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
The test I use when we’re on about changing xyz is this. Would it have made a difference to the last few films. You couldn’t slot a little person or a woman into them without dramatically altering them. But you could slot a tough, fit and good looking black or asian guy into any of the films from what, GE onwards? Maybe TND if you really wanted to get hung up on how successful he’d have been at spying in Russia. And you wouldn’t have to change anything else at all. Not a line of the script, not a single plot point or character dynamic. He’d still be the same top shagging super suave masculine icon, he‘d still be believeable moving through the posh rich circles Bond does. He’d just have darker skin than he has before.
I don’t think it makes any difference whatsoever in a modern Bond film. I do think it’s fair enough to want him to stay white if you want them to stay closer to the books, like @jetsetwilly, he’s very consistent in wanting things as close to Fleming as possible. But most of us aren’t really that bothered about that are we. We all pick and choose which bits of the books are important to us. It’s his fine if his race is one of those bits for you, but I do find it tiring when people bring Fleming writing him white up as if it should be the final word on the subject, before going back to praising Roger Moore’s Moonraker (I dunno if you like that one but you get my point).
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/jason-isaacs-cary-grant-itv-archie-pictures-b2428202.html
I disagree in a way. Bond's background should at least be British. Now skincolour these days says little about how British you are, as there's plenty of people of different ethnicity beeing very British, so I don't really care about the colour part, but I DO care about the background part. Sorry, but James isn't a rastafari.
Agreed; Bond's British-ness is inextricably linked to the character and the stories being told.
And race comes with a set of characteristics beyond skin colour that further push the character out of its original depiction. I have no problem with the logic of Britishness having nothing to do with race. That is a given. But the character was written with a set of characteristics that are phenotipically found on caucasians. So, we’d lose those. All or most of them. Would that be wrong, per se? No. But it’s not as in the books, is it? That’s all. It’s got nothing to do with discussing race issues. It’s just intelectual property integrity I’m talking about. People get annoyed when the change mentioned is about race. Not me. I’m against most change made to intelectual property. Not all change, I’m not an idiot and I know this franchise was built upon changing some things. Buy not Bond himself. Not that much. You can change the time(s), the world, the context, but you shouldn’t change Bond.
I can sort of see it, he's kind of got comic Bond vibes but it's hard to tell when he's not completely clean-shaven. Plus at this rate 37 might be pushing it age-wise
Totally. Elliot Page is Canadian if we're going by Lazenby Rules, and he's 36 now (almost) prime Bond age.
I thought @Mendes4Lyfe was suggesting Aidan Turner. I wasn't aware he was a trans actor.
I’m beginning to learn that @Mendes4Lyfe is truly an out-of-the-box thinker. I commend him on not just resorting to the same old/same old.
There will always be actors that are better suited for the role than others, but how well you suit the part and what you manage to get done IN the part are very different.
Compared to what exactly?
If he can pass as a biological man then sure why not. But they’re not going to find a trans actor (a niche pool of people), who looks enough like a cisgender man to be cast in those roles over cis actors (an even nicher pool of people), who can convincingly play James Bond (another niche pool), so what’s the point in bringing it up.
Well, DAF was the 70's GoldenEye. It was needed.
Why should he need to pass as biologically male if the black actor doesn't need to pass as biologically white?
This is what I mean, it's all so arbitrary. One minute we're using the standard of "would it make a difference" and the next we switch to "as long as they pass as resembling the character fleming wrote" but no black actor resembles the character as fleming wrote him so we're back to square one. ~X(
It's the only consistent standard there is.
Again, this is just the way I see it: because the two changes aren’t the same thing. You can depict him as black without it messing with the core of Bond’s appeal, the suave masculine power fantasy. People of different colours don’t look out of place in Bond’s high society world anymore, and if you cast the right person then men would still be wishing they were as cool as him, and women would still fancy him.
If you cast a trans actor and acknowledged him as trans now, then you would have to alter things and mess with that masculine power fantasy. His dynamics with other characters and how he’s percieved and treated couldn’t just be the same, or you’d be heightening the reality of it to the point that it doesn’t resemble our own at all anymore imo. If they didn’t alter those things, I think it’d be immersion breaking in the same way it would have been if they’d had a black Bond sat at that card table in DN. And let’s be honest, most of us don’t fancy trans people, you’d be ignoring conventional standards of sex appeal so much that the film wouldn’t have much of it to most of the audience. Which is another important part of Bond.
Maybe one day, trans people will be visible and accepted enough, and conventional beauty standards will have changed so much, that this isn’t true. And saying he was born a woman even though he’s a man will be as insignificant to Bond’s world, and the way he and the film functions, as saying he was born to black parents. But we won’t be there for a long time, if ever, so for now I don’t see the two changes as the same.
And bullets for winter isnt that bad i like the title
Simply put: Sope made me excited by his charisma, charm, ruggedness, masculinity, vulnerability…. Whereas other actors just look like wet napkins compared to him (in most cases, although I think Mescal is one to watch out for too; a young man with talent, presence and oozes sex appeal).
Saying that, I don’t think Sope’ll be cast.
But he ticks all the boxes in what I personally would like in James Bond. He’s got it all. He’s one talented actor that has star charisma, and stands like a giant amongst the other “candidates” discussed here.
You seem to be emphasising the difference a lot. Its not like they have been focused on the sexual aspect of bond for a while now, its mostly just kissing scenes. I can't think of any scenes from the past few craig films that wouldn't work with a trans actor in the role, can you? Also you would only be acknowledging them as trans in the same way you are acknowledging them as black. You aren't making role about the fact that they're black or trans. The upshot of what you're saying is basically that trans people aren't convincing at portraying their chosen gender on screen and shouldn't be cast in roles with any kind of sexual dimension to them so as to not offend the sensibilities of a largely cis audience.
The last time he was brought up in this thread there was an extensive discussions on chins, and whether a not a weak-chinned man could play Bond. So hopefully this won't distract from the discussion of whether or not he can be trans...
He doesn't look too bad I guess.