Meet the next Bond.

Lol, all this "diversity" onscreen is a red herring. Everyone knows that Hollywood and British studio Executive Boardrooms are some of the whitest, most insular places on the planet. All the Top Execs (Barbara Broccoli, Robert Iger, Kathleen Kennedy, Katzenberg, Spielberg, Weinstein, Ruden, etc) are virtually all white.

When was a black or other racial minority Top Exec or CEO ever allowed to run a major studio or a franchise? Never.

They're throwing pixie dust into the eyes of the gullible public with these "actor diversity" PR stunts. But they're not actually diversifying their own top jobs - the Boardroom. Still white. And still predominantly Jewish.

*Rudin

Aaannnnddd no one will go see it....

What was wrong with Idris Elba? He too old? Is his cock TOO big?

He'd have made a perfect Bond. He has a suave air about him and a smooth way of talking.

R1, what I hate is that diversity only seems to signify a black person! Where are the latinos? I never see them in movies? Do you know how many Asian people there are in the world? You would think there were only about 20 by looking at US film! Where are the Indians? The Native Americans? The mixed people? The tri-racial people etc? Just DIVERSE. Do they knoww hat diverse means? It's NOT just two things? Whens the last time you see a middle eastern character in a positive light? Come on!

Casting a token black person here and there is NOT diversity.

OP You are worse than Hitler, this has been posted here yesterday

R5 Funny you mention that cause blacks only care about blacks when they're talking about racial diversity bs. They also only see black and white and screw any other race. Basically I got mine so fuck you.

I was interested in Idris Elba as Bond until the internet started to insist that he must be Bond. And then I couldn’t stand the idea of him in the role. Downside of social media, I guess.

I don’t know that I care to see a female Bond. I liked Bond movies because the aggressive masculinity of the cars, suite, watches, etc bordered on camp. Without that, they are just formulaic spy movies.

R7, when people say 'the blacks' or 'the gays' or 'the republicans' I kind of assume they haven't branched out far enough in the world to know many people.

I am not knocking 'black people' I'm saying that execs and casting directors seem to miss the point of what DIVERSITY really is. It's like they say to themselves "well, we're safe from public backlash about being too white because we cast Idris Elba and threw in some more key black people. We're good!" When it's like, no.

I see this on Black Mirror. I mean, yes, great wonderful all the key black players, but can we actually see some latinos, asians, middle eastern, etc? I think the one time I did see an Asian on that show the British cop smugly replied "but you know all the answers, don't you?" Seemed a bit racist, idk. Or maybe I'm sensitive because of how Asians can be treated in Europe.

Any hey, it would be nice to see ALL DIFFERENT KINDS OF PEOPLE. I guess the other races need to be just a vigilant, vocal and expressive about it. Anyone of any race can experience racism and speak out about it.

r5, Two things at play:

The racial dichotomy of black/white that is very unique to the US because of slavery. The US and perhaps the non spanish speaking caribbean nations have this strict ideology when it comes to race; one is either white or black.

Also, the spending power of African-Americans. AA's partake in entertainment and commerce in general at a higher rate than their percentage in the general population. I think I once read that black Americans may be only 13% of the population, but make up nearly 20% of the movie going public.

August Wilson beautifully summed up the bullshitness that is colour blind casting....

tl:dr - tell black stories, don't shoehorn black actors into white stories...

"Colorblind casting is an aberrant idea that has never had any validity other than as a tool of Cultural Imperialists who view American culture , rooted in the icons of European culture, as beyond reproach in its perfection . . . ," he wrote.

"To mount an all-black production of a Death of a Salesman or any other play conceived for white actors as an investigation of the human condition through the specifics of white culture is to deny us our own humanity, our own history, and the need to make our own investigation from the cultural ground on which we stand as black Americans. It is an assault on our present, our difficult but honorable history in America; is an insult to our intelligence, our playwrights, and our many and varied contributions to the society and the world at large." Wilson proposes that more support be given to black theatres and other cultural institutions. "We do not need colorblind casting," he wrote, "we need some theatres to develop our playwrights."

Well that is because aa get movies that are aimed at them and have big movies with black actors in leading roles, look at coco for example a movie with mexican culture and characters and made 800 million ww. If Hollywood started including other poc they would show up as well. Representation matters.

Barbara Broccoli wouldn't agree to it.

Until she is dead, Bond will remain male and white.

R11, I think Lee Daniels, Justin Simien, Spike Lee, Tyler Perry, anybody else who wants to do a job telling stories of whatever they want to put out.

I think those theaters to develop their playwrights is correct. I don't know who that falls upon to get that up and going? Billionaires like Oprah? I don't know. Do people really want some white person owning the theater and making money off black stories?

I always thought it would be so nice if this country invested more in the arts. We could have public theatres in every neighborhood, just as populated as every library, dance, art, music schools. Let artisitic kids from all different zip codes go to these schools. Not everyone is an academic, but the art industry is a money making industry. Why be a dishwasher, because you didn't care about academic school, but had the raw talent to be a screenwriter, an actor, a musician, etc?

To those old people complaining about music these days, how much better would the music you hear on the airwaves be if the musicians had a solid foundation in music? Not Justin Beiber banging out hits to a prerecorded beat on the keyboard.

R5, oh, I agree. The studio policy for "diversity" is frequently a joke, because it's more often just monochrome (white or black). I can't even remember the last time I saw an ethnic Native American or full ethnic Hawaiian (both groups are of Asian descent) in anything.

And (unless this casting announcement is a prank) it was obvious they'd go for a black British actor over an e.g. Indian-British - even though Asian-Brits (Indians, Pakistanis, Bengalis, etc constitute the South Asian geographic group) are the main historic minority in Britain.

A Indian-British Bond might have actually been an interesting take and more statistically accurate. Because many Indians actually do work in the British civil service in real life - and did even historically, with surprisingly loyalty, due to links between the British foreign office and Indian immigrants.

R14 Think you missed the point

It changes the whole dynamic of the movie. What not create a new character and start a new franchise? Dumb.

[quote] The racial dichotomy of black/white that is very unique to the US because of slavery.

Oh, honey. You’ve never be to the UK. They are beyond woke and filled with racial animosity.

R1 The greatest Bond may have been W Snipes but it may be too late.

The UK does not have a specifically white/black 'monochrome' dichotomy as in the US. Because the largest (and therefore most visible) minority in the US are blacks. And the largest minority in the UK are Indians / South Asians, not blacks.

R17 It can be made by Ava Duvernay and redeem Wrinkle in Time.

Seriously, I think I could only be excited at this point it teamed Nolan with Bale.

Cramming things down people's throats doesn't work. This will flop hard.

What in the black hole hell?!!!

Meant to address that post to R18.

R18 stop lying.

the American propaganda is hard with this one.

I don't care, do you?

Didn't even work to do this with Doctor Who, a character who actually regenerates. Doctor Who will not survive what they did to the show in the name of 'diversity'. After next season it will take a "break" which will last many years.

To do this with Bond, a character with a strong, defining backstory rooted in masculinity, will kill Bond. And the poor actor involved will be wrongly blamed for it.

