Who should/could be a Bond actor?

17287297317337341178

Comments

  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    James Bond is a British secret intelligence service agent, code number 007, residing in London but active internationally, who in the world we live in, could be a black man or a man of any other race as long as the character remains British.

    That's an incomplete characterisation, from which race, gender and overall physical characteristics were taken away. So I'd say that's only half of it, if that. James Bond is more than what you've depicted @Denbigh, my friend.

    Exactly. Race, physical appearance and gender do define the character of Bond and those rules have already been set.

    Also, as a response to the Axel Foley comments. He’s a black character and should remain as such.

    Axel Foley can talk his way into getting whatever he wants. If he wants a free room in a fancy hotel like the Beverly Palm Hotel, all he has to do is go up to the front desk and say they made a mistake with the reservation. When they contest this, he launches into a tirade about racism and makes a scene, after which they give him a room. The whole reason this is funny is because he’s black. The rules of this character (appearance, characteristics etc) have been set.

    And when does James Bond do something like this? His race doesn't define him, no, you're wrong. Gender and sexuality, yeah sure, all the way: those do define him. But with race we're just used to seeing him be white, that's not the same as being defined by it. Driving two Aston Martins across a few films doesn't mean he was defined as an Aston driver and couldn't drive a Lotus. Nobody in the modern Bonds is defined by their race.

    The Harlem scenes in LALD specifically make fun of Bond being a White man in Harlem?
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited October 2020 Posts: 5,834
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    James Bond is a British secret intelligence service agent, code number 007, residing in London but active internationally, who in the world we live in, could be a black man or a man of any other race as long as the character remains British.

    That's an incomplete characterisation, from which race, gender and overall physical characteristics were taken away. So I'd say that's only half of it, if that. James Bond is more than what you've depicted @Denbigh, my friend.
    Race [...] do define the character of Bond and those rules have already been set.
    But what? What about James Bond as a character is defined by his race?

    His physical appearance. It’s right there in literature and on film.

    Live and Let Die the novel and film make it blatantly obvious; “White face in Harlam, good thinking Bond.”
    But I wouldn't say that defines his character though. That's a physical description from the novels. My point is that his race doesn't impact his role. That's why I expanded upon the Black Panther/T'Challa example because the character is defined by being the king and protector of the fictional African nation of Wakanda.

    It's why Felix Leiter and Moneypenny were able to be race bent, and Q was able to change his age because they weren't defined as white or as characters of a certain age, just by the roles they played in the stories. So James Bond is defined by being an extremely suave, handsome, and capable MI6 agent, so that'll always remain, but not by being white.
  • Posts: 9,730
    Denbigh wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    James Bond is a British secret intelligence service agent, code number 007, residing in London but active internationally, who in the world we live in, could be a black man or a man of any other race as long as the character remains British.

    That's an incomplete characterisation, from which race, gender and overall physical characteristics were taken away. So I'd say that's only half of it, if that. James Bond is more than what you've depicted @Denbigh, my friend.
    Race [...] do define the character of Bond and those rules have already been set.
    But what? What about James Bond as a character is defined by his race?

    His physical appearance. It’s right there in literature and on film.

    Live and Let Die the novel and film make it blatantly obvious; “White face in Harlam, good thinking Bond.”
    But I wouldn't say that defines his character though. That's a physical description from the novels. My point is that his race doesn't impact his role. That's why I expanded upon the Black Panther/T'Challa example because the character is defined by being the king and protector of the fictional African nation of Wakanda.

    It's why Felix Leiter and Moneypenny were able to be race bent, and Q was able to change his age because they weren't defined as white or as characters of a certain age, just by the roles they played in the stories. So James Bond is defined by being an MI6 agent, so that'll always remain, but not by being white.

    are there no good white actors to be 007? again my issue is Race changing just feels gimmicky much like the Women can kick ass that was in the Batwoman teaser trailer (never watched a single episode) or the Charley's angels films. it's pandering and a gimmick
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited October 2020 Posts: 5,834
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    James Bond is a British secret intelligence service agent, code number 007, residing in London but active internationally, who in the world we live in, could be a black man or a man of any other race as long as the character remains British.

    That's an incomplete characterisation, from which race, gender and overall physical characteristics were taken away. So I'd say that's only half of it, if that. James Bond is more than what you've depicted @Denbigh, my friend.
    Race [...] do define the character of Bond and those rules have already been set.
    But what? What about James Bond as a character is defined by his race?

    His physical appearance. It’s right there in literature and on film.

