James Bond/Daniel Craig

[Doc4]

One of the key things about the James Bond character ... and why guys liked watching his films ... was the general rule that he'd be shagging a lot of hot chicks each and every film. Now, maybe I'm wrong, but if the plan is to transition (no pun intended) to a female 007 to be the focus of the new films, I'm guessing there won't be nearly as much ... if any ... hot-chick-shagging as before.

 

[emwolf]

Make it part of the Marvel Universe and do a Black Widow movie.

i do believe there is one in the works.

 

[mikelz777]

...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.....

I don't understand the whole concept of reusing agent numbers as agents pass on for whatever reason. My understanding would be that James Bond was the 7th in a line of successive secret agents and that those who followed would be 008, 009, 010 and so on up until 999 when the agency would be confronted with the pickle of having no more 3-digit numbers. ("Oh wait a minute, the next agent could be 1000!" "Put a gold star in that staffer's service file!") The number represents a specific person. Wouldn't any old person representing a specific number be like putting the cart before the horse? Maybe the movie will provide some reasonable explanation for reassigning the number (or not). In any event, I'll probably go and see the movie in the theater rather than wait for the DVD.

 

[TexLaw]

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.

While I'm certain that, in an interview, someone may say that the intent is to empower or something like that, you and I and everyone else knows that the bottom line is the bottom line. Yes, 007 is an icon. That's the point. No one wants to go through the pain of developing another brand when there's a perfectly good one already in their pocket.

Atomic Blond box office receipts: US$100 million
SPECTRE box office receipts: US$800 million

As tired as the Bond/007 franchise is (and it's more tired than Chicken a la King), the brand still has tremendous value, but there is no way the coy, womanizing Bond will easily play right now. It's something of a no-win situation for the producers. Either go with the old Bond, go with a new 007 who doesn't carry the baggage of the old Bond, or do nothing at all. In the end, obviously, the producers want to make some money, so they won't do nothing. As for the other choices, the producers decided that they would rather see a bunch of old farts raising hell about how they want their Bond to stay their Bond than a bunch of activists raising hell about sexual harassment.

 

[TexLaw]

My understanding would be that James Bond was the 7th in a line of successive secret agents and that those who followed would be 008, 009, 010 and so on up until 999 when the agency would be confronted with the pickle of having no more 3-digit numbers.

That's not the case, though. There was a 002 that was killed in Thunderball, and then another 002 was killed in The Living Daylights. While the books and movies all have been pretty cagey about who or what a "00" agent is and how the system is done, you can't kill the same guy twice (and don't start making up something about faked deaths or time warps or something ).

Also, it's not a 3-digit system. The "00" is what has significance. The original notion was that it was something of a badge or designation for an agent that had committed a cold-blooded killing in order to carry out a mission, but it quickly became the designation of a "licence to kill" (whatever that really means). As mentioned above, there has been reference to a "0011" in the books, and The World Is Not Enough has Bond investigating 0012's death. So, one could surmise that there could be any number of 00 agents.

 

[mikelz777]

That's not the case, though. There was a 002 that was killed in Thunderball, and then another 002 was killed in The Living Daylights. While the books and movies all have been pretty cagey about who or what a "00" agent is and how the system is done, you can't kill the same guy twice (and don't start making up something about faked deaths or time warps or something ).

Also, it's not a 3-digit system. The "00" is what has significance. The original notion was that it was something of a badge or designation for an agent that had committed a cold-blooded killing in order to carry out a mission, but it quickly became the designation of a "licence to kill" (whatever that really means). As mentioned above, there has been reference to a "0011" in the books, and The World Is Not Enough has Bond investigating 0012's death. So, one could surmise that there could be any number of 00 agents.

Thanks for that explanation. (And the points made in your prior post.) I'm by no means a student of the 007 history and its intricacies but I guess I know and care enough about the franchise to have opinions errant or otherwise! I'm probably railing more against the whole concept of fixing things that aren't necessarily broke. Don't even get me started on Doctor Who. (New Who)

 

[ronald90]

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.

When I alluded to virtue-signalling, it's that the studio are primarily trying to demonstrate how inclusive, diverse and wonderful they are and that they are aware of, or "awake" to, societal issues ("woke" as described in common modern vernacular). Over the last couple of years this has been used as a strategy to try to sell more tickets (or other products...remember the Gillette commercial earlier this year), however, as if to demonstrate how out-of-touch such parts of the entertainment industry are, such strategies fail (as you point out)...these "woke" films (e.g. Ghostbusters 2016) often do poorly with regard to box office sales figures.

It is lazy to just genderbend or cast-change an existing role/character (Ocean's 8, Ghostbusters 2016, and now 007) rather than create a new franchise (like Atomic Blonde). Again, if it enhances the story and character development, that's fine, but I have a feeling that the 007 change was motivated by a lazy way to try to prove how diverse and inclusive a studio is. Easier to genderbend and change one character in a film than to pay all staff better, improve working conditions, stop the rampant sexual harassment and tackle other real issues affecting minority/marginalised groups.

 

[Rushman2112]

What I cannot get my head around is why they might be looking to replace the male lead with a female lead in a Bond movie. If the intention is to show a woman in a high powered role and capable of doing what Bond does, then is it beyond the wit of film producers to write a film that does that, in the character's own right rather than piggybacking off an existing franchise? Same argument for having Idris Elba as new Bond, write a film that showcases his talents, of which there are many, but being Bond may not be one.

 

[Rushman2112]

When I alluded to virtue-signalling, it's that the studio are primarily trying to demonstrate how inclusive, diverse and wonderful they are and that they are aware of, or "awake" to, societal issues ("woke" as described in common vernacular). Over the last couple of years this has been used as a strategy to try to sell more tickets (or other products...remember the Gillette commercial earlier this year), however, as if to demonstrate how out-of-touch such parts of the entertainment industry are, such strategies fail (as you point out)...these "woke" films (e.g. Ghostbusters 2016) often do poorly with regard to box office sales figures.

It is lazy to just genderbend or cast-change an existing role/character (Ocean's 8, Ghostbusters 2016, and now 007) rather than create a new franchise (like Atomic Blonde). Again, if it enhances the story and character development, that's fine, but I have a feeling that the 007 change was motivated by a lazy way to try and prove how diverse and inclusive a studio is. Easier to genderbend and change one character in a film than to pay all staff better, improve working conditions, stop the rampant sexual harassment and tackle other real issues affecting minority/marginalised groups.

You posted this just as I did mine. Yes, it's lazy and easier to do than fix the real issues.

 

[shavefan]

I thought Judy Dench did a great job as a "powerful", "in charge" female character in the Bond films.

 

[ronald90]

I thought Judy Dench did a great job as a "powerful", "in charge" female character in the Bond films.

Yes, that's an example of a change that was tastefully done and didn't feel forced or preachy IMO. At the time it was done, it was fairly original and not a tired cliche too.

 

[mikelz777]

When I alluded to virtue-signalling, it's that the studio are primarily trying to demonstrate how inclusive, diverse and wonderful they are and that they are aware of, or "awake" to, societal issues ("woke" as described in common modern vernacular).

This is exactly what the BBC is doing to ruin Doctor Who, dragging that series into the toilet and they are doing it on multiple fronts. It started with Capaldi's Doctor and has gotten progressively worse. I'm getting hints and whiffs that the BBC is doing the same thing with the latest season of "Grantchester", another BBC series I've enjoyed. I hope I'm wrong about that.

 

[TexLaw]

To those that are concerned about virtue signaling or messages and such, what virtues were extolled before? What messages were embedded before?

 

[oc_in_fw]

I thought Judy Dench did a great job as a "powerful", "in charge" female character in the Bond films.

She was great, but she usually is. I hated to see her go.

 

[ZJ68]

Yes, that's an example of a change that was tastefully done and didn't feel forced or preachy IMO. At the time it was done, it was fairly original and not a tired cliche too.

Maybe there’s not much to worry about since they seem to know what they’re doing.

 

[naughtilus]

This 007 'transitioning' only shows how propaganda for the masses changes with time to suit social engineering. It's silly what they are doing now, but it's even more silly that we even care.

Thanks for the chuckles in the comments gents.

 

[vacman]

I like Daniel Craig and Skyfall is my favorite Craig movie. That being said, Connery is my favorite Bond. While I liked Roger Moore as an actor, I hated his portrayal of Bond. He turned the series it into a joke.

 

[FarmerTan]

To those that are concerned about virtue signaling or messages and such, what virtues were extolled before? What messages were embedded before?

That's easy. Cool man seduces beautiful woman while saving the world. Perhaps even steals her virginity. Leaves her and does it all over again in another movie.

There is a reason my son hasn't seen any of these movies. Millennials would literally laugh out loud at these shows, or cry. When I think about it, I haven't watched one of the "Classic" Bond movies in decades.

 

[emwolf]

I have a feeling that the female 007 will be much like Homer Simpson's phenomenal success in the Be-Sharps, world wide success, super stardom and at the end of the episode he's back at the nuclear power plant trying to catch some z's.

 

[ronald90]

interesting.

your response to me btfo'ing your argument is to explain it again to me, as if I didn't understand it.

it's really too bad that there appear to be so many old men who are just fundamentally not ok with seeing any actor that isn't themselves or their failed aspirations in here trying to hide behind podcast grifter arguments like 'virtue signalling' or 'wish fulfillment' and they have decided to bomb this thread into oblivion.

If you're referring to me, I'm in my 20s (although that is considered old by some). There is no "argument" to BTFO here. From my perspective, this is a discussion and an exchange of opinions that I hope remains civil.

I can't speak for others, but I'm not concerned about the "wish fulfilment" aspect of Bond...I just find the aspect of the 007 change lazy, forced and a poorly-veiled attempt by the studio at showing how diverse, aware/"woke", groundbreaking and wonderful they are by doing something that has been done before but passing it off as if it is revolutionary/original and insightful of modern social issues.

You previously stated that a virtue-signalling approach is counterintuitive as such films make less money (i.e. why would a film studio make such films knowing they'd bomb in the box office?) and I'm suggesting that such studios and staff haven't learnt the lesson yet that trying to push a weak, overdone political message doesn't sell well (i.e. they are so out-of-touch with public opinion that they think such films will sell well despite contrary evidence)...unless there is something else I'm missing in what you previously said?