4014 replies to this topic

[tdalton]

 

 

 

Not sure if he's been mentioned before (apologies if he has) but Luke Evans would fit the bill in my opinion. 
 

If the conservative end of Bond fandom were up in arms over the suggestion of a black actor being cast, what would they make of Evan's sexual orientation? Be interesting to see that fallout from that.

 
I don't think his sexuality should come into it - he's an actor after all. Employed to play a character that is not himself. But I do agree, would be interesting to see the response this would recieve.

Yup shouldntcomento it at all, and personally I think he'd be a good choice.

 

 

It shouldn't come into it at all, you're right, but you know there will be some bigots who will make it a big deal, hiding behind the fact that Fleming wouldn't approve or that it's too much of a departure, as though Evans would take the character himself in that direction.

 

I don't know anything about Evans, so I can't pass judgment on his suitability for the role.  He has a decent enough look for it, I suppose, but I don't know anything about his acting, so it wouldn't be fair for me to have an opinion.  But, his private life shouldn't affect it one bit, and if it does affect his candidacy for some people, then the problem doesn't lie with him.

[coco1997]

I would be fine with a gay actor playing Bond as long as EON doesn't pull some ridiculous stunt by making the character gay.

[Surrie]

I can't forsee Eon ever trying to change the character of Bond, but they do like to be adventurous with his casting... that's if Craig is anything to go by.

[Tiin007]

With all due respect to some of the previous posters in this thread, I don't think a gay actor would elicit the same outcry as a black actor would among the "conservative end of Bond fandom."

 

While I personally have no problem with Elba or any other black actor being cast, I *get* why some fans may think a change in Bond's race is too radical a departure from Fleming's vision. An actor's skin color is something which is ever-present and, for some traditionalists, cannot be "ignored" while watching the film. Again, I disagree with said notion, but I *understand* it. 

 

Sexual orientation, on the other hand, can easily be forgotten as Bond the character is bedding numerous women throughout his adventures. The actor's private sexual preferences should have no bearing on this, as it is not as plainly obvious as skin color.

 

Would the media nonetheless make a big deal about "the first gay Bond"? Of course. 

 

But I still think that the traditionalists among the fans will sooner accept a gay actor in the role than they would a black actor. 

[tdalton]

With all due respect to some of the previous posters in this thread, I don't think a gay actor would elicit the same outcry as a black actor would among the "conservative end of Bond fandom."

 

I would hope that you're right on this front.  After the rather embarrassing outcry there was over the current actor having blonde hair, I'm not sure my faith in my fellow man is quite as high as yours, but I would indeed hope so.  

 

I'm not too concerned about it, though.  EON will cast who they want, regardless of my or anyone else's opinion.  If they do cast someone like Evans or Elba, then that's their choice to do so, and those that decry that casting on the grounds of racial or sexual orientation ideals will show their true colors.  Hopefully the new Bond actor at that point would do what Craig did and take the high road and let them do a good job on their own of looking foolish without feeding into it.

[SecretAgentFan]

Agreed.

 

Personally, I believe that it is time to throw all preconceptions overboard.  And Craig definitely paved the way for a new look at the character James Bond.

 

And who if not James Bond could be the perfect way to change mass audiences´ perception of how they see the world?

 

Someone as commanding a presence as Idris Elba would be perfect as Bond, IMO.  And perfect for making people realize that the colour of one´s skin does not mean anything and should not influence the way one perceives a human being.

[Surrie]

I really like where this thread went. It's nice to retreat here where people are open-minded! Whatever Eon's plans are for next guy we can all be sure that certain newspapers will chime in with the usual derogatory rancor about his appearance, sexual preference etc. whatever it may be.

[Dustin]

It's exactly as tdalton stated, Eon will make their mind up and that's it. The only way for us to judge is to see the finished product, finito. Personally I don't care about the actor's lifestyle at all, it's none of my concern. That's why it's called private life. And whether they support causes I support myself doesn't influence my appreciation - or lack of - of the Bond film they feature in.

