Rush Limbaugh Says Idris Elba Can't Play James Bond Because He's Black

TLK Valentine said:

The issue is that people have already "stolen" Ian Fleming's original idea and turned it into something else -- Ian Fleming's been dead since 1964, and many other writers, producers, and directors have put James Bond in places Fleming never did.

Bond belongs to Eon Productions now... and if they wanted him black, Fleming couldn't object even if he was alive to do so.

Click to expand...

You grabbed on to this before I had edited it, but I agree, in a sense, except that I think the character should have died when they shot the last book, which was a long time ago.

So....legally, yes they can do it. Eon production you say? Okay then. But what the heck happened to originality? Art? Writing? Can't someone create a new black secret agent to save the world? Why does it have to be Bond? I just don't get it. The whole thing. I expect they'll go on and do it, and it'll fall flat on it's face. And when the critics smash it up, they'll all be called racist to boot. And they won't deserve it.

BornAgainBrian said:

Some of us feel that a real person is different from a fictional character in regard to portrayal.

Click to expand...

that is why I used a real life person.

Now if it was a fictional character.. all bets are off, because it is a fictional character. Unless the character's creator makes a stink about it.. who cares? Rush didn't create James Bond so his opinion on what race James Bond should be is irrelevant.

Like I already said, it doesn't bother me but I can see where some people are coming from. Rush isn't a very good person, but I'm trying to put my opinion on him aside for the sake of fairness.

BornAgainBrian said:

People are equally entitled to the opinion that denying people roles in a modernization of an old story simply because the story was originally written when racism was rampant is itself a racist denial. You're free to disagree, of course, but if Rush is entitled to his opinion, then so is everyone else.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. If I devalued the idea of folks having differing opinion, then bad on me. Sorry. You know mine.

PreachersWife2004 said:

I don't think anyone is saying that.

I'd be perfectly okay with, say, a black cinderella. There's currently a black Annie.

Someone once asked me about a black Gatsby. THAT would be difficult, given the times of the piece. So in that respect it would be hard to justify having a black actor.

Click to expand...

If the movie is set in the 1920's, sure. But change it so that the movie takes place today, and having a black actor would make perfect sense.

Likewise, for a Bond film set in the 50's, a black Bond would probably be a bit strange, but for a Bond film set in contemporary times, what's the problem?

I'm not necessarily saying it's a bad thing to have Bond played by a black man. It's not the Bond I picture. What kills me is that someone MUST be racist to say it.

Click to expand...

You don't have to be racist to say it, but you do have to be kind of stupid - or at the very least ignorant of how works like this are continually adapted for different times, different media, different audiences, and different casting situations. As has been explained numerous times, there are some characters for whom their race is an integral part of their story line. But that's not the case for Bond - the important things for Bond are that he's a man and that he's some flavor of British.

stevenfrancis said:

You grabbed on to this before I had edited it, but I agree, in a sense, except that I think the character should have died when they shot the last book, which was a long time ago.

Click to expand...

Bond cannot die; it would be a sacrilege.

So....legally, yes they can do it. Eon production you say? Okay then. But what the heck happened to originality? Art? Writing?

Click to expand...

When you've used the same character in over 24 films, it's a little late to complain about originality, don't you think?

Can't someone create a new black secret agent to save the world? Why does it have to be Bond? I just don't get it.

Click to expand...

It's been tried -- for whatever reasons, it doesn't work out.

Art and writing are all well and nice, but alas, entertainment is a business, and this business makes money by slapping a familiar brand name on a new product.

The whole thing. I expect they'll go on and do it, and it'll fall flat on it's face. And when the critics smash it up, they'll all be called racist to boot. And they won't deserve it.

Click to expand...

Except they're not doing it. The next Bond film, Spectre, is due out on November 6, and Daniel Craig will be playing Bond again.

This whole brouhaha started over some hacked Sony emails -- with no idea who those emails were from or how much authority they had... for all we know, this could've been a gag list between two employees.

Heck, even Elba himself laughed at the idea:

https://twitter.com/idriselba/status/548874165399601152/photo/1

...although he did say he'd take the part if it was offered to him -- but who wouldn't?

whatbogsends said:

I dislike Rush and disagree with him on a wide array of topics. This particular topic isn't one of them.

There are plenty of fictional characters who don't have a defined "race". I'm not of the opinion that James Bond is one of those characters. He is not simply "white", but a white Scotsman. Casting a black James Bond makes about as much sense to me as casting a white Shaft.

Click to expand...

You must have come into the discussion late. That'a been hashed a couple of times already.

So how upset are you that not only was only one of the actors playing Bond has been Scottish, even the Scot that played him (Connery) had to play him as an Englishman, not a Scot.



This is something that has been toyed with in recent years on the British program "Doctor Who." When the program was revived with Christopher Eccleston as the 9th Doctor, he explained to another character that he was an alien and the other person asked, "Then why do you speak with a North accent?" The response was, "Because every planet has a north."

The 10th Doctor was played by a Scottish actor...who also had to affect a North accent to play the role. In an interview he explained (in his native Scottish accent) that even today in British media a Scottish accent carries with it a prejudice of a certain ethnicity that is not quite accepted as fully British.

They later had a Scottish woman playing a Doctor Who companion, and the social comments about her being Scottish were more frequent than the comments about a previous companion being homosexual.

The current actor playing Doctor Who is Scottish and he's playing the role with his Scottish accent--this is a subtle jab in the collective British eye by the producers: "We are daring to present you with a Scottish Doctor Who, so there!"

A Scot in Britain has until recently been a kind of minority, which they well know and is why even the continuance of Scotland as part of the UK has been seriously questioned. Fleming's making Bond a Scot was, in fact, the deliberate making of him a minority.

So is it not a problem that Bond has not been played as a Scot? It seems to be something still daring in British media, perhaps even more so than having him portrayed by a black man with a North accent. The white Shaft has been discussed. The significance of Shaft is his ethnicity--that's part of the plot. Bond being white is not as significant to his character as his being Scottish.

TLK Valentine said:

Heck, even Elba himself laughed at the idea:

https://twitter.com/idriselba/status/548874165399601152/photo/1

...although he did say he'd take the part if it was offered to him -- but who wouldn't?

Click to expand...

Okay... ;-)
Fair enough. Let me get the egg off my face, and move on to other threads.

Peace,

Steve

BornAgainBrian said:

Here is my reason for not minding that choice for casting.


Bond was written by a racist in a time when racism was accepted... even encouraged.

If you set Bond in that time, you may have a point.

If you're going to update Bond to the 21st century, you have to update all aspects of the story and world, including the ability of a black man to attain Bond's rank and take part in his adventures.

If accuracy is such an issue, why wasn't it a problem for any aspect of any story to change? Why is race always the biggie?

Anyhow, that's my take.

Click to expand...

Well said!

whatbogsends said:

I dislike Rush and disagree with him on a wide array of topics. This particular topic isn't one of them.

There are plenty of fictional characters who don't have a defined "race". I'm not of the opinion that James Bond is one of those characters. He is not simply "white", but a white Scotsman. Casting a black James Bond makes about as much sense to me as casting a white Shaft.

Click to expand...

The thing, is, though, that there is nothing about the Bond character that is dependent on him being white. For Shaft, however, the whole persona and the underlying themes are of a black cop standing up to the man. Shaft being black is the primary driver of the story. Bond being white is not a primary driver of his stories; sure he's described as white, but that doesn't play into anything that he does.

Skaloop said:

The thing, is, though, that there is nothing about the Bond character that is dependent on him being white. For Shaft, however, the whole persona and the underlying themes are of a black cop standing up to the man. Shaft being black is the primary driver of the story. Bond being white is not a primary driver of his stories; sure he's described as white, but that doesn't play into anything that he does.

Click to expand...

Wait. Is Bond explicitly described by Fleming as white-skinned, or is that taken for granted because he's described as Scottish?

HorsieJuice said:

You don't have to be racist to say it, but you do have to be kind of stupid - or at the very least ignorant of how works like this are continually adapted for different times, different media, different audiences, and different casting situations. As has been explained numerous times, there are some characters for whom their race is an integral part of their story line. But that's not the case for Bond - the important things for Bond are that he's a man and that he's some flavor of British.

Click to expand...

I don't think one needs to be stupid or ignorant.

I have a childhood friend who has been into the Bond stuff since we were old enough to read. He and his little Bond club would tell you that it's just downright weird to have him played by a black man. While YOU may not think his race is integral, you're not taking into consideration the feelings of the many long-time fans, who are not racist, stupid or ignorant.

They would prefer to think of themselves as purists - sticking to the very original as much as possible.

seven2014 said:

This tells me a lot about how some of you think. I've see comparisons to black films and characters that was made during the Blackexploitation period. They call it that for a reason, not all of the films showed the black race in a good light.

Now show me a Bond that dressed and acted like Superfly, or Dolemite. Show me 007 story line that is riddled with pimps, ghettos, hookers, addicts and you would have a valid point, but you don't when you juxtapose these two types of films.

Click to expand...

I guess you lost me with the whole "tells me a lot about how some of you think" line. Can you elaborate and tell me how I think?

RDKirk said:

Wait. Is Bond explicitly described by Fleming as white-skinned, or is that taken for granted because he's described as Scottish?

Click to expand...

I don't know if it's explicitly stated that he's white, but they do mention that he has blue eyes and black hair. Remember when they cast Daniel Craig, and the uproar over a blond Bond! Or when they cast Timothy Dalton who does not have blue eyes!

Futhermore, he was originally just general British. He wasn't described as Scottish until the book You Only Live Twice, which happens to be the first book after the Dr. No movie, and is believed to have been put in based on Connery's depiction of Bond.

M was originally male too!

PreachersWife2004 said:

I don't think one needs to be stupid or ignorant.

I have a childhood friend who has been into the Bond stuff since we were old enough to read. He and his little Bond club would tell you that it's just downright weird to have him played by a black man. While YOU may not think his race is integral, you're not taking into consideration the feelings of the many long-time fans, who are not racist, stupid or ignorant.

They would prefer to think of themselves as purists - sticking to the very original as much as possible.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the problem with that is who defines what "original" is? Of the four Daniel Craig films (including Spectre), only two were based on pre-existing stories, and none of the Pierce Brosnan movies were. They were all completely made up by the screenwriters. The whole Aston Martin association is mostly a film construct, with him only driving a DB5 in one of the novels (Goldfinger).

Any modernization of the story line (i.e. not setting it in the 50's & 60's) chucks a whole bunch of "original" things out the window, because political and technological contexts change. It wouldn't make any sense, for example, for Bond to be driving around modern London talking about the iron curtain or spying on people with cameras or recording devices that use film/tape and are the size of a deck of cards.

So yes, I would argue that if your friend is ok with:

• Bond existing in a story not originally written for print,
• Bond being alive and working in the 21st century,
• Bond driving around in a bespoke Aston Martin DB10 (which didn't even exist a couple months ago),

then he would be (at best) ignorant to not be ok with a black Bond on the basis of being an "originalist" or "purist." I say that he'd be ignorant, because he's apparently ignorant of how much non-original content he is accepting in spite of his purist desires.

HorsieJuice said:

Yeah, the problem with that is who defines what "original" is? Of the four Daniel Craig films (including Spectre), only two were based on pre-existing stories, and none of the Pierce Brosnan movies were. They were all completely made up by the screenwriters. The whole Aston Martin association is mostly a film construct, with him only driving a DB5 in one of the novels (Goldfinger).

Click to expand...

And this is not a problem.

Any modernization of the story line (i.e. not setting it in the 50's & 60's) chucks a whole bunch of "original" things out the window, because political and technological contexts change. It wouldn't make any sense, for example, for Bond to be driving around modern London talking about the iron curtain or spying on people with cameras or recording devices that use film/tape and are the size of a deck of cards.

So yes, I would argue that if your friend is ok with:

• Bond existing in a story not originally written for print,
• Bond being alive and working in the 21st century,
• Bond driving around in a bespoke Aston Martin DB10 (which didn't even exist a couple months ago),

then he would be (at best) ignorant to not be ok with a black Bond on the basis of being an "originalist" or "purist." I say that he'd be ignorant, because he's apparently ignorant of how much non-original content he is accepting in spite of his purist desires.

Click to expand...

The stories can all evolve. The era can evolve. But they believe the character should remain largely the same.

Look at the Batman movies. The times change but the characters themselves don't really change all that much. Batman is pretty much a guy for all times. Some purists might object to Alfred being played by a black man, and certainly there might be some in the crowd who would say it's bad form to have a black man be a butler, even though Alfred is, in my opinion, one of the best characters ever.

It's one thing for a particular genre to mess around with the era. That's forgivable. I believe it's partly why Hollywood is trying to cash in with remakes of older films. They took Carrie and updated that for the 90s and even more recently. It's another thing when you make a physical change to a character that is rather noticeable. Sure, go ahead and do it, but understand the logic of those who don't agree with the change.

BornAgainBrian said:

People are equally entitled to the opinion that denying people roles in a modernization of an old story simply because the story was originally written when racism was rampant is itself a racist denial. You're free to disagree, of course, but if Rush is entitled to his opinion, then so is everyone else.

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree. I don't think there's a "right" opinion to have on this - i can see the perspective of modernization of the environment (placing Bond in a 20th century setting can feasibly change the attributes of the character himself). I don't think it's racist to think "James Bond is a white Scottsman".

There's plenty of legitimate criticism that can (and has been) waged against Rush, and i agree with much of that. On this topic, however, i see it as him simply having an opinion.

seven2014 said:

Oh Really?

Did you know that Barry Nelson (American) was the first man to play bond?

Here is a list of actors that disproves what you said.
Who Played James Bond: A Complete History

Click to expand...

Which of these actors played a black Scottsman? I don't see how this disproves (or is even relevant to) anything i said.