Would you support the idea of a black actor playing James Bond?

Tools    





On the outside looking in.
Not to my long post.

Sorry, I missed that one. Elba is a wonderful actor and he would make a fine action hero -- but Bond has an established history and if you're going to disregard that history it isn't James Bond.
__________________
"Yes, citizen, there is no cause for alarm -- you may return to your harpsichord."



Hair colour is not going to change the character Fleming created; he could be bald. And sure, a young black man could grow up into the type of character Bond is, but he wouldn't be Bond because Bond has an established history already.
As I said, the hair example was superficial (but then, skin color is, too). But the more pertinent question was the one about time frame. Why isn't that an issue? It inarguably changes Bond's "established history."



On the outside looking in.
As I said, the hair example was superficial (but then, skin color is, too). But the more pertinent question was the one about time frame. Why isn't that an issue? It inarguably changes Bond's "established history."

People might take flack about their hair, but they're rarely persecuted for it.



It feels silly to even talk about this, but I'm fairly certain I've seen research that says bald men are perceived quite different than those with lush heads of hair, particularly in regards to confidence and attractiveness: two pretty huge parts of Bond's personality, I think you'd agree.

But nevermind that. As I've suggested a couple of times, the time frame argument is the more significant one, and the fact that you keep skipping over it to talk about hair is feeling a mite conspicuous.



I think the problem is more James Bond is an icon, an image, a brand. Nicky Fury, M and Moneypenny are not really are they. I am not saying I would personally have anything against it, but I can see why others would and hope it would be done for the right reasons. I think also with James Bond a lot of the earlier films are kind of racist in their stereotypes of certain people, especially blacks and Asians, not so much in recent films I know, but it could affect things.
__________________



Yeah, there are probably two questions here that are getting a little tangled together: whether or not there's any inherent problem with casting a black man as James Bond, and whether or not there's going to be any actual problem. I don't think there's an inherent problem, but I think the chances of it being done for shallow, superficial reasons that end up changing the core of the character are fairly high.



On the outside looking in.
It feels silly to even talk about this, but I'm fairly certain I've seen research that says bald men are perceived quite different than those with lush heads of hair, particularly in regards to confidence and attractiveness: two pretty huge parts of Bond's personality, I think you'd agree.

But nevermind that. As I've suggested a couple of times, the time frame argument is the more significant one, and the fact that you keep skipping over it to talk about hair is feeling a mite conspicuous.

I don't know what you're getting at with the "time frame" thing, but I'd like to point out that the bald look is very much "in" today; bald is "sexy" now, but the comb-over never will be.



We've gone on holiday by mistake
It's bad enough that they made Bond politically correct in regards to women in Goldeneye. He should have remained a male chauvinist pig as far as I'm concerned.



It's not exactly the same thing, but if you're concerned with tradition and political correctness, what about Shakespeare and Othello? Undoubtedly conceived as a role to be played by a white actor, albeit most times in blackface, Othello has been played by some of the greatest white actors in history, and some of them in the last 25 years. Is it political correctness that he's now played by a black? I don't really want to change the subject, but generally acting is all about being able to convince others that deep down you're somebody else. Therefore, I don't see the big deal in "role reversals". I don't think it has to be a gimmick, especially with a character like Bond who's been played by so many different actors already.
Good post.



On the outside looking in.
I think the chances of it being done for shallow, superficial reasons that end up changing the core of the character are fairly high.

That and $$.



I don't know what you're getting at with the "time frame" thing
The difference between living in 1960 and 2012 is significant, which means that placing Bond in a modern setting dramatically changes the "established history" of the character, which is the reason you give for stating that a black Bond wouldn't be a "real" Bond. So are all modern Bonds also not "real" Bonds?



On the outside looking in.
Tourette's is a disorder.

Yes, but it would humanize Bond a little more. I know it's not what Fleming wrote but then we're ignoring that...



On the outside looking in.
The difference between living in 1960 and 2012 is significant, which means that placing Bond in a modern setting dramatically changes the "established history" of the character, which is the reason you give for stating that a black Bond wouldn't be a "real" Bond.

I never made that argument. The Bond films have always been set in a contemporary timeframe; they've never been period pieces.