MovieChat Forums > No Time to Die (2021) Discussion > It would be a slap in the face to her fa...

It would be a slap in the face to her father, to Ian Flemming, and...to a fan base that has been loyal for nearly 60 y

posted 5 years ago by Ripkens25 (1910)
13 replies | jump to latest

If this rumor is true, it would be one of the most ill-advised, PC-pandering, BS idiotic moves in cinema history. Just create a different franchise for her character if you feel so inclined to pander, and to reverse yet another white male character and retro-fit it as a woman, or ethnic character (or both).

What will be next, a Punjabi Superman?

It's not only weak and pandering...it's condescending to all involved. Create a NEW character for her if you must. You're just setting her (and the franchise) up to fail.

[–] TreeShaman (806) 5 years ago

You really think a narcissist trust fund brat like Barbara cares about her father's or Fleming's legacy?

[–] FootOfDavros (6833) 5 years ago

The fan base hasn't been loyal for 60 years. Any true fan knows that Cubby absolutely loved Sir Roger and had been after Pierce Brosnan for years.

Casting Daniel Craig was the slap in the face to Cubby's Bond film legacy. All this getting excited about another agent having the 007 number is laughably years too late on the complaining front...

[–] Ripkens25 (1910) 5 years ago

It's one thing to hit or miss (in varying degrees) as to which male lead they settle on for Bond.

People have argued for decades regarding who was best, and for what reasons. Opinions vary. I happen to think DC is the best Bond since Sean Connery. Though I also loved the Roger Moore films.

But to switch race and gender is to completely ignore and disregard cannon, not to mention the spirit and intention of the author and his character. If this rumor is true, it's sacrilege, and it's the end of a franchise.

[–] FootOfDavros (6833) 5 years ago

Yeah but they aren't making her James Bond are they? They're just making her the current 007 agent.

So everything you said about spirit of the Bond character is completely irrelevant to her separate character. However ironically it applies perfectly to Daniel Craig, who's ugly, gadget-less, team adventures, thug Bond has no place in the Bond film series.

So if you didn't complain about Daniel Craig I honestly can't see how you can be complaining now.

[–] Ripkens25 (1910) 5 years ago

The whole premise of my "complaint" is based on whether or not they replace the character of James Bond (and his signature title of 007) with a completely different gender and race. It's semantics to parse words and say: "Well...they're probably gonna keep the character of James Bond (at least for this last movie)...but his job and title will be going to a woman moving forward."

None of that parsing makes it any better. If his role/job goes to someone else, it would be like suggesting: "Clark Kent will still be a guy who exists, but his suit and cape...and title and job....will be going to a Pakastani, pansexual transgender."

Regarding Craig? That's a separate argument, and I have no interest in going down that rabbit hole. Tastes and opinions vary on Bond men throughout the decades. For me, I didn't care if DC was pretty. In fact...Flemming's Bond had a big scar across his face. It's actually cooler that he is gritty, and looks like someone who could kill you with his bare hands. I'd take that over some prissy Bond...prancing around in tuxedos all the time, worrying about whether his little martini was shaken or stirred.

If you watched Casino Royale and weren't impressed with DC's portrayal, I'll just agree to disagree with you, and leave it at that.

[–] TheHungryHippo (821) 5 years ago

Exactly and if they replaced Bond with Nomi then it would no longer be the "James Bond" series which would defeat the whole purpose. There is no way they would just all of a sudden steer the focus away from Bond and onto some character we've never seen before nor do we even know if the public is going to like that character.

The idea that Nomi is going to take over the series is preposterous but I guess we'll have to wait and see if Eon really is that dumb.

[–] FootOfDavros (6833) 5 years ago

I'm totally happy not to argue re the merits of Daniel Craig but I really don't see it as a separate argument. For me it is THE argument:-

All Bonds up to Craig - Continuity of spirit and character. The evolved cinematic Bond over 30+ years of films.

Daniel Craig - "completely ignores and disregards cannon" of the cinematic Bond.

Yeah, you're perfectly entitled to enjoy his portrayal of "Fleming's" book Bond if you wish but it's a really hard push to sell that as a representative continuation of the cinematic Bond. They sold out the tux martini defined character who had a bit of humour about him to get a bit the Jason Bourne action.

Whether they additionally sell out the 007 agent number is small potatoes compared to that as far I'm concerned...

[–] ivankyazze (179) 5 years ago

I agree with you. In the Daniel Craig era the producers have shyed away from the Bond formula. The Daniel Craig era feels more like Jason Bourne than James Bond to be honest. I just hope with Daniel Craig’s successor they go back to making Bond fun again with out of this world gadgets, world domination plots etc. 2015’s ‘Kingsman: The Secret Service’ proved that a Roger Moore Bond film still works in the 21st century. So there’s no excuse.

[–] FootOfDavros (6833) 5 years ago

Exactly. Bond has lost its soul trying to be a sub Bourne or MI film rather than a prime Bond film. It's sad.

That's why I really don't get this 007 hysteria. I don't want to sound like a SJW here (as this 007 thing obviously is pandering to that) but it's almost bordering on sexism as far as I'm concerned if you can complain about that yet accept Daniel Craig being "Bond" just because he's also a white male man (the only characteristic he shares with the Cinematic Bond).

[–] TheHungryHippo (821) 5 years ago

If Bond becomes a female then its no longer the "James Bond" series so they'd might as well just make a completely different franchise. Kind of like how it would be dumb to turn Luke Skywalker into a woman, instead they just invented a whole new character which is fine (well the concept is fine, the execution was handled sooooo poorly as Rey is a very underwhelming and poorly written character. The thing is though Star Wars isn't dependent upon Luke Skywalker so it is feasible to continue the franchise with Rey and not Luke, The James Bond series IS dependent upon James Bond).

BTW I am still FAR from convinced that she is going to be anything more than a sidekick and that she will actually take over the series, I am still not buying it but time will tell.

[–] Ripkens25 (1910) 5 years ago

The Kingsman movies were lackluster and came and went quickly. Bond movies needed a reboot desperately after Die Another Day. I mean....once you have invisible cars.....once you have Bond wind-surfing on a tidal wave using a car door and a parachute (to the tune of a Beach Boys song)....that's it, time to shut it down and reboot. And....the reboot was brilliant. I've yet to find a person who didn't love Casino Royale. Bond returned to Flemming's vision of the character. No longer was he some prissy prettyboy...prancing around in his little tuxedos, worrying about whether or not his little martini was shaken or stirred. Daniel Craig's Bond looked like a guy who could kill you with his bare hands.

The free-running opening scene sold me. The stairwell scene, where he chokes a guy out...goes up to his room to wash the blood off....downs a double scotch...and returns to his poker game, sold me even further. By the time I saw him stab a guy in the neck (in Quantum) and get him in a submission hold to calmly wait as he bleeds out....I was all in on this version of Bond.

Where they go from here....kinda worries me. But the Daniel Craig era of Bond was brilliant. Watch the train fight in Spectre and tell me I'm wrong.

Oh, and who the f--k cares if the tone of the films seems similar to the Bourne movies? Better that, than seeming similar to the Austin Powers movies. I'll give you this......the somewhat silly movies from Moore were great for their time--but they were a product of the 70's (and early 80's). It's awesome to revisit them from time to time. I love them as much as anyone. But to return to that tone now...would be like parody. It would be a huge mistake to return to campiness.

[–] DracTarashV2 (4475) 5 years ago

Yawn!

Like all the other triggeredsaurus reactionaries having meltdowns on this board (this site, period), ya forgot to give out a strong and sincere....

White Pow... der! :>

But for real, the way Hollywood continues to make hypocritically PC Nationalists (“waaa keep things the way they were!”) lose their reich minds each and every day is pure gold (the so-called alpha male that is Benny Shapiro is weeping along with y’all). I mean, they’re pandering less and less to the crowd they pandered to for decades? You know, those that saw nothing wrong with black face, yellow face, etc and wish the John Waynes, Clint Eastwoods and James Woods of the world had a bigger influence in Hollywood. Well womp, womp.

Oh, and Punjab Superman? FCK YES! Whoever they’d pick for the role, I guarantee he’s going to look more like a Super Man than any internet white justice neckbeard wishing Hollywood would pander to the ultra safe space Faux News crowd. And funny, it’s like the harder said crowd rages with their pro-social injustice ad nauseam, the more many in H town luckily continue to put their foot down (obvs having a mindless ahole bigot disastrously leading ’muricA and actually causing real harm in a world where he’s made reich wing extremism kewl again isn’t enough representation for y’all). Lol.

In closing, ha ha!

[–] Satan2016 (23537) 5 years ago

Triggered much? Bond Derangement!