Meet the new 007.

[Frunobulax]

The idea that Hollywood only sees the almighty dollar is a fallacy. I hate to say it, but this obsession with both role reversals and making flicks that have an overt political message (overwhelmingly on one side) have proven to be flops again and again. There were several high profile movies made during the Bush 43 presidency that were highly critical of US foreign policy, etc. in the Middle East that didn't perform well at the box office. Ghostbusters remake bombed. Captain Marvel became a crusading wokester and didn't perform to expectations.

No, Hollywood is deep in the mire of politics these days, and it's one reason many folks have stopped seeing movies altogether. Who wants to spend $15 to be insulted for two hours?

Now, a female "007" could be very successful, and a successful franchise. The writers need to build a strong and recognizable character that can grow and progress over several films. But it won't EVER be a James Bond movie. James Bond movies are a certain animal and you go see them to see certain things. Shoot, they've tried to reimagine Godzilla over the past couple decades and it hasn't really taken. We still want the big guy in the rubber suit stepping on buildings and "tearing high tension wires down."

A new Fast and Furious movie featuring hot air balloons just isn't the same thing.

 

[Bushman]

Hollywood has always been deep into politics, though. This is not a new phenomenon. For as long as there's been art and politics, art has criticized politics. Some of the most classic golden era flicks are rife with political messages and satire, even the most innocent of movies like Wizard Of Oz has political messages.

 

[Frunobulax]

Hollywood has always been deep info politics, though. This is not a new phenomenon. For as long as there's been art and politics, art has criticized politics. Some of the most classic golden era flicks are rife with political messages and satire, even the most innocent of movies like Wizard Of Oz has political messages.

True. But you could previously get away from it. Now, everything has to be an exercise in virtue signalling. It's tedious.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

 

[Zombie_61]

This is simple. Lashana Lynch will by playing the new 007, but she will not be playing the new James Bond. MI6 has simply re-assigned the number, at least temporarily in the next movie.

 

[Bushman]

True. But you could previously get away from it. Now, everything has to be an exercise in virtue signalling. It's tedious.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

I think the problem is that is lacks subtlety, but that's more a sign of the times than anything. There's little about Hollywood that is subtle anymore. If the audience isn't spoonfed, they cry and whine that it doesn't make any sense.

 

[3fingers]

I think the problem is that is lacks subtlety, but that's more a sign of the times than anything. There's little about Hollywood that is subtle anymore. If the audience isn't spoonfed, they cry and whine that it doesn't make any sense.

I believe one of the great losses of our time is the lack of reasoning, reflection on life and our place in it. Philosophical thought has been replaced by....well, I'll let you decide that for yourself.

 

[LizzieMaine]

There wasn't really all that much subtlety in the social-realism pictures of the Depression era -- features like "I Am A Fugitive From A Chain Gang" applied their politics with a sledgehammer, which was right in line with the tone of serious Broadway drama of the same period, nor were the Motherhood And Apple Pie family-type pictures ground out by MGM especially subtle. (MGM was even less subtle when it produced fake newsreels to torpedo Upton Sinclair's left-wing gubernatorial campaign in 1934, but that's another story...) And there was even less subtlety in the propaganda films of the wartime and Cold War periods. "Casablanca" is a great and stirring picture -- but subtle, it ain't.

I don't think Hollywood has ever been subtle when it comes to message pictures. When you've got an audience for an hour and a half and you've trying to make a point, there's no time for nuance.

There will always be messages in films. The trick is the skill with which the messages are offered -- give me a Boots Riley or Spike Lee type of film where the message is applied with all the force of a sock full of nickels to the side of the head to some half-baked mishmash that doesn't dare to have the courage of its convictions.

 

[Seb Lucas]

The idea that Hollywood only sees the almighty dollar is a fallacy. I hate to say it, but this obsession with both role reversals and making flicks that have an overt political message (overwhelmingly on one side) have proven to be flops again and again. There were several high profile movies made during the Bush 43 presidency that were highly critical of US foreign policy, etc. in the Middle East that didn't perform well at the box office. Ghostbusters remake bombed. Captain Marvel became a crusading wokester and didn't perform to expectations.

No, Hollywood is deep in the mire of politics these days, and it's one reason many folks have stopped seeing movies altogether. Who wants to spend $15 to be insulted for two hours?

Now, a female "007" could be very successful, and a successful franchise. The writers need to build a strong and recognizable character that can grow and progress over several films. But it won't EVER be a James Bond movie. James Bond movies are a certain animal and you go see them to see certain things. Shoot, they've tried to reimagine Godzilla over the past couple decades and it hasn't really taken. We still want the big guy in the rubber suit stepping on buildings and "tearing high tension wires down."

A new Fast and Furious movie featuring hot air balloons just isn't the same thing.

That just sounds conspiratorial. Movie making has always been political but usually for the audiences it is hoped will come along and the money this may bring. The fact some films fail commercially is irrelevant. As William Goldman wrote about the industry, " No one knows anything."

I am insulted by most movies I see, - mainly by the dialogue and the derivative musical scores - not so much the politics, be it left or right wing pap. Bond films included.

But in the case of this female 007 idea all we are talking about is a little temporary twist on the formula to run alongside the usual alpha male BS. I won't go see it but it has to be more interesting than a middle aged fop poncing about in an ad for Omega watches.

