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
Point taken. Touche
I never said it was a radical departure, I said it was an example of modernisation (because you said the character hadn't been modernised at all). Just like how (despite often being referred to as sexist) he doesn't really often say or do anything sexist anymore (Bond in CR the film for example didn't seem at all annoyed at Vesper being involved in the mission, unlike in the novel). Or take benzedrine, etc.
He was annoyed at her when she didn't give him the backup money when he lost. :-??
This debate is so tiresome.
Of course Bond has evolved and will continue; the changes in the series keep the series fresh.
And sleeping with a few women just to get where he wants (even if they die in the process), and saying remarks like `you're not my type - single' indicates that he is still just as sexist as Fleming wrote him to be.
No, but his ethnic background would allow him to star in any true Fleming adapted Bond novel. A black actor could not. End of.
I think you're missing my point. Her not giving him the back up money has nothing to do with her being a woman. In the book he was annoyed at her for being involved in the mission in the first place because he thought that women had no business doing "mans work".
I never said he had to be. I don't think anyone has said he has to be black. All I've said is that I wouldn't mind if he was. I also wouldn't mind if he remained white.
There may be, probably are, some folks who think it is past time for Bond to be black and that in itself is an issue for them, but I do not read that on this forum. I realize I am repeating myself. Because the same things keep coming up.
What I find it hard to accept is that people can't understand Fleming purists wanting Bond white, because that is how Fleming wrote him.
There's nothing wrong with that. And there's nothing wrong with people who've not read the books wanting Bond to remain white due to their association with the character for 50 odd years in the movies. Those same fans were upset by the casting of a short, blond Bond and that is also their right. Craig has won most of them over, and then some (based on SF's box office) and a really good black actor can do the same, however like Craig, he has to be absolutely exceptional to get over the ingrained resistance to change that many (including I admit myself) have.
It's not a racism or prejudice discussion. It's just the way some fans imagine their heroes that they've known and loved for years, which is absolutely fine either way.
Bond should be white. Sorry but that's how I feel. Changing his ethnicity would be pissing on the character Fleming created. I don't give a toss about Moneypenny or Felix's changes because they aren't the reason I watch Bond films.
That being said. If they ever remade Die Hard or Lethal Weapon. I would not want to see Officer Al Powell or Roger Martaugh played by non Black actors. I wouldn't want to see Mr. Sulu played by a non asian actor. Or Uhura played by a non black actress.
I don't find that hard to understand at all. What I don't understand is the people who (I know this doesn't apply to you) aren't Fleming purists, and happily accept the likes of MR and DAF (the films), yet say they don't want a black Bond because that's not how Fleming wrote him. If you're a a Fleming purist (like yourself), fair enough, but if not, I don't see the problem.
I can understand your viewpoint too @bondjames. However, like you said, you think a black actor could be cast as Bond and you could see yourself being won over if he was good enough. What I don't really get is the people who aren't Fleming purists, yet are dead set against the idea and claim they would abandon the franchise if it happened. I don't get that at all.
Basically, I don't understand the viewpoint of those who say a black Bond would be pissing on Fleming's grave but then say that they enjoy watching MR, TMWTGG, etc.
It's just resistance to change @thelivingroyale. At the end of the day I don't think they'll abandon the franchise. There's nothing like it. The best!
You're right about the 9/11 allegories being left out but it seemed like that'e the direction Orci was going in one way or another. As far as Khan not being the villain, just ask yourself, how many Star Trek villains can the average moviegoer name? Khan is far and away the most famous villain in Star Trek lore and it made business sense to use him in the film. The film business is just that. A business.
In terms of casting, like I said they were damned if they did and damned if they didn't. If they did the "courageous thing" as you suggested I'd bet you dollars to donuts that they'd have a slew of overly P.C. tools with too much free time on their hands condemning the film as racist against Indians. They dodged a much bigger controversy by casting Cumberbatch.
Speaking of Cumberbatch, I know I'm in the minority here but I preferred his version of Khan to Ricardo Montalban's. Montalban's Khan was campy as hell and felt like he belonged more in an episode of the Adam West 1960s Batman show. Whereas Cumberbatch's cold and calculating psychopath made for a far more compelling character IMHO. And there's the fact that Cumberbatch is one of the best actors working today and if people took off their rose-tinted nostalgia glasses I think they'd see he gave a far more layered performance than either of Montalban's and was hardly a "generic British villain".
Thanks for updating us with this @aspie. I liked Elba's comments, and I liked his goofie photo. Having fun with the whole thing, as he should.
Thanks also for starting this thread. I bet you couldn't have imagined how it would have created such contentious debate, all for good IMO. I've learned a lot from it.
Discard your grievances and listen to @4EverBonded. Bin off your testosterone. Women are always right.
But I have to say, I think I have said more than enough times my perspective and opinion on this, so I will try to not continue further here.
Leaving amicably now by the front door ...
Precisely. In Dr No and many subsequent Bonds, his race is significant for various reasons. Even as Dr No was being filmed Jamaica was transitioning from a British colony to a black majority independent democracy. The fact Bond is white remains profoundly significant. The films play on the idea of the noble white man roaming a large, exotic, dangerous and racially diverse world, and keeping order.
But with Craig and even Brosnan, so much has changed. Many of us mortals have travelled as extensively as Bond ever did. Many Britons have friends of multiple races and faiths. Far fewer people have the same bigoted views of racial superiority that once flourished. Concepts of Britishness have also altered massively, from essentially meaning white Protestant, to something that is almost the definition of inclusiveness. Who is going to tell film director Steve McQueen that he's not British? In Fleming's day, the suggestion that a black film director would be sweeping the Oscars would have been laughed at. The possibility that he might be British regarded as an impossibility.
Things have changed fundamentally and profoundly. Most of the racial baggage that Fleming's Bond carried has been downplayed or simply disgarded over the years, to the point that Bond is now a pretty spot on politically correct modern urban British male. Brosnan probably personified the 90s metrosexual even more than Craig. To that extent I think the idea that film Bond has stayed true to Fleming is not correct. Bond has been subtly but significantly reimagined, as you'd expect over a 50 year period. If someone played Bond now as Connery did in 62, there'd be a lot of offended and not very happy audiences. Just as a 1962 audience would not have been open to the Bardem-Craig homo-erotic banter in SF (coincidentally apparently audiences in Jamaica booed that scene).
Any way, my point is, Bond has evolved and concepts of Britishness have evolved. I suspect those in the know would tell us that we'd be surprised at how likely a British agent is to be black or Asian in the early 21st century. So I am not saying Bond has to be black, but that we've reached a point in history and the development of the Bond series where I think it could be done well and interestingly.
There would be a different issue with casting a British Asian actor, because how many British Asians have names like James Bond, but fifty years from now, that will also have changed.
But then a lot of the mental contortions people are going through here to justify their belief that film Bond cannot be black are a bit strange.