    Live and Let Die the novel and film make it blatantly obvious; “White face in Harlam, good thinking Bond.”
    But I wouldn't say that defines his character though. That's a physical description from the novels. My point is that his race doesn't impact his role. That's why I expanded upon the Black Panther/T'Challa example because the character is defined by being the king and protector of the fictional African nation of Wakanda.

    It's why Felix Leiter and Moneypenny were able to be race bent, and Q was able to change his age because they weren't defined as white or as characters of a certain age, just by the roles they played in the stories. So James Bond is defined by being an MI6 agent, so that'll always remain, but not by being white.
    are there no good white actors to be 007?
    Of course there are, we've been discussing loads of them. I mean my ultimate casting for the role (Callum) is very traditional, I'm just trying to help rationalise why an actor of a different race (while still British) could still get the role, like Barbara herself has stated.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2020 Posts: 14,861
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    James Bond is a British secret intelligence service agent, code number 007, residing in London but active internationally, who in the world we live in, could be a black man or a man of any other race as long as the character remains British.

    That's an incomplete characterisation, from which race, gender and overall physical characteristics were taken away. So I'd say that's only half of it, if that. James Bond is more than what you've depicted @Denbigh, my friend.

    Exactly. Race, physical appearance and gender do define the character of Bond and those rules have already been set.

    Also, as a response to the Axel Foley comments. He’s a black character and should remain as such.

    Axel Foley can talk his way into getting whatever he wants. If he wants a free room in a fancy hotel like the Beverly Palm Hotel, all he has to do is go up to the front desk and say they made a mistake with the reservation. When they contest this, he launches into a tirade about racism and makes a scene, after which they give him a room. The whole reason this is funny is because he’s black. The rules of this character (appearance, characteristics etc) have been set.

    And when does James Bond do something like this? His race doesn't define him, no, you're wrong. Gender and sexuality, yeah sure, all the way: those do define him. But with race we're just used to seeing him be white, that's not the same as being defined by it. Driving two Aston Martins across a few films doesn't mean he was defined as an Aston driver and couldn't drive a Lotus. Nobody in the modern Bonds is defined by their race.

    The Harlem scenes in LALD specifically make fun of Bond being a White man in Harlem?

    He also wears flares and smokes a massive cigar: neither of those define him for the next 50 years.

    Or less glibly, hitting women, being dismissive of them, smoking loads; these are character traits which actually did define his personality way more than one character pointing out that he's white in one movie 47 years ago, and yet they've all gone. And yet somehow he's still Bond.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 395
    Denbigh wrote: »
    MSL49 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I call it the tuxedo argument. There's also the fancy car argument and the good looking Brit argument. The last one explains why Hugh Grant, Robbie Williams and Jude Law were all rumoured as Bond at the time.

    Yes, I guess it's why we keep getting the same photo of Adrian Turner in a dinner suit in an Agatha Christie play all the time ;)

    Denbigh wrote: »
    Again my thoughts remain the same, I trust EON, and if through the many auditions and screen tests they do, they find an actor whose black or otherwise whose able to fully embody James Bond, then I'll be on board and will still be there opening night :)

    Me too :) They'll be casting their net very wide; I don't think they should mess it up.

    I think Turner is a strong candidate.
    Callum? I know ;)

    Him too but i mean Aidan.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 395
    I would love to see Dalton's, Brosnan's and Craig's screentest's.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,888
    MSL49 wrote: »
    I would love to see Dalton's, Brosnan's and Craig's screentest's.

    I would love to see ALL of the screentest ever done.

  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 686
    I'm not sure I've ever seen a good screentest. They always seem so flat. I don't know how anyone is ever cast from those things.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    talos7 wrote: »
    Elba would make an incredible suave , globe hopping, woman bedding spy...... as on original character, not James Bond.

    Come to think of it, he’s about to do this; I can’t wait to see it, I’m a big fan.

    Me too big fan.
    I'm not sure I've ever seen a good screentest. They always seem so flat. I don't know how anyone is ever cast from those things.

    I believe it's not just audition that qualifies them, their might be more factors at play.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    James Bond is a British secret intelligence service agent, code number 007, residing in London but active internationally, who in the world we live in, could be a black man or a man of any other race as long as the character remains British.

    That's an incomplete characterisation, from which race, gender and overall physical characteristics were taken away. So I'd say that's only half of it, if that. James Bond is more than what you've depicted @Denbigh, my friend.
    Race [...] do define the character of Bond and those rules have already been set.
    But what? What about James Bond as a character is defined by his race?

