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
Sorry but you are way off on this one. Things were calm until that ***** thelivingroyale started slinging shit AGAIN. THEN one of the admins should have intervened, but it seems the ***** gets away with everything for some strange reason.
Also @thelivingroyale, you and a few others on here, you know who you are, aren't Bond fans. Just a few poisonous trolls. I am more than tired of your poking games and then when push comes to shove play the victim card, time and time again.
I'll be thinking of you each time Bond won't be black because he isn't black from the get go. You really don't get it do you? The second Bond would be turned black he isn't the character anymore, rather an alternate universe idea by some producer who bows for the ESG points under the banner of woke.
Now, now, be nice. ;)
Heh! It's not exactly one I can see troubling the bestseller lists :D
Obviously I, nor anyone else knows as of yet, but my only issue (which is more a gut feeling if anything) with Dirisu is that we might not necessarily get a take on Bond quite as distinct from Craig's interpretation as will be needed. His skin colour aside, his acting style and physicality in stuff like Gangs of London really reminds me of how Craig played Bond. As seen from many users here, there's certainly a noticeable hard edge, 'alpha male' quality to him.
I dunno, maybe there's just a sense with me that he's 'too good to be true'. It really depends on which direction the producers want to go.
A bit like how Reeves' The Batman isn't exactly a million miles away from the feel of the Nolan Batman movies, albeit with plenty of different spins on the subject matter. My guess is that the next Bond movie won't feel as much of a departure from the last as CR was. And, bluntly, someone who looks as dissimilar to Craig as Disiru does could be a big bonus in helping to differentiate. But I take your point about how the actor playing Bond himself probably needs to aim for a slightly different space of performance, even if the films still feel like they're in the same space.
I think the one way they can differentiate (and take moreso after Fleming’s Bond) is making Bond a little more chatty and expressive. They flirted with this in NTTD and I think some people found it jarring given that Craig’s Bond doesn’t really have a lot of dialogue, but Fleming’s Bond is quite opinionated and is comfortable speaking his mind and letting you know what he thinks. I think if Bond #7 has that as a part of his characterization from the get-go, it’ll be a little less jarring than it came across in NTTD.
Yeah, I currently see him as very similar to the way Craig did Bond and for the past few years I have always said we need a bit more fun and easy charm in the character (but then of course close the fist when needed) just as a change in pace and maybe a palate cleanser. That's why my top candidate remains Hoult. Maybe Sope could do it, I don't know. We are mainly going from a few photos and interviews and a TV show I don't think a lot of people have seen, so he could be capable of a lot more or falter under the pressure of the role. Who knows?
I want Bond to be as close as possible to how he's described in the books. Like I've said before, saying you don't want a black Bond isn't like saying you don't want a black doctor, prime minister or son-in-law. I don't want a black Bond for the same reason I don't want a woman Bond, or a short Bond, or a blonde/bald/ginger Bond.
I know that these days, for a person to even notice someone's race is seen as racist. Especially on-line where it's easy for people to finger-wag because of the anonymity.
I suppose we can only go from history. I think every new Bond actor's first film retains aspects of tone and ideas from their predecessors to some extent. LALD wasn't a million miles away from the more lighthearted tone of DAF, TLD retained some aspects of the Moore era's humour and even the ideas about Soviet/British relations. GE also felt a bit darker and arguably more grounded than some of Brosnan's later films, and even CR, as much of a shift from DAD as it was, held onto a lot of the Bondian iconography to make it feel... well, like a modern Bond film. This is true of the actor's interpretation to some extent, but I'd also argue each of these films went into pre-production with the intention of doing something different and on the whole are different than their predecessors. In fact I'd say it's the next actor's interpretation of Bond in these instances that stands out the most going from film to film, especially going into Craig's Bond from Brosnan's.
I kinda agree, it's similar to The Batman to some extent. It's a dark film, both tonally and visually which isn't wholly different from Nolan's films. The ideas of Gotham being corrupt, the villain wanting to destroy it, Batman wanting to protect it (insofar as these ideas are seen throughout Batman in general) are there too. But Nolan's films are made with the intention of grounding the character and world in a sense of 'realism', at least stylistically. It was kinda the selling point of Batman Begins, although the more elaborate story ideas became more apparent by the end of the trilogy. The Batman, on the other hand, is a very impressionistic movie - the cinematography, sound design etc. often give a very different feel to the Nolan films, despite the fact that what's often happening onscreen is more often grounded than what we see in the Nolan films (ie. Batman flying isn't a magic cape or whatever but a squirrel suit, the bat mobile is a modified muscle car etc). Pattinson's performance as Batman and the way his Bruce Wayne is written is also very different to Bale's I'd argue, and what both films do with their central ideas are fundamentally different to the extent I say TDK and The Batman are made by writers with entirely different world views.
