James Bond Racist

[FredClogs]

dandarez said:

I agree totally! And don't forget 'The Spy Who Loved Me'...

ahh, that's what Clogs doesn't like... PATRIOTISM! And the fact of Moore's plummy Queen's English accent.

The whole cinema I was in back in 1977 totally erupted in combined loud patriotic cheer when that silence (as he went off the snow cliffs) ended, and Bond's Union Jack (sorry, 'Flag', but THEN it was the Jack!) parachute opened.
One of the best Bond scenes.

Clogs would hate that. The thought that this nation was once patriotic. But he was probably in nappies then, or was he even born?

Fast forward to cinema today? When I went to see Spectre (worst of Craig's bunch imo, Skyfall miles superior) the place stunk of popcorn, people were eating buckets of it, and dropping it - at the end the place was littered with popcorn, and of course it was all downed with gallons of Coke (no wonder this nation has become obese!).

Compare that with 1977, when we had manners, and there was hardly an obese person in sight, definitely not a PC one!

Still, they call it 'Progress' don't they?

So Mr Trump, were the 1970s better than now, care to comment? How do we make this country great again?

[Challo]

FredClogs said:

Mr_B said:

andymadmak said:

FredClogs said:

andymadmak said:

FredClogs said:

NinjaPower said:

I don't think I could ever watch another 007 film again if that Idris Elba bloke got to play Bond.

Why? He's good in that Luther and has a very cool car in it and he was legendary in The Wire.

Is it just because he is black?

Rowan Atkinson is good as Mr Bean.... does not mean he would be a good James Bond. (Plus RA has some cool cars too)

You could have a black actor to play Bond, Elba aint the man though imho

Why, he's tall, well built, handsome, has an arrogant charm.

Rowan Atkinson would be a st Bond, agreed, he even did two films about being a st bond because he's non of those things.

You've not explained yourself well at all.

OK, clearly my approach is too subtle for you, so I will try again. Not all actors can play all parts well. Acting style, demeanour, accent, mannerisms and many other factors play their part in determining whether an actor is "right" for a role. It"s one of the reasons why there are casting professionals in the industry.
Not being "right" to play a certain part does not make an actor a bad actor, it just means that he/she is not credible in the role. Elba is a fine actor (although I really hated him in Pacific Rim) but in my view he is not right for Bond. And no, it is not cos he is black.

You must explain yourself better to Fred the racist PH policeman. Next time he goes straight to racist, please give a fuller explanation to satisfy him and leave him in no doubt. Thanks

Keep your wig on Moneypenny.

Notice no one really complained about her going darker skinned.

There's been some awful Bonds over the years, Timothy Dalton, Roger Moore, Lazenby - I just can't see a well rounded experienced time served actor like Idris Elba doing any worse than those three. Can you? Really? But I'm obviously not as expert in the field as Ninja Power.

I really liked Moore and Dalton. In fact I liked all the Bond actors, even Brosnan had his charm.

[Emeye]

Challo said:

I really liked Moore and Dalton. In fact I liked all the Bond actors, even Brosnan had his charm.

I can sit through any Bond Movie repeatedly, except any with Brosnan - he just could not do the throwaway lines without sounding like a creepy sex pest.

[jonby]

Disastrous said:

I'm quite glad that you aren't casting the next one!

To answer your post generally, I think it's quite simple why Bond has to be X, Y or Z:

Because that's what he is.

He is a character, and has been described at length in literature and on screen in the past and now an expectation exists. There is no reason why he couldn't be gay, Asian, or black but then why bother calling him James Bond?

Why not start a new franchise with a new character called, oh I dunno, Lucifer Box, or Charlie Chan or John Shaft to cover off the examples you give?

For me a black/brown/whatever Bond doesn't work, not out of racism but because Bond is white. In the same way a white Shaft would be ridiculous.

Of course there is no reason why the character couldn't have been something else originally, but he wasn't, and now he is a certain way and that's that.

So this gets to the nub of the issue - what is it that makes Bond, Bond ? That will be different for each person and the reason there is a long thread here and lengthy discussion elsewhere is that so many people feel passionately about Bond but again, the most important traits one associates with Bond are different for each viewer

Here is for me, the big flaw in your argument. The first Bond film/actor/producer gave Bond some characteristics that were different to the Fleming Books. Moore gave Bond different traits to Connery's traits. And so it goes on. So which are the ones that can't be touched and which are those that can ?

