Sony leaks reveal wants for Idris for next Bond

I don't care as long as they cast the actor because he is the best available. They shouldn't set out to solely cast a black guy. They should set out to cast the best actor. If he happens to be black, then fine.

If you don't want Bond to be black because he is written as white, that's fine with me. That's a good argument.

But I see people saying they don't want a black Bond because they need to stick with Fleming. Oh come on. They've never followed Fleming. Where have you been since 1962? You can believe James Bond went to outer space? That he had an invisible car?

Like I said, I respect the argument he's always been a white character, but to say it can't work because it doesn't follow Fleming is absurd.

Campbell4 wrote:

jet set willy wrote:

Hiring a black actor, and suddenly you find his character would not work in many of the Fleming scenes, and for the majority of the LALD book. Seriously, if you had Elba in the role and you wanted to do a faithful adaptation of LALD, you couldn't - and yet this is an essential story in the background of who Bond is.

Do you think a Nazi-loving villain like Goldfinger would want to play golf with a black man? Yes, I know that was then, and this is now, but Bond's whiteness and Britishness is part of his character, the same way Shaft being black is part of his character, and we wouldn't want a white actor to play him.....would we?

Yay, thanks for the poll.

I don't buy that LALD thing, that's not the typical Bond adventure peeps think of when you ask them. Goldfinger is a much better standard forBond in terms of what most people would think of. But was Goldfinger Nazi-loving? I thought he was a Commie agent, Smersh or China? Would that guy be happy to play golf with a London playboy? I'd say Goldfinger would still work with a black Bond.

You can't say LALD is not a well-known Bond story, because it is. And although the story was written in the 50's, the racial tension found in Harlem with Bond being white would still be just as relevant today.

How about if Bond was Asian then? Would this still work with Goldfinger?

Moore wrote:

I don't care as long as they cast the actor because he is the best available. They shouldn't set out to solely cast a black guy. They should set out to cast the best actor. If he happens to be black, then fine.

This isn't the same thing as applying for a job as an accountant...or an architect or an engineer...jobs rooted in maths and sciences for which skin color/tone/hue is an irrelevant point. Elba could never be "the best available" of any actor auditioning for the role because he can never be qualified to be James Bond because he is a black man and James Bond was written as a white man. I mean, it just doesn't get any more simple than that. The social factors of James Bond being who he is, including his skin color, are thrown right out the window if you make him black.

It would be the equivalent of bringing James Suzuki into the series, born of a union between Connery's Bond and Kissy, and then making the character half-black, half-white, instead of half-white/half-Japanese. In this instance race, cultural identity, skin color, etc....IS EVERYTHING to the character. Without it you have nothing. Same with Bond.

Moore wrote:

But I see people saying they don't want a black Bond because they need to stick with Fleming. Oh come on. They've never followed Fleming. Where have you been since 1962? You can believe James Bond went to outer space? That he had an invisible car?

But every time we've had an outer-space Bond or an invisible car (which I don't think is unobtainable) we've ended up with a follow-up movie more grounded and with more of an attempt to "get back to Fleming". Babs and Michael made an intellectually dishonest case with CR that they were going "back to Fleming", but that's for another thread. How on earth do you try to make the same case for another movie and then hire Elba? You can't get back to any sort of reasonable approximation of who James Bond was if you hire a black actor...or Latino...or Asian.

We live in a world where Spider-Man is now black and no longer Peter Parker. Where Johnny Storm (ably played by Chris Evans) is now played by a black actor, even though the character is white and has a white sister named Sue. It's where Idris Elba can be cast as a Norse God in THOR. How many black Norweigans exist in Norway? .000000000001%?

And we live in a world where if you dare object to this sort of cultural appropriation you're declared a "Racist!". Well, I'm so far past the point of caring whether I'm considered a racist or not that I'll gladly wear the moniker of "racist" while I continue to sound the alarms about the dangerous encroachment of politically correct thinking and actions, because that is all Idris Elba would be: a politically correct, affirmative action hire for a man that does not need affirmative action to get a job.

jet set willy wrote:

Campbell4 wrote:

jet set willy wrote:

Hiring a black actor, and suddenly you find his character would not work in many of the Fleming scenes, and for the majority of the LALD book. Seriously, if you had Elba in the role and you wanted to do a faithful adaptation of LALD, you couldn't - and yet this is an essential story in the background of who Bond is.

Do you think a Nazi-loving villain like Goldfinger would want to play golf with a black man? Yes, I know that was then, and this is now, but Bond's whiteness and Britishness is part of his character, the same way Shaft being black is part of his character, and we wouldn't want a white actor to play him.....would we?

Yay, thanks for the poll.

I don't buy that LALD thing, that's not the typical Bond adventure peeps think of when you ask them. Goldfinger is a much better standard forBond in terms of what most people would think of. But was Goldfinger Nazi-loving? I thought he was a Commie agent, Smersh or China? Would that guy be happy to play golf with a London playboy? I'd say Goldfinger would still work with a black Bond.

You can't say LALD is not a well-known Bond story, because it is. And although the story was written in the 50's, the racial tension found in Harlem with Bond being white would still be just as relevant today.

How about if Bond was Asian then? Would this still work with Goldfinger?

I don't say LALD is not well-know with fans, it's just not what most people would think of first if asked for Bond. That would be GF or YOLT or TSWLM as films. Maybe TB or GE. I wager LALD come somewhere in the middle with most peoplejust going by averages.

Goldfinger with an Asian Bond - would give Odd Job more impact, no? Or the Red China angle of the film, I could still imagine that.
I don't say Elba would be the best Bond ever, so much depends on other things in movies. But I sure feel he'd give lots of other actors a run for the money. I wouldn't mind him at all as long as it's not some DAD or TND the put him in. They should always go for the best available actor is my opinion.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Was that what EON was trying to do? I always assumed EON was going to make the character American, kind of like the 1954 CBS version of CASINO ROYALE.

As far as I am aware, they intended to keep the character British - they just considered American actors to try and tap into the American market a little more.

Campbell4 wrote:

jet set willy wrote:

Campbell4 wrote:

jet set willy wrote:

Hiring a black actor, and suddenly you find his character would not work in many of the Fleming scenes, and for the majority of the LALD book. Seriously, if you had Elba in the role and you wanted to do a faithful adaptation of LALD, you couldn't - and yet this is an essential story in the background of who Bond is.

Do you think a Nazi-loving villain like Goldfinger would want to play golf with a black man? Yes, I know that was then, and this is now, but Bond's whiteness and Britishness is part of his character, the same way Shaft being black is part of his character, and we wouldn't want a white actor to play him.....would we?

Yay, thanks for the poll.

I don't buy that LALD thing, that's not the typical Bond adventure peeps think of when you ask them. Goldfinger is a much better standard forBond in terms of what most people would think of. But was Goldfinger Nazi-loving? I thought he was a Commie agent, Smersh or China? Would that guy be happy to play golf with a London playboy? I'd say Goldfinger would still work with a black Bond.

You can't say LALD is not a well-known Bond story, because it is. And although the story was written in the 50's, the racial tension found in Harlem with Bond being white would still be just as relevant today.

How about if Bond was Asian then? Would this still work with Goldfinger?

I don't say LALD is not well-know with fans, it's just not what most people would think of first if asked for Bond. That would be GF or YOLT or TSWLM as films. Maybe TB or GE. I wager LALD come somewhere in the middle with most peoplejust going by averages.

Goldfinger with an Asian Bond - would give Odd Job more impact, no? Or the Red China angle of the film, I could still imagine that.
I don't say Elba would be the best Bond ever, so much depends on other things in movies. But I sure feel he'd give lots of other actors a run for the money. I wouldn't mind him at all as long as it's not some DAD or TND the put him in. They should always go for the best available actor is my opinion.

I just read a post over on MI6 which pretty much is spot on regarding this issue. I hope WizardOfIce doesn't mind me copying and pasting it here, as I don't want to pass this off as my own, when someone else should take the credit for this, which I consider very much my own viewpoint -

Quote :

Like it or not, the world we live in is not just multicultural London with its 'diversity and inclusivity' constantly rammed down your throat like you are a Strasbourg goose.

A lot of the world is still 50 years behind and is still openly racist.

Eastern Europe and particularly Russia would become off limits for BlackBond for the simple fact a black face still stands out and is noticed.

A bog standard mission to fly to Murmansk, go to a random apartment block and shoot the double agent in flat 8 all without anyone noticing him becomes impossible for BlackBond because everyone at the train station, in the street and on the stairs will spot him as being out of place - even if he did go to Eton and Oxbridge and his Russian is perfect.

Personally my favourite Bondian locations are the ex Cold War heartlands. With BlackBond every seedy back street casino or bar he walks into in Warsaw, Belgrade or St Petersburg would be like the scene when Rog walks into the Fillet of Soul.

Unless we restrict BlackBond's beat to exclusively the West Indies, Africa and multicultural cities in the US and Western Europe he sticks out like a sore thumb wherever he goes and that changes his fundamental operational effectiveness and the essence of the secret agent whom Fleming described as 'the man who is a silhouette'.

jet set willy wrote:

Campbell4 wrote:

jet set willy wrote:

Campbell4 wrote:

jet set willy wrote:

Hiring a black actor, and suddenly you find his character would not work in many of the Fleming scenes, and for the majority of the LALD book. Seriously, if you had Elba in the role and you wanted to do a faithful adaptation of LALD, you couldn't - and yet this is an essential story in the background of who Bond is.

Do you think a Nazi-loving villain like Goldfinger would want to play golf with a black man? Yes, I know that was then, and this is now, but Bond's whiteness and Britishness is part of his character, the same way Shaft being black is part of his character, and we wouldn't want a white actor to play him.....would we?

Yay, thanks for the poll.

I don't buy that LALD thing, that's not the typical Bond adventure peeps think of when you ask them. Goldfinger is a much better standard forBond in terms of what most people would think of. But was Goldfinger Nazi-loving? I thought he was a Commie agent, Smersh or China? Would that guy be happy to play golf with a London playboy? I'd say Goldfinger would still work with a black Bond.

You can't say LALD is not a well-known Bond story, because it is. And although the story was written in the 50's, the racial tension found in Harlem with Bond being white would still be just as relevant today.

How about if Bond was Asian then? Would this still work with Goldfinger?

I don't say LALD is not well-know with fans, it's just not what most people would think of first if asked for Bond. That would be GF or YOLT or TSWLM as films. Maybe TB or GE. I wager LALD come somewhere in the middle with most peoplejust going by averages.

Goldfinger with an Asian Bond - would give Odd Job more impact, no? Or the Red China angle of the film, I could still imagine that.
I don't say Elba would be the best Bond ever, so much depends on other things in movies. But I sure feel he'd give lots of other actors a run for the money. I wouldn't mind him at all as long as it's not some DAD or TND the put him in. They should always go for the best available actor is my opinion.

I just read a post over on MI6 which pretty much is spot on regarding this issue. I hope WizardOfIce doesn't mind me copying and pasting it here, as I don't want to pass this off as my own, when someone else should take the credit for this, which I consider very much my own viewpoint -

Quote :

Like it or not, the world we live in is not just multicultural London with its 'diversity and inclusivity' constantly rammed down your throat like you are a Strasbourg goose.

A lot of the world is still 50 years behind and is still openly racist.

Eastern Europe and particularly Russia would become off limits for BlackBond for the simple fact a black face still stands out and is noticed.

A bog standard mission to fly to Murmansk, go to a random apartment block and shoot the double agent in flat 8 all without anyone noticing him becomes impossible for BlackBond because everyone at the train station, in the street and on the stairs will spot him as being out of place - even if he did go to Eton and Oxbridge and his Russian is perfect.

Personally my favourite Bondian locations are the ex Cold War heartlands. With BlackBond every seedy back street casino or bar he walks into in Warsaw, Belgrade or St Petersburg would be like the scene when Rog walks into the Fillet of Soul.

Unless we restrict BlackBond's beat to exclusively the West Indies, Africa and multicultural cities in the US and Western Europe he sticks out like a sore thumb wherever he goes and that changes his fundamental operational effectiveness and the essence of the secret agent whom Fleming described as 'the man who is a silhouette'.

Good points overall, great post. Have to say I largely agree. Not that Bond being known to the opposition wouldn't get picked up inHeathrow already with modern facial recognition. Or that he'd ever get sent to Russia in first place when you can outsource the job to some 20 bucks soldier of fortune already in Murmansk or that his clothes wouldn't make him stick out there just as much as foxnews sticker and toilet paper on his shoe. Can't say much about those cities, I don't remember Bond being in one of them in the books.St Petersburg is quite a tourist spot, could be they actually have seen a black man before. I imagine his Aston could also,be a problem for his operational effectiveness. If we really have to bring up that, bit ludicrous. Funny, Bond was active mostly in Europe and multicultural cities recently, not so much elsewhere. Lol, they are already setting it up!

bitchcraft wrote:

I told people that black Annie would fail too. Nyah nyah to Jamie Foxx. Why aren't millions of black people going to see it? If they're not supporting it, why bother?

Yeah, it looks like Annie is not going to do well at the box office. It doesn't appear to have started playing internationally, and if the U.S. market won't support the film, it stands little chance of making its money back elsewhere. Not sure if having a white actress would have made any difference (the world wasn't crying out for another Annie film), but there's no denying that having a black Annie is perceived as something of a knock-off and not legitimate.

bitchcraft wrote:

Incidentally, in the leaked SONY emails, execs have accused worldwide audiences of being racist because the foreign BO for Equalizer was only 90m, (compared to 100m in the USA, which is a good domestic haul) and they claim that worldwide audiences won't go for a black lead.

I think money ultimately talks on the issue of Idris Elba (or any other black actor for that matter), so maybe the failure of ANNIE and the lackluster returns of THE EQUALIZER will help to bring SONY back to reality about a black B***. But THE EQUALIZER was essentially in the same situation as an Idris Elba film would be in: source material being wholly disrespected by the casting of an actor who is nowhere close to being similar to the original. EON should proceed at its own peril.

How was THE EQUALIZER's box office performance "lackluster", considering that it made its money back? In fact, I don't even think most people care that Denzel was cast in a role that was originally played by a white man, because nobody but old people remember the show. It's mid-budget September release, not a tentpole set out to be a blockbuster. The failure of ANNIE isn't because of its black cast, it's because it's a terrible film.

And, to be fair, the other ANNIE films were shit, too.

Makeshift Python wrote:

The failure of ANNIE isn't because of its black cast, it's because it's a terrible film.

And I wouldn't be surprised if the Sony leak played a part in whatever success it would have otherwise achieved.

So far, I think it's fair to say that GS hasn't made any convincing arguments against Elba playing Bond. The crux of his argument is that Fleming wrote Bond as a white male, and that Bond should therefore always be white - even though the novels were written half a century ago when the social fabric of Great Britain was very different to what it is today, and despite the way the franchise has adapted to other changes in social norms without compromising its creative worth.

Makeshift Python wrote:

How was THE EQUALIZER's box office performance "lackluster", considering that it made its money back? In fact, I don't even think most people care that Denzel was cast in a role that was originally played by a white man, because nobody but old people remember the show. It's mid-budget September release, not a tentpole set out to be a blockbuster. The failure of ANNIE isn't because of its black cast, it's because it's a terrible film.

THE EQUALIZER's box office was enough to break even; it may make just enough to be deemed profitable, but nothing overwhelming.

#1 Your comment about only "old people" remembering the show is ageist. It may also be factually correct to state that older audiences weren't going to come out for THE EQUALIZER movie anyway, but at least let's be honest about demographic information, even when it reveals truths we'd rather not face about the reasons why people of all cultures, races, ages, and genders go, or not go, to the movies.
#2 Clearly someone at SONY remembered the show, because they made it into a movie.
#3 Why call it THE EQUALIZER then if you can't even get the casting of the central character correct? It could be called anything. The inherent value of THE EQUALIZER movie is tied into at least some people knowing it was based on a show and remembering the show and then looking at what SONY is offering us in the movie and being unable to reconcile the two.

ANNIE will probably not even break even; SONY will likely take a write-off on ANNIE, as they will with THE INTERVIEW. ANNIE may not even make it's production budget back in the U.S. Maybe SONY should do some outside polling and find out how audiences view Jamie Foxx, because I think he may not be very well liked, and SONY seems to be oblivious.

Control wrote:

And, to be fair, the other ANNIE films were shit, too.

I kind of liked Little Oral Annie, but yeah, you're right, sometimes they were a bit hard to swallow.

Somebody at Sony certainly remembered THE EQUALIZER, like how someone at Disney remembered THE LONE RANGER. It's always down to brand recognition. Sony was at least smart enough to make theirs a mid-budget September release because the main demographic is already too young to even be aware the was a TV show 30 years ago. Contrast that with how Disney handled THE LONE RANGER. I doubt replacing Denzel with Whitey McWhiterson would have drawn more audiences.

Makeshift Python wrote:

How was THE EQUALIZER's box office performance "lackluster", considering that it made its money back?

It essentially flopped in Asia. China is now one of the top individual markets in the world. It hasn't opened there yet and there's no word that it will, especially since it's now on the home movie market. It only made $3m in Japan. $0 showing in South Korea too. Why didn't SONY bother to market it over there? Lost cause?

Yes, it made its money back mostly based on a respectable $100m domestic take, and a sequel is planned. Yet there were emails flying about its disappointing showing in the rest of the world, with a multitude of single-digit markets...5m here, $6m there...nothing to show that Denzel is a big draw anywhere other than the USA.

That doesn't prove that casting some white actor in the role would have made it perform better in Asia.

Makeshift Python wrote:

That doesn't prove that casting some white actor in the role would have made it perform better in Asia.

It proves that casting Denzel in the role didn't pay off either, internationally.

The world doesn't respond to his films as the USA does.

Denzel probably needs a more internationally appealing franchise, like how Craig needs Bond.

Makeshift Python wrote:

That doesn't prove that casting some white actor in the role would have made it perform better in Asia.

Well, yeah, it might have. That was the point of the internal research that shows black films sometimes don't do as well at the international box office. That was the reason SONY was saying that the rest of the world is "racist" because they don't turn out for black films the way they do for films with white people in them. So quite possibly if SONY would have been bothered to get an actor who sounded and looked vaguely like Edward Woodward, they might have been on to the start of something good.

Armed with that information, will someone at SONY feel comfortable enough to risk the potential on a 1.1 billion dollar box office payday on an actor who is sure to generate a ton of controversy like Elba and may flop? Is SONY/EON willing to take a chance that at a minimum, 20% of their perennial audience won't bolt? Won't leave? Won't say "F*** it. This ain't Bond. I quit."???

Because I'm telling you now that I will. That's not a threat or an idle promise. I will make good on my word, so SONY and EON don't need to be left wondering what I'll do because I'm actually telling them what I'd do now. And if you go over to the Idris Elba IMDB board and read the comments, those people will boycott the film also.

SONY better be right, because there's billions of dollars on the line.

It truly is EVERYTHING OR NOTHING for SONY.

Makeshift Python wrote:

Denzel probably needs a more internationally appealing franchise, like how Craig needs Bond.

I've never really cared for Denzel in much of anything, but something about Deja Vu clicked, and he was pretty good in it and it's one of my favorite movies and one of my favorite sci-fi films.

After Denzel's FBI agent basically tells Jim Caveziel's bomber that he's going to go away to prison for a long time:

Jim Caveziel: So you'd better have some divine intervention, buddy. You're gonna need it.

Denzel: You'd better have some K-Y. You're gonna need it.

Campbell4 wrote:

Good points overall, great post. Have to say I largely agree.  

Was that an attempt at sarcasm there...?

bitchcraft wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

How was THE EQUALIZER's box office performance "lackluster", considering that it made its money back?

It essentially flopped in Asia. China is now one of the top individual markets in the world. It hasn't opened there yet and there's no word that it will, especially since it's now on the home movie market. It only made $3m in Japan. $0 showing in South Korea too. Why didn't SONY bother to market it over there? Lost cause?

Yes, it made its money back mostly based on a respectable $100m domestic take, and a sequel is planned. Yet there were emails flying about its disappointing showing in the rest of the world, with a multitude of single-digit markets...5m here, $6m there...nothing to show that Denzel is a big draw anywhere other than the USA.

I'd say EQUALIZER wasn't the best thing to bring to the screen to start with, ex-agent doing things, how original is that? With Neeson already cornering prt of the market? I think nobody at SONY remembered he show, it just happened to be on a list with cheap properties, SONY went for it and threw in some MCGYVER from the same list. EQUALIZER never was such a hot show, surely not outside the US. Did they really expect the film would do better? I think they just had a go with it because Washington wanted a franchise now. To the character he's playing for years already. And SONY weren't prepared to shell out for MAGNUM or ROCKFORD, that's why he got McCall.

jet set willy wrote:

Campbell4 wrote:

Good points overall, great post. Have to say I largely agree.  

Was that an attempt at sarcasm there...?

Maybe a bit there.
C'mon, bringing in operational effectiveness with Bond, that's just ludicrous. I once read Fleming himself was perfectly aware what a fantasy spy he had with Bond. Said everybody in opposition would recognize the ciggies. Okay, that's not the same as what we talk about. But hey, Bond is not exactly a guy known for operational effectiveness, never has been, movies or books.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

So far, I think it's fair to say that GS hasn't made any convincing arguments against Elba playing Bond.

Nope, that's not fair to say at all.

Quote :

The crux of his argument is that Fleming wrote Bond as a white male, and that Bond should therefore always be white - even though the novels were written half a century ago when the social fabric of Great Britain was very different to what it is today, and despite the way the franchise has adapted to other changes in social norms without compromising its creative worth.

So adaptation means changing Bond's race completely, to the point of a complete departure from the norm. Elba'a casting would set a precedent. Using your point, his successor might look like Kim Jong Un, and it wouldn't bother you as long as it doesn't compromise its creative worth.

Sorry, that's not James Bond to me. If the UK suddenly became 80% ethnic, that shouldn't mean 007 should as well. But....if it does, I'll be graciously letting go.

All thats totally beside point. It's just one of the things you either accept or not, reasoning's got nothing to do with it. IF Elba floats your boat he just does, if not no argument is likely to change your mind. So what? Not bl***y likely to happen anyway, why sweat it? Love the Blofeld avatar! :)

Campbell4 wrote:

C'mon, bringing in operational effectiveness with Bond, that's just ludicrous. I once read Fleming himself was perfectly aware what a fantasy spy he had with Bond. Said everybody in opposition would recognize the ciggies. Okay, that's not the same as what we talk about. But hey, Bond is not exactly a guy known for operational effectiveness, never has been, movies or books.

Guess we'll have to disagree on this one, because the books still held an amount of realism to them as spy stories, and not the outlandish adventures we see on screen, particularly during the Brozza and Moore eras.

Bond is a relic of a time of Britain's supremacy in the world, a surviving example of the old school...and as such is best portrayed as being white. He's an echo of Richard Hannay, Bulldog Drummond, Richard Chandos, Sexton Blake, Nelson Lee, Nayland Smith, and countless other British pulp heroes. He's a relic of the old British Empire, the white male warrior setting the world to rights.

A black actor...or indeed, anything other than white male...throws all that out on its ear and pretty much requires the character be reinvented from the ground up. Of course, the argument can be made that by that time it's no longer Ian Fleming's creation, and the Fleming estate may have objections as Bond is still under copyright and will likely remain so. But a reinvention would be required as a black/Asian/Indian/whatever Bond is no longer the white male Imperial enforcer, but a representative of a group that had been oppressed by those same white male Imperial enforcers. We've got a lot turned on its head now. Bond will have to stop being retro and a throwback, and instead be very modern and divorced from his literary heritage and the character's pulp roots...and as a result, probably more generic, and which then begs the question, why call him James Bond anymore, but instead something else, and start a new franchise, instead of pissing on a well-established one.

It amazes me that people cannot see this, which is so blatantly obvious. But then again, if no one has bothered to read the original books, or know where the origins of Bond come from (Fleming), then they will just see Bond as a generic action screen hero, and in which case, yes he can be rebooted as a black actor, no problem.

Bond as a character is actually a lot more complex than just looking cool, having swagger, being able to pull a bird, drink, and handle himself in a fight. This is just on a very superficial level. Study the character of who Bond really is, and where he really came from, and his character does run far deeper than the mere colour of his skin. And part of this problem is because the franchise was born in a very different era. Throw that out, and he is no longer Fleming's James Bond, but a new James Bond with nothing to do with Fleming's original creation, other than in name itself.

We've just had the most successful Bond film since Bondmania in its heyday (1964-65), and which was a deliberate attempt to return Bond to his roots in a very Flemingesque concept (even if it wasn't based on any particular novel), so why would the producers now want to fix something that ain't already broken...?