The next James Bond

People opposed to Idras being Bond because he is black has nothing to to with racism its simply that bond has always been white. People were up in arms then Daniel Craig took over because he was blonde and had blue eyes.

My only issue with Idras Ilba is that he is so freaking tall. Tall actors don't fair as well when it comes to stunt work, they come off as unwieldy and cumbersome much of the time. James Bond is the antithesis of cumbersome and unwieldy.

Assuming they could figure there way around that issue though I like him a lot in Luther and he probably would have made a good Bond but its moot now since they already put the kabosh on that theory. Tom Hardy is the new favorite but to be honest I don't see him as a Bond but that might be mostly because of the roles he has played that I have seen.

 

I thought he was atrocius as mad max. Mad max says hardly any dialog, which is why the super charismatic mel Gibson worked perfectly.

When I saw tom hardy in mad max, all I could think of were Huns raping my foremothers in Germany.

 

did you get that from Stromfront???


Jesus was a Jew, like his father, mother, and brothers.

 

I thought jew was a religion, not a race?

I believe he was philistine because he didn't think like an arab. Either that, or the jesus story comes from another time and place. No arab would act like that but A FEW western Europeans would. Races do have traits. You can see jesus in Euros today when you see them feeling guilty about refugees from syria but wesee arab countries block them.

There's nothing wrong with the diversity of race, but if the jesus story did happen in that place at that time (very unlikely considering the story was from millenia before and repeated over again), then he had something else in him.

The israelites in those days actually did think less of Galaleans too. Many didn't consider them jews. Perhaps this was due to racial impurities?

 

"If any one wishes to be rich, let him go north; if he wants to be wise, let him come south." Such was the saying, by which Rabbinical pride distinguished between the material wealth of Galilee and the supremacy in traditional lore claimed for the academies of Judaea proper. Alas, it was not long before Judaea lost even this doubtful distinction, and its colleges wandered northwards, ending at last by the Lake of Gennesaret, and in that very city of Tiberias which at one time had been reputed unclean! Assuredly, the history of nations chronicles their judgment; and it is strangely significant, that the authoritative collection of Jewish traditional law, known as the Mishnah, and the so-called Jerusalem Talmud, which is its Palestinian commentary,(*)[11](*)should finally have issued from what was originally a heathen city, built upon the site of old forsaken graves.

they looked on galileans as inferior.

 

lol!!!!!! such absurd thinking.

Jesus was a Jew. Just like his mom and dad.

every Christian knows this.

read the Bible sometime.

 

The northern province of Galilee was decisively distinct—in history, political status, and culture—from the southern province of Judea which contained the holy city of Jerusalem.

Admitting that the following is a drastic oversimplification but hoping that it’s not a complete caricature, Professor France summarizes seven differences:

racially])the area of the former Northern Kingdom of Israel had had, ever since the Assyrian conquest in the eighth century B.C., a more mixed population, within which more conservative Jewish areas (like Nazareth and Capernaum) stood in close proximity to largely pagan cities, of which in the first century the new Hellenistic centers of Tiberias and Sepphoris were the chief examples.Geographically(*)Galilee was separated from Judea by the non-Jewish territory of Samaria, and from Perea in the southeast by the Hellenistic settlements of Decapolis.Politically(*)Galilee had been under separate administration from Judea during almost all its history since the tenth century B.C. (apart from a period of “reunification” under the Maccabees), and in the time of Jesus it was under a (supposedly) native Herodian prince, while Judea and Samaria had since A.D. 6 been under the direct rule of a Roman prefect.(*)Galilee offered better agricultural and fishing resources than the more mountainous territory of Judea, making the wealth of some Galileans the envy of their southern neighbors.(*)Judeans despised their northern neighbors as country cousins, their lack of Jewish sophistication being compounded by their greater openness to Hellenistic influence.(*)Galileans spoke a distinctive form of Aramaic whose slovenly consonants (they dropped their aitches!) were the butt of Judean humor.(*)the Judean opinion was that Galileans were lax in their observance of proper ritual, and the problem was exacerbated by the distance of Galilee from the temple and the theological leadership, which was focused in Jerusalem.

The result, he says, is that

even an impeccably Jewish Galilean in first-century Jerusalem was not among his own people; he was as much a foreigner as an Irishman in London or a Texan in New York. His accent would immediately mark him out as “not one of us,” and all the communal prejudice of the supposedly superior culture of the capital city would stand against his claim to be heard even as a prophet, let alone as the “Messiah,” a title which, as everyone knew, belonged to Judea (cf.(*)John 7:40-42).

 

sorry, but Jesus was a Jew. deal with it.

 

I think to be totally politically correct it should be Caitlyn.

 

Jews are a religion. Jesus was a Palestinian Jew, Semitic and brown skinned.

 

there was no term "Palestinian" back then.

he was simply a Jew.

 

He wasn't like your Wolf Blitzer Jew. He was your Tony Shaloub Jew.

 

What I'm saying is that the ancient Hebrews from over 2,000 years ago were likely genetically similar to modern day Greek Caucasians than the Khazars---and they certainly weren't Blacks.

 

They were semitic arabs. That is, up to 18% negro DNA.

 

it should be a black transgender muslim...

 

I think the DNA mapping projects on ancient remains in disputed places like the Middle East are very politicized and suspect.

The Hebrews from the time of Moses were referred to by Egyptians writings as "blond-types". 1,400 years later, I'm sure the Hebrews had a different genome after breeding with many different peoples.

Doing DNA tests on the remains are the only real way to prove it---but it must be overseen by outside scientists (not Jews or Arabs).

 

James Bond was never Black. End of discussion.

 

now he can be black.

no big deal.

 

Liberals are always prone to fantasy. It would be like Roseanne Barr playing Helen of Troy.

 

or Elizabeth Taylor playing Cleopatra.

oh...wait....

 

Probably historically more accurate since she was Greek.

 

If Ford Prefect can be black, I see no reason why James Bond shouldn't.

 

The difference is that being black was the defining attribute of the Shaft character - it was literally a "blaxploitation" film. As I already mentioned, this is not the case for Bond. That he was originally written as white is irrelevant, if that attribute has no major or central part of the character. And anyone who's seen a Bond movie can tell you that it isn't.

He could be Asian for all I care, as long as the acting is good, and he holds what attributes are important to the character (British/charismatic/confident/etc). I'm not saying Bond has to be, or should be, something other than white. Just pick the best person for the job who can portray the necessary characteristics.

Why must the conservatives on this board always seem to turn everything they can into a partisan political issue? It's ridiculous nonsense. It's as if that is what's driving your argument, and you're simply projecting.

In any case, this is about a fictional movie character. Get some perspective, and a valid argument.

 

A black James Bond? Don't be silly. Bond is half-Scottish and half-Swiss. He is the son of a Scottish father, Andrew Bond, of Glencoe, and a Swiss mother, Monique Delacroix, of the Canton de Vaud. How many black Scots and Swiss are there? Not many, by my reckoning.

All this talk of a black Bond is nothing but political correctness gone mad. It's why we now have female Ghostbusters and even the male-sounding the Master in Doctor Who is now a female (he - or, rather, she - likes to be called "Missy" now). Enough of this lunacy.

 

I think folks are having difficulty discerning between historical figures and works of fiction.

Here's a hint.

Cleopatra is an historical figure..as is Jesus of Nazareth.

James Bond is a work of fiction.

James Bond has never existed outside of the mind of his creator Ian Fleming.

You could argue a black James Bond goes against the character created by Fleming, but so would an Irishman as Bond...Pierce Brosnan, and an Englishman....Daniel Craig & Roger Moore.


As with any work of fiction, there is what is called "poetic license."

po·et·ic li·cense
noun
the freedom to depart from the facts of a matter or from the conventional rules of language when speaking or writing in order to create an effect.

I understand that this concept is beyond the level of sophistication of many; those who can't think beyond a literal black and white World.

For those of us capable of seeing beyond black and white...poetic license allows for the creation of a different sort of Bond character than perhaps Ian Fleming intended. Remember the original Bond was set in the 1950s...this is 2015. A modernized Bond character is essential to further the franchise.