Meet the new 007.

[T Jones]

I was hoping for Patton Oswalt.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

Nah. Patton Oswalt's the new Beatrice Kiddo. A new remake in the works.

 

[Edward]

Doctor Who didn't just make the character into a woman, they took the whole thing down a PC-induced rabbit hole.

I hear this a lot ferom folks who got upset that the Doctor was now a woman, though for thel ife of me I can't figure out hoew they could have missed that Who has always been enormously PC from the off. They even intended as long ago as '63 that a woman would one day take the role (though from what I read, they expected it would be much earlier).

James Bond clearly did the same thing.

Hard to say, really, without seeing it first. The only interesting things left for them to do with Bond are, on the one hand, this - a proper update making Bond relevant to today's world for..... probably the first time since 1989ish? (Though with Craig they did a great job of dealing with his broad irrelevance as a cold war dinosaur, to be fair.) On the other hand, a period piece, true to the books, set in the fifties would be interesting, and a thing they've never done; even the Connery Bonds took vast liberties with the source material.

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.

I gather so and I can certainly see the continuity argument, but really they could do so much better with another actress. I tend to agree that Portman has not transitioned well into an asdult actress; for me, she's never lived up to the promise she showed in Leon. She's veyr lucky to have been able to restablish her career at all, though, after the Star Wars Prequels; I remember reading she didn't work for a long time after that.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I hear this a lot ferom folks who got upset that the Doctor was now a woman, though for thel ife of me I can't figure out hoew they could have missed that Who has always been enormously PC from the off. They even intended as long ago as '63 that a woman would one day take the role (though from what I read, they expected it would be much earlier).

Yep. And, of course, the first producer of the series, back in 1963, was a woman -- and the first director was a gay man from India.

I can remember a lot of talk around the time Tom Baker was leaving the role in the early '80s about the Doctor regenerating into a woman -- and given how much such talk there was, I was surprised when it didn't happen. And then again in 1986, when Colin Baker was ousted, there was apparently a serious proposal to, first, "de-generate" the Sixth Doctor into the persona of the Second, with Patrick Troughton temporarily returning, and then to regenerate that "Second-Seventh Doctor" into a woman.

My only complaint about Jodie Whittaker as Thirteen is that she's very badly written. I would have hoped the first female incarnation of the Doctor would be less a "generic Doctor" than a distinctively different personality all her own. The 007 people could learn a lesson from that -- if the new lead is just written as "a female Bond," it'll come across as patronizing and lame. Make her *her own character*.

 

[Fading Fast]

...On the other hand, a period piece, true to the books, set in the fifties would be interesting, and a thing they've never done; even the Connery Bonds took vast liberties with the source material.....

I've thought about this before as, to many of the points made in this thread, Bond "fits" best in the '50s/'60s Cold War period. The challenge would be the story - truly making the movie story and not special-effects driven. It would be a waste of opportunity if they just made it a CGI super-spy movie with an off-the-shelf plot and period details.

This might sound crazy, but I could see a period Bond film doing better as a smaller budget affair say <$50mill (vs. the ~$200 million budget ones). They could bring in the team that did "Bridge of Spies" or "The Catcher was a Spy" as those teams showed they can do period spy dramas that are story driven but not relics or dated.

I know it will never happen, but that could really bring new energy and quality to Bond films.

 

[p51]

I hear this a lot ferom folks who got upset that the Doctor was now a woman, though for thel ife of me I can't figure out hoew they could have missed that Who has always been enormously PC from the off. They even intended as long ago as '63 that a woman would one day take the role (though from what I read, they expected it would be much earlier).

I don't have a problem with the newest Doctor being a Woman so much as the actor herself just isn't up to the task. There plenty of females who could have done much better.
But it's the PC-focused scripts for the last season that I tired of quickly.
It's as if the BBC decided to check the blocks on ever PC thing they could when making the newest seasons.
That, and you never knew when new episodes were coming out and some of the seasons had very few episodes. After a while, I got lost on when it was going to be a new one, so I quit investing the time trying to find out.
Haven't missed it much. That's sad as I was always a hug fan of the show!

 

[Stormy]

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.

What a disservice that would be; leaving inquiring minds to ponder and to clamor “What was the point?!”

 

[Stormy]

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.

Heck, I’m over 40 and it wouldn’t wash with me either

 

[MisterCairo]

The 007 people could learn a lesson from that -- if the new lead is just written as "a female Bond," it'll come across as patronizing and lame. Make her *her own character*.

Or everyone could learn that no one is satisfied when a character is just rebranded as the opposite sex, and perhaps they could just create new characters. No one will watch Jane Bond, because it would be a silly thing to do. "Make her her own character". Exactly - a new separate character - 008 or whatever.

Watch Atomic Blonde with Charlize Theron, and tell me that character couldn't lead in more films. They didn't need to transgender a male character for that. I own the Blu-ray I enjoyed it so much.

 

[MisterCairo]

as far as we know, there isn't a short list of male actors ready to take on the role.

A quick search on Bing brought up about two dozen links within the last two years speculating on who'll be the next JAMES Bond. Richard Madden, Tom Hardy and Tom Hiddleston being the three most cited leads from betters and insiders. Idris Elba, who'd have been cool as hell, is not likely to be chosen primarily because of his age (46 now), the time before Bond 26 would come out (three to four years from now), and the need for at least four films or so. He'd be sixty about by the time a contract would run out, and they don't want another Roger Moore situation.

Even Roger Moore didn't want another Roger Moore situation!

 

[scottyrocks]

Shortlisted, I'd go for Melissa McCarthy, if only for that trenchcoat.
View attachment 177781

Yeah, baybay!!

 

[redlinerobert]

So now James Bond has also fallen to the PC police. Pathetic.

 

[Rmccamey]

Regardless of gender, I stopped watching these movies long ago...to dark, all special effects and explosions. Where is all the real mystery and intrigue anymore. A lot of technology in movies these days, but not much substance, at least in my book.

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.

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.

I've thought about this before as, to many of the points made in this thread, Bond "fits" best in the '50s/'60s Cold War period. The challenge would be the story - truly making the movie story and not special-effects driven. It would be a waste of opportunity if they just made it a CGI super-spy movie with an off-the-shelf plot and period details.

This might sound crazy, but I could see a period Bond film doing better as a smaller budget affair say <$50mill (vs. the ~$200 million budget ones). They could bring in the team that did "Bridge of Spies" or "The Catcher was a Spy" as those teams showed they can do period spy dramas that are story driven but not relics or dated.

I know it will never happen, but that could really bring new energy and quality to Bond films.

 

[scottyrocks]

Regardless of gender, I stopped watching these movies long ago...to dark, all special effects and explosions. Where is all the real mystery and intrigue anymore. A lot of technology in movies these days, but not much substance, at least in my book.

I stopped watching them because the Dalton, and then Brosnan Bonds became live action cartoons, parodies, even.

Craig reeled me back in because he brought a grittiness to the character that none of the other actors could manage on their best days.

 

[Edward]

Yep. And, of course, the first producer of the series, back in 1963, was a woman -- and the first director was a gay man from India.

I can remember a lot of talk around the time Tom Baker was leaving the role in the early '80s about the Doctor regenerating into a woman -- and given how much such talk there was, I was surprised when it didn't happen. And then again in 1986, when Colin Baker was ousted, there was apparently a serious proposal to, first, "de-generate" the Sixth Doctor into the persona of the Second, with Patrick Troughton temporarily returning, and then to regenerate that "Second-Seventh Doctor" into a woman.

My only complaint about Jodie Whittaker as Thirteen is that she's very badly written. I would have hoped the first female incarnation of the Doctor would be less a "generic Doctor" than a distinctively different personality all her own. The 007 people could learn a lesson from that -- if the new lead is just written as "a female Bond," it'll come across as patronizing and lame. Make her *her own character*.

I liked Whittaker; I don't think the wrtinig was as bad as many claimed / wanted it to be, but it was a sort of B-plus all season. None on the level of the real clunkers of the reboot era (the execrable Gods and Monsters, any of Smith's last season or Capaldi's first), but nothing outstanding either. I did love that they cut the scale back down rather than every single episode being about 'saving the world' - even if I was disappointed that Chibnall had no more imagination than to default to the Daleks again for the finale.

I've thought about this before as, to many of the points made in this thread, Bond "fits" best in the '50s/'60s Cold War period. The challenge would be the story - truly making the movie story and not special-effects driven. It would be a waste of opportunity if they just made it a CGI super-spy movie with an off-the-shelf plot and period details.

This might sound crazy, but I could see a period Bond film doing better as a smaller budget affair say <$50mill (vs. the ~$200 million budget ones). They could bring in the team that did "Bridge of Spies" or "The Catcher was a Spy" as those teams showed they can do period spy dramas that are story driven but not relics or dated.

I know it will never happen, but that could really bring new energy and quality to Bond films.

As I've said before, I think the way to do it would be to put them together as a series for Netflix or Prime, with several books per series, and each book given one, two or three episodes depending on what the complexity of the story required. I can see that working better than a cinema release.

 

[Doctor Damage]

...I tend to agree that Portman has not transitioned well into an adult actress...

I agree wholeheartedly. It's a shame since she photographs well. But alas, she plays the same role in every role.

 

[Doctor Damage]

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.

You're quite right about that, this is indeed extremely lazy. Every day brings another reminder that the entertainment industry has no new ideas at all. My memory is telling me that Angelina Jolie has done a few things that might have been good female action franchises, but of course none lasted more than a single film.

 

[Doctor Damage]

Yep. And, of course, the first producer of the series, back in 1963, was a woman -- and the first director was a gay man from India.

None of that matters, right?

 

[Doctor Damage]

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.

I agree that the 007 designation can in theory be passed to anyone, including a woman, much like the M designation was quite successfully. However, I think the James Bond character goes much further and deeper than the 007 designation, and therefore transferring the number is meaningless. Although the other "double-O" agents rarely showed up in the older films, it's safe to assume (and even hinted at) that given their short lifespans they had a need to live life to the fullest, and were not bland, mechanical, reliable government employees like other everyday spies would be. It's often made clear that Bond is the least biddable of the double-O agents, although he remains employed because he's the most dangerous of them. I guess where I'm going with this is that the new 007 is going to have to be a bit of a loose cannon, a bit of a skirt-chaser, a bit of a drinker or it will be just another cable TV ensemble drama show.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

is that the new 007 is going to have to be a bit of a loose cannon, a bit of a skirt-chaser, a bit of a drinker

Whoa there, pilgrim...them's dangerous words. Talk like that s'liable t'git you strung up fer violation of today's perceived norms.

 

[Seb Lucas]

So now James Bond has also fallen to the PC police. Pathetic.

That's a pretty obvious thing to say but I don't think it's the PC Police. Where is the evidence for that proposition? Who are the PC police, exactly? The producers of Bond are in the business of making money. Lots of it. They obviously think there may be a market for this. Given the amount of conversation this has generated all round the world they may be onto something.

In the case of Doctor Who - the idea of a female Doctor could work well. If they hadn't totally blown it and killed the franchise with terrible casting, appalling performances (by the lead) and some of the worst, most juvenile, patronising and didactic scripts the series has ever had.