Idris Elba as the next James Bond?

[Jim of WVa]

No. Read the thread. He refused to acknowledge that Ian Fleming even *hinted* that Bond was a white male Brit. Again, a commissioned drawing, cover art, the characters in his books describing Bond as looking like Hoagy Carmichael as well as Ian himself saying that he envisioned Bond looking like Carmichael. Right to the end, he refused the existence of ANY of this with his patented

. He outright said the passages don't exist in *his* copies of the Bond books, which somehow he feels vindicates his assertion and therefore proves Ian Fleming was ambiguous, which is intellectually dishonest. I'm like this because I hold his intellect in high regard and when he digs himself really deep into a hole where he refuses reality because of his convictions, he pulls this same bullshit.

I do not.

 

[shavedape]

No. Read the thread. He refused to acknowledge that Ian Fleming even *hinted* that Bond was a white male Brit. Again, a commissioned drawing, cover art, the characters in his books describing Bond as looking like Hoagy Carmichael as well as Ian himself saying that he envisioned Bond looking like Carmichael. Right to the end, he refused the existence of ANY of this with his patented

. He outright said the passages don't exist in *his* copies of the Bond books, which somehow he feels vindicates his assertion and therefore proves Ian Fleming was ambiguous, which is intellectually dishonest. I'm like this because I hold his intellect in high regard and when he digs himself really deep into a hole where he refuses reality because of his convictions, he pulls this same bullshit.

Again, you're focusing too much on picky details of OM1's argument. He's saying he's read all the books and race wasn't really a defining factor to the character; it was never overly emphasized. Keep in mind that Fleming himself said he intentionally made the character vague and bland, i.e. ambiguous. So I, personally, wouldn't go so far as to say OM1 is being intellectually dishonest. My take is that he's arguing the larger abstract of ethnicity not playing a central theme of the character. But if you guys want to squabble over petty details of portraits and cover art then have at it. I already stated that Fleming wrote a character in the 1950's that was assumed to be Anglo and I added that it was wholly irrelevant to a black man playing the character in 2015. I say it's irrelevant because I don't see anything changing in regards to Fleming's protagonist should a black man play the role other than skin color.

I should ask, are you guys sure you're not arguing over culture? Because, as I said above, I don't see a cultural change to the character by having Idris Elba play the role. He'd still be playing a Brit, not an Indian Sikh or Maori warrior, etc. Bond's culture wouldn't change if Elba played the role, unless of course the writers intentionally made it a point to do so, in which case the argument would have legs.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Again, you're focusing too much on picky details of OM1's argument. He's saying he's read all the books and race wasn't really a defining factor to the character; it was never overly emphasized. Keep in mind that Fleming himself said he intentionally made the character vague and bland, i.e. ambiguous. So I, personally, wouldn't go so far as to say OM1 is being intellectually dishonest. My take is that he's arguing the larger abstract of ethnicity not playing a central theme of the character. But if you guys want to squabble over petty details of portraits and cover art then have at it. I already stated that Fleming wrote a character in the 1950's that was assumed to be Anglo and I added that it was wholly irrelevant to a black man playing the character in 2015. I say it's irrelevant because I don't see anything changing in regards to Fleming's protagonist should a black man play the role other than skin color.

I should ask, are you guys sure you're not arguing over culture? Because, as I said above, I don't see a cultural change to the character by having Idris Elba play the role. He'd still be playing a Brit, not an Indian Sikh or Maori warrior, etc. Bond's culture wouldn't change if Elba played the role, unless of course the writers intentionally made it a point to do so, in which case the argument would have legs.

This is the problem with the view "I don't see colour". (something I too have been "guilty" of as well.)
Colour simply -will- affect personality because people of colour other than white have had centuries of repression in the western world, and it will affect culture as well.

 

[shavedape]

Because it is not the character Ian Fleming wrote about.
It's really no more than that. You could make him British with Chinese ancestry and my argument would not change a jot my friend. I think that's what seperates it from being a race issue. If I said "anything but Chinese", that would be racist and bigoted for sure. As I have been trying to say, "because he is black" is not the reason I have a problem, it's because it is -not- the James Bond the Author wrote.
I would be just as pissed is the dancing Cat to my left was changed into a white guy, they may be able to -play- the Cat, Hell, they may do it better than Danny, but it is not the cat as written by Grant Naylor.
The argument is not one of race but allowing for the artistic integrity of the Original author to stand.


What colour is Huckleberry Finn?
We know his father is white, what about his mother?
If anyone wants to troll the book for evidence: http://contentserver.adobe.com/store/books/HuckFinn.pdf

The argument as given is "the absence of proof means that it could be true", and that just isn't a good argument.
It's not so much that Fleming "did not care about ethnicity" it was just as you say, par for the course for a white male writer of the time. It would not even entered his head that he would have to describe what "colour" Bond was. Authors of the time only bothered to describe "race" when it was -not- white.


Again it's not a question of not caring, it a question of "the standard" of the day.
IS what colour Bond is central to his personality? No, not really, because Fleming never really gave him a great personality anyway, concentrating more on the action. Does anything in his scant personality indicate he could possibly be a person -other- than white, not at all.

So why can't an actor who happens to be black play a character with a scant personality that is more action oriented? Let's assume for the sake or argument that Idris Elba was raised in the same British culture as Daniel Craig. What in your mind precludes Elba from playing the same role as Craig other than Elba's darker skin pigmentation?

(And no, I'm not calling you racist or taunting you into a trap, rather, I just want clarification of your stance here.)

 

[Gatefan1976]

So why can't an actor who happens to be black play a character with a scant personality that is more action oriented? Let's assume for the sake or argument that Idris Elba was raised in the same British culture as Daniel Craig. What in your mind precludes Elba from playing the same role as Craig other than Elba's darker skin pigmentation?

(And no, I'm not calling you racist or taunting you into a trap, rather, I just want clarification of your stance here.)

*Bond* is a white character, the author intended him that way. There is no other reason dude.
007 could be Black, because 007 is a job, M can be a female, because M is a job.
Could Bond -be- a Black Britt? You could do it, and it would require one relatively easy fix, change what James Bond is from a singular character, to the code-name given to ALL 007's. Even with that fix, though, you are changing what the author intended, to become more inclusive to all potential male candidates to the role. We could also change his name to Jamie Bond, and we could allow female Bonds as well, and that's only one letter of his name.

Now, let me ask you the 2 questions that Bluce and I have never gotten an answer for.
1: Could we have a white guy playing Shaft?
2: Why do people want a black Bond except for PC reasons. In answering that, you are not allowed to speak to the Actor in questions skill, because neither Bluce, nor Joe, nor I have questioned the acting talents of Idris.

 

[Bluce Ree]

Again, you're focusing too much on picky details of OM1's argument. He's saying he's read all the books and race wasn't really a defining factor to the character; i

No, he's not. He said Ian Fleming never clearly defined Bond and argued every piece of evidence presented to him as being false or not present in anything he has read. I know OM1 on a personal level outside of this place. If I argue with him on a point in here, it's because I know exactly where his head is at.

Aside from that, when we get on the phone following one of these heated battles, it's like this place never happened anyway. He's still my bro and bros call each other out on their bullshit.

 

[Gatefan1976]

No, he's not. He said Ian Fleming never clearly defined Bond and argued every piece of evidence presented to him as being false or not present in anything he has read. I know OM1 on a personal level outside of this place. If I argue with him on a point in here, it's because I know exactly where his head is at.

Aside from that, when we get on the phone following one of these heated battles, it's like this place never happened anyway. He's still my bro and bros call each other out on their bullshit.

Stop making it so EASY!!

