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
I am a dedicated fan of the source material. I have read all of Fleming's books - have all the movies on DVD and Blu-Ray - I'm as dedicated fan as any of you.
I am also well aware that this is FICTIONAL. ENTERTAINMENT. I'm more concerned right now about stuff that happens in the real world. Bond to me is escapism from that. I don't take it seriously.
So again: THESE ARE ONLY MOVIES. WHO CARES?
It's a given that Bond IS entertainment and only books and movies, but the Fleming purists are a strong minority one goes up against at their peril....so I can't see a black Bond happening for that and other reasons.
Yes, there is much of merit in this view, @pachazo.
But they've already made him a new character altogether already. Why base your opinions on what Bond's race should be on Flemings writing but not how Bond acts? Why is it ok for Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan to act nothing like Fleming's Bond but it's not ok for an actor to have different skin colour to him?
They're still just that though, a minority. Average movie goers are what matters at the end of the day, not Fleming purists.
Because Moore and Brosnan look similar to Fleming's Bond and do act like Fleming's Bond in one form or another. And It's not okay because Bond isn't black or was written as so. Call me biased but My opinion still stands. Bond should always be white. How would you feel if you wrote a character to be a specific way and some studio decided to change their characteristics?
I know how I feel about Jack Reacher being portrayed by Tom Cruise. #-o
But that is really a different thing for me than Bond being black, Asian, white, Indian, mixed. etc., any race or skin color.
But they already changed Bond's characteristics years ago. Why does changing the characters entire personality not matter but his skin colour does? If he was still alive then I doubt Ian Fleming would be happy with the majority of the Bond films.
They act like Fleming's Bond in one form or another? Still doesn't make them Flemingesque. You could turn Bond into an entirely different character and have him act like Fleming's Bond in one way or another. EG- You could turn Bond into a woman and have her working at Mcdonalds rather than MI6. But if she liked scrambled eggs and coffee for breakfast, then she'd be acting like Fleming's Bond in one form or another.
Moore looks nothing like how Fleming described Bond.
I think the difference there is that by casting Cruise they lost a lot of what made Reacher special. His size and strength is a big part of what made Reacher special. Bond isn't defined by his race the way Reacher is by his size, at least notin this day and age.
Tall, Blue Eyes, medium build. Close enough. Watch FYEO. Moore was pure Fleming in that film.
Fleming's Bond had black hair which fell over one of his eyebrows and looked like some Jazz singer (the name escapes me but Moore looks nothing like him). A black actor could be tall with blue eyes and a medium build.
I've seen FYEO and although the story is more down to earth and he has some darker moments, he's still very much his own version of Bond. I doubt Fleming's Bond would've grinned happily and quipped about driving in the country while escaping baddies and when getting his revenge on Blofeld Fleming's Bond beat him a fight and strangled him rather than just smiling and dropping him down a chimney.
But to answer the question of the thread. No, I would not accept a Black Bond.
Daniel Craig is taller than the average height for a man. He may not be as tall as the others, but he looks far more lethal than Brosnan or Moore. And your point about Connery having a moustache in The Rock is non sequitur: he never had one as Bond AND he played a pseudo-Bond in The Rock decades after he had been established as Bond. Had he played an Iranian prince (he may have had, who knows), that doesn't mean an Iranian actor, however talented, could play Bond.
All fair points, @thelivingroyale. Can't argue with that.
Height is relative, but Craig is obviously not too short. Heck, he is not a short man, period.
But how about a fat Bond? There are plenty of talented fat actors. Of course nobody would want that, because Bond has a certain physique, a certain appearance and you cannot stray from it so much as to denature the character altogether. Not to mention that casting a Black actor would be perceived as a PC move. And this not only goes for Bond: a young Blofeld wouldn't work, a fit Goldfinger wouldn't work, a chubby Sherlock Holmes wouldn't work.
So how about a black Sherlock Holmes, Spock, Captain Kirk, Elizabeth Bennett or Bridget Jones? For that matter, why not a white Super Fly, or Frank Shaft? I'm thinking Meryl Streep could certainly bring something new to Bond.
Maybe a spin off of The Wire could continue with the discovery that Stringer Bell's death was faked and the role will now be played by Daniel Craig.
Or a young Q, a female M, a black Leiter, a young Leiter, an old Leiter, a chubby Leiter, etc.. ;)
They've made some significant changes in the franchise in recent times - sometimes not always for the better - but changing the skin color of the most important factor of all - James Bond himself - would appear taking things a little too far. Maybe get back to this in due course, but that's all I got to say on the issue for now
From Blond to Black is several bridges too far.
For the same reason, I had a problem accepting a female M. The scenes when Bond is being briefed by M are the symbols of Bond universe for me. I loved everything about those moments - the atmosphere, the office, the suits, the old guy with the pipe... M becoming a woman was wrong IMO, though Judy Dench was excellent. I'm glad Ralph Fiennes is the new M, and should he stay in the role for the next 5-10 years, he'll only get better. He's still a bit young for my taste.
That said, I didn't mind black Felix and Moneypenny at all. I was never attached to them in the same way.
I also had no problem with Craig's hair colour. Roger Moore was almost blond in some films:
http://www.filmchronicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/moon083.jpg
Then again, if Bond becomes black, I would certainly watch the film and save judgement for afterwards.
After the copyright for James Bond expires, everybody will have a chance to deliver their vision of Bond. Until then, I want Bond to stay white.
M is a title, so this is non sequitur. Q was so defined by Llewellyn they had to take another approach to avoid comparison. Leiter has been inconsistently cast for decades to begin with. As for Moneypenny she is a minor character and her race has little to no importance.
a) that sticks with the character Fleming wrote
b) it fits his background, Eton, etc.
c) his culture was of the 50's and 60's and that included being part of that particular British Caucasian culture and background, so to be authentic that should continue ...
and possibly,
d) it is just too big a change for the main character.
If I am missing a main point, please let me know. And I'm not trying to persuade anybody, I just wanted to be clear in my understanding. I accept that we have different things that we can be flexible about, and not flexible in some others.
I know we can really want our favorite character to stay the same; that is natural, I think. For whatever reason, I am flexible in some ways as far as Bond goes - including hair and skin color. But for me, the one main thing is that he has to be British.
But... if the right british actoc comes along and he's black...then why not? It would just need some adjusting, but if the portrayal is good and the movies are good, then maybe that might happen and I'd be okay with it.
It's silly, needlessly provocative comments like this that make such conversations difficult to have. A sweeping statement without any justification or explanation as to 'why'. Perhaps you should have just kept the statement to yourself?