• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

News Daniel Craig signs up for Bond 25, Christopher Nolan in talks to direct

EEC2y4nWwAMpwpu



Italian Bystander- You have beautiful daughter!

Lea- :mad:
 
The Wormhole said:
I guess that's one interpretation. I got the impression from the article that it was exclusively a racial thing, but maybe that's just me.
Click to expand...
Seeing as how you seem to have misunderstood the article's very first sentence, and completely missed the first sentence of the second paragraph, yes, it indeed might just be you. ;)

EnderAKH said:
Um....they are. Daniel Craig will be playing James Bond, a man. Not a woman. Lashana Lynch will be playing a New. Character.
Click to expand...
So why the griping over the idea that might never be a female Bond specifically?
 
sttngfan1701d said:
Just. Create. A. New. Character.

Five words. Five, simple words. Here's 8 more: Then. Give. Her. A. Franchise. Of. Her. Own.

Bond is a man. Bond is not a woman. Bond was never intended to be a woman, doesn't need to be a woman, should never be a woman. Period.

Just create a new female spy and give her a franchise of movies. Why change Bond? Oh, that's right...Bond has name-recognition and pedigree. That 60 years of name recognition gives you credit in the bank, because in the back of their mind, they're not sure if a "new female spy" can carry her own franchise. Pretty sexist, isn't it? Yeah. And lazy, too.

Leave Bond alone. And Indiana Jones, too. Leave them both alone, as they were envisioned.


So did I. Hell, he was Brosnan's stand-in during the initial Bond girl screen tests. He would've been awesome. So would Idris Elba, honestly. I don't know who's getting it after Craig and honestly I'd be okay with anyone at this point. Just not a woman. There is literally no point to it besides arbitrary woke nonsense.
Click to expand...

Here's six words, they're really good ones too.

James. Bond. Is. Still. A. Man.

Yup, you heard that right. No one has actually stated or even suggested that they will gender swap the character.

They've introduced a new character who takes over the job. Bond is still the protagonist.

Simples.
 
Spot261 said:
Here's six words, they're really good ones too.

James. Bond. Is. Still. A. Man.

Yup, you heard that right. No one has actually stated or even suggested that they will gender swap the character.

They've introduced a new character who takes over the job. Bond is still the protagonist.

Simples.
Click to expand...

There has actually been a lot of discussion about gender-swapping Bond in the media, with Pierce Brosnan saying that they should. Nobody associated with Eon is saying so, but it seems to be silly season in the media regardless.
 
Captaindemotion said:
There has actually been a lot of discussion about gender-swapping Bond in the media, with Pierce Brosnan saying that they should. Nobody associated with Eon is saying so, but it seems to be silly season in the media regardless.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I thought it was implicit in my post that "no one" would be read as "no one involved in making the film", but you are correct it's been thrown around for years in the rumour mill.
 
Spot261 said:
Sorry, I thought it was implicit in my post that "no one" would be read as "no one involved in making the film", but you are correct it's been thrown around for years in the rumour mill.
Click to expand...

Yeah, in fairness it was. But I got the impression that stngfan was directing his comments at people inside and outside this thread who were saying that Bond should be played by a woman eventually (the thread wet that way after someone posted Pierce's recent comments). Then again, I guess he can speak for himself.
 
The prospect of there never being a gender-reversed James Bond has literally been compared to black/white segregation upthread, with several others Liking said comment. Which... okayyyyy. :vulcan:
 
I mean it's not like misogyny on a global scale remains a huge problem rivaling the racism of the segregation era. And it's not like the most globally-popular fictional character of the twentieth century continues to be a symbolic outlet for said misogyny. So I can see where such a comparison might seem a little absurd.

On the other hand, one might argue that such flippant dismissal of the thought might speak to its continued and insidious persistence in western culture.

And, yes, misogyny is exactly what all these petty little fallacies and ill-thought arguments boil down to - and none so conspicuously as "go make another character." It contemptuously implies women aren't good enough to play the most globally-popular fictional character of the twentieth century.
 
CorporalClegg said:
And, yes, misogyny is exactly what all these petty little fallacies and ill-thought arguments boil down to - and none so conspicuously as "go make another character." It contemptuously implies women aren't good enough to play the most globally-popular fictional character of the twentieth century.
Click to expand...
To state the brain-blastingly obvious, it isn't a question of goodness. James Bond isn't popular because he's a good person, he's popular because he's a manly man. To make him a woman makes about as much sense as making a Transformers movie in which the Autobots and Decepticons are peaceful, folk-music-loving robots who occasionally hold competitive knitting events, with the prize going to whoever makes the cutest sweater. Or as much sense as a Cars movie in which the cars don't ever race, but instead play jazz piano concerts, despite not having hands. Your argument about goodness and merit is a great argument for why the real-world Catholic Church should ordain female priests, but it's nonsensical vis-a-vis the character of James Bond, especially when the franchise already has female operatives who both equal and surpass him in rank.

Now, if you dislike the James Bond character and franchise, and want to see it tank for its own sake, that's perfectly fine. I personally hate the Transformers and Cars franchises, and would be happy to see them fail so hard and the notion of them ever being revived would be a perennial source of cheap jokes. But at least I'm honest about all that. ;)
 
The Wormhole said:
It is? I would have thought October 7th would make more sense, since you kind of get 007 out of that date (10/07).
Click to expand...

Nope. Apparently it's October 5th. Although 10/07 would have made more sense I agree

https://www.007.com/global-james-bond-day/

Today, Monday 5th October, is official Global James Bond Day – a celebration of 53 years of the Bond franchise. This date marks the anniversary of the release of DR. NO in 1962. This special day of celebrations first began in 2012 when the Bond films celebrated their golden anniversary with events all around the globe and the release of the theme song for SKYFALL by Adele.
Click to expand...
 
It's wrap. Daniel Craig has finished filming "No time to Die" Time to get plastered. Daniel Craig got a bit drunk


https://twitter.com/springhousese/status/1175693900276801536



EFDnz61XUAAUm5H

EFDnz60XsAE6Pr5



https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/da...peech-for-bond-25-081459199.html?guccounter=1


“I just want to say, and I am really quite drunk now so I won’t go on for long, this has been one of the best, most wonderful experiences I have ever had,” he said.

“You have all done the most amazing job. I could not be more proud to work with every single one of you on this production. I would like to thank you for this evening, for Barbara [Broccoli], for putting it on. Thank goodness, we did this tonight.”
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top