http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -007s.html

With any luck they'll release the audio if there is any, clear it up one way or the other.

The 50 Shades guy would be good I think, and it'd be brilliant to have an Ulsterman too.

I can see how it's been interpreted but I wonder if maybe he just meant not 'stereotypically English' i.e. not 'a bit posh'. He doesn't fit the worldwide cliche the way say Hugh Grant does (not that I'm suggesting Grant could be Bond, that would be catastrophic). Moore's Bond was plainly upper class and plainly DID fit the cliche, safari jacket and all. At the end of the day, Bond is part of 'The Establishment', he's never going to be down to earth the way The Wire was, that's just not the character. I don't know if Elba can do Bond but he's a very good actor so I'd be at least interested to see an audition tape for sure.

Or it could just be that Moore might be just a doddery old racist. There's plenty of them around.

I don't mean any offence, but Bond was always described as white and English in the books. As Jon says, he isn't stereotypically English, he isn't stereotypically Bond.

This (Idris as Bond) sounds a lot like the complete disrespect for the story / character that the new Borne films were. The first couple were very good spy films in their own right, but were a complete sacrilege to the Borne character and books.

Why does he have to be Bond? Why can't he be a new, modern style of secret agent, create a character in his own right?

It's people with an agenda trying to make a point. We must have a black Bond for the same reason we must have a female Doctor Who. It's not down to any dramatic or contextual necessity, it's because some people cannot contemplate anything which is not uniformly applicable to everyone.


Quite so, I'd be happy to watch a spy thriller with Idris in it. But Bond is a pre-existing defined character, both in appearance and character. Imagine if a white guy was cast to play Othello, there'd be uproar.

To play Devils advocate.

Sherlock Holmes was never mentioned to have a deerstalker hat and pipe.

But that now defines what Sherlock is. I'm not saying this is the same but movies have a precedent of evolving characters that were originally defined in literature.

I think Idris could play a good Bond. The character of Bond changes every few films anyway why not let Idris do it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

James Bond was never blonde, yet here's Daniel Craig. Frankenstein's Monster was never the clad headed thing that Karloff popularised. This happens a lot - cinematic or TVS adaptations playing fast and loose with the source material.

Well that's fair enough, but the bare act is that Sherlock Holmes is now well defined as a character - and the character is defined by much more than the costume. Bond is defined as a character. As is.. Batman, or Captain Kirk, or Flashman or Dennis The Menace. If you want to make significant changes to these kinds of characters, you have to come up with a valid reason why you are doing it or you will fail. And 'tokenism' is not a valid reason. There are plenty of British actors who could play Bond. Is Idris Elba the best choice when the part becomes available? If he is, he'll get the part and if he isn't, he shouldn't. It's that simple. And if it comes down to a tie between him and another actor who looks more like what people's expectations of Bond are, then he's not going to get the role because it's a commercial business and you don't make billions by confounding people's opinions.


We don't know whether he would or not unless he did. Plenty of actors were 'made for' a given part until they finally got it and underwhelmed. Pierce Brosnan being an obvious and relevant example. I always said Colin Salmon should have gotten the job when Brosnan did.



You misunderstand the issue. The issue is not 'why not let Idris Elba do it?' because that question applies to every single member of the human race. Why not let me do it? Why not let you do it? This is backwards thinking. The issue is 'Why let Idris Elba do it?'. Why is he the best person to do so? There are plenty of actors who would jump at the lead role in a major blockbuster long running film franchise. What is Idris Elba's unique attribute that makes him a better fit than any of those? If the only reason to give him the part is that the colour of his skin will make a statement, then that's no good reason to give him the part.

I agree with the fact that he shouldn't be given the role because of the colour of his skin. But equally I feel that he shouldn't be removed from the list of candidates because of that either.

You're right though, he should (or should not) get the role because of what he brings to the role. If he is right for it then let him play the part. If he isn't right then don't let him play it.

But, I disagree with people saying that he shouldn't play the part because he is black.

It's definitely an interesting topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was thinking along the same lines, I was going to suggest Jason Statham in the lead role of another remake of Shaft...

The pipe certainly was, Watson often complained about the strong shag Holmes used to smoke.

As an aside, it's worth pointing out that they've already changed Moneypenny from white to black and I really don't recall there being any great outrage. Granted, she isn't the headline character but the franchise has form for switching the traditional rolls. Judie Dench was very good as M in my opinion.
Should Elba get the gig just because he's black? No, of course not. Should not being white forever preclude a black (or any other ethnicity) actor from playing Bond? I don't think so either.

Do the books happen to mention if he's English or Scottish? I vaguely recall the movies being in-authentically ambivalent on that score.

"Bond reminds me rather of Hoagy Carmichael, but there is something cold and ruthless." - Vesper Lynd, Casino Royale



Fleming's own sketch of Bond:

I don't think there's anything wrong with changing things, plenty of long running series have. But the change has to bring something to the story, expose an angle that was there but hadn't ever really been looked at before. That's why Craig's Bond isn't a disaster - they've concentrated more on the aspects of the character which haven't been particularly played upon before which most align to Craig's acting range. He is 'Bond' but he's also the Bond that's best for Craig to play. If there is an aspect of Bond's character that another actor is best fit to play and the script writers want to explore that then let them play the role. However if you're going to depart massively from the established character simply to allow an actor who is currently fashionable to play the role, that's almost certainly not going to succeed.