Who should/could be a Bond actor?

15735745765785791193

Comments

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,983
    He's not Bond, not Superman, not Mary Poppins, not Lassie...
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited February 2020 Posts: 5,869
    Why does everything always come off as patronising on this page? I understand people don't want a "black Bond" but do we really have to start talking about these people as if they're some cult that won't go away - it's just a difference of opinion.
  • edited February 2020 Posts: 6,677
    talos7 wrote: »
    He's not Bond, not Superman, not Mary Poppins, not Lassie...

    +1000

    Hey, maybe the next Lassie could be a Chihuahua, or a Pug. They're all dogs, anyways. If a Yorkshire Terrier can jump around and hurdle sheep, why can't he play Lassie? Maybe he's the better dog for the part. Heck, Lassie was female character played by a male dog, so, why the hell not?

    And the next Poppins should definitely be played by Yalita Aparicio, because she's a brilliant actress, of course. Or by Henry Golding. Perfect casting right there! He'd nail the accent. Can he sing?

    Superman, though, I'm thinking Dwayne Johnson could do it. Minus the black coma of hair, but who cares, right?

    No, it's not just a difference of opinion, my friend @Denbigh, it's the difference between thinking straight or askew. Between people with agendas and people that know how to respect an artist labor without turning it into a political matter. All of these people, Babs, Eilish, Craig,..., they're only saying these things because it's not PC to say otherwise. That is censorship to a T. That is fear mongering. And I'm a liberal leftist here. I just don't get why people don't get this. Probably because of a massive lack of neurons and too many personal axes to grind.

    Bond was written as caucasian, any alteration to that is racism and a blatant disrespect for intelectual property.

    But I'll abstain from commenting about this any further.
  • DrClatterhandDrClatterhand United Kingdom
    Posts: 349
    https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/pierce-brosnan-as-james-bond/

    Interesting article about Brosnan as Bond.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,318
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Why does everything always come off as patronising on this page? I understand people don't want a "black Bond" but do we really have to start talking about these people as if they're some cult that won't go away - it's just a difference of opinion.

    Actually no, you are incorrect. It definitely does resemble a cult. It's called the woke movement, which is part of the PC movement which has been plaguing the world for quite a while now. People like pierce2daniel are oblivious to the fact their constant repeating of the same schtick doesn't work, as it comes over as forceful. Why should we be okay with their views when they're devoid of any logic and reason? A lot of people are sick and tired of it quite frankly. Change certainly is not always better, most of the times it's just different and different certainly isn't always better.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited February 2020 Posts: 5,869
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Why does everything always come off as patronising on this page? I understand people don't want a "black Bond" but do we really have to start talking about these people as if they're some cult that won't go away - it's just a difference of opinion.

    Actually no, you are incorrect. It definitely does resemble a cult. It's called the woke movement, which is part of the PC movement which has been plaguing the world for quite a while now. People like pierce2daniel are oblivious to the fact their constant repeating of the same schtick doesn't work, as it comes over as forceful. Why should we be okay with their views when they're devoid of any logic and reason? A lot of people are sick and tired of it quite frankly. Change certainly is not always better, most of the times it's just different and different certainly isn't always better.
    No, it's just some people are open to the idea and some people are not. Not everything has an agenda; political or otherwise all the time. Whether you like the idea or not, they could do it and it could work. Like anything could, but just because your opinion suggests otherwise, it doesn't mean those views should vilified. You're views aren't political in this argument, so why are theres?

    And I'm not saying that you can't present your opinions also, but reverting to descriptions of "cultist" behaviour and "woke" culture is just a flat statement that's just an attempt to tie up everyone's opinions into an agenda. To be honest, this idea of "woke" has been more sold by the people who are against it, than the people who are just trying to make what they believe to be positive changes.

    Also just to add I'm not so opposed to the idea of a casting a black actor that I wouldn't give it a chance, I just don't know if they will do it or if they should do it, but I'm also aware of how you never know if something will work unless you try.

    The way I see it. If before Bond 26, there are two actors; one black and one white who are both up for James Bond. If the black actor is the better of the two after all the auditions, I'm going to give it to him. Simple.
  • Posts: 6,677
    The role of a white dude should be played by a white dude and that shouldn't be seen as racism. The role of a man should be played by a man and that shouldn't be seen as sexism.

