James Bond Racist
Discussion
Negative Creep said:
Isn't James Bond a codename? For me his race has never been a part of his character so wouldn't bother me who played him. You couldn't have a gay Bond because that's against one of the core tenants of his character, but you could have had a black actor in any previous films and it would have made little difference.
I've always liked the codename idea. One of the great things about it, it can be true to you, or not, it's just how you interpret Bond, if you wanna wrangle some sort of coherence out of the whole franchise, or just accept each different adaptation of Bond and what he looks like, how he acts through the decades etc. Dellroy said:
Bond is described in terms of character, class and appearance in the books.
As such you have to stay somewhat true to this or lose the character completely.
No black actor, no women, not gay etc etc
As I said earlier in the thread when you've already stretched the description of an early/mid 30's bloke to include Roger Moore in his later films then stretching it to a black guy isn't much of a leap. He's got to be British, posh, good in a fight and good with the ladies. He's got to be at least moderately plausible as an MI6 agent. As far as I can see being black doesn't rule out any of those.As such you have to stay somewhat true to this or lose the character completely.
No black actor, no women, not gay etc etc
As others have noted saying he could be black isn't the same as saying he should be. Get someone in who can do a good job and don't worry about what colour he is.
For what it's worth I don't think it'll be a black guy any time soon. Bond is a massive marketing exercise these days and I suspect that most of the people who buy oversized watches identify more strongly with a white actor.
Halb said:
Negative Creep said:
Isn't James Bond a codename? For me his race has never been a part of his character so wouldn't bother me who played him. You couldn't have a gay Bond because that's against one of the core tenants of his character, but you could have had a black actor in any previous films and it would have made little difference.
I've always liked the codename idea. One of the great things about it, it can be true to you, or not, it's just how you interpret Bond, if you wanna wrangle some sort of coherence out of the whole franchise, or just accept each different adaptation of Bond and what he looks like, how he acts through the decades etc. Dellroy said:
Bond is described in terms of character, class and appearance in the books.
As such you have to stay somewhat true to this or lose the character completely.
No black actor, no women, not gay etc etc
Importance of appearance was lost when they cast DC - if his hair can go from dark to fair, what difference if his skin colour goes from white to black ? As such you have to stay somewhat true to this or lose the character completely.
No black actor, no women, not gay etc etc
The significance of his sleeping with lots of women was the fact that he was promiscuous, that women fell at his feet, that he sometimes slept with people as part of his mission, etc - the sex & sexuality of the protagonist and those that he sleeps with is not really important if those important factors remain
M went from male to female at a not unsimilar time to that happening in real life - a female M would have jarred just as a black Bond would have, if it was done in the 60s or 70s. It wouldn't today
hairykrishna said:
As I said earlier in the thread when you've already stretched the description of an early/mid 30's bloke to include Roger Moore in his later films then stretching it to a black guy isn't much of a leap.
It's completely different and a huge leap. It's acceptable for people to age through a series of films, but not change ethnicity. 
007popeyewhite said:
hairykrishna said:
As I said earlier in the thread when you've already stretched the description of an early/mid 30's bloke to include Roger Moore in his later films then stretching it to a black guy isn't much of a leap.
It's completely different and a huge leap. It's acceptable for people to age through a series of films, but not change ethnicity. JB is always set in the era in which it's filmed. So even putting the book which was set much earlier to one side, we have Bond films that started in the early 60s until at least a few more years from now, possibly much much longer. So they can't pretend, regardless of the actor playing the lead, that it's the same agent now that also appeared in the earliest films
So you either consider 'James Bond' a codename for a variety of different agents each successively taking the '007' moniker, or you consider the latest films, set 50+ years after the books, to be a modern interpretation of the books. In either instance, the description of the physical characteristics in the book is nigh on irrelevant to current films, providing the character in the latest films at least takes some of the character traits of the Bond in the original books
Take Elementary, a modern interpretation of Sherlock Holmes. It's a great drama series and a great interpretation. They bring in many of the old names, but Watson is an American Asian women whilst Sherlock is British, but living in New York. IMO much better to take a modern interpretation that maintains some of the traditions of Bond, than either looking outdated or even worse, trying to copy say Jason Bourne which is great, but different.
I properly HATE the code name idea. I see each film as having the same James Bond and I don't need them to explain the setting/actor change.
