No Time to Die Spoilers from post #1449 onward

Dades · 15-07-2019 11:47am

pixelburp wrote: »

Daniel Craig is getting older, and seems to be on record as thoroughly done with Bond. It's not a stretch for a script - if indeed that's what's being done - to have Bond start off as retired (again, something done before), with the new 007 killed in some fashion that requires Bond to re-assume the mantle.

As you say say, we've already seen the Bond gone off the grid thing before - with the same Bond we currently have.

He resigns in Casino Royale. He's MIA presumed dead in Skyfall. Now he's retired and returns for duty in Bond 25? It's not even a novel idea that has his codename on some other agent.

I'll get over it, if it's a temporary separation. Which is unfortunate, as it'll end up with Lashana Lynch being a short-lived pawn in a pre-spoiled plot twist.

Dades · 15-07-2019 11:49am

Tony EH wrote: »

But either way, I cannot see James Bond's core audience flocking to a series with Jane Bond as the hero.

There's no suggestion that is even close to the reality. Craig is still Bond in Bond 25.

DrumSteve · 15-07-2019 11:52am

Tony EH wrote: »

Maybe. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

But either way, I cannot see James Bond's core audience flocking to a series with Jane Bond as the hero.

If that Jane Bond was say, Gillian Anderson, I could get behind that.

Tony EH · 15-07-2019 11:54am

Dades wrote: »

There's no suggestion that is even close to the reality. Craig is still Bond in Bond 25.

I'm talking about Bond 26...

While Daniel Craig is set to reprise his role as James Bond in the next film, the franchise is set for a shake-up, with reports claiming that black British actor Lashana Lynch has been cast as 007 – taking over Bond’s secret agent number after his character leaves M16.

pixelburp · 15-07-2019 12:19pm

Tony EH wrote: »

Maybe. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

But either way, I cannot see James Bond's core audience flocking to a series with Jane Bond as the hero.

Must dig that out, cos I'm fairly sure I read it re. one of the Craig Bonds, that between Tag Heuer, Tom Ford et al the budget was clawed back through endorsements alone. How much value these kind of 'luxury' aspirational have these days in such a consumerist society, swimming in credit is debatable, but probably beyond the scope of the thread

As to the 007 thing, well always worth remembering that Hollywood is perpetually a race to be second: there have been rumours of a MoneyPenny spin-off among others (heck IIRC Halle Berry was rumoured to get a spin-off until Die Another Day temp. killed off Bond but nobody seemed to be screaming then), and I daresay Sony / Eon are looking at these Shared Universes and trying to think how they could possibly do the same with the Bondverse. Even Fast & Furious are doing it FFS.

Jane Bond? Unlikely, but "Tales of 007" or somesuch is entirely possible and I'd put money on executives trying to find a path there. You're right about the "core audience", but the thing about cores is that they're not the biggest part of the whole.

Tony EH · 15-07-2019 12:28pm

pixelburp wrote: »

You're right about the "core audience", but the thing about cores is that they're not the biggest part of the whole.

True, but there are the source of the steady revenue and they are disregarded unwisely. Although I don't know how loyal or large the core audience is for Bond.

As I said though, I couldn't care less. In fact, part of me would love to see them try a Jane Bond and watch the meltdown. But that's a bit of schadenfreude on my part.

In saying that, the Craig era started off terribly well indeed ('Casino Royale' is great film), and really seemed to know where it was going.

Then 'Spectre' shit the bed.

Dades · 15-07-2019 12:30pm

Tony EH wrote: »

I'm talking about Bond 26...

You think this is a hand off? You're the only one it seems.

Whatever about a potential spin-off nobody has to go and see, it's been stated by the IP owners there'll likely never be a female Bond.

Tony EH · 15-07-2019 12:35pm

Dades wrote: »

You think this is a hand off? You're the only one it seems.

