Lakov Bond?

[Sagan]

I know this may get a couple of Molotov Cocktails lobbed at me, but... Sean Connery will always be known for James Bond, but Craig IS the modern Bond. He took the character into the 21st century. I actually like the slightly edgier, rougher angle.

And I say all of this as growing up watching James Bond on network TV on Sunday nights(Ooo... Special! Sunday Night Movie), with usually either Sean Connery or Roger Moore.

Yes, I don't mind the rougher, tougher Bond, because it's more in line with what a trained murderer would be really like, but I don't go along with that "bringing characters into the modern day" thing. I can't see anything wrong with "modern" audiences being presented with a fictional character who is valid in terms of his original conception. I think this "need" of modern audiences is actually a contrived thing, probably based on a small sample of hearsay from a small group of movie-goers. Like those people who demand of theatre producers that Shakespeare should be presented in the nude.

 

[Sagan]

Sagan, buddy, you should've quit while you were ahead. The central premise of your post is to put it mildly - insane. You should do two things. First, go to an eye doctor. Second, go grab a book - with photographs - about how human beings look like.


Now that we've established that you know nothing about how Slavic people look, I recommend that you pick up anthropology books, so you can educate yourself.

It's one thing to have a different subjective opinion - as about Nic Cage's acting and what motivates Mel Gibson, is he to your eye insecure etc., - we can agree to disagree. It's subjective. But facts? Nope. There is only being correct, or not about facts. You are simply incorrect - and wildly so - and that can easily be established, as I did by providing actual links. I recommend that you express your opinions freely, but that you research your facts carefully. You have failed ignominiously at the latter.

Well, I hope you feel better, having got all that out of your system, OC.

But I was asking why a blonde actor was chosen to play a dark-haired character. Remember?

 

[Sagan]

With that said...

If you examine Sagan's words carefully, I think he's just generalizing a bit (based on his own stereotypical assertions) and it's nothing to get too worked up about.

After his intro - in the first short paragraph - he only mentions his face, which indeed could be very Slavic-looking. I am Polish and although dirty blonde myself, I have over a dozen cousins in Poland who have a similar face. I've lived in the country. And traveled a lot as well.

And then in the next paragraph - although he mentions Slavic hair - he's actually describing (in his opinion) one Russian stereotype, which can/may look like his description. If he said: ...but he has the little eyes, the tiny chin, and the short, muscular stature of all Russians or Slavs then I would beg to differ as well.

I usually try to give people the benefit of the doubt...

Thank you, NorBro. I was generalising a bit, of course, in referring to black hair in Slavic peoples. I would never claim that 100% of any racial group had black (or any colour) hair, just as I would never assert that 100% of people who choose curiously morbid usernames has a fascination with death.

Yes, stereotypes are Hollywood's stock-in-trade, but they sometimes they get it wrong just for the sake of "updating" their product.

 

[Sagan]

And oh, btw., as I DOCUTMENTED (not a matter of opinion) Bronson was not an ethnic Slav.

So did I, OldCorpse. In my very first post.

 

[Sagan]

LOL, I've lived in Poland for 3 years, and produced an American movie there, so you're not going to tell me anything about Poland's population - we had to cast our movie from local actors and local people and extras.........

Wow, you must have been a fun guy on the set, Old Corpse.

 

[Sagan]

Oh, that's cute how you edited after the fact from baldly stating "black" to "dark (which I'm assuming is black)" - but originally you stated BLACK. So how do you justify it? Sure, you edited after the fact. But you were WRONG originally. And even with the editing - you say "I'm assuming is black" - WTF?? It just goes to show how your mind twists what you see. He said DARK - what reason on earth is there to "assume BLACK" - none, that's what. Bizarre. Why not read what the man wrote himself and used his own word "dark"? Why assume - with ZERO justification - "black". So wrong. Words have meaning. Respect that.

Wow. His mind twists things? Steady on, man.

 

[Sagan]

The win goes to Sagan who is nearly silent since 2011 and then trolls the group with two threads about actors.

