Which actors do you think should be the next James Bond?

[Da-Scribe]

And now we return full circle to stupidity.
In what way am i trying to defend i'm not racist? Or better yet, why am i racist (because if i'm trying to defend, is because i'm)?
The more i'm in this thread, the more no one is making sense.

Breh...what? Why do you keep taking things I said out of context to make your point? I didn't call you a racist, but you're certainly trying hard to prove you aren't.

That makes no sense...at all.
So, "No one is saying physical attributes are irrelevant." but "his whiteness has never been a defining trait to the character."; in what universe does that make sense?
You do know what physical aspect is, right?
Most people are not defined by their race, but their race is a fact, you can not change it just because...it's logic 101.

Way to conveniently chop off the part where I said "not every physical attribute is relevant all the time."

Take me, for example:

I'm white, i was born white, i was created white, i was white all my life.
Am i defined by the color of my skin?
No, i'm defined by my personality, but the fact that i'm white defines me for society and the world in general.
People look at me and see a white male, they don't see a disembodied personality floating by.
Am i proud to be white? No, since i don't care for being white, but that doesn't make it less of a fact that i'm white.
Maybe, in my next life i will be black, and i will welcome it with open arms; but in this life, i'm white.
I'm the biggest defender of the soul, that we are soul and not body; but that doesn't mean we don't have a body is this physical realm and that body doesn't have certain aspects.

...what?

I don't get what is hard to understand?!?
I'm talking gibberish?

Yes.

And before you say that i'm a real person, it doesn't matter, the point is the same.

It seems that i'm the only one here that actually cares for the character.



You don't "need" to give a reason because you have none to give.
And by the logic of "not a defining trait to the character", we go full circle to 90% of all character...so, change away, change white to black and black to white, since it seems that nothing matters anymore, everything is up for grabs.

You seem to think that because you say something is the same, that it makes it the same. It's not the same. Bond is a fictional character. As such, he is open for adaptation. If it's not a defining trait, then yes, change away as it makes no actual difference. Or change a defining trait for the sake of parody or deconstruction. It honestly does not matter because Bond is a totally not real person.

 

[Da-Scribe]

This man a) is completely missing the fact that both Shaft and Storm are defined by their blackness and b) proposed that "Jack Bond" story. Breh, I can't breathe.

 

[BestGirl]

If people are serious about diversity for Bond they ought to be agitating for an Asian actor to play him. There are more Asians in the UK and there aren't nearly enough good roles for Asian actors in Hollywood.

 

[Da-Scribe]

If people are serious about diversity for Bond they ought to be agitating for an Asian actor to play him. There are more Asians in the UK and there aren't nearly enough good roles for Asian actors in Hollywood.

I dig it. To be honest though, I don't really care about diversity with Bond. I just wanna see good actors. No need to limit to just white people or black people. But yeah, it would be nice to see some other minorities get some good roles.

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

b) proposed that "Jack Bond" story. Breh, I can't breathe.

I didn't proposed anything, i just gave an idea of what can be done to have a "black Bond" without ruining the character.
You don't like it, great; i came up with that idea in seconds while i was writing it, so, make your own.

I didn't call you a racist, but you're certainly trying hard to prove you aren't.

Please, explain to me, why am i trying hard to prove i'm not a racist?
In what way did you arrived to that brilliant conclusion?
Is it because i'm justifying why Bond should stay white?
So, it's because i explained myself?
Did i used the words "i'm not racist, because..."? Because, i didn't, i never said that.

I don't get it......?!?!?



All the rest you said, from the post i quoted from to the one before is pure nonsense, so, who cares.
I already said my peace, so, i'm done...at least, until there is some intelligent point for the to address, like my last question of "why am i trying hard to prove i'm not a racist?"

 

[Da-Scribe]

I didn't proposed anything, i just gave an idea of what can be done to have a "black Bond" without ruining the character.
You don't like it, great; i came up with that idea in seconds while i was writing it, so, make your own.


