Who should/could be a Bond actor?

15425435455475481193

Comments

  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Benny wrote: »
    I'm currently watching The Game with Tom Hughes. Very impressed by his acting chops and commanding authority. Got a good look too.

    I like Tom Hughes. I think he could play the role of Bond.
    Also his profile is about right for the part as well. Not too famous, but known. He's a very good actor as well, which is a bonus. I'd be happy if he became Bond #7
    And at 33/34 he'd be a great age to debut as OO7.

    Watch the Turner fanboys jump on this one.

    I agree Hughes is a great actor and I've been suggesting him for few years now.

    Nice to see other see it and this just isn't the Aidan Turner fan club thread anymore.
  • Posts: 17,312
    I'd definitely be positive to Tom Hughes as Bond. I do struggle a bit imagining what kind of Bond he would likely be though.
  • Posts: 6,677
    This might be shocking, positively shocking, but I find no one is suitable for the role at this point. There, I've said it. Would I like Turner as Bond? Well, maybe. Dan Stevens, Luke Evans,... maybe. But right now, I wish they could get Bond right, the character, I mean. And if NTTD delivers on that, I'll be confident they know on which direction they want to take the character next.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,869
    To be honest, I trust EON, as far as I'm concerned they have yet to cast a bad Bond. Barbara and Michael have both delivered on the casting of two James Bonds, who are both very popular among fans, and both defined a whole new generation of James Bond fans. I think they've got this :)
  • edited November 2019 Posts: 12,837
    NicNac wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Not this again...

    No, I agree, this discussion will not happen...just yet.

    I don't know. That was fair about ten years ago when it still seemed very unlikely but now? My advice to those who hate or don't even want to talk about the idea would be to get used to it or at least prepare for it as a possibility. I think there's a very real chance of the next Bond being black (didn't they screentest Colin Salmon for CR? Or was that just a rumour?).

    Still don't see the problem personally as I've said a million times before. He's always been white but he'd always been a lot of things before until he wasn't. His skin colour in this day and age is just another aspect of his appearance imo, which has been changed many times before. I guess it makes his Scottish/Swiss ancestry harder to reconcile but come on, when has that ever been relevant/important? As long as he's British and upper class it doesn't matter imo. We've got black eton educated Tory MPs. There's nothing unbelievable about a black Bond.

    Now if they cast a woman, I'd be sharpening my pitchforks with the reat of you. But I just don't and never will see a black Bond as a big deal personally. His race has never really mattered that much to me.
  • Posts: 6,677
    Then for all means, just say EON Productions presents ____ as James Bond. Not as Ian Fleming's James Bond. Say it's based on. But don't rip and tear apart the man's work like that.

    Ian Fleming's James Bond is described thoroughly in his works and should not be messed about beyond inches and slight grading of hair. That is my take on it as a writer myself.

    People are so worried about cultural and gender appropriation in artistic works, that they forgot personal and individualistic intelectual property is to be treated with the respect it bloody well deserves. An author's work is open to some interpretation, sure. But Fleming himself tasted the formula and liked it to an extend it was later embedded in his work. So if they do want a black Bond, or an asian Bond, or a female Bond, by all means go ahead, they've got the legal rights to it. But I'll be damned if they call it Ian Fleming's James Bond. I'd throw a fit worse than a PP rant about Barbara.

    Ian Fleming's James Bond is caucasian.

    Other James Bondeses, loosely based on the writings of Ian Fleming, can be animated pigs voiced by Nicolas Cage for all I care.
  • edited November 2019 Posts: 12,837
    Univex wrote: »
    Then for all means, just say EON Productions presents ____ as James Bond. Not as Ian Fleming's James Bond. Say it's based on. But don't rip and tear apart the man's work like that.

    Ian Fleming's James Bond is described thoroughly in his works and should not be messed about beyond inches and slight grading of hair. That is my take on it as a writer myself.

    People are so worried about cultural and gender appropriation in artistic works, that they forgot personal and individualistic intelectual property is to be treated with the respect it bloody well deserves. An author's work is open to some interpretation, sure. But Fleming himself tasted the formula and liked it to an extend it was later embedded in his work. So if they do want a black Bond, or an asian Bond, or a female Bond, by all means go ahead, they've got the legal rights to it. But I'll be damned if they call it Ian Fleming's James Bond. I'd throw a fit worse than a PP rant about Barbara.

    Ian Fleming's James Bond is caucasian.

    Other James Bondeses, loosely based on the writings of Ian Fleming, can be animated pigs voiced by Nicolas Cage for all I care.

    Except they've already deviated from Fleming's Bond a lot further past a few inches of grey hair. In terms of looks, almost none of the cinematic Bond's really fit his description. Dalton (talk dark cruel) and Brosnan (GE, when his hair falls down a bit) are I think the only ones you can make a case for there.

    But even ignoring looks, he's already had several different personality transplants, some of which bear pretty much no resemblance to him. This probably started with GF. In the book Bond kills the Mexican and it messes him up, he meditates on it. The film? Positively shocking.

    Since then it's been pretty much anything goes imo. Bond's character and the situations he finds himself in have barely ever been 100% faithful to the books. The core values of Fleming's Bond (suave, tough, womanising, posh British secret agent) have always been there but none of those things can't apply to a black actor anymore. And if you want full on 100% faithful Fleming that's fine but by that logic you must only like about two or three out of 24 films.

