Oh Dog, here we go again...

[entlassen]

Originally Posted by 60WordsPerHour

...

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.

[60WordsPerHour]

Originally Posted by entlassen

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.

[UpandComing]

Originally Posted by entlassen

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.

[UpandComing]

Originally Posted by entlassen

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

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.

[UpandComing]

Originally Posted by UnequalProductions

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

[Richmond Weems]

Originally Posted by ChadStrohl

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...

I'll start with this 'cause there's actually no crap to avoid. The only thing to avoid is narrow-mindedness 'cause (in reference to your second post on this subject) there is no "cultural rift" involved with James Bond being black.

[Richmond Weems]

Originally Posted by nativeson

No, it's the totally ignored issue of artistic integrity, instead of the same, tired old witch-hunting cr@p.

There's no artistic integrity involved when making a movie about a super spy who, in any version of reality, would be dead as soon as he opened his mouth.

Pick another battler when debating the non-issue of Idris Elba playing James Bond and artistic integrity.

[Richmond Weems]

Originally Posted by entlassen

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.

That's all well and good (and arguable), but it still doesn't rebut the points I and others made in regards to Bond and Shaft. That's okay, though. You keep on keepin' on and by 2050, it won't matter what either of us say or think 'cause white people will be the minority in America and you'll have plenty of opportunity to fight the power.

[entlassen]

Unequalproductions:

Okay, find me some Hollywood movies where the central gimmick involves a white hero killing blacks. Bonus points if that white actor later got up on a stage and joked about how great it was that he killed all the black people in the movie.

60words:

Both Bond and Shaft had definite racial identities. The difference is that Bond's is less explicit than Shaft's. That doesn't mean that the identity isn't there or that it doesn't matter.

UpandComing:

That's right, nationality is different from ethnicity. That's how a black person can live in Scotland without being ethnically Scottish, or live in Japan without being ethnically Japanese.

And since Bond's lineage is Scottish and French by ethnicity but English by nationality, you just kind of undermined your own argument, as Bond is of Scottish and French blood, which means he's white by definition.

[60WordsPerHour]

Originally Posted by entlassen

60words:

Both Bond and Shaft had definite racial identities. The difference is that Bond's is less explicit than Shaft's. That doesn't mean that the identity isn't there or that it doesn't matter.

How has Bond's racial identity ever mattered in relation to the story and themes, and ESPECIALLY in relation to a present-day Bond?