    Having the role of a white dude played by a black woman won't solve racism and/or sexism.

    The creation of new roles for different races and genders will.

    Oh, sorry, I said I wouldn't speak about it anymore. I'll gently move along to NTTD threads. Cheerio.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited February 2020 Posts: 7,983
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Why does everything always come off as patronising on this page? I understand people don't want a "black Bond" but do we really have to start talking about these people as if they're some cult that won't go away - it's just a difference of opinion.

    Actually no, you are incorrect. It definitely does resemble a cult. It's called the woke movement, which is part of the PC movement which has been plaguing the world for quite a while now. People like pierce2daniel are oblivious to the fact their constant repeating of the same schtick doesn't work, as it comes over as forceful. Why should we be okay with their views when they're devoid of any logic and reason? A lot of people are sick and tired of it quite frankly. Change certainly is not always better, most of the times it's just different and different certainly isn't always better.
    No, it's just some people are open to the idea and some people are not. Not everything has an agenda; political or otherwise all the time. Whether you like the idea or not, they could do it and it could work. Like anything could, but just because your opinion suggests otherwise, it doesn't mean those views should vilified. You're views aren't political in this argument, so why are theres?

    And I'm not saying that you can't present your opinions also, but reverting to descriptions of "cultist" behaviour and "woke" culture is just a flat statement that's just an attempt to tie up everyone's opinions into an agenda. To be honest, this idea of "woke" has been more sold by the people who are against it, than the people who are just trying to make what they believe to be positive changes.

    Also just to add I'm not so opposed to the idea of a casting a black actor that I wouldn't give it a chance, I just don't know if they will do it or if they should do it, but I'm also aware of how you never know if something will work unless you try.

    The way I see it. If before Bond 26, there are two actors; one black and one white who are both up for James Bond. If the black actor is the better of the two after all the auditions, I'm going to give it to him. Simple.

    But they are not limited to only two actors. When there is not a single white actor on the planet who is capable of playing James Bond, then it might be time to look to a different ethnic/racial group.

    Too often black actors are proposed for two reasons, to prove or display, self perceived "open mindedness", or simply to be provocative and stir the pot.

  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited February 2020 Posts: 5,869
    talos7 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Why does everything always come off as patronising on this page? I understand people don't want a "black Bond" but do we really have to start talking about these people as if they're some cult that won't go away - it's just a difference of opinion.

    Actually no, you are incorrect. It definitely does resemble a cult. It's called the woke movement, which is part of the PC movement which has been plaguing the world for quite a while now. People like pierce2daniel are oblivious to the fact their constant repeating of the same schtick doesn't work, as it comes over as forceful. Why should we be okay with their views when they're devoid of any logic and reason? A lot of people are sick and tired of it quite frankly. Change certainly is not always better, most of the times it's just different and different certainly isn't always better.
    No, it's just some people are open to the idea and some people are not. Not everything has an agenda; political or otherwise all the time. Whether you like the idea or not, they could do it and it could work. Like anything could, but just because your opinion suggests otherwise, it doesn't mean those views should vilified. You're views aren't political in this argument, so why are theres?

    And I'm not saying that you can't present your opinions also, but reverting to descriptions of "cultist" behaviour and "woke" culture is just a flat statement that's just an attempt to tie up everyone's opinions into an agenda. To be honest, this idea of "woke" has been more sold by the people who are against it, than the people who are just trying to make what they believe to be positive changes.

    Also just to add I'm not so opposed to the idea of a casting a black actor that I wouldn't give it a chance, I just don't know if they will do it or if they should do it, but I'm also aware of how you never know if something will work unless you try.

    The way I see it. If before Bond 26, there are two actors; one black and one white who are both up for James Bond. If the black actor is the better of the two after all the auditions, I'm going to give it to him. Simple.
    But they are not limited to only two actors. When there is not a single white actor on the planet who is capable of playing James Bond, then it might be time to look to a different ethnic/racial group.
    No, they're not, but if they go through the whole audition process and find that this black actor who went for it has impressed them the most out of everyone, could you really blame them that much for picking him? If you loved everything about the actor they chose but the colour of his skin, is it really that hard to look past?

    ...and again I'm not trying to say you guys are wrong, but I think jumping on people quite nastily for thinking differently is unnecessary.

    And the problem with thinking that of black actors in movies, is that it spoils any chance of being able to have black actors as big characters in big franchises, because every time we do it's considered provocative and stirring the pot? I'm not saying it's not done for that reason ever, but if we assume that every time, how we ever just gonna let these things happen naturally?
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited February 2020 Posts: 5,131
    weboffear wrote: »
    Fassbender isn't British , he's German/Irish , if you think the tabloids made a fuss about a blond actor playing Bond , watch the shit storm if they cast a German actor as a British icon , and Fassbender would be far from my first choice

    If there is anyone to pull off a half-Scottish, half-Swiss Bond as intended by Fleming, it's Fassbender!

    Plus, the more likely media reaction would be "Ugh... another white straight male cast as Bond!"

    +1.

    I agree. When there is not a single white actor on the planet who is capable of playing James Bond, then it might be time to look to a different ethnic/racial group. Until then stick to Fleming.

    B Jordan is also American which is a double fail. He’s literally totally unsuitable!! It’s hilarious to suggest him. Literally the same as suggesting Colin Firth as Shaft! Ha ha ha ha!
  • Daniel316Daniel316 United States
    Posts: 210
    Tbh I'd be quite satisfied with Michael Fassbender being chosen though I fear he'll be to old to play Bond by the time Bond 26 were to start production. Although Moore was 45 when he started and went until he was 57 so I suppose the age issue wouldn't really be a problem in the long run. If Fassbender isn't chosen then my choice would be my go to pick for the Next Bond: Henry Cavill.


    As for Michael B. Jordan..meh, I mean don't get me wrong he's a good actor and I like him in Creed but I just don't see him as bond due to not really having the look or feel, His background and well he's a black actor which imo Bond shouldn't be potrayed by, only because Bond has been white since 1953 and imo it should stay that way as it's a long since established rule of the character.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Daniel316 wrote: »
    Tbh I'd be quite satisfied with Michael Fassbender being chosen though I fear he'll be to old to play Bond by the time Bond 26 were to start production. Although Moore was 45 when he started and went until he was 57 so I suppose the age issue wouldn't really be a problem in the long run. If Fassbender isn't chosen then my choice would be my go to pick for the Next Bond: Henry Cavill.


    As for Michael B. Jordan..meh, I mean don't get me wrong he's a good actor and I like him in Creed but I just don't see him as bond due to not really having the look or feel, His background and well he's a black actor which imo Bond shouldn't be potrayed by, only because Bond has been white since 1953 and imo it should stay that way as it's a long since established rule of the character.

    Good post. Albeit I’d take Tom Hiddleston or Aidan Turner as Bond if Fassbender isn’t chosen.

    Remember as well as not looking like Bond, B Jordan is American and I can only think of one American actor who can do a convincing ‘British’ accent (John Lithgow in the Crown). An Englishman see through all the awful fakes, Americans just can’t get it right!
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Daniel316 wrote: »
    Tbh I'd be quite satisfied with Michael Fassbender being chosen though I fear he'll be to old to play Bond by the time Bond 26 were to start production. Although Moore was 45 when he started and went until he was 57 so I suppose the age issue wouldn't really be a problem in the long run. If Fassbender isn't chosen then my choice would be my go to pick for the Next Bond: Henry Cavill.


    As for Michael B. Jordan..meh, I mean don't get me wrong he's a good actor and I like him in Creed but I just don't see him as bond due to not really having the look or feel, His background and well he's a black actor which imo Bond shouldn't be potrayed by, only because Bond has been white since 1953 and imo it should stay that way as it's a long since established rule of the character.

    You were doing so well with Fassbender, hugely charismatic actor, serious acting chops, then your second choice is an already Bond reject with all the charisma of a block of wood.

    If this who you settle for as Bond I can see why ou dislike Craig in the role.

    Thankfully BB won't be returning to that plank of wood.
  • Daniel316Daniel316 United States
    Posts: 210
    I don't really see what the issue with Cavill is, yeah I know he's not great as Superman but in all honesty not only was he casted in a role he didn't really need to play but the writing in a majority of those DC movies with Cavill were quite bad and so he didn't get to show off his skill. Honestly Cavill just has the look, natural charisma and talent for Bond imo, he feels like some kind of Second coming of Brosnan. When I first saw him and heard about him I thought he had the look but wasn't sure, then I saw him in Mission Impossible: Fallout and my mind was made, he is the right man for the job imo and I hope he's chosen but I wouldn't be surprised if he or Fassbender aren't chosen mainly due to Babs mainly seeming to like chosing someone unknown for the role as she did with Craig. Besides even if they were casted, that doesn't automatically mean the movies would be great as having a great leading role is one thing but having a well written and fun movie that's worth going back to is a whole other ballgame.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,318
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Why does everything always come off as patronising on this page? I understand people don't want a "black Bond" but do we really have to start talking about these people as if they're some cult that won't go away - it's just a difference of opinion.

    Actually no, you are incorrect. It definitely does resemble a cult. It's called the woke movement, which is part of the PC movement which has been plaguing
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Why does everything always come off as patronising on this page? I understand people don't want a "black Bond" but do we really have to start talking about these people as if they're some cult that won't go away - it's just a difference of opinion.

    Actually no, you are incorrect. It definitely does resemble a cult. It's called the woke movement, which is part of the PC movement which has been plaguing the world for quite a while now. People like pierce2daniel are oblivious to the fact their constant repeating of the same schtick doesn't work, as it comes over as forceful. Why should we be okay with their views when they're devoid of any logic and reason? A lot of people are sick and tired of it quite frankly. Change certainly is not always better, most of the times it's just different and different certainly isn't always better.
    No, it's just some people are open to the idea and some people are not. Not everything has an agenda; political or otherwise all the time. Whether you like the idea or not, they could do it and it could work. Like anything could, but just because your opinion suggests otherwise, it doesn't mean those views should vilified. You're views aren't political in this argument, so why are theres?

    And I'm not saying that you can't present your opinions also, but reverting to descriptions of "cultist" behaviour and "woke" culture is just a flat statement that's just an attempt to tie up everyone's opinions into an agenda. To be honest, this idea of "woke" has been more sold by the people who are against it, than the people who are just trying to make what they believe to be positive changes.

    Also just to add I'm not so opposed to the idea of a casting a black actor that I wouldn't give it a chance, I just don't know if they will do it or if they should do it, but I'm also aware of how you never know if something will work unless you try.

    The way I see it. If before Bond 26, there are two actors; one black and one white who are both up for James Bond. If the black actor is the better of the two after all the auditions, I'm going to give it to him. Simple.

    What you mean, basically (and what has become evident), with a lot of words, is that there are (at least) two types of Bond fans:

    - The literal hardcore (apparently) fans who follow the 'scripture' of Fleming, who do not wish to stray (at least far) from the source material.

    - The somewhat more 'relaxed' fan who appreciate Bond for he is and where he comes from, but aren't adverse to change.

    To each his own, but I know I will forever be in the first camp, unlike yourself, which is okay.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Why does everything always come off as patronising on this page? I understand people don't want a "black Bond" but do we really have to start talking about these people as if they're some cult that won't go away - it's just a difference of opinion.

    Actually no, you are incorrect. It definitely does resemble a cult. It's called the woke movement, which is part of the PC movement which has been plaguing
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Why does everything always come off as patronising on this page? I understand people don't want a "black Bond" but do we really have to start talking about these people as if they're some cult that won't go away - it's just a difference of opinion.

    Actually no, you are incorrect. It definitely does resemble a cult. It's called the woke movement, which is part of the PC movement which has been plaguing the world for quite a while now. People like pierce2daniel are oblivious to the fact their constant repeating of the same schtick doesn't work, as it comes over as forceful. Why should we be okay with their views when they're devoid of any logic and reason? A lot of people are sick and tired of it quite frankly. Change certainly is not always better, most of the times it's just different and different certainly isn't always better.
    No, it's just some people are open to the idea and some people are not. Not everything has an agenda; political or otherwise all the time. Whether you like the idea or not, they could do it and it could work. Like anything could, but just because your opinion suggests otherwise, it doesn't mean those views should vilified. You're views aren't political in this argument, so why are theres?

    And I'm not saying that you can't present your opinions also, but reverting to descriptions of "cultist" behaviour and "woke" culture is just a flat statement that's just an attempt to tie up everyone's opinions into an agenda. To be honest, this idea of "woke" has been more sold by the people who are against it, than the people who are just trying to make what they believe to be positive changes.

    Also just to add I'm not so opposed to the idea of a casting a black actor that I wouldn't give it a chance, I just don't know if they will do it or if they should do it, but I'm also aware of how you never know if something will work unless you try.

    The way I see it. If before Bond 26, there are two actors; one black and one white who are both up for James Bond. If the black actor is the better of the two after all the auditions, I'm going to give it to him. Simple.

    What you mean, basically (and what has become evident), with a lot of words, is that there are (at least) two types of Bond fans:

    - The literal hardcore (apparently) fans who follow the 'scripture' of Fleming, who do not wish to stray (at least far) from the source material.

    - The somewhat more 'relaxed' fan who appreciate Bond for he is and where he comes from, but aren't adverse to change.

    To each his own, but I know I will forever be in the first camp, unlike yourself, which is okay.

    I am rooted in the first camp.
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    Posts: 1,081
    weboffear wrote: »
    Fassbender isn't British , he's German/Irish , if you think the tabloids made a fuss about a blond actor playing Bond , watch the shit storm if they cast a German actor as a British icon , and Fassbender would be far from my first choice

    If there is anyone to pull off a half-Scottish, half-Swiss Bond as intended by Fleming, it's Fassbender!

    +1
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Octopussy wrote: »
    weboffear wrote: »
    Fassbender isn't British , he's German/Irish , if you think the tabloids made a fuss about a blond actor playing Bond , watch the shit storm if they cast a German actor as a British icon , and Fassbender would be far from my first choice

    If there is anyone to pull off a half-Scottish, half-Swiss Bond as intended by Fleming, it's Fassbender!

    +1

    Agreed.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Why does everything always come off as patronising on this page? I understand people don't want a "black Bond" but do we really have to start talking about these people as if they're some cult that won't go away - it's just a difference of opinion.

    Actually no, you are incorrect. It definitely does resemble a cult. It's called the woke movement, which is part of the PC movement which has been plaguing
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Why does everything always come off as patronising on this page? I understand people don't want a "black Bond" but do we really have to start talking about these people as if they're some cult that won't go away - it's just a difference of opinion.

    Actually no, you are incorrect. It definitely does resemble a cult. It's called the woke movement, which is part of the PC movement which has been plaguing the world for quite a while now. People like pierce2daniel are oblivious to the fact their constant repeating of the same schtick doesn't work, as it comes over as forceful. Why should we be okay with their views when they're devoid of any logic and reason? A lot of people are sick and tired of it quite frankly. Change certainly is not always better, most of the times it's just different and different certainly isn't always better.
    No, it's just some people are open to the idea and some people are not. Not everything has an agenda; political or otherwise all the time. Whether you like the idea or not, they could do it and it could work. Like anything could, but just because your opinion suggests otherwise, it doesn't mean those views should vilified. You're views aren't political in this argument, so why are theres?

    And I'm not saying that you can't present your opinions also, but reverting to descriptions of "cultist" behaviour and "woke" culture is just a flat statement that's just an attempt to tie up everyone's opinions into an agenda. To be honest, this idea of "woke" has been more sold by the people who are against it, than the people who are just trying to make what they believe to be positive changes.

    Also just to add I'm not so opposed to the idea of a casting a black actor that I wouldn't give it a chance, I just don't know if they will do it or if they should do it, but I'm also aware of how you never know if something will work unless you try.

    The way I see it. If before Bond 26, there are two actors; one black and one white who are both up for James Bond. If the black actor is the better of the two after all the auditions, I'm going to give it to him. Simple.

    What you mean, basically (and what has become evident), with a lot of words, is that there are (at least) two types of Bond fans:

    - The literal hardcore (apparently) fans who follow the 'scripture' of Fleming, who do not wish to stray (at least far) from the source material.

    - The somewhat more 'relaxed' fan who appreciate Bond for he is and where he comes from, but aren't adverse to change.

    To each his own, but I know I will forever be in the first camp, unlike yourself, which is okay.

    I am rooted in the first camp.

    Count me in.
  • Daniel316Daniel316 United States
    Posts: 210
    Me as well
  • edited February 2020 Posts: 6,677
    Yep, me too.

