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
Or a tree.
They would not be self-identifying as anything. They would be acting. They would be playing a white character.
Just stop.
I understand a black man can act or play a white character. The question is, why not get a white man to play a white character? Are you really advocating the Mickey Rooney clause? Why would a white man play an asian one? Why would a black man want to play a white character? And yes, I prefer an Arab actor playing Othello than having Welles paint his face. Although to be fair, the rules in theatre are not the same as the ones in cinema, or Redmayne wouldn't have made a career in college playing pretty damsels on stage. All characters should be played as they are depicted in the works from which they derive from. Diversity and equality mean one should have white characters played by white actors, black character played by black actors, asian characters played by asian actors and so on, and only if the piece demands it, not to fill quotas. If I want to see Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, I really don't want to see black or white character just because they had to fill a racial quota. Having Javert in Les Miserables as black, as the BBC just did, is odd, because there were no black police inspectors in early 19th- century France. You don't need to hijack History and change just for the sake of woke quota targets. Just create new settings and pieces that speak of todays values. History can't be changed like that. If we change the past we sure won't learn from it.
It is impossible for a black actor to play a white character. I agree....just stop. Absolutely lunatic suggestion/ trolling.
Also they WOULD be self identifying as another race.
I can’t see it myself. He’s not a very good actor and I don’t want another none Brit.
Keep saying it. I agree mate.
Now I don’t support continuing the Craig timeline, but Fassbender would be close enough in age to make it plausible , as opposed to casting an actor in his mid 30’s
Not too long ago (couple of years probably) there was outcry because hollywood had casted a white girl in the role of an asian girl, the film was an adaptation of a manga classic. Don't ask me which because I'm not very at home in that field.
It goes to show that your premise is wrong, it's impossible to 'act' a different colour. The film flopped.
Now earlier you stated something about GI Joe I think. 1. it isn't a character with a worldwide following (at best a vague memory for people my age on this continent) and 2. it wasn't the main character. And as we've seen with Bond, far more is allowed with secondary characters as they don't change the main character. So Moneypenny could be a 60y/o drag from Nigeria and people will just frown and wonder what happened to HR at MI6, but Bond himsel can't be changed in any way like that.
And for those who go 'but Barbra said..', she also said at the end o the interview 'it's the fans that decide'. So will there be a black Bond. Nope. Njet, Negative, Nein, Nee, Mais non! no. Not gonna happen.
Neither will American actors be allowed. Has to be from the Commonwealth. At least, British isles preferably.
I agree and also hope for a reboot and a fresh start.
My feeling, and I live in hope, is that given how successful Bond has been at the box office under Craig's tenure EON would want to keep the momentum going with a new man in the role. Therefore I think it would be a bit risky to introduce a new Bond in 4-5 years as per the modern gap. Bond 26 will be released in around 3 years. Fassbender is 42 currently , so at 45ish he would not be too old, not at all.
As I say, I live in hope.
Agree. What happened to the days where every film had the same supporting cast despite the introduction of a new Bond? Why does every time they introduce a new actor to play Bond that they need to reboot the franchise? It’s tiresome.
They’ve found a sweet spot with Fiennes, Harris and Whishaw, IMO. The return of M’s office at the end of Skyfall signalled (or should’ve) a return to a more traditional formula. They should introduce a new Bond without rebooting the franchise as per Connery, Lazenby, Moore and Dalton. You feel like Brosnan’s introduction was a reboot without it being strictly stated. They shouldn’t keep all of the trappings of the Craig era, but I certainly think retaining the current supporting cast as a start would be beneficial, IMO.
I definitely don’t want another situation as was done with Judy Dench where she was M but not the same M.
It’s time to start fresh with a new James Bond and supporting characters.
It's actually the only way, right, @talos7. This era is insulated. And, as you have said too many times: having a young guy step in and continue the Craig storylines is just not feasible. It wouldn't make sense. Modern audiences would absolutely be confused!
Whatever Eon does in the future is whatever they do, but I think it is clear they will have to re-boot with the new fella after craig...
EON can (and have in the past) pretty much do whatever they want.
I personally really like Whishaw as Q. Even if he was the only actor they kept I'd be happy with that.
There's also something nice about having an unbroken link back to 62 in terms of there always being at least one actor carried over.
Agree, particularly with the bold statement. As mentioned previously, Judi Dench was still M in Casino Royale despite the film being a reboot of the franchise and this doesn't detract from the film, IMO. Bernard Lee, Lois Maxwell and Desmond Llewelyn all remained the same over the course of 3 actors slipping into the role of Bond and it had no impact at all. In fact I personally think it makes their transitions more seamless. The reality is that until now the Bond films never had much in the way of continuity. They were pretty much all standalone films until the Craig era. I personally preferred when they were individual films and I feel that whoever the next Bond is that they need to return to making individual adventures. I do believe that a new portrayal of Bond can exist with the current supporting cast remaining the status quo.
You are starting to come across as trolling now, pal.
Well its been done before. Moore took over the mantle, and was a more youthful looking version than Connery in 71, and yet the trio of Q, Moneypenny and M remained in their roles.
Likewise Dalton in 87 with Q and M, and Brosnan's reign with the same Q.
Generally speaking, Bond has always typically been younger then M, Q and Moneypenny? Keeping in mind that Whishaw and Harris are both younger then previous incarnations of their characters, I don't think that it would make much of a difference. Bernard Lee was much older then Connery in Dr. No and that's what adds to the authority of his character. Lazenby who was the youngest actor to play Bond, doesn't look out of place around the original supporting cast, IMO. Why should the next actor be any different?
Fair enough. I guess I've never viewed the franchise in this light and that's why it doesn't bother me. I've always seen them as complete standalone films regardless of the actors age. Continuity is only achieved when their is an underlying story arc across films such as Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace or Spectre and No Time To Die, IMO.
Actually Dalton's is the same timeline. In LTK Felix references Bond being married once, due to Bond's reaction to Stella when she throws her garter to him.
Couple that with Felix being played by the same actor that appeared in LALD.
I'd say it was a soft reboot, as Dalton was visibly younger than Moore.
I personally feel that SF should have been the GF of this era and totally separate, the same Bond but moved on from the arc of the first 2.
Then if they need to retrofit SPECTRE (Quantum is so obviously P&W's SPECTRE they just didn't have the rights at the time) to have SP & NTTD to the continuation of this arc.
The dodgy ring scanning nonsense aside if they hadn't tied SF into the arc to make it all connected and it might not have appeared so lame.
Very much like what happened with Connery with DN FRWL & TB and following with YOLT.
The idea of trying SF in makes the retro fitting look even worse.
But what they did with Dench, and M, throws all of that into doubt;
you see, just because certain people and events are referenced , doesn’t mean it’s the same timeline, it only means that those things existed, and happened within both timelines. For me, personally, there is no way that I can accept Dalton being the same Bond as Moore, Lazenby or Connery; the shift in age is too jarring .
Judy Dench plays two different Ms in two different timelines, for me this was done in The Living Daylights, but on a much larger scale .
I realize I’m in the minority in how I see this, but it works for me. 😁
The main question is: why would the stories be consecutive? If you ask me EON sees them as Bond- stories. Which would result in basically all films falling in between CR and SF/SP. In the past storywise there've been only nods to previous/ other films.