1519 replies to this topic

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Loomis
To say that M is a woman when M used to be a man is a red herring, as the character Judi Dench plays is not supposed to be the same person who was played by Bernard Lee and Robert Brown..

Yeah, that's a subject that was discussed extensively in the DAD thread "Q to R"...

I just don't see why skin color is such a big deal when casting James Bond. We even have six white Felix Leiters and one black one and no one cried foul in that instance. Surely, the overriding factor when casting a new James Bond should be the ability to act. Current Bond Pierce Brosnan has tapped Colin Salmon as his replacement so obviously he gets it.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow

I just don't see why skin color is such a big deal when casting James Bond. We even have six white Felix Leiters and one black one and no one cried foul in that instance.  

I tried to explain in my previous post why skin colour is a big deal. If you don't agree with what I wrote, please cite my words and why you disagree with them. No one cried foul about a black Felix Leiter because Leiter was never the star of the show.

As a matter of fact, Sean Connery said that he wanted a black actor to play Leiter because the actors playing Leiter were never remembered. I'm sure Connery's intentions in employing Bernie Casey were good, but what Connery was saying is that Casey would get noticed FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN THE COLOUR OF HIS SKIN. What's that if not tokenism?

Perhaps in an ideal world, acting talent would be all that mattered, but we don't live in an ideal world. Just because Brosnan mentioned Salmon as a possible replacement doesn't make Brosnan right. Perhaps he was just trying to say something nice about Salmon, whom he's worked with three times and obviously likes, in a bid to give Salmon's career a bit of a leg-up. I'm sure that Brosnan does not seriously expect to be succeeded by Salmon or another actor from an ethnic minority background.

[Roebuck]

Originally posted by Loomis
Now, the character of Bond as he currently stands in the film series (and as he has always been) has always lived a life free of being on the receiving end of racial prejudice. I don't believe you could cast, say, Colin Salmon as Bond and pretend that the character's skin colour wouldn't to some extent be an issue. And if you do believe that, you're living in an idealistic world, not the real world.

But the Brosnan Bond exists in a idealistic,homogenised word free of racism or poverty. Where have you seen evidence of either? And when is Bond's background ever mentioned, with the exception of the odd oblique reference to Tracy.

DLibrasnow is the one seeing this clearly. Skin colour isn't an issue in selecting a future Bond. You don't have to be white to be a product of a privileged upbringing and the British public school system. Or to become an officer in the Royal Navy and be recruited into the Secret Service. Skin colour is certainly no barrier to becoming a womaniser.

Would audiences except the change? Probably. Because to most of them the next Bond flick is just another movie.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Roebuck

But the Brosnan Bond exists in a idealistic,homogenised word free of racism or poverty. Where have you seen evidence of either? And when is Bond's background ever mentioned, with the exception of the odd oblique reference to Tracy.

There are nods to the real world. Check Brosnan's remark about Swiss bankers in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH. Would we believe a black 007 to be the same character who patronised the natives in DR. NO and OCTOPUSSY? If you reply that it wouldn't be the same character, then, as I've pointed out, I won't argue with you: if you don't believe it's the same character every time out, then we can have black, brown and purple 007s, but I do happen to believe it's the same character, or at least meant to be.

Originally posted by Roebuck

You don't have to be white to be a product of a privileged upbringing and the British public school system. Or to become an officer in the Royal Navy and be recruited into the Secret Service. Skin colour is certainly no barrier to becoming a womaniser.

Where did I suggest that one must be white to come from a privileged background, the British public school system, etc.? Where did I suggest that being black is a barrier to succeeding in life?

What I do suggest, however, no, what I will state categorically, is that in Britain and similar societies, ALL people from ethnic minorities, rich or poor, successful or unsuccessful, face racial prejudice to some degree or another in their daily lives. Did you read my above point about millionaire footballers having to endure racist chants?

Now, you've already countered that by claiming that the Bond films exist in a fantasy universe free of racism. Trouble is, if the filmmakers decided to break new ground to the extent of casting a black actor as Bond, they'd be widely criticised if Bond's screen universe remained totally colour-blind, in other words they'd be just as damned if they ignored the character's change of race than they would be if they made too much of it.

Besides, if skin colour is so unimportant, how come nearly every action thriller (roughly the same genre as Bond) with a black lead is stuffed with references to race? BEVERLY HILLS COP, LETHAL WEAPON, BAD BOYS.... not for a second is the viewer allowed to forget that the hero is black. You seriously think they could cast someone like Salmon as Bond and make no mention whatsoever of his race? There would have to be references, if only because American audiences would demand them.

Which, as I've tried to explain, would automatically change the character.

[ChandlerBing]

Just for the record, the different Bond identities is the dumbest idea ever in the history of dumb ideas. Whoever started it, please stop. They've already had black Bonds. Wesley Snipes has played several variations on a spy, so go look there. You want gay Bond? Rupert is working on that. There are so many different spy variations now. Let Bond keep being what he is.

[crashdrive]

Haha I hear you Chandler. Keep fighting the good fight Loomis. You're doing great.

Originally posted by Loomis
He wouldn't be my preferred choice. I think he'd be wasted doing Bond.

The thing with Bale is that he has not yet reached the levels of someone like Jude Law, who at the moment stars in a great variety of interesting films directed by master directors. With the exception of 'American Psycho, 'Empire of the Sun', Velvet Goldmine', 'Metroland' & 'The Portrait of a Lady', Bale's films have been largely forgettable. I would prefer seeing Bale in a Bond film than a flick like 'Reign of Fire'.

But apart from his talent, would you accept him as James Bond? I'm still having trouble with the idea.

[Desslar]

Here's my take on the candidates for Bond 22 (2008?):

Hugh Jackman - my pick. He looks and acts the part. The Australian thing does worry me though.

Clive Owen - Looks the part, but will be too old by Bond 22.

Hugh Grant - has the upper class thing done cold, but too silly to be taken seriously. Also will be too old.

Jude Law - Might be good, although doesn't seem quite tough enough. Anyway he won't have much hair left by 2008.

Ewan McGregor - Could work, but his hair is also going.

Colin Salmon (Robinson) - Would be a cool choice, but he will be too old, and I think is also a bit light up top. He's British and well-spoken so who cares what his skin color is?

Christian Bale - Might work, but I'm not sure if he really looks like a Bond.

Collin Farrell - My second choice after Jackman. He's not British either though....

Dominic West - Don't know him. I suppose he might work, but he doesn't seem to look all that Bond-ish.

Robbie Williams - Hell no!! No NSync wannabes as Bond thank you.

[Roebuck]

Originally posted by Loomis
Now, you've already countered that by claiming that the Bond films exist in a fantasy universe free of racism. Trouble is, if the filmmakers decided to break new ground to the extent of casting a black actor as Bond, they'd be widely criticised if Bond's screen universe remained totally colour-blind, in other words they'd be just as damned if they ignored the character's change of race than they would be if they made too much of it.

Perhaps that's a scenario that would happen if a black actor stepped into the role now, replacing Brosnan. I think we both accept that's not gong to happen. Brosnan has been a good little earner for EON so it's likely they'll look for a successor that's as close to the Brosnan mould as possible. But in another decade it could be a different story. Black actors and actresses are making a major impact in headliner roles they would never have had a shot at ten years before. And does Laurence Fishburn make reference to his race in 'The Matrix'? Does Halle Berry in DAD or 'Swordfish'? Does 'Blade' have some major Affirmative Action subplot? Of course not. If Bond lasts as long as we hope he will then chances are there will come a time when it's not thought of as a role exclusively for white actors
Now I'm not starting some sort of crusade to have Colin Salmon (or any other actor) signed up as Bond. But if the alternative was someone like floppy haired milk sop Hugh Grant, I'd be horrified to think the deciding factor was skin colour. Simply because the qualities that exemplify Bond aren't peculiar to a particular race or generation.

[crashdrive]

Thanks for your 2 cents Desslar.

Hugh Jackman is one of my top picks aswell. He has everything going for him; still one of the more likely candidates

Clive Owen doesn't have the square-jawed, handsome appearance like the other Bond actors. Also he's rapidly becoming a big star. I don't think he's getting too old though.

I agree with your comments about Hugh Grant

Jude Law isn't an actor who is very likely to sign on for a multi-picture deal. Which is for the better since he's not a great Bond candidate. Handsome; definately, but 5'11 is again a little short to play Bond, his posture is too slender and he looks years younger than he really is. An Academy Award nominee as Bond? Don't count on it.

The only reason I can think of why some people suggest Ewan McGregor for the part is the simple fact he's the only British actor they know who hasn't played Bond yet. With good reason since he's too short (5'10), too soft and too expensive.

I can't see a black man as Bond working. But the most important reason why I would not want to see Colin Salmon as Bond is because I think it will confuse audiences, since he already plays Robinson.

I also still have my doubts about Christian Bale, but he does have the right age (29), height (6'2) and place of birth (Wales).

Many people think Colin Farrell is just the Bond type; dark, handsome and tough, but I think he's too short (5'10) and a little rough around the edges (curses in every interview). He's way too expensive for EON and he would probably not agree to sign a multi picture deal if directors like Oliver Stone come knocking on his door.

Could you explain to me why you don't think Dominic West looks the part? Be sure to click on the link to see a good West as Bond picture. He fits all the recquirements; right age (32), height (6'), look (dark & handsome) and birthplace (England).

Thank god we agree about Robbie Williams though

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Roebuck

the qualities that exemplify Bond aren't peculiar to a particular race or generation.  

I'm with you there, Roebuck. Look, no hard feelings, okay? I know where you're coming from, and I hope you understand that I am not a racist who wishes to keep black actors (or actresses, if you believe 007 might one day be a woman;)) down.

I'm not against the idea of a black or Asian actor playing Bond out of a personal whites-only preference. It's more of a continuity preference, and I think Bond will stay white for a number of different reasons.

I don't come to this site to make enemies. We'll continue this debate, if you wish, but I just want to clear the air a little here.

I've twigged why you provided a definition for "prejudices", to make it clear that you were not necessarily referring simply to racial prejudices. I'm sorry if I seemed to be reacting a little too defensively or harshly.

[crashdrive]

I've just finished watching the documentaries on the 'X-Men 1.5' DVD and I watched the interviews with Hugh Jackman very closely. Now that 'Bond 21' will probably still be released in 2005, I think it's very possible it is going to be Brosnan's last. That makes Jackman a perfect successor agewise. In the interviews he was made-up as Logan so it was impossible to judge whether or not he looked the part. But what I did notice is that Hugh has something that could both challenge and endanger his chances; a youthfull enthusiasm.

One of the key characteristics of Bond is his signature cool. All the actors got it. When you watch interviews with Bond actors, they are always really cool. Never get too enthusiastic or worked-up. Always really straight forward and laid-back. This is a quality I think is missing from Hugh. But not just from Hugh. Also my other favorite for the part; Dominic West has the same problem. Of course they are actors, so they could fake it, or maybe the enthusiasm could help make the part different enough from previous incarnations. Still I'm not sure. How important do you think Bond's signature cool is and should the actors have it even off-set?

I also find it fascinating Brosnan nominated 'A Beautiful Mind' actor Paul Bettany for the part of Bond. Same with his directors choices, Paul could be just someone Brosnan admires. If that's the case, it's obvious Brosnan doesn't always think what's in the best interest for the franchise (side note: hence a lot of offbeat and unsuitable director choices). But maybe Brosnan sees something in this accomplished 6'3 London born actor we are missing.

And having watched a lot of Clive Owen's work lately, I don't think Owen would be the worst choice in the world. Unlike Jackman and West he possesses that signature cool a Bond actor (imo) should have. But his casting would mean a giant departure from previous Bonds. I mean he's definately not a Brosnan (not even a Dalton). In the directors commentary of BMW's 'Beat the Devil' Tony Scott remarks that Clive Owen is a handsome looking guy. When Maguire was a rumoured candidate for 'Spider-Man', I also thought he wasn't handsome enough for the part, yet he walked away with it. Maybe I shouldn't dismiss Owen either.

And it looks like Christian Bale also is a candidate to be reckoned with. The only reason why I'm not backing him is because I still cannot see him as Bond. He will always be Patrick Bateman for me. But maybe he will age enough the next five to seven years he will really look the part.

And apparantly 30 year old British actor Matthew Marsden ('Black Hawk Down') expressed interest in the role. Will the discussion never end??

[rogermoore007]

Roger Moore comes back for one last hurrah as bond

[Roebuck]

I'm starting to suspect EON have missed the boat on Jackman. The guy's very much in demand right now and I expect his salary is going to skyrocket accordingly.

Still, it's comforting to know Roger is still waiting in the wings if they have trouble getting someone to sign up after Brosnan.

[crashdrive]

I think so too. And it looks like the same will happen to Clive Owen after 'King Arthur'. Who does that leave us (and EON) with? Perhaps the next Bond will be more in the Lazenby/Dalton mold. Anyone you'd prefer?

[Roebuck]

Preferences? With the exception of Hugh Grant I'd be happy for any of the candidates on Zencat's list to get the job.
Problem is this: Within three years Jakeman has gone from being someone we'd never heard of to being a fan favourite for the next Bond. Now it looks like he may have become too hot a property to be on the shortlist. All in the space of three years.
Imagine how the fortunes of those other blokes on the list could change before production starts on Bond 22? Like Zencat pointed out at the start, it's maybe too early to be seriously considering who's likely to replace Brosnan. But this poll is a valuable indicator of the TYPE of actor we want for the next Bond.

[crashdrive]

So you could see Robbie Williams, Jude Law, Ewan McGregor and Colin Farrell as Bond (despite the fact that at 5'10 they are too short to play Bond and aren't likely to sign a three picture deal), but not Hugh Grant? Not that I think Grant is an appropriate choice, but I'm having trouble understanding why you mentioned Grant and not those other actors. But I guess that means you could also see West as Bond. Always good to know. :cool:

I don't think much has changed the last three years. We are still looking at exactly the same candidates. The problem is that there just isn't a candidate who is perfect. Many fans are hoping there is still a perfect actor out there we don't know about, but I'm afraid this actor just does not exist at the moment.

[Roebuck]

Well once again Crashdive we enter into the territory where you start confusing what is your oppinion and what is actual fact.
I accept there may not be a perfect candidate in your eyes but that may not be the oppinion of others (EON included).

Much of it is subjective. Keep in mind that five men have played the part in the official series during the past forty years and fans continue to argue which of those was the perfect Bond actor.

[crashdrive]

First of all, you failed to answer my question. You can't see Grant as Bond, yet you have no problem with singer Robbie Williams, Academy Award Nominee Jude Law, Jedimaster Ewan McGregor & Recruit Colin Farrell? Surely you don't want a Bond actor who is going to sing his own themesong?

Second of all, apparantly EON is looking for an actor who fits the requirements of previous Bonds (there is no denying the last five Bond shared many simular physical traits). According to Production Supervisor Anthony Waye; "Basically you've gotte have a guy who looks handsome, fit. Right height." I know you always like to keep your options open (that's probably putting it lightly), but I'm afraid not everybody shares your views. The "None of the Above" option received almost as many votes as the runner-up favorite Clive Owen. That's saying something. This is all my humble opinion of course, but I have seen no proof of the contrary so far. But I am indeed glad that at least you accept that I don't think there is a perfect candidate. You have no idea how much of a relief that is for me.

