Perhaps. But if there's one thing that I've learned it's that minorities matter. We shouldn't disparage them; that's to be sure. At the very least we should acknowledge them. I think I've said all I need to say here.
Minorities only matter as much as the wealthy say they matter. Jews are a minority to be reckoned with, in part, because they were forced to become good with money when they were forced into European ghettos. Chinese business men often have a reputation for seeing business strategies nobody else can, reflecting their collectivist thinking, which was a strategy the peasants used to defend themselves against extreme exploitation. Even complaining could get your head cut off.
The republican party would like to take a moment to say that minorities matter, and it is merely a coincidence that their party is led by KKK members and is about as lily white as it gets. Appearances to the contrary, they are not a racist political party. Fox News is not real news, but nobody wants to hear the real news. Capitalism was a fantasy to begin with, a marketing ploy in a ponzi scheme.
The problem is with maintaining the same name when the character changes. In hindsight, it would have left far more avenues open if the films had been branded on 007, rather than a particular character. That way, every time a new actor played the role, his (or her) name would have changed and the character would have been realistic in their own right.
Well past Connery's tenure, the movies were based on books. That wouldn't have made much sense. But that is what they are doing with this movie as I think has been discussed.
Yeah that would great, the closest characters I can think of that played a similar role was Mario Van Peebles who played Jesse Lee in Posse (1993) and Jamie Foxx who played Django in Django Unchained (2012)
What you say is true, but this raises the issue of extending Bond films beyond the books and maintaining a sense of reality. Sadly, every new film involving a change of actor is progressively destroying this. Perhaps it would have been a better idea to use the system that the Inspector Morse series adopted, where Lewis took over and became a character in his own right. When Lewis retired, another actor took over and allowed the series to continue. I feel that for the older generation, comparing every new actor playing James Bond with his predecessors is doing more harm than good to the films. To me personally, the Roger Moore films, directed by John Glen are the real James bond movies, but that is probably because I worked on them. LOL.
The original Bond literary character was a Philip Marlowe tough guy, who grew up on the wrong side of the tracks, but enlisted and eventually became Bond. Sean Connery read classical literature as a way to teach himself acting, and his portrayal of Bond over the years slowly elevated him to the status of a cultured gentleman, while Roger Moore brought a much needed comic breath of fresh air to the role. That's what's great about Bond movies, is he can be whoever the actor and director decide he should be. The more cultured he becomes, the easier he is to make fun of, while the less cultured the less the women tend to appreciate the movies. Few women read spy novels that I know of, but they are quite popular in the military. Sean Connery got away with pretensions of culture, because he's Sean.
I was not entirely aware of the early history, but it makes sense. Following Roger Moore, the series seems to have gone downhill in real terms. Box office figures deny this, but they look at cash, rather than attendances and modern release floods the film all over the country, whereas in the past the films ran in key cinemas for several months prior to release. Perhaps now is the time to look at a new approach to the brand. Here in the UK, we have a soap opera (Coronation Street) that has maintained a steady following for more than 50 years. During this period characters have constantly changed and interest is maintained. On the other hand, when Dallas changed by replacing actors to play the same role, the whole series collapsed within a few years. My comments were purely about marketing the James Bond brand. It has so much going for it, but somehow it is going wrong. Do you remember the Roger Moore film, where Margret Thatcher ended up talking to the parrot.? The audience at the London premier were falling out of their seats with laughter and even the Royal family joined in. I had to take full control of the theater sound mix to maintain dialogue levels above the audience reaction. This sort of thing is just not happening today.
Forget shallow, his character is nonexistent. Phillip K. Dick wrote a lot of the most popular movies today as fiction, using the same Philip Marlowe tough guy bullshit that cut the mold for every fucking spaghetti western to come. Italian directors are all convinced all it takes is a tall skinny good looking blond man, a blond woman with big tits and an overbite, and a few good sounding tough guy one-liners and you've made a fortune. If Playboy hadn't spent so much money making those movies there is no way in hell they could of gotten away with it for this long without people losing interest. Movies like the Bourne Identity show how the genre can add more complex plots and keep your interest in the character, despite knowing almost nothing about him, except he kills people like a demon from hell. Thankfully, cowboy movies have come a long way, and spy movies will too.
Needs to be a martial artist to play Billy Jack though. Wesley Snipes, Michael Jai White, are just a few I can think of.
Tom Laughlin Jr was 42 when he filmed Billy Jack, Wesley Snipes is currently 57 so he’s probably too old, and Michael Jai White is 51. Perhaps Michael Jordan who played Eric in Black Panther he’s only 32
Age of those guys don’t matter, they still have it in skills department. Michael B. Jordan? Good call!