    His physical appearance. It’s right there in literature and on film.

    Live and Let Die the novel and film make it blatantly obvious; “White face in Harlam, good thinking Bond.”
    But I wouldn't say that defines his character though. That's a physical description from the novels. My point is that his race doesn't impact his role. That's why I expanded upon the Black Panther/T'Challa example because the character is defined by being the king and protector of the fictional African nation of Wakanda.

    It's why Felix Leiter and Moneypenny were able to be race bent, and Q was able to change his age because they weren't defined as white or as characters of a certain age, just by the roles they played in the stories. So James Bond is defined by being an MI6 agent, so that'll always remain, but not by being white.

    are there no good white actors to be 007? again my issue is Race changing just feels gimmicky much like the Women can kick ass that was in the Batwoman teaser trailer (never watched a single episode) or the Charley's angels films. it's pandering and a gimmick
    MSL49 wrote: »
    I would love to see Dalton's, Brosnan's and Craig's screentest's.

    Yes it would be fascinating. I take it Glen directed Dalton and Brosnan's? And Campbell did Craig's I think. I guess they didn't screentest Brosnan for GE?
    I guess they don't really like to come out because the performance isn't quite there yet maybe. Craig's will be the first one we see for a guy who actually got it, is that right?
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 395
    Did they test Connery, Lazenby they did, how about Moore?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2020 Posts: 14,861
    MSL49 wrote: »
    Did they test Connery, Lazenby they did, how about Moore?

    It’s a good question, if they did I’ve not heard of it. I guess with Moore his whole career had been a test for Bond up until that point (!) so I could understand if they didn’t, with Connery it’s a bit weirder. Maybe they just got him to read for them live?
  • Posts: 6,665
    Just to make a point:

    It's not that Bond's race defines him. It's just that Bond's race is defined in the novels. And I'm a sucker for intelectual property and original sources. But hey, that's just me and a few others apparently.

    But I do think we make a valid and fair point.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited October 2020 Posts: 8,009
    Univex wrote: »
    Just to make a point:

    It's not that Bond's race defines him. It's just that Bond's race is defined in the novels. And I'm a sucker for intelectual property and original sources. But hey, that's just me and a few others apparently.

    But I do think we make a valid and fair point.

    I'm with you on that and I don't think any criticism of the position fuelled by ideas of it being 'racist' is merited. I understand the resistance and feel it myself; Bond, for me, is an extension of Fleming himself and the two are inseparable in personality and outlook. They are simplistic qualities but they are important nonetheless. It's why he's both likeable and unlikeable in equal measure at times. Naturally his skin colour is somewhat fundamental to my perception of him as a result and why any talk of it not being part of his character doesn't ring true to me.

    However, conversely, I do think that the films have deviated from that same source a few too many times in order for it to matter too much anymore. Sure, we had CR in '06, but that is a film that comes along maybe once in a generation and I don't see them repeating it. For me, it's less a case about liking it and more accepting that it is inevitable.

    It wouldn't be what I would do, of course - but then again I wouldn't have made half the Moore films the way they were made or made Die Another Day the way that it was made either. Or Spectre for that matter. Movie Bond is what it is - it's its own thing. It's a unique predicament to be in, I think - a credit to the filmmakers that they've created an enduring icon who survives long enough to have to face these questions!

    Admittedly, it would be very strange to me if they go smaller scale with the first film of the next guy and take any direct inspiration from the books as they did with CR, especially if the actor was of a different skin colour. Interesting, though.
  • Posts: 6,665
    A great, lucid and sensible post, @CraigMooreOHMSS.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2020 Posts: 14,861
    Univex wrote: »
    Just to make a point:

    It's not that Bond's race defines him. It's just that Bond's race is defined in the novels. And I'm a sucker for intelectual property and original sources. But hey, that's just me and a few others apparently.

    But I do think we make a valid and fair point.

    I'm with you on that and I don't think any criticism of the position fuelled by ideas of it being 'racist' is merited.

    Has that stance actually been taken though?
    However, conversely, I do think that the films have deviated from that same source a few too many times in order for it to matter too much anymore. Sure, we had CR in '06, but that is a film that comes along maybe once in a generation and I don't see them repeating it. For me, it's less a case about liking it and more accepting that it is inevitable.

    It wouldn't be what I would do, of course - but then again I wouldn't have made half the Moore films the way they were made or made Die Another Day the way that it was made either. Or Spectre for that matter. Movie Bond is what it is - it's its own thing. It's a unique predicament to be in, I think - a credit to the filmmakers that they've created an enduring icon who survives long enough to have to face these questions!

    Yeah exactly: Bond is indeed defined in the novels as being white. With a comma of black hair, blue-grey eyes, scar down the cheek, living in the 1950s, wearing a shabby old suit, smoking 60 a day, driving an ancient Bentley, suffering accidie, living on benzedrine, thinking homosexuals can't whistle etc. etc. I don't see much of that in the movies. Bond has moved beyond the original source and is, arguably, more interesting than Fleming ever made it. He was also happy to sell Bond off and abandon those details: let's not forget the first screen Bond was CIA operative card-sharp Jimmy Bond. Fleming himself was happy enough so take the cash for that, so I think the idea it has to stay perfectly original to the source has been rendered somewhat moot by the author himself and the idea that we've never seen an accurate Bond onscreen. If anyone thinks we have, feel free to point out the scar. Harry Potter managed it! :)
    I'm fine with Bond not being accurate in every detail to the books. I read the books, I enjoyed them a lot, but I don't expect the films to be the same and I enjoy what they add to the experience. Roger Moore isn't Fleming's Bond, but I love him all the same.
    And that's why I rather love the idea that the latest film is named after a movie that Cubby made: because he's now as much responsible for the success of Bond as Fleming was if you ask me. There's nothing intrinsically more pure or clever about reading a paperback thriller than there is watching a big movie that hundreds of people have spent years crafting, both are artistically valid. James Bond started as a successful book character and he'll always have his roots there, but he's grown beyond that into a movie icon.
    Admittedly, it would be very strange to me if they go smaller scale with the first film of the next guy and take any direct inspiration from the books as they did with CR, especially if the actor was of a different skin colour. Interesting, though.

    I could actually see them doing that doing even more to establish the link, to be honest. It worked for Craig after all. It's unlikely to be a straight adaptation as per CR of course because the cupboard's pretty bare there
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited October 2020 Posts: 7,518
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    James Bond is a British secret intelligence service agent, code number 007, residing in London but active internationally, who in the world we live in, could be a black man or a man of any other race as long as the character remains British.
    That's an incomplete characterisation, from which race, gender and overall physical characteristics were taken away. So I'd say that's only half of it - if that. James Bond is more than what you've depicted @Denbigh, my friend.
    But despite the obvious gender and overall physical characteristics, that description is the simplest explanation of who the character is, just as the description of Black Panther is. The point is that one character is literally defined by their race, another isn't - in my personal opinion.

    If I was to explain James Bond to someone who didn't know who he was, I don't think I'd ever mention the fact that he's white, or consider it an important factor, whereas his gender for example probably would be - which is why to me, James Bond could be black or of another race, and not a woman.

    Exactly: he was written as a fairly inconspicuous comfortably-off man who came from 50s London. It just so happens that a man like that at that time is more likely to be caucasian, but his race was never a key trait of his character or his cultural significance, unlike Black Panther as you say.
    Now that he's in the 21st century his race is less likely to be just one thing and is even less likely to be an issue in the world Bond lives in, which we've seen is an idealised one without racism. He's got be handsome and ideally athletic, an alpha male. But beyond that he doesn't need a comma of black hair over his right eye, a scar down his face and on the back of his hand, blue-grey eyes or be a ringer for Hoagy Carmichael or drive around in a 90 year old Bentley. We've managed 58 years without all of those things so far so I think they've been shown to be pretty non-essential. He doesn't even need black hair.

    This is exactly right, but I feel like I've made this argument many times; you're never going to change anyone's mind in here.

    At the end of the day, I think you have to look at the stories being told, as to me, stories are the most fundamentally important thing about film. Black Panther is a story about African culture, and therefore Black Panther's race is inextricably linked to the story they're trying to tell. James Bond films are stories about international espionage and intrigue, one British agent up against a megalomaniacal villain with infinite resources bent on manipulating the world to his or her own gains. Nothing there implies any race must be set in stone.

    I'll say this again: one of Bond's characteristics, as written, is that he's white, for sure. IMO, though, that characteristic isn't inextricably linked to the the character of James Bond because it isn't important to the stories they're using the character to tell. Of course an argument could be made for Live and Let Die, where Bond's appearance in Harlem as a white brit is absolutely part of the story. But we've had our Live and Let Die adaptions (film, comic). There's no need to pigeonhole the character that way going forward. We're all huge fans of the character James Bond, but to put the character before the story is to put the cart before the horse.

    I'm not trying to convince anyone else, that's just how I see it.

    EDIT: As a counter argument, I would never say you could cast a black actor in the role of Derek Vinyard, provided they wanted to make a new American History X. That character must remain white, because of the importance of that character's race to the story. That logic doesn't apply to Bond, IMO.
  • edited October 2020 Posts: 15,785
    I think we should keep Bond blond, yet go far younger. Perhaps about 14 or 15?
    Instead of working for MI6 he could work at a burger joint and perhaps be an aspiring YouTuber?
    What we're looking for is a real life replication of THIS GUY to be the next Bond.................


    latest?cb=20120108001944


    Oops, I think I made this joke or one similar months ago.
    Never mind. Not funny anyway.
    Carry on......................
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited October 2020 Posts: 7,518
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I think we should keep Bond blond, yet go far younger. Perhaps about 14 or 15?
    Instead of working for MI6 he could work at a burger joint and perhaps be an aspiring YouTuber?
    What we're looking for is a real life replication of THIS GUY to be the next Bond.................


    latest?cb=20120108001944


    Oops, I think I made this joke or one similar months ago.
    Never mind. Not funny anyway.
    Carry on......................

    lol, I sort of feels like this helps to illustrate my point; Bond's employment by MI6 is a characteristic that is inextricably linked to the character; take that away, and the James Bond stories fall apart. IMO, the same effect doesn't happen when you change his race.

    EDIT: Full disclosure, I know you were joking, of course.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited October 2020 Posts: 7,518
    I'd also like to point out that I don't favour a black Bond or a Bond of any culture over a white Bond; the next actor they cast is 99% going to be a white actor, and I'm thrilled to see who they choose. My absolute main guy is still Luke Evans, even though I know it'll never happen. ;) I wouldn't want them to cast an actor from a different culture just to satisfy some kind of affirmative action.

    I'm just saying, I'll be happy with whomever they choose, as long as their acting holds up, and the stories are still cracking. :)>-
  • Posts: 15,785
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I think we should keep Bond blond, yet go far younger. Perhaps about 14 or 15?
    Instead of working for MI6 he could work at a burger joint and perhaps be an aspiring YouTuber?
    What we're looking for is a real life replication of THIS GUY to be the next Bond.................


    latest?cb=20120108001944


    Oops, I think I made this joke or one similar months ago.
    Never mind. Not funny anyway.
    Carry on......................

    lol, I sort of feels like this helps to illustrate my point; Bond's employment by MI6 is a characteristic that is inextricably linked to the character; take that away, and the James Bond stories fall apart. IMO, the same effect doesn't happen when you change his race.

    EDIT: Full disclosure, I know you were joking, of course.

    If Eon were to ever sell, I actually could envision another producer considering changing Bond's occupation to make him more modern. By that point the character might as well be renamed.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I think we should keep Bond blond, yet go far younger. Perhaps about 14 or 15?
    Instead of working for MI6 he could work at a burger joint and perhaps be an aspiring YouTuber?
    What we're looking for is a real life replication of THIS GUY to be the next Bond.................


    latest?cb=20120108001944


    Oops, I think I made this joke or one similar months ago.
    Never mind. Not funny anyway.
    Carry on......................

    lol, I sort of feels like this helps to illustrate my point; Bond's employment by MI6 is a characteristic that is inextricably linked to the character; take that away, and the James Bond stories fall apart. IMO, the same effect doesn't happen when you change his race.

    EDIT: Full disclosure, I know you were joking, of course.

    If Eon were to ever sell, I actually could envision another producer considering changing Bond's occupation to make him more modern. By that point the character might as well be renamed.

    Yeah, I agree; if they change his occupation, that's a huge paradigm shift to the character because it heavily affects the stories. Fleming, above all else, was writing about a man in the British secret service. If he's not that, he's not Bond.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited October 2020 Posts: 8,009
    We're all huge fans of the character James Bond, but to put the character before the story is to put the cart before the horse.

    Great post, but just on this particular statement; I hope this doesn't sound nitpicky but I've always seen it as the other way round. The characters are the horse that pulls the story and keeps me invested. It has always been the thing that keeps Bond head and shoulders above similar characters like Ethan Hunt. So yeah, I think the character should definitely come first. The stories aren't really that complicated, or at least they shouldn't or don't need to be.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    We're all huge fans of the character James Bond, but to put the character before the story is to put the cart before the horse.

