Slight:
In a few of the films he uses other cover names but bad-guys tend to see through that anyway, or he just straight up reveals himself.

There's a good point. If James Bond is a cover identity or alias, then why does he use so many other covers and identities? So he can hide his cover identity?

as long as he is British

I don't think so, because it would simply clash with the image of Bond.

However, Bond's American CIA partner should always be:

Black, and named Felix.

There was an Old Bond, the movie was called Never Say Never Again, Bond was also notably old in Moonraker, A View to A Kill, Diamonds are Forever and Die Another Day.

Samuel L Jackson playing it. In the same mind set as Pulp Fiction.

"Shaken not stirred mutha fucka."

Oh come on, the one liners would be absolutely hilarious.

The origins of James Bond from the books portray an overweight, ugly, chain smoking alcoholic with a small range of interests and a distinct favour for womanising. He was a person distinctly flavoured by the colonial spirit of the British Empire, an empire reputed for its racist nature. In short, there were no interpretations of the original character which could be interpreted as anything other than white.

When the character was ported to the movies, a lot of the more negative characteristics of James Bond were stripped out - Bond was no longer overweight, ugly, a crushing bore or a chain smoker, but don't get me wrong: he was still a womanising cad, and a nationalist to boot. As the movies were still in the shadow of what had once been the world's largest empire, it made sense to keep that part of his character intact, particularly as the threat of the Soviet Union was as potent as ever.

Now, as we approach a completely new kind of war, we can see that perhaps the character as it was originally perceived isn't particularly appropriate for the modern generation. I mean, we've got plenty of action heroes out there already, and yet James Bond continues to capture the imaginations of at least some of us. The character is still politically incorrect in a world where those sorts of characters are getting snuffed out. While I wouldn't suggest for a minute that a suave, sophisticated agent couldn't be played by a black actor in an extraordinary fashion, the fact remains that James Bond isn't quite as sophisticated as we may have considered him over the years. He's still a cad, still a womaniser and still nationalist. There's still some of that colonial thing in the character, and I'm still inclined to think that the character is still intended to be white.

No...Ian Fleming has already dictated the answer to that question. It would be very easy to create another 00 in place of Bond (hell, they even tried to create James Bond Jr. a long time ago), but to put a black man into the 007 persona without an acceptable reason as to why he is black would not suit well with fans of the series. (By the way, am I not mistaken, or was the old M retired in Goldeneye?)

However...I would ask people...

Does every secret agent movie involving a black hero or heroine really HAVE to be like "Undercover Brother" (some sort of spy movie spoof)? I would think that SOMEONE could create an eloquent, elitist, sophisticated, African American hero in the image of Bond for this series that would do the character justice.

As for the M in this film- I recommend the actor who played "Jeffrey" from Fresh Prince of Bel Air.

Should there be a white Shaft?

Supernovajake:
No, because it would be an obvious attempt to make everything stupidly politically correct.

So true

Frederf:
Should there be a white Shaft?

If the actor was good enough to play him then sure. Maybe Michael Chiklis (The Shield) could do it.[/sarcasm]

This whole thing isn't about wheather or not a black man could play bond or not. Its about why should an established character be changed.

I know your post was made for the same reason so this isn't directed toward you.

Quinn Davis:
I guess it would be fine, as long as they didn't BLACK HIM OUT. If you know what I mean.

Like Blade, or XXX or anything like that, with lots of ebonics and references to his blackness. THAT would ruin it. And, unfortunately, Hollywood tends to do this when a lead action movie character is black.

Why was Quinn banned ofr this? I agree, hollywood does that a lot and the great thing about bond is they wouldn't be able to. If bond's actor was black then no one in hollywood could make him say steriotypical stuff because that'd ruin the suave bond effect.

On the other hand Wesley Snipes as Blade wasn't Hollywood, that was Wesley Snipes being awsome and it worked.

I don't think so. Some characters just wouldn't work if you change the race (a white Shaft, a Chinese Dirty Harry, a Jewish breakdancer, etc), and Bond has to be a classy white guy. Felix Leiter should stay black though, he adds a non-white character that doesn't generally die at the end of the movie.

Felix was the guy from the CIA in Casino Royale, for those desperately trying to figure out who I'm talking about.

Bond is a white man. It's kind of silly to make him black.

And, hate to break it to you, but race matters. And if you care to accuse me of racism, then I don't care. It does matter, simply because, consciously or indeed unconsciously, people do care about it. Oh, and it would come off as absurdly PC, and the day that PC triumphs over style is the day I vote for the BNP (I never thoughtI'd say that, even on the internet. Actually, I'd never vote BNP, because they're all inbred little-Englanders).

Good god, but the levels of guilt that whites carry around in Britain is utterly disproportionate. It's not as if we went all Barbarossa on Africa and commited genocide, and it's not as if what we did was outside of the norms of Africa at the time (ask a Zulu), and it's certainly not as if it was a bad thing that we coloniszed them.

And no, this is not irony, it's a fact.