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
All you say is true.
But I’m still wanting traditional casting.
White British as it’s always been since 53 and 62.
But I could be proved wrong.
But I’m still wanting traditional casting.
White British as it’s always been since 53 and 62.
Only 4 of the 6 Bonds to date have met that criteria.
That is absolutely true, my friend.
But...
JAMES BOND is a literary well described character. Why go against the author and the depiction of his character in a blatant diametrical opposite way? Why do that unless you have some sort of agenda or a fundamental disrespect for intelectual property?
Want other British agents with different ethnic backgrounds? Cool I'm all for that. But James Bond is intelectual property and must be respected for it. And don't come knocking with Daniel Craig's or Moore's different hair colour. Let's not compare slight and small phenotypical details to an overall change in race. That'd be ludicrous. And we've been there already in this joke of a thread.
It's not a desire for a more classic actor. It's not that. It's keeping it as close as we can to the original source. Who the hell wants a NON-Ian Fleming James Bond? I mean, why bother with that? Strip away everything from the character (and we know much stuff as gone by now to keep up with today's world and values), and we're left with something else entirely. And why do that?
If people like Ian Fleming's James Bond, why would they want to have something completely different with the name James Bond?
Frankly, this is beginning to be my problem, as I don't understand why someone would come to a forum dedicated to a franchise and a well established character to propose something completely different. Why waste your time with that?
This multi-verse, everything goes, spider-pig, Jane Bond, Black Bond stuff really doesn't interest me at all. I come here because I love James Bond as its always been. It's not that different from the 60s, bar a couple of moral stuff (which is fine). Why do you guys want something else entirely? Then by all means, why not create a topic or a forum to discuss the dismantling of characters. There you could very well have a go at Lucy Liu as John Watson, or Sherlock as a black man in the Victorian era, or all of those things people love to do with franchises for lack of imagination and fresh creativity.
Meanwhile, I'll keep repeating these thoughts from time to time, just because I'd hate to think the world is solely in the hands of this new gen everything goes, pc, faux liberal, facist, I-have-either-authority-problems-or-I've-been-spoiled-beyond-measure kids on the block. And heck, if someone was offended by that, than I guess the shoe fitted, and hopefully, not only on your foot.
Cheers
PS: The rant wasn't at all meant for you, @Denbigh my friend, just open your eyes and don't let yourself be fooled. PPS: I liked seeing Callum in a suit. I see some potential there.
I mean only one of my top five suggestions really contradicts what people expect.
But overall, from my perspective, this specific change is just not something that would damage the property, or be so far from what and who the character is. Having an actor of colour, or an actor with a different heritage to what's expected, is just as natural (to me) as them deciding to cast Daniel Craig was, or whoever the next guy will be. As long as they're a good British actor, to be honest, I don't really care, and again I don't think that opinion is damning to the franchise, or makes me any less of a fan...
The most important thing to me is whether they're a good enough actor, and can handle the characterisation of whatever James Bond they want us as an audience to experience and root for. Also, there are still many elements that would remain the same.
The best example I can give, is that if in 2005, they decided to hire a black British actor who was really good, and everything else about Casino Royale was the same. I'd still love that movie, and would probably love the actor who portrayed him if he'd done a good enough job, because I believe that the world of James Bond can be the same and just as good with an actor of colour or different heritage - as long as the guys British ;)
I might not be explaining myself very well, but I tried haha
Don't get me wrong, I want it to be Callum, Claflin or Taylor-Johnson so badly, because I think they'd be perfect, and a great way to freshen things up, but if EON in three/four years time announce Sope Dirisu (just as an example) or Sean Teale, then I'm gonna still gonna be there with my tickets and popcorn, awaiting what will probably be a really cool James Bond movie. Simple as that :)
Again, I stress, this is just how I feel about the whole thing. This isn't me trying to change anyones views or opinions. I don't have an agenda, I just wanted to give you my two cence :)
True.
Ok, so Brosnan was Irish.
Lazenby’s faux English accent (and lack of star quality) wasn’t the high point of the brilliant OHMSS. I don’t want another Australian.
I’ll re tract and say I only want a white British actor.
Great post! 👌👏👏
Thanks, my friend ;)
Oh you mean like turning a hard-boiled thriller series about a WWII-veteran spy into a series of camp semi-comedies?
Or do you mean the grand tradition of taking a books name and then producing a movie with a completely different story, to honor the legacy of Ian Fleming?
I know your basically just goading here and it is the general understanding in this forum, that proclaiming reactionary values is the norm and trying to be progressive is "bringing politics into it", but I'll bite.
