Conservatives Should Welcome A Black James Bond - The essence of James Bond is not identity politics, but shooting a villain with a spear gun, making a joke, and getting the girl.

[Ubiquitous]

Apparently the internet is in uproar (or at least a mild kerfuffle)
over the possibility of a black actor playing Bond … James Bond. While
many are enthusiastic about the idea, others, such as English media
personality Katie Hopkins, hate it.

I don’t see what the fuss is about.

Occasionally recasting the lead is a franchise tradition. Fans debate
who best exemplified James Bond, the man whose enduring essence is that
he is an elegant, martini-loving, skirt-chasing, British spy with cool
gadgets and a license to kill. White skin is not essential to that
role, regardless of what Hopkins and her ilk believe.

Of course, some of the other ideas floated for “representation” would
change the character in crucial, and therefore unacceptable, ways.
Casting a female as “Jane Bond” would certainly alter the character in
essential ways. And given how central “Bond girls” are to the character
and to the franchise, the same applies to the idea of a gay James Bond.
Likewise, although a pious Bond might be a better role model, he would
be much less like James Bond.

Even with a license to kill, there are still rules. As Bond once put
it, “My dear girl, there are some things that just aren’t done. Such
as, drinking Dom Perignon ’53 above the temperature of 38 degrees
Fahrenheit.” Ditto for making James Bond into an intersectional mascot.
But a bloke with dark skin could still play an elegant, martini-loving,
skirt-chasing, British spy with cool gadgets and a some notches on his
Walther PPK. If Hollywood wants to create movies about female or gay or
[insert identity category here] 00 agents, there is plenty of space for
spin-offs.

The Bond franchise is not a period piece, forever stuck in the age of
its origin. It has moved with the times, and so the possibility of the
leading man having dark skin is simply the logical product of realistic
casting. There are undoubtedly black Brits successfully working as
agents in Her Majesty’s real secret service. In all likelihood, there
were some back when Ian Fleming created James Bond, but they were
unlikely to be written up as the main character of a spy thriller. That
it is now culturally possible to imagine Bond as a black man is genuine
progress (and it is possible — after all, the British royal family just
welcomed a multiracial American).

Hopkins complaint that “Bond is a white guy” shows her inability to
separate the essential from that which is not. Many of Bond’s physical
attributes have changed between actors; given the racial realities of
modern Britain, why should skin color be any different?

Thus, the primary qualification for any actor looking to replace Daniel
Craig when he relinquishes the role is the ability to convincingly
portray James Bond. Choosing to restrict the role to actors of one race
would be a mistake — whether it was done to keep Bond white or to
ensure a black James Bond. In either case, the casting would be driven
by non-essential characteristics, at the possible cost of passing over
a better actor.

However, if the casting is fair, then there will eventually be a
nonwhite actor who earns the role of James Bond. It may not happen at
the next opening for the role, but it will happen someday. And we
should welcome this.

If the character of James Bond is successfully played by a good black
actor, it would be a blow against both the identity-politics bean
counters and the white supremacists. For both groups, race is essential
to personal identity. And both are wrong.

This is not to say that race doesn’t matter. It does. For historical
and sociological reasons (sometimes complicated, sometimes brutally
simple), it matters, in James Bond’s Britain as well as in America. To
pretend otherwise is ahistorical and therefore un-conservative. We know
that the sins of the fathers echo down through many generations. And
racism is a sin. The past (and too often, present) treatment of race as
essential to defining a person, and its use as a justification for
injustice, was wrong.

Because of this cultural legacy of wrongdoing, having the character of
James Bond portrayed by a black actor would have meaning. It would
provide a marker on our cultural movement away from racial essentialism
and the oppression of people because of their race.

Which actor plays an iconic British superspy will be only a small part
of the road to racial reconciliation, but it would have some value. If
a black actor is cast in the role of James Bond, then the race-hustling
identity politics types will briefly celebrate and then find something
to complain about, white supremacist losers will whine online, and the
rest of us can enjoy a (hopefully) good action flick. And then we can
all move on, a little more confident that race is not essential to
character or identity. The essence of James Bond is not identity
politics, but shooting a villain with a spear gun, making a joke, and
getting the girl.

: Nathanael Blake has a PhD in political theory. He lives in Missouri.

[Neill Massello]

Ubiquitous <***@polaris.net> quoted a typically stupid article from
The Federalist with the following URL:

<http://thefederalist.com/2018/08/17/conservatives-should-welcome-a-black-james-bond/>

[moviePig]

Post by Neill Massello
<http://thefederalist.com/2018/08/17/conservatives-should-welcome-a-black-james-bond/>

I'll welcome a black James Bond who teams up with a white Superfly...

[Your Name]

Post by moviePig

Post by Neill Massello
<http://thefederalist.com/2018/08/17/conservatives-should-welcome-a-black-james-bond/>

I'll welcome a black James Bond who teams up with a white Superfly...

There won't be true "equality" until they let an Asian *man* play
Wonder Woman. ;-)

[Mack A. Damia]

Post by Neill Massello
<http://thefederalist.com/2018/08/17/conservatives-should-welcome-a-black-james-bond/>

Ian Fleming would not have approved such a stunt. He was the
consummate snob and a notoriously racist.