Of course I was to an extent being deliberately provocative with suggestions Bond could be a lesbian but it was to make the point above - what actually fundamentally defines Bond ?

For instance, these days huge numbers of people associate Bond with Aston Martin. But in the Fleming books, he drove a Bentley. Bond in the books grew up outside the UK.He went to Eton in the books but not in the films. Fleming favoured David Niven to play him and didn't approve so much of Connery, who is many people's favourite Bond

So is what makes Bond actually little to do with the books and their writer who invented him and more to do with the films ? In which instance, which films ? The films where Bond is played by Connery and Craig who are more gritty, in keeping with the books, or the close to parody portrayal of a spy by Moore ?

I don't agree with the Shaft analogy because his skin colour is fundamentally important to the part he plays and the setting. I'd concede in a 1960s Bond, being black wouldn't be appropriate. But a black Bond in 2016 would not be out of place in MI5/6, a gentlemans club, a public school, etc.

So again, which are the traits that define Bond and which are those that happen to have been common in Bonds historically - they aren't the same list

If one were to ask a group of Bond fans what makes Bond Bond, surely it's things like womaniser, suave, champagne drinker, Aston driver, intelligent, multi skilled, smooth talker..... I could go on. These things have nothing to do with skin colour and there is IMO far more difference between the way Connery & Moore played Bond than if say, Roger Moore happened to have been black but had played the part identically in every other way

Final point - there are a huge number of outrageously unrealistic elements to all Bonds and to all Bond films. On top of that, it's a decades old franchise with one consistent character with the same name. Why is it OK to have some outrageous plot holes and character traits but so important Bond is white ? If he was mixed race but not too darkly coloured, would that be OK ? I really do struggle to get it because Bond's colour has never defined him (apart from Live & Let Die where reference was made to him standing out in Harlem of course !)

Edited by jonby on Friday 1st April 13:11

[jonby]

Mr Whippy said:

If they want to do that, just do it and call it something new.

What is it today with re-inventing things and making them st?

Bond is reinvented every time a new actor is introduced. They went down a certain path the moment they decided it was OK to replace the original actor and they cemented that path the moment a 3rd actor was used

[gavsdavs]

jonby said:

In fact, having had 6 or so male Bonds it could be refreshing to have something totally different rather than just a slight variation. There are certain elements of Bond which it would be difficult to lose, one of which is that for instance, traditionally his education/background is always at least minor public school with the accent and everything else that goes with that, such as his penchant for vintage champagne. Speaking like you've grown up on a council estate or looking like you prefer beer to champagne would be difficult for many to accept in a Bond. But those factors have nothing to do with skin colour, especially for a Bond set in 2016. Likewise in principle, no reason a Bond couldn't be gay and/or a woman - to me, I associate Bond with being promiscuous more than I worry about his (or her) sexuality - in fact, a lesbian Bond could work very well but I'd want to see them flirt with Moneypenny because I associate that flirting with Bond. So the point is, you could have a very different approach to casting work very well, providing they still retain, even if it's with a twist, plenty of elements we recognize as being Bond

This is poppycock. Bond is a particular set of things, different things to different people, but what he is not is:- Gay, Female, Lesbian, teetotal, sensitive and in my view, Black. Bond is anglo-saxon. Trying to suggest he is not is bending the format past breaking point.

That would like making a childrens television program with a road going ambulance and calling him "Thomas the Tank engine". It's just not going to happen.

[KAgantua]

I reckon they should remake 'Live Or Let Die' but with a black bond and white protagonists. Set it in Finland maybe? Or a white-only township in Sith Iffriker.

Id buy that for a dollar.

