Correct me if im wrong
-
mirrored_man — 10 years ago(December 26, 2015 03:25 PM)
This is just as stupid as the idea of a black James Bond. James Bond as written by Ian Fleming is a white MAN, and is between late thirties to early forties in age. Ian Fleming describes him as being tall, slender, with black hair and a scar down his check and that he bears strong resemblance to Hoagy Carmichael. His father was Scottish and his mother was Swiss. In 1953 being black doesn't fit with having Scottish or Swiss roots.
As for him being a woman, sorry no. He was written as a male spy, that's his character, the same as how he is not Arabic or Asian, or African (see where i'm going?). His character is very defined already and if you make James Bond anything other than male and white British then you may as well just make an entirely different character, because that isn't who Bond was written to be, the same as how he is not homosexual either.
Minor differences in looks and hair colour can be over looked, but not gender and ethnicity. There's nothing sexist, racist or homophobic about it. His character was neither black, female nor homosexual. He is quite simply a white British male and anything other than that is ridiculous and poor representation. -
jacksvoice — 10 years ago(December 26, 2015 07:06 PM)
well man you are wrong and i will tell you why. i get your point and agree; but based on films of late it does not matter how they were ORIGINALLY written
black annie, black human torch, black karate kid, all black wizard of oz, latina Selena, and you know i could go on.
i know your not being racist, i was on boards making multiple logic complaints about such examples and was automatically colored rab68cist. if they think she would be a good female Bond, they will cast her. -
mirrored_man — 10 years ago(December 27, 2015 12:49 AM)
With your examples you can kind of get away with having for example a black karate kid, because his character isn't all that specific, but James Bond has a clearly defined character and background, and so it wouldn't make sense that he was black and it would be unnecessary to force a character change like that just to be "edgy".
I think if you stop paying attention to the way the character was originally written then you lose it's intrinsic appeal.
To me a female James Bond doesn't make sense either for that same reason, in that he wasn't written from a female perspective, and so making him a woman, would be basically making an entirely different character and so what's the point of that?
Some have even suggested there should be a gay James Bond, but again James Bob68nd wasn't gay and his character is a womaniser, so how is that going to work?
So no I don't think Maisie would be a good James Bond because she's a woman and he isn't a woman. That doesn't mean she can't play a female spy or other secret agent role.
We don't need to destroy character traits in order to appease certain groups and people in society. -
jacksvoice — 10 years ago(December 27, 2015 04:42 PM)
all of them were written specifically. all of them. i agree it is shi tty to change it for no reason. but it doesnt matter. hollywood loves to be "edgy" in the stupid way of simply making The human torch black and now hes adopted and nothing like the Johnny Storm in the original comic. Jaden could have played a black kid who moved to wherever and Jackie chan helps him defend himself and they did not have to call it Karate kid but they do. just like Maisie could be in a differentb68 spy franchise but ehhh lets just make it the next bond movie, people will recognize that so f it. so yes they dont need to change character traits in order to appease certain groups in society, in fact it is downright unnecessary! but we do it anyways.see what im sizzlin?
-
mirrored_man — 10 years ago(December 28, 2015 10:47 AM)
all of them were written specifically
No they weren't, for example Karate kid could be potentially any kid from any background and it wouldn't impact on the story, i.e a black kid wouldn't make any difference in that role. The remake of that film was bad for other reasons, not involving race.
And just because Hollywood can do something doesn't mean they should or that it makes sense, or that people will watch it and like it. You could go mad and make James Bond an alien from planet vagina with long tentacles coming out of his body, doesn't me5b4an that it would make an excellent Bond film.
You could make him a woman but the vast majority of people wouldn't identify a woman with the character of Bond because he wasn't written to be female. You could make him black, Chinese, or Arabic and it wouldn't make sense considering his background and people wouldn't buy into it or accept that character change.
However making Moneypenny black (which they have done) made no difference to her role or the actresses ability to play that role convincingly, this is because we don't know very much about her background and she's not all that defined or specific.
Give you another example, the character of Ripley for Alien was originally written for a man, but they decided to cast a woman because they liked the idea of an empowering female role. That was a good decision and they were able to do that and incorporate her in that role, due to the role being fairly gender blank. All that was required was a tough persona. But Bond has an entire back story and there's no getting away from how he was written to be a British, white mature male, who is also a womaniser.
You can't just cast anyone for that role, or rather you could but no one would like it and it wouldn't be appropriate. For the same reason an obese person can't play Bond, it's just not going to work, is it? -
mirrored_man — 10 years ago(December 30, 2015 08:06 PM)
its the same thing but obviously you are blind to that and there is no convincing you.
You aren't really addressing any of the points I've made as to why casting James Bond as either a woman or a different ethnic background isn't a good idea and doesn't make sense for the character.
Essentially you are saying that any actor/actress can be cast to play any role. That's a bit like casting a 40 year old woman to play Harry Potter.
James Bond is described in detail yes, but more than that he has an entire back story, which can't be overlooked. I think you are blind in claiming potentially anyone could play that role and that we shouldn't pay attention to how the character is written and if we don't pay any attention to the details, then why even bother to begin with?
I don't think you have really taken on board the points I made and you're looking to push some kind of agenda, even if it doesn't make any sense.
Disregarding original material and roots of a character is basically just crap writing, crap depiction and ultimately a crap story resulting in a crap movie.
Characters can be altered and changed when appropriate, as I pointed out with the Ripley character in Alien. By casting a woman it empowered that character, which resulted in a tough female, with depth and substance. Something which hadn't been done much at that time. They were only able to do that because the role was gender blank, it wasn't based on anyone and the character could evolve and grow from a foundation.
That doesn't apply to James Bond in anyway. He was very specifically written, with a specific background, age, education, looks, etc. He's not a new character he's well established and there isn't room to incorporate nonsensical character depictions and traits within his character/role. In doing so would likely destroy the franchise. -
krypton_son — 10 years ago(March 23, 2016 11:24 AM)
James Bond is and has always been the epitome of male fantasy. He's intelligent, good looking, great with women, drives fast cars and always gets the bad guy. He lives the good life. He drinks the finest drinks, eats the best food, visits the most exotic locations and sleeps with the most beautiful women in the world. He's the ultimate male. Sorry, but a woman could never fit that same mold. It's just not going to happen.
dies ist meine unterschrift