News Lashana Lynch to be the new 007...
- Thread starter Turtletrekker
- Start date
How is not how the people making the film described the character?
This is a silly denial because what you quoted and objected to is 100% what is happening.
Did you even read the article? What I described is exactly what’s happening.
Harry Potter and A Song of Ice and Fire/Game of Thrones both came after Stargate
Pretty sure I mentioned Harry Potter elsewhere xD in that ones case I think the literary thing wil last, maybe not the screen stuff.
I think Game of Thrones started before Stargate came out didn’t it?
I also think it will be forgotten fairly soon.
I find it hard to believe anything from now will go 30-50 years in more or less continuous production of some kind (with occasional hiatus) (Though kinda have to take M:I off the least or make it younger as it’s a reboot/adaptation. Still. Twenty plus years with same lead actor is amazing for a film franchise.)
It’s a James Bond film. By definition it’s not starting anew, and the fresh character is extremely unlikely to be carrying the franchise forward.
I hate a nope as much as the next guy, but on this occasion, there is no ‘new’ thing being created, female led or otherwise. Which I think was the point being referred to.
The whole thing is a bit of twist in the story, and is very good for marketing and column inches. Nothing more.
Tomorrow Never Dies is now surprisingly ahead of its time...all that annoying shite Jonathan Pryce does now just makes you think of Silicon Valley types, and even a hint of some of our politicians. It’s a film that was worse at the time, but works better now, oddly. TWINE was genuinely something different, and DAD has the best opening, before it’s goes terribly terribly wrong. All Bond films are of their time, and Brosnan was pretty good, and helped save the series. He deserved better than how his recasting went, especially as he had been pleading for something like Casino Royale from the beginning.
I think we will. Society is always changing.
I wouldn't say it was ahead of it's time. Pryce was actually Rupert Murdoch and I think people already knew he was a asshole. Jason
Murdoch sure, but all the silly Kung fu stuff and stage standing stuff...it’s much easier to see the post Steve Jobs mould in that, or Musk, whereas at the time it was just cheese and awful. I found that on a recent rewatch anyway. I enjoy it more now than I did then, if you see what I mean. It seems more relevant in the era of fake news.
Actually there's a scene in The World is Not Enough that can be considered a reference to Tracy.
Elektra King: Have you ever lost a loved one Mr. Bond?
Bond: *Hesitates to answer before ignoring her.*
And in the Brosnan helmed videogame 007 Everything Or Nothing, the film A View To A Kill is referenced where Bond quips he and Zorin once played bridge together and that he lost showing he is the same Bond as Roger Moore's and all the others before him. Jaws is even in the game too as an occasional foe you encounter. In fact the villain of the game is a protege of Max Zorin played by Willem Dafoe. Considered by most to be Brosnan's fifth and final Bond adventure.
I sadly never got to plat that or nightfire. By all accounts they were very good.
I've thought that for a long time. That would really be great, but it could never happen in the actual franchise-- and they kind of lost the opportunity with the Craig reboot, anyway.
Stargate movie is older than the first SoIaF book.
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.
Whoops. My bad.
No, that’s not what’s happening here, don’t worry about it.
What we have here in Trek terms, is a Jellico is captain of the enterprise scenario.
Since this is more dedicated to the topic, I'll post what I did on the other thread here. Basically...ridiculous, virtue-signaling pander instead of embracing a great opportunity to introduce a new character.
This is Craig's last film and they will reboot after this...and Barbara Broccoli has said repeatedly that James Bond will always be male. I believe her. She has never steered this ship wrong (if we forget Die Another Day, anyway). And James Bond IS 007....so Lynch's 007 will only be around for this movie. One and gone, making it even more of a ridiculous pander. Which means she will probably die in the film.
Which again begs the question...why not just make her 008? Making her 008 would give Bond a field agent to play off, like Moneypenny in Skyfall. And she could remain after Craig, since supporting characters have always stuck around through Bond actor changes. And well....that is the part that REALLY bothers me, because it illustrates the main problem with this woke, virtue signaling nonsense, and the main criticism: Just create new characters! Stop piggybacking off existing properties and gender and race-swapping them for woke points and JUST. CREATE. NEW. CHARACTERS.
Making her 008 would've been awesome. It would've infused new blood into the franchise. Making her likeable and good at her job would also show that other 00's weren't just redshirts like they've been in other films. Bond can't be the only capable agent in Mi-6. One of the things I always wished the Pierce Brosnan films had was more of Colin Salmon. He was an office guy in those, but he played 007 in screen tests when Brosnan wasn't available, and he was smooth and cool. So I would've loved to have seen him with a BIGGER role in those films. A field agent.
Lashana Lynch could've been that.....had they created a new character all her own. Making her 007 means she's destined for the reset button. All for short-term Twitter points from the woke crowd and hack internet media. Too bad.
This is Craig's last film and they will reboot after this...and Barbara Broccoli has said repeatedly that James Bond will always be male. I believe her. She has never steered this ship wrong (if we forget Die Another Day, anyway). And James Bond IS 007....so Lynch's 007 will only be around for this movie. One and gone, making it even more of a ridiculous pander. Which means she will probably die in the film.
Which again begs the question...why not just make her 008? Making her 008 would give Bond a field agent to play off, like Moneypenny in Skyfall. And she could remain after Craig, since supporting characters have always stuck around through Bond actor changes. And well....that is the part that REALLY bothers me, because it illustrates the main problem with this woke, virtue signaling nonsense, and the main criticism: Just create new characters! Stop piggybacking off existing properties and gender and race-swapping them for woke points and JUST. CREATE. NEW. CHARACTERS.
Making her 008 would've been awesome. It would've infused new blood into the franchise. Making her likeable and good at her job would also show that other 00's weren't just redshirts like they've been in other films. Bond can't be the only capable agent in Mi-6. One of the things I always wished the Pierce Brosnan films had was more of Colin Salmon. He was an office guy in those, but he played 007 in screen tests when Brosnan wasn't available, and he was smooth and cool. So I would've loved to have seen him with a BIGGER role in those films. A field agent.
Lashana Lynch could've been that.....had they created a new character all her own. Making her 007 means she's destined for the reset button. All for short-term Twitter points from the woke crowd and hack internet media. Too bad.
Clever. Rebut it, then.
You're wrong.