Please, explain to me, why am i trying hard to prove i'm not a racist?
In what way did you arrived to that brilliant conclusion?
Is it because i'm justifying why Bond should stay white?
So, it's because i explained myself?
Did i used the words "i'm not racist, because..."? Because, i didn't, i never said that.

I don't get it......?!?!?



All the rest you said, from the post i quoted from to the one before is pure nonsense, so, who cares.
I already said my peace, so, i'm done...at least, until there is some intelligent point for the to address, like my last question of "why am i trying hard to prove i'm not a racist?"

It's because your explanations are hypocritical and you're jumping down the throat of anyone that calls you on it. We're all stupid and don't care for the character like you do. It's totally not a race thing, just a logic thing. Whatever that means.

Your only real justification has been that "He was created as white, so he should stay that way." And even then you only apply the logic selectively. Moneypenny can be whatever race, because her character isn't as important. But because Bond is important, he must remain white as that is how he was intended. You've yet to explain how a Bond of any other race is so different as to no longer be James Bond.

Instead you proposed some half-baked scenario where the Bond family adopted a black child, whilst completely missing that James Bond himself could be the adopted black/Indian/whatever kid.

You insist that allowing any capable actor to play Bond, regardless of race, somehow makes it about race. But then you follow that up by proposing alternatives like making Reed Richards black so that he can be in an interracial relationship, because that certainly doesn't make it about race.

You say you aren't watching Bond for the color of his skin and yet your entire argument has been about preserving that very notion. Meanwhile you say all this nonsense about souls, but then completely toss it out the window. To paraphrase, "I'm not defined by my race, but society defines me by my race." Like what are you even trying to say here? What point are you actually making? You keep saying people won't be able to look beyond his race, despite the fact that you're currently outnumbered by people who are willing to just that. You are literally the only one here that's obsessing about his whiteness and you're projecting that idea to general audiences.

You're falling all over yourself with this and you need to just give up.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

This man a) is completely missing the fact that both Shaft and Storm are defined by their blackness and b) proposed that "Jack Bond" story. Breh, I can't breathe.

And Bond is defined by his whiteness. He's an old school British imperialist. He's not like someone like Peter Parker where he's just a regular kid from New York. Bond being white is absolutely crucial to who he is, the way he acts, and what he represents. He's the embodiment of white upper class British culture. Making Bond black (or some other race) is like making Tarzan (an old British Lord) or John Carter (an ex-Confederate officer) black.

You mentioned Shaft and that's a good comparison. Bond is like a white equivalent of Shaft.

 

[Da-Scribe]

And Bond is defined by his whiteness. He's an old school British imperialist. He's not like someone like Peter Parker where he's just a regular kid from New York. Bond being white is absolutely crucial to who he is, the way he acts, and what he represents. He's the embodiment of white upper class British culture. Making Bond black (or some other race) is like making Tarzan (an old British Lord) or John Carter (an ex-Confederate officer) black.

Figured this was coming. You're talking about a character that has been consistently reinvented decade after decade. At the risk of being too anecdotal, I simply do not know anyone that watches a modern interpretation of Bond for the overtones of British imperialism. This is not a reason the character has managed to endure on an international scale.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Figured this was coming. You're talking about a character that has been consistently reinvented decade after decade. At the risk of being too anecdotal, I simply do not know anyone that watches a modern interpretation of Bond for the overtones of British imperialism. This is not a reason the character has managed to endure on an international scale.

The approach has been updated (usually between a grittier, darker take and a more comedic, campier version), but the character hasn't really changed all that much. Daniel Craig's Bond isn't that different from Sean Connery's all things considered. Skyfall is a great example of this as it deals directly with Bond's past. Skyfall does not work if Bond is anything but white upper class.

The big issue that you mention has more to do with people simply not knowing all that much about the character. A lot of people are more familiar with the concept of Bond and maybe watched a couple of films (usually the most recent ones) and some parodies, and don't have a great grasp about who the character is. That's how we end up with them suggesting easily disproved nonsense like how "James Bond" is a code name for different people, when watching several films would show otherwise.

 

[BlueLanternKal]

The approach has been updated (usually between a grittier, darker take and a more comedic, campier version), but the character hasn't really changed all that much. Daniel Craig's Bond isn't that different from Sean Connery's all things considered. Skyfall is a great example of this as it deals directly with Bond's past. Skyfall does not work if Bond is anything but white upper class.

The big issue that you mention has more to do with people simply not knowing all that much about the character. A lot of people are more familiar with the concept of Bond and maybe watched a couple of films (usually the most recent ones) and some parodies, and don't have a great grasp about who the character is. That's how we end up with them suggesting easily disproved nonsense like how "James Bond" is a code name for different people, when watching several films would show otherwise.

Speak for yourself. I've read a couple novels and graphic novels. It is certainly possible to tell a story of an orphaned minority James Bond without changing the character. And like it's been suggested in these very forums if you want to keep the themes of British imperialism and the like a Bond of Indian descent certainly fits that.

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

It's because your explanations are hypocritical and you're jumping down the throat of anyone that calls you on it. We're all stupid and don't care for the character like you do. It's totally not a race thing, just a logic thing. Whatever that means.

Your only real justification has been that "He was created as white, so he should stay that way." And even then you only apply the logic selectively. Moneypenny can be whatever race, because her character isn't as important. But because Bond is important, he must remain white as that is how he was intended. You've yet to explain how a Bond of any other race is so different as to no longer be James Bond.

Instead you proposed some half-baked scenario where the Bond family adopted a black child, whilst completely missing that James Bond himself could be the adopted black/Indian/whatever kid.

You insist that allowing any capable actor to play Bond, regardless of race, somehow makes it about race. But then you follow that up by proposing alternatives like making Reed Richards black so that he can be in an interracial relationship, because that certainly doesn't make it about race.

You say you aren't watching Bond for the color of his skin and yet your entire argument has been about preserving that very notion. Meanwhile you say all this nonsense about souls, but then completely toss it out the window. To paraphrase, "I'm not defined by my race, but society defines me by my race." Like what are you even trying to say here? What point are you actually making? You keep saying people won't be able to look beyond his race, despite the fact that you're currently outnumbered by people who are willing to just that. You are literally the only one here that's obsessing about his whiteness and you're projecting that idea to general audiences.

You're falling all over yourself with this and you need to just give up.

I'll stick to everything and anything i said, to the smallest detail, even to the punctuation.

Bond is, was and should forever be white, male and straight.
If you want to look at it as racism or any other crap, go nuts.
I'm totally at peace with myself.

I already explained myself time and time again, if you don't get it, it's YOUR fault, not mine.

 

[moviefreak]

I would rather that they change it up by making Bond a woman.

It is not far-fetched as there were female agents in the past and certainly in the current time period at the M16. In fact the current 'Q' at M16 was revealed to be a woman recently by the M16 head Sir Alec Younger--

Sir Alex Younger, speaking at Women in IT Awards, says James Bond films give MI6 a global profile – but their stereotypes are not entirely accurate:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/26/the-real-q-is-a-woman-boss-of-mi6-launches-drive-for-female-recruits

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

It isn't about what is realistic, it is about what is true to the character. If you are going to change everything about the character, then what's the point of adapting it?

 

[BlueLanternKal]

So skin color and gender is everything? So the concept of James Bond doesn't work if he's not white? I call ********. Changing him into a her could be a little more tricky , but I'd be open to it if someone could do it well. Think of the term "content of character". Skin color or gender does NOT define character or a character like Bond, period.

 

[moviefreak]

It isn't about what is realistic, it is about what is true to the character. If you are going to change everything about the character, then what's the point of adapting it?

A fictional character can be either male or female. Movie James Bond from Connery to Craig were all different characters to certain extent. It's all about creative liberty with film version of Bond.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

So skin color and gender is everything? So the concept of James Bond doesn't work if he's not white? I call ********. Changing him into a her could be a little more tricky , but I'd be open to it if someone could do it well. Think of the term "content of character". Skin color or gender does NOT define character or a character like Bond, period.

Yes, it does and I already explained why. Bond's background is CRUCIAL to his character, whether Connery, Craig, or anyone else.

It is like making a Superman who's not an alien anymore.

 

[Roose Bolton]

Here's the thing. Each one of these movies open with "(insert actor's name) as Ian Fleming's James Bond 007"

And if you watch any of the behind the scenes material you can see the films at EON are always crafting the character and the storylines for that character in a way that always goes back to what Fleming did or would be in keeping with what Fleming did. The imperialist white snob aspect of the character was a key to that, and I can't see the current people at EON throwing that out.

 

[KillerMcQueen]

Here's the thing. Each one of these movies open with "(insert actor's name) as Ian Fleming's James Bond 007"

And if you watch any of the behind the scenes material you can see the films at EON are always crafting the character and the storylines for that character in a way that always goes back to what Fleming did or would be in keeping with what Fleming did. The imperialist white snob aspect of the character was a key to that, and I can't see the current people at EON throwing that out.

This is pretty much where I stand, I see no reason to race swap Bond. I wouldn't get super annoyed if they ever did so long as the actor did a good job, but I don't see a reason for them to go out of their way to change something that is a big part of the characters background.

 

[BestGirl]

I would rather that they change it up by making Bond a woman.

It is not far-fetched as there were female agents in the past and certainly in the current time period at the M16. In fact the current 'Q' at M16 was revealed to be a woman recently by the M16 head Sir Alec Younger--

Sir Alex Younger, speaking at Women in IT Awards, says James Bond films give MI6 a global profile – but their stereotypes are not entirely accurate:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/26/the-real-q-is-a-woman-boss-of-mi6-launches-drive-for-female-recruits

I don't want a female James Bond. If they want a female agent, have her play a character called 008 or 009 or whatever.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I don't want a female James Bond. If they want a female agent, have her play a character called 008 or 009 or whatever.

They could use Scarlett Papava/004 from Devil May Care.

 

[Silvermoth]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38755032

Well there you go. Q is a woman

 

[Peyton Westlake]

No. Even an Australian Bond like George Lazenby was something of a stretch.

He's an actor. If Henry Cavill can act like he's a small town Kansas boy in Superman, I'm sure another could pull off Bond.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

He's an actor. If Henry Cavill can act like he's a small town Kansas boy in Superman, I'm sure another could pull off Bond.

Cavill was a lousy Superman, so not the best example.

 

[DKDetective]

Here's the thing. Each one of these movies open with "(insert actor's name) as Ian Fleming's James Bond 007"

And if you watch any of the behind the scenes material you can see the films at EON are always crafting the character and the storylines for that character in a way that always goes back to what Fleming did or would be in keeping with what Fleming did. The imperialist white snob aspect of the character was a key to that, and I can't see the current people at EON throwing that out.

Bingo, that is why the both of the two most recent modern "re-inventions" didn't update those aspects of the character and rather play up that the old-fashioned nature of the character (see Bond referred to as a "sexist, misogynist, dinosaur" and being chewed out by M for being a reckless, gentleman adventurer in Goldeneye) (or just the entirety of Skyfall and its exploration of Bond's origins and attitudes).

What BlueLantern does not get is that we are not saying that Bond's character is defined by his race, but rather by his socio-economic and class background, which unfortunately is still strongly tied to racial identity and will unfortunately continued to be tied to it for some time. We sadly do not live in a post-racial society, which is clearly more apparent now than ever given the political events of 2016.

 

[moviefreak]

I'm fully aware that EON does not like to change the formula for movie Bond. That formula call for mainly white, male, Eton/Oxbridge educated (many of the British's real life spies & civil servants came from these institutions), past enlistment & actions in navy/arm force, to name a couple of examples. M16 routinely recruit outside of Eton/Oxbridge.

Unfortunately, almost no one in today's Britain are bothered about the class system which is archaic except for the living royalties, hereditary peers of realm and of course a couple of rich toffs barrelling about in their open top cars around Kensington (I used to see them a lot and knew a few --they didn't mind spending money on poor me at some expensive restaurants lol)