Idris Elba considered for James Bond

1678911

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2014 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    I have no doubt Idris Elba and his PR people are milking this for all it's worth. That's a seperate issue from whether there should or could be a black Bond. Have to say that I find the idea that the way black people speak and move disqualifies them from the part slightly odd.

    But then a lot of the mental contortions people are going through here to justify their belief that film Bond cannot be black are a bit strange.


    Agreed. There are people from all over the world on this thread, with different points of view, cultural experiences and the like. This particular issue brings all preconceived notions to the fore, which is why I think it's a good debate, because as long as one is open to other's point of view, lessons can be learned.. An open mind and patience is definitely required. I've definitely learned from other's comments here.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    If God can be black, so can James Bond.
  • Posts: 6,601
    Getafix, what I mean is, that by certain differences like voice and movement and others, it doesnt disqualify them, but it does skake the character around a lot more then say Irish or Scottish heritage does. Hence the question remains WHY?
    Others might answer Why not?

    But there are certain iconic characters and i am sure, there are black equivalents and i doubt the black majority would embrace a white actor. I dont believe being anti-racist means, we have to forget what makes each race unique.
  • Posts: 1,993
    In a previous post I offered the opinion that there's plenty of room for a series in the style of the Bond/Bourne films featuring a black actor. Frankly, I am surprised this has happened yet. Denzel Washington and Idris Elba are two obvious choices that come to mind. I wouldn't be inclined to go this direction, but the Bond producers could easily spin Felix Leiter into a film series.

    If Elba never did another thing, his performances as Stringer Bell and John Luther are top notch. My guess is that many of us who don't want to see him as Bond would be ecstatic to learn he'd be playing a Bond-like character in a new series of films.
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 11,119
    Today Idris Elba spoke out about it. That he was very flattered that he is considered and that he is available to take over.

    What I missed from his reaction was this: "I am flattered, BUT there is another actor playing Bond right now and he is doing a great job. So until he quits, after five films, or six, the focus should be on Daniel Craig, not me."

    Sadly, he didn't say that. And it saddens me. Try to think about how Daniel Craig feels about all this. It must be quite a fucked up feeling for him that Amy Pascal already wants a new Bond during this succesful Bond era.

    These SonyLeaks....can't they just....STOP? Can't we focus on the upcoming "Bond Year", which 2015 will be?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2014 Posts: 23,883
    Today Idris Elba spoke out about it. That he was very flattered that he is considered and that he is available to take over.

    What I missed from his reaction was this: "I am flattered, BUT there is another actor playing Bond right now and he is doing a great job. So until he quits, after five films, or six, the focus should be on Daniel Craig, not me."

    Sadly, he didn't say that. And it saddens me. Try to think about how Daniel Craig feels about all this. It must be quite a fucked up feeling for him that Amy Pascal already wants a new Bond during this succesful Bond era.

    These SonyLeaks....can't they just....STOP? Can't we focus on the upcoming "Bond Year", which 2015 will be?

    It's a healthy debate @Gustav_Graves. I prefer a healthy debate to close mindedness. The fact that the issue is out there and is being discussed is a good thing. EON knows more about how people will react now rather than later.

    Craig is secure until he wants to leave. I don't think he cares either way. In fact, from what I know about him, he probably is happy this debate is going on. They should ask him about it the next time he's interviewed. I'd be curious on his views on Elba. I bet you he 100% will support him if he's cast (won't happen though).
  • The problem with the "make a new series" argument is this imo

    *If it was a Bond like character it'd be seen as an inferior rip off and the series wouldn't last long because people can just watch the real thing.

    *So you'd have to make an entirely different character to set the series apart, and then that's not really the same as a black Bond at all. You're basically saying "why does he need to play a black Bond? Why can't he play a different character that has nothing to do with Bond at all?".
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Getafix, what I mean is, that by certain differences like voice and movement and others, it doesnt disqualify them, but it does skake the character around a lot more then say Irish or Scottish heritage does. Hence the question remains WHY?
    Others might answer Why not?

    But there are certain iconic characters and i am sure, there are black equivalents and i doubt the black majority would embrace a white actor. I dont believe being anti-racist means, we have to forget what makes each race unique.

    But there is no black equivalent to Bond, at least I can't think of one. So none of these comparisons (like Shaft) really work.

    However if there was a black equivalent to Bond, a character that had loads of different interpretations, who had been played by multiple actors and had changed a lot in appearance and personality and who's skin colour doesn't define his character or background, then I'd have no problem with a white actor playing him.

    And I don't think we move differently at all. We don't necessarily sound different either, I think a lot of the time you can't tell somebody's race based on their voice alone. And Bond's voice constantly changes anyway. Connery has a Scottish accent, Roger Moore has a posh plummy accent, Craig has sort of a neutral English accent, Brosnan has a weird Irish/English mix with some Americanisms thrown in, etc. And they all move differently too, just look at the gunbarrels.
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 6,601
    Its not about you having no problem with it, its about black people having it most likely.
    They would wipe our *** with the idea of having a white play an iconic black role and understandably so, because in a good way, you have a right to be proud of your heritage.
    Again - making us all alike is not what anti-racist is all about. Thankfully we have different backgrounds, different ways of growing up in different countries hence a different mentality etc etc. - and yes, different skins.
    Nothing wrong with acknowledging that - what's wrong is calling one better then the other, because its not.
  • Posts: 6,601
    bondjames wrote: »

    Craig is secure until he wants to leave. I don't think he cares either way. In fact, from what I know about him, he probably is happy this debate is going on. They should ask him about it the next time he's interviewed. I'd be curious on his views on Elba. I bet you he 100% will support him if he's cast (won't happen though).

    Most likely.
    All in all, I believe, this will lead to them making a better film to prove, the early nagativity was wrong and DC, because its only human to wanna prove, you still have it and beyond.
  • Posts: 43
    bondjames wrote: »
    aspie wrote: »

    Thanks for updating us with this @aspie. I liked Elba's comments, and I liked his goofie photo. Having fun with the whole thing, as he should.

    Thanks also for starting this thread. I bet you couldn't have imagined how it would have created such contentious debate, all for good IMO. I've learned a lot from it.

    Thank you, my best to you and yours. Happy New Year!!! I have lurked for several years and would leave quite often because I thought debate was squashed. The commentary on this thread has been good and illuminating. It was proper that it was allowed to continue. My original title for this thread was Idris Elba is James Bond. Like the marketing campaign for YOLT w/ Connery. I thought it was a challenge to those on both sides of the issue to up there game.
  • Posts: 15,124
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »

    Oh and for the record, I am all for a mixed or non White actor to play Bond, if he looks like a British white man. Is Jason Isaacs as a Jew considered White? I would have been all for him as Bond back in the 90s.

    Lol Isaacs wasn't born in the heat of Israel. The man is very much white. Just like you get Jews of all colours, white, black, brown whatever.


    Correct me if I'm wrong, but Jews were not considered White until 1945, and still not everyone consider them White. For the record I do, but anyway. I know I am spliting hair, but you would still have someone not White Anglo Saxon Protestant playing Bond. He would nevertheless be playing the same Bond with an unaltered background. What matters here IMO is how faithful you can be to the character, not make the character a generic alpha male or whatever background you can find the actor playing him.

    Same with Blofeld: people mentioned Elba playing him and I was dead against, because Blofeld's background would not work if he was played by a Black man.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    Perhaps we can agree that we've had our fill of the ever returning Black-Bond discussion for this season? ;-)
  • @RC7 and @Sark well said, both of you. I love coming on here but you do have to question a site which will give you a warning for swearing but then allows racist bullshit like what @Khan posted above. I seem to remember him posting something similar on another thread and when a member quite rightly called him out on it he was accused of starting a witch hunt and was pretty much bullied off the site.

    Your memory fails you, boy. My departure, which wasn't even remotely in the same time frame as the incident you reference, was due to boredom and accidie. There is no battalion of anti-white racist children tough enough or smart enough to deal with me.

  • Posts: 15,124
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Bane in TDKR has a mask most of the time and a foreign, somewhat Hispanic sounding accent (if I am not mistaken a nod to his comic book origins) . In any case, if the actor was a British white man, the character was not. They did turn Khan into a white Brit in the last Star Trek movie, and it was IMO a complete failure, whitewashing the villain into something generic and devoid of personality.

    Agree 100%. Khan in the last Star Trek was a complete shambles. They should not have done that. It was somewhat insulting to the character.

    And Cumberbatch is a great actor. He was just completely wrong for the role. I didn't expect another uberman on steroid looking Khan, but with a name like Khan and the previous actor in the role being Hispanic, one would have expected a more fitting casting than a skinny British white man.

    Cumberbatch as Khan in Star Trek Into Darkness was one instance of whitewashing that I believe was beneficial. As people noticed Into Darkness was basically one big allegory for a 9/11 conspiracy theory. Roberto Orci himself is a "truther". Can you imagine the controversy of a Indian actor or a actor clearly portraying a Indian man blowing up government buildings? Hell Khan's first scene in the movie was him forcing a suicide bomber to blowup a government weapons facility.

    The filmmakers of STID were damned if they did and damned if they didn't. By casting a white British man they were accused of white-washing. If they stayed truer to the Khan of the series/Wrath of Khan all the touchy P.C. types would up in arms calling it a racist movie with the only Indian character in the film being a ruthless terrorist.

    Cracked.com actually did a good job of pointing out the glaring agenda the film had.

    http://www.cracked.com/article_21552_5-famous-movies-with-political-agendas-you-didnt-notice.html

    Well, in that case all I can say is don't let your script be written by 9/11 truthers. They will get something as ridiculous as the "theory" they defend. If he wanted to avoid a controversy, he may as well have made the enemy another person than Khan. There is no point taking an original character and keeping nothing of him but his namem turning him into yet another generic British villain. There was a lot of wrong things about this pseudo-Khan, the casting was just one of them, but it certainly was one of them.

    Maybe the courageous thing would have been to stay faithful to the original character and has a talented Hispanic or even an Indian actor play the role. I have yet to see an actor shy away from playing a well written villainous role out of fear of stygmatising his ethnic group. Did any white actor refused to play Iago because he was racist? Or Black actor refused to play Othello because he strangles his wife to death?

    You're right about the 9/11 allegories being left out but it seemed like that'e the direction Orci was going in one way or another. As far as Khan not being the villain, just ask yourself, how many Star Trek villains can the average moviegoer name? Khan is far and away the most famous villain in Star Trek lore and it made business sense to use him in the film. The film business is just that. A business.

    In terms of casting, like I said they were damned if they did and damned if they didn't. If they did the "courageous thing" as you suggested I'd bet you dollars to donuts that they'd have a slew of overly P.C. tools with too much free time on their hands condemning the film as racist against Indians. They dodged a much bigger controversy by casting Cumberbatch.

    Speaking of Cumberbatch, I know I'm in the minority here but I preferred his version of Khan to Ricardo Montalban's. Montalban's Khan was campy as hell and felt like he belonged more in an episode of the Adam West 1960s Batman show. Whereas Cumberbatch's cold and calculating psychopath made for a far more compelling character IMHO. And there's the fact that Cumberbatch is one of the best actors working today and if people took off their rose-tinted nostalgia glasses I think they'd see he gave a far more layered performance than either of Montalban's and was hardly a "generic British villain".

    I understand Khan is maybe the only Star Trek villain known by the general public, hence the necessity to make him faithful to the original. They only used his name. Yes, Montalban was maybe not the greatest actor, but he played the role earnestly and with certain traits. I said the courageous thing, but I would have said the intelligent thing would have been to write him as this natural leader who considers himself borderline godly due to genetic enhancement (because, psychopaths, cold and calculating or not, are pretty generic these days) and cast him with an actor who fitted the bill. Benicio del Toro for instance, who was rumored, or Antonio Banderas. Or an Indian, which could have been truly daring. Did anyone complained about Black villains being pictured in The Bourne movies or CR?
  • 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.

    Precisely. Every race and culture is allowed, nay expected to jealously preserve its own culture and cultural artifacts (Bond is such an artifact). This is righteous defense against white cultural imperialism, dontchaknow! But if whites identify as a group and state that we possess a distinct culture and have unique interests, we are in danger of losing our jobs and our freedom. And that is because the Anti-White Racists fear white identity more than anything. They understand that once we recognize our own interests and that our culture and our nations are being stolen from us daily, we will put an end to it. They also know that if white culture is ever recognized, then we will quickly see that it dwarfs all else. With allowances to the Chinese, civilization is white, and we cannot allow that knowledge to exist now, can we?

  • Posts: 15,124
    Today Idris Elba spoke out about it. That he was very flattered that he is considered and that he is available to take over.

    What I missed from his reaction was this: "I am flattered, BUT there is another actor playing Bond right now and he is doing a great job. So until he quits, after five films, or six, the focus should be on Daniel Craig, not me."

    Sadly, he didn't say that. And it saddens me. Try to think about how Daniel Craig feels about all this. It must be quite a fucked up feeling for him that Amy Pascal already wants a new Bond during this succesful Bond era.

    These SonyLeaks....can't they just....STOP? Can't we focus on the upcoming "Bond Year", which 2015 will be?

    My issue as well. I love Elba and when Ejiofor was rumored to play a villain I was advocating for Elba instead, far more fitting IMO. But that lacks class. When a fellow actor has a role you want (whatever the chances are that you could get it, at your age), then you mention that the role is already taken for now.
  • timmer wrote: »

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

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

    As I suggested earlier Bond must be cast in the Fleming mold.
    Anything else is insanity, or worse, PC run amok...to wit Amy Pascal at Sony, who hasn't a clue when it comes to what Bond is all about.
    But as I said earlier, eventually the Bond persona will be thrown wide open, much like Holmes and other cultural icons, and we'll see all sorts of different takes on Bond.
    The market will decide what flies.
    Somehow I think Bond as presented by Fleming will always dominate the Bond landscape
    There really isn't much latitude with this character.
    Bond is what he is.

    Happy New Year to you, too, old amigo.

    I'm afraid Pascal knows one very important thing: Bond is a white man. And what's more, he's a traditional white man and an icon of white culture. For that reason alone he must be transmogrified beyond all recognition by changing his race. It's a part of the onslaught.

  • timmer wrote: »
    Sark wrote: »
    If you have seen anything that contravenes the forum rules, flag it and we will take the appropriate action.

    It's blatant racism against the forum rules?
    Oh will you get over your blatant sanctimonious self.
    Say what you have to say, like a big boy, and stop trying to censor others who have been on these boards, a hell of a lot longer than, since you turned up in full whine.

    As I mentioned upthread, his ilk seek to silence with charges of racism, and when that doesn't work, they call on the censors to do their work for them. They don't have the brains or the stomach to deal with the truth. And they are as predictable as the sun and the moon.
  • Posts: 15,124
    Let's not foreget that this not a debate about a Black actor to play Bond, but this particular Black actor. Ten years ago, Elba was in the right age frame to succeed to Brosnan. Today he is not to succeed to Craig.

    And, I may add, however I love the actor, his eagerness to take the role and his blatant ignorance of Craig's current tenure makes me want him even less for Bond.
  • doubleoego wrote: »
    First of all shaft has been played by one actor. Samuel L Jackson played his nephew in the 2000 film. Secondly, I don't recall Bond being a character or a movie series belonging to an ethnic sub-genre as is the case with Shaft so the comparison doesn't work at all. I want and prefer Bond to remain a white guy, it's what I am used to and what I prefer. It is entirely possible for a man of colour to be Bond but preferably that won't be the case.

    Weak. Bond is the very essence of the upper-crust, white Brit. By his behavior, his mannerisms, and his tastes, Bond is the archetypal white man. And that is why he's such a major target for the Social Justice Warriors.


  • Oh, and one more thing: the white Shaft comparison doesn't work. For one thing Shaft has only been played by one actor while Bond has been played by 6, who all look very different and who all play very different interperetations of the character. And Shaft is defined by his race (black private dick). Bond isn't (people say British secret agent, not white secret agent). Not anymore anyway. In the 50s and 60s sure, Bond's race was a big part of it because you couldn't have a black man who came from a similar background to Bond. In the 50s it was impossible to have a black man in a similar position with a similar background as Bond. But now, in 2014, it's perfectly possible for a black guy to come from the same background as Bond so his skin colour is no more important than his hair colour or eye colour.

    Oh and one more thing the Shaft comparison does work. For one thing Shaft has been played by two actors.

    Bond has proven more durable as a franchise that's why he's been played by 6 (with due deference to Barry Nelson, David Niven, Bob Holness etc).

    Also you seem to be happy comparing apples and oranges in attempt to prove your point. Why are you defining Shaft as 'black private dick' but Bond as 'British secret agent'?

    Seems like its fine to define Shaft by his race but not Bond? Why not drying Shaft as 'American private dick' or Bond as 'white secret agent'?

    In 2014 it's also very possible to have a white man from the same background as Shaft.

    If you are in favour of a black Bond then you have to be happy to accept a white Shaft as well. Can't have one rule for one and one for the other.

    Just out of interest can anyone shed any light on whether people would be up in arms if a white man was cast as Shaft?
    Well said. Some common sense on here.

    And to answer your question, yes I would be up in arms if the next Shaft film was played by a white actor, because Shaft was originally written as a black character. Why would you want to change him, just because it is 2014, and because you can?

    Does this make me racist against white people?

    If Shaft--or Fred Sanford--were played by a white actor, the usual suspects would scream "cultural appropriation," and begin looting and burning in the streets as a means of rectifying the situation.

  • BAIN123 wrote: »
    Incidently I remember seeing Elba DJ'ing at V-Fest in 2013. He was good but I'm not sure I'd associate DJ-ing with the Bond world. Fleming certainly wouldn't :p

    Bring on LaJameis Bond!
  • Getafix wrote: »

    Oh, and one more thing: the white Shaft comparison doesn't work. For one thing Shaft has only been played by one actor while Bond has been played by 6, who all look very different and who all play very different interperetations of the character. And Shaft is defined by his race (black private dick). Bond isn't (people say British secret agent, not white secret agent). Not anymore anyway. In the 50s and 60s sure, Bond's race was a big part of it because you couldn't have a black man who came from a similar background to Bond. In the 50s it was impossible to have a black man in a similar position with a similar background as Bond. But now, in 2014, it's perfectly possible for a black guy to come from the same background as Bond so his skin colour is no more important than his hair colour or eye colour.

    Oh and one more thing the Shaft comparison does work. For one thing Shaft has been played by two actors.

    Bond has proven more durable as a franchise that's why he's been played by 6 (with due deference to Barry Nelson, David Niven, Bob Holness etc).

    Also you seem to be happy comparing apples and oranges in attempt to prove your point. Why are you defining Shaft as 'black private dick' but Bond as 'British secret agent'?

    Seems like its fine to define Shaft by his race but not Bond? Why not drying Shaft as 'American private dick' or Bond as 'white secret agent'?

    In 2014 it's also very possible to have a white man from the same background as Shaft.

    If you are in favour of a black Bond then you have to be happy to accept a white Shaft as well. Can't have one rule for one and one for the other.

    Just out of interest can anyone shed any light on whether people would be up in arms if a white man was cast as Shaft?
    Well said. Some common sense on here.

    And to answer your question, yes I would be up in arms if the next Shaft film was played by a white actor, because Shaft was originally written as a black character. Why would you want to change him, just because it is 2014, and because you can?

    Does this make me racist against white people?

    Casting Shaft as white would cause a lot more issues than having a black Bond. Shaft is much more explicitly about race. He is a symbol of black empowerment (albeit co-opted by Hollywood). Casting him as white would sort of negate the fundamental sigificance of the character. With a white actor he just becomes like any another bad ass detective.

    Bond is a symbol of a fading, overwhelmingly white imperial Britain. But screen Bond has developed and changed a lot since Flemings novels. I don't see any reason why the Craig era Bond couldn't have been played by a black actor.

    Plus MI6 has been actively and openly recruiting black and Asian staff since 9/11. So the real face and character of MI6 has also changed a lot.
    Fair points about Shaft, that I hadn't really thought of before now, and yes Bond's 50's Imperial Empire world has changed dramatically since Fleming wrote him.

    But although the films have evolved, modernised, and kept with the times, in a progressive world which Fleming today would hardly recognise, the main character of James Bond has hardly changed at all, even though the world around him has.

    You could argue that this is the reason why the franchise has managed to survive as long as it has - by this constant modernisation. However, Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan and Craig are fundamentally the same 1950's character that Fleming wrote way back then.

    Once you change Bond's original dated character concept too, then the series is no longer part of the world that Fleming envisioned. As it stands now, the Bond character himself is still the main link to Fleming, even though the films belong to today, and not 1950. Why would you want to change that too, unless there really was a serious shortage of white English actors to play Bond....?

    They key point here is that Bond himself need not change. It is his very difference, his almost archaic whiteness that makes him unique and refreshing in a sea of oaten and cardboard film protagonists. Dare I suggest that James Bond represents substantive diversity? Ah, but it's the sort of diversity the Anti-White Racists, in their boundless inclusivity, cannot tolerate.

  • 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?

    Ah, so the coward outs himself. Didn't you post as Kennan on another site? What a weak-minded knave you are.

  • "Didn't you post as Kennan on another site?" No, I have no idea what you're talking about there, although it's nice to know there's apparently someone else like me who is tired of your bullshit.

    I never said you were bullied off the site (if only). I was referring to @harkaway, a member who called you out for what you are (a racist) only for him to basically be told to fuck off. That incident is also what I was referring to when I said your actions in the past had been ignored, as you posted some BS similar to what you posted earlier in this thread, and you weren't punished at all for it.

    I don't think I'm being cowardly at all. Although I am being weak minded in a way because I told myself I was done with this thread now, I've said my piece, but when I saw you'd posted again I couldn't help click on it.

    Although I don't know why I'm bothering. Just like last time, you won't be punished, simply because you're a long standing member. Although of course this post will be edited and maybe I'll even recieve another warning, because I said fuck before, and swearing is against the rules. Racism though is apparently fine.

    @Germanlady Fair enough, I understand what you mean now.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    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?

    Ah, so the coward outs himself. Didn't you post as Kennan on another site? What a weak-minded knave you are.

    Your highfalutin vernacular evokes Russell Brand and the similarities don't end there.
  • Posts: 725
    As I've noted in earlier posts, I have no issue with a younger black actor taking over Bond when Craig is done. I have a big issue with Elba because his agressive campaigning for Bond has become obnoxious and unprofessional. Craig is in the part for what could be at least 4 more years when Bond 25 comes out. Elba knows he is too old and it's becoming obvious that he knew his one chance was to get rid of Craig and use the press to create and push a political ground swell for himself. Pascal gave him a huge PR assist but Elba started this campaign years ago.

    When Elba isn't talking about "the millions of fans that adore me" stuff, he brings up Bond in every interview. This was a quote from his interview in the Huffington Post over a year ago.

    "I say it all the time, but if it was to ever happen and if I was ever to get offered that role, that would be the will of a nation. That would be like, "Wow, human beings are really powerful. They really made that happen, because Barbra Broccoli certainly didn't" ... it would be the will of a nation because everyone has been saying that to me.

    Not smart to diss Broccoli and you don't campaign hard for a part that another actor already has. It is unprofessional. Naomie Harris is someways worse with the way she kept bringing it up in earlier interviews for Mandela, and then bragging that she started the rumor. She is Craig's co-star. She was unprofessional and disloyal. As a side note, EON no doubt has taken notice that the two of them together bombed in Mandela.

    If EON wants to keep Craig, and I can't see Craig throwing over another $20m salary so easily, they better step up and nip this flood of press caused by Pascal's leak, or they will lose control of their casting to an actor you can bet they do not want to work with for 10 years. This PR push for Elba doesn't just undermine Craig, it will harm the press reaction to Spectre which has already started as a result of the script/email leaks. Elba is a very charismatic and talented actor. But he's too old, and he is an egomanic and neither fact has a damn thing to do with his race.
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 3,327
    If what Smitty is saying is true, the more I am hearing from Elba, the more I'm beginning to think he sounds a bit of a dick, and I'm really glad he isn't Bond. Shame really, because he comes across on screen as a bit of a cool dude, but it sounds like his off screen persona doesn't match this.

    And no, this particular opinion isn't because he is black.
  • Posts: 5,767
    Love this thread. I feel torn apart about the idea of a black actor playing Bond. Which is, as was correctly mentioned, not the topic of this thread, but nevertheless a highly interesting thought.
    Lots of interesting thing have been written here.
    Initially I loathed the idea of a black Bond.
    Then some posts here convinced me that especially film Bond would be versatile enough to be black.
    Right now I´m thinking that a black Bond would probably feel like a political decision above all else.
This discussion has been closed.