Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Alec Trevelyan from Goldeneye. There's a sidekick who Bond also personally kills.

In his defence, the short timers on the detonators could have been a accountant's error

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Yeah, Bond's misogyny is a much more central part of his character ("women are for recreation") than his skin colour.

That's one weird definition of misogyny

 Yodhrin wrote:
If that's actually true, then it's the very definition of racism

Or the trope has been formed in predominantly white societies based on a simplified picture of yet another predominantly white society.

It's a bit like an Asian sheriff in a Wild West setting. Is it truly racist to say that that image does not fit the general perception of how an early 20th century US peace keeper from the western frontiers would look like?

You're absolutely in your right to dislike the tropes and reject them, but I don't feel this particular trope is racist on in itself.

I disagree. People have been arguing that you can't have a black actor play Bond because, in the minds of the audience, "black man" and "suave middle aged civil servant/spy" are not compatible concepts. The trope exists because the reality it was initially derived from was a racist society in which black people were prevented from reaching positions of influence and authority and were considered barbaric and/or inferior, and the only reasons it could continue to hold any sway in the mind of any modern person are either they're comically un-self-aware or they agree with the trope's foundation on some level. In either case they need to be (metaphorically)beaten over the head with the fact that reality has changed.

Your comparison is somewhat spurious by the way; Bond movies are not historical in any sense, in fact specifically the reverse, they're reworked to be set "now" with every new iteration. Instead imagine a modern cop movie franchise set in, say, Texas, that drew on some imagery from the old west, with a "traditionally" white lead actor. Now imagine someone arguing you couldn't cast an Asian in that role because in the minds of the audience, "Asian" and "straight-talking, honest, dependable badass cop" are not compatible. That the audience will not believe it credible that an Asian person could have those positive(in the context of the movie) qualities.

"Asian" and "straight-talking, honest, dependable badass cop" are not compatible.

Chow Yun Fat has a few things to say about that .

Chow Yun Fat is an awesome hong kong supercop in the John Woo flicks, I'll watch him in dove spraying kung fu slow mo gun porn all day long, but I could never buy it if he were cast as Walker Texas Ranger or Longmire.


I'd be down with a white, black, mexican or even native american texas ranger character. Asian not so much. In the real world there's nothing that'd prevent an asian person from being a highly effective texas lawman, but hollywood isn't about real world it's generally about perceived character archtypes that have been established over time and westerns have a long and defined pedigree. Maybe there's some blockbuster mega hit waiting to be made that stars an asian texas ranger that will redefine the entire genre, but I don't think it's something that jumps out at the average audience as what they think of a western traditionally being.

 paulson games wrote:
Chow Yun Fat is an awesome hong kong supercop in the John Woo flicks, I'll watch him in dove spraying kung fu slow mo gun porn all day long, but I could never buy it if he were cast as Walker Texas Ranger or Longmire.


I'd be down with a white, black, mexican or even indian texas ranger character. Asian not so much. In the real world there's nothing that'd prevent an asian person from being a highly effective texas lawman, but hollywood isn't about real world it's generally about perceived character archtypes that have been established over time and westerns have a long and defined pedigree. Maybe there's some blockbuster mega hit waiting to be made that stars an asian texas ranger that will redefine the entire genre, but I don't think it's something that jumps out at the average audience as what they think of a western traditionally being.

Imagine the insanity that would insue if they kill Woo off in Grimm. I'm so pissed they still haven't brought him in the group yet

Could somebody nice post a video which would show how good is this actor at playing bond?

Don't think you can find a video where he plays a Bondesque character. It's more that he seems to have a decent acting range and the right type of rugged handsomeness. He always gave me a Connery vibe for some reason.

 d-usa wrote:
Bond is a behavior, an attitude, a way of carrying himself. His looks have never been a factor beyond "women want to feth him". As long as he is good looking enough for a Bond girl to shag him anyone will do as long as they can behave like Bond.

Bond is a character. His character was crafted to be remiscent of Hoagy Carmichael with aspects of Fleming's own. He's a Scot who went to Eton. His defining features have generally been consistent: slim build; a three-inch long, thin vertical scar on his right cheek; blue-grey eyes; a "cruel" mouth; short, black hair, a comma of which falls on his forehead.

Bond's appearance does matter. It's like making Gandalf a dwarf, because of an actor.

How many Bond actors have actually fit that description?

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Bond is a behavior, an attitude, a way of carrying himself. His looks have never been a factor beyond "women want to feth him". As long as he is good looking enough for a Bond girl to shag him anyone will do as long as they can behave like Bond.

Bond is a character. His character was crafted to be remiscent of Hoagy Carmichael with aspects of Fleming's own.

It was also a time when "Default Setting Initiated: White" and "Non-white is lesser" were also standard. It seems odd that people are so set on one aspect and willing to throw away the other, as if the times didn't play just as much a part in his creation. The isn't the 1950's or the 1960's; we can and should be able to move on. There have been several works on how Fleming used, or misused race, in his writing and none of them are very hard to find. I like the Bond books as much as anyone but they are of their time, and that doesn't translate to modernity in many ways as a good deal of it is based on old stereotypes and prejudices that (for the most part though this thread is trying hard it seems) no longer are as mainstream or accepted.

The fact that Holywood can't write interesting new Black characters is very disappointing. They can't even write interesting characters so it's no surprise that we see a rehash of an existing character.

EDIT

These characters will always remain White in the source material, no matter how much diversification & detraction from the story happens.

If I were a black person I'd be more concerned about literary representation as that is what will stand the test of time.

Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding your statement, but will it?

Ian Fleming's books already haven't stood the test of time, I'm sure. I'd be willing to bet that the super-majority of people who watch Bond films today haven't read Fleming's books.

 Ahtman wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Bond is a behavior, an attitude, a way of carrying himself. His looks have never been a factor beyond "women want to feth him". As long as he is good looking enough for a Bond girl to shag him anyone will do as long as they can behave like Bond.

Bond is a character. His character was crafted to be remiscent of Hoagy Carmichael with aspects of Fleming's own.

It was also a time when "Default Setting Initiated: White" and "Non-white is lesser" were also standard. It seems odd that people are so set on one aspect and willing to throw away the other, as if the times didn't play just as much a part in his creation. The isn't the 1950's or the 1960's; we can and should be able to move on. There have been several works on how Fleming used, or misused race, in his writing and none of them are very hard to find. I like the Bond books as much as anyone but they are of their time, and that doesn't translate to modernity in many ways as a good deal of it is based on old stereotypes and prejudices that (for the most part though this thread is trying hard it seems) no longer are as mainstream or accepted.

Whilst the whole race issue is true, Bond has an archetype to fill And casting Idris Elba as that does not do so. It's like casting Will Smith as Deadshot.

Danny Glover as Indiana Jones

Heard mention that there is another Indiana Jones movie with Harrison Ford in the works

But is that saying Elba can't be Bond, or that a black guy can't be Bond?

 DarkLink wrote:
But is that saying Elba can't be Bond, or that a black guy can't be Bond?

I'm not sure being I have not read Fleming books but IMO
Bond is typed cast as Caucasian by movies alone. For a black male to play Bond there has to be a slow change in dynamics of an already ingrained perception of who we think Bond "is"

Well most of these characters are derived from literary works. If you want to expand beyond the shallow representation of Holywood, literature is definitely the way to go.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
Whilst the whole race issue is true, Bond has an archetype to fill And casting Idris Elba as that does not do so. It's like casting Will Smith as Deadshot.

Which of course has already been done with little to no detriment to the character. His ethnicity, whether Bond or Deadshot, isn't really a defining feature. They do have things that help define them, to be sure, but ethnicity isn't really one of them. Being from the UK and being a government worker (essentially) would be a defining characteristic for Bond, and for Deadshot it is his rich, pampered, upbringing that makes him a risk taker. I'm not keen on Smith doing Deadshot just because I'm not all that keen on Smith in general; I have no issue with Deadshot being of a different ethnicity. My problem with Idris Elba isn't that I don't think he could play the part but that his time to do so has past. There are several actors in the UK that are capable of doing the part and not all of them are white.

 Ahtman wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
Whilst the whole race issue is true, Bond has an archetype to fill And casting Idris Elba as that does not do so. It's like casting Will Smith as Deadshot.

Which of course has already been done with little to no detriment to the character. His ethnicity, whether Bond or Deadshot, isn't really a defining feature. They do have things that help define them, to be sure, but ethnicity isn't really one of them. Being from the UK and being a government worker (essentially) would be a defining characteristic for Bond, and for Deadshot it is his rich, pampered, upbringing that makes him a risk taker. I'm not keen on Smith doing Deadshot just because I'm not all that keen on Smith in general; I have no issue with Deadshot being of a different ethnicity. My problem with Idris Elba isn't that I don't think he could play the part but that his time to do so has past. There are several actors in the UK that are capable of doing the part and not all of them are white.

