Yes. Lazenby, Dalton and Craig got such immediate warm welcomes…
1 Like
Lazenby–1969
Dalton–1987
Craig–2006 with much praise for both the film and his performance
Will 202?'s film/media/social environment/audience look anything like those of 1969, 1987, or 2006 (Facebook was founded in 2004)?
I am an old guy, so a throwback approach will suit me well, but it ain’t old guys’ money that will make the next Bond movie a success.
It’s more established names had less vitriol in response to their name on announcing, proper unknown had immediate hate, and so did the two actors who weren’t household names for something else. Anyone not known a little is going to get blowback, a person of colour will then get Tucker Carlson and Piers Morgan yelling op-Ed’s.
It’s frankly another benefit of casting Regé-Jean Page, a known for something else name and publicly displays that skin colour doesn’t have a bearing on who is Bond, it’s purely who is right.
3 Likes
Sorry, but I disagree. James Bond is a white man. Ian Fleming wrote him that way and he should be played as such. He’s not black. He’s not Asian. It’s a part of who he is. Likewise, John Shaft of Shaft fame is a really cool character who is also a black man–and he should always be played by a black guy. Not a white guy or an Asian guy. It’s a part of who he is.
If people want a black or gay or female Bond-type character, then they should create them and not hijack an established character who has lots of recorded backstory. That goes not just for the character of James Bond, but other types of literary and film characters as well, including characters in comics and such.
To be clear, there is nothing wrong with having black or gay or female characters, whether they are heroes or otherwise, even if they happen to be Bond-type characters. But NONE of them should be James Bond because Bond is none of those.
Similarly, Bond is a womanizer (who also loves women). That’s who he is. Take that away and you lose an important part of who Bond is. And it’s something that seems to have gone, if not missing, certainly downplayed in the Daniel Craig era. It’s a trait that needs to come back with the new 007.
As for who might get cast, I think the filmmakers will go with a “known” actor. They have alternated that way for the past few hirings and it is now “known’s” turn. Also, with the unstable way cinema is going right now and Bond having died in the last film, I think the filmmakers will want to hedge their bets and get as close to a sure thing in their casting choice as possible to, as they say, get bums in seats.
The surest choice in that regard–and my top pick–is Henry Cavill, who, if they start filming within three years, would still be young enough (42) to get four to five films IF they released on a three-year schedule (42, 45, 48, 51, 54). However, I think Cavill is far from a sure thing in getting the job due to his potentially being too busy or being thought to be too closely identified as Superman (although that didn’t hurt Roger Moore as the Saint). But he is known to the producers as he came in second to Craig back in 2006 so he has that going for him.
2 Likes
I understand where you’re coming from and have used that argument myself before. But right now I’m past caring what dead people from bygone eras would have wanted. These films are being made today for contemporary audiences and they need to do what’s creatively right for this moment in time.
Regé-Jean Page is one of the more interesting names to be floated, if he’s the choice of the producers then I’ll welcome him with open arms.
7 Likes
What Fleming wrote was always changed and adapted to the times.
And white skin does not make someone British.
Sure, Page would have to face prejudices in a way which will make the backlash against the blond Craig (Fleming never wrote Bond as blond.) look like kindergarten rubbish (which it also was).
3 Likes
So only someone looking like Hoagy Carmichael and with a big scar in his face is suitable. After all, that’s how Fleming described him about seventy years ago.
2 Likes
Have you actually ever done any research on the history of any country?
Basically we’re all mutts (yes, that is the actual term) pigmentation is just a random detail - or did you not connect that white people tan with darker skin in counties with more constant UV light?
3 Likes
Definitely. An obscure white actor will feed the narrative that an untested white man can snag a plum opportunity–a role out of reach for a more known/accomplished Black actor, no matter how good.
Again, definitely, James Bond is white, has always been white, must always be white. Critical Race Theory at work once again! Only qualification was his being Black! Western civilization is on the brink!
And M should always be played by a man since Fleming wrote the character as a man.
A backstory revised/retconned more often than Madonna has switched personas (didn’t Fleming do a bit of retconning himself once Connery started playing the role?).
An insignificant loss, if even that.
Why?
Sounds like a wonderful place to be, especially if cocktails are served.
Exactly. Fleming’s concept of Bond is available for anyone and everyone to experience and enjoy–or reject if they care to. And after Fleming, there is a slew of more Bonds–literary and cinematic–to get through.
4 Likes
Not what I meant, British does not mean white!
We are descend farthest back from romans, the NHS is based on immigrants from places all over the world that “The British Empire” invaded and randomly partitioned - they called dibs and planted a flag to make it “British”
They can’t now complain that not south London isn’t British.
2 Likes
Bond is under so many permutations and you think mixed race is too much?
Brosnan’s ethnically was Irish when cast, not even slightly English or even commonwealth (look it up) and he later got American citizenship…still not English.
1 Like
Do you actually hear yourself?
Walk outside and say any sentence to someone on the street.
Enjoy the medical bills for the broken nose.
I knew I’d get push back on this. Oh well.
Sorry, I’m not sure how to do the multi-quote so I’ll have to do this differently.
But why is believing or wanting a character to stay the way the creator created something racist (or sexist or whatever)? That’s what they are. That’s what they were intended to be. As I said, Shaft is black and should be played by a black man. Similarly for T’Challa (Black Panther) or Jefferson Pierce (Black Lightning) or Eric Brooks (Blade). White people should NOT be playing those characters either. Additionally, I’m American, but I don’t think Bond should be played by an American.
Secretagentfan, I never said (nor believe) that white skin makes someone British. I said Bond was a white man (who is also a Brit). He is a white British man–although technically British-Swiss.
As for Mr.KiddWint’s obviously facetious comment at me that M should always be played by a man: at least when they cast a female M they made her a new female character and didn’t have her play Miles Messervy.
Also, Mr.KiddWint, you asked why Bond’s womanizing needs to come back? Again, I say it’s because that’s an important trait of who Bond is. You take that away and you take away other aspects of his personality such as his not liking to kill but being good at it or even tropes of the series such as gadgets, if you take away too many other things or subvert too many of them, you’re suddenly not seeing James Bond. You’re seeing something different. It may say it’s James Bond, but it really isn’t.
My pardon. I was responding from America, where a change in a character’s race activates this narrative in a particular cohort.
In the moment when they were created. But the time when Fleming wrote has passed. Also, it is possible that Fleming was (in part) interrogating the practice of womanizing, so to present it in a movie uncritically would not be a faithful rendition of Fleming. Lastly, the films are adaptations of the books, not transcriptions.
Yes, but you have set up a false equivalency. Shaft is a Black character who is presented as culturally Black. In the Bond movies, the filmmakers jettison much of the culturally specific whiteness of Fleming’s Bond in order to help him (and his films) appeal to as wide an audience as possible. As a result, Bond’s whiteness is more abstract than Shaft’s, and, therefore, less central to his character (a decision a viewer may disagree with).
I give you credit, and acknowledge that you want Bond to remain not only white, but also a womanizer, so you are not inconsistent. But again, keeping the womanizing without the critique (whatever the depth) is a distortion of Fleming and Bond. But how much critique can be included before we shift from a spy film to a John Cassavetes movie? Fleming’s fiction entertains and questions. The movies entertain.
The British population as a whole is, made up by ethnic minorities. Against their own will they joined the service, joined the military, provided healthcare. The NHS would have failed without Asian and African doctors and nurses. The WWII effort would’ve failed without allied colonial soldiers. It is arrogant to assume the allied war effort would’ve succeeded without the colonies. We are in 2022, to ignore that is just ignorant and arrogant.
3 Likes
I don´t think you have a medical bill anywhere in the world for stating that James Bond is a white guy who likes women…
That´s like saying I get a broken nose for saying I like Iron Maiden much more than Jay Z
It’s likely that the new 007 will be in a unique position that social media will dictate most aspects of the casting. They will.havr to be more involved in that aspect of the machine than Craig. Will they be unknown or famous most likely unknown and heavily advertised as ’ James Bond ’ rather than the actor who happens to play James Bond. They will have to be complicit in that conceit and that wi take an emnensly strong character. They will have to be Bond far more than any actor before. It’s going to be interesting
4 Likes
I understand. But stressing the whiteness of his skin as something Fleming wrote him and therefore has to remain so on film is an idea inherently wrong, since Fleming’s ideas were changed from the start.
If they had been followed to the letter, a change now would be surprising, of course.
But Fleming‘s novels and short stories were always used as a starting point. So why not now?
1 Like
Given the views expressed by Fleming’s Bond about we non-whites, I am not sure that clinging to the whiteness point as a defining characteristic that is never open to change is a particularly wise move, unless the point made is that such views, often very unpleasant, are the sole reserve of and only capable of being emulated by, expressed and portrayed by white persons, which is a challenging stance to take. He used to smoke 60 a day, too. Fleming may have written Bond as “white” but also wrote him as an absurd git. I like him a lot.
Felix Leiter must be a straw-haired Texan, though. Obviously.
6 Likes