MovieChat Forums > No Time to Die (2021) Discussion > Great choice with Lashana Lynch, better ...

Great choice with Lashana Lynch, better than Idris Elba, excellent realistic choice for an agent

posted 5 years ago by Frogarama (12942)
12 replies | jump to latest

Idris wants to be a hard action hero like what he's doing in Hobbs & Shaw, OR alternatively, politically active material. Bond might be a bit boring for Idris, and too limiting for him, as he is a producer.

In terms of "white male Bond," consider this simple series of questions:

1. How old is Bond? Impossible to answer. He was middle aged in the 60's and still is. Other characters are unchanged when possible, like M and Q. What color is Bond's hair? Etc.

2. Is Bond even a single person or is the name "James Bond" itself a code name? 007 is not a code name, FYI, that's his spy designation and RANK.

Whether James Bond is a real name or a code name is actually up for debate and subject to change or defining or redefining, as far as I know.

3. Has anyone here ever met actual high-level intelligence agents? If so, you'd know they are NOT all white males. Diversity IS ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY A BENEFIT TO SPIES AND INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS.... Because then they can blend in anywhere based on which agent is assigned to a mission.

Congratulations to the Bond team, I think the franchise may be again reinvigorated by this. THE REASON Bond is still around is because the people running it know WTF they're doing.

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

I see you have copied the comment you used to answer me and posted here as a new thread. This is the original comment https://moviechat.org/nm2736476/Lashana-Lynch/5d2bcb926939ea56b5b4f75d/Sorry-but-why-her?reply=5d2be55a6939ea56b5b4f825

Of course, you didn't copy the final sentences in that comment. So let me quote your words, the ones you didn't include here, so people can understand what type of person you are.

Truth is always going to defeat misogynistic trolls like you, and yes that's practically ALL I ever see you post. Your simple minded, meaningless username is distinguishable enough and reflective of the meaningless babble you spew all over this site.

---

That said, my reply still applies: Bond is not an accurate portrayal of a real spy. It's a fantasy about a fictional character whose core traits are a portrayal of a traditional British phlegmatic character living a pulp secret-spy fantasy.

You wanna make a movie about real spies that are Black, Latino, Native American, Muslim or whatever else PC stuff? Be my guest, but that's not 007.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 5 years ago

007 is whatever the current right holders of the fiction says so. If they want to make 007 into a transgender biracial human-alien hybrid pansexual demigod, so be it. Whether that would actually sell or not depends on the audience reception. I hope not.

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Nope.

If you hold the copyright, you have the right to publish whatever you like using that name. You could release hardcore porn under the 007 brand if you wanted. That doesn't mean that the story and the characters suddenly become hardcore porn, so surely Sean Connery's 007 should have been hardcore porn all along but someway people failed to realize it, isn't it?

Well, nope.

You can release whatever shit you want under the 007 brand because you hold the rights. That doesn't mean that shit is 007. The same way you can release whatever shit you want under 'Romeo & Julie' label, and you can make Romeo a transgender black muslim and Juliet a Hispanic bisexual welcome refugee, both separated by evil nazi white males, and rewrite the dialogues from zero, but that doesn't mean that Shakespeare's work suddenly became whatever shit you released.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 5 years ago

I don't mean it would be applied retroactively. Sean Connery's 007 would still be Sean Connery's 007.

Also Shakespeare's plays are in public domain now.

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

If it's supposed to be part of the same universe and the same story, it does apply retroactively. If Darth Varder says 'I am your father' in the sequel, that applies retroactively to the first movie.

When you wanna make something new, or different, you can always use words as 'reboot', 'remake', 'reimagined', 'based' or similar. Like 'Battlestar Galactica Reimagined'.

But they don't, even when they want to do is something completely different. And that's why people gets so upset: because what they're doing is REWRITING the old stories to sell that bloody new religion of theirs.

Not reboots, not remakes. The SJW Star Wars is supposedly part of the same original story. The SJW woke Marvel is supposedly part of the original story. SJW Ghostbusters is supposedly part of the same original story. SJW Nurse Who is supposedly part of the same original story. SJW Star Trek is supposedly part of the same original story. Now SJW 007 is supposedly part of the same original story.

Do you see the pattern? They're not reboots. They rewrite the old stories. Because stories carry messages. If you rewrite a story, you rewrite its message.

And Disney reboots? Well, again, they're not reboots, Disney doesn't announce Little Mermaid as 'reboot' or 'reimagined' or 'based on', but as an 'adaptation', which means: it's supposedly the same story, but now it's a live-action instead of animated. But, hey, it's the same, just blackwashed. Again, same pattern.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 5 years ago

Interesting. Never thought of that. I don't know about those other franchises, but for James Bond I automatically assumed a "soft reboot" everytime they changed the main actor even when they didn't explicitly announce the reboot.

I mean, Pierce Brosnan's 007 can't be the exact same character as Daniel Craig's 007, nor in the same "universe." Even the tone of the movies were too different for me.

But yeah, there must be SJW influences in movies these days. But I don't think that the studio's fault. They are only catering for the percieved audience's taste. If those SJW-flavored movies don't sell I believe they'd stop making 'em sooner or later.

However, Disney's is currently DOMINATING the entire box office as if they're Ed Sheeran. So I have the littlest of hope that they'll change their way of movie-making soon.

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

I don't think it's about the companies. I think it's about the people. People who have a strong faith feel the need to Spread the Message. That's why you had a few Hollywood movies spreading the Scientology message.

But at least they didn't buy the rights of some old franchise. Imagine Star Wars Episode VII where Leia and Luke fight what remains of the Empire and we discover that Jedis are just a more advanced version of Scientologists. And then we have a spin-off of Obi Wan when he entered the Scientology Church and eventually became a Jedi master. And how Annakin abandoned the Scientology Church and eventually sided with the Sith. And then Rey finds the secret books of Jedi guarded by Luke, and they have a pyramid on the cover...

More or less, that's what we're having, just with diversitology stuff instead of scientology stuff.

[–] Frogarama (12942) 5 years ago

The only core Bond is written by Ian Fleming.

Ian Fleming died in 1964.

Nothing written after 1964 can EVER be pure Bond.

MOVE ON WITH LIFE, KUKU. STOP LIVING IN THE PAST.

Seriously. This is serious psychogical advice. It is not healthy to live TETHERED to the past. It only limits you.

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Nope, the character from the movies is not the same character from the books. It's not the same narrative universe and it was never presented as such. The movies themselves weren't introduced as 'adaptations' but as 'based on Ian Fleming's novels' or something like that.

This is actually quite an interesting subject. For whoever is interested, I have talked about it in more detail in a comment above, the one that starts with 'If it's supposed to be part of the same universe and the same story...'.

---

By the way, bolds are for special remarks. Writing your WHOLE commentary in bold letters is just like shouting out loud in a debate to compensate your lack of arguments. Please, edit that.

[–] bozo_500 (12228) 5 years ago

I wonder if they considered Elba for 007 in this? that would've been better imo. maybe he was to busy with F&F:H&S to do it

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Maybe right now being black doesn't give you enough oppression points to get the role. You need extra-points, like being female, or transgender, or Muslim.

[–] LordBAElish (2015) 5 years ago

This is a ploy, a gimmick to get people talking about the movie and going to see the movie. It is an ill-advised move for the franchise. Lynch could have been given another 00 agent number, but no, they had to go and pull this titanic blunder. James bond is synonymous with 007, 007 with James Bond. Ian Flemmings James Bond 007. To have someone else, black, white, man, women, play James Bond is travesty.

Now, yes, 00 agents are replaced when they did. We see that in Casino Royale when James Bond is granted 00 status and winds up with 007. There are 00 agents 002-009, and throughout the Bond movies the names change. For example, 002 has different names in Thunderball and The Livingday lights.

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".

The real reason a black woman takes Bond's codename is to appease a loud minority of people, fake social justice warriors, "woke people", triggered political correctness morons, people who think there is a gender for every day of the year, people who sexualize children and want to normalize pedophilia.

I can't wait until the Craig era is over, because its crashing down in flames. I pray we return to a classic Bond formual with a new Bond and these Craig reboots are forgotten in the future.