MovieChat Forums > No Time to Die (2021) Discussion > Too many stupid people here.

Too many stupid people here.


She is going to have the retired code 007 until James Bond comes back and reclaims it. That is it, end of discussion.

reply

Apparently if you don't 100% agree with the decision to have Lyshona Lynch take over the Bond franchise you are racist and sexist.

reply

And a Nazi. Dont forget it: if you aren't a SJW, then you're racist, sexist, and a Nazi.

reply

Yes of course I forgot that

reply

And just for the fact that I’m white i have something I need to apologize for

reply

Jesus man, quit the victim act!

reply

No one is playing the victim here except for your side. All we are doing is just poking a little bit of fun at crybaby SJW's.

reply

Oh really? My side? What side is that pray tell?

I'm not part of your inane bipartisan squabbling. My comment is that you are playing the victim saying you have to apologise for being white. You don't. You just have to accept that white straight males are no longer the overlords of the world and other voices can't be ignored any more. I'm a white male, why don't I feel persecuted against? Because I suck it up and realise the world is evolving. It's called being a man. You should try it.

reply

Dude I was joking when I said I would have to apologize for being white, I was making fun of how SJW's care so much about race that it actually matters to them that a movie character changes skin color (I personally don't care, I just want the best actor for the job, making Moneypenny and Leiter black didn't ruin those characters they were actually some of the better actors to play the roles, but casting an actor just because he's black is ridiculous).

This movement to change a movie character's skin color isn't about persecution, no one is saying it is, it's just annoying because it's an assumption that we don't understand that black people are just as valuable as white people are and we do, we've understood this our entire lives. No one ever called for straight males to dominate everything, it's just a matter of a film character staying accurate to the source material.

You want a movie about a badass black female superspy, they should go ahead and create one, knock yourself out, with good writing and good acting I'm sure it'll be successful, just quit acting like making Bond a black woman is somehow a victory to LGBT activists or whatever because it isn't, it's just dumb.

reply

"just quit acting like making Bond a black woman is somehow a victory to LGBT activists or whatever because it isn't" - oh mate, please tell me where I suggested that. What has LGBT got to do with anything here? Isn't the problem that it's a black female, isn't that what's melting all the snowflakes here?

I get your point, you don't want the franchise screwed with, you would prefer to basically watch the same movie repeated for another 50 years, because let's be honest there's not much to distinguish one Bond film from another. But it's fair enough, I understand the hurt fanboys feel when they believe that political correctness destroys something they love.

But for goodness sake, it's a movie! If you don't want to watch a black woman in a Bond film, don't watch it. I guess I just think there are more important things to worry about than who stars in a crusty old film series that's clearly on it's last legs anyway.

reply

- No the problem would be changing the entire series away from the focus character. If they are going to do that why not just make a new series if you have to depart so far from the source material? If you want a film about a badass black female superspy why not just let it stand on its own? Why does it have to latch onto the James Bond Series? And don't give me this nonsense about how it's impossible for a black female to make it in Hollywood because that's a load of malarkey.

- Actually I liked it back in the 80's where they all followed a format, my problem with the Craig films is that it departed from the format too much with things like screwing up the gunbarrel. There's plenty of differences between the films. And if they focus the series on a black female agent just to say they focused on a black female agent that absolutely is political correctness taking over the series (the changes were dictated by the need to be politically correct, NOT what was best for the series)

- Of course I would be upset, I go to a James Bond movie to watch James Bond! I enjoy going to these movies and I don't want it to end.

For the last time they should just make a series about whoever they want to, a black actress can be successful in Hollywood, they don't need to depend on an already well established franchise.

reply

That hasn't been confirmed, and even if true it is still a stupid idea that will make for yet another crappy Bond movie.

reply

From what I've gathered she's only holding his 007 title while Bond is away which I am fine with. The thing is James Bond has to be the main character in the series or else you'd might as well just make a different spy series as it would no longer be the James Bond Series.

reply

There's no precedent for the 00 numbers transferring to new agents. Bond was in a prison for 14 months and left for dead by MI6 in Die Another Day, and he still retained the 007 number. 007 is Bond, Bond is 007. There's no such thing as code names, code words, code numbers, trading numbers, agents retiring, or anything that justifies this creative decision. It's a lame and uncreative idea anyways. How many times has Craig's Bond quit or gone rogue now? The audience is sick of it.

I am still leaning towards believing that the series will continue with the 'new' 007 who will not be James Bond.

reply

Well the only time he truly went rogue was licence to kill, in die another day, quantum of solace and spectre he didn’t actually go rogue he just sort of created his own mission and did whatever the hell he wanted to but he was still a member of the secret service.

Making the series focus on someone other than James Bond would be dumb because that would mean that it is no longer the James Bond series.

reply

He definitely went rogue in DAD and especially QoS. In DAD, he escaped and went to Cuba with no authorization and without his 00 status. In QoS, he violated direct orders and killed at least one MI6 agent. I don't remember Spectre, nor do I want to, but I'm sure it was the same old shit that Craig's Bond always does.

reply

I don't really seem him going Rogue in QOS and Spectre in the same sense that he did in LTK. In LTK he officially resigned the Secret Service, in QOS and Spectre he just kind of did what he wanted to (and it turned out to be the right thing) yet never left the Secret Service and was still very much 007, the only times he has actually been stripped of being 007 was LTK and DAD (and I guess the end of Spectre but that's because he retired and maybe technically Skyfall because for a VERY brief moment they thought he was dead but that plot point didn't really go anywhere).

But yes you are right Craig's Bond really loves to just disobey orders and just do whatever the f-ck he wants and it is getting old.

reply

Indeed. It makes absolutely no sense. The double 0 designations are 100% individual. Can you imagine reading a report
"007 met with X contact in Paris and established a solid relationship allowing us to get an introduction to Y"
"Errr, which 007 was that?"

It would be utter chaos. And only a good idea in the heads of these plebs writing this film.

The whole thing reeks of desperation. I don't know exactly who is pushing for these established characters to be changed either by gender or race but it's just bloody lazy.

For instance, if you want a female spy, put some effort in and fucking write an original one. I for one loved Atomic Blonde. There's no reason that couldn't be a franchise to rival Bond. Or at least try. I mean, it's basically female Bond anyway. With skilled writers it should be easy. Just look at John Wick and what it achieved in terms of world and character building in ONE film.

007 is James Bond. A man. To just swap in X minority/whatever is just plain lazy to me.

reply

Uh huh.

So, to be clear: the Brits only have nine agents licensed to kill? And that's all there ever have been, and ever will be?

Think it through.

reply

Uhh. How on Earth did you get that from what I wrote? I didn't say that at all. The complete opposite in fact.

What makes you think we are restricted to 9? Fleming himself mentioned 0011 in Moonraker. 0012 mentioned in TWINE. Numerous other agents named but 00 designation not specified...

The only times another agent has been given the designation of 007 was to confuse enemies in the original Casino Royale.

reply

You still don't get the implication of what you're saying. Just keep adding new numbers for new agents? Eventually you either run out of numbers, or have to start using absurd code names like "Double 0 two hundred and forty three, reporting for duty!"
I'm just not seeing the objection. . .thematically or practically. . .with re-using code numbers. Note that the flip side to what I wrote is that you CAN'T have hundreds of licensed to kill agents running around; the implication is obvious.
Shrug. At least it seems so to me.

Addendum: There is a well-trod history of secret agents re-using code names. Not gonna post a list; a simple google search will suffice.

reply

Seeing as it's a made up thing from the novels and I doubt in use by the actual SIS, it seems a moot point. However, for the sake of argument, as it's really double O, not 0, you could do double anything, CC7, GG7, HH7, say up to 100 if anything over 100 seems too absurd. That's 2574 possible agents without re using 007.

On the other hand, maybe they would recycle them, say, every 50 years or so. Certainly not at the rate of 007 suddenly being replaced such as in this instance. I think it would confuse matters.

reply

"Seeing as it's a made up thing from the novels and I doubt in use by the actual SIS,"

. . .well, I could tell you, but then. . .

reply

Yeah, or a failed attempt at a shared universe with other 00 agents havig their own movies.

reply

Eon productions is too incompetent to even churn out one Bond film every five years. I don't know how they expect to develop a 'cinematic universe' if they can't even manage to make three films in a decade. Marvel makes horrendous movies that have ruined the film industry for decades to come, but they aren't incompetent when it comes to following a production schedule like Eon is.

There were already supposed to be spin-off films for Wei-Lin and Jinx a long time ago, but Eon is too incompetent to manage the responsibility of creating those films.

reply

People will make the argument that once James Bond quits/retires he loses his 007 codename. This is wrong. On Her Majesty's Secret Service, bond quits, comes back as 007. License to Kill, Bond quits, even attacks M16 personnel, still gets called 007 by Q throughout the movie. Die Another Day, Bond is is captured, MIA, could even be KIA, comes back as 007 later in the movie. Skyfall, Bond dissapears into retirement, comes back as 007 with the line "007 reporting for duty".

reply

While all of that is true it just means they either never found a replacement or they did and the replacement "did not work out"

reply

All this means is that producers are triggered SJW who are morons.

reply

Yes the retired codename switcharoo will be a brief, one off gimmick but of course that's not going to deter the SWS from endlessly proclaiming with self righteous & illogical outrage that the James Bond character is somehow being "reverse whitewashed".

reply

[deleted]

Yet the SWS are the ones having a racially obsessed tantrum/panic attack about an innocuous but admittedly dumb sounding gimmick involving a temporary codename switch for part of one film.

reply

Lol gotta love people.

reply

[deleted]

Oh yes lol. They never cease to amaze me.

reply