It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
For now.
Well, he quite often is, yes. That's the gag!
Do you not think he is?
@mtm but no one took his number either they were neutral about it. Oh and he wasn't James Bond in Diamonds he was "Peter Franks".
So when was the last time he didn't treat a woman properly? What does he have to do, where does he need to change, in order for him to cater to the SJW/MeToo/feminist crowd?
Stand at attention and obey commands like a dog with a leash. 🤣
So back to my original point: why is it ok for no one, including Bond himself, to be 007 by the end of the film, but having the position taken by a successor is all of a sudden terrible?
There's always some reason why it's different and worse this time. I remember talking to people getting angry about Casino Royale 'breaking the formula' by daring to cast a blond Bond back in 2006. I asked them to imagine a Bond film with no Q, no MI6 scenes, no tuxedo, no casino, no Martinis shaken not stirred, no Bond in the pre title sequence, no sports cars, supernatural villains, fictional countries, and Bond being played by a fair-haired man. That would destroy the formula they said, it would be awful. When I pointed out that I was describing Live And Let Die, 'that is different', they said. :D
SP rewrite: In the PCS he stays in the hotelroom with Estrella, abandoning his mission, because she is scared. He comforts her. Cue main titles. :-)
@mtm that was different my friend this is a whole new ball game.
After the main titles he gets fed by moneypenny and she says good boy sit over there while I work ok. 🤣
You see? 'That is different'! :D That's all the explanation you have. That was exactly my point with the LALD story: I feel like it went over your head slightly.
In twenty years time it'll be just as part of the James Bond legacy as those films where he went into outer space and dressed up as a monkey. Just as looking back on Casino Royale now it's hard to see what all the 'blond Bond' fuss was about, people will think that folks complaining about someone else having the 007 number for half an hour were equally ridiculous.
@mtm I would explain but @DarthDimi wants us to move on sorry and he won't have it by the end of the film he is finished.
Most of them are utter idiots who think Lynch and Craig are both going to be playing James Bond in the same bloody film. If they can't read, they're no great loss.
Though, granted, one thing it does show is how linked the iconography of the 007 logo is with the character with casual audiences. I do understand and respect this, and I find the assumption that if you don't like the idea then you're a racist to be utterly braindead and devoid of any perspective whatsoever. However, the repeated baiting of other members such as @007Blofeld, aided by the ever charming, utterly nonsensical input of @Mendes4Lyfe and co. is really not helping and just goes to show how overblown this thread can become. Take a day off, lads. You're not the only Bond fans around, yet you speak as if you're the majority. This era has been a massive failure for you it seems, yet you're still no more a Bond fan than anyone who helped Skyfall cross the $1Billion mark.
I'm not buying this idea that the film is going to flop because it's pushing an SJW agenda. Your examples, repeated a few pages back, are pretty weak.
Ghostbusters may have been doomed to fail from the getgo. Sure. But it may also have failed because it was a rubbish movie, combined with the fact that most people just don't give a shit about Ghostbusters anymore. The same will likely apply for Terminator: Dark Fate, a film which very well may end up being good, but is part of a series that has clearly outstayed its welcome with casual audiences. T3, Salvation and Genisys were all sizeable box-office disappointments, and they didn't have this so-called SJW agenda. Perhaps people just don't give a shit about Terminator anymore, regardless of "motive".
The same cannot be said of Bond, whose last two films have an almost $2billion total gross combined. People are here for Dan's Bond, big time. Now, I agreed a few pages back that this Nomi craic is a bit gimmicky to me, however it is a one-film deal and makes logical sense in the context, allows Dan's Bond to do something different and give a fresh perspective on the action. It could be a cool gimmick. It's also not the core focus of the film, clearly. Just two days ago we were discussing Blofeld's return, and as plenty of other members have posted above and to the left, there are dozens upon dozens of other very Bondian staples in the film already, too.
Do you really think the film is going to flop because of this tiny thread of the story? That because Bond is retired, not 007 anymore but will likely be 007 again by film's end that people will completely reject it? That it somehow won't recoup its costs? Even the worst Bond films have done that, and they had a lot of stuff fundamentally wrong with them. If you really do believe that, there seems to be a lot of growing up needed on your part. Eon don't need to do any damage control, unless they're feeling generous and want to pay for nightschool lessons for those Facebook folk who comment on articles before they read them. They just need to continue onwards, finish the film, get the trailer out and sit back and watch people hype up Dan's last film. They could very well make a balls of this little subplot, and I'll be the first to call them out if they do, but for the moment I'm happy to let them do their thing - because ultimately the 007 iconography isn't going anywhere, and Bond 26 will likely be more your speed.
I do hope we can move on from this bloody topic and on to actual important story details and filming-related news. Let the people who are actually still happy about the film remain so.
A poster would be very nice right now.
Creepily appearing in Severine's shower? Leaving Solange to be killed? Using Lucia?
He uses women; it's kind of his character. We're not supposed to like him for doing it, but he's a kind of anti-hero at times. Remember when he said "a woman?" in Moonraker, expressing surprise at a woman being a scientist? That was a joke! :)
So the Bond franchise needs to practise what it preaches and change with the times. ONCE AGAIN if a 00 agent quits in a modern-day world, specifically 2019/2020, the new replacement has an equal chance of being a man or a woman, and if when writing the script and considering changing the franchise, it makes sense that the new 007 would be a woman then bloody well do it and create some buzz and interesting character motivations and dynamics.
If they wanna get people to watch, they can't keep doing the same stuff. Spectre was 2 hours of homage, so why not make the follow-up as original as possible. [/quote]
So MI6 agents are currently 50% female? Is that true with FBI field agents or the CIA? Sure, the population is roughly 50% female and male but is this true with law enforcement or espionage departments?
You see what I mean? EON is doing this ONLY to appeal to the SJW crowd. It has nothing to do with serving the story of Bond 25 or being good for the franchise. Well, maybe they think it will be good because they will avoid claims of Bond being sexist or racist. They have bent the knee to the establishment, pure and simple. It makes me sad.
Sorry; didn't see this. Weirdly new posts aren't loaded when you make a post: slightly strange software here.
@CraigMooreOHMSS I wanted to be done a while ago but it keeps going on because people keep commenting. PS I'm not racist either I just don't care for idea.
I can’t see the problem here personally. The ‘007’ trademark has less to do with the character and more to do with marketing.
However, it’s a savvy way to drive up interest in the film. ‘James Bond’ was trending worldwide yesterday all day! That’s great news.
Also, ‘Lashana Lynch’ was the 5th most Googled thing in the world yesterday.
Also, Lashana’s Instagram has been on fire. She’s gained around 4k new followers and had 100s of negative comments from trolls on her last photo. I can’t see the benefit of attacking her personally. Not cool.
The hype surrounding this film on social media is alive. I even found this cool bit of fan art this morning from an excited new fan:
People are excited by this development and so am I. To label this ‘anti-male’ is a sentiment borne from insecurity. I don’t look to films for empowerment of my male ego. I’m content enough. If a black female 007 is going to empower a young minority woman, then I’m happy for those people. Anyone looking for anything negative here is reaching.
That sounds like a good idea.
Typical feminism being shoved down our throats.
This thread was designed to talk about the female leads of Bond 25:
https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/19172/the-women-of-bond-25#latest
Please direct all comments as per the female 007 here.
Sorry, but news about Lashana are not about playing Bond by her. It's about playing role of OO7 AGENT. Read news carefully.
He isn't: Daniel Craig is playing him.
So does this statement mean young black women are insecure? How does "representation" help in this regard? Shouldn't their parents and their own personal accomplishments assist in developing their self-esteem?
I think they will totally omit this thing in marketing. I think they want to be "new 007" a surprise thing for audience. Also its very risky marketing step as it can be more harm, than benefit for film