[Roebuck]

Originally posted by crashdrive
I know you always like to keep your options open (that's probably putting it lightly), but I'm afraid not everybody shares your views.

I can't imagine why you're afraid. It doesn't bother me at all.

[crashdrive]

That's terrific. I'm just glad EON is more critical than you or we might end up with Don Cheadle playing Bond. :cool:

[Loomis]

Originally posted by crashdrive

You can't see Grant as Bond, yet you have no problem with singer Robbie Williams, Academy Award Nominee Jude Law, Jedimaster Ewan McGregor & Recruit Colin Farrell? Surely you don't want a Bond actor who is going to sing his own themesong?

A Bond actor capable of singing the title song? Not a bad idea. Or maybe if they hired Rupert Everett, author of two novels, the actor playing 007 could also write the novelizations (which wouldn't be a first in movie history - Sylvester Stallone wrote the novelizations of ROCKY IV and a couple of his other films).

Talking of Everett, check out the news items here: http://www.klast.net/bond/newbond.html

Originally posted by crashdrive

That's terrific. I'm just glad EON is more critical than you or we might end up with Don Cheadle playing Bond.  

Ha! Well put, crashdrive.

[Roebuck]

Originally posted by crashdrive
Because I have a very specific image in my head of Bond. I did not even like Roger Moore, because he did not fit that image (not tough enough and too posh)

So you didn't like Moore, chosen by EON, but you still have faith in their critical faculties?
Many Moore fans would no doubt question yours.

[crashdrive]

Apart from the fact that I didn't really care for Moore, he was still an obvious choice, since he fitted the profile and was an actor audiences loved, who wasn't too expensive for EON to hire him. The point I'm trying to make is that there doesn't seem to be an actor who fits the profile, would agree to sign a three-picture deal AND has the right age.

[JimmyBond]

Would'nt it be funny if someone from the casting department stumbled across this thread and cast Jackman based on our views?

Yeah, that wasnt much of a thought, be cool though.

[Dunph]

There's not a lot that ties up with the Bond franchise really is there?

[rogermoore007]

Originally posted by Roebuck


So you didn't like Moore, chosen by EON, but you still have faith in their critical faculties?
Many Moore fans would no doubt question yours.

I would seriously question crashdrive--Roger brought a whole new side out in Bond--he was funny, gentlemanly and how could you not like the raised eyebrow and a one-liner??

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by rogermoore007
how could you not like the raised eyebrow and a one-liner??

Very easily :cool:

[M_Balje]

I like Roger Moore as 007 and it's my favoriete Bond actor.
But mabey defeat Brosnan him soon.
But i like the other Actor's to as 007.
The only reasen there Quit with Dalton is that the American people don't like him as Bond.
And as American people don't like it there lissen and the reasen is is that america is the biggest box office for the Bond movie's together with China.

As American and Chinees people don't like Bond anymore Eon Quit mabey with the secret agent.

[Killmaster]

Moore's style of playing Bond was perfect for the time. Remember, the biggest action blockbusters were all pictures with large doses of humor in the mix (Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Beverly Hills Cop, etc.). Action with the lighter touch. Moore fit that type of film perfectly. It was only when the films started to re-develope that darker edge (Terminator, Die Hard) that Moore seemed to be too flip. When the producers did an about-face with FYEO and gave the Bond's a more serious tone poor Roger seemed a little out of place, although he was able to do a credible job. FYEO remains my favorite Moore.

[Roebuck]

I think you've nailed it there Killmaster.
Remember those interviews with George Lazenby where he confessed he didn't think Bond would survive into the 70's because he came across as too much of an establishment figure? Roger picked up on that and played the character with a much lighter touch; made him less tightly wound. Arguably he saved the series.
As important as choosing the 'right' Bond actor is making sure you choose an actor whose portrayal of Bond is in step with the spirit of the times. And that needn't mean tattoos, baseball-caps and bling (as was cynically suggested on another thread).