Who should/could be a Bond actor?

19079089109129131178

Comments

  • Posts: 81
    I haven’t read the whole thread, so apologies if this has been mentioned already, but, obviously, Moneypenny is now played by a (brilliant) black actor. Is that any different from Bond? Other than symbolically? There’s nothing characteristically ‘other’ now about Moneypenny that is related to ethnicity. And yet of course Bond is different. I don’t have any answers faod.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,318
    Fact remains, changing Bond's colour, especially in this day and age would mean bowing down to the pander brigade. A lot of people have had enough, no matter how you spin it, 'progressive' nonsense more like. No one owes anyone anything regarding race. That is what they want to make you believe, this forced sense of guilt.

    In fact, never too late to introduce a cool black character. Nomi, anyone? Even though opinions vary. Heck, go ahead and introduce a black 00. CREATE instead of hijack.

    Nah, not good enough, I hope they hijack Bond instead.

    You are one of them. That was established a long time ago. Carry on.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2022 Posts: 14,861
    I think a black or asian actor getting it is inevitable one day, and it does seem more likely now than it ever has before. Who knows though.

    I think that's certainly true (if it keeps going!) but also I think their choices are so limited and they need to find that really perfect actor each time that they probably won't limit their search either way. I guess that makes a non-white actor more likely than it used to be, but I'd be surprised if they decide to look only for one, just because they need that perfect massive movie star in waiting, so they'll cast their net as wide as possible.
    I may be wrong I guess, but I feel like Craig was a bit of a sign of that last time for the reasons we've just been talking about. They should have only been looking at younger actors to suit the script, but looked at everyone instead (including at least three Aussies) and found Craig!
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,882
    I think a black or asian actor getting it is inevitable one day, and it does seem more likely now than it ever has before. Who knows though.
    Personally, I was hoping it might be Noel Fielding or Richard Ayoade. Oh well, maybe next time.

    I’ve always liked the idea of Richard Ayoade in that role, because on the surface his persona just seems to suit it so well, but then I realised he hasn’t actually done any “serious” acting, has he? So, he might risk coming across as out of his depth compared to some of the names they’ve had in recent years.

    I don't believe he has done any straight acting as such. But Pertwee and McCoy weren't actorly types (Pertwee was told to be himself, and McCoy had the natural eccentricity), though they had done bits of acting here and there. Pertwee was known for The Navy Lark, and McCoy was known for his work on The Ken Campbell Roadshow, in an act that saw McCoy; hammer nails up his nose, set his hair on fire, and stuff ferrets down his trousers! They weren't really character actors like Troughton and Eccleston were.
    It's Ayoade's pedantic on-screen persona that makes me want to see him as The Doctor. I can picture him lecturing his companion on the Mondasian Cybermen.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    I think a black or asian actor getting it is inevitable one day, and it does seem more likely now than it ever has before. Who knows though.
    Personally, I was hoping it might be Noel Fielding or Richard Ayoade. Oh well, maybe next time.

    I’ve always liked the idea of Richard Ayoade in that role, because on the surface his persona just seems to suit it so well, but then I realised he hasn’t actually done any “serious” acting, has he? So, he might risk coming across as out of his depth compared to some of the names they’ve had in recent years.

    I don't believe he has done any straight acting as such. But Pertwee and McCoy weren't actorly types (Pertwee was told to be himself, and McCoy had the natural eccentricity), though they had done bits of acting here and there. Pertwee was known for The Navy Lark, and McCoy was known for his work on The Ken Campbell Roadshow, in an act that saw McCoy; hammer nails up his nose, set his hair on fire, and stuff ferrets down his trousers! They weren't really character actors like Troughton and Eccleston were.
    It's Ayoade's pedantic on-screen persona that makes me want to see him as The Doctor. I can picture him lecturing his companion on the Mondasian Cybermen.

    I think he would be great, but he's a writer and director and has so much going on that I think he'd be mad to take it. Ultimately playing the Doctor means repeating the same scenes over and over again on a horribly tight schedule: you get to show that you can be a star but I think it's not something any actor wants to stay with for a long time, and anyone who is already successful would probably be mad to do it!
  • Posts: 1,215
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    It's possible the next Bond actor will be of black origin. The new Doctor Who actor is black:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61371123
    Actor Ncuti Gatwa will take over from Jodie Whittaker as the star of Doctor Who, the BBC has announced.

