• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

    Read BEFORE posting Trades & Request

Bond 25: No Time To Die

Moe_Syzlak said:
Warbler said:
Moe_Syzlak said:
I still don’t even know why we’re discussing this. Is there any indication whatsoever that there’s a movement afoot to reboot James Bond as female?
Click to expand...

lynch.jpg
Click to expand...

It takes effort to intentionally remove the context from a quote so I assume you know you’re being an ass.
Click to expand...


I don't think I did remove context.     You asked if there was any indication whatsoever that there was a movement afoot  to reboot Bond as female.   I just showed you some.  and I don't think I am being an ass.
 
Moe_Syzlak said:
I still don’t even know why we’re discussing this. Is there any indication whatsoever that there’s a movement afoot to reboot James Bond as female? Having a female 007 in a James Bond movie has nothing to do with changing the character of James Bond to female. It’s like the slightest thing sends these fans into a tizzy.
Click to expand...

Here’s my full post with the part you omitted bolded. Are you really that dim?
 
This discussion has gone far enough.
 
To think this all started when I shared a theory me and my friends came up with. I'm starting to think I'm this website's equivalent of Keyser Söze, leaving destruction wherever I go.
 
I get the distinction.  "007" is a like a rank which could be assigned to any agent.  They wouldn't have to be named "Bond".

A poster showing a black, female 007 doesn't mean she's playing the character of ...Jamie Bond or whatever.

My point, to speak to Hymie's concern, was that I honestly don't think many people are going to throw a hissy fit if they make a major change to Bond.  I guess there are a few people on this board who'd start #notmybond , but for the most part I don't think there's much of a worldwide audience that cares that much.  I disagree that it's a huge risk.

And I take the point that gender-swapping a film could be seen as a way to inject excitement into an old property.  On the other hand, Bond had already gotten a bit stale before the Craig films.  It was seen as needing a substantial change even back then.  How will they prevent a huge dropoff in excitement after the critically beloved and financially lucrative Craig films come to a close?  

They're bound to lose a segment of the audience no matter what.  Some people will probably dislike whatever new 007 is brought in no matter what.  Whether playing Bond or not.  Honestly, I already felt Craig was a significantly different portrayal of the character, so I don't even care anymore.  Watching his Bond was like watching Jason Bourne or Ethan Hunt or the Kingsman guy.  Similar but a different character.  So they can do whatever they want, I've got the old Bond films. 

But let's face it, a lot of those have some pretty ridiculous parts, there's no reason to take this whole thing so seriously.
 
In either case, that image doesn't mean anything. It's one in a series from the cast announcement. Here's the one for Daniel Craig, there are several others in the link.
IMG_20190425_083345.jpg
 
asterixsmeagol said:
In either case, that image doesn't mean anything. It's one in a series from the cast announcement. Here's the one for Daniel Craig, there are several others in the link.
IMG_20190425_083345.jpg
Click to expand...

Clearly it's taking James Bond back to the world of 60s Casino Royale, where EVERYONE is James Bond.

But seriously, that's amusing, that people saw the one picture out of context of the woman with 007 under her, not realizing that all of the cast has 007 on their pictures. Goodness gracious.
 
Well Nomi (Lashana Lynch) was called 007 in the trailer as well, so I kind of understand the confusion. I'd be happy to see her continue as 007, but I don't know if that's actually going to happen in more movies after this one. We've seen two 006 characters before (Thunderball and GoldenEye) and multiple Ms.
 
asterixsmeagol said:
Well Nomi (Lashana Lynch) was called 007 in the trailer as well, so I kind of understand the confusion. I'd be happy to see her continue as 007, but I don't know if that's actually going to happen in more movies after this one. We've seen two 006 characters before (Thunderball and GoldenEye) and multiple Ms.
Click to expand...

OH, I had no idea about the trailer. But still, using that particular picture as evidence makes no sense.

This discourse makes me want to watch the movie now. Guess I'll have to watch Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, Skyfall, and Spectre soon. Are the supposed bad ones laughably bad at least, or are they just painfully bad? Since I don't care deeply about the series, I may watch fanedits in place of the regular versions.
 
jrWHAG42 said:
asterixsmeagol said:
Well Nomi (Lashana Lynch) was called 007 in the trailer as well, so I kind of understand the confusion. I'd be happy to see her continue as 007, but I don't know if that's actually going to happen in more movies after this one. We've seen two 006 characters before (Thunderball and GoldenEye) and multiple Ms.
Click to expand...

OH, I had no idea about the trailer. But still, using that particular picture as evidence makes no sense.

This discourse makes me want to watch the movie now. Guess I'll have to watch Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, Skyfall, and Spectre soon. Are the supposed bad ones laughably bad at least, or are they just painfully bad? Since I don't care deeply about the series, I may watch fanedits in place of the regular versions.
Click to expand...

Quantum and Spectre are the “bad ones.” Though in a world on which Moonraker, A View To a Kill, and Octopussy exist it’s hard to call any of the Craig movies bad relatively. Spectre for my money is the worst of the bunch but only because of some bad story decisions IMO.
 
Quantum is much better if you watch it and Casino as a double feature. The story continues immediately on from the last scene of Casino.
 
asterixsmeagol said:
Quantum is much better if you watch it and Casino as a double feature. The story continues immediately on from the last scene of Casino.
Click to expand...

And the two movies are connected by this villa on Lake Como as seen from our AirBnB last week. :p

D43-EACE1-51-A7-4-BA5-9-E32-8-A50-B8-A5-E58-F.jpg


Also the set for the infamous “I hate sand” scene, though the villa itself was digitally changed.
 
asterixsmeagol said:
Quantum is much better if you watch it and Casino as a double feature. The story continues immediately on from the last scene of Casino.
Click to expand...

For me, the main problem with Quantum is the camerawork. It's so shaky and hard to follow at times, the quick confusing editing does not help.
 
jrWHAG42 said:
asterixsmeagol said:
In either case, that image doesn't mean anything. It's one in a series from the cast announcement. Here's the one for Daniel Craig, there are several others in the link.
IMG_20190425_083345.jpg
Click to expand...

Clearly it's taking James Bond back to the world of 60s Casino Royale, where EVERYONE is James Bond.

But seriously, that's amusing, that people saw the one picture out of context of the woman with 007 under her, not realizing that all of the cast has 007 on their pictures. Goodness gracious.
Click to expand...

It is more than just a pic.  The trailer advertises her as the new 007
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom