Who should/could be a Bond actor?

18258268288308311179

Comments

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,891
    Since62 wrote: »
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    May I ask, just out of curiosity, @thelivingroyale, when and where has Barbara Broccoli stated that "Bond can be any colour", as you put it. I know she's said Bond is a male character, addressing the gender question, but I thought she never addressed the race question. Just curious, of course, do you happen to know?
    Sorry to jump in, but it was actually in the same article she said Bond would always be a man, her words according to the articles, said ""James Bond can be of any colour, but he is male."

    God willing she was just being diplomatic.

    "God willing" ? Do you believe in a racist Almighty ?

    Wanting Bond to remain Caucasian is , for the vast majority who feel that way, not based In racism; it’s simply a preference. Jumping to the racism motive is prejudiced.

    I’ve said that I prefer Bond to remain white, but I would go see a spy film featuring someone like Idris Elba in the drop of a hat.
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 611
    Something quite incredible just happened, several posts in succession just seemed to be in agreement about one actor- Theo James!! Quick, get on the phone to Barbara and Michael.😅
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 12,837
    I doubt we’ll find any real common ground (as in, everyone on here agrees). Whoever they cast, there will always be some who like them and some who don’t. I suppose there’s the potential of them pulling another GE/CR, a really well recieved debut that wins over a lot of sceptical people, but even those films have their detractors, and there’ll be even more this time if they do go with a POC.

    Ultimately I wouldn’t worry too much about what other people think. Bond is a broad church and that’s fine. I think if they tried to please everyone, we’d end up with something bland, safe and dull. I hope they have the confidence to just commit to whatever vision they have for the next guy.
  • Posts: 6,673
    talos7 wrote: »
    Since62 wrote: »
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    May I ask, just out of curiosity, @thelivingroyale, when and where has Barbara Broccoli stated that "Bond can be any colour", as you put it. I know she's said Bond is a male character, addressing the gender question, but I thought she never addressed the race question. Just curious, of course, do you happen to know?
    Sorry to jump in, but it was actually in the same article she said Bond would always be a man, her words according to the articles, said ""James Bond can be of any colour, but he is male."

    God willing she was just being diplomatic.

    "God willing" ? Do you believe in a racist Almighty ?

    Wanting Bond to remain Caucasian is , for the vast majority who feel that way, not based In racism; it’s simply a preference. Jumping to the racism motive is prejudiced.

    I’ve said that I prefer Bond to remain white, but I would go see a spy film featuring someone like Idris Elba in the drop of a hat.

    Very well said.

    cwl007 wrote: »
    Something quite incredible just happened, several posts in succession just seemed to be in agreement about one actor- Theo James!! Quick, get on the phone to Barbara and Michael.😅

    Right? :D
  • JamesKJamesK Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 35
    I doubt we’ll find any real common ground (as in, everyone on here agrees). Whoever they cast, there will always be some who like them and some who don’t. I suppose there’s the potential of them pulling another GE/CR, a really well recieved debut that wins over a lot of sceptical people, but even those films have their detractors, and there’ll be even more this time if they do go with a POC..

    I just pray they've got the brains to get Campbell back for the hatrick. Its amazing that he started both Brosnan and Craig with stellar films and none of the subsequent 3 and 4, respectively, measured up, regardless of whatever big name director might have been on board. If they can pull it off, I'd like to see a bit more 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' from the powers that be, but its in our nature to want to progress - not holding my breath.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited October 2021 Posts: 5,836
    talos7 wrote: »
    Since62 wrote: »
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    May I ask, just out of curiosity, @thelivingroyale, when and where has Barbara Broccoli stated that "Bond can be any colour", as you put it. I know she's said Bond is a male character, addressing the gender question, but I thought she never addressed the race question. Just curious, of course, do you happen to know?
    Sorry to jump in, but it was actually in the same article she said Bond would always be a man, her words according to the articles, said ""James Bond can be of any colour, but he is male."

    God willing she was just being diplomatic.
    "God willing" ? Do you believe in a racist Almighty ?
    Wanting Bond to remain caucasian is, for the vast majority who feel that way, not based in racism; it’s simply a preference.
    And that's completely understandable. Personally, I just hope as well, on the flip side, that those who do feel that way can understand that some people don't mind such a change and that all variations of ideas are welcome on this page, as sometimes it feels like some people don't even want to see a non-caucasian actor mentioned, let alone actually cast.
  • Posts: 6,673
    Denbigh wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Since62 wrote: »
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    May I ask, just out of curiosity, @thelivingroyale, when and where has Barbara Broccoli stated that "Bond can be any colour", as you put it. I know she's said Bond is a male character, addressing the gender question, but I thought she never addressed the race question. Just curious, of course, do you happen to know?
    Sorry to jump in, but it was actually in the same article she said Bond would always be a man, her words according to the articles, said ""James Bond can be of any colour, but he is male."

    God willing she was just being diplomatic.
    "God willing" ? Do you believe in a racist Almighty ?
    Wanting Bond to remain caucasian is, for the vast majority who feel that way, not based in racism; it’s simply a preference.
    And that's completely understandable. Personally, I just hope as well, on the flip side, that those who do feel that way can understand that some people don't mind such a change and that all variations of ideas are welcome on this page, as sometimes it feels like some people don't even want to see a non-caucasian actor mentioned, let alone actually cast.

    Personally, I think that the discussion is as moot as discussing a female 007 or a 5'1'' tall white actor, or an overweight actor, or an Irish setter 007, or whatever, because all of them deviate too much from the original literary depiction.

    And I'm not a racist, a misogynist, a xenophobe, an aesthetic hegemonic idiot, an animal hater, a bigot, ... I'm just someone who'd like to see a 007 as close to the page as possible.

    And you do know that many of the so called suggestions are made for shock value, @Denbigh, my friend. I do wonder about our own racial backgrounds and about the identification issue, and the same about the gender and sexual orientation. Many of us identify with the character in a lot of ways. I'm wondering if race isn't important, as say, a person of black descent being able to identify with T'Challa, for example. Those identifications are important. Both of them. And none is racism in any way.

    The same thing about wanting Bond to remain an heterosexual womaniser. Why would that be wrong if it's important to have meaningful and powerful LGBT characters as well? Double standards? No. Both are important.

    All good questions, I think. Good for forums ;)
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited October 2021 Posts: 5,836
    And again @Univex my friend, I completely understand. I think people have good takes (and sometimes bad takes) on both sides of the debate. For me, I just like to see both of those sides given a chance to share what they'd like to see or what they think might work going forward, but when it gets to people's opinions people shutdown because someone doesn't want to hear it, I find it very unfortunate and not really what this whole site is about, and this isn't me calling anyone particular out, I've just noticed it happen on a few occasions.

    I always think about how we're in this really interesting point within the franchise, given how far we are from that original creation and how much the world is changed, so these discussions and debates are more poignant as while James Bond will always be the man he is, some things will change. We're moving further and further away from a James Bond whose "a relic of the Cold War", so it's gonna be up to all the people involved in the future of the franchise to reinvigorate him while keeping what made him who he was. It's not an easy task but it's a natural product of the franchise.

    And taking all that into account, anythings possible, and I think no matter what changes are made (ethnicity, background), I trust that EON will still provide us with a James Bond we understand and can get behind.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    edited October 2021 Posts: 737
    The Guest is currently on British TV and I have heard good things about Dan Stevens. This is the first time I have seen him acting (or moving at all), and I have to say I am pretty impressed. I am surprised he hasn't been in other action/thriller films after this.

    He looks good. He's magnetic. Good in the fight scenes. All things considered, especially what I see as a real dearth of genuine contenders, I would put him as my favourite for the role so far. Maybe I would prefer Nicholas Hoult slightly more for his looks and because he is younger, but otherwise Stevens really throws his hat into the ring with this.

    I am only halfway through the film, but his poise, and ability to deliver brutal violence without flinching, is quite impressive.

    Yes he is nearly 40, but 40 year olds look a lot younger than they used to. And any actor under 35 tends to look baby faced, so I think we are going to have to accept a 40+ year old in the role if we want someone who looks genuinely masculine.

