Possible future Bond??

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.

**thedarkavenger**

Ahtman wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Also, isn't Tom Hardy too young to be James Bond?

He is 37 and hasn't got the role yet, so not really. Ages of the actor when they started:

Connery: 31
Lazenby: 29
Moore: 44
Dalton: 40
Brosnan: 41
Craig: 37

Bond is meant to be about seven years off of mandatory retirement, which is 45.

**Ouze**

I guess I thought he was younger (Hardy).

**chaos0xomega**

#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other films cronologically (at the start of Casino Royale Bond receives his 00 status), yet at the end of Skyfall M has been replaced by Mallory, creating a bit of a continuity loop.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

**Jihadin**

If Samuel L Jackson can pull off a Jedi Master then he can pull off a Bond

**Cheesecat**

Jihadin wrote:
If Samuel L Jackson can pull off a Jedi Master then he can pull off a Bond

He was horribly misused in those movies, that's a bad example.

**Jihadin**

Cheesecat wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
If Samuel L Jackson can pull off a Jedi Master then he can pull off a Bond

He was horribly misused in those movies, that's a bad example.

Oh I know that but can imagine him doing it without a script?

Edit

Sentence structure

**paulson games**

Why not change it to Jamie Bond and make a female 007?

**thedarkavenger**

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.

**Yodhrin**

Deadshot wrote:
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.

It's funny how people keep moaning about "PC", repeatedly saying "I'm not racist but", and then go and make assertions like "for most people the idea of a suave middle-aged black civil servant with a posh accent is unfathomable". If that's actually true, then it's the very definition of racism - it may not be violent oppression, but if people are genuinely incapable of envisioning a black man in that role, it says rather a lot about their "subconscious" as you put it feelings and assumptions about black people.

And you know what, if that perception is real and as widespread as you claim, then maybe those people need a big fething dose of "political correctness", because they're evidently morons that need to be beaten over the head with the fact that this isn't the 50's any more.

**d-usa**

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.

**thedarkavenger**

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.

**d-usa**

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.

**Albatross**

Yodhrin wrote:
Deadshot wrote:
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.

It's funny how people keep moaning about "PC", repeatedly saying "I'm not racist but", and then go and make assertions like "for most people the idea of a suave middle-aged black civil servant with a posh accent is unfathomable". If that's actually true, then it's the very definition of racism - it may not be violent oppression, but if people are genuinely incapable of envisioning a black man in that role, it says rather a lot about their "subconscious" as you put it feelings and assumptions about black people.

And you know what, if that perception is real and as widespread as you claim, then maybe those people need a big fething dose of "political correctness", because they're evidently morons that need to be beaten over the head with the fact that this isn't the 50's any more.

Exalted and quoted for truth. I feel that, at least in some cases, this is less about clinging to the source material than it is about clinging to Bond as a white man. This makes me sad. It's un-British.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

thedarkavenger wrote:

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.

I worry about you, mate. You need to check yourself.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

paulson games wrote:
Why not change it to Jamie Bond and make a female 007?

The colour of Bond's skin is of far less material import to the character than his gender. Come on.

**A Town Called Malus**

Albatross wrote:

paulson games wrote:
Why not change it to Jamie Bond and make a female 007?

The colour of Bond's skin is of far less material import to the character than his gender. Come on.

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

Switching it around and having a female in the role would be much harder to do. It would be a lot harder to have a female with that view of men when she is in an environment which is predominantly male and make it not seem completely ridiculous.

It would be like having Bond be the only member of MI6 who was male. In that situation it wouldn't make any sense for the character to have the views about women that he does as all of his fellow field operatives would be women.

Of course you could then also make femBond a lesbian which solves the whole misogyny issue but then you're creating a bit of a Frankenstein's monster of tropes in order to fit it all in in a way that makes sense from a story perspective. And you're also introducing a bit of a ridiculous contradiction into the character.

**His Master's Voice**

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.

**paulson games**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Albatross wrote:

paulson games wrote:
Why not change it to Jamie Bond and make a female 007?

The colour of Bond's skin is of far less material import to the character than his gender. Come on.

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

Switching it around and having a female in the role would be much harder to do. It would be a lot harder to have a female with that view of men when she is in an environment which is predominantly male and make it not seem completely ridiculous.

It would be like having Bond be the only member of MI6 who was male. In that situation it wouldn't make any sense for the character to have the views about women that he does as all of his fellow field operatives would be women.