    I think there's a reasonably high probability the next Bond will be black. It may appeal to Eon or Amazon to reinvent Bond's lineage. After all, Bond 26 is a complete reboot of the character and his world so it gives the producers a good reason to cast someone that is non-white. Regé-Jean Page is half Zimbabwean, half English. I don't think he'll be the next Bond but guys like Page and Elba have got a lot of media attention. My guess is most film goers will be fine with a black Bond. Eon could look at the casting of the new Doctor and think "if it works for Doctor Who, it can work for Bond."


    I'm all for a black Bond and hope to see it some day, but I am not at all interested in seeing Regè-Jean Page in the role, I just get the feeling of a mix of all the least interesting parts of Brosnan and Lazenby rolled into one. I think a couple more interesting names are

    Sope Dirisu
    sope-dirisu-james-bond-gangs-of-london-no-time-to-die-gareth-evans-cary-fukunaga-daniel-craig-007-rege-jean-page-madden-hardy-elba.jpg

    Daniel Kaluuya
    dk_bond_getty.jpg
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,250
    Sope is alpha all the way. Oozes masculinity. Athletic. Handsome. Swagger. I'd rather him as 007 than the majority of the suggestions (that mostly name actors who are... fine, but.... Predictable in their performances. Not bad actors, but most don't have that star charisma, and should remain in TV series).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Dirisu is one of the names that has interested me the most. Very handsome chap and complete alpha, as Peter says.
  • Posts: 988
    May Odin forgive my cold racist heart, but I just don't see James Bond in those guys.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    That's fair enough, everyone sees something different. I certainly don't think Kaluuya is right for it, although he is of course brilliant.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,481
    Sope Dirisu is a brilliant actor, he stole the show in the series, Gangs Of London
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,368
    Sope would be a killer choice. He's got the acting chops and the physical strength to handle it with real success; just watch his fight scenes in Gangs of London, the guy's a tank.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,946
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Bond has aged out of Fleming's background for the character. For a modern operative to work they will have to come up with something for the background regardless of the race of the actor. I know they won't cast someone just because; they will screen test and likely have multiple candidates, some of which happen to be of some non-white background. I'm totally fine with that. Black people can come from Scotland.

    s/n: after seeing the two Dr. Strange movies now, I'm very happy we never got Benny C. as Bond. Total lack of charisma in those movies, and likely how he'd approach Bond.

    Far from it, the producers have gone back to the source for every single film.
    For characters like Leiter and moneypenny it really doesn't matter, for their roles are rather one dimensional and just have a function, hardly any background. But Bond is Bond, and should thus stay close to Fleming.
    I also don't get the comparison to Dr who. That one is a timelord and could even come back as a cat. That doesn't mean Bond can be a bulldog.
    On a side note, I never understood why the producers wanted a jinx spinoff, but a nomi one I'd definitely go and see. Her character hasn't gotten the right amount of recognition if you ask me. Pity she can't come back.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,318
    They all look like splendid potentials for a new Shaft film. Perhaps Black Panther? Well done gents.
  • Posts: 3,272
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    It's possible the next Bond actor will be of black origin. The new Doctor Who actor is black:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61371123
    Actor Ncuti Gatwa will take over from Jodie Whittaker as the star of Doctor Who, the BBC has announced.

    I think there's a reasonably high probability the next Bond will be black. It may appeal to Eon or Amazon to reinvent Bond's lineage. After all, Bond 26 is a complete reboot of the character and his world so it gives the producers a good reason to cast someone that is non-white. Regé-Jean Page is half Zimbabwean, half English. I don't think he'll be the next Bond but guys like Page and Elba have got a lot of media attention. My guess is most film goers will be fine with a black Bond. Eon could look at the casting of the new Doctor and think "if it works for Doctor Who, it can work for Bond."


    Doctor Who wasn't specified as white from any origin books (as far as I know), whereas Bond was written as white from the outset. I personally still want an actor that resembles what Fleming wrote on the pages, but that's just me.
  • Posts: 3,272
    That would be the end of the line regarding Bond for me. In fact my favourite Bond films are a few up to and including GoldenEye. I'd happily rewatch them ad infinitum and think *evil laugh* 'they'll never take this away from me'. True Bond, when Bond was still the guy Fleming conjured up in his brilliant mind.

