Where does Bond go after Craig?

1162163165167168680

Comments

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    It certainly seems to stem from an attitude I've seen on here of late, that any sort of "negativity" or anti-approval of a particular actor of color being cast suddenly means you're a racist. It's like folks deeming other members racist because they don't like Nomi's character in NTTD. There's no logic to it whatsoever and it's pretty embarrassing to see.
  • JustJamesJustJames London
    Posts: 216
    I just hope people have a similar combatitive stance should anyone suggest that perhaps they shouldn’t cast Chris Evans in a Shaft movie.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,179
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    It certainly seems to stem from an attitude I've seen on here of late, that any sort of "negativity" or anti-approval of a particular actor of color being cast suddenly means you're a racist. It's like folks deeming other members racist because they don't like Nomi's character in NTTD. There's no logic to it whatsoever and it's pretty embarrassing to see.

    Agreed. The racist card is usually pulled when all other arguments fail. Racism has become a loose term, which is kinda racist when you think about it. 😉
  • Posts: 12,466
    This extends far, far beyond this forum. If you criticize someone who happens to not be white for a reason completely unrelated to their skin color, there’s plenty ready to jump and scream “racist!” We’ve been in a hyper-sensitive culture for a while now that I can only hope won’t dominate and control speech for the long-term future.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited June 2022 Posts: 24,179
    It's the pendulum swinging one way first, then the other way, often too far in either case. Luckily, most people operate in the middle.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited June 2022 Posts: 9,509
    @JustJames ... Who's being combative when discussing potential POC actors as Bond.... If an actor, born in and around the UK has that"it" factor for this character, blocking him because the colour of his skin seems, at best, short sighted....

    As I posted recently about Denzel in Malcolm X... There was a scene where he encapsulated everything a Bond actor should have, and I didn't see skin colour. I just saw an alpha who I couldn't take my eyes off of; he was handsome and deadly and had ice cold charisma... What he had is universal and goes beyond the superficial-- like skin colour...

    If the new guy has an iota of what Denzel, Connery, Craig have, then skin colour be damned. Hire the man closest to depicting the things we love about the character....
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    Yup. This is why Elba was a favorite, as he absolutely has that sheer charisma that cuts through like a blowtorch through butter. Which is too bad that he’s old! But there’s tons of potential Bond actors who could have been great choices but didn’t because of timing. I think Jason Isaacs would have been THE perfect choice for Bond in the 90s, but it simply wasn’t meant to be.
  • edited June 2022 Posts: 2,161
    But maybe for different fans that means different things. The Bond of Fleming's novels could never be black. Fleming's Bond had his opinions on all things racial and ethnic. He was a man who regretted the end of The British Empire, and woman's suffrage. Sure, that character has long given way to the times and the trends, no need to even point that out. But where that line bends too far and the character is no longer the one you recognize, or if there any parameters at all, is up to the individual fan. Not what anyone else tells them they should accept. I am still uncomfortable with an Australian having played the part. I would call that more of a purist's allegiance to source material (the positives and negatives of that can be debated elsewhere) more than stemming from any racist agenda. And I would hope that which ever point of view a member has on here they are not hesitant to voice it for fear of being piled upon, and is given the benefit of the doubt. Let us not try to assign others' motivations to them.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited June 2022 Posts: 9,509
    And as an add on, I don't think the "white actor playing Shaft" argument holds... I don't know much about Shaft, but I'll suggest that the original Shaft represents and is a symbol of a movement... In fact a simple Google check brought up the concept that Shaft represents Black Power via masculinity... This is very specific, and, yes, Chris Evans would sorely be miscast.

    But James Bond represents something more universal and his tent is a large one (one of the reasons why the producers have usually and widely steered away from politics-- they didn't want to alienate anyone group); Bond is about adventure, style, a rogue who, when the chips are down, is the only person we can rely on to win the day... All of these things aren't just "white" traits... As has been shown around the world, what James Bond exemplifies can be enjoyed by one and all... As an archetype, James Bond isn't a skin colour...

    Whereas Shaft is very specific to a cultural movement....

    EDIT: I should add, I don't care who gets the role, so long as the man is as close to the best we have in the running... Black, white, Asian... May the best man win.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    Birdleson wrote: »
    But maybe for different fans that means different things. The Bond of Fleming's novels could never be black. Fleming's Bond had his opinions on all things racial and ethnic. He was a man who regretted the end of The British Empire, and woman's suffrage. Sure, that character has long given way to the times and the trends, no need to even point that out. But where that line bends too far and the character is no longer the one you recognize, or if there any parameters at all, is up to the individual fan. Not what anyone else tells them they should accept. I am still uncomfortable with an Australian having played the part. I would call that more of a purist's allegiance to source material (the positives and negatives of that can be debated elsewhere) more than stemming from any racist agenda. And I would hope that which ever point of view a member has on here they are not hesitant to voice it for fear of being piled upon, and is given the benefit of the doubt. Let us not try to assign others' motivations to them.

    This is well elaborated.

    I see it two ways. By keeping Bond white, they can maintain the subtext of Bond being a man out of time, which is what Fleming Bond was. A relic of the British Empire finding himself in a new world order. But this is an aspect that was virtually ignored by the first half of the film series. Connery Bond doesn’t feel like a man out of time because the films are too concerned of making him super aspirational, playing up to the “who men want to be and who women want in their bed sheets”. So a black actor could actually play Bond up the cinematic Bond. This is why so many are open to Idris Elba because most are more familiar with cinematic Bond rather than Fleming Bond.

    The Brosnan and Craig era certainly played up that “man out of time” aspect but in a way that was updated. A literal relic of the Cold War is what Brosnan was since he was still young enough to have fought Soviet Russians in the 80s, while Craig simply plays Bond like someone who should have been born 50 years earlier than he actually was. So if they recast with another white actor, they could still play up this aspect. Whereas I don’t see it quite translating with a black actor because that’s far more a 21st century image than something from Fleming’s time. But again, that would be okay if they just play up the cinematic Bond.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited June 2022 Posts: 693
    2048x2730-idris-elba-style-esquire-6-43-jpg-f32cd1f0.jpg?resize=480:*

    "Greetings, I'm Russian nuclear scientist Mikhail Arkoff."
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    Birdleson wrote: »
    But maybe for different fans that means different things. The Bond of Fleming's novels could never be black. Fleming's Bond had his opinions on all things racial and ethnic. He was a man who regretted the end of The British Empire, and woman's suffrage. Sure, that character has long given way to the times and the trends, no need to even point that out. But where that line bends too far and the character is no longer the one you recognize, or if there any parameters at all, is up to the individual fan. Not what anyone else tells them they should accept. I am still uncomfortable with an Australian having played the part. I would call that more of a purist's allegiance to source material (the positives and negatives of that can be debated elsewhere) more than stemming from any racist agenda. And I would hope that which ever point of view a member has on here they are not hesitant to voice it for fear of being piled upon, and is given the benefit of the doubt. Let us not try to assign others' motivations to them.
    I agree.
  • Posts: 4,139
    Birdleson wrote: »
    But maybe for different fans that means different things. The Bond of Fleming's novels could never be black. Fleming's Bond had his opinions on all things racial and ethnic. He was a man who regretted the end of The British Empire, and woman's suffrage. Sure, that character has long given way to the times and the trends, no need to even point that out. But where that line bends too far and the character is no longer the one you recognize, or if there any parameters at all, is up to the individual fan. Not what anyone else tells them they should accept. I am still uncomfortable with an Australian having played the part. I would call that more of a purist's allegiance to source material (the positives and negatives of that can be debated elsewhere) more than stemming from any racist agenda. And I would hope that which ever point of view a member has on here they are not hesitant to voice it for fear of being piled upon, and is given the benefit of the doubt. Let us not try to assign others' motivations to them.

    This is well elaborated.

    I see it two ways. By keeping Bond white, they can maintain the subtext of Bond being a man out of time, which is what Fleming Bond was. A relic of the British Empire finding himself in a new world order. But this is an aspect that was virtually ignored by the first half of the film series. Connery Bond doesn’t feel like a man out of time because the films are too concerned of making him super aspirational, playing up to the “who men want to be and who women want in their bed sheets”. So a black actor could actually play Bond up the cinematic Bond. This is why so many are open to Idris Elba because most are more familiar with cinematic Bond rather than Fleming Bond.

    The Brosnan and Craig era certainly played up that “man out of time” aspect but in a way that was updated. A literal relic of the Cold War is what Brosnan was since he was still young enough to have fought Soviet Russians in the 80s, while Craig simply plays Bond like someone who should have been born 50 years earlier than he actually was. So if they recast with another white actor, they could still play up this aspect. Whereas I don’t see it quite translating with a black actor because that’s far more a 21st century image than something from Fleming’s time. But again, that would be okay if they just play up the cinematic Bond.

    It would depend on what aspect of the next Bond they play up and how they do it. I didn't as much get the sense that Craig's Bond should have been born 50 years earlier, but that he himself was the 'old guard' by Skyfall, and the film goes to great lengths to depict him as such. It's one of the reasons why I feel that film works so well - because Bond should, in fact, be slightly out of step with his own time, as he was in Fleming's novels. SF even stands out in the sense that it overtly explores these ideas more so than most Bond films - the role of the 00 section/Bond himself in the modern world, Bond's feelings towards his job etc. Race doesn't come into it, but it still conveys that aspect of Bond in a way which adapts these Fleming-esque ideas...

    Now, I personally suspect the next Bond actor will be white. As much as it's been talked about there's not much precedent in the recent past for changing the race of a main character in a well known franchise (save for Dr. Who franchises like Batman, Spiderman etc. have kept the lead actors of their latest instalments white). I do, however, suspect much of the rest of the cast will be more diverse - M, Tanner etc. Do these characters need to be white too by this logic? Would they be depicted differently as characters if they weren't white? Would it be any different to changing Bond's race if updated?

    I don't even know the answer to the latter questions, but it's interesting to think about.
  • Posts: 1,987
    Isn't it time for a film series written specifically for a black actor? Similar to Bond, Bourne, Mission Impossible.
  • Posts: 2,161
    Seems obvious, doesn’t it.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    When you already have established IPs, it’s easier to just use them instead of trying to build up a completely new one.
  • JustJamesJustJames London
    Posts: 216
    peter wrote: »
    @JustJames ... Who's being combative when discussing potential POC actors as Bond.... If an actor, born in and around the UK has that"it" factor for this character, blocking him because the colour of his skin seems, at best, short sighted....

    As I posted recently about Denzel in Malcolm X... There was a scene where he encapsulated everything a Bond actor should have, and I didn't see skin colour. I just saw an alpha who I couldn't take my eyes off of; he was handsome and deadly and had ice cold charisma... What he had is universal and goes beyond the superficial-- like skin colour...

    If the new guy has an iota of what Denzel, Connery, Craig have, then skin colour be damned. Hire the man closest to depicting the things we love about the character....
    Birdleson wrote: »
    But maybe for different fans that means different things. The Bond of Fleming's novels could never be black. Fleming's Bond had his opinions on all things racial and ethnic. He was a man who regretted the end of The British Empire, and woman's suffrage. Sure, that character has long given way to the times and the trends, no need to even point that out. But where that line bends too far and the character is no longer the one you recognize, or if there any parameters at all, is up to the individual fan. Not what anyone else tells them they should accept. I am still uncomfortable with an Australian having played the part. I would call that more of a purist's allegiance to source material (the positives and negatives of that can be debated elsewhere) more than stemming from any racist agenda. And I would hope that which ever point of view a member has on here they are not hesitant to voice it for fear of being piled upon, and is given the benefit of the doubt. Let us not try to assign others' motivations to them.
    peter wrote: »
    And as an add on, I don't think the "white actor playing Shaft" argument holds... I don't know much about Shaft, but I'll suggest that the original Shaft represents and is a symbol of a movement... In fact a simple Google check brought up the concept that Shaft represents Black Power via masculinity... This is very specific, and, yes, Chris Evans would sorely be miscast.

    But James Bond represents something more universal and his tent is a large one (one of the reasons why the producers have usually and widely steered away from politics-- they didn't want to alienate anyone group); Bond is about adventure, style, a rogue who, when the chips are down, is the only person we can rely on to win the day... All of these things aren't just "white" traits... As has been shown around the world, what James Bond exemplifies can be enjoyed by one and all... As an archetype, James Bond isn't a skin colour...

    Whereas Shaft is very specific to a cultural movement....

    EDIT: I should add, I don't care who gets the role, so long as the man is as close to the best we have in the running... Black, white, Asian... May the best man win.

    I actually don’t think I mind what colour an actor playing Bond’s skin is, having thought about it. Sometimes I do take a more purist approach vis-a-vis Bond being an adaptation… hence my tongue in cheek comment about a Chris Evans Shaft (adaptation from a book, series of films going back about fifty years, different actors in the role over time, action based… see why I may have picked it?) because if the argument for Elba is tied to race, then it’s just as silly as the argument against his casting being due to his race. Shaft is a character much like Bond in that the character was originated in another time, with different ideas about ethnicity etc. In a certain reading Shaft is about masculinity and Black Power, but then, by the same token, Bond is about faded Empire and Colonialism acting in the interests of good. Neither are exactly comfortable topics in the world today, or ones that could be handled well in popular film.

    I actually think a British Indian Bond would be more likely. Still Scots and Swiss, just British Indian, and would work quite well. If I was casting Black British, I would have gone with Adrian Lester over Idris Elba.

    Speaking of which… Too old now, and I always took the Danny Boyle ‘too street’ to refer to the fact that Elba is a Londoner. Too cockney and working class to be Bond. Which may also be something about the way Tom Hardy is perceived that would prevent him getting the role, though after Craig, who knows?

    Cavil would be the best option, but he’s a bit too famous now… on the other hand, Moore was hardly an unknown.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 942
    I've always wondered why no other franchise has tried to ape the Bond formula of presentation: the introductory image (gun-barrel),the pre-credits scene, the specially commissioned song, the artsy title-sequence,... I don't think I've seen an other film do that. That whole front-end is part of what makes the Bond films special, even a crap Bond film.

    The Avengers TV show had a season where Mrs Peel would get the message "Mrs Peel - we're needed", in various ways; The Saint had the pre-credits sequence where the halo would appear above Simon Templar's head as he looks into camera... those are small-scale examples of what I'm talking about. You don't see it in movies, though. Is it because no other series of films has had the confidence they would be churning out more than two or three films?
  • JustJamesJustJames London
    Posts: 216
    Star Trek Beyond is pretty close, oddly enough.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Being Bond brings a massive amount of pressure for the actor. Imagine being the first black Bond. I don’t know how the audiences will react to that either. I’d like to have faith in humanity but there’s a lot of racism and with a black Bond there won’t be any boxoffice in Asia.
    Studios are afraid too when its time to go really big and produce action driven blockbusters with a black actor front and center of the picture. Think about Netflix, that should be one of the most inclusive studios of the world… their last two big action productions with the Russo brothers all cast handsome white actors.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,383
    peter wrote: »
    I was watching Malcolm X last weekend (brilliant film, a masterpiece), and earlier in the film when Malcolm was a young street hood, he takes his girlfriend out to a Jazz bar to watch a performance; he's dressed in a tux, he's smoking, he looks cool and you can see why a lady would want to be on his arm....

    In the scene, some very dangerous men surround him and ask him to come outside with them.

    He's surrounded, and you see this character's brain doing the math: what are the chances of survival...

    During these few moments, I definitely was taken out of the film and a very conscious thought buzzed through my head: that's what James Bond should be.

    I didn't see an actor, or a skin colour; all I saw was a a scene bursting with one man's charisma, style, genuine alpha male who is charming, handsome and dangerous...

    Denzel is one of the greatest film stars ever, with talent to match. He was only in his early 30s during this project... My god, if the producers could bottle up what he had (and still has), and inject it into the next guy...

    This kind of charisma and charm and danger and masculinity is something one is born with. You can't "act" these intangibles... They're innate.... Connery and Craig had this (the others had "something", just not as complete as Denzel, Sean and Dan)....

    I just haven't seen these traits in some of our "top contenders", and probably why I'm actually quite high on Sope (with reservations (one, I worry he'd be too close to Craig; two, he's not as polished as an actor... But he is magnetic, alpha, natural and great physically))...

    Excellent post, yes indeed; he needs that 'something', and Denzel is a good example- you can't take your eyes off him.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2022 Posts: 16,383
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    It certainly seems to stem from an attitude I've seen on here of late, that any sort of "negativity" or anti-approval of a particular actor of color being cast suddenly means you're a racist. It's like folks deeming other members racist because they don't like Nomi's character in NTTD. There's no logic to it whatsoever and it's pretty embarrassing to see.

    I think this is potentially troublesome though; you certainly weren't being racist at all and I think the response you got was out of order, but sometimes other people are: there's no catch-all sweeping 'people aren't racist' conclusion to be drawn. Ms Lynch herself described how she received racist messages online, and I'm sure she knows what's racist and what isn't, so I'm happy to take her word for it. Every case is different.


    I've always wondered why no other franchise has tried to ape the Bond formula of presentation: the introductory image (gun-barrel),the pre-credits scene, the specially commissioned song, the artsy title-sequence,... I don't think I've seen an other film do that. That whole front-end is part of what makes the Bond films special, even a crap Bond film.

    The Avengers TV show had a season where Mrs Peel would get the message "Mrs Peel - we're needed", in various ways; The Saint had the pre-credits sequence where the halo would appear above Simon Templar's head as he looks into camera... those are small-scale examples of what I'm talking about. You don't see it in movies, though. Is it because no other series of films has had the confidence they would be churning out more than two or three films?

    Funnily enough the two 90s Martin Campbell Zorro films come to mind: they actually have gunbarrel sequences (they really do!) followed by an opening act which functions as a short, slightly separate film. I can't remember if they have totally separate title sequences though, but the first does also have a song, the melody of which features throughout the score.

    The Mission Impossible films also borrow this formula slightly, although no gunbarrel and the opening act isn't always a big, separate stunt sequence; but they do have title sequences.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited June 2022 Posts: 40,968
    @mtm, it's an appropriate retort/flag when one is then. It's fairly clear when someone is and isn't being racist in their remarks, because not one thing I said or alluded to has anything to do with race, more practicality and facts. People need to quit lazily attributing such extreme monikers like that so casually (and if you're going to have the gall to do it, at least have the balls to respond when you're called out).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2022 Posts: 16,383
    In your particular case, absolutely, I totally agree; but there are plenty of times when people simply are being racist, and they often come back with the 'I'm not racist, you're racist actually' remarks, and them not liking or wanting to see people of colour is just somehow a coincidence. I saw people on another forum claiming that the messages the woman who plays Reva in Obi Wan received weren't actually racist but in reality fair comment, she shouldn't be allowed on TV, she did only get the part because of 'pandering' etc. - sometimes if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
    So I don't think we can make these sweeping generalisations because then folks who do say racist things can look at that and say 'people are calling others racist when they're not so that awful thing I just said must not be racist at all - a mod said so'. Do you see what I mean? Each case is different, sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. You say it's fairly clear when someone is and isn't being racist, but sadly it seems increasingly that it's seen as a matter of opinion and some folks are too quick to excuse it, hiding behind accusations of 'woke' and all that.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited June 2022 Posts: 40,968
    It is but my point still stands. It's fairly obvious when someone is being cheeky and hiding their racism but these types usually are eager to let you know how racist they are, so it's eventually going to come out bluntly. You don't know the amount of "racist" or "sexist" flags we've gotten on here that have absolutely nothing to do with racism or sexism. They're overblown; one can't realistically say I'm racist because I said Elba is too old for the role, that makes no sense whatsoever. There's not one thing in my earlier comment that could even be misconstrued as racist.

    It goes back to my initial point that started all this - I've seen a lot of these types of flags and complaints of late on here that have nothing to do with the actual complaint and it's pretty dangerous to start claiming someone as such when they've offered no evidence to back that up, such as myself.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,383
    Okay, I think we're just repeating ourselves now. As I've said, I totally agree that what you said was in no way racially motivated at all, and I'm sure other comments also are not, but some absolutely are and I think each is different, rather than some sort of general problem. Anyone repeatedly going on about how women and people of colour are on our screens too much and that sort of thing, personally I think one has to just question their core motivation as to why it's such an issue for them. That's not some sort of veiled accusation against anyone in this discussion, just the world at large.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    No doubt, which isn't what I was mentioning initially. Those people clearly exist in real life and online but my main point was that I've seen some on here flagging posts as sexist or racist that simply aren't in any way, shape or form. I'm not sure why you're mentioning others who are racist and do that because it's clearly obvious who those types are, nobody is really arguing that. This all stemmed from someone insinuating I'm racist and that I loathe the idea of a black man playing Bond because I said Elba is too old. It's laughable.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    @Creasy47 isn t racist. He is ageist.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    @Creasy47 isn t racist. He is ageist.

    Now you've caught me!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2022 Posts: 16,383
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    No doubt, which isn't what I was mentioning initially. Those people clearly exist in real life and online but my main point was that I've seen some on here flagging posts as sexist or racist that simply aren't in any way, shape or form. I'm not sure why you're mentioning others who are racist and do that because it's clearly obvious who those types are, nobody is really arguing that. This all stemmed from someone insinuating I'm racist and that I loathe the idea of a black man playing Bond because I said Elba is too old. It's laughable.

    Yes indeed, and I will agree for the fourth time that you weren't being racist :) Why I'm mentioning that others can be racist at times is because I disagree that folks in general are accusing others too easily, because it's a case by case situation. You say it's clearly obvious who those types are, but to be honest I think bigotry is accepted and excused a bit too often, even (not by yourself I stress to make clear, I'm not making any accusations; it's just an observation). But I'll leave it now, it's not a point I want to press too hard, and I totally understand why you felt so aggrieved :)
Sign In or Register to comment.