It all depends on who BB has the hots for...worked for the blonde short one... )
SIR Roger wasn't short!
At 13, I doubt she had seen Rog in The Saint. Plus, he's a dirty brunette (is there a male version of that except brown haired?).
(No, I'm not playing along )
It all depends on who BB has the hots for...worked for the blonde short one... )
SIR Roger wasn't short!
At 13, I doubt she had seen Rog in The Saint. Plus, he's a dirty brunette (is there a male version of that except brown haired?).
(No, I'm not playing along )
That's a picture from the set of octopussy
And this one is of course avtak
At 13, I doubt she had seen Rog in The Saint. Plus, he's a dirty brunette (is there a male version of that except brown haired?).
(No, I'm not playing along )
That's a picture from the set of octopussy
And this one is of course avtak
Moore also looks quite blonde in his first shot in Moonraker on the plane. His hair dye was quite inconsistent, even within a single film.
Idris Elba is a good actor, but he doesn't need to play Bond. He doesn't fit what Fleming wrote about Bond at all...
You're probably right, it's mostly young Americans who are pushing the Elba thing....my kids included...
"I don't know if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or imbeciles who mean it."-Mark Twain
'Just because nobody complains doesn't mean all parachutes are perfect.'- Benny Hill (1924-1992)
If certain people in the media want to see a black James Bond it's more likely to be a relatively unknown actor, not Elba. Elba is probably the black version of Clive Owen - much discussed as a potential Bond but never getting the role.
I think the whole debate over race or gender of Bond has got out of hand.
One of the biggest reasons for being against casting Idris Elba is that it deviates from the books and how Bond was written. What that suggests is that every other actor so far has been perfect adaptations of Fleming's Bond which, even including Connery, has never been perfect (especially Moore). Many of the traits of Fleming's Bond are altered to reflect the time, such as the filthy habit line in TND - smoking being a trait of Bond all the way up to LTK. How close does this adaptation of Bodn need to be to the books? Are we suggesting that Bond should be an alcoholic, a smoker, a racist? Let's not forget that these books are from sixty years ago - but the Bond films aren't period pieces.
On the other hand, it comes to a point where things like this are done for the sake of doing something, because many studios seem to think that certain markets will only go and see these movies if that market are catered for. Studios feel pressured into making sure all these groups are represented in films. When you're doing something for the sake of doing it, if anything it takes away the quality - it's as if you're saying, you're not neccessarily the best for the role, but it looks good on us.
My main problem is if this re casting is in the same continuity as Craig's Bond. If each time Bond was re cats it meant a reboot, I'd be fine with it. But with Craig, we've set up Bond's origins - in fact, by exploring Bind and making him a more three dimensional character to appeal to modern audiences, you've in fact limited you're options when it comes to re casting, as that actor needs to fit what has been set up.
I don't want Idris Elba as the next Bind, for the same reason I don't want Tom Hardy or Henry Cavill. Bond works best when the actor who is playing him is most known for that role. None of the previous actors have been major or prominent characters in huge movie franchises before they became Bond. What is really needed is an unknown actor.
...How close does this adaptation of Bond need to be to the books? Are we suggesting that Bond should be an alcoholic, a smoker, a racist?...
I wouldn't mind this at all. The character isn't supposed to be a role model. He's the type of person who would sign up for this "damn dirty business", a paid government assassin ... I expect someone a bit twisted, a bit off would be the only person who would want the job. He's also the specific product of Ian Fleming's imagination, an I get the idea Fleming himself was just a little bit twisted. The more the filmmakers water down the character to fit contemporary mores, the more generic he becomes, with the brandname "James Bond" being just a coincidence.
Craig's interpretation does suggest we're not really supposed to admire or even like this man, unfortunately his version is unlikable in quite different ways than was Fleming's.
Craig's interpretation does suggest we're not really supposed to admire or even like this man, unfortunately his version is unlikable in quite different ways than was Fleming's.
...How close does this adaptation of Bond need to be to the books? Are we suggesting that Bond should be an alcoholic, a smoker, a racist?...
I wouldn't mind this at all. The character isn't supposed to be a role model. He's the type of person who would sign up for this "damn dirty business", a paid government assassin ... I expect someone a bit twisted, a bit off would be the only person who would want the job. He's also the specific product of Ian Fleming's imagination, an I get the idea Fleming himself was just a little bit twisted. The more the filmmakers water down the character to fit contemporary mores, the more generic he becomes, with the brandname "James Bond" being just a coincidence.
Craig's interpretation does suggest we're not really supposed to admire or even like this man, unfortunately his version is unlikable in quite different ways than was Fleming's.
But that wouldn't be popular with general audiences. It may be faithful, but it would also kill the franchise in terms of box office returns, if you make the hero completely unlikable. Also, the film incarnation of Bond has become quite a patriotic figure....something which novel Bond really isn't. I'm in no way saying the novels are bad, but the simple fact is that many people who go to the cinema to watch a Bond film aren't familiar with the Bond of the novels.
Craig's interpretation does suggest we're not really supposed to admire or even like this man, unfortunately his version is unlikable in quite different ways than was Fleming's.
