Why do some people have a problem with Idris Elba being the next James Bond?
I don't see how this would be "political correctness gone mad", because he genuinely seems to be (one of the) best candidates for the role: he has the voice, smoothness, charm, build and presence. So, I think his selection would be based on merit and not an overt politically correct conspiracy as some people have been suggesting.
I saw someone say something like, "it's like casting a white man as Martin Luther King, Jr."; however, skin colour is entirely incidental to Bond's character. I don't see how it would be any different to replacing brunette Brosnan with blonde Craig.
I hope he gets the role. He's definitely the most Bond-like of the current candidates, although there are a few contenders who don't seem to be in the running (such as Hardy and Fassbender).
I saw someone say something like, "it's like casting a white man as Martin Luther King, Jr."; however, skin colour is entirely incidental to Bond's character. I don't see how it would be any different to replacing brunette Brosnan with blonde Craig.
I hope he gets the role. He's definitely the most Bond-like of the current candidates, although there are a few contenders who don't seem to be in the running (such as Hardy and Fassbender).
Scroll to see replies
I would find this casting odd. For me James Bond is a white character. The MLK comparison is obviously absurd but I can't help but feel that the small campaign growing for Idris Elba is a kind of trick question intended to smoke-out a racism that doesn't exist.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by cambio wechsel
I would find this casting odd. For me James Bond is a white character. The MLK comparison is obviously absurd but I can't help but feel that the small campaign growing for Idris Elba is a kind of trick question intended to smoke-out a racism that doesn't exist.
I think James Bond's character is the epitome of privilege: Eton, Cambridge, male, etc. He's an archetype and no matter what the idealists say there is still a white privilege in whatever third world country he's being suave in, ordering a martini shaken and not shtirred, before killing a baddy and banging a girl.
Is that a bad reason, do you think? I'm conscious of being racist here.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Lady Comstock
I don't see how this would be "political correctness gone mad", because he genuinely seems to be (one of the) best candidates for the role: he has the voice, smoothness, charm, build and presence. So, I think his selection would be based on merit and not an overt politically correct conspiracy as some people have been suggesting.
I saw someone say something like, "it's like casting a white man as Martin Luther King, Jr."; however, skin colour is entirely incidental to Bond's character. I don't see how it would be any different to replacing brunette Brosnan with blonde Craig.
I hope he gets the role. He's definitely the most Bond-like of the current candidates, although there are a few contenders who don't seem to be in the running (such as Hardy and Fassbender).
I saw someone say something like, "it's like casting a white man as Martin Luther King, Jr."; however, skin colour is entirely incidental to Bond's character. I don't see how it would be any different to replacing brunette Brosnan with blonde Craig.
I hope he gets the role. He's definitely the most Bond-like of the current candidates, although there are a few contenders who don't seem to be in the running (such as Hardy and Fassbender).
If we are going for someone of a darker persuasion, I would love to see Colin Salmon - who is gorgeous. Sadly he has already appeared in the Bond movies as another character. He has the looks and the voice and is oooohhhh
I'd love to see Idris Elba as the next James Bond, he's the epitome of the classy Black British man.
And isn't James Bond only a code name?
And isn't James Bond only a code name?
Original post by jedanselemyia
I'd love to see Idris Elba as the next James Bond, he's the epitome of the classy Black British man.
And isn't James Bond only a code name?
And isn't James Bond only a code name?
No, it is his actual name and he is the same person.
Original post by 41b
No, it is his actual name and he is the same person.
Indeed. They seem to have decided that he is one person throughout the movies and that his name is his birth name.:
Commander James Bond, C.M.G., R.N. (born April 13, 1968)
James Bond was born on April 13, 1968, in West Berlin, Germany. His father Andrew Bond of Glencoe, Scotland....
http://jamesbond.wikia.com/wiki/James_Bond
Just himself at different stages in his life.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by 41b
No, it is his actual name and he is the same person.
Well that's weird :\
Original post by qwer1234
I think James Bond's character is the epitome of privilege: Eton, Cambridge, male, etc. He's an archetype and no matter what the idealists say there is still a white privilege in whatever third world country he's being suave in, ordering a martini shaken and not shtirred, before killing a baddy and banging a girl.
Is that a bad reason, do you think? I'm conscious of being racist here.
Is that a bad reason, do you think? I'm conscious of being racist here.
Is this background so fundamental to the character that any deviation ruins the story? I don't think Bond having been a Bristol graduate from a grammar school would fundamentally change the character.
