No Time to Die **Spoilers from post #1449 onward**

batgoat

pixelburp wrote: »

What the actual F wall of insecure, bleating nonsense did I just read? Oh no, forced diversity is going to get us and ... ... Uh? Make us play videogames with black people.

Jesus Christ. It's a Sunday, go have an ice cream.

And I'm a white man. I don't feel demonised, but then I'm not so insecure in my fandom I can't deal with some black faces in a film franchise about space wizards.

It's like the person has a list of things to be outraged by...

CinemaGuy45

pixelburp wrote: »

What the actual F wall of insecure, bleating nonsense did I just read? Oh no, forced diversity is going to get us and ... ... Uh? Make us play videogames with black people.

Jesus Christ. It's a Sunday, go have an ice cream.

And I'm a white man. I don't feel demonised, but then I'm not so insecure in my fandom I can't deal with some black faces in a film franchise about space wizards.

I am not a leftest SJW crying all over the internet I am posting in a thread about this franchise in the films section and trust me I can deal with it.:D


I am just saying I won't be paying to see this rubbish I suspect when this thing flops there will be some amount of crying from people who can not deal with it.;)

pixelburp

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

I am not a leftest SJW crying all over the internet I am posting in a thread about this franchise in the films section and trust me I can deal with it.:D


I am just saying I won't be paying to see this rubbish I suspect when this thing flops there will be some amount of crying from people who can not deal with it.;)

You clearly can't when you wail about white people being "demonized" (in caps too) then rattle off unrelated nonsense about ww2 and Star Wars. If you feel the need to invent some abstract collection of cultural enemies ("leftist SJWs", Jesus Christ [that famous white guy from Oxford]) then good luck to you - that be insecurity. From one white person (a redhead too, so I win) to another - get a grip

And if you think a James Bond film will flop, then maybe add naivety to the mix to. The franchise practically pays for itself in product placement.

batgoat

pixelburp wrote: »

You clearly can't when you wail about white people being "demonized" (in caps too) then rattle off unrelated nonsense about ww2 and Star Wars. If you feel the need to invent some abstract collection of cultural enemies ("leftist SJWs", Jesus Christ [that famous white guy from Oxford]) then good luck to you - that be insecurity. From one white person (a redhead too, so I win) to another - get a grip

And if you think a James Bond film will flop, then maybe add naivety to the mix to. The franchise practically pays for itself in product placement.

I'm genuinely more amazed that he isn't aware that African Americans fought in WW2. Assumed everyone knows that..

pixelburp

batgoat wrote: »

I'm genuinely more amazed that he isn't aware that African Americans fought in WW2. Assumed everyone knows that..

And that's before you go back 20 years prior and the Hundreds of thousands of "colonial" troops who fought in the trenches of WW1. From India to French Algeria, dark faces were common in the European fields IIRC - though adaptations prefer to focus on English class warfare and Sigfrid Sassoon writing miserable poetry...

CinemaGuy45

pixelburp wrote: »

You clearly can't when you wail about white people being "demonized" (in caps too) then rattle off unrelated nonsense about ww2 and Star Wars. If you feel the need to invent some abstract collection of cultural enemies ("leftist SJWs", Jesus Christ [that famous white guy from Oxford]) then good luck to you - that be insecurity. From one white person (a redhead too, so I win) to another - get a grip

And if you think a James Bond film will flop, then maybe add naivety to the mix to. The franchise practically pays for itself in product placement.

Remember The Last Jedi and people saying it was just a bunch of racist sexist man babies crying on the internet and they did not represent real fans?

Five months later we got Solo a Star Wars Story with a female droid rights robot and a pansexual Lando.

It flopped and the movie franchise has come to a screaming halt along with the Disney Star Wars theme park being a ghost town.

Product placement will dry up in a franchise that nobody wants to see.

pixelburp

Solo flopped because Disney had to reshoot 70% of the movie, effectively doubling the budget. It was never going to claw that back.

It flopped because nobody wanted a Han Solo prequel. Check out the very thread here, it's quite clear. NOBODY wanted this, or a boba fett prequel, itself also canned.

But sure, female droids. (Which was actually mocking SJW types , but whatever).

johnny_ultimate

Mod note: This Star Wars nonsense has dragged enough other threads down, back on topic please.

CinemaGuy45

https://www.bitchute.com/video/rgENR1L5nt0G/


My final though on the matter.

pah

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

https://www.bitchute.com/video/rgENR1L5nt0G/


My final though on the matter.

Good for you.

I look forward to watching good movies with good performance from capable actors.

I don't watch an MCU movie wondering what Nick Fury would be like as his traditional white self. Get a life lad.

Sad Professor

Did I miss something? So it is rumoured (by the bastion of journalistic integrity the Daily Mail no less) that in his absence Bond has been replaced by a new 007 who will be played by a black woman (yay, gender equality) who will probably die in the first 10 minutes (cue outrage pieces) forcing Bond out of retirement to do what the woman of colour wasn't able to (cue more outrage pieces). i.e. Bond has NOT been recast as a black woman. Maybe he will in the future and maybe she'll be a lesbian and Muslim and disabled too, but that hasn't happened yet and it might never happen, so what is the big deal?

People need to chill. Stop fighting pointless culture wars. You won't win anything worth winning.

The Late Late Show

I do not believe they will radically alter the Bond franchise. Too much risk in doing so. There could be some sort of a spinoff series with the new agent in it though but I cannot see anyone other than Bond be 007 in a permanent capacity. Bond films have been in existence since 1962 and have kept certain things consistent despite the depictions of Bond ranging from a dour semi-depressed agent to an almost comedian.

eviltimeban

From the pics that have been shown from the set, it's clear that Bond is wearing a suit once again.

Now, forget this "black / female Bond" nonsense. The REAL question is, is it Tom Ford again? Is the suit Prince of Wales check? Worsted wool? Is he wearing traditional loafers or brogues? What sunglasses? Will he be wearing tab collared shirts for the whole movie? Who's providing the casual wear?

These are the important things.

BoJack Horseman

eviltimeban wrote: »

Now, forget this "black / female Bond" nonsense

Never.

Time to get on board.... Bond is woke as f*ck

Goodshape

Agent Double-Oh-kkkkkkkkkkkkkkrrrrrr *pop*

The Late Late Show

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

Thats the thing I am not offended Bond was a franchise that I enjoyed I went to the cinema to see it and I have the full collection of movies.

Bond was the man every man wanted to be and the man every woman wanted to be with.;)

Far from being offended I am just disappointed there will be no more James Bond films as I really enjoyed them.

I will not be spending my time and money on this new woke rubbish as it does not speak to me and I strongly suspect like Ghostbuster 2016 and Oceans Eight this thing will flop hard.

This is a thread in the films section and the thread is about Bond 25 I am posing here because I really enjoyed and own copies of the other 24 Bond movies.

Not offended in the least I will just move on however I suspect the usual suspects will be crying foul when this franchise hits the iceberg and sinks.

And where does all this rubbish about 'reinventing' franchises come from? It is foolish and never works. This whole issue of killing off iconic characters in films is another unhelpful trend of late too. Han Solo, Luke Skywalker, etc. have been killed off so it is possible someone gets the daft idea to do same with Bond and replace him with a 007 of the choosing of whatever agenda the writer holds.

Where does all this drivel lead is the thing? Ruination of franchises people enjoyed for years as the original writer intended. Suddenly, films, TV series and books people enjoyed in the past become something different: female 007 lead to Dirty Harriet, Mad Martha and The Handboy's Tale and female Indiana Jones and Wonderman and so on!! Remake of Love/Hate then with Nigella played by Amy Hubermann!!

eviltimeban

Without derailing the thread once again, Han Solo was killed off because Harrison Ford didn't want to play him anymore.

BUT - there's been lots of different James Bonds.

Saying that James Bond is a person, whereas 007 is a code. So anyone can be 007, in theory.

And you're also forgetting, those who are "outraged", about the people who might think that all this is a good thing. People, in general, welcome diversity and equality and if you want to label it negatively to suit your own feelings, then so be it. But they are not making the movies just for you and your kin.

mikhail

Oh sweet mercy, I hope they release some actual news about this soon so this tiresome conversation can come to an end.

eviltimeban

mikhail wrote: »

Oh sweet mercy, I hope they release some actual news about this soon so this tiresome conversation can come to an end.

Agreed. I'm just excited for a new Bond movie. Hopefully there'll be some good M16 / M / Q / Tanner related scenes.

Though I am curious to see where the Bond franchise goes from here. What more can it be? Ironic? R-rated? What's going to make the next Bond stand out? What worked for Craig is that he was different from Brosnan, and the movies were more "gritty" and realistic than the previous few.

But what's next? If someone like Aidan Gillan or Richard Madden become the next Bond, well... so what? Would it all be a bit "meh"? Another guy in a suit with a gun and a martini etc?

I can actually see the sense in getting someone like Idris Elba, just to represent it in a different and new way.

The Late Late Show

Another issue we must remember with Bond films is they have been more successful than anyone imagined. When Bond started, it was in book form. Ian Fleming could not have predicted how big his character would be when he launched Casino Royale. Likewise, when Dr No became a film who was to predict that over 50 years later Bond films would still be made.

Bond as a character is very much of his time too. As Judi Dench's M once remarked, a relic of the cold war. Bond films were initially based on the perception that the Western side was the better of the 2 in the cold war and later based on the ability of the West and Soviet Union to join forces against common non-state enemies. As we know, the world has changed a lot since Bond was first invented. In the age of Al Qaeda and ISIS, SPECTRE and other Bond enemy organisations are passe and in the age of the John Bolton regime and Brexit, films about a Western secret agent will be divisive: who is 'good' and who is 'bad' is not as 'clear cut' as it once APPARENTLY was.

Another issue has been where the films were and are set. Some countries have turned down opportunities to have a Bond film set in it due to public anger. One of the early 1970s films like Diamonds Are Forever was meant to be set partially in the Shah's Iran but was dropped due to anti-Israeli sentiment and association of the franchise with Israel by some! One of the most surprising settings for a Bond film was in Skyfall: it was filmed on location partially in China. Anyone who remembers the very first Bond films will note the blatant anti-Chinese propaganda in them. Both SPECTRE and Goldfinger's organisation were depicted as allies or clients of China.

Some people just do not see the point of all these films. Some people will claim each Bond film is the same thing over and over. Reports of the franchise's demise were reported in 1985, 1990, 2003, etc. but each time, it has come back stronger than ever. The franchise so far has been both able to adapt but yet remain true to its origins.

Bond has been often cited as a promoter of misogynist culture by some feminists. It is true that a lot of earlier Bond films had some shocking for today misogynist moments: for example, one of the early Roger Moore films has Bond hitting the baddie's girlfriend in it. A short few films later, this would be unthinkable for Moore's Bond. But there is arguably another form of misogyny forming: depicting female characters as masculine male types. Is turning females into male caricatures feminist? The whole masculinisation of female characters in film and by extension women in general is constantly being pushed now.

So, far from being an achievement for feminism, a female Bond would be a victory for a new and sinister form of misogyny. A form of misogyny where feminine attributes are frowned upon and where women have to be men.

FunLover18

The Late Late Show wrote: »

Bond has been often cited as a promoter of misogynist culture by some feminists. It is true that a lot of earlier Bond films had some shocking for today misogynist moments: for example, one of the early Roger Moore films has Bond hitting the baddie's girlfriend in it. A short few films later, this would be unthinkable for Moore's Bond. But there is arguably another form of misogyny forming: depicting female characters as masculine male types. Is turning females into male caricatures feminist? The whole masculinisation of female characters in film and by extension women in general is constantly being pushed now.

So, far from being an achievement for feminism, a female Bond would be a victory for a new and sinister form of misogyny. A form of misogyny where feminine attributes are frowned upon and where women have to be men.

It's not so much a masculiation of female characters as the idea that these traits and skills are not exclusive to men. Back in the day girls who portrayed "masculine" traits or preferences like playing or watching sport would have been called Tom boys, as if there was something wrong with them. Whereas now we know that some girls just like sport. Words like "masculine" and "feminine" are becoming less relevant.

I don't want a female Bond because Bond is intrinsically male, like you said he's a misogynist and i don't think they movies should change that but they should address it and his misogyny should be challenged. I don't however have any issue with a black or Asian Bond because there's nothing about his character or personality that is intrinsically white.

silverharp

The Late Late Show wrote: »

Bond has been often cited as a promoter of misogynist culture by some feminists. It is true that a lot of earlier Bond films had some shocking for today misogynist moments: for example, one of the early Roger Moore films has Bond hitting the baddie's girlfriend in it. A short few films later, this would be unthinkable for Moore's Bond. But there is arguably another form of misogyny forming: depicting female characters as masculine male types. Is turning females into male caricatures feminist? The whole masculinisation of female characters in film and by extension women in general is constantly being pushed now.

So, far from being an achievement for feminism, a female Bond would be a victory for a new and sinister form of misogyny. A form of misogyny where feminine attributes are frowned upon and where women have to be men.

good point, another angle which I noticed in Killing Eve was that the male characters tended to be weak so there was no balance, it was just feminist fan fiction.

FunLover18

silverharp wrote: »

good point, another angle which I noticed in Killing Eve was that the male characters tended to be weak so there was no balance, it was just feminist fan fiction.

You're complaining about lack of gender balance in a thread about the Bond franchise, a thread which for the last few pages has been full of people (mostly male I'm guessing) complaining about the introduction of a female agent.

The Late Late Show

silverharp wrote: »

good point, another angle which I noticed in Killing Eve was that the male characters tended to be weak so there was no balance, it was just feminist fan fiction.

When something is written with a clear agenda, weak and bland characters often appear. This was very apparent in recent Irish TV drama Taken Down where the male cops were portrayed as clownish.

FunLover18 wrote: »

It's not so much a masculiation of female characters as the idea that these traits and skills are not exclusive to men. Back in the day girls who portrayed "masculine" traits or preferences like playing or watching sport would have been called Tom boys, as if there was something wrong with them. Whereas now we know that some girls just like sport. Words like "masculine" and "feminine" are becoming less relevant.