True diversity is to make a new character, with her own defining backstory, and make a great new franchise out of her adventures.

R27 Keep up love, it is already on a break, no new episodes THIS year

She's the next agent with the 007 designation, NOT the next Bond.

[quote]what I hate is that diversity only seems to signify a black person! Where are the latinos?

And how many Latinos exactly are there in the UK? You do know Bond is a British agent, right?

It's about appropriating something created by white British culture that is hugely successful. It's a power move intended to further alienate white people from any sense of accomplishment. If this were such a good idea they would be confident in making a movie centered around and original character.

In this 200-post tweet I shall effectively prove that mermaids, fictional animals that don't exist, cannot be black.

[Quote] what I hate is that diversity only seems to signify a black person!

Google interracial pron and you'll find only white and black. According to a friend who did.

PRON!

who is this person? Never seen her in anything. They have lots of ugly actresses in the UK.

James Bond as a movie is just boring and stale. Nothing special.

Jason Bourne is great.

[quote] In this 200-post tweet I shall effectively prove that mermaids, fictional animals that don't exist, cannot be black.

They can, but Disney's iconic red-haired Ariel wasn't. She was GINGER - that was the most iconic, world-recognisable visual thing about her. One can show a crayon drawing of a ginger mermaid to a school-child in Ethiopia or Vietnam and ask who is that - and get an immediate reply: "Oh, that's Ariel of course, because she's a chick with iconic red hair".

They can cast an AA or Chinese actress as Ariel, whatever. But at least put a ginger wig on her then.

[quote]It's about appropriating something created by white British culture that is hugely successful. It's a power move intended to further alienate white people from any sense of accomplishment.

For fuck's sake.

I'm sorry, but some things should be sacrosanct. And Bond is one of them. Bond should always be a man.

It's a fucking movie character who has behaved like a cartoon in at least 50% of his films. There is nothing "sacrosanct" about it.

Well, that's YOUR opinion. Maybe you need to take a Midol and wipe the foam from your mouth. You seem awfully upset over something so minor. And way too tightly wound too.

[quote]Well, that's YOUR opinion.

That's how a discussion forum works, little guy.

[quote] Maybe you need to take a Midol and wipe the foam from your mouth. You seem awfully upset over something so minor.

Wait, I thought it was sacrosanct?

MARY!!! This Bond is a woman. And not even Same Judi Dench!

[quote]Cramming things down people's throats doesn't work.

Funny, that is exactly my favorite pastime.

Is there a Black Panther sequel in the making yet?

[quote] That's how a discussion forum works, little guy.

Yes, but most people with an emotional maturity level above that of a 6 year old child are able to state their opinions without coming off like some spoiled, petulant brat stomping his feet and holding his breath who has just learned how to say the word "fucking". Foolish manchild.

I get that you're either very clueless or you're actively trying to start a flamewar, R45, for what reason I couldn't guess. Maybe you're cranky because it's Monday, maybe you're just embarrassed that you were so melodramatic as to claim a cartoonish action spy character whose dialogue is made up of puns is so "sacrosanct" that it can't be sullied by the mere suggestion of a woman playing the role. Who knows. And, let's be honest, who cares?

Either way, a couple of tips to help you out: one, a mature person doesn't lash out when a fictional character is played by someone they dislike (especially when, in this case, the actress in question is playing a 007, not even James Bond proper), and two, if you're too delicate to hear the word "fuck," perhaps the Datalounge isn't for you.

Good God R46. Please do shut the fuck up.

Although she will be 007, I’m pretty sure she won’t be named “James Bond”. I’m also sure the movie will still be about the straight, white male named James Bond that everyone knows and loves...like he will be in 95% of the scenes.

So it’s okay now to do “A Raisin in the Sun” with an all white cast, right?

The Next Bridget Jones' installment should be played by Dame Edna

Oh how dumb.

Will they wait until the last scene to inform us that the character is lesbian?

Lesbian AND trans.

How much can you change something until it no longer is what it was? There is no Ian Fleming in this, there is no "James Bond" in this, it is a totally different thing. She might just as validly be the new Winnie the Pooh as James Bond.

Two years ago they should have announced that the new Bond would be Lupita. THAT would have been something. But they waited too long. Tired.

Less reason to see another Bond film. I like my Bond a man, a charming but dangerous cad. Craig was already boring.

She is ugly

Oliver Jackson-Cohen is the only smart choice.

She’s not playing James Bond, folks.

R59 We know dear, but all these click bait articles are totally making it appear she is

R59, is she playing Agent 008 then? Or Agent 69?

Because Agent 007 IS James Bond. It's become synonymous in pop culture. It's famously called (and internationally known as) the "James Bond franchise" and not the "Agent 007 Franchise".

She's playing another character altogether who gets the agent call sign of 007 after it gets taken away from James Bond. The 00 designation is reserved for the handful of agents who have a "license to kill" so she's likely quite formidable, but she's not going to be James Bond.

Also this will probably be temporary when he gets decommissioned for "going over the line" like he often does, and he'll likely get the call sign back at the end of the film. There is no 007 franchise or future installments planned around Lashana Lynch's character.

Still a better choice than Tom Hiddleston.

To add to r62's comment, I'll bet money that she's the film's obligatory sacrificial lamb: a secondary love interest or ally who is killed by the villains, giving Bond an opportunity to grieve and reflect on the inevitability of death.

If they bring her in just to kill her, it's disgusting. If she's the next James Bond, it's stupid. If James Bond is over and she's another agent entirely, who cares? A lose-lose-lose situation.

She can't choose the call sign - it has to be assigned to her - so she'll either be killed off, or turn out to be a double agent (and also probably a love interest, and then be killed off).

[quote] She's playing another character altogether who gets the agent call sign of 007 after it gets taken away from James Bond.

Taking the 007 call sign AWAY from James Bond & assigning it to some other lead (John Smith, Jane Jones or Chin Wu Tang) who'll be focused on for the duration of the film is a horrible idea for a James Bond franchise film.

It's like taking the code tag "Red Baron" away from Manfred von Richthofen and giving it someone else. Manfred von Richthofen WAS the Red Baron. They're synonymous in pop culture.

And we already had a storyline where Craig's James Bond was temporarily 'retired' - how many more times are we supposed to regurgitate that recent storyline.

This sounds like some whacky spin-off with a side character - and people don't seem to want a spin-off about a side-kick, they want THE James Bond.

So is Richard Madden going to play the second-fiddle "James Bond who is no longer Agent 007" in this or next film?

Because he was already asked some MONTHS ago if he'd be willing to take part in the franchise as a supporting actor "for a female Bond" (or Agent 007 in this case). And he said that if he were approached for such a 2nd fiddle role - he'd still say yes. Apparently the reporters were tipped off about this possible development a long time ago.