    I loathe woke and I despise many aspects of all this fakeness going on the past couple of years, the urge to cancel ourselves for example. I'd like every colour to have their own 'Bond'. Their own 'hero', at least that's what it seems to be all about. I certainly didn't make it that way. I'm all about sticking to the source material and not about bending over backwards to please a toxic movement.

    Hopefully we soon can move on from these 900 pages of speculation and also a lot of silliness, to be frank. For me there is only one true heir to the throne and you know who I mean, so I'll leave it at that.

    Glad someone else here thinks the same way I do. I want Bond on screen to be as close as possible to the books, as far as possible. I'm absolutely fine with female M's, black Moneypenny's, black Leiter's, gay Q's, even if this isn't what Fleming described them as, whatever it takes to keep the films diverse and relevant, but I draw the line at the main character himself.

    Bond still has to belong to the colonial, old-fashioned, sexist, Eton 1950's era that Fleming wrote of, and look like him too. Once you change that, you change Bond.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2022 Posts: 14,861
    Well that happened right from the start when he didn't have his facial scar and walked around with a Scottish accent, then Roger Moore played a fair-haired version etc. As they showed, you can change Bond, and he remains Bond.

    The films are not literal transcriptions of the books, they're adaptations of them i.e. they have been adapted, as you might adapt a plug into a socket in a foreign country. You change it to make it fit in the new medium. As long as he feels and acts like Bond, and has adventures like Bond, that's Bond.

    If it's set in the modern day he can't be a man from the 50's who fought in WW2, smokes 2000 cigarettes a day, has an exercise regime consisting of nothing but four press ups and a cold shower etc.
  • edited May 2022 Posts: 3,272
    mtm wrote: »
    Well that happened right from the start when he didn't have his facial scar and walked around with a Scottish accent, then Roger Moore played a fair-haired version etc. As they showed, you can change Bond, and he remains Bond.

    The films are not literal transcriptions of the books, they're adaptations of them i.e. they have been adapted, as you might adapt a plug into a socket in a foreign country. You change it to make it fit in the new medium. As long as he feels and acts like Bond, and has adventures like Bond, that's Bond.

    If it's set in the modern day he can't be a man from the 50's who fought in WW2, smokes 2000 cigarettes a day, has an exercise regime consisting of nothing but four press ups and a cold shower etc.

    You know exactly what I mean. I'm not going to start splitting hairs on Moore not having the exact black comma hair, or a scar down his cheek so there is no way on earth he could possibly resemble Fleming's 1950's Bond from the books.

    There is a definitive image of Bond on screen, which is not a million miles away from what Fleming wrote, and all the previous actors fit that bill.

    Once you deviate away from that, then the films and the character are going in a different direction. You may be fine with that, I'm certainly not.
  • edited May 2022 Posts: 199
    That would be the end of the line regarding Bond for me. In fact my favourite Bond films are a few up to and including GoldenEye. I'd happily rewatch them ad infinitum and think *evil laugh* 'they'll never take this away from me'. True Bond, when Bond was still the guy Fleming conjured up in his brilliant mind.

    I loathe woke and I despise many aspects of all this fakeness going on the past couple of years, the urge to cancel ourselves for example. I'd like every colour to have their own 'Bond'. Their own 'hero', at least that's what it seems to be all about. I certainly didn't make it that way. I'm all about sticking to the source material and not about bending over backwards to please a toxic movement.

    Hopefully we soon can move on from these 900 pages of speculation and also a lot of silliness, to be frank. For me there is only one true heir to the throne and you know who I mean, so I'll leave it at that.

    Glad someone else here thinks the same way I do. I want Bond on screen to be as close as possible to the books, as far as possible. I'm absolutely fine with female M's, black Moneypenny's, black Leiter's, gay Q's, even if this isn't what Fleming described them as, whatever it takes to keep the films diverse and relevant, but I draw the line at the main character himself.

    Bond still has to belong to the colonial, old-fashioned, sexist, Eton 1950's era that Fleming wrote of, and look like him too. Once you change that, you change Bond.