I don't want a female Bond because Bond is intrinsically male, like you said he's a misogynist and i don't think they movies should change that but they should address it and his misogyny should be challenged. I don't however have any issue with a black or Asian Bond because there's nothing about his character or personality that is intrinsically white.

There are both artificial and real differences between women and men. The artificial ones are the ones like women are not supposed to like sport and men are. Plenty women love sport and plenty men hate sport you will find.

In a climate where some view gender as something one can switch on and off like a switch, gender neutral Bond will be the next thing you'll hear! Bond is what he is.

The issue with Bond is he was a real person. Bond was Ian Fleming. Bond's culture was Fleming's. Now each and every literary creation be it Bond, The Republic of Gilead, Sherlock Holmes, Long John Silver, etc. will offend someone but it was not set out to be that. Today, we get one of two things: the Katie Hopkins type deliberate offenders and the films/series where everything is done not to be offensive.

People can go through all the Bond films and find 'offensive' stuff in them and overreact. Is Goldfinger racist for having a mute North Korean in it? Is Diamonds Are Forever homophobic for having 2 gay bad guys in it? Is Live And Let Die racist for depicting Africans as the villains and having Voodooism in the plot? Is the whole series anti-German propaganda with a top heavy list of baddies with Germanic names such as Blofeld, Stromberg, Drax and Zorin? Aren't the constant jokes with Q proof of how misogynistic the series is? Is The Living Daylights supporting Al Qaeda/ISIS/Taliban with Bond working with Mujaheddin Ahmadinejad. And so on. One could tear up Bond and 'accuse' him of this and more.

Some people want a Bond of their choosing. Female Bond, gay Bond, IRA-loving anti-British Bond, Guinness-drinking Bond, whatever you're having yourself Bond!! Moonraker sort of gave us Jedi Bond. When massive change happens, you have a different character.

batgoat

The Late Late Show wrote: »

When something is written with a clear agenda, weak and bland characters often appear. This was very apparent in recent Irish TV drama Taken Down where the male cops were portrayed as clownish.

Killing Eve was incredibly well received by audiences and critics in both the UK and US... I would say those being outraged by an agenda have far more of an agenda..

The Late Late Show

batgoat wrote: »

Killing Eve was incredibly well received by audiences and critics in both the UK and US... I would say those being outraged by an agenda have far more of an agenda..

It did not comment on Killing Eve. I watch and enjoy that and it is not trying to be something it is not.

FunLover18

The Late Late Show wrote: »

When something is written with a clear agenda, weak and bland characters often appear. This was very apparent in recent Irish TV drama Taken Down where the male cops were portrayed as clownish.

Why is it that a TV show/movie that shows women in stronger roles and men as "weak" or "clownish" has "an agenda" but the vast the majority of media which has done the exact same with the genders switched is just the norm? Killing Eve, which silverharp was talking about, features some of the best writing in recent TV and the characters could not be less bland (EDIT: just saw your post re KE). I have not seen Taken Down.

The Late Late Show wrote: »

There are both artificial and real differences between women and men. The artificial ones are the ones like women are not supposed to like sport and men are. Plenty women love sport and plenty men hate sport you will find.

In a climate where some view gender as something one can switch on and off like a switch, gender neutral Bond will be the next thing you'll hear! Bond is what he is.

You mentioned the masculisation of women, so what are the real differences you're talking about and can you give me some examples?

silverharp

FunLover18 wrote: »

Why is it that a TV show/movie that shows women in stronger roles and men as "weak" or "clownish" has "an agenda" but the vast the majority of media which has done the exact same with the genders switched is just the norm? Killing Eve, which silverharp was talking about, features some of the best writing in recent TV and the characters could not be less bland (EDIT: just saw your post re KE). I have not seen Taken Down.

do you not think something like Dexter had a better gender balance with kick ass male and female characters? all the male characters in Killing Eve apart from the handler guy were written as being very weak

py2006

I'm no Bond connoisseur but I dont get the misogynist label. He has a troubled past, stunning women find him irrestiable and he isn't into relationships. That doesn't mean he hates women?

The word is used far to flippantly in recent times.

johnny_ultimate

Eve’s husband Niko is given plenty of good material in Killing Eve, as is Konstantin. And both lead characters are far more substantial than ‘kick ass’ women, a very simplistic take on two messy, flawed characters (not that Eve kicks much ass anyway - very much bumbles her way through much of the series - and Vianelle’s a psychopath).

Oddly enough though I thought the writing went to **** a bit in season two compared to the first - didn’t really have anywhere interesting to go anymore. Additionally you can sense a lot of Waller-Bridge’s guiding hand in the first season - she does not write straightforward, one-note, blandly empowered female characters, so that is if anything cause for hope about what she’ll bring to Bond 25.