Fleming's Bond says or thinks a lot of cringeworthy things about women, foreigners and homosexuals
off the top of my head there's a lengthy bit in Goldfinger blaming homosexuality on having given women the vote
Craig's Bond is more explicitly violent than previous Bonds, brutal in his action sequences, sometimes arbitrary, and leaves a lot of collateral damage ... compare the innocent bystanders taking bullets in QoS crowdscenes vs the bemused drunken doubletakes in Moore's films
he's also rude short-tempered and just has a general attitude problem, I personally don't like this character and would not want to spend time with him. M and Vesper both remark on his lousy attitude in the first film, he's still got it in his later films even if he's learned to keep it in check in the name of duty
so yes he is the sort of flawed character maybe needed to do this sort of job, but his flaws are not the same as Fleming's Bond's flaws
I'm reading Fleming's biography right now (Pearson). Fleming had an attitude problem too, but he was a charmer.
Craig's Bond is definitely not a charmer.
It'd doubtful a super-charming Bond would connect with the general audience. People posting selfies on their phones or watching endless reality tv - can you imagine them trying to relate to a charming James Bond? ) Not really gonna happen, is it! Craig's casting coincided with a huge cultural shift - the rise of online social media and reality tv. The charming Bond is from a different era.
I respectfully disagree, I think we shouldn't kowtow to the lowest Common denominator of society, there are still many who appreciate charm and good manners. Just because it's not seen as cool or on trend doesn't mean we should surrender everything bond is and turn him into just another vacuous movie hero.
I respectfully disagree, I think we shouldn't kowtow to the lowest Common denominator of society, there are still many who appreciate charm and good manners. Just because it's not seen as cool or on trend doesn't mean we should surrender everything bond is and turn him into just another vacuous movie hero.
{[]
Bond is something unique, why try and ruin it by trying to adapt him to what is currently cool? That will just seem uncool in retrospect.
That said I enjoyed Craig's performance.
I respectfully disagree, I think we shouldn't kowtow to the lowest Common denominator of society, there are still many who appreciate charm and good manners. Just because it's not seen as cool or on trend doesn't mean we should surrender everything bond is and turn him into just another vacuous movie hero.
{[]
Bond is something unique, why try and ruin it by trying to adapt him to what is currently cool? That will just seem uncool in retrospect.
That said I enjoyed Craig's performance.
As did/do I. But DC's Bond also has a certain English charm about him and good manners, he is by no means as refined as Sir Roger but then who is? Except maybe Matt S.
Craig's casting coincided with a huge cultural shift - the rise of online social media and reality tv. The charming Bond is from a different era.
I associate Craig's Bond with other contemporary protagonists like Doc Martin, Dr House and Dr Sheldon Cooper. At least two of those characters are explicitly identified as high functioning autistics. Not sure if Craig's Bond would qualify, as he has no problem making eye contact, instead he overdoes this unblinking stare thing inches away from the other person's nose. But he is bad with the whole interpersonal thing.
I have no problem with making the autistic type the hero of a new era. Thanks to the growth of databases and the internet, a personality type that was an outcast when I was a boy is now integral to the functioning of our economy, and most of us owe our jobs and standard of living to folks who may be autistic. Better than heroworshipping the psychopaths, who for some reason society chooses to place in positions of absolute authority instead of giving them the psychological help they need.
And I do find Craig's performance amusing, even if I wouldn't want to know this man personally. As I say, there is the question of what sort of person would choose to do his job.
Craig's casting coincided with a huge cultural shift - the rise of online social media and reality tv. The charming Bond is from a different era.
I associate Craig's Bond with other contemporary protagonists like Doc Martin, Dr House and Dr Sheldon Cooper. At least two of those characters are explicitly identified as high functioning autistics. Not sure if Craig's Bond would qualify, as he has no problem making eye contact, instead he overdoes this unblinking stare thing inches away from the other person's nose. But he is bad with the whole interpersonal thing.
I have no problem with making the autistic type the hero of a new era. Thanks to the growth of databases and the internet, a personality type that was an outcast when I was a boy is now integral to the functioning of our economy, and most of us owe our jobs and standard of living to folks who may be autistic. Better than heroworshipping the psychopaths, who for some reason society chooses to place in positions of absolute authority instead of giving them the psychological help they need.
And I do find Craig's performance amusing, even if I wouldn't want to know this man personally. As I say, there is the question of what sort of person would choose to do his job.
I'm fine with dark and difficult, it's the lack of any joy or pleasure that I find a bit dull.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
I'm fine with dark and difficult, it's the lack of any joy or pleasure that I find a bit dull.
I agree. That's not Fleming's Bond.
What's a real shame is that I'm sure that DC could do it very well and find the right balance of light and shade. We saw glimpses of it in Spectre. I'm a Daltonista but feel that he struggled with lightness in a way that I don't think DC would. Even some uncomplicated sex without anyone having to die would have been nice. Bond needs counterpoint in his 'tough life' It serves to make the darkness even darker. I know that the casual playboy overtones of the Connery or even the Brosnan era are not right for now but I hope some moments of dark fun find their way into future outings.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Comments
(No, I'm not playing along
That's a picture from the set of octopussy
And this one is of course avtak
Moore also looks quite blonde in his first shot in Moonraker on the plane. His hair dye was quite inconsistent, even within a single film.
You're probably right, it's mostly young Americans who are pushing the Elba thing....my kids included...
'Just because nobody complains doesn't mean all parachutes are perfect.'- Benny Hill (1924-1992)
I'm not a young American!!! ;%
One of the biggest reasons for being against casting Idris Elba is that it deviates from the books and how Bond was written. What that suggests is that every other actor so far has been perfect adaptations of Fleming's Bond which, even including Connery, has never been perfect (especially Moore). Many of the traits of Fleming's Bond are altered to reflect the time, such as the filthy habit line in TND - smoking being a trait of Bond all the way up to LTK. How close does this adaptation of Bodn need to be to the books? Are we suggesting that Bond should be an alcoholic, a smoker, a racist? Let's not forget that these books are from sixty years ago - but the Bond films aren't period pieces.
On the other hand, it comes to a point where things like this are done for the sake of doing something, because many studios seem to think that certain markets will only go and see these movies if that market are catered for. Studios feel pressured into making sure all these groups are represented in films. When you're doing something for the sake of doing it, if anything it takes away the quality - it's as if you're saying, you're not neccessarily the best for the role, but it looks good on us.
My main problem is if this re casting is in the same continuity as Craig's Bond. If each time Bond was re cats it meant a reboot, I'd be fine with it. But with Craig, we've set up Bond's origins - in fact, by exploring Bind and making him a more three dimensional character to appeal to modern audiences, you've in fact limited you're options when it comes to re casting, as that actor needs to fit what has been set up.
I don't want Idris Elba as the next Bind, for the same reason I don't want Tom Hardy or Henry Cavill. Bond works best when the actor who is playing him is most known for that role. None of the previous actors have been major or prominent characters in huge movie franchises before they became Bond. What is really needed is an unknown actor.
Anything else would simply be ignoring Fleming completely and creating something new that is not the Bond anymore we knew for 40 years and since 2006.
Craig's interpretation does suggest we're not really supposed to admire or even like this man, unfortunately his version is unlikable in quite different ways than was Fleming's.
But that wouldn't be popular with general audiences. It may be faithful, but it would also kill the franchise in terms of box office returns, if you make the hero completely unlikable. Also, the film incarnation of Bond has become quite a patriotic figure....something which novel Bond really isn't. I'm in no way saying the novels are bad, but the simple fact is that many people who go to the cinema to watch a Bond film aren't familiar with the Bond of the novels.
Fleming's Bond says or thinks a lot of cringeworthy things about women, foreigners and homosexuals
off the top of my head there's a lengthy bit in Goldfinger blaming homosexuality on having given women the vote
Craig's Bond is more explicitly violent than previous Bonds, brutal in his action sequences, sometimes arbitrary, and leaves a lot of collateral damage ... compare the innocent bystanders taking bullets in QoS crowdscenes vs the bemused drunken doubletakes in Moore's films
he's also rude short-tempered and just has a general attitude problem, I personally don't like this character and would not want to spend time with him. M and Vesper both remark on his lousy attitude in the first film, he's still got it in his later films even if he's learned to keep it in check in the name of duty
so yes he is the sort of flawed character maybe needed to do this sort of job, but his flaws are not the same as Fleming's Bond's flaws
I'm reading Fleming's biography right now (Pearson). Fleming had an attitude problem too, but he was a charmer.
Craig's Bond is definitely not a charmer.
Bond is something unique, why try and ruin it by trying to adapt him to what is currently cool? That will just seem uncool in retrospect.
That said I enjoyed Craig's performance.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
That could also apply if a woman was cast !!! Maybe it will be Emma Watson
I have no problem with making the autistic type the hero of a new era. Thanks to the growth of databases and the internet, a personality type that was an outcast when I was a boy is now integral to the functioning of our economy, and most of us owe our jobs and standard of living to folks who may be autistic. Better than heroworshipping the psychopaths, who for some reason society chooses to place in positions of absolute authority instead of giving them the psychological help they need.
And I do find Craig's performance amusing, even if I wouldn't want to know this man personally. As I say, there is the question of what sort of person would choose to do his job.
I'm fine with dark and difficult, it's the lack of any joy or pleasure that I find a bit dull.
I agree. That's not Fleming's Bond.
What's a real shame is that I'm sure that DC could do it very well and find the right balance of light and shade. We saw glimpses of it in Spectre. I'm a Daltonista but feel that he struggled with lightness in a way that I don't think DC would. Even some uncomplicated sex without anyone having to die would have been nice. Bond needs counterpoint in his 'tough life' It serves to make the darkness even darker. I know that the casual playboy overtones of the Connery or even the Brosnan era are not right for now but I hope some moments of dark fun find their way into future outings.
Bond is part Scott and part Swiss.
I don't see too much African there.