• 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 Lashana Lynch to be the new 007...

sttngfan1701d: This is Craig's final film as Bond, but that is by no means a guarantee of a second reboot, and the original screenwriters of the movie clearly chose to introduce a 007 replacement for Bond for a reason.

We've seen Craig's version of Bond all-but-retire or be otherwise "off the grid" at least twice before this and no new 007 wasn't recruited, so something about the creative thought process behind this movie is demonstrably different.
 
Agony_Boothb said:
As a person of colour I just find the casting a bit tokenistic and patronising. I don't need black 007 and black Captain America's or LGBT Spiderman's. What I would like is original characters with those aspects. Hollywood finds it impossible to create anything original nowadays though.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more. Changing iconic characters in such a way reeks of lazy writing and lack of creativity. Shaft, Blade and Black Panther proved that there is an audience for originally created black lead characters. However,I think a new character in the Bond universe to pick up the reigns is the right way to go. It's not changing James Bond, it's retiring him and introducing a new 00.
 
ichab said:
I couldn't agree more. Changing iconic characters in such a way reeks of lazy writing and lack of creativity. Shaft, Blade and Black Panther proved that there is an audience for originally created black lead characters. However,I think a new character in the Bond universe to pick up the reigns is the right way to go. It's not changing James Bond, it's retiring him and introducing a new 00.
Click to expand...

How did they "change an iconic character" here?
 
Thank you for at least providing rebuttal to what I said, unlike the two fellows before that decided to act like a couple of 12 year olds. So I will respond in kind.

DigificWriter said:
sttngfan1701d: This is Craig's final film as Bond....and the original screenwriters of the movie clearly chose to introduce a 007 replacement for Bond for a reason.
Click to expand...
You're right. I don't disagree. Reason....he's retired, so replacement needed. But....
...that is by no means a guarantee of a second reboot
Click to expand...
Bond ALWAYS re-boots. It's part of the franchise's DNA. James Bond IS 007. Period. Which means she can't BE 007 going forward. I can't see any other way for her to remain 007 past this movie. She will probably die and the number will be given back to him.

Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson wouldn't make 007 a black woman as the franchise head going forward....replacing JAMES BOND. They have both been involved in these films since the 1970's. They would not do that to their father's legacy. They would not do that to Ian Fleming's character/legacy. The character of James Bond 007 is entertainment bedrock, bigger than them, entrusted to them to protect. They simply would not replace that character with someone completely different from 65 years of lore. Barbara said herself it wouldn't happen.

Whatever happens in the context of this film will stay in the context of this film....and it will reboot. Which is why I say again that it's a shame they didn't just give her the 008 number.
 
Agony_Boothb said:
Again, nope. They are not creating anything new. They are taking a well established franchise and character changing it for diversity points and to pander. For me it's just a symbol of how lazy and creatively bankrupt hollywood has become. They can't come up with a new franchise involving a character of colour to break new ground and are too afraid to take the risk. It's pretty fucking insulting.
Click to expand...

They aren’t changing the character, simply adding a new one. Something the Bond franchise sorely needs.
 
Agony_Boothb said:
They are not creating anything new. They are taking a well established franchise and character changing it for diversity points and to pander
Click to expand...
No they’re bloody not.

Daniel Craig is still in this film as James Bond, the female 007 is a new character along side him. They’re not making a female James Bond, she’s a brand new character.
 
Last edited:
sttngfan1701d said:
Which again begs the question...why not just make her 008?
Click to expand...
As far as this movie is concerned, marketing. The sentence "James Bond and 007" will get people's attention and make them ask "What's going on here?" After all, everyone associates James Bond as 007, but throw in a new 007 for Bond to work with and/or possibly be a rival, and that gets people talking, and maybe interested enough to go check it out in theatres. "James Bond and 008" meanwhile is likely to make people shrug and be all "I'll wait for home media." Hell, I'd probably see this movie in theatres regardless, but I can tell you "James Bond and 007" makes me hella lot more curious and enthused than "James Bond and 008" ever could.
sttngfan1701d said:
I can't see any other way for her to remain 007 past this movie. She will probably die and the number will be given back to him.
Click to expand...
I can see a way to make this work. After all, every 21st century Bond film (basically all of Craig's plus Brosnan's last one) has featured Bond going rogue and off the grid to pursue matters on his own terms. So rather than have him flip-flopping from rogue to official active status with every movie, have him stick to being done with MI6 like he was at the end of Spectre. For whatever reason he keeps getting sucked into adventures (hardly the most convoluted idea for this franchise) and 007 inevitably gets involved, as a foil/rival/inevitable partner. I can even see this developing into a film franchise the kind Sony keeps trying in vain to develop on their own, after a movie or two of Bond and 007, they each split off and do their own adventures with more crossovers every couple of years for Avengers-style event movies. Keep periodically recasting 007 as Bond himself gets periodically recast, and they will have effectively reinvented the franchise and allowed it to refreshen itself for the next 50+ years.
 
The Wormhole said:
As far as this movie is concerned, marketing. The sentence "James Bond and 007" will get people's attention and make them ask "What's going on here?" After all, everyone associates James Bond as 007, but throw in a new 007 for Bond to work with and/or possibly be a rival, and that gets people talking, and maybe interested enough to go check it out in theatres. "James Bond and 008" meanwhile is likely to make people shrug and be all "I'll wait for home media." Hell, I'd probably see this movie in theatres regardless, but I can tell you "James Bond and 007" makes me hella lot more curious and enthused than "James Bond and 008" ever could.
Click to expand...

Bond and 007 makes me far more likely to trek to the cinema than Bond and 008. It is an indication that this film will attempt to shake up the formula.
 
BillJ said:
Sometimes, you can extrapolate what is going on without a studio release on the subject.
Click to expand...

Thing is...did it? Within a few movies, there were the old bits and bobs, and he inherited an M. You might as well say TLD was a reboot. You could definitely say Goldeneye was (Though I have a feeling we kept Moneypenny, as well as Q obviously.) as there’s even a new M. It never, ever, clean reboots. Much was made of ‘Bonds first mission’ in CR, but tbh, did it really make much odds?
They introduced a strong continuity between films, but each preceding Bond also had loose continuity anyway...the same supporting characters, even outside six were turning up in quiet continuity, whether it be the glasnost stuff under Moore with Gogol etc, or the post-perestroika stuff with Zukovsky in the Brosnan era. About the only time a reboot didn’t happen was with Lazenby, and that’s only cos the got Connery back for one more go.
 
BillJ said:
Bond and 007 makes me far more likely to trek to the cinema than Bond and 008. It is an indication that this film will attempt to shake up the formula.
Click to expand...

It might shake up a formula, but I bet it’s still the Craig era formula.
 
Agony_Boothb said:
Again, nope. They are not creating anything new. They are taking a well established franchise and character changing it for diversity points and to pander. For me it's just a symbol of how lazy and creatively bankrupt hollywood has become. They can't come up with a new franchise involving a character of colour to break new ground and are too afraid to take the risk. It's pretty fucking insulting.
Click to expand...
It’s a new character taking the 007 call sign. Probably with the same level of permanence as Dick Grayson becoming Batman or Bucky Barnes becoming Captain America. Craig is still James Bond in the film.
 
jaime said:
Thing is...did it? Within a few movies, there were the old bits and bobs, and he inherited an M. You might as well say TLD was a reboot. You could definitely say Goldeneye was (Though I have a feeling we kept Moneypenny, as well as Q obviously.) as there’s even a new M. It never, ever, clean reboots. Much was made of ‘Bonds first mission’ in CR, but tbh, did it really make much odds?
They introduced a strong continuity between films, but each preceding Bond also had loose continuity anyway...the same supporting characters, even outside six were turning up in quiet continuity, whether it be the glasnost stuff under Moore with Gogol etc, or the post-perestroika stuff with Zukovsky in the Brosnan era. About the only time a reboot didn’t happen was with Lazenby, and that’s only cos the got Connery back for one more go.
Click to expand...

We didn't call them reboots back then, because we weren't as obsessed with continuity. But I tend to think Bond rebooted several times along the way. Unless we believe Bond was in his 80's during his 2000's adventures. :eek:
 
jaime said:
It might shake up a formula, but I bet it’s still the Craig era formula.
Click to expand...

Not sure I see the issue as the Craig films have been fairly successful. This might give the Craig universe an extended life considering Craig is no longer interested in playing the character.
 
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