First Ariel, now 007 is casted with a Black Female Actress. (Craig is still James Bond)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

MrCalavera:
All those franchises were ruined before the Woke culture got to them, chief(Well, not so sure about Dr Who, but anyways.).

I won't disagree there. Terminator Genysis was so awful I couldn't believe it made it past test screening. I think for Bond in particular I'm disappointed because I am a fan. I don't care about the others, they can ruin them all day long. Identity politics is pure evil masquerading as virtue and it's insidiously creeping thru modern media. It doesn't belong in escapist entertainment, but they can't seem to help themselves. Sport, TV, film, games, they're trying their damnedest to politicise and ruin all of it with their bigoted world views. I wouldn't mind if they made their own products so I could ignore them, but they don't, they have to repurpose something created by someone better than them.

MrCalavera:
All those franchises were ruined before the Woke culture got to them, chief(Well, not so sure about Dr Who, but anyways.). If anything, "the SJWs" either failed to ressurect them, or just prolongued their agony.

Dr. Who was circling the drain as early as series 7, mostly because Moffat was creatively tapped out but wouldn't step down. Instead, and in pursuance of the BBC's 2016 diversity guidelines, he started with the woke shit instead and the whole series went straight down the toilet in season 10. Jodie Whittaker's casting as Thirteen was symptomatic of bigger problems, not the problem in and of itself.

Which is really the problem from my perspective. The "SJW" psychology is bullish, infantile, and utterly devoid of genuine introspection or critical thought. That doesn't lend itself well to complex, insightful, or intellectually-provocative work; quite the opposite, in fact. I've compared woke shit to medieval morality play before, and I'll continue doing so until I see work of sufficient (or really, any) artistic merit.

And, it's that mindset and its ensuing inability to produce meritorious work that is its allure. One can label any and all criticism, however founded, as bigotry and prejudice by default rather than addressing core qualitative problems with the work. Thereby, shaming audiences into consumption for short-term gain, and excusing long-term failure as bigotry, and perpetuating races to the bottom as subsequent short-term strategies are pursued. It's easier on producers' egos to get woke instead of figuring out why they're going broke, than it is to acknowledge missteps along the way and fix them.

Saelune:
Daniel Craig sucked as Bond anyways and we are literally having people defend Concentration Camps in America.

This doesnt matter.

This. It's why I stopped giving a shit about any issues in media.

Squilookle:
Whoops- can someone delete? Accidental double post

But regarding your post about Martin Campbell.

Didn't he made Green Lantern 2011?

Samtemdo8:

Squilookle:
Whoops- can someone delete? Accidental double post

But regarding your post about Martin Campbell.

Didn't he made Green Lantern 2011?

I've no idea. I had zero interest in that movie.

I did watch Vertical Limit though, which was an absolute stinker that Campbell directed, so I guess nobody's perfect. He did also do the Antonio Banderas Zorro movies though, so I'll give him a pass.

Hawki:
SNIP

If I remember correctly 00s are meant to be assassins. So if you want the target taken alive, don't send a 00, send someone else. And the two kills is a reference to the two 0s in their titles. Its a little silly, but 00s sounds cool to say so that's why.

And the reason I said Idris Elba was 'street' was because the writers of the series said so when asked about it:
https://variety.com/2015/film/news/idris-elba-james-bond-too-street-author-anthony-horowitz-1201582692/

Now I still think Elba would make a fantastic 00. Hell make him a villain. Make him 006 and go renegade

Hawki:
Anyone think it's weird that you need two kills to be a 00? What if you're sent on assignments that require taking the target alive?

For that matter, does it count if you kill at least 2 people before becoming an agent? IIRC, in the books Bond was in the Special Boat Service before being 007, could have killed a fair few people serving there.

Gordon_4:

Hawki:

Gordon_4:
Calling it now, Alice Trevelyon.

Well, there's tonnes of Bond/Trevalyan slash fanfiction out there already, so sure, why not?

Well be fair; Brosnan and Bean had a very remarkable chemistry for characters who shared only fifteen minutes of screen time at the start.

