The future of James Bond

FunLover18

I disagree with you about ethnicity, I don't think you lose anything from the character by making him black or Asian, in the same way we didn't lose anything when he became blond.

Dr Brown

FunLover18 wrote: »

I disagree with you about ethnicity, I don't think you lose anything from the character by making him black or Asian, in the same way we didn't lose anything when he became blond.

If thats the case why not have Hitler played by a blackman ?

Also IMO craig does not look like James Bond should.

Insect Overlord

Dr Brown wrote: »

If thats the case why not have Hitler played by a blackman ?

Also IMO craig does not look like James Bond should.

Because one is a fictional character and the other was a real guy who needs to be portrayed with some degree of historical accuracy. Obviously.

Agent Coulson

It's all crazy Bond is a middle aged chauvinistic white guy and that's how it should stay for me.


Imagine having I don't know say Cate Blanchett play Bob Dylan or something now that would be crazy.

Tony EH

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Imagine having I don't know say Cate Blanchett play Bob Dylan or something now that would be crazy.

Yeh, that was done as a bit of a novelty and was the whole point of the film, 'I'm Not There', and in fact, none of them were actually portraying the real Bob Dylan. They were other people with references to Dylan's different stages of life.

However, I don't think the world would be too receptive of say, Russell Crowe, playing Cetshwayo in the remake of 'Zulu'.

It would, quite rightly, be laughable.

Koala Sunshine

The same reason we shouldn't have a short bald fat bond is the same reason we shouldn't have a female bond. James Bond is a particular character, and it should be kept that way. Make new characters and franchises if you want different characters.

Also, why is he a misogynist? If anything he is more of a misandrist, he treats men far worse than women. He gives women orgasms, he gives men bullets in the brain.

Hande hoche!

Still want to see a Shaft film starring Liam Neeson.

Tony EH

'McShaft'

"I will find you...and I will kill you...sucka!"

silverharp

No offense to Asian men but Bond is supposed to be capable of charming the knickers of a nun, Difficult to see Jackie Chan playing the spirit of 007. 008 to 0013 are free to open up a whole Bond universe and they can all slip in and out of each other's movies, itil be great, honest gov'ner.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

No offense to Asian men but Bond is supposed to be capable of charming the knickers of a nun, Difficult to see Jackie Chan playing the spirit of 007. 008 to 0013 are free to open up a whole Bond universe and they can all slip in and out of each other's movies, itil be great, honest gov'ner.

Bond is a fictional character. He's an artistic representation of a secret agent super hero. Of course he can change. He can be anything the creators want him to be.

He might be less appealing to you if he was less based on yourself, but that could be said or anything. It's childish to think an artistic character can't change just because it happens to already be a template of you.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Bond is a fictional character. He's an artistic representation of a secret agent super hero. Of course he can change. He can be anything the creators want him to be.

He might be less appealing to you if he was less based on yourself, but that could be said or anything. It's childish to think an artistic character can't change just because it happens to already be a template of you.

you tend to lose viewers if you change a character too much, if we were talking about Sherlock Holmes you have a certain picture in your head of how he should behave, similar with Bond. However I will accept that the only metric hollywood should use is money, so Bond can be Pudsey the dog for all I care if it puts more bums on seats.

Tony EH

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Bond is a fictional character. He's an artistic representation of a secret agent super hero. Of course he can change. He can be anything the creators want him to be.

He might be less appealing to you if he was less based on yourself, but that could be said or anything. It's childish to think an artistic character can't change just because it happens to already be a template of you.

It doesn't matter if he's a fictional character or not. He's an established character of a particular origin and particular traits. There's no need to hijack that character.

Let's remake 'Roots', but instead of Kunta Kinte being black, let's make him a white south african.

After all, he's only a fictional character.

Or here's an idea...make NEW characters!

FunLover18

Roots is a series about a young African who was sold into slavery and the resulting lives of his descendents living in America. The story is that of the struggles of African-Americans.

Neither the stories nor character of James Bond are reliant on him being white (regardless what misguided views you have re the ability of Asian men to charm women), it would not affect the franchise in the slightest bar upsetting some fans.

El_Duderino 09

Tony EH wrote:

It doesn't matter if he's a fictional character or not. He's an established character of a particular origin and particular traits. There's no need to hijack that character.

Or here's an idea...make NEW characters!

Bond was written in his own context in history. He was mostly a super hero written in opposition to the enemies of the day. Should he only be allowed to exist in the original context too? Should he stick rigidly to 1950s goodies baddies and geo politics? Or should he be free to adapt to the times?

Nobody owns bond. It's an artistic representation.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

you tend to lose viewers if you change a character too much, if we were talking about Sherlock Holmes you have a certain picture in your head of how he should behave, similar with Bond. However I will accept that the only metric hollywood should use is money, so Bond can be Pudsey the dog for all I care if it puts more bums on seats.

To put those limits on art is a shame. Very straight line thinking.
Leave it to the Hollywood folks to decide then. Art is open to interpretation and reinvention.

If it was history then it would be obliged to be 'accurate'. Since bond is fictional, he's only bound by your imagination.

Tony EH

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Nobody owns bond. It's an artistic representation.

So's Kunta Kinte.

