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
@RC7, I think you've summed up above why we won't see a black Bond, at least not for a while. As you note, it's so damn difficult to create a sustainable franchise these days that no studio is going to take a risk with a black actor.
You mention Boyega. Fine, but that's not the same thing. Who the heck is he playing? Someone we don't know, who is being introduced from the beginning in a massive franchise. That is as 'safe' as it gets for a studio, while doing its bit for minority actors. Bond has done its bit with the casting of Felix and MP in their most recent iterations.
Now, what do we think the reaction would be if Boyega was cast as Hans Solo, or Luke Skywalker, or Anakin for that matter? It won't go down well imho, since those are already established white characters.
Bond is the longest running recurring franchise, and the only British one of the lot to boot. I don't think it's necessary to take that risk unless and until an actor pops up that is better than the other actors who can be cast in the role. As I said earlier, such an actor is not with us yet, but that's not to say he can't appear on the scene in a few years. Colin Salmon and Idris Elba are not those men imho.
Fully agreed, it could be a creative stroke of genius akin to the casting of short, blond, thuggish DC as JB. However, it's a needle in a haystack and as I'm sure you'll agree, it can and should only be done when the suitable candidate arrives on the scene.
DC was cast because he was a talented British actor, first and foremost. Which should also be the main criteria for his successor.
Add to that that he was physically able (far more athletic than Brosnan, even before the extra CR muscle), the right age and somewhat 'raw'. I never thought he came across as 'thuggish' - merely hard boiled. And Craig’s transformation from the CR press announcement (floppy hair and lightweight frame) to buff superspy in the actual film goes to show that we should not be ruling out any potential successors simply because they look too lanky or thin. Muscle can be cultivated in half a year – acting ability and presence cannot.
Cavill, who was also under consideration at the time, would have been a mediocre ‘safe’ choice. Little charisma and zero gravitas. Sure he’s tall, dark & dashing and he’d have acquired plenty of teenie followers, but the talent just wasn’t there. Just look at his work so far. There is nothing there that suggests he is a good actor, or will become one. Craig on the other hand had quietly built up a solid repertoire of challenging work, in which he demonstrated his talent.
So it is in such subtle, slightly obscure BBC and independent productions that we should be looking for that diamond in the rough, a confident young Brit between 25-32 or so right now, who will take over in 2020.
Re: my comments re: short, blond, thuggish Craig, I am referring to criticisms that were noted about him (including his somewhat blue collar, construction worker appearance it was said, relative to suave, debonair Brosnan) among his detractors.
I don't want to have to go down that path x 10 if a black actor is cast. I want my franchise to survive. The time is not right to cast a black actor as Bond and there is no necessity for it at present, with many suitable conventional candidates available. The time may never be right, as there will always be a big pool of suitable white candidates, given British tv drama's history of producing gems. However, a black actor should never be excluded from contention purely on the basis of his race (that would not be right), but when it comes down to the final decision, I am ok if the studio/EON decide behind the scenes not to cast him because of commercial viability. That is just business.
But it's not that they're established white characters, it's that they are established characters who are portrayed by specific actors within an ongoing chronology. Changing Han to a black man for EP7 would be like changing Bond to black man halfway through SP. Starting a new chronology, with a new actor, such as Bond, allows for them to change gears and mix it up. The universe is the 'icon', so to speak, within that franchise, whereas 'Bond' is the himself the 'icon' within his. The same way Batman is an 'icon', or the 'joker' is an icon. You could cast a black man as the joker, for example, because you're not relying on a certain chronology, you're putting a new spin on the icon.
I agree it's a risk, but as I said in my previous post, the time is never right. That doesn't mean we need to do it, but if it is done people should look at whether it is a logical decision before throwing their toys out of the pram. I personally think Elba would have been excellent if he'd got the gig a few years ago. He has an elegance and charisma that beats DC for me.
I think thats what Elba is most unhappy about. He feels his chances were ruined because he wanted to be Bond not Black Bond.
Why shouldn't an actor be excluded from contension based on race? If a new Blade film was to be made they would only consider black actors and rightly so (not racist, just how the character is and should always remain). The same goes for Bond, just visa versa.
Lee says he has no prejudice against blacks, smokers or gay people, but it is about preserving the character as he was envisioned.