What puzzles me most is how exactly they're going to swing this because say what else you can about Spectre - and much can be, most of it bad - it very clearly put a full stop next to Craig's Bond. Now they could go the OHMSS route and have the first of the two movies he's coming back for has his wife killed by someone. So he's brought back as a training officer for the new 007.

I could dig that. As you say, Spectre gave Bond a good reason to leave the game, so him training a successor is a good way to end his chapter, one that both honors Bond's role while paving the way for a new 007.

Hawki:

Saelune:
Daniel Craig sucked as Bond anyways and we are literally having people defend Concentration Camps in America.

This doesnt matter.

And yet it matters enough for you to comment.

Because I DO care about what people prioritize in this modern age. Like, personally, I WANT to complain about this stuff too, not because I don't want diversity in media, I just want things to stay true to the core source material, but I bother less and less because as long as human rights are being violated, complaining about this stuff is less important, and it just validates bigots anyways.

Basically, the part I do care about, is that until things get better in reality, then complaining about well-intentioned media mistakes is a misdirection.

Squilookle:

Saelune:
Daniel Craig sucked as Bond anyways and we are literally having people defend Concentration Camps in America.

This doesnt matter.

You have your thread(s). Kindly quit stomping on others' sandcastles and allow them to have theirs.

That's why I did not respond to Sam's response, ya know, the one where he sorta agreed with me. I made my point. That said, I got a bunch of replies to respond to now.

Samtemdo8:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/jul/15/lashana-lynch-new-007-james-bond-daniel-craig

Edit: I changed this to make sure its accurate since this is not JAMES BOND being replaced by a Black Actress but a character earning the 007 Title.

Why is it even news when "OMG a black person did something" or "omg it was a WOMAN!!" in the first place? Seriously, they would not make a woman play " James Bond" but they very well could make a woman agent with the same characteristics. James bond makes women seem disposable, why would it be any different if a woman makes the men seem disposable? I am not seeing the issue of having a woman, black or otherwise treat men the same way Bond treat's women or why that should bother or outrage anyone in the first place.
Only men are allowed to portray "power fantasies" or something? WTH do they think Beyonce has been doing? The story may even be more interesting as a woman. I have no idea why people get their undies in a wad over allowing different perspectives to be shown.

No offense OP but your title got me cracking up. It sounds like some hysteria on some red scare variety.

FIRST ARIEL NOW BOND WHO WILL THEY BLACK UP NEXT!?!?!!!! DUN DUN DUN!!!!!!!!!!!!

Personal let the "woke" agenda or whatever you want to call it flourish I want to see how this plays out both as a movie and internet losing their shit.

Black woman as 007? No problem.

But I might prefer James Bond to stay as a white man.

Eacaraxe:
Which is really the problem from my perspective. The "SJW" ...

Whatever point you might have wanted to express, the minute you chucked that pejorative in there you signalled that debate would be wasted effort.

Eacaraxe:

And, it's that mindset and its ensuing inability to produce meritorious work that is its allure. One can label any and all criticism, however founded, as bigotry and prejudice by default rather than addressing core qualitative problems with the work.

I hear this accusation so often, yet the only times I've seen those kind of terms brought up it's in response to "criticisms" focusing solely on the demography of the characters.

Take Dr. Who. The quality of writing has been dross since Tennant, but as soon as the Doctor is a woman-- despite this being totally internally consistent with the in-universe rules-- then the criticism reaches a fever pitch and focuses almost exclusively on that.

That is identity politics to an extreme.

Thereby, shaming audiences into consumption for short-term gain

Do you genuinely believe people in significant numbers actually actively consume media because they get accused of prejudice if they don't?

That doesn't happen. That's just complete nonsense.

Jarrito3001:
No offense OP but your title got me cracking up. It sounds like some hysteria on some red scare variety.

FIRST ARIEL NOW BOND WHO WILL THEY BLACK UP NEXT!?!?!!!! DUN DUN DUN!!!!!!!!!!!!

Personal let the "woke" agenda or whatever you want to call it flourish I want to see how this plays out both as a movie and internet losing their shit.

