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.

Fun fact. Bond was sent to investigate drug traffickers operating in Harlem in Live and Let Die (I think, the one with Mr Big as the main villain).

Because a white british guy in a saville row suit was totally not out of place there.

Or his mission in Japan during You Only Live Twice. Or how about Jamaica in Dr No?

 Easy E wrote:
L
Alternatively, Bond could just be just the official identity of 007 even though the actual agents change. Now that we know Bond's back story, it almost makes sense to get a whole new Bond with a new backstory to explore.

No, you can't do that. Bond has specific character background which includes Scottish father, Swiss mother, Skyfall farm in Scotland and family motto "World is Not Enough". You can't wipe out that without destroying the character, just like you can't just decide that Superman is actually some guy from Natal, South Africa who got his powers from radioactive accident.
007 designation is for what you mean, but Bond is Bond.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Fun Fact: The second scene of Casino Royale was set in Uganda

And what did he do? That's right, stood out like sore thumb amongst the locals and had to resort to extreme violence.

By the way, Bond undertook cultural training for his Japan mission, so he would learn to dress and act like a Japanese person so he wouldn't attract so much attention. He even attempted to pass for a local (failed, of course).

Backfire wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
It means you're not restricting your casting choices to a subset of actors.

For example, Idris Elba is frequently held up as an example of someone who'd make a good Bond, but he's black. Why should that matter if he'd be well-suited to the character?

Being English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, tall, short, dark-haired, blond hasn't mattered to the character or the casting agents, so why does the melanin count in Bond's epidermis matter?

Bond is a spy, who needs to be able to infiltrate various organizations in Europe or Russia, most of whom have very few or no non-European members. If he was a non-Caucasian, he would be very distinct in those environments and those tasks would be next to impossible.

Because Bond's famous for being a master of accents? He's going to stick out as much in a Russian criminal organisation (or the IRA, for that matter) as he would in the Lord's Resistance Army. And given that he usually meets the heads of these enterprises face-to-face at the beginning of the film, infiltration isn't usually a concern.

Backfire wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
L
Alternatively, Bond could just be just the official identity of 007 even though the actual agents change. Now that we know Bond's back story, it almost makes sense to get a whole new Bond with a new backstory to explore.

No, you can't do that. Bond has specific character background which includes Scottish father, Swiss mother, Skyfall farm in Scotland and family motto "World is Not Enough". You can't wipe out that without destroying the character, just like you can't just decide that Superman is actually some guy from Natal, South Africa who got his powers from radioactive accident.
007 designation is for what you mean, but Bond is Bond..

Most of which was just made up for that film which defeats your own argument

Bond has been played by radically different actors - it worked before - it will work again.

A new version of Superman could be black or asian - there is no reason why a Kryptonian would be white (or wouldn;t be)

It's worth pointing out that the current General Zod on television is black.

Backfire wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
It means you're not restricting your casting choices to a subset of actors.

For example, Idris Elba is frequently held up as an example of someone who'd make a good Bond, but he's black. Why should that matter if he'd be well-suited to the character?

Being English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, tall, short, dark-haired, blond hasn't mattered to the character or the casting agents, so why does the melanin count in Bond's epidermis matter?

Bond is a spy, who needs to be able to infiltrate various organizations in Europe or Russia, most of whom have very few or no non-European members. If he was a non-Caucasian, he would be very distinct in those environments and those tasks would be next to impossible. Black or Asian person would hard to write to many typical Bond stories.
When you have a character who is very much tied to certain background, people usually expect that the actor in question also has appearence matching expectations for that background. Not too many people are interested about seeing black Wallander, white Shaft, or non-Asian Zatoichi either. Or say, Morgan Freeman playing Vito Corleone.


Just look at how much complaints Hollywood gets about 'whitewashing'. It's a two-way street.

What a dumb argument.

This



Is sean connery bond infiltrating Japan (one of the most racially pure countries in the world with a long history of isolationism) in You Only Live Twice as a 6ft tall scott pretending to be a native Japanese.