So would this be the game-plan: Bond is either expelled from the Civil Service for some faux pas, or honourably discharged. He accepts the end of his career and eats PBJ ice cream out of a tub, sitting in just his dirty knickers on some crumb-stained couch in a dreary retirement home for the first half of the film. The 007 tag (because apparently the MI6 doesn't have any numeric imagination or other numbers to spare) gets given to an upstart prodigy, Lashana Lynch, who knows 30 languages, is a Nobel-winning scientist and expert in all martial arts ever created. James Bond later gets bored of his alcoholic boozefest retirement and comes in to either train her, or to assist her (but she doesn't need his help because she's already better than James Bond) - and they fight a nemesis together. Smthg then happens by the end (she heroically dies, or she defects to the KGB, or whatever) and James Bond gets his "DMV number plate" back.

Nobody is interested in this.

If this actress stars in a TV show, free on TV, I won't even watch...much less pay money to go to the theaters to see her.

Exactly, r69. No one even asked for this. It's not like Bond fans were clamouring for a female 007. I can't believe producers are going to sink money into this because it's such an obvious dud.

No one willing to pay to see a Bond flick wants this and they won't pay to see it.

so wait, it's confirmed they are doing this? Or was it just a leak to gauge the public interest?

[quote] The 25th Bond film – which is being shot in Italy and the UK – has been plagued by difficulties, beginning in October 2015 when Craig said he would “rather slash my wrists” than play Bond again.

[quote] In 2017, he confirmed he had relented, but, the same year, director Danny Boyle – who had been brought in to replace Sam Mendes, after Mendes refused to direct any more Bond films – also left, [bold]citing a dispute over the script[/bold].

[quote] American Cary Fukunaga was hired to replace them, and [bold]the film cycled through a series of script writers before Craig requested Fleabag’s Phoebe Waller-Bridge – only the second female writer in the history of the franchise – be brought in to polish it up[/bold].

Well, this looks 'promising' /s/. Directors quitting over some script fiasco. Cycling through a "series of script-writers". Craig insisting Phoebe Waller-Bridge be hired to "polish" things up. Oh dear. Was shipping Bond's ass off to retirement in Jamaica and introducing a female (sidekick?) who got his legendary 007 number Phoebe WB's new script idea?

The script-writers were likely inspired by Captain Marvel (where CM meets an African-American girl who will become CM in the future). And "Spider-man: Into the Spider-Verse" where Peter Parker somewhat passes the mantle (again) to an African-American boy.

And similar storylines are everywhere now: Batman is gone (retired?) and Superman "abandoned Earth" for some bizarre, contrived reason - and so females (Batwoman and Supergirl) have to pick up their mantle.

Why not have a black asian female trans wheelchair-bound Sherlock Holmes while we're at it?

R73. Thanks for the LOL.

All this forced diversity is getting tiresome. She's not even good looking. It's too bad Grace Jones didn't work out.

They should've really not hired Craig for this new instalment. He seems to be a bit of an ungrateful, cranky geezer multi-millionaire by this point. Idris Elba is 5 years younger than Craig, so why didn't they give him a chance for at least one film?

The problem with casting Craig is that at 51, he's likely too old to enjoy doing any physical 'imitation' of stunts. Maybe that's why they scripted that he's going to chill in a rocking chair in 'retirement' in Jamaica (because Craig's possibly a bit too old and too rich & blasé to do much anyway). But in order to still have a lot of 'action' in the film (and lighten Craig's physical load) - they introduced a younger female lass (Lashana Lynch is 30) to carry the brunt of the 'stunt imitation' and do all the onscreen cardio by running around after the 'bad guys'. While Craig's just chilling with a cocktail in some overhead helicopter and mentoring her with 'Yoda sensei-style instructions' over intercom.

After some thought, I suspect Lynch is not the real issue - Craig might be the problem. If they had just been smart & given the Bond role to a younger, physically stronger, attractive actor in his prime (who can run and jump, without worrying about arthritis or 'bad knees' or 'bad back'), they wouldn't have to pass the '007 agent card' to some random younger secondary character like Lynch's likely protégé agent role.

They should have also hired someone for Bond who is still thirsty and excited to play him (and grateful for the lucrative $$$ paycheck) - rather than Craig, who already got his millions and probably just wants to sit on a beach in Jamaica somewhere and not be bothered (mirroring his character's old-geezer attitude).

Daniel Craig looks really bad for his age...I hope he won't look as bad with movie magic.

Forced diversity is indeed tiresome. It's inauthentic and everyone knows it.

Rachel Weitz (Mrs. Daniel Craig) has gone on record saying there should never be a female Bond.

[quote]Idris Elba is 5 years younger than Craig, so why didn't they give him a chance for at least one film?

Because not everything needs to be diversified.

R77, yes, that's the other issue. Like many Brits, Craig's skin didn't age well. He often looks like an old GRAMPA. They'll probably have to focus cameras and give more screen time to his 2 younger African-ethnic sidekicks (Naomi Harris and Lynch) - just to avoid close-ups of Craig's wrinkly, hobbit face.

If only they cast some young hot Bond who the camera loves, this clusterfuck wouldn't have been such an issue.

R80, I'd still prefer 1 suave Idris Elba over a weird combination of crinkly-faced Craig as Bond losing his legendary 007 number and it being assigned to some totally random Black female "super-agent".

Ironically, Craig looks like a classic Bond villain now.

His makeup & stylist team sure have their work cut out for them...

R83 He's starting to look like Christopher Walken.

Barbara Broccoli has stated that it is unlikely that there will ever be a female Bond.

“We have to make movies about women and women’s stories but we have to create female characters and not just for a gimmick turn a male character into a woman.”

"Forced diversity is indeed tiresome. It's inauthentic and everyone knows it."

Racist freepers dismiss inclusion as "forced diversity" - only Republicans have a problem with it.

"If this actress stars in a TV show, free on TV, I won't even watch...much less pay money to go to the theaters to see her."

Why, because you object to black people?

These tired queens sobbing about "diversity" are boring. They're obviously transplants from some dullwiitted right-wing political board.

Well shit, I’m an actress. Why didn’t they call me? Doria could have watched the kid.

You're the racist here, r86, not me. Real inclusion means making good movies with well-written black or female lead characters, not trying to ape an already well-established character who is not black and not female.

Forced diversity *is* undeniably inauthentic and about as attractive as a badly done facelift. You stop looking at the person and just find yourself staring at the bizarrely pulled facial features. Anyone who watches this version of Bond will inevitably have in the back of their mind the true Bond. It's a pointless exercise and will do more harm than good to the cause of diversity.

R86 Many agree, including the greatest American playwright, August Wilson, tell black peoples stories, don't shove them into whites

August Wilson died years ago, he has nothing to say about this, and no one is "shoving them" into anything.

R92 Oh yes, he did.

Why can't studios just make a movie without virtue signaling it? Just make a really good movie with a multi-cultural cast without calling attention to race and people will see it. I would say that happened with Crash but Crash is a truly awful movie.

There isn't going to be a female Bond, at least in this film. People up in arms are misreading this.

Bond remains Bond.

Part of the story involves re-assigning Bond's license to kill (007) designation to a new agent. In this case, a woman of color.

r93 entirely misses the point. There's a difference between, say, doing a remake of a white movie with black actors, and writing characters that aren't necessarily intended for one specific race and could be played by anyone. In case you didn't read the thread, this actress isn't actually playing "James Bond"

And he wasn't whining about "forced diversity" like you freepers, he was saying there should be MORE roles for black people, not fewer of them. Try again.

r94 is the freeper troll who whines about "virtue signaling" - I hate to break this to you, but most creative types aren't Republicans like you. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.

R87, no, because I don't know who the fuck she is, what she's been in and most of all, because she is ugly as fuck!

Is this coming out the same time as “Charlie’s Angels”?

They seem similar.

[quote]Part of the story involves re-assigning Bond's license to kill (007) designation to a new agent. In this case, a woman of color.

I don't know why people are upset by this. There are other spies with other designations (006 was in another film!) and it's assumed when one leaves or dies another gets that number. Someone had it before Bond. Someone has it after him.

It was already said that he actually likes the new 007, she's excellent at her job and he tries to seduce her but fails. I'm sure by the end he'll get his number back and she'll take another number.

This is the journey of him returning and getting it back.

The role obviously has nothing to do with her race. She's just a woman who is good at her job and we've had other women who are also spies in the series and both of them (Michelle Yeoh and Halle Berry were of color but neither worked for his organization.) The actress just happens to be black and in high demand, especially after Captain Marvel. Goodness!

Don't mind me, I'm just here to drink up those oh-so-delicious [bold]TRIGGERED FUCKING WINGNUT TEARS[/bold].

They taste like honey, with a hint of pineapple.

She'll be an 007, the number assigned for new agents. She's black, she's British, she's female and she's gorgeous. Get the fuck over it.

In related news Phoebe Waller-Bridge is doing rewrites on the new script, so enough cheeky material there to freak out every racist adolescent incel between the US and the UK.

R99 R100 I know you guys are desperate to appear turnt, but the bitch is ugly as sin. Compare her to Halle and Michelle

[quote][R99] [R100] I know you guys are desperate to appear turnt, but the bitch is ugly as sin. Compare her to Halle and Michelle

Halle Berry looks "whiter" than her. Not like that's your racially-tinged point or anything.

She's ugly, you see wayyyy better looking women than her walking on the streets in NYC.

Maybe if she changed her hairstyle...might improve a bit.

Those who say she's good looking...are you guys from the UK? That's your standard of beauty? No wonder there are so many ugly actresses on UK TV.

They could reboot the Popeye franchise for Craig. Roseanne could come in as the Sea Hag.

[Quote] And similar storylines are everywhere now: Batman is gone (retired?) and Superman "abandoned Earth" for some bizarre, contrived reason - and so females (Batwoman and Supergirl) have to pick up their mantle.

Because it's not like the WB doesn't want to keep those particular characters for the movies or anything 🙄

WB is destroying what they have, as is Marvel, as is the BBC, for 'woke points' that will be out of fashion in a few years, It's an astonishing trend.

And now Bond. And, no, it doesn't matter that she's "not replacing him" because she is. She's taking 007 and that's symbolic enough to signal a replacement to Bond fans. Such a mistake. This franchise, with a good writer and lead, had a lot of life in it yet. But now, with just the suggestion of the cultural vandalism (cultural appropriation?) of lobbing some fat ugly woman into the role of 007 in the name of 'diversity', it's dead.

R106 Jessica Christ, you literally just killed 700 Trans WOC

I think filmmakers can do what they like with casting. The people that don't like it don't have to see it and those that don't have an issue with it are free to see it and as many times as they like.

There are simply so many films and tv shows and series being made now, not to mention all the stuff from the past, they we are spoiled for choice.

I don't care about her, but Rami will be the villain and I can't wait for the DL threads about this. This will be so great!

You're so right, r108

Decades-worth of Bond fandom, from father to son bonding experiences, can fuck off. We'll just dispense with them and get some randoms on twatter who like us for political purposes and call that a success.

You're so right, r108

Decades-worth of Bond fandom, from father to son bonding experiences, can fuck off. We'll just dispense with them and get some randoms on twatter who like us for political purposes and call that a success.

She is only going to have James Bond's coded 007 tag at the start of the movie. She is the new M.

[quote] People up in arms are misreading this. Bond remains Bond. Part of the story involves re-assigning Bond's license to kill (007) designation to a new agent.

[quote] I don't know why people are upset by this. There are other spies with other designations

R95, R99, “James Bond” without his FAMOUS CALLING CARD (Agent 007) is just a regular civil servant and old geezer. They symbolically CASTRATED him, packed Bond off into “retirement” and gave his famous calling card to some other random actor (who the audience does not care for).

The film will likely be about how he’s a retired old relic and how the “new agent” is so much “cooler” and more “multi-talented” than him. Why will the “new 007” be portrayed as “more intelligent, more talented, more skilled, more everything” than him? Oh, but of course - because the new upstart is a “PoC female Millennial” and god forbid they be portrayed in a bad light :).

I think the film is making 2 mistakes: (1) Casting an OLD SHIT like Craig as Bond (a Bond pushing 51 and who can’t even do a box jump because of arthritis - ain’t Bond); (2) Separating “James Bond” from “Agent 007” - the audience doesn’t give a SHIT about James B. if he’s not Agent 007. No one wants to see how James Bond goes on fishing trips in retirement, or plays bingo & checkers with other old fucks in a retirement home for the opening segment of the film. If Bond is not Agent 007 (Her Majesty’s Government’s representative & MI6 operative) - then Bond himself might not even be worth watching.

Without his 007 day job, James Bond is NOTHING. And this storyline was ALREADY played out in Craig's previous film - they already forced him into retirement just a few movies ago, and he became even more depressed, not knowing what to even do with himself. Will this be another film of him "feeling lost", pacing around like a moody cow and drinking boozy gallons because he has nothing else to do? Jesus Xhrist.

[quote] There are simply so many films and tv shows and series being made now, not to mention all the stuff from the past, they we are spoiled for choice.

I don't think that's true in recent years, R108. Great “for-the-ages”, "instant-pop-culture-hit" Feature films are actually rare these days. It’s been mostly an avalanche of very pedestrian sex-swap re-boots, which don’t add anything of interest to the old 80s-90s films they're based on (Ghostbusters, Terminator, Men In Black, etc). Hollywood’s "hit" feature film industry is losing its imagination and becoming lazy. That’s why people have migrated to TV shows - because the quality of epic films has fallen.

But TV shows are a very different format from Feature films. Not everyone who likes compact 2-3-hour story-telling in Feature films enjoys long-winded TV shows (where you have to invest far more viewing hours to get narrative closure, if any).

I've never been impressed with Daniel Craig. He's not terrible as Bond, but he doesn't look the part and he's not suave enough.

[quote] I think filmmakers can do what they like with casting. The people that don't like it don't have to see it and those that don't have an issue with it are free to see it and as many times as they like.

Of course they can do what they want, R108 - "can" is not in question here, sellers don't ever ask for their customers' permission.

But the irony is that many recent Hollywood producers and execs DO act like they EXPECT the audience to show up and watch their film. They can say "don't buy if you're not interested" - but they obviously think most customers need to buy their shit anyway. Because otherwise how are they going to recoup their investment? They don't want to be in the red.

That's why whenever an experimental Hollywood project goes belly up (e.g. Wrinkle in Time, Ghostbusters, etc) and fails to meet financial expectations, the same producers who acted like they didn't care start throwing shade at audience groups for not buying their product. As if the audience owes them a paycheck. "Oh, Wrinkle In Time didn't do well because of the "toxic" audience! Oh, Ghostbusters didn't do well because of the "toxic" viewers!".

That's the irony - Hollywood Execs are talking out of both sides of their mouths. They want to tell customers to go away and not to buy if customers get bemused by the product plan, and (simultaneously) to still come into the cinema and BUY (and if you don't, they'll start a blame game, like they're owed the public's millions). The Execs don't care about losing customers ONLY as long as the venture is still in the green - but if it (sometimes) drops down into red and flops, then the execs start fuming and pointing fingers at the "non-buying, non-obedient customers / audience". It's a very confusing and inefficient way of doing business.

[quote]Casting an OLD SHIT like Craig as Bond (a Bond pushing 51 and who can’t even do a box jump because of arthritis - ain’t Bond);

You’re not the only person who has brought this up.

Roger Moore was 58 when he played Bond. And late 50s in the 1980s was completely different than today, and not in a good way. We have numerous threads here about how people don’t age like they used to and how today’s 40s and 50s look much different than years past.

[quote]And late 50s in the 1980s was completely different than today, and not in a good way.

He looked like a modern 68. And he was doughy and out of shape by today's standards.

[quote]The film will likely be about how he’s a retired old relic and how the “new agent” is so much “cooler” and more “multi-talented” than him.

Not only is that not "likely," it's actually very unlikely. This is still a James Bond film.

[quote] This is still a James Bond film.

A 'James Bond' who is not even an active 007 Agent, but a Pensioner and some relic from the past. They might as well shove him into a wax museum.

[quote] Roger Moore was 58 when he played Bond.

[quote] He looked like a modern 68. And he was doughy and out of shape by today's standards.

Yes, Moore was too old for the role in his last Bond films too. But at least he didn’t look like an aging East European mafioso (like Craig now often does). Moore was classically handsome - and age is often kinder to such types. They still look more or less refined with age. Whereas Craig (ironically for a British operative) now looks like an aging Russian KGB agent or Uncle Vanya. The only upside to that is that Craig can blend in better in Vladivostok.

Compare and contrast: Exhibit 1 - Roger Moore at 51

Exhibit 2: Daniel Craig at 51

[quote]The film will likely be about how he’s a retired old relic and how the “new agent” is so much “cooler” and more “multi-talented” than him.

I actually think it's going to be about how she thinks she's so much cooler and more multi-talented, but James Bond will save the day in the end and be the main hero, as always. The people who are saying this is a social justice triumph are going to be very disappointed. She's going to fall from grace and renege the 007 title by the end, either because she's a double agent, or incompetent, or dead. I'm not saying that's what I want, but it's pretty clear that's what's going to happen. Best case scenario is she lives and gets another 00 designation.

r121 funny you mentioned that. I've always thought Craig looked totally Slavic. When I first became aware of him, I thought he was of Slavic heritage and 'Daniel Craig' was a stage name.

Nah R73, they did one better...introducing... Henry Cavill

(Enola Holmes)

I think Cavill would be a good Bond.

LOL Cavill will never be Bond. As much as he keeps trying to push it.

[quote]A 'James Bond' who is not even an active 007 Agent, but a Pensioner and some relic from the past. They might as well shove him into a wax museum.

*sigh* So you haven't seen the movie; haven't seen the script; haven't seen the trailer for the film; and this is the line you're going with? You're just absolutely determined to be offended, aren't you? Even if there's nothing to be offended by?

[quote]I actually think it's going to be about how she thinks she's so much cooler and more multi-talented, but James Bond will save the day in the end and be the main hero, as always

Of course that's the way it will be. She's just the latest iteration of the "Bond girl." This is nothing new.

[96] You really have the worst comprehensive reading skills of any person who posts on Datalounge. You really should be trampled and shat on by a tribe of elephants. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.

R128/R129, using your own words - "so you haven't seen the movie; haven't seen the script; haven't seen the trailer for the film" - and yet you declare with absolute certainty that "OF COURSE ... that's the way it will be", eh? If you're making such self-assured, absolutist predictions, then quit being a hypocrite and criticising other posters for making tentative predictions.

And, to turn the tables, how do YOU know she will be just a "Bond girl"?

Phoebe Waller-Bridge is doctoring the script - you really think she'll settle for a fellow female character who is "just" a Bond girl? Daniel Craig specifically requested that W-B be hired to re-do the script, and she's best known for her female-character-driven PoV writing. What's the point of inviting a feminist writer other than to give more narrative focus than usual to the main female character.

Yep, R124, ironic, isn't it. Craig could theoretically waltz into Leningrad's military HQ and none of the locals would probably even bat an eye. He doesn't even need camouflage, he can pass for a blue-collar East European.

Someone like Moore, on the other hand, with his classical West European and also almost matinée idol features (longer face, daintier nose) would have his cover blown immediately :).

R131, when those "tentative predictions" are as mindboggingly stupid as some on this thread, I have no problem calling them on their bullshit. This is a James Bond film starring Daniel Craig as James Bond. All of this ranting is from fragile snowflakes and trolls, none of whom have the foggiest idea what they are talking about.

[quote] Craig could theoretically waltz

Pics please.

Oh, quit being such an arrogant, self-important prat, R133. You really think they'll do such a revolutionary thing as make a Millennial PoC female into 007 and then discard her mid-way like a silly bimbo or yesterday's bath-water? You really think that's what Phoebe Waller-Bridge was specifically called in to do - that they hired a lauded, hot-ticket feminist writer just to write a trivial female character who'll be a footstool, boob-fest or comic-relief sidekick for Craig?

They hired Waller-Bridge for a narrative reason. And not just to correct typos in the script. The same reason why they elevated Lynch to Agent 007.

it's gonna TANK big time!

Oh, quit being such an arrogant, self-important, misogynistic prat, R135. Do you really they'll do such a revolutionary thing as turn the highly profitable James Bond series into the Jane Bond series on the basis of ... nothing at all?

If, and only if, the movie succeeds and the new 007 polls well, of course they'll spin her off into her own series. Why on earth wouldn't they? But why on earth wouldn't they, at the same time, continue the James Bond series? They're not stupid.

You have no idea what you're talking about; you're making up stupid shit; and you're coming across every bit the "arrogant, self-important prat" that you called me. Get a fucking grip. And a life.

As for the scriptwriter you're so fond of mentioning, it's interesting how you immediately assume that a woman in a James Bond film must be a "footstool, boob-fest or comic-relief sidekick for Craig." The Bond franchise has had multiple "Bond Girls" who have also been strong characters who could, and did, go toe to toe with Bond and helped save the day. Off the top of my head and in no particular order:

Natalya Simonova in Goldeneye

Vesper Lynd in Casino Royale

Carey Lowell in Licence to Kill

Anya Amasova in The Spy Who Loved Me

And that's just a small selection. There are others. This will be a Bond film, with Bond coming back from retirement because he's needed to save the day. If the script were what you are pretending, Bond wouldn't be needed.