    I would love to see a return to a period setting for Bond. His attitudes and habits are from a different era. If you change him too much and make him too modern, too relatable, too "nice" (he's quite a bastard in the books) then it's no longer Fleming.
    But if you look at the audience for the No Time To Die (while very profitable) the target audience skewed older (35+), so right now, the younger crowds aren't interested in Bond. They have their own heroes they've grown up with (Iron-man, Captain America and all of the Marvel Superheroes). So how does EON appeal to these younger cinema goers whilst appealing to the long-term Bond fan who want Bond to be Bond not some woke, sensitive, watered down version of what Fleming created.
    It's a dilemma for the studio. Change things up, bring in a different type of Bond but risk alienating the biggest audience (and only one at the moment): the traditional fans.
    Which is why I circle back to the idea of keeping Bond in the 50's & 60's. Lower budget but a harder hitting thriller set during the cold-war.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2022 Posts: 14,861
    mtm wrote: »
    Well that happened right from the start when he didn't have his facial scar and walked around with a Scottish accent, then Roger Moore played a fair-haired version etc. As they showed, you can change Bond, and he remains Bond.

    The films are not literal transcriptions of the books, they're adaptations of them i.e. they have been adapted, as you might adapt a plug into a socket in a foreign country. You change it to make it fit in the new medium. As long as he feels and acts like Bond, and has adventures like Bond, that's Bond.

    If it's set in the modern day he can't be a man from the 50's who fought in WW2, smokes 2000 cigarettes a day, has an exercise regime consisting of nothing but four press ups and a cold shower etc.

    You know exactly what I mean. I'm not going to start splitting hairs on Moore not having the exact black comma hair, or a scar down his cheek so there is no way on earth he could possibly resemble Fleming's 1950's Bond from the books.

    I read what you wrote and you said you wanted the guy from the 50's out of the books: I explained that you've never had that and you never will.

    The point of adaptations is to capture the spirit and flavour of the original material and translate it- not to make exact copies of everything which is written down. Sometimes you can get very close, sometimes it doesn't matter so much. If there's no reason why, for example, Daniel Craig having blond hair makes him no longer believably a suavely handsome, tough superspy; other than 'it's not what was written down in the books!', then it's not worth worrying about.


    SonofSean wrote: »
    That would be the end of the line regarding Bond for me. In fact my favourite Bond films are a few up to and including GoldenEye. I'd happily rewatch them ad infinitum and think *evil laugh* 'they'll never take this away from me'. True Bond, when Bond was still the guy Fleming conjured up in his brilliant mind.

    I loathe woke and I despise many aspects of all this fakeness going on the past couple of years, the urge to cancel ourselves for example. I'd like every colour to have their own 'Bond'. Their own 'hero', at least that's what it seems to be all about. I certainly didn't make it that way. I'm all about sticking to the source material and not about bending over backwards to please a toxic movement.

    Hopefully we soon can move on from these 900 pages of speculation and also a lot of silliness, to be frank. For me there is only one true heir to the throne and you know who I mean, so I'll leave it at that.

    Glad someone else here thinks the same way I do. I want Bond on screen to be as close as possible to the books, as far as possible. I'm absolutely fine with female M's, black Moneypenny's, black Leiter's, gay Q's, even if this isn't what Fleming described them as, whatever it takes to keep the films diverse and relevant, but I draw the line at the main character himself.

    Bond still has to belong to the colonial, old-fashioned, sexist, Eton 1950's era that Fleming wrote of, and look like him too. Once you change that, you change Bond.

    I would love to see a return to a period setting for Bond. His attitudes and habits are from a different era. If you change him too much and make him too modern, too relatable, too "nice" (he's quite a bastard in the books) then it's no longer Fleming.
    But if you look at the audience for the No Time To Die (while very profitable) the target audience skewed older (35+), so right now, the younger crowds aren't interested in Bond. They have their own heroes they've grown up with (Iron-man, Captain America and all of the Marvel Superheroes). So how does EON appeal to these younger cinema goers whilst appealing to the long-term Bond fan who want Bond to be Bond not some woke, sensitive, watered down version of what Fleming created.
    It's a dilemma for the studio. Change things up, bring in a different type of Bond but risk alienating the biggest audience (and only one at the moment): the traditional fans.
    Which is why I circle back to the idea of keeping Bond in the 50's & 60's. Lower budget but a harder hitting thriller set during the cold-war.

