Well, if Bond were black, I don't think Live and Let Die would have
been the same book, but of course, Fleming's character as he wrote him was Caucasian, or White, or Whatever we're calling it these days.
The point is of course that the franchise is welcome to take whatever artistic license it wants and as a fifty-year Bond aficionado, I welcome it and will be interested in its execution. For me, Connery WAS Bond because I was ten years old and like newborn ducks, I was quite impressionable. In my opinion however, I think that Craig's interpretation of Bond was true to the literary version, with the exception of hair color of course, and no comma of black hair falling across his forehead. Bond's literary persona was, upon analysis, most peculiar but until Craig, he was not the stone-cold near-sociopath of the books. There was also an excellent set of treatises with the theme being the great question, "Was James Bond gay?", with a multitude of intellectuals debating yea and nay. Those were heady times…
The first four pictures, IMO, were the best in terms of tightness of script, near-realism, gentle humor, and depth of character. The series became cartoonish when Roger Moore (whom I loved as The Saint) assumed the role - no fault of his, and just became more ridiculous as the scripts were more and more loosely based upon the books and short stories. The franchise is near-dead from a creative standpoint and needs a breath of fresh wind, the Doctor's Wind, as it were. Fellow fans will get the reference...
= new reply since forum marked as read
