Lakov Bond?

[Sagan]

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

Well, to draw a contemporary parallel, what would happen if the Star Trek producers cast a very short, obese man with tight curly red hair and a Jerry Lewis voice as Mr Spock?

The paying audience has a right to expect that the fictional character with which they're very fondly familiar is going to remain the same, (in fact, exactly the same), when they put their money down and walk into the cinema. If filmmakers significantly change anything about the character as originally conceived, they're taking money under false pretences.

It's a simple as that, and has absolutely zero to do with "racism" or "sexism" or any other "ism".

 

[Sagan]

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.

Yes, Justin, Craig fits the bill in those two respects.

 

[Sagan]

An extremely racist discussion here with some rather shocking things stated without any apparent awareness of that fact. I'd expect such bulls*%t on Reddit, but I thought this crowd was more sophisticated than that.

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

Just before you leave, Nothing, may I point out that discussing the physical features of various racial groups is not "racism". That's a common mistake made by people who don't think about their "isms" very deeply.

Tell me if the following "shocks" you:

Most people from the African continent whom I've personally met in Australia are dark-skinned and have generally "negroid" facial features. Some of the women have been the most beautiful women I've ever laid eyes on. Most of them have black hair in fairly tight close curls.

In my life I've had two girlfriends who came from Italian families, and upon meeting them, I've noticed that they were dark-haired, olive-complexioned, and in company very vivacious individuals with a tendency to speak enthusiastically and loudly. The men in the family were "good-looking", while the women were quite beautiful, and had a tendency to enjoy displaying their appearance for effect.

I once lived in a suburb in which the predominant demographic was Vietnamese families. I was friends with many of them, and I would describe them (if I was asked to do so), as generally slight in physical build, with black hair that was noticeably straight, small noses, and a hint of epicanthic folds in their eyes. They tended to speak in the higher vocal register, and had a tendency to giggle or chuckle a lot, even the men.

I presently live in an area where the dominant demographic is Greek. Of the many Greek people I've met since coming here, I've found that the majority of them have black hair, olive-swarthy complexions, with very defined facial features. The men tend to go gray relatively early, and many are noted for being "good-looking" men, while the women as a rule tend to fatness in maturity. They socialise loudly and enthusiastically. They have a slight tendency to prefer Greek company, but are very accepting of, and cordial to, people of other backgrounds.

Now, if all that hasn't caused apoplexy in you, will you tell me your feelings upon reading it?

 

[Mitch Gross]

Well, to draw a contemporary parallel, what would happen if the Star Trek producers cast a very short, obese man with tight curly red hair and a Jerry Lewis voice as Mr Spock?

The paying audience has a right to expect that the fictional character with which they're very fondly familiar is going to remain the same, (in fact, exactly the same), when they put their money down and walk into the cinema. If filmmakers significantly change anything about the character as originally conceived, they're taking money under false pretences.

It's a simple as that, and has absolutely zero to do with "racism" or "sexism" or any other "ism".

Screw that.

The audience has a “right” to be entertained for the price of the ticket. Beyond that they get what they get. To think otherwise is ludicrous. This is similar to the claims that it’s somehow wrong to cast an African-American actor in the role of Ariel in the live action version of The Little Mermaid, all because the previous Disney cartoon drew a Caucasian character with red hair. It’s a fictional character, and a fantasy creature at that.

Doctor Who can be a female, James Bond can be black, and Shakespeare can be performed in modern dress. Our world continues to expand and the arts can accept this, exalt in it and comment upon it. Thinking otherwise is small.

 

[Sagan]

Screw that.

The audience has a “right” to be entertained for the price of the ticket. Beyond that they get what they get.

Wow. Not exactly the old show business edict, "Give the folks what they want, and they'll keep coming back", is it, Mitch?

This is similar to the claims that it’s somehow wrong to cast an African-American actor in the role of Ariel in the live action version of The Little Mermaid, all because the previous Disney cartoon drew a Caucasian character with red hair. It’s a fictional character, and a fantasy creature at that.

I never mentioned Ariel, Mitch. You did.

Doctor Who can be a female, James Bond can be black, and Shakespeare can be performed in modern dress. Our world continues to expand and the arts can accept this, exalt in it and comment upon it. Thinking otherwise is small.

Mitch, our world isn't "expanding", it's merely becoming sterile and mercenary. And that's because creativity is diminishing. Filmmakers and screenwriters have reached a plateau where originality lies stagnant, and where nothing new is being thought up. As a Cinema Product Manager, you'd know perfectly well that, in order to continue to make money, the film business has resorted to the cheapest possible trick. They've simply taken fictional characters, (that someone else created), arbitrarily changed the gender, or the ethnicity, or the height, weight, or colour of those fictional characters, and cynically sold them under the pretence of "inclusiveness". You won't find much smaller thinking than that, Mitch.

 

[Barry_Green]

Multiple people have reported this thread. We can't see every thread, and as such rely on user reports.

As such, this is the first I'm seeing of it, and I must say: What the hell is going on here? DVXUser demands respectful interaction, this thread looks more like a food fight.

Before shutting it down, I would like to address a couple of the points in here.

Well, to draw a contemporary parallel, what would happen if the Star Trek producers cast a very short, obese man with tight curly red hair and a Jerry Lewis voice as Mr Spock?

It is their right to do so, if that's who they decide will best portray the role and serve the purposes of the film. And who are you to say they can't or shouldn't? Maybe that actor has a unique voice, a unique perspective, maybe the challenging of audience perceptions is exactly what they want to accomplish. It is their art, it is their right.

The paying audience has a right to expect that the fictional character with which they're very fondly familiar is going to remain the same, (in fact, exactly the same), when they put their money down and walk into the cinema. If filmmakers significantly change anything about the character as originally conceived, they're taking money under false pretences.

Bull$#!@. Nobody stays the same. Everyone ages. They get fat. Look at Shatner and James Doohan, they continued to play their same roles even though they looked basically nothing like their original selves. Remakes are common, almost expected in this industry -- do they cast the same actors in remakes?

Anyone who thinks as Sagan does, must be grossly uninformed about the history of filmmaking (and even acting!) and the economics of filmmaking. White Charlton Heston's most famous role was as the middle-eastern Hebrew Moses; the Egyptian Pharoah in that film was played by the white Russian Yul Brynner (whose most famous role was as a now-Thai, the King of Siam). In one of the most famous '80's films, Highlander, Scotsman Sean Connery played a Spaniard who was actually an Egyptian, and the role of the Scottish Highlander was played by a Frenchman. Historically, the role of women on stage has been played by men for centuries, and still is in some art forms (like Kabuki). Peter Sellers was made up in "brownface" to play an Indian in "The Party", and on and on and on.

In modern times, we have the 5' 7" Tom Cruise cast to play the role of Jack Reacher, who is described in the books as being six-foot-five, 250 pounds, with a 50" chest. Pat Morita, of Japanese descent,, was cast as the voice of the Emperor of China(!) in Mulan. In the same film, Donny Osmond, the whitest of whitebread, played the singing voice of Li Shang, the Chinese warrior captain that saved the emperor of China.

So here's the deal: producers are the ones who put their money on the line, and they're entitled to cast whoever the hell they want for whatever the hell role they want. If they think it best serves their film to cast a 5'7" 50-year old Tom Cruise to play the role of Jack Reacher, then that's their right. If the audience doesn't like it, they have the right to NOT PAY and NOT ATTEND. And the producers will be either rewarded or punished for their choice, depending on how the audience responds.

If the audience decides that blackface is not acceptable, and quit attending shows that cast white actors in black roles, then producers will quit doing that. Hell, if the producers of "Black Panther" had decided to cast ethnicities OTHER than African for the Wakandans, that's their right to do so. And they would have been mercilessly shredded in the reviews and at the box office for that decision, as is the audience's right. It's the producers' money, it's their risk, and it's their ART -- and art has historically been about challenging ideas, challenging expectations, and pushing boundaries. Sometimes that pays off, sometimes that backfires, but it's the artist's right to do what they want. They're artists. Film is commerce, and it's art. And it's the producers' responsibility to fulfill both.

It's a simple as that, and has absolutely zero to do with "racism" or "sexism" or any other "ism".

Look -- it's difficult to keep up with "isms", as their definitions change. In my day, "racism" meant discriminating against someone because they were of a particular race (which is EXACTLY what you have done here). You have held that an actor cannot play a role specifically because of his race.

Today's "progressive" definition seems to say that racism is instead "oppression by white people against traditionally disadvantaged groups", and proponents of this definition hold that it is therefore impossible to commit "racism" against a white person. By that definition, your disparaging of white Daniel Craig for his racial heritage would not be "racism".

Regardless of whether it's "racist" or not, the assertions are profoundly stereotypical, ignorant, and definitely meet the "traditional" definition of racism.

And regardless of all that, this discussion has violated the rules of respectful interaction that we expect at DVXUser so it is terminated. If you have more to say on the subject, if you are passionate about it, I suggest you say it in the very art form we are discussing. Make a film about it. Write a play about it. Write a book about it. Put it out there, and let it live or die on its merits. But stop thrashing this place with a foodfight of a discussion.