It does come across as some severe racist and sexist hysteria tbh. Like OMAAGAWD they are letting black people and women ruin everything, why can't they just let white males peepholes keep their powertrippin white and male and keep all the others away from our sexist, racist fantasies. Seriously this is some whiny BS here at the highest level. And people wonder why we actually need to continue to work on equality... it is like some day we might actually get to the point that they can have all races, sexes and genders play different roles and people do not bat an eyelash over it. This thread's existence however only goes to show we are far from being there yet.

Silvanus:

Eacaraxe:

And, it's that mindset and its ensuing inability to produce meritorious work that is its allure. One can label any and all criticism, however founded, as bigotry and prejudice by default rather than addressing core qualitative problems with the work.

I hear this accusation so often, yet the only times I've seen those kind of terms brought up it's in response to "criticisms" focusing solely on the demography of the characters.

Take Dr. Who. The quality of writing has been dross since Tennant, but as soon as the Doctor is a woman-- despite this being totally internally consistent with the in-universe rules-- then the criticism reaches a fever pitch and focuses almost exclusively on that.

That is identity politics to an extreme.

Thereby, shaming audiences into consumption for short-term gain

Do you genuinely believe people in significant numbers actually actively consume media because they get accused of prejudice if they don't?

That doesn't happen. That's just complete nonsense.

Yea I see that the complaints about both Dr.Who and Star Trek are completely unfounded. Star Trek has always had characters of all races and sexes and I honestly have no idea how people can attempt to claim they are putting people in certain roles just for the sake of diversity when in reality Star Trek has always had females in leadership roles, even if they were not always human in the earliest years. Star Trek has a long history of this and it is far from being new or something to be "outraged" about.

What even is the point of making a James Bond movie if you're gonna strip it of everything that makes it a James Bond movie.

Johnny Novgorod:
What even is the point of making a James Bond movie if you're gonna strip it of everything that makes it a James Bond movie.

The same point that people are constantly trying to make Star Wars stories without the Jedi or the Sith.

I personally think the Jedi and the Sith are the coolest part of the IP, but over time there comes so much Lore or surrounding addition to the world that is created that people get interested in other aspects of said world.

That's why Spin-Offs are a thing. I don't have to like a Spin-Off. And in fact, there are few I do. But I can understand why people are interested in the other workings of MI-6 in this Supervillian plagued Reality in the Bondverse and would want to see other aspects of it.

ObsidianJones:

Johnny Novgorod:
What even is the point of making a James Bond movie if you're gonna strip it of everything that makes it a James Bond movie.

The same point that people are constantly trying to make Star Wars stories without the Jedi or the Sith.

I personally think the Jedi and the Sith are the coolest part of the IP, but over time there comes so much Lore or surrounding addition to the world that is created that people get interested in other aspects of said world.

That's why Spin-Offs are a thing. I don't have to like a Spin-Off. And in fact, there are few I do. But I can understand why people are interested in the other workings of MI-6 in this Supervillian plagued Reality in the Bondverse and would want to see other aspects of it.

Yes, I know I am in the minority, but I really loved the Ewoks as a kid and would be perfectly content with Ewok movies without any Jedi or Sith and just have Ewoks because Ewoks are awesome. I actually made an Endor scene once with my Ewok action figures that had custom realistic tree houses, landscaping and forest that was pretty bad ass. I had accumulated a good number of naked Ewoks as well and made them custom clothing, tools and weapons too. I wound up giving it to my nephew as a birthday gift one year because he was so crazy about it and would play with it every time he came over.I figured it would be better for someone to enjoy it and use it who appreciated it rather than just sit there and collect dust for me to look at.

image

.. and there I go trailing off topic again... XD

Johnny Novgorod:
What even is the point of making a James Bond movie if you're gonna strip it of everything that makes it a James Bond movie.

Why does having a black lady use the 007 designation automatically mean that it isn't going to be a movie about a psychopathic alcoholic murderer shooting their way through world domination plots using outlandish gadgets and bedding every 4th person they interact with?

