bringing him in for whatever tone they wanted for Bond 26.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    I'd be shocked if they announced Bond #7 so soon, but then again NTTD finished filming in October 2019 and they didn't release it for two years. I'd hope they used that time wisely, even if it's only just laying the foundations for the next era
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,255
    Denbigh wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I'm just gonna drop in Sam Claflin again to change the subject. I really think he'd be a good choice. He's a very versatile and talented actor so could see him going many routes for 007.

    He’s high on my list of candidates and definitely deserves a look.
    He really does, and because of the reasons I said above, I could see EON bringing him in for whatever tone they wanted for Bond 26.

    I went and pulled up a few interviews with him and my only quibble, one I have with many contemporary actors, is his voice; it’s a bit thin.

    Do any of these actors seek out voice coaches?

  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    talos7 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I'm just gonna drop in Sam Claflin again to change the subject. I really think he'd be a good choice. He's a very versatile and talented actor so could see him going many routes for 007.

    He’s high on my list of candidates and definitely deserves a look.
    He really does, and because of the reasons I said above, I could see EON bringing him in for whatever tone they wanted for Bond 26.

    I went and pulled up a few interviews with him and my only quibble, one I have with many contemporary actors, is his voice; it’s a bit thin.

    Do any of these actors seek out voice coaches?
    Voices are usually my last concern because as actors they probably can do a lot with their voices, just not in situations where they're meant to just be relaxed and themselves.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,255
    True…
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,393
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Some people just overthink things.

    If Bond is played by a black actor, white actor, Asian actor… so what? What does that do TO YOU?

    And everyone forgets about John Gavin.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    How can we argue that this change would bring about so many positives and invigorate the series overall, and then say its as superficial as changing eye colour?.

    Simplest way I can put it is, I think it’s superficial in the world of the films, but significant in the real world they’re being released in.

    In the context of an escapist blockbuster series, set in a heightened reality take on the post equality act present, about a top shagger gadget toting superspy saving the world for a fictional version of Britain that’s still very much a superpower, it’s as superficial as they want it to be. It’s not real. You’ve even got historical dramas doing race blind casting now, so I’m not sure why people seem to think fantasy blockbusters absolutely have to realistically represent every nuance of the black/asian experience. But the films are being released in the real world, where POC have been under represented on screen, particularly in leading blockbuster sort of the roles. And that is significant, because it’s a nice bit of representation that opens up the pool of actors who can do it, and gives people of different backgrounds the chance to see themselves as a national icon.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,624
    thelivingroyale wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    How can we argue that this change would bring about so many positives and invigorate the series overall, and then say its as superficial as changing eye colour?.

    Simplest way I can put it is, I think it’s superficial in the world of the films, but significant in the real world they’re being released in.

    In the context of an escapist blockbuster series, set in a heightened reality take on the post equality act present, about a top shagger gadget toting superspy saving the world for a fictional version of Britain that’s still very much a superpower, it’s as superficial as they want it to be. It’s not real. You’ve even got historical dramas doing race blind casting now, so I’m not sure why people seem to think fantasy blockbusters absolutely have to realistically represent every nuance of the black/asian experience. But the films are being released in the real world, where POC have been under represented on screen, particularly in leading blockbuster sort of the roles. And that is significant, because it’s a nice bit of representation that opens up the pool of actors who can do it, and gives people of different backgrounds the chance to see themselves as a national icon.

    Excellent intelligent reply which answers all the questions fully, could not agree more. You’re an asset to the forum.
    Right, now that matter is closed and has been answered, let’s move on.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,676
    Nothing further to be said @thelivingroyale good post.
  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    edited January 2022 Posts: 2,296
    Over for now, until somebody inevitably brings the topic back up weeks or months from now...
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    Denbigh wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I'm just gonna drop in Sam Claflin again to change the subject. I really think he'd be a good choice. He's a very versatile and talented actor so could see him going many routes for 007.

    He’s high on my list of candidates and definitely deserves a look.
    He really does, and because of the reasons I said above, I could see EON bringing him in for whatever tone they wanted for Bond 26.

    I went and pulled up a few interviews with him and my only quibble, one I have with many contemporary actors, is his voice; it’s a bit thin.

    Do any of these actors seek out voice coaches?
    Voices are usually my last concern because as actors they probably can do a lot with their voices, just not in situations where they're meant to just be relaxed and themselves.

    I've always been the same on this, until I re watched the films back preparing for NTTD.
    I noticed how much Bond commands the scene with his voice alone. Watching Lazenby and Pierce they have such a mousy delivery at times
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,233
    JeremyBondon wrote: »
    Are you even serious? Have you ever heard of Fleming? Ever read the books? Do you even care about the legacy of Bond?

    Are you pretending the films never deviated from the source material?
  • Benjamin_Weekly69Benjamin_Weekly69 London
    Posts: 727
    Bond makes most of its money in Europe. To recast him as a non-European looking person is a risky gamble. There’s no guarantee the added Box office value of casting a non-European looking person as Bond would offset the depression it may cause in the primary market.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,233
    Benjamin_Weekly69 wrote: »
    Bond makes most of its money in Europe. To recast him as a non-European looking person is a risky gamble. There’s no guarantee the added Box office value of casting a non-European looking person as Bond would offset the depression it may cause in the primary market.

    Depending on the actor it’s a risk worth taking.

    I’m still amused that casting a POC is what draws the line for some “fans”, after so much this franchise has gone through. Like, really? THAT is when you say “I’m done”?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,624
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I'm just gonna drop in Sam Claflin again to change the subject. I really think he'd be a good choice. He's a very versatile and talented actor so could see him going many routes for 007.

    He’s high on my list of candidates and definitely deserves a look.
    He really does, and because of the reasons I said above, I could see EON bringing him in for whatever tone they wanted for Bond 26.

    I went and pulled up a few interviews with him and my only quibble, one I have with many contemporary actors, is his voice; it’s a bit thin.

    Do any of these actors seek out voice coaches?
    Voices are usually my last concern because as actors they probably can do a lot with their voices, just not in situations where they're meant to just be relaxed and themselves.

    I've always been the same on this, until I re watched the films back preparing for NTTD.
    I noticed how much Bond commands the scene with his voice alone. Watching Lazenby and Pierce they have such a mousy delivery at times

    I obviously prefer those big commanding voices of Connery or Craig or the like, but I don’t think it would be the end of the world if he didn’t match up; Pierce still worked as Bond for me.
  • Benjamin_Weekly69Benjamin_Weekly69 London
    Posts: 727
    Funny how no one talks about making Batman black but for some reason fixate on Bond. I wonder why.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,233
    Looking at Aidan Turner’s resume, seems I haven’t seen him in anything besides the HOBBIT films. Looks like a wimp in photos, to be honest. What’s a better program that shows him to be a candidate?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,233
    Benjamin_Weekly69 wrote: »
    Funny how no one talks about making Batman black but for some reason fixate on Bond. I wonder why.

    Sounds like you know your answer.

    Speaking of DC, the studio is looking for a black Superman. How do you feel about that?
  • Benjamin_Weekly69Benjamin_Weekly69 London
    edited January 2022 Posts: 727
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Benjamin_Weekly69 wrote: »
    Funny how no one talks about making Batman black but for some reason fixate on Bond. I wonder why.

    Sounds like you know your answer.

    Speaking of DC, the studio is looking for a black Superman. How do you feel about that?

    No I don’t.

    And nobody in Europe cares about Superman. Bond is our lad.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    Benjamin_Weekly69 wrote: »
    Funny how no one talks about making Batman black but for some reason fixate on Bond. I wonder why.

    Batman has been black for about a year now:
    947032._SX360_QL80_TTD_.jpg

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/dec/11/new-batman-will-be-black-dc-comics-announces
  • Benjamin_Weekly69Benjamin_Weekly69 London
    Posts: 727
    Lol funny books. You know I was talking about the medium that is actually relevant.

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,233
    Why the fixation on Batman?
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,361
    ImpertinentGoon wrote: »
    Benjamin_Weekly69 wrote: »
    Funny how no one talks about making Batman black but for some reason fixate on Bond. I wonder why.

    Batman has been black for about a year now:
    947032._SX360_QL80_TTD_.jpg

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/dec/11/new-batman-will-be-black-dc-comics-announces

    It's not Bruce Wayne though. It's Tim Fox son of Lucius Fox.
Sign In or Register to comment.