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.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I would be upset if they came out and tried to do an American Bond in the CIA. I would be upset if they tried to do a Russian Bond in the KGB.

As long as they do a British Bond in Mi6, the rest doesn't really matter.

First Bond on film was American.........

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casino_Royale_(Climax!)

I guess we have never been true to that vision....

And, this might be a surprise but... Black people have been in the UK for a really long time (shock, gasp) and... could very feasibly have married into a house of old Nobility (as a random example, lets say, maybe a mixed race person marries into the House of Westminster), so the Andrew Bond, Skyfall backstory, if it ever were to even become relevant again, wouldn't necessarily need to change.

Indeed they have.

 Lance845 wrote:
@Backfire, thats a load of crap.

Look at your examples man.

Your talking about Tarzan being black or a black guy ending up in Europe. It's not about him being black. The skin color doesn't matter is the point.

Tarzan can LITERALLY be any race and it would not change his character because his character is not informed by his skin color. Tarzan's primary character trait is raised by apes. If it's a dude raised by apes then it's Tarzan. Example, book tarzan is a genius who taught himself how to read, invented rope, and learned a new language (French) in a matter of days when speaking a language for the first time. Basically every cinematic version of Tarzan has ditched how unbelievably intelligent Tarzan is. Guess what? Still Tarzan.

Not so, many of the movies do feature sophisticated book Tarzan, most notably the latest. It's true that Johnny Weissmuller Tarzans had him as pretty much illiterate savage. Burroughs himself hated the depiction. The comic Tarzan was also almost invariably based on Burroughs Tarzan. It's easy to see why, a character so simplistic as MGM's depiction gets old real fast.
Even the Weissmuller Tarzan, stripped of almost all the defining Tarzan traits, was based around the novelty of seeing a white man as a 'savage'. He would not have been interesting to audiences if he had been a white man living in Europe like any other European.

No, merely being raised by apes doesn't make one Tarzan. Just like flying around in a cape in skies of Metropolis doesn't make you Superman, nor does being a spy who shoots bad guys makes you James Bond.

And please, lets not bring up the tired argument that "oh but James Bond has been depicted so differently already". Yep, and those depictions which were too different tended to be flops. Not too many people think nowadays that comical Moore gadgetry Bonds were pinnacle of the character. And 'License to Kill' where Bond was modernized as generic '80s action hero fighting generic '80s drug lord villain is one of the low points of the franchise. Especially when contrasted to 'Die Hard' which had all new fresh character who became almost as iconic as Bond.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Look at how many different versions of Robinhood there are.

No! I WONT AND YOU CANNOT MAKE ME! MEN IN TIGHTS IS THE ONLY ROBINHOOD FOR ME!

Robin Hood is like 800 year old character and the origins are so vague that almost any trait can be ascribed to them.
Even then, I don't remember seeing any black Robin Hoods. Or female ones for that matter.

I guess you have at me in that many non-Hispanic actors have portrayed Zorro. No female Zorro though, although Queen of Swords is pretty much the same character.

And please, lets not bring up the tired argument that "oh but James Bond has been depicted so differently already". Yep, and those depictions which were too different tended to be flops. Not too many people think nowadays that comical Moore gadgetry Bonds were pinnacle of the character. And 'License to Kill' where Bond was modernized as generic '80s action hero fighting generic '80s drug lord villain is one of the low points of the franchise. Especially when contrasted to 'Die Hard' which had all new fresh character who became almost as iconic as Bond.

Much prefer Moore to the current snooze fest where its "Bourne" Bond and they ditch anything fun and plots lumbered around for so so long - like the 10 mph car chase in the last film. Bond has changed massively with the lead actors and what was popular.

It will be liked or disliked by some of us no matter who plays him. I seriously donlt see how the colour of his skin would matter a single bit.

 Peregrine wrote:

Why is it "traditional" for Bond to be a white dude? Arguably the masculinity is part of the character (though a woman might put an interesting variant on the role, while keeping most of the same qualities) but race?

"Female Bond" already exists: Modesty Blaise. Again, character of her own, instead of hackneyed attempt to change existing character to something 'new'.

To obvious counter-argument "but what if it wasn't hackneyed but really well written and done? Well, therein lies the core problem: good writers don't really do such a thing. They don't have to, they can come up with new and original characters.

 Peregrine wrote:

(And TBH, with a franchise as long and thoroughly covered as the Bond movies, you really have to ask why another one is needed if you're starting from the premise that you have to keep everything the same as the 9999999 previous movies.)