    The producers have ruled that out; it's just not where they want to take it.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    edited May 2022 Posts: 4,247
    I think to satisfy everyone, Bond 26 needs to be ultra-modern and outlandish, yet grounded at the same time. A reasonable return of Bond's Gadgets and a solid plot too. I think it's that simple though.
  • edited May 2022 Posts: 3,272
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Well that happened right from the start when he didn't have his facial scar and walked around with a Scottish accent, then Roger Moore played a fair-haired version etc. As they showed, you can change Bond, and he remains Bond.

    The films are not literal transcriptions of the books, they're adaptations of them i.e. they have been adapted, as you might adapt a plug into a socket in a foreign country. You change it to make it fit in the new medium. As long as he feels and acts like Bond, and has adventures like Bond, that's Bond.

    If it's set in the modern day he can't be a man from the 50's who fought in WW2, smokes 2000 cigarettes a day, has an exercise regime consisting of nothing but four press ups and a cold shower etc.

    You know exactly what I mean. I'm not going to start splitting hairs on Moore not having the exact black comma hair, or a scar down his cheek so there is no way on earth he could possibly resemble Fleming's 1950's Bond from the books.

    I read what you wrote and you said you wanted the guy from the 50's out of the books: I explained that you've never had that and you never will.

    The point of adaptations is to capture the spirit and flavour of the original material and translate it- not to make exact copies of everything which is written down. Sometimes you can get very close, sometimes it doesn't matter so much. If there's no reason why, for example, Daniel Craig having blond hair makes him no longer believably a suavely handsome, tough superspy; other than 'it's not what was written down in the books!', then it's not worth worrying about.

    .
    Splitting hairs again. I wanted Bond to be as close as possible to the Fleming character, and this includes how he looks. Sometimes it's been deviated by lighter hair colour, or darker eyes. I know you are not that bothered about keeping Bond as close to the books as possible, but I am.

    And yes, other than early Connery and then Dalton, we've never really had a decent, very accurate portrayal of Fleming's Bond on screen, which explains why many of the films I'm not a huge fan of.

    But I can still live in hope that we get another actor like Dalton who wants to go back to the novels. That may sound like an absolute nightmare to you, but to me it sounds like pure heaven.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2022 Posts: 14,861
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I think to satisfy everyone, Bond 26 needs to be ultra-modern and outlandish, yet grounded at the same time. A reasonable return of Bond's Gadgets and a solid plot too. I think it's that simple though.

    Yeah that seems good to me. I think sort of Mendes level of outlandish is fine, maybe even a touch more.
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Well that happened right from the start when he didn't have his facial scar and walked around with a Scottish accent, then Roger Moore played a fair-haired version etc. As they showed, you can change Bond, and he remains Bond.

    The films are not literal transcriptions of the books, they're adaptations of them i.e. they have been adapted, as you might adapt a plug into a socket in a foreign country. You change it to make it fit in the new medium. As long as he feels and acts like Bond, and has adventures like Bond, that's Bond.

    If it's set in the modern day he can't be a man from the 50's who fought in WW2, smokes 2000 cigarettes a day, has an exercise regime consisting of nothing but four press ups and a cold shower etc.

    You know exactly what I mean. I'm not going to start splitting hairs on Moore not having the exact black comma hair, or a scar down his cheek so there is no way on earth he could possibly resemble Fleming's 1950's Bond from the books.

    I read what you wrote and you said you wanted the guy from the 50's out of the books: I explained that you've never had that and you never will.

    The point of adaptations is to capture the spirit and flavour of the original material and translate it- not to make exact copies of everything which is written down. Sometimes you can get very close, sometimes it doesn't matter so much. If there's no reason why, for example, Daniel Craig having blond hair makes him no longer believably a suavely handsome, tough superspy; other than 'it's not what was written down in the books!', then it's not worth worrying about.

    .
    Splitting hairs again. I wanted Bond to be as close as possible to the Fleming character, and this includes how he looks. Sometimes it's been deviated by lighter hair colour, or darker eyes. I know you are not that bothered about keeping Bond as close to the books as possible, but I am.