  • Posts: 9,738
    Univex wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Since62 wrote: »
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    May I ask, just out of curiosity, @thelivingroyale, when and where has Barbara Broccoli stated that "Bond can be any colour", as you put it. I know she's said Bond is a male character, addressing the gender question, but I thought she never addressed the race question. Just curious, of course, do you happen to know?
    Sorry to jump in, but it was actually in the same article she said Bond would always be a man, her words according to the articles, said ""James Bond can be of any colour, but he is male."

    God willing she was just being diplomatic.
    "God willing" ? Do you believe in a racist Almighty ?
    Wanting Bond to remain caucasian is, for the vast majority who feel that way, not based in racism; it’s simply a preference.
    And that's completely understandable. Personally, I just hope as well, on the flip side, that those who do feel that way can understand that some people don't mind such a change and that all variations of ideas are welcome on this page, as sometimes it feels like some people don't even want to see a non-caucasian actor mentioned, let alone actually cast.

    Personally, I think that the discussion is as moot as discussing a female 007 or a 5'1'' tall white actor, or an overweight actor, or an Irish setter 007, or whatever, because all of them deviate too much from the original literary depiction.

    And I'm not a racist, a misogynist, a xenophobe, an aesthetic hegemonic idiot, an animal hater, a bigot, ... I'm just someone who'd like to see a 007 as close to the page as possible.

    And you do know that many of the so called suggestions are made for shock value, @Denbigh, my friend. I do wonder about our own racial backgrounds and about the identification issue, and the same about the gender and sexual orientation. Many of us identify with the character in a lot of ways. I'm wondering if race isn't important, as say, a person of black descent being able to identify with T'Challa, for example. Those identifications are important. Both of them. And none is racism in any way.

    The same thing about wanting Bond to remain an heterosexual womaniser. Why would that be wrong if it's important to have meaningful and powerful LGBT characters as well? Double standards? No. Both are important.

    All good questions, I think. Good for forums ;)

    well many of the names that are far away from literture Bond does get me more interested in Aidan Turner so it works out for you
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 6,673
    Denbigh wrote: »
    And again @Univex my friend, I completely understand. I think people have good takes (and sometimes bad takes) on both sides of the debate. For me, I just like to see both of those sides given a chance to share what they'd like to see or what they think might work going forward, but when it gets to people's opinions people shutdown because someone doesn't want to hear it, I find it very unfortunate and not really what this whole site is about, and this isn't me calling anyone particular out, I've just noticed it happen on a few occasions.

    I always think about how we're in this really interesting point within the franchise, given how far we are from that original creation and how much the world is changed, so these discussions and debates are more poignant as while James Bond will always be the man he is, some things will change. We're moving further and further away from a James Bond whose "a relic of the Cold War", so it's gonna be up to all the people involved in the future of the franchise to reinvigorate him while keeping what made him who he was. It's not an easy task but it's a natural product of the franchise.

    And taking all that into account, anythings possible, and I think no matter what changes are made (ethnicity, background), I trust that EON will still provide us with a James Bond we understand and can get behind.

    Yes, I believe in the power of discussion, and I believe we should discuss all possibilities inside some logical sphere. These are, after all, interesting times, as you say. Lovely post, @Denbigh, btw ;)
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Since62 wrote: »
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    May I ask, just out of curiosity, @thelivingroyale, when and where has Barbara Broccoli stated that "Bond can be any colour", as you put it. I know she's said Bond is a male character, addressing the gender question, but I thought she never addressed the race question. Just curious, of course, do you happen to know?
    Sorry to jump in, but it was actually in the same article she said Bond would always be a man, her words according to the articles, said ""James Bond can be of any colour, but he is male."

    God willing she was just being diplomatic.
    "God willing" ? Do you believe in a racist Almighty ?
    Wanting Bond to remain caucasian is, for the vast majority who feel that way, not based in racism; it’s simply a preference.
    And that's completely understandable. Personally, I just hope as well, on the flip side, that those who do feel that way can understand that some people don't mind such a change and that all variations of ideas are welcome on this page, as sometimes it feels like some people don't even want to see a non-caucasian actor mentioned, let alone actually cast.

    Personally, I think that the discussion is as moot as discussing a female 007 or a 5'1'' tall white actor, or an overweight actor, or an Irish setter 007, or whatever, because all of them deviate too much from the original literary depiction.

    And I'm not a racist, a misogynist, a xenophobe, an aesthetic hegemonic idiot, an animal hater, a bigot, ... I'm just someone who'd like to see a 007 as close to the page as possible.

    And you do know that many of the so called suggestions are made for shock value, @Denbigh, my friend. I do wonder about our own racial backgrounds and about the identification issue, and the same about the gender and sexual orientation. Many of us identify with the character in a lot of ways. I'm wondering if race isn't important, as say, a person of black descent being able to identify with T'Challa, for example. Those identifications are important. Both of them. And none is racism in any way.

    The same thing about wanting Bond to remain an heterosexual womaniser. Why would that be wrong if it's important to have meaningful and powerful LGBT characters as well? Double standards? No. Both are important.

    All good questions, I think. Good for forums ;)

    well many of the names that are far away from literture Bond does get me more interested in Aidan Turner so it works out for you

    How is Aidan Turner that far removed from literature Bond? Eye colour?

    Anyway, it won't be him, and it won't be Hardy either ;)

    That being said, I give you... Common ground :)

    senatus_fXrgwh.jpg

    CYcThd-UkAAbREQ.jpg

  • edited October 2021 Posts: 12,837
    JamesK wrote: »
    I doubt we’ll find any real common ground (as in, everyone on here agrees). Whoever they cast, there will always be some who like them and some who don’t. I suppose there’s the potential of them pulling another GE/CR, a really well recieved debut that wins over a lot of sceptical people, but even those films have their detractors, and there’ll be even more this time if they do go with a POC..

    I just pray they've got the brains to get Campbell back for the hatrick. Its amazing that he started both Brosnan and Craig with stellar films and none of the subsequent 3 and 4, respectively, measured up, regardless of whatever big name director might have been on board. If they can pull it off, I'd like to see a bit more 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' from the powers that be, but its in our nature to want to progress - not holding my breath.

    I’m not sure about Campbell coming back again. Love GE, but while I admire CR, I’ve always found it a bit bloated, and his work since has been quite hit and miss imo (although The Foreigner was pretty decent).

    I’d like someone fresh, but I wouldn’t say no to Fugunaka returning. I think he pulled off an incredible balancing act with NTTD. Moulding all those different tones, themes, stories and ideas into a cohesive thriller, that somehow seemed to fly by despite being so long. I know NTTD has been divisive in some quarters, and I thought it was very flawed myself, but in a lesser director’s hands, the sheer amount of stuff they were trying to do could’ve turned the film into a complete trainwreck.

    My only hangup is that he seems quite interested in the psychological side of things, while I’d like something a bit introspective next time. But he’s very versatile. Played in all sorts of genres, and even bought a load of different sensibilities to Bond (horror one scene, intense action the next, CR esque realism one scene, Roger Moore the next). So, I’d be up for a return, if being free from the baggage of the Craig era meant he could pull off something very different.
  • Posts: 15,785
    I like the Theo James and Richard Madden options.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 6,673
    JamesK wrote: »
    I doubt we’ll find any real common ground (as in, everyone on here agrees). Whoever they cast, there will always be some who like them and some who don’t. I suppose there’s the potential of them pulling another GE/CR, a really well recieved debut that wins over a lot of sceptical people, but even those films have their detractors, and there’ll be even more this time if they do go with a POC..

    I just pray they've got the brains to get Campbell back for the hatrick. Its amazing that he started both Brosnan and Craig with stellar films and none of the subsequent 3 and 4, respectively, measured up, regardless of whatever big name director might have been on board. If they can pull it off, I'd like to see a bit more 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' from the powers that be, but its in our nature to want to progress - not holding my breath.

    I’m not sure about Campbell coming back again. Love GE, but while I admire CR, I’ve always found it a bit bloated, and his work since has been quite hit and miss imo (although The Foreigner was pretty decent).

    I’d like someone fresh, but I wouldn’t say no to Fugunaka returning. I think he pulled off an incredible balancing act with NTTD. Moulding all those different tones, themes, stories and ideas into a cohesive thriller, that somehow seemed to fly by despite being so long. I know NTTD has been divisive in some quarters, and I thought it was very flawed myself, but in a lesser director’s hands, the sheer amount of stuff they were trying to do could’ve turned the film into a complete trainwreck.

    My only hangup is that he seems quite interested in the psychological side of things, while I’d like something a bit introspective next time. But he’s very versatile. Played in all sorts of genres, and even bought a load of different sensibilities to Bond (horror one scene, intense action the next, CR esque realism one scene, Roger Moore the next). So, I’d be up for a return, if being free from the baggage of the Craig era meant he could pull off something very different.

    And with
    NO KIDS
    ;)

    Honestly, I'd love him to come back but I have the same reservations.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2021 Posts: 14,861
    I doubt we’ll find any real common ground (as in, everyone on here agrees). Whoever they cast, there will always be some who like them and some who don’t. I suppose there’s the potential of them pulling another GE/CR, a really well recieved debut that wins over a lot of sceptical people, but even those films have their detractors, and there’ll be even more this time if they do go with a POC.

    I think the proof is always in the pudding: when a new guys gets cast we'll all be holding our breath to see how he actually performs in the role.
    Like you I'm hoping it's not someone bland designed to try and please everyone, because as you say: you can't.
    Denbigh wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Since62 wrote: »
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    May I ask, just out of curiosity, @thelivingroyale, when and where has Barbara Broccoli stated that "Bond can be any colour", as you put it. I know she's said Bond is a male character, addressing the gender question, but I thought she never addressed the race question. Just curious, of course, do you happen to know?
    Sorry to jump in, but it was actually in the same article she said Bond would always be a man, her words according to the articles, said ""James Bond can be of any colour, but he is male."

    God willing she was just being diplomatic.
    "God willing" ? Do you believe in a racist Almighty ?
    Wanting Bond to remain caucasian is, for the vast majority who feel that way, not based in racism; it’s simply a preference.
    And that's completely understandable. Personally, I just hope as well, on the flip side, that those who do feel that way can understand that some people don't mind such a change and that all variations of ideas are welcome on this page, as sometimes it feels like some people don't even want to see a non-caucasian actor mentioned, let alone actually cast.

    Excellent post. Dismissing others' thoughts and opinions as just being voiced for shock value isn't necessary and just leads to bad feeling and atmosphere: there's no need to be having arguments over what folks can and can't suggest. This thread continued happily with those for months with people suggesting lots of names, and now it's being gatekept once again. It's tiring.
    JamesK wrote: »
    I doubt we’ll find any real common ground (as in, everyone on here agrees). Whoever they cast, there will always be some who like them and some who don’t. I suppose there’s the potential of them pulling another GE/CR, a really well recieved debut that wins over a lot of sceptical people, but even those films have their detractors, and there’ll be even more this time if they do go with a POC..

    I just pray they've got the brains to get Campbell back for the hatrick. Its amazing that he started both Brosnan and Craig with stellar films and none of the subsequent 3 and 4, respectively, measured up, regardless of whatever big name director might have been on board. If they can pull it off, I'd like to see a bit more 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' from the powers that be, but its in our nature to want to progress - not holding my breath.

    I’m not sure about Campbell coming back again. Love GE, but while I admire CR, I’ve always found it a bit bloated, and his work since has been quite hit and miss imo (although The Foreigner was pretty decent).

    I’d like someone fresh, but I wouldn’t say no to Fugunaka returning. I think he pulled off an incredible balancing act with NTTD. Moulding all those different tones, themes, stories and ideas into a cohesive thriller, that somehow seemed to fly by despite being so long. I know NTTD has been divisive in some quarters, and I thought it was very flawed myself, but in a lesser director’s hands, the sheer amount of stuff they were trying to do could’ve turned the film into a complete trainwreck.

    My only hangup is that he seems quite interested in the psychological side of things, while I’d like something a bit introspective next time. But he’s very versatile. Played in all sorts of genres, and even bought a load of different sensibilities to Bond (horror one scene, intense action the next, CR esque realism one scene, Roger Moore the next). So, I’d be up for a return, if being free from the baggage of the Craig era meant he could pull off something very different.

    I think he was decent, but I did worry slightly at his handling of the action stuff and lack of any sort of 'Bond moments', which even Spectre managed, despite being more ragged in the story department. I had no big complaints with the general story of NTTD but I did end up actually missing Mendes a bit for his sense of style, urgency and just Bond flavour.
  • JamesKJamesK Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 35
    Univex wrote: »
    JamesK wrote: »
    I doubt we’ll find any real common ground (as in, everyone on here agrees). Whoever they cast, there will always be some who like them and some who don’t. I suppose there’s the potential of them pulling another GE/CR, a really well recieved debut that wins over a lot of sceptical people, but even those films have their detractors, and there’ll be even more this time if they do go with a POC..

    I just pray they've got the brains to get Campbell back for the hatrick. Its amazing that he started both Brosnan and Craig with stellar films and none of the subsequent 3 and 4, respectively, measured up, regardless of whatever big name director might have been on board. If they can pull it off, I'd like to see a bit more 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' from the powers that be, but its in our nature to want to progress - not holding my breath.

    I’m not sure about Campbell coming back again. Love GE, but while I admire CR, I’ve always found it a bit bloated, and his work since has been quite hit and miss imo (although The Foreigner was pretty decent).

    I’d like someone fresh, but I wouldn’t say no to Fugunaka returning. I think he pulled off an incredible balancing act with NTTD. Moulding all those different tones, themes, stories and ideas into a cohesive thriller, that somehow seemed to fly by despite being so long. I know NTTD has been divisive in some quarters, and I thought it was very flawed myself, but in a lesser director’s hands, the sheer amount of stuff they were trying to do could’ve turned the film into a complete trainwreck.

    My only hangup is that he seems quite interested in the psychological side of things, while I’d like something a bit introspective next time. But he’s very versatile. Played in all sorts of genres, and even bought a load of different sensibilities to Bond (horror one scene, intense action the next, CR esque realism one scene, Roger Moore the next). So, I’d be up for a return, if being free from the baggage of the Craig era meant he could pull off something very different.

    And with
    NO KIDS
    ;)

    Honestly, I'd love him to come back but I have the same reservations.

    I hear you both, but Campbell is 2 for 2 as far as I'm concerned and I'd really like to see a return to a slightly lighter, more fun bond for a couple of films - I think he's very well placed to bring us that, if that is a direction EON might want to go. I'm not sure Fugunaka can pull that off, but you never know. This is also 100% personal preference. I'm certainly not betting on a lighter Bond next time 'round.
  • BenjaminBenjamin usa
    Posts: 59
    Can Richard Madden do more dramatic and serious scenes? I just haven't seen him in enough roles to know. I feel like Theo James can do more serious and nuanced acting.
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 573
    IMHO he's decent enough, yeah.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    I've seen a few negative reactions to Eternals, it may not be quite the career springboard we expected. Early days though I guess.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,891
    I find that frequently Madden has a dour expression; perhaps it’s the roles.
  • Posts: 14,800
    Univex wrote: »
    (...) purists have that to enjoy.

    Again with this "purists" thing [-X @thelivingroyale. Please don't. It's like you want "us" who simply want to keep it close to the original literary material to feel like conservative hegemonic squares. And I assure you, I'm nothing like that. One of the things that is appealing for me in the Bond canon is having something of the past translated in the present. That, for me, is what Bond is all about. There's nothing "pure" to it, you made it sound as if I'm an arian neo nazi a-hole because I defend the idea of Bond as a caucasian male close to what the author has written. Cast new brilliant roles of other genders and races around that, and I'll be one happy fan, as the democratic liberal humanist I am.

    I really hear this debate. Often, I weirdly do find myself agreeing with both sides.

    If you take away the core of the character and make him a different ethnicity or gender, aren't you ridding Bond of some of the fundamental DNA which the character was built upon? What then distinguishes Bond from Atomic Blonde or The Protagonist in Tenet? Aside from the tropes of the franchise (gunbarrel, theme music, etc), what would make this any different from another spy franchise without the core of the character maintained?

    Nevertheless, I do find that there have been instances where the franchise broke the rules themselves. For example, Daniel Craig was really someone on paper that didn't tick many of the boxes. That move payed off in dividends. In many respects, someone like Daniel Craig seems more revolutionary a choice on paper than someone like Rege-Jean Page who seems far more traditional.

    It's for this reason that, on balance, I believe the riskier and more edgy choice should be made. I quite like this new era Eon have entered where bold choices are not shied away from. I don't necessarily think it's likely they will cast an actor of colour as Bond. However, if Idris Elba was 35 today, he'd be hard to say 'no' to....The same could be said about Rege-Jean Page. He's literally done one thing so far, so if he can bring the goods in his upcoming projects, he would, again be someone difficult for Eon to say 'no' to.....He's basically treating his life as a James Bond audition. He was at the premiere for 'The Tragedy of Macbeth' and all I see is 007

    rege-jean-page-emily-brown-macbeth-red-carpet-07.jpg
    regjean-page-attends-the-tragedy-of-macbeth-european-premiere-during-picture-id1347104677
    regjean-page-attends-the-tragedy-of-macbeth-european-premiere-during-picture-id1347099217
    regejean-page-attends-the-tragedy-of-macbeth-european-premiere-during-picture-id1347211240

    One question about Page: can he look manly clean shaved?
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,318
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    (...) purists have that to enjoy.

    Again with this "purists" thing [-X @thelivingroyale. Please don't. It's like you want "us" who simply want to keep it close to the original literary material to feel like conservative hegemonic squares. And I assure you, I'm nothing like that. One of the things that is appealing for me in the Bond canon is having something of the past translated in the present. That, for me, is what Bond is all about. There's nothing "pure" to it, you made it sound as if I'm an arian neo nazi a-hole because I defend the idea of Bond as a caucasian male close to what the author has written. Cast new brilliant roles of other genders and races around that, and I'll be one happy fan, as the democratic liberal humanist I am.

    I really hear this debate. Often, I weirdly do find myself agreeing with both sides.

    If you take away the core of the character and make him a different ethnicity or gender, aren't you ridding Bond of some of the fundamental DNA which the character was built upon? What then distinguishes Bond from Atomic Blonde or The Protagonist in Tenet? Aside from the tropes of the franchise (gunbarrel, theme music, etc), what would make this any different from another spy franchise without the core of the character maintained?

    Nevertheless, I do find that there have been instances where the franchise broke the rules themselves. For example, Daniel Craig was really someone on paper that didn't tick many of the boxes. That move payed off in dividends. In many respects, someone like Daniel Craig seems more revolutionary a choice on paper than someone like Rege-Jean Page who seems far more traditional.

    It's for this reason that, on balance, I believe the riskier and more edgy choice should be made. I quite like this new era Eon have entered where bold choices are not shied away from. I don't necessarily think it's likely they will cast an actor of colour as Bond. However, if Idris Elba was 35 today, he'd be hard to say 'no' to....The same could be said about Rege-Jean Page. He's literally done one thing so far, so if he can bring the goods in his upcoming projects, he would, again be someone difficult for Eon to say 'no' to.....He's basically treating his life as a James Bond audition. He was at the premiere for 'The Tragedy of Macbeth' and all I see is 007

    rege-jean-page-emily-brown-macbeth-red-carpet-07.jpg
    regjean-page-attends-the-tragedy-of-macbeth-european-premiere-during-picture-id1347104677
    regjean-page-attends-the-tragedy-of-macbeth-european-premiere-during-picture-id1347099217
    regejean-page-attends-the-tragedy-of-macbeth-european-premiere-during-picture-id1347211240

    One question about Page: can he look manly clean shaved?

    The first lesbian Bond?
  • Posts: 6,673
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    (...) purists have that to enjoy.

    Again with this "purists" thing [-X @thelivingroyale. Please don't. It's like you want "us" who simply want to keep it close to the original literary material to feel like conservative hegemonic squares. And I assure you, I'm nothing like that. One of the things that is appealing for me in the Bond canon is having something of the past translated in the present. That, for me, is what Bond is all about. There's nothing "pure" to it, you made it sound as if I'm an arian neo nazi a-hole because I defend the idea of Bond as a caucasian male close to what the author has written. Cast new brilliant roles of other genders and races around that, and I'll be one happy fan, as the democratic liberal humanist I am.

    I really hear this debate. Often, I weirdly do find myself agreeing with both sides.

    If you take away the core of the character and make him a different ethnicity or gender, aren't you ridding Bond of some of the fundamental DNA which the character was built upon? What then distinguishes Bond from Atomic Blonde or The Protagonist in Tenet? Aside from the tropes of the franchise (gunbarrel, theme music, etc), what would make this any different from another spy franchise without the core of the character maintained?

    Nevertheless, I do find that there have been instances where the franchise broke the rules themselves. For example, Daniel Craig was really someone on paper that didn't tick many of the boxes. That move payed off in dividends. In many respects, someone like Daniel Craig seems more revolutionary a choice on paper than someone like Rege-Jean Page who seems far more traditional.

    It's for this reason that, on balance, I believe the riskier and more edgy choice should be made. I quite like this new era Eon have entered where bold choices are not shied away from. I don't necessarily think it's likely they will cast an actor of colour as Bond. However, if Idris Elba was 35 today, he'd be hard to say 'no' to....The same could be said about Rege-Jean Page. He's literally done one thing so far, so if he can bring the goods in his upcoming projects, he would, again be someone difficult for Eon to say 'no' to.....He's basically treating his life as a James Bond audition. He was at the premiere for 'The Tragedy of Macbeth' and all I see is 007

    rege-jean-page-emily-brown-macbeth-red-carpet-07.jpg
    regjean-page-attends-the-tragedy-of-macbeth-european-premiere-during-picture-id1347104677
    regjean-page-attends-the-tragedy-of-macbeth-european-premiere-during-picture-id1347099217
    regejean-page-attends-the-tragedy-of-macbeth-european-premiere-during-picture-id1347211240

    One question about Page: can he look manly clean shaved?

    The first lesbian Bond?

    Cmon man, with comments like that every time we try to make a point we'll loose our reason and ground. He doesn't look manly or he doesn't convey the appropriate edge for the role, that's true, but do we need to call the guy a lesbian? Which doesn't make any sense to begin with. Calling it a figurative travesty would be more to your point, even if still a bit on the aggressive side. I hate it when you throw in a comment like that because I'm sure you'll be rightfully attacked for it.

    Do it like this:

    Page is wrong for the role because:

    1) He doesn't look manly enough;
    2) He lacks the screen presence;
    3) He has not proven himself as an actor in any way;
    4) He looks too cocky;
    5) He's not a caucasian, as Fleming described Bond in the books;
    6)...

    And those are reasons enough to have some of them be valid to all and some only to some. But please, let's not call the guy a lesbian, ok? ;)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Tiresome.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,836
    I'm personally not a huge fan of Jean-Page as an actor, but the biggest thing that'll work against him is his commitments to The Saint reboot. Some will see it as his audition, but given Broccoli has said they'll be looking next year, he may have missed his chance, as I can't imagine Broccoli bringing him in when he's in the middle of playing Simon Templar.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    edited October 2021 Posts: 1,318
    I think it's hilarious and I'll leave it it that. No need to get your knickers in a twist over a joke. As Steven Tyler would say 'dude looks like a lady'. This thread is permanently offended, now that is tiresome.

    Edit: actually I and anyone in their right mind should feel offended that someone has the "audacity" to propose that vain clown for Bond. Maybe that's why my Dutch direct humour gets triggered.
  • RC7RC7
    edited October 2021 Posts: 10,512
    2015DannyDyer_Getty457177788300115.jpg

    “Oi, Blofeld, you mug!”
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I'm personally not a huge fan of Jean-Page as an actor, but the biggest thing that'll work against him is his commitments to The Saint reboot. Some will see it as his audition, but given Broccoli has said they'll be looking next year, he may have missed his chance, as I can't imagine Broccoli bringing him in when he's in the middle of playing Simon Templar.


    I do think he's more suited to the Saint than Bond- I can see him working quite well in that. But I think the chances of it being made are pretty slim because their track history in making the thing is so terrible; I will believe it when I see it.
    Being tied to it (unless he's released soon) will most probably take him off their list though, I agree.
  • Another vote here for Theo James.

    Call Babs and tell her MI6 Community has made their minds up.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,483
    I just hope whoever they pick next, they map out a cohesive story and tone then see it through. Enough with trying to tie everything together.
    Pick a direction with Bond #7 and try to get everyone pulling in the same direction
Sign In or Register to comment.