Lets not pretend that a black guy infiltrating places is the most outlandish thing we would see on screen. Or even outlandish at all... In any capacity.

Also, its not the same as white washing. White washing is giving basically all but select unimportant or goofy roles to white people. Casting idris alba as bond is giving a good actor who would be great in the role a part he is suited for based on acting talent.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
L
Alternatively, Bond could just be just the official identity of 007 even though the actual agents change. Now that we know Bond's back story, it almost makes sense to get a whole new Bond with a new backstory to explore.

No, you can't do that. Bond has specific character background which includes Scottish father, Swiss mother, Skyfall farm in Scotland and family motto "World is Not Enough". You can't wipe out that without destroying the character, just like you can't just decide that Superman is actually some guy from Natal, South Africa who got his powers from radioactive accident.
007 designation is for what you mean, but Bond is Bond..

Most of which was just made up for that film which defeats your own argument

What film? All of the above was written by Ian Fleming (well, except name of the Bond's farm, I don't think Fleming ever mentioned it).

 Mr Morden wrote:

A new version of Superman could be black or asian - there is no reason why a Kryptonian would be white (or wouldn;t be)

Irrelevant to the point I made.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

Is sean connery bond infiltrating Japan (one of the most racially pure countries in the world with a long history of isolationism) in You Only Live Twice as a 6ft tall scott pretending to be a native Japanese.

...which, as I explained, had Bond undertake training on Japanese culture so he wouldn't stick out so much. The idea was not that he could pass for a native Japanese, just to make him somewhat less noticeable. In emergency he actually tried to pretend to be a mute Japanese man. He failed, of course, as Blofeld knew what he looked like. (I don't recall if that part was in the movie actually, it was in the book).

By the way, it is well estabilished that Bond can speak Russian and has sometimes pretended to be Russian. Most notably in "World is Not Enough".

 Lance845 wrote:

Also, its not the same as white washing. White washing is giving basically all but select unimportant or goofy roles to white people. Casting idris alba as bond is giving a good actor who would be great in the role a part he is suited for based on acting talent.

So, are you cool if remake of Shaft has Jason Statham as lead actor?

Because I would not, for all the same reasons I outlined here. And I suspect most of the people calling for black Bond would not either, but for different reasons.

Backfire wrote:

So, are you cool if remake of Shaft has Jason Statham as lead actor?

feth Statham. Michael Cera. I agree with Donald Glover. It would be hilarious.

Because I would not, for all the same reasons I outlined here. And I suspect most of the people calling for black Bond would not either, but for different reasons.

But a serious answer, you missed what actually is a problem about recasting race again.

Is the characters race important to the character? Does the race define them? Their trials and tribulations?

Shaft is defined by being black in the black sploitation era. His character is inherently tied up in his skin color. People treat him a certain way because of his skin color. Luke Cage is the same. He wouldn't BE Luke Cage if he wasn't black. If they are not black they are not the same person. Bond's skin color doesn't actually change anything about Bond. It doesn't define him in any way. Bond's personality doesn't even need to stay consistent because different bonds have had wildly different personalities. None of which have been consistent with the books.


ALSO, Shaft is not = to Bond. Bond is a super spy and kind of a super hero who goes on adventures and has exciting times. Shaft is a black guy from a ghetto that sometimes hits women. You are not stealing something people have a fondness for by recasting Shaft.

Backfire wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
L
Alternatively, Bond could just be just the official identity of 007 even though the actual agents change. Now that we know Bond's back story, it almost makes sense to get a whole new Bond with a new backstory to explore.

No, you can't do that. Bond has specific character background which includes Scottish father, Swiss mother, Skyfall farm in Scotland and family motto "World is Not Enough". You can't wipe out that without destroying the character, just like you can't just decide that Superman is actually some guy from Natal, South Africa who got his powers from radioactive accident.
007 designation is for what you mean, but Bond is Bond..

Most of which was just made up for that film which defeats your own argument

What film? All of the above was written by Ian Fleming (well, except name of the Bond's farm, I don't think Fleming ever mentioned it)..

