Of course he's the same character. Are you SERIOUSLY saying that all these different actors are playing different characters but they all happen to be called James Bond. Yeah right.
"The same character" idea is equally nonsensical really given the timeline and continuity from the 1960s to the present. Bond would be like, 90 years old now. And the Bond played by Pierce Brosnan, who appeared with Judi Dench's "M" had suddenly become a new recruit again by Casino Royale, with the same "M" saying "I knew it was too soon to promote you to 00 status" (or something along those lines)
The truth is, the franchise is popular, so its continual refreshing, rebooting and renewing with new actors every few years means some artistic licence with continuity.
Precisely. There would be nothing wrong with remaking The Maltese Falcon with a black Sam Spade, or The Big Sleep with a black Philip Marlowe, but why would anyone do it ?
Doesn't it make more sense to keep any fictional character as close as possible to how the author intended ?
Re the last sentence I completely disagree...the books were written over 40 years ago, times and attitudes have changed so the notion of keeping close to what was written back then just does not work any more.
And frankly by the 80's it was obvious then that the series was in trouble, and was looking extremely old fashioned and outdated.
The reboot in the 90's with Brosnan, Judi Dench as M etc gave the series a new lease of life, and that's not to say all of the films of that era were perfect, far from it. But it was enough to keep the series going...and when that series have run it's course, along came the Craig era reboot.
Of course many said during the above era's that the series was not the same, but enough people liked it to keep the series going.
Bottom line is you simply cannot have the Bond of the sixties, it will not work anymore. Best you can do is have the occasional nod to it, such as some of the references in Skyfall.
The point is that the series has survived until now by adapting and changing...I am sure the current Craig era will soon run it's course, so either you have no Bond at all, or you do something different again.
"The same character" idea is equally nonsensical really given the timeline and continuity from the 1960s to the present. Bond would be like, 90 years old now. And the Bond played by Pierce Brosnan, who appeared with Judi Dench's "M" had suddenly become a new recruit again by Casino Royale, with the same "M" saying "I knew it was too soon to promote you to 00 status" (or something along those lines)
The truth is, the franchise is popular, so its continual refreshing, rebooting and renewing with new actors every few years means some artistic licence with continuity.
Re the last sentence I completely disagree...the books were written over 40 years ago, times and attitudes have changed so the notion of keeping close to what was written back then just does not work any more.
And frankly by the 80's it was obvious then that the series was in trouble, and was looking extremely old fashioned and outdated.
The reboot in the 90's with Brosnan, Judi Dench as M etc gave the series a new lease of life, and that's not to say all of the films of that era were perfect, far from it. But it was enough to keep the series going...and when that series have run it's course, along came the Craig era reboot.
Of course many said during the above era's that the series was not the same, but enough people liked it to keep the series going.
Bottom line is you simply cannot have the Bond of the sixties, it will not work anymore. Best you can do is have the occasional nod to it, such as some of the references in Skyfall.
The point is that the series has survived until now by adapting and changing...I am sure the current Craig era will soon run it's course, so either you have no Bond at all, or you do something different again.
I wouldn't argue with most of that. But James Bond remains a character created by Ian Fleming. That original character was born in 1920/21, he was a Commander who had worked for Naval Intelligence during the war.
I suppose how far we want to see the current franchise divert from the original character is a matter of opinion. I think it would be sad to lose everything of that original, but race is not the only defining issue, perhaps just the most immediately obvious.
Sean Connery was the defining Bond for me, he is described in Moonraker as.." Certainy handsome, rather like Hoagy Carmichael in a way. That black hair falling down over the right eyebrow. Much the same bones. But there was something a bit cruel in the mouth, and the eyes were cold."
We lost most of that with Roger Moore, who more or less brought his Saint/Persuaders character with him, along with some dodgy safari suits. It remained entertaining and extremely successful, but Moore wasn't Fleming's Bond.
Since then we've had a variety of reincarnations, but I would still like to see a Bond that is faithfull to the original character. Colour is probably less important than other characteristics, but it's still making a change that is unnecessary in my opinion.
In the book version of 'From Russia With Love' Bond realises that he doesn't stand a chance taking on Red Grant in unarmed combat. Bond isn't a heavily muscled Connery/Craig type. I reckon Timothy Dalton probably bears the closest physical resemblance to the original Bond so far.
A black Bond? Too soon. A mixed race Bond first, to 'prepare the way'.
I wouldn't stop watching Bond films because the main actor chosen was black. Hell, Bond's been Scottish, English and Irish, so what does it matter if he's black?
Moneypenny is now black, and that works bloody well for me.
No, I'd stop watching if they brought shit like the invisible car back.
I wouldn't stop watching Bond films because the main actor chosen was black. Hell, Bond's been Scottish, English and Irish, so what does it matter if he's black?
I wouldn't stop watching Bond films because the main actor chosen was black. Hell, Bond's been Scottish, English and Irish, so what does it matter if he's black?
Moneypenny is now black, and that works bloody well for me.
No, I'd stop watching if they brought shit like the invisible car back.
No worse than Bond surviving a gunshot and falling 1000 feet off a bridge into water and only suffering the side effect of his aim being off a little bit. Or chasing a guy on a motorbike by riding his own motorbike along the ridge of rooftops. Or chasing a parkour specialist up a crane.
Bond movies have always had unrealistic elements to them. The cloaking car was nothing out of the ordinary.
I wouldn't really mind if the character was black because until Skyfall I always thought that the name 'James Bond' could have been something that went with the 007 status and so they could have explained away a non-white Bond in that way... and then Skyfall told us his backstory.
No worse than Bond surviving a gunshot and falling 1000 feet off a bridge into water and only suffering the side effect of his aim being off a little bit. Or chasing a guy on a motorbike by riding his own motorbike along the ridge of rooftops. Or chasing a parkour specialist up a crane.
Bond movies have always had unrealistic elements to them. The cloaking car was nothing out of the ordinary.
Bond movies have always had unrealistic elements to them. The cloaking car was nothing out of the ordinary.
Unrealistic is one thing, but the cloaking car was slightly too fantasy/SF, and it simply didn't sit right - even with the increasingly daft Brosnan Bonds.
I have no issue with it. For me, there's nothing inherent in Bond that demands a white actor to portray him.
The series gets rebooted/refreshed to give it a contemporary feel, so I don't see an issue with Bond being black or whatever other race. Things might be different if Bond films were period films i.e. always set in 1950-60s, but that isn't the case with the films as we know them.
Unrealistic is one thing, but the cloaking car was slightly too fantasy/SF, and it simply didn't sit right - even with the increasingly daft Brosnan Bonds.
The invisible car was utterly ridiculous & totally out of kilter with Bond gadgets.
Bond gadgets are a bit far fetched, but they should have an element of believability about them.
That car was a joke & just didn't suit the Bond franchise.
Comments
"The same character" idea is equally nonsensical really given the timeline and continuity from the 1960s to the present. Bond would be like, 90 years old now. And the Bond played by Pierce Brosnan, who appeared with Judi Dench's "M" had suddenly become a new recruit again by Casino Royale, with the same "M" saying "I knew it was too soon to promote you to 00 status" (or something along those lines)
The truth is, the franchise is popular, so its continual refreshing, rebooting and renewing with new actors every few years means some artistic licence with continuity.
Re the last sentence I completely disagree...the books were written over 40 years ago, times and attitudes have changed so the notion of keeping close to what was written back then just does not work any more.
And frankly by the 80's it was obvious then that the series was in trouble, and was looking extremely old fashioned and outdated.
The reboot in the 90's with Brosnan, Judi Dench as M etc gave the series a new lease of life, and that's not to say all of the films of that era were perfect, far from it. But it was enough to keep the series going...and when that series have run it's course, along came the Craig era reboot.
Of course many said during the above era's that the series was not the same, but enough people liked it to keep the series going.
Bottom line is you simply cannot have the Bond of the sixties, it will not work anymore. Best you can do is have the occasional nod to it, such as some of the references in Skyfall.
The point is that the series has survived until now by adapting and changing...I am sure the current Craig era will soon run it's course, so either you have no Bond at all, or you do something different again.
To say nothing of Felix Leiter regrowing a leg.
And, topically, becoming an African American himself.
I wouldn't argue with most of that. But James Bond remains a character created by Ian Fleming. That original character was born in 1920/21, he was a Commander who had worked for Naval Intelligence during the war.
I suppose how far we want to see the current franchise divert from the original character is a matter of opinion. I think it would be sad to lose everything of that original, but race is not the only defining issue, perhaps just the most immediately obvious.
Sean Connery was the defining Bond for me, he is described in Moonraker as.." Certainy handsome, rather like Hoagy Carmichael in a way. That black hair falling down over the right eyebrow. Much the same bones. But there was something a bit cruel in the mouth, and the eyes were cold."
We lost most of that with Roger Moore, who more or less brought his Saint/Persuaders character with him, along with some dodgy safari suits. It remained entertaining and extremely successful, but Moore wasn't Fleming's Bond.
Since then we've had a variety of reincarnations, but I would still like to see a Bond that is faithfull to the original character. Colour is probably less important than other characteristics, but it's still making a change that is unnecessary in my opinion.
http://www.latimes.com/includes/projects/hollywood/portraits/hoagy_carmichael.jpg
In the book version of 'From Russia With Love' Bond realises that he doesn't stand a chance taking on Red Grant in unarmed combat. Bond isn't a heavily muscled Connery/Craig type. I reckon Timothy Dalton probably bears the closest physical resemblance to the original Bond so far.
A black Bond? Too soon. A mixed race Bond first, to 'prepare the way'.
I don't particularly want a black actor because Bond is a white character, but I can't really come up with a rational argument against it.
Shaft on the other hand was made black by the (white) novelist Ernest Tidyman because his background, and connections, were essential to the plot.
Moneypenny is now black, and that works bloody well for me.
No, I'd stop watching if they brought shit like the invisible car back.
Dalton is Welsh and Lazenby Australian!
No worse than Bond surviving a gunshot and falling 1000 feet off a bridge into water and only suffering the side effect of his aim being off a little bit. Or chasing a guy on a motorbike by riding his own motorbike along the ridge of rooftops. Or chasing a parkour specialist up a crane.
Bond movies have always had unrealistic elements to them. The cloaking car was nothing out of the ordinary.
I can understand the fact that Idris Elba is being potentially touted for the role, but I think Adrian Lester would be an even better pick.
He has a really cool & suave vibe about him, possibly brought about by his part in the excellent TV series, Hustle.
Anyway, my choice would be Chiwetel Ejiofor.
1000 foot LOL.
If the guy is good
The series gets rebooted/refreshed to give it a contemporary feel, so I don't see an issue with Bond being black or whatever other race. Things might be different if Bond films were period films i.e. always set in 1950-60s, but that isn't the case with the films as we know them.
The invisible car was utterly ridiculous & totally out of kilter with Bond gadgets.
Bond gadgets are a bit far fetched, but they should have an element of believability about them.
That car was a joke & just didn't suit the Bond franchise.
No, but it wouldn't surprise me if one day that's what does indeed happen.
I think that would be good if they do. It be better rhan him be the same man all the years.
And Barry Nelson(first Bond to appear on screen) was American.