One of the most noxious things that has happened to public discourse in the last decade is the degradation in the use of the word "fascist". I can't believe people have to be reminded of that, but historically fascists weren't really known for saying in a public forum "Hey, maybe we could do things differently?" or "I find your behaviour unacceptable and think you should be held accountable". They were more the beating, torturing and killing people-type. Not really "everything goes".
Now I assume your idea behind this is the big bogeyman of "cancel culture" and such things. I regrettably have to inform you, that that is bullshit peddled by people who can't stand that they no longer have a political and cultural position of absolute hegemony. Very simple test: If there were a quasi-fascist "cancel culture", how come every conservative commentator is completely free to write and complain about it to an audience of millions? And the worst that happens to them is that some green-haired doofus on twitter writes "omg, you're so canceled" or shows up at a talk and holds up a mean placard?
And to the issue at hand: If everyone with slightly more progressive views in this thread is a "feaux-liberal fascist" then why are you the only one drawing red lines and every response to your post is either total agreement or completely couched in defensive language? I am relatively new here, but I can't find anybody seriously saying Bond has to be non-white or Bond has to be a woman or somesuch. People express the view that it could be possible that a Bond in 2022 (23, 24, 25) might be non-white (and just to repeat what has already been established in the last few posts: This is about race, not about nationality, at least for @suavejmf) and you post a long diatribe about how that is impossible and would defile the memory of the great Ian Fleming.
The ironic thing is that, like @Denbigh, I actually agree with you. The character probably is best served by a male, white, British actor. I just can't stand this "woe is me" reactionary drivel and the ahistorical and frankly offensive use of the word fascist.
To be honest that wouldn't bother me too much. My brother-in-law is as white as they come, but he gets a tan really easily (his father being South African) and can then easily pass as a Mediterranean guy or an Asian. No idea if Teale can play Bond, but his look is not an issue as far as I'm concerned.
I am very sorry if the hyperbolised use of the world fascist ruffled your feathers. I wasn't being literal about it. This reminds me of a time I said someone here was being borderline autistic and then I got hit with a psychiatric manual on the head. So calm down, cause history books tend to be a bit on the heavy side.
BTW, I have never heard of the therm "cancel culture" and I agree with most of what you said about it. The slightly more progressive views you talk about and that are present on these forums usually serve one purpose alone, and that is, as you put it, goading.
The "woe is me" reactionary drivel, as you call it, is the end of a long rope made into a big twisted yarn that is the never ending discourse of some members who I have personally seen write that their interest is to, quote, "burn the system down", and so they keep mining and derailing threads with their egotistical standpoints which only serve their nefarious purpose and are not genuine and logic opinions.
Stick around, please, for more than awhile, and you'll see what I mean.
As I loved your post (really did), I'll explain better why my post was so reactionary. Every now and then, in a lovely day, we're discussing sound names for the role, we're even being cordial about it (well, most of us) and then comes along a given fella and drops another incendiary bomb, such as "Dev Patell for Bond" or "Chalamet - the skinny american" for Bond, or " Idris Elba for Bond", just so we react and they have the chance to use their "all opinions are valid/you're being unreasonable and part of an stale old system/your such a racist, bigot, misogynist, ..." discourse. And they thrive on that over and over again until a guy like me makes a diatribe and gets castigated for it.
And that's the thing that irks me. Not so long ago, there was this fella who made the exact same thing. In every other thread he went ballistic on how "Eon was horrible, and Barbara Broccoli was in love with Craig, and Nolan was the only director for Bond", and he knew the kind of reactions he would have and insisted ad nauseam. He was a fire started, an arsonist of threads and forums. Back then, I went on a diatribe, as you call it, and got fairly castigated for it. Said member was eventually expelled, in a time when I wasn't even in the forums, for I had left ("woe is me") for a while. I, and listen to this, you'll love it, was called a "fascist" back then. Me, a liberal. And that for calling out a pathological malignant dynamic. I was also called an overall "angry" person. And they were right. I was angry. Sometime there's an apparent invisible nihilistic hegemonic whip that nullifies logic and reason for the sake of caos and self inflation here, and I react negatively to it. I do think all subjects are up to discussion, but only if the goal is really to discuss them. Most of the times, these members goal is simply egotistical.
Now, granted, the "facist" bit was a provocative nonsense. So was the "borderline autistic" comment. They weren't meant to be taken literally. In fact, I'm on good therms with an autistic member of these forums, and have been for years. So, please, don't take my use of the word "facist" as literal, and don't be offended by it.
