I can't remember if it was a movie or one of the post Fleming books, but there was a 0011.
The choice has everyone shaken, not stirred.
Bingo.
I can't remember if it was a movie or one of the post Fleming books, but there was a 0011.
The choice has everyone shaken, not stirred.
He was my favorite, probably because he was the first one I remember watching. And maybe I fantasized being him with Jane Seymour?For me there is only Roger Moore. End of story. He was supreme.
We’ve never had an instance of a retired 00 beforeIt doesn't appear that they do in the movies. There seems to be any number of 00's.
Lots of men appear to be delicate flowers.The choice has everyone shaken, not stirred.
Lots of men rather not have everything they watch turn into The View.
+1!!!Post of the year!
Ha! This is true. Not a single oneHe was my favorite, probably because he was the first one I remember watching. And maybe I fantasized being him with Jane Seymour?
I think he just oozed suave sophistication. And I was like 12 or 13 or so.
For all of youse guys making fun of me, remember this: @Toothpick hasn't seen any! Nah, nah, na nah nah! Toothpick hasn't seen ANY James Bond!!!
Okay, dang it. You have retained your man card.Ha! This is true. Not a single one
Something people miss is why James Bond films remain popular. Most series that do tap into a sort of wish fulfillment. The wish fulfillment in the James Bond films is different than, say, Star Wars, and here is the trouble. The producers may be going at it the right way, but a woman in the roll of 007 bursts the bubble. It destroys a big reason of why the films are still popular, and is why it makes me think of the 1967 spoof Casino Royal.
Times being what they are, if anyone dares to say "This is not what I like," they are, of course, mocked. Demeaning is next on the list. Yet it remains that no one, not Hollywood, not New York, not anyone, is going to bully someone into liking something that they don't. It might bully some into keeping silent, but that's an increasingly big might.
re bold, I don't think you can say just that and leave it. please explain what you mean. why is having a woman in the role of 007 specifically, not Bond btw but just the agent number, a bad thing? the Brits currently employ women as field agents in spycraft, so a fictionalized, idealized version of that should clearly include women.
as far as the latter, Hollywood and NY have literally nothing to do with Bond. the film is made by a British company in mostly non-US locations with non-US actors and non-US crews. but maybe I'm missing something.
I will say though, there's no bullying. no one in this thread has been mocked, or demeaned, either.
there are a lot of questionable ideas being thrown around to try and suggest why a fictional spy designation couldn't go to someone other than [insert person author approves]. consider the person who suggested in this thread that it was somehow the studio 'virtue signaling'. well what does that even mean? it suggests that the studio would place an unfitting actor in a role in order to signal a set of values to an audience to induce them to pay, ergo to make money. however, this is prima facae ridiculous; studios have been defending their current casting methodology of not really including very many types of people by saying that they don't sell tickets. in order to even suggest that said virtue signaling takes place, you would first have to demonstrate that the studios are even wrong. and listen, irrespective of any politics, the economics are clear. a certain type of actor gets the most tickets. I would bet my black eagle brush and my woflman razor that you could not demonstrate statistically that when studios replace more typical actors with those who are more like the young lady in question they see an increase in ticket revenue. therefore it is likely the mechanism that person suggested actually works in the opposite direction of what they claim, making the likelihood that their premise is correct about as low as it can be in a world where anything is possible.
and yet despite the clear wrongness of that premise, neither I nor anyone else has made fun of them or demeaned them for that. nor has that happened anywhere else. notice how the above is not attacking them or their value system personally. and I don't see any deviation from that by anyone, so far.
as far as I can tell, the only way one could be a victim of the mocking, bullying, or demeaning you have suggested is to imagine it upon themselves.
I don't have a problem with a woman 00 agent. The female of the species is more deadly than the male (a nod to a 60's spy movie). I actually would have liked to see the Jinx spin-off they were talking about when Brosnan was still Bond.
Critics like Milo Yiannopoulos? It's not fair to paint everyone who didn't like Ghostbusters as sexist, but it's also undeniable there was a good dose of sexism to go along with the legitimate critiques.The bullying is also obvious. Don't like the direction they're taking the Bond films? Why, you get demeaned as delicate or worse. Look what happened with the Ghostbusters reboot, and critics who didn't like how it was pulled off. They were called sexist and what have you. And, of course, when that's pointed out, such bullying is denied to even exist.
The choice has everyone shaken, not stirred.
why is having a woman in the role of 007 specifically, not Bond btw but just the agent number, a bad thing? the Brits currently employ women as field agents in spycraft, so a fictionalized, idealized version of that should clearly include women.
That's where I'm coming from. I understand the 00 numbers get re-used as agents pass or move on, but to me, 007 is and will always be James Bond. The movies aren't based on the British Secret Service. They're based on James Bond, who serves in the British Secret Service.When people think of 007, they aren't going to think of whatever agents might have had that designation before or after James Bond