007 is now a woman

[DamnYanks2]

Re: 007 is now a woman

I'm sorry, but when a lot of female and minority castings in recent years have been met with "Oh golly, another PC role!" I'm going to beg to differ with you.

There is not some Politically Correct Team operating behind the scenes to ruin your favorite characters and IPs. Its not some big conspiracy. What is the conspiracy is keeping the status quo simply because it's the status quo. Any deviation from that is not the PC Team coming for you and to force equality on you. To think that and continuously think that is absurd and to feel somehow victimized or any "level" of outrage is petty and dumb.

If people don't want females or minorities to be better and more equally represented that's fine. Just come out and say it rather than hiding behind the "oh, that's so PC" bull****.




This is such bull****. The blowback was singularly about the casting. Nothing else. If people are truly getting remake fatigue then that's not being translated to the box office where Disney is pulling in big money on the majority of these. Like I said, bull****.

I do not believe there is a poster in here that doesn't want minorities or women to get lead roles. You're really stretching.

We just don't want our movies or shows to suck, because someone felt the need to inject something it didn't need. That was completely unecessary.

So yea.. we might be a little skeptical about Bond being played as a woman. I am. I completely admit that. Because that is a completely different direction. That being said it's not that big of deal because Bond movies are so hit or miss anyway.

But I'm definitely not going to boycott a movie because of this direction lol.





Sent from my SM-J337VPP using Tapatalk

[jb12780]

Re: 007 is now a woman

Going to go see this opening day/night regardless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DamnYanks2]

Re: 007 is now a woman

Going back the past two months here are the top movies of each weekend:



Aladdin

Godzilla: King of the Monsters

The Secret Life of Pets 2

Men in Black International

Toy Story 4

Toy Story 4

Spider-Man: Far from Home

Spider-Man: Far from Home



There is no fatigue, people flock to this ****.

Its like the 90s all over again looking at showtimes.

Sent from my SM-J337VPP using Tapatalk

[SmashMan]

Re: 007 is now a woman

I do not believe there is a poster in here that doesn't want minorities or women to get lead roles. You're really stretching.

We just don't want our movies or shows to suck, because someone felt the need to inject something it didn't need. That was completely unecessary.

What if a movie or show just ends up sucking because sometimes things just suck? How can we tell if it's for PC reasons or if a production just bombs?

[JayBee74]

Re: 007 is now a woman

So yea.. we might be a little skeptical about Bond being played as a woman.

She's not playing Bond!!!!!

[Blzer]

Re: 007 is now a woman

The Bond franchise is hardly some paragon of storytelling. After 24 of these movies, if they can pull off something so bad that the only thing we can blame it on is their attempt to please the PC crowd, that would be *knocks fan into bathtub*, shocking, positively shocking. There's going to be 15 things to complain about before that.

I wasn't necessarily talking about this franchise, I just meant in general. It has bogged some movies. But again, as I mentioned, some films get away with it because good storytelling is in place and disguises any other possible intended doings, in which case it really isn't a problem at all.

Not a very recent example, but in recent memory I left my impressions for Cars 3 which decided to go a PC-route. I never mention specifics, but if you read between the lines and/or have seen the movie, then you may know what I'm getting at:

https://forums.operationsports.com/f...post2049116119

Literally speaking of which, at about the 75-minute mark of this film I literally said out loud, “This film is doing no wrong.” I liked what I was watching. ....... Then with maybe fifteen minutes left to go in the film, they take a left turn. I’ll admit it was a bit of a surprise and even somewhat more of a letdown (let me just say that the sign of the times really showed here, and if you saw my little mini-rant in the Family Guy thread then you may be able to guess what I’m talking about) because Pixar just had to be different, or rather just had to be modern. I won’t fault them for feeling they needed to do what they did, but let me just say that I have the easiest rewrite in the books that gets us to the exact same place when the credits roll without needing to detour a little bit. I have a slight feeling that if they didn’t pull this stunt, the several folks (including critics visible on Rotten Tomatoes) who decided to undersell this film would have evened it out in the end. I don’t hate what they did, but they honestly could have done without it. Nevertheless, I’ll go with as I said in my previous paragraph: since they did it, I can go ahead and say they also executed it pretty well in the process, because they really could have butchered it.

I believe character impact was significantly lessened as a result of their intentions. What they did doesn't bother me as much as why they did it though, because it still fit within the story and Pixar isn't terrible at these things. I just wish some things weren't so in-your-face about it though, is all.

Plus, sometimes the statements are in what is absent from these flicks. Take this Mulan live-action remake, for example. I'm sure they won't have singalongs, but if they did, "I'll Make A Man Out Of You" would not make the cut. Or look at the UHD release of Toy Story 2, where the post-credits scene of Stinky Pete trying to get the Barbies to swoon over him was removed. It kind of reminds me when some movies that aired on TV removed the twin towers after 9/11. It's just so off-putting.

Anyway, I think we're making a whole lot of something out of nothing. This could just as easily be important to the story as Anna Kendrick's character was in Up In the Air, and whether she is male or female, black or white, able or handicapped, if the story they put in place is good and there for the right reasons, it honestly shouldn't even matter. I just wanted to see more Naomie Harris kicking *** in the field is all.

[Fresh Tendrils]

Re: 007 is now a woman

We just don't want our movies or shows to suck, because someone felt the need to inject something it didn't need. That was completely unecessary.

So yea.. we might be a little skeptical about Bond being played as a woman. I am. I completely admit that. Because that is a completely different direction. That being said it's not that big of deal because Bond movies are so hit or miss anyway.

1) Nobody wants their movie to suck, but shouldn't judgement and all this "the sky is falling down because of PC hollywood" be reserved until the actual product is out so you can judge everything at once? The fact is nobody knows how these decisions came up or how they are implemented, but lets label everything as PC casting.

What's an acceptable flow chart of a movie sucking?

2) She isn't playing Bond. Bond is still in the movie being played by Daniel Craig. Both him and the character have been playing with retirement for the past two movies. It's not exactly far fetched for MI6 to get in a new agent to fill the 007 status.

[DamnYanks2]

Re: 007 is now a woman

Well, that just shows you out of touch I am with things. I thought she was playing as Bond.

Yea I got no problem with that. Hope this thing matches Skyfall and Casino Royale. My two favorite Bond movies.



Sent from my SM-J337VPP using Tapatalk

[p_rushing]

Re: 007 is now a woman

1) Nobody wants their movie to suck, but shouldn't judgement and all this "the sky is falling down because of PC hollywood" be reserved until the actual product is out so you can judge everything at once? The fact is nobody knows how these decisions came up or how they are implemented, but lets label everything as PC casting.

What's an acceptable flow chart of a movie sucking?

2) She isn't playing Bond. Bond is still in the movie being played by Daniel Craig. Both him and the character have been playing with retirement for the past two movies. It's not exactly far fetched for MI6 to get in a new agent to fill the 007 status.

Well, that just shows you out of touch I am with things. I thought she was playing as Bond.

Yea I got no problem with that. Hope this thing matches Skyfall and Casino Royale. My two favorite Bond movies.

Sent from my SM-J337VPP using Tapatalk

It's semantics. Bond is 007, 007 is Bond. She is playing agent 007. Bond is retired but gets called back for whatever reason because the new 007 can't handle it without him.

You can't go and create another spy movie and call the character Bond or 007. By calling her 007, she is playing Bond.

Call her 001..00X, etc. Then have her replace Bond as the main character in the next movie. All of that is fine, but don't call her 007 and then try to say you aren't trying to replace Bond with a female and it's not because of social things.

[ODogg]

007 is now a woman

I'm sorry, but when a lot of female and minority castings in recent years have been met with "Oh golly, another PC role!" I'm going to beg to differ with you.

There is not some Politically Correct Team operating behind the scenes to ruin your favorite characters and IPs. Its not some big conspiracy. What is the conspiracy is keeping the status quo simply because it's the status quo. Any deviation from that is not the PC Team coming for you and to force equality on you. To think that and continuously think that is absurd and to feel somehow victimized or any "level" of outrage is petty and dumb.

If people don't want females or minorities to be better and more equally represented that's fine. Just come out and say it rather than hiding behind the "oh, that's so PC" bull****.




This is such bull****. The blowback was singularly about the casting. Nothing else. If people are truly getting remake fatigue then that's not being translated to the box office where Disney is pulling in big money on the majority of these. Like I said, bull****.

The issue is not with females or minorities being cast, it's about remakes and characters being changed from what they were. It's about taking classic movies and changing then into something unrecognizable just for "progress" instead of actually making new and good material where the focus is on the story rather than an agenda.

There have been countless female lead and minority lead movies in Hollywood that no one has any issue with, and are in fact celebrated. One that comes to mind is Get Out! Great movie and no one had any complaints about that being primarily a minority led and mostly minority cast movie.

So yeah it's not about race or even sex, it's about messing with heralded franchises for the sake of PC.

For example, it is just politically correct nonsense when they feel the need to remake Ghostbusters with all females just for the "Metoo" crowd. Absolute nonsense.

Cast females, minorities and whoever you like in movies but quit redoing classics and changing casting drastically just to appease a very small and vocal group of people. It doesn't work and most of the public doesn't want to see it.

What's next, a wheelchair bound Asian, gay Superman? Doesn't that cover all the bases? It'll be great!! So what if he's always been a white hetero guy..it's progress!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DieHardYankee26]

Re: 007 is now a woman

The origin for Bond as of the new books (prequel to Casino Royale) is actually that he had to investigate the killing of the guy who had the 007 codename before him.

I wasn't necessarily talking about this franchise, I just meant in general. It has bogged some movies. But again, as I mentioned, some films get away with it because good storytelling is in place and disguises any other possible intended doings, in which case it really isn't a problem at all.

Not a very recent example, but in recent memory I left my impressions for Cars 3 which decided to go a PC-route. I never mention specifics, but if you read between the lines and/or have seen the movie, then you may know what I'm getting at:

https://forums.operationsports.com/f...post2049116119



I believe character impact was significantly lessened as a result of their intentions. What they did doesn't bother me as much as why they did it though, because it still fit within the story and Pixar isn't terrible at these things. I just wish some things weren't so in-your-face about it though, is all.

Plus, sometimes the statements are in what is absent from these flicks. Take this Mulan live-action remake, for example. I'm sure they won't have singalongs, but if they did, "I'll Make A Man Out Of You" would not make the cut. Or look at the UHD release of Toy Story 2, where the post-credits scene of Stinky Pete trying to get the Barbies to swoon over him was removed. It kind of reminds me when some movies that aired on TV removed the twin towers after 9/11. It's just so off-putting.

Anyway, I think we're making a whole lot of something out of nothing. This could just as easily be important to the story as Anna Kendrick's character was in Up In the Air, and whether she is male or female, black or white, able or handicapped, if the story they put in place is good and there for the right reasons, it honestly shouldn't even matter. I just wanted to see more Naomie Harris kicking *** in the field is all.

I don't think it's worth talking about this in general terms, too many different studios, people, reasons, etc. I was just focused on Bond.

[Armor and Sword]

Re: 007 is now a woman

If she is the new 007 great.

Let's see how long that can last and be a successful franchise.

007 will always be James Bond in my book.

If this the direction they want to go in. Fine...great. I will see it. I am a huge Bond fan. I love great spy movies.

What will be her name be?

I also think this will be a one time thing. Just my prediction.

But who knows.....if it's good I will keep watching her as 007. And the franchise truly goes in a new direction.

It is not the first time a female lead can carry a strong character in a franchise.

Ellen Ripley anyone?

[DamnYanks2]

Re: 007 is now a woman

The issue is not with females or minoritues being cast, it's about remakes and characters being changed from what they were.

There have been countless female lead and minority lead movies in Hollywood that no one has any issue with, and are in fact celebrated. One that comes to mind is Get Out! Great movie and no one had any complaints about that being primarily a minority led and mostly minority cast movie.

It is just politically correct nonsense when they feel the need to remake Ghostbusters with all females just for the "Metoo" crowd.

Cast females, minorities and whoever you like in movies but quit redoing classics and changing casting drastically just to appease a very small and vocal group of people.

What's next, a wheelchair bound Asian, gay Superman? Doesn't that cover all the bases? It'll be great!! So what if he's always been a white hetero guy..it's progress!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's basically how I feel. Would we really be cool if Spiderman became Spiderwoman? Or Batman became Batwoman.Little Mermaid became the little Merman. You get the point.

People may disagree with me. But there have been multiple movies butchered because they wanted to force a narrative that wasn't necessary.

Nobody is arguing a movie can't just suck on it's own.

If its authentic and not forced I'm down with it. Stranger things, Game of thrones, Tomb raider all have strong female lead roles and I loved them.

That's all.



Sent from my SM-J337VPP using Tapatalk

[Blzer]

Re: 007 is now a woman

2) She isn't playing Bond. Bond is still in the movie being played by Daniel Craig. Both him and the character have been playing with retirement for the past two movies. It's not exactly far fetched for MI6 to get in a new agent to fill the 007 status.

Exactly. Plus, the world of Bond has been expanded hugely and exponentially in recent years, so it feels like there is room for more characters within the mythos beyond James Bond himself. This feels much more legitimate now in a way it didn't in 2002, when Stephen Frears was going to do Jinx with Halle Berry.

Bond was always Ian Fleming's vicarious fantasy, but rather pointedly it was wracked with self-loathing. That is the essence of Bond itself... that he is something of a pig, but a necessary one. He is not an aspirational fantasy, but rather the one we can't have. The post-Cubby period of films has (to varying degrees of success) examined how the character is out of alignment with the modern world, and how that can be reconciled.

I'm in the camp of "do it right for the story's sake," so hopefully this is the right move. After all, Spectre wasn't exactly a compelling Bond film and it had Daniel Craig (nor was it visually or auditorily pleasing, but that's a different department anyway). Yes, part of me wants to see the films stay somewhat true to the source, but maybe this is only a slight deviation that course-corrects bt the end of the film anyway. Nevertheless, this is another odd-numbered film in the Craig era, where 1 & 3 were great and 2 & 4 were not. Maybe 5 is the right number here.

[Armor and Sword]

Re: 007 is now a woman

The issue is not with females or minorities being cast, it's about remakes and characters being changed from what they were. It's about taking classic movies and changing then into something unrecognizable just for "progress" instead of actually making new and good material where the focus is on the story rather than an agenda.

There have been countless female lead and minority lead movies in Hollywood that no one has any issue with, and are in fact celebrated. One that comes to mind is Get Out! Great movie and no one had any complaints about that being primarily a minority led and mostly minority cast movie.

So yeah it's not about race or even sex, it's about messing with heralded franchises for the sake of PC.

For example, it is just politically correct nonsense when they feel the need to remake Ghostbusters with all females just for the "Metoo" crowd. Absolute nonsense.

Cast females, minorities and whoever you like in movies but quit redoing classics and changing casting drastically just to appease a very small and vocal group of people. It doesn't work and most of the public doesn't want to see it.

What's next, a wheelchair bound Asian, gay Superman? Doesn't that cover all the bases? It'll be great!! So what if he's always been a white hetero guy..it's progress!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed. Hollywood is too lazy to write new ideas these days.