The skin colour is important for Bond. If you've read any of the books, it's been written into them. It's been quoted at least twice that he resembles Hoagy Carmichael. You can't just replace the actor with a man from a different race without resulting in a completely different character. It's the same as Deadshot. He's either been referred to, or referred to himself. as a white piece of trash at least once.

 Jihadin wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
But is that saying Elba can't be Bond, or that a black guy can't be Bond?

I'm not sure being I have not read Fleming books but IMO
Bond is typed cast as Caucasian by movies alone. For a black male to play Bond there has to be a slow change in dynamics of an already ingrained perception of who we think Bond "is"

I've read most of Casino... and have OHMSS and You Only Live Twice on the docket to read yet.... and It's fairly important to the character, in his time.... As the books themselves are set in a certain time period in which having a black Bond would be severely out of place, which the movies simply carried on, it has set the precedent that Bond is white.


I think I've said a few times in this thread, I have no problem with Elba playing 007, but I do have issue with him playing Bond. It actually wouldn't be a hard handoff to make in film. On Daniel Craig's final contractual Bond appearance, have his new protege take a "training" run, or some other situation where Bond ends up respecting Elba's character, and at the end of the film, he tells M to piss off, but this guy is ready for the job, or something.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
Bond is a character. His character was crafted to be remiscent of Hoagy Carmichael with aspects of Fleming's own. He's a Scot who went to Eton. His defining features have generally been consistent: slim build; a three-inch long, thin vertical scar on his right cheek; blue-grey eyes; a "cruel" mouth; short, black hair, a comma of which falls on his forehead.

Again, for someone who clearly styles themselves as a Bond aficionado while consistently relying on Bond's Scottish/Swiss heritage, you have continued to ignore the fact that Flemming did not add that trait to the character until his twelfth novel, after the release of the film Dr. No. Flemming had made it pretty clear that he never envisioned Bond as a Scot, which is one of the main reasons he was unhappy with the casting of Sean Connery. However, he was willing to make a pretty significant change to his own creation well after he had been established. Also, cinematic Bond and literary Bond have never been the same and anyone who has seen a Bond movie or read a Flemming book can tell you that.

Bond's appearance does matter. It's like making Gandalf a dwarf, because of an actor.

Horrible analogy is horrible.

 DarkLink wrote:
How many Bond actors have actually fit that description?

None.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
How many Bond actors have actually fit that description?

None.

But but but it's so important yoo guise!

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
Whilst the whole race issue is true, Bond has an archetype to fill And casting Idris Elba as that does not do so. It's like casting Will Smith as Deadshot.

Which of course has already been done with little to no detriment to the character. His ethnicity, whether Bond or Deadshot, isn't really a defining feature. They do have things that help define them, to be sure, but ethnicity isn't really one of them. Being from the UK and being a government worker (essentially) would be a defining characteristic for Bond, and for Deadshot it is his rich, pampered, upbringing that makes him a risk taker. I'm not keen on Smith doing Deadshot just because I'm not all that keen on Smith in general; I have no issue with Deadshot being of a different ethnicity. My problem with Idris Elba isn't that I don't think he could play the part but that his time to do so has past. There are several actors in the UK that are capable of doing the part and not all of them are white.

The skin colour is important for Bond. If you've read any of the books, it's been written into them. It's been quoted at least twice that he resembles Hoagy Carmichael. You can't just replace the actor with a man from a different race without resulting in a completely different character. It's the same as Deadshot. He's either been referred to, or referred to himself. as a white piece of trash at least once.

That completely ignores every point about when they were made and the problems of fidelity to historical racism. If the movie were set in the 50's or 60's then it would matter, but they take place in the present. How come people want to retain the element of white being as so important but ignore that in the same books non-whites are inferior and the miscegenation is considered even worse? I have read the books and if you want to read the word 'negress' a lot and have every black person speak in dialect but no white person, whether from Texas, France, or any other European country, you are in for a treat. Fleming wasn't some raving KKK donkey-cave but he was a man of the times and we don't live in those same times where certain rules and ideas about people of color (as well as white people) were fairly backward. Leaning on a uneducated past for a racist present isn't a compelling argument.

As far as replacing a man of one skin tone with that of another being some radical change, well, no...not really, unless you believe there is some inherent differences that make them stand so far apart to essentially be different species their skin tone. If not it is such a minor change that it shouldn't be that important that it ruins the character.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
#IdrisElba007

Sing it from the rooftops, tweet it from your computing devices, lets make this happen.

Bonds physical appearance, at least insofar to things like skin color, eye color, hair, etc are entirely irrelevant (for the purposes of the movies). Ian Flemings description of Bond is meaningless, as thd movies are inspired by his works rather than a true adaptation (and in fact the films have diverged rather significantly). The portrayal of previous actors are also largely meaningless, as there has been nothing to imply continuity from actor to actor. The only true constants thus far have been Q and M, both of whom are no longer part of things in case you havent noticed, all other recurring roles have been portrayed by several actors throughout the history of the series, and in the case of Moneypenny and Felix by both black and white actors. Further, its important to note that the Craig series would occur before any of the other films cronologically (at the start of Casino Royale Bond receives his 00 status), yet at the end of Skyfall M has been replaced by Mallory, creating a bit of a continuity loop.

What does matter, is Bonds personality. Idris Elba is more than capable of playing the Bond persona, his skin color is therefore a nonissue

Casino Royale was the first bond book written. And whether or not he can play the part is irrelevant, as casting him will make the films cease to be about Bond.

So when they cast a blonde guy it made the films quit being about Bond?

If they hire him for the sole purpose of having a black Bond, then you might have a point because the studio would have chosen to put race over character. If they hire him because he would be very good at being Bond (mannerisms, character, attitude, etc) regardless of his race, then the movie would still be about Bond.

Daniel Craig has the features. As for the hair, it can be put down to mundane things like hair dye.

But a complete change of appearance and race? That's too far.

James Bobd, son of Andrew Bond has had his appearance and name chosen to be dull and not to stand out. Ostia Elba fulfills none of the necessary criteria, regardless of his credentials.

This might be the most racist post on dakka. There is nothing truly remarkable about Idris Elba, other than the fact that he is a black man, which is itself unremarkable, or should be. In some parts of the world, Brazil for instance, skin color is regarded as just that, skin color, and a change like this would be seen as inconsequential, as it should be.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Bond is a behavior, an attitude, a way of carrying himself. His looks have never been a factor beyond "women want to feth him". As long as he is good looking enough for a Bond girl to shag him anyone will do as long as they can behave like Bond.

Bond is a character. His character was crafted to be remiscent of Hoagy Carmichael with aspects of Fleming's own. He's a Scot who went to Eton. His defining features have generally been consistent: slim build; a three-inch long, thin vertical scar on his right cheek; blue-grey eyes; a "cruel" mouth; short, black hair, a comma of which falls on his forehead.

Bond's appearance does matter. It's like making Gandalf a dwarf, because of an actor.

Youd be correct if we were talking about the books.

As far as replacing a man of one skin tone with that of another being some radical change, well, no...not really, unless you believe there is some inherent differences that make them stand so far apart to essentially be different species their skin tone. If not it is such a minor change that it shouldn't be that important that it ruins the character.

Sadly, I get the impression that a lot of people think that way. A lot of the arguments Ive heard have been to the effect of, "Bond is supposed to be x,y, and z" where x y and z are personality or background characteristics such as : womanizer, Eton graduate, Scotsman, etc. etc. Yet none of those characteristics are exclusive to a white man or a black man, theyre just characteristics of a HUMAN.

I'm watching Elba in long Walk to Freedom right now, plus I've seen him in pacific Rim and Thor. Although, admittedly I've not seen Luthor, which would be his most Bondish role I know of.

To be honest, even by the Bond mannerisms I don't think he'd suit (though I'd like to see him playing Mass Effects Admiral Anderson). Someone like a younger Colin Salmon though (who was already in the Brosnan Bond films) would be quite impressive though, perhaps.


Still, like I mentioned earlier, even Craig doesn't feel properly Bond to me. He's a good hero for a 'smart' action film but he's never mapped to my mental image of Bond and I'm pretty sure that is due to the hair.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
How many Bond actors have actually fit that description?

None.

But but but it's so important yoo guise!

I'm retroactively enraged for being tricked into watching films with only false Bond's and will forever boycott all Bond films until the end of time! And I swear it's not because I'm secretly racist!


(I just want to emphasize that this was extremely sarcastic, and that I do in fact like the idea of Elba as Bond).

I think he'd do a fine job and is an actor I admire greatly, however, Tom Hardy would be my first choice, purely based on Inception. I wanted Eames to have his own movie instantly.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
#IdrisElba007

Sing it from the rooftops, tweet it from your computing devices, lets make this happen.

Bonds physical appearance, at least insofar to things like skin color, eye color, hair, etc are entirely irrelevant (for the purposes of the movies). Ian Flemings description of Bond is meaningless, as thd movies are inspired by his works rather than a true adaptation (and in fact the films have diverged rather significantly). The portrayal of previous actors are also largely meaningless, as there has been nothing to imply continuity from actor to actor. The only true constants thus far have been Q and M, both of whom are no longer part of things in case you havent noticed, all other recurring roles have been portrayed by several actors throughout the history of the series, and in the case of Moneypenny and Felix by both black and white actors. Further, its important to note that the Craig series would occur before any of the other films cronologically (at the start of Casino Royale Bond receives his 00 status), yet at the end of Skyfall M has been replaced by Mallory, creating a bit of a continuity loop.

What does matter, is Bonds personality. Idris Elba is more than capable of playing the Bond persona, his skin color is therefore a nonissue

Casino Royale was the first bond book written. And whether or not he can play the part is irrelevant, as casting him will make the films cease to be about Bond.

So when they cast a blonde guy it made the films quit being about Bond?

If they hire him for the sole purpose of having a black Bond, then you might have a point because the studio would have chosen to put race over character. If they hire him because he would be very good at being Bond (mannerisms, character, attitude, etc) regardless of his race, then the movie would still be about Bond.

Daniel Craig has the features. As for the hair, it can be put down to mundane things like hair dye.

But a complete change of appearance and race? That's too far.

James Bobd, son of Andrew Bond has had his appearance and name chosen to be dull and not to stand out. Ostia Elba fulfills none of the necessary criteria, regardless of his credentials.

This might be the most racist post on dakka. There is nothing truly remarkable about Idris Elba, other than the fact that he is a black man, which is itself unremarkable, or should be. In some parts of the world, Brazil for instance, skin color is regarded as just that, skin color, and a change like this would be seen as inconsequential, as it should be.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Bond is a behavior, an attitude, a way of carrying himself. His looks have never been a factor beyond "women want to feth him". As long as he is good looking enough for a Bond girl to shag him anyone will do as long as they can behave like Bond.

Bond is a character. His character was crafted to be remiscent of Hoagy Carmichael with aspects of Fleming's own. He's a Scot who went to Eton. His defining features have generally been consistent: slim build; a three-inch long, thin vertical scar on his right cheek; blue-grey eyes; a "cruel" mouth; short, black hair, a comma of which falls on his forehead.

Bond's appearance does matter. It's like making Gandalf a dwarf, because of an actor.

Youd be correct if we were talking about the books.

As far as replacing a man of one skin tone with that of another being some radical change, well, no...not really, unless you believe there is some inherent differences that make them stand so far apart to essentially be different species their skin tone. If not it is such a minor change that it shouldn't be that important that it ruins the character.

Sadly, I get the impression that a lot of people think that way. A lot of the arguments Ive heard have been to the effect of, "Bond is supposed to be x,y, and z" where x y and z are personality or background characteristics such as : womanizer, Eton graduate, Scotsman, etc. etc. Yet none of those characteristics are exclusive to a white man or a black man, theyre just characteristics of a HUMAN.

First things first, I'm not a racist. I'm a bigot. There's a difference. Never once did I say anything actually racist. I merely stated that a man who does not fit the visual, or physical constraints of a role should not play a role.

And yes, his background was pointed out in a later novel, but in Casino Royale, THE FIRST BOND NOVEL WRITTEN, Vesper Lynd stated: "Bond reminds me rather of Hoagy Carmichael, but there is something cold and ruthless."

Then in Moonraker, Gala Brand states: "certainly good-looking ... Rather like Hoagy Carmichael in a way. That black hair falling down over the right eyebrow. Much the same bones. But there was something a bit cruel in the mouth, and the eyes were cold."


Also in the novels, Bond's physical description has generally been consistent: slim build; a three-inch long, thin vertical scar on his right cheek; blue-grey eyes; a "cruel" mouth; short, black hair, a comma of which falls on his forehead. His height also differs from Idris Elba. Idris elba is 190cm tall, and weighs 95kg. Bond is 183cm tall and weighs 76KG. There is no way Idris Elba could protray the role of Bond accurately without appearing malnourished.

Allow me to reiterate. Idris cannot play Bond properly , or accurately, but that does not mean he cannot play 007. Those two are not interlinked, nor are they mutually exclusive. James Bond is the character, 007 is the codename.

Which book has Bond imply that he has slept with men while fighting an ex-agent who engages in cyber terrorism?