I've no idea. I'm going on this:

"While Daniel Craig is set to reprise his role as James Bond in the next film, the franchise is set for a shake-up, with reports claiming that black British actor Lashana Lynch has been cast as 007 – taking over Bond’s secret agent number after his character leaves M16."

pixelburp · 15-07-2019 12:36pm

Tony EH wrote: »

True, but there are the source of the steady revenue and they are disregarded unwisely. Although I don't know how loyal or large the core audience is for Bond.

As I said though, I couldn't care less. In fact, part of me would love to see them try a Jane Bond and watch the meltdown. But that's a bit of schadenfreude on my part.

In saying that, the Craig era started off terribly well indeed ('Casino Royale' is great film), and really seemed to know where it was going.

Then 'Spectre' shit the bed.

Aye, but then if the films are bankrolled on luxury brands, maybe box-office of any success is just that. It's hard to know and as you say, were 'James Bond' recast as anyone but a white British male, there'd be a meltdown. Idris Elba might get away with it in being already both a great actor & sex symbol, but yeah. The wailing would make Ghostbusters 2016 sound like a stubbed toe.

Oh and just on the spin-off thing, I was right: Halle Berry was meant to get a spin-off, and had already a writer / director attached:

https://ew.com/article/2003/10/27/mgm-nixes-halle-berrys-jinx-spinoff/

Though the same article said Bosnan was attached for a new film in 2005: Of course 2003 didn't have social media to accentuate the insecurities of everyone with an axe to grind, so presumably the uproar was confined to James Bond superfan fora

eviltimeban · 15-07-2019 1:44pm

It makes sense within the universe. I'm currently reading "Forever and a Day" by Anthony Horowitz, which is about a younger Bond taking over 007 from his predecessor (it's set in 1950 and is a great read if you like the Flemming books).

So if Bond 25 starts with James retired / not in M16 anymore, it follows on that someone else could be 007. Or 009, 013, it doesn't matter.

What they could be doing is preparing us for an "expanded universe" - no reason they can't franchise within the universe and have standalone movies around the whole 00 section, set in that universe. Would be great to see how other spies operate within M16. You can bet that if they do that, the likely first featured spy would be a woman. And why not?

speedboatchase · 15-07-2019 1:50pm

What a cool little story surprise that has been utterly spoiled and run without any spoilers in its headline whatsoever.

Baffled as how openly this is being reported.

Hande hoche! · 15-07-2019 1:55pm

Reports about the film makers CGI pasting Craig's onto a stunt man's body. Considering how ropey some of the special effects are on some Bond films, can imagine it being very jarring.

conorhal · 15-07-2019 1:56pm

eviltimeban wrote: »

It makes sense within the universe. I'm currently reading "Forever and a Day" by Anthony Horowitz, which is about a younger Bond taking over 007 from his predecessor (it's set in 1950 and is a great read if you like the Flemming books).

So if Bond 25 starts with James retired / not in M16 anymore, it follows on that someone else could be 007. Or 009, 013, it doesn't matter.

What they could be doing is preparing us for an "expanded universe" - no reason they can't franchise within the universe and have standalone movies around the whole 00 section, set in that universe. Would be great to see how other spies operate within M16. You can bet that if they do that, the likely first featured spy would be a woman. And why not?

I think that they've just run out of ideas. If you want to franchise and do something fresh, make it a fresh interpretation of Bond (but true to the character).

If I was in charge of the IP I think the best way to do that would have been to use the Bond anniversary to give a couple of respected directors a shot at a Summer and Christmas release with their own unique take.
Imagine if you could have convinced Quentin Tarantino to make a 60's period Bond and Christopher Nolan to do a contemporary one?
I reckon both would have jumped at the opportunity of they were given complete creative licence to do whatever they wanted with the character.

That would have been cool.

eviltimeban · 15-07-2019 2:28pm

conorhal wrote: »

I think that they've just run out of ideas. If you want to franchise and do something fresh, make it a fresh interpretation of Bond (but true to the character).

If I was in charge of the IP I think the best way to do that would have been to use the Bond anniversary to give a couple of respected directors a shot at a Summer and Christmas release with their own unique take.
Imagine if you could have convinced Quentin Tarantino to make a 60's period Bond and Christopher Nolan to do a contemporary one?
I reckon both would have jumped at the opportunity of they were given complete creative licence to do whatever they wanted with the character.

That would have been cool.

It would've been to confusing though; the general cinema goer wants to know who Bond is; there's a big cultural thing about "who is Bond" as there's only been a handful of them.

Having two different actors playing Bond in two different times would be too much for the average cinema goer.

Dades · 15-07-2019 2:29pm

I don't buy into a Bond universe whatsoever. For spinoffs or whatever.

The Bond franchise is built on one man - James Bond. It's present day, with no other trappings like dragons or people in capes. A Bond movie should involve a British spy (codename 007, licenced to kill) who is a bit of a maverick, uses cool gadgets and is a hit with the ladies.

Take Bond out of the Bond universe, and it's just a secret agent movie with no identity of its own.

At least the F&F franchise knows what it is - an ever increasingly daft buddy/crew movie with fast cars being the anchor. And their upcoming spinoff stars two of the series' big-name characters.

pixelburp · 15-07-2019 2:32pm

Dades wrote: »

I don't buy into a Bond universe whatsoever. For spinoffs or whatever.

The Bond franchise is built on one man - James Bond. It's present day, with no other trappings like dragons or people in capes. A Bond movie should involve a British spy (codename 007, licenced to kill) who is a bit of a maverick, uses cool gadgets and is a hit with the ladies.

Take Bond out of the Bond universe, and it's just a secret agent movie with no identity of its own.

At least the F&F franchise knows what it is - an ever increasingly daft buddy/crew movie with fast cars being the anchor. And their upcoming spinoff stars two of the series' big-name characters.

Oh, I don't disagree with anything you're saying, but YOU KNOW Hollywood executives are sizing up the Bondverse for attempted spin-offs. Doesn't matter whether it makes sense or not - the 'Dark Universe' didn't make sense, nor Justice League before the solo movies - but Sony/Eon want some long-term cheddar.

johnny_ultimate · 15-07-2019 3:13pm

Maybe I’m just jaded by the endless outrage of the Culture War (tm) but... having another 007 in this film makes, in theory, perfect sense? I mean the end of Spectre saw Bond abandon his job and head into early retirement. Would make narrative, logical sense for the 007 title to be recycled when it no longer belongs to Bond. Don’t see anything remotely controversial about another character having the title in the film if this is to directly continue the story of this version of Bond.

Again, all this with the disclaimer this is all rumour and speculation, and I don’t have much interest in this (or the series) beyond an intriguingly off-brand creative team. But can’t figure at all why there’d be any negative reaction to a narrative-driven alternative 007 popping up at some stage in a traditional Bond story.

Fan of Netflix · 15-07-2019 3:13pm

I thought Spectre was rubbish. This sounds crap also but I'll reserve judgement until I see it. I much preferred Brosnan, Moore and Connery. Craig has no charisma, there is no humour and various other problems such as poor villians.

Mitch Connor · 15-07-2019 3:20pm

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Reports about the film makers CGI pasting Craig's onto a stunt man's body. Considering how ropey some of the special effects are on some Bond films, can imagine it being very jarring.

Deep Fake stuff can be very realistic, especially if there isn't a need to show much human expression.

Sure look at Fast and Furious with the Paul Walker stuff, some of that face swapping was amazing, and that is a few years ago now. It was off in some scenes, but there were a couple - especially the one where the bomb goes off at the house and 'Brian' gets blown into the car, 100% not Paul Walker at all in that scene.

I'd have no concerns, if they are competent at all it should be unnoticable.

p to the e · 15-07-2019 3:58pm

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Deep Fake stuff can be very realistic, especially if there isn't a need to show much human expression.