[hector]

Post by Ubiquitous
Apparently the internet is in uproar (or at least a mild kerfuffle)
over the possibility of a black actor playing Bond … James Bond. While
many are enthusiastic about the idea, others, such as English media
personality Katie Hopkins, hate it.
I don’t see what the fuss is about.
Occasionally recasting the lead is a franchise tradition. Fans debate
who best exemplified James Bond, the man whose enduring essence is that
he is an elegant, martini-loving, skirt-chasing, British spy with cool
gadgets and a license to kill. White skin is not essential to that
role, regardless of what Hopkins and her ilk believe.
Of course, some of the other ideas floated for “representation” would
change the character in crucial, and therefore unacceptable, ways.
Casting a female as “Jane Bond” would certainly alter the character in
essential ways. And given how central “Bond girls” are to the character
and to the franchise, the same applies to the idea of a gay James Bond.
Likewise, although a pious Bond might be a better role model, he would
be much less like James Bond.
Even with a license to kill, there are still rules. As Bond once put
it, “My dear girl, there are some things that just aren’t done. Such
as, drinking Dom Perignon ’53 above the temperature of 38 degrees
Fahrenheit.” Ditto for making James Bond into an intersectional mascot.
But a bloke with dark skin could still play an elegant, martini-loving,
skirt-chasing, British spy with cool gadgets and a some notches on his
Walther PPK. If Hollywood wants to create movies about female or gay or
[insert identity category here] 00 agents, there is plenty of space for
spin-offs.
The Bond franchise is not a period piece, forever stuck in the age of
its origin. It has moved with the times, and so the possibility of the
leading man having dark skin is simply the logical product of realistic
casting. There are undoubtedly black Brits successfully working as
agents in Her Majesty’s real secret service. In all likelihood, there
were some back when Ian Fleming created James Bond, but they were
unlikely to be written up as the main character of a spy thriller. That
it is now culturally possible to imagine Bond as a black man is genuine
progress (and it is possible — after all, the British royal family just
welcomed a multiracial American).
Hopkins complaint that “Bond is a white guy” shows her inability to
separate the essential from that which is not. Many of Bond’s physical
attributes have changed between actors; given the racial realities of
modern Britain, why should skin color be any different?
Thus, the primary qualification for any actor looking to replace Daniel
Craig when he relinquishes the role is the ability to convincingly
portray James Bond. Choosing to restrict the role to actors of one race
would be a mistake — whether it was done to keep Bond white or to
ensure a black James Bond. In either case, the casting would be driven
by non-essential characteristics, at the possible cost of passing over
a better actor.
However, if the casting is fair, then there will eventually be a
nonwhite actor who earns the role of James Bond. It may not happen at
the next opening for the role, but it will happen someday. And we
should welcome this.
If the character of James Bond is successfully played by a good black
actor, it would be a blow against both the identity-politics bean
counters and the white supremacists. For both groups, race is essential
to personal identity. And both are wrong.
This is not to say that race doesn’t matter. It does. For historical
and sociological reasons (sometimes complicated, sometimes brutally
simple), it matters, in James Bond’s Britain as well as in America. To
pretend otherwise is ahistorical and therefore un-conservative. We know
that the sins of the fathers echo down through many generations. And
racism is a sin. The past (and too often, present) treatment of race as
essential to defining a person, and its use as a justification for
injustice, was wrong.
Because of this cultural legacy of wrongdoing, having the character of
James Bond portrayed by a black actor would have meaning. It would
provide a marker on our cultural movement away from racial essentialism
and the oppression of people because of their race.
Which actor plays an iconic British superspy will be only a small part
of the road to racial reconciliation, but it would have some value. If
a black actor is cast in the role of James Bond, then the race-hustling
identity politics types will briefly celebrate and then find something
to complain about, white supremacist losers will whine online, and the
rest of us can enjoy a (hopefully) good action flick. And then we can
all move on, a little more confident that race is not essential to
character or identity. The essence of James Bond is not identity
politics, but shooting a villain with a spear gun, making a joke, and
getting the girl.
: Nathanael Blake has a PhD in political theory. He lives in Missouri.

Time to end James Bond.
They can cast a black woman for all I care, and they have probably
thought about it. I'll end my long following of the series. I have all
of them on bluray and one or two short on dvd.
So many things 'don't matter' but less people will care about them too.
Skyfall wasn't much good, Spectre, bad digital colouring and all, at
least warranted a sequel.
Have Americans exported the need for 'racial reconciliation'? Think
about that. 'Racial reconciliation' for questionable immigration
policies into Britain these days.

[John Savard]

Post by hector
They can cast a black woman for all I care, and they have probably
thought about it.

Apparently, what they're going to do is give a black woman James Bond's old
number. After she is killed in the first ten minutes of the movie, they call the
real thing out of retirement.

No great achievement for political correctness then, so no one has to worry.

John Savard

[e***@hotmail.com]

(Quote)

Post by hector
They can cast a black woman for all I care, and they have probably
thought about it.

Apparently, what they're going to do is give a black woman James Bond's old
number. After she is killed in the first ten minutes of the movie, they call the
real thing out of retirement.
(End Quote)

I don't think she's going to be killed ten minutes into the film. Bond is called out of retirement by Leiter who needs help. Bond has to work with Nomi (007) to accomplish the mission. Nomi will;

a. Be killed

b. Be wounded enough to warrant leaving the Service.

c. (And this one just dawned on me) Turn our to be the big bad who's been playing a double game and Bond, after spending the entire movie bonding with her, will have to kill her! (Maybe a little too close to TWINE, but what are you going to do?)

Either way, the film ends with Nomi out and Bond back as 007.

[John Savard]

Post by e***@hotmail.com
c. (And this one just dawned on me) Turn our to be the big bad who's been playing a double game and Bond, after spending the entire movie bonding with her, will have to kill her! (Maybe a little too close to TWINE, but what are you going to do?)

Good thing Bond has Leiter with him. Otherwise, he would have a tough time
explaining that yes, she really was the big bad, and Bond wasn't just resenting
a successor...

Of course, there's d) Since Bond proved that he is still needed, but Nomi did a
great job too, Bond gets his old number back, and Nomi is now 0014 or something.

I mean, this isn't the NHL. MI5 and/or MI6 don't have to apologize to anyone for
bringing back a retired number.

John Savard

[hector]

Post by Ubiquitous
Apparently the internet is in uproar (or at least a mild kerfuffle)
over the possibility of a black actor playing Bond … James Bond. While
many are enthusiastic about the idea, others, such as English media
personality Katie Hopkins, hate it.
I don’t see what the fuss is about.
Occasionally recasting the lead is a franchise tradition. Fans debate
who best exemplified James Bond, the man whose enduring essence is that
he is an elegant, martini-loving, skirt-chasing, British spy with cool
gadgets and a license to kill. White skin is not essential to that
role, regardless of what Hopkins and her ilk believe.
Of course, some of the other ideas floated for “representation” would
change the character in crucial, and therefore unacceptable, ways.
Casting a female as “Jane Bond” would certainly alter the character in
essential ways. And given how central “Bond girls” are to the character
and to the franchise, the same applies to the idea of a gay James Bond.
Likewise, although a pious Bond might be a better role model, he would
be much less like James Bond.
Even with a license to kill, there are still rules. As Bond once put
it, “My dear girl, there are some things that just aren’t done. Such
as, drinking Dom Perignon ’53 above the temperature of 38 degrees
Fahrenheit.” Ditto for making James Bond into an intersectional mascot.
But a bloke with dark skin could still play an elegant, martini-loving,
skirt-chasing, British spy with cool gadgets and a some notches on his
Walther PPK. If Hollywood wants to create movies about female or gay or
[insert identity category here] 00 agents, there is plenty of space for
spin-offs.
The Bond franchise is not a period piece, forever stuck in the age of
its origin. It has moved with the times, and so the possibility of the
leading man having dark skin is simply the logical product of realistic
casting. There are undoubtedly black Brits successfully working as
agents in Her Majesty’s real secret service. In all likelihood, there
were some back when Ian Fleming created James Bond, but they were
unlikely to be written up as the main character of a spy thriller. That
it is now culturally possible to imagine Bond as a black man is genuine
progress (and it is possible — after all, the British royal family just
welcomed a multiracial American).
Hopkins complaint that “Bond is a white guy” shows her inability to
separate the essential from that which is not. Many of Bond’s physical
attributes have changed between actors; given the racial realities of
modern Britain, why should skin color be any different?
Thus, the primary qualification for any actor looking to replace Daniel
Craig when he relinquishes the role is the ability to convincingly
portray James Bond. Choosing to restrict the role to actors of one race
would be a mistake — whether it was done to keep Bond white or to
ensure a black James Bond. In either case, the casting would be driven
by non-essential characteristics, at the possible cost of passing over
a better actor.
However, if the casting is fair, then there will eventually be a
nonwhite actor who earns the role of James Bond. It may not happen at
the next opening for the role, but it will happen someday. And we
should welcome this.
If the character of James Bond is successfully played by a good black
actor, it would be a blow against both the identity-politics bean
counters and the white supremacists. For both groups, race is essential
to personal identity. And both are wrong.
This is not to say that race doesn’t matter. It does. For historical
and sociological reasons (sometimes complicated, sometimes brutally
simple), it matters, in James Bond’s Britain as well as in America. To
pretend otherwise is ahistorical and therefore un-conservative. We know
that the sins of the fathers echo down through many generations. And
racism is a sin. The past (and too often, present) treatment of race as
essential to defining a person, and its use as a justification for
injustice, was wrong.
Because of this cultural legacy of wrongdoing, having the character of
James Bond portrayed by a black actor would have meaning. It would
provide a marker on our cultural movement away from racial essentialism
and the oppression of people because of their race.
Which actor plays an iconic British superspy will be only a small part
of the road to racial reconciliation, but it would have some value. If
a black actor is cast in the role of James Bond, then the race-hustling
identity politics types will briefly celebrate and then find something
to complain about, white supremacist losers will whine online, and the
rest of us can enjoy a (hopefully) good action flick. And then we can
all move on, a little more confident that race is not essential to
character or identity. The essence of James Bond is not identity
politics, but shooting a villain with a spear gun, making a joke, and
getting the girl.
: Nathanael Blake has a PhD in political theory. He lives in Missouri.

Look up 'cuckservative'.

[hector]

Post by Ubiquitous
Apparently the internet is in uproar (or at least a mild kerfuffle)
over the possibility of a black actor playing Bond … James Bond. While
many are enthusiastic about the idea, others, such as English media
personality Katie Hopkins, hate it.
I don’t see what the fuss is about.
Occasionally recasting the lead is a franchise tradition. Fans debate
who best exemplified James Bond, the man whose enduring essence is that
he is an elegant, martini-loving, skirt-chasing, British spy with cool
gadgets and a license to kill. White skin is not essential to that
role, regardless of what Hopkins and her ilk believe.
Of course, some of the other ideas floated for “representation” would
change the character in crucial, and therefore unacceptable, ways.
Casting a female as “Jane Bond” would certainly alter the character in
essential ways. And given how central “Bond girls” are to the character
and to the franchise, the same applies to the idea of a gay James Bond.
Likewise, although a pious Bond might be a better role model, he would
be much less like James Bond.
Even with a license to kill, there are still rules. As Bond once put
it, “My dear girl, there are some things that just aren’t done. Such
as, drinking Dom Perignon ’53 above the temperature of 38 degrees
Fahrenheit.” Ditto for making James Bond into an intersectional mascot.
But a bloke with dark skin could still play an elegant, martini-loving,
skirt-chasing, British spy with cool gadgets and a some notches on his
Walther PPK. If Hollywood wants to create movies about female or gay or
[insert identity category here] 00 agents, there is plenty of space for
spin-offs.
The Bond franchise is not a period piece, forever stuck in the age of
its origin. It has moved with the times, and so the possibility of the
leading man having dark skin is simply the logical product of realistic
casting. There are undoubtedly black Brits successfully working as
agents in Her Majesty’s real secret service. In all likelihood, there
were some back when Ian Fleming created James Bond, but they were
unlikely to be written up as the main character of a spy thriller. That
it is now culturally possible to imagine Bond as a black man is genuine
progress (and it is possible — after all, the British royal family just
welcomed a multiracial American).
Hopkins complaint that “Bond is a white guy” shows her inability to
separate the essential from that which is not. Many of Bond’s physical
attributes have changed between actors; given the racial realities of
modern Britain, why should skin color be any different?
Thus, the primary qualification for any actor looking to replace Daniel
Craig when he relinquishes the role is the ability to convincingly
portray James Bond. Choosing to restrict the role to actors of one race
would be a mistake — whether it was done to keep Bond white or to
ensure a black James Bond. In either case, the casting would be driven
by non-essential characteristics, at the possible cost of passing over
a better actor.
However, if the casting is fair, then there will eventually be a
nonwhite actor who earns the role of James Bond. It may not happen at
the next opening for the role, but it will happen someday. And we
should welcome this.
If the character of James Bond is successfully played by a good black
actor, it would be a blow against both the identity-politics bean
counters and the white supremacists. For both groups, race is essential
to personal identity. And both are wrong.
This is not to say that race doesn’t matter. It does. For historical
and sociological reasons (sometimes complicated, sometimes brutally
simple), it matters, in James Bond’s Britain as well as in America. To
pretend otherwise is ahistorical and therefore un-conservative. We know
that the sins of the fathers echo down through many generations. And
racism is a sin. The past (and too often, present) treatment of race as
essential to defining a person, and its use as a justification for
injustice, was wrong.
Because of this cultural legacy of wrongdoing, having the character of
James Bond portrayed by a black actor would have meaning. It would
provide a marker on our cultural movement away from racial essentialism
and the oppression of people because of their race.
Which actor plays an iconic British superspy will be only a small part
of the road to racial reconciliation, but it would have some value. If
a black actor is cast in the role of James Bond, then the race-hustling
identity politics types will briefly celebrate and then find something
to complain about, white supremacist losers will whine online, and the
rest of us can enjoy a (hopefully) good action flick. And then we can
all move on, a little more confident that race is not essential to
character or identity. The essence of James Bond is not identity
politics, but shooting a villain with a spear gun, making a joke, and
getting the girl.
: Nathanael Blake has a PhD in political theory. He lives in Missouri.

Why not invent a new character? Why rake over the bones of Ian Fleming
for virtue signaling?
The new globalist, pro immigration black British secret service agent.
He can fight rightists wherever they gather and defend and uphold
leftist gangs seeking violence.
For God, Queen, country and the corporation.

[Your Name]

Post by hector

Post by Ubiquitous
Apparently the internet is in uproar (or at least a mild kerfuffle)
over the possibility of a black actor playing Bond … James Bond. While
many are enthusiastic about the idea, others, such as English media
personality Katie Hopkins, hate it.
I don’t see what the fuss is about.
Occasionally recasting the lead is a franchise tradition. Fans debate
who best exemplified James Bond, the man whose enduring essence is that
he is an elegant, martini-loving, skirt-chasing, British spy with cool
gadgets and a license to kill. White skin is not essential to that
role, regardless of what Hopkins and her ilk believe.
Of course, some of the other ideas floated for “representation” would
change the character in crucial, and therefore unacceptable, ways.
Casting a female as “Jane Bond” would certainly alter the character in
essential ways. And given how central “Bond girls” are to the character
and to the franchise, the same applies to the idea of a gay James Bond.
Likewise, although a pious Bond might be a better role model, he would
be much less like James Bond.
Even with a license to kill, there are still rules. As Bond once put
it, “My dear girl, there are some things that just aren’t done. Such
as, drinking Dom Perignon ’53 above the temperature of 38 degrees
Fahrenheit.” Ditto for making James Bond into an intersectional mascot.
But a bloke with dark skin could still play an elegant, martini-loving,
skirt-chasing, British spy with cool gadgets and a some notches on his
Walther PPK. If Hollywood wants to create movies about female or gay or
[insert identity category here] 00 agents, there is plenty of space for
spin-offs.
The Bond franchise is not a period piece, forever stuck in the age of
its origin. It has moved with the times, and so the possibility of the
leading man having dark skin is simply the logical product of realistic
casting. There are undoubtedly black Brits successfully working as
agents in Her Majesty’s real secret service. In all likelihood, there
were some back when Ian Fleming created James Bond, but they were
unlikely to be written up as the main character of a spy thriller. That
it is now culturally possible to imagine Bond as a black man is genuine
progress (and it is possible — after all, the British royal family just
welcomed a multiracial American).
Hopkins complaint that “Bond is a white guy” shows her inability to
separate the essential from that which is not. Many of Bond’s physical
attributes have changed between actors; given the racial realities of
modern Britain, why should skin color be any different?
Thus, the primary qualification for any actor looking to replace Daniel
Craig when he relinquishes the role is the ability to convincingly
portray James Bond. Choosing to restrict the role to actors of one race
would be a mistake — whether it was done to keep Bond white or to
ensure a black James Bond. In either case, the casting would be driven
by non-essential characteristics, at the possible cost of passing over
a better actor.
However, if the casting is fair, then there will eventually be a
nonwhite actor who earns the role of James Bond. It may not happen at
the next opening for the role, but it will happen someday. And we
should welcome this.
If the character of James Bond is successfully played by a good black
actor, it would be a blow against both the identity-politics bean
counters and the white supremacists. For both groups, race is essential
to personal identity. And both are wrong.
This is not to say that race doesn’t matter. It does. For historical
and sociological reasons (sometimes complicated, sometimes brutally
simple), it matters, in James Bond’s Britain as well as in America. To
pretend otherwise is ahistorical and therefore un-conservative. We know
that the sins of the fathers echo down through many generations. And
racism is a sin. The past (and too often, present) treatment of race as
essential to defining a person, and its use as a justification for
injustice, was wrong.
Because of this cultural legacy of wrongdoing, having the character of
James Bond portrayed by a black actor would have meaning. It would
provide a marker on our cultural movement away from racial essentialism
and the oppression of people because of their race.
Which actor plays an iconic British superspy will be only a small part
of the road to racial reconciliation, but it would have some value. If
a black actor is cast in the role of James Bond, then the race-hustling
identity politics types will briefly celebrate and then find something
to complain about, white supremacist losers will whine online, and the
rest of us can enjoy a (hopefully) good action flick. And then we can
all move on, a little more confident that race is not essential to
character or identity. The essence of James Bond is not identity
politics, but shooting a villain with a spear gun, making a joke, and
getting the girl.
: Nathanael Blake has a PhD in political theory. He lives in Missouri.

Why not invent a new character? Why rake over the bones of Ian Fleming
for virtue signaling?

<snip>

Because there's almost nobody left in Hollwyeird with actual creative
talent these days. They're mostly lazy-ass, talentless scum who just go
around butchering or ripping-off someone else's hard work. :-(

[hector]

Post by Your Name

Post by hector

Post by Ubiquitous
Apparently the internet is in uproar (or at least a mild kerfuffle)
over the possibility of a black actor playing Bond … James Bond. While
many are enthusiastic about the idea, others, such as English media
personality Katie Hopkins, hate it.
I don’t see what the fuss is about.
Occasionally recasting the lead is a franchise tradition. Fans debate
who best exemplified James Bond, the man whose enduring essence is that
he is an elegant, martini-loving, skirt-chasing, British spy with cool
gadgets and a license to kill. White skin is not essential to that
role, regardless of what Hopkins and her ilk believe.
Of course, some of the other ideas floated for “representation”
would
change the character in crucial, and therefore unacceptable, ways.
Casting a female as “Jane Bond” would certainly alter the
character in
essential ways. And given how central “Bond girls” are to the
character
and to the franchise, the same applies to the idea of a gay James Bond.
Likewise, although a pious Bond might be a better role model, he would
be much less like James Bond.
Even with a license to kill, there are still rules. As Bond once put
it, “My dear girl, there are some things that just aren’t done. Such
as, drinking Dom Perignon ’53 above the temperature of 38 degrees
Fahrenheit.” Ditto for making James Bond into an intersectional
mascot.
But a bloke with dark skin could still play an elegant, martini-loving,
skirt-chasing, British spy with cool gadgets and a some notches on his
Walther PPK. If Hollywood wants to create movies about female or gay or
[insert identity category here] 00 agents, there is plenty of space for
spin-offs.
The Bond franchise is not a period piece, forever stuck in the age of
its origin. It has moved with the times, and so the possibility of the
leading man having dark skin is simply the logical product of realistic
casting. There are undoubtedly black Brits successfully working as
agents in Her Majesty’s real secret service. In all likelihood, there
were some back when Ian Fleming created James Bond, but they were
unlikely to be written up as the main character of a spy thriller. That
it is now culturally possible to imagine Bond as a black man is genuine
progress (and it is possible — after all, the British royal family
just
welcomed a multiracial American).
Hopkins complaint that “Bond is a white guy” shows her inability to
separate the essential from that which is not. Many of Bond’s physical
attributes have changed between actors; given the racial realities of
modern Britain, why should skin color be any different?
Thus, the primary qualification for any actor looking to replace Daniel
Craig when he relinquishes the role is the ability to convincingly
portray James Bond. Choosing to restrict the role to actors of one race
would be a mistake — whether it was done to keep Bond white or to
ensure a black James Bond. In either case, the casting would be driven
by non-essential characteristics, at the possible cost of passing over
a better actor.
However, if the casting is fair, then there will eventually be a
nonwhite actor who earns the role of James Bond. It may not happen at
the next opening for the role, but it will happen someday. And we
should welcome this.
If the character of James Bond is successfully played by a good black
actor, it would be a blow against both the identity-politics bean
counters and the white supremacists. For both groups, race is essential
to personal identity. And both are wrong.
This is not to say that race doesn’t matter. It does. For historical
and sociological reasons (sometimes complicated, sometimes brutally
simple), it matters, in James Bond’s Britain as well as in America. To
pretend otherwise is ahistorical and therefore un-conservative. We know
that the sins of the fathers echo down through many generations. And
racism is a sin. The past (and too often, present) treatment of race as
essential to defining a person, and its use as a justification for
injustice, was wrong.
Because of this cultural legacy of wrongdoing, having the character of
James Bond portrayed by a black actor would have meaning. It would
provide a marker on our cultural movement away from racial essentialism
and the oppression of people because of their race.
Which actor plays an iconic British superspy will be only a small part
of the road to racial reconciliation, but it would have some value. If
a black actor is cast in the role of James Bond, then the race-hustling
identity politics types will briefly celebrate and then find something
to complain about, white supremacist losers will whine online, and the
rest of us can enjoy a (hopefully) good action flick. And then we can
all move on, a little more confident that race is not essential to
character or identity. The essence of James Bond is not identity
politics, but shooting a villain with a spear gun, making a joke, and
getting the girl.
: Nathanael Blake has a PhD in political theory. He lives in Missouri.

