They said Craig could never be Bond because he had blonde hair. Then Craig wow'ed his critics and him looking different than Fleming's Bond didn't matter. I think a black Bond can rise above skepticism as well.
I was one of those who thought Craig shouldn't be Bond. But his acting has impressed me. Nevertheless, hair colour is far less significant an issue than skin colour. I do wish Craig would dye his hair black, or at least a dark brown when he plays Bond, though.
Does that make him any less good as Bond? In some way, yes. Bond has to look the part as well as being able to play the character. He's fulfilled the latter superlatively well. But not the former.
I think Number24 is spot on. When Connery played Bond, he played the part of a wealthy elitist cultured Brit who frequented country clubs and such. As long as black skin isn't associated with money, success and high-class living, people won't accept a black Bond.
But they should accept that a black Bond would be totally fine.
I wish the Bond community can just put aside these biases and just say "I don't care about skin color, as long as the Bond actor is qualified". But we aren't at that point yet. There are pages of back and forth full of anger and acrimony.
There are still 21st century injustices. I'd say all Brits of all ethnicities have basic civil rights. But more white people are in the upper-crust of society because they've had more generations of opportunity to build and spread their wealth.
This isn't about biases and prejudices. This is about preserving the sanctity of Fleming's work. In the real world, skin colour does not matter, and I agree that I the real world, everyone, regardless of ethnicity, should have basic civil rights.
Bond isn't in the real world, he's fictional, created by Ian Fleming, with defined characteristics that go far beyond his name and number and merely being "masculine". Bond is much more than that. He was born of a Scottish father and a Swiss mother, educated in Eton. He's about 6' tall, slim build, black hair, blue-grey eyes, and a somewhat 'cruel' look about him - and most of all, he is white. His vices include drinking and smoking too much, and women.
My main point is that people are resistant toward a black Bond because they're used a society where only white could be "old-money". And I think we should totally subvert that convention.
It's strange to see all the changes the movies have made to the source material, incorporating modern technology and even being practically set in a modern society, yet some still believe that Bond has to be white because that's how society was when Ian Fleming was alive. I've generally found that lots of people are okay with the Bond series incorporating new things, but as soon as the possibility of a non-white Bond is introduced, there's a sense of skepticism.
Frankly, I don't care what's "socially acceptable" in the real world. I don't want Bond to become a social commentary. What makes a good Bond film in my view is fidelity to the Fleming novels. I don't mind new technologies and original stories, but the characters written by Fleming must not ever change. Instead, put them in a new environment. As I have stated in the other thread, I have no objection whatsoever to having other black 00s in Bond's department. I have no issue with Bond working alongside a black 00. But I draw the line at having Bond be anything but white.
The BBC series Sherlock is a very fine example of how to modernise a character without dramatically changing it. Elementary, however, was a fail in that respect. That's why I absolutely adore the former, and boycott the latter.
Once audiences got a taste of Bond with DN, Bond ceased being exclusively Fleming's creation and entered into public ownership in a manner of speaking. Audiences loved RM, the box office affirmed that and before he was cast, TV viewership affirmed that too.
I don't agree with that. And that is not legally correct either. There is no such thing as public ownership in intellectual property. Bond is Fleming's work, and we are not free to treat it as we please, even if Fleming is no longer alive.
"Watch the birdie, you bastard!"
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
edited December 2014
You shouldn't mince words to that level, at least not mine. By "ownership" I did not mean in a legal, copyright manner, but an artistic one. Public acceptance has always been the driver behind the character's development, begining before any film was rolled when EON realized that Fleming's Bond needed a makeover if audiences were to find him appealing on a more immediate level beyond the armchair. By the way, on that account, there was nothing Fleming could do in regard to his creation's transformation, since he signed ownership over to the film-makers; now I am speaking about the legal vs. creative dimension.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Comments
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Is that all you take from my comments? That's it? I'll take TP's advice - I'm done.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I was one of those who thought Craig shouldn't be Bond. But his acting has impressed me. Nevertheless, hair colour is far less significant an issue than skin colour. I do wish Craig would dye his hair black, or at least a dark brown when he plays Bond, though.
Does that make him any less good as Bond? In some way, yes. Bond has to look the part as well as being able to play the character. He's fulfilled the latter superlatively well. But not the former.
Why should they?
This isn't about biases and prejudices. This is about preserving the sanctity of Fleming's work. In the real world, skin colour does not matter, and I agree that I the real world, everyone, regardless of ethnicity, should have basic civil rights.
Bond isn't in the real world, he's fictional, created by Ian Fleming, with defined characteristics that go far beyond his name and number and merely being "masculine". Bond is much more than that. He was born of a Scottish father and a Swiss mother, educated in Eton. He's about 6' tall, slim build, black hair, blue-grey eyes, and a somewhat 'cruel' look about him - and most of all, he is white. His vices include drinking and smoking too much, and women.
Frankly, I don't care what's "socially acceptable" in the real world. I don't want Bond to become a social commentary. What makes a good Bond film in my view is fidelity to the Fleming novels. I don't mind new technologies and original stories, but the characters written by Fleming must not ever change. Instead, put them in a new environment. As I have stated in the other thread, I have no objection whatsoever to having other black 00s in Bond's department. I have no issue with Bond working alongside a black 00. But I draw the line at having Bond be anything but white.
The BBC series Sherlock is a very fine example of how to modernise a character without dramatically changing it. Elementary, however, was a fail in that respect. That's why I absolutely adore the former, and boycott the latter.
I don't agree with that. And that is not legally correct either. There is no such thing as public ownership in intellectual property. Bond is Fleming's work, and we are not free to treat it as we please, even if Fleming is no longer alive.