Wonder what Fleming would have demanded if he had a similar contract with EON or IFP.
Which is odd, given that it is purely related to his on-screen persona. It makes him seem like a bit of a fool if you ask me. As creator (lets forget about Kirby, hey Stan) he's entitled to enforce such stipulations, but then why isn't it a blanket agreement?
Seems fair enough to me. The above is part of his characters persona/ identity and appearance. Good example. You need some rules and traditions....otherwise you get Ryan Reynolds cast as Axel Foley (or Edris Elba as 007 ha ha!).
You don't think it's a little disingenuous that he's happy for Marvel to use a Hispanic Spider-man in the comics?
I loved him as Stringer Bell in The Wire, he is a great actor. But as a person, I don't like him so much anymore.
Source? Never heard this before but I can see why though, as spider-man is and has always been Marvel's flagship character. But I suppose those terms are attributed to Peter Parker and not "spider-man".
I don't have a problem with a white Blade to be honest.
The thing about Bond, and Fleming in particular, is we will never know what his attitudes would have been had he been alive today. He was a product of his time....his era.....as we all are.
However, even he showed the ability to temper his views. he did not want Connery initially, but warmed to him, and even wrote Bond's part Scottish heritage into the novels after Connery got the part. I realize that's not the same thing, but none of us really know how Fleming, had he been alive today, would have felt about it.
To answer your question about why an actor should not be excluded from contention based purely on race - because I think that would be crossing the line in terms of discriminatory behaviour. Everyone should have a shot at the role, because the best actor could be black (unlikely purely based on numbers of candidates in contention though....).
At the end of the day, the whole question is moot anyway, because a black actor likely couldn't guarantee box office (the studio would always be afraid that some audiences would not embrace him in the role of Bond after being cast, and the risk would therefore be too great to take).
Re: Elba's behaviour regarding the Bond role - I don't think anything of it. I think he really knows he has absolutely no chance, and so he's hamming it up, winding the press up, and having some fun with it. No harm done.
There are characters whose race is incidental to their identity and characters for whom it's essential. For example, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner doesn't make sense if Sydney Pointier is white. Neither does In the Heat of the Night. But how would Hitch or Independence Day be different if Will Smith was white? I can't think of a single script change needed.
For Bond the essential aspects of his identity are his sexuality, his masculinity and his Britishness. That's why those things will never change. However nearly everyone agrees that eye color, hair color, height, GQ model looks and other things that may have traditionally be associated with Bond are incidental to his identity. Which is why someone like Craig who didn't fit the mold can play the character so well.
What no one has really done is explain why skin color falls into the former category, not the latter. Talking about what Fleming would have wanted or how its always been sounds a little like the father in Fiddler on the Roof crowing about "tradition!"
He didn't sound facetious to me. Or when he self-promoted.
The sad thing is that most of the American audience doesn't care ..or maybe even notice. We want Bond to be as British as he can be. That's part of the mystique...
Worst ever was changing Licence Revoked to the generic Licence to Kill because fear the American audience wouldn't know what revoked meant ...really?
Yes, the late 80's/90's/early 00's saw a pandering to US audiences by EON that was unacceptable in my mind.
It started with LTK (filmed in the US with primarily US actors - such irony given the US box office is what killed that film), and then continued throughout most of Brosnan's run, culminating with Halle in the DAD debacle.
Keep in mind that License Revoked was in fact focus group tested and the test audience did not understand what it meant, so there was some rationale for the decision to go with the more generic title they chose.
I'm not sure why this happened. It could have been:
-a lack of confidence in Bond by EON, given declining box office receipts compared to the late 70s/early 80s, or
-it could have been fear of the advent of American action heroes (e.g Willis, Gibson, Schwarzenegger, Ford etc.), or
-it could have been American Michael Wilson's growing influence, or
-it could have been at MGM's insistence, as they were increasingly depending on Bond to keep afloat and could not chance a North American box office failure.
I'm just glad that they dispensed with this nonsense when they rebooted, and I hope never to see it again.
I realize American audiences want Bond to be as British as can be......it's a pity no one told EON/MGM during that dark period. The only exception was GE, where all leads were European casted and which had less Americanisms.