183 replies to this topic

[dunmall]

i have to admit I wasn't expecting this bit of casting, hopefully this means Felix will be more than just a yes man like he has been in the past.

[Doctor Shatterhand]

When it comes to Felix Leiter, I have always been partial to Jack Lord or Rik Van Nutter. David Hedison worked well with Roger, but seemed long in the tooth to Timothy Dalton. Although I thought John Terry was fine with Dalton in TLD, unfortunately he did not have much to do in that picture.

The missed opportunities seem to be Cec Linder in GF and Norman Burton in DAF. And Bernie Casey is good as Leiter in NSNA.

But now the problem is that among Bond fans, when we finally see Jeffrey Wright in this role, everyone of us is going to notice he is black. This is not saying we are racist, but simply no more than noticing Charles Gray is different from Telly Savalas when it comes to Blofeld.

An actors major job is to create the illusion that they are this character. Whenever there is a change in a characters appearence, it is natural that people will notice. Close calls can be noted that the great boxer Mohammed Ali was considered by the Salkind producers to play the part of Superman in 1978. That was only five years before Bernie Casey would play Felix, yet I would wager a bet that audiences would turn away in droves with that casting.

But to be fair, would black audiences be alarmed if Bruce Willis was signed tomorrow to play John Shaft? I would also wager a bet that they would.

This is not the first time a film character, who was played numerous times by a white actor, was changed to a black character. Dracula (BLACULA), Santa Claus (ALL IN THE FAMILY), and James West (THE WILD WILD WEST) to name a few.

In Novemeber we will all be judging Daniel on his performance and how different it will be to the last five actors. Eva Green will be judged on her Vesper and Mads will be judged on his Le Chiffre. But perhaps we should look at it this way. This is the Daniel Craig era and it will be different from Pierce and Roger and definitely Sean's films. By allowing that to be and approaching this with an open mind, it may be possible for a majority of us to enjoy the next three Bond films.

But perhaps the most obvious reason behind Jeffrey Wright's casting might be that he and Craig got along pretty well filming together THE VISITING recently in Washington, DC. I can hear the conversation in Barbara Broccoli's office. "Daniel, we are having a hard time trying to find an actor to play Felix Leiter - the CIA agent. Got any suggestions?"

"Well, I know this one bloke in the States who was fun to work with."

"Do you think he is available?" says Barbara.

"Can't hurt to ring him up. I've got him here on my speed dial. Should only take a couple of seconds to hear him out."

[Auric64]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' post='520650' date='20 February 2006 - 00:22']
[quote name='FelixLeiter' post='520329' date='19 February 2006 - 00:39']
Sorry, guys. Have to agree with those who said Jeffrey Wright is not the best choice to play Felix Leiter. Wright can take this role and do a wonderful job with it, but that's not the point of the argument. Simply put, and no bigotry of any sort is intended, Wright simply does not meet the original character description of Felix Leiter. Wright may be a wonderful actor, but he is not, I think what Leiter should be. In the books, there are two Felix Leiters. In Casino Royale through the first half of Diamonds Are Forever, he is a well developed Texas professional, while in the second half of that book through the rest of his appearances in the series, Fleming changes Felix into more of a Texas cowboy working for the CIA. Either way, he is always one thing. He is, more or less, Bond's equal, just working from the American side. He matches Bond step for step in intelligence, ability as an agent and a fighter, and overall cool factor in general. This translation is always lost in the movies, turning Felix into a sidekick of sorts. Now, Jeffrey Wright can be all those things, can act as Bond's equal, I admit that. But Wright is simply not what Fleming intended for the character to be. Felix was someone who was like Bond, both in character and physically. If a black man were cast in the role of Bond, the Jeffrey Wright would make much more sense as Felix, because they would be more easily seen as peers. Or maybe I just can't let go that EON, as usual, ignores Fleming's work and decides to do what they think best. I have just always seen the Felix Leiter of the books as an excellent character, my favorite of the series next to Bond. As was said in an earlier post, there will always just be that disappointment that EON could have done a movie that was truer to the book, which I can almost promise would make a better movie. This was EON's last chance to bring Fleming's work to life. I have nothing against Wright, it's just a shame to think of potential that I feel, at the moment, is going untapped. Oh well. Maybe next movie they'll get the spirit right. Sure. Why not? I'll put it this way. If Felix was a real guy, and they were bringing his tale to the big screen, I'm almost sure what his quote would be as he saw it. "Gee, that doesn't much look like me, does it, Shamus?"
Hopeful, but for the moment disappointed,
Felix Leiter

[/quote]

[mra]I really don

[spynovelfan]

Here, here, FelixLeiter. For me, truer words have never been written so well. The casting of Liam Gallagher of Oasis, (sorry, Mads Mikkelsen) and Jeffrey Wright as Le Chiffre and Felix Leiter respectively, have finally made my mind up. Having seen every Bond film on it`s first release since DAF in 1971, I will not be going to see Casino Royale at the cinema in November 2006. And that hurts me very, very much.

Why? Because I have lost all faith in Broccoli and Wilson in being able to guide James Bond into the 21st century in the right way, (for me). I am against a reboot of the Bond character, (and I`ve made it known on here before how I think things could be changed to keep the film as an addition to the previous 20) and I was not happy that Daniel Craig had been cast as Bond. I think Craig is a fine actor, but to me, he isn`t Bond. Many here on this forum are prepared to give him a chance, and initially I was prepared to do likewise.

Since then, we have had information regarding what is in the script of CR, and again I have not been happy. The producers/director keep saying that the CR script is a faithful adaption of Fleming`s novel, yet in reality it seems that only the casino scenes, the torture scene and the ending of the book is being kept. If so, then how can this then be a true representation of the novel?

The casting of the remaining key characters in the film has finally brought me to my decision to boycott the film. I`m sorry if this upsets any of you on this forum, but Felix Leiter is a white character and not black. Whichever way you cut it, if you are going to be faithful to the novel, (regardless of a reboot or anything else) then the actor playing Leiter has to be white. Leiter is a major character who, certainly in the Fleming novels, holds his own alongside Bond. The EON films have represented him differently, but even then they still kept him white.

What I am worried about with this casting is that Jeffrey Wright may be seen as the "token black" in the film, and just seen as a gofer to Bond. Regardless of the colour of the actor`s skin playing him, Leiter`s character in the previous 7 films he has been in, has not been as 3 dimensional as it was in the books.

I cannot understand how so many of you are saying that Jeffrey Wright is going to be great as Leiter, when none of you know exactly how he is going to be used in the film, (as nobody knows if they are going to give his character the same to do as in the book). How good he is will depend on what he has been given to do in the film, and how his character is portrayed when doing it.

Is Mads Mikkelsen really everybody`s idea of what Le Chiffre should be? And how the heck can Giancarlo Giannini, an Italian actor, at 63 (and 26 years older than Daniel Craig) be cast as Bond`s FRENCH ally, Rene Mathis? This is casting gone mad!! At the most, Mathis is no more than 5-10 years older in CR the book, so what were the producers thinking when they agreed to this casting?

It strikes me that once again the producers have "gone cheap" in casting actors who don`t cost much, as well as not bearing any resemblence to their book characters. Some of you may counter this and say "what about previous unknown actors/actresses who have become a hit in a Bond film, and gone onto bigger and better things?" (Famke Janssen springs to mind)? This is true, but these actors/actresses weren`t playing Fleming`s characters, who have already been described in the books and remembered by the fans who have a preconceived idea of what they should look like.

I`m sure I am going to be castigated on this forum for speaking heresy such as this, but I am unrependent. I have my own beliefs as to how I want my Bond films to turn out and here, finally, after 25 years, (since FYEO) the Bond producers have the chance to film an actual Fleming Bond novel which incorporates as much Fleming material as possible, to make a Bond film that could hark back to the days of the first 4 (and OHMSS) Bond films.

With what I have heard so far, regarding the CR script, I don`t think this will happen. The reboot idea is going to throw 40 years of Bond continuity out of the window, (and contrary to some people on this forum, continuity DOES matter to many of us) and this could cause problems for Bond 22, (as in "Which direction do we go now?").

Broccoli and Wilson should not be wanting to jump on the Bourne bandwagon but instead they should play true to their own strengths. People who watch Bourne watch it BECAUSE it is different to Bond. They know that watching Bourne play out like a Bond film wouldn`t work, and similariy Bond going 'back to basics' and trying to emulate the seriousness of Bourne or Dr. No/FRWL, just isn`t going to work.

Bond`s fate was sealed with Goldfinger. As soon as Connery rose from the water with a bird on his head, and the audience laughed at him instead of with him, the Bond films were set. Goldfinger became the template and many of that films firsts, (the gadgets, the spectacular sets, the larger than life villians and their stupendous plots) were incorporated in many of the following 17 films.

By and large, it worked. The audience got from Bond what they couldn`t get with Derek Flint, Matt Helm and the Men from UNCLE. Those films were the Bond imitators. Now it seems that Bond has become what they once were, but in a different way. Are the public going to like it? I don`t think so, but the answer will be found after November 17th. Sadly, for me, I won`t be in the queue to find out.

I don't agree with a word of your post, I'm afraid. You seem to have forgotten that many of the actors in the early films - including Sean Connery - were unknowns or near-unknowns. I also don't understand how you can love the first four and OHMSS, but not want them to go back to trying to emulate them. What *do* you want them to do, then?

I'll be right at the front of the queue when this film is released. A decade ago, I was excited at the prospect of Pierce Brosnan as James Bond. But I am much more excited about the idea of Daniel Craig, because for the first time in a long time I don't know quite what I'm going to see in a Bond film.

I can't wait.

[ACE]

Having seen every Bond film on it`s first release since DAF in 1971, I will not be going to see Casino Royale at the cinema in November 2006. And that hurts me very, very much.

I don't believe you. You can't pull that amount of cold turkey. It's too early to judge. You will see a great poster, an intriguing teaser trailer and you will sneak into that cinema come November. Giving you an out. A way to get back. A shame to lose someone so early. After all your years of service.

Since then, we have had information regarding what is in the script of CR, and again I have not been happy. The producers/director keep saying that the CR script is a faithful adaption of Fleming`s novel, yet in reality it seems that only the casino scenes, the torture scene and the ending of the book is being kept. If so, then how can this then be a true representation of the novel?

It's an adaptation. There has never been a true representation of the novels on screen. And it's more faithful than any of us could ever have hoped at this point in time and after the financial success of the recent series.

Whichever way you cut it, if you are going to be faithful to the novel, (regardless of a reboot or anything else) then the actor playing Leiter has to be white. The EON films have represented him differently, but even then they still kept him white.

So the films have been completely unfaithful to Fleming's Leiter but, thank God, they kept him white...is what you're saying?

Or what?

Hey, Auric64 maybe you have Bond fatigue.

I hope we don't lose you - as Rog Bond would have said, "A little premature, perhaps?".

See you in the cinema queue in November....

[Hitchcock Bond]

I don't think that anyone should be castigated for giving their honest opinion on this forum. All we can give as fans is opinions. I think it's a shame you have turned your back on the film at still an early stage in production. In many ways I agree with your post. I would have never picked Craig for Bond, Mikkelson for Le Chiffre, Wright for Leiter, Giannini for Mathis or Green for Vesper. I think they may be using too many major characters. I don't agree with the reboot idea. I regret the casino is not set in France. There are also some other things I think may be wrong with the film - but - nothing as yet has made me not want to see this film, because as much as I hate to admit maybe they are right and I am wrong. All I think we can do is keep an open mind, wait and see the film, and then give our opinions as honestly as we can.

[spynovelfan]

I would have never picked Craig for Bond, Mikkelson for Le Chiffre, Wright for Leiter, Giannini for Mathis or Green for Vesper. I think they may be using too many major characters. I don't agree with the reboot idea. I regret the casino is not set in France. There are also some other things I think may be wrong with the film - but - nothing as yet has made me not want to see this film, because as much as I hate to admit maybe they are right and I am wrong. All I think we can do is keep an open mind, wait and see the film, and then give our opinions as honestly as we can.

Yes, imagine if the interweb had existed in 1961:

'Has anyone actually *seen* Darby O'Gill? This Connery chap is an absolutely *appalling* choice for Bond. They should have offered David Niven a balloon-shaped moon to take the part. And according to Path

[ACE]

[quote name='spynovelfan' post='520784' date='20 February 2006 - 11:35']
Yes, imagine if the interweb had existed in 1961:

'Has anyone actually *seen* Darby O'Gill? This Connery chap is an absolutely *appalling* choice for Bond. They should have offered David Niven a balloon-shaped moon to take the part. And according to Path

[Hitchcock Bond]

Didn't Dana Broccoli ok Connery on the back of watching Darby O'Gill?

[Auric64]

I don't agree with a word of your post, I'm afraid. You seem to have forgotten that many of the actors in the early films - including Sean Connery - were unknowns or near-unknowns. I also don't understand how you can love the first four and OHMSS, but not want them to go back to trying to emulate them. What *do* you want them to do, then?

I'll be right at the front of the queue when this film is released. A decade ago, I was excited at the prospect of Pierce Brosnan as James Bond. But I am much more excited about the idea of Daniel Craig, because for the first time in a long time I don't know quite what I'm going to see in a Bond film.

I can't wait.

Hi

I don`t think you have understood my post. There were many of the early actors who, while they weren`t all known world wide, were known in their own country. Gert Frobe springs to mind. It was his fine critical portrayal as a child molester in a German film in 1963 that brought his attention to Broccoli and Saltzman who could see in him the Auric Goldfinger they wanted. Joseph Wiseman was a well known and distinguished actor in films and stage before Dr. No, his film performances go back to at least Viva Zapata in 1952 with Marlon Brando.

Surely you can see what I mean when you think of the actors/actresses in the early films that were perfect for the Fleming characters that were in the book? Ursula Andress as Honey, (would not have worked with Julie Christie - for obvious reasons), Lotte Lenya as Klebb? Gert Frobe as Goldfinger? Harold Sakata as Oddjob? Adolfo Celi as Largo? The list goes on. These actors were chosen not only for their acting ability, (if not their command of English) as well as fitting the physical characterisation of the Fleming characters so well. Can you say the same with Mads Mikkelsen playing Le Chiffre? I don`t think so.

It`s because I love the first 4 films and OHMSS that I`m angered that the producers arent`t sticking to their original notion of filming CR the way of the book.

*****SOME SPOILERS IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS*****

Bond is NOT a rookie in the CR novel. He had already worked for British intelligence in and since the second world War, and we know from his comments to Mathis how he got his Double O number. Nowhere in the book does it say it was just before the Casino Royale mission, so if Bond has had previous missions before Royale as a Double O agent, he cannot be a rookie at the start of CR the film/book.

Bond would also not be as unprofessional as he is in the CR script. Where is Bond unprofessional in the CR novel? Okay, he doesn`t like the idea of working with Vesper and yes, he loses to Le Chiffre at cards, but that makes him a human being, not a cocky one. Bond is a good card player, but in this instance Le Chiffre turned out to be better, and cleaned Bond out. If not for the intervention of Leiter, Bond would not have been able to square off with Le Chiffre again and finally beat him.

In the past we have had promises from the producers that this next film was going to be the one: the one that would hark back to FRWL and OHMSS. We never got it. Now we have a chance to see the first Bond novel, written by Ian Fleming, being filmed as Fleming wrote it, (which we haven`t had since 1981 when EYES incorporated a lot of Fleming material from the 5 stories to make one film) and yet we aren`t going to get it.

Why is this? It`s because the producers know, (and with good reason) that parts of the book have to be updated. The same happened with Moonraker. The novel centred around a rocket landing on London which, in 1979 with Man already on the Moon, was outdated. Fine, I had no problem with that. But please don`t expect me to hear from the producers that they are being faithful to the novel when, as I`ve stated before, only the casino, torture and end scenes are going to be incorporated from the novel. 30-45 minutes of screen time does not a faithful adaption of an Ian Fleming novel make.

If the reboot thing hadn`t been included, and the producers were just going to update the book, with no references to Bond`s past, but have it as a continuation of DAD, then I (and perhaps others on this forum) would have been happy.

Campbell has been quoted as saying that this film will end with the audience seeing the James Bond they know and love. Why does this have to be done? Bond of the films is not the Bond of the books. For those who have never read a Fleming Bond novel, (and I`m sure there are many around the world who haven`t, and have only seen the films) all this 'back to basics' is not going to matter too much to them. In fact, it could go the opposite way and blow up in the producers faces.

Campbell may know how to direct a Bond film, but he doesn`t know Fleming. Bond does not become the Bond we know and love BECAUSE of Vesper`s death. He is affected, initially by her death, but that all changes when he reads her letter and he realises then that she was a Double O agent.

"He saw her now only as a spy. Their love and his grief were relegated to the boxroom of his mind. Later, perhaps they would be dragged out, dispassionately examined, and then bitterly thrust back with other sentimental baggage he would rather forget. Now he could only think of her treachery to the Service and to her country and of the damage it had done. His professional mind was completely absorbed with the consequences - the covers which must have been blown over the years, the codes which the enemy must have broken, the secrets which must have leaked from the centre of the very section devoted to penetrating the Soviet Union."

Then:

"He ground his teeth. Suddenly Mathis`s words came back to him: "There are plenty of really black targets around," and, earlier, "What about SMERSH? I don`t like the idea of these chaps running around France killing anyone they feel has been a traitor to their precious political system."

Then Bond thinks of Vesper walking down the corridors of MI6 with documents in his hand, while him as a Double O agent gallivants round the world - playing Red Indians.

"Well, it was not too late. Here was a target for him, right to hand. He would take on SMERSH and hunt it down. Without SMERSH, without this cold weapon of death and revenge, the MWD would be just another bunch of civil servant spies, no better and no worse than any of the western services."

Sorry, for repeating all of the above, but all of it tells me that Vesper is NOT the reason for Bond becoming who we all now know him to be. The line, "[i]He saw her now only as a spy." means to me that whatever love he had for Vesper, went in the instant he threw her letter away. If anything makes Bond the agent he becomes in the book, is wanting to smash the Soviet machinery of SMERSH.

As there now seems to be no terrorist organisation, (such as SMERSH or SPECTRE) in the CR film, Bond doesn`t have the same revenge motive as he did in the books. So if Bond 22 doesn`t carry on from CR the film version, any desire on the filmmakers part to make Bond the agent we all know, won`t matter because Bond will be 'business as usual' in the following film.

As I`ve said before, the producers don`t seem to know what they want from this film, and I think it`s going to hurt it big time come November 2006.

Best

Andy

[Stephenson]

I can definitely understand your position: CR does seem to be the most polarizing of the Bond films, what with its casting, suggested tone and pacing. People do seem to either love the idea or hate it, and nothing that has come out so far seems to be shifting either side to a happy middle.

But I have never looked to the films to be exact visual translations of the novels. Perhaps I'm too pragmatic, but I realize that a direct adaptation would be vitually unwatchable, and therefore unsellable. Simply too much happens in the man's head. The recent adaptation of the Dirk Pitt series seemed to lend itself much more favorable to movie adaptions because of Cussler's cinematic writing style, so the failure to have direct translation there disappointed much more.

Instead, I've always had two Bonds, and depending on the experience I've wanted I've either read or watched. Again, I can understand the purist's desire, but realistically, if it was a direct translation you've wanted, you should have been disappointed with your first cinema experience, DAF. There was far more disturbing material in that (or Moonraker!) for the strict purist than a black Felix.

[Hitchcock Bond]

This was bound to arise with the casting of Jeffrey Wright. I think this it is a little harsh to brand anyone who doesn't agree with Wright's casting as racists. I don't think that any of the actors that has played Leiter ever matched Fleming's description. I expect that the vast majority of the people who go to see CR will not know that Leiter is supposed to be a sandy haired Texan, who was supposed to be severly injured by sharks. Personally I am glad that Leiter is back. I want to see something slightly different to the relationships Bond has had with Leiter in past movies; a slightly more ambiguous relationship where they really don't trust each other at first, after all this is the first time they meet isn't it? As for the casting of Wright, I hope they have signed him up for at least as long as Craig.

[Kara Milovy]

Which racist stereotype of Italians did Domino conform to, because I don't really see that she was a gangster, ugly or a thug.

How is Mr Big naturally more controlled by a strong leader? He is the strong leader.

This stuff, I think, is finding variation and exception, and neither proves nor disproves anything. Frankly, once you have the quote of Fleming saying that Italian-Americans "aren't *real* Americans anyway, they're just a bunch of spaghetti-eaters" no amount of apologetics will make that statement less bigoted or offensive.

I didn't describe Bond as stable and sure of himself - I just disagreed with your idea that Tracy's instability is part of Fleming's prejudice against people of 'mixed blood' by pointing out that his hero is also of mixed blood.

It's not my idea. Fleming actually *says* that Tracy's confusion is due to mixed blood, I am not extrapolating or assuming.

And Bond does *not* quit in OHMSS - he composes a letter of resignation in his head.

Right you are, I had it mixed up with the movie.

I don't think either that or his comment at the end of TLD is a result of mental instability.

I didn't say "mental instability," I said "anguish." Kinda different.

Sure, he goes off the deep end after Tracy's death - he's just seen his wife murdered in front of his eyes! Sure, he tries to kill M - because he has been brainwashed by the Russians.

I did say you could explain those, didn't I?

[delfloria]

Auric 64,

Before you dismiss "The Man from U.N.C.L.E." 's qualities, sit down with several of the first season episodes and you might reconsider. Casino Royale should be so lucky to turn out like "the Vulcan Affair".

[krypt]

Personally, I am not bothered a bit by Felix being played by Mr. Wright ... in fact, I am rather pleased and excited about the idea. But then, I'm a fan or Mr. Wright to begin with.

I suppose I'm not concerend about Mr. Wright not matching Fleming's description of the literary Felix because I've always viewed the novels and the films as alternate universes anyway.

That's how I look at the upcoming CR film. It's another alternate universe.

Hullo, by the way. Newbie to the board and all.

[Jim]

Welcome.

[Auric64]

Auric 64,

Before you dismiss "The Man from U.N.C.L.E." 's qualities, sit down with several of the first season episodes and you might reconsider. Casino Royale should be so lucky to turn out like "the Vulcan Affair".

Hi delfloria

I was referring to the Man from UNCLE films, and not the TV episodes which, were, certainly in season 1, very good spy stories. Sorry if that didn`t come over the way it should have.

Best

Andy

[tdalton]

I think that there's a bit of a double-standard going on. If a lot of people were willing to accept Goran Visnjic as James Bond (the MAIN character in the franchise), then why is it hard to accept Jeffrey Wright as Felix (a very MINOR character in the film franchise)? Because, if I remember correctly, Visnjic ran away with the poll of who we wanted out of the supposed "final four" back when the search was still on, even though he was least suitable for the role out of those four for the same reasons that many see Jeffrey Wright as being unsuitable for playing a much less significant character (who has already changed age and race more times than Bond himself).

I'm not trying to stir up any major debate over this, I'm just curious as to why the Felix character is being held in as much importance as the Bond character. And, for the record, I didn't support Visnjic as Bond because I wasn't fond of his acting abilities, and that was the only reason.

[Mister Asterix]

[mra]Watching Shaft yesterday and I have to say that physically my biggest problem with Wright being Fleming

[tdalton]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' post='521472' date='21 February 2006 - 10:05']
[mra]Watching Shaft yesterday and I have to say that physically my biggest problem with Wright being Fleming

[BlackFelix]

If they wanted a Black Felix why not come talk to yours truly??? This is obviously the biggest missed oppertunity of Casino Royale! I'm physically fit and with the right loafer lifts I can pull off about 5'10''

Edited by BlackFelix, 21 February 2006 - 04:19 PM.

[Skudor]

If they wanted a Black Felix why not come talk to yours truly??? This is obviously the biggest missed oppertunity of Casino Royale! I'm physically fit and with the right loafer lifts I can pull off about 5'10''

LOL... Can't belive this thread has lasted this long... actually I can .

[Santa]

LOL... Can't belive this thread has lasted this long... actually I can .

Yep. Some freakin' weirdos on here.

[Arrant]

Looks like EON are shaking off the old fans and welcoming in the new ones.
Starting out all over again seems a reasonable thing to do.

After all those of us who saw Connery

[Alex Zamudio]

I've been waiting for the return of Felix Leiter for many years, I was hoping for a Brosnan era appearance, but his presence in Casino Royale is great news, I'm glad Jeffrey Wright was chosen, he will be fantastic, I hope it is a juicy role and not just a few minutes like in TLD!

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

They should have put Jeffrey Wright as Quarrel Jr instead of Felix.

... And Dave Hedison as Felix again.

[DanMan]

They should have put Jeffrey Wright as Quarrel Jr instead of Felix.

... And Dave Hedison as Felix again.

[Dr. Noah]

They should have put Jeffrey Wright as Quarrel Jr instead of Felix.

... And Dave Hedison as Felix again.

Did you guys ever think they might have hired the best ACTOR and didn't worry about the skin color?

[DanMan]

The guy is an award winning actor. I'd say Craig and Wright are the two best casting choices in the movie.

[killkenny kid]

::

The guy is an award winning actor. I'd say Craig and Wright are the two best casting choices in the movie.

indeed.