 

[shavedape]

No, he's not. He said Ian Fleming never clearly defined Bond and argued every piece of evidence presented to him as being false or not present in anything he has read. I know OM1 on a personal level outside of this place. If I argue with him on a point in here, it's because I know exactly where his head is at.

Aside from that, when we get on the phone following one of these heated battles, it's like this place never happened anyway. He's still my bro and bros call each other out on their bullshit.

OM1 has a legit point of contention here. So what if Fleming likened Bond to himself and Hoagy Carmichael? If you want to call that "clearly defining" Bond then so be it. Here, you win a stuffed animal. Are you happy now cuz I'm about to point out, in Fleming's own words, which you've already read, how he created Bond to be intentionally vague and undefined:

Fleming based his fictional creation on a number of individuals he came across during his time in the Naval Intelligence Division during World War II, admitting that Bond "was a compound of all the secret agents and commando types I met during the war".[1] Among those types were his brother, Peter, who had been involved in behind-the-lines operations in Norway and Greece during the war.[2] Aside from Fleming's brother, a number of others also provided some aspects of Bond's make up, including Conrad O'Brien-ffrench, Patrick Dalzel-Job and Bill "Biffy" Dunderdale.[1]

When I wrote the first one in 1953, I wanted Bond to be an extremely dull, uninteresting man to whom things happened; I wanted him to be a blunt instrument ... when I was casting around for a name for my protagonist I thought by God, (James Bond) is the dullest name I ever heard.
—Ian Fleming, The New Yorker, 21 April 1962[4]

On another occasion, Fleming said: "I wanted the simplest, dullest, plainest-sounding name I could find, 'James Bond' was much better than something more interesting, like 'Peregrine Carruthers'. Exotic things would happen to and around him, but he would be a neutral figure—an anonymous, blunt instrument wielded by a government department."[
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So there you have it, Fleming actually worked at making James Bond a vague, undefined character in many ways. But, but, but, what about Hoagy Carmichael?!! you are no doubt asking. Let's talk about that:

Fleming decided that Bond should resemble both American singer Hoagy Carmichael and himself...
"Bond reminds me rather of Hoagy Carmichael, but there is something cold and ruthless."
Fleming also endowed Bond with many of his own traits, including sharing the same golf handicap, the taste for scrambled eggs and using the same brand of toiletries.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, so Fleming rattled off a comparison of himself and Hoagy Carmichael (my God that's a shit name if ever there was one) to the character of Bond. He even sketched out a picture of his impression of Bond. So what? The sketch is of a fairly vague "everyman". It isn't a sketch of Sean Connery or the other actors that have played the role so obviously those actors didn't fit Fleming's definition of Bond. (Especially Daniel Craig who doesn't look at all like Fleming, Hoagy Carmichael or this vaunted sketch you lot keep braying about.) I assure you, this guy doesn't look at all like what Fleming "clearly defined":

As for the traits listed, those are basically affectations which makes them meaningless. There's no reason that Bond played by Idris Elba wouldn't have those same traits, so it's a moot point.

 

[shavedape]

*Bond* is a white character, the author intended him that way. There is no other reason dude.
007 could be Black, because 007 is a job, M can be a female, because M is a job.
Could Bond -be- a Black Britt? You could do it, and it would require one relatively easy fix, change what James Bond is from a singular character, to the code-name given to ALL 007's. Even with that fix, though, you are changing what the author intended, to become more inclusive to all potential male candidates to the role. We could also change his name to Jamie Bond, and we could allow female Bonds as well, and that's only one letter of his name.

Now, let me ask you the 2 questions that Bluce and I have never gotten an answer for.
1: Could we have a white guy playing Shaft?
2: Why do people want a black Bond except for PC reasons. In answering that, you are not allowed to speak to the Actor in questions skill, because neither Bluce, nor Joe, nor I have questioned the acting talents of Idris.

With all due respect, GTFO!

Two can play this game: Why do you have a problem with Idris Elba playing the role of James Bond. In answering that you are not allowed to speak to the actor in questions ethnicity.

 

[Gatefan1976]

With all due respect, GTFO!

Two can play this game: Why do you have a problem with Idris Elba playing the role of James Bond. In answering that you are not allowed to speak to the actor in questions ethnicity.

While I am sure you believe that is a cunning, and cutting remark that will somehow stop me in my tracks, I can recognize an attempt at moving the goalposts in order to dodge answering a very simple question.
As however "this side" is the only one doing any answering on the point, why break the tradition...........
I do not feel that He would make a good Bond. An appropriately pithy answer for such a question, and it fulfilled your requirements.

 

[shavedape]

While I am sure you believe that is a cunning, and cutting remark that will somehow stop me in my tracks, I can recognize an attempt at moving the goalposts in order to dodge answering a very simple question.
As however "this side" is the only one doing any answering on the point, why break the tradition...........
I do not feel that He would make a good Bond. An appropriately pithy answer for such a question, and it fulfilled your requirements.

Yeah, you forbid me to mention ethnicity but then accuse me of moving the goal posts.

And for what it's worth, you didn't fulfill my requirements nor your own; but you did give us an answer, albeit one that was quite "naff". But I guess I can't expect anything less from someone who wants to argue that Idris Elba's ethnicity precludes him from playing James Bond while not allowing me the opportunity to claim that his ethnicity doesn't preclude him from playing the role.

Hypocrisie ton nom est Gatefan.

 

[Bluce Ree]

OM1 has a legit point of contention here. So what if Fleming likened Bond to himself and Hoagy Carmichael? If you want to call that "clearly defining" Bond then so be it. Here, you win a stuffed animal. Are you happy now cuz I'm about to point out, in Fleming's own words, which you've already read, how he created Bond to be intentionally vague and undefined:

Fleming based his fictional creation on a number of individuals he came across during his time in the Naval Intelligence Division during World War II, admitting that Bond "was a compound of all the secret agents and commando types I met during the war".[1] Among those types were his brother, Peter, who had been involved in behind-the-lines operations in Norway and Greece during the war.[2] Aside from Fleming's brother, a number of others also provided some aspects of Bond's make up, including Conrad O'Brien-ffrench, Patrick Dalzel-Job and Bill "Biffy" Dunderdale.[1]

When I wrote the first one in 1953, I wanted Bond to be an extremely dull, uninteresting man to whom things happened; I wanted him to be a blunt instrument ... when I was casting around for a name for my protagonist I thought by God, (James Bond) is the dullest name I ever heard.
—Ian Fleming, The New Yorker, 21 April 1962[4]

On another occasion, Fleming said: "I wanted the simplest, dullest, plainest-sounding name I could find, 'James Bond' was much better than something more interesting, like 'Peregrine Carruthers'. Exotic things would happen to and around him, but he would be a neutral figure—an anonymous, blunt instrument wielded by a government department."[
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So there you have it, Fleming actually worked at making James Bond a vague, undefined character in many ways. But, but, but, what about Hoagy Carmichael?!! you are no doubt asking. Let's talk about that:

You're applying selective interpretation here to fit your point. He's talking about personality traits, his behavior, mannerisms, unimpressive look, what makes the character, not his ethnicity. He clearly defined Bond as a white male Brit.

Sorry, dude, but them's the facts.

Fleming decided that Bond should resemble both American singer Hoagy Carmichael and himself...
"Bond reminds me rather of Hoagy Carmichael, but there is something cold and ruthless."
Fleming also endowed Bond with many of his own traits, including sharing the same golf handicap, the taste for scrambled eggs and using the same brand of toiletries.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, so Fleming rattled off a comparison of himself and Hoagy Carmichael (my God that's a shit name if ever there was one) to the character of Bond. He even sketched out a picture of his impression of Bond. So what? The sketch is of a fairly vague "everyman". It isn't a sketch of Sean Connery or the other actors that have played the role so obviously those actors didn't fit Fleming's definition of Bond.

Connery almost fit the type he envisioned perfectly. Here are Carmichael, Connery and Fleming's commissioned drawing.

You can make your point and selectively reinterpret his words to suit your argument til you turn blue in the face but it will not defeat the facts.

 

[shavedape]

You're applying selective interpretation here to fit your point. He's talking about the personality and traits, his behavior, mannerisms, intelligence and what makes the character, not his ethnicity. He clearly defined Bond as a white male Brit.

Sorry, dude, but them's the facts.

Speaking of facts, I long ago stated that Fleming obviously wrote Bond as a white guy. Do I really have to go back through 10 pages and re-quote myself? I'm not arguing that Fleming didn't write a white guy, I'm simply stating, using Fleming's own words, that he intentionally wrote Bond in an undefined way. My God, the man actually used to words "neutral" "dull" "uninteresting" "plain" "simple" and "anonymous" to describe the character. You can "selectively" ignore that fact all you want, but it remains a fact, one that you can't wish out of existence simply by claiming it isn't so.

Connery almost fit the type he envisioned perfectly. Here are Carmichael, Connery and Fleming's commissioned drawing.

You can make your point and selectively reinterpret his words to suit your argument til you turn blue in the face but it will not defeat the facts.

Funny, it appears that you can too.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Yeah, you forbid me to mention ethnicity but then accuse me of moving the goal posts.

Wow, can you read what you quote and bold ape??

2: Why do people want a black Bond except for PC reasons. In answering that, you are not allowed to speak to the Actor in questions skill, because neither Bluce, nor Joe, nor I have questioned the acting talents of Idris.

I did not mention Idris' "race" in my caveat at all.

And for what it's worth, you didn't fulfill my requirements nor your own; but you did give us an answer, albeit one that was quite "naff".

It didn't deserve anything more because...................

But I guess I can't expect anything less from someone who wants to argue that Idris Elba's ethnicity precludes him from playing James Bond while not allowing me the opportunity to claim that his ethnicity doesn't preclude him from playing the role.

I did not ask that question, did I....................

Hypocrisie ton nom est Gatefan.

Literacy est donum.

 

[Bluce Ree]

Speaking of facts, I long ago stated that Fleming obviously wrote Bond as a white guy. Do I really have to go back through 10 pages and re-quote myself?

I wasn't claiming otherwise but you tried to make the point that Fleming's words you quoted may be used to make the argument that he was ethnically ambiguous. OM1 claimed, with absolute certainty and in denial of everything he was shown, that Fleming never defined his character as a white male Briton.

My God, the man actually used to words "neutral" "dull" "uninteresting" "plain" "simple" and "anonymous" to describe the character. You can "selectively" ignore that fact all you want, but it remains a fact, one that you can't wish out of existence simply by claiming it isn't so.

Come on, dude. Those are personality traits, they don't suggest the possibility of the man being ethnically ambiguous, which was OM1's entire argument to validate his point.

Funny, it appears that you can too.

Anyone can throw around words. The passages and drawings speak for themselves and aren't even remotely ambiguous.

 

[shavedape]

Wow, can you read what you quote and bold ape??

I did not mention Idris' "race" in my caveat at all.


It didn't deserve anything more because...................

I did not ask that question, did I....................


Literacy est donum.

 

[shavedape]

I wasn't claiming otherwise but you tried to make the point that Fleming's words you quoted may be used to make the argument that he was ethnically ambiguous. OM1 claimed, with absolute certainty and in denial of everything he was shown, that Fleming never defined his character as a white male Briton.



Come on, dude. Those are personality traits, they don't suggest the possibility of the man being ethnically ambiguous, which was OM1's entire argument to validate his point.



Anyone can throw around words. The passages and drawings speak for themselves and aren't even remotely ambiguous.

 

[Bluce Ree]

 

[Gatefan1976]

I fear not your skeletal strawmen!!