Osiris3657

If this is real, I'm done with this franchise. Fuck this

DaveyJoe

That definitely feels like an attempt to rustle some jimmies.

DaveyJoe

If you survived Die Another Day you can handle this.

Sonic

d2cheer

HEY I liked Die Another Day...

They wanna fuck up 007 go ahead. I don't have to see it. Billion dollar franchise and they pander to stupid shit.

I am good. There a many other movies I can watch. Die Hard ended after the third this can end for me too.

B5Erik

Bond isn't supposed to be PC. Bond is supposed to be politically INcorrect.

Change that and it isn't James Bond. Bond isn't PC, he isn't black, he isn't a woman, he isn't gay - he's the character that Ian Fleming created in the early 1950's, and he's the character that we've seen on screen since 1962.

Change the fundamentals of the character and you've got a generic spy movie.

I'll pass on that, too. I'd prefer to watch another Mission Impossible movie than a movie about some altered Bond.


Having said all that, I don't give a rat's ass about some new agent temporarily taking over the 007 designation, man, woman, gay, straight, whatever. It's not supposed to be James Bond (Bond still exists in the story) so I don't care.

But if they change the character I will care.

Bob_Bobbson

I mean...Bond retired at the end of Spectre. It makes sense that a different agent would have been given the 007 designation.

Dan

DaveyJoe

Craig's portrayal doesn't even feel like the James Bond I grew up watching. A black, female 007 is the least of my worries about the franchise.

DaveyJoe

That's exactly what we've had since Casino Royale. You guys are veiling your anger as if this is bastardizing the character but that happened a long time ago. James Bond is defined by his personality more than his race/gender and that is what they changed back in 2006.

B5Erik

Actually, they went back to the core of Ian Fleming's Bond with Casino Royale. Just like they did with Licence To Kill.

Nice try, though.

Josh-da-man

I think the problem is the "James Bond you grew up watching."

James Bond is kind of specific to a certain time, and I don't think the character really works in the current era. I mean, in the 60s and even the 70s, he was cool with the one-liners and the gadgets and the jet packs and criminal masterminds scheming to take over the world from their hidden lairs, but by the 80s it just started to seem silly. Bond is, ultimately, a creature of another era.

Sonic

I just hope this female will not be doing lara croft type shit on screen that shit turns me off. Most of the action in Craig movies turn me off too cause it's too over the top.

DaveyJoe

I agree. My grandad took me to see GoldenEye in the theater in the 90s. I would always try to catch them on TV, usually the Roger Moore films would be playing. That was my perception of James Bond. The Craig era was the first time I felt like the studio was just copying popular trends of the time. The reality is that that is what the franchise has been all along.

So do you reject the Connery/Moore films for being unfaithful adaptations? Licence to Kill was a failure, which is why the series went back to camp in the 90s. Dark and serious didn't work until other successful films made it possible. James Bond as a franchise has always been about whoring the character out to mimic pop culture trends.

windom

If their code numbers are 3 digits, you would think they wouldn't have to reuse them. Or has there been more than 1000 agents and now they've had to roll over to the 00x's again?

B5Erik

Dr. No and From Russia With Love are very serious spy action/thrillers. So is Thunderball (still the most successful Bond movie to date).

You Only Live Twice was halfway between the more tongue in cheek stuff and the serious stuff. Even Roger Moore's Bond had serious moments. The Spy Who Loved Me had several. For Your Eyes Only is mostly a serious espionage thriller. Even A View To A Kill was more serious than not (the silly moments were truly goofy, but the majority of the movie was played straight).

So when Dalton (my favorite Bond) came on board they just accentuated those aspects of the character, and brought more Fleming into the mix.

But there's always been something of that serious spy/assassin in every Bond movie to date. It wasn't like they changed Bond into an overweight redhead and played it like a British John Candy or something. He's always been close or close enough to Fleming's Bond to work and keep some semblance of continuity.

(Continuity example - Lazenby's Bond loses his wife Tracy as Blofeld has her killed. Connery's Bond then wants revenge against Blofeld for that killing. Moore's Bond visits Tracy's grave and is clearly not over her loss. Then Dalton's Bond reacts violently when Leiter's wife is murdered on their wedding day because he STILL isn't over it, and that murder on the wedding day thing hits home for him. Same guy.)

Having said that, my favorite Bond movies are the more serious ones, and my least favorite Bond movies are the least serious ones.

DaveyJoe

Connery going ham on everyone in the opening scenes of Diamonds Are Forever is the best part of that movie but I am confused by some of your comments. You started your post with 'Bond isn't PC' so that seems to be your biggest issue. That the 007 code would be used by a black woman.

My argument is that the character of Bond hasn't been very consistent over the years. Connery and Moore's Bonds are very different personality wise. Craig got all of the credit for gritty realism when Dalton did it first. Brosnan is my favorite because I think he had the charisma, toughness, and humor, my favorite defining traits when I think of my perception of Bond.

You're worried about generic spy films but that's what I think of when you refer to the more serious Bond films that you love. There are many more spy films like Licence to Kill than Octopussy. What are the elements of Licence to Kill that you would define as anti-PC? If Daniel Craig's Bond is the same as Lazenby's, did his marriage to Tracy Di Venco happen before or after his romance with Vesper Lynd? Does the scene of his first kill take place before Dr. no and does his retirement in Spectre take place after all the other films?

I'm just curious how a black, female 007 hurts James Bond as a character but all of the other inconsistencies are explained away. When talk about political correctness are you referring to the character or the franchise? And do you acknowledge how dynamic the franchise has been over the years, always changing to cash in on popular trends set by other successful films of the time?

DaveyJoe

I could easily believe that the British Empire has 1,000 intelligence agents.

B5Erik

Again, I have zero problem with a new agent being given the 007 designation after Bond's retirement.

What I have a problem with is fundamentally changing James Bond himself into a character that I no longer recognize. That hasn't happened yet, and I suspect that it won't for decades to come (it would be a HUGE box office risk for something that isn't necessary).

I've said dozens of times that I'd go see Idris Elba as 009 in a heartbeat. I'd go see a movie about a female 00 in a heartbeat. Expand the Bond Universe, that's far better than changing James Bond himself.

DaveyJoe

The way I see it James Bond is a different character with each new actor's portrayal. If anything, changing the character to reflect what's popular in current society would be the most consistent thing about the franchise.

This entire thing seems like a way to stir up some controversy and gain attention for the film, because they know something like this is going to really upset a vocal portion of the internet for some reason. Why give them the satisfaction of getting angry over something you're afraid of happening that hasn't happened yet?

B5Erik

Again - Lazenby's Bond loses his wife Tracy as Blofeld has her killed. Connery's Bond then wants revenge against Blofeld for that killing. Moore's Bond visits Tracy's grave and is clearly not over her loss. Then Dalton's Bond reacts violently when Leiter's wife is murdered on their wedding day because he STILL isn't over it, and that murder on the wedding day thing hits home for him. Same guy.

Cubby Broccoli never left it in doubt. He never once said anything that even remotely hinted that it wasn't supposed to be the same guy.

There are a lot of characters who are played by different actors. It's still the same character, the actor just got too old or wanted too much money or didn't do a good enough job.

DaveyJoe

How did someone Craig's age live through the rise and fall of the Soviet Union and be a healthy young man fighting the Communist threat of the 20th century but also the terrorist threat of 21st century? How is the timeline of geopolitics reconciled in this franchise with a British spy remaining the same age for 60 years?

B5Erik

The same way Peter Parker was a high school Junior in 1963 and didn't graduate from college until 1978.

It's a sliding timeline.

You can have the same person in different points in time. That way the character remains the same, while the current events and styles surrounding him change. It's all about being true to the character. Peter Parker can't be some Dominican illegal immigrant. It couldn't possibly be the same character, just like James Bond can't be anything other than what he's been - a straight, white man on the outskirts of the British upper crust. It's fundamental to who the character is and the attitudes he has.

Decker

DaveyJoe

Okay then how do you reconcile Vesper Lynd and Tracy Di Vicenzo? Which one did Bond get involved with first? Casino Royale is clearly portraying a younger 007, showing him get his first kill. So he falls for this women that ends up getting killed, hurting him so dramatically that he closes himself off emotionally to women for the rest of his life. Absorbing himself in the job and coping with alcohol and casual sex. So the he goes through the same experience with Tracy after all ready learning that lesson? Did our boy really go through the same character arc twice? It just doesn't work. Especially considering the way his personality flip flops every decade. You've mentioned the OHMSS nod by Dalton's Bond but a passing reeference does not equal proper continuity or character consistency.

I think it's pretty obvious that Craig's Bond was meant to be in a different timeline but Skyfall included a lot of winks to previous films. Nobody could decide what the hell this modern series of films was supposed to be. Essentially, the franchise is a mess.