Roger Moore: James Bond should never, ever be black, gay or female, ever

wenn4144651

Roger Moore has many thoughts, and few of them are worth repeating. At this point, the “who should be the next James Bond?” questions have been rolling for YEARS and they need to stop asking current and past James Bonds about it. But media outlets figure ol’ Roger Moore is still good for an offensive quote, so they’re still asking him those questions. Earlier this year, Roger Moore offended many people when he maybe/probably told Paris Match that Idris Elba is not “English-English” enough to play James Bond. Because “English-English” is code for “he’s not white, OMG!” So here are Roger Moore’s latest thoughts:

James Bond legend Sir Roger Moore has courted controversy by insisting that 007 could never be portrayed as a gay man – or be played by a woman. Sir Roger, who has previously come under fire for questioning whether the spy could be played by a black actor such as Idris Elba, risks a further backlash over his latest comments.

He said: ‘I have heard people talk about how there should be a lady Bond or a gay Bond. But they wouldn’t be Bond for the simple reason that wasn’t what Ian Fleming wrote.’

The 88-year-old star said ‘political correctness’ should not be pandered to, insisting: ‘It is not about being homophobic or, for that matter, racist – it is simply about being true to the character.’

Sir Roger, whose one-man theatre tour continues tomorrow in Liverpool following publication of his book Bond On Bond, said political correctness also meant villains were now always from undefined nations.

‘There is a danger always of causing offence,’ he said. ‘I suppose you could just about get away with a villain from Burkina Faso, but that’s about it.’

In another blow to Craig, Sir Roger claims the best Bond was Shakespearean actor Timothy Dalton, saying: ‘The films didn’t deserve him. He’d distinguished himself on the stage and did some interesting things with the part.’

[From The Daily Mail]

I actually liked Dalton as Bond although Dalton probably was ill-suited for the franchise. Moore is also sort of right about not wanting to offend certain countries, so having Bond’s enemies come from non-existant non-state actors at this point. Would they ever let James Bond’s enemy be a Saudi extremist or a shadowy Chinese oligarch now? Probably not. As for the bulls—t that Roger Moore says about the Ian Fleming canon and how Fleming could never have imagined a gay Bond or a black Bond or a lady Bond… who really cares at this point? The franchise has survived because it has evolved. Besides, they’re still writing 007 books, so they could just easily make a new book with a new Bond who is gay/black/female. The only problem? The guy writing the Bond books these days shares many of Roger Moore’s thoughts.

wenn5029930

Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

199 Responses to “Roger Moore: James Bond should never, ever be black, gay or female, ever”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. meme says:

    I’m prepared to be flamed but I agree with him. Bond is a white dude, that’s how Ian Fleming wrote him. I believe in being true to an author’s intent.

    • original kay says:

      Bond is a womanizing man. Any race can be that.

      If you want to change that by making the character gay, or female, then write that story. It’s not Bond, evolution or not, it’s not Bond.

      It would be a great movie though, so someone should write the screenplay.

      • Rainbow says:

        Why not create a female/gay/black iconic character from scratch instead to change Bond?
        It would be more interesting after all.
        Everyone knows who James Bond is, we’ve seen it a million times, let’s move on and create something different.

      • ekaterina says:

        Agree with Rainbow, let Bond be. Write a new series any way but this is the authors view n for the last 50+ yrs we’ve loved it. Nothing to do w/ anything but how we have been w/ this character for sooooomany yes n we do not want change.

      • lunchcoma says:

        I’d love it if there was actually enough space in popular culture for people to get excited about female/gay/black characters and for those characters to get their own, big budget action movies. The problem is that Hollywood, especially these days, tends to rely on established characters and stories. And, since most of those characters were originally written during times when there was even more bias, almost all of them are straight white men. Look how long DC and Marvel franchises, where there are existing female, black, and gay characters have taken to give any of them their own films.

        So, basically, I’d be up for it but only if some fantastical mandate was passed saying that half the existing straight white male characters needed to be retired – if people want James Bond and Peter Parker, they have to give up Robin Hood and Deadpool, that sort of thing. But since that’s not going to happen, I’m all for gender-/race-/orientation- bending some existing characters.

      • hmph says:

        Again, as a black woman I agree. They should make a spy movie featuring a female spy or [insert any name here]

      • Naya says:

        @Original Kay The womanizing is intended to convey a “I take what I want” attitude and that can be conveyed by any gender, any race and any sexuality. I do think that it would be harder to sell that with a gay Bond though. But Bond absolutely should be bisexual. The wo/man who will not be confined not even in sexuality.

      • holly hobby says:

        I really don’t understand why all spy movies have to be Bond. If someone wants to write a minority Bond (they can be other ethnicities) or a female/gay one, then go ahead. Just don’t call that character Bond.

        Wait there was a female Bond movie. Spy from Melissa McCarthy. We finally watched it last night. Sure it’s a comedy but it had elements of suspense and action. A female spy movie that isn’t Bond. Imagine that.

        Yeah I liked Spy!

      • HH says:

        I just want an entirely diverse cultural space where multiple characters can exist. So many people want to play Bond and diversify him because he’s the “ultimate spy” and everyone wants to be him/go to see those movies. We don’t need to diversify Bond, we need to diversify characters and scripts OVERALL. I don’t care that Bond in particular is a straight, white, male; I care that the overwhelming majority of investment in characters and movies go to parts for straight, white, males.

      • Cali says:

        Agree with Rainbow!

      • mytbean says:

        But we’ve had flavors of just that though – Salt (Jolie) was a good example. I mean we have women in leading action roles – mainly in sci fi – But being Bondette, I just don’t know if today’s society *likes* seeing women be sexist a-holes any more than men.

      • racketman says:

        I agree with meme totally. You don’t mess with bond, and you don’t doctor up history. Seems a simple enough concept.

      • vilebody says:

        @Rainbow — I agree! I said this on a previous Bond thread, but why don’t they create a whole double-O universe? Have stand-alone movies with a black spy as 003 or a female as 009? They should Marvel Universe it up.

        All this talk about having a different Bond is as frustrating to me as having a ginger Scarlett O’Hara or a short and plump Darcy. Even having Craig as a blond–and the conflicting backstories in Skyfall and Royale–annoyed me!

    • hmph says:

      I also agree with Roger Moore, and I am black and female.
      I just feel like black males/women/gay/lgbt etc deserve their own spy movies.
      Also, I think it’s pathetic that it has come to this.

      • ekaterina says:

        Agree.

      • Eleonor says:

        Amen.

      • MrsNix says:

        I think Idris Elba is a great actor, and if they made him James Bond, I wouldn’t care at all. It would actually make me want to see the film MORE if he were cast because I like him. I am not a huge Bond fan, but my husband is, so we see the films, and we both think a black James Bond would be fantastic if they had a good actor…but we don’t really care what Bond looks like, as long as he’s true to the character.

        That said, why do we still have to use the Bond vehicle?

        @hmph – I agree totally that underrepresented demographics in film deserve their OWN franchises. Elba IS his own franchise, for crying out loud. He’s flipping amazing. Bond is an old, very tired character, and I honestly don’t know why we still make Bond films.

        Can’t we make a new British super agent character? One that behaves like a relatively modern man of mystery from the UK? Can’t we let Bond go? The films are a product of the 1960′s and no longer relevant or recognizable in our world/culture. He’s an artifact. That’s just my opinion, of course, but there it is. I find nothing charming or exciting about a British man with a posh accent going through more women than underwear, but being labeled as a hero for his nation.

        Jack Bauer was the American iteration of Bond in the new generation, and I think it’s time our brethren across the sea create something new, as well. Like…I don’t know…in the vein of “Luther?” See? We don’t need a black Bond. We need black leading men and women astonishing and thrilling audiences in their own right.

        It’s been done a few times and been extremely well received on television, so why won’t the film industry catch up?

      • Loulou says:

        Agree with you, Hmph.

      • Kelly says:

        you are so right

      • milla says:

        amen! why milk Bond, we know what he looks like, we know his habits, why not create a new iconic character? new hero? people who are raising the question of race or feminism just sound lazy in case of already iconic characters. I do want to see diversity, but I also want to see something fresh and new. I watch Bond when I feel like watching something old, something I already saw.

    • Malificent says:

      Meme, I will stand in the flames with you. The literary Bond character is defined by the fact that he’s an old school, misogynist white guy. Tinker with that and you change the character, and he ceases to be Bond.

      That said, I’m all for a revisionist riff on Bond with a female Bond, gay Bond, or Bond of color. It won’t be what Fleming originally intended, but pretty much every other iconic character gets to go revisionist — it would be fun to see the twist. Or, better yet, create a fresh, new spy franchise with a fully realized character in a different demographic.

      I also agree (as do a lot of critics) with Roger that Timothy Dalton was technically the best Bond. He played the character closest to the books — which was too low-key and internalized for the audiences who wanted super-hero Bond. I don’t necessarily read that as a slam against Craig — who is also a good Bond. It’s just acknowledging what a great actor Dalton is.

      • Hannah says:

        @maleficent
        so do you also feel that if David oyelowo plays Henry IV (RSC) chiwetel plays Romeo ( national theatre) or Janet Mcteer plays petruccio in taming of the shrew ( the globe) it’s no longer Shakespeare, because the character wasn’t written as a woman or a black man?

      • Malificent says:

        @Hannah. Of course not — that’s precisely why I also said that I don’t have a practical problem with a revisionist version of Bond — or any other character for that matter. You’re taking exception the first part of my comment, but then ignoring the second part.

    • Wren says:

      I’m not gonna flame you because I agree, but only to a point. I don’t think Bond “needs” to be one race over another, as in, I see no reason that he HAS to be white.

      But I do think he should be a straight man. Why? Because James Bond doesn’t actually have that many defining character traits beyond the fact that he’s an alcoholic womanizer. Take that away and it’s not James Bond anymore, it’s a spy story with a completely different character. If you want to tell that story, invent a new kick-ass character! James Bond is who he is for being who he is and changing that makes him not James Bond.

      • MND says:

        But they have changed him over the years. In the past he had a light hearted devil may care attitude. Now he’s more introspective and troubled. Well, he was in the Quantum of Solace which was the last Bond film I watched.

    • Leah says:

      I don’t get it. If you have a problem with a black bond it says, to me at least, something about how you view skin colour.

      • MND says:

        Yep. There’s no reason why a modern day Bond can’t be black. The excuse that the original Bond was white and therefore must always be white is lame. That said I couldn’t care less about Bond these days. Once I discovered “world cinema” I was no longer at the mercy of Hollywood.

      • Helena says:

        but why would he be black?should a new version of harry potter movies have a black harry or ron?should aragorn be black? why oh why? if the character’s white, he’s white.if he’s black, he’s black. if you change that it becomes ridiculous. then you can say…why not a mexican bond?why not an asian bond?….

      • MND says:

        You say if the character is white he’s white and if he’s black he’s black. Okay, so they cast Bond as a black character and then he’s black. What would be problematic about that?

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        Helena

        So why not? You speak as if any of the options you’ve listed are impossibilities. Are you really stupefied by the thought that any of those characters could eventually be portrayed by a -GASP- non-white individual?

        I suspect people such as yourself really have more problems with race then you’d like to admit because when you really think this through it’s not nearly as impossible as you pretend it to be. Harry Potter’s defining characteristic is not that he is white. It is that he is a tragic character who overcame adversity and rose to great heights of courage and success. Last I checked anyone of any skin tone can accomplish that.

      • Mary-Alice says:

        Because if tne author has written a character this way or that it’s very disrespectful to ignore his or her view. If anyone wants to write a black, gay or female whatever character, no one is preventing them from doing so. I bet Harry Potter was not written any other colour but white because of the backstory of the writing of thebooks. Even more so with Aragorn. Same way I don’t want the Seven Samurai black or white. Just no. It’s disrespectful and borderline ignorant. If so called political correctness means being rude to authors, then thanks but no thanks. The good news is that no marketing survey, which we do very regularly, shows even the slightest chaNce for a black, gay or female Bond to put even 1/10 of the current butts in the seats. Studios don’tmake movies based on prejudice, regardless what’s written on internet blogs.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        LMAO @ Mary Alice

        Anyone who produces a piece of art is well aware that once they release that art to the public the interpretation and perception of that art is no longer strictly owned by the artist.

        Studios do make movies on prejudice repeatedly and consistently, hence why whitewashing is perfectly acceptable while daring to portray a white character another skin tone is forbidden. It’s a pitiful world created by paranoid and insecure creatures.

    • sherry says:

      I’ll stand in the flames with you. Bond is Bond and should remain as the original writer made him. If you change who Bond is, he is no longer James Bond. He is someone else.

      If you want a different character whether they be black, gay or female, write a new book and produce a new screenplay with a new character.

      Leave Bond alone! :)

    • Caro says:

      @MEME

      I don’t know what that means. “Bond is a white dude, that’s how Ian Fleming wrote him.”

      HOW do you write “white?” If you mean ‘he’s British, that’s how Bond wrote him,’ anyone can be British. IT’S a nationality and a national culture, not a race, which doesn’t exist.

      I’d have less of a problem, if some of the xenophobes made a case for ethnicity, like maybe said things like, but Ian wrote that Bond’s family were red haired Scottish laborers who were teased for their pale skin and freckles and perhaps described their physiology to a tee or something and then went on to write how that affected their outlook (Bond, had to use triple sunscreen, and made haggis on the weekend like his mom). Not that I know this is the case – as I have never picked up a Fleming book and never will.

      The point is, you’d have a difficult time arguing that a person written as a certain ethnicity should be represented by someone who’s obviously not. For instance remaking the Godfather and casting Michael Corleone as Asian. However IF Michael was Asian and ADOPTED by an Italian American family, it would work because he grew up and essentially would be Italian culturally. Capiche?

      But just saying Bond has to be ‘white,’ means nothing. White is not a culture, or ethnicity. Though many white supremacists wish it was. White is also not just the opposite of ‘black,’ when it comes to definition. Black is a racial classification yes, but due to slavery it’s also a cultural and ethnic classification. ‘White,’ is not. Saying you’re Black in America, is like saying your Italian, Puerto Rican or Greek orthodox.

      So when someone says Bond was written to be ‘white,’ you’d make more sense if you said he was written to be a blonde Scottish guy, and that being blonde and blue eyed affects how he sees the world and how people see him. Like a chapter on him joining the SS during Hitler’s reign would prevent someone who looks Jewish or black or non-aryan, playing him.

      • Leah says:

        @Caro
        Great post!

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        Excellent post with quite a few great points.

      • redsolesista says:

        “HOW do you write “white?” THIS @Caro. Makes no sense to me at all. James Bond is a fictional character with the designation of 007. Somehow how no other British man can be named James Bond, designated 007, and still be a alcoholic womanizing spy? Because last I checked no one ethnicity or nationality had a lock on that type of person. The movies are fiction, fantasy. As if a real “spy” is running around like James Bond.

      • Arpeggi says:

        I get your point and agree with most of it. At this point, the name James Bond is almost as much a code as is 007, the guy could b whatever ethnicity and it’d still work. It has to be a guy though, the name is still James after all. A woman would need another name and at that point, why would it be so darn difficult to just make an new freackin’ franchise already?!

        In Fleming’s novel though, because of the time in which they were written, and because the novels were in part inspired by his own experience as a spy, Bond has to be seen as “white”. Simply because it would be difficult for a dark-skinned dude to go incognito in USSR, that would have not worked. So if they were planning a movie that was following one of the original book, choosing a white man would make sense. Only this is not going to happen.

      • Danskins says:

        Fantastic post, Caro!

      • Fishfishbirdcats says:

        Actors are representations of whatever character they are playing. Does it matter if the person in the Barney costume is male, female, black or purple? Why couldn’t Harry Potter be played by a boy of Mexican descent? Why couldn’t Juliet be played by a woman who is black? Why couldn’t Hitler be played by an Israeli Jew? Seriously? Nothing in the scripts needs to change. An Asian actress playing the part of the Willie Wonka, giving kids a tour of her chocolate factory really is no longer an Asian woman, because she’s no longer herself. She’s playing a role. She’s Willie Wonka. In the same vein, A black man playing the part of James Bond is no longer himself. He is James Bond.
        Why can’t it be that simple? Can you imagine how cool (from a socio/psycho/anthropological viewpoint) if, in an American blockbuster Christmas movie, if Santa Claus just happened to be played by a… say…, an Eastern Indian woman? And nobody said anything or reacted any different… She was just Santa Claus because she had the red suit with a fake beard, and the elves, the wife making cookies, the reindeer pulling the sleigh, and all the other Santa stuff. Would she still be Santa? I think so. I really do.

      • vilebody says:

        Perhaps you should read one of the books because you would realize within a minute that your point is moot.

        As someone who has read several books, there are several points where Fleming directly makes a Bond comparison to an actor of the time to the point that women are like, “you look sort of like X.” Other less savory examples include when Bond is the one white guy in a Harlem club and has to (no joke) remember his training in “jive talk” to “gain the negroes’ trust.”

        I write this only to show how Fleming wrote Bond as a “white man.” I definitely was disgusted by some parts of various books–Live and Let Die in particular–and don’t want to come off as supporting it. As I said above, I have long supported the idea of having other stand-alone double-0 movies, that are still in the Bond world, but can branch out with casting. I think that appeases Bond die-hards (like me) while helping diversity in entertainment.

    • Meegs says:

      When I need to watch a straight, well-dressed, handsome, mysterious, sexy, svelte, strong and “classically” seductive man take down international underground crime with awesome gadgets, I need Bond to be there for me, as-is. Yes, create a new female character franchise or a gay man playing a similar role, I’ll watch them both. But please, don’t change Bond. I will say, though, Daniel Craig’s Bond having that innuendo with Javier Bardem’s Silva in Skyfall…Yeah. That made my heart n’ stuff flutter. Probably because it was Craig’s straight Bond just totally in control and comfortable in his (bi-?)sexuality, and in a very sexy and dangerous moment. Meow.

      • Hannah says:

        Because straight White male characters must be protected, it’s practically an endangered species in Hollywood …

    • ch2 says:

      Really? Bond is a fictional character. To be this invested in staying true to a fictional character rather than a message of diversity really tells me there is something wrong with a person.

    • Pandy says:

      I agree, but I think there’s room for a black Bond, for sure. Jane Bond isn’t at all what was written, nor is a gay man. But I think Bond can be straight, black man.

      I guess it would be like making Harry Potter a woman (Harriet Potter). Not how the books were written and previous movies portrayed him so it wouldn’t be Harry Potter. Still think you can swap race though.

    • herewego says:

      I thought Bond was about Education, training, espionage…..it has nothing to do with Race or Gender really. IMO

    • alice says:

      Stories like Fleming’s Bond evolve with the times we’re living. It happens when a book, a character, leaves the writer’s mind and gets into the culture and the collective imagination. It’s a live tale that it’s not finished, it’s a cycle than will continue and evolve just as our culture and society does. Now, England happens to be a multicultural society and old farts like Moore are just too afraid of changes.

    • Jag says:

      I agree with him too. If they are doing a movie directly taken from a book, they need to have the main character be what the main character was, and that wasn’t gay, female, or even a different race.

    • Sarah (another one) says:

      I agree about the female or gay but black? Someone tell me Idris Elba isn’t 1000 times hotter than Roger Moore ever was!

    • ladysussex says:

      I totally agree with him. You’d have to completely change the entire background of the character to make not white. Why not just create an entirely new character/storyline if you are dead set on having a black government agent who is a womanizing, nice car driving bad-ass?

  2. Yeses says:

    Go home Roger, you are racist, homophobic and sexist…and hopefully drunk….while that isn’t an excuse for your ignorant comments, it might just be the explanation.

    • QQ says:

      never has Go Home Roger been better used in the history of everdom

    • Sabrine says:

      I agree with him and it has nothing to do with being racist, homophobic or sexist. Bond wouldn’t be Bond if he was female, gay or black. It’s just the way it is and a better idea would be to have more roles for people who fall into those other categories. Some things you just have to leave alone and this is one of them. I’m just wondering why he made that comment since he’s inviting criticism by doing so.

      • vauvert says:

        I agree with him too and it has nothing to do with my liking him as an actor in the old days or being a racist or homophobe. Not sure how exactly Bond has evolved? He is a violent, womanizing self righteous SOB used as a weapon by the government. This is the role and the part and it has not changed.

        But yes, we should definitely have new characters and new heroes, whether spies or anything else, that are black or Indian or Asian or whatever, and various LGTB flavours. The problem is that no one will write them and no one will film them because they don’t think it will sell. Until either a huge best-selling novel or a small indie comes along and proves them wrong – that would make a big studio trust enough to take a huge financial risk , or it won’t happen.

      • Wren says:

        Vauvert, I think what people are mistaking for Bond evolving is that everything AROUND Bond has evolved, but the character himself has changed very little or not at all. Making M a woman, having Moneypenny kick ass and deciding not to do field work, making the story more gritty and realistic, adding modern technology, giving Bond a bit of backstory, etc have all enhanced the story from original movies.

        The character of Bond, though? He’s pretty much exactly the same. He drinks, he makes punny quips, he chases bad guys with little regard for his (or anyone else’s) personal safety, he’s arrogant, and he’s a misogynist who treats women as disposable pleasures. Often. There’s more aestheticism displayed in the new movies, but it was always implied that he was physically agile and strong even though the action sequences weren’t always as intense. Bond himself hasn’t changed a wink, so arguing that he’s “evolved” somehow is moot.

      • Hannah says:

        Daniel Craig’s bond was heavily influenced by the Jason Bourne franchise. Prior to craig bond was seen as outdated, so yes there was a calculated effort to update the franchise in order to fit in a modern world. This may happen again. Nothing stays the same forever

    • antipodean says:

      You are so right. This leathery, fossilised, thessy, coot needs to pack up his out moded attitudes, and make a hasty exit, stage left. He has made a career of being an eye brow raising, entitled a**, and he needs to realise that the world has fortunately moved on apace. Please go back to the 70s where you belong Roger/Dodger.

  3. SusanneToo says:

    I think Bond should never have been played by Roger Moore. He was the absolute worst of them all.

  4. Jaded says:

    I wish he’d shut up about who should/shouldn’t play Bond. You don’t hear Sean Connery pontificating about it and he, to me, is the “real” Bond.

    • original kay says:

      oh yes, he certainly is the “real” Bond. Not one who followed can even come close to his Bond, so suave and that penetrating (giggles) stare.
      **fades off to Sean Connery fantasy land***

    • Snazzy says:

      I think because he had a career after, while some of the others faded away ;) He doesn’t need to talk about Bond, it’s not his only claim to fame

    • Kitten says:

      Connery will ALWWAYS be Bond to me. I don’t care for any other actor’s interpretation.

      That being said, Connery is probably worse than Moore and his misogyny is well-documented. Here is one of his many gems:

      “I don’t think there is anything particularly wrong about hitting a woman–although I don’t recommend doing it in the same way that you’d hit a man. An openhanded slap is justified–if all other alternatives fail and there has been plenty of warning. If a woman is a bitch, or hysterical, or bloody-minded continually, then I’d do it. I think a man has to be slightly advanced, ahead of the woman. I really do–by virtue of the way a man is built, if nothing else.”

      • Snazzy says:

        NOOOOO He said that?
        Somehow I am surprised, and yet not …

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        …the man is a raging idiot.

        Am I wrong for secretly wishing guys like that would raise a hand to someone like say Rhonda Rousey? Because I’d LOVE to see how far he gets before she rolls him into a pretzel and asks him if he still feels advanced.

      • funcakes says:

        Old Sean,I’m sure, picked women that he could easily intimidate.
        I would love for him to try that crap in my neck of the woods. Trust me he would change his mind after one good lesson.

      • original kay says:

        well, that was a fast return from fantasy land :(

      • Jaded says:

        Ya…he’s the guy whose picture you see when you look up “misogynist” in the dictionary. But he did capture the true essence of Bond that the others just didn’t seem to have.

      • SusanneToo says:

        Have you seen SNL’s Jeopardy parody of him? He’s dumb as a load of bricks in their version.

      • Dirty Martini says:

        I read his ex wife from many years ago somewhat recently went public with the revelation that he beat her unconscious once. I will never ever look at him again without disgust.

  5. Tiffany says:

    There has been undertone that Bond, if need be can be sexually ambiguous. So while the label of gay will never be, welllllll……. Roger is a littld off base on that one.

  6. ekaterina says:

    I don’t want Bond to be gay either, n I am tired of people thinking I’m anti gay for saying it. I’m female, I want my Bond to be man, I’m not here to see him seduce man as a spy. It has nothing to do w/ gays, I’m actually more happy w/ this Bond since he don’t screw everything that walks. Bond is a character, period, he can be played by a gay actor, those things do not bother me, an actor is an actor. Now as for a black k, asian etc….I’m not sure. Except for the racicists, can u see a Pakistani, Mongolian or Hawaiian playing Bond? If u say no,that is your right, does not make u racist but why f u say black? Were used to Bond being English , even a red headed Bond would be a disaster. Now Idris…I’d love to see him in a Bond like role, just not James Bond, not for any reason but I like Bond as is n that does not make me anything but human. I don’t think anyone would like to see Shaft being played by anyone but a black man n not turn him gay.

    • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

      Bond is a literary character, a fantasy projected upon paper. Why people obsess over something remaining stagnant rather than enjoying the version that appeals to them (a heterosexual, tuxedo wearing, female blinking hero) is beyond me.

      So if one version of Bond was Pakistani what would you do?

      Shatter into a million pieces? Destroy all effigies of all other versions of Bond to express your disdain? Or would you ignore the version you don’t like to support the ones you do like every other adult human with self-control?

    • Naya says:

      Shafts blackness is an element in the storylines, it influences how authority figures treat him, which cases he takes etc. Bonds whiteness is NOT a storyline element and by that I mean you could recast the Casino Royale or Skyfall films with another race without changing a single line in the script. By the way if we can find the right Pakistani or Hawaiian actor, I would say go for it. The focus on a black Bond is because Idris Elba, its not race favoritism or whatever you were implying.

      • annaloo. says:

        I think Bond’s whiteness is totally a factor in how he is received. Let me just propose this: If a black man’s probable experience in going to a place of luxury (which Bond often does) is to be questioned, treated as a spectacle or shaken down when he enters, whereas an anglo Bond can stroll in and is never questioned – then Bond does benefit from the privilege of his race and his gender, and it is part of his character’s narrative. Do I think that it’s right? No, but the crux of this argument is the believability of the character. I mean, if we’re going for the argument of authenticity, we can’t deny that Bond goes and gets where he does bc of – for lack of a better phrase – “white male worship” that is established in this world. He is never ignored, he is never assumed to be a criminal, he is never ever going to face trials that a man with a darker skin tone does. That affects how he moves through this world, and James Bond is all about how he moves through this world, as it is with Shaft, as it is with Foxy Brown, as it is with Scarlett O Hara. Bond would need to be reconsidered with the target that would appear on his back for the difference of what he experiences just based on the color of his skin and the many prejudices and bigotry people automatically impose upon him. Recipients of white male worship don’t ever have those types of problems. Anyway, just my two cents.

      • Leah says:

        General question. Are you american ( no offense)? This perceptive of black man as in can’t feel comfortable/naturalised in a luxury place is particular to the american experience it seems.

      • annaloo. says:

        Yeah, but I didn’t think of your angle and the influence of my country’s perception of black males here vs the worldview, so yes, that sheds another light on the issue. Thank you for illuminating that, it does affect how I look at this somewhat.

      • Fishfishbirdcats says:

        What? because a black man should never be seen entering a place of luxury? Never not be ignored? Your post is encouraging the discrimination of black men.

      • Mary-Alice says:

        Nope,being white is a very distinctive part of the story in the books! Bond could have never been under cover the way he was if he wasn’t white. Not in the countries he dealt with. If you’ve read the books, you would know that very well, so this boat with the colour insignificance doesn’t float.

      • Naya says:

        I hope you stormed out when Casino Royale had that black undercover FBI agent since apparently black agents are incapable of undercover work in wealthy environments. Please! Your white Bonds have been running “undercover” in Japan, in Hong Kong, in Korea, in Jamaica, in multiple African countries including Mali, Angola etcetera. THAT makes sense but a black guy doing the same doesn’t. Just so you know, where I come from we are very cynical of white well built guys claiming to be tourists/business men and straying away from touristy haunts, especially when they lack that backpacker/budget tourist dreadlocked crusty feet look. it just screams “mercinary” or “CIA” and the way word spreads a real life Bond type may as well skywrite his presence. But every few years the whole world (that isn’t white) suspend their disbelief and go watch a FICTITIOUS man frolic around the world, jump off buildings and planes and survive the impossible, but a black Bond is unbelievable? Please!

  7. Josefa says:

    James Bond is James Bond. I don’t think race matters, but the fact he’s a straight man who always seduces sexy ladies from around the world is an important and defining trait of his character. That premise would work for a guy of any race. But for a woman or a gay man? It wouldn’t be James Bond, agent 007. I don’t get why people feel they need to change *this* franchise instead of just making another one. I’m all for having a female or gay spy who basically does the same thing as Bond. But make it another character.

    • Fishfishbirdcats says:

      I don’t think James could be a gay man because that would be too much of a domino effect. But I don’t see why James Bond couldn’t be a gay woman. Nothing needs to be said, nothing needs to be explained. She’s just a freaking beautiful, hot woman (any flavor–even Hawaiian!) who has some sexy magic that makes other beautiful women want to take a naked tumble with her.

  8. anniefannie says:

    Perfect pic to accompany his misogynist, racist , homophobic remarks. Someone needs to shut this windbag down. I hope he gets the blow back he deserves!

  9. Meadowlarky says:

    What the hell does “staying true” to a fictional character even mean? Who cares if there are multiple interpretations of an iconic character? There have been many different variations on Hamlet, on Sherlock Holmes, on Superman… They’ve been played in non-canonical time periods, and given non-canonical characteristics. Is that some kind of travesty? No, because they’re FICTIONAL CHARACTERS.

    • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

      Seriously. I’m surprised these people haven’t decried the fact Bond is played by multiple actors all of whom look different.

      NO CHANGES! NO CHANGES EVER!

    • Josefa says:

      If Superman didn’t have superpowers and just fought the bad guys throwing ping pong balls at them, would he really *still* be Superman? If Sherlock Holmes was actually a mediocre detective, would he *still* be Sherlock Holmes? No, they wouldn’t, the same way a chair stops being a chair if you can not sit on it.

      Fictional or not, there’s character traits that are at their very core. By changing those traits, you’re changing the whole character. Bond is a womanizing spy. You could turn him into a genius hacker. Wouldn’t be Bond. You could turn him into a psychic with telekinetic abilities. Wouldn’t be Bond. You could turn him into a woman. Wouldn’t be Bond.

      Why is it so necessary to change Bond? Can’t a new franchise be created? What’s so great about Bond he has to be the only spy out there?

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        Except there has been versions of Superman where he hasn’t been Clark ‘All American’ Kent with the Red, White, and Blue.

        You’re speaking as if Bond as an entity is going to be erased when at best you’d have the newest version of a character who’s changed over and over in smaller ways through a dozen plus different movies.

      • Josefa says:

        “smaller ways” “Clark ‘All American’ Kent with the red, white, and blue”.

        You’re not answering the point I’m adressing. Without superpowers, “Superman” would just be “man”. Bond has been changed over the decades, but these things have remained untouched: he’s a spy, well-versed in combat and weaponry, he seduces women with tacky names from around the globe, and he fights the bad guys. You don’t even need to watch a Bond movie to know this is what he’s about. These traits are part of his character, part of the reason people watch the movies. Those traits remain the same because they are the most important ones.

        Want a gay or female sexy spy who goes around the globe kicking ass? Cool, they should do a movie like that. But why change this classic character? Again – why is Bond the only spy franchise there can be?

      • Meadowlarky says:

        It isn’t necessary to change Bond, nor is any type of artistic or entertainment endeavor. It’s just an interpretation. And believe it or not, making a movie with a gay James Bond doesn’t take away any room for another gay secret agent movie. There’s lots of time and space out in this world to create anything! And actually, sometimes subverting an iconic character by changing their characteristics (like, say, making James Bond a babbling baboon who only THINKS he’s a lady’s man) can serve artistic purpose. There are tons of reasons why people choose to re-interpret icons, and it doesn’t make any sense to get in a huff about it or say it doesn’t need to happen.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        So is being white a super power?

        Because if you cast an actor who would portray Bond the exact same way that he’s always been portrayed the only difference would be his skin tone. I assume every scene wouldn’t be filled with people gasping in shock that he’s not white just as every movie hasn’t been filled with people demanding to know why this James doesn’t look like that James or the James before him.

        You’re conflating actual defining character traits which have changed (where Superman was born, his ethnicity, what he stands for and believes in) with a skin tone which is apparently sacred.

        So Bond without being white is…a regular shmuck not worh being interested in? As for your final question perhaps an easier one to answer is why when given a chance to fund those films involving women or gay men they spend as little money as possible treating the entity as a disposable investment to toss aside and not worthy of all the support.

  10. Crocuta says:

    I’ve never read or watched Bond, does his race ever make a difference? If yes, it shouldn’t be changed. If no, it could be.

    I can imagine him being gay, if that means he’s then chasing hot young men, like the straight version does with women. That would be true to his Bond character, no?

    • Mia4s says:

      His race wouldn’t make a difference, provided that he is British.

      Gay or female? Now that’s a fundamental change from the character. That’s not James Bond anymore. If you want to do a variation of some sort sure, but to to that with the actual character feels massively pandering (and yes I’m female) and dumb.

    • Mary-Alice says:

      Yes, it does make a difference if we respect the books and their author. Because Bond went undercover to countries where being anything but white would have turned him into a main focus of attention – something the author was not writing about. In fact, the whole “a secret spy” thing wouldn’t exist if he weren’t a very white, very typical as per these countries’ perception, British man.

  11. Livealot says:

    I’m more interested in a black superman since conceptually he’s not really human in the first place.

    • Tiffany says:

      No s*it because the last two were the equivalent of wet bread.

    • FingerBinger says:

      Black superman=not human. What?

      • annaloo. says:

        No, no… I don’t think Livealot is saying that blacks are not human. Superman is technically a space alien, so he’s technically not human. I think we’re wondering if there are other races besides the earthly racial typologies of Mongoloid, Causasoid or Congoid on Krypton.

        So, I’m game. If Superman is a different race than white, it just depends on how biology works for galactic species… does he have black parents? Does he need to have black parents? Do they reproduce like humans? Perhaps he hatched from an egg or a pod? Or, if he is black, is everyone coming from Krypton a black person, including Zod and his gang, is that the major race, is it the only race?

        The question to ask is if you’re going to have all these socially inept, misogynistic, closeted racist, maladjusted nerds that live in their parents’ basements who worship comic/sci-fi/fantasy/dystopic worlds and stories react with an open mind to the racial shift of a DC character if he’s ever introduced.

      • LAK says:

        You misunderstand. Poster meant (I think) that Superman is an ET from an alien planet. Therefore he can be any colour, not just the standard white guy that is usually cast to play him.

        We don’t know what the populace of his planet look like, except that they are alien. In that case, casting Superman with any race actor, including a black actor, wouldn’t detract or even necessitate a re-write of the fundamentals.

      • FingerBinger says:

        I thought that I misinterpreted the comment. The phrasing of the comment left it open for interpretation imo.

      • Livealot says:

        @annaloo @lak: thank you.

    • Josefa says:

      … because black people are less human than white people?

  12. AlmondJoy says:

    Soooo over this. Hollywood only seems to care about “being true to character” when the character is written as a white male.

    • I Choose Me says:

      True. But I agree with those who say it would be cool to have another spy franchise with either a POC and or LGBT character.

      • Fishfishbirdcats says:

        But that’s not the choice we have, unfortunately. I think humans will kill off the natural resources of our planet way before we, as a species, have a chance to evolve into something other than square pegs in square holes and round pegs in round holes.

    • bns says:

      Yep. See: Pan and the Hunger Games.

    • Mary-Alice says:

      Fundamentally wrong. Movies are made after numerous of marketing surveys are performed. You underestimate the very important fact that making movies is a business. When the numerous marketing surveys show attitude towards this and this type of character, there you have it. And while all studios have a quota of allowed plops per year, there are also those characters and movies that are relied on to make up for the plops. Bond is among them. For as long as we see that the predominant huge number of butts in the seats want what they get now (and I include myself here), we won’t advise any studio on making Bond any otner colour, sexuual orientation or gender. Don’t forget that a couple of internet blogs don’t constitute even 1% of the audience we are talking about.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        So your marketing is appealing to and appeasing white audiences? …not exactly shocking.

        Also not surprising considering the decline in over all movie audiences and box office with many studios desperately needing superhero movie blockbusters to just get them through recouping their expenses.

        I guess just advising your studios to make the same movies over and over appealing to the same audience again and again isn’t really succeeding.

        Still it’s fun to watch the ship slowly sink.

  13. Kaya says:

    Bond is a fictional character, doing a cool fictional job, womanizing fictional women with silly names in a fictional world. The point is, he is fiction. Thus, making him gay, black or a woman does not desecrate his cool-dude fictional personality. Fanboys, get a grip, and get a life.

  14. Nancy says:

    Take a good look at Roger. I’m pretty sure ten years ago he wouldn’t have had such a lame comment.

  15. The Eternal Side-Eye says:

    It’s amazing to me that people get bent out of shape about this. When people say they want to see famous characters race and genderbent it’s about taking classics in media and finally allowing everyone who was considered ‘other’ to see themselves portrayed as something lauded and special.

    People want to see this because it’s a huge stab against a society that consistently devalues the importance of appealing to these groups and demands they use this image of a white man as a supplement for their own hopes of what the character entails.

    What do people who argue against it complain about? Because their character is white and that’s it. If the first thing you think of when you say Superman or Bond or anyone else is that they’re white then you’re laying the evidence right at the feet of those who want to play with that idea. Because when I think of Superman I think of goodness and when I think of Bond I think of cunning, but apparently white trumps all that.

    Fantasy is not some untouchable heirloom to only be expressed in the same way over and over. No ones going to go around the world and burn all the old copies of James Bond, if someone can play that cool and cunning to a degree that’s amazing then I think it’s insulting to exclude them simply because they’re not white (or male).

    Stories continue. Ideas can be played with. Nothing is a sacred cow and if it’s not well portrayed or received it isn’t the end of the world.

  16. Franca says:

    I wouldn’t mind if there was no Bond anymore. Such a boring franchise.

    I do like that the villans are from made up countries because big budget movies rarely portray countries that are not Western European/North American without it being offensive, stereotypical and ignorant.

  17. Leah says:

    But what if the best actor for Bond happens to be a black man? Should he not win the part simply because of the skin he was born in?

    This has echoes of the discussion the other day about the best man or woman should get the work ( see anthony mackie post). Many people argued Mackie was right because it should be about the best person not the one who has the deepest insight into the particular mindset or demographics. If we take this to its extreme lets say we want a world in which black actors can’t play iconic white characters, then white directors shouldn’t direct Black Panther movies or angelina Jolie shouldn’t be allowed to play Cleopatra or very heterosexual guys like Jared Leto should not get oscars baity parts playing gay or transexual characters.
    #weliveinawhitemaleworld

    • Lisa says:

      I agree that it should be the best actor. I would like to see Bond stay straight and male, but I don’t see why a gay/bi-sexual/black/Asian/whatever actor can’t play Bond. When I think of Bond the character, his race isn’t really what I think about.

      There’s an interesting documentary on Netflix called Casting By in which the director of the Lethal Weapon movies talks about how he reacted to the casting director’s suggestion of casting Danny Glover. The director said, “But he’s black,” and the casting director said, “So?” and then the director realized how prejudiced he was about character. He felt a lot of remorse because he realized that he had assumed that it needed to say on the page that the character was black before he would consider a black character for the role.

    • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

      I think the thing that’s important to mention regarding Mackie is to quote a song “There’s levels to this shit”.

      I read a post yesterday about how everytime a woman of darker skin tone is translated from one medium to another (in this case comics) she instantly becomes lighter skinned. Is the best person for a job always the black woman who’s as light as possible? No. For example the new Jem movie, the character of Kimber was originally a black girl with a skin tone about the shade of Kelly Rowland who in the movie was portrayed by someone the same shade as Paula Patton.

      As far as auditions several Broadway actresses of the original skin tone tried out for the role and it was instead given to someone who could barely sing and act. So why did this role go that way when there were candidates available who would have fit the character and had the skills to back it up?

      That is what I think people were railing against Mackie for. If a black woman can never be darker than Beyonce to be considered desirable according to movies then we have to ask why. If pimps and hoes are our only character choices 70% of the time we have to ask why. If Bond could NEVER be played by a black man then we have to ask why. These things don’t exist in a vacuum and it says something about our society that as much as possible positive roles and job opportunities are passed over to those with less melanin.

      • Leah says:

        I was railing at Mackie too, just to make that clear. I was talking about the people who defended his stance. It wouldn’t be such a glaring problem to me if we lived in a world in which characters that were written as black or brown were played by black or brown people. But as it is, emma stone, benedict cumberbatch and johnny depp play those type of characters.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        I’m sorry, it probably did sound like I assumed you were in favor of Mackie’s comments. I understand the point you were trying to make and that you weren’t agreeing with him.

  18. Fluff says:

    It offends me how people throw gay/female/black into a big pot, like they’re exactly the same. A female Bond would be significantly different from an actor who happens to be gay playing the role. (I assume that’s what people mean when they say a gay Bond; they don’t mean writing the character as being gay.) An actor who happens to be be gay playing Bond isn’t “a gay Bond” it’s just “an actor playing Bond.” The actor’s real life sexuality is completely irrelevant to his ability to play the role. Whereas a woman playing the role would basically mean the entire script and character would have to be re-written.

    I’d like a female Bond, personally, but acting like “re-writing the entire thing and completely changing who the character is” is exactly the same as “casting an actor who happens to be gay in his personal life” is just offensive and furthers the idea that all people who aren’t white cishet males are interchangeable identikits. With just furthers the idea that white cishet is ‘normal’ or ‘standard’ and anything else is ‘other.’

    • Lisa says:

      Agreed!

      • LAK says:

        Agreed, but with a small correction. I think the gay argument is for the character to be gay, NOT that the actor playing him to be gay. The real life sexuality of the actor isn’t on the table. What everyone is discussing is re-writing Bond as a gay character.

      • Lisa says:

        @LAK — I don’t know if the real-life sexuality of the actor is off the table for some people in this discussion. For a lot of Hollywood, I think the prevailing attitude is that gay actors can’t play straight characters and/or that audiences will reject a gay actor who plays an action hero. Now, I think that’s total nonsense, but I do think that some people on the no-gay-Bond train are in fact against gay actors playing Bond, no matter what you do with the character himself.

        Not trying to put words into Moore’s mouth here — just saying that I do think a lot of people are against even gay actors playing Bond.

      • Val says:

        I think Lisa is correct – that many people aren’t aware that gay actors can play straight characters, just like straight actors have played gay characters.
        It’s pretty stupid and just shows an additional layer of prejudice in people’s thinking.

      • Fluff says:

        I’m pretty active in Bond fandom and everything I’ve ever heard about a ‘gay Bond’ refers to a gay actor playing him, not rewriting the character as being gay. Afaik no one has suggested or theorised about that.

  19. mkyarwood says:

    I have beautiful, socially conscious, sweet grandparents who still say things like ‘that nice black girl’, or ‘you can date jews, but you never marry one’ (said jew’s bubbi said the same about me: she’s a nice shiksa, but you can’t possibly marry her). Some old coots just can’t be budged. I vote for a gay black woman as the next Bond. Poussey!

  20. funcakes says:

    “Oh, there you are Roger. Time for your medication, honey. Good boy. Now drink the rest of your Ensure and try not to wonder off your floor. ” Pat head.

  21. Hannah says:

    Shakespeare is subjected to gender bending, gay subtext/outright gay interpretation, black people playing historical kings and queens.

    But somehow James Bond is too precious to mess with? A giant WTF to this guy and all the commentators who agree with him. Wow!

    • Josefa says:

      … again, there’s character traits that are important, some of which are tightly linked to things such as sexuality or race. The fact Bond is a womanizing straight dude is important (I don’t think race is), so him being gay or a woman would change the character entirely. It’s not even the fact he’s straight, but a womanizer. If he was straight shy guy who stumbled when talking to women it wouldn’t be Bond, either.

      • Hannah says:

        And? There are character traits in Shakespeare’s characters too. Like I said further up in this thread, Janet mcteer, played the biggest misogynist in Shakespeare’s world, pettrucio in taming of the shrew. What’s so special about James Bond that we have to treat him with more “respect” than the greatest poet in the English language?

    • Sophia Phawkins says:

      Seriously, I am sitting here almost open-mouthed at these comments defending a straight, white womanizer as the definition of a fictional character.

      “Being a straight womanizer is what defines him!”

      Is it? That’s ALL there is to any of the stories?

      “The franchise is only interesting if Bond is seducing women!”

      Why? And how is the character seducing women different and better than the character seducing men?

      I just don’t understand. Well, I do get that it’s internalized homophobia — because that is literally the only explanation for the lunacy of Roger and his allies’ statements — but still. I’m baffled that anyone thinks they’re getting away with homophobia and sexism here, I guess.

  22. Lisa says:

    Stop talking, Roger. You’re not even the best Bond.

  23. Jay (the Canadian one) says:

    People do get bored with rehashes eventually and try to change it up. Example: Shakespeare. Local productions of Shakespeare change it up by changing the century it’s set in or swapping genders of the roles, etc. It’s just a question of when the majority of the audience is ready for it. It often takes a generation at least.

    It isn’t NECESSARILY racist of anyone who objects. People can get upset about change period. People got upset about Superman’s costume not having the red underwear.

    • Jay (the Canadian one) says:

      …that said James Bond has already begun the process, since it’s no longer set in the 1950s.

  24. Meadowlarky says:

    News flash: you can make a Bond movie where he’s NOT a womanizer, or a drunk, and actually he’s, idk, a thin short bald stay at home dad who secretly is a spy for MI:6. And you could still call the character Janes Bond, and it would be a legitimate interpretation of an iconic character! Shocking, I know!!! But there are things called “satire”, “irony”, “allegory” and other stuff that artists use to create with. It’s nothing to get all pissy about. Just don’t watch it.

  25. Meija says:

    Idris Elba would be one hot Bond and he is English enough!

  26. Veronica says:

    In general, I do think there are aspect of the Bond character that deliberately (if not intentionally) play on white, male privilege and only work within that context. Whether you think that’s a fair reason to keep it that way rather than alter small aspects of the story is something else.

    Personally, don’t think Bond should ever be played by a woman, either – mostly because I want women to have their own stories and not rehashed male storylines with women dropped into them. There are plenty of REAL female spies in history and modern day that can serve as inspiration for similar characters. I don’t need Roger Moore’s castoffs.

    As for sexuality…IMO, I’ve always thought of Bond as borderline asexual and/or pansexual. His sexual conquests almost always have an underlying intent, secondary to whatever he actually desires as an individual. I never saw him as the kind to bypass seducing a man if it was necessary to get the job done.

  27. Val says:

    Thank you for your opinion, old white guy.

  28. anne_000 says:

    I dunno about being a gay Bond, because then what about the gratuitous liason with the Bond Babes? Though I wouldn’t mind looking at Bond Boys.

    I don’t think Bond should be a woman though. Maybe they need a totally different character in order for there to be an MI6 action spy.

    I’m OK with a black male Bond because then the character basically maintains the characteristics of Bond.

    As for how great a Shakespearean actor would be for Bond? Really? It’s such a tacky, cartoonish, stereotypical role. Any half-decent actor can play the part.

  29. Dena says:

    I think a black Bond would be marvelous because it would create another layer of intrigue, e.g.’ “who is Bond,” is Bond being impersonated, Bond is anything, anybody, everywhere and no where at once. A female bond could add to the Agent 007 intrigue. Perhaps a gay or bisexual Bond gets down and dirty for the info–deep undercover, so to speak. (That’s not meant to offend anyone’s sexuality.) I’d like to see that.

    What’s so funny & bizarre about this “true to the character and author’s intent” argument is that non-white people, and in this case white woman, are supposed to watch, enjoy, relate to and applaud the genius and “purity” of characters that, given the time period in which they were written, excluded them. Yet when people of color and woman say, “hey, why can’t this so-called iconic figure take on this certain guise and hue in order to better reflect the world in which we live” large majorities of whites and even some non-whites say “no, no, no, I cannot and even refuse to view the world (just for a little bit) from a lens that reflects demographic X. I can’t do what they’ve always had to do. It’s not in keeping with the intent of the author or the integrity of the series or franchise.”

    IMO a lot of characters and characterizations a are written around stereotypes involving race & class.

    Shakespeare was cited upthread. Opera houses are finally saying “okay folks, it’s time to do away with the grease paint. It’s no longer necessary for the character of Othello to blacken up to play a Moor.” Hopefully, we don’t have to wait as long as we have to see a black Bond as long as we waited to see Othello’s role being played sans black face. You know?

  30. iheartgossip says:

    And Roger, you’re an old coot with a closed mind.

  31. neutral says:

    If you want a black/yellow/green/purple, gay/bi/transexual/crossdressing spy, that’s fine, but write your own stories and don’t call your hero Bond.

  32. Viv says:

    Racially I think Bond could be anything as long as he has a British accent but it wouldn’t be Bond if he was gay or female. Bond is an established character, they should leave him as he is. What we need is for movie producers to produce more diverse characters, not to be changing ones that already have a huge fan base the way they are!

    • neutral says:

      Like writing their own characters instead of hijacking other people’s.

    • Mary-Alice says:

      People need to understand that movies about all those… groups will be made when surveys show thete is enough market to support them. Investors don’t currently wish to give money to such movies, do you understand how the business works? Producers look for money, raisemoney, they don’t normally give them. Do you realize there is a huge world out there and the majprity of it does not want its movies changed? I sometimes wonderwhow all of you on such blogs think movies are made. It’s a business, not a world changing rally.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        If the justification is its a business then it’s a slow dying business.

        I’m not really surprised by this. Traditional media is slow to change and quick to trot out dozens of excuses about lack of support and etc. all while all the major networks have several shows on TV with multiple minority character raking in views and raising their network profile. It’s so tired and predictable. Studios and Directors would rather be wrong and lose money than face the reality otherwise, something the Sony hacks proved.

        That’s what’s so much fun about this defense, in the end it’s the studios and investors hurting frantically trying to figure out how to appeal to audiences using the same bags of tricks and being shocked when it doesn’t work. Good luck with all those box office bombs.

  33. Mia says:

    Well, if nothing else the comments on this post show that we don’t live in a post racial society. 50% or so think James Bond can’t be black.
    Often people claim they don’t care -don’t see race. These comment firmly disproves that. A tad depressing.

    • neutral says:

      Perhaps I should clarify my post which may have come across wrong. It is just that Bond has been such an iconic figure for 50 years of British films it would seem strange to break that tradition of an almost caricature figure of a privileged, stiff upper lip British snob. I don’t generally think that about other parts I promise.

      • Neah23 says:

        Why can’t British male person of color play a privileged, womenizing, stiff upper lip British snob? Is that a criteria only white men fit?

      • Fishfishbirdcats says:

        But Bond is not a caricature. He’s Bond. James Bond. He doesn’t have all the women, spy moves, and sophistication and coolness because he’s a white man. As long as the actor/actress can play “Bond. James Bond,” you’ll have your 007.

    • Sophia Phawkins says:

      Don’t leave out the homophobia. They’re so proud of it, after all.

      • neutral says:

        Think you have missed my point. I have no problem if someone wants to make a film with a homosexual spy as the hero, but that wouldn’t be the Bond of the past 20+ films. To change his whole character now would seem odd.

    • Lizzie McGuire says:

      Same here @Mia. I get that Bond HAS to be British, but last time I checked not all British people are white. Idris would be my option for Bond, mostly people are worried about age because he’s in his 40s. I say if it’s not Idris, I vote for Tom Hardy or Charlie Hunnam. I would even say Matt Bomer if he can pull of the accent.

  34. Dirty Martini says:

    Count me in the corner of Moore on this one. Would I love to see a spy caper with a black female, a gay Asian, etc.? SURE~! Abs0-effin-lutely

    But don’t call it James Bond in the Ian Fleming series, because that’s not how he wrote it.

  35. Danskins says:

    What a sad world we live in wherein some choose to remain so stubbornly closed-minded.

  36. K says:

    Ok I don’t want a woman to play bond and the more this goes on I don’t want a black man to either! First of all we don’t need your hand me down, played out boring character! Clearly by the demand to see a woman or black man in the role it is because we want to see these types of characters written for women and black men! So write us interesting characters it feels clear to me that people would go!

    This entire thing has just gotten insulting like it is some honor for these white men to deem women or black men worthy of playing this sexist character?!?! No sorry it’s not that special and we don’t need any special favors. No excuse me I’m going to go watch idris’ Oscar worthy performance. Bye dude.

  37. moon says:

    I’m going to get crucified, but speaking as a liberal woman of color…I agree with him on not having a gay or female bond. By all means have action heroes and heroines that are gay or female or both, but let’s not take out all the heterosexual men on screen! We can make bond less sexist by having positive strong bond girls, we can make the industry less sexist by having female action heroines, but no need to completely take out heterosexual men.

    I do disagree on only ever having white Bonds. But speaking as an asian, I’d like to see some asian men get their chance some day. Diversity is more than black and white.

  38. Sarah01 says:

    I’d love to see idris Elba play bond I’d equally like to see Bradley James play the role too!
    To me bond doesn’t need to be a white man, but anyone who has the charm and physicality to play it, man or woman of any colour. For me Pearce Brosnan or Timothy Dalton were great bonds even though I was pretty young I found them really charming. However for me the ultimate bond is still to come.

  39. Leah says:

    The comments in this thread are so depressing! The future where people give a crap about colour and creed can’t come soon enough!!!

    • Tara says:

      Amen. We’re all going to mix together any way. People are way too much about skin color. They give it too much importance.

  40. Ellie says:

    The thing is that this is a specific character. It isn’t a president, it isn’t a world leader. It’s a character, who has been drawn a specific way. Of course he should be how he is suppose to be – otherwise he is a whole different character. Why do people get so mad about that? Because the obvious has dared to be stated? Why would James Bond be black or a female? He wasn’t ever written that way. Not everything that is white needs to be shamed into obscurity.
    Why not just make up a new character to suit those purposes? Seriously!
    It’s not even hard to do that, it’s called character creation.

    People want to be mad about things, because they want to be MAD. They see their little favorite buzz words – like gay, black, white, feminism and get to unleash their oh-so-righteous rant and disparage anyone who dares disagree. It’s like a social media orgasm for these people. Common sense and logic is thrown out the window.

    If you really care about social issues, let me tell you this isn’t a social issue. This is a character, James Bond, who is British (as in ethnically British, the entire sphere of what has and does encompass Britishness), who is a male, who has a set parameter of traits.
    That doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be someone out there writing a black spy character, a female spy character, a gay spy character – go ahead, write them, make them real.
    But saying it HAS to be James Bond, please…. That’s just being outraged for the sake of being outraged and throwing all normal, logical, common sense out with the bathwater.

    • Fishfishbirdcats says:

      I don’t have favorite buzz words that make me rant. I don’t think the following is a rant: Please tell me why a person of different skin color or genitalia cannot pretend (because this is a pretend movie were talking about) to be a certain character with certain parameters. Nothing else changes. Same script, same girls, same villains. Bond looks different. He may sound like a woman, but he has that same Bond accent. He says the same Bond things. He drinks the same Bond things. He still walks into the same fancy Bond places and does fancy Bond things in those fancy places, like he first checks out the sexy women, and then checks out the spy situation. He does this in his tuxedo. He may have a bra on, because he has breasts. But he’s still Bond, because that is the character that needs to be portrayed. Nobody is asking for the script to change, nobody wants to mess with who the character is or what’s he wants, let’s just mess with the way the character looks.

      • Ellie says:

        Why even do that? Why not make a new character? Like seriously, why does everything HAVE to be challenged? It would be more ground breaking, more exciting, more intelligent, educational, etc have have a whole NEW other completely different character – make it part of the franchise if you want.

        The problem I have with what you say is this – who the character is, is who the character IS. Fully and completely – his ethnicity, his gender, his skin colour, his up bringing, his pains and his successes all make up exactly who he is. That is him. To change that, brings in a new completely different background to what it is that makes him up.

        To give all those new meanings to a new character would be more interesting. They make their own person whole, instead of erasing a previous person. Changing James Bond into a woman wouldn’t make people go “Oh yeah, women can kick ass too”, it just makes it annoying because it’s force feeding – a whole “You accept it and you like it or else” attitude and pushes people away from equality, not towards it.
        Making a whole new character would bring so much more to the cause.

        It’s not racist, homophobic, anti feminist, republican or whatever term people want to call it, to have the view that Roger does.

      • Mary-Alice says:

        Yeah, and the 67th frame in a nanosecond hypnotizes the audience that this is actually a man. Some of us want him as he was written, do you get it? A white ultimately British privileged arrogant man. A-man. Which also lays the foundation to many of his undercover adventures where he succeeded because he looked as he looked and I want him that way. Just like I want my samurai Asian and my Vinetu – native American.

  41. AJ says:

    How did all of the homophobic, racist Republicans get in this thread?! YIKES.

    This comment section is straight up embarrassing.

  42. Tara says:

    I say who cares? It is all fiction any way. Cast a biopic and we have a different story. But these action and fantasy films that people complain about when it comes to racial casting – I just think people need to take a step back and realize it is all fiction! There have been a zillion Bonds. Will it really make a difference to the story if one of them has a different complexion? Daniel Craig looked nothing like the Bonds that came before him.

  43. What's inside says:

    My take on this one is:

    1. The author is the one who gives birth to the idea, brings it up to maturity, and then reaps the benefits from the success of the idea.
    2. Everyone has an opinion and are free to exercise it. If it differs from the popular thinking of the moment, then so be it.
    3. One day all of this political correctness will fade away into oblivion and the future generations will just wonder what all of the fuss was about and how it really mattered in the vastness of the universe.

    • Benn says:

      Presumably in the future people won’t regularly be murdered, attacked, denied jobs, paid less for the same work, etc. for being black, gay, trans or female, hence “political correctness” being a thing of the past – because there won’t be the urgent need for it anymore?

    • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

      Regarding #3…doubtful. Whites are slowly becoming more and more of a minority. Once the scales are tipped irrevocably I expect to see Fox News banging on about respecting minorities and giving them equal voice in this country. The world people like you cling to is on its last breaths. Discrimination will always exist and those claiming it’s all political correctness will soon be the ones begging for help and respect.

  44. Joh says:

    We get it, Santa is a white guy too,right!
    When fantasy figures get so codefied it is funny.
    The womanizer aspect to bond is dated and limited at this point, and the world the bond novels were written in is gone.

    Let Miley Cyrus or Nicki Minaj play bond,

  45. TopCat says:

    * Ethnically British. I think it is implied that he is Scottish.