Film James Bond: No Time to Die
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
the names Wick, John Wick. Have no problem if Idris took the role but it certainly should not be a woman.This legendary character has been around since the bloody 60's, why on Earth would you change the foundations of the character James Bond? Should a man play Wonderwoman next, considering it's a fictional character? Women should tell their own stories on their own terms and not adopt male models for cinema.
Just give the role to Taron Egerton and be bloody done with this nonsense. Talented actor who is at the perfect age.
Last edited:
The only reason why someone would make Bond black or a woman is for the sake of making a point. Then anyone who expresses disagreement would be labeled racist and sexist. And then racism is solved. Another fine job from Hollywood.
Have no problem if Idris took the role but it certainly should not be a woman.This legendary character has been around since the bloody 60's, why on Earth would you change the foundations of the character James Bond? Should a man play Wonderwoman next, considering it's a fictional character? Women should tell their own stories on their own terms and not adopt male models for cinema.
Just give the role to Taron Egerton and be bloody done with this nonsense. Talented actor who is at the perfect age.
Well if it's just going to appeal to teenagers I suppose he would be a choice
Eh. You don't think it is possible a non Caucasian actor can play the role?
Making Bond black, or a woman, or ugly, or blonde, or whatever deviation from the source material people are liable to get angsty about at any given moment in time, isn't simply just "for the sake of it"... it's a crucial evolutionary aspect of literally every long running franchise, or regularly adapted story, that helps them last longer, and stay relevant, rather than die.
For example, when was the last time you saw a mainstream adaptation of Romeo and Juliet set in Verona, and starring italian teenagers? Or indeed any major Shakespeare adaptation that adhered remotely faithful to the text, casting or setting wise? - that wasn't also promoted as a novelty for doing so? Chances are it's not recently, just as the chances of seeing a gender or race swapped version court any kind of controversy these days would be similarly low. And that's 'cos the biggest singular reason Shakespeare has endured as our greatest literary icon, is precisely due to his works having been regularly and continuously changed and re-imagined to appeal to almost any and every part of society over the years.
This is how cultural media works!... There is literally no point in making the same film 25 times, just as theres no reason to keep adapting a book or a play in the same way over decades, or centuries! ... Now, I'm not saying we need to leap straight from a white man to a black woman, but rather that if do eventually we get there (via the slow, accepting passage of tolerance for - say - a black man, then a gay man, then a white woman, etc etc) then great! Because all that will demonstrate is how enduring and relevant the Bond Franchise can be... Which it absolutely wouldn't do, if it had insisted on casting Connery clones, in tonally identical movies for 50 years!
Just look at Joker! A film that would've usually been slaughtered by the rabid comic book fanbase for deviating so drastically from it's source material that it didn't even include Batman! And yet which has bizarrely been championed as high art, merely because it's message pandered to the very same type of culturally frustrated white males that would usually complain the most about changing established lore, or altering straight white cultural icons. But which has thrived precisely by being an odd ball left-field re-imagining of a Batman villain, way more drastic than changing his race or gender would've been... say, in the way,Tim Burton did when he made Harvey Dent black in 1990, for example? (and which absolutely no one cares about!)
For example, when was the last time you saw a mainstream adaptation of Romeo and Juliet set in Verona, and starring italian teenagers? Or indeed any major Shakespeare adaptation that adhered remotely faithful to the text, casting or setting wise? - that wasn't also promoted as a novelty for doing so? Chances are it's not recently, just as the chances of seeing a gender or race swapped version court any kind of controversy these days would be similarly low. And that's 'cos the biggest singular reason Shakespeare has endured as our greatest literary icon, is precisely due to his works having been regularly and continuously changed and re-imagined to appeal to almost any and every part of society over the years.
This is how cultural media works!... There is literally no point in making the same film 25 times, just as theres no reason to keep adapting a book or a play in the same way over decades, or centuries! ... Now, I'm not saying we need to leap straight from a white man to a black woman, but rather that if do eventually we get there (via the slow, accepting passage of tolerance for - say - a black man, then a gay man, then a white woman, etc etc) then great! Because all that will demonstrate is how enduring and relevant the Bond Franchise can be... Which it absolutely wouldn't do, if it had insisted on casting Connery clones, in tonally identical movies for 50 years!
Just look at Joker! A film that would've usually been slaughtered by the rabid comic book fanbase for deviating so drastically from it's source material that it didn't even include Batman! And yet which has bizarrely been championed as high art, merely because it's message pandered to the very same type of culturally frustrated white males that would usually complain the most about changing established lore, or altering straight white cultural icons. But which has thrived precisely by being an odd ball left-field re-imagining of a Batman villain, way more drastic than changing his race or gender would've been... say, in the way,Tim Burton did when he made Harvey Dent black in 1990, for example? (and which absolutely no one cares about!)
Of course anyone can play Bond. Doesn’t mean they should. And why should they do so? To make a point? To wind up people and then wag the finger at them?
Here’s a novel idea. Why not actually create an original story for a change and have it star a new badass character based on a different ethnic background?
Is being white really the primary identification of Bond? The way movie series has used the character, it has been about a different agent assuming the alias for different generations. It is not about the original story anymore.
“Do you have a problem with ethnicity/complexion being a part of a character’s identity?” is the better question.
He’s in his 30’s? I’d be happy with another choice too. I just think he’d kill it and he would be well able to portray him for +10yrs.
As an example, one very popular 17th-century adaptation might as well have been titled Macbeth: The Musical, apparently.
Last edited:
He is 30 and looks like a student . You have to look a bit like you can actually handle yourself and be this super spy .
Kingsman was his level last thing Bond filns need to do is go twilight on us
He will most likely get an Oscar nomination for Rocketman. The man can hold his own, there is no doubt about that. What did Daniel Craig do before he got the role?
Layer Cake
Munich
Road to Perdition
And while I'm not a Craig fan he was a better age and looked and handled himself more like you would want Bond to do
I'm really not getting your argument here. Kingsman was basically Bond for teenagers
Why would the makers of Bond want to emulate that?
Patrick Stewart did an ill-advised race swapped version of Othello in the 90s... which was in all probability terrible, but still very much existed.. lest it ever be contested that “they’d never try and make a black character white! something something political correctness, etc etc”
So you want an original story? And yet you willingly restrict the perimeters within which they’re told?
Which of the 24 already existing Bond films, of which roughly a third are essentially identical in tone and structure to one or more of the other two thirds, has given you the impression that the James Bond franchise is about original stories?
And at what point between Dr No, Moonraker and Die Another Die did the integrity of James fecking Bond become such that the prospect of a black man portraying a character that’s been played by Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Australian, blonde, dark, skinny and stocky actors over half a century, be only suggested so as to deliberately troll or “wind up” a particularly boring and unimaginative part of the fanbase?... rather than to explore a wider creative arena?
Pray tell, which is your favourite Shakespearean male performance in a female role? Considering, naturally, that the notion of letting women perform them is clearly just a pathetic SJW finger waging exercise!
They’re not tryna make you angry. They’re not tryna make you anything! They’re just not aiming it at you at all...
Last edited:
Hate to break it to you but this whole post was based off a misinterpretation. By original story, I mean something that isn’t James Bond.
Well, it is James Bond? No problem Idris Elba playing Bond - that would be awesome - but the character is clearly a man so why mess around with it?
Oh, and Craig is definitely in the top two of all time Bonds.
Oh, and Craig is definitely in the top two of all time Bonds.
Having a non-white James Bond should obviously be no issue. The defining characteristic of Bond in this regard is that he is British, not that he is white. It wouldn't make the slightest difference to have an actor from a different background play the character.
Having a female Bond would be a more fundamental change and not just because the title of the series would be different. The fact that Bond is a man is a central aspect of the character in many Bond films, particulaIy in the more recent ones where his actions are presented in the context of him being somewhat misoginyst, chauvinist and out of touch.
I think the Bond films are very tired at this point so have no issue with them trying to do something different to keep the franchise alive. You'd want any major changes to have a clear storytelling purpose behind them though, rather than just being changes for the sake of it. By which I mean you'd need to have a clear reason for making this particular character a female rather than simply maling the same film with a different character in the lead role.
Having a female Bond would be a more fundamental change and not just because the title of the series would be different. The fact that Bond is a man is a central aspect of the character in many Bond films, particulaIy in the more recent ones where his actions are presented in the context of him being somewhat misoginyst, chauvinist and out of touch.
I think the Bond films are very tired at this point so have no issue with them trying to do something different to keep the franchise alive. You'd want any major changes to have a clear storytelling purpose behind them though, rather than just being changes for the sake of it. By which I mean you'd need to have a clear reason for making this particular character a female rather than simply maling the same film with a different character in the lead role.
I've always understood the Bond films to be that James Bond is just an alter ego, a call sign. Anyone can fill his shows and take up the Bond name. Switching gender is a bit of a leap I grant you, but the whole process means that any man can take on the name. Fat, slim, black, white, gay, straight etc etc.
A spin off from James Bond now that's an idea, Bond is a man black or white he is a man, but I like the idea that a woman can take over the 007 role which the trailer suggests, it's a clever trick to please everyone.
Nah. I mean, you have Bond‘s background story with how his parents died in a climbing accident. The character obviously *is* one person and not an alter ego.
Is that just Craigs or all of them?
All of them, it’s from the novels.
Ah fair enough, don't remember it ever coming up in any of the other films *shrugs*
I think it has been mentioned in at least one other film, but I can’t remember for sure and would have to look it up.
Goldeneye covered it didn’t it?
I remember it being said he was an orphan in Goldeneye but not sure if they mentioned how his folks died.
Yeah, that’s right. 006 mentioned it.
Sean Bean's character mentioned it. "While your parents had the luxury of dying in a climbing accident, mine were betrayed by blah blah blah".
Those folks at MI5 are sick. Employing people who only had their parents killed in climbing accidents. Kind of limits the recruitment pool when Bond needs replacing, jeez.
Yeah but then you have george Lazenby going "this never happened to the other guy "
Plus the fact they reference the Bonds have been going for 50 years from time to time and things that were acceptable in the old days are not acceptable now
Non white man can play Bond but it can’t be a woman is the vibe I’m getting. Now this is some quality reading considering the reactions I’ve gotten.
Kind of. Keep Bond white and kill him off for good for the sake of humanity. Have a woman play 008. Have Idris play 009. Start new creative journeys from there.
This gives us:
- Creative evolution and original stories
- Remaining within the Bond universe
- Inclusive 00 agent characters
- Bold choices by killing Bond
- Less divided fan base
007 is the code name. James Bond is not a code name. Just a singular character throughout the series.
The death of Bonds wife in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service for instance, is referenced in future films with different Bond actors. Bonds reaction to that wouldn’t make sense if it was an alter ego.
I can't wait until this woke era of cinema has run it course and we move on to the next stage where people are just selected for roles based on their suitability for it and we have a fairer representation of society in our cinema compared to a few years ago. That way I don't have to see the messy shitstorm of overacting fuds complaining about a woman playing Bond or the overacting fuds riding their white knight horses and we can just get back to enjoying movies, yeah?
The next Bond can be whoever they want, just as long as they're chosen for being the right Bond and not to make some kind of statement. If your film is based around that then chances are your story is being neglected.
The next Bond can be whoever they want, just as long as they're chosen for being the right Bond and not to make some kind of statement. If your film is based around that then chances are your story is being neglected.
Now those ideas I can get on board with, plus if you killed off James bond, the character can still be referenced or used via his legacy.
Good choice, methinks.