[univex]

Yes, yes, do make this a preconception fight. It´s a character! Described and constructed as such by an author. This should have nothing to do with race, gender and so on rights. Yes, you can have a gay Bond, a female Bond, a black Bond, a Chinese Bond, why the hell not? But it won´t be Ian Fleming´s James Bond will it? We can deviate a bit, but going overboard is just deconstructing the character so much that you´ll end up with just a bloody name and a number, nothing more. I am a liberal, on all accounts, no right wing bone here. This is about literature and screen, nothing more. Why not have a Mr. Marple? A black Sherlock? A white John Shaft? There, had my rant. Rant over.

 

Oh, and a bit more for the Hiddleston campaign.

 

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8Jm06Tu2Sc

[SecretAgentFan]

If you ask me - Fleming´s Bond only exists on the pages of his work.

 

The movies are all about a mass audience-Bond.  Inspired by Fleming, yes.  But nobody, not even Craig, was the Bond Fleming wrote.

[Grard Bond]

Luke Evans, I even didn't know his sexual preference and I don't care, but somehow I always have a kind of b-movie smell with this actor and the movies he's in, although he was also in the Hobbit movies (Dracula untold, Fast & Furious, Immortals, The three Musketeers). For me he's not in the same class as a Connery, Moore or Craig for example.

[Dustin]

...is just deconstructing the character so much that you´ll end up with just a bloody name and a number, nothing more.

Well, some might argue that's just what the series is about. And that it has been at just this point - 'You know the name, you know the number' - repeatedly, entirely without the help of drastic changes or eccentric casting choices. Personally I'm not sure you can really tell how much 'Bond' a film is until you get it served to your own eyes.

[Bucky]

If you ask me - Fleming´s Bond only exists on the pages of his work.

 

The movies are all about a mass audience-Bond.  Inspired by Fleming, yes.  But nobody, not even Craig, was the was Fleming wrote.

 

Agreed. This is similar to how I view Star Trek. Roddenbery's Star Trek only exists on television while the movies have always been a different mass audience-Trek.

[univex]

Interesting. Wouldn´t it be smart of them to do a Fleming´s Bond? Or something very close to it. Adapted for this time, of course. A bit like they did with Sherlock. They got away with it sucessfully. Besides, it was suposed to be like this: the world changes, Bond doesn´t. So the 50´s Fleming Bond could very well exist today. What a coup that would be, then. And you could very well do it nowadays. Besides, one can argue that Fleming´s books were also made for mass audiences. And they had an enormous sucess, didn´t they? I´ve grown tired of botched half baked adaptations with "as Ian Fleming´s James Bond" on the title cards. And now people are talking about genre, sexual orientation, racial change of the character. And they argue that if you don´t jump on that particular wagon you´re a right wing trump lover. Is the world insane? If an actor who plays Bond is gay and he happens to play a heterosexual superb adaptation of the original character, I´ll cheer, he´ll get my full support, of course he will. Why, because he´s playing Fleming´s Bond. There, I said the rant was over back there, I lied. Now it´s over. Cheers.

[Surrie]

"as Ian Fleming's James Bond"... well regardless of individualities each actor brings to the role, they are all Fleming's Bond because Bond is Fleming. Fleming created the character of James Bond and regardless of how this character is portrayed, it still is Fleming's. 

[univex]

Fleming created the character of James Bond and regardless of how this character is portrayed, it still is Fleming's. 

 

Can´t really agree with that, Surrie, sorry. If one played James Bond as a right wing neo nazi rapist homophobic bigamist, would it still be Fleming´s Bond? 

There is the cinematic Bond and then there is Fleming´s Bond. I just wish they revived a bit more of Fleming´s Bond in the cinematic universe. And I do appreciate the direction things took after DUD in that regard. Still, not enough, IMO. 

[Surrie]

 

Fleming created the character of James Bond and regardless of how this character is portrayed, it still is Fleming's. 

 

Can´t really agree with that, Surrie, sorry. If one played James Bond as a right wing neo nazi rapist homophobic bigamist, would it still be Fleming´s Bond? 

There is the cinematic Bond and then there is Fleming´s Bond. I just wish they revived a bit more of Fleming´s Bond in the cinematic universe. And I do appreciate the direction things took after DUD in that regard. Still, not enough, IMO. 

 

 

What I'm saying is - regardless of how a person decides to portray 'James Bond', Fleming still has ownership over the character. "It's all a matter of perspective" as to how he is portrayed. One person's version of Bond may not be the version I would portray, or even how I perceive this portrayal will not be the same as how they do. 

 

With this in mind though, I can appreciate your point of view. 

Edited by Surrie, 09 March 2016 - 04:34 PM.

[Jim]

Fleming created the character of James Bond and regardless of how this character is portrayed, it still is Fleming's.

Can´t really agree with that, Surrie, sorry. If one played James Bond as a right wing neo nazi rapist homophobic bigamist, would it still be Fleming´s Bond?
There is the cinematic Bond and then there is Fleming´s Bond. I just wish they revived a bit more of Fleming´s Bond in the cinematic universe. And I do appreciate the direction things took after DUD in that regard. Still, not enough, IMO.

Several of those characteristics, if not all, are close to it, arguably.

[tdalton]

With the exception of the "neo-nazi" part of the aforementioned description of a potentially offensive James Bond portrayal, the rest of them have been put up on the screen by EON.  

 

Bond has raped in the films before, at least twice that I can think of off the top of my head (Pussy Galore and Solitaire).  Diamonds are Forever is a pretty homophobic entry in the franchise, playing off the homosexuality of Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd for laughs (especially in the final confrontation with Bond aboard the boat) as well as the decision to put Blofeld in drag just for a laugh.  Craig's Bond, while not falling into the absolute textbook definition of a bigamist, does seek out relationships and sexual liasons with married women as a rule of thumb for his portrayal of the character.  Granted, yes, he doesn't marry them (which would make him a bigamist), but that portrayal very much leans right up against it.  

[univex]

Shall I change those characteristics, given as example (poorly, I get it, shot my own foot), to make my point endure? Fine. Here goes nothing:

 

If one played James Bond as a gangsta looser with his cap to the side, bong smoking douchebag , would it still be Fleming´s Bond? 

 

And, as I do appreciate Jim´s awesome cynicism and humor, and tdalton´s highly tuned rhetoric, I´ll be waiting to see if those characteristics are close to it Come on guys, you can do it

 

Seriously now, trying to make a point here. And, after reading Surrie´s response, I do understand and agree with her points about each actor bringing something to the character. We´re clearly not antagonists in debate. 

[tdalton]

That's not really the point, as EON isn't going to change Bond into a "gangsta looser with his cap to the side...", regardless of who they cast.  All of the traits that make Bond "Bond" can still be present if the actor portraying him is black and/or homosexual.  

 

The womanizing, drinking, suaveness, class, and so on can all be portrayed on the screen by an actor who is not white.  Being white has never been something that is inherently central to the character of Bond.  Being someone that can blend in and function in the company of people in the upper class and the lower class, and everywhere in between, is central to the character.  Bond can pass for an upper class gentleman, even while not necessarily being one, and that is something that Elba can pull off, as could an actor who is homosexual.  In this day and age, those qualities are not narrowly defined as being nearly exclusive to someone of caucasian heritage, as they were back during the time that Fleming wrote the Bond novels because, thankfully, racial barriers have come down and there is more social fluidity in today's world, even if there's still quite a bit of work to do.

[univex]

An actor being homosexual or the character being homosexual are two very different things.

I would have no problem with the first scenario. No problem at all.

 

"Being white has never been something that is inherently central to the character of Bond."

But Fleming did write about a man, who happened to be white in his books, called James Bond. This is not a racist argument, damn it! 

 

If Elba played Bond he would probably do a fantastic job. I´d love it, probably. Bond could also be played by someone of Indian heritage. There are superb Indian actors, and with the right looks. But it wouldn´t be Fleming´s Bond. Even Craig is not Fleming´s Bond. Granted, maybe none of them were. And I do like the blondie as Bond. If I wrote the character one way, and it was depicted in another, it would not be my character anymore. Now I see why le Carré gets mad with most of the adaptations. It´s a writers opinion, that´s all. I do hope that, one day, they´ll make a closer adaptation to the source, character looks wise. 

 

BTW, does it show I´m getting through a Bond crisis. I am. It started after Spectre and I can´t get my finger on why, but I don´t feel like watching any of the films. The books now, different matter. Oh well, season fever probably. 

 

BTW, the gangsta hat crap was a Kingsman sort of reference. Can´t really get how people liked that stuff. 

[Odd Jobbies]

 

If you ask me - Fleming´s Bond only exists on the pages of his work.

 

The movies are all about a mass audience-Bond.  Inspired by Fleming, yes.  But nobody, not even Craig, was the was Fleming wrote.

 

Agreed. This is similar to how I view Star Trek. Roddenbery's Star Trek only exists on television while the movies have always been a different mass audience-Trek.

 

I'd say that the Star Trek movies work when they're most like the series.

 

Likewise Bond works when he's most like fleming's character.

[Surrie]

An actor being homosexual or the character being homosexual are two very different things.

I would have no problem with the first scenario. No problem at all.

 

"Being white has never been something that is inherently central to the character of Bond."

But Fleming did write about a man, who happened to be white in his books, called James Bond. This is not a racist argument, damn it! 

 

If Elba played Bond he would probably do a fantastic job. I´d love it, probably. Bond could also be played by someone of Indian heritage. There are superb Indian actors, and with the right looks. But it wouldn´t be Fleming´s Bond. Even Craig is not Fleming´s Bond. Granted, maybe none of them were. And I do like the blondie as Bond. If I wrote the character one way, and it was depicted in another, it would not be my character anymore. Now I see why le Carré gets mad with most of the adaptations. It´s a writers opinion, that´s all. I do hope that, one day, they´ll make a closer adaptation to the source, character looks wise. 

 

BTW, does it show I´m getting through a Bond crisis. I am. It started after Spectre and I can´t get my finger on why, but I don´t feel like watching any of the films. The books now, different matter. Oh well, season fever probably. 

 

BTW, the gangsta hat crap was a Kingsman sort of reference. Can´t really get how people liked that stuff. 

 

Interestingly, though the main character in Kingsman was 'gangsta' we still knew who/what character was being referenced. 

[Jim]

That's not really the point, as EON isn't going to change Bond into a "gangsta looser with his cap to the side...", regardless of who they cast.  All of the traits that make Bond "Bond" can still be present if the actor portraying him is black and/or homosexual.  
 
The womanizing, drinking, suaveness, class, and so on can all be portrayed on the screen by an actor who is not white.  Being white has never been something that is inherently central to the character of Bond.  Being someone that can blend in and function in the company of people in the upper class and the lower class, and everywhere in between, is central to the character.  Bond can pass for an upper class gentleman, even while not necessarily being one, and that is something that Elba can pull off, as could an actor who is homosexual.  In this day and age, those qualities are not narrowly defined as being nearly exclusive to someone of caucasian heritage, as they were back during the time that Fleming wrote the Bond novels because, thankfully, racial barriers have come down and there is more social fluidity in today's world, even if there's still quite a bit of work to do.

Yep. This.

[univex]

 

An actor being homosexual or the character being homosexual are two very different things.

I would have no problem with the first scenario. No problem at all.

 

"Being white has never been something that is inherently central to the character of Bond."

But Fleming did write about a man, who happened to be white in his books, called James Bond. This is not a racist argument, damn it! 

 

If Elba played Bond he would probably do a fantastic job. I´d love it, probably. Bond could also be played by someone of Indian heritage. There are superb Indian actors, and with the right looks. But it wouldn´t be Fleming´s Bond. Even Craig is not Fleming´s Bond. Granted, maybe none of them were. And I do like the blondie as Bond. If I wrote the character one way, and it was depicted in another, it would not be my character anymore. Now I see why le Carré gets mad with most of the adaptations. It´s a writers opinion, that´s all. I do hope that, one day, they´ll make a closer adaptation to the source, character looks wise. 

 

BTW, does it show I´m getting through a Bond crisis. I am. It started after Spectre and I can´t get my finger on why, but I don´t feel like watching any of the films. The books now, different matter. Oh well, season fever probably. 

 

BTW, the gangsta hat crap was a Kingsman sort of reference. Can´t really get how people liked that stuff. 

 

Interestingly, though the main character in Kingsman was 'gangsta' we still knew who/what character was being referenced. 

 

The "gangsta" I was referring to was the main kid, don´t remember his name. This fella:

https://s-media-cach...d108192bbfd.jpg

[univex]

Regarding it all, this sums it up nicely for me:

 

It's exactly as tdalton stated, Eon will make their mind up and that's it. The only way for us to judge is to see the finished product, finito. Personally I don't care about the actor's lifestyle at all, it's none of my concern. That's why it's called private life. And whether they support causes I support myself doesn't influence my appreciation - or lack of - of the Bond film they feature in.

 

Now, character changes are a different matter all together as far as I´m concerned. And character here doesn´t refer to the mental and moral qualities distinctive to some individual. Character here referes to the persona as described in a novel or play, physical traits included. Granted, many talented actors have the chops to convey the mental and moral qualities distinctive to Bond, it really doesn´t take much, but few are alike the character Fleming described, physically. That´s the point I was trying to make. 

 

Now, back on topic, did I mention this fella?

http://i.imgur.com/OGXne0J.jpg

http://40.media.tumb...tmvpo1_1280.jpg

[DaveBond21]

So the 50´s Fleming Bond could very well exist today. 

 

He does and he's on here.

 

He's called Bryce.

 

__________________________________________________________________________

[univex]

 

So the 50´s Fleming Bond could very well exist today. 

 

He does and he's on here.

 

He's called Bryce.

 

__________________________________________________________________________

 

[Surrie]

 

 

An actor being homosexual or the character being homosexual are two very different things.

I would have no problem with the first scenario. No problem at all.

 

"Being white has never been something that is inherently central to the character of Bond."

But Fleming did write about a man, who happened to be white in his books, called James Bond. This is not a racist argument, damn it! 

 

If Elba played Bond he would probably do a fantastic job. I´d love it, probably. Bond could also be played by someone of Indian heritage. There are superb Indian actors, and with the right looks. But it wouldn´t be Fleming´s Bond. Even Craig is not Fleming´s Bond. Granted, maybe none of them were. And I do like the blondie as Bond. If I wrote the character one way, and it was depicted in another, it would not be my character anymore. Now I see why le Carré gets mad with most of the adaptations. It´s a writers opinion, that´s all. I do hope that, one day, they´ll make a closer adaptation to the source, character looks wise. 

 

BTW, does it show I´m getting through a Bond crisis. I am. It started after Spectre and I can´t get my finger on why, but I don´t feel like watching any of the films. The books now, different matter. Oh well, season fever probably. 

 

BTW, the gangsta hat crap was a Kingsman sort of reference. Can´t really get how people liked that stuff. 

 

Interestingly, though the main character in Kingsman was 'gangsta' we still knew who/what character was being referenced. 

 

The "gangsta" I was referring to was the main kid, don´t remember his name. This fella:

https://s-media-cach...d108192bbfd.jpg

 

 

My point was - despite the characteristics (gangsta/streetwise) of the main protagonist in Kingsman, we still knew what other character *cough cough* James Bond *cough cough* the Kingsman fella was imitating. 

 

Anywho it's a matter of opinion and perspective! I have enjoyed this debate, but think we should stay on topic for the thread!

 

So... Tom Hiddleston...