    A black actor would be as much Ian Fleming's James Bond as Roger Moore in MR (a smug English playboy in a full on sci fi adventure) or Pierce Brosnan in DAD (an Irish transatlantic action hero in a full on sci fi adventure) or even Daniel Craig in QoS (performance spot on but a short stocky blonde guy in a dour gritty thriller with none of Fleming's colour and bizarre touches).

    His race is just trivial at this point imo. If they'd been faithful to the books to this point I'd get it. If the films were still set in the 60s I'd get it. But as it stands I really don't.

    A question I've asked before that might seem weird but hear me out: what if Daniel Craig was black. Or asian or whatever. Everything about his performance is exactly the same, he's still British, he still sounds the same, his ethnicity is the only thing different. Answer? It'd make 0 difference at all. CR would still be one of the closest films to the book of the series. Because his race nowadays is just his appearance, and his appearance doesn't matter as long as he looks fit enough for the physical side of things, attractive enough for the womanising side of things, and old enough to be a credible spy, imo.

    It's all subjective I guess, people draw the line at different points. But I just can't wrap my head around the idea that his skin colour is a bigger change than what we've already had. It would have been, a long time ago. But in 2019? Nah. And I'd suggest preparing yourself to become the new PP then, because I'm almost certain it'll eventually happen, and when it does they're not going to drop the "Ian Fleming's" part of the titles.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,988
    Univex wrote: »
    Then for all means, just say EON Productions presents ____ as James Bond. Not as Ian Fleming's James Bond. Say it's based on. But don't rip and tear apart the man's work like that.

    Ian Fleming's James Bond is described thoroughly in his works and should not be messed about beyond inches and slight grading of hair. That is my take on it as a writer myself.

    People are so worried about cultural and gender appropriation in artistic works, that they forgot personal and individualistic intelectual property is to be treated with the respect it bloody well deserves. An author's work is open to some interpretation, sure. But Fleming himself tasted the formula and liked it to an extend it was later embedded in his work. So if they do want a black Bond, or an asian Bond, or a female Bond, by all means go ahead, they've got the legal rights to it. But I'll be damned if they call it Ian Fleming's James Bond. I'd throw a fit worse than a PP rant about Barbara.

    Ian Fleming's James Bond is caucasian.

    Other James Bondeses, loosely based on the writings of Ian Fleming, can be animated pigs voiced by Nicolas Cage for all I care.

    Except they've already deviated from Fleming's Bond a lot further past a few inches of grey hair. In terms of looks, almost none of the cinematic Bond's really fit his description. Dalton (talk dark cruel) and Brosnan (GE, when his hair falls down a bit) are I think the only ones you can make a case for there.

    But even ignoring looks, he's already had several different personality transplants, some of which bear pretty much no resemblance to him. This probably started with GF. In the book Bond kills the Mexican and it messes him up, he meditates on it. The film? Positively shocking.

    Since then it's been pretty much anything goes imo. Bond's character and the situations he finds himself in have barely ever been 100% faithful to the books. The core values of Fleming's Bond (suave, tough, womanising, posh British secret agent) have always been there but none of those things can't apply to a black actor anymore. And if you want full on 100% faithful Fleming that's fine but by that logic you must only like about two or three out of 24 films.

    A black actor would be as much Ian Fleming's James Bond as Roger Moore in MR (a smug English playboy in a full on sci fi adventure) or Pierce Brosnan in DAD (an Irish transatlantic action hero in a full on sci fi adventure) or even Daniel Craig in QoS (performance spot on but a short stocky blonde guy in a dour gritty thriller with none of Fleming's colour and bizarre touches).

    His race is just trivial at this point imo. If they'd been faithful to the books to this point I'd get it. If the films were still set in the 60s I'd get it. But as it stands I really don't.

    A question I've asked before that might seem weird but hear me out: what if Daniel Craig was black. Or asian or whatever. Everything about his performance is exactly the same, he's still British, he still sounds the same, his ethnicity is the only thing different. Answer? It'd make 0 difference at all. CR would still be one of the closest films to the book of the series. Because his race nowadays is just his appearance, and his appearance doesn't matter as long as he looks fit enough for the physical side of things, attractive enough for the womanising side of things, and old enough to be a credible spy, imo.

    It's all subjective I guess, people draw the line at different points. But I just can't wrap my head around the idea that his skin colour is a bigger change than what we've already had. It would have been, a long time ago. But in 2019? Nah. And I'd suggest preparing yourself to become the new PP then, because I'm almost certain it'll eventually happen, and when it does they're not going to drop the "Ian Fleming's" part of the titles.

    1. you've made your point, but the rest aren't buying it. Neither do I. The ancestry has not been altered, the day of birth etc. yes, but as you've seen in SF, Bond, also in the cinematic incarnation has a Swiss mum and a Scottish dad. Films like OHMSS and SF suddenly would make no sense at all.
    2. The actor proposed is Ameican. And that aint never ever going to 'appen!
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    edited November 2019 Posts: 1,318
    Univex wrote: »
    Then for all means, just say EON Productions presents ____ as James Bond. Not as Ian Fleming's James Bond. Say it's based on. But don't rip and tear apart the man's work like that.

    Ian Fleming's James Bond is described thoroughly in his works and should not be messed about beyond inches and slight grading of hair. That is my take on it as a writer myself.

    People are so worried about cultural and gender appropriation in artistic works, that they forgot personal and individualistic intelectual property is to be treated with the respect it bloody well deserves. An author's work is open to some interpretation, sure. But Fleming himself tasted the formula and liked it to an extend it was later embedded in his work. So if they do want a black Bond, or an asian Bond, or a female Bond, by all means go ahead, they've got the legal rights to it. But I'll be damned if they call it Ian Fleming's James Bond. I'd throw a fit worse than a PP rant about Barbara.