Sure look at Fast and Furious with the Paul Walker stuff, some of that face swapping was amazing, and that is a few years ago now. It was off in some scenes, but there were a couple - especially the one where the bomb goes off at the house and 'Brian' gets blown into the car, 100% not Paul Walker at all in that scene.

I'd have no concerns, if they are competent at all it should be unnoticable.

Fast and Furious was not my first thought regarding Deep Fake.

Dades · 15-07-2019 3:58pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

But can’t figure at all why there’d be any negative reaction to a narrative-driven alternative 007 popping up at some stage in a traditional Bond story.

Maybe it'll be no big deal. My fear as a Bond fan is that it's not just a temporary role twist.

Of course other people are reacting because there's a black/female character involved.

mikhail · 15-07-2019 5:29pm

Fan of Netflix wrote: »

Craig has no charisma, there is no humour and various other problems such as poor villians.

There were lots of good lines in his first outing. The reparté on the train with Vesper did a lot to establish both characters, for example.

It even had the confidence to play with Bond conventions, e.g.
"Shaken or stirred"
"Do I look like I give a damn?"

I blame crap scripts more than Craig.

Agent Coulson · 15-07-2019 5:37pm

I'll happily pay to see a white middle aged british spy who is a sexist, jingoistic, chauvinistic, misogynistic proud male that is James Bond from the 60's instead of this woke ass new PC wantabe everything to everyone Bond.

I go to movies to be entertained and get away from the grind not spoken too.

They have lost my price of admission.

pixelburp · 15-07-2019 5:39pm

mikhail wrote: »

There were lots of good lines in his first outing. The reparté on the train with Vesper did a lot to establish both characters, for example.

It even had the confidence to play with Bond conventions, e.g.
"Shaken or stirred"
"Do I look like I give a damn?"

I blame crap scripts more than Craig.

Was that confidence? Overall I quite liked Casino Royale, but I always hated how obvious and strained some of its attempts to distance itself from the past felt; the above Martini line just ... ergh, I dunno, just screamed of some adolescent kickback, that obnoxious styling of "this ain't your grandad's James Bond!!" seen in other ramped up reboots (Star Trek 2009 being a particularly nadir)

Royale's dialogue - bar a few standouts like the train scene - was universally awful TBH, and where it succeeded in subverting Bond conventions was when it showed those subversions rather than smacked the audience in the face with clumsy dialogue. That black & white scene at the start, the bloody, brutal punch up in a bathroom culminating in the classic 'gun barrel' shot, worked 10 times better to upend conventions than "Martini? Ewww!"

johnny_ultimate · 15-07-2019 6:09pm

Agent Coulson wrote: »

They have lost my price of admission.

Surely you know how ridiculous this sounds?

Firstly, you are getting a white middle-aged Bond. Plenty to be criticised about the Craig bond films, but being 'woke' sure as hell ain't one of them. He's still the same old red-blooded Brit with an eye for the ladies that he's always been. That he's less overtly misogynistic is hardly surprising given social developments since the 1960s.

Secondly, if these reports are true... so what? It's still a Daniel Craig James Bond film. If there is another 007 at some stage, this has precedent within the films - we've already canonically had multiple Ms and Qs within the same series of Bond films (including, I stress, this one). They're code-names. Given where we left Bond it makes plenty of sense that he'd be retired and the code would have been passed on. Plenty of dramatic potential in the prospect of a new '007' encountering the old one.

Thirdly, the creative team here isn't exactly known for their politically correct material. Cary Joji Fukunaga's best known work (True Detective) is as HBO (read: lots of boobs) as you can get, and Phoebe Waller Bridges masterpiece to date is about an incredibly crass and horny woman who wants to bang a priest. The latter's perhaps the best example of something being feminist and gloriously non-PC at the same time.

And most importantly: we don't really know a bloody thing about this film yet. To announce your boycott of a film based on vague, context-less rumours seems impressively premature.

