It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Now hold on a second @thelivingroyale, I never said I didn't wanted to see Kingsman for that reason, I'm all for spy movies that interest me. At the time I said I didn't want to see it because it looked like a Bad Austin Powers esque comedy. And I also didn't want to see it at the time because it boasted it was More badass than Bond and claiming it had the fun that Bond is supposedly missing. I refused to pay to see it because it was insulting the franchise I hold dear. Sure it's a silly reason but at least I saw it and was mildly entertained by it.
Hell they could have made Harry Hart and Eggsy black (Considering Eggsy dresses like a rapper.) and I don't think anyone would noticed or cared since the Kingman film is loosely based on the Secret Service graphic novel it's sourced from. Where was the scene with Pierce Brosnan, Patrick Stewart and David Beckham helping Eggsy like they did in the comic? That would have made the final act so much more entertaining.
You can use the Moore and Brosnan weren't like Fleming's Bond argument, It doesn't change the fact they are still like Fleming's character in varying degrees. Fleming's Bond didn't have Brown Eyes or a toupee or yet Connery is still held in High regard. In fact No Bond is like Fleming's Bond. where's the scar on his cheek and hand? The movie version and the novel version is bound to be different. But that doesn't mean his ethnicity should be changed. That would change Fleming's character altogether. Those who say Bond isn't defined by his race, he most certainly is. He's pretty much a Mary Sue for Fleming. Who are we, or some hotshot movie studio to change Fleming's creation beyond recognizably?
If they make a rival Bond series Starring Elba and it gets accused of being a knock off, who cares? People called November Man a ripoff of Taken. Everything is going to be compared to something, that's how it works. I'd rather have a rival series than ethnic swapping Bond for the sake of "It's 2015, he can be anything now..."
I know you didn't like the trailers and said for some reason it looked like an Austin Powers clone but even when there were loads of positive reviews, and first hand accounts from members here, saying the trailers undersold the movie, you still refused to see it because of the marketing reason ("more badass than Bond"). Which is more or less what I said...
Bourne did the same thing with it's marketing. It's a common marketing trick, compare your film to the leader of the genre (in this case, Bond) and it's bound to happen if they did some rival Bond esque franchise with a new black character in the lead.
It wasn't. There was a quote, from one reviewer (not involved in the making of the film at all), used by the marketing department at Fox, in the trailer, saying it was more badass than Bond. And the bit from the dinner scene where Harry says that he thinks spy movies in general today are too serious (not an uncommon opinion to had). Kingsman was a film made out of love to Bond, not out of spite. It was a love letter to spy movies in general, something Vaughn stated in interviews prior to it's release. Mark Millar doesn't like the Daniel Craig films but so what? Judging from Kingsman, he clearly prefers the old Roger Moore OTT Bond, as many fans do, and he's just as entitled to his opinion as any of us on here.
Well for one thing that would've increased the films budget dramatically, there was no way they could afford that (they didn't even have studio funding, it was financed independently). I haven't read the comic but I imagine the budget was the reason many scenes were taken out (well that and to shorten it so the film wasn't too long). It wasn't a blockbuster, it was essentially an 80 million dollar independent movie, Fox didn't finance the film, it was financed by Vaughn's production company (allowing them to make it free from studio contstraints, so we didn't end up with some 12a rated butchered trainwreck) and then sold onto Fox.
Vaughn also said that he thought all the celebrity cameos felt gimmicky and would've cheapened the film and taken the audience out of it, which I agree with. Also, I could do without ever seeing a film where David Beckham helps save the world thanks.
First of all, Moroe and Brosnan were like Fleming's character to varying degrees? What does that mean? Moore I guess had the air of snobbishness that Fleming's Bond had but he was still a completely different character. Fleming's Bond wasn't a suave quip spewing playboy, he was a tortured world weary secret agent. Brosnan was an action hero who could watch a man get torn apart by a printing press, spewing blood every where, and make a bad pun about it. Fleming's Bond hated killing in cold blood, he certainly wouldn't make a quip. If it was Fleming's Bond who'd thrown the guy into the printing press he would've walked away looking downtrodden and then the kill would've remained on his conscience for a while (like in Goldfinger, killing the hitman is still on his mind even after he's travelled over to another country, and that kill was a much less traumatizing one to the printing press one in TND).
Yes, I agree with the fact that no Bond is like Fleming's Bond. No Bond actor really looks anything like Fleming's Bond already, and not many of the actors have acted like him. That's exactly my point!
Fleming's character has already been changed beyond recognition, in both appearance and character, to the point where it's Fleming's Bond in name only. Why can the entire character, his tastes, personality, physical appearance (besides skin colour), background (Daniel Craig's Bond was a Royal Marine who eventually got into the SBS before being picked to become a 00, Fleming's Bond wasn't, and his two kills that gained him his status were different in the film too), the adventures he goes on (so many of the films have butchered the books) all change but his skin colour can't. Why is that a step too far for you, after all the change the character has undergone already? Why is making him black changing his character altogether but changing his physical appearance, way of thinking and entire personality (essentially making him Fleming's Bond in name only) isn't?
I know I'm repeating myself and I'm sorry if I'm ramming my opinion down everyone's throat here but that's because it's frustrating, I'm trying to understand your viewpoint but I really can't. You're clearly not a Fleming purist and you've accepted that film Bond and novel Bond have pretty much become two entirely different mediums. You can enjoy films that have completely bastardized Fleming's character and the missions he goes on so why is making him black a big deal because it changes the character? The message I'm getting from this is that you find Bond's race more important than not just the rest of Bond's physical appearance, but also Bond's entire personality, which is stupid really. Bond's skin colour doesn't affect the character any more than all the drastic changes he's undergone already. I just don't understand at all why his race is so important to you, but his personality, philosophy/thoughts/opinions, and the rest of his appearance isn't.
What would be more distressing for you, if you woke up tomorrow and one of your closest friends had an entire personality transplant (basically making them an entirely different person to the one you've got to know) or if he was the same as he'd always been, but his race had changed? Personality/character changing is a much bigger deal, and that's already happened to Bond many times, so in my opinion, changing his skin colour would be, in the grand scheme of things, a pretty minor change.
He was. I think the leaks revealed that he was considered for the Denbigh/C role but Mendes (or perhaps someone else involved in production, can't remember) wanted Scott for the role instead and the studio happily complied because they could get him cheaper than Efijor (about a million less, iirc).
That sounds right as I think I read somewhere that it was over money. Makes me mad though given the gigantic budget. Why skimp on such a great actor. He would have been a terrific addition to the film. I thought for a while that maybe they were saving him as a possible future Bond but I think your explanation sounds right.
No need to have a relatively modest role (from what we know anyway) be played by a famous and far more expensive actor than needed. Andrew Scott may not have an Oscar, but he is a capable actor. The only use it would have brought would be make Denbigh a red herring for the Waltz character.
One talented actor with another. ;)
I don't think that it's PC pandering as long as it's not done for the sake of it, don't cast a black actor because he's act but if a handsome black actor comes along and aces the audition, showing the potential to be great in the role, then yeah sign him up, that's how I see it. But fair enough, I see where you're coming from, if it ain't broke don't fix it, makes sense :)
Yeah I like Efijor and I'd love to see him in a Bond film in the future but I'm still pretty happy with Andrew Scott. He's very good too, and there's no point spending more of the budget getting someone of Efijor's fame and status to play a supporting role. Besides not using him for this part now means they're free to cast him in a larger role in a future film.
At the end of the day, any potential black actor for Bond will have to be exceptional, and I mean exceptional. He would have to be so good, that the detractors and naysayers would not have grounds to reject him on colour alone. That's the only way a studio would take such a risk in casting him.
Basically he would have to be the Barack Obama (who was far superior to any candidate in 2008) of acting.
That is a very tall order and almost impossible to achieve. One day maybe, an actor may show up who is just a shoo-in for the role. A perfect fit, so that not casting him would be a crime. That day is not here yet, and Idris is not that man, although he got closest to date.
I forget to mention a while back, but I think Denzel Washington is another actor who is always reliable, very good at what he does, very marketable, and won't let you down. I'm not saying he should be Bond, but just that there are limited arguments to dismiss someone like Denzel Washington, assuming he was younger, and British.
Why should Eon cast a black actor when Hollywood launches new franchises like Avengers, Mission Impossible, Man from UNCLE etc and continues to cast white actors in the lead roles? Occasionally (Men In Black) they buck the trend, but in general they don't take the risk...then they suggest that Bond should be black?
Maybe he can be if they re:boot again in the future, but it's a cop out for a corporation who should be ashamed at their inability to create films for black stars.
They didn't have the balls to make Napoleon Solo black this time round? Why not?
I agree with all NicNac's comments. I would also add that if you/ a studio were casting a new Shaft, Beverley Hills Cop or Badboys film there would be no question of not casting a Black actor in the lead as they are all black characters. There should be no question of not casting a white actor as 007. Why? Because he is a white character. Period.
http://www.ibtimes.com/spider-man-cannot-be-gay-black-according-leaked-sony-email-1976083
Sooner EON/MGM bin Sony the better.
Yes but Spidey is American and Bond British. And British characters in Hollywood can be played by whoever especially iconic ones. Regardless of the source material of course. Because who cares about that.
Providing Bond remains straight I have no problem a gay actor playing him.
Having a black or asian actor play him would simply be a bit weird, just as having a woman or a young child play him would. Surely even the most far left liberals can understand that?
Fiction does not NEED to be 'P.C', because it is.... FICTION.
I am all for our REAL world becoming colour-blind and us all mixing as much as possible (which is inevitable) so that we as a HUMAN RACE (which is the only actual 'race') can get over all this discriminatory rubbish, stop harassing and killing each other and start concentrating on the real issues, ie. getting everyone fed and moderately happy without siphoning the globe's resources to 5% of the population.
Race-hatred, religious war, fear mongering over immigration - there are all excellent diversion tactics by the super-wealthy to stop us from ganging up on them.
But when I read a book or watch a film I don't need characters' skin-colour or other features to be interchangeable.
She sounds more English than 99% of people working and living in London. Not that it matters, I'm sure there are plenty of accents in the corridors of MI6.
It isn't EON's responsibilty, but that doesn't mean they can't do it. People just don't seem to be able to have a reasonable discussion. It's all tit for tat. Saying you want Bond to remain 'white' is not racist. It's purely an opinion, one that many people have and are entitled to have. He is, and has been such, for over half a century - the entirety of his existence.
Where the argument starts to go wayward is when people feel the need to bring in minority characters as reasoning for keeping him as such. Shaft being a case in point. Bond is a phenomenon, as is Batman, Spiderman, Indiana Jones etc. Shaft, isn't. In fact, I reckon you'd struggle to find many teenagers who even know who he is. Saying, just reboot 'Shaft', or come up with a 'black spy franchise', doesn't cut it for me. Do people know how hard it is to create a franchise from scratch? I'm not saying it can't be done, but I also don't see a problem with non-white actors taking on the mantle of historically white fictional characters, while an effort is made to kick-start other cinematic franchises.
This year, we've had JW, a now 20 year old franchise. The Avengers, part of a franchise built on a literary heritage older than Bond. We have SW at the end of the year, a cinematic phenomenon stretching back nearly 40 years. You don't just create cinematic phenomenona overnight. The only genuinely big franchise that has sprung out of literally nothing is 'POTC'. Everything else is either something with an existing cinematic legacy, or a literary legacy propping it up. It's harder than ever in this day and age. What is possible is to encourage change in the wider existing phenomena. SW cast John Boyega. To me that's cool, and I hope he plays a big role in SW7 and beyond. I think more enormous pop culture franchises can and should do more to broaden their appeal. It's not about competing, it's about sharing and widening the scope of what is supposed to be entertainment.
Not everything is up for grabs, but if we are to continue having these discussions on here we should avoid the needless tit for tat, like 'why don't we make MLK white?' Because those kind of assertions are fucking idiotic.
Brilliantly said.
What a relief.
Having said that, I doubt he'd have got excited with a male model/car salesman from 'down under' playing the part. "An Aussie playing Bond? Heaven forbid!" would be his reaction.
:-j
I tend to agree with comments that if a Bond type handsome, charming black actor appeared he would be in contention. If such an actor appeared he'd have a chance but he'd still battle (some) people's prejudices. I doubt Idris Elba is that actor (age goes against him) but if a younger black actor had considerable Bond potential I guess it would come down to him resisting all the negative press and reaction. Perhaps a black actor would need to have even more self-belief than a white actor going for the role. It would take some extra self-confidence, I guess. We can't underestimate how prejudice - in all its obvious and subtle forms - can challenge people's lives. The 'world' may not be ready for a black James Bond.
Dr Kananga/ Superman hybrid? :D
The 'world' will never be ready for a black James Bond, because the 'world' is primarily a horde of vociferous individuals on either end of the social/political spectrum. This has been perpetuated and magnified to the extreme by social media. This will never subside.
The actual 'world', a middle-ground of level headed people, who don't feel that everyone is out to fuck them over, would more than likely make it a hit if it was a decent movie, irrespective of the actors race.
Sometimes things are done solely for creative progress, or even personal progress; You may sit around thinking about buying a car, a house, having a baby. There is no 'right' time to do it, you just have to take the plunge. From a creative standpoint, sometimes you just need to tip the status quo or you allow for the inevitable, prolonged and cyclical oppression of, potentially unique, ideas.
Not saying we 'have' to have a black Bond, just suggesting that mention of race, or gender, or sexuality when related to the traditional domain of the white man isn't always 'PC', there might be, heaven forbid, something original borne from the fires of hell!
@RC7, I think you've summed up above why we won't see a black Bond, at least not for a while. As you note, it's so damn difficult to create a sustainable franchise these days that no studio is going to take a risk with a black actor.
You mention Boyega. Fine, but that's not the same thing. Who the heck is he playing? Someone we don't know, who is being introduced from the beginning in a massive franchise. That is as 'safe' as it gets for a studio, while doing its bit for minority actors. Bond has done its bit with the casting of Felix and MP in their most recent iterations.
Now, what do we think the reaction would be if Boyega was cast as Hans Solo, or Luke Skywalker, or Anakin for that matter? It won't go down well imho, since those are already established white characters.
Bond is the longest running recurring franchise, and the only British one of the lot to boot. I don't think it's necessary to take that risk unless and until an actor pops up that is better than the other actors who can be cast in the role. As I said earlier, such an actor is not with us yet, but that's not to say he can't appear on the scene in a few years. Colin Salmon and Idris Elba are not those men imho.
Fully agreed, it could be a creative stroke of genius akin to the casting of short, blond, thuggish DC as JB. However, it's a needle in a haystack and as I'm sure you'll agree, it can and should only be done when the suitable candidate arrives on the scene.