This question is much better reversed as: if everything about the character is changed but name, what's the point anymore really? For same effort you can make something new, without all the ballast and legacy associated with the old name. It will be much better that way.
Otherwise you will be seen just a greedy hack who tries to ride with a name recognition created by somebody other who was much better writer than you. Who wants that?

Black Bond could work perfectly fine. Someone tell me how someone like Idris Elba wouldn't make an awesome 007?

Backfire wrote:
Not too many people think nowadays that comical Moore gadgetry Bonds were pinnacle of the character.

Roger Moore is my Bond by a long way.

He's no Robert Vaughn as Napoleon Solo though.

Are the UK bookies ever wrong?

https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/1046748/James-Bond-Latest-odds-Richard-Madden-replace-Daniel-Craig-Hiddleston-Tom-Hardy-Idris-Elba

Backfire wrote:

Otherwise you will be seen just a greedy hack who tries to ride with a name recognition created by somebody other who was much better writer than you. Who wants that?

You realise this perfectly encapsulates the vast majority of the James Bond films which took the title of a book, some of the characters and discarded the rest?

The only really faithful adaptation was On Her Majesty's Secret Service, all the others vary from switching Russian agents with criminal groups and adding some extra action scenes (such as in Casino Royale or From Russia with Love) to flat out creating a completely new ridiculous plot and just using character names and a book title (Moonraker).

Yeah. James Bond is the actual poster child for 1) changing actors willy nilly 2) changing bonds character and personality willy nilly and 3) ignoring the source material at every turn.

I always thought a younger Colin Salmon would make an amazing Bond. He's got that suave charm down.

Has Idris Elba played any similar roles? I mostly know him from bits of Luther where he's a little more of an anti-Bond.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I would be upset if they came out and tried to do an American Bond in the CIA. I would be upset if they tried to do a Russian Bond in the KGB.

As long as they do a British Bond in Mi6, the rest doesn't really matter.

First Bond on film was American.........

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casino_Royale_(Climax!)

I guess we have never been true to that vision....

I was meaning more along the lines of the setting of the film and the character. A Bond film focusing on a Bond character working for the CIA would be a no thanks hard pass.

The actors nationality doesn't mean much to me if they are a good actor.

Backfire wrote:
This question is much better reversed as: if everything about the character is changed but name, what's the point anymore really? For same effort you can make something new, without all the ballast and legacy associated with the old name. It will be much better that way.
Otherwise you will be seen just a greedy hack who tries to ride with a name recognition created by somebody other who was much better writer than you. Who wants that?

I think it says a lot, and none of it good, that you consider changing the race (or similar details) of a character to be changing "everything but the name". Clearly a new Bond movie needs to have enough of the original character to still be Bond, but if all you're going to do is make a perfect copy of the existing movies what's the point? Why not just watch the original movie again?

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I would be upset if they came out and tried to do an American Bond in the CIA.

Like the original screen Bond (Jimmy Bond, of Combined Intelligence)? From a CBS TV movie from 1954.

So what should a new bond movie have for a villain? A hate group? I'm wondering what could be new and relevant to today's world .

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
So what should a new bond movie have for a villain? A hate group? I'm wondering what could be new and relevant to today's world .

SMERSH.

Films haven't used them due to trying to not be controversial but now we have Russian agents using chemical weapons on UK soil to kill ex-Russian agents?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I would be upset if they came out and tried to do an American Bond in the CIA. I would be upset if they tried to do a Russian Bond in the KGB.

As long as they do a British Bond in Mi6, the rest doesn't really matter.

First Bond on film was American.........

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casino_Royale_(Climax!)

I guess we have never been true to that vision....

I was meaning more along the lines of the setting of the film and the character. A Bond film focusing on a Bond character working for the CIA would be a no thanks hard pass.

The actors nationality doesn't mean much to me if they are a good actor.

Sigh, Read the artcile about the film: "Nelson's Bond is played as an American spy with "Combined Intelligence Agency" and is referred to as "Jimmy" by several characters."

Also, back to the "changes to the character" argument, "Connery was initially met with disapproval from Fleming, who believed him to be an overgrown stuntman who lacked the finesse and elegance to play James Bond; he envisaged a suave actor, such as David Niven playing the role..."

"Connery's interpretation of the character differed considerably from Fleming's, being more promiscuous and cold blooded than the literary version.[18] Connery described Bond as "a complete sensualist—senses highly tuned, awake to everything, quite amoral. I particularly like him because he thrives on conflict"."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bond_filmography sources 12, 18, 19

So, no reason why the next Bond couldn't be black, brown, female or of short stature, if they can pull off the character required by the director and script.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
So what should a new bond movie have for a villain? A hate group? I'm wondering what could be new and relevant to today's world .

SMERSH.

Films haven't used them due to trying to not be controversial but now we have Russian agents using chemical weapons on UK soil to kill ex-Russian agents?

I read that group name, and I cant help but think that its Sean Connery horribly butchering some word (at this point, I have no idea what a Smersh would be, if he were saying it)

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Black Bond could work perfectly fine. Someone tell me how someone like Idris Elba wouldn't make an awesome 007?

Well for one, he's too old. Elba is 46. By the time any potential Bond movie featuring him would come out, he would be around 50. Roger Moore was 46 when he made his first Bond and quickly became too old for the role. Brosnan quit the role after he turned 50, feeling he was too old for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Backfire wrote:
This question is much better reversed as: if everything about the character is changed but name, what's the point anymore really? For same effort you can make something new, without all the ballast and legacy associated with the old name. It will be much better that way.
Otherwise you will be seen just a greedy hack who tries to ride with a name recognition created by somebody other who was much better writer than you. Who wants that?

I think it says a lot, and none of it good, that you consider changing the race (or similar details) of a character to be changing "everything but the name".

Does anyone actually read the points I make here?

Above was not about the race or colour of the lead actor, but response to the idea that "James Bond" could be a generic codename for any British super-spy. To that, answer is very much no. One could MAYBE argue that 007 could made such a more generic brand - no reason to assume Bond was first double-0 agent bearing the designation, why would he be the last? So perhaps that would go over with the audiences, to have new series of films featuring 007 agent named Xi Lee Yang, or something like that.

I was going to ask you the same thing - are you reading our points?

Bond is not some fixed charcter hje has changed throughout his history - espeically in terms of appearance.

Jame Bond could be a designation the same as 007 for most people but evidently not you - which is fine.

Agree with morden.

How terrible of a spy is bond that he has been going around introducing himself as his actual name?

It makes WAY more sense that bond is an alias linked to the 007 designation.

Save that Ian Fleming very specifically had a given physical idea in mind for James Bond, namely Hoagy Carmichael. It is mentioned twice, by name, in the books.

It's why, for all of the mannerisms which are good, I've never fully taken to Daniel Craig. He just isn't Bond. The films could name him anything else and poof, you'd never know it was a Bond film in anything other than homage.

In a similar vein, a female Bond would not work. He's very explicitly a chauvanist. To boot, he's so 'manly' that he can even convert 'lesbians'. Mrs. Galore is a lesbian in Goldfinger, who eventually is seduced and converted by Bond. He isn't meant to be politically correct or an advocate for diversity. In this respect Americans and most other races are generally played as inferior to the English (funny given Bond is Scots/Swiss). While Bond may be friends or work alongside non English folks, they are clearly inferior in the books and earlier films. Something Fleming also did deliberately for a British audience which was clearly loosing it's place as big dog in the world following the break up of the empire after the 2nd world war.

At best the most recent films have struggled with this (it's a recurring theme in both Brosnan and Craig films that he's a relic of a bygone time with no place in a modern, diverse, society). In much the same fashion, most of the books from Gardner on forward are pretty lack luster. Devil May Care was fun as it took him back into the cold war during the 1960s, and I haven't read Solo yet. To cast him as something other than an out of date, morally and physically, spy would be to loose key aspects of his character.

Next you'll tell me he shouldn't smoke, because kids might then think its cool (grrr... Brosnan)

 Mr Morden wrote:

Bond is not some fixed charcter he has changed throughout his history - espeically in terms of appearance.

Jame Bond could be a designation the same as 007 for most people but evidently not you - which is fine.

No he's not. It has always been very clear that he is a distinct personality. Even when they rebooted the series when Craig came in, he was still THE James Bond with recognizable Bond mannerisms. Things which have made him popular and memorable. It would have been rather insane coincidence that British secret service always manages to find an agent who prefers his vodka martini shaken, no? And how come they're always such awful womanizers and gamblers? Must be some cultural thing!

