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
I've been saying for 4 years here that it's because of black panther that we don't need a black James Bond and everything I alluded to has come to pass. Bond's whiteness is rooted in what the character stands for and what he represents and part of that representation is the lingering remnants of what was once a major super power. Silva himself touches on this in SF. You now legit change his race, you end up fundamentally changing who and what the character is.
Black Panther is based on what historical African individuals actualy were prior to European slave trade and colonialism. Where Royalty, spirituality and science co-existed in Africa; education subjects like, astronomy, engineering, phylosophy etc; you had to go to Africa to learn and study such topics and Lee and Kirby in the midst of the civil rights movement made the bold move to create and tell stories of a character that embodied a people that once was during a time where for centuries they had now been oppressed and faced insane social injustice. Black Panther is a character that embodied(s) a rich and proud history for the black community across the diaspora and if fairly realised like other protagonists in film; top actors and talent, top production, big enough budget there wouldn't be a need for an aggressive and on going outcry from a number of people hailing from all groups for there to be a racial swap for a well known and popular character; in this case James Bond.
Now, in Bond's case, the reason why he's targeted to be racial and gender swapped and whatever is because, the way the character has been realised for decades is MORE synonymous to do with a style and energy. A man looks good in a suit or dressed wellcabdcis handsome, "he could be Bond". A man drives a fancy looking car, "He could be James Bond". "This guy over here, tall, dark and handsome wearing a dinner suit at the office Christmas party with a drink in his hand, talking to Angela from accounts and Hailey from HR, he could be Bond". It's these sorts of attributes that are familiar and made "iconic" by Bond that has many people labelling anyone anyhow a Bond contender. Also, other popular fictional male protagonists have female counterparts/versions of themselves. Superman/Superhergirl, Bat-Man/Bat-Girl/Woman, Spider-Man/Spider-Girl and before the influx of spider-individuals there were 2 spider-women in Jessica Drew and Julia Carpenter. Indiana Jones/Lara Croft; the list goes on.
However, to hammer the point home as to why Bond doesn't need to be black; unless the producers really want to prioritise BO returns highly above all else, including artistic integrity, Black Panther is now the third movie in history to get past the $700 million mark, alongside James Cameron’s Avatar ($760m) and J.J. Abrams’ Star Wars: The Force Awakens. It crossed the line a lot faster than Spectre went from $199m to $200m in 2016. This means that Black Panther earned a whopping 3.46x weekend-to-final multiplier from its $202m Fri-Sun frame back in February.
In terms of inflation, the $700 million domestic total puts the film in 30th place, just between The Avengers ($623m in 2012/$712m adjusted) and the likes of The Dark Knight ($534m in 2008/$690m adjusted) and Thunderball ($63.5m in 1965/$693m adjusted). In short, it’s the biggest solo superhero movie of all time even adjusted for inflation, and it’s officially bigger than any Batman movie and any 007 adventure.
So if anything, potentially the producers and studios have more reason to want a Black Bond more so than anyone else but for anyone else who isn't a stakeholder, a black Bond really isn't necessary at all.
If Elba were 10 years younger I think he’d have been a strong contender and EON would have had to make very good explanations for not casting him, especially as he is head shoulders above the Aiden Turners etc.
It was announced before there was a writer attached?
I agree with the politically incorrect comment of author Anthony Horowitz that Elba is "too street" for James Bond. Unlike the likes of Trump or Boris Johnson, Horowitz felt he had to apologize for his remark. He could have stuck to his view but I guess social media pressure got to him!
The problem with the internet is everyone has an opinion and it's not always that have any grounding to know what they are talking about.
I remember Puff Daddy or whatever he's calling himself these days saying Denzel would make a great Bond apart from the fact he's American PD really obviously doesn't have a clue what Bond is about and would most likely want to character to take on more attributes of what would come with casting a black actor.
Bond is not hip, he's a imperalist snob who's very much out of his time, it's about him surviving in that world and coping with it, making him more contemporary and adding tropes that have no business being attributed to him would make a mockery of Fleming's creation.
I've warmed to it more than I had if it does happen but changing the very nature of the character is too much a temptation that some writers couldn't help themselves capitilising on.
Yeah, I agree with you. The harsh reality is Ian Fleming was a snob, sexist and racist. Live And Let Die's Chapter 5 was entitled:
Nig*er Heaven
Bond was a fantasy version of Ian Fleming - the sort of man he'd like to be in a fantasy version of life. The ultimate imperalist British hero.
There's no way Fleming would ever support a black man playing James Bond. He would have hated Bond referring to smoking as a "filthy habit" in Tomorrow Never Dies. I'm sure he would have hated a female M in Goldeneye. "Bond taking orders from a woman? Unthinkable." - his likely reaction.
You know what EON and MGM should do - recast Bond in Bond 26 and say to the "Me too" movement, the social justice warrior snowflakes, the anti-Trumpers, the anti-globalization movement, the politically correct brigade, the people that use social media but complain about it too....
"James Bond is sexist, is nationalistic, treats women mostly for sex, has an unhealthy relationship with violence, and he's Anglo-Saxon white. And if the internet generation don't like that... we don't care!"
I think it is a delicate balance though and I'm far from right leaning or advocating the likes of Trump and that wasn't my point here. You can't just say FU to everyone and do it to just placate the fanbase who want Bond films to stay in some kind of bubble, Bond the character yes to a degree but the films still need to move on.
Bond is Bond and apart from some tweaking to him being able to exist in the modern world he should be the essense of the character or we might as well kill him off and start from the ground up.
Though I'm not advocating playing to Trump's crowd if you think that was where I'm going I'm sorry for misleading it certainly wasn't.
As some who is more left I still find the idea of casting Bond as black not an easy proposition and while I recognise some of these movements grabbing all the headlines at time are asking my Wife and I even with our more liberal selves questioning how far it's gone with the #mee too etc, I'm nowhere joining Trump, Bannon, Boris Johnsons's and Jacob Rees Mogg's bandwagon.
I abhor these types and the kind of thing they advocating but that is another discussion.
Well, that would be nice and very much welcomed but coming back down to Earth for a minute, EoN and MGM are in the business of making money and I'm sure would like to continue making Bond films and on a regular basis. Individuals, brands and organizations can be brought down with a few tweets if enough people feel seriously offended. All things considered, EoN have done a remarkable job keeping Bond alive and relevant. Remember the outrage caused in SF when Bond joined Severine in the shower? Bloody hell.
My mistake, there was a writer attached, but no finished script.
It's impossible to voice an opinion on the internet, on social media, without someone taking offence. Can you imagine if future Bond films show Bond having random sex? This will be the online reaction:
"This is disgusting! How can Bond be so disrespectful towards women? Haven't the Bond producers seen what happened with Harvey Weinstein?"
"I am outraged. The new Bond actor is kinda hot but I'm ashamed the character has to bed all those women. Bond should respect women."
"Ethan Hunt never scored this well!"
By today's standards, Fleming was certainly racist. That said, the above chapter title from LALD was a reference to the title of a well-known novel (at the time) by Carl Van Vechten, which was set in Harlem and positively portrayed African Americans. And in LALD, Fleming's attitude toward African Americans is--despite several tone-deaf passages--more affectionate than antagonistic.
More to the point, Fleming was a pragmatist when it came to the movies based on his books--he wanted them to make money above all else. Connery did not fit Fleming's conception of Bond, but he eventually accepted him in the role, especially after female acquaintances raved about him. In the 60s he would have certainly opposed a black James Bond--but so would the film producers and most of the British and American public, which was less diverse than now. Were he alive today, at the ripe old age of 108 and not senile, he might not against the idea of a black Bond, given the modern public's acceptance of black actors in leading roles, provided the actor was still British.
The only way to guarantee white Bond forever is to turn it into a period piece. as long as Bond remains contemporary there will be a time when a black actor plays Bond.
So the ethic background of Bond is flexible but his age is not? How does that work?
casting someone approaching 50 is not going to fly with anyone (least of all the studios) these days.
now you do the math
Even if he was cast and they got started on the next era as soon as humanly possible, you're still only looking at roughly three installments (at the rate they spit them out lately) before he's in his 60's. I keep parroting and echoing this to everyone who thinks he'll play the next Bond - his age ensures that won't happen.
That's a terrible imaginary example. No doubt there are people stupid enough not to get the difference between consensual sex and non-consensual sex, but anyone with some brain cells surely does - regardless of them being on the internet or not.
I calculate that Elba would be 51 in his first outing, the same age Craig was in his final outing.
2023 seems the most likely release date for B26 to me given that we've pretty much settled into four year gaps. The 60th anniversary possibility seems very optimistic (though not impossible).
I'm not even going to discuss Elba a Bond because it's never going to happen.
Made up media click bait.
Too be honest, if Bond26 isn't released till 2022 or 2023, then the next Bond is probably, possibly an actor born after 1984 or 1985 to give EON someone who can last in the role.
That puts many of the names we've all mentioned out of the picture. Of course that's no guarantee. Merely logical speculation.
I think that has a great effect on which actors are being considered. You could maybe get away with a slightly older actor if he does 3-4 films, but for more films than that you are looking at a guy born around the mid 80's, as @Benny writes above.
They are always planning ahead when they cast the new lead. Absurd to claim otherwise.
Actor wise, I think they sign them up for 3 normally, don't they? With an option for a 4th. Something like that anyway. I wasn't aware Laz was offered a 6 picture stint.
Yes, since Moore that has been the case. Doesn t mean they have the next three or four films planned.
In sum: the objection to the casting of Idris Elba as Bond now is no longer his skin colour but his hair colour: he's greying and will be greyer when the role is up to take.
Since we had an alternative time line for Craig I’m less bothered about the next actors skin colour, as we would have yet another different time line to play with, but not Elba. I wouldn’t want a big lumbering 50 year old playing Bond.
If the right actor is black, so be it. But don’t pick one just to tick the box. I wouldn’t want a Dr Who situation where they decided not on the best person but the best female person.
If they pick the best person for Bond then he will be white, such is the lack of opportunity for black actors on TV and film. But if a 35 year old black actor cane through? I’ll suport him.
I'm on board with this as long as I mentioned in other threads that casting a black actor they don't make a thing that could see the character become divorced from the things that we recognise as Bond or try to incorporate things around this being a black actor specific.
If they can just cast a black actor and get on with making a Bond film all well and good but if some bright spark writer tries to make the skin colour an issue to address this is where we are on dodgy ground.