Next James Bond?

[bobmcfc]

Nothing wrong with him playing bond. Jesus was a black man and nobody complained

See black people have been playing fictional characters for ages

Nothing wrong at all, chris rock will have my back on this

 

[jimharri]

Nothing wrong with him playing bond. Jesus was a black man and nobody complained

See black people have been playing fictional characters for ages

And God is a woman;

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzO6Hz1dGsI&feature=related[/youtube]


And Salma Hayek is indeed an angel!!!

 

[Bigga]

That one made money??

Most of your argument was about Batman. Mine was about vigilantism.

You continuing argument was about a 'back story'. Mine was the core of Bats was... vigilantism after you strip away the nonsense back story.

I showed my examples and you showed... whatever that was meant to be.

This is an 'argument' a smart fella should walk away from. So, I'll leave you with your 'argument'.

Adios muchacho.

Yes your argument is anyone can play a vigilante of course that is true and as a pointed out earlier before you put that film up it has been done before.
I think you are wrong r.e the main core of bats as well to be fair. As you have shown movies play vigilante and dont collect much following or garner much interest. 90% of Batman is about his torment and his past if you ignore Batman and Robin (shit).
So yes you can keep banging on about vigilantism until the cows come home the main problem you have is you cannot change Batman as as I have said before the whole idea of him is from his past. Change that and you have Super which isn't Batman

I think I need to put your argument to bed, finally.

The general consensus of why someone becomes a vigilante is based on that person's suffering/ torment, somewhat, in their past. That is the basis of most, if not all vigilante stories that make it to screen. No one can say what triggers the onset of trauma with these people; bullying/ losing loved ones to crime/ mental abuse? Who can say?

I can, therefore, draw direct correlation between the two characters.

The secondary reason is the skewed reality of the costumed vigilante as they enter the fray of what lies ahead of them. To go into 'battle' against criminals armed with knives and guns, with the belief that they will come out the other side is bordering on severe mental illness.

Again, on which I can draw direct correlation between the two.

These two protagonists are separated by wealth only, but are symbiotic with the notion of what draws them to 'protect the weak'.

The difference is "Super" is not afraid to say it, whilst "The Dark Knight" only flits with this notion and moves on rather rapidly. Why? Because Hollywood wants its heroes 'light and fluffy' and you rooting for the nutter.

That's the plain truth.

Ruth.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

That one made money??

Most of your argument was about Batman. Mine was about vigilantism.

You continuing argument was about a 'back story'. Mine was the core of Bats was... vigilantism after you strip away the nonsense back story.

I showed my examples and you showed... whatever that was meant to be.

This is an 'argument' a smart fella should walk away from. So, I'll leave you with your 'argument'.

Adios muchacho.

Yes your argument is anyone can play a vigilante of course that is true and as a pointed out earlier before you put that film up it has been done before.
I think you are wrong r.e the main core of bats as well to be fair. As you have shown movies play vigilante and dont collect much following or garner much interest. 90% of Batman is about his torment and his past if you ignore Batman and Robin (shit).
So yes you can keep banging on about vigilantism until the cows come home the main problem you have is you cannot change Batman as as I have said before the whole idea of him is from his past. Change that and you have Super which isn't Batman

I think I need to put your argument to bed, finally.

The general consensus of why someone becomes a vigilante is based on that person's suffering/ torment, somewhat, in their past. That is the basis of most, if not all vigilante stories that make it to screen. No one can say what triggers the onset of trauma with these people; bullying/ losing loved ones to crime/ mental abuse? Who can say?

I can, therefore, draw direct correlation between the two characters.

The secondary reason is the skewed reality that the costumed vigilante as they enter the fray of what lies ahead of them. To go into 'battle' against criminals armed with knives and guns, with the belief that they will come out the other side is bordering on severe mental illness.

Again, on which I can draw direct correlation between the two.

These two protagonists are separated by wealth only, but are symbiotic with the notion of what draws them to 'protect the weak'.

The difference is "Super" is not afraid to say it, whilst "The Dark Knight" only flits with this notion and moves on rather rapidly. Why? Because Hollywood wants its heroes 'light and fluffy' and you rooting for the nutter.

That's the plain truth.

Ruth.

You haven't put my argument to bed as the original argument is it would be very hard (not impossible) to change the race of Batman. Then we got in to a long drawn out argument about something else. Somehow we have ended up with you getting at Hollywood and showing me B Movies and banging on about vigilantes and left the original point so long ago I had to go back and check where we started

 

[another generation]

Can we re-visit this in about 4 years' time? Daniel Craig has said he's doing two more Bond films, with the next one scheduled for 2014. Given that, the next Bond actor may not get a look-in until late 2016/17.

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

As this issue is race related, it's probably best we get Rio Ferdinand's input before forming our own opinions. He might consider a black guy playing Bond to a be a bit of a 'choc ice'.

 

[Bigga]

Yes your argument is anyone can play a vigilante of course that is true and as a pointed out earlier before you put that film up it has been done before.
I think you are wrong r.e the main core of bats as well to be fair. As you have shown movies play vigilante and dont collect much following or garner much interest. 90% of Batman is about his torment and his past if you ignore Batman and Robin (shit).
So yes you can keep banging on about vigilantism until the cows come home the main problem you have is you cannot change Batman as as I have said before the whole idea of him is from his past. Change that and you have Super which isn't Batman

I think I need to put your argument to bed, finally.

The general consensus of why someone becomes a vigilante is based on that person's suffering/ torment, somewhat, in their past. That is the basis of most, if not all vigilante stories that make it to screen. No one can say what triggers the onset of trauma with these people; bullying/ losing loved ones to crime/ mental abuse? Who can say?

I can, therefore, draw direct correlation between the two characters.

The secondary reason is the skewed reality that the costumed vigilante as they enter the fray of what lies ahead of them. To go into 'battle' against criminals armed with knives and guns, with the belief that they will come out the other side is bordering on severe mental illness.

Again, on which I can draw direct correlation between the two.

These two protagonists are separated by wealth only, but are symbiotic with the notion of what draws them to 'protect the weak'.

The difference is "Super" is not afraid to say it, whilst "The Dark Knight" only flits with this notion and moves on rather rapidly. Why? Because Hollywood wants its heroes 'light and fluffy' and you rooting for the nutter.

That's the plain truth.

Ruth.

You haven't put my argument to bed as the original argument is it would be very hard (not impossible) to change the race of Batman. Then we got in to a long drawn out argument about something else. Somehow we have ended up with you getting at Hollywood and showing me B Movies and banging on about vigilantes and left the original point so long ago I had to go back and check where we started

BB, you're supposed to joust and parry, not scream and retreat!!

Let's look at your new old stance, shall we? Your reasoning that a 'back story' is needed falls apart when looking at Nolan's heavily clogged introduction of 'Robin' (who, incidentally would become 'Nightwing' or 'Batman' according to Nolan). The cringing back story here, is Wayne saved his orphanage from closure.

Well, that was great, wasn't it? Thank you, I will be 'Batman' now Mr. Wayne. I just need some mental torture I can tap in to besides 'the police ain't doing enough'! But, I digress...

Batman, by any other arrival, would still be a weirdo vigilante.

 

[samharris]

For me.........Gerard Butler.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Abu Hamza

 

[Pigeonho]

Some ****