Dear Miss r133 AKA Miss Self-Appointed Expert On Fucking Everything you don't know fuck-all what the plot of this movie is going to be either, , so you can kindly STFU as well.

[quote] Do you really they'll do such a revolutionary thing as turn the highly profitable James Bond series into the Jane Bond series on the basis of ... nothing at all?

What do you mean “nothing at all”, R137/R138? There are mainstream outlets reporting on production script leaks discussing this:

[quote] Time: “So finally — finally — the franchise seems ready to reckon with Bond’s misogyny. The new production brought on writer Phoebe Waller-Bridge, who has emerged as one of the most brilliant feminist voices of our era with her series Fleabag and Killing Eve, to punch up the Bond 25 script. The new LEAKS from the production suggest it was Waller-Bridge’s IDEA to introduce Lynch as the NEW 007 and that the script will explicitly call out Bond for his dinosaur mentality.”

[quote] Time: “Craig has been saying for years that he wants to retire from the Bond role. It’s possible that after the yet-unnamed 25th Bond film, Lynch will TAKE OVER the franchise for him — or at least star in a spinoff. There has been much debate over the years as to whether Craig’s SUCCESSOR could be female, or a person of color.”

And what are you even doing on DL, R137/R138? Are you lost? Did you take a wrong left turn from Jezebel or LSA? DL is a GOSSIP forum. To - gasp! - DISCUSS gossip. What part of “gossip” do you not understand and that “offends” you so much? And if it does - you are free to bid DL adieu and migrate to some boring no-gossip subreddit about only “triple-verified, gov't-vetted” Hollywood intel.

[quote] Get a fucking grip. And a life.

Says an anonymous poster chatting with me on an online gossip forum… The funny part is it seems the irony is lost on you.

[quote] misogynistic prat … it's interesting how you immediately assume that a woman in a James Bond film must be a "footstool, boob-fest or comic-relief sidekick for Craig." … the Bond franchise has had multiple "Bond Girls" who have also been strong characters

And it had plenty of “Bond Girls” who weren’t strong, but trivial, interchangeable or forgettable eyecandy, R137/R138. And you lack reading comprehension - I assume she’d be the opposite: a potential 007 Mary Sue who may be scripted to overshadow an aging Craig. Just like, in another British franchise, Jodie Whittaker recently replaced gramps Peter Capaldi.

[quote] If the script were what you are pretending, Bond wouldn't be needed.

“James Bond” is still currently needed in the title to get asses in seats. Otherwise no one would watch a film about some random “No-Name” female ‘Agent 007’ who wasn’t even introduced to the audience in the previous films. They need Bond to glue this together. He can help her a little or help her a lot - doesn’t matter. He just needs to be present in some capacity (for this film at least) to ensure ticket sales. Because the younger characters & actors still lack name recognition.

I've never understood the "misogyny" charge against Bond and the Bond series: he may have been a womanizer, but those women -- who have been routinely portrayed as independent, strong-minded, intelligent, and extremely capable -- owned their sex and sexuality and willingly enjoyed themselves with James.

R142 I thought being a whore was positive for women now, what are they bitching about?

[quote]Dear Miss r133 AKA Miss Self-Appointed Expert On Fucking Everything you don't know fuck-all what the plot of this movie is going to be either, , so you can kindly STFU as well.

You first, moron.

[quote]I assume she’d be the opposite: a potential 007 Mary Sue who may be scripted to overshadow an aging Craig.

And yet, other than your own misogyny and frail ego, you have absolutely no grounds on which to make that observation, nor can you come up with any rational explanation as to why the producers would give up the James Bond franchise. It's all butthurt drivel: sound and fury signifying nothing.

[quote]What do you mean “nothing at all”, R137/R138? There are mainstream outlets reporting on production script leaks discussing this:

I mean nothing at all, as your own link demonstrates. We've done the whole James Bond got called on his misogyny thing, in GoldenEye when Judi Dench took over as "M". The franchise survived just fine.

[quote]And what are you even doing on DL

Thank you for confirming that you have no basis for anything you are writing here, which is why you had to go on the attack when challenged.

Why does it have to be a black chick?

Craig should've thrown in the towel after Skyfall. He's as much as admitted he's bored with playing Bond. Like the above poster said, Craig should just retire to an island and count his money and a younger, more enthusiastic actor should take over the role.

No, just no.

I doubt it will work but I see every Bond film and this one will be no different in that regard.

It would have gone to Joe Manganiello but his busy schedule wouldn't permit it.

This is the next Bond.

I don't particularly care if you've fucked your father, R110.

Quite frankly there should be a gay Bond before a female one. A female Bond doesn't even make sense to me conceptually.

Diversity 2019 = hypocrisy + absurdity

[quote] And yet, other than your own misogyny and frail ego, you have absolutely no grounds on which to make that observation

Oh, quit being such a misanthrope and priss-pot, R145. You’re on this thread just sourly wagging your finger at multiple posters now, like a self-appointed Hall Monitress or Church Lady. When it comes to pop culture threads, DL is a fun gossip board and you’re not adding any fun to it with your supercilious, self-important cries about “Misogyny!”.

As for “absolutely no grounds” - you lack reading comprehension, I already provided grounds from Time and the studio leak above. If you don’t agree with Time - go pen them a letter.

[quote] nor can you come up with any rational explanation as to why the producers would give up the James Bond franchise.

Lol, you’ve never worked in Hollywood, have you? You naïvely assume everything Creatives and Execs do is always “rational”? False. Case in point: “Wrinkle In Time”. Promoted as a unique tale specifically targeted for minority black audiences and “little black girls” around the world. Fine, great. But what did the so-called “rational” Hollywood Execs do with it? They dumbfoundingly arranged PRIORITY releases for it not in markets with a majority black audience - but in markets where there is almost no black customer presence. E.g. Eastern Europe, the Baltics, etc. They prioritised releases in Ukraine, Russia, Croatia and Finland over a release or red-carpet premiere in South Africa. And they barely released it in any other black-majority countries where people might be more curious to see it. It was a foolish, misguided executive decision - they disregarded the nuances of their product, and set themselves up for financial failure by ironically ignoring black customers. They weren’t “rational” and they shot themselves in the foot.

And if Disney Corp can be that irrational sometimes - so can MGM Studios and Danjaq. They have a solid, but antiquated product on their hands (James Bond), and they might just send it down the drain in favour of ‘creative experimentation’. They may wish to gradually turn the “James Bond” franchise into an “Agent 007” (Doctor Who-type) franchise. Because that way they can avoid all future restrictions on the character, in terms of looks, ethnicity, age and nationality. But who is going to see an “Agent 007” franchise or spinoff while “James Bond” is still around as a simultaneous legacy alternative from the same studio. The 2 ideas can’t be positioned as competing with each other (just like the Solo spinoff couldn’t compete after everybody already saw The Last Jedi just before), so it has to be one or the other. And in the current political climate, an Agent 007 franchise would seem more appealing and “tokenist inclusive” for Millennials.

[quote] We've done the whole James Bond got called on his misogyny thing, in GoldenEye when Judi Dench took over as "M". The franchise survived just fine.

R145, comparing the Hollywood and social / audience climate in 1995 (24 years ago) and 2019 is disingenious. Judi Dench didn’t call out Bond in a loaded “Me Too” and “Black Lives Matter” climate that permeates and even overflows everything today.

[quote] Thank you for confirming that you have no basis for anything you are writing here, which is why you had to go on the attack when challenged.

You keep using these boilerplate triggered Twitterati words - “offended” and “go on the attack”. Why are you here? Is Twitter down for the day?

With the increasing dominance of Asia in the film industry, Black actors will look back fondly on these times when they had work.

[quote]Mary Sue[/quote]

You are aware that a Mary Sue/Gary Stu is a self-insert fan-fiction heroine/hero? James Bond is the original Gary Stu.

That said, I agree that a female 007 won't appeal to the core audience of the franchise. That said, it doesn't bind the producers to anything and they can revert to looking for a male Bond, but I think they've nearly done all they can with the character at this point.

Yes, Bond was a Barry Stu. And he was a fun camp one too (before they decided to make him into a grim 'realistic' mercenary with Craig). But he was the eponymous lead in an action film, it's expected. Lara Croft is a Mary Sue as well. But having a male Larry Kroft character who's potentially even better than Croft and officially replaces her in some capacity in her own film, would be a bit odd.

[quote]comparing the Hollywood and social / audience climate in 1995 (24 years ago) and 2019 is disingenious.

Pretending that Hollywood isn't all about money is even more disingenious [sic]. James Bond is a multi-billion dollar franchise, one of the top five movie franchises of all time. Pretending that the producers and studio are eager to abandon this franchise is so ridiculous stupid that it doesn't warrant anything more in response than the ridicule you're receiving.

[quote]As for “absolutely no grounds” - you lack reading comprehension, I already provided grounds from Time and the studio leak above.

I repeat: absolutely no grounds. Your supposed "leak" offers no support for the ridiculous theories you are loudly proclaiming. It's all made-up, click-bait bullshit.

[quote]Lol, you’ve never worked in Hollywood, have you? You naïvely assume everything Creatives and Execs do is always “rational”?

LOL... you've never worked in Hollywood, have you? You naively assume that everything Execs do isn't all about the money.

[quote]But who is going to see an “Agent 007” franchise or spinoff while “James Bond” is still around as a simultaneous legacy alternative from the same studio.

The same people who watched "The Girl from U.N.C.L.E." when it spun off. The same people who watched "The Bionic Woman" when it spun off. The same people who have watched other movie and television spinoffs and reboots in the past. This is nothing new; Hollywood (and, before that, Broadway) has been doing this for decades, playing around with gender and color and remakes/reboots in various films and television shows. "His Girl Friday" was a remake of "The Front Page" with a woman in the starring role, and that was nearly 80 years ago.

[quote] so it has to be one or the other.

This is so hilariously stupid that I'm just going to let it stand.

Are they going to change the Bondmobile to a Cadillac Escalade?

[quote]The same people who watched "The Girl from U.N.C.L.E." when it spun off. The same people who watched "The Bionic Woman" when it spun off.

That was a million years ago, and it was tv not movies.

Trashing James Bond for a 007 franchise with rotating agents would alienate the fan base and most likely flop.

I wouldn't be mad if it were, R150.

[quote] Pretending that Hollywood isn't all about money is even more disingenious [sic]. James Bond is a multi-billion dollar franchise, one of the top five movie franchises of all time.

R159, as always, you lack basic reading comprehension. Where did I say that Execs don’t care about money? Go on, show me. I’ll wait.

But what you fail to grasp is that “making money” is not as straight-forward as you seem to think. Inventing a product (even a lucrative one, like Nokia did) many decades ago and then just sticking to the old formula and not innovating or completely over-hauling it (according to changing public tastes, with each generation) is actually a risky strategy. If you change the product - there's risk of course, but if you stand still while the world moves & changes around you - there's ALSO risk. Problem is Execs don’t have a crystal ball: they do NOT know which specific strategy will be more lucrative long-term (sticking to the old, tired formula, which risks soon running out of favour with new-generation customers - or trying an experimental product overhaul before it's too late, in step with the changing times, which carries its own high-risk, high-reward potential).

In order to continue making money, Execs need to keep a finger on the pulse of future customer interest. But they don’t always know exactly where the customer interest is going to swerve. So they have to make a gamble-call: stick to the old guns or “re-vamp” the product into smthg new. E.g. A&F: they used to focus on sporting goods (including GUNS), but then abandoned that product strategy to re-focus on preppy clothing for adolescents. This experimentation paid off and made them even more successful, but they failed to innovate again in time (according to a change in public mood), which is why they’re now tanking.

The INCREASING problem for Bond Execs is that Bond is a Relic, an overhang from a different era, who now looks uncomfortably archaic in the new #TimesUp #MeToo era. His symbolic cultural image is that of a Government Hero + Lothario Cad. Now that may work at the box office with Boomers, Gen X and even some Gen Y, but it may fail with Gen Z going forward. And Gen Z = future earnings. Young people are more frequent box office customers than older people. So the Execs have 2 options to try to pander to the new customer generation and get in their pockets: make Bond “more PC” (which goes against the whole point & unique symbology of Ian Fleming’s “Bond. James Bond” and his signature cadness), or gradually shift the focus from a hard-to-remedy, intractable “James Bond” to a more woke and malleable “MI6 Agent 007”, who can be anyone and anything in the new era.

Whether such a strategy of shifting focus, and making the franchise more PC, will be successful with new customers - only time will tell.

They tried changing the nature of Bond with Timothy Dalton and it was terrible. I like Timothy Dalton and I like Bond so I didn't hate it as much as everyone else did but it wasn't great. Bond is not a "woke" hero and it didn't work.

Telegraph: "PR dark arts" are being employed to avoid having to make a great Bond film while simultaneously guaranteeing that the film will get positive press from PC-driven press outlets - no matter how bad the film may be.

R165 Those women look incredibly boring.

Youtube reviewer Tyrone Magnus: "I'm not seeing this. It's forced."

I thought Tyler Henry was the next James Bond?

Damn, DC looks 60 in R165, I think playing Bond has aged him...all the shit he has to do and go through...not to mention the stress.

You’re right r34.

The actress was described by producers as stunningly beautiful. She may be a great actress, but beautiful she is not.

The franchise had other black Bond women before like Trina Parks and Gloria Hendry.

Yes, r172, but not a "00". In Bond lore the "00" was only given to a vanishing few and afforded a "License to Kill" anyone, at any time, without repercussions. The double o was a big deal in the Bond Universe, and non-transferable.

This whole thing is stupid. The movie will bomb, and the Bond fans won't come back, even if the experiment is only for one movie.

They've killed the franchise with just the suggestion of a female Bond. It's over.

Used to be a Bond fan. Less and less so especially the boring Craig action series that has no humor or character. A gimmick casting is not enough for me

Is this happening to high end boutiques stores too like on Madison Avenue and rodeo drive where people like to be seen shopping?

Yes, dear troll at r174, it is.

Next question?

Sorry wrong thread. Obviously r175 you don't know the meaning of troll. New around here?