I'm not a major James Bond fan and couldn't care less who plays the character in the future or what writers do with him. But jeez we have a very long way to go before Bond is anything even remotely approaching 'woke' :pac:

Sonics2k · 15-07-2019 6:17pm

Wasn't the running theory for a long time that the 007/James Bond moniker are passed on from agent to agent?

That's how they account for all the things Bond has done over the years?

johnny_ultimate · 15-07-2019 6:22pm

Sonics2k wrote: »

Wasn't the running theory for a long time that the 007/James Bond moniker are passed on from agent to agent?

That's how they account for all the things Bond has done over the years?

I think the theory put forward by some fans is that 'James Bond' is itself a pseudonym or codename that passes on from person to person as they inherit the role. It's a little bit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nTpsv9PNqo

007 is a codename (much like M and Q, which do pass along e.g. Judi Dench ---> Ralph Fiennes) so there shouldn't be much or any ambiguity about that being an adopted code that could be easily passed on to somebody else.

Agent Coulson · 15-07-2019 6:35pm

Sonics2k wrote: »

Wasn't the running theory for a long time that the 007/James Bond moniker are passed on from agent to agent?

That's how they account for all the things Bond has done over the years?

Brosnan said this in an interview he wanted to come back for one more film and handover the codename James Bond towards the end of the movie.

That didn't happen of course.

Sonics2k · 15-07-2019 6:39pm

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Brosnan said this in an interview he wanted to come back for one more film and handover the codename James Bond towards the end of the movie.

That didn't happen of course.

Ah I remember that. I always liked it as a theory, and I usually avoid fan-theories and head-canon type stuff. It makes sense for the role and character, but if it's not in the books its hard to define as truth.

The Black Oil · 15-07-2019 10:33pm

Taking everything about the film with a grain of salt at the moment. Just far too much clickbait, doomed production, yada yada. All of which Craig et al will have to brush aside when they're promoting it. Next.

Snickers Man · 16-07-2019 1:31pm

PC gone mad Joe. Mad, I tell you.

James Bond/007
"Medium dry vodka martini. Shaken, not stirred"

00-sized 007
"Bacardi Breezer please. With a straw and a swizzle stick"

M
"That damn Beretta. Nice and light....in a lady's handbag!"

00-sized 007
"Your point being.....?"

M
"From now on you carry the Walther PPK. Since I've taken over at MI7 there's been a 40% drop in casualties, and I want to keep it that way"

00-sized 007
"Well, we'll just see what Human Resources has to say about that you non-inclusive gender-normative male-chauvinist pig"

Handsome card player at casino
"Do you play any games other than Chemin de Fer, Miss Bond?"

00-sized 007
"Eye contact please. There's nothing down there that is of the slightest concern of yours"

etc etc

Calhoun · 16-07-2019 9:13pm

The Black Oil wrote: »

Taking everything about the film with a grain of salt at the moment. Just far too much clickbait, doomed production, yada yada. All of which Craig et al will have to brush aside when they're promoting it. Next.

Indeed way to much noise about it right now to really say if its decent or not. I can understand why folk think there could be issues with production as there is a bit of a trend to make changes like the ones have been made when the substance behind it isn't great.

Personally if its a plot point i think it could make for a very interesting story however its not something i am a fan of having permanently.

The Late Late Show · 17-07-2019 6:52pm

Sonics2k wrote: »

Wasn't the running theory for a long time that the 007/James Bond moniker are passed on from agent to agent?

That's how they account for all the things Bond has done over the years?

This was not Ian Fleming's intention. For most, the terms James Bond and 007 are one and the same but the reality is Fleming's Bond is most definitely a distinct person with a Scottish father and Swiss mother. 007 on the other hand is a code number of the 00 secret agents and it during the books and films that Bond is the current agent assigned that number. This is like The Handmaid's Tale: character in the book (and named June in the series and Kate in the film) is Offred but someone else can have that title before and after.

In the upcoming film, the new 007 is replacing Bond because Bond has retired. But she is not Bond. Now, what happens the series next? Tampering with characters has never been a good idea and I do not think a 007 film sans Bond or a Bond turned into a female character would work any better than a male orientated thing called The Handman's Tale about a male sex slave and where famous Margarat Atwood characters like Serena Joy, Aunt Lydia and Offred are all male. Spinoff series featuring a female 00 agent separate to Bond though could work and there is plenty scope here.

Calhoun · 17-07-2019 7:50pm

It could just be a ploy as they are like trying to bait the haters by doing this but plan the next bond to be like Idris Elba.

The Specialist · 17-07-2019 8:21pm

The Late Late Show wrote: »

This was not Ian Fleming's intention. For most, the terms James Bond and 007 are one and the same but the reality is Fleming's Bond is most definitely a distinct person with a Scottish father and Swiss mother. 007 on the other hand is a code number of the 00 secret agents and it during the books and films that Bond is the current agent assigned that number. This is like The Handmaid's Tale: character in the book (and named June in the series and Kate in the film) is Offred but someone else can have that title before and after.

In the upcoming film, the new 007 is replacing Bond because Bond has retired. But she is not Bond. Now, what happens the series next? Tampering with characters has never been a good idea and I do not think a 007 film sans Bond or a Bond turned into a female character would work any better than a male orientated thing called The Handman's Tale about a male sex slave and where famous Margarat Atwood characters like Serena Joy, Aunt Lydia and Offred are all male. Spinoff series featuring a female 00 agent separate to Bond though could work and there is plenty scope here.

Female reboots of male stories DO NOT WORK and they never will. Ghostbusters? Pile of ****. Oceans 11? Pile of ****. Terminator Dark Fate? Nope. James Bond as a black female? Never in a million ****ing years.

I’m not hating on female actors but why don’t these oh so woke muppets write original stories for them instead of replacing iconic male characters just to make a point. Sick to the teeth of this nonsense to be honest, all these “visionaries” without a single original thought or brain cell between them.

johnny_ultimate · 17-07-2019 8:33pm

There is literally zero evidence James Bond is being 'replaced' with a black woman. All we know - and even that's just a contextless rumour - is that there's maybe another agent codenamed '007' at some point (which makes complete sense following Spectre and going on previous story developments in the franchise) in a Daniel Craig James Bond movie. So much wild preemptive outrage over nothing :pac:

pixelburp · 17-07-2019 8:44pm

Point of order, but Oceans Occo was not a reboot of Oceans 11. It was a direct sequel, the main character was a sibling of the prior films protagonist.

And it's failure was not down to the all female cast, but the fact it was a pointless sequel that wasn't made by the one element that made the 3 previous films click (Steven Soderbergh). It had an amazing cast that could have made a fantastic film, but a crap script and director who did nothing. Came off like a cheap copy of Soderberghs style.

Anyone who hires Sandra Bullock, Anne Hathaway, Cate Blanchett, Helena Bonham Carter, Sarah Paulson and can't make a good movie is a goddamn idiot.

RickBlaine · 17-07-2019 8:46pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

There is literally zero evidence James Bond is being 'replaced' with a black female. All we know - and even that's just a contextless rumour - is that there's maybe another agent codenamed '007' at some point (which makes complete sense following Spectre and going on previous story developments in the franchise) in a Daniel Craig James Bond movie. So much wild preemptive outrage over nothing :pac:

I completely agree but I do blame click-bait headlines like "The new 007 is a black woman" for spreading the false information that James Bond will be female when Craig leaves.

OldRio · 17-07-2019 8:49pm

Absolutely brilliant piece of marketing. The spin merchants and publicity machine certainly deserve their bonuses for this. Everyone is talking about it. Everyone has an opinion.
Clever. Very clever.

The Late Late Show · 17-07-2019 8:50pm

The Specialist wrote: »

Female reboots of male stories DO NOT WORK and they never will. Ghostbusters? Pile of ****. Oceans 11? Pile of ****. Terminator Dark Fate? Nope. James Bond as a black female? Never in a million ****ing years.

I’m not hating on female actors but why don’t these oh so woke muppets write original stories for them instead of replacing iconic male characters just to make a point. Sick to the teeth of this nonsense to be honest, all these “visionaries” without a single original thought or brain cell between them.

Things work the way they were originally intended. Would Ian Fleming approve of Jane Bond? Would Margaret Atwood approve of The Handboy's Tale? No way is the answer.

This push for a female James Bond is gaining momentum with years but is like many ideas a silly one. This character in the upcoming film is NOT Bond though (she's Bond's replacement after Bond resigned and got married) and it should be kept this way.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

There is literally zero evidence James Bond is being 'replaced' with a black female. All we know - and even that's just a contextless rumour - is that there's maybe another agent codenamed '007' at some point (which makes complete sense following Spectre and going on previous story developments in the franchise) in a Daniel Craig James Bond movie. So much wild preemptive outrage over nothing :pac:

This is true. If Bond was killed off and replaced with this new character, I do not think that would work either. There would be demands for a return to Bond films. A spinoff film or set of films with this character alongside a Bond franchise would be good though and would help to give the world both Bond and a female equivalent of Bond.

johnny_ultimate · 17-07-2019 9:02pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Point of order, but Oceans Occo was not a reboot of Oceans 11. It was a direct sequel, the main character was a sibling of the prior films protagonist.

And it's failure was not down to the all female cast, but the fact it was a pointless sequel that wasn't made by the one element that made the 3 previous films click (Steven Soderbergh). It had an amazing cast that could have made a fantastic film, but a crap script and director who did nothing. Came off like a cheap copy of Soderberghs style.

Anyone who hires Sandra Bullock, Anne Hathaway, Cate Blanchett, Helena Bonham Carter, Sarah Paulson and can't make a good movie is a goddamn idiot.

Further point of order - Ocean’s 12 is awful ****e :pac:

conorhal · 17-07-2019 9:13pm

The Late Late Show wrote: »

Things work the way they were originally intended. Would Ian Fleming approve of Jane Bond? Would Margaret Atwood approve of The Handboy's Tale? No way is the answer.

This push for a female James Bond is gaining momentum with years but is like many ideas a silly one. This character in the upcoming film is NOT Bond though (she's Bond's replacement after Bond resigned and got married) and it should be kept this way.

This is true. If Bond was killed off and replaced with this new character, I do not think that would work either. There would be demands for a return to Bond films. A spinoff film or set of films with this character alongside a Bond franchise would be good though and would help to give the world both Bond and a female equivalent of Bond.

Hush now, it's progress and you're supposed to be happy about 'progress', towards what who can say but everybody's supposed to dance around the obvious agenda pushing.
Speaking of hilariously woke agenda pushing, I see the license holders for the Bond series in comics, Dynamite have hired Vita Ayala and Danny Lore to relaunch the series, two non binary women of colour with F all experience in comics to write it.
Well Ayala has a little bit of experience, she did work on race baiter extraordinaire, Kwanza Osajyefo's Black AF series about a world in which only black people have superpowers, with all the subtlety you'd expect.
And people want to claim this cultural vandalism isn't agenda driven?

It almost makes you wish you could get Jim Davidson to make The Handmaids Tale just to give them a taste of their own medicine.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/james-bond-comic-coming-binary-creators-color-vita-ayala-danny-lore-1224588

pixelburp · 17-07-2019 9:49pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Further point of order - Ocean’s 12 is awful ****e :pac:

True but it still had Soderberghs unmistakable, and it seems hard to copy, swagger and style. Oceans 8 was inert and most criminally, had no tensions or stakes in its heist. Genre Writing 101 fail right there. The gender of the cast was not the problem, like I said it was pretty eye wateringly good.

pixelburp · 17-07-2019 9:59pm

conorhal wrote: »

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/james-bond-comic-coming-binary-creators-color-vita-ayala-danny-lore-1224588

The thing that shocks me most is that there are James Bond comics at all. Then again there are still novels so who knows. Bit of experimentation in storytelling is half the fun of comics.

The Late Late Show · 17-07-2019 10:08pm

conorhal wrote: »

Hush now, it's progress and you're supposed to be happy about 'progress', towards what who can say but everybody's supposed to dance around the obvious agenda pushing.
Speaking of hilariously woke agenda pushing, I see the license holders for the Bond series in comics, Dynamite have hired Vita Ayala and Danny Lore to relaunch the series, two non binary women of colour with F all experience in comics to write it.
Well Ayala has a little bit of experience, she did work on race baiter extraordinaire, Kwanza Osajyefo's Black AF series about a world in which only black people have superpowers, with all the subtlety you'd expect.
And people want to claim this cultural vandalism isn't agenda driven?

It almost makes you wish you could get Jim Davidson to make The Handmaids Tale just to give them a taste of their own medicine.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/james-bond-comic-coming-binary-creators-color-vita-ayala-danny-lore-1224588

I am 100% against racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc. BUT I am also 100% against tampering and vandalising classic franchises. James Bond, The Handmaid's Tale, and many other creations should be respected as they are intended.

From an artistic view, it is very lazy to just copy another character and change it around slightly. Bond as a woman, Offred as a man, Chewbacca as a human, Batman as an alien, etc. would all not work and would insult franchises that are great the way they are. But it would be the lazy option for those not able to create something themselves.

Fan of Netflix · 17-07-2019 10:14pm

OldRio wrote: »

Absolutely brilliant piece of marketing. The spin merchants and publicity machine certainly deserve their bonuses for this. Everyone is talking about it. Everyone has an opinion.
Clever. Very clever.

It's only clever if the film is rubbish and they need clickbait culture war nonsense to create a buzz. James Bond films shouldn't need to do such a thing. Save that for remakes of Ghostbusters and other crap that needed to.

johnny_ultimate · 17-07-2019 10:15pm

Additional point: Let’s stop treating James Bond as some completely sacred object at the same time. It lost that right as Bond surfed a bloody tsunami and the series overseers allowed it to become the most consistent franchise for blatant product placement in blockbuster history. Its legacy is well soured by several outright bad films and countless shots of Sony products

The Late Late Show · 17-07-2019 10:37pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Additional point: Let’s stop treating James Bond as some completely sacred object at the same time. It lost that right as Bond surfed a bloody tsunami and the series overseers allowed it to become the most consistent franchise for blatant product placement in blockbuster history. Its legacy is well soured by several outright bad films and countless shots of Sony products

I agree that Bond should not be considered completely sacred either. Bond at his best is excellent entertainment but there have been a few stinkers of films in the franchise many of which were merely for product placement. Sony yes and various car brands too. I got the feeling too that such films assumed smugly all they had to be was Bond films and no effort was made. There is a late period Roger Moore film for instance that was just a pale remake of the classic 1960s Bond film Goldfinger. And that more recent tsunami film was a collage of remade parts of many previous films too.

conorhal · 17-07-2019 10:44pm

p to the e wrote: »

Fast and Furious was not my first thought regarding Deep Fake.

If you want to see just how good it's gotten, check out Derpfakes Solo trailer in which they put a young Harrison Ford into the trailer. It's pretty seamless.

F stuntman replacement. You could have Connery back!

budgemook · 17-07-2019 10:48pm

Really not seeing the issue here.

- Bond is retired.
- New 007, a woman, has to get him out of retirement
- Bond has sex with her within 10 minutes
- Some token strong independent woman bits thrown in
- Bond saves the day proving that men are the best

This is how it will go and doesn't sound too different to any of the recent Bond movies to me.

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

Comments

No Time to Die Spoilers from post #1449 onward