Let me take another example: Godzilla. It's just a big lizard which wrecks cities. That's all. Right? Or at least that's how Emmerich's Godzilla version was made. How well did it go over?

Right. It didn't feel at all like Godzilla. It was simply some quite generic reptilian monster.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Maniac_nmt wrote:

It's why, for all of the mannerisms which are good, I've never fully taken to Daniel Craig. He just isn't Bond.

I actually agree that physically, he's not the best match for Bond image. But hey, maybe he just dyed his hair...
Also he plays the role with bit too much of youthful swagger. I view Bond as bit more suave type. This is why I Brosnan is my fav Bond actor. Still, overall I nevertheless like Craig's Bond. Even in bad movies he could light up the scene with his raw presence, like Connery.

Godzilla ISNT just a big lizard that wrecks cities. Hes a big lizard that wrecks cities with atomic breath. If at any point that lizard had atomic breath it would have greesed a lot of wheels.

Mothra is just a giant moth and any movie that features a giant moth nails that character.

Kong is just a big orilla and the newest skull island movie was great despite him being a great many times larger and not going to nyc.

Bond is actually a renegade time lord who lost his tardis and is stranded on earth, he passes his time playing secret agent and hanging around in Britain since there is a temporal flux in the reversed polarity neutron flow of time stream in the quantum domain makes Britain the only part of earth time lords can live on. When you see a new actor it means he's regenerated again.

 Maniac_nmt wrote:
In this respect Americans and most other races are generally played as inferior to the English (funny given Bond is Scots/Swiss).

Wrong. .. Mr. Bond is British. There is a very big distinction that, without the clip of Jeremy Clarkson explaining it in Season 2 of The Grand Tour, I'm bound to mess this up, but here goes:

If you're born in England, you're English, and you're British. If you're born in Ireland or Scotland, should you do something notable with your life, such as invent some major doo-dad that improves life, get knighted, win the olympics in some event, etc. then you become British as well. However, if you're Irish or Scottish, and you end up in the media for being a complete idiot (ie, you pull a "Florida Man" type thing) then you remain Irish/Scottish. . .And if you're Welsh. . . well, there's no hope for ya, you're Welsh no matter what you do

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I would be upset if they came out and tried to do an American Bond in the CIA. I would be upset if they tried to do a Russian Bond in the KGB.

As long as they do a British Bond in Mi6, the rest doesn't really matter.

First Bond on film was American.........

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casino_Royale_(Climax!)

I guess we have never been true to that vision....

I was meaning more along the lines of the setting of the film and the character. A Bond film focusing on a Bond character working for the CIA would be a no thanks hard pass.

The actors nationality doesn't mean much to me if they are a good actor.

Sigh, Read the artcile about the film: "Nelson's Bond is played as an American spy with "Combined Intelligence Agency" and is referred to as "Jimmy" by several characters."

Oh well gak, I thought we just misunderstood each other.

So Bond can really be anything.

Backfire wrote:
Above was not about the race or colour of the lead actor, but response to the idea that "James Bond" could be a generic codename for any British super-spy.

Then why did you make that post following a direct quote of me saying something very different? If you intended to reply to someone suggesting that "James Bond" is a generic code name and screwed up with the quote tags then ok, I take back what I said as it doesn't apply. But that isn't what you said as it is now.

 Riquende wrote:

Backfire wrote:
Not too many people think nowadays that comical Moore gadgetry Bonds were pinnacle of the character.

Roger Moore is my Bond by a long way.

He's no Robert Vaughn as Napoleon Solo though.

In GoldFinger there is a gangster that Oddjob offs and crushes in a Lincoln town car who is named Solo. In the audio commentary, they reference that The Man from Uncle was originally going to be called Solo but Cubby Broccolli objected and the studio quickly backpedaled and changed the name of the show.

I liked the Man from UNCLE too. Never saw the modern re-boot.

 Easy E wrote:

 Riquende wrote:

Backfire wrote:
Not too many people think nowadays that comical Moore gadgetry Bonds were pinnacle of the character.

Roger Moore is my Bond by a long way.

He's no Robert Vaughn as Napoleon Solo though.

In GoldFinger there is a gangster that Oddjob offs and crushes in a Lincoln town car who is named Solo. In the audio commentary, they reference that The Man from Uncle was originally going to be called Solo but Cubby Broccolli objected and the studio quickly backpedaled and changed the name of the show.

I liked the Man from UNCLE too. Never saw the modern re-boot.

Enjoyed both the original and the new one