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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

So, ok, you're making a Bond movie, and in it Bond leaves and there's a new 007 who is a totally different person.

Ok, fine, there's a lot you can do with that.

But, this totally new character must be a white guy or it's the SJW apocalypse? Nobody else can be 007, either before or after James Bond was, or the franchise is ruined? Ok...someone is pushing an ideology there, don't think it's the SJWs.

Also, why are people assuming that it's a 007 movie, not a James Bond movie? Bond leaves, goes rogue or whatever (like Licence to Kill), new 007 has to stop him, they team up in the end, he gets his job back? I could easily see that happening.

Also also, it's not going to be a jaw dropping reveal in the movie if you tell everyone about it beforehand.

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

This doesnt matter.

You could have gone with "Trump tells women of colour to go back to their terrible [s]movies[/i] countries".

Thaluikhain:
So, ok, you're making a Bond movie, and in it Bond leaves and there's a new 007 who is a totally different person.

Ok, fine, there's a lot you can do with that.

But, this totally new character must be a white guy or it's the SJW apocalypse? Nobody else can be 007, either before or after James Bond was, or the franchise is ruined? Ok...someone is pushing an ideology there, don't think it's the SJWs.

Also, why are people assuming that it's a 007 movie, not a James Bond movie? Bond leaves, goes rogue or whatever (like Licence to Kill), new 007 has to stop him, they team up in the end, he gets his job back? I could easily see that happening.

Also also, it's not going to be a jaw dropping reveal in the movie if you tell everyone about it beforehand.

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

This doesnt matter.

You could have gone with "Trump tells women of colour to go back to their terrible [s]movies[/i] countries".

I just think its weird to have a new central character, and yet the titular character is someone else. Like its a James Bond movie. What's it about? Oh Karen Washington, Bond's replacement. So its not really a James Bond movie? I mean he's in it. And we're calling it a Bond movie to... Sell tickets. Oh to sell tickets!

Its like a Batman movie, called The Batman Movie...about Batgirl. Just call it Batgirl.

Silentpony:
I just think its weird to have a new central character, and yet the titular character is someone else. Like its a James Bond movie. What's it about? Oh Karen Washington, Bond's replacement. So its not really a James Bond movie? I mean he's in it. And we're calling it a Bond movie to... Sell tickets. Oh to sell tickets!

Its like a Batman movie, called The Batman Movie...about Batgirl. Just call it Batgirl.

Again, where does it say it's not about Bond? He's not 007 (at least for the duration). That doesn't mean it's about someone else.

Thaluikhain:
SNIP

Well I guess it depends how you want to read it. He's still Bond, its called a James Bond movie, but Bond is not 007. I guess it could be a movie about Bond not doing spy stuff, while some new completely unrelated girl in the background does 00 stuff? But I doubt they'd make Bond the bad guy, plus that'd mean either Bond doesn't get alot of screen time, or the big new black girl 007 doesn't, so either way people are gonna be pissed.

Gordon_4:

Asita:

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.

...That could be so fun to see. Picture 007 going to see Q...and finds Bond there simply because he missed the gadgets. This would be punctuated with one slip-up where Q calls Bond by his old call-sign and Bond corrects him. I think I'd enjoy seeing MI6 trying to deal with an M who was still a little too hands on.

Johnny Novgorod:
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?

I don't know how much a movie studio values woke cred instead of just what's trendy, and what's trendy (what gets people talking on both sides) is not having a white guy as the lead in movies that usually do have a white guy for a lead. And yes, it's obviously a pretty blatant attempt from studios to go 'look at us, we're doing it too', but 1) that doesn't equate to the movie automatically not being what it usually is *points to Mad Max: Fury Road*, and 2) if it results in actors of a different race or gender getting some more exposure is it really that bad?

I mean, most if not all genre movies we get anymore are sequels, remakes, reboots, and adaptations, and most of those stem from properties that have white guys as the lead and white girls as the love interests. You can say 'this character should be how they were originally created' (and technically Bond still is, because Craig is still Bond in this movie), but that does leave out a lot of actors that aren't white guys or girls (as the love interest). You can say 'just create something new with a character of color', but that really isn't happening.

The last few Bond movies have been pretty meh, so I don't care much. This casting could be an attempt to pander to the "woke" crowd, but its probably just a desperate attempt to appear relevant. Overall, I give this controversy a rating of - blah.

Casual Shinji:

Johnny Novgorod:
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?

I don't know how much a movie studio values woke cred instead of just what's trendy, and what's trendy (what gets people talking on both sides) is not having a white guy as the lead in movies that usually do have a white guy for a lead. And yes, it's obviously a pretty blatant attempt from studios to go 'look at us, we're doing it too', but 1) that doesn't equate to the movie automatically not being what it usually is *points to Mad Max: Fury Road*, and 2) if it results in actors of a different race or gender getting some more exposure is it really that bad?

I mean, most if not all genre movies we get anymore are sequels, remakes, reboots, and adaptations, and most of those stem from properties that have white guys as the lead and white girls as the love interests. You can say 'this character should be how they were originally created' (and technically Bond still is, because Craig is still Bond in this movie), but that does leave out a lot of actors that aren't white guys or girls (as the love interest). You can say 'just create something new with a character of color', but that really isn't happening.

There's also the inherent issue of Corporations attempting to broaden their market base so they can continually squeeze more profits out to please investors and executives. If that requires pandering to new audiences, so be it. Welcome to capitalism, where the money machine must be fed.

Those in charge likely don't give a shit about being woke or not, but if it gains them attention, free media exposure and make it more likely people will go see the film , why the fuck wouldn't they?

Eacaraxe:

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?

The writing was slipping under Davies. I find it inexplicable how fondly early Tennant under Davies is remembered.

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?

Uh-huh, but we're not talking about nepotism complaints. We're talking about the (intense) complaints about the main character being a woman.

These innocuous casting decisions get bundled up with a bunch of other sentiments (in this case, concerns about poor writing and nepotism) in order to make diverse casting itself seem like a symptom of bad writing. It's simple conflating. People are just getting angry about women getting cast and then dressing it up to make the complaint seem less base and ignoble.

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.

It's almost as if Family of Blood wasn't dealing with the same themes.

There are loads of valid criticisms of the Whittaker era. I don't like it much at all. But why are the most constant, intense complaints focusing on the non-issue of the character's womanhood? The whining about "SJW" doesn't have writing as its core concern. If it did, it would focus on... the writing.

Asita:

Gordon_4:

Asita:

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.

...That could be so fun to see. Picture 007 going to see Q...and finds Bond there simply because he missed the gadgets. This would be punctuated with one slip-up where Q calls Bond by his old call-sign and Bond corrects him. I think I'd enjoy seeing MI6 trying to deal with an M who was still a little too hands on.

I could dig that to be honest.

Silentpony:
I just think its weird to have a new central character, and yet the titular character is someone else.

Who says there's new central character?

They're called James Bond movies, not 007 movies: it's not exactly like the "retiree returns to active service" plot device is a rare one.

For all we know, the new 007 is bumped off in the pre-credits sequence (q.v. Octopussy, or the subverted cliche in Goldeneye). Although more likely she'll be who he's shagging just before the end credits.

Silvanus:
The writing was slipping under Davies. I find it inexplicable how fondly early Tennant under Davies is remembered.

Agreed, but the point I was trying to make since I apparently didn't make it clear enough, was the position of Doctor Who showrunner is -- and has been since classic -- a limited-time offer, and it's best for showrunners to step down once they get tapped out. RTD was good enough of a showrunner to step down when he knew it was his time; Moffat didn't. Series 4 still had good dialogue and entertaining banter, and Donna was a great companion (IMO); it just fell short in its season arc.

Season 5 was a marked improvement, and Moffat started slipping quickly in season 6 but managed to keep the show serviceable until the Ponds' exit. He should have stepped down to give Capaldi and Coleman a clean slate.

Uh-huh, but we're not talking about nepotism complaints. We're talking about the (intense) complaints about the main character being a woman.

No, we're talking about any complaint about the show getting excused as bigotry. Just like you're doing now, trying to swerve this conversation into being exclusively about Whittaker's gender.

It's almost as if Family of Blood wasn't dealing with the same themes.

With regards to the companion's race they are, and I'll have you address that, thank you very much.

There are loads of valid criticisms of the Whittaker era. I don't like it much at all. But why are the most constant, intense complaints focusing on the non-issue of the character's womanhood?

And when I can voice those criticisms without conversations being immediately derailed to gender, race, sexuality, etc., and minority complaints about Whittaker's gender cease being cherry picked, I'll believe there's good faith in play.

For example, when it came out, I heavily criticized thin ice for being bullish, unsubtle, and thought-suppressing rather than thought-provoking, especially compared to Family of Blood in its themes of race, class, and imperialism in the Victorian and Edwardian eras. Naturally, this could only mean I'm racist and sexist, and hated it because Bill was black and I hate women (just never mind the overwhelming majority of companions are also women...).

The whining about "SJW" doesn't have writing as its core concern. If it did, it would focus on... the writing.

Ironic, considering my entire argument is SJW's are shit writers who hide behind identity to deflect otherwise valid criticism.

Eacaraxe:
Ironic, considering my entire argument is SJW's are shit writers who hide behind identity to deflect otherwise valid criticism.

"SJW" is just one of those nebulous, vapid, critical descriptions of someone disagreed with so that they and their opinions never have to be considered seriously. It's just poisoning the well of discussion before discussion even happens, and usually just circular logic anyway.

Agema:
"SJW" is just one of those nebulous, vapid, critical descriptions of someone disagreed with so that they and their opinions never have to be considered seriously. It's just poisoning the well of discussion before discussion even happens, and usually just circular logic anyway.

For someone who deemed any attempt to engage me on this subject as wasted effort a page ago, you seem awfully keen to engage me on this subject. Why do I have the feeling, even if I provided a clear, narrow working definition for "SJW", you'd move the goalposts or change the subject?

Eacaraxe:

Agema:
"SJW" is just one of those nebulous, vapid, critical descriptions of someone disagreed with so that they and their opinions never have to be considered seriously. It's just poisoning the well of discussion before discussion even happens, and usually just circular logic anyway.

For someone who deemed any attempt to engage me on this subject as wasted effort a page ago, you seem awfully keen to engage me on this subject. Why do I have the feeling, even if I provided a clear, narrow working definition for "SJW", you'd move the goalposts or change the subject?

Using 'SJW' as a slur is like using 'intellectual' as a slur.

Eacaraxe:

Agema:
"SJW" is just one of those nebulous, vapid, critical descriptions of someone disagreed with so that they and their opinions never have to be considered seriously. It's just poisoning the well of discussion before discussion even happens, and usually just circular logic anyway.

For someone who deemed any attempt to engage me on this subject as wasted effort a page ago, you seem awfully keen to engage me on this subject. Why do I have the feeling, even if I provided a clear, narrow working definition for "SJW", you'd move the goalposts or change the subject?

I don't know why you think that. I certainly don't feel that way. I imagine he's frustrated because, let's be frank, you're not exactly diplomatic.

Eacaraxe:

Agema:
"SJW" is just one of those nebulous, vapid, critical descriptions of someone disagreed with so that they and their opinions never have to be considered seriously. It's just poisoning the well of discussion before discussion even happens, and usually just circular logic anyway.

For someone who deemed any attempt to engage me on this subject as wasted effort a page ago, you seem awfully keen to engage me on this subject. Why do I have the feeling, even if I provided a clear, narrow working definition for "SJW", you'd move the goalposts or change the subject?

I hate the dogpiling, so I'll try to make it manageable.

If I defined a Tree, I can reasonably expect my little cousins to go into my backyard and point to a Dandelion and say "That's not a tree", but point to the American Sycamore and rightfully state "That's a Tree!"

But if it I go to the mildest definition of what an "SJW" is, at best it's still a pejorative. Meaning it's based on insult and already a clear disfavor of a person and/or said person's mindsets. That's based on an emotional response, not fact. Therefore, a 'clear, narrow working definition' is an absurd prospect because it will always need negative feelings to define it.

Why is that absurd? Given that humanity has been the same since it's beginning (If you put three people in a room, you'll have a hundred different opinions between them), we don't all uniformly feel the same way about topics. What's obviously SJW to you is to someone else another individual who's simply being concerned that fellow people are being negatively affected by society. To those people, that's not requiring a special label... it's just being a regular human being to be concerned about others.

It's like saying "If I defined a clear, narrow working definition of what a 'Bitch' is, I'm sure you'll goalpost move or changed the subject". The exercise is ludicrous because we can look at the same person, and by your definition that person is undeniably a Bitch, but I don't see any reason to place that label on said person.

Defining a tree has scientific protocols that have stood the test of time and continue to perfectly define what a tree is. Defining an SJW is largely a judgement call.

The movie will be about James Bond. The change there is a new agent will have the call sign 007. She will likely play a major role, but she will not be the main character, and will likely be quite expendable, because the movie (indeed, the franchise) is still about James Bond.

Stuff like this is engaging, and mixes it all up. It's cool to see competent new agents and they likely have the skills and maybe even some special tricks of their own that make them unique.

If Bond ever really believed he was his job (which I'm not sure will be the focus, but there you go), then this could be a wake up call for him to see that there's more to the man. On the other hand, it might be a more pandering but no less exciting lesson that the 007 role is extremely hard to fill, with new blood either being forced to prove themselves under extremely harsh circumstances... or watching them pay the cost.

Either way I'm cool with this as opposed to a James Bond movie that is about another character.

Eacaraxe:

Season 5 was a marked improvement, and Moffat started slipping quickly in season 6 but managed to keep the show serviceable until the Ponds' exit. He should have stepped down to give Capaldi and Coleman a clean slate.

Well, there I'd agree. Moffatt started with quite a bit of hype as the guy responsible for some of the best one-off episodes; he did not live up to the promise as a show runner.

No, we're talking about any complaint about the show getting excused as bigotry. Just like you're doing now, trying to swerve this conversation into being exclusively about Whittaker's gender.

Sorry, where exactly am I dismissing valid criticisms as bigotry?

I've said I think Dr. Who's writing-- including under Whittaker-- is really poor.

I've also said that criticisms frequently veer into banging on about the character's gender, as if the two are related and/or inseparable.

I also never used the word "bigotry"; that's your (extreme) choice of term.

With regards to the companion's race they are, and I'll have you address that, thank you very much.

...You'll have me address it? Can you read that back to yourself?

And when I can voice those criticisms without conversations being immediately derailed to gender, race, sexuality, etc., and minority complaints about Whittaker's gender cease being cherry picked, I'll believe there's good faith in play.

For goodness' sake, you brought those characteristics up. You brought them up in order to decry how other people can't stop bringing them up.

Take a look through this thread, it's a prime example. The people complaining first, and by far the loudest, are the ones saying they shouldn't be casting women in whatever roles for whatever reason. That's when those traits get brought up.

Ironic, considering my entire argument is SJW's are shit writers who hide behind identity to deflect otherwise valid criticism.

D'you see why a line of argument isn't going to seem terribly artistically authentic or well-intentioned if you start to off by hurling trite political insults?

ObsidianJones:
I hate the dogpiling, so I'll try to make it manageable.

Okay, let's flip the script.

This is, of course, patently absurd. While it's true "fascist" is a pejorative and its common use found almost exclusively within the realm of emotion, fascism is an ideology that can be clearly defined, and markers of fascist ideology established. And indeed, how one defines a "fascist" personally or employs the term has no impact on the ability of fascism to be defined; it is simply an additional layer of subjectivity, often to obfuscate the distinction between the use of the term as pejorative and objective definition, in order to pass the former off as fact.

I'll posit this working definition. SJW's are radicalized, authoritarian, members of the civil rights movement. They may be identified by several markers based upon ideology, expressed values and beliefs, and behavior. I'll list five:

1. A belief in identity as final authority, as opposed to education, lived experience, expertise, or ability to produce or provide reference or supporting data.

2. A dichotomous worldview characterized by "good" versus "evil" conflict, in accordance with oppressor/oppressed schema and ingroup/outgroup dynamics.

3. Support for, idealization of, and engagement in physical violence, harassment, and coercion to achieve political ends, through the lens of an exclusively consequentialist mindset with validation of behaviors based upon the identity of the target.

4. Facile, decontextualized, incomplete, or counter-factual understanding of foundational theories and philosophies, and of targeted social, political, or economic issues, where misunderstandings align not with mere ignorance but of curated beliefs to further political or social goals.

5. Support for pseudoscientific social theories, inability to contextualize and understand existing science, and rejection of and attacks upon scientific theories that are politically inconvenient, that often miss or conceal deeper truths.

In fact, I'll take it a step further (but not elaborate further for time and concision) by suggesting the contemporary social justice movement is actually a political cult.

Social Justice Warrior, or 'SJW', someone who cares about human rights and cares about equality.

Intellectual, a smart person.

Fascist, a tyrant who believes what they say goes and that everyone is theirs to do what they want, and no one can question it.

These things are not the same.

Eacaraxe:

ObsidianJones:
I hate the dogpiling, so I'll try to make it manageable.

Okay, let's flip the script.

This is, of course, patently absurd. While it's true "fascist" is a pejorative and its common use found almost exclusively within the realm of emotion, fascism is an ideology that can be clearly defined, and markers of fascist ideology established. And indeed, how one defines a "fascist" personally or employs the term has no impact on the ability of fascism to be defined; it is simply an additional layer of subjectivity, often to obfuscate the distinction between the use of the term as pejorative and objective definition, in order to pass the former off as fact.

I'll posit this working definition. SJW's are radicalized, authoritarian, members of the civil rights movement. They may be identified by several markers based upon ideology, expressed values and beliefs, and behavior. I'll list five:

1. A belief in identity as final authority, as opposed to education, lived experience, expertise, or ability to produce or provide reference or supporting data.

2. A dichotomous worldview characterized by "good" versus "evil" conflict, in accordance with oppressor/oppressed schema and ingroup/outgroup dynamics.

3. Support for, idealization of, and engagement in physical violence, harassment, and coercion to achieve political ends, through the lens of an exclusively consequentialist mindset with validation of behaviors based upon the identity of the target.

4. Facile, decontextualized, incomplete, or counter-factual understanding of foundational theories and philosophies, and of targeted social, political, or economic issues, where misunderstandings align not with mere ignorance but of curated beliefs to further political or social goals.

5. Support for pseudoscientific social theories, inability to contextualize and understand existing science, and rejection of and attacks upon scientific theories that are politically inconvenient, that often miss or conceal deeper truths.

In fact, I'll take it a step further (but not elaborate further for time and concision) by suggesting the contemporary social justice movement is actually a political cult.

Well, the absurd thing is using a word that actually has meaning, that is based on Historical Climate, Hardships, Actual Government practices, and general loss of freedoms and life... and putting against a meme because people dislike others due to their mindsets.

Like, the literal only dictionary that I found with an entry is this.

Social Justice Warrior
An often mocking term for one who is seen as overly progressive

Ok. So we're going against company tested and trusted for generations to give our speech sense, and one that we all hold as the final arbitrator of definitions... against people who have a dislike or a distrust of a people, or a general disfavorable view, and those same people are saying "No, let me define who you are."

There's a reason we don't hold any preconceived notions of what the Jews, Blacks, or Gays are from Despot nations that despised them. Because within that definition will be planted the seeds of discontent that will color others' ideals of what those people are before they even meet them. They will be definitions that incite prejudice, not true learning.

If you care about the environment, someone's going to label you an SJW. If you're a guy and think women's bodies are their own and you'd vote for that right to be secured, you're an SJW. If you think police brutality is wrong, you're an SJW. Frankly, people are using it as a way to insult others for caring about others.

You might only want to define it as only what you just did, but for it to be a 'clear, narrow working definition' that others can sign on with, you have to get others to only define SJW as such. If you can not do that, your definition (something I still have fault with on its surface anyway) is meaningless. It's how you see things. It's not how someone who will call me an SJW because I won't have sex with a woman because she's drunk.

Why I need a label for that decision baffles me, though.

I am not Republican. They normally run contrary to my views. But definitions like these for the Republican Party get my blood boiling, because they are unfair hit pieces that somewhat skirt what little truth they bring in but then twist it to incite division between people who just have a difference in how they see financial responsibilities and social norms.

And with all due respect, I see a lot of how they spoke about the Republican Party with how you defined SJWs. You used better language and a lot less curses, but both your definitions and theirs come from their divisions and presumptions first. That doesn't help anyone.

I don't understand how someone else can be 007 in the same universe where Bond was 007. Are there only 00's 1 - 9 at any time?
So as one retires, a new agent is given their designation, and they can't just use 00 10 11 or 12?
Or is this an alternate universe where Bond was never a double 0 agent?

Kwak:
I don't understand how someone else can be 007 in the same universe where Bond was 007. Are there only 00's 1 - 9 at any time?
So as one retires, a new agent is given their designation, and they can't just use 00 10 11 or 12?
Or is this an alternate universe where Bond was never a double 0 agent?

Lore seems to be all over the place with agents probably but not definitely re-using monikers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/00_Agent#List_of_00s

Kwak:
I don't understand how someone else can be 007 in the same universe where Bond was 007. Are there only 00's 1 - 9 at any time?
So as one retires, a new agent is given their designation, and they can't just use 00 10 11 or 12?
Or is this an alternate universe where Bond was never a double 0 agent?

It's always been the case that the specific designation shifts from person to person (on death or retirement or what-have-you). Different people turn up as both 002 and 009 in the course of the films (with the first holder dying).

I thought there had been two 006s in the film continuity too, but apparently I'm misremembering.

I'm locking this because it's a lot of shitty concern trolling about "SJWs."

Don't remake this topic unless you have a valuable discussion to spearhead.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked