|
|
|
Rikkitic:
never mind its portrayal of women (though they were piloting aircraft and attacking Fort Knox).
Wait! You say that wasn't accurate?
MikeB4:
I don't see any issue. The franchise needed to be modernised.
There is a modernised version, and his name is Sterling Archer :-P.
[Mod edit (MF): no need for foul language]
I'm a geek, a gamer, a dad, a Quic user, and an IT Professional. I have a full rack home lab, size 15 feet, an epic beard and Asperger's. I'm a bit of a Cypherpunk, who believes information wants to be free and the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. If you use my Quic signup you can also use the code R570394EKGIZ8 for free setup. Opinions are my own and not the views of my employer.
I'm confused. She's not taking over as Bond but she is taking over as 007. James Bond the character is synonymous with the franchise. If James Bond is not going to be part of the franchise past this film, what is the franchise about anymore? Just any old spy called 007? Will the James Bond franchise now be known as the 007 franchise? Maybe the movie will provide all the answers in due course, but right now I can't see how it is going to work going forward.
Journeyman:
I'm confused. She's not taking over as Bond but she is taking over as 007. James Bond the character is synonymous with the franchise. If James Bond is not going to be part of the franchise past this film, what is the franchise about anymore? Just any old spy called 007? Will the James Bond franchise now be known as the 007 franchise? Maybe the movie will provide all the answers in due course, but right now I can't see how it is going to work going forward.
It may be confusing but some old theories have been around to explain why "James Bond" changed during the years. Basically James Bond would be a codename, assigned to agents when they started working. That's why so many different Bond existed over the 50 something years of the franchise so far. 007 is just a license to kill and James Bond was assigned that - like 006 was assigned to someone else. 007 could be assigned to anyone, not necessarily Bond.
Yes, let the movie explain.
Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies
Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.
If this was done because they interviewed a variety of Men and Women, and she was the truly best person for the job, then so be it, but if this was done for any other reason, then shame on them.
freitasm:
Journeyman:
I'm confused. She's not taking over as Bond but she is taking over as 007. James Bond the character is synonymous with the franchise. If James Bond is not going to be part of the franchise past this film, what is the franchise about anymore? Just any old spy called 007? Will the James Bond franchise now be known as the 007 franchise? Maybe the movie will provide all the answers in due course, but right now I can't see how it is going to work going forward.
It may be confusing but some old theories have been around to explain why "James Bond" changed during the years. Basically James Bond would be a codename, assigned to agents when they started working. That's why so many different Bond existed over the 50 something years of the franchise so far. 007 is just a license to kill and James Bond was assigned that - like 006 was assigned to someone else. 007 could be assigned to anyone, not necessarily Bond.
Yes, let the movie explain.
Sure, but according to that theory, the codename James Bond has passed along with the code number 007. The direction they're taking now seems to be that the codename doesn't pass along with the number - they're separated.
While a lot of people complain about Bond being a misogynist, I actually like that he's a flawed character. He's arrogant, he's a womaniser, a heavy drinker and smoker, he's self-destructive (more so in the Daniel Craig era) and he doesn't follow rules. He's not a nice guy and he's the guy that is protecting Britain from the baddies. That's far more interesting than if Bond was a boy scout.
Hopefully the new 007 will have an interesting character who will be more than the same old "badass babe who doesn't take no guff from a man!" trope.
Agree with the characterisation.
I guess we have to reserve comments until after the movie is released.
Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies
Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.
Regards,
Old3eyes
MikeB4:frankv:
TheMantis:
Not only female but black too. Ticking all the boxes. Producers should go for the trifecta and make the character LGBTQ as well.
And in a wheelchair.
why not?
... and I'm picking it would be a pretty kick*ss wheelchair at that!
Can they make an Anime version as well? What about our fellow Anime fans? Don't they need our support (money) too?
networkn:
If this was done because they interviewed a variety of Men and Women, and she was the truly best person for the job, then so be it, but if this was done for any other reason, then shame on them.
Well it would have been done because - money - to attract investors / punters.
Shame on capitalism. They used misogynistic stereotypes to their advantage, then shifted away from it when it wasn't.
Fred99:
networkn:
If this was done because they interviewed a variety of Men and Women, and she was the truly best person for the job, then so be it, but if this was done for any other reason, then shame on them.
Well it would have been done because - money - to attract investors / punters.
Shame on capitalism. They used misogynistic stereotypes to their advantage, then shifted away from it when it wasn't.
Yes, it is disgusting how film producers just want to make money.
I have no problem with a female 007 ... as long as it is a good movie.
For sometime now, Hollywood prioritises special effects over a decent story. It should be the other way around.
|
|
|