Ya know...just a fictional character.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

El_Duderino 09

Kunta Kinte is set in his context though. It tells the story of a slave brought from Africa to America. It's historical fiction. You could play around with it but it would lose its essence before long. You could have a female main character no problem. The story would be a bit different because it would be bound to the history of the time re men and women's experience. But in principle you could change it around as long as you keep it relatively historically accurate.

Bond isn't historical fiction as the history part has been long discarded anyway.

spacecoyote

silverharp wrote: »

No offense to Asian men but Bond is supposed to be capable of charming the knickers of a nun, Difficult to see Jackie Chan playing the spirit of 007. 008 to 0013 are free to open up a whole Bond universe and they can all slip in and out of each other's movies, itil be great, honest gov'ner.

Is Jackie Chan the only Asian actor you've seen in a movie? Of course he wouldn't be cast as bond, he made his name making martial arts movies with fantastic set pieces & in many cases a more comedic edge.

There would be hundreds of Asian actors who could comfortably play a suave spy type capable of charming women

silverharp

spacecoyote wrote: »

Is Jackie Chan the only Asian actor you've seen in a movie? Of course he wouldn't be cast as bond, he made his name making martial arts movies with fantastic set pieces & in many cases a more comedic edge.

There would be hundreds of Asian actors who could comfortably play a suave spy type capable of charming women

I don't watch rom coms as a rule but are Asians ever the male love interest? also we are talking movies here where they are very fussy about who they pick , I mean there is capable, but there is also getting the cinema public chattering about their sex appeal good looks yada yada. Im not sure an Asian actor would generate that kind of interest in a Bond movie.

Like I said I think the best way to expand the range is to create new 00 characters and make other movies.

Agent Coulson

What about a Bollywood Bond?

buried

Agent Coulson wrote: »

What about a Bollywood Bond?

With the singing and the dancing? The Bond movies normally just have that kind of stuff in the title credits, not the whole 120 minutes!

FunLover18

silverharp wrote: »

I don't watch rom coms as a rule but are Asians ever the male love interest? also we are talking movies here where they are very fussy about who they pick , I mean there is capable, but there is also getting the cinema public chattering about their sex appeal good looks yada yada. Im not sure an Asian actor would generate that kind of interest in a Bond movie.

Like I said I think the best way to expand the range is to create new 00 characters and make other movies.

Lack of Asian representation in rom-coms and Hollywood in general has much more to do with ignorance and racism than it has to do with their sex appeal.

silverharp

FunLover18 wrote: »

Lack of Asian representation in rom-coms and Hollywood in general has much more to do with ignorance and racism than it has to do with their sex appeal.

you are very quick with the racism card, if you check, Asians aren't under represented in Hollywood , they are broadly in line with their numbers in the US, as for the rest the market wants what it wants

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

you are very quick with the racism card, if you check, Asians aren't under represented in Hollywood , they are broadly in line with their numbers in the US, as for the rest the market wants what it wants

So if the market wants a change of bond, you're fine with it?

FunLover18

silverharp wrote: »

you are very quick with the racism card, if you check, Asians aren't under represented in Hollywood , they are broadly in line with their numbers in the US, as for the rest the market wants what it wants

So Asians should be happy with 5% of films roles because they only make up 5% of the US population despite making up 60% of the world population? Having representation be proportional to population is a form of discrimination. Representation should be equal.

Hande hoche!

FunLover18 wrote: »

So Asians should be happy with 5% of films roles because they only make up 5% of the US population despite making up 60% of the world population? Having representation be proportional to population is a form of discrimination. Representation should be equal.

In terms of US population, Asians and African Americans aren't under represented in film. The real ones missing out are Hispanics.

El_Duderino 09

FunLover18 wrote: »

So Asians should be happy with 5% of films roles because they only make up 5% of the US population despite making up 60% of the world population? Having representation be proportional to population is a form of discrimination. Representation should be equal.

No no. You missed their point. The poster doesn’t find Asian men attractive, but they do find white men attractive. Bond must be attractive to white men, so bond should be a white woman, right silverharp?

Or bond must be a white man to be attractive to white women? They’re not sure what their argument is,but they’re sure the conclusion is that bond has to be a white man.

buried

Would other demographics or ethnicities even want to play Bond though? James Bond is supposed to be a prick. He's an assassin for christsakes. He's a bastard sent out to do in other bastards worse than him. The fact is that he has always been a uppity white British bastard sent out on the killing leash of other uppity white British bastards from the British Intelligence secret service. That's what originally made the character work in the books and the early films. Because that $hit exists. He's playing a button man assassin goon. Its not supposed to be the role of a universal archetypal hero. The fact that people now assume that's what he is just shows how watered down and wanky the thing has become.

FunLover18

Hande hoche! wrote: »

In terms of US population, Asians and African Americans aren't under represented in film. The real ones missing out are Hispanics.

We're veering drastically off topic but why are we talking about representation in terms of population? Do minorities have less right to representation in film?

silverharp

FunLover18 wrote: »

So Asians should be happy with 5% of films roles because they only make up 5% of the US population despite making up 60% of the world population? Having representation be proportional to population is a form of discrimination. Representation should be equal.

thats like complaining that Bollywood is made up of 99% Indians :pac: