Meet the new 007.

[Benny Holiday]

I always found Bond to be corny until Craig's desperate, on the edge of being unhinged version of the character. I'm really over this PC reimagined stuff thst seemed to start with the rejigged Battlestar Galactica in which half the characters that were male originally were redone as women. Now it's become a Hollyweird plague. Yawn.

 

[LizzieMaine]

So many pop-culture characters are creatures of a very specific time -- Sherlock Holmes belongs to the Victorian/Edwardian era, Superman is a product of the New Deal Thirties, and James Bond can't be effectively separated from his Cold War origins. But those times have passed, and for the characters to remain salable commoditites, they have to change to reflect that times have changed. Thus Holmes is now a sexy introvert instead of a cocaine-using asexual, Superman a brooding farm boy instead of a wisecracking Popular Front street brawler, and 007 will be an ass-kicking woman instead of a leering martini-sipper. When you think about it that way, it's a lot better than it might have been.

 

[Fading Fast]

Away form the smart cultural reference points Lizzie talks about, Bond was also breaking new ground when his movies started, but by now, what is really left for the one guy - or girl, for that matter - super-spy genre to do to be fresh and original?

As with most of (not all) the superhero movies, they're just the same story, package to fit the particular superhero with special effects driving all of it. It might be fun (I thought Wonder Woman was pretty good), but, I assume, even fans know they're seeing the same thing over and over again.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the only recent Bond movie to seemingly get positive reviews from most quarters is also the last Bond to use an original Ian Fleming story as it captured some of that Fleming story, nuance, and character building that most Bond's no longer have.

Maybe it's the identity stuff that's all in vogue and maybe it's just "hey we need to REALLY shake things up" (probably some of both) that's behind a female Bond (which, technically [I think], is not Bond, but a female 007), but either way, if they can put out a variation-on-the-spy-genre-theme movie that has some heart and soul it will work, if not, it will be just another jazzed-up with too-much CGI effort that I'll see on cable six months after it was out and the hype failed.

 

[M Brown]

Seems like the Broccoli family is moving in a direction of trying to keep the film franchise alive by connecting with the audience of today's world. Just as The Beatles core fan base is getting old and dying off, so is the original fan base of the Bond franchise.

It may be a smart move to shift the primary character as they have, or it could be a recipe for audience alienation. That's the gamble they are taking and I suspect their research shows that it should be a good move.

I agree with previous responses that the Bond character will still be part of the story in a less physically demanding way, and the 007 number is just being assigned to a new character. It's well known that Craig has wanted out of the deal for quite a while. But I suspect that the door, within the story lines, will be open for Bond to save the world in some way, no matter who plays the Bond character. It would make sense for both production value and audience acceptance of the changes to the core story, that Craig continues to play Bond even if the part is limited to sitting in a beach chair sipping martinis and chasing women at the casinos, along with a bit of intelligent spy work.

 

[Frunobulax]

Seems like the Broccoli family is moving in a direction of trying to keep the film franchise alive by connecting with the audience of today's world. Just as The Beatles core fan base is getting old and dying off, so is the original fan base of the Bond franchise.

Hey, it worked for Ghostbusters.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

 

[Lean'n'mean]

Being PC or reflecting today's society is one thing but all these already existing male characters simply supplanted by the fair sex, shows both a lack of imagination & courage in the TV/movie business. Why not create new,original & strong female characters who do things their way in today's world rather than lazily changing traditionally iconic male characters into women.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

But I suspect that the door, within the story lines, will be open for Bond to save the world in some way, no matter who plays the Bond character. It would make sense for both production value and audience acceptance of the changes to the core story, that Craig continues to play Bond even if the part is limited to sitting in a beach chair sipping martinis and chasing women at the casinos, along with a bit of intelligent spy work.

That would imply that this new ♀07 isn't up to the task & so only a 'man' can save the day. "Stand back, honey, this is a man's job." .....Not sure it will wash with audiences under 40.

