James Bond/Daniel Craig
- Thread starter Davidkimberly
- Start date
He 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!!!
We’ve never had an instance of a retired 00 before
Lots of men appear to be delicate flowers.
Lots of men rather not have everything they watch turn into The View.
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.
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.
+1!!!
Ha! This is true. Not a single one
Okay, dang it. You have retained your man card.
We won't talk about the fact that I like chick flicks and Christmas movies in the summer.
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.
I thought it was obvious. The James Bond films are ultimately about James Bond, who happens to be a British spy, designation 007. The secret agent is merely a framework. The somewhat wish fulfillment aspect is to be a suave womanizer who can get away with it by being highly competent at what he does. Saving the world? That's just to add tension and prove he's highly competent. Set it in the old West, and you'd could frame the same person as a gun for hire, or US Marshall.
The interesting thing is that the James Bond character also has women fans, again because they are about James Bond. You could have a field day with the Alpha Male theory of such things.
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.
Having not been that much of a fan of the James Bond movies, this is on my "I really don't care" list. But when those who complain are dismissed as "delicate" or what have you, then I start to care very much because that's how such usually starts. And my opinion of such is increasingly like that photo of Johnny Cash taken at San Quentin.
Make it part of the Marvel Universe and do a Black Widow movie.
If they can do something new and interesting with the franchise, that would be cool. If it's just a gimmick to milk the internet outrage machine for free publicity, not so much.
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.
shavefan
I’m not a fan
I enjoy the Bond films, especially the older ones (SC is the best IMO). I enjoy the adventure, comedy, often ridiculous scenarios, and of course ogling the Bond Girls. The latest franchise with Daniel Craig is more dark and serious. Craig is a good Bond but the writing has strayed from the original campy style.
I withhold judgement on the female bond character until I actually see the new movie.
I withhold judgement on the female bond character until I actually see the new movie.
Last edited:
shavefan
I’m not a fan
Ha! Very good!
I think it's because the 007 designation is iconic and synonymous with the name James Bond. When people think of 007, they aren't going to think of whatever agents might have had that designation before or after James Bond. In the hearts and minds of both book and movie fans, 007 will always be James Bond and should only ever be James Bond. As far as the movie makers intentions with the new character taking the 007 designation, I can't help but feel that there is a specific intention or agenda there. Why not designate her 001-006? Or 008-009 or any other designation for that matter? Having achieved such a high level that would warrant such an elite designation in MI6 would empower anyone holding that role as being highly competent, skilled and accomplished whether they be a man, woman or whatever. So why 007? Just because the agent who is universally associated with the 007 designation retired and the number happened to be available? It just seems too simple and convenient to me and that there's some kind of message the movie makers want to put out there. Maybe it's asking too much to apply common sense and logic to a Bond movie but why wouldn't the designated agent number be retired with the agent? Is there an agent 017? 027? 097 and so forth or are there only ever 9 elite agents because that's the most you can have with a 3 digit 00_ designation and for whatever reason MI6 is beholden to such a restrictive numbering system? And how would they ever talk about agents past and present if they shared designation numbers? "That case was handled by agent 007." "Oh really, which one?" It seems kind of ridiculous to me.
James Bond is an iconic character and he is an iconic character for a reason. I can't understand the compulsion to reinvent this or other like characters with the intent of empowering some perceived underappreciated or underrepresented person or persons. How is that empowering? Wouldn't it be more empowering to invent new roles for these people to embrace and make their own? Charlize Theron and Atomic Blonde comes to mind in this specific case. She was an elite MI6 agent who was effective, skilled, accomplished and lethal in her role as a top level spy. While comparisons for anyone in this type of role are going to be inevitable, she was her own independent character acting competently in the same organization in the same type of scenarios and doing so with high effectiveness. And wouldn't you know it, her character and James Bond 007 exist simultaneously and independent of one another!
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.
I'll just have to wait and see how it pans out.
This falls under the Interpol laws of cartoon/movie physics, which clearly state: James Bond is a boy, Fred and Barney are animated, and Tom of Tom and Jerry fame can bite off his tongue, have it flap around outside of his mouth for 2-3 seconds and have it miraculously reattach.
End of argument, as physics is science, and I'm a specialist in cartoon science. I got a degree and everything!
End of argument, as physics is science, and I'm a specialist in cartoon science. I got a degree and everything!
Similar threads