    Although I wouldn't call Fleming's work "scripture". As a good atheist that I am, I only call it source material. And I am strong defender of Intelectual property. Let's not jump from one "cult" to another, shall we? ;)
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited February 2020 Posts: 5,869
    @JeremyBondon But you're putting an umbrella over everyone's opinions. Yes, some people are doing it to be 'woke' or whatever, but It's like me trying to say that your opinion is racist. I don't think you are, but that's an example of what I could do to oppose your view, but I'm not cause I understand that you're not racist and it's not as simple as that.

    Some people want Bond to be black because they think it'd be new and fresh, or they think that to change the backstory to that extent isn't that much of a problem. Like myself. That doesn't mean I'm woke or part of a cult.

    And I do appreciate Fleming's work and love when the franchise honours it, but to me, changing Bond's ethnicity isn't something that would diminish that. Bond's backstory and the race of his family has never had any real impact on the movies, apart from Skyfall, but even that didn't outright say where his parents came from.

    As long as he's a British agent, I'm happy. The only thing that could piss me off is if they cast an American actor. If he's a black British actor, I'll take it. Thank you.

    Now, do I think they will do it with the next James Bond? No. Do I think it could happen in the future? Of course.

    I'm just trying to be realistic.
  • Daniel316Daniel316 United States
    Posts: 210
    I get what you're saying and I agree for the most part. I still think his ethnicity changing would be too drastic of a change for a character who's ethnicity has been consistent since 1953 (67 years now). I know that some famous characters were one ethnicity for a long amount of years (Nick Fury was white for 37 years before turning Black in 2002) but I feel Bond is one that shouldn't be changed like this, especially without a very good valid reason or doing it just to do it. That's my feeling on the situation
  • Posts: 11,425
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    The main stumbling block is not because there is a lack of decent black actors.....but because Bond isn’t black, Bond is white.

    Simple, right? Don’t understand how people just keep saying “but he can be this or that” when he simply isn’t. The character is a well described literary one. You can find someone who fits that description the best he can (Daniel actually does) but you can’t choose someone who doesn’t. Like we’re saying: it’s simple.

    What’s simple is this: we don’t get to choose the next Bond. We also don’t know what Barbara’s intentions and true feelings are when she said that she’d consider a black actor. We have absolutely no way of knowing if she said it to be polite or if she really meant it.

    Therefore, saying ‘Bond can’t be black because Fleming’ is a weak argument, in my opinion. Bond is whatever the producers choose him to be. If they choose a white actor, fine. If they choose a black actor, we have to accept him as our new Bond. Who Bond is in these film series gets decided by the producers of said film series, and we all have to live with the choice they make.

    They can say ‘Fleming wrote him as white, so he’ll stay white’ or they can say ‘Fleming wrote him as white, but we choose a non-white actor in the role’. It’s up to the producers to follow Fleming or to deviate from him. The producers of this film series are completely free to not follow what Fleming wrote, they make these films.

    If Fleming were alive, he’d insist on a white actor, sure. But he isn’t, and the choice lies in the hands of MGW and BB. And the possibility exists that they choose a black actor.
    Again: we have no way of knowing how big this possibility is, because we can’t read BB thoughts when she says things like ”Bond can be black”. The possibility might be very slim (because she didn’t truly meant what she said) or it can be big (because she might be looking for a black actor to play the role). But it’s a possibility nonetheless.

    I’m hoping they both make a sane decision and respect the history of the character then.

    Should Disney’s next live action remake be a film where Snow White is actually brown? Would it work if we rebooted the Shaft franchise and made him white? A change like that would have to tell a very different story. Instead of having to make changes and tweak key aspects of Bond’s story and history in order to cast a black man in the role, studios should spend their money on creating a new franchise that will give Idris and other ethnic actors the chance to become their own character. A spy who has skills, charm and personality shaped by their upbringing as an ethnic person.

    Colour blind casting is more and more common whether some like it or not. Dev Patel just played David Copperfield. These are fictional characters. EON can cast whoever they want as Bond. People need to calm down and accept that roles traditionally played by white actors are now increasingly being cast on a colour blind basis. Deal with it is what I say.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited February 2020 Posts: 5,131
    Getafix wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    The main stumbling block is not because there is a lack of decent black actors.....but because Bond isn’t black, Bond is white.

    Simple, right? Don’t understand how people just keep saying “but he can be this or that” when he simply isn’t. The character is a well described literary one. You can find someone who fits that description the best he can (Daniel actually does) but you can’t choose someone who doesn’t. Like we’re saying: it’s simple.

    What’s simple is this: we don’t get to choose the next Bond. We also don’t know what Barbara’s intentions and true feelings are when she said that she’d consider a black actor. We have absolutely no way of knowing if she said it to be polite or if she really meant it.

    Therefore, saying ‘Bond can’t be black because Fleming’ is a weak argument, in my opinion. Bond is whatever the producers choose him to be. If they choose a white actor, fine. If they choose a black actor, we have to accept him as our new Bond. Who Bond is in these film series gets decided by the producers of said film series, and we all have to live with the choice they make.

    They can say ‘Fleming wrote him as white, so he’ll stay white’ or they can say ‘Fleming wrote him as white, but we choose a non-white actor in the role’. It’s up to the producers to follow Fleming or to deviate from him. The producers of this film series are completely free to not follow what Fleming wrote, they make these films.

    If Fleming were alive, he’d insist on a white actor, sure. But he isn’t, and the choice lies in the hands of MGW and BB. And the possibility exists that they choose a black actor.
    Again: we have no way of knowing how big this possibility is, because we can’t read BB thoughts when she says things like ”Bond can be black”. The possibility might be very slim (because she didn’t truly meant what she said) or it can be big (because she might be looking for a black actor to play the role). But it’s a possibility nonetheless.

    I’m hoping they both make a sane decision and respect the history of the character then.

    Should Disney’s next live action remake be a film where Snow White is actually brown? Would it work if we rebooted the Shaft franchise and made him white? A change like that would have to tell a very different story. Instead of having to make changes and tweak key aspects of Bond’s story and history in order to cast a black man in the role, studios should spend their money on creating a new franchise that will give Idris and other ethnic actors the chance to become their own character. A spy who has skills, charm and personality shaped by their upbringing as an ethnic person.

    Colour blind casting is more and more common whether some like it or not. Dev Patel just played David Copperfield. These are fictional characters. EON can cast whoever they want as Bond. People need to calm down and accept that roles traditionally played by white actors are now increasingly being cast on a colour blind basis. Deal with it is what I say.

    Dev Patel just played David Copperfield!! Hahahaha! Laughable really.

    To be fair I won’t have to deal with it as I wouldn’t be watching it.

    What’s next Hugh Grant as the ‘Black Panther’!
  • Posts: 11,425
    It's all a bit "Whatever next? Giving women the vote?! A black man in the White House?!" isn't it?

    A black Bond will come to pass. If they get the casting right people will deal with it and the world will continue to rotate on its axis. Fleming will spin in his grave but I suspect he wouldn't have approved of an Irish Bond either and look how that panned out.

  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 611
    I dare say many Bond fans will join you in not watching. The fact is it will be will be no loss to Eon. None at all. Alienating a slack handful of Fleming/Bond legacy aficionados will matter not because they will be replaced, and then some, by the HUGE publicity the casting would generate. The general audience will flock to the film and the box office will prove BB right.
    In addition many Bond fans will still support and see the film, I'll be one of them.
    I posted a page or so back about the fact I believe a black male actor will one day play Bond. Not that I lobby for it to happen or even that I want it to. I just believe it will.
  • Daniel316Daniel316 United States
    Posts: 210
    Tbh I do think it's entirely likely even if most of us probably don't want it. I mean Babs hasn't ruled it out yet obviously and if it makes them Money then of course they'll go for it, it's just logical buisness whether I want to admit it or not.
  • edited February 2020 Posts: 2,896
    Getafix wrote: »
    Fleming will spin in his grave but I suspect he wouldn't have approved of an Irish Bond either and look how that panned out.

    Fleming was a pragmatist who wanted the films to make money and he deliberately limited his involvement with them. He was prepared to accept Jimmy Stewart as Bond if Hitchcock directed. That is far more outrageous to me than any of the suggestions in this thread!
  • Posts: 6,677
    This thread just goes round and round doesn't it?
Sign In or Register to comment.