Ok - not read the books for ages - so on how many of the films was this relevant and mentioned?

You realise that there is a superman version who crashed in Russia right?

The Shaft comparison has already been covered.

I'd love to see a bunch of Bonds in the same movie, like Dalton, Brosnan, Craig, Elba, and maybe Connery all have to work together to defeat the Daleks Spectre. Or go full Crisis of Infinite Bonds and have a few women Bonds, differently able Bonds, Kid Bonds, and one sassy robot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
...like maybe Bond is sent to investigating why the rad-hardened records of British Intelligence don't match public records or even agents' memories regarding the existence of President Ron Silver's enemies, and he keeps getting recast as the movie progresses, as James Bond is a legacy code name that transfers to the next viable candidate as each successive Bond is wiped from history. Then all the former Bonds begin to get involved, having received cryptic letters. About two thirds through the movie, Bond uses a device from Q to scramble the time machine and all sorts of hijacks ensue, with previous Bonds popping into existence and alternate timeline Bonds, and who knows, a dinosaur? Why not. In the end they take on Silver's army of future cyborg spetznatz, bed Marty McFly's mom (spawning another James Bond), pull a Wyld Stallyns, and end with a dry quip. The movie writes itself.

I have found Craig's outings as Bond to be decidedly average. They are littered with cool moments, scenes and imagery but have left me feeling pretty numb. Making Bond black just strikes me a one of those condescending gestures made to make black people seem 'included'.

Reading all this has made me realise something...
People actually watch Bond films. I always thought they were an over-long advertisement for a car, a watch, a suit and a new and upcoming actress that never really makes it.

I've seen maybe 4 or 5 Bond films. Golden Eye (64!) and some of the Craig ones. Personally, I find them all painfully boring. I'm firmly in the "Stop making these movies" camp.

 Hollow wrote:
I have found Craig's outings as Bond to be decidedly average. They are littered with cool moments, scenes and imagery but have left me feeling pretty numb. Making Bond black just strikes me a one of those condescending gestures made to make black people seem 'included'.

I found the first Craig outing quite good, the second was pretty bad and the next two went downhill further.

They tried too hard to be Bourne like - whilst Mission Impossible did a much better job of caputring the style and "fun" of Bond.

Black,White, Asain guy (or girl) etc could be a "Bond" - wouldn't bother me as long as it was fun action ride.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I'd love to see a bunch of Bonds in the same movie, like Dalton, Brosnan, Craig, Elba, and maybe Connery all have to work together to defeat the Daleks Spectre. Or go full Crisis of Infinite Bonds and have a few women Bonds, differently able Bonds, Kid Bonds, and one sassy robot.

The original Casino Royale movie did this. It was actually suppose to be a comedy.

It WAS pretty hilarious when he got whipped in the nuts with a rope with a knot in it.

 Lance845 wrote:
It WAS pretty hilarious when he got whipped in the nuts with a rope with a knot in it.

I don't recall that happening to Peter Sellers.....




https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061452/

 Hollow wrote:
I have found Craig's outings as Bond to be decidedly average. They are littered with cool moments, scenes and imagery but have left me feeling pretty numb.

They (Casino) royally screwed the pooch after first movie. CR was so promising - it was close to Fleming's original Bond in both plot and style, good casting, good action AND it hinted to longer storyline continuity - something Bond movies never quite managed to pull off before. Ooh the intrigue!
And then Quantum of Solace came out and it was so BAD. Boring generic villain, boring generic action and Bond was fighting for...60% cheaper tap water for Bolivians. Oh man. And in epic ending scene, villain base's solar panels blew up. How does that even work?
Skyfall was okay for what it was, but it was obvious that they had abandoned the 'continuity'. It was back to throwaway villains. SPECTRE had just throwaway villain who was retconned to have been behind everything. So what they can do for next one, knowing it is Craig's last outing? Another throwaway villain.
I mean, maybe it is GOOD, no reason it can't, but my hopes are not up. And as someone said, knowing that Craig is just filling up the contract is off-putting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

You realise that there is a superman version who crashed in Russia right?

