Lashana Lynch as 007 and the Women of 'No Time to Die' (SPOILERS!)

1101113151666

Comments

  • barryt007 wrote: »
    The level of common sense and education astounds me.

    Or the lack of common sense?

    "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." --H.L. Mencken
  • Posts: 71
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Sani wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    There was originally going to be a film in the 80s where we saw young Bond inherit the 007 number from an older male agent; this film became Living Daylights. Would you have refused to watch this one, out of interest?

    Of course, not! That would be ok.
    But here, he lost the 007 number, though he was already James Bond 007. And I don't like that.
    He hasn't really lost it. He quit.

    True. But he WAS already 007.

    If in Bond 25 we would see a young Bond who inherit the 007 number from Lashana Lynch; that would be fine for me.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Did the James Bond Twitter account used to say James Bond 007 and not just James Bond I'm going insane did they just edit their Twitter account? Any one have a screenshot of a past account tweet?

    They didn't change the name of the account. I saw some screenshots from last year and it was just James Bond. Don't panic!
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    jake24 wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Did the James Bond Twitter account used to say James Bond 007 and not just James Bond I'm going insane did they just edit their Twitter account? Any one have a screenshot of a past account tweet?
    The official IG account is still JB 007, so maybe that's what you were thinking about?
    @jake24 I mean Twitter it looks like Facebook is James Bond 007
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    matt_u wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Did the James Bond Twitter account used to say James Bond 007 and not just James Bond I'm going insane did they just edit their Twitter account? Any one have a screenshot of a past account tweet?

    They didn't change the name of the account. I saw some screenshots from last year and it was just James Bond. Don't panic!

    @matt_u ok
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Sani wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    There was originally going to be a film in the 80s where we saw young Bond inherit the 007 number from an older male agent; this film became Living Daylights. Would you have refused to watch this one, out of interest?

    Of course, not! That would be ok.
    But here, he lost the 007 number, though he was already James Bond 007. And I don't like that.



    He didn't lose his Double-O status. He left. He's been gone. M has now assigned 007 to a new active agent. Makes sense. And it will make for some humour and tension between James Bond and Nomi.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    peter wrote: »
    Sani wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    There was originally going to be a film in the 80s where we saw young Bond inherit the 007 number from an older male agent; this film became Living Daylights. Would you have refused to watch this one, out of interest?

    Of course, not! That would be ok.
    But here, he lost the 007 number, though he was already James Bond 007. And I don't like that.



    He didn't lose his Double-O status. He left. He's been gone. M has now assigned 007 to a new active agent. Makes sense. And it will make for some humour and tension between James Bond and Nomi.
    Me and @peter riding that same wavelength haha :D
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Sani wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Sani wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    There was originally going to be a film in the 80s where we saw young Bond inherit the 007 number from an older male agent; this film became Living Daylights. Would you have refused to watch this one, out of interest?

    Of course, not! That would be ok.
    But here, he lost the 007 number, though he was already James Bond 007. And I don't like that.
    He hasn't really lost it. He quit.

    True. But he WAS already 007.

    If in Bond 25 we would see a young Bond who inherit the 007 number from Lashana Lynch; that would be fine for me.

    He WAS 007, but James Bond, for reasons we will find out, left the service @Sani ... He's five years removed from being an agent with a licence to kill, living in Jamaica.

    He didn't lose his Double-O status. He relinquished it when he left the Secret Service.

    M re-assigned it. Simple as that.

    And yes @Denbigh -- smart minds flock together and all of that, lol!
  • edited July 2019 Posts: 71
    I'm sorry @peter, @Denbigh , I understand what you're saying and it makes sense, but I really hate this idea. :D
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Many commentators on Norwegian web sites are also infuriated over the "fact" that James Bond is now a black woman, and they are all done with the franchise for good.

    It s the same as always. Some "journalist" writes a piece or someone sees a headline and it spreads like wildfire. The most opinionated are always those who know the least, and people still think democracy is the ideal system?

    An idiot has as much clout as a genius, and we all know which group outnumbers the other. Vastly. The powers that be benefit, of course. They would be cleaning toilets instead of governing if there was any common sense.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited July 2019 Posts: 8,205
    *double post*
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,339
    Sani wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    There was originally going to be a film in the 80s where we saw young Bond inherit the 007 number from an older male agent; this film became Living Daylights. Would you have refused to watch this one, out of interest?

    Of course, not! That would be ok.
    But here, he lost the 007 number, though he was already James Bond 007. And I don't like that.

    But he stopped being 007 at the end of the last film. He also lost it in Die Another Day too, and Casino Royale opened with him not being 007. I take it there are reasons why these are fine?
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,205
    Sani wrote: »
    You can borrow my violin if you like.

    No, thanks.

    That's what I get for trying to be nice.
    tumblr_mafh3rqEk01roixiho1_250.gif
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,339
    Sani wrote: »
    I'm sorry @peter, @Denbigh , I understand what you're saying and it makes sense, but I really hate this idea. :D

    It seems so remarkably arbitrary to me. It's not like '007' is his superhero alter ego or anything; it's purely the designation he gets at work. It doesn't define the character in any way.
  • Posts: 71
    Sani wrote: »
    You can borrow my violin if you like.

    No, thanks.

    That's what I get for trying to be nice.
    tumblr_mafh3rqEk01roixiho1_250.gif

    And not just nice, but very funny too. ;)
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,205
    Sani wrote: »
    Sani wrote: »
    You can borrow my violin if you like.

    No, thanks.

    That's what I get for trying to be nice.
    tumblr_mafh3rqEk01roixiho1_250.gif

    And not just nice, but very funny too. ;)

    You would know! ;)
  • edited July 2019 Posts: 71
    mtm wrote: »
    Sani wrote: »
    I'm sorry @peter, @Denbigh , I understand what you're saying and it makes sense, but I really hate this idea. :D

    It seems so remarkably arbitrary to me. It's not like '007' is his superhero alter ego or anything; it's purely the designation he gets at work. It doesn't define the character in any way.

    And why would it be wrong if Bond wouldn't be 007 in the movie and Lashana Lynch would have been 008? :)
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    Sani wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Sani wrote: »
    I'm sorry @peter, @Denbigh , I understand what you're saying and it makes sense, but I really hate this idea. :D

    It seems so remarkably arbitrary to me. It's not like '007' is his superhero alter ego or anything; it's purely the designation he gets at work. It doesn't define the character in any way.

    And why would it be bad if Bond wasn't 007 in the movie and Lashana Lynch would have been 008? :)
    Well, that wouldn't be very interesting would it?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 2019 Posts: 16,339
    Sani wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Sani wrote: »
    I'm sorry @peter, @Denbigh , I understand what you're saying and it makes sense, but I really hate this idea. :D

    It seems so remarkably arbitrary to me. It's not like '007' is his superhero alter ego or anything; it's purely the designation he gets at work. It doesn't define the character in any way.

    And why would it be wrong if Bond wouldn't be 007 in the movie and Lashana Lynch would have been 008? :)

    Then you've lost the dramatic irony and the gag.

    It's like saying 'why couldn't Silva have blown up someone else's Aston Martin in Skyfall?'. The point was that it's Bond's Aston Martin!

    Now, I love that Aston; but I'm not complaining that they did it. By all means blow it up because it makes for a better scene, and it gets a reaction from Bond (and indeed me, as a viewer). Maybe the car lover and Bond fan in me would have preferred to see his neighbour's sportscar get blown up rather than that one, but I know that it makes the film better for it to destroy the car I like.

    So for you to feel a reaction to someone else being 007 is good, because you'll be sharing Bond's feelings when he finds out, and that makes it a more interesting and involving film experience. If she had been 008 you'd feel absolutely nothing.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    mtm wrote: »
    Sani wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    There was originally going to be a film in the 80s where we saw young Bond inherit the 007 number from an older male agent; this film became Living Daylights. Would you have refused to watch this one, out of interest?

    Of course, not! That would be ok.
    But here, he lost the 007 number, though he was already James Bond 007. And I don't like that.

    But he stopped being 007 at the end of the last film. He also lost it in Die Another Day too, and Casino Royale opened with him not being 007. I take it there are reasons why these are fine?

    Yes, imho.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    Gag? Gimmick more like. There's been too much getting away from classic Bond (and yes, I remember SP). I'm chomping at the but for a classic straight forward Bond film. Looks like i'll have to wait a while longer.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    Gag? Gimmick more like. There's been too much getting away from classic Bond (and yes, I remember SP). I'm chomping at the but for a classic straight forward Bond film. Looks like i'll have to wait a while longer.
    To be honest, I don't think we were ever going to get that with B25.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    jake24 wrote: »
    Gag? Gimmick more like. There's been too much getting away from classic Bond (and yes, I remember SP). I'm chomping at the but for a classic straight forward Bond film. Looks like i'll have to wait a while longer.
    To be honest, I don't think we were ever going to get that with B25.

    Deep down.... I think I knew it. When Fukanaga was hired, it started to look unlikely at best.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,339
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Sani wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    There was originally going to be a film in the 80s where we saw young Bond inherit the 007 number from an older male agent; this film became Living Daylights. Would you have refused to watch this one, out of interest?

    Of course, not! That would be ok.
    But here, he lost the 007 number, though he was already James Bond 007. And I don't like that.

    But he stopped being 007 at the end of the last film. He also lost it in Die Another Day too, and Casino Royale opened with him not being 007. I take it there are reasons why these are fine?

    Yes, imho.

    But they're secret? :D
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    jake24 wrote: »
    Gag? Gimmick more like. There's been too much getting away from classic Bond (and yes, I remember SP). I'm chomping at the but for a classic straight forward Bond film. Looks like i'll have to wait a while longer.
    To be honest, I don't think we were ever going to get that with B25.

    No but it looks already more stylish (I know I know very early) than SP. I've seen some clips again, something just feels and looks off... And I don't dislike it THAT much....
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 2019 Posts: 16,339
    Gag? Gimmick more like.

    What's wrong with a gimmick?
    And if there's a gag with it as well, which you know there will be, much as you scoff; then even less problem.
  • edited July 2019 Posts: 12,462
    Craig’s Bond era definitely has been somewhat experimental. I think those expecting “straightforward, classic” Bond movies from here on out will probably be disappointed. I think it will only get more different from here on out (post-Craig that is). Action movies are basically expected to have the emotional edge and gimmicks and twists nowadays.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    jake24 wrote: »
    Gag? Gimmick more like. There's been too much getting away from classic Bond (and yes, I remember SP). I'm chomping at the but for a classic straight forward Bond film. Looks like i'll have to wait a while longer.
    To be honest, I don't think we were ever going to get that with B25.

    Deep down.... I think I knew it. When Fukanaga was hired, it started to look unlikely at best.
    I don't think Boyle's "radical" approach would have been very close to a straightforward Bond mission either.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    mtm wrote: »
    Gag? Gimmick more like.

    What's wrong with a gimmick?
    And if there's a gag with it as well, which you know there will be, much as you scoff; then even less problem.

    Who's scoffing? I'm just saying that, unless there is another way it's gong to happen:

    M: "Come in, 007..."

    *in walks Lashana*

    Hardly a rib tickler.

    Though I admit, I am a little curious as to how that will play out.
  • Posts: 12,462
    jake24 wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Gag? Gimmick more like. There's been too much getting away from classic Bond (and yes, I remember SP). I'm chomping at the but for a classic straight forward Bond film. Looks like i'll have to wait a while longer.
    To be honest, I don't think we were ever going to get that with B25.

    Deep down.... I think I knew it. When Fukanaga was hired, it started to look unlikely at best.
    I don't think Boyle's "radical" approach would have been very close to a straightforward Bond mission either.

    I think Boyle’s version would have been even more non-traditional and probably ticked a lot of people off, especially if the rumor of Bond being incarcerated for most of the movie was true. I think for the most part the Craig era has done a great job of being different and doing new things while not straying too far from the Bond formula. I’m not certain, but I think we dodged a bullet by not getting Boyle’s film...
Sign In or Register to comment.