    Ian Fleming's James Bond is caucasian.

    Other James Bondeses, loosely based on the writings of Ian Fleming, can be animated pigs voiced by Nicolas Cage for all I care.

    Except they've already deviated from Fleming's Bond a lot further past a few inches of grey hair. In terms of looks, almost none of the cinematic Bond's really fit his description. Dalton (talk dark cruel) and Brosnan (GE, when his hair falls down a bit) are I think the only ones you can make a case for there.

    But even ignoring looks, he's already had several different personality transplants, some of which bear pretty much no resemblance to him. This probably started with GF. In the book Bond kills the Mexican and it messes him up, he meditates on it. The film? Positively shocking.

    Since then it's been pretty much anything goes imo. Bond's character and the situations he finds himself in have barely ever been 100% faithful to the books. The core values of Fleming's Bond (suave, tough, womanising, posh British secret agent) have always been there but none of those things can't apply to a black actor anymore. And if you want full on 100% faithful Fleming that's fine but by that logic you must only like about two or three out of 24 films.

    A black actor would be as much Ian Fleming's James Bond as Roger Moore in MR (a smug English playboy in a full on sci fi adventure) or Pierce Brosnan in DAD (an Irish transatlantic action hero in a full on sci fi adventure) or even Daniel Craig in QoS (performance spot on but a short stocky blonde guy in a dour gritty thriller with none of Fleming's colour and bizarre touches).

    His race is just trivial at this point imo. If they'd been faithful to the books to this point I'd get it. If the films were still set in the 60s I'd get it. But as it stands I really don't.

    A question I've asked before that might seem weird but hear me out: what if Daniel Craig was black. Or asian or whatever. Everything about his performance is exactly the same, he's still British, he still sounds the same, his ethnicity is the only thing different. Answer? It'd make 0 difference at all. CR would still be one of the closest films to the book of the series. Because his race nowadays is just his appearance, and his appearance doesn't matter as long as he looks fit enough for the physical side of things, attractive enough for the womanising side of things, and old enough to be a credible spy, imo.

    It's all subjective I guess, people draw the line at different points. But I just can't wrap my head around the idea that his skin colour is a bigger change than what we've already had. It would have been, a long time ago. But in 2019? Nah. And I'd suggest preparing yourself to become the new PP then, because I'm almost certain it'll eventually happen, and when it does they're not going to drop the "Ian Fleming's" part of the titles.

    Let me ask you the question if it would make sense for Shaft to be a white caucasian male, just for the heck of it? Who would anyone be to say caucasian men don't value Bond as an icon as much as black men do Shaft? Also, what's behind the necessity to change Bond's ethnicity, as it's crystal clear he is a white character, not black, nor Mexican, nor Japanese. Funny detail is that you never hear from those ethnic groups, as there isn't a 'woke' group to cry, wheep and demand about it. It's time to put the virtue signalling and the idiocy to bed, for once and for all and get our heads screwed on again.

    Also, Tom Hughes... Really?

    11402128-6845379-image-a-41_1553463201022.jpg

    Yeah, no
    20181025090801-fa4c9465.jpg
  • edited November 2019 Posts: 6,677
    I was going to answer but I see two valorous members have done it for me, and brilliantly so. Thank you.

    Now shave that face, cut that hair, and give Turner his job ;)
  • edited November 2019 Posts: 12,837
    Univex wrote: »
    Then for all means, just say EON Productions presents ____ as James Bond. Not as Ian Fleming's James Bond. Say it's based on. But don't rip and tear apart the man's work like that.

    Ian Fleming's James Bond is described thoroughly in his works and should not be messed about beyond inches and slight grading of hair. That is my take on it as a writer myself.

    People are so worried about cultural and gender appropriation in artistic works, that they forgot personal and individualistic intelectual property is to be treated with the respect it bloody well deserves. An author's work is open to some interpretation, sure. But Fleming himself tasted the formula and liked it to an extend it was later embedded in his work. So if they do want a black Bond, or an asian Bond, or a female Bond, by all means go ahead, they've got the legal rights to it. But I'll be damned if they call it Ian Fleming's James Bond. I'd throw a fit worse than a PP rant about Barbara.

    Ian Fleming's James Bond is caucasian.

    Other James Bondeses, loosely based on the writings of Ian Fleming, can be animated pigs voiced by Nicolas Cage for all I care.

    Except they've already deviated from Fleming's Bond a lot further past a few inches of grey hair. In terms of looks, almost none of the cinematic Bond's really fit his description. Dalton (talk dark cruel) and Brosnan (GE, when his hair falls down a bit) are I think the only ones you can make a case for there.

    But even ignoring looks, he's already had several different personality transplants, some of which bear pretty much no resemblance to him. This probably started with GF. In the book Bond kills the Mexican and it messes him up, he meditates on it. The film? Positively shocking.

    Since then it's been pretty much anything goes imo. Bond's character and the situations he finds himself in have barely ever been 100% faithful to the books. The core values of Fleming's Bond (suave, tough, womanising, posh British secret agent) have always been there but none of those things can't apply to a black actor anymore. And if you want full on 100% faithful Fleming that's fine but by that logic you must only like about two or three out of 24 films.

    A black actor would be as much Ian Fleming's James Bond as Roger Moore in MR (a smug English playboy in a full on sci fi adventure) or Pierce Brosnan in DAD (an Irish transatlantic action hero in a full on sci fi adventure) or even Daniel Craig in QoS (performance spot on but a short stocky blonde guy in a dour gritty thriller with none of Fleming's colour and bizarre touches).

    His race is just trivial at this point imo. If they'd been faithful to the books to this point I'd get it. If the films were still set in the 60s I'd get it. But as it stands I really don't.

    A question I've asked before that might seem weird but hear me out: what if Daniel Craig was black. Or asian or whatever. Everything about his performance is exactly the same, he's still British, he still sounds the same, his ethnicity is the only thing different. Answer? It'd make 0 difference at all. CR would still be one of the closest films to the book of the series. Because his race nowadays is just his appearance, and his appearance doesn't matter as long as he looks fit enough for the physical side of things, attractive enough for the womanising side of things, and old enough to be a credible spy, imo.

    It's all subjective I guess, people draw the line at different points. But I just can't wrap my head around the idea that his skin colour is a bigger change than what we've already had. It would have been, a long time ago. But in 2019? Nah. And I'd suggest preparing yourself to become the new PP then, because I'm almost certain it'll eventually happen, and when it does they're not going to drop the "Ian Fleming's" part of the titles.

    Let me ask you the question if it would make sense for Shaft to be a white caucasian male, just for the heck of it? Who would anyone be to say caucasian men don't value Bond as an icon as much as black men do Shaft? Also, what's behind the necessity to change Bond's ethnicity, as it's crystal clear he is a white character, not black, nor Mexican, nor Japanese. Funny detail is that you never hear from those ethnic groups, as there isn't a 'woke' group to cry, wheep and demand about it. It's time to put the virtue signalling and the idiocy to bed, for once and for all and get our heads screwed on again.

    Also, Tom Hughes... Really?

    11402128-6845379-image-a-41_1553463201022.jpg

    Yeah, no
    20181025090801-fa4c9465.jpg

    I mean if you value him that much as a white icon good for you and you're welcome to that opinion. But the difference I think is Bond isn't defined by his race in the same way Shaft is.

    Shaft is the black private dick. That's who he is, what he's known as, says so in his theme song. Nobody goes around saying white secret agent James Bond. It's British secret agent James Bond. His race doesn't matter anymore imo.
    Univex wrote: »
    Then for all means, just say EON Productions presents ____ as James Bond. Not as Ian Fleming's James Bond. Say it's based on. But don't rip and tear apart the man's work like that.

    Ian Fleming's James Bond is described thoroughly in his works and should not be messed about beyond inches and slight grading of hair. That is my take on it as a writer myself.

    People are so worried about cultural and gender appropriation in artistic works, that they forgot personal and individualistic intelectual property is to be treated with the respect it bloody well deserves. An author's work is open to some interpretation, sure. But Fleming himself tasted the formula and liked it to an extend it was later embedded in his work. So if they do want a black Bond, or an asian Bond, or a female Bond, by all means go ahead, they've got the legal rights to it. But I'll be damned if they call it Ian Fleming's James Bond. I'd throw a fit worse than a PP rant about Barbara.

    Ian Fleming's James Bond is caucasian.

    Other James Bondeses, loosely based on the writings of Ian Fleming, can be animated pigs voiced by Nicolas Cage for all I care.

    Except they've already deviated from Fleming's Bond a lot further past a few inches of grey hair. In terms of looks, almost none of the cinematic Bond's really fit his description. Dalton (talk dark cruel) and Brosnan (GE, when his hair falls down a bit) are I think the only ones you can make a case for there.

    But even ignoring looks, he's already had several different personality transplants, some of which bear pretty much no resemblance to him. This probably started with GF. In the book Bond kills the Mexican and it messes him up, he meditates on it. The film? Positively shocking.

    Since then it's been pretty much anything goes imo. Bond's character and the situations he finds himself in have barely ever been 100% faithful to the books. The core values of Fleming's Bond (suave, tough, womanising, posh British secret agent) have always been there but none of those things can't apply to a black actor anymore. And if you want full on 100% faithful Fleming that's fine but by that logic you must only like about two or three out of 24 films.

    A black actor would be as much Ian Fleming's James Bond as Roger Moore in MR (a smug English playboy in a full on sci fi adventure) or Pierce Brosnan in DAD (an Irish transatlantic action hero in a full on sci fi adventure) or even Daniel Craig in QoS (performance spot on but a short stocky blonde guy in a dour gritty thriller with none of Fleming's colour and bizarre touches).

    His race is just trivial at this point imo. If they'd been faithful to the books to this point I'd get it. If the films were still set in the 60s I'd get it. But as it stands I really don't.

    A question I've asked before that might seem weird but hear me out: what if Daniel Craig was black. Or asian or whatever. Everything about his performance is exactly the same, he's still British, he still sounds the same, his ethnicity is the only thing different. Answer? It'd make 0 difference at all. CR would still be one of the closest films to the book of the series. Because his race nowadays is just his appearance, and his appearance doesn't matter as long as he looks fit enough for the physical side of things, attractive enough for the womanising side of things, and old enough to be a credible spy, imo.

    It's all subjective I guess, people draw the line at different points. But I just can't wrap my head around the idea that his skin colour is a bigger change than what we've already had. It would have been, a long time ago. But in 2019? Nah. And I'd suggest preparing yourself to become the new PP then, because I'm almost certain it'll eventually happen, and when it does they're not going to drop the "Ian Fleming's" part of the titles.

    1. you've made your point, but the rest aren't buying it. Neither do I. The ancestry has not been altered, the day of birth etc. yes, but as you've seen in SF, Bond, also in the cinematic incarnation has a Swiss mum and a Scottish dad. Films like OHMSS and SF suddenly would make no sense at all.
    2. The actor proposed is Ameican. And that aint never ever going to 'appen!

    Never said I was endorsing @Pierce2Daniel's suggestion but I would like to remind everyone that James Brolin screentested and was considered and he didn't even try to do an accent (seriously the screentest is on Youtube, it's bad). Personally I wouldn't mind an American actor as long as he can do the accent and I say that as an Englishman.

    And two films out of 24 isn't really relevant at all imo, and contradicting them doesn't matter because the series has never cared about continuity. It's a minor detail I think. What matters is the man he is not where he came from. And the man he is could easily be black without it affecting the films at all.

    I get @Jeremy's perspective about not wanting a white hero taken away/changed, that's fair enough. But the "it's not what Fleming wrote" complaints have always seemed a bit silly to me. Because how many of us are really proper Fleming purists? I can literally only think of one member on here. They've never really cared about what Fleming wrote and even if it contradicts his insignificant ancestry and the brief descriptions of his appearance we got in the books, a black actor could still give a performance that was much more in step with what Fleming wrote than what Moore or Brosnan did imo (not knocking them they're great but they weren't Fleming's Bond were they).

    The comparisons people make are a bit dumb too. White shaft holds no merit. A member on here even once compared it to a white actor playing MLK! If we're going to do a reverse comparison then why not use this forum's favourite actor (sarcasm), Idris Elba. What about a white Luther? I'd be fine with that too, if they were set on recasting at all. Because that's a character, like Bond, whose race doesn't define him. But a white Shaft is a whole other thing.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,869
    Also @JeremyBondon, while I can see why you wouldn't want Tom Hughes, anyone can choose a bad picture of someone and compare it to someone else who is obviously in a photoshoot...

    hqdefault.jpg
    tv-low-res-the-game.jpg

  • Posts: 6,677
    how many of us are really proper Fleming purists? I can literally only think of one member on here.

    Thank you for thinking of me.

    That being said, I thoroughly disagree with everything else you've said on the matter.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,989
    Univex wrote: »
    how many of us are really proper Fleming purists? I can literally only think of one member on here.

    Thank you for thinking of me.

    That being said, I thoroughly disagree with everything else you've said on the matter.

    +1

  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Also @JeremyBondon, while I can see why you wouldn't want Tom Hughes, anyone can choose a bad picture of someone and compare it to someone else who is obviously in a photoshoot...

    hqdefault.jpg
    tv-low-res-the-game.jpg

    I'm glad you did that Turner psycophants like @JeremyBondon clearly is can't help but pick totally inappropriate pictures of other actor then post one of their loved one looking much more suitable.

    Hughes is as good an actor if not better than Turner and like you did, I'm sure we can find plenty of ridiculous photos of Turner out there to ridicule like Aidan's fan club does to every other actor mentioned that isn't their chosen one.

    I'm looking immensely forward to when it is announced who the next Bond is and isn't Aldan Turner.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    edited November 2019 Posts: 1,318
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Also @JeremyBondon, while I can see why you wouldn't want Tom Hughes, anyone can choose a bad picture of someone and compare it to someone else who is obviously in a photoshoot...

    hqdefault.jpg
    tv-low-res-the-game.jpg

    I'm glad you did that Turner psycophants like @JeremyBondon clearly is can't help but pick totally inappropriate pictures of other actor then post one of their loved one looking much more suitable.

    Hughes is as good an actor if not better than Turner and like you did, I'm sure we can find plenty of ridiculous photos of Turner out there to ridicule like Aidan's fan club does to every other actor mentioned that isn't their chosen one.

    I'm looking immensely forward to when it is announced who the next Bond is and isn't Aldan Turner.

    I'm looking immensely forward to the words I will be typing next: I couldn't give one single toss about your opinion, dear Shartlake.

    Also, I can't believe what's being said by others regarding Bond and claims hardly anyone around here caring about Fleming's 'gospel'. Flabbergasted, truly. Blasphemy quite honestly. What I have stated regarding Shaft and Bond stands and I will leave it at that. No sense in arguing with someone who spouts nonsense.

    Also, Hughes just doesn't have the face nor the appearance of Bond. He looks like an older age Harry Potter. Some people on here... Turner still looks quite dashing with the longer hair there. Nice try though.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited November 2019 Posts: 16,333
    Pffft forget all of those guys. I have the only chose that should be Bond hands down. Presenting....

    Ted Sheckler.
    b6b8b474a32c80b0db648dda55b63fdd.jpg

    He's an up and coming British actor only 30 years old and has that rough looking but still handsome quality that Bond needs. And he has brown eyes so he's basically Connery 2.0.

    No fear, no limits, no substitutes. ;)

    ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
  • DrClatterhandDrClatterhand United Kingdom
    Posts: 349
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Also @JeremyBondon, while I can see why you wouldn't want Tom Hughes, anyone can choose a bad picture of someone and compare it to someone else who is obviously in a photoshoot...

    hqdefault.jpg
    tv-low-res-the-game.jpg

    Great point that I was going to make!! Thank you. I think Tom Hughes, Dan Stevens Jack Lowden are my three top choices. Aidan Turner is a bit obvious; it screams Bond by numbers.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,318
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Also @JeremyBondon, while I can see why you wouldn't want Tom Hughes, anyone can choose a bad picture of someone and compare it to someone else who is obviously in a photoshoot...

    hqdefault.jpg
    tv-low-res-the-game.jpg

    Great point that I was going to make!! Thank you. I think Tom Hughes, Dan Stevens Jack Lowden are my three top choices. Aidan Turner is a bit obvious; it screams Bond by numbers.

