• 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...

DigificWriter said:
False. The franchise has rebooted itself exactly once, with 2006's Casino Royale.
Click to expand...
Well, I can see why you say that, sure. Casino Royale was a straight reboot of the lore to re-define Bond to reflect Daniel Craig's age. But personally I define the reboots as 1969 (1), 1973 (2) 1986 (3) 1995 (4) and 2006 (5). Even if you don't want to call every casting a reboot, then it at least rebooted stylistically with Lazenby, the Moore era, Licence to Kill (which tried to be grittier... and GoldenEye was a reboot, you can't argue that at all.

So I disagree it was just once.
 
The Wormhole said:
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.
Click to expand...
Okay...I will admit that could technically work. But (in my opinion) it's damn stupid. JAMES BOND 007 has 65 years of franchise recognition behind it. Branding/Logos. Merchandising.

James Bond IS 007. 007 is Bond. That's what people know, all over the world, for generations. Changing that to a woman is just....ridiculous. And Barbara and Michael won't do it. So no matter how the media purrs over this, Lashana Lynch will have the role for about 2 and a half hours, and that's it. She will not be 007 in the future.

If I'm wrong, I will come here and you can all laugh at me. But I highly doubt I'm wrong.
 
sttngfan1701d said:
Well, I can see why you say that, sure. Casino Royale was a straight reboot of the lore to re-define Bond to reflect Daniel Craig's age. But personally I define the reboots as 1969 (1), 1973 (2) 1986 (3) 1995 (4) and 2006 (5). Even if you don't want to call every casting a reboot, then it at least rebooted stylistically with Lazenby, the Moore era, Licence to Kill (which tried to be grittier... and GoldenEye was a reboot, you can't argue that at all.

So I disagree it was just once.
Click to expand...

You can disagree all you want; that doesn't change the facts, which are that Casino Royale is the first and only time the Bond franchise has been rebooted.
 
BillJ said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am not overtly fond of the Craig movies. I think the rape scene in QoS and most of QoS tbh put me off, and they are just too...depressing. Well shot depressing, but depressing. And devoid of at least a hint of their Cold War origins, though I accept that’s going to be a bit of a stretch these days. Mostly they seem...ironic. Like it’s ok to like Bond now he really is a relatively violent individual who gets routinely battered and tortured more, emotionally and otherwise. I suppose I am suggesting I don’t like the extra layer of realism they are aiming at. Probably because it’s a bit of a halfway house.
Stylistically, It sometimes feels like they all take place in the Da Vinci Code. Secret societies and whatnot.
But *shrug* what the public wants, the public gets..
 
DigificWriter said:
You can disagree all you want; that doesn't change the facts, which are that Casino Royale is the first and only time the Bond franchise has been rebooted.
Click to expand...

O think we have already argued in circles why that is t the case, or if you like, both is and isn’t the case at the same time. Not least as it didn’t stick.
 
sttngfan1701d said:
Facts? So GoldenEye wasn't a reboot? You're losing the plot a bit here.
Click to expand...

GoldenEye was, after all, the first Bond film not directly based on works by Fleming (not even the title)
It has about as much continuity as the Craig run tbh.
 
Kai "the spy" said:
No, "Licence to Kill" had that honor.
Click to expand...

It’s based on Live and Let Die. As is Live and Let Die. I am not sure if they got the title from a short story or not.

Goldeneye was very much a reboot after the contract problems and lawsuits etc. They even talked about casting a woman etc back then, allegedly. Only thing that carries over at all is Q. Looking at the following films, it could be strongly argued that the Brosnan era stands alone better than the Craig era...no DB5, and M is a bigger character than Q simply because of TWINE.
 
DigificWriter said:
No.



There's no argument here; Dr. No to The World is Not Enough represent a single shared continuity and the Craig films represent a different shared continuity.

Period.
Click to expand...

I see you didn’t like Die Another Day either, só at least we agree it’s just a bad dream Bond has while recuperating in hospital after coming back from North Korea.
 
Jayson1 said:
For the same reason we keep getting remake after remake. Brand recoginition. The James Bond name still sales. I kind of wonder if this franchise ever shifts genres because that seems like the next big leap. Have James Bond face aliens or something. Jason
Click to expand...
He's faced zombies and voodoo. He's had his space battles.

What I'd like to see is the original James Bond's early years in WWII, possibly on the S.O.E. He may have made his first kill in 1941 assassinating a Japanese diplomat in Rockefeller Plaza in NY. Retro bond could be a separate franchise, even.
 
jaime said:
I see you didn’t like Die Another Day either, só at least we agree it’s just a bad dream Bond has while recuperating in hospital after coming back from North Korea.
Click to expand...

I don't know why I forgot about Brosnan's final outing, but my broader point stands. The Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan films are all part of a single shared continuity that is abandonded with the advent of Casino Royale and the casting of Daniel Craig.

This is not a disputable or debatable point.
 
sttngfan1701d said:
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.


You're right. I don't disagree. Reason....he's retired, so replacement needed. But....

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.
Click to expand...

I have to say the idea of "Flemings' legacy" is getting a little tired. It's been many years since we started diverging from anything resembling the character in the books anyway.
 
^ Tarantino's Casino Royale, had it been made, would've taken place in 1953. As much as I adore the Casino Royale we got, part of me still wishes that had come to fruition. Bond in the 40's would be cool as well. They just went back in time with the upcoming Kingsman movie. Though a WW2 Bond might tread a little closely to that Ian Fleming TV series (which I never watched).
XCV330 said:
What I'd like to see is the original James Bond's early years in WWII, possibly on the S.O.E. He may have made his first kill in 1941 assassinating a Japanese diplomat in Rockefeller Plaza in NY. Retro bond could be a separate franchise, even.
Click to expand...
 
Spot261 said:
I have to say the idea of "Flemings' legacy" is getting a little tired. It's been many years since we started diverging from anything resembling the character in the books anyway.
Click to expand...
You're entitled to your opinion. Some may agree with you. Millions more do not. Most people enjoy when legacies are respected. And who knows....the next actor might do like Timothy Dalton and try to re-ground the character in his literary roots.
 
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