Reports: Daniel Craig Done With James Bond • Page 3

008 is known as BILL in the books and described much like Bond himself. Why are you so against the canon of the novels?

 

Do you not realize how regressive and shitty you're being by thinking that? "Well, you're black so you can't be Bond but you can be a lesser character instead, it's basically the same! But you're not Bond though, because only white people can Bond because a long dead author of a book series the films no longer follow said he was." Holy fuck, dude. I don't even want to talk to you further about this, I'm literally ashamed of you for being so ignorant and short sighted about this.

 

This is not true. Stop ittttt. I've read the books and you're so wrong.

 

Yes, but Miles Morales is NOT Peter Parker. It's a completely different person that happens to take up the role of Spider Man, which is a title not the name of the person that carries the title.

 

But he is Spider-Man. And guess what: If they wanna write that James Bond is a code name ... they can write that into the fictional script in about 30 seconds and there you go, canon! It's fiction. They can do whatever they want. Or just reboot the damn thing again if they feel like it.

 

Ian Fleming had this drawing commissioned of his image of what James Bond looks like.



They have all looked pretty close if you ask me aside from maybe Daniel Craig, although Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan have looked the closest

 

If they find a way to work that into the script that it is a code name without completely deviating from past films and it works, then sure, why not. But as long as the script is good.

 

This literally reminds me of Max Landis's video for The Death and Return of Superman. He talks about his dad near the end and his dad brings up a great point: You can do whatever you want with canon that's fictional because it doesn't exist in real life, Bond can be whomever because he isn't real. People can bitch about it if they want, the books only go so far. From there, you can do whatever you want because who's to say that it's wrong?

 

Well, then you proved my point, cause that looks nothing like the vast majority of actors that played Bond. Thanks for making the point for me.

 

So you're cool ignoring 20 movies once, but not twice?

 

Personally I think they have almost all of them looked at least 80-85% like that (although lesser for Craig), although Pierce and Timothy Dalton for sure the closest.

 

Exactly. It's the same shit every time these days about dorks thinking one way is the only way. Fuck that. The best stories add something new or change things up or look for new angles. Changing stuff from books to movies is what happens all the time, and god damn Bond is like the example — so many of the books are no where near what the movies with the same name are, characters change all the time. M is a code name. Moneypenny is a code name. Fuck it, James Bond is a code name.

Or all of a sudden, guess what: make new movies, a new "timeline," but keep the same M from the previous movies. O, they already did that? Whatyaknow! Anyone caught up on living in the past and thinking it can only be one way has no imagination and if we're talking about fictional characters and you have no imagination, fuck that.

 

The Bond series has deviated dramatically from the books before, but most people haven't cared as long as the quality of films has been good. Why should this be any different? I would argue this wouldn't even be the biggest change of the franchise's history, but even if it is who cares? I'd rather the filmmakers do whatever best serves making entertaining, engaging movies, rather than religiously adhering to the decades-old source material to the point of predictability. Which again, they HAVEN'T done in years.

 

Saw this awhile ago

Every actor who has played James Bond (in the EON films) face layered on top of eachother.



Looks fairly close to Ian Fleming's description imo.

 

other than slightly lighter hair I'd still say it's pretty close. The shape of the head is pretty on point.

 

No, that's my expression reading your posts.

 

Nailed it. Anyone that adheres to one specific thing and thinks it's not Bond if THAT ONE PART changes, but's cool with literally everything else changing? Yeaahhhhhh. There's a reason.

Now why is it that this poster has been against women being at music festivals AND there being a black Bond? Cause now I'm side eying the shit out of this and thinking something doesn't smell right.

 

well played.

I think I'm just gonna back out on this though, because we're never going to agree. I personally just think the James Bond character itself should stay as close to Ian Fleming's image as possible, even if the timeline/events may deviate from the books.

 

Say what? If you are referring to me I never said anything of the sort.

 

Did you not have a similar username at AP? If not, I'm truly sorry, I got you confused with a very similar username.

 

So you're ok with literally everything deviating in massive degrees ... except skin color.

That's just fucked up if you ask me.

 

I had the same username but I only made a dozen or so posts shortly before the switch to this page. I never said anything about women and music festivals and if someone said that I too think that is utterly ridiculous.

 

Hmmmm. There was definitely a username very, very similar to this one that had a very long post about music festivals and not thinking it was a big deal women were excluded. My bad. Sorry about that, truly. You're still wrong about Bond, but I was wrong about that.

 

Now I'm off to go watch a black Wally West and love it.