[jonby]

gavsdavs said:

jonby said:

In fact, having had 6 or so male Bonds it could be refreshing to have something totally different rather than just a slight variation. There are certain elements of Bond which it would be difficult to lose, one of which is that for instance, traditionally his education/background is always at least minor public school with the accent and everything else that goes with that, such as his penchant for vintage champagne. Speaking like you've grown up on a council estate or looking like you prefer beer to champagne would be difficult for many to accept in a Bond. But those factors have nothing to do with skin colour, especially for a Bond set in 2016. Likewise in principle, no reason a Bond couldn't be gay and/or a woman - to me, I associate Bond with being promiscuous more than I worry about his (or her) sexuality - in fact, a lesbian Bond could work very well but I'd want to see them flirt with Moneypenny because I associate that flirting with Bond. So the point is, you could have a very different approach to casting work very well, providing they still retain, even if it's with a twist, plenty of elements we recognize as being Bond

This is poppycock. Bond is a particular set of things, different things to different people, but what he is not is:- Gay, Female, Lesbian, teetotal, sensitive and in my view, Black. Bond is anglo-saxon. Trying to suggest he is not is bending the format past breaking point.

That would like making a childrens television program with a road going ambulance and calling him "Thomas the Tank engine". It's just not going to happen.

Well we patently won't ever agree but I find your view poppycock too. Of course an ambulance can't be called a tank. Bond is a British spy. But why is it OK that Bond was not gritty when played by Moore despite Fleming's Bond being gritty ? What are the Bond traits that a black actor doesn't have ? In what possible way does skin colour define Bond ? I don't like it when a black actor plays a part that is out of place from a historical context, for instance when black actors take on parts in films that are set in an era when a black person wouldn't have been able to have that role. But that doesn't apply in 2016 to a British spy.

What makes your points lose all their strength is that right off the bat, in the very first film, they picked which traits from the novel they would keep and which they would change. THey did the same when they cast a new actor. If they hadn't your points would be valid but they did, so who is it that gets to pick which traits are untouchable and which aren't ? I felt more strongly when Bond drove some questionable cars through product placement than I would if the actor was black

Edited by jonby on Friday 1st April 13:26

[Mr Whippy]

jonby said:

Mr Whippy said:

If they want to do that, just do it and call it something new.

What is it today with re-inventing things and making them st?

Bond is reinvented every time a new actor is introduced. They went down a certain path the moment they decided it was OK to replace the original actor and they cemented that path the moment a 3rd actor was used

I generally agree and the bounds of 'Bond' have to be somewhat flexible.

There are limits to what Bond is before it's not Bond though.

If any other idea has merit enough to be expected to be good, then make it on it's own merit and don't drag along the "Bond" name for the sake of it.

[jonby]

Mr Whippy said:

don't drag along the "Bond" name for the sake of it.

that boat has long since sailed unfortunately

[Mr Whippy]

jonby said:

Mr Whippy said:

don't drag along the "Bond" name for the sake of it.

that boat has long since sailed unfortunately

Then let it sink now, don't drag it further out with us all watching

[gavsdavs]

jonby said:

gavsdavs said:

jonby said:

In fact, having had 6 or so male Bonds it could be refreshing to have something totally different rather than just a slight variation. There are certain elements of Bond which it would be difficult to lose, one of which is that for instance, traditionally his education/background is always at least minor public school with the accent and everything else that goes with that, such as his penchant for vintage champagne. Speaking like you've grown up on a council estate or looking like you prefer beer to champagne would be difficult for many to accept in a Bond. But those factors have nothing to do with skin colour, especially for a Bond set in 2016. Likewise in principle, no reason a Bond couldn't be gay and/or a woman - to me, I associate Bond with being promiscuous more than I worry about his (or her) sexuality - in fact, a lesbian Bond could work very well but I'd want to see them flirt with Moneypenny because I associate that flirting with Bond. So the point is, you could have a very different approach to casting work very well, providing they still retain, even if it's with a twist, plenty of elements we recognize as being Bond

This is poppycock. Bond is a particular set of things, different things to different people, but what he is not is:- Gay, Female, Lesbian, teetotal, sensitive and in my view, Black. Bond is anglo-saxon. Trying to suggest he is not is bending the format past breaking point.

That would like making a childrens television program with a road going ambulance and calling him "Thomas the Tank engine". It's just not going to happen.

Well we patently won't ever agree but I find your view poppycock too. Of course an ambulance can't be called a tank. Bond is a British spy. But why is it OK that Bond was not gritty when played by Moore despite Fleming's Bond being gritty ? What are the Bond traits that a black actor doesn't have ? In what possible way does skin colour define Bond ? I don't like it when a black actor plays a part that is out of place from a historical context, for instance when black actors take on parts in films that are set in an era when a black person wouldn't have been able to have that role. But that doesn't apply in 2016 to a British spy.

What makes your points lose all their strength is that right off the bat, in the very first film, they picked which traits from the novel they would keep and which they would change. THey did the same when they cast a new actor. If they hadn't your points would be valid but they did, so who is it that gets to pick which traits are untouchable and which aren't ? I felt more strongly when Bond drove some questionable cars through product placement than I would if the actor was black

Edited by jonby on Friday 1st April 13:26

So my view, probably the view of the mainstream, is poppycock ? Methinks you're just upset and retaliating for someone knocking your view.

In Casino Royale, Vesper Lynd remarks, "Bond reminds me rather of Hoagy Carmichael, but there is something cold and ruthless."

Casino Royale, the first book. Flemming's scene setter. He makes him out to be white. Please stop trying to ignore the history of the character and remaking him in your own politically correct view of the world.

If you want to trample over/ignore history, I suggest you tackle american war movies instead.

[Disastrous]

jonby said:

Disastrous said:

I'm quite glad that you aren't casting the next one!

To answer your post generally, I think it's quite simple why Bond has to be X, Y or Z:

Because that's what he is.

He is a character, and has been described at length in literature and on screen in the past and now an expectation exists. There is no reason why he couldn't be gay, Asian, or black but then why bother calling him James Bond?

Why not start a new franchise with a new character called, oh I dunno, Lucifer Box, or Charlie Chan or John Shaft to cover off the examples you give?

For me a black/brown/whatever Bond doesn't work, not out of racism but because Bond is white. In the same way a white Shaft would be ridiculous.

Of course there is no reason why the character couldn't have been something else originally, but he wasn't, and now he is a certain way and that's that.

So this gets to the nub of the issue - what is it that makes Bond, Bond ? That will be different for each person and the reason there is a long thread here and lengthy discussion elsewhere is that so many people feel passionately about Bond but again, the most important traits one associates with Bond are different for each viewer

Here is for me, the big flaw in your argument. The first Bond film/actor/producer gave Bond some characteristics that were different to the Fleming Books. Moore gave Bond different traits to Connery's traits. And so it goes on. So which are the ones that can't be touched and which are those that can ?

Of course I was to an extent being deliberately provocative with suggestions Bond could be a lesbian but it was to make the point above - what actually fundamentally defines Bond ?

For instance, these days huge numbers of people associate Bond with Aston Martin. But in the Fleming books, he drove a Bentley. Bond in the books grew up outside the UK.He went to Eton in the books but not in the films. Fleming favoured David Niven to play him and didn't approve so much of Connery, who is many people's favourite Bond

So is what makes Bond actually little to do with the books and their writer who invented him and more to do with the films ? In which instance, which films ? The films where Bond is played by Connery and Craig who are more gritty, in keeping with the books, or the close to parody portrayal of a spy by Moore ?

I don't agree with the Shaft analogy because his skin colour is fundamentally important to the part he plays and the setting. I'd concede in a 1960s Bond, being black wouldn't be appropriate. But a black Bond in 2016 would not be out of place in MI5/6, a gentlemans club, a public school, etc.

So again, which are the traits that define Bond and which are those that happen to have been common in Bonds historically - they aren't the same list

If one were to ask a group of Bond fans what makes Bond Bond, surely it's things like womaniser, suave, champagne drinker, Aston driver, intelligent, multi skilled, smooth talker..... I could go on. These things have nothing to do with skin colour and there is IMO far more difference between the way Connery & Moore played Bond than if say, Roger Moore happened to have been black but had played the part identically in every other way

Final point - there are a huge number of outrageously unrealistic elements to all Bonds and to all Bond films. On top of that, it's a decades old franchise with one consistent character with the same name. Why is it OK to have some outrageous plot holes and character traits but so important Bond is white ? If he was mixed race but not too darkly coloured, would that be OK ? I really do struggle to get it because Bond's colour has never defined him (apart from Live & Let Die where reference was made to him standing out in Harlem of course !)

Edited by jonby on Friday 1st April 13:11

You aren't actually disagreeing that much, I don't think.

If you were to ask people (old enough to have seen all the Bonds and maybe read the books) to draw a picture of Bond, he would be tall, dark, Anglo-Saxon and handsome, wearing a dinner suit, I would expect. That's what Bond looks like. The end.

I know Moore was fairer but he was just dark enough to make it work. Daniel Craig was roundly pilloried for being too blond at the time of his casting, if you remember, and not looking like Bond. Hardly racism.

As someone else said, the casting has to be a bit flexible but go too far from the prototype and you may as well just call it something else. Why fore JB to be something it isn't? Do something new if it's so important...


As an aside DC's hardly suave, is he? Thug in an (ill-fitting) suit, more like...

[TonyToniTone]

gavsdavs said:

Bond is anglo-saxon. Trying to suggest he is not is bending the format past breaking point.

Apart from the Celt.

[hairykrishna]

gavsdavs said:

Casino Royale, the first book. Flemming's scene setter. He makes him out to be white. Please stop trying to ignore the history of the character and remaking him in your own politically correct view of the world.

The Bond of the films has owed little to the Bond from, or to the setting of, the books for quite some time.

A black Bond wouldn't have worked in the 60's but neither would a female M. The 'history of the character' is a history of changing with the times.

[jonby]

hairykrishna said:

gavsdavs said:

Casino Royale, the first book. Flemming's scene setter. He makes him out to be white. Please stop trying to ignore the history of the character and remaking him in your own politically correct view of the world.

The Bond of the films has owed little to the Bond from, or to the setting of, the books for quite some time.

A black Bond wouldn't have worked in the 60's but neither would a female M. The 'history of the character' is a history of changing with the times.

I wish I could be as succinct as you. That is my point in a nutshell

[gavsdavs]

hairykrishna said:

The 'history of the character' is a history of changing with the times.

So how about

Hercules Poirot - a one-legged buddhist bee keeper from Macau of Han chinese parentage.
Miss Marple - A male, senegalese midwife trafficked to the UK in the 1950s.
Radar from MASH, played by a deaf mute. Communicates with sign language.
Forrest Gump the intellectual urbanite.

No, I don't think they'd work either.

[jonby]

gavsdavs said:

So my view, probably the view of the mainstream, is poppycock ? Methinks you're just upset and retaliating for someone knocking your view.

In Casino Royale, Vesper Lynd remarks, "Bond reminds me rather of Hoagy Carmichael, but there is something cold and ruthless."

Casino Royale, the first book. Flemming's scene setter. He makes him out to be white. Please stop trying to ignore the history of the character and remaking him in your own politically correct view of the world.

If you want to trample over/ignore history, I suggest you tackle american war movies instead.

You are simply wrong and your recent post illustrates why. How can you possibly suggest the book is important with regards to his colour but not when it comes to other aspects of his character which many Bond films have long since departed from ?

I can assure you the last thing I am is politically correct. That may well be some people's angle in the whole Black Bond thing, but it's certainly not mine. If people said it's time for Bond to be black, I'd cringe. If someone said actor 'x' has all the right traits to be Bond and actor 'x' happens to be black, then I'm fine with it

Politically correct is the film showing DC as a non smoker when he chain smoked in the book. Why isn't that important too ? The first paragraph of Casino Royale, which you state is Fleming's scene setter that determines Bond's history, states Bond smoked his 70th cigarette of the day. Almost all the books show describe him as a heavy smoker. That says far more about his character than his skin colour. But he doesn't smoke in Casino Royale the film. Why the double standards about which traits Fleming determines in the book are important and which are not ?

[gavsdavs]

jonby said:

gavsdavs said:

So my view, probably the view of the mainstream, is poppycock ? Methinks you're just upset and retaliating for someone knocking your view.

In Casino Royale, Vesper Lynd remarks, "Bond reminds me rather of Hoagy Carmichael, but there is something cold and ruthless."

Casino Royale, the first book. Flemming's scene setter. He makes him out to be white. Please stop trying to ignore the history of the character and remaking him in your own politically correct view of the world.

If you want to trample over/ignore history, I suggest you tackle american war movies instead.

You are simply wrong and your recent post illustrates why. How can you possibly suggest the book is important with regards to his colour but not when it comes to other aspects of his character which many Bond films have long since departed from ?

I can assure you the last thing I am is politically correct. That may well be some people's angle in the whole Black Bond thing, but it's certainly not mine. If people said it's time for Bond to be black, I'd cringe. If someone said actor 'x' has all the right traits to be Bond and actor 'x' happens to be black, then I'm fine with it

Politically correct is the film showing DC as a non smoker when he chain smoked in the book. Why isn't that important too ? The first paragraph of Casino Royale, which you state is Fleming's scene setter that determines Bond's history, states Bond smoked his 70th cigarette of the day. Almost all the books show describe him as a heavy smoker. That says far more about his character than his skin colour. But he doesn't smoke in Casino Royale the film. Why the double standards about which traits Fleming determines in the book are important and which are not ?

>>You are simply wrong and your recent post illustrates why.
Sorry, you're going to have to help me here. Where in my post do I illustrate that I am wrong ?

I think whether we see Bond smoking is nowhere near as critical to the integrity of us believing it's the same character compared to being the same skin colour.

Come to think of it, I don't remember seeing Moore, Connery, Lazenby, Brosnan or Dalton smoking either so it would suggest none of the screenwriters felt his smoking to be a critical part of his character either. (Quite happy to be corrected there, but you get my point). His smoking is not a critical part of the [b]continuity[\b] of his identity. His skin colour IS.

[jonby]

gavsdavs said:

jonby said:

gavsdavs said:

So my view, probably the view of the mainstream, is poppycock ? Methinks you're just upset and retaliating for someone knocking your view.

In Casino Royale, Vesper Lynd remarks, "Bond reminds me rather of Hoagy Carmichael, but there is something cold and ruthless."

Casino Royale, the first book. Flemming's scene setter. He makes him out to be white. Please stop trying to ignore the history of the character and remaking him in your own politically correct view of the world.

If you want to trample over/ignore history, I suggest you tackle american war movies instead.

You are simply wrong and your recent post illustrates why. How can you possibly suggest the book is important with regards to his colour but not when it comes to other aspects of his character which many Bond films have long since departed from ?

I can assure you the last thing I am is politically correct. That may well be some people's angle in the whole Black Bond thing, but it's certainly not mine. If people said it's time for Bond to be black, I'd cringe. If someone said actor 'x' has all the right traits to be Bond and actor 'x' happens to be black, then I'm fine with it

Politically correct is the film showing DC as a non smoker when he chain smoked in the book. Why isn't that important too ? The first paragraph of Casino Royale, which you state is Fleming's scene setter that determines Bond's history, states Bond smoked his 70th cigarette of the day. Almost all the books show describe him as a heavy smoker. That says far more about his character than his skin colour. But he doesn't smoke in Casino Royale the film. Why the double standards about which traits Fleming determines in the book are important and which are not ?

>>You are simply wrong and your recent post illustrates why.
Sorry, you're going to have to help me here. Where in my post do I illustrate that I am wrong ?

I think whether we see Bond smoking is nowhere near as critical to the integrity of us believing it's the same character compared to being the same skin colour.

Come to think of it, I don't remember seeing Moore, Connery, Lazenby, Brosnan or Dalton smoking either so it would suggest none of the screenwriters felt his smoking to be a critical part of his character either. (Quite happy to be corrected there, but you get my point). His smoking is not a critical part of the [b]continuity[\b] of his identity. His skin colour IS.

You state Fleming's book is the scene setter, that Fleming states he is white and that's why it's important. You state that to ignore a trait of Bond in Fleming's book is to trample over & ignore history. You make no mention to the films - you are clear and unambiguous - Fleming wrote the book, Fleming described Bond as white, so Bond is white

In the very same book, in the very first chapter, Bond is a chain smoker. In most subsequent books, he is a chain smoker. It was you, not me, who stated Fleming defined the character. Suddenly you have changed - it's the film makers who have decided which bits in the book are important and which are not, rather than the author

Incidentally Connery's Bond did smoke. So have most other Bonds. But not DC