Is that the PC police? Nope, just the sound of virtue signaling cash registers in the distance.

 

[Frunobulax]

That just sounds conspiratorial. Movie making has always been political but usually for the audiences it is hoped will come along and the money this may bring. The fact some films fail commercially is irrelevant. As William Goldman wrote about the industry, " No one knows anything."

I am insulted by most movies I see, - mainly by the dialogue and the derivative musical scores - not so much the politics, be it left or right wing pap. Bond films included.

But in the case of this female 007 idea all we are talking about is a little temporary twist on the formula to run alongside the usual alpha male BS. I won't go see it but it has to be more interesting than a middle aged fop poncing about in an ad for Omega watches.

Is that the PC police? Nope, just the sound of virtue signaling cash registers in the distance.

Not conspiratorial. Group think. Hive mind. Living in a bubble.

And it's not that there are flops, it's the reason they are flops.

And there's nothing wrong with "alpha male BS" than there is with a "chick flick." Folks enjoy them and buy tickets.

Unless you're drinking the Kool-Aid.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

 

[Zombie_61]

...As William Goldman wrote about the industry, " No one knows anything."...

I saw a documentary on HBO years ago in which George Clooney said essentially the same thing. I don't remember the exact quote (and haven't managed to find anything about this specific documentary online), but Clooney basically said no one in Hollywood knows how to make a "hit" movie; if they did, they would do it all of the time. He said the only thing the studios can do is to hire the best person for each respective job on a movie, let them do what they do, produce the movie, release it to the public, and hope it somehow catches on with audiences.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Which is where I respond to the "movies are art" crowd with "*Some* movies are art. They're the ones nobody goes to see. Other movies are junk ground out by the foot to make money. They're the ones everybody goes to see."

 

[Seb Lucas]

Yep - movies are commercial products specifically designed to find an audience to make money. It's no mystery. If so called 'politically correct' ideas make an appearance its because they have an audience.

It's the same reason some dubious hamburger chains sell salads and 'healthy' food. It's not because they are concerned for people's welfare.

 

[Frunobulax]

Yep - movies are commercial products specifically designed to find an audience to make money. It's no mystery. If so called 'politically correct' ideas make an appearance its because they have an audience.

It's the same reason some dubious hamburger chains sell salads and 'healthy' food. It's not because they are concerned for people's welfare.

You say that as if it's axiomatic, yet that's what I don't see. I see folks making "business" decisions based on appealing to the small audience of Hollywood (sweeping generalization which of course is not true across the board). Reportedly, American movie theaters sold fewer tickets in 2017 than any year since 1992. I've pointed out some of the underperforming box offices previously, and why I think they underperformed.

I just think Hollywood has been ignoring a good portion of audience share in service to their own egos and stroking from their fellow members of the industry. There are numerous examples of independent films which buck certain "PC" trends and perform very well. With a Hollywood push behind them, they could perform spectacularly. I believe this is due to group think.

Back to the point at hand, however. Perhaps this publicity is for marketing purposes, and the new 007 isn't James Bond, and Mr. Bond will continue to be Mr. Bond, as we know him and love him. Or perhaps they are doing exactly what some are complaining of and if so, I predict it will kill the franchise.

On the other hand, I've always wanted to know what all those other "double-nought spies" were up to. We only get to see Bond. One of the streaming services could have a field day with an anthology which features 002 one week, 009 the next, and so on. Then you can introduce any type of character you want: male, female, gay, straight, conservative, progressive, furry...

 

[GHT]

On the other hand, I've always wanted to know what all those other "double-nought spies" were up to. We only get to see Bond. One of the streaming services could have a field day with an anthology which features 002 one week, 009 the next, and so on. Then you can introduce any type of character you want: male, female, gay, straight, conservative, progressive, furry...

Furry? Would that be "Double-0-K9?"

 

[Frunobulax]

Furry? Would that be "Double-0-K9?"

LOL. Doctor Who did it first!

Well, maybe not "furry."

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

 

[Hat and Rehat]

As someone who came to Bond in print, I don't think Ian Fleming would be very fond of this.
But maybe my magamania is showing.

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

 

[Hat and Rehat]

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.

Or worse.

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

 

[Hat and Rehat]

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

Fleming had him in a Bentley.

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

 

[Hat and Rehat]

Hollywood has always been deep into politics, though. This is not a new phenomenon. For as long as there's been art and politics, art has criticized politics. Some of the most classic golden era flicks are rife with political messages and satire, even the most innocent of movies like Wizard Of Oz has political messages.

If Baum was actually writing about the gold standard (a debatable premise), I really don't think Hollywood brought that fact to the screen.

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

 

[LizzieMaine]

What if it turns out that "James Bond" is itself simply a cover identity assigned down thru the decades to various different individuals? Make that concept canon, and you've got an explanation for why there have been so many distinctively different "Bonds," and an opening to tell new and interesting stories rather than rehashing the same old thing time after time. To say nothing of the possibility of "multi-Bond" stories. Admit it -- you guys would love to see Craig-Bond beat the snot out of Brosnan-Bond while Connery-Bond stands at the bar with a drink in his hand, watching with bemusement.