Oh, r176 I certainly know the meaning of the "Sorry! Wrong thread!" troll.

I just expect them to be more amusing.

[quote] Damn, DC looks 60 in [R165], I think playing Bond has aged him...all the shit he has to do and go through...not to mention the stress.

Nah, he's just a regular blue-collar Brit, R169 - they don't age well generally. Because ethnically they have pasty, very dry, over-sensitive skin prone to wrinkles & sun-burn. Look at Gordon Ramsay or Richard Madden below (who's only 33 but looks 43). Craig likely had some 'procedures' done already and it still didn't help.

And filming in Jamaica and other fabulous luxury resort locations - sure, the 'horrible stress' of it all, lol. Smallest violin in the world. Craig did suffer an injury this spring, but that's because he's becoming an old geezer who's playing a role designed for a young, athletic man.

Reportedly, Craig also got 'full creative control' over this latest instalment. As an incentive, because he was dragging his feet and not originally interested in this film. He is apparently calling the shots now, with even the director below him. So if this film doesn't match or improve on previous records, he'll be the one who'll have to account for it, as the main creative exec.

[quote]As an incentive, because he was dragging his feet and not originally interested in this film.

You didn’t finish the sentence.

Will she still order her martini “shaken, not stirred,” or does she prefer it stirred?

These are the questions we need to be asking.

The new 007 will be a teetotal vegan who only drinks artisan, fair-trade coffee to support the remote farming communities of Guatemala.

How so, R180? Can it not be a truncated-form sentence?

Excuse me, Tyler Perry is the next James Bond!

Uh, no r183. That’s not a truncated sentence. [bold]By any definition[/bold]. <— That’s truncated.

Your sentence should read:

Reportedly, Craig also got 'full creative control' over this latest installment as an incentive, because he was dragging his feet and not originally interested in this film.

ridiculous....she screams flop

Dalton was great and so damn handsome. the movies they gave him were beige and void of sizzle....

R185, I'm just curious: can't you have a short-form (clarifying / emphasis) sentence following a longer main sentence, mimicking emphasis patterns in oral speech? E.g.:

"Craig also got full creative control over this latest installment. As an incentive."

Or: "Craig also got full creative control over this latest installment. As an important incentive, because otherwise he'd bail on the film."

Like: "Francis went to the south of France. To get away from her boring desk-job."

You’re turning fragments into what you think are truncated sentences.

Yes, sentences can be truncated for emphasis, much like I did in my example. Another example may be “I’m not a grammar queen. At all.” At all is a truncated sentence for emphasis but wouldn’t stand on its own as a sentence.

Or “I absolutely love chocolate. I mean a lot.” That’s truncated for emphasis.

We’re going to get called out soon for hijacking the thread, but it’s nice to discuss this as adults and not shrieking insults at each other.

By the way, your example of,

[quote]”Craig also got full creative control over this latest installment. As an incentive."

Is most definitely truncated and proper. The idea of shortening the sentence for emphasis works. When you go on, however, and create an entirely new sentence without a subject, it loses the meaning and looks (and sounds) disjointed, like the next two examples you used.

I don't have a problem with the next "007" being any race or gender as long as the person is a good actor for the role. I do have a problem with the next "James Bond" being anything but mid-40s British white guy, as that's who the character is.

Frankly, I've always thought that the people producing Bond movies should have expanded their world to include additional "00" agents. While Bourne movies fail without Jason Bourne (Matt Damon), the idea that an entire branch of British intelligence relying so heavily on one agent always seemed a bit absurd even for a movie.

In the modern world of franchises, they could easily have other 00 agents. I wonder whether it would be a promotion to get a higher number or a lower number? Would 001 be more deadly than 009 or vice versa?

I think Formula 409 would be the deadliest.

That's a man, baby!

No, just no. It's stupid and pandering and will flop. Did they not watch what happened to Dr. Who?

Having characters other than James Bond isn’t pandering, R195. He’s still going to be in the movie...

I agree, they should expand the 00 universe and show us more agents with their own film franchises. I'm a fan of the suave spy action movie, I'd watch those.

People on social media are already wringing their hands that this character is being written by a white woman who, while an excellent writer overall, has been criticized for underwriting or excluding altogether characters of color in her own work. There are vocal concerns that the character will be totally desexualized and rendered ineligible as a Bond love interest because black women in white-majority films so rarely play desirable love interests, and there are also vocal concerns that she'll be too sexualized or that she WILL be Bond's love interest, thereby undermining her feminist mythology and all other aspects of her personality. And most people think she's going to die at the end and the outrage is already brewing about that.

There's no winning this one, I think.

[quote]there are also vocal concerns

Eyeroll.

Thought the eyeroll was already implied...

My bad, then r199.

I apologize.

Tell her to drop her panties and let me see that purple puzzy!

Thanks for clarifying, R189 / 190. I appreciate it.

[quote] There are vocal concerns that the character will be totally desexualized and rendered ineligible as a Bond love interest

The main love interest will likely be Ana de Armas. She usually plays love interests or stars in X-rated, p8rn-esque scenes.

Lynch will likely play a hardcore, heroic 'cool chick' who puts Bond 'in his place'.

The studios are all about franchises so I'm sure the thought is if it does well and she's accepted as a new 00 charter they can spin her off into her own series just like Marvel and Star Wars did.

I mean, everyone knows he's 007, how the fuck is he supposed to spy and get info?? The plot is just dumb.

Pre Surgery Ana De Armas

this is a joke, right?

bond is a man!!!!!

ian fleming would sue.

Bondufa, Janquefa Bondufa

I don't believe that is a female or black. Fake.

cant be true they give up the hot man thing for a broad, good god almighty. such a slap iin face to the creators of the fab franchise.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

r209, what? LOL.

shit, aint nobody gonna pay a dime to see that dame, she aint even fun lookin and has no pizazz, is she the lez lover of the broccoli clan of gals?

she will be laffed off the stage of comic con, bless her heart, aint her fault, jus bad casting by a newbie

James Bond is 007. Period. This little experiment they're doing sounds like a disaster. And Daniel Craig should've retired after Skyfall. He's as much as admitted he's only still doing Bond for the money.

It’s going to be a disaster of epic proportions.

Gay men who actively hate women are so 1953. Not to mention casual racism that reeks like Judy Garland's corpse.

Thank you for that important contribution r216.

will never happen. some kind of joke, no way, bond is a hot man. git real muthers…...

Is James Norton still a contender for the Bond role? Sure do miss him on this season's "Grantchester."

James Norton is so dreamy! ❤️

no way a gash is playin bond, gimme a fukiin brake.

Girls, GIRLS, [italic]GIRLS!![/italic]

You're letting black women olaying 007 tear you apart!

[quote] People on social media are already wringing their hands that this character is being written by a white woman who, while an excellent writer overall, has been criticized for underwriting or excluding altogether characters of color in her own work.

If she's excluded characters of color before, then shouldn't this be a good sign now she's doing one? And why should also the writer necessarily be black to write one black character? The film is not about only black people.

You just cannot win for trying in the SJW world.

its a pr stunt to get people riled up. no way a lady playiin the studly mister bond.