Why not invent a new character? Why rake over the bones of Ian
Fleming for virtue signaling?

<snip>
Because there's almost nobody left in Hollwyeird with actual creative
talent these days. They're mostly lazy-ass, talentless scum who just go
around butchering or ripping-off someone else's hard work. :-(

Captain America is the closest thing to Bond in an American character.
Maybe they could have Lieutenant Britain or something. Captain
Brittania, fighting for diversity and inclusiveness and politically
central values for all.

[Your Name]

Post by hector

Post by Your Name

Post by hector
Why not invent a new character? Why rake over the bones of Ian Fleming
for virtue signaling?

<snip>
Because there's almost nobody left in Hollwyeird with actual creative
talent these days. They're mostly lazy-ass, talentless scum who just go
around butchering or ripping-off someone else's hard work. :-(

Captain America is the closest thing to Bond in an American character.

Nowhere near the same thing. Captain America is a superhero. James Bond
is a spy / secret agent. An American verison of James Bond would be
more like Jason Bourne, Jack Ryan, Jack Reacher, etc.

Post by hector
Maybe they could have Lieutenant Britain or something. Captain
Brittania, fighting for diversity and inclusiveness and politically
central values for all.

Marvel already has a 'Captain Britain' character, among other British
superheroes.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Britain>

Back in 2016 there were even rumours of a TV series for him.
<https://metro.co.uk/2016/03/28/could-marvel-be-giving-their-first-british-superhero-a-tv-show-5779927/>

[hector]

Post by Your Name

Post by hector

Post by Your Name

Post by hector
Why not invent a new character? Why rake over the bones of Ian
Fleming for virtue signaling?

<snip>
Because there's almost nobody left in Hollwyeird with actual creative
talent these days. They're mostly lazy-ass, talentless scum who just
go around butchering or ripping-off someone else's hard work. :-(

Captain America is the closest thing to Bond in an American character.

Nowhere near the same thing. Captain America is a superhero. James Bond
is a spy / secret agent. An American verison of James Bond would be more
like Jason Bourne, Jack Ryan, Jack Reacher, etc.

Post by hector
Maybe they could have Lieutenant Britain or something. Captain
Brittania, fighting for diversity and inclusiveness and politically
central values for all.

Marvel already has a 'Captain Britain' character, among other British
superheroes.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Britain>
Back in 2016 there were even rumours of a TV series for him.
<https://metro.co.uk/2016/03/28/could-marvel-be-giving-their-first-british-superhero-a-tv-show-5779927/>

You live and learn

[e***@hotmail.com]

(Quote)
Captain America is the closest thing to Bond in an American character.
Maybe they could have Lieutenant Britain or something. Captain
Brittania, fighting for diversity and inclusiveness and politically
central values for all.
(End Quote)

Marvel had a Captain Britain. He, Captain America, Sub Marinor and the ORIGINAL Human Torch (Who got a cameo in the first Captain America movie!) formed a team called The Invaders!

[Lee McIlmoyle]

Post by Ubiquitous
Apparently the internet is in uproar (or at least a mild kerfuffle)
over the possibility of a black actor playing Bond … James Bond. While
many are enthusiastic about the idea, others, such as English media
personality Katie Hopkins, hate it.
I don’t see what the fuss is about.
Occasionally recasting the lead is a franchise tradition. Fans debate
who best exemplified James Bond, the man whose enduring essence is that
he is an elegant, martini-loving, skirt-chasing, British spy with cool
gadgets and a license to kill. White skin is not essential to that
role, regardless of what Hopkins and her ilk believe.
Of course, some of the other ideas floated for “representation” would
change the character in crucial, and therefore unacceptable, ways.
Casting a female as “Jane Bond” would certainly alter the character in
essential ways. And given how central “Bond girls” are to the character
and to the franchise, the same applies to the idea of a gay James Bond.
Likewise, although a pious Bond might be a better role model, he would
be much less like James Bond.
Even with a license to kill, there are still rules. As Bond once put
it, “My dear girl, there are some things that just aren’t done. Such
as, drinking Dom Perignon ’53 above the temperature of 38 degrees
Fahrenheit.” Ditto for making James Bond into an intersectional mascot.
But a bloke with dark skin could still play an elegant, martini-loving,
skirt-chasing, British spy with cool gadgets and a some notches on his
Walther PPK. If Hollywood wants to create movies about female or gay or
[insert identity category here] 00 agents, there is plenty of space for
spin-offs.
The Bond franchise is not a period piece, forever stuck in the age of
its origin. It has moved with the times, and so the possibility of the
leading man having dark skin is simply the logical product of realistic
casting. There are undoubtedly black Brits successfully working as
agents in Her Majesty’s real secret service. In all likelihood, there
were some back when Ian Fleming created James Bond, but they were
unlikely to be written up as the main character of a spy thriller. That
it is now culturally possible to imagine Bond as a black man is genuine
progress (and it is possible — after all, the British royal family just
welcomed a multiracial American).
Hopkins complaint that “Bond is a white guy” shows her inability to
separate the essential from that which is not. Many of Bond’s physical
attributes have changed between actors; given the racial realities of
modern Britain, why should skin color be any different?
Thus, the primary qualification for any actor looking to replace Daniel
Craig when he relinquishes the role is the ability to convincingly
portray James Bond. Choosing to restrict the role to actors of one race
would be a mistake — whether it was done to keep Bond white or to
ensure a black James Bond. In either case, the casting would be driven
by non-essential characteristics, at the possible cost of passing over
a better actor.
However, if the casting is fair, then there will eventually be a
nonwhite actor who earns the role of James Bond. It may not happen at
the next opening for the role, but it will happen someday. And we
should welcome this.
If the character of James Bond is successfully played by a good black
actor, it would be a blow against both the identity-politics bean
counters and the white supremacists. For both groups, race is essential
to personal identity. And both are wrong.
This is not to say that race doesn’t matter. It does. For historical
and sociological reasons (sometimes complicated, sometimes brutally
simple), it matters, in James Bond’s Britain as well as in America. To
pretend otherwise is ahistorical and therefore un-conservative. We know
that the sins of the fathers echo down through many generations. And
racism is a sin. The past (and too often, present) treatment of race as
essential to defining a person, and its use as a justification for
injustice, was wrong.
Because of this cultural legacy of wrongdoing, having the character of
James Bond portrayed by a black actor would have meaning. It would
provide a marker on our cultural movement away from racial essentialism
and the oppression of people because of their race.
Which actor plays an iconic British superspy will be only a small part
of the road to racial reconciliation, but it would have some value. If
a black actor is cast in the role of James Bond, then the race-hustling
identity politics types will briefly celebrate and then find something
to complain about, white supremacist losers will whine online, and the
rest of us can enjoy a (hopefully) good action flick. And then we can
all move on, a little more confident that race is not essential to
character or identity. The essence of James Bond is not identity
politics, but shooting a villain with a spear gun, making a joke, and
getting the girl.
: Nathanael Blake has a PhD in political theory. He lives in Missouri.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.

I'm good with all of this. In fact, I kinda liked what I saw of Atomic Blond, too, so a female (of any race) would be a good watch for me, so long as they did it up right. It's just the punters and the bigots who will grouse, and the ones who have been invested in the series as it has stood are dying off, one by one. Soon we will all be gone, and our multiracial grandchildren will look back on this argument with a nervous chuckle.

The characters of the Bond continuum have all come to be so much more than just what Fleming laid out, including James himself. Also, we haven't had a true Fleming novel adaptation in ages. I don't see the problem anymore. The key factors here are: British Secret Agent; Licensed to Kill; Promiscuous; substance-abusing; violent and merciless; and loyal to a fault. Everything else is frosting.

So yeah, PLEASE hire a non-Caucasian actor of any gender to play the role. The sooner, the better.

Just be aware: we will all be watching, and if it doesn't smell authentically of a classic Bond film (or, more optimistically, novel), regardless of casting decisions, we will let you know what we think. I'm sure EON knows this.

[Lee McIlmoyle]

Post by Ubiquitous
Apparently the internet is in uproar (or at least a mild kerfuffle)
over the possibility of a black actor playing Bond … James Bond. While
many are enthusiastic about the idea, others, such as English media
personality Katie Hopkins, hate it.
I don’t see what the fuss is about.
Occasionally recasting the lead is a franchise tradition. Fans debate
who best exemplified James Bond, the man whose enduring essence is that
he is an elegant, martini-loving, skirt-chasing, British spy with cool
gadgets and a license to kill. White skin is not essential to that
role, regardless of what Hopkins and her ilk believe.
Of course, some of the other ideas floated for “representation” would
change the character in crucial, and therefore unacceptable, ways.
Casting a female as “Jane Bond” would certainly alter the character in
essential ways. And given how central “Bond girls” are to the character
and to the franchise, the same applies to the idea of a gay James Bond.
Likewise, although a pious Bond might be a better role model, he would
be much less like James Bond.
Even with a license to kill, there are still rules. As Bond once put
it, “My dear girl, there are some things that just aren’t done. Such
as, drinking Dom Perignon ’53 above the temperature of 38 degrees
Fahrenheit.” Ditto for making James Bond into an intersectional mascot.
But a bloke with dark skin could still play an elegant, martini-loving,
skirt-chasing, British spy with cool gadgets and a some notches on his
Walther PPK. If Hollywood wants to create movies about female or gay or
[insert identity category here] 00 agents, there is plenty of space for
spin-offs.
The Bond franchise is not a period piece, forever stuck in the age of
its origin. It has moved with the times, and so the possibility of the
leading man having dark skin is simply the logical product of realistic
casting. There are undoubtedly black Brits successfully working as
agents in Her Majesty’s real secret service. In all likelihood, there
were some back when Ian Fleming created James Bond, but they were
unlikely to be written up as the main character of a spy thriller. That
it is now culturally possible to imagine Bond as a black man is genuine
progress (and it is possible — after all, the British royal family just
welcomed a multiracial American).
Hopkins complaint that “Bond is a white guy” shows her inability to
separate the essential from that which is not. Many of Bond’s physical
attributes have changed between actors; given the racial realities of
modern Britain, why should skin color be any different?
Thus, the primary qualification for any actor looking to replace Daniel
Craig when he relinquishes the role is the ability to convincingly
portray James Bond. Choosing to restrict the role to actors of one race
would be a mistake — whether it was done to keep Bond white or to
ensure a black James Bond. In either case, the casting would be driven
by non-essential characteristics, at the possible cost of passing over
a better actor.
However, if the casting is fair, then there will eventually be a
nonwhite actor who earns the role of James Bond. It may not happen at
the next opening for the role, but it will happen someday. And we
should welcome this.
If the character of James Bond is successfully played by a good black
actor, it would be a blow against both the identity-politics bean
counters and the white supremacists. For both groups, race is essential
to personal identity. And both are wrong.
This is not to say that race doesn’t matter. It does. For historical
and sociological reasons (sometimes complicated, sometimes brutally
simple), it matters, in James Bond’s Britain as well as in America. To
pretend otherwise is ahistorical and therefore un-conservative. We know
that the sins of the fathers echo down through many generations. And
racism is a sin. The past (and too often, present) treatment of race as
essential to defining a person, and its use as a justification for
injustice, was wrong.
Because of this cultural legacy of wrongdoing, having the character of
James Bond portrayed by a black actor would have meaning. It would
provide a marker on our cultural movement away from racial essentialism
and the oppression of people because of their race.
Which actor plays an iconic British superspy will be only a small part
of the road to racial reconciliation, but it would have some value. If
a black actor is cast in the role of James Bond, then the race-hustling
identity politics types will briefly celebrate and then find something
to complain about, white supremacist losers will whine online, and the
rest of us can enjoy a (hopefully) good action flick. And then we can
all move on, a little more confident that race is not essential to
character or identity. The essence of James Bond is not identity
politics, but shooting a villain with a spear gun, making a joke, and
getting the girl.
: Nathanael Blake has a PhD in political theory. He lives in Missouri.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.

Frankly, I think we need to clear up some misconceptions. Yes, Fleming was a racist, misogynist, tool of the Patriarchy... but he hit on something that millions and millions of people wanted to see: a white Englishman actually doing what England successfully lulled us into believing they had been doing since the inception of the British Empire... being St. George.

I get it. I'm white, too (Irish Canadian, but I DO speak the Queen's English pretty effectively). I have loved most of the cinematic Bond canon. I adore OHMSS and FRWL in both film and novel form. Bond has had trouble getting his footing in the 21st Century, but we DO still need to see 007 trying to clean up the legacy of English Imperialism, which is pretty much what the entire franchise has dealt with since at least Thunderball, all without ever once showing its hand.

No, Bond has never been convincing as a Political Correctness spokes-model (and we shouldn't be so f$%^ing snide about PC; it exists for real reasons, and acallign it 'virtue signalling' and pretending it was all bullshit does our arguments--and our credibility--no favours). I don't dispute the obvious reality of the franchise.

What I'm worried about is that this kind of argument is effectively burying the entire franchise in a time capsule marked '1956; DO NOT OPEN... EVER', because aged fanboys (and their enablers) refuse to grow up and move out of their mother's metaphorical basement.

The novels are clear; Bond is not extremely politically astute. He is a weapon. That's not really something we should be proud of... but so far, they've successfully made him appear to be on the side of the angels... the white male ones, anyway.

But unless the rise of white supremacist groups actually leads to pogroms and gas chambers, I think we might want to reconsider the implications of continuing to insist on celebrating the outdated antics of a not-so-secret agent who 'retires' moles, insurrectionists, and fictional petty tyrants in the Post-Imperial Western World... which still behaves remarkably like the manipulative and self-aggrandizing British Empire of old.

I'm not saying all white people should be thrown on the scrap heap. I'm not saying James Bond should be burned in effigy. I'm not trolling the group. I actually believe we need 007 to step into the 21st Century with both feet and show the way for future generations of children growing up on these films and wondering what we're actually trying to say tot he post-imperial world at large.

Because it's not like these films only play in the UK and North America. So when we insist on putting a white guy in a tux on a poster in Singapore, we need to address the messaging that sends int he 21st Century, and stop pretending our refusal to cop a plea matters to anyone but us. We're no longer in control of the world. We're actually becoming aware that we probably should have left it alone.

So if we want to keep our heroes intact, we will need to deal with our actual Global Reality and stop pretending we can all be islands unto ourselves. That bullshit leads directly to legitimizing the uprise of dangerously lunatic 21st Century oligarchy stooges like Trump and Putin and Kim Jong Un and Bolsonaro and Bernier and Scheer and Farrage and Johnson and all the rest of the white trash that are currently wrecking the damned planet.

I'd buy tickets in advance if EON put a Woman/PoC/Asian/Queer/Trans person on the billboard as the new 007, if they also promised we'd get to see 007 beat the living f#$% out of some emotionally-bankrupt racist world leader with a taste for BDSM with rich industrialists and oligarchs--like an Eliot Carver on Viagra and steroids--and then go home and pin it all on Ralph Fiennes' M and the entire corrupt institution, before rescuing Moneypenny, going rogue, and (eventually) saving the world from ourselves, one dead tyrant at a time.

Hell, I hereby offer to WRITE that story, if EON is at all interested. I'd gladly jump through several tedious hoops to make it happen, actually.

But you'll have to send those tired hacks, Purvis & Wade, packing, first...

[shutting up now; I'm sure this will probably only piss people off, so I apologize if you're someone I know of old and still care about.]