Guys, you're totally missing the real question here; is Number 6 from "The Prisoner" really John Drake from "Danger Man"?
News Lashana Lynch to be the new 007...
- Thread starter Turtletrekker
- Start date
Pre-Craig Bond has continuity the way Simpsons has continuity.
All that stuff in previous episodes happened, but we’ll just ignore that nobody aged and anything that currently contradicts our new story.
All that stuff in previous episodes happened, but we’ll just ignore that nobody aged and anything that currently contradicts our new story.
It really, really is. It's not only overthinking them it's well into creating a parody of pretentious.
This simply isn't a franchise which warrants such close examination and it's silly to try. Bond films simply aren't that well thought out beyond beings vehicles for gadgets, guns, beautiful women onscreen and male fantasies.
Again, the man is nearly a hundred years old by now, not to mention behaving completely differently and having has umpteen variations of his origin story and background. The idea of some serious literary examination or an official "canon" or "continuity" is just laughable. This isn't exactly Shakespeare and we aren't talking about a black Hamlet.
Oh, wait....
I think if we can accept playing around with The Immortal Bard for artistic reasons then some popcorn movies about things blowing up are fair game.
Exactly so.
Yeah that story mode was a one and done (and the Janus fight was beyond broken) but the multiplayer was absolutely delightful
The idea that Bond films have a hard continuity is silly.
To paraphrase some character in some John Carpenter movie, Bond continuity is like a salad bar. They take what they want, and they throw away the rest. It's very hodgepodge. It's squishy continuity.
On topic, I welcome the new OO7/007.
To paraphrase some character in some John Carpenter movie, Bond continuity is like a salad bar. They take what they want, and they throw away the rest. It's very hodgepodge. It's squishy continuity.
On topic, I welcome the new OO7/007.
"This never happened to the other fellow" -Lazenby Bond (who later in the film goes on to look over his old trinkets from the previous movies while preparing to resign in OHMSS.
Then there's the revenge intro from FYEO, including visiting Tracy's grave. Another mention to Tracy (without stating her name) in LTK connects both Dalton and Moore to Lazenby. About the only EON Bond that doesn't seem to have an overt connection to the others is Brosnan. Continuity has always been a lightweight thing in Bond movies and bond viewers have been perfectly fine with that for decades. You can see where the franchise trips a little on that when it tries too hard for continuity, like the plastic surgury thing to change Blofeld's appearance. Audiences didnt need that. He'd already been played by multiple actors and so had Bond.
We want a good movie, that's all, If you want details of Bond's first assassination job, how he felt about it, what he likes to read, what his personal car is, the mixture of tobacco he smokes, and all the other minutiae of his life, the Flemming books are just fine for that. Flemming loved to pour on the details. But it was not a series of books or films intended for the shamelessly obsessive fan culture of the 21st century. These were travelogue films with some adventure and naughty scenes thrown in, and when they work best, they still are.
N/M
Last edited:
I do not mind a female 007 per se..but if they really want to have a series of female spy movies, then why not start a new with a fresh character instead? I mean someone like Modesty Blaise could be easily turned into a modern heroine..and even her refugee past would fit the times very well also.
I have a feeling that it’s because the work is already done, so it’s faster. You could spend fifty years building from one film to get something to Bond level...but that’s fifty years! And Bond will then have a century!
So if you take over something, you don’t have to work quite as hard, call it a battle and a victory, and theoretically it’s a lot less risky than trying to build an audience and keep it.
Of course I think that’s utter nonsense.
Harry Potter exploded practically overnight into absolute hugeness.
But I do think some people feel that way...it’s not enough to be like Bond (or whatever franchise) it has to be actual Bond or it will never count, or ever be in its shadow or something.
That’s the sort of feeling I get, probably tied to the cultural significance Bond has achieved (somehow).
I like the character of James Bond, liked the books, liked most of the movies. I'm not interested in a female-james bond. It would be a completely different character, and while it would be attached in a way to the "Bond" series, there realy is barely any Bond-verse, and it's not a good field for spinoffs.
A female 007 might be interesting in this film just to see where it goes for the plot, but I have no interest in it as a long term thing. If others do, great. I don't have to like every change Hollywood throws at me, and I certainly won't be guilted into viewing them. For whatever it is worth, I never thought Brosnan made a good Bond and the 007 movie of his I saw was GoldenEye (had a good soundtrack). I have all of them on DVD and bluray but the Brosnans, and I may not have any the new ones.
There is something to be said for name and brand recognition. People tend to gravitate towards the comfortable and the familiar. Would casting Lashana Lynch for a spy movie set in its own original universe be getting nearly as much attention as she's getting for being the new 007?
I agree. I just wish we had more new stuff for variety. I mean we do but you got to sort of look harder to find it. Jason
Oh yeah, I know that, I was just wondering if the character's presence in the story is what inspired them to bring her in to help.
Nope.
Frankly.
I do t think that has anything to do with her gender or skin colour, or even nationality, it’s just because Bond is Bond.
On the other hand, Red Sparrow died a quick critical death.
Atomic Blonde May do better, but it’s a period piece so 80s zeitgeist atm will help it.
The most successful espionage thriller films of recen years remain Bourne or MI. Both are adaptations with history going back almost as far as Bond.
I am not sure we will ever see another long running franchise birthed tbh. The last I can think of was probably...stargate. And that’s very nearly dead atm. Some could be reborn in new iterations, as MI was (and technically Bourne...there’s an older screen adaptation out there.)
But the ‘new’ thing, truly new, that will last the ages these things have?
I think the modern approach to criticism etc would kill it stone dead.
Hope I am wrong, but....
He's 000.
That means filmed media is forever caught in a revolving door of unoriginal ideas, betting everything on brand recognition.
There was a time James Bond was just a book series (no one cared about the U.S. TV version)--the EON series started on its own and built its own identity and power as a new creation for movies. That can still be a thing, if studios have the creative sack to take those chances, because audiences have and continue to grow tired of reboots, reimaginings, etc.
There's only so many times you can milk/reformat/spin-off the same idea before it dries up and loses it appeal.
Earlier, I thought another member's idea of setting a Bond film back in the Cold War era was a good idea, but that's all it is--an idea, and it should not be explored in front of a camera. Eventually, new, single films and/or series must end or they will wear out their welcome, no matter the money spent, how many A-list performers and directors are attached, etc. (see Universal's rotted "Dark Universe").