Of course you could then also make femBond a lesbian which solves the whole misogyny issue but then you're creating a bit of a Frankenstein's monster of tropes in order to fit it all in in a way that makes sense from a story perspective. And you're also introducing a bit of a ridiculous contradiction into the character.

So you can't have a man-eater type woman that treats men as disposable? When it comes down to it there's really only two things that Bond is, a super agent and an over sexed jackass that nails what he isn't actively killing. A woman could just as easily hit both of those keypoints.

In theory depending on how they treat the character it could potentially be more interesting to watch as the sexual tension elements could apply to both males and females depend on how she swings. Guys seem to like the concept of a bi-woman where a bi-male would draw criticism. If they want to overhaul the Bond character why not completely rewrite it with gender as well? (Lana from Archer springs to mind)

**DarkLink**

Lana doesn't behave the way bond does. That's Archer's role. Though the satire of racial and feminist issues in the show does make complaints about a nonwhite Bond as a comparison to Archer kind of funny.

**paulson games**

While he may not be a super spy I do believe we already have super hard hitting, sexy black action hero covered quite well with Shaft.

If they make a black Bond, then a white Shaft would be equally reasonable. I'm sure Matthew McConaughey would make splendid Shaft, alright, alright.

**A Town Called Malus**

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

Not really. Misogyny's definition is in no way limited to only hating women. That definition comes from the root words but the actual definition of misogyny has changed and now covers prejudice as seen in the oxford dictionary definition (from 2002 edition onwards)*:

hatred or dislike of, or prejudice against women.

Now we know that Bond certainly doesn't hate women but he is very prejudiced against them. He regards them as playthings, to be used then tossed aside. They do not belong in the field and can't control their emotions, in his eyes. This is perfectly summed up in this quote from Casino Royale:

“Women were for recreation. On a job, they got in the way and fogged things up with sex and hurt feelings and all the emotional baggage they carried around”

*So any time you see someone throwing around the argument that it isn't misogyny because they don't hate women, they are actually the ones using the incorrect definition.

**Kilkrazy**

paulson games wrote:
Why not change it to Jamie Bond and make a female 007?

We've already got Modesty Blaise.

**Ensis Ferrae**

paulson games wrote:

If they make a black Bond, then a white Shaft would be equally reasonable. I'm sure Matthew McConaughey would make splendid Shaft, alright, alright.

That would be.... hilarious.

**paulson games**

Kilkrazy wrote:
paulson games wrote:
Why not change it to Jamie Bond and make a female 007?

We've already got Modesty Blaise.

Hadn't actually heard of her before, but from a quick google search looks to be about the right image as a female Bond.

Although with Bond I don't think you should causally make major changes to the character when they are a major international icon with the longest chain of films in history. It's be like altering Mickey Mouse to have blue pants and no gloves. It's a cartoon mouse still, but not the established character image.

My understanding was that Bond was always his actual name, while the "00" status was for whoever the acting agent was. With the assumption that agent 007 /= James Bond, a black "007" could be entirely possible, a black "James Bond" just doesn't seem right.

While he grew on me a lot due to Skyfall I was certainly not a fan Daniel Craig as "Bond" due to the blonde hair. "007" agent ok, as "Bond" not so much.

When I think of Bond I think of the classic established icon of the white guy with dark hair in a tux with the walther ppk. You can change the actor to keep him in the right age range but if you alter any of those otehr iconic elements it's not "Bond" to me, and becomes some other "00" which I'm not really all that interested in.

**Ahtman**

paulson games wrote:If they make a black Bond, then a white Shaft would be equally reasonable.

Being black is a majr element of Shaft and important to understanding the character so it actually isn't reasonable. It is even in the genre title: blaxploitation. Race plays an important role in the story and character whereas this isn't true of Bond. Being from the UK is important to the character but being white? Not so much.

paulson games wrote:Although with Bond I don't think you should causally make major changes

I suppose that may be part of the issue as for many white man and black man isn't a "major" change or difference.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

I think it's worth noting to the Bond aficionados here (though I'm sure they are aware of this fact and have just been conveniently ignoring it) that Flemming didn't write Bond as coming from a Scottish and Swiss background. Those details weren't added to his background until the publication of You Only Live Twice (the twelfth book in the original series) which as you probably know, was after the production of the film Dr. No starring Sean Connery. It's pretty well known that Flemming was not happy about the casting of Connery and it wasn't until after the release of the movie did he agree that it was a good choice and would decided to change the character to fit with what movie audiences had fallen in love with.

What this shows is that even the creator of the character was willing to change core things about his own creation... so you can just stop all of this, "but, but, but he's always been half-Scot, half-Swiss!" nonsense.

Seriously, if out of all the things in the world to worry about, the one thing that has gotten your panties in a bunch is the fact that someone, somewhere, floated the idea of maybe casting an (awesome) black actor to play a fictional character in a movie that doesn't even exist... you need to reexamine your priorities.

**paulson games**

This is how I see Bond, and it's what they've established as one of the strongest film Icons in film history.

The shape and part line of the hair is very much a part of the distinctive look to Bond's character. He doesn't have many defining characteristics, but the ones he does have are bold and powerful so how they are expressed is done very carefully. You can stick anybody in a tux and give them a gun but it doesn't mean it matches the icon in the same manner. Same as it you change Mickey Mouses pants or gloves, you can say hey it's the new improved Mickey all you want but you've divorced it from the established Icon entirely. You run the risk of ending up with New Coke.

**His Master's Voice**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
So any time you see someone throwing around the argument that it isn't misogyny because they don't hate women, they are actually the ones using the incorrect definition.

I'm one of the old fashioned grognards that consider the precise nature of language a thing worthy of preservation. I'll pass on that update, thank you very much.

Back to Bond. I cannot recall the quote from the film, so I'm going to assume it's from the book. Given that we're talking about the film version, one that is significantly different from the source material, I'm not sure if that really applies. I mean, we've just had three films where Bond is explicitly defined by his emotional relation to women.

Is sex all he wants from most women he meets? Well, yeah. All he wants from most men he meets is to die as fast as possible. He's a terrible human being and he's very gender agnostic in the way he shows is.

If we're willing to ditch the baggage of Flemming's writing to entertain the idea of a black James Bond, I think we should let Bond have the benefit of the doubt when it comes to other issues.

**A Town Called Malus**

His Master's Voice wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
So any time you see someone throwing around the argument that it isn't misogyny because they don't hate women, they are actually the ones using the incorrect definition.

I'm one of the old fashioned grognards that consider the precise nature of language a thing worthy of preservation. I'll pass on that update, thank you very much.

Then I assume you are using the first edition from 1928? Or possibly some earlier dictionary from the Victorian era? Or maybe even Samuel Johnson's "A Dictionary of the English Language"?

Languages evolve, to ignore that is to ignore the effects of time on society.

**His Master's Voice**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Languages evolve, to ignore that is to ignore the effects of time on society.

Oh, they evolve. But evolution produces plenty of dead ends.

To expound on the point. A definition covering one idea is better than a definition covering two similar but not identical ideas. The first one works 100% of the time in communication. The second requires specific context or additional explanation, defeating the purpose of it's existence which is to condense ideas into less complex forms.

Nothing to do with misogyny specifically, just a pet peeve of mine in regards to language in general. I'm a professional mourner for the death of human ability to communicate.

**paulson games**

While Bond can be a bit heavy handed with the women I'm not sure he's inherently misogynist. He uses women to his advantage, and he's always moving onto the next short term love interest but everyone else in his line of work is completely disposable, and has a extremely short lifespan. In a strange way the women fare much better in treatment then any of the men he runs across. Bond actively tries to save and protect his women where if you are a male in the films Bond you're getting shot, blown up, stuffed them into alligator pits, shark tanks, or other horrible death engines. The only males that ever survive contact with Bond are his superiors within the agency and he can't be savage towards them because they're his boss. Everyone else is just an obstacle to be used, or overcome and destroyed.

Bond is a horribly brutal character, but he does have a noticeably softer side towards his women when you consider the extremes in which he normally operates in. The only characters that ever develope any sort of relationship connection with Bond are the women, I really don't think that shows a negative bias towards women at least not in how his world is defined. Only when you look at it from a completely outside perspective can you say his harshness is indicative of disliking women, but given the material a verbal lashing from Bond or a slap across the face is his "compassionate" setting as all his other standard interactions involve pistol whipping people and/or putting a bullet through their skull.

**His Master's Voice**

Come to think of it, Bond didn't really get many male sidekicks, but when he did, they all ended up dead. Sharky, Mathis and... that's it? Oh yeah, the guy from A View to a Kill. The Turkish crime lord in From Russia With Love. The guy that got snuffed by the killer leaving dove pins on his victims, can't remember which film was that. The Indian guy in Octopussy.

All dead.

Guess Leiter kinda counts? He only got half eaten by a shark.

Bond, what a friend.