I mean, we might get something similar with Bond 26 in that way. I think they'll try to retain and hone themes/ideas of the later Craig films, but in the context of a more low key story than NTTD. We might also have radically different ideas within its central story. Anyway, this in mind, I do think a different interpretation of Bond is needed going forward. Like Broccoli said, they're clearly going into this with the idea of reinventing the character, and I don't think it's simply a case of casting a non-white actor in the role.
Again, none of us know. Even Sope at this point has no idea how he'd play Bond in the audition, nor what script he'd be given.
I think Bond always has to retain that quiet element to his character - after all, he's a man whose profession could lead to his death and he always has to be on his guard. But yes, even Fleming's Bond could be relaxed and had a dry sense of humour. I'd like to see perhaps something along the lines of the MR novel when Bond and Gala are chatting as they walk along the cliffs and we get the little moment of the pair talking about how flowers die when they are picked. I think Bond says something along the lines of 'give it to me, I've already got blood on my hands' in that relaxed, almost humorous way which says a lot about his character. Just something like that at particular moments.
No one knows. I dunno though, with Dirisu I also don't get the sense we're in Craig or Connery territory in terms of him being a left field candidate. His skin colour aside, he's arguably a conventional candidate in the context of the post-Craig era to the extent that many users on here are almost unanimous about his potential for the role. I dunno, again maybe it's just me, but I think we've gotten some of the best Bonds when there's been a bit of unpredictability in their casting - even a sense of doubt amongst the fandom initially. It's why I say he's too good to be true.
But I could be wrong. He's a good actor and we'd be lucky to have him to be honest.
The issue now is that you've mostly gotten your "Bond from the books" for 60 years so far, and there's no reason a modern interpretation of Bond can't be black, or anything else. The issue is you are willing to tell an actor they can't play a role because they are not white. Simple as that.
It has long been established in theater that even the most traditional characters can and should be reinterpreted by new directors and actors, women playing men, etc. It just doesn't matter that much, and if it does, it shouldn't. If you don't want to see something new, watch the 25 movies and read the dozens of books you have.
@JeremyBondon, It is perfectly fine to not want a black Bond. Just don't make it personal.
Whether or not in this instance one thinks he's the best candidate going forward is another matter, but he could play the part in a modern Bond film in a way we recognise as being 'James Bond'.
You say there's no reason Bond couldn't be black or anything else. But there is a reason, isn't there? At the start of the movies, it has the actor's name and it says as Ian Fleming's James Bond 007. While it says that at the start of the film, I think they should be duty bound to try and keep the actor in keeping with his description. So a fat Bond, a woman Bond, an oriental Bond, a kangaroo Bond or an alien Bond is going to be too far removed from the source material. It'd feel like another character. Being black is just one in a long line of things Ian Fleming's James Bond isn't. If that makes me a racist in some people's eyes then I'll just have to cope, won't I? I suppose I'm also a misogynist for not wanting a woman Bond, and homophobic for not wanting a gay Bond. I'd better start keeping a list, hadn't I?
Fans (and Bond fans are pretty measured in this) tend to massively overreact at the mere idea of something they love not being perfect - while at the same time only accepting their own idea of perfect. I honestly think this is one of the main problematic features in popular culture at the moment. People just can't fathom the idea of someone trying something out and it being just ok, let alone fail. And while I know this is a standard hipster thing to say: I would much rather they tried to do something great and failed than that they settled for mediocre rehashes.
This has been said 1.500 times already and it can be facetious, but there are 25 films I can watch, if I hate the next few. That doesn't destroy my love for the character or the previous iterations.
Would I like a series of Bond films that are perfect for me? Sure. Do I want the films to be succesful and to maybe share my enjoyment of them with as many people as possible? Absolutely. But it's not the be all, end all of my fandom let alone my life. I can watch CR, QoS, SF on loop for the rest of my life and be happy. Those are my films and nothing that comes after them can kill that. They already released SPECTRE. How bad could it possibly get?
It's just a question what one sees as being these integral traits to the character and what can change over time/in the context of a modern movie. Arguably Bond's race is one, just like the fact that he doesn't smoke 60 cigarettes a day anymore.
Yes, good post.
Indeed, I don't really see what skin colour changes about any of that, especially not in the world Bond lives in.