    What is it that you think 'splitting hairs' means? I'm not making trivial distinctions: I'm saying the opposite in fact, that trivial distinctions don't matter!

    I'm not bothered about them being as close as possible to the books, no; and I've been explaining why that is. I'm not seeing any reasons to change my mind either.

    And yes, other than early Connery and then Dalton, we've never really had a decent, very accurate portrayal of Fleming's Bond on screen, which explains why many of the films I'm not a huge fan of.

    But I can still live in hope that we get another actor like Dalton who wants to go back to the novels. That may sound like an absolute nightmare to you, but to me it sounds like pure heaven.

    Dalton wasn't very popular or successful in the role, so I wouldn't want another one like him, no. If he's like Craig, who takes the best of the books and combines it with what made Bond so successful on the screen, then I'm all for it.
    I know James Bond films are a nightmare for you but I happen to really enjoy the films, it's why I'm here. I like the books too, but if I enjoyed them more than the films then I'd probably talk about them more and post in threads about them more heavily than I do in ones about the films.
  • Posts: 988
    Given that the cinematic James Bond is no longer a single character in a long running series, and now has different 'incarnations', I suppose there can be different versions of Bond, running concurrently even.
    They could have a modern, tough guy black Bond, who respects women's boundaries, has gay friends, doesn't smoke and sticks to his medically advised alcohol units, and he could be a dad, and die every other day. And people could say "he's still James Bond" if they like, (as they do on this thread).
    Then they could do a seperate TV series called 'Ian Fleming's James Bond', where they cast a unashamedly stiff-assed white brit with dark hair, scar and all. And adapt the books more faithfully than ever before, and have a Peaky Blinders period vibe, set in the bleaker 50's, where the scent and smoke and sweat of a casino are nauseating at three in the morning.
    Then everyone would be happy!
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,318
    SonofSean wrote: »
    That would be the end of the line regarding Bond for me. In fact my favourite Bond films are a few up to and including GoldenEye. I'd happily rewatch them ad infinitum and think *evil laugh* 'they'll never take this away from me'. True Bond, when Bond was still the guy Fleming conjured up in his brilliant mind.

    I loathe woke and I despise many aspects of all this fakeness going on the past couple of years, the urge to cancel ourselves for example. I'd like every colour to have their own 'Bond'. Their own 'hero', at least that's what it seems to be all about. I certainly didn't make it that way. I'm all about sticking to the source material and not about bending over backwards to please a toxic movement.

    Hopefully we soon can move on from these 900 pages of speculation and also a lot of silliness, to be frank. For me there is only one true heir to the throne and you know who I mean, so I'll leave it at that.

    Glad someone else here thinks the same way I do. I want Bond on screen to be as close as possible to the books, as far as possible. I'm absolutely fine with female M's, black Moneypenny's, black Leiter's, gay Q's, even if this isn't what Fleming described them as, whatever it takes to keep the films diverse and relevant, but I draw the line at the main character himself.

    Bond still has to belong to the colonial, old-fashioned, sexist, Eton 1950's era that Fleming wrote of, and look like him too. Once you change that, you change Bond.

    I would love to see a return to a period setting for Bond. His attitudes and habits are from a different era. If you change him too much and make him too modern, too relatable, too "nice" (he's quite a bastard in the books) then it's no longer Fleming.
    But if you look at the audience for the No Time To Die (while very profitable) the target audience skewed older (35+), so right now, the younger crowds aren't interested in Bond. They have their own heroes they've grown up with (Iron-man, Captain America and all of the Marvel Superheroes). So how does EON appeal to these younger cinema goers whilst appealing to the long-term Bond fan who want Bond to be Bond not some woke, sensitive, watered down version of what Fleming created.
    It's a dilemma for the studio. Change things up, bring in a different type of Bond but risk alienating the biggest audience (and only one at the moment): the traditional fans.
    Which is why I circle back to the idea of keeping Bond in the 50's & 60's. Lower budget but a harder hitting thriller set during the cold-war.

    A million +1 times this. Back to period Bond, when Bond was ACTUALLY Bond.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2022 Posts: 14,861
    No, I think you just need the movies, and they can be as they've always been, starring a handsome alpha male type star, playing a Bond who is a bit of a likeable dick, with a touch of swagger and class, travelling around the world in style romancing ladies and beating up baddies.