And he still was from Krypton and got his powers from our yellow sun. He was not some Belarussian dude who got showered by radioactive materials in some horrible nuclear accident, or anything like that.
Also, that was AU story. Of course you can always go crazy there (Batman of that timeline was badass).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

But a serious answer, you missed what actually is a problem about recasting race again.

Is the characters race important to the character? Does the race define them? Their trials and tribulations?

Shaft is defined by being black in the black sploitation era. His character is inherently tied up in his skin color. People treat him a certain way because of his skin color. Luke Cage is the same. He wouldn't BE Luke Cage if he wasn't black. If they are not black they are not the same person. Bond's skin color doesn't actually change anything about Bond. It doesn't define him in any way. Bond's personality doesn't even need to stay consistent because different bonds have had wildly different personalities. None of which have been consistent with the books.

I do not see Bond any different. Bond is very much a symbol of "old England" (which is ironic given he is not English), a last shining knight of a dying British Empire. In original books he was WW2 vet too, although Fleming already sorta introduced "sliding timescale" and it was forgotten in the movies too. Basically these are character-defining traits where it is very hard to fit a Black or Asian man. He is also somewhat of a chauvinist, so how do you cast Bond as a woman? One of the intrigues of the Bond in modern days is that he is a dinosaur, a relic of a bygone era. This device was especially employed in Brosnan era movies.

Now, one could always argue that that kind of character is outdated and not going to interest modern audiences anymore. I definitely agree there are some famous characters which are probably past that line: for example characters like Tarzan and Phantom who are very much based on the idea of superior innate abilities of Anglosaxon white man in any environment. But the solution there is not attempt to 'modernize' the characters but simply to retire them and think up new ones. Who possibly would want to see a black Tarzan? Now, maybe one could do a sort of 'reverse Tarzan' where an African man is marooned on Europe and becomes a king because he is so badass. Now when I think about it, that might be cool.

The thing is, when you start tampering with a character it is very likely it will lose the characteristics which made it popular in the first place. Name or title "James Bond" doesn't make a character. Nor does being a spy who shoots bad guys and scores hot chicks. Anglo-American popular literature has dozens upon dozens of such characters. Most of them are completely forgettable and only very few have achieved popularity which could be even remotely compared to that of Bond. Jason Bourne and Dirk Pitt perhaps come to mind. But even Bourne is far from iconic status of Bond. Something in the James Bond character has resonated with people, makes him cut above the pack, and if you start changing him too much, you are likely to lose the 'Midas Touch' within.

Can't resist to mention my favourite example of this, Ang Lee's Hulk (2003). One of the core concepts of Hulk character was that Bruce Banner was mostly responsible from the events which made him Hulk. It was Fate's sweet irony. Sure thing, maybe his donkey-cave father had messed up his psyche and maybe the military was pushing him to direction he might have not otherwise taken and that idiot Rick Jones showed up to mess everything, but in the end, he designed the bomb and pressed the button and did so willingly.

But Ang Lee's Hulk made him completely a victim. It was all his dad, and some bad luck. He was not at fault in any of the stuff what happened to him. He bore none of the responsibility and it made him so BORING. It was just not Bruce Banner, The Hulk anymore. It was just some generic muscle guy who happened to be green.

Are you claiming that because Bond was originally a WW2 vet, he can no longer be Black or Asian? Are you under the impression all WW2 vets are white?

@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.

Seriously. Look at how many different versions of Robinhood there are. He's goofy, hes serious, hes a solider, hes not a soldier, his personality is all over the shop, it's all kinds of gak. Wanna know why it's all okay and they are all Robinhood? Because his primary character traits is good with bow, steal from rich, give to poor. Anyone who does that can be robinhood.

Bond, 007, gadgets or subverted with jokey lack there of. Goes on mission. Elaborate enemy plot. Bangs some chick he meets in the movie.

Any race can do that. And a female can role reversal it.

 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!

(Also the Disney one)

Errol Flynn supported by Basil Rathbone is the only correct answer.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Errol Flynn supported by Basil Rathbone is the only correct answer.

Ah man. There was a product is news and rumors called Wrathborne, and I really wanted to make a Basil Rathbone joke but didn't because I thought no one would know who he was. Should have made the joke.

As for Blackfire's post, I was more confused by him stating that Superman comes from the planet Krypton, and therefore can't be nonwhite. Huh?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Are you claiming that because Bond was originally a WW2 vet, he can no longer be Black or Asian? Are you under the impression all WW2 vets are white?

How would that work out today? Falkland Islands Vet?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

How would that work out today? Falkland Islands Vet?

Most Falklands Vets will be in their late fifties to early sixties by now so that's probably be pushing it for any Bond movie not set in the 1990s. Op Granby (Desert Storm to most of the rest of the world) is probably as far back as you could go but even then the youngest veterans of that would be in their mid-late forties. Either Telic or Herrick (Iraq and Afghanistan) would probably be more likely.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Errol Flynn supported by Basil Rathbone is the only correct answer.

Ah man. There was a product is news and rumors called Wrathborne, and I really wanted to make a Basil Rathbone joke but didn't because I thought no one would know who he was. Should have made the joke.

As for Blackfire's post, I was more confused by him stating that Superman comes from the planet Krypton, and therefore can't be nonwhite. Huh?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Are you claiming that because Bond was originally a WW2 vet, he can no longer be Black or Asian? Are you under the impression all WW2 vets are white?

How would that work out today? Falkland Islands Vet?

I enjoy Rathbone's work a lot actually. Got a complete collection of his Sherlock movies at home. I'm no comic guy, but wasn't there a DC event or crossover or something not long long ago where the main character was a black Superman?

In regards to Bond, for legacy's sake, i'd like to see him stay traditional, as i think making him black or a woman or a minority would be lazy frankly and just screams of "look, look how diverse we're being". I'd much rather see a new character be they a woman, black, Asian and grow their own characters and franchise that i could enjoy for another thirty plus years. Atomic Blonde comes to mind, that 's a movie that could be grown out into a franchise with a little care.

 DeffDred wrote:
Reading all this has made me realise something...
People actually watch Bond films. I always thought they were an over-long advertisement for a car, a watch, a suit and a new and upcoming actress that never really makes it.

I've seen maybe 4 or 5 Bond films. Golden Eye (64!) and some of the Craig ones. Personally, I find them all painfully boring. I'm firmly in the "Stop making these movies" camp.

Whatever genre of film you want to pick, there will be people who find them boring.

Consequence: stop making all films, or else continue making all films and let people not watch the ones they don't want to watch.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
In regards to Bond, for legacy's sake, i'd like to see him stay traditional, as i think making him black or a woman or a minority would be lazy frankly and just screams of "look, look how diverse we're being". I'd much rather see a new character be they a woman, black, Asian and grow their own characters and franchise that i could enjoy for another thirty plus years. Atomic Blonde comes to mind, that 's a movie that could be grown out into a franchise with a little care.

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? Nothing about him as a character is tied to race. As long as it's a British black dude or whatever as Bond you still have the exact same character.

(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.)

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.

Bond films have always updated throughout their 50 year history. Each one is set in the current era of whenever it was made. As such, a black or even a female Bond makes perfect sense in the early 21st century.

I think it goes back to my theory of, "if you're upset about the idea of a Black Bond, then where we you being upset about the idea of a Blonde Bond?"

I mean, who can seriously doubt that, for example, a younger Colin Salmon wouldn't have the class and style to pull off an amazing Bond.

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.

There would, perhaps, be some differences that could inform his character but, I think someone mentioned this earlier, like say, him being even more of an outsider amongst people and the Upper Classes, but a lot of that could just end up informing more of Bond's character.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

As for Blackfire's post, I was more confused by him stating that Superman comes from the planet Krypton, and therefore can't be nonwhite. Huh?

I never said that. Please read more carefully.