I suppose I'm a traditionalist, and stuck in the past. But I do think if they cast a black Bond, I'd suspect it wouldn't be because he was 'the best man for the job', it'd be more because of the current cultural climate.
How so? The blue-grey eyes, the facial scar, the comma of hair? Is he not Bond without those?
Possibly that would be part of it, or perhaps the climate would just make them feel free to pick from a wider group, but I think the idea of there only ever being one best man for the job in the entire world at the point of picking is a misnomer. Both Dalton and Brosnan were cast for Living Daylights, so there can't have just been one 'best man'.
I don't know for sure whether that's true or not, but for what it's worth I do think the producers have a good grasp on what they believe Bond's core traits are, and indeed what can change over time. I mean, a film like SF showed us that Bond can be that patriotic 'man out of his own time' with specific traits we saw throughout the Fleming novels (his cynicism, sense of duty, his vices, even his background etc.) while taking place in a post Cold War, post 'post British Empire' time with one of the more unconventional looking leads of the series.
I'm actually curious, do you think Craig managed to embody certain aspects of Fleming Bond? How about in comparison to some of his predecessors? Not in terms of his appearance but in his performance, and perhaps even how some of his films were written. Like I said I do think SF has a lot of Fleming's Bond within the script and Craig's performance, more so than even a few of Connery's films.
I wouldn't say it's about being a traditionalist - I actually think anyone making these films really has to be in the sense that they should believe that aspects of Fleming's creation should be there in the DNA of these films, and that the core traits of the character and these stories exist. I'd say I'm a traditionalist when it comes to what I want out of Bond. Like I said it's just a question of what one believes can change in the context of a modern film with said character.
Don't make it personal? He makes it personal every time. Calling people racist the whole time kind of is personal. I am in the former camp you described. I don't want a black Bond or any other ethnicity, just like whitewashing black or Asian characters (fictional/ non-fictional/ iconic etc) for any reason. Stick to the source material. Just like I found it to be ridiculous with Exodus: Gods and Kings the actors cast for Moses and Ramesses. I've always hated whitewashing characters, basically.
See, that is just not true. There is nothing racist about that. Racism is about excluding people based on irrelevant characteristics. Skin colour is almost always an irrelevant characteristic. But when we're looking for the right person for a role, every facial detail, every muscle, every mannerism, every spoken word, ... matters to us. And suddenly, yes, skin colour can factor in for some.
I bet none of us would ever have want an obese person for Bond. Why? Do we think of the obese as second-class citizens? No. We just don't think they are suited for Bond; they don't fit that picture. Even if they were born with a slow metabolism and can't lose the extra pounds no matter how hard they tried, even if it's unfair that they can't help not "having what it takes" for Bond, that's how it is. I'm too short; I don't like it, but I will never be Bond either. Overweight people, short people, ... we just don't fit the picture--simple as that.
Well, if a Bond fan thinks a black person doesn't fit the picture, that doesn't constitute racism in my book. A racist remark would be, "Black people don't belong in cinema" or "Black people shouldn't act." If someone prefers a caucasion for Bond because that image better fits the picture of Bond they have in mind, then accusing said fan of 'racism' is using the term very, very loosely.
Excellent post! Thanks for that.
Now, as for the Aiden Turner fellow, he's just too short. I saw him in those Hobbit movies. No way.
Yes, the films were more Fleming than the four films preceding CR, and I liked that. I think CR and SF are great Bond flicks, and I'm one of the few on here that enjoyed SP too. And although I say DC is my least favourite, the films did give plenty of nods to the literary character, which was appreciated by me.
So yes, despite Craig being very unlike what I saw in my mind's eye when I read the books, the films delivered for the most part, and he is a great actor who owned the screen, and he certainly did bring elements of the literary character to the screen.
So could that same suspension of disbelief apply if an actor was cast who was a different race to the book Bond? I suppose it would matter to some people, and not to others, and I know we shouldn't even be noticing peoples' ethnicities these days. But I don't think everyone who would find an Asian/Black/Oriental James Bond jarring should be assumed to have a KKK white hood squirreled away in their broom cupboard.
If you all want to tell a black actor to their face they can't play James Bond because they are black, be my guest. But I don't want to be affiliated with you fools.
As has been pointed out, it just is not important that Bond is white. Why would it be important? It's not even culturally relevant to the character. What are you actually a fan of? I don't need Bond to be white to be a fan. If you need Bond to be white to be a fan, I think you're racist, yeah. If a black Bond means you will stop watching, you're racist. lol
People like you... Basically aren't worth my time. How are you even a true fan? I am telling you you are not. My opinion. Deal with it. Whoops, commented anyway, but I'll leave it at that.