[News] Film Remakes with more BAME representation

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Fleming actually altered his date of birth in later books (Thunderball I think, on his medical records) to keep him Jack Benny-style as a perpetual thirty-something.

I’d say Lazenby was the best match for James Bond.

Do you think Ian Fleming, Bond’s creator, would mind him being played by someone not white?

May I join you in a bit of thread derailment (not a bad thing, perhaps)? I agree with you about Lazenby. He played Bond delightfully. It was such a pity he decided to become a hippy (sort of - amazingly) and quit the gig. The film was also lit up by the fabulous Diana Rigg (RIP), and a pleasing adherence to the original text.

As you are evidently a Bond (book) fan you will know that Bond's father was a jock and his mother was French. His scottishness is an integral part of the character for me. Of course recasting him as anything other than that, whether it be Roger effing Moore, Timothy sodding Dalton, or the pouty one in the sky blue pants would be anathema for me.

But.....that's Bond the movie franchise. All links with the past are now gone. M was successfully played by a woman. I really enjoyed the latest pouty lip Bond films, and quite liked Dalton. Even the cardboard cut out, Moore, made jolly yarns. So in that light, I'd not bat an eyelid if the next Bond were black. Indeed, Felix Leiter, the tall straw colour-haired Texan, severly damaged by nasty fish and now working for Pinkertons, was first played by a black actor decades ago. And he had all his limbs!

Fleming is of course long dead, His views are moot. He did enjoy ligotage and a good hard caning, though, if that's relevant

All the best

 

[Bold Seagull]

Age is a different concept to colour though.

James Bond is a middle aged white guy. There seems very little financial sense in changing this as you'll lose more Bond fans than you'll gain.

The Asian market would react very poorly to changing Bond to a black actor. Just seems like it would be a bad financial decision.

He wasn't middle aged, the oldest I think he was portrayed in the books was 37.

The argument should be about who is the best actor to play him, not that the actor has to be from a particular race. Fleming had him set 50s - 60s, if a modern film has it set in 2020, then born to a Scottish father and Swiss mother in the mid 80s, entirely plausible he can be from any racial background, and equally I see no reason an Asian actor couldn't play him either.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

He’s a European and thus white. His dad was Scots who liked skiing and who met the future Mrs Bond on the slopes in Switzerland.

The Scots bit was added by Fleming when Sean Connery was cast in the films.

The last bit - I didn't know that.

The first bit ceased to be true when folk from all over the world including the middle east settled in London during Roman times. Plenty of 'white' folk in the UK have some 'black' genetic motifs.

 

[Postman Pat]

Remake Phantom Menace, Attack of the clones and revenge of the Sith.

Not for recasting purposes but because they were awful.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Fleming actually altered his date of birth in later books (Thunderball I think, on his medical records) to keep him Jack Benny-style as a perpetual thirty-something.

I’d say Lazenby was the best match for James Bond.

Do you think Ian Fleming, Bond’s creator, would mind him being played by someone not white?

I'm not sure it matters what Ian Fleming may or may not think? Do you think he would equally have been happy with M being played by a elderly women?

One of the reasons he altered the age in one of the later books the films had started to be made, and he realised as you say he needed to de-contextualise the character a bit from a fixed timeline - hence films have been able to bring Bond into the 21 Century.

With all the artistic license, I simply don't see why you would go at the next casting for a white actor. Just go for a very good actor that will bring their own take to the character. Daniel Craig did that, with arguably the best portrayal of a torn individual little at ease with his place in the world. Should really matter at all what race the next actor is, only how good they are.

 

[Munkfish]

What do you think?

I think you are suggesting you should get black people to play apes.

If im wrong I apologise, if my assumption is correct, thats really snide.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Black Lives Matinée

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Having now read the thread properly....some sad old tomfoolery here. I'm disappointed, but hardly surprised.

My own view for what it's worth is that acting is a skill that belongs to actors. Fiction is the product of writers. Together, if a good job is done, we get entertainment.

Historical portrayals (with the goal of accuracy) are different. The acting is actually impersonation to a great degree, Michael Sheen being a leading exponent. I don't have any issue with the identity of the actor as long as the impersonation is convincing. Casting a woman as Churchill, or Christopher Ecclestone as the lead in the eponymous 'Linford Christie, my story' would be tough asks but, that said, with the right prosthetics and make up, who knows? There would have to be a good reason to do this, though, I would have thought. Off hand I can't think of one.

One thing I do object to is an actor doing a bad job of impersonation with a view to take the piss out of the w***, C*****, P**** and d******, the staple of white casual racist comedy of the 50s, 60s and 70s. Peter Sellars as an Indian. Mind Your Language. And some of the other abominations mentioned on this thread where white actors were cast as nonwhite because of their name and its value in selling the film. Of just because it was easier. It has been done, and it's in the past, but it is unlikely to happen much, if at all, today; there are too many big name stars of diverse background, and audiences want authenticity now.

Finally, if black people are offended by black face, who am I to tell them to stop being silly? I'll leave that to the likes of Das Reich .

I'll leave this thread now, so those of you who want to continue to snigger at the dog's name in Dam Busters, fill your boots.

 

[RossyG]

Do you think he would equally have been happy with M being played by a elderly women?

No. In his vision, M was Rear Admiral Sir Miles Messervy. I’m sure he’d have wanted the part recast after Bernard Lee’s death. It should’ve been, too.

Without Fleming there’d be no Bond. His vision should have been respected (although too often wasn’t and still isn't.). Otherwise you’re just exploiting his creation and trashing it at the same time.

I think Bond films should be period pieces. He’s a product of public school, the navy in wartime, and “now” a warrior in the Cold War. I think Craig is the most un-Fleming and therefore worst of the Bonds.

 

[Bold Seagull]

No. In his vision, M was Rear Admiral Sir Miles Messervy. I’m sure he’d have wanted the part recast after Bernard Lee’s death. It should’ve been, too.

Without Fleming there’d be no Bond. His vision should have been respected (although too often wasn’t and still isn't.). Otherwise you’re just exploiting his creation and trashing it at the same time.

I think Bond films should be period pieces. He’s a product of public school, the navy in wartime, and “now” a warrior in the Cold War. I think Craig is the most un-Fleming and therefore worst of the Bonds.

I disagree, film is a different creative medium to a novel. Therefore the moment Fleming sanctioned the films and took the coin, he relinquished autonomy over the character he created. The books he wrote after the first films were made adapted themselves to this new medium, you pointed out he changed the date of birth, heritage and timelines as he realised he needed to fuel this new life.

Was Craig Daniel a brilliant Bond because it was faithful to Fleming’s original character? Probably not. Was Daniel brilliant because he portrayed a Bond in the 21st century up against different enemies, his own mental torments, yes because otherwise you just don’t make another Bond film - what would be the point?

 

[marlowe]

It Ain't Half Hot Mum - The Movie

 

[marcos3263]

His background arc revolves around him being half Scottish and half Swiss and having an ancestral home in Scotland. His ancestry is Caucasian.

007 can be anyone, James Bond however should never be compromised for some lazy re-writing of the character.

Always agreed with this.

007 is James Bond - a white male

However they have missed an absolute trick with the franchise as they could have had multiple other 00 agents of any and every ethnicity. It would make sense that to blend into different environments they would need a variety of nationalities, colours, ages and sexes.

the gospel that is wikipedia says:

Fleming himself only mentions five 00 agents in all. According to Moonraker, James Bond is the most senior of three 00 agents; the two others were 008 and 0011. The three men share an office and a secretary named Loelia Ponsonby. Later novels feature two more 00 agents; 009 is mentioned in Thunderball and 006 is mentioned in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Other authors have elaborated and expanded upon the 00 agents.

So instead of being messing with 007, other agents could easily be introduced then spur off into their own series. that way there can be an agent representing any and all demographics to appeal to all. They could cross over and cameo in each other's films and join up together for a finale where they defeat a badly portrayed villain played by a one emotion faced Nicolas Cage

 

[Razzoo]

Always agreed with this.

007 is James Bond - a white male

However they have missed an absolute trick with the franchise as they could have had multiple other 00 agents of any and every ethnicity. It would make sense that to blend into different environments they would need a variety of nationalities, colours, ages and sexes.

the gospel that is wikipedia says:

Fleming himself only mentions five 00 agents in all. According to Moonraker, James Bond is the most senior of three 00 agents; the two others were 008 and 0011. The three men share an office and a secretary named Loelia Ponsonby. Later novels feature two more 00 agents; 009 is mentioned in Thunderball and 006 is mentioned in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Other authors have elaborated and expanded upon the 00 agents.

So instead of being messing with 007, other agents could easily be introduced then spur off into their own series. that way there can be an agent representing any and all demographics to appeal to all. They could cross over and cameo in each other's films and join up together for a finale where they defeat a badly portrayed villain played by a one emotion faced Nicolas Cage

Dragons Den?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I'm not sure it matters what Ian Fleming may or may not think? Do you think he would equally have been happy with M being played by a elderly women?

One of the reasons he altered the age in one of the later books the films had started to be made, and he realised as you say he needed to de-contextualise the character a bit from a fixed timeline - hence films have been able to bring Bond into the 21 Century.

With all the artistic license, I simply don't see why you would go at the next casting for a white actor. Just go for a very good actor that will bring their own take to the character. Daniel Craig did that, with arguably the best portrayal of a torn individual little at ease with his place in the world. Should really matter at all what race the next actor is, only how good they are.

Apologies for popping back onto this thread - it's the bloody Bond! Last year I re-read all the books (in order, of course) and was transported back to that fabulous, new, exciting post war world of glamour, naivety and adventure.

I liked Craig's take on the tortured soul, but that's not the book persona for me. Bond in the books was faced with increasingly challenging threats and betrayals. This started in the first book with Vespa. Yet his reaction has always been to stoically get on with it, knowing he was paid to do what was required to defend his country. Even when Tracy was killed....yes he sank into booze and depression, but a new hard case always got him back on his feet. He lapsed into introspection only when he was captured by the Russians while suffering amnesia at the end of 'You only live twice', and brainwashed (and abused) into attempting to kill M. M have him an almost impossible case to test his recovery; that period was dark, but it was transient. He resigned, I think, twice, but this was more about moving on than getting all pensive and soul-searching.

Something else about the books - they were in many respects travelogues. Fleming only ever wrote about places that exist and he'd visited. Goldfinger's house near Reculver still exists. Morlands, where he had his fags made, did exist. An old acquaintance of mine, a Canadian anglophile, took a summer trip as a student in the late 70s and visited as many spots as he could. Happy days

 

[W3 BHA]

Zulu, relocated to Swindon, with a gospel choir from Croydon defending the 'Magic Roundabout' against the inhabitants of the local council estate.

Oi! Some of us have to live here you know. It's bad enough without being reminded of the fact thank you

 

[Bold Seagull]

Apologies for popping back onto this thread - it's the bloody Bond! Last year I re-read all the books (in order, of course) and was transported back to that fabulous, new, exciting post war world of glamour, naivety and adventure.

I liked Craig's take on the tortured soul, but that's not the book persona for me. Bond in the books was faced with increasingly challenging threats and betrayals. This started in the first book with Vespa. Yet his reaction has always been to stoically get on with it, knowing he was paid to do what was required to defend his country. Even when Tracy was killed....yes he sank into booze and depression, but a new hard case always got him back on his feet. He lapsed into introspection only when he was captured by the Russians while suffering amnesia at the end of 'You only live twice', and brainwashed (and abused) into attempting to kill M. M have him an almost impossible case to test his recovery; that period was dark, but it was transient. He resigned, I think, twice, but this was more about moving on than getting all pensive and soul-searching.

Something else about the books - they were in many respects travelogues. Fleming only ever wrote about places that exist and he'd visited. Goldfinger's house near Reculver still exists. Morlands, where he had his fags made, did exist. An old acquaintance of mine, a Canadian anglophile, took a summer trip as a student in the late 70s and visited as many spots as he could. Happy days

I'm not saying it is, but the book persona has the context of mid50s - 60s. Craig took his Bond persona into the 2010s and adjusted his portrayal accordingly. The way we view Queen and country now, is different to the 1950s. I don't think you can set Bond in the modern world and retain all of Fleming's character - it wouldn't work, creative license has to be made.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I'm not saying it is, but the book persona has the context of mid50s - 60s. Craig took his Bond persona into the 2010s and adjusted his portrayal accordingly. The way we view Queen and country now, is different to the 1950s. I don't think you can set Bond in the modern world and retain all of Fleming's character - it wouldn't work, creative license has to be made.

No indeed. Agree 100%. Which is why I'd be quite relaxed for Bond to be whatever, in the films.

 

[Bold Seagull]

No indeed. Agree 100%. Which is why I'd be quite relaxed for Bond to be whatever, in the films.

Same with Cumberbatch's Sherlock, there had to be creative liberties to make all that work.

I quite like these film adaptions of literary characters placed completely out of context of their original creations. Far better than just remaking the same period piece interpretation over and over again.

 

[Lenny Rider]

Oi! Some of us have to live here you know. It's bad enough without being reminded of the fact thank you

Apologies but it was the closest analogy I could get to the Transvaal.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Same with Cumberbatch's Sherlock, there had to be creative liberties to make all that work.

I quite like these film adaptions of literary characters placed completely out of context of their original creations. Far better than just remaking the same period piece interpretation over and over again.

Ah, Sherlock. That was absolutely fantastic. I want more. And I am also a massive fan of the books, and Jeremy Brett. You're quite right