BTW, love your rhetoric ;) Now that's the way to conter talk in a debate ;) Even if, your disdain for the "woe is me" reactionary drivel diatribe resulted, well, in a "woe is me" reactionary drivel diatribe as well.
Cheers, and do stick around. Hey, and why not make a suggestion regarding the thread's subject. Would love to know.
Your already friend,
@Univex
You are right about the weight of history books. I should be careful not to throw out my back trying to hold them over people's heads.
Also, you seem to have hit the nail square on by realizing that I (and maybe both of us) was probably animated more by perceived ideas and ideals in the wider (internet) culture and less the exact words in this discussion.
And I shall leave it at that.
Back to the actual discussion:
I think he is quite unlikely to get it, but I have lately talked myself into Tom Cullen. Mostly on looks and age, to be honest. And as a former resident of Wales, I would like to see a Welshmen get it again.
I must have seen him in Downton years ago, but I can't say I vividly remember his acting (positively or negatively).
Oh, and if they cast a Frenchmen, I'm out.
Most good friendships start with a clash. And I believe this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship ;)
BTW, we both come from countries with big absolutists and fascists in their History, and we both understand deeply, I'm sure, the true weight of words. So we are in total agreement.
I'd love Tom Cullen in the role. I remember seeing him in Downton and thinking he looked rather Conneryish and intense. He also reminds me of Paul Adrian, who also reminded me of Connery way back when. So, Tom Cullen, a very good, not so talked about, proposal.
See you around, my friend :)
Gotta watch that. Keeps coming up and I've yet to watch it. Is it any good, @GadgetMan?
Whilst I don't think Timothee Chalamet is suitable for the role of James Bond at all, and would be appalled if he was cast, I respect @Pierce2Daniel right to his opinion.
He's also not trolling, at least no more than those who carry on as if Aidan Turner is destined to be Bond and only he can should be cast, like a broken record. As fans we all have an actor in mind, that we believe would be right for the role.
EON rarely give an indication of who they have on their shortlist, so all this speculation should be a bit of fun.
So before you get on your high horse again and accuse someone of trolling @JeremyBondon think before you post.
That reminds me that Lambert Wilson auditioned for the role in the 80s.
Oh, yeah it is. But not that super-great...it's just decent entertainment.
Having said that I hope they don’t go there right now. Ten years ago I reckon they could’ve done it to basically no pushback or controversy, the only people who’d be annoyed would be traditionalists on websites like this. But if they did it now then the annoying woke types, the incel racist types and the old racist types would all jump on it. It’d have to represent something or other to those woke types or it wouldn’t be good enough. He wouldn’t be able to just be Bond, he’d have to be a conciously black Bond representing xyz. Meanwhile the old racists, stirred by a series of baiting headlines from our toxic tabloids, would be raging, making stupid comparisons, and saying they’ve heard now he’s black that *insert stupid rumour here* is gonna happen as well. And then the bitter virgin racists will probably send the actor death threats, because that’s apparently a normal thing to do nowadays.
To be fair, as the female Doctor Who showed, eventually after that outrage period nobody cares. Things die down. But I just don’t think it’s worth the hassle right now. I want Bond to be escapism from this stupid, neverending culture war, not part of it. So, I hope they stick with a white guy for the next one, despite his race not really mattering to me.
Of course we read it, @Denbigh. Your post, and @thelivingroyale's are the right way to go about it. There is real discussion, and then there's the other thing, that some don't recognise as different than your sound posts.
Of course everybody read it,
most people read it,
some people read it
I'll have to read it too ,someday........ :)>-
On to the matter. Watching Cullen in Knightfall right now. Not bad. Very, very conneryesque. In the vein of Turner, I think, with his presence and intensity.
Right now, it's Luke Evans/Aidan Turner/Tom Cullen for me. One of the three would do :)
EDIT: Bloody hell, still on Knightfall's first episode and damn, how aren't we talking more about this Cullen fellow? He's down right Conneryesque most of the time. Guy's got eyebrows, presence, the voice,... I'm almost putting him first place on that list.
Seriously, seeing this picture for the first time, not knowing where it's from, I thought it's something Bond-y I had missed. I can't express how much I'm in love with the idea of casting him as Bond... He was born for the role and now, after Craig is the perfect time!!!
;)
Lol, sure, Cullen and Turner definitely look the part. But I was wondering what's really wrong with Callum Turner? Coz He really does have that Hoagy Carmichael look though.
I think he has it too. Probably more close to what Fleming conjured in his head. I wouldn't be against it. But he does need some ageing, IMO. Some more pain lines around his eyes. lol, now I sound like Quarrel.