British actor Idris Elba cannot star as James Bond because he is black, says Rush Limbaugh - Polidicks

Idris Elba seems like an okay 007, but how would they squeeze him in their? Have Craig's Bond die in the next film and Elba becomes the new 007 in the one after that? Edit: Alternate Earth Bond?

I would like a black bond, my only requirement is that he be British! [editline]25th December 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Cone;46793477]the only thing that stays consistent is that james bond is a tough but smooth spy who does intelligence/assassination missions for MI6, everything else is completely up in the air. roger moore's character was not a coldly sociopathic hired killer, sean connery's was not a clown with a gun, and daniel craig's didn't try to leave the job and live out his life as a happily married nobody. i don't personally subscribe to it but there's a reason lots of people believe the codename theory, and that's because the only thing these characters share (and really ever should) is a name and an occupation. just making a regular james bond character in this day and age of pop culture is the hallmark of an unimaginative filmmaker in my opinion, or at least an easily frightened one.[/QUOTE] I mean, aside from that being wrong just watch Skyfall. It shows Bond's parents graves with the last name Bond written on it. James Bond is NOT a codename.

[QUOTE=maddogsamurai;46794450]Idris Elba seems like an okay 007, but how would they squeeze him in their? Have Craig's Bond die in the next film and Elba becomes the new 007 in the one after that? Edit: Alternate Earth Bond?[/QUOTE] A different re-imagination? It doesn't have to be a part of same series.

[QUOTE=maddogsamurai;46794450]Idris Elba seems like an okay 007, but how would they squeeze him in their? Have Craig's Bond die in the next film and Elba becomes the new 007 in the one after that? Edit: Alternate Earth Bond?[/QUOTE] The same way Bonds have always changed.

Maybe he just used a spy disguise to turn black did any of you ever think of that

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;46791096]But why is James Bond defined by his race? If it's due to whatever character archetype he's a part of, why can't that archetype include black people, is all we're wondering[/QUOTE] Because turn-of-the-century landed British gentry, on which the character was based, were pretty much exclusively white and male. But this has already been explained to you, and you already dismissed it by calling everyone who disagrees with you racist, so why are you bothering to ask? It's part of his identity as much as being male and British. Previous entries in the series have shown that they play fast and loose with the canon so it's not a big deal, but this accusation that you must be racist if you think it contrasts with his written characterization is pretty unjustified.

[QUOTE=catbarf;46794756]Because turn-of-the-century landed British gentry, on which the character was based, were pretty much exclusively white and male.[/QUOTE] By this logic shouldn't James Bond stories not be able to take place in the modern era at all? If, in 1953, James Bond was envisioned to be a middle aged white man then he shouldn't even be alive anymore. If continuity between stories is so important there shouldn't be any James Bond stories taking place after the 70s. In the movies he uses modern technology regardless of the book the movie is based on so shouldn't you also be complaining about that?

[QUOTE=catbarf;46794756]Because turn-of-the-century landed British gentry, on which the character was based, were pretty much exclusively white and male. But this has already been explained to you, and you already dismissed it by calling everyone who disagrees with you racist, so why are you bothering to ask? It's part of his identity as much as being male and British. Previous entries in the series have shown that they play fast and loose with the canon so it's not a big deal, but this accusation that you must be racist if you think it contrasts with his written characterization is pretty unjustified.[/QUOTE] Yeah but it's not the turn of the century anymore. It's the turn of a different century and landed Bristish gentry as you put it, is now not a whites only thing. [editline]25th December 2014[/editline] Like if this is your complaint, can you even watch Dr. No, the first Bond film? As it even deviates from the novels. I don't understand the criticsm you levied at him.

[QUOTE=catbarf;46794756]Because turn-of-the-century landed British gentry, on which the character was based, were pretty much exclusively white and male. But this has already been explained to you, and you already dismissed it by calling everyone who disagrees with you racist, so why are you bothering to ask? It's part of his identity as much as being male and British. Previous entries in the series have shown that they play fast and loose with the canon so it's not a big deal, but this accusation that you must be racist if you think it contrasts with his written characterization is pretty unjustified.[/QUOTE] but the point people have made is that this makes no difference in modern Bond. Apart from like a few passing references and the manor in Skyfall it's barely present that he's landed gentry. He's just usually portrayed as a character from a well off family who is well spoken and well educated and highly trained. He isn't constantly being faced by how out of the times he is or anything like that

[QUOTE=Zeke129;46794786]By this logic shouldn't James Bond stories not be able to take place in the modern era at all? If, in 1953, James Bond was envisioned to be a middle aged white man then he shouldn't even be alive anymore. If continuity between stories is so important there shouldn't be any James Bond stories taking place after the 70s. In the movies he uses modern technology regardless of the book the movie is based on so shouldn't you also be complaining about that?[/QUOTE] While the Bond films have frequently updated the timeline to the modern day, the character was basically unchanged until the Craig movies made him a ruthless, almost humorless killer. So sure, they can change the character, if they want to cast Idris Elba because his personality is more important than canon, well, fine, it's not a big deal. What I don't like is people saying race isn't a significant part in the identity of a character and accusing anyone who disagrees of thinly-veiled racism.

[QUOTE=FingerSpazem;46794455]I mean, aside from that being wrong just watch Skyfall. It shows Bond's parents graves with the last name Bond written on it. James Bond is NOT a codename.[/QUOTE] no i know it's wrong that's why i don't believe in it, i'm just saying that it comes from a valid place because james bond doesn't have any inherent characterization

[QUOTE=catbarf;46794818]While the Bond films have frequently updated the timeline to the modern day, the character was basically unchanged until the Craig movies made him a ruthless, almost humorless killer. So sure, they can change the character, if they want to cast Idris Elba because his personality is more important than canon, well, fine, it's not a big deal. What I don't like is people saying race isn't a significant part in the identity of a character and accusing anyone who disagrees of thinly-veiled racism.[/QUOTE] Yeah because before he was a ruthless, cunning, funny murderer, suddenly making him cold is the big change and that's an issue? How is the race of the character the issue? We have no idea of his background until Skyfall or HMSS, and we have no idea of who he really is except who he is now in each film, which has basically always been relatively the same character because I think you don't have a great grasp on the Bond series here. Dalton was the first to portray him as totally cold and humourless and that was a LONG time ago. Craigs portrayl is a lot more tortured and a lot more human than Daltons cold killer, and a lot more believable as a killer than the likes of Moore or George Lazenby. What people want from Idris is the return to a very Connery esque portrayal ala Luther.

so basically the 'significant part' that race plays in james bonds identity is that landed gentry were white

[QUOTE=catbarf;46794756]Because turn-of-the-century landed British gentry, on which the character was based, were pretty much exclusively white and male. But this has already been explained to you, and you already dismissed it by calling everyone who disagrees with you racist, so why are you bothering to ask?[/quote] No I haven't? I've explained that the initial idea for the character is not relevant anymore - not because I, personally, dislike it, but because the work that the various filmmakers have done on the franchise changed what James Bond is about. He's been changed and modernized and the archetype he's based on can also go through the same changes to include a black person.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;46794895]so basically the 'significant part' that race plays in james bonds identity is that landed gentry were white[/QUOTE] Pretty much, yeah. The fact that the original character is a British literary archetype that is exclusively composed of upper-class British white males is not enough of a reason to say it's divergent, leaving aside whether that divergence is justified or acceptable? Like I don't get what's in contention here. It's a significant change to any character's identity to change race, sex, age, or personality, and in this case in particular it's contrary to the character established in the novels on which the franchise is based, and so takes the series farther from its roots. It's also a change that will probably make for a good film and has ample precedent in the form of a long history of divergence from the source material. How are these concepts mutually exclusive?

[QUOTE=catbarf;46794818]While the Bond films have frequently updated the timeline to the modern day, the character was basically unchanged until the Craig movies made him a ruthless, almost humorless killer. So sure, they can change the character, if they want to cast Idris Elba because his personality is more important than canon, well, fine, it's not a big deal. What I don't like is people saying race isn't a significant part in the identity of a character and accusing anyone who disagrees of thinly-veiled racism.[/QUOTE] I think the issue is that continuity has clearly never been important because his character already changes so much from film to film. Suggesting that changing race is simply too far over the line isn't necessarily racist but it definitely points to the person having some kind of issue with race when you consider all these other changes the character has gone through.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46793521]If you want to desperately link them together, please do, but then start answering your own plot holes like "Hey, Q, if we have all these gadgets that solved previous problems quite well, why don't you ever give me those ones again when you know they'll be useful again" or all the various issues that might pop up over anachronisms.[/QUOTE] As much as I agree, just to play the devil's advocate here one could argue that Bond has proven himself to, time-and-time again, be a very adept spy who can adapt to the situation at hand very quickly and very well, and as a result MI6 may have decided to use him to field test all of the latest and greatest gadgets that their less proficient spies will wind up using when they're in the field.

ok what the fuck is with this thread. i keep having to read the quotes a second time because I can't find the connection between them and the replies. It's like everyone is reading a completely different post than what was actually written and responding to that instead.

[QUOTE=sltungle;46795662]As much as I agree, just to play the devil's advocate here one could argue that Bond has proven himself to, time-and-time again, be a very adept spy who can adapt to the situation at hand very quickly and very well, and as a result MI6 may have decided to use him to field test all of the latest and greatest gadgets that their less proficient spies will wind up using when they're in the field.[/QUOTE] well, I'm not entirely sure about that. If you look at many of the films they(villains or many of the administrators) discount Bond as being a lucky bastard and womanizing drunk who happens to get lucky through most of his problems, or as a loose cannon who gets results but all the same, is a loose cannon. If you look at some of the others, that attitude changes and Bond is now the guy with both the brains, and the brawn to get through every problem. In all 3 situations we see that there would be a disparity with your situation there. There's also the issue of there being huge leaps in technology from film to film, leaps that in real life often took nearly a decade of real life research and work to become viable and Bond hasn't really aged much. We also have the issue that Connery portrayed Bond 6 times over 20 years, with other actors stepping into the shoes of Bond between some of his films. His last portrayal of the character, the character of Bond was said to be 52, the same age as Connery at the time. This is a unique instance of his age being changed and reset and fucked with over some other films. Overall, I see very little reason to really be upset over Bond becoming black when we already willfully change many, many, more important features than his race. People really forget how old this franchise is, and just how little it has EVER had in common with the books. Craig and Dalton are both the most technically accurate Bond portrayals as Bond isn't funny. He is totally, utterly, humourless. And the reason we think he has humour is because Connery gave him that trait because he didn't like playing it cold.