    If you watched a TV show where the stories are nearly but not quite as good as the Connery films, with worse music and set design than the original Goldfinger, for example, had; with less money to spend on them, featuring cinematic sequences like watching two men play bridge for 50 minutes, then you'd probably get quite bored. You can't smell the smoke and sweat of a casino on TV.
    That's not to say that the films haven't made things like the card game in CR or the golf scene work, but that's because they adapted them.
  • Posts: 2,742
    While I get it's controversial I do sometimes get the sense that skin colour is just another layer to the whole 'Bond should look like x' debate which isn't always applicable in practice. Anyone can look like Henry Cavill but very few are necessarily good fits for Bond. I've always said it but in order to get a sense of whether an actor can potentially play Bond or not you need to watch their prior work and find roles which have elements of Bond in there. To be fair Sope Diriscu, for me anyway, does have that Bond 'spark'. Far more than Henry Cavill and Aidan Turner certainly. His acting/screen presence reminds me of Idris Elba's. He's one of the only plausible non-white candidates. Get him to put on a more Southern English accent and give him an audition, certainly.

    My only issue going from Gangs of London is perhaps his take on the role might be a wee bit too similar to Craig's. Personally I think we need a slightly different approach to the role, whatever it may be. I don't think a non-white actor would inherently bring something new to the role. That said no one can know that for sure until he actually plays the part.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    edited May 2022 Posts: 1,318
    007HallY wrote: »
    While I get it's controversial I do sometimes get the sense that skin colour is just another layer to the whole 'Bond should look like x' debate which isn't always applicable in practice. Anyone can look like Henry Cavill but very few are necessarily good fits for Bond. I've always said it but in order to get a sense of whether an actor can potentially play Bond or not you need to watch their prior work and find roles which have elements of Bond in there. To be fair Sope Diriscu, for me anyway, does have that Bond 'spark'. Far more than Henry Cavill and Aidan Turner certainly. His acting/screen presence reminds me of Idris Elba's. He's one of the only plausible non-white candidates. Get him to put on a more Southern English accent and give him an audition, certainly.

    My only issue going from Gangs of London is perhaps his take on the role might be a wee bit too similar to Craig's. Personally I think we need a slightly different approach to the role, whatever it may be. I don't think a non-white actor would inherently bring something new to the role. That said no one can know that for sure until he actually plays the part.

    One thing he shares with Craig is he hardly has any chin. Not a good start.

    vOIsFBfkIlM8xowBhrtvw6Xfk5v.jpg
  • Posts: 12,242
    I want to just comment about the the point of how Fleming’s Bond’s attitudes don’t work in the modern world. One of the biggest things that annoys me about audiences / the media is that with Bond’s character, and to a broader extent any “controversial” protagonists in movies, they automatically go under the assumption the filmmakers are promoting and encouraging everything Bond does. I don’t understand why people act like any given element in a film is a endorsement or condemnation of behavior or other things. Like, art is all about subjectivity and interpretation. The filmmakers just present everything to us on a screen. YOU’RE the ones deciding if you’re pleased or displeased with the way characters behave, not the creators.
  • edited May 2022 Posts: 2,742
    @FoxRox To be fair in order for Bond to truly be an anti-hero more along the lines of Fleming's original character, the films themselves have to make the effort. The truth is the Bond films have tended to glorify Bond's flaws. Even Fleming had issues with Bond killing Professor Dent in cold blood in DN, and it's the sort of thing we see in TSWLM, FYEO and even NTTD. Bond in the novels was always much more conflicted about assassination and killing. It's a very human idea and having a scene similar to the opening of the GF novel would be interesting to see incorporated. Hell, look at Bond's womanising. In the novels Bond's relationships with women aren't as simple as 'women are all attracted to him'. Bond in CR was so arrogant and sexist even the writing gives off a distinct 'this man is a cad' vibe. After Vesper he tended to fall in love rather easily and had this odd attraction to women who were damaged in some way (what are the phrases used in the novels? "Birds with one wing broken' and Bond having a 'St. George Complex"?) Why not have a Bond film which points this out?
Sign In or Register to comment.