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
Yes Brosnan was a push and we certainly don’t want another Australian. Lazenby’s odd accent was his main weakness.
Because options to change hair colour are available I didn’t include such a rigid criteria, but sticking to Fleming is the preference for sure.
5ft 10in is exactly UK average height. Below this is short and below average. Bond is not short. Nothing to do with Daniel Craig.
Unfortunately he can’t ‘act’ his way to being a white character. Auto-reject.
Yeah, sure ;)
There are indeed options to change hair colour, but notice they have never taken it up because it doesn't matter. If sticking to Fleming is so important how come you don't mention the facial scar?
I find these odd priorities. Lazenby's main weakness was his acting and screen presence, aesthetics really are less important.
No, not auto-reject at all. Skin colour is irrelevant to Bond.
You remind me a bit of the 'Craig Not Bond' folks of a few years back.
So I'll only ask this: What you lot are saying is that race is not a fundamental characterisation point. Is that it?
Skin colour is relevant to Bond?
He was called a ‘honkey’ in LALD. That is as clear as day.
Touché. You remind me of someone who has never read Fleming.
It is probably as fundamental as can be IMO.
I can understand the general public not agreeing. But it is shocking that Bond fans welcome such a drastic shift.
It’s like casting Colin Firth as Shaft! Or Hugh Grant as Luther! 🤣
Not in Bond, no. Is Moneypenny's race a fundamental characterisation point? Either of the non-white Felixes?
They're not making LALD. That's like saying that they can't be set in the 21st century because Bill Fairbanks got killed in '69. It's meaningless.
I can't think why considering the amount of references to Bond's version of Fleming I've made, so you'd be completely wrong to think so.
I just happen to understand what's important in Fleming and what isn't. If you're claiming that having been called a honky once is a core part of his personality then I'd suggest more research on the character. These are adaptations, total fidelity is impossible and unnecessary and, what's more, has never been achieved. If you want to see the books, read them.
I don't understand the weird snobbishness some Bond fans display about having read a few paperback thrillers. They're not exactly impenetrable Tolstoy: it's not hugely impressive that we've read these books.
I think Bond should always remain white (based on Fleming and franchise history/ legacy), you don’t. The FACT is that both fleming and the films do describe Bond’s ethnicity. That’s not my opinion, it’s fact.
But as we’ll never a agree, this is a rather pointless debate to carry on.
But all you can offer is him being called a 'honky' once?
It's not like Shaft, no: he was in part defined by his race because that was a Blaxploitation film. That was half of the point of that, for better or worse. I haven't seen a lot of Luther but I don't recall much in it that says he couldn't be played by an actor of any race. I'm not an expert on him though I admit.
Your right....Hoagy Carmichael was black too!! 🤣😂🤣😂
So what? They mention him having black hair too, and yet...
It's a FACT that he's got black hair. Apart from when he hasn't. Not my opinion, FACT.
:D
And let's not get started on his blue/grey eyes...
Not an Afro though is it.
I’m with Yaphet.....
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/film/2015/apr/08/former-007-villain-yaphet-kotto-says-james-bond-cannot-be-black
Is that supposed to be some devastating truth that makes me see the fundamental flaw? It's some guy I don't know on youtube trying to be funny. So what?
Why quote me if you're not able to reply to what I've said?
I'm really trying my best not to feel like that's getting close to a racist comment.
Given that my wife and half my family is Black, I know this as a fact. It’s a commonly used term to describe African hair type.
And the video is amusing and makes some light hearted valid points.
But the idea that a non-white actor can't play a sexy, suave, dangerous, English superspy is as inherently ridiculous as the idea that one who has blond hair can't. There's zero about what's important about him which requires a particular shade of hair or skin.
In short, Fleming and EON made the character white and it should stay that way.
FFS, the term isn't racist in itself, I'm not that oblivious. It's the usage.
And now we're doing 'some of my best friends are black actually'...
I think you were right about leaving this now. I'm not enjoying it and it's leaving a bad taste in my mouth.
Agreed. You did seem slightly oblivious. I apologise. We’ll leave it there 👍
I didn’t use friends....I used family and spouse.
Yeah he wouldn't be my first choice @mtm, or even in my Top 5, but still a suggestion nonetheless.
I've been shot down consistently but in my eyes Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Callum Turner are two guys that should at least get auditions in a few years time - obviously depending on where EON actually wanna take the franchise. Again, if The Batman and Tenet are really successful, I think they'll consider a younger actor around Pattinson's age.
If a fictional character of a renowned literary-based franchise is fully described as being of a certain race, it is ok for them to have an actor of a different race play the part, because race bares no importance in characterisation.
Is that what you are saying? Just to make it clear.
I'm not talking about psychological character. I'm talking about him being A literary character, fully described and inscribed in paper.
No one is saying that. He just can't play the white character of Ian Fleming's James Bond. No more than blackface should have ever been a thing.
Plus, the fact that you are comparing hair to race is incredibly ridiculous. Race is more important than hair. But as you are on the subject, let me tell you, I'd rather have a black hair actor play Bond, blue-eyed too. The depiction is on the page. How hard is to follow that the best they can? And this is coming from a Craig fan.
But I'm tired of making these points.
So, again, what you're saying is that race is always an important characterisation point, except for the Bond cinematic universe.
Is that correct?
As for a black actor, eh. Bond has always been a white character. It could be done well, of course, but perhaps his race has a little more bearing on the character than some suggest. 007 is a remnant of the British Empire. An exemplar of the old British way. As M says in GE, he's a dinosaur. But he's a dinosaur that's still needed. Although I have issues with the Old Man Bond segment of SF, it does get across that he is and will likely always be relevant, even as the world changes more and more. He's part of a different era, but that's the point. His race is a part of that.
As for the race debate, I think it'll make more sense in the future because there will come a time when Bond is at an age and a time where he would've been brought up in a more multicultural society, and it would make more sense for his character to be black, but maybe not the next Bond? Just not never - although personally it's not something that would bother me if they wanted to. As long as the actor was good enough.
Again to clarify as we get older and time moves on it's gonna be difficult to keep all of what originally characterised Bond, they can adapt it sure, but he can't always be a product of the British Empire and the war because we're getting further and further away. Look the next Bond at this point could have been born in the 90s for all we know? People that age aren't characterised in the same way that original Bond actors could be moulded as - even if he's white.
You mean how he's described to look? So blue/grey eyes, with a scar on his cheek, black comma of hair, scar on back of hand? Which of the actors who have played Bond haven't fitted that precisely? I'll give you a clue: none of them have.
Yes he can. Just make Bond not white any more. If you do that what about him changes? What have you lost?
Says who?
Where did I say it's 'always' important?
And to ask again, how has it affected Moneypenny?
Yeah I think they'd certainly hope to get someone early thirties to be honest, but as we saw with Craig, if they're really good then they wouldn't be too hard and fast about that. But late forties, I doubt.
He's also an outsider, if we go by Vesper's analysis of the Craig version of Bond's upbringing in Casino Royale: he was only at his posh school because of someone else's charity and has a chip on his shoulder because of it. An ex-SAS type who doesn't even decorate his flat... He's not really a remnant of the British Empire there. And it's not exactly unheard of to have posh non-white British families either.
Yeah it's a great point: Fleming's Bond fought in WW2. These screen Bonds are related to that guy, but they aren't him. You can move him forward in time to a certain extent, but he ain't puffing on 100 fags a day any more.
@Univex........thank you 👏👏👏👏👍
Doesn't mean they should stray from that path altogether and transform the character into another with a totally different set of physical characteristics.
A blatantly described characteristic that comes with its set of other characteristics. Cause then you wouldn't have the blue eyes, the black hair with a coma, the cruel thin mouth. And all the physical depictions that are on the page. The phenotype is just a set of written characteristics or physical atributes that build the character the writer intended to. If he'd written him as black and with all the characteristics that come with that, I'd be defending him being played by a black actor. I'm not a racist, I'm a writer who firmly believes in respecting intelectual property.
You're genuinely saying that hair is as equally important as race? So you're brushing off race as being an important characterisation factor? And that isn't racist?
So, again, according to you, race is only important sometimes. And that isn't racist?
Race is always important. Accepting there are different races with different atributes, characteristics, and cultural backgrounds and respecting that difference, loving that difference, depicting that difference as an all valid rainbow in a multicoloured, multicultural world is always important. You can't brush off a thing as race, and say it has the same weight as hair colour. You can't brush off race and say that white is the same as black. It is not. And it should not be. The rights all races should have are the same. Equal rights doesn't mean uniformity. Equality doesn't mean that race is not important, and that it should not define a person. Why shouldn't it? Race, Sir, matters. But not in defining people's rights. Not in defining their access to success, wealth, health,... The world is everyone's.
Sir, you are not aware, I can tell, but you are advocating for bleaching it all to transparency. And I'm here saying that race matters, colour matters. And having a white personage (I won't say character so you won't get confused) played by a white actor is not racial discrimination. Not one bit.
Just create brilliant roles with characters written as black. Write them well. Heck, a black person can have all the personality traits of James Bond, even more so than many of the actors that have portrayed him, but he doesn't fit the author's depiction of James Bond. That's all.
And all of this can be said for gender. Gender matters. There should be brilliant roles for all genders and races. But transforming literary inscribed characters just because you think that is equality, is wrong. That is not equality, that is the worst kind of paternalistic reasoning.
Again brilliant post @Univex ......+1b! 👏👏👏👍
1. Respect the IP (at least the main character)
2. Continue to create great roles for actors of all backgrounds... most of us can't wait to see what Lynch, Malek, and De Armas will bring to the table!
3. There are plenty of new IP's being created... John David Washington is playing a Bond-meets-Inception role in Tenet. We got so many kickass female-driven espionage films too... Atomic Blonde, Killing Eve, etc. The more, the merrier!
+1 Exactly.