    Not too long ago Turner was the underdog. Oh the irony.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,888
    I seem to recall names like Clive Owen, Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale being ‘front runners’ around 2005. And we know what happened there.
    All three of the above plus others were firm fan favourites to play Bond. Things often have a habit of not going the way we might expect.
    As always, time will tell. ;)
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited November 2019 Posts: 5,869
    I'm definitely sticking with Jack Rowan, while only 22, he could definitely play him in the future. He was recently in Peaky Blinders :)

    Peaky_Blinders_Portrait_01-664x801-c-center.jpg
    Peaky_Blinders_01-1800x756-c-center.jpg
    Peaky_Blinders_03-1296x864-c-center.jpg
    Peaky_Blinders_02-1296x864-c-center.jpg
  • Posts: 6,677
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I'm definitely sticking with Jack Rowan, while only 22, he could definitely play him in the future. He was recently in Peaky Blinders :)

    Peaky_Blinders_Portrait_01-664x801-c-center.jpg
    Peaky_Blinders_01-1800x756-c-center.jpg
    Peaky_Blinders_03-1296x864-c-center.jpg
    Peaky_Blinders_02-1296x864-c-center.jpg

    Interesting choice, @Denbigh. I would have to hear his voice, though, as for me that is an important feature. And he's still too young. Nonetheless, an interesting choice.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,989
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I'm definitely sticking with Jack Rowan, while only 22, he could definitely play him in the future. He was recently in Peaky Blinders :)

    Peaky_Blinders_Portrait_01-664x801-c-center.jpg
    Peaky_Blinders_01-1800x756-c-center.jpg
    Peaky_Blinders_03-1296x864-c-center.jpg
    Peaky_Blinders_02-1296x864-c-center.jpg

    While at the moment I am a Turner supporter, this guy has a great look and even while just standing appears to have a swagger about him. This alone sets him apart from most of the actors of his generation.
    I haven’t seen him in anything, what kind of voice does he have?
    At this point he’s to young; but if they take a prolonged hiatus following Craig’s departure , or they can convince Daniel to do one more, he might have real potential.
  • edited November 2019 Posts: 12,837
    Also, I can't believe what's being said by others regarding Bond and claims hardly anyone around here caring about Fleming's 'gospel'. Flabbergasted, truly. Blasphemy quite honestly. What I have stated regarding Shaft and Bond stands and I will leave it at that. No sense in arguing with someone who spouts nonsense.

    I like how you didn't actually address any of my points but were happy to dismiss everything I said as "nonsense" (after I was respectful and polite with you and did my best to see your side of it). Didn't know that we were "arguing" either, thought we were just having a discussion, but since unlike others like @Univex who've chimed in and been perfectly pleasant you seem to have a right stick up your arse about the issue (what's really going on mate? Don't like the spotlight being taken away from your obsession with Turner?) then I don't see the point in being civil with you. Your point about white shaft definitely doesn't stand by the way because it's not the same at all. Have already explained why. You can be annoyed about a white hero being taken away but that comparison is stupid and if you wanted to do a "how would you feel if xxx" comparison there are loads of much better examples you could use. I've already given you one. But anyway, I'll leave it at that. No point in arguing with someone who's clearly an idiot (not nice is it being patronised like that is it?).
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    edited November 2019 Posts: 1,318
    Also, I can't believe what's being said by others regarding Bond and claims hardly anyone around here caring about Fleming's 'gospel'. Flabbergasted, truly. Blasphemy quite honestly. What I have stated regarding Shaft and Bond stands and I will leave it at that. No sense in arguing with someone who spouts nonsense.

    I like how you didn't actually address any of my points but were happy to dismiss everything I said as "nonsense" (after I was respectful and polite with you and did my best to see your side of it). Didn't know that we were "arguing" either, thought we were just having a discussion, but since unlike others like @Univex who've chimed in and been perfectly pleasant you seem to have a right stick up your arse about the issue (what's really going on mate? Don't like the spotlight being taken away from your obsession with Turner?) then I don't see the point in being civil with you. Your point about white shaft definitely doesn't stand by the way because it's not the same at all. Have already explained why. You can be annoyed about a white hero being taken away but that comparison is stupid and if you wanted to do a "how would you feel if xxx" comparison there are loads of much better examples you could use. I've already given you one. But anyway, I'll leave it at that. No point in arguing with someone who's clearly an idiot (not nice is it being patronised like that is it?).

    "But the "it's not what Fleming wrote" complaints have always seemed a bit silly to me. Because how many of us are really proper Fleming purists? I can literally only think of one member on here. They've never really cared about what Fleming wrote"

    Who the hell are you to be patronizing in such a manner? Clearly you have no clue about what's truly going on here, to judge for others what they are and aren't. You project your own idiocy onto others in such a way you cannot be taken seriously, hence my reply. You're also the one who is downright offensive, judging from your last post. This will be my last post directed towards you, just so the mods know. Have fun being thin air on my ignore list.

    P.s: Have extra fun virtue signalling and pandering to woke fallacies. Haha.
  • I think the "black bond" or any none white bond conversation is to focused on the ethnicity of the actor and not what the actor actually looks like. It is acting the race of James Bond has never been an issue and wouldn't be with a black actor as long as he looked the part. http://www.ze-german.com/derekjeter I know Derek Jeter isnt an actor and is american but someone who looks like him looks more Bond than the majority of suggestions on this site. Aidan Turner is my current #1 choice for Bond and he's darker than Jeter is. Sean Connery was darker as well yet people get up in arms about someone ethnicity. Shouldn't we be looking at actual looks over ethnicity?
  • Ugh, this thread should be locked.