    Great post, but just on this particular statement; I hope this doesn't sound nitpicky but I've always seen it as the other way round. The characters are the horse that pulls the story and keeps me invested. It has always been the thing that keeps Bond head and shoulders above similar characters like Ethan Hunt. So yeah, I think the character should definitely come first. The stories aren't really that complicated, or at least they shouldn't or don't need to be.

    Yeah, that's a good point and very difficult to argue. Hopefully not too off topic, but I've often thought about with Batman, it's his villains that really make the stories interesting, like Batman is this immovable object and the villains are unstoppable forces, and we watch because we want to see what'll happen when they collide. And I would say with Batman stories, the character certainly is at the forefront, and the story revolves around the character to bend him and test his limits, much in the way Bond stories are told, so I think I could agree with you and say the same about Bond. I hope at least some of that made sense...
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    We're all huge fans of the character James Bond, but to put the character before the story is to put the cart before the horse.

    Great post, but just on this particular statement; I hope this doesn't sound nitpicky but I've always seen it as the other way round. The characters are the horse that pulls the story and keeps me invested. It has always been the thing that keeps Bond head and shoulders above similar characters like Ethan Hunt. So yeah, I think the character should definitely come first. The stories aren't really that complicated, or at least they shouldn't or don't need to be.

    Yeah, that's a good point and very difficult to argue. Hopefully not too off topic, but I've often thought about with Batman, it's his villains that really make the stories interesting, like Batman is this immovable object and the villains are unstoppable forces, and we watch because we want to see what'll happen when they collide. And I would say with Batman stories, the character certainly is at the forefront, and the story revolves around the character to bend him and test his limits, much in the way Bond stories are told, so I think I could agree with you and say the same about Bond. I hope at least some of that made sense...

    Likewise, my post too! Just goes to show how much of a balancing act these things can be! :p
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    Most of my friends whom i watch bond films with aren't really bond fan, they don't know much about books, haven't watched many Film's except Pierce and Daniel's, but whenever they talk about it, they always say it's British secret service agent who is white, none of them ever thought that bond is black, although an argument can be made for it.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,882
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I think we should keep Bond blond, yet go far younger. Perhaps about 14 or 15?
    Instead of working for MI6 he could work at a burger joint and perhaps be an aspiring YouTuber?
    What we're looking for is a real life replication of THIS GUY to be the next Bond.................


    latest?cb=20120108001944


    Oops, I think I made this joke or one similar months ago.
    Never mind. Not funny anyway.
    Carry on......................

    It's 2020, so he's likely an aspiring TikTok star, doing the lemon challenge or whatever goofy trend it is now.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Univex wrote: »
    Just to make a point:

    It's not that Bond's race defines him. It's just that Bond's race is defined in the novels. And I'm a sucker for intelectual property and original sources. But hey, that's just me and a few others apparently.

    But I do think we make a valid and fair point.

    Bond’s race is defined the films as well though. Any change IMO would be a gimmick and to prove a point (including provoking a media frenzy, which is great marketing).

    But changing the race of a character is to fundamentally change the character, in terms of already established appearance and image.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2020 Posts: 14,861
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I think we should keep Bond blond, yet go far younger. Perhaps about 14 or 15?
    Instead of working for MI6 he could work at a burger joint and perhaps be an aspiring YouTuber?
    What we're looking for is a real life replication of THIS GUY to be the next Bond.................


    latest?cb=20120108001944


    Oops, I think I made this joke or one similar months ago.
    Never mind. Not funny anyway.
    Carry on......................

    lol, I sort of feels like this helps to illustrate my point; Bond's employment by MI6 is a characteristic that is inextricably linked to the character; take that away, and the James Bond stories fall apart. IMO, the same effect doesn't happen when you change his race.

    EDIT: Full disclosure, I know you were joking, of course.

    Although, y’know, the Young Bond books do work if you ask me! :) But it is a different thing to ‘normal‘ Bond, sure.
    We're all huge fans of the character James Bond, but to put the character before the story is to put the cart before the horse.

    Great post, but just on this particular statement; I hope this doesn't sound nitpicky but I've always seen it as the other way round. The characters are the horse that pulls the story and keeps me invested. It has always been the thing that keeps Bond head and shoulders above similar characters like Ethan Hunt. So yeah, I think the character should definitely come first. The stories aren't really that complicated, or at least they shouldn't or don't need to be.

    They are very plot driven films rather than character driven though. Even CR is plot driven over character for the most part. The character is appealing but it’s rarely about his character.
Sign In or Register to comment.