The Female 007 and the Women of NTTD

1356742

Comments

  • edited July 15 Posts: 2,946
    Zekidk wrote: »
    James Bond is 007 and 007 is James Bond. This is the common conception and cause of outrage on social media. For many '007' is not "merely a codenumber", like R2-D2 isn't just merely a number that can be assigned to any robot in Star Wars. The buzz and debate is totally predictable when you toy with the identity of an established character.

    But it's great marketing. We should at least all be happy for that.
    I believe this is part of the confusion, or perhaps misswording by some of the commentary on various media platforms due to 007 being so synonymous with the character of James Bond that the two are inseparable. The prefix goes hand-in-hand with the character and has done for 56-years-plus, so when you suddenly change it, it's bound to cause an uproar or confusion. Clearly, there are two camps with regards to a female 007: one that has no problem with a woke narrative and those that do. Of course, there might be those that prefer to sit on the fence about it and don't commit to either side and prefer a wait-and-see approach and avoid all spoilers. However, that approach relies on the individual giving them their cash first for a movie that could turn out to be total pants. Personally, I'd rather be informed rather than uninformed before going into B25.

    I share a lot of your own concerns @Zekidk, but I'm not so sure I'd agree that this is "great marketing" as the news came from an undisclosed source, or leak, and not something that appears to have been well thought out or planned. I'm sure the true intention was for this to be another Franz Oberhauser moment whereby the audience was meant to be surprised and shocked to discover that Lashana Lynch was 007 in the same way that Waltz turned out to be Blofeld. Clearly, the producers appear to be oblivious to the existence of social media and believe that everyone is going to go into their movies spoiler-free. They're almost relying on it, so it would seem. Considering it's now been splashed all across the media it's not going to have the same desired effect. Unless that wasn't the producer's intention to begin with and the real objective was to soften up and prime audiences to the prospect of big changes to come. By that I mean a couple of movies down the line, people can now cite B25 where the 007 prefix was no longer synonymous with James Bond and therefore can use it as leverage to say "...but Lashana Lynch was 007 in B25" to endorse whatever agenda for a big change they want to push.

    It's not like it hasn't been done before elsewhere. One only has to look back at Dr. Who when Missy was first introduced as the incarnation of the Master. Some fans pointed out back then that it was cynical attempt to make it acceptable for a future incarnation of the Doctor to be female but were mostly dismissed or shouted down as being hysterical for daring to suggest such a thing. Now I know some members here like Jodie Whittaker as the Doctor along with the SJW brigade, but its popularity has taken a major hit, not just in viewing figures but in merchandising sales for the BBC. Before anyone trots out the Beeb's massaged viewing figures to claim otherwise, I'm not interested because that's not the point I'm trying to make. My point is, if you thought the change wasn't preplanned as far back as the introduction of Michelle Gomez as Missy then you were being wilfully ignorant of the looming changes to come. Lashana Lynch might not be 007 by the end of B25 and the prefix might revert back to Craig (God knows why as it's his last movie), but the objective has already been delivered and that's to lay the foundation to make sweeping changes to the James Bond's character in the near future. The question I ask: was this storyline really necessary for this movie? As @CatchingBullets pointed out it's 2019, and we know how Hollywood is determined to alienate its core fanbase with its gender identity politics in other big blockbusters, so don't at all be surprised to see it in play within the next James Bond movie... or Bond 26. To quote the prophetic Sam Smith lyrics: the writings on the wall.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited July 15 Posts: 2,315
    For god's sake, a man replaced our female M for more films and no-one complained.

    Also, by a lot of arguments on here Fleming would've been pissed off that M was made into a woman. Oh wait but we enjoyed her, so changing genders can work and her gender was an afterthought because she's such a good M.

    Oh yeah remember when Moneypenny was made a black woman and we all really like Naomie Harris and her performance, and her colour was a massive afterthought because she's a great actress and a great Moneypenny.

    And now you can't handle a new character being known as 007 for one film, even though it has no real effect on who James Bond is because he quit in the last movie. In the context of this world 007 is a codename, not a person having their gender or race changed. It's just a bloody promotion cause our golden boy decided to quit.
  • Posts: 11,678
    The teaser trailer can't come soon enough for me! I think it will be Nomi send flowers! :))
  • mtmmtm
    Posts: 874
    bondsum wrote: »
    It's not like it hasn't been done before elsewhere. One only has to look back at Dr. Who when Missy was first introduced as the incarnation of the Master. Some fans pointed out back then that it was cynical attempt to make it acceptable for a future incarnation of the Doctor to be female but were mostly dismissed or shouted down as being hysterical for daring to suggest such a thing. Now I know some members here like Jodie Whittaker as the Doctor along with the SJW brigade, but its popularity has taken a major hit, not just in viewing figures but in merchandising sales for the BBC.

    The viewing figures went up, massively.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited July 15 Posts: 2,315
    If we can have a great female M for as many movies as we did, we can have a new female 007 for one movie.
  • edited July 15 Posts: 2,946
    Code-name is temporarily transferred to another agent. Most fans wouldn't think much of it. But somehow since that agent is black and a woman, that has people angry. Just racist and sexist people outing themselves or people getting massively baited/misunderstanding the news. If you're this mad about someone's skin color getting a coveted position (In a film! And not even for long!), might want to do some self-evaluation.
    That's not what I'm saying, nor anyone else that I've read on here is saying. Shame on you for even suggesting such a thing. I can post a Youtube response from an African-American below to show that it's not only white men that can see through this "gimmick" or marketing charade. I suppose he's being racist about skin colour, too? Maybe have a look at the comments to his video from other black people that are equally outraged by this before making such a defamatory claim...

  • edited July 15 Posts: 2,403
    I do hope that the lady 007 dies at some point in the movie
    matt_u wrote: »
    Bounine wrote: »
    I do hope that the lady 007 dies at some point in the movie and Bond gets his number back at the end of the film.

    The only scenario I find reasonable yet interesting in which she can die is sacrificing herself by the end of the movie, saving/letting Bond finish the mission. Something in the style of May Day's demise.

    She won't suffer a Severine treatment. You don't cast a new female 007 just to make her presence in the movie almost pointless.

    I meant towards the end of the movie. I just hope that Bond and her don’t work together all the time. Bond is a loner who largely operates alone. That’s the appeal for me.

    Yes, self sacrifice would be a good idea.

  • mtmmtm
    Posts: 874
    bondsum wrote: »
    Code-name is temporarily transferred to another agent. Most fans wouldn't think much of it. But somehow since that agent is black and a woman, that has people angry. Just racist and sexist people outing themselves or people getting massively baited/misunderstanding the news. If you're this mad about someone's skin color getting a coveted position (In a film! And not even for long!), might want to do some self-evaluation.
    That's not what I'm saying, nor anyone else that I've read on here is saying. Shame on you for even suggesting such a thing. I can post a Youtube response from an African-American below to show that it's not only white men that can see through this "gimmick" or marketing charade. I suppose he's being racist about skin colour, too? Maybe have a look at the comments to his video from other black people that are equally outraged by this before making such a defamatory claim...


    'Outrage'! :D
  • edited July 15 Posts: 3,390
    bondsum wrote: »
    Code-name is temporarily transferred to another agent. Most fans wouldn't think much of it. But somehow since that agent is black and a woman, that has people angry. Just racist and sexist people outing themselves or people getting massively baited/misunderstanding the news. If you're this mad about someone's skin color getting a coveted position (In a film! And not even for long!), might want to do some self-evaluation.
    That's not what I'm saying, nor anyone else that I've read on here is saying. Shame on you for even suggesting such a thing. I can post a Youtube response from an African-American below to show that it's not only white men that can see through this "gimmick" or marketing charade. I suppose he's being racist about skin colour, too? Maybe have a look at the comments to his video from other black people that are equally outraged by this before making such a defamatory claim...


    @bondsum your point is the equivalent of the "I can't be racist, I have a black friend...." argument.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe JK ROFLing
    Posts: 7,066
    bondsum wrote: »
    Code-name is temporarily transferred to another agent. Most fans wouldn't think much of it. But somehow since that agent is black and a woman, that has people angry. Just racist and sexist people outing themselves or people getting massively baited/misunderstanding the news. If you're this mad about someone's skin color getting a coveted position (In a film! And not even for long!), might want to do some self-evaluation.
    That's not what I'm saying, nor anyone else that I've read on here is saying. Shame on you for even suggesting such a thing. I can post a Youtube response from an African-American below to show that it's not only white men that can see through this "gimmick" or marketing charade. I suppose he's being racist about skin colour, too? Maybe have a look at the comments to his video from other black people that are equally outraged by this before making such a defamatory claim...


    There are many.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited July 15 Posts: 2,315
    Everyone's different @bondsum, a lot of the arguments will be against this because of racism and sexism. Not everyone, but still quite a few. This guy has an opinion, which is completely fair, but to say that he's not going to see the movie and does not want to give money to the people behind it because this female character will have the 007 codename.

    Ridiculous. Even the biggest film-buffs and the biggest critics will go see a film even they think it's gonna be bad cause at the end of the day this film could be great and this idea could really impress people, but as usual people are jumping the shark and given their opinions face value, which doesn't always work out. For example, people thought Waltz was gonna be a great Blofeld. Did that happen? Nope. People thought Monica Bellucci was gonna be a great Bond girl but a sacrificial lamb. Did either of those things happen? Nope.

    So you don't like the idea, okay, but at least be open to the idea that it could actually work, because you're first impressions may not always be correct.
  • Posts: 11,678
    bondsum wrote: »
    Code-name is temporarily transferred to another agent. Most fans wouldn't think much of it. But somehow since that agent is black and a woman, that has people angry. Just racist and sexist people outing themselves or people getting massively baited/misunderstanding the news. If you're this mad about someone's skin color getting a coveted position (In a film! And not even for long!), might want to do some self-evaluation.
    That's not what I'm saying, nor anyone else that I've read on here is saying. Shame on you for even suggesting such a thing. I can post a Youtube response from an African-American below to show that it's not only white men that can see through this "gimmick" or marketing charade. I suppose he's being racist about skin colour, too? Maybe have a look at the comments to his video from other black people that are equally outraged by this before making such a defamatory claim...


    Lol! This guy had me rolling! :))
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 2,315
    Denbigh wrote: »
    For god's sake, a man replaced our female M for more films and no-one complained.

    Also, by a lot of arguments on here Fleming would've been pissed off that M was made into a woman. Oh wait but we enjoyed her, so changing genders can work and her gender was an afterthought because she's such a good M.

    Oh yeah remember when Moneypenny was made a black woman and we all really like Naomie Harris and her performance, and her colour was a massive afterthought because she's a great actress and a great Moneypenny.

    And now you can't handle a new character being known as 007 for one film, even though it has no real effect on who James Bond is because he quit in the last movie. In the context of this world 007 is a codename, not a person having their gender or race changed. It's just a bloody promotion cause our golden boy decided to quit.

    Anyone wanna respond to this?
  • ResurrectionResurrection You don't need to be an operative to see the obvious
    edited July 15 Posts: 1,343
    matt_u wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    For many it has nothing to do with race or gender. What if it was another white male instead of a black woman? Would you be fine with the criticism then?

    Same, either it's black/white or any race/ gender I am not okay with it. But I still think that it's just tabloid bs hardly any truth behind it.
    The main issue is the producers of the Bond franchise throwing a bone to online Social Justice press many of whom don't really care about the franchise, but who have been campaigning for years for Bond to be portrayed by someone of another race or gender.

    So the problem is her race/gender? I'm getting confused here! :)

    Maybe we need a separate thread for the bigots? :D

    The problem here is (if the rumors are true) they are bending to the SJW's agenda just to get more audience to attract to Cinema. Her race/gender has nothing to do with it.

    EoN always followed trends to attract more people to the cinemas, especially since LALD.

    Yes but they didn't change 007's identity
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    For many it has nothing to do with race or gender. What if it was another white male instead of a black woman? Would you be fine with the criticism then?

    Same, either it's black/white or any race/ gender I am not okay with it. But I still think that it's just tabloid bs hardly any truth behind it.
    The main issue is the producers of the Bond franchise throwing a bone to online Social Justice press many of whom don't really care about the franchise, but who have been campaigning for years for Bond to be portrayed by someone of another race or gender.

    So the problem is her race/gender? I'm getting confused here! :)

    Maybe we need a separate thread for the bigots? :D

    The problem here is (if the rumors are true) they are bending to the SJW's agenda just to get more audience to attract to Cinema. Her race/gender has nothing to do with it.

    If her race/gender have nothing to do with it, why are you saying these so-called 'SJW's would be interested in it?

    I can't make it more clear than that
    mtm wrote: »
    Even if there would have been a female 007 at lead for bond26 I would be okay with it even respect that , I won't like or watch it but I won't bash it either because she would be building herself from the ground brick by brick just like Daniel or any other bond's did they didn't just use bond's name to attract the audience.

    Are you saying you think they're trying to launch a new series and replace Bond as the lead? I genuinely can't understand what you're trying to say.

    You are always confuse, read it completely then you might be able to understand.
    I said "If" they try to make her 007 or replace bond or Nomi as 007.
  • ResurrectionResurrection You don't need to be an operative to see the obvious
    Posts: 1,343
    echo wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Code-name is temporarily transferred to another agent. Most fans wouldn't think much of it. But somehow since that agent is black and a woman, that has people angry. Just racist and sexist people.

    So, only black women are allowed to doubt or criticize the decision? For many it has nothing to do with race or gender. What if it was another white male instead of a black woman? Would you be fine with the criticism then?

    What if Henry Cavill or Aidan Turner were playing the replacement 007 in B25? Would your reaction to that casting be the same?

    Absolutely not.

    Really?

    By this logic, would you be angry if you resigned from your job today, and your boss recruited a black woman into your old role?

    Personally, I think Lashana is probably feeling a lot of pressure today. I really hope she smashes it and puts the doubters out of her mind. She's only midway through filming and the negativity shouldn't throw her off. Mainly as it's countenanced by a huge amount of support.

    Despite @jamesbondlive posting a very negative tweet about this - I've seen A LOT of love on Twitter and social media.

    If I had an opinion on how this plays out it would be the following:
    I believe that Bond will die in this film......Therefore, Nomi retains the number and becomes 007. Much in the same way that John Blake became Batman at the end of The Dark Knight Rises.

    This leads the way towards either a Nomi spin-off (very unlikely and hugely dependent on how Lynch is received) and the inevitable reboot from someone like Christopher Nolan or Edgar Wright with a new cast/new Bond.

    Really @Pierce2Daniel you can do better than that!

    This is not real life office it's a fictional film series not Jason Bourne or any other documentary film where they have to keep everything realistic. If I want realistic office designations and politics I have lots of films to watch besides bond.
  • edited July 15 Posts: 1,578
    Ian Fleming created James Bond 007. He didn't create the 007 prefix for a woman. That's not a sexist comment, it's a statement of fact. I wish this Waller- Bridge woman had never got her hands on Bond 25. Ergh. It's pandering to the metoo feminist movement. It's so forced and unnecessary. If my comments are sexist or whatever, I don't care. Stop mucking about with James Bond. It was bad enough we had Craig's gun barrel in a toilet - I have never forgiven Eon for that (!) - and if the rumour is correct we're now getting 007 as a woman via some plot gimmick.

    STOP MUCKING ABOUT WITH THE FRANCHISE.

    (And yes, the toilet gun barrel was unforgivable!)
  • edited July 15 Posts: 11,915
    Has there been any confirmation that Nomi as 007 (which is not confirmed - yet) is the work of FWB?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe JK ROFLing
    Posts: 7,066
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    Ian Fleming created James Bond 007. He didn't create the 007 prefix for a woman. That's not a sexist comment, it's a statement of fact. I wish this Waller- Bridge woman had never got her hands on Bond 25. Ergh. It's pandering to the metoo feminist movement. It's so forced and unnecessary. If my comments are sexist or whatever, I don't care. Stop mucking about with James Bond. It was bad enough we had Craig's gun barrel in a toilet - I have never forgiven Eon for that (!) - and if the rumour is correct we're now getting 007 as a woman via some plot gimmick.

    STOP MUCKING ABOUT WITH THE FRANCHISE.

    (And yes, the toilet gun barrel was unforgivable!)

    Bravo!
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 2,315
    Remember when Judi Dench became M and she's at the top of everyones lists.

    They probably did that because of feminism. I suppose the rise of third-wave feminism made them rethink the character, and oh yeah Fleming wrote him as a man, and he didn't create the M prefix for a woman.

    How dare they create something that became iconic to the franchise, even though this one change with 007 will be occuring for one bloody film.
  • mtmmtm
    Posts: 874
    bondsum wrote: »
    Code-name is temporarily transferred to another agent. Most fans wouldn't think much of it. But somehow since that agent is black and a woman, that has people angry. Just racist and sexist people outing themselves or people getting massively baited/misunderstanding the news. If you're this mad about someone's skin color getting a coveted position (In a film! And not even for long!), might want to do some self-evaluation.
    That's not what I'm saying, nor anyone else that I've read on here is saying. Shame on you for even suggesting such a thing. I can post a Youtube response from an African-American below to show that it's not only white men that can see through this "gimmick" or marketing charade. I suppose he's being racist about skin colour, too? Maybe have a look at the comments to his video from other black people that are equally outraged by this before making such a defamatory claim...


    There are many.


    I'm not really sure that posting a video showing how a man can be sexist helps anything! :D
  • ResurrectionResurrection You don't need to be an operative to see the obvious
    edited July 15 Posts: 1,343
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Remember when Judi Dench became M and she's at the top of everyones lists.

    They probably did that because of feminism. I suppose the rise of third-wave feminism made them rethink the character, and oh yeah Fleming wrote him as a man, and he didn't create the M prefix for a woman.

    How dare they create something that became iconic to the franchise, even though this one change with 007 will be occuring for one bloody film.

    Sorry to say but this is not relevant. If M/Q/MP isn't in one bond film I won't be bothered about it remember FYEO where M wasn't in the film. James bond is a central or should I say main character of the film, you don't toy around with the main character.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 2,315
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Remember when Judi Dench became M and she's at the top of everyones lists.

    They probably did that because of feminism. I suppose the rise of third-wave feminism made them rethink the character, and oh yeah Fleming wrote him as a man, and he didn't create the M prefix for a woman.

    How dare they create something that became iconic to the franchise, even though this one change with 007 will be occuring for one bloody film.

    Sorry to say but this is not relevant. If M/Q/MP isn't in one bond film I won't be bothered about it remember FYEO where M wasn't in the film. James bond is a central or should I say main character of the film, you don't toy around with the main character.

    Okay, one it is relevant and two what isn't relevant is whether M/Q or MP are in a film because that's not what we're talking about. James Bond IS IN THE FILM, his codename has just been given to another character who will still be the main Bond girl role. Simple.
  • mtmmtm
    Posts: 874
    mtm wrote: »
    If her race/gender have nothing to do with it, why are you saying these so-called 'SJW's would be interested in it?

    I can't make it more clear than that

    Okay, so you are saying you have a problem with her race and gender. Gotcha.
    mtm wrote: »
    Are you saying you think they're trying to launch a new series and replace Bond as the lead? I genuinely can't understand what you're trying to say.

    You are always confuse, read it completely then you might be able to understand.
    I said "If" they try to make her 007 or replace bond or Nomi as 007.

    Why on earth are you worried about that? They're not replacing Bond. You're worried about something entirely in your own head. And you seem to be scared of it, which is even more worrying.

  • ResurrectionResurrection You don't need to be an operative to see the obvious
    edited July 15 Posts: 1,343
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Remember when Judi Dench became M and she's at the top of everyones lists.

    They probably did that because of feminism. I suppose the rise of third-wave feminism made them rethink the character, and oh yeah Fleming wrote him as a man, and he didn't create the M prefix for a woman.

    How dare they create something that became iconic to the franchise, even though this one change with 007 will be occuring for one bloody film.

    Sorry to say but this is not relevant. If M/Q/MP isn't in one bond film I won't be bothered about it remember FYEO where M wasn't in the film. James bond is a central or should I say main character of the film, you don't toy around with the main character.

    Okay, one it is relevant and two what isn't relevant is whether M/Q or MP are in a film because that's not what we're talking about. James Bond IS IN THE FILM, his codename has just been given to another character who will still be the main Bond girl role. Simple.

    You said that they changed M's gender that is what I am responding to. M/Q/MP isn't the main character of the film that's why it's easy to change their gender and many people including myself won't be bothered by it. But when it comes to James bond 007 sorry a big No. Simple
  • mtmmtm
    Posts: 874
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    Ian Fleming created James Bond 007. He didn't create the 007 prefix for a woman. That's not a sexist comment, it's a statement of fact.

    Fleming didn't put James Bond in space, in a Lotus Esprit, give him a signature gun, make him wear a monkey suit, give him a house called Skyfall, have him join the Taliban, have a fight on Golden Gate bridge, do a barrel roll in a car, bungee jump off a dam, drive a tank through St Petersberg... what's your point? :)
  • Posts: 620
    But the fact that it’s for one film and that Bond will most likely get the title back is what makes people feel it’s nothing more than a “gotcha!”/gimmick to create some buzz for the movie. Regardless if you’re for or against her taking the title.

    That’s why I’m taking the wait and see approach — because I want to know WHERE they are going with this. Will it have the intended effect at the end of the day or will they portray her as sloppy to lose her title or kill her off or what?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe JK ROFLing
    edited July 15 Posts: 7,066
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Remember when Judi Dench became M and she's at the top of everyones lists.

    They probably did that because of feminism. I suppose the rise of third-wave feminism made them rethink the character, and oh yeah Fleming wrote him as a man, and he didn't create the M prefix for a woman.

    How dare they create something that became iconic to the franchise, even though this one change with 007 will be occuring for one bloody film.

    Again, there was no DAILY campaign to make M a woman back in the 90's. There was a gap and they decided to change the character because they wanted a new dynamic, thats fine. Same goes for Moneypenny, it came out of the blue and the fact that her identity was a secret at first, it was more unexpected. But the problem, as I have said many times now, is that there has for a long time been a slow drumroll for years from the progressive press with headlines to the tune of "isn't it about time Bond became..." and this story decision of having Bond replaced by a strong, "beautiful, black" woman reaks of pandering to that crowd.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited July 15 Posts: 2,315
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Remember when Judi Dench became M and she's at the top of everyones lists.

    They probably did that because of feminism. I suppose the rise of third-wave feminism made them rethink the character, and oh yeah Fleming wrote him as a man, and he didn't create the M prefix for a woman.

    How dare they create something that became iconic to the franchise, even though this one change with 007 will be occuring for one bloody film.

    Sorry to say but this is not relevant. If M/Q/MP isn't in one bond film I won't be bothered about it remember FYEO where M wasn't in the film. James bond is a central or should I say main character of the film, you don't toy around with the main character.

    Okay, one it is relevant and two what isn't relevant is whether M/Q or MP are in a film because that's not what we're talking about. James Bond IS IN THE FILM, his codename has just been given to another character who will still be the main Bond girl role. Simple.

    You said that they changed M's gender that is what I am responding to. M/Q/MP isn't the main character of the film that's why it's easy to change their gender and many people including myself won't be bothered by it. But when it comes to James bond 007 sorry a big No. Simple

    THEY'RE NOT CHANGING HIS GENDER!!!!!!!!!!

    What I'm saying is, if they can change the gender of a popular character and it can work, they can give a codename to another character of a different gender too.
  • ResurrectionResurrection You don't need to be an operative to see the obvious
    Posts: 1,343
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    If her race/gender have nothing to do with it, why are you saying these so-called 'SJW's would be interested in it?

    I can't make it more clear than that

    Okay, so you are saying you have a problem with her race and gender. Gotcha.
    mtm wrote: »
    Are you saying you think they're trying to launch a new series and replace Bond as the lead? I genuinely can't understand what you're trying to say.

    You are always confuse, read it completely then you might be able to understand.
    I said "If" they try to make her 007 or replace bond or Nomi as 007.

    Why on earth are you worried about that? They're not replacing Bond. You're worried about something entirely in your own head. And you seem to be scared of it, which is even more worrying.
    I never said that, you are the one always assuming things. I have no issue with her gender/race.
    I simply stated an idea if they make a film/Netflix series on her I would be okay with it. Learn to read .
  • edited July 15 Posts: 2,946
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Everyone's different @bondsum, a lot of the arguments will be against this because of racism and sexism. Not everyone, but still quite a few. This guy has an opinion, which is completely fair, but to say that he's not going to see the movie and does not want to give money to the people behind it because this female character will have the 007 codename. Ridiculous. Even the biggest film-buffs and the biggest critics will go see a film even they think it's gonna be bad cause at the end of the day this film could be great and this idea could really impress people, but as usual people are jumping the shark and given their opinions face value, which doesn't always work out. For example, people thought Waltz was gonna be a great Blofeld. Did that happen? Nope. People thought Monica Bellucci was gonna be a great Bond girl but a sacrificial lamb. Did either of those things happen? Nope.
    I get that @Denbigh. It's completely understandable to have differing opinions on these movies. I post a lot about my own displeasure of the final 4 Roger Moore movies. Not because of his colour, or his age, but because I don't rate those movies that highly and I don't like the way Cubby had strayed too far from Connery's Bond. Not everyone feels that way, but I'm entitled to my own views.

    The concept of consumerism is free choice. No film studio should expect anyone to willingly handover money to see their product on blind faith alone. Clearly audiences didn't feel the same way about SP which is why it saw a box office drop to SF. Are you saying those that saw SF should've seen SP just because it was a Bond movie regardless whether it was as any good or not? People are entitled to see what they want. If they don't like it for the narrative then they don't pay to go see it.

    Personally, I don't care for the 007 prefix being handed out to another person in the same movie regardless of race or gender. Had this happened in one of Roger Moore or Brosnan's Bond movies, I'd have disliked it equally. Look, if it was such a great idea, why didn't Richard Maibaum or anyone else for that matter use it? According to sources it wasn't Scott Z. Burns or veterans Neal Purvis and Robert Wade that even came up with this lousy idea. It was self proclaimed pro-feminist Phoebe Waller-Bridge who had her own political agenda to push. As I pointed out in a post above, this could be a means of priming audiences for big upheavals in the future. Also, I know you didn't watch that video, @Denbigh, as you replied too quickly to have done so, but my point is you don't have to be white not to like this idea and to suggest anyone that doesn't like it is some closet racist is totally libellous. As I said on another thread, I'd have hated it had Lily James been cast in the same role as were the original rumours on Reddit. I just don't like the ease with which the 007 prefix has been handed out. Bond was thought to be dead in SF but was his prefix handed out to another agent in his absence? Surely the same logic applies in both situations? The reason why Purvis and Wade didn't introduce another 007 replacement in SF was because it's not a very good idea and would've cluttered the narrative.

    I'm not going to say I'm going to avoid this at the cinema yet as I don't know enough about this movie, but based on rumours alone Eon have their work cut out to convince me this is the Bond movie I want to see after a 5-year wait. Who knows? It might be fantastic and I'm convinced to go see it. It's far too early to say right now.
Sign In or Register to comment.