I mean, I love me some Bond movies, but let's be real: a North Korean getting gene therapy to look like a white dude to sell conflict diamonds to fund a solar death laser to cut a path through the DMZ so North Korea can invade South Korea is not made more ridiculous if 007 is a black lady instead of a white dude.

The only good James Bond was Casino Royale and they clearly veered very far off course with Skyfall and Spectre. I wouldn't care if James Bond is an alien, woman, gay or ferret. Can we just get a good one?

Johnny Novgorod:
What even is the point of making a James Bond movie if you're gonna strip it of everything that makes it a James Bond movie.

We honestly still don't even know what the movie is going to be about, so I think that's jumping to conclusions. Unless this black female 007 is gonna be sitting at home knitting sweaters for her cat instead of getting in shoot-outs, using gadgets, and traveling around the world I doubt it'll get stripped of everything that makes it a Bond movie.

And considering how many movies we've had (isn't it like 40 or something) and how James Bond has kind of had its spotlight taken by other movies, I don't think a shake-up would be unwarranted.

trunkage:
The only good James Bond was Casino Royale and they clearly veered very far off course with Skyfall and Spectre. I wouldn't care if James Bond is an alien, woman, gay or ferret. Can we just get a good one?

And the only fun James Bond was Roger Moore.

Lil devils x:
Yes, I know I am in the minority, but I really loved the Ewoks as a kid and would be perfectly content with Ewok movies without any Jedi or Sith and just have Ewoks because Ewoks are awesome. I actually made an Endor scene once with my Ewok action figures that had custom realistic tree houses, landscaping and forest that was pretty bad ass. I had accumulated a good number of naked Ewoks as well and made them custom clothing, tools and weapons too. I wound up giving it to my nephew as a birthday gift one year because he was so crazy about it and would play with it every time he came over.I figured it would be better for someone to enjoy it and use it who appreciated it rather than just sit there and collect dust for me to look at.

image

.. and there I go trailing off topic again... XD

Woman... It's always been about the Wookies and the Twi'leks. We had the ultimate Buddy team-up with Mission and Zaalbar!

I think there was a Sith Lord somewhere in that, but I can't remember...

Casual Shinji:
And the only fun James Bond was Roger Moore.

Lies and Misdirection.

Excuse the girl comment. 90's were a different time.

ObsidianJones:

Johnny Novgorod:
What even is the point of making a James Bond movie if you're gonna strip it of everything that makes it a James Bond movie.

The same point that people are constantly trying to make Star Wars stories without the Jedi or the Sith.

I also think that's missing the point. I've never been a fan of stretching self-contained stories into "universes" or whatever they call them for the sake of marketing. Didn't like the Lucas prequels, don't like Disney's happy meals. It's all just wheels spinning. And for that matter I don't like Craig (he's a bore) or his era past Casino Royale either. Connery and Brosnan remain the best.

Look, I'm Latino. Put Diego Luna or Salma Hayek as the new 007, I still think it's pandering.

image

ObsidianJones:

Casual Shinji:
And the only fun James Bond was Roger Moore.

Lies and Misdirection.

Excuse the girl comment. 90's were a different time.

Oh my god, I'd forgotten that stupid fucking thing existed. All I needed to hear was 'Bond.. James Bond Jr.' and the memories came flooding back.

Casual Shinji:

Johnny Novgorod:
What even is the point of making a James Bond movie if you're gonna strip it of everything that makes it a James Bond movie.

We honestly still don't even know what the movie is going to be about, so I think that's jumping to conclusions. Unless this black female 007 is gonna be sitting at home knitting sweaters for her cat instead of getting in shoot-outs, using gadgets, and traveling around the world I doubt it'll get stripped of everything that makes it a Bond movie.

And considering how many movies we've had (isn't it like 40 or something) and how James Bond has kind of had its spotlight taken by other movies, I don't think a shake-up would be unwarranted.

I don't question the ability of WB (is it WB?) to come up with ridiculous action plots, I question the point of dethroning Bond as 007. It's just a pandering move that exists outside the diegesis of the movie to get woke cred and I can so obviously see through it. In real life I'm 100% for the notion that anybody can be anything (woot!) but when you're creating a [fictional] character you're explicitly dictating what that character is and isn't. You make choices on who they are, how they think, where they come from, what they look like. You make it all up and you pick every detail for a reason or else why would you?

Johnny Novgorod:

ObsidianJones:

Johnny Novgorod:
What even is the point of making a James Bond movie if you're gonna strip it of everything that makes it a James Bond movie.

The same point that people are constantly trying to make Star Wars stories without the Jedi or the Sith.

I also think that's missing the point. I've never been a fan of stretching self-contained stories into "universes" or whatever they call them for the sake of marketing. Didn't like the Lucas prequels, don't like Disney's happy meals. It's all just wheels spinning. And for that matter I don't like Craig (he's a bore) or his era past Casino Royale either. Connery and Brosnan remain the best.

Look, I'm Latino. Put Diego Luna or Salma Hayek as the new 007, I still think it's pandering.

I'm not the biggest Bond fan. In fact, two things I've liked about Bond was Golden Eye, Casino Royale (Craig version... that beach thing made me understand gay a little bit there), and the question of if Bond was just one character, or if the concept that Bond itself was a cover id. I would love to explore that further.

It's like Hobbes' reality in the comic Calvin and Hobbes. Is he a magical stuff tiger that comes to life whenever no one is around? Or is he just a product of Calvin's imagination. So many clues are left around to make you think both sides. Like how the hell can Calvin tie himself up? With the knot at the back of the chair. It's impossible.

Anyway, if Jamie Bond is a thing, that will quell the mystery. And it will make sense. In espionage, you go for the spy that will arouse the least suspicion. Black Lady in an office, probably won't get as much focus as a handsome man in an impeccable suit.

Lil devils x:
Why is it even news when "OMG a black person did something" or "omg it was a WOMAN!!" in the first place? Seriously, they would not make a woman play " James Bond" but they very well could make a woman agent with the same characteristics. James bond makes women seem disposable, why would it be any different if a woman makes the men seem disposable? I am not seeing the issue of having a woman, black or otherwise treat men the same way Bond treat's women or why that should bother or outrage anyone in the first place.
Only men are allowed to portray "power fantasies" or something? WTH do they think Beyonce has been doing? The story may even be more interesting as a woman. I have no idea why people get their undies in a wad over allowing different perspectives to be shown.

Because the power brokers of the world tend to me men who see women (and all people really) as disposable. Bond blends into that world, as he shares many of the characteristics of the people he is there to stop.

Switch it to a woman acting exactly the same way and things change precisely because she is a woman. James sleeping his way to the people in power would be seen as a stud, by them. Jane sleeping her way to the people in power would be seen as a slut, for want of a better word, and would make the people she was there to stop think even less of her (therefore not letting her into areas Jame would be able to access).

It's a product of our society that viewpoint in taken when it comes to sexual encounters but it is precisely for that reason that a Bond movie would have to reflect the society in the time of which it takes place, just as it has always done.

Silvanus:
Take Dr. Who. The quality of writing has been dross since Tennant, but as soon as the Doctor is a woman-- despite this being totally internally consistent with the in-universe rules-- then the criticism reaches a fever pitch and focuses almost exclusively on that.

Or, perhaps...

...the writing quality overall severely slipped under Moffat's stewardship as you yourself admit, leading to a lot of vocal grumbling and audience dissatisfaction, and season 10 for its numerous failings was the last straw and broke trust? Funny how quickly we forget the "Bill haters are racists" nonsense of season 10. Thus, when Chibnall was announced as Moffat's successor and that he was bringing former Broadchurch writers with him, and Whittaker as Thirteen, audiences saw it as a nepotistic publicity stunt?

Which is funny you mention Tennant, because my favorite compare-and-contrast between later "woke" Doctor Who and the RTD era, is "Family of Blood" versus "Thin Ice". Because they both involve black companions going back in time to imperial England, having to deal with the racism of the era, and the Doctor having to navigate treacherous social waters which leads to extreme acts. In one case the Doctor's extreme acts foreshadow his darker nature while simultaneously reminding the audience the Doctor is not human in reasoning or morality, even if the extremity of his action boils down to a matter of disproportionality in otherwise sorely-needed justice. In the other, the Doctor shrugs off a dead orphan and solves racism by punching a dude.

Funny how little criticism Family of Blood received. Nor Freema Agyeman as Martha (well, for her race, anyhow). One would think that if Whovians were really as X-ist as they're accused of being, that story in particular would be a target of ire especially for its content. Alas, no; not only is that not the case, Family of Blood often shows up in "best of nu-Who" lists.

Asita:

Gordon_4:

Hawki:

Well, there's tonnes of Bond/Trevalyan slash fanfiction out there already, so sure, why not?

Well be fair; Brosnan and Bean had a very remarkable chemistry for characters who shared only fifteen minutes of screen time at the start.

What puzzles me most is how exactly they're going to swing this because say what else you can about Spectre - and much can be, most of it bad - it very clearly put a full stop next to Craig's Bond. Now they could go the OHMSS route and have the first of the two movies he's coming back for has his wife killed by someone. So he's brought back as a training officer for the new 007.

I could dig that. As you say, Spectre gave Bond a good reason to leave the game, so him training a successor is a good way to end his chapter, one that both honors Bond's role while paving the way for a new 007.

Or better yet, Bond could return to help solve the assassination of M, which leads him to ascend to that same position with whats her face as his new instrument of destruction. And hey, being M at least means he can go home to the missus at the end of each day.

Saelune:

Squilookle:

Saelune:
Daniel Craig sucked as Bond anyways and we are literally having people defend Concentration Camps in America.

This doesnt matter.

You have your thread(s). Kindly quit stomping on others' sandcastles and allow them to have theirs.

That's why I did not respond to Sam's response, ya know, the one where he sorta agreed with me. I made my point. That said, I got a bunch of replies to respond to now.

Yes you made your point, got one line of acknowledgement, and ignored it. On your way now. Congrats again on your fishing trip.

Gordon_4:
Or better yet, Bond could return to help solve the assassination of M, which leads him to ascend to that same position with whats her face as his new instrument of destruction. And hey, being M at least means he can go home to the missus at the end of each day.

I'd be down for that. Just not Craig. I'm kinda fed up with him to be honest.

Squilookle:

Saelune:

Squilookle:

You have your thread(s). Kindly quit stomping on others' sandcastles and allow them to have theirs.

That's why I did not respond to Sam's response, ya know, the one where he sorta agreed with me. I made my point. That said, I got a bunch of replies to respond to now.

Yes you made your point, got one line of acknowledgement, and ignored it. On your way now. Congrats again on your fishing trip.

Gordon_4:
Or better yet, Bond could return to help solve the assassination of M, which leads him to ascend to that same position with whats her face as his new instrument of destruction. And hey, being M at least means he can go home to the missus at the end of each day.

I'd be down for that. Just not Craig. I'm kinda fed up with him to be honest.

You're the one who keeps calling me back here just to be mad at me.

Edit: Point proven.

Saelune:

Squilookle:

Saelune:
That's why I did not respond to Sam's response, ya know, the one where he sorta agreed with me. I made my point. That said, I got a bunch of replies to respond to now.

Yes you made your point, got one line of acknowledgement, and ignored it. On your way now. Congrats again on your fishing trip.

You're the one who keeps calling me back here just to be mad at me.

How does sending you on your way = calling you back?

Actually no, don't feel like you need to answer that. Let's just call it a rhetorical so we can both move on.

Either this decision comes from a place of smart casting decisions and a genuine interest in creativity, or blatant pandering. My cynicism usually has me placing my bets on the later. Although, good job not actually making her bond. That tells me someone had their had on straight during the conception of this.

Shadowstar38:
Either this decision comes from a place of smart casting decisions and a genuine interest in creativity, or blatant pandering. My cynicism usually has me placing my bets on the later. Although, go job not actually making her bond. That tells me someone had their had on straight during the conception of this.

Remember in Skyfall when they had a female replace Bond. She didn't do to well so instead of teaching her to be a better agent, they put her behind a desk. Where a woman should be

Car 3 treats it characters better

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked