News JAMES BOND: No Time to Die (2021)

ant-mac

Member: Rank 9
@ant-mac Now you see what I go through when the general public gets at me for being a fanboy when it comes to comic book casting.
I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with being true to and honouring the source material. To remaining as accurate and as close to it as is possible.

As I stated in an earlier post, it's because the source material - whether it be in books, comics or some over form of media - is so popular that the opportunity to turn it into a film series exists in the first place. So if you're going to go through all the effort of doing it, do it right.

If you choose ignore the source material, then you are basically defeating the whole purpose of making a film about it in the first place. You might as well make a film about something else - that is vaguely similar - instead.

And what does any of this have to do with racism? :emoji_confused:
 

ant-mac

Member: Rank 9
No, it means you don't want him to play Bond, not that he doesn't get to.
Correct, I don't want him to play James Bond, because he's not right for the role. It also means that it's reasonably probable that he will not be offered the role by the filmmakers, because they too will realize he's not right for the role. However, time will tell.

By the way, I also do not want Johnny Depp playing SHAFT, because he's not right for that role either.
Racist gibberish.
Rabid gibberish.
 

DeJoHnNiE

Member: Rank 4
No, it means you don't want him to play Bond, not that he doesn't get to.

Racist gibberish.
First of all, do you even realize you replied twice to the same post? And secondly, please do not call other members racist just because they have a strong opinion about whoever plays a fictional character or not. You can disagree, but saying it is racist, twice, is overthinking it.

On topic, if they want to change a character's race or gender and it's a good result, then they can get away with it, period.

Everyone has their opinions, one can say it can be different like you. Ant mac thinks it should be the way a character is described in the books and I don't care as long as it's better than the last movie or actor who played the role.

Either argue on or don't argue at all.
 

Hux

Member: Rank 6
I quoted it twice because he said Idris Elba "doesn't get to play the role."

If you do not grasp why this is racist stupidity then I can't help you.

Perhaps educate yourself.
 

DeJoHnNiE

Member: Rank 4
I quoted it twice because he said Idris Elba "doesn't get to play the role."

If you do not grasp why this is racist stupidity then I can't help you.

Perhaps educate yourself.
If you think people are racist because they have a opinion about a fictional character or how they write this in a post, then you don't understand either.

However, I am not here to argue that nor was it a question, I am telling you to not call other members racist. On top of that, you saying that twice is a violation of Rule 2:

02. Please conduct yourself in a civilized and reasonable manner on this forum and abide by the decisions of all staff members at all times. Please treat all other members in a civilized and respectful manner. All members should promote harmony on this forum. Do not disrupt the normal and orderly operation of this forum in any way. Doing so may result in temporary suspension or permanent expulsion.

If you have a complaint, then you can tell me or create a report.
 

ant-mac

Member: Rank 9
I quoted it twice because he said Idris Elba "doesn't get to play the role."
You asked the question...
Does that mean Idris Elba doesn't get to play him?
So I answered...
Yes, it means that Idris Elba doesn't get to play the role, because James Bond is not a black man.
I answered thus, because I do not believe that the filmmakers will choose him, because he's not right for the role. However, as I have also mentioned previously, time will tell.
If you do not grasp why this is racist stupidity then I can't help you.
What is racist about wishing that filmmakers remain reasonably true to the source material? What is racist about thinking it is probable - although not certain - that the filmmakers will wish to remain reasonably true to the source material?

You have a talent for blowing things up out of all proportion, but you are sadly lacking when it comes to rational and reasonable discussion.
Perhaps educate yourself.
Yes, you really should.
 

Janine The Barefoot

Wacky Norwegian Woman
Just one more film would be nice.

And end it with a poignant scene, signposting that this is the end for Craig in some way. A speech or something.
I really, really hate weighing in on any movie/series TV that a huge fan of the book series is involved in.... I don't want or like to step on toes and/or dance around how I really feel. Penny Dreadful was, for the first two seasons, my favorite show on TV and much of the board at IMDb devolved into a war between those who had read all the novels and insisted they should be used as canon (Frankenstein, Dracula and so on) and those who were willing and wanted to address only the ways in which the show itself was using them.

This is a no-win situation for everyone involved. Although that's not necessarily what I'm seeing here.... I can see how easy it would be to become that way as a direct result of the passion involved. I personally believe that we should address what is actually being presented. I understand and support the desire to wish that the source material was being used more literally but the sad truth is that's seldom the case where Hollywood is concerned. As I see it, PJ's LOTR & H series along with JR's HP were the first time we'd seen real and successful attempts to honor not only the spirit of the novels but the characters, dialogue and events as well. This is the exception and not the rule as has been proven by Marvel itself as they rewrite the history of countless stories from Jack (who died penniless by the way) & Stan who now inserts himself into the films a la Hitchcock, a man he is most certainly not.

So I go with what has actually been put on the screen. I do it because it would never have occurred to me (in grade school) when the first movies were released that there even were books on the series to be read... which is actually odd now that I think of it because the books I was reading under my covers with a flashlight were mostly written by Leon Uris so it's not as if I was completely clueless about what was out there in the adult world of books. With JB, what was out there was Sean Connery playing a character that many believe will always be the only true Bond ever. And if I'm honest, I would have to say that I agree with that; up until DC came up out of the water in CR and I thought to myself "holy crap"... could this guy really make Bond "real" to me again? As it turned out, he did. In a way that was not the "campy" style of Roger Moore, not the rather flat performance (as I saw it) that failed so utterly to convince and compel me that Dalton gave. Although I will say that in PD the man gave a G-force vortex of a performance that sucked you into it completely and the show wouldn't have been the same without him... and now back to Bond and the total flop of everything that P. Brosnan was and became in connection with the time he spent "being Bond". So yes, for me and only in my opinion, DC brought Bond back to life. He had gravitas. He had steel in his spine and unlike all the rest of them he was also a man who understood that sometimes, saying nothing at all is far more powerful than any pointed sentence or two. Unfortunately, the film in which they sent him back to his childhood home fell flat for me (clearly there's a reason they say "you can never go home again") and when they killed Judi Dench as "M", they also pretty much killed what was left of the franchise I loved. As good as Ralph Fiennes may be.... I just can't get past the notion that "Voldemort" is now running MI-6. So I guess, in the end, I'd like DC to do one more movie so that both of us can have our own ending and move onto other things from there.

Although I will say this... as I see it, character is not really about color. It's about the person themselves. So if, and I say "if" for a variety of reasons, Idris Elba were by some strange twist of fate to get the role of Bond, I might go back one more time to see his take on it. Because no matter how you slice or dice it, that man's got acting chops that last for weeks and he could bring something to the role that would reinvent it all over again for me.... But that's just me and I am genuinely sorry to be stepping all over AM's love of the Bond books and his fervent desire that they be honored on screen for what they were on the page. Unfortunately, it's a series that goes back so far that it may not even be relevant to today's viewing public. Much the way in which Marvel has "cherry-picked" most of what actually took place in J & S's Marvelverse... or at the very least, the order in which it all happened. I know this because I've read most of the major stories from "book 1" and they've gotten a lot of it wrong and probably done it on purpose given that Stan himself is clearly enjoying the ride.

So I vote yes for DC. One more and done.....
..... and I can't come up with any pic, emoji, meme or mime that could even begin to define how I feel about all of this.
 

Janine The Barefoot

Wacky Norwegian Woman
I quoted it twice because he said Idris Elba "doesn't get to play the role."

If you do not grasp why this is racist stupidity then I can't help you.

Perhaps educate yourself.
Honestly Hux, while I understand your opinion I have to say that dissing a guy who's only trying to moderate the discussion and keep it civil says a lot of things about you that you might not want people to start believing.

DeJ is operating as a mediator between you and AM because the topic under discussion was becoming perilously close to what many of us hid in the tall grass of IMDb to avoid becoming part of. One of the things about this site that makes it so successful is that none of us have to feel afraid of actually giving voice to our opinions and if we lose that we've lost everything. Keeping it civil and expressing yourself without resorting to name-calling (and using the word racist in this context is a form of name-calling whether you see it that way or not) is part of the underlying foundation of everything this site is about. AM saying Idris doesn't get the part because of his color was not, in this case, racist in any way at all. It was a specific reference to a series of books in which the central character is not black, so given that they are using an established source, to some degree, then that's a part of the story he wants to see honored. This is not an argument about what color Jesus is. It's a debate about one actor in one role and the fact that at least one member of our board wants the books to be used as canon.

You are just as entitled to your opinion as anyone else is. Including AM, DeJ and myself. But to go on a personal attack because you think you can or because maybe, just maybe, you missed the point of what was actually being said is just plain rude. And turning around and rudely dismissing the Administrator of the site itself for trying to keep the peace while expressing his own opinion is unacceptable any way you look at it. If you are an adult, behave like one. If you aren't, learn some manners and then return here when you've learned how to carry on a conversation without resorting to name-calling. And I'm not saying this to hurt your feelings. I'm saying it because another one of the underlying principles of this site is that "troll-like" behavior is not going to be tolerated by anyone here. It's something we've already agreed to by joining the site. This is not IMDb, the land of the loudest and meanest where a majority of the population were afraid to speak at all for fear of being cut to ribbons over a difference of opinion....

I've never seen you behave like this Hux.... what's the deal? I really don't understand it at all and it really doesn't seem anything at all like what we have personally exchanged between just us, let alone an entire board......
 

Hux

Member: Rank 6
If you think people are racist because they have a opinion about a fictional character or how they write this in a post, then you don't understand either.
No, I think people are racist because they say dumb racist crap.

He isn't expressing an opinion. He's asserting this as a fact. Idris Elba DOES NOT get to play the role because... he is black.

Yes, it means that Idris Elba doesn't get to play the role, because James Bond is not a black man.
This is not a befuddled confusion, this is not a misunderstanding, this is not taken out of context. It's just plain racism.

Was Johnny Storm black in the Fantastic Four comics? Was Nick Fury? Was Robert Neville black in I am Legend? Was Red a black man in the Shawshank Redemption novella? Nope, and yet non-racists all managed to get over it.

I wonder what else black people don't get to do as a matter of fact?
 

Janine The Barefoot

Wacky Norwegian Woman
He isn't expressing an opinion. He's asserting this as a fact. Idris Elba DOES NOT get to play the role because... he is black.
And the character in the book series he loves is white. He wants to stay true to the books. This isn't about a "political platform". It's about a series of books and a series of movies. Take a breath, we are not fighting an actual war here.... well, maybe you are.
 

ant-mac

Member: Rank 9
No, I think people are racist because they say dumb racist crap.
No, you think people are racist because of what you think they are actually saying - not what they are saying. It is easy to misinterpret or mistake the intention of another poster on an internet forum where the primary form of communication is plain text speak.
He isn't expressing an opinion. He's asserting this as a fact.
You are incorrect. I am merely expressing a personal opinion - nothing more, nothing less.
Idris Elba DOES NOT get to play the role because... he is black.
Actually, what I said was...
Yes, it means that Idris Elba doesn't get to play the role, because James Bond is not a black man.
And the reason I stated my answer like that, was because I was answering your specific question, which was...
Does that mean Idris Elba doesn't get to play him?
Was the way that your question was worded meant to be racist?

I wouldn't have thought so.

And I merely worded my answer to match the wording of your question.
This is not a befuddled confusion, this is not a misunderstanding, this is not taken out of context. It's just plain racism.
No, it is not befuddled confusion. If there is any confusion, it is on your part. Yes, it has been taken out of context. No, it is not racism, it is just a plain opinion.
Was Johnny Storm black in the Fantastic Four comics?
I don't know, because I've never read the original comics.
Was Nick Fury?
Again, I don't know, because I've never read the original comics.
Was Robert Neville black in I am Legend?
It's been several years since I read the original novel, but I'm not sure if it was ever made clear.

However, to date, the most accurate film based upon the original source still appears to be THE LAST MAN ON EARTH (1964), starring Vincent Price. It is also my favourite adaption due to its accuracy to the original source.
Was Red a black man in the Shawshank Redemption novella?
I don't know, because I've never read the original book.
Nope, and yet non-racists all managed to get over it.
Well, for the most part, I've enjoyed the works that you mentioned above. However, I haven't seen the latest FANTASTIC FOUR film yet.
I wonder what else black people don't get to do as a matter of fact?
Why don't you go out and ask?
 

DeJoHnNiE

Member: Rank 4
No, I think people are racist because they say dumb racist crap.

He isn't expressing an opinion. He's asserting this as a fact. Idris Elba DOES NOT get to play the role because... he is black.



This is not a befuddled confusion, this is not a misunderstanding, this is not taken out of context. It's just plain racism.

Was Johnny Storm black in the Fantastic Four comics? Was Nick Fury? Was Robert Neville black in I am Legend? Was Red a black man in the Shawshank Redemption novella? Nope, and yet non-racists all managed to get over it.

I wonder what else black people don't get to do as a matter of fact?
I said I am not going to argue about this, I told you that you broke the same rule twice. However, you choose to ignore all of that and the fact I told you to not keep going on about this, so I'll end it for you.

For everyone else, please get back on topic or I will have no other choice to lock it.
 

Janine The Barefoot

Wacky Norwegian Woman
For everyone else, please get back on topic or I will have no other choice to lock it.
Thank you oh wise & wonderful OZ! I tried to insert some reason into it (especially after he jumped all over you for doing your job) and it's clear this is going to be tough to resolve. Who'da thought Doc O could ever create something that would end up so controversial?!

Anyway, as always, thanks for doing your job and keeping things safe for all of us! It's greatly appreciated.
 

Amyghost

Member: Rank 3
The business of adapting novel-to-film is always tricky, and you'll never please everyone. Any true Ian Fleming enthusiast will always tell you that the 007 of the books is not the 007 of the films, and they're absolutely correct. So, as far as casting goes, as well as delineation of the character, no actor has ever yet been the 'real' James Bond; meaning that it's possible to cast an actor who's well outside of the books' description of him, and be no more untrue to the source material than every other film version has been from the word go. Initially, the creators of the Bond film series wanted actor Patrick McGoohan to play James, and he was certainly not physically what Fleming described: PMG was a fair-skinned, ginger-haired Irish-American, but he was masculine, had sex appeal to burn, and certainly would have been credible in the part despite not being physically identical to the Bond of the books. Only his personal scruples kept him from the role, otherwise we might be holding all later actors to the standard he'd set, rather than Connery--who also wasn't precisely the James Bond described by Fleming.

Adaptation is in large part all about working around aspects of the source material that it may not be possible, for whatever reason, to translate successfully to the screen. Good adaptations can even turn back on their literary sources and enhance them. An excellent case in point of this was the 1979 miniseries adaptation of John LeCarre's Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. Alec Guinness was not precisely who the reader pictured when encountering LeCarre's description of a 'fat, froglike' George Smiley, but Guinness' performance was so good that he became, indelibly, Smiley (despite fearing at first that he was too old--technically correct--for the role, and trying desperately to get out of it early on in filming). So indelibly so, in fact, that LeCarre admitted he tailored later written versions of Smiley to conform more closely to Alec Guinness' version of the character.

Another good example would be Michael Dobbs' novel House of Cards. When the BBC came to film the television version, they tapped Ian Richardson as Francis Urquhart, the Machiavellian politician. Anyone who's read that novel knows Richardson was far different, physically, from the beefy backslapper Dobbs initially wrote Urquhart as being --but, like Alec Guinness, Richardson overcame that so commandingly in performance that he also influenced the written version of the character in Dobbs' subsequent two novels of the trilogy. So it's possible to successfully violate the source material in salient respects, and still come up with a production that retains the spirit of the original quite satisfactorily. And no, this hasn't always happened with Bond, probably not even very often. But the point is, actors of varying types can be cast in the part, and depending on various factors--performance being a key one--still manage to put across a version of 007 that rings very true to the spirit of the hero of those canonical Fleming novels.
 
Last edited:

Janine The Barefoot

Wacky Norwegian Woman
An excellent case in point of this was the 1979 miniseries adaptation of John LeCarre's Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. Alec Guinness was not precisely who the reader pictured when encountering LeCarre's description of a 'fat, froglike' George Smiley, but Guinness' performance was so good that he became, indelibly, Smiley
My Mom read every book and would agree with every word you wrote!
 

Doctor Omega

Member: Rank 10
You're right. I made a bit of a hash of it when I set it up, too many options, when I should have kept it simpler. I wish I could simplify it, but have had a look and it seems it won't let you edit or delete it in any way, beyond adding yet even more options. :emoji_alien:
 

Amyghost

Member: Rank 3
My Mom read every book and would agree with every word you wrote!
It's really interesting to read LeCarre on how much Guinness influenced his written conception of Smiley. I read the books after seeing the series, and even though it was true that Smiley's physical description differed from Sir Alec's, I found it impossible to picture anyone but him in my mind's eye.
 
Top