Original post by Lady Comstock
Is this background so fundamental to the character that any deviation ruins the story? I don't think Bond having been a Bristol graduate from a grammar school would fundamentally change the character.
Yes it would. He wouldn't be the same smug, upper class character. You'd be reinventing him.
The Brits used to be a racially and ethnically homogenous people but over the last few decades that has changed markedly. Within fifty years ethnic Brits will be a minority in this country.
James Bond is the 'same guy' but he has always been a representation of the times. Connery was a broken sociopath, coolly professional and detached. Most men admire what he was - most of us could not live his life without becoming what he became, and we admire him for being so effortlessly successful. Then came Lazenby. In my opinion he was the best James Bond, the most human, but obviously the least cool. Connery represented the cool professionalism and stiff upper lip of the fifties and sixties.
Lazenby, I think, was, an attempt to introduce a bit more emotion into the series. The movie was truly great (in it's own right), and I think it was reflective of the changing culture and more emotional openness of the time.
Moore tried to channel Connery, but he was nowhere near as suave. His movies represented, I think, the modernising refined British elitist.
I haven't seen Dalton's.
Brosnan's were reflective of the starting of the cultural Marxist/political correctness era. Non-white female lead, Brosnan himself was rarely manly.
Then Craig reflects perfectly the millennial slump for men. The movies look like an expensive porno for women, with a huge, thuggish muscle man beating up people in adrenaline pumping, vagina moistening fights that are frankly rather boring. Then there is the tear inducing (at least for the women who watched it with me - although I found it tiresome) drama when the girl drowns in the elevator due to her own stupidity and white knight Bond tries to save her. Connery would have spit in disgust, or shot her himself.
Thus the Bond movies always represent in some way the culture of the times. This is inevitable though, for a series that spans so many decades. A movie today showing Craig slapping around his love interest before pushing her to the ground and making love to her would get so much rape and domestic violence hysteria it would probably be banned as indecent.
In that context I don't think a black bond would be anything more of a convolution than thug Craig replacing wimp Brosnan, or wimp Brosnan replacing hard men Connery/Moore. They made M into a woman, after all.
Each Bond represents what British masculinity is supposed to be, in that era, in some way. Thus a black Bond would not be ridiculous, although probably unrealistic. A Muslim bond would probably be more accurate.
James Bond is the 'same guy' but he has always been a representation of the times. Connery was a broken sociopath, coolly professional and detached. Most men admire what he was - most of us could not live his life without becoming what he became, and we admire him for being so effortlessly successful. Then came Lazenby. In my opinion he was the best James Bond, the most human, but obviously the least cool. Connery represented the cool professionalism and stiff upper lip of the fifties and sixties.
Lazenby, I think, was, an attempt to introduce a bit more emotion into the series. The movie was truly great (in it's own right), and I think it was reflective of the changing culture and more emotional openness of the time.
Moore tried to channel Connery, but he was nowhere near as suave. His movies represented, I think, the modernising refined British elitist.
I haven't seen Dalton's.
Brosnan's were reflective of the starting of the cultural Marxist/political correctness era. Non-white female lead, Brosnan himself was rarely manly.
Then Craig reflects perfectly the millennial slump for men. The movies look like an expensive porno for women, with a huge, thuggish muscle man beating up people in adrenaline pumping, vagina moistening fights that are frankly rather boring. Then there is the tear inducing (at least for the women who watched it with me - although I found it tiresome) drama when the girl drowns in the elevator due to her own stupidity and white knight Bond tries to save her. Connery would have spit in disgust, or shot her himself.
Thus the Bond movies always represent in some way the culture of the times. This is inevitable though, for a series that spans so many decades. A movie today showing Craig slapping around his love interest before pushing her to the ground and making love to her would get so much rape and domestic violence hysteria it would probably be banned as indecent.
In that context I don't think a black bond would be anything more of a convolution than thug Craig replacing wimp Brosnan, or wimp Brosnan replacing hard men Connery/Moore. They made M into a woman, after all.
Each Bond represents what British masculinity is supposed to be, in that era, in some way. Thus a black Bond would not be ridiculous, although probably unrealistic. A Muslim bond would probably be more accurate.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by qwer1234
Indeed. They seem to have decided that he is one person throughout the movies and that his name is his birth name.:
Commander James Bond, C.M.G., R.N. (born April 13, 1968)
James Bond was born on April 13, 1968, in West Berlin, Germany. His father Andrew Bond of Glencoe, Scotland....
http://jamesbond.wikia.com/wiki/James_Bond
Just himself at different stages in his life.