Having a white, dark haired bond makes that easier mentally for me, and I was thrown by DC initially but I'd concede he was pretty good in CR. Just not smooth/suave and I think his films miss that.
I also hate Elementary, so I guess all this discussion shows is that peoples taste varies hugely and ultimately, Bond needs to be a lot of things to a lot of people.
Having a white, dark haired bond makes that easier mentally for me, and I was thrown by DC initially but I'd concede he was pretty good in CR. Just not smooth/suave and I think his films miss that.
I also hate Elementary, so I guess all this discussion shows is that peoples taste varies hugely and ultimately, Bond needs to be a lot of things to a lot of people.
Mothersruin said:
Out of curiosity, why the call for Idris Elba to be bond? Is it because he'd be a good Bond or because it's about time Bond was black just so the equality box could be ticked?
If the former, no issues - if the latter, GFY.
The latter I suspect. The Islingtonites would love it. I wouldn't even watch it on TV.If the former, no issues - if the latter, GFY.
I can't stand Idris Elba anyway and find him profoundly irritating. But if they must have a black secret agent, just invent one from scratch.
Perhaps as well as being black, he could have sexuality issues? Maybe he could be really right on, in a steady long term relationship with a geeky bird called Sarah, a social worker from Haringay council. A black, teetotal legume munching lefty MI6 agent. Yeah.
You know, you could make that work.
Why all the fretting about some logical theme through the movies. Look where that got Star Wars. There was a sort of story line from Dr.No, through to You Only Live Twice. Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, were all good in their own way but utterly inconsistent, and some of the timelines in the Moore series (particularly For Your Eyes Only) where he was by any standards far too old for the part, were ludicrous. There was some consistency between CR and QoS, which could have been interesting if well written. Then we had Skyfall and Spectre, which in my opinion were cheap moneymaking crap which could easily lead to another hiatus while the audience gets over its boredom. Now each film sets its own premise.
Look how much better the Cumberbatch/ Freeman Sherlock is than any of the previous efforts to set it in period. Why should Bond be any different?
The original books are period pieces, though the post-Fleming authors are at liberty to try anything they think might work.
Why all the fretting about some logical theme through the movies. Look where that got Star Wars. There was a sort of story line from Dr.No, through to You Only Live Twice. Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, were all good in their own way but utterly inconsistent, and some of the timelines in the Moore series (particularly For Your Eyes Only) where he was by any standards far too old for the part, were ludicrous. There was some consistency between CR and QoS, which could have been interesting if well written. Then we had Skyfall and Spectre, which in my opinion were cheap moneymaking crap which could easily lead to another hiatus while the audience gets over its boredom. Now each film sets its own premise.
Look how much better the Cumberbatch/ Freeman Sherlock is than any of the previous efforts to set it in period. Why should Bond be any different?
The original books are period pieces, though the post-Fleming authors are at liberty to try anything they think might work.
The franchise ran out of Fleming's material long ago; it's become nothing more than an expensive self parody. I couldn't personally give a flying f
k at a rolling doughnut as to the colour/ethnicity, religion, gender orientation, species, genus or kingdom of any future putative Bond. I shan't be watching it anyway.
k at a rolling doughnut as to the colour/ethnicity, religion, gender orientation, species, genus or kingdom of any future putative Bond. I shan't be watching it anyway.Einion Yrth said:
The franchise ran out of Fleming's material long ago; it's become nothing more than an expensive self parody. I couldn't personally give a flying fk at a rolling doughnut as to the colour/ethnicity, religion, gender orientation, species, genus or kingdom of any future putative Bond. I shan't be watching it anyway.
Not a Bond fan then?k at a rolling doughnut as to the colour/ethnicity, religion, gender orientation, species, genus or kingdom of any future putative Bond. I shan't be watching it anyway.WD39 said:
Einion Yrth said:
The franchise ran out of Fleming's material long ago; it's become nothing more than an expensive self parody. I couldn't personally give a flying fk at a rolling doughnut as to the colour/ethnicity, religion, gender orientation, species, genus or kingdom of any future putative Bond. I shan't be watching it anyway.
Not a Bond fan then?k at a rolling doughnut as to the colour/ethnicity, religion, gender orientation, species, genus or kingdom of any future putative Bond. I shan't be watching it anyway.I've very much enjoyed most of the Bond films, and will hopefully continue to do so... But just not with Idris Elba!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff