Daily Mail Commenters Are Really Angry About Idris Elba Playing James Bond

First topic message reminder :

When leaked emails from Sony appeared to show Idris Elba in the running to replace Daniel Craig as James Bond, MailOnline's commenters had a field day.
Despite 007 being played by at least eight people in the past, some of the Mail's readers threw their toys out of the pram when they heard Ian Fleming's classic spy character could be played by a black man.
The comments range from implying that black and white people are different species to equating fictional character James Bond to Nelson Mandela.
We really, really hope these are just trolls and not real people.


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/12/23/idris-elba-james-bond_n_6371644.html?utm_hp_ref=uk


And yet near every film about Jesus has been played by Americans and Europeans and not a Jew, Moses played by English and Americans, an Australian has played Noah or how about John Wayne playing Genghis Khan, all okay of course but a fictional character based on a British secret agent being played by someone who is British and they thrown their dummies out.
You cannot make it up how funny and sad some people are.

Eilzel wrote:I am enjoying it didge, as I've said my feelings on this aren't particularly strong in any case. I sometimes wonder why nicko posts on debating forums since he hardly ever want to 'debate' opinions anyway lol

Back on topic, I'm sorry but Connery, although he does have an accent, it is hardly the strongest (he's no Billy Connolly haha). And still, an accent is easier to accept in continuity than a whole change of skin colour.

^Eds, the Bond films are quality, and would be with Elba I don't doubt- you have no taste girl- EE on the otherhand...

Come on Eilzel, Connery and Moore for example look nothing like each other, yet in Dr Who when a character changes there is a reason behind the change and in Bond, nothing and you cannot again make out using conjecture again on how you notice compared to someone else mate on the accents, which is completely different between the two.
Do you see where I am coming from, you can have a complete change of person play the part and be explained like in Dr Who but for some reason Bond and other fictional works glaring forgo explaining thus allow for a loss in accuracy.
So again the reasoning behind to not have a Bond who is Black is contradicting beyond belief.
Nobody can tell me you are not going to notice the difference between now Sean Connery and Roger Moore for example.

nicko wrote:For fcuk sake whats the good of debating when didge is always "right" no matter what argument you put over he will always say he knows best, he's starting to do it with you or haven't you noticed.

Run along shit stirrer, nobody is buying your crap today, you might have better luck in the sewer across the water.

Thanks

nicko wrote:

Thanks Nicko, that is how I would describe many of the posters across the waters views.

Bang on mate.

You are obviously talking about posters on flap, yet you continue to post on there, you fcuking hypocrit

nicko wrote:You are obviously talking about posters on flap, yet you continue to post on there,  you fcuking hypocrit

Yes as i stand up to their vile views, not all posters are vile of course but there is a majority with vile views on there.
So of course I will continue to post there as much as you all play silly games like attempting to ignore like playground children and do not want me there.
There is nothing hypocritical at that, please learn the meaning of our language before making such idiotic errors.
So again stop acting like a fucking child and stop shit stirring as you always do.

Do not get this thread spoilt with your hate please Nicko, others are debating, as forum rules not to mention other forums, even if this is your feeble attempt to get it locked

Thanls

I enjoy the disagreement nicko, especially on a subject such as this which isn't a really serious issue. I happen to think I'm right, if we didn't believe we were both right there wouldn't be much of an argument. I don't come on forums to be beaten into agreement or to do the same to others, but to exchange and explain views.

Eilzel wrote:I enjoy the disagreement nicko, especially on a subject such as this which isn't a really serious issue. I happen to think I'm right, if we didn't believe we were both right there wouldn't be much of an argument. I don't come on forums to be beaten into agreement or to do the same to others, but to exchange and explain views.

Exactly mate, lets face it, most people will hold their views as right and rarely will people concede on a point, in fact I can and I know you and Eddie can for example at times.
Have a well deserved thanks.

Again didge the change from Moore to Connery was a requirement, one actor cannot play the same part forever. But the transition should not be as markedly obscure as it would be from a black man to a white man. For example if the Avengers movies replaced Nick Fury with a white actor, this would be silly, since even though he is white in the comics the current continuity has him as black.

Thanks didge no worries, strange we need to explain the art of debate at all to someone who posts on forums :-)

Eilzel wrote:Again didge the change from Moore to Connery was a requirement, one actor cannot play the same part forever. But the transition should not be as markedly obscure as it would be from a black man to a white man. For example if the Avengers movies replaced Nick Fury with a white actor, this would be silly, since even though he is white in the comics the current continuity has him as black.

But it is not explained Eizel, you are forgoing as many films do and even remake a film in its entirety without explaining. Again the transition was poor and inconsistent with the last actor or the book.
The fact is he is meant to be Scottish and if you can accept a person sounding and looking different from the last the same principle applies on skin colour as long as it is in keeping with the character of Bond.
Which will be British, handsome, womanizer extreme physical fitness, wit, no mercy, smokes 70 cigarettes a day etc.
Again the same principles you apply have to be the same for all films, what you are doing is widening the goal posts to then shorten them again to suit your view on what is acceptable on inaccuracies.

Eilzel wrote:Thanks didge no worries, strange we need to explain the art of debate at all to someone who posts on forums :-)

It is a deflection on his part Eilzel, he sadly dislikes me, which is up to him and is the real point he is trying to make.
If this was someone else debating you here, you would not here a peep out of him on this.

Anyway, I have to crack on, catch you all later.

Brasidas wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Again didge the change from Moore to Connery was a requirement, one actor cannot play the same part forever. But the transition should not be as markedly obscure as it would be from a black man to a white man. For example if the Avengers movies replaced Nick Fury with a white actor, this would be silly, since even though he is white in the comics the current continuity has him as black.

But it is not explained Eizel, you are forgoing as many films do and even remake a film in its entirety without explaining. Again the transition was poor and inconsistent with the last actor or the book.
The fact is he is meant to be Scottish and if you can accept a person sounding and looking different from the last the same principle applies on skin colour as long as it is in keeping with the character of Bond.
Which will be British, handsome, womanizer extreme physical fitness, wit, no mercy, smokes 70 cigarettes a day etc.
Again the same principles you apply have to be the same for all films, what you are doing is widening the goal posts to then shorten them again to suit your view on what is acceptable on inaccuracies.

I'm afraid I wont shift on this didge. Like it or not skin colour (race even if on superficial level not biological) is noticeable, to a much greater degree than accent. I would no more see the continuity broken in this instance than a Japanese man would see a fictional Japanese hero played by a white man with Japanese nationality in the same continuity. It wouldn't look right. Anyways I feel we will just go round in circles with this haha.

Eilzel wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


But it is not explained Eizel, you are forgoing as many films do and even remake a film in its entirety without explaining. Again the transition was poor and inconsistent with the last actor or the book.
The fact is he is meant to be Scottish and if you can accept a person sounding and looking different from the last the same principle applies on skin colour as long as it is in keeping with the character of Bond.
Which will be British, handsome, womanizer extreme physical fitness, wit, no mercy, smokes 70 cigarettes a day etc.
Again the same principles you apply have to be the same for all films, what you are doing is widening the goal posts to then shorten them again to suit your view on what is acceptable on inaccuracies.

I'm afraid I wont shift on this didge. Like it or not skin colour (race even if on superficial level not biological) is noticeable, to a much greater degree than accent. I would no more see the continuity broken in this instance than a Japanese man would see a fictional Japanese hero played by a white man with Japanese nationality in the same continuity. It wouldn't look right. Anyways I feel we will just go round in circles with this haha.

That is up to you mate, to me it was broken the moment they cast others into the role completely different to what was cast in Sean Connery and the books, You cannot then again quibble over skin colour if you have foregone other characteristics as has already happened in Bond.
To me I see nothing out of place based on skin colour being as British people is a concept of which many ethnic roots make up the country of .
It is not going to make any difference to me being as every Bond has looked completely different to the next without ever explaining this discrepancy, of which if you can accept that, then there stands no reason why you would not also accept a Bond into the role who again looks different to the others but where you draw only the line of the skin colour. Sorry I just do not buy that after they already all look different without a story change.

So if you were watching a Japanese movie series, and after 3 or 4 films the actor of the lead role was suddenly a white man after having been oriental for the previous movies, with no explanation- would you find nothing odd about this?

Eilzel wrote:So if you were watching a Japanese movie series, and after 3 or 4 films the actor of the lead role was suddenly a white man after having been oriental for the previous movies, with no explanation- would you find nothing odd about this?

If a person of Japanese ancestry can be British the same can apply in reverse in Japan where someone of British ancestry is Japanese nationality.
If the character had changed with no explanation each time to different looking people then no I would not have any issue, as I forgo that objection the moment I did not object to the other changes.
Again people need to stop placing man made concepts of what nationality people can be, in the past I would agree, but not in the 21st century

Eilzel, in case you haven't noticed, in a roundabout way didge is calling you racist. If one of us "right wingers" had said what you posted he would have been all over us like a rash, he goes easy on you because your the only one on newsfix that's interested in him.

nicko wrote:Eilzel,  in case you haven't noticed, in a roundabout way didge is calling you racist. If one of us "right wingers" had said what you posted he would have been all over us like a rash, he goes easy on you because your the only one on newsfix  that's interested in him.

Am all ears for this, what did Eilzel exactly say that you think I would have viewed as wrong and racist?

Not once did he refer to any group being inferior to another.

Brasidas wrote:

Eilzel wrote:So if you were watching a Japanese movie series, and after 3 or 4 films the actor of the lead role was suddenly a white man after having been oriental for the previous movies, with no explanation- would you find nothing odd about this?

If a person of Japanese ancestry can be British the same can apply in reverse in Japan where someone of British ancestry is Japanese nationality.
If the character had changed with no explanation each time to different looking people then no I would not have any issue, as I forgo that objection the moment I did not object to the other changes.
Again people need to stop placing man made concepts of what nationality people can be, in the past I would agree, but not in the 21st century

The difference we are having here seems to be on our definitions of what we are even talking about.

You are making this a discussion about 'nationality', which I am not.

Try to remove the subject of nationality if you can and just leave the fact someone who looks as different as possible would be playing the character. Yes Moore, Connery, Brosnan etc look different, noticeably different in fact- but someone with different skin colour is world apart as would be having a dwarf play Bond (would you object to this?). Race may be a flawed construct but skin colour is still a fact. This debate doesn't concern nationality- an Aussie played Bond after all- but a significant factor in how someone looks.

^nicko, as per my point on the 'didge is a homophobe' thread- he may well have labelled someone on flap racist in the same circumstances, but he'd have good grounds on which to do so since many there are indeed racist. He knows otherwise with me, since I oppose racism as ardently as he does. Now stop trying to detract

Eilzel wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


If a person of Japanese ancestry can be British the same can apply in reverse in Japan where someone of British ancestry is Japanese nationality.
If the character had changed with no explanation each time to different looking people then no I would not have any issue, as I forgo that objection the moment I did not object to the other changes.
Again people need to stop placing man made concepts of what nationality people can be, in the past I would agree, but not in the 21st century

The difference we are having here seems to be on our definitions of what we are even talking about.

You are making this a discussion about 'nationality', which I am not.

Try to remove the subject of nationality if you can and just leave the fact someone who looks as different as possible would be playing the character. Yes Moore, Connery, Brosnan etc look different, noticeably different in fact- but someone with different skin colour is world apart as would be having a dwarf play Bond (would you object to this?). Race may be a flawed construct but skin colour is still a fact. This debate doesn't concern nationality- an Aussie played Bond after all- but a significant factor in how someone looks.

^nicko, as per my point on the 'didge is a homophobe' thread- he may well have labelled someone on flap racist in the same circumstances, but he'd have good grounds on which to do so since many there are indeed racist. He knows otherwise with me, since I oppose racism as ardently as he does. Now stop trying to detract

But the start point of what someone looks like is really Sean Connery (or David Nivan if we want to be pedantic), so again you cannot again get around the fact you are saying it is okay to have someone who looks and sounds completely different and their only connection is the fact they both have pale or Caucasian looks Eilzel.
Your view is claiming it is miles different, sorry, as people all look different and your view here is now to play someone British based on the start point of being white.
That again makes no sense.
The fact is from film to film, you have accepted Bond looking completely different and are only drawing the line when it comes to skin colour or essentially Caucasion or Black. You have basically ignored when they have not looked the same with no story change and now only protest again with a person having African ancestry features.
This is why your view is essentially moving the goal posts to suit the debate.
You cannot claim one is acceptable, when they look or sound nothing like each other to then claim it crosses the line only based on skin colour mate.
So they all look different, you just only make an issue only on skin colour, even though they all look different anyway, that is illogical, as from the start the first change should have brought about this inaccuracy, which it never did.

Ok before I go on I want to know where you understood this statement from what I said:

...your view here is now to play someone British based on the start point of being white.

Where did I say anything that resembles this?

Eilzel wrote:Ok before I go on I want to know where you understood this statement from what I said:

...your view here is now to play someone British based on the start point of being white.

Where did I say anything that resembles this?

Never claimed you did, just the way it came out and this is being pedantic now mate, lol
Seriously that is being picky and getting away from the points made, happy to concede that was poor wording.
Come on Eilzel that really is being silly

So Eilzel, explain to me why when they changed James Bond to a new Character you did not question why the story never changed either and never explained that they were completely different people?
It took the view people would just accept this would happen, but the fact is I am now going to take the line it was inaccurate, why would I or should I accept without a story change somebody who looks and sounds nothing like Sean Connery?

haha, it isn't so picky when you consider I made a deliberate effort to move this away from being about nationality specifically in my previous post

To the other points. I don't see skin colour as being unimportant didge. I see all as equal of course it goes without saying. However, a whole persons being is defined by various aspects of 'what' they are as well as 'who' they are.

For example, I am a very different person as a gay man to what I would be as a straight man- because being gay has resulted in certain social decisions by myself and reactions by others.

Being black or white is equally as important in determining the type of person we are, because as with being gay, being black comes with certain social attitudes both within and without that shape who we are.

Now if Bond is black from the start of a new continuity there is no problem, but we already know Bond now and his being will be shaped as a white man.

I would be equally as opposed if in the next Bond film Moneypenny was white, she is not white now, and skin colour is one of the factors that makes a person who they are.

(post went on way longer than I thought it would lol)

Brasidas wrote:So Eilzel, explain to me why when they changed James Bond to a new Character you did not question why the story never changed either and never explained that they were completely different people?
It took the view people would just accept this would happen, but the fact is I am now going to take the line it was inaccurate, why would I or should I accept without a story change somebody who looks and sounds nothing like Sean Connery?

Because they didn't need to, although having different accents both were white men, the actor had to changed and Moore worked well in the role and direction they wanted to take the series. As I say above being black would result in a much different character in a way the transition from one white man to another is less likely to do.

Eilzel wrote:haha, it isn't so picky when you consider I made a deliberate effort to move this away from being about nationality specifically in my previous post

To the other points. I don't see skin colour as being unimportant didge. I see all as equal of course it goes without saying. However, a whole persons being is defined by various aspects of 'what' they are as well as 'who' they are.

For example, I am a very different person as a gay man to what I would be as a straight man- because being gay has resulted in certain social decisions by myself and reactions by others.

Being black or white is equally as important in determining the type of person we are, because as with being gay, being black comes with certain social attitudes both within and without that shape who we are.

Now if Bond is black from the start of a new continuity there is no problem, but we already know Bond now and his being will be shaped as a white man.

I would be equally as opposed if in the next Bond film Moneypenny was white, she is not white now, and skin colour is one of the factors that makes a person who they are.

(post went on way longer than I thought it would lol)

Woah, woah there Eilzel
Completely disagree, it is the fact of racism that has divided people through black and white as if they are separate races The problem is and has been because people have been wrongly cast as different based off something invented called races, when biologically we are all one race. It is cultures that show differences in humans where again no matter what ethnic group you are on being brought up in a culture you will form many of those views. So to me that is nothing more than a poor stereotype view in regards to how there is nothing biological in difference in who we are as a race.
There are certain aspects from cultures either from where people have come from that become part of societies or stay mainly within one ethnic group, but neither are different and it is this perception that I feel is very wrong, it has allowed a myth to spread as if we are separate entities.
It is cultures that make us different and even if being born gay, there is also a homosexual culture as well Eilzel and it will be these cultural aspects that make us different, not our skin colour.


Again the Bond character is British, male, a womanizer, supreme physical fitness, a killer, cold, witty, all of which any Black British person can play the part of, where again a black person can be raised very much in the same cultural setting as that of a white person.

Eilzel wrote:

Brasidas wrote:So Eilzel, explain to me why when they changed James Bond to a new Character you did not question why the story never changed either and never explained that they were completely different people?
It took the view people would just accept this would happen, but the fact is I am now going to take the line it was inaccurate, why would I or should I accept without a story change somebody who looks and sounds nothing like Sean Connery?

Because they didn't need to, although having different accents both were white men, the actor had to changed and Moore worked well in the role and direction they wanted to take the series. As I say above being black would result in a much different character in a way the transition from one white man to another is less likely to do.

That is illogical you are just hoping people will accept the change because they are both white,  which does not make any sense because they do sound and look different.
Moore may have worked well in the role, none of which is being disputed, but what is being questioned is how he can go from being one person to being another person not only in looks and accent but also in Character.

Brasidas wrote:

Eilzel wrote:haha, it isn't so picky when you consider I made a deliberate effort to move this away from being about nationality specifically in my previous post

To the other points. I don't see skin colour as being unimportant didge. I see all as equal of course it goes without saying. However, a whole persons being is defined by various aspects of 'what' they are as well as 'who' they are.

For example, I am a very different person as a gay man to what I would be as a straight man- because being gay has resulted in certain social decisions by myself and reactions by others.

Being black or white is equally as important in determining the type of person we are, because as with being gay, being black comes with certain social attitudes both within and without that shape who we are.

Now if Bond is black from the start of a new continuity there is no problem, but we already know Bond now and his being will be shaped as a white man.

I would be equally as opposed if in the next Bond film Moneypenny was white, she is not white now, and skin colour is one of the factors that makes a person who they are.

(post went on way longer than I thought it would lol)

Woah, woah there Eilzel
Completely disagree, it is the fact of racism that has divided people through black and white as if they are separate races The problem is and has been because people have been wrongly cast as different based off something invented called races, when biologically we are all one race. It is cultures that show differences in humans where again no matter what ethnic group you are on being brought up in a culture you will form many of those views. So to me that is nothing more than a poor stereotype view in regards to how there is nothing biological in difference in who we are as a race.
There are certain aspects from cultures either from where people have come from that become part of societies or stay mainly within one ethnic group, but neither are different and it is this perception that I feel is very wrong, it has allowed a myth to spread as if we are separate entities.
It is cultures that make us different and even if being born gay, there is also a homosexual culture as well Eilzel and it will be these cultural aspects that make us different, not our skin colour.


Again the Bond character is British, male, a womanizer, supreme physical fitness, a killer, cold, witty, all of which any Black British person can play the part of, where again a black person can be raised very much in the same cultural setting as that of a white person.

I was quite clear in the societal differences shaping black and gay people didge, not biological ones. Of course it is the racism and homophobia that cause black people and gay people to have different 'views' to white and straight people- not in every aspect but in some. I'm not saying we are 'separate entities', I'm saying that because socieities view and treat others differently our 'persons' are not the same as they would be if we took away those factors in our being (of being black, white, gay or straight).

You are also of course being selective in your definitions, you list things Bond IS but decide his skin colour is not part of it, that's very subjective in itself. And it does make a difference what colour his skin is because in certain parts of the world a black man, even if British, WILL be treated differently than a white man. So it is a factor.

Eilzel wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



Woah, woah there Eilzel
Completely disagree, it is the fact of racism that has divided people through black and white as if they are separate races The problem is and has been because people have been wrongly cast as different based off something invented called races, when biologically we are all one race. It is cultures that show differences in humans where again no matter what ethnic group you are on being brought up in a culture you will form many of those views. So to me that is nothing more than a poor stereotype view in regards to how there is nothing biological in difference in who we are as a race.
There are certain aspects from cultures either from where people have come from that become part of societies or stay mainly within one ethnic group, but neither are different and it is this perception that I feel is very wrong, it has allowed a myth to spread as if we are separate entities.
It is cultures that make us different and even if being born gay, there is also a homosexual culture as well Eilzel and it will be these cultural aspects that make us different, not our skin colour.


Again the Bond character is British, male, a womanizer, supreme physical fitness, a killer, cold, witty, all of which any Black British person can play the part of, where again a black person can be raised very much in the same cultural setting as that of a white person.

I was quite clear in the societal differences shaping black and gay people didge, not biological ones. Of course it is the racism and homophobia that cause black people and gay people to have different 'views' to white and straight people- not in every aspect but in some. I'm not saying we are 'separate entities', I'm saying that because socieities view and treat others differently our 'persons' are not the same as they would be if we took away those factors in our being (of being black, white, gay or straight).

You are also of course being selective in your definitions, you list things Bond IS but decide his skin colour is not part of it, that's very subjective in itself. And it does make a difference what colour his skin is because in certain parts of the world a black man, even if British, WILL be treated differently than a white man. So it is a factor.

The differences in people are cultural it is as simple as that and to view again a difference is to me where all the problem started Eizel, all of which this view point should change for the better in the future and is what holds society back. Again the same can be found where homophobic views have wrongly formed from poor stereotype perceptions.


His skin colour is not important for one being as it is fictional and not real, whee Bond was created in a past time where one of imperailsim, which today such a writing would not have brought about such a white perceptive only view of being British. It is like I have said, back in the time it was created I would have shared your views that to cast a Black bond after Sean Connery, but since the character has changed every time, I fail to see any reasoning to deny someone Black British playing the part. The point is it is you that is forgoing accuracies on the one hand and then using accuracy on just this point of being white, that is a complete contradiction mate.
The fact that people are treated different in the world is what is wrong and to me this would go a long way to help dispel such poor myths.
So you are being selective over what you yourself view as is fine to forgo inaccuracies and then also decide what should be allowed as accurate or not.
The reasoning there is all over the place and is thus based on your personal preference.

I think the same could be said for you didge, both of us have our own subjectivity in fairness.

Eilzel wrote:I think the same could be said for you didge, both of us have our own subjectivity in fairness.

Of course buddy, but in my case I am not claiming the past inaccuracies as is the case with this new one will make any real difference.




Nicko has now started a thread about me across the water because he is not man enough here, that he needs some lapdogs to back him up.
What a child.

Think we are never going to reach a balance here Eilzel, sorry mate, though it has been a great debate.

Brasidas wrote:

Eilzel wrote:I think the same could be said for you didge, both of us have our own subjectivity in fairness.

Of course buddy, but in my case I am not claiming the past inaccuracies as is the case with this new one will make any real difference.




Nicko has now started a thread about me across the water because he is not man enough here, that he needs some lapdogs to back him up.
What a child.

Think we are never going to reach a balance here Eilzel, sorry mate, though it has been a great debate.

It has, I'll throw in my lot over there soon enough

Istarted a thread on flap besause I'm too frightened to do it on here, what the fuck makes you so special ? il'l call you a hypocrite any where you two faced shit head

nicko wrote:Istarted a thread on flap besause I'm too frightened to do it on here, what the fuck makes you so special ? il'l call you a hypocrite any where you two faced shit head  

Someone is clearly mad his spelling is all other the place. 

You can call me what you like, but you just keep on proving what a shit stirrer you are pops.

You went there to bitch so as to get attention from the others.

Mate if you need a hug just ask, am happy to give you some attention if you are feeling unloved.

As I read the comments of you two guys, I am impressed by wealth of knowledge you both have about Bond movies. But, also it seems that perhaps the genre of Bond movies has played out...ergo, it's not who plays Bond, but merely that we are tired of it.

In no other business is copycatting more prevalent than in the film making business. It's not the films that are boring, but the search from material that is tedious. Remakes. Old TV shows. Comic books. News stories...I'm thinking of American Hustle and Zero Dark Thirty. Where is the Dostoevsky or Molière, with an occasional original plot?

It's as if they are afraid to let go of James Bond for fear the whole ship will sink.

MY spelling is all over the place, pot, kettle comes to mind. I see you'v asked your mate over to flap, is it because both of you are not getting the the attention you crave?

nicko wrote:MY spelling is all over the place,  pot, kettle comes to mind. I see you'v asked your mate over to flap,  is it because both of you are not getting the the attention you crave?

Are you talking to me? I've never been on flap.

Your spelling is fine, nicko. Keep posting...I'm listening. Cheers...

nicko wrote:MY spelling is all over the place,  pot, kettle comes to mind. I see you'v asked your mate over to flap,  is it because both of you are not getting the the attention you crave?

Stop being a crybaby nicky

^Quill, I hardly think the Bonds have played out. The current Craig film are the best since Goldeneye and the better Moore years- way better than all but on of Brosnan's films and all Dalton's. Some say the best since Connery

And for the record nicko, didge did not ask me to go to flap, I decided to go back for a few reasons, not least the fact people get a free ride to spout hate over there with only didge and scrat really opposing it.

Eilzel wrote:

nicko wrote:MY spelling is all over the place,  pot, kettle comes to mind. I see you'v asked your mate over to flap,  is it because both of you are not getting the the attention you crave?

Stop being a crybaby nicky

^Quill, I hardly think the Bonds have played out. The current Craig film are the best since Goldeneye and the better Moore years- way better than all but on of Brosnan's films and all Dalton's. Some say the best since Connery

Yeah, but I'm one of those who read all of Flemming before Casino Royal came out in film.  Hollywood departed from Flemming books back in the sixties.  Now they are Hollywood plots, that only have the faintest, mostly diluted taste of a Flemming story.

If you want quality spy genre, try John La Carré...I recommend the Karla Trilogy: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy or The Honorable Schoolboy, and finally, Smiley's People.  Best there ever was, by the best British stream-of-consciousness writer since James Joyce (okay, he was Irish).  Those are original, and better than the bond stories.

     FOLLOWING on from Elizel's earlier notion of "rebooting" the series (as has been done with Bourne, Jurassic Park, Batman, Superman and others in recent years..) ~ why not at some future date have a new 'James Bond' character taking  over the role, where he just happens to be a 'long lost son' (sure it's a hoary old Hollywood standby, but it still works..) of the original Bond ???

JAMES has bedded enough negro, Chinese and Indian women over the years that he could well have several "half-caste" offspring roaming across the world..

WHY not bring in a new generation dusky-skinned son (or daughter), who has the benefits of a foreign military start, followed by some spiritual "wandering in the wilderness" [a la Rambo, Rocky, Batman, Bourne..] who is invited to join Naval Intelligence and then MI6, as he uses his half-Scottish inheritance (OR it uses him..) to work his way up through the British system ?      

Lone Wolf wrote:
     FOLLOWING on from Elizel's earlier notion of "rebooting" the series (as has been done with Bourne, Jurassic Park, Batman, Superman and others in recent years..) ~ why not at some future date have a new 'James Bond' character taking  over the role, where he just happens to be a 'long lost son' (sure it's a hoary old Hollywood standby, but it still works..) of the original Bond ???

JAMES has bedded enough negro, Chinese and Indian women over the years that he could well have several "half-caste" offspring roaming across the world..

WHY not bring in a new generation dusky-skinned son or daughter, who has the benefits of a foreign military start, followed by some spiritual "wandering in the wilderness" [a la Rocky, Batman, Bourne..] who is invited to join Naval Intelligence and then MI6, as he uses his half-Scottish inheritance (OR it uses him..) to work his way up through the British system ?      

That would work! I like it. Not a son, but a daughter...keep up with the feminist movement and all. Maybe Zoe Saldana, as the lost daughter he begat in his days palling around with Felix Leiter in So. America.

Jaimié Bondetta..

More "kick butt" than Nikita;
More resourceful than Lara Cross;
More "intelligent" than Ellen Ripley...

British Intelligence will never be the same again.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Haha! "Double-O Eight."



I think it works

Matt Damon swears he is coming back to the Borne series.  But I liked Borne Legacy, Jeremy Renner, just fine.  And Rachael Weisz rocked my boat in The Constant Gardner. She was a bit awkward on the back of a motorcycle in Borne Legacy. Not like Cameron Diaz (Knight and Day).  

BTW, isn't Rachael married to Daniel Craig?

yes she is.....lucky cow

CG was an excellent film.
Fiennes not hard? Ummm remember Amon Goeth in Schindler's List????? He was pure hard evil.

Cass wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Matt Damon swears he is coming back to the Borne series.  But I liked Borne Legacy, Jeremy Renner, just fine.  And Rachael Weisz rocked my boat in The Constant Gardner.  She was a bit awkward on the back of a motorcycle in Borne Legacy.  Not like Cameron Diaz (Knight and Day).  

BTW, isn't Rachael married to Daniel Craig?

yes she is.....lucky cow

CG was an excellent film.
Fiennes not hard? Ummm remember Amon Goeth in Schindler's List????? He was pure hard evil.

Yes, but Fiennes gets more type-cast as the gentle schoolboy or sketchy intellectual. How about The Reader with Kate Winslet? Very typical casting for him.

Eilzel wrote:Again didge the change from Moore to Connery was a requirement, one actor cannot play the same part forever. But the transition should not be as markedly obscure as it would be from a black man to a white man. For example if the Avengers movies replaced Nick Fury with a white actor, this would be silly, since even though he is white in the comics the current continuity has him as black.

No, no, NO you cannot do that. They already established they can change race in the continuity; another race change would be fine.

For me, I think the next Fury should be a Latina. Maybe somebody we're already used to seeing with an eye patch ...



There we go, problem solved and 5x5

Also, come on people, back me up. The eight ball being black, the game in the UK actually being called "blackball" ... black 008. You know it's genius.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Also, come on people, back me up. The eight ball being black, the game in the UK actually being called "blackball" ... black 008. You know it's genius.

hmmm I thought I had quoted on this last night saying how much of a genius you are.....

Ben.is.genius.

Cass wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Also, come on people, back me up. The eight ball being black, the game in the UK actually being called "blackball" ... black 008. You know it's genius.

hmmm I thought I had quoted on this last night saying how much of a genius you are.....

Ben.is.genius.

Ah, Cass ... I like you too