  • Posts: 15,842
    Ugh, this thread should be locked.

    I'm afraid I agree. At least for the next several years while we await news on B26.
  • edited November 2019 Posts: 6,677
    Nah, people will apologise to each other and move on. It's in the forums nature to have these sort of brawls. Just look at the NTTD production threads. It's all good. @thelivingroyale and @JeremyBondon had their dissension and now we all move along to the next potential candidate. Soon someone will say Henry Golding should be Bond and we'll be back to heated territory for a few pages. But it all comes round to a group of fans discussing their very close to the chest notions of what Bond is.

    See, I'd like Turner to have a go, @Shardlake would never dream of it. We're still pals and can have a laugh about it as we usually do. So should these two. I'd hate it if Tom Hardy was Bond, but many want that with fervor. Some want a different race Bond. Some nut job will want an animated pig voiced by Nic Cage for the role. All and all, we'll have some fun bumping heads with each other about it. It's in the nature of these sort of pages, I guess.

    No need to close threads. Be cool, everyone.

    Forums...right?
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,988
    Univex wrote: »
    Then for all means, just say EON Productions presents ____ as James Bond. Not as Ian Fleming's James Bond. Say it's based on. But don't rip and tear apart the man's work like that.

    Ian Fleming's James Bond is described thoroughly in his works and should not be messed about beyond inches and slight grading of hair. That is my take on it as a writer myself.

    People are so worried about cultural and gender appropriation in artistic works, that they forgot personal and individualistic intelectual property is to be treated with the respect it bloody well deserves. An author's work is open to some interpretation, sure. But Fleming himself tasted the formula and liked it to an extend it was later embedded in his work. So if they do want a black Bond, or an asian Bond, or a female Bond, by all means go ahead, they've got the legal rights to it. But I'll be damned if they call it Ian Fleming's James Bond. I'd throw a fit worse than a PP rant about Barbara.

    Ian Fleming's James Bond is caucasian.

    Other James Bondeses, loosely based on the writings of Ian Fleming, can be animated pigs voiced by Nicolas Cage for all I care.

    Except they've already deviated from Fleming's Bond a lot further past a few inches of grey hair. In terms of looks, almost none of the cinematic Bond's really fit his description. Dalton (talk dark cruel) and Brosnan (GE, when his hair falls down a bit) are I think the only ones you can make a case for there.

    But even ignoring looks, he's already had several different personality transplants, some of which bear pretty much no resemblance to him. This probably started with GF. In the book Bond kills the Mexican and it messes him up, he meditates on it. The film? Positively shocking.

    Since then it's been pretty much anything goes imo. Bond's character and the situations he finds himself in have barely ever been 100% faithful to the books. The core values of Fleming's Bond (suave, tough, womanising, posh British secret agent) have always been there but none of those things can't apply to a black actor anymore. And if you want full on 100% faithful Fleming that's fine but by that logic you must only like about two or three out of 24 films.

    A black actor would be as much Ian Fleming's James Bond as Roger Moore in MR (a smug English playboy in a full on sci fi adventure) or Pierce Brosnan in DAD (an Irish transatlantic action hero in a full on sci fi adventure) or even Daniel Craig in QoS (performance spot on but a short stocky blonde guy in a dour gritty thriller with none of Fleming's colour and bizarre touches).

    His race is just trivial at this point imo. If they'd been faithful to the books to this point I'd get it. If the films were still set in the 60s I'd get it. But as it stands I really don't.

    A question I've asked before that might seem weird but hear me out: what if Daniel Craig was black. Or asian or whatever. Everything about his performance is exactly the same, he's still British, he still sounds the same, his ethnicity is the only thing different. Answer? It'd make 0 difference at all. CR would still be one of the closest films to the book of the series. Because his race nowadays is just his appearance, and his appearance doesn't matter as long as he looks fit enough for the physical side of things, attractive enough for the womanising side of things, and old enough to be a credible spy, imo.

    It's all subjective I guess, people draw the line at different points. But I just can't wrap my head around the idea that his skin colour is a bigger change than what we've already had. It would have been, a long time ago. But in 2019? Nah. And I'd suggest preparing yourself to become the new PP then, because I'm almost certain it'll eventually happen, and when it does they're not going to drop the "Ian Fleming's" part of the titles.

    Let me ask you the question if it would make sense for Shaft to be a white caucasian male, just for the heck of it? Who would anyone be to say caucasian men don't value Bond as an icon as much as black men do Shaft? Also, what's behind the necessity to change Bond's ethnicity, as it's crystal clear he is a white character, not black, nor Mexican, nor Japanese. Funny detail is that you never hear from those ethnic groups, as there isn't a 'woke' group to cry, wheep and demand about it. It's time to put the virtue signalling and the idiocy to bed, for once and for all and get our heads screwed on again.

    Also, Tom Hughes... Really?

    11402128-6845379-image-a-41_1553463201022.jpg

    Yeah, no
    20181025090801-fa4c9465.jpg

    I mean if you value him that much as a white icon good for you and you're welcome to that opinion. But the difference I think is Bond isn't defined by his race in the same way Shaft is.

    Shaft is the black private dick. That's who he is, what he's known as, says so in his theme song. Nobody goes around saying white secret agent James Bond. It's British secret agent James Bond. His race doesn't matter anymore imo.
    Univex wrote: »
    Then for all means, just say EON Productions presents ____ as James Bond. Not as Ian Fleming's James Bond. Say it's based on. But don't rip and tear apart the man's work like that.

