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
And the idea of making people happy upsets you, I see.
I think this certainly tips the wink at all of those newspaper stories about making Bond a woman at some point... but I'm struggling to see why that's a bad thing. It's the Bond films engaging in the public debate, and a bit like that bit at the end of Crystal Skull where Indy snatches his hat back, they're saying 'only James Bond is James Bond'.
But you think it's pandering to these SJWs because of her race/gender, clearly, otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it. And you have a problem with that. So clearly there is a race/gender problem here for you.
And what's that got to do with anything? If you have no problem with a new character, what's the issue? She's not replacing James Bond.
...but it makes more sense that we would see them now because it's five years between this film and when Madeleine and 007 rode off at the end. It had only been three months between Bond being shot and coming back. Think about it, they'd have to train someone to be a 00 and get them their first two kills before you could bring them in for Skyfall AFTER losing one of their best agents, getting pressure from the PM and the British government and then being attacked, and also it wasn't needed because the story was more personal to M, and was about Bond becoming 007 again.
It makes more narrative sense in this film, and with the stakes seemingly much higher in this film than in Skyfall, why shouldn't the new 007 be involved?
So if there was a daily campaign for M to be a woman back in the 90's, and they did and it worked it, why couldn't this? Also, Moneypenny wasn't out of the blue, everyone knew from the start basically it worked. Also Judi Dench's M was only a surprise because it was the early 90's. If modern journalism was around back then, we would be having the same discussion.
And even if it had happened because of a campaign, we'd still have had Dench as M in all of those films in our Blu Ray boxsets, and she was great.
What's the problem again? :)
Sorry can't make it more clearer than that, if you can't understand it it's your problem not mine. Not responding you anymore. Bye :-h
There's always a first time.
Again, this is just prejudice fueled by the fear of change. Since we don't know how they would handle this twist and how things will turn out for James or Nomi in the end, it's ridiculous to come to conclusions.
LOL!
The only FACTS are that they found an explosive way to put Bond in a situation he never had the chance to face, while at the same time following his on decisions in the last movie. That alone should be exciting. The hero of the movie is James Bond. Who cares if for one movie out of 25 and counting the premise is that he's not 007 anymore. Doesn't mean they're making Bond less Bond.
In no order...
Phoebe-Waller Bridge is NOT a 'feminist' writer. She is just a writer (and actor) and a damn brilliant one at that. B25 is lucky to have her. And if you think FLEABAG or KILLING EVE have 'feminist agendas', then maybe watching films and drama isn't for you.
There is nothing that new about Lashana Lynch possibly (!) playing a Double-O agent or even a story-specific 007 herself. It might upset those whose minds, toxic viewpoints and phobias are still in 1965. Which is ironic as it was 1965 when the Bond films first referenced a female Double-O agent in THUNDERBALL.
Women have been a VITAL part of the Bond film series since day one. They might not always get referenced on the posters in your garage but the production history of 007 onscreen has always also been one about its women too.
Judi Dench was cast as 'M' in 1995 because - as is the norm - Barbara Broccoli and the EON casting minds realised it was the perfect time to introduce a cracking British actor into the mix. They were not making some 'feminist statement'. They were just casting the best person for the role. 25 years later the Bond films are still celebrating that decision.
If and when a British actor who happens to black does get the role of Bond it won't be Idris Elba. He will (sadly) be too old and there is more than one good black British actor - despite what the racist rags like the Express and The Mail suggest.
Print media is a dying breed. Online news sources need people to click on the bait of a headline. The fiscal and traffic need is established before any actual articles are read. Reading them is not the point. But believing them is another thing. And print or online... one cannot equate for intelligence.
Not one film needs a racist, bigoted and sexist dollar in its box-office. If there are some claiming to not see the film then go and pollute another screening of another franchise elsewhere. The double sadness of those folk is that they always WILL see the film. It is part of their ongoing campaign of 'being right' with their misguided hatred.
There is no such thing as 'political correctness'. There never has been. It is just a line where decency ends and bigotry begins. Anyone who uses the line "it is PC gone mad" has already lost.
The new Bond film is not called CLICKBAIT.
I think if you can't justify or explain your thoughts without confronting that they come from a place of prejudice, then it really is your problem rather than mine. You're going to find it harder and harder to live in this world if you can't accept people of colour and different genders.
To be fair, it did actually happen in movie no. 20 as well, but these folk prefer to ignore that because somehow "it's different" :D
Lol, this says it all. God I miss Cubby.
I have to admit as a word - and the way it sounds when I say it, it's quite catchy…
I think, to be fair, a big factor in her casting was that Stella Rimmington had been the real-life head of MI5 just prior to the Bond films returning, and they were making a nod towards that.
Because -and it'll be a shock to some of you- women are actually spies too! :)
Same here...good luck
'Same here'..? Yeah, I was describing you... ?
Is English your first language? Genuine question.
He was a great man and pioneer producer, that’s for sure.
Yeah, I mean, he’s not 007 anymore and he’s been replaced. Because that’s the core of all this nonsense.
Because MI6 were supposed to shut down when he left! :D
Cheers, buddy. Personally, I'd have been fine with Lashana Lynch’s role being an undercover CIA agent in Jamaica. It's not Lynch’s presence in the movie I dislike, it's the idea that Bond's 007 prefix has been awarded to another agent that I detest. You'll find no comments from me calling Lynch ugly or a terrible actress in any of my 1000+ posts. With regards to there being high stakes, I can't answer that one without knowing more about the movie.
I said same here because I was suggesting the same thing you suggested to me, you ignored my comments and take out chunks of it and start criticising me by calling me racist. When I have clarified many times that I am not. Just because I don't get along with you does that means I will find it harder and harder to live with others. You are the one kept pushing me to explain everything why should I explain everything to you ? who are you? It's you who needed to understand when someone politely ask you that they don't want to talk to you anymore. It's called living peacefully by having different opinions. You have a harder time living with people if you start name calling or put any childish remark on them or pushing them to comment if they don't want to respond to you.
I just asked you to explain but you refuse; you don't have to explain but then you're the one choosing to give your opinions here. It seems strange to sudden to refuse to explain them. You use this language like 'SJWs' etc. and then say you're not prejudiced... it's all a bit contradictory. If you think you're not acting from a place of prejudice, then fine. I'm finding it hard to believe from what you've said so far, but as you say: it's your problem rather than mine.
I refuse to explain because I explain it Many times but you choose to ignore and keep asking again & again to annoy me. But its your problem rather than mine. I will keep posting my opinions here but I won't justify to members like you.
Thank you for that ;)
I think the old youth parlance "whatever" is most useful here.
I for one am all for badass Bond girls with a backbone rather than meek princesses that need to be saved. But I'm in a wait and see approach with this making her 007 thing, and whether it will work the way they intend it to.
Also, just a quick reminder of the Community Guidelines, to which you each agreed to when you signed up: Racism and sexism will not be tolerated here and if you feel that you can’t participate in discussion without making racist or sexist remarks, feel free to leave, or we’ll do it for you.
Not to annoy you; I asked because I don't understand what you claim are your reasons. You say it's nothing to do with race or gender, but then you complain it's being done to appease 'SJW's, presumably because of her race and/or gender. It doesn't make sense. You won't justify because you can't.