Yes, funny, that, eh?rogar-Happy(DBG):

Yes, I've been out of the film-making loop for a while. Life took over and wouldn't be denied. I came back here while in a rare idle moment, to enjoy the "camera"-raderie of a forum. But it seems I didn't have much to say except to grind an axe which was blunted with misuse rather than overuse.

I suppose I should stay off opinionated topics henceforth.

 

[Guest]

Yes, granted, but casting a guy who doesn't look a bit like the Bond as Ian Fleming described him isn't subverting expectations, it's just being unfaithful to the source material.

I think you just agreed with me?

 

[Sagan]

If we aspire to have any reasonable exchange of views on dvxuser, we are obliged to maintain a minimum level of factual correctness.

I think I read somewhere that courtesy is also a requirement, OC.

When I see something that greviously departs from that standard, I point it out. You may call that aggressive. I call that reasonable...

You know, some people would call it annoyingly pedantic, OC.

 

[Sagan]

___

Why can't you also just for a second consider that Sagan (I don't know if he did) maybe meant black hair when he said dark hair?

In fact I did, Bro. It's probably my loose Australian way of expressing myself. Down here, you seldom see anyone with actually solid black hair. Except perhaps some people of our Asian communities, and Greek as well. So, when we talk about a person with black hair, we just say "dark", to avoid making a definitive description.

That's my excuse, anyway. I didn't expect it would create such an extreme reaction in Old Corpse, and I apologise for putting you in that situation.

 

[OldCorpse]

Well, I hope you feel better, having got all that out of your system, OC.

But I was asking why a blonde actor was chosen to play a dark-haired character. Remember?

And asserting that the non-Slav looking Craig was Slav-looking. And asserting that Slavs are supposedly little eyed and tiny chinned, which btw. the non-Slavic Craig is neither, nor are Slavs in general. And asserting that Slavs in general are black haired - when not only are they generally not, but rather the opposite by the numbers. And asserting that Slavs are short, when by the numbers they in fact are not, even if the non-Slav Craig is.

So you got quite a collection of wrong assertions there, so you shouldn't be so modest as to claim that you merely highlighted Craig's hair color. A piece of advice regarding comparing or commenting on people's looks as it relates to their racial or ethnic background - don't make such assertions when they are blatantly wrong, it's not a good look these days. You may want to stay away from race and ethnicity when you can't be arsed to not make inaccurate statements. Blatantly wrong racial and ethnic generalizations are problematic and not excused by "I was only generalizing":

I was generalising a bit, of course, in referring to black hair in Slavic peoples. I would never claim that 100% of any racial group had black (or any colour) hair,

when you "generalize" based on ludicrously wrong facts "Oh, Craig is blond, like most Nigerians" - "well, I was only generalizing based on albinos in Nigeria, I would never claim any racial that 100% of any racial group had white (or any colour) hair". Black-haired Slavs are a tiny minority - you don't "generalize" based on that, because that's not how generalizations even work - they work on going up - generalizing - from the prevalent majority, not tiny minority. Get you facts straight.

As to Bronson, you certainly asserted that he had "the look" of a Slavonic face - which he didn't and in fact had a pretty classic Tatar face, so good job there champ, commenting on ethnic traits again, when you know zilch, that way you expose ignorance about two ethnic groups with one sweeping dumb statement (Slavs and Tatars).

How about you drop inaccurate "ethnic characteristics" statements, before it becomes more offensive than simply wrong? Do you think you can do that? Or would my pointing out how you are wrong make me a "not fun" person on the set? And I have news for you - these days your original statements would sooner get you ejected from a set than my pointing out how you should not bring up race or ethnic background and sh|tty "generalizations", when you can't tell your behind from a hole in the ground. Have a nice day.

 

[Sagan]

I think you just agreed with me?

No. I used "unfaithful" in a negative way. Subverting is also negative but I thought you meant it in the sense that most people so today, namely that it's a desirable thing. To shake things up, to improve them.

Anyway, I'm pleased to see we fundamentally agree.

 

[Sagan]

How about you drop inaccurate "ethnic characteristics" statements, before it becomes more offensive than simply wrong? Do you think you can do that? Or would my pointing out how you are wrong make me a "not fun" person on the set? And I have news for you - these days your original statements would sooner get you ejected from a set than my pointing out how you should not bring up race or ethnic background and sh|tty "generalizations", when you can't tell your behind from a hole in the ground. Have a nice day.

Evidently you're out to cause trouble, so I won't respond to your post in detail. I don't want the thread closed just for your sake. So, I'll block you now, and avoid further nastiness like this.

 

[OldCorpse]

Evidently you're out to cause trouble, so I won't respond to your post in detail. I don't want the thread closed just for your sake. Better that I block you now, and avoid further nastiness like this.

Better yet, avoid engaging in the kind of nastiness you did in your original post and subsequent responses to me. Bye!

 

[Guest]

No. I used "unfaithful" in a negative way. Subverting is also negative but I thought you meant it in the sense that most people so today, namely that it's a desirable thing. To shake things up, to improve them.

Anyway, I'm pleased to see we fundamentally agree.

I think ever since Rian Johnson did Star Wars, “subverting expectations” can be viewed as not appealing, especially when a film has pre defined constructs.

...but hey, they could have hired Nic Cage to play Bond.

 

[Sagan]

I think ever since Rian Johnson did Star Wars, “subverting expectations” can be viewed as not appealing, especially when a film has pre defined constructs.

Yes that's what I would have thought, James. I'm unfortunately becoming accustomed to seeing misuses of the English language every day, so I tend to see them when they're not there. Sorry. :embarasse

...but hey, they could have hired Nic Cage to play Bond.

Now, that was just plain evil of you, Jim lad!!!rogar-KnockedOut(D :laugh:

 

[TheDingo]

Yes, granted, but casting a guy who doesn't look a bit like the Bond as Ian Fleming described him isn't subverting expectations, it's just being unfaithful to the source material.

...And what happens when Idris Elba picks up the Bond mantle after Craig is done ?

 

[Justin Kuhn]

Yes, granted, but casting a guy who doesn't look a bit like the Bond as Ian Fleming described him isn't subverting expectations, it's just being unfaithful to the source material.

FWIW....In the source material Bond is described as having "cruel eyes," and as nebulous as that is it's come to my mind a few times as a description of Daniel Craig. I think maybe it means squinty. With a generally cruel-ish demeanor.

 

[nothing]

An extremely racist discussion here with some rather shocking things stated without any apparent awareness of that fact. I'd expect such bullshit on Reddit, but I thought this crowd was more sophisticated than that.

It may be time for another extended break from this forum.

 

[OldCorpse]

An extremely racist discussion here with some rather shocking things stated without any apparent awareness of that fact. I'd expect such bullshit on Reddit, but I thought this crowd was more sophisticated than that.

It may be time for another extended break from this forum.

Agreed 100%. In fact there is some background here to my first response. I frequently recommend dvxuser to people interested in the industry, and generally they're happy to be turned on to this place. But that morning I woke up to an email from an actor who comes from that part of the world, and to whom I recommended this site, and they were pretty critical about the OP's post - how can such completely inaccurate ethnic descriptions be tolerated here, supposedly industry oriented site... makes life difficult for Slavic actors when wrong descriptions and idiot statements like that are prevalent. I read the OP's post and I was appalled. So I responded, hoping that it would put that whole thing to rest. But nope - instead, there's doubling down, and I'm apparently a person who must not be fun on the set! Unbelievable.

It's really pretty elementary - if you don't know what you're talking about, don't open your gob to proclaim your ignorant opinion of how a race or ethnic group looks like. It's offensive. To many people. Some of whom might post here calling out folks like Sagan, but many of whom read and are appalled. And the fact that guys like Sagan don't understand that, should be all the clue they need to stay away from such subjects. Today's readership is quite diverse and if you can't keep up with the times, consider not commenting on things you have done no research on, since nobody needs to hear what you ignorantly, based on nothing, think about how people present ethnically.