Oh Dog, here we go again...

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Oh Dog, here we go again...

    Can we all just agree that Timothy Dalton didn't get his due? I think that's the natural conclusion to this race war.

    Comment


    • Re: Oh Dog, here we go again...

      Originally posted by nativeson View Post
      Your words.

      Mine: be original.

      Be like QT and write a NEW black hero (Django). Be like Terry and Bill and write a non race-specific Dejavu (Martell espouses story First on these boards all the time, BTW). Be like Kurt, and write a script that another Gender can play (Salt).

      If people whisper behind your back that you're riding the coat tails of someone else's work by making arbitrary changes, it's because you ARE.
      QT is in own IP, and directs is own flick, so he has the luxury to be "original"/ which is funny, as we're talking about a DJ.
      Salt was written for Tom cruise, and was rewritten.
      Deja vu stars Denzel, who is like Will Smith (and hopefully Idriss): a movie star, not a race specific actor. Plus I'm not sure the spec was very specific about the "race" of the protag -as in : it didn't matter.
      Last edited by Takeshiro; 01-05-2015, 08:27 AM.
      The question is : Do you work in the business?

      Comment


      • Re: Oh Dog, here we go again...

        Originally posted by Richmond Weems View Post

        Look. You and Chad Strohl may be racists and that's okay. This is America, you can be whatever you want. But don't try to justify the racism 'cause it's just kinda icky.
        I'm quite fond of everybody actually. I believe everybody deserves a fair shot. It's the self-righteous elitists that bug me the most... no matter what color they are.

        I said earlier I think Elba would make a fine James Bond but better served as a new cultural icon (to add... because it would avoid crap like this.) But that's ok...

        Originally posted by Richmond Weems View Post
        ...'cause I know your reading skills aren't the best.

        Comment


        • Re: Oh Dog, here we go again...

          UpandComing:

          Everyone knows Fleming didn't like Connery initially but eventually grew to accept him. That doesn't mean that Fleming would have grown to accept anyone they put in the role, and it certainly doesn't mean that the character can perpetually be redefined/reimagined at will.

          Furthermore, if- hypothetically- they had cast a black actor as Bond in Dr. No and Fleming had said "absolutely not," you'd all consider him to be "racist" or whatever and would argue that his perspective is irrelevant and should be discarded even though he created the character. So basically arguing with you guys is rather pointless.

          -- James Bond's family background was not identified as Scottish in the first 11 novels in the series. It was not until the penultimate novel "You Only Live Twice" that this was made so. So, this was not an established aspect of the original character.
          What if Fleming had gone into his background in the second or third novel? Would that have been a proper establishment, or is it all illegitimate since he didn't do it in his very first book? And since Bond is portrayed as white from the start (regardless of his Scottish background), the point is moot anyway.

          Comment


          • Re: Oh Dog, here we go again...

            Richmond Weems:

            It's pretty obvious that the ladies' man action hero was pretty much started by Bond. Of course Bond had his predecessors, and Ian Fleming has very much the same middlebrow literary legacy as Jules Verne, Edgar Rice Burroughs, and Arthur Conan Doyle, but Bond was kind of a singular event in pop culture.

            Pretty much all major action franchises today can trace their creative lineage back to Bond. Indiana Jones only came to be because Spielberg wasn't allowed to direct a Bond movie, and they even cast Connery as Jones's father in the third one as a tip of hat to the character. I don't know about the Ludlum novels, but the Jason Bourne movies stole a whole bunch of stuff from both the Bond books and the films. So did Nolan's Batman trilogy.

            Jack Ryan, Jack Bauer, The Transporter, xXx, Bryan Mills, Jack Reacher, and Ethan Hunt are all variations on the universal expert/jack-of-all-trades protagonist that was started by Bond. There are also a slew of imitators on TV. Even Bruce Lee's Enter the Dragon was conceived as a Hong Kong-style Bond movie. The same applies to John Shaft.

            Originally posted by Richmond Weems View Post
            But don't try to justify the racism 'cause it's just kinda icky.
            White actors playing a white character isn't racism.

            Comment


            • Re: Oh Dog, here we go again...

              Originally posted by entlassen View Post
              White actors playing a white character isn't racism.
              Yes. White actors playing white characters isn't racism. But arguing heavily that a fictional character has to be played by a white actor and not addressing any of the points brought up by the opposition does conjure at least the appearance of racism.

              Comment


              • Re: Oh Dog, here we go again...

                Originally posted by UnequalProductions View Post
                Yes. White actors playing white characters isn't racism. But arguing heavily that a fictional character has to be played by a white actor and not addressing any of the points brought up by the opposition does conjure at least the appearance of racism.
                I and a couple others have addressed every single point brought up by the black Bond crowd. It's you people who routinely fail to address the points raised by us.

                For example not a single person here who holds the perspective that Bond can be any race while Shaft must be black has ever given a justification for this other than that the creator of Shaft intended him to be black... and these are the exact same people who say that Ian Fleming's intentions do not matter when it comes to Bond being white.

                It's like how can Hollywood can make a movie like Django Unchained where the sole purpose is to have a black character joyously and graphically slaughter whites by the dozens (including white women) whereas if someone made a movie about a white character killing backs, mainstream America would have a heart attack, and Sharpton and Holder would be calling for the filmmaker's head on a platter, and Obama would be holding press conferences.

                So yeah, at a time when it's cool to make "kill whitey" movies (that even win Oscars!), all this talk about white "racism" in the media is ludicrous to the point of absurdity.

                Comment


                • Re: Oh Dog, here we go again...

                  You know one of the moments that made me sit up in Casino Royale (the 2006 one) and had me thinking, wow, they've taken a franchise that had descended into kitsch and made something fantastic?

                  The bit where Jeffrey Wright, playing a CIA agent, leaned into Bond and said "does it look like we need the money"? It was beautiful little Machiavellian line, and a world away from the silliness that Bond had become prior to the reboot.

                  It was said by a black actor. I doubt anyone would have given a second's thought about a black male playing a CIA operative in a contemporary setting. In 1966, it would be a very different story.

                  That's my perspective on the issue.

                  It. Just. Doesn't. Fricken'. Matter. Any. More.

                  And that's good.

                  The actor who plays Bond should suit the part. The prerequisites are believable as: attractive, fit, urbane, suave, a little world-weary, resourceful, driven.

                  I don't see any tangible or good reason why an appropriate black actor should irk anyone. None at all.
                  Last edited by 60WordsPerHour; 01-06-2015, 03:57 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Oh Dog, here we go again...

                    Originally posted by entlassen View Post
                    For example not a single person here who holds the perspective that Bond can be any race while Shaft must be black has ever given a justification for this other than that the creator of Shaft intended him to be black...
                    ... because as has been said to you repeatedly, Shaft was set fairly and squarely in a very particular place and time.

                    I am going to put this in capitals and bold so you cannot possibly miss it:

                    BOND IS AN EVOLVING FRANCHISE THAT IS CONSTANTLY UPDATED.

                    Was Casino Royale (2006) set in the 50's?

                    Nope.

                    Is a post-Craig Bond likely to be set in the 50's?

                    Nope.

                    Is James Bond going to be portrayed as 95?

                    Nope.

                    If someone was making* a 50's Bond period piece, casting a black actor would be crazy.

                    If someone is making a latter-day Bond, casting a black actor Just.Doesn't.Fricken'.Matter. if he can pull off the part.

                    If you think that he can't just because of the shade of his skin, or because you will be lamenting the incredibly important fact that he had a (fictional!) family crest at some point, then that's your prerogative. But it's a pretty silly one, in my view.

                    Was the Scottish title uppermost in your mind when he was battling villains with metal teeth?

                    *can some grammar maven tell me if I should technically use "were to be making" here?

                    Comment


                    • Re: Oh Dog, here we go again...

                      Originally posted by entlassen View Post
                      I and a couple others have addressed every single point brought up by the black Bond crowd. It's you people who routinely fail to address the points raised by us.

                      For example not a single person here who holds the perspective that Bond can be any race while Shaft must be black has ever given a justification for this other than that the creator of Shaft intended him to be black... and these are the exact same people who say that Ian Fleming's intentions do not matter when it comes to Bond being white.

                      It's like how can Hollywood can make a movie like Django Unchained where the sole purpose is to have a black character joyously and graphically slaughter whites by the dozens (including white women) whereas if someone made a movie about a white character killing backs, mainstream America would have a heart attack, and Sharpton and Holder would be calling for the filmmaker's head on a platter, and Obama would be holding press conferences.

                      So yeah, at a time when it's cool to make "kill whitey" movies (that even win Oscars!), all this talk about white "racism" in the media is ludicrous to the point of absurdity.
                      I responded. I said that if the script and actor were good, I couldn't care less if Shaft was black. But let's break it down even more.

                      Shaft is a movie specifically about the themes/interactions/and issues with race. That might be why more people think it's important that it's played by a black man.

                      The films of James Bond hardly ever tap into race. James Bond isn't dealing with issues of white spies. His Scottish heritage isn't a driving factor in any of the plots. If you closed your eyes, and just listened to the movie, there would be nothing to indicate his racial history.

                      Does that mean that Shaft could never be white? No. I could easily see a revision of Shaft that deals with poor vs. rich instead of black vs. white that would still have many of the same themes.

                      And do you really think black people would be "rioting" if they made Shaft white? Do you think any black person is going to get on an internet forum and argue for weeks about casting? If you can find me one, I'll eat my words, but this seems to be way more white people's issue than anyone else.

                      So yes. Your personal opinion is that you could not accept a James Bond that wasn't a white guy. We get it. We don't agree with you. I have a degree in theater, and I've sat through countless plays with color-blind casting. I directed an Indian-American actor in Steve Martin's one-act WASPS. How many people complained after that he wasn't a White Anglo-Saxton Protestant? Zero. I've seen August Wilson performed with a majority white cast. Did the world end? Not that I checked.

                      As for your comments about white people killing black people in movies, it's completely valid... if you've only lived in this country for the past 20 years or so. You might want to check out some movies before that. When black actors basically had the options of picking between playing a servant or a criminal. Don't believe me? Go watch Hollywood Shuffle, which is entirely about just that.

                      But nothing I or anyone else on this site can say will change your mind. So if they ever do make a movie with a black James Bond, simply don't go see it. I would hate for that to take you out of the realism of a movie with a guy who's car turns into a submarine or has a laser coming out of his watch.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Oh Dog, here we go again...

                        Originally posted by 60WordsPerHour View Post
                        ...

                        BOND IS AN EVOLVING FRANCHISE THAT IS CONSTANTLY UPDATED.
                        Yeah, so are all franchises. They did a Shaft reboot about a decade or so ago, set in the modern era, and they're apparently going to do another one pretty soon.

                        This is why I propose Gerard Butler for the new, improved John Shaft.

                        http://celebsleatherjackets.com/289-...ler-jacket.jpg

                        I mean, what does his skin color matter? It's 2015.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Oh Dog, here we go again...

                          Originally posted by entlassen View Post
                          Yeah, so are all franchises. They did a Shaft reboot about a decade or so ago, set in the modern era, and they're apparently going to do another one pretty soon.

                          This is why I propose Gerard Butler for the new, improved John Shaft.

                          http://celebsleatherjackets.com/289-...ler-jacket.jpg

                          I mean, what does his skin color matter? It's 2015.
                          Because, as was pointed out to you in the post above, Shaft has race SPECIFICALLY woven into its fabric.

                          Bond doesn't.

                          To a point, it HAD class woven into its fabric, but not so much anymore. To the extent that it still does, it's entirely believable that a black actor playing a modern-day 007 would be class-appropriate.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Oh Dog, here we go again...

                            Originally posted by entlassen View Post
                            UpandComing:

                            Everyone knows Fleming didn't like Connery initially but eventually grew to accept him. That doesn't mean that Fleming would have grown to accept anyone they put in the role, and it certainly doesn't mean that the character can perpetually be redefined/reimagined at will.

                            Furthermore, if- hypothetically- they had cast a black actor as Bond in Dr. No and Fleming had said "absolutely not," you'd all consider him to be "racist" or whatever and would argue that his perspective is irrelevant and should be discarded even though he created the character. So basically arguing with you guys is rather pointless.

                            What if Fleming had gone into his background in the second or third novel? Would that have been a proper establishment, or is it all illegitimate since he didn't do it in his very first book? And since Bond is portrayed as white from the start (regardless of his Scottish background), the point is moot anyway.
                            Wow, you guys just aren't getting it, are you? Bond is defined by his nationality (British, Scottish, whatever you want to go with). Nationality is different from ethnicity. While his nation of origin and culture is important to his character, his whiteness never has been. Black people can be British or Scottish too. The same way white people can be South African.

                            Yes, Fleming could have easily objected to the idea of a black man in the role. And if he did, he would have had to provide a logical explanation as to why that that was the case. As it stands, there wouldn't be any beyond a preference for Bond just looking a certain way on the exterior. But to my knowledge, I've never heard of Fleming specifically stating a preference for Bond's whiteness. Only his British nationality.

                            And I don't care if Bond's Scottish family background or "coat of arms" did play a strong role in SkyFall. It hasn't played a strong role in the vast majority of other Bond installments, and with a reboot it could easily go without mention, because it doesn't play an important role in his job or who he is as a person.

                            You know what? Here's a comparison for you. The character of Storm in the X-Men comics is typically portrayed as a black woman. Her backstory is that she is a princess from a tribe in Kenya. But you know what? I don't recall a single time her backstory has come up in any of the movies. It just isn't perceived as that important to who she is. So I wouldn't find it outrageous for someone to propose her being cast with a white actress.

                            That said -- certain existing conditions have to be taken into account. Like the fact that there are a miniscule number of black female comic book heroines in the movies. So while I wouldn't find it outrageous, I would understand why some black people would be unhappy with it. But at the same time, this type of recasting is within the realm of possibility.

                            I hope this clarifies things for you.
                            "I love being a writer. What I can't stand is the paperwork.-- Peter De Vries

                            Comment


                            • Re: Oh Dog, here we go again...

                              Originally posted by entlassen View Post
                              For example not a single person here who holds the perspective that Bond can be any race while Shaft must be black has ever given a justification for this other than that the creator of Shaft intended him to be black... and these are the exact same people who say that Ian Fleming's intentions do not matter when it comes to Bond being white.
                              You are making an uneven comparison. Shaft was specifically designed to be a symbol of black empowerment at a time when black people were beginning to openly express pride in their culture for the first time. The plot of the first movie even involves a race war. And in 1971 Time said that the movie was a "fast-moving pleasure" despite "a few too many racial jokes." It is in large part defined by its blackness.

                              Now if you take another character like Blade, who is not defined by his race at all, I could easily see him being recast as a white guy. Mickey Rourke and Jason Statham come to mind as tough guys who would make good choices. That said, I think it's obvious that with the abundance of white male superhero characters in movies, people would find that annoying, if not troublesome. It's the same reason that people would be annoyed if a female superhero like Wonder Woman were recast as a man. There's an imbalance in the proportion of female to male superheroes in film. If you can't see why this would be problematic, then you're clueless.

                              Originally posted by entlassen View Post
                              It's like how can Hollywood can make a movie like Django Unchained where the sole purpose is to have a black character joyously and graphically slaughter whites by the dozens (including white women) whereas if someone made a movie about a white character killing backs, mainstream America would have a heart attack, and Sharpton and Holder would be calling for the filmmaker's head on a platter, and Obama would be holding press conferences.

                              So yeah, at a time when it's cool to make "kill whitey" movies (that even win Oscars!), all this talk about white "racism" in the media is ludicrous to the point of absurdity.
                              There is no trend of making "kill whitey" movies. You are completely ignoring the historical context of Django Unchained. The movie is not about a random black character killing white people out of joy. It is about a member of an oppressed group getting revenge against members of the oppressor group. The people Django kills are understood to have specifically engaged in the systematic abuse/torture/murder of people who look like him. He didn't kill any white abolitionists. It's the same way Inglorious Basterds was about Jewish people getting revenge against members of Hitler's regime. No one complained about how many people they killed. No one would complain about any movie where a bunch of Nazis were being killed. You know why? All those people were pretty awful.

                              If there was a movie about a random black guy killing random white people for fun, no one would support it, including black people. To assume that would be the case is frankly offensive.
                              "I love being a writer. What I can't stand is the paperwork.-- Peter De Vries

                              Comment


                              • Re: Oh Dog, here we go again...

                                Originally posted by UnequalProductions View Post
                                But nothing I or anyone else on this site can say will change your mind. So if they ever do make a movie with a black James Bond, simply don't go see it. I would hate for that to take you out of the realism of a movie with a guy who's car turns into a submarine or has a laser coming out of his watch.
                                Lol
                                "I love being a writer. What I can't stand is the paperwork.-- Peter De Vries

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X