    Ian Fleming's James Bond is described thoroughly in his works and should not be messed about beyond inches and slight grading of hair. That is my take on it as a writer myself.

    People are so worried about cultural and gender appropriation in artistic works, that they forgot personal and individualistic intelectual property is to be treated with the respect it bloody well deserves. An author's work is open to some interpretation, sure. But Fleming himself tasted the formula and liked it to an extend it was later embedded in his work. So if they do want a black Bond, or an asian Bond, or a female Bond, by all means go ahead, they've got the legal rights to it. But I'll be damned if they call it Ian Fleming's James Bond. I'd throw a fit worse than a PP rant about Barbara.

    Ian Fleming's James Bond is caucasian.

    Other James Bondeses, loosely based on the writings of Ian Fleming, can be animated pigs voiced by Nicolas Cage for all I care.

    Except they've already deviated from Fleming's Bond a lot further past a few inches of grey hair. In terms of looks, almost none of the cinematic Bond's really fit his description. Dalton (talk dark cruel) and Brosnan (GE, when his hair falls down a bit) are I think the only ones you can make a case for there.

    But even ignoring looks, he's already had several different personality transplants, some of which bear pretty much no resemblance to him. This probably started with GF. In the book Bond kills the Mexican and it messes him up, he meditates on it. The film? Positively shocking.

    Since then it's been pretty much anything goes imo. Bond's character and the situations he finds himself in have barely ever been 100% faithful to the books. The core values of Fleming's Bond (suave, tough, womanising, posh British secret agent) have always been there but none of those things can't apply to a black actor anymore. And if you want full on 100% faithful Fleming that's fine but by that logic you must only like about two or three out of 24 films.

    A black actor would be as much Ian Fleming's James Bond as Roger Moore in MR (a smug English playboy in a full on sci fi adventure) or Pierce Brosnan in DAD (an Irish transatlantic action hero in a full on sci fi adventure) or even Daniel Craig in QoS (performance spot on but a short stocky blonde guy in a dour gritty thriller with none of Fleming's colour and bizarre touches).

    His race is just trivial at this point imo. If they'd been faithful to the books to this point I'd get it. If the films were still set in the 60s I'd get it. But as it stands I really don't.

    A question I've asked before that might seem weird but hear me out: what if Daniel Craig was black. Or asian or whatever. Everything about his performance is exactly the same, he's still British, he still sounds the same, his ethnicity is the only thing different. Answer? It'd make 0 difference at all. CR would still be one of the closest films to the book of the series. Because his race nowadays is just his appearance, and his appearance doesn't matter as long as he looks fit enough for the physical side of things, attractive enough for the womanising side of things, and old enough to be a credible spy, imo.

    It's all subjective I guess, people draw the line at different points. But I just can't wrap my head around the idea that his skin colour is a bigger change than what we've already had. It would have been, a long time ago. But in 2019? Nah. And I'd suggest preparing yourself to become the new PP then, because I'm almost certain it'll eventually happen, and when it does they're not going to drop the "Ian Fleming's" part of the titles.

    1. you've made your point, but the rest aren't buying it. Neither do I. The ancestry has not been altered, the day of birth etc. yes, but as you've seen in SF, Bond, also in the cinematic incarnation has a Swiss mum and a Scottish dad. Films like OHMSS and SF suddenly would make no sense at all.
    2. The actor proposed is Ameican. And that aint never ever going to 'appen!

    Never said I was endorsing @Pierce2Daniel's suggestion but I would like to remind everyone that James Brolin screentested and was considered and he didn't even try to do an accent (seriously the screentest is on Youtube, it's bad). Personally I wouldn't mind an American actor as long as he can do the accent and I say that as an Englishman.

    And two films out of 24 isn't really relevant at all imo, and contradicting them doesn't matter because the series has never cared about continuity. It's a minor detail I think. What matters is the man he is not where he came from. And the man he is could easily be black without it affecting the films at all.

    I get @Jeremy's perspective about not wanting a white hero taken away/changed, that's fair enough. But the "it's not what Fleming wrote" complaints have always seemed a bit silly to me. Because how many of us are really proper Fleming purists? I can literally only think of one member on here. They've never really cared about what Fleming wrote and even if it contradicts his insignificant ancestry and the brief descriptions of his appearance we got in the books, a black actor could still give a performance that was much more in step with what Fleming wrote than what Moore or Brosnan did imo (not knocking them they're great but they weren't Fleming's Bond were they).

    The comparisons people make are a bit dumb too. White shaft holds no merit. A member on here even once compared it to a white actor playing MLK! If we're going to do a reverse comparison then why not use this forum's favourite actor (sarcasm), Idris Elba. What about a white Luther? I'd be fine with that too, if they were set on recasting at all. Because that's a character, like Bond, whose race doesn't define him. But a white Shaft is a whole other thing.

    Well you may think the comparison between ith a white shaft is 'dumb', others find your idea of a black bond rediculous. That's not much of a foundation for your opinion.

    Bond is far more than the discription given by Fleming. He's a cultural icon, a ghost of an empire past. That in itself makes it impossible for Bond to be black or American. Hence his heritage does matter. The fact that you are English doesn't alter that at all. I'm not, but I would never accept anything but a Brit or perhaps someone from Australia or NZ if that person could really impersonate a Brit. At least they're subjects to the crown.

    And considering the reactions, I would bet you're completely off on your Fleming purist perception here. I for one am one of those too, I'm still struggeling to accept the continuation novels as well.
Sign In or Register to comment.