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.

Bond changes his personality and apparently every few films I don't really consider making him black any different. I don't think bonds race is at all important to the character personally.

I don't even try to put the bond films in a continuity or explain some kind of chronological order

There are black people at eton even if they are a minority,

 d-usa wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Also, I definitely like Craig as Bond, best since Connery.

I think both capture an essential aspect of Bond: he is not a nice guy.

Yup. Nice guys don't survive long as an Operative.

If Bond were a known historical person like say Field-Marshal Montgomery and you wanted to change his sex or race in a supposedly historical factual piece, obvious objections of accuracy would arise.

However Bond is a fictional character. Arguably he is an archetype rather than a specific individual. While there is some continuity between films, clearly the same man could not have been operating for 50 years.

I have always thought that an actor's job consists essentially of pretending to be someone he isn't. From that angle I personally would have no argument with a black Bond.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Also, I definitely like Craig as Bond, best since Connery.

I think both capture an essential aspect of Bond: he is not a nice guy.

Yup. Nice guys don't survive long as an Operative.

And both those guys just play that so well. Even when they are being a smooth ladies man, they are just doing a job and will have zero problem killing you when needed.

Craig made it clear that he has zero empathy for the death of the quasi "Bond-girl" in Skyfall and that he will feth a man just as quickly as a woman to get the job done.

To be perfectly honest, I'm still not sure how Bond-ish I feel Daniel Craig is, entirely due to him being blonde.

He makes a good, enjoyable film and character, that's no doubt. However I don't think I've ever really mentally associated his character with James Bond.

Incidentally, Timothy Dalton should get more credit in modern times, in my view. He was doing Craig's thing, years before Craig.

I dunno, maybe I'm hairist.

 Compel wrote:

Incidentally, Timothy Dalton should get more credit in modern times, in my view. He was doing Craig's thing, years before Craig.

I love Daniel Craig but I have to second what Compel said about Timothy Dalton.

 Ahtman wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
Fan theory is that James Bond is a pseudonym for whoever happens to be 007

That isn't a fan theory, it is a crackpot theory.

It makes sense. Generally speaking the last thing a secret agent wants to be is famous. But then Bond isnt a sec ret agent, he is a high profile assassin/investigator. I would suspect they get through a lot of James Bonds, cover up the death and bring in a new one.
There is an advantage in having a rep and also being high profile, it draws attention from others who do the real work and also in some cases there is a fear factor to know 'a' Bond is after you.

The same can directly apply to Felix Leiter, especially as a Leiter has to be introduced often. That makes sense too, if someone introduces themselves as Felix Leiter it means I am CIA, I know who you are and I have been sent to provide (limited) assistance'.

Bond is at least partly based on Dusko Popov, who had a lot of Bond's mannerisms and lifestyle and managed to allay suspicions because he was a double agent. Fleming met Popov frequently in Lisbon in WW2, often in casinos where Popov was a big player. Popov was very high profile and one of the most effective spies in WW2, sometimes the total lack of stealth is actually just as discrete as those who escape official record.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
Fan theory is that James Bond is a pseudonym for whoever happens to be 007

That isn't a fan theory, it is a crackpot theory.

It makes sense.

In no way, shape, or form does it make sense unless one forces it to and ignores the reality of the franchise. It is like arguing that an anus must be a mouth because they are both cavities.

A note to people who claim that James Bond is a pseudonym. His name during his time at Eton was James Bond.

Come to think of it, Felix Leiter has been played by white and black actors.

I think if they stray too far from Bond's roots they'll end up making a mess. I should also point out that Skyfall was the most successful 007 film to date. Even if the villain sucked.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
I think if they stray too far from Bond's roots they'll end up making a mess. I should also point out that Skyfall was the most successful 007 film to date. Even if the villain sucked.

How did he suck? Just curious as I thought he was brilliant.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
I think if they stray too far from Bond's roots they'll end up making a mess. I should also point out that Skyfall was the most successful 007 film to date. Even if the villain sucked.

How did he suck? Just curious as I thought he was brilliant.

I just found him to be a boring villain. Javier Bardem isn't really solid villain material IMO.

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
I think if they stray too far from Bond's roots they'll end up making a mess. I should also point out that Skyfall was the most successful 007 film to date. Even if the villain sucked.

How did he suck? Just curious as I thought he was brilliant.

I just found him to be a boring villain. Javier Bardem isn't really solid villain material IMO.

Wait, so you didn't like him in No Country for Old Men, either?

Nope. That film was boring for me lol.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


....How did he suck? ....

Through a straw once he removed his teeth!

Bazinga!

All week, I will be here.

 notprop wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


....How did he suck? ....

Through a straw once he removed his teeth!

Bazinga!

All week, I will be here.

Well played, sir, well played.

Having studied the last Bond film in depth for the last 4 months, I can honestly say this is a horrible idea.

Over the last 50 years, Bond films have been classed as Action, Thriller, Action-Thriller, Spy, Action-Thriller-Spy films. Lots of genres. But nowadays Bond can almost be considered a genre of its own right. It has unique generic conventions and iconography, one of which is the actor. James Bond is a sophisticated upper/middle class Englishman. And despite it being slightly racist, the iconography associated with "The Bond" Archetype as we've referred to it, is a man who on the surface appears as your average civil servant. This means a 30-40 year old white man with a slightly posh English accent, unsmiling and wears a suit. Suffice to say, they cannot have a black or Asian Bond because the subconscious of an audience would not automatically register the actor as Bond. Star appeal and archetype recognition is what has carried Bond to be the longest movie franchise of all time. A person can look at Connery, Craig, Moore or any of the other guys and say "He looks like a Bond." But you can't do that with a black guy. Not meaning to be racist but the fact we are even having this conversation just proves that it does not compute with people's brains. Similar to the news than Captain America and Human Torch will now be black and Thor a woman, although at least in those cases there is fiction storylines to back the ideas up, whereas here it is just up and out attempts to appease the Political Correctness crap. Not saying you shouldn't have equality, but this guy is not a Bond.

 Deadshot wrote:
whereas here it is just up and out attempts to appease the Political Correctness crap.

Or maybe that he's just a great actor and people think he would possibly make a great Bond. Political correctness doesn't even have to enter into the thought.

 -Loki- wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
whereas here it is just up and out attempts to appease the Political Correctness crap.

Or maybe that he's just a great actor and people think he would possibly make a great Bond. Political correctness doesn't even have to enter into the thought.

I'm sorry, but that's exactly what it is. There are hundreds of great British actors, and there are plenty that would make a great Bond. They could keep Craig on for fan appeal. Craig's stint as Bond has been the most successful and popular to date. Of course there is debate as to whether he or Connery is better but financially it is superior and therefore successful. So why not keep him on? Why is this guy the best choice for Bond? It's not, its PC. They are trying to not be seen as racist by including a black actor. But as I said, the issue is that people won't see him as Bond because Bond has an established style, look and iconography, and part of that iconography is a white 40 year old Englishman from Eton with a London accent who looks like he could be your run of the mill civil servant or rich bloke who got invited to the party because he knows somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody.

This guy does not look like a Bond. He does not sound like a Bond. He does not act like a Bond. I cannot imagine him moving or being a Bond. His name is not a typical British name for a Bond. As opposed to previous actors.

Given how much emphasis was put on Bond's past in the Craig stint, I doubt we'll see a black Bond any time soon.

I very much doubt we'll see any serious attempt at subverting the archetype in the next decade.

Until Skyfall, I always took Bond to be a "code name" much as 007. When he gained the Double O status, he got the name as well. Explains the changes in character, the lengthy time of his service through various era's, etc...

Skyfall certainly made it pretty clear though that Bond was his real name. So... is each new Bond just a reimagining of the character?

 djones520 wrote:


Skyfall certainly made it pretty clear though that Bond was his real name. So... is each new Bond just a reimagining of the character?

I think so, at least with the current movies. The previous movies feel like they could either be a "long series of adventures of a long series of agents code-named Bond" or a series of "This is what James Bond would be like if he was working in today's climate with today's technology" collection.

But Casino/Quantum/Skyfall as a reboot certainly firmly puts James Bond into the "there is only one James Bond" category IMO. Casino introduces a "new agent" Bond, and Quantum continues his growth as a character. Skyfall shows his past, the obituary makes it seem like "James Bond" is a singular character and not a code-name, and it sets up a new M, a new Q, and finally Moneypenny.

At this point it is probably best to treat the James Bond movies like various Batman movies. You know who you are getting and the character itself will be there in some form, but the interpretations of the details and his actions are wide open and will change based on changes in current events and technology.

America will have a black president before we have a non-white Bon... wait a second!

I personally don't have too strong a feeling on it either way. I think it would be interesting to see a non-white Bond, though I am not sure how an established character would survive such a transition in the eyes of the viewers. It may run the risk of being just "generic secret agent" if it moves too far from the stereotypical depiction.

I think we are more likely to see a Jane Bond before we get a non-white Bond. Despite quite a number of generations and some very successful non-white people penetrating society at pretty much every level, there is still a very entrenched "white upper class" type that Bond is very much a part of which I think would be lost should Bond not be white.

 d-usa wrote:

At this point it is probably best to treat the James Bond movies like various Batman movies. You know who you are getting and the character itself will be there in some form, but the interpretations of the details and his actions are wide open and will change based on changes in current events and technology.

This is kind of how I've viewed all of the Bond films. It's not so much that Bond has been an agent for 50+ years, it's more that Bond's "real life" career is the same length as an average Joe's. Each of the Bond films is set in the "Now" time frame, not so much as being set in the 60s, 70s, 80s, etc. To me, if one were to condense the Bond movies into a single "coherent" timeline (which has been discussed previously as being wrong, and an exercise in futility), his career would still be at the 5-15 year mark

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I think we are more likely to see a Jane Bond before we get a non-white Bond.

I doubt it, as his gender is more important than his race since Bond is pretty much a male power fantasy.

Just to point out that James Bond(That is his birth name BTW) is a white scottish male. #Justsayin'

If I remember right, his father was traditionally Scottish, while his mother was English.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I think we are more likely to see a Jane Bond before we get a non-white Bond.

I doubt it, as his gender is more important than his race since Bond is pretty much a male power fantasy.

Kind of my point

 Compel wrote:
If I remember right, his father was traditionally Scottish, while his mother was English.

England and Scotland have black citizens.