Commander James Bond, C.M.G., R.N. (born April 13, 1968)
James Bond was born on April 13, 1968, in West Berlin, Germany. His father Andrew Bond of Glencoe, Scotland....
http://jamesbond.wikia.com/wiki/James_Bond
Just himself at different stages in his life.
I think they gave up Fleming's vision a long time ago to be honest.
Original post by 41b
I think they gave up Fleming's vision a long time ago to be honest.
How long before it's Jayne Bond, do you think?
Everyone's used to Bond being a white guy, that's just how it is. It'd just feel weird if it was different
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by qwer1234
How long before it's Jayne Bond, do you think?
Britain's answer to Bruce Jenner.
It will probably happen too.
Seems to me that the films have diverged substantially from the books in one respect, which is that to prevent Bond ageing they seem to have made Bond able to change face entirely and fit into modern settings. So the name is more denoting the "best" spy in MI6 then Bond a particular person. In that context there shouldn't be a problem having Idris Elba as Bond.
I am used to seeing James Bond as a white guy but honestly as long as the part is played well it doesn't really seem like an issue.
I am used to seeing James Bond as a white guy but honestly as long as the part is played well it doesn't really seem like an issue.
Original post by qwer1234
Yes it would. He wouldn't be the same smug, upper class character. You'd be reinventing him.
Hmm, this is all subjective, but I don't think his persona and behaviour is upper-class. For me, when I think of an upper-class Eton and Oxbridge graduate, I do not think of James Bond. Huge generalisation, but I think of someone who is probably a bit awkward and disconnected.
It's Bond's international military career that has shaped his persona IMO, not his privileged background.
Original post by Lady Comstock
It's Bond's international military career that has shaped his persona IMO, not his privileged background.
Small correction but he's not military. He's SIS which he got into through his 'Old Boy's Club' connections from Eton/Cambridge. Unless you went to those schools, you never used to get in. It's a little different now but not when the character that was created got in! Calling SIS 'MI6' is a flag of convenience - it's definitely not military intelligence.
this is all subjective, but I don't think his persona and behaviour is upper-class.
I have no problem with a programme about a black spy being made. I'd watch it. Why does it have to be Bond, though? He's already a developed character. I think people are trying to get a token black guy in for the sake of it tbh.
Original post by qwer1234
Small correction but he's not military. He's SIS which he got into through his 'Old Boy's Club' connections from Eton/Cambridge. Unless you went to those schools, you never used to get in. It's a little different now but not when the character that was created got in! Calling SIS 'MI6' is a flag of convenience - it's definitely not military intelligence.
Not according to the Wikia link you posted. He had a long stint in military intelligence, which led to some courses at Cambridge. My opinion is that his time in the military probably shaped his personality, which is quite reminiscent of the officer class, rather than a short period of study at Cambridge.
His privileged education probably helped him get the job at MI6, but I think his military career made his persona rather than that. So, I think he could still be James Bond had he gone to a grammar school and Bristol, as long as the stint in the military still occurred.
I must disagree. To me, he's very upper class. You are imagining a 'rah' which is a fine association to make but I certainly have met some very smooth aristocrats!
Privileged and refined, but I don't think upper-class.
I have no problem with a programme about a black spy being made. I'd watch it. Why does it have to be Bond, though? He's already a developed character. I think people are trying to get a token black guy in for the sake of it tbh.
Why is being black or white so fundamental to the character that it absolutely cannot be changed? I also disagree. Idris is being put forward because he generally ticks all the Bond boxes.
Original post by Lady Comstock
Not according to the Wikia link you posted. He had a long stint in military intelligence, which led to some courses at Cambridge. My opinion is that his time in the military probably shaped his personality, which is quite reminiscent of the officer class, rather than a short period of study at Cambridge.
His privileged education probably helped him get the job at MI6, but I think his military career made his persona rather than that. So, I think he could still be James Bond had he gone to a grammar school and Bristol, as long as the stint in the military still occurred.
His privileged education probably helped him get the job at MI6, but I think his military career made his persona rather than that. So, I think he could still be James Bond had he gone to a grammar school and Bristol, as long as the stint in the military still occurred.
He did serve as a Naval Officer, yes. SIS is not military though -- that's the distinction I was making. His officership would have also been granted because of his private education. Officers were a public schooled institution for a very, very long time. Only very recently has Sandhurst and co. been more accepting and even now there's a slight stigma.
His course at Cambridge was Oriental languages (4 years). It used to be the recruiting ground for SIS officers. You didn't apply. You got a tap on the shoulder to join.
(edited 8 years ago)
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
