[the truth]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Straw man argument.

hypocrite

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

So the vastly different looking actors who play Bond each iteration is fine but different skin colour is one step too far?

Bond is just popcorn fluff with daft stunts. Hardly something with an unchangeable backstory.

The books are an entirely different medium and canon anyway so they don't come into it anymore.

straw man argument

[Livia]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

Best Tv show ever made IMO. Idris is amazing. I thought he was American after watching, his accent is so convincing. Plus the Wire is 15 years old so he's been at the level for quite a while. Enjoy.

Ahhh... 15 years ago I didn't have time to watch telly, I had a life. I will give it a watch.

[Kizzy]

After the burning car incident are there no votes for foxx?.....

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by the truth

hypocrite

Originally Posted by the truth

straw man argument

Ok.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

That's all been addressed pages back. Keep up, Marshy...

You have to give the banned people time to re-accustom themselves to the forum Liv

[Marsh.]

The oldest thing I've seen Idris Elba in was that episode of Ab Fab where he plays a gigolo.

I didn't realise it was him until a few months ago.

And how apt what Patsy says to him?

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

The oldest thing I've seen Idris Elba in was that episode of Ab Fab where he plays a gigolo.

I didn't realise it was him until a few months ago.

And how apt what Patsy says to him?

He's does better English accent than Connery.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I do agree with Livia here; Bond can't be black unless it's a(nother) reboot. It's not that a spy can't be black, or that you couldn't make a film exactly LIKE a bond film with a black Bond, it's just that you couldn't have a black actor take on the currently established role of Bond. Because, as Livia says, it would alter the character's history, make past situations impossible, and therefore break the canon.

I had a similar discussion over in the movies forum about "black Hermione". Black Hermione in a new interpretation of the source material, i.e. a new play based on the first book and onwards, would in my opinion be 100% fine. Suddenly casting a black Hermione in a direct sequel to the already established interpretation does not work. Because that Hermione is not black.

I used the current CW series of The Flash as an example here too: Wally West has just appeared in the series, an established character from the comics, and in the show he is black whereas in others he's been white. There's no problem there at all, because this is his FIRST appearence in THIS interpretation of The Flash, he is a character based on the source character, they are not necessarily the same character... in exactly the same way that the "Smallville" Green Arrow and the "Arrow" Green Arrow are based on the same source material but are clearly not the same character.

Other examples, and sorry for all the superhero ****

Toby maguire and Andrew Garfield (and now Tom Holland) are NOT the same Spider-man; they could have cast anyone... each is a new interpretation.

Terence Howard and Don Cheadle ARE the same War Machine. He is established. And so changing the actor to a Japanese guy in Iron Man 2 would have been ludicrous; he had to "stay black".

In other words... I'm a bit of a stickler for fiction and canon, and for me, each interpretation of a character becomes as if they are that human being. Slight appearance changes / actor changes are one thing, changing something so fundamental that it would change the character's entire backstory is another thing. Tl;dr - for me, the established Bond can no more change his race than you or I can, in order for me to consider it "good fiction", and not break my immersion. The established Bond is who he is.

Now... all of that said... I wouldn't particularly have any problem with them rebooting Bond again after Daniel Craig leaves, and casting a black Bond with a different back story, and a different set of "old missions" under his belt as experience. I think the reboot worked well this time around - for those not in the know... Connery all the way up to Brosnan were all "the same Bond" - Daniel Craig is NOT that same Bond, but an entirely new character.

Having "sets" of three or four movies each with a completely "fresh" Bond would work fairly well (a reboot with each actor change), IMO. But they would have to make that clear. A new origin story for a new Bond.

: clap1:

At the risk of now being written off as a T,S, 'groupie' - What truly wonderful COMMON FECKING SENSE.

[Ithinkiloveyoutoo]

Too many white people's opinions here from white people's POVs.

[Ithinkiloveyoutoo]

'It's not that a spy can't be black, or that you couldn't make a film exactly LIKE a bond film with a black Bond, it's just that you couldn't have a black actor take on the currently established role of Bond. Because, as Livia says, it would alter the character's history, make past situations impossible, and therefore break the canon.' And yet white hollywood has been perfectly comfortable putting white actors in roles meant for blacks or people of color. Jesus of Nazareth, Cleopatra, Moses, recently they tried it with the film about a black transgender activist by putting a blue eyed white man but people have too much of a voice now with social media so they didn't just sit back and let it happen.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Ithinkiloveyoutoo

'It's not that a spy can't be black, or that you couldn't make a film exactly LIKE a bond film with a black Bond, it's just that you couldn't have a black actor take on the currently established role of Bond. Because, as Livia says, it would alter the character's history, make past situations impossible, and therefore break the canon.' And yet white hollywood has been perfectly comfortable putting white actors in roles meant for blacks or people of color. Jesus of Nazareth, Cleopatra, Moses, recently they tried it with the film about a black transgender activist by putting a blue eyed white man but people have too much of a voice now with social media so they didn't just sit back and let it happen.

Either you didn't read all of what I said and jumped after the first sentence, or you're not a fan of serial movie / TV universes and have no idea what I'm talking about when I mention established rules / canon.

I specifically said that there's no issue with having a black Bond, *** IF *** you reboot (start over) the "Bond universe" that those movies are set in and give him a new back story. The roles you're talking about are standalone type movies (contained universes) and so the director has free reign with casting, IMO. Whether their decisions are good or bad is still up for debate, but the decision is theirs. They can cast whoever or whatever they want. They can do the whole thing in CGI. They can make a whole cast of sea mammals and put a whole new twist on "James Pond".

What they can't do is make dramatic changes to a character in an established universe and expect to maintain the suspension of disbelief that makes movies enjoyable.

It's not a race superiority issue at all. Not for me, anyway. I would have just as much of a problem with it if I was to walk into "Cap 3: Civil War"when it comes out and find that The Falcon or War Machine (both black characters) had been replaced with white actors. Just the same as if Iron Man was suddenly Chinese, or Black Widow was suddenly played by a 6ft tall man.

[Marsh.]

But Bond doesn't stick to an established universe or canon anyway.

One or two movies almost carry on from the other but other than that, the rules chop and change all of the time anyway. Even when there isn't a change of lead actor.

James Bond is not an example of having a strong canon. It's like Doctor Who, the rules and backstory changes to suit the whims of the person in charge of it at any given time.

The lead characters skin being a different colour really is nothing in comparison.

[King Gizzard]

If it sticked to a story he'd be ancient by now init

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

But Bond doesn't stick to an established universe or canon anyway.

One or two movies almost carry on from the other but other than that, the rules chop and change all of the time anyway. Even when there isn't a change of lead actor.

James Bond is not an example of having a strong canon. It's like Doctor Who, the rules and backstory changes to suit the whims of the person in charge of it at any given time.

The lead characters skin being a different colour really is nothing in comparison.

It doesn't have a strong canon but it has only changed once. Ending with Brosnan and rebooting with Craig. There have been established ties between all of the previous movies. Yes, there are numerous examples of canon "flexibility" already in Bond, as you mentioned is the case with Doctor Who, but the fact that it already exists doesn't mean that it *should* exist or that it should be encouraged... I hate it when the goalposts are moved. Even little bits for convenience. For example, it bugs the **** out of me that they make a big deal about "wordless spells" being difficult in the early Harry Potter stories and then by the end, every dopey Hogwards kid with half a wand is throwing them around with a flick of their wrist...

I digress.

Rule changes mid-game are bad. Always bad. Bad for the story, bad for the viewer.

But again I have no problem with the "new standard" for Bond being a reboot with each new actor. I don't actually mind reboots. I'm quite comfortable with separate canon universes co-existing, even. The annoying skinny kid from Gotham, and Ben Affleck, can be Batman at the same time. I'm cool with that.

[King Gizzard]

Or not suddenly turn up and be a natural blonde

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Rule changes mid-game are bad. Always bad. Bad for the story, bad for the viewer.

But again I have no problem with the "new standard" for Bond being a reboot with each new actor. I don't actually mind reboots. I'm quite comfortable with separate canon universes co-existing, even. The annoying skinny kid from Gotham, and Ben Affleck, can be Batman at the same time. I'm cool with that.

Yeah, I agree with this.

I think a lot of people subscribe to the theory of each James Bond not being the same person but a spy assigned that code name or whatever.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Yeah, I agree with this.

I think a lot of people subscribe to the theory of each James Bond not being the same person but a spy assigned that code name or whatever.

I like it as a theory but there are a few small links in the "classic" pre-Brosnan films that fairly explicitly state that they're the same guy. Mentions of old missions / enemies / gadgets, things like that. Not so much with Brosnan but I'm sure the dead wife gets mentioned at some point? I dunno. I found all of the Brosnan films except Goldeneye pretty boring . And Goldeneye is really only an exception because, of course, Sean Bean is a legend unmatched in cinema.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Yeah, I agree with this.

I think a lot of people subscribe to the theory of each James Bond not being the same person but a spy assigned that code name or whatever.

Yes I thought that was it too otherwise how can it span so many decades?
If it's meant to be the same guy then how can he be the same age in the 60s,70s,80,90s, and so on.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Yes I thought that was it too otherwise how can it span so many decades?
If it's meant to be the same guy then how can he be the same age in the 60s,70s,80,90s, and so on.

Exactly this.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I like it as a theory but there are a few small links in the "classic" pre-Brosnan films that fairly explicitly state that they're the same guy. Mentions of old missions / enemies / gadgets, things like that. Not so much with Brosnan but I'm sure the dead wife gets mentioned at some point? I dunno. I found all of the Brosnan films except Goldeneye pretty boring . And Goldeneye is really only an exception because, of course, Sean Bean is a legend unmatched in cinema.

I just don't like Brosnan. He's dull yet cheesy at the same time.

[King Gizzard]

(Was also under the illusion that it was just a name given to an agent)

[James]

The Connery-Lazenby-Moore years are kind of supposed to be the same character, albeit with different personalities. Rebooted for Dalton and Brosnan, and then rebooted again for Craig.

But yeah, the name can be treated like a codename.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

I just don't like Brosnan. He's dull yet cheesy at the same time.

* marsh watching mama mia*

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

* marsh watching mama mia*

Second worst movie ever made.

(The worst is "Sex and The City 2")