 

[Bamaboots]

Hey, it worked for Ghostbusters.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

Not so sure.

https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a27515705/ghostbusters-cast-bill-murray-appear-new-film/

 

[T Jones]

Meet The New Wonder Woman

 

[Tiki Tom]

I pretty much stopped watching Bond movies after high school. Yes, he’s basically a Cold War relic. The formula, in hindsight, does seem to be designed to impress 15 year old boys (money, fast cars, cool toys, super models). Not surprising, I guess; not long ago I read a biography of Ian Fleming and was a bit disappointed to find out that he was such a shallow person.

Another problem that emerged was that the ante in the Bond universe was constantly raised until the mission was always TO SAVE THE WORLD. Even that has become dull and predictable. I’d sort of like to see realistically-sized missions that require real moral choices and generate genuine emotions. I’ve grown tired of special effects and ever bigger explosions. So... if this revitalizes a very tired genre, I welcome it.

PC change for the sake of PC change is indeed not very original and even boring. But that doesn’t mean that change can’t sometimes be good.

 

[M Brown]

Hey, it worked for Ghostbusters.

GB-3 (2016)
$144m to make
$128m domestic gross
$100m foreign gross to date
spent 4 months in theaters
ticket sales exceeded cost by a $84m. Somebody made some money but there were 12 producers on the film, so the split was pretty thin, yet all made a few mil at least.

GB-1 (1984)
grossed close to $242m domestic in 12 weeks
another $53m foreign - total close to $300m in 1984 money - which would be the equivalent of almost 3/4 of a billion in 2016 dollars, and had 4 producers. Ivan Reitman is probably still living fat on his GB 1 yield, and he was low man on the list of producers.

 

[AbbaDatDeHat]

Being PC or reflecting today's society is one thing but all these already existing male characters simply supplanted by the fair sex, shows both a lack of imagination & courage in the TV/movie business. Why not create new,original & strong female characters who do things their way in today's world rather than lazily changing traditionally iconic male characters into women.

Exactly!!
Why not 007’s unintentional daughter by say, Pussy Galore, come to save the world?

“Jane...Jane Bond”! Hope she got the Aston.
B

 

[Fading Fast]

...Another problem that emerged was that the ante in the Bond universe was constantly raised until the mission was always TO SAVE THE WORLD. Even that has become dull and predictable. I’d sort of like to see realistically-sized missions that require real moral choices and generate genuine emotions. I’ve grown tired of special effects and ever bigger explosions. So... if this revitalizes a very tired genre, I welcome it.,,,.

Accepting the fact that Bond is fantasy / made up / greatly exaggerated, one of the reasons I enjoy "From Russia With Love" is that its plot is "smaller -" obtaining a Russian encryption devise stolen by Spectre (so not saving the world - at least in one swipe) - and the story is more about the characters - Karem Bey, Tatiana and even Grant - than it is special effects, etc.

Sure, there's some of that, but of all the Bonds, the character development and interpersonal relationships felt most real to me in "From Russia With Love."

And agreed, and you said it better, but it was what I was trying to say in an earlier post - whatever Bond had as freshness and novelty in the early '60s has loooooooong since past and, at its best, today, it's just another super-spy movie with ridiculous special effects.

 

[Frunobulax]

Meet The New Wonder Woman

I was hoping for Patton Oswalt.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

 

[Frunobulax]

Not so sure.

https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a27515705/ghostbusters-cast-bill-murray-appear-new-film/

I hope it's better than Blues Brothers 2000.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

 

[Frunobulax]

GB-3 (2016)
$144m to make
$128m domestic gross
$100m foreign gross to date
spent 4 months in theaters
ticket sales exceeded cost by a $84m. Somebody made some money but there were 12 producers on the film, so the split was pretty thin, yet all made a few mil at least.

GB-1 (1984)
grossed close to $242m domestic in 12 weeks
another $53m foreign - total close to $300m in 1984 money - which would be the equivalent of almost 3/4 of a billion in 2016 dollars, and had 4 producers. Ivan Reitman is probably still living fat on his GB 1 yield, and he was low man on the list of producers.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

 

[Edward]

Its a pretty impactful storyline from the comics.

I've yet to read it, but from what Im' aware if they stick to that it'll be grand.

I'm always amused when people start to shriek about belie3vability - as if a woman fulfilling the same role as traditionally seen as a male domain is jumping the shark, when super-powers, supervillains living in hollowed out volcanos, yellow spandex and whatever else is just fine and dandy. I mean, what's with people who can accept the Doctor changing face, body, nationality and whatever else.... but go postal when "he" changes gender? Odd. It's like a guy who loves kilts freaking out because some other guy wants to wear a skirt.

Goldfinger was ahead of his time!

Naughty!

Seems like simply reassigning the code name is an elegant way of accomplishing the change -- and it leaves James Bond himself available as a character for future use. No problem with it at all.

I've long preferred the interpretation that 'James Bond' itself is an indentity issued to an orphan identified for trainnig and indoctrination into the 00 programme (as with all the 00 agents); the first was a Scot, then they had a series of Englishmen.... Traditionally, they have been public school kids from the landed gentry, but now that it's not only the aristocracy who go to Eaton, it's not unthinkable to have a black James Bond (or, indeed, a female one) as times have changed in terms of groups other than only (even if it's still mostly) White, Christian, rich, males can get ahead.

Yes, actually, what Lizzie said. Any idea what 007's new name will be? Ophelia, Ophelia Chrysanthemum. Licensed to talk-some-sense-into-them.
And I would like to see a bit of Mr Bond's retirement lifestyle in Jamaica. A Daiquiri, please. Shaken not stirred.

No reason she couldn't carry the James Bond codename - though given that the Royal Navy (Bond being a Commander in the same, if memory serves) I believe still distinguish between 'Sir' and 'Ma'am' for their officers, perhaps something close-souning but feminised would be more realistic - Janis Bond?

Also - and recognizing there has always been a suspension of reality to accept Bond being played by different actors over 50+ years - are they keeping the franchise of a male Bond as a 007 "alive?" Not that it can't be brought back, but is the current plan to also release 007 James Bond films?

No reason why they can't do both once we accept 'James Bond' and '007' are but code names. 003 has been killed off and replaced many times, why not 007? Seems to me easy to accept this, and that previous Bonds have died and been replaced 'off-screen' a la The Phantom in the DC Universe.

It is my understand that this is a Bond film. The new 007 is likely just to show that he is actually "retired" at that point in the movie that the action kicks in and Bond is pulled back into the spy game. Her character will probably get killed off by the end and Bond will be back as 007. The character's name is Nomi, by the way.

I hope they don't undermine a cool idea by doing that.

I don't know where she stands on the subject of global warming, nor do I know how big her hammer is going to be. But they've already announced the new female Thor will be played by Natalie Portman. That is, at least until they change their minds and cast someone else.

Jings, I hope they rethink that casting. She was dreadful in the first two Thor films - doubly so in the second one, because she was directly compared to Kat Denning. Totally bloodless; I wasn't remotely convinced on any level that THor would fall for her. Hell, I don't recall a lead couple with less chemistry on screen - except maybe thon pair in Solo.

Nor have the Bond books. Fleming died in 1964, after which I lost interest in James Bond. In total there have been 39 books, featuring James Bond, only 14 of which were penned by Fleming. In addition there's been a total of 29 movies, all over a period of 56 years. Good grief, that equals William Shakespeare, who wrote 39 plays, as well as the sonnets, but The Bard died aged just 52. What sort of Bond would he have created, I wonder.
"Is this a Walther PPK that I see before me?"

Oh, that's an easy one: Kit Marlowe.

My problem with the films - apart from a few sparks of interest - early Connery, Lazenby, the first Craig - the Bond films often came off as pretty unsophisticated - a superhero in a tux, the worship of mainstream brands, a prestige car, a silly watch and a model girlfriend. It's the stuff of a 14 year-old boy's wank fantasies. A black chick who can take us into fresh places may be a nice change.

Aside from Goldfinger, which remains a triumph, most of them really would have been viewed as weak popcorn thriller without the hypnotic power of the Brand, I suspect. The Connery ones are fun romps, very much of their time - as, arguably, are the Craig outrings, if darker as well. The others, meh. CRaig is the first credible replacement for Connery among all of them.

I'll tell you one thing, its great marketing.

Here we are talking about it, when we hadn't been previously. And I'm sure similar conversations (with varying degrees of outrage) are happening all over the place instead of the rather stagnant state of nobody really caring too much about Bond movies.

People suddenly care more about James Bond than they probably have in many years.

Quite so. (I wonder how many of them will be people who also hjave paid to see a Bond flick in years?)

I always found Bond to be corny until Craig's desperate, on the edge of being unhinged version of the character. I'm really over this PC reimagined stuff thst seemed to start with the rejigged Battlestar Galactica in which half the characters that were male originally were redone as women. Now it's become a Hollyweird plague. Yawn.

I rather like it, really. A great character is a great character, male or female. The only thing I wish I could have seen differently with BSG was Dirk Bogarde's take on an older Starbuck who is still trying to chase the ladies and has become a sad parody of himself. (Bogarde wanted to come back and play it that way - though he has said he liked the felame version.) Similar ground to where alan Alda gradually took Hawkeye Pierce, both dramatically interesting and entertaining.

So many pop-culture characters are creatures of a very specific time -- Sherlock Holmes belongs to the Victorian/Edwardian era, Superman is a product of the New Deal Thirties, and James Bond can't be effectively separated from his Cold War origins. But those times have passed, and for the characters to remain salable commoditites, they have to change to reflect that times have changed. Thus Holmes is now a sexy introvert instead of a cocaine-using asexual, Superman a brooding farm boy instead of a wisecracking Popular Front street brawler, and 007 will be an ass-kicking woman instead of a leering martini-sipper. When you think about it that way, it's a lot better than it might have been.

Very true.

I pretty much stopped watching Bond movies after high school. Yes, he’s basically a Cold War relic. The formula, in hindsight, does seem to be designed to impress 15 year old boys (money, fast cars, cool toys, super models). Not surprising, I guess; not long ago I read a biography of Ian Fleming and was a bit disappointed to find out that he was such a shallow person.

Another problem that emerged was that the ante in the Bond universe was constantly raised until the mission was always TO SAVE THE WORLD. Even that has become dull and predictable. I’d sort of like to see realistically-sized missions that require real moral choices and generate genuine emotions. I’ve grown tired of special effects and ever bigger explosions. So... if this revitalizes a very tired genre, I welcome it.

PC change for the sake of PC change is indeed not very original and even boring. But that doesn’t mean that change can’t sometimes be good.

That sort of ramping up of the scale a step too far being pulled right back for improved story was a key part of what Nolan did with his Batman, and I agre it worked very well.

Exactly!!
Why not 007’s unintentional daughter by say, Pussy Galore, come to save the world?

“Jane...Jane Bond”! Hope she got the Aston.
B

That would be a very different thing altogether; I'd rather watch a new 007 get where she is by her own prowess and determination rather than one whose implicit value as a protagonist is her father.

 

[GHT]

Oh, that's an easy one: Kit Marlowe.

That's very good, Edward. I see someone was paying attention in their English class.

 

[p51]

Doctor Who didn't just make the character into a woman, they took the whole thing down a PC-induced rabbit hole.
James Bond clearly did the same thing. They went the complete opposite they could, demographically.
So:

 

[Zombie_61]

...No reason she couldn't carry the James Bond codename - though given that the Royal Navy (Bond being a Commander in the same, if memory serves) I believe still distinguish between 'Sir' and 'Ma'am' for their officers, perhaps something close-souning but feminised would be more realistic - Janis Bond?

Only if they trade in the Aston Martin for a Mercedes Benz.

...Jings, I hope they rethink that casting. She was dreadful in the first two Thor films - doubly so in the second one, because she was directly compared to Kat Denning. Totally bloodless; I wasn't remotely convinced on any level that THor would fall for her. Hell, I don't recall a lead couple with less chemistry on screen - except maybe thon pair in Solo...

I've never read a Thor comic book so I can't say I'm familiar with any of the characters in that particular universe but, apparently, in a 2014 comic book storyline Portman's character Jane Foster is deemed worthy to pick up Thor's hammer. So in that respect, it makes sense to cast her.

But I agree with you--her performance in Thor (2011) didn't impress me at all, and it's one of several reasons I haven't seen any of the subsequent Thor movies. Actually, I haven't seen Miss Portman turn in what I consider to be a good performance since Heat back in 1995. It seems she somehow lost the believability factor in her performances when she made the transition from "child" to "adult" actor.