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
Well, i would argue that somewhere between DAF and MR we have long crossed that line...
There is no doubt that if 7 actors had played Shaft, all would be black, and there’s a good chance the would look different from each other.
Everyone has a different line of what they find acceptable. For anyone open to Bond’s Gender and race changing, could an Asian lesbian play Shaft?
Absolutely it happens and I think it’s bad and shouldn’t
Then almost half of the Bond films should never have been made, starting with You Only Live Twice. And kiss the Roger Moore era goodbye too.
Nevertheless, Fleming was a pragmatist when it came to who played Bond. He accepted Sean Connery, despite Connery not being close to his vision, and afterward he made Bond half-Scottish. He even contemplated Jimmy Stewart in the role. I don't think Fleming be offended by a black actor in the part today, provided the actor could project suavity and toughness.
Bringing up Shaft comparison, is beside the point. That character is tied to and defined by inner-city ghetto culture, which was (and still is) predominantly African American. Having an African American actor play Shaft as a classical scholar in suburban New England would feel just as wrong as having a white actor play him. Beyond that, Shaft was created as an action film hero for African American audiences because there weren't any (until the Blaxploitation craze took off, but it proved short-lived). And there still aren't many, whereas white heroes remain predominant. I suspect that as Anglo-American society grows more multi-racial and diverse onscreen, white audiences will be put in the position of minority audiences and ask for heroes they "can relate to." That would be the most honest reason to want Bond to remain white. But there's no longer any logical reason why he couldn't be another race, since Britishness no longer automatically means whiteness, and--despite the doom and gloom--whiteness is no longer synonymous with being upper class. Eton has a far more diverse student body than it used to. Society is changing fast.
Oh and remember Daniel Craig's casting? 'Blonde Bond'? DanielCraigIsNotBond.com? The only reason to cast a black actor as Bond is to be able to call everyone who oppoeses it to be racist.
'Batmans is old money (in the US FFS!!!!) so he can't be black? Or less so then Bond? what utter rubbish! Bond has a Scottish peasant background and they were predominantly white. Even more so then 'old money' in the US.
But if Bond's ancestry doesn't count, why should Batmans'? Even more so Batman lives in a fictional world which is far easier to change then the actual world Bond comes from. So it isn't hard at all to change Batman's background to Black. Or Asian (which makes more sense, I guess there are 'old money' families a plenty in countries like Japan or Korea. Far older then anything in the US anyway.).
But Bond's ancestry and legacy do count. And that's the long and the short of it. Changing Bond in such a fundamental way would destroy 66 years of storytelling.
Anyway, you're all too Hollywood focussed, because there's already an Asian Bond:
Asian Bond = Awful and utterly pointless.
Im not convinced by this arguament at all. Bond is a white character and his roots, background and education define such. Fleming was not really a pragmatist at all? It's pretty clear he wasn't in his writing?
He's 42. Too old! :D
Not to mention his drug habit!
It's the don't mession with the creations outline comment I don't get. I read a comment from you in the Moonraker appreciation thread earlier and that film completely butchered the source material.
I guess it just depends where you draw the line at the end of the day but nowadays, where it'd have no bearing on the film itself, I think changing his race would be fairly miniscule in comparison to all the other massive deviations from the books they've taken over the years. It basically comes down to changing his appearance (which has been done many times before) and his ancestry (which has never been relevant). So I just don't see it as crossing the line like you do, it wouldn't be tampering with the original character anymore than they have done already imo.
The whole cast the right person for the job thing is difficult because there are definitely prerequisites. He's a bloke obviously and he's always been defined by his masculinity and sexuality (a gay actor could play him though and also, I'm not sure why black Bond/gay Bond are being written as equivalents by some in this thread; one would require them to work it into the script and actually change Bond's character, the other is just a matter of casting someone with a darker skin tone). Unmistakeably British. Needs to be good looking to make him getting the girl believeable and shouldn't look visibly out of shape because it's a physical job. Shouldn't be too young or too old. But does he really have to be white? I don't think so, at least not now, because it'd have no bearing on the films themselves. The only reason it seems that there's an "unwritten rule" is because it wouldn't have worked in the older films and hasn't happened yet in the new ones imo.
What I find offensive is that if a person wants Bond to remain male and white, there are those who paint them with a broad brush as intolerant and I some cases hateful. I have many black and female friends who do not want to see a change I gender of ethnicity, would they be accused of the same prejudices?
Well said. My GF is black. I've read Fleming. My preference is stick to Fleming and tradition and keep Bond as the white character he's always been. Period.
Changing the storyline and character are light years different compartments to touch. The excuse with the idea to get away with saying "he's a fictional character, not a historical one" is invalid, I'm very sorry to say. So, unless we completely go ethnic-blind upon everything, then I will have no objections to a black Bond, or Alex Cross being white. It's a two-way street. His background matters as much as any character's background matters. In the Bond adventures, the star is Bond himself - the hero people root for - averting evil schemes by a notorious villain. Bond matters. Not the change in the story. Updating it to "modern-day" means one has to update the narrative of the adventure and the cases, not radically change the character but tell the same story.
I don't get why Bond should be anything but white. Is it because white characters are "default" characters so as long in the west there's quite the diversity Bond has to change, too? I've no problem personally if a gay actor plays Bond as long as the character is kept straight. But, doing vice versa just criminally slams the character just as much making him a female just for the hell of it. This doesn't help fight the social wars. This just makes the problem go farther into expansion and I sure as hell don't want to start ethnic wars because a group or the other doesn't get it their way.
If that "unwritten rule" about not working it in the older films and haven't been tried in the new films applies to Bond, then it applies to any character. Any person in a story whether fictionalized version of historical events or just pure fiction, like making JFK black, for example, and Malcolm X a middle eastern. The sensible substitute to making a black and/or gay/woman Bond is to create new characters and new franchises. Why not make twenty more Atomic Blonde films, for instance?
Thank you! I've a lot of black friends (one of my best friends is black whom I look up to more often than I could count) who are against the idea of changing character ethnicities/backgrounds just for the sake of it. And we all know Hollywood does things for the sake of things.
For a moment I thought you meant you imagined Goldfinger as a black man reading the novel.
The idea that James Bond's race doesn't matter is mainly allowed to fly because he's white. A target. Changing another other-than-white established character's race would be approached differently, likely with outcry and offense because race does matter in that case (e.g. Shaft). And yes, I'm aware of experiments with Othello and variations on Green Lantern.
Gay actor. I understand the concept of acting, but to me that would be an unnecessary distraction. Not unlike an American actor. And it goes back to making the character authentic on screen, not to pull him apart with differences in our real world mixed into the production.
Beyond fiction, historical figures should be out of bounds to change basic characteristics, specifically race. Not sure where that concept comes from.
Lastly, the idea that "race doesn't matter" flies in the face of the diversity effort to recognize and celebrate race and culture.
Lol +1
Look at the lunacy in his eyes.
That's stretching things. Moonraker butchered the letter and spirit of Fleming, it didn't merely add new plot elements to a mostly Flemingian storyline, as OHMSS and CR did. None of the characters in the film of Moonraker bear much resemblance to Fleming's originals, and while the modified V-2s needed updateding, that was hardly justification for turning the plot into a braindead outer-space science fiction extravaganza that again had absolutely nothing to with any manifestation of Fleming, just as the film's juvenile humor and stupid jokes had nothing to do with Fleming (or did I miss the double-taking pigeon in the novel?). A film like Moonraker remains a far greater offense against Fleming than a non-white James Bond.
The “stupid jokes” that you seem to refer to have been existent since the very beginning of the film franchise, which was an actual improvement over a character Connery himself referred to as dull. I’m guessing you would just rather have Bond not say “I think they were on their way to a funeral” upon killing the Three Blind Mice gang, but rather stand there, have a shock in silence that someone got killed in a horrible way and reflect upon his career as a spy.
Who knows? Maybe in the near future, the double take pigeon, a two second scene that doesn’t even play a key element in the story would be more offensive than an Android Bond. Some logic.
There's a big difference between the dark humor referenced in Dr. No versus outright cartoonish, slapstick humor in Moonraker the film. I like Moonraker the film, but that's based on familiarity. Different from appreciating quality content true to its source.
Fleming himself asked that the story of The Spy Who Loved Me not be filmed. So they made a Bond movie with the title. I don't think anyone objects to that.
Degrading a Fleming novel is far more offensive than compiling a pastiche of greatest hits from previous Bond films, especially since Fleming's novel couldn't be used for TSWLM.
No, the "stupid jokes" haven't. The early Bond films had the sense to go easy on puns, had occasional moments of witty verbal humor, and avoided the childish sight gags of the Moore years.
As for Connery, he read only two Fleming books, and though I greatly admire his acting I couldn't care less about his literary opinions.
You've guessed wrong. I don't mind a witty line to lighten an intense action sequence and I doubt Fleming's Bond would have wasted much shock on the deaths of men who tried to kill him and killed Strangways.
Entirely your own. That two second scene exemplifies the juvenile humor and prevailing mindlessness of a film that trashes not merely the plot but also the tone, characters, and ethos of its source. It's hypocritical to argue against a non-white Bond by saying it would be untrue to Fleming and yet defend Bond films that were outrageously untrue of Fleming.
Arguing that the films have to occasionally depart from Fleming (which is true, though they don't have to depart into outer space) also means acknowledging that the films will occasionally depart from Fleming's conception of the character, which Fleming himself changed. Does that mean the next Bond should be non-white? Not particularly, unless a non-white actor appears who seems especially suited to the role. It also means that there's no logical prohibition against a non-white actor as Bond, though there's nothing wrong about personally preferring to follow tradition.