That isn't backstory and it's the most threadbare of motivations. It's literally just, "He does the thing because he does the thing." and not something with thought in it. When someone talks about a "deeper level" with the movies and a "specific backstory and motivation that really forms the character" that's kinda contradictory to what you're saying which is that he is a cardboard standee and not a "deeper" character.
I'm not saying he's a deep character.
I'm saying adding depth to Bond, at least in the way the modern film industry wants to, is to change what he is on a fundamental level.
If you really wanted to explore Bond's character in a way that's faithful to his previous incarnations, it would be to put on trial what an awful person he is.
I don't really think Idris Elba's that great of an actor, I've never really understood the hype. I did see Luther and I thought he was just okay in that, and I've seen him in a bunch of other things and nothing about his performance seemed noteworthy.
Am I missing something?
This is one of those "i really wish this happened like 10 years ago" things because i can already see the incessant screaming that'll be happening from now until forever.
See here is the problem you didn't see. I was responding originally to a post saying you can't have someone like Idris Elba play Bond because of this "deeper level" character stuff. And then you're saying that there is no depth. With this being the case, that doesn't work as a reason Idris Elba can't play the part.
To be pedantic, if James Bond was portrayed how he was supposed to be, then it would be set in the 50s, not the 60s.
Anyway, Fleming's novels have their merits and have been adapted into great films, but I don't think 1:1 recreations of his style would work today. He was always on the nose with descriptive passages and almost obsessive about imagery. The crux of his Bond novels basically consists of Bond being incredibly manly and namedropping expensive brands, and generally his enemies somehow oppose that image, like Le Chiffre the mixed-race effeminate man that mutilates Bond's balls. Fleming pulled no punches when it came to anyone who wasn't white (especially "negroes"), gay people and how women love to be raped. Even Connery's portrayal of scumbag Bond has nothing on Fleming's novels. Casino Royale even ends withVesper Lynd committing suicide out of guilt for double-crossing Bond and the last line is him reporting "The bitch is dead".
None of that is what keeps James Bond popular today, it's down to Fleming pioneering the OTT spy genre and the imagery of Bond as a secret spy superhero diving head first into conspiracies where the world is at stake. Even before Daniel Craig played him Bond changed with the times, so if a man that Fleming would probably stereotype as a negro can keep the heart of the spy thriller alive and make a great James Bond, then I'm all for it.
I don't get why this was ever debateworthy news in the first place. Bond is a codename, and many very different actors have played him. Elba's a good choice because of his style. All there is to it.
In Fleming's books, 007 is his code name and James Bond is his legitimate name and his family history is brief. The "Bond is a code name" idea either arose from a mental justification for all the different Bonds, or because of a fan theory that floated around the web for a while. The films depict Bond independently from one another and depict him by different interpreted eras (Connery's Bond films, Brosnan's Bond films, that one where Bond gets married, Craig's Bond films, etc.). Making the code name theory legitimate, though, may be a good way to justify Idris Elba's Bond (to more rigid audiences) with little issue. They could easily have Craig's character dying or retiring and Elba's character (another agent) being promoted to Bond and continue the franchise with him (otherwise, it's kind of ridiculous that Bond would be rebooted so soon after Craig's era ends; even if it has happened to other characters in film) .
wow its like you actually can't read a thread, OR watch the movies!
It did seem suspicious Antoine Fuqua would be talking with the Broccoli estate about this. I doubt he’s anyone’s first choice to direct a Bond film.
I still am pushing for Clive Owen
Or my boy Robert Pattinson
A problem with the codename theory is that it would only solve 1 out of the approximately 570164 continuity errors that emerge if you try to treat the entire Bond film series as a single timeline
I'm sure he is a good actor and I might give the film a chance, but I am wary of it. I detest how the film industry tries to be so ~progressive~.
I fucking love Idris Elba. Aside from being a solid actor, the man's voice is pure sex.
I don't really care much either way, but this "Bond is just codename" is just silly. I've never read the books or really gone much into the lore, but it's obvious from the films that he's the same guy, even if he is played by a bunch of different people.
I don't think Idris would take the role even if they offered it given how many people would see him as "Black Bond" as opposed to "James Bond". That and last time this rumor was mentioned he got pretty annoyed at the reporter who asked about it.
As much as I would love Idris Elba as Bond and I believe he would make a great Bond, he's not a good fit for what The Vman said on the first page. I think he should be the mentor and an older, more seasoned agent that is showing a younger James Bond the ropes and how to be a real agent like Kingsman. But unlike Kingsman, Elba's character will eventually betray MI6 in a later movie like Bardem's character in Spectre and Sean Bean in Goldeneye, then Bond has to choose between loyalty to his country, his ideals, and Elba like Snake Eater.
Elba would fit real well into a bond film no question but Idris tends to (if you'll pardon the pun) play darker characters with serious faces where Bond needs an element of sillyness.
He's a good actor sure but bond needs that element of comedy and a somewhat dated sense of humour.
For clarification I mean James Bond HIMSELF needs an element of silliness and a dated sense of humour
As much as I wish this wasn't the case, it makes sense, since they've committed to the idea in-universe that all the Bonds we've had are actually the same guy (despite it making way more sense that "James Bond" is just a codename passed on Dread Pirate Roberts style).
Its just not going to be Elba period, lol I dont know why people think this even a realistic "what if?"
too old, his career has pretty much run its course at this point. I dont care how much you like him, yes hes a fine actor, but he's 45 and his biggest mainstream lead did so mediocre at the box office to the point where they pretty much cancelled plans for a franchise.
Tentpoles above all else, require a star who is going to be able to give the studio a good chunk of their life. It's not just filming the films, I think people are forgetting how big of an undertaking becoming Bond is. Media and promo wise, it might be one of the biggest commitments in the entire industry.
That people keep insisting that Elba must be black bond, I think is more indicative that there is a lack of sufficiently charismatic, handsome, black, and British stars than it is anything about Elba being tailor made for the role. I tried to think of just one, I failed. Then I googled, and it was even worse than I expected. Some people say Chiwetal Ejiofor, but everytime i see him all i can think about is how he looks like he's on the verge of crying.
Given all that, I doubt the next bond will be black. EON will predictably pick a white british male in his mid to late 30s, and it will probably not be any of the usual suspects you get on these lists (tom hiddleston, henry cavill etc). It's also worth noting that EON isn't one of these huge multi IP studios that can afford to roll the dice - bond is literally their only IP. Bond is all they do pretty much. Thats why they've resisted various fads for decades. Other studios can afford to do stuff like have all female remakes bomb around the globe, on the other hand EON can't afford to have bond sink just on the chance it gets them progressive points with the media. If there is ever a black bond, it will be because EON genuinely believes he's the best actor for the role, not because "its time for a black bond" or any other nonsense like that.
As an aside, I will offer it is a hilarious diversion to read some of the prospective bond lists - who comes up with this shit? some of the names you go "yeah i guess i could see that" and the rest of them its bizarrely off target. Like you stuck a bunch of british names in a hat and started pulling them out blindly.
It's always funny reading people's fan casts for anything. Sometimes they look at just surface qualities proposing a model or a singer to play a character because of a slight resemblance but whether that person can even act never seems to cross their mind. Or seemingly randomly selecting actors based on ones they like or some other unspecified but odd reasoning but don't seem to match the character (Charlie Hunnam as Oliver Queen/Green Arrow is one I have seen a few times, and I swear it's only because of the similar facial hair). Or a loaded cast of notable and high-profile actors in even the minor roles. Fan casts often seem spit-balled with little in the way of conceptualizing what the overall film/series would look like, just that all these characters are thrown in somehow.
Funnily enough, that would make a lot more sense. I wish the showrunners went with it, I really don't know why they didn't.
I'd be fine with it, provided he doesn't get bored and start shit-talking it like he did with the Thor movies. He's a cool dude and a good actor, and casting him as Bond would finally kinda sorta confirm that fan-theory that "James Bond" is just an alias given to whichever agent ends up being 007, which I think is way cooler in a pulpy spy movie kinda way than either "oh yeah it's been one Bond this whole time" or "each Bond exists in his own universe, every new actor reboots the series".
Even if it is 'pandering' (or: making the decision to do some social good) is that really an issue in 2018? Surely we're mature enough now to recognise that minorities don't see themselves enough in mass media, and that when they do it's often as the jokey sidekick who's funny because he's dumb/different/has an accent.
The point of art, beyond telling engaging stories, is to make the world a better place (obviously 'better' is subjective). Sometimes this is by teaching a direct lesson, or helping people relieve stress, or giving people a safe place to cry, or by setting an example and giving minority kids a positive role model to look up to.
Like let's assume they picked award-winning, highly-skilled black actor Idris Elba to play James Bond partly because they decided that it was a good decision for society. How is that actually an issue given the nature of the role?
To be perfectly honest, I feel like charismatic and handsome male actors are on the downturn in general, not just black actors. When I started thinking about actors I know who could be Bond and are young enough to star in multiple movies, I came up completely blank. In general, it feels like leading men just keep getting older, and Hollywood isn't interested in developing new blood to replace them.
