James Bond is James Bond. 007 is just the number associated with the designation in MI6. Being given the 007 number does not make one James Bond, be it a woman or man....it makes you a "00". The problem is, the number is so connected to the character of James Bond that reassigning it causes all kinds of problems. I haven't read Forever and A Day so I'm not familiar with any literary version of what happens with a "00" number once the agent retires, dies, etc.
I see a couple of members link this plot twist to #MeToo. That's a misunderstanding. #MeToo is about unwanted sexual advances, so that movement is irrelevant to the New rumoured plot twist.
The #metoo age has undoubtedly changed cinema and has shifted the goal posts. In that climate, films and their heroes are affected. James Bond too many is a symbol of alpha-male chauvinism and there are many in the industry that would want to turn that symbol into one that aligns with their current moral virtues.
That started happening back when Bond made a quiche. If you still want him slapping helpless ladies and exclaiming ‘a woman!’ when he meets a female scientist then I’m afraid that boat set sail over thirty five years ago.
Is it still against forum policy to dish out personal barbs? 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)
I think hiring Phoebe Waller-Bridge seems like a good idea. It looks like she can snappy and witty dialogue, and she even writes a espionage thriller series! Purvis and Wade are not very good at writing dialogue, so having Waller-Bridge polish the script might be just what's needed.
She has also said: "I suppose every time [something bad happens], I have that instinct to make that joke that distracts." Isn't that what Bond has been doing for decades?
James Bond is James Bond. 007 is just the number associated with the designation in MI6. Being given the 007 number does not make one James Bond, be it a woman or man....it makes you a "00". The problem is, the number is so connected to the character of James Bond that reassigning it causes all kinds of problems. I haven't read Forever and A Day so I'm not familiar with any literary version of what happens with a "00" number once the agent retires, dies, etc.
James Bond and 007 are synonymous with one another and forever will be.
The #metoo age has undoubtedly changed cinema and has shifted the goal posts. In that climate, films and their heroes are affected. James Bond too many is a symbol of alpha-male chauvinism and there are many in the industry that would want to turn that symbol into one that aligns with their current moral virtues.
That started happening back when Bond made a quiche. If you still want him slapping helpless ladies and exclaiming ‘a woman!’ when he meets a female scientist then I’m afraid that boat set sail over thirty five years ago.
Is it still against forum policy to dish out personal barbs? 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)
James Bond is James Bond. 007 is just the number associated with the designation in MI6. Being given the 007 number does not make one James Bond, be it a woman or man....it makes you a "00". The problem is, the number is so connected to the character of James Bond that reassigning it causes all kinds of problems. I haven't read Forever and A Day so I'm not familiar with any literary version of what happens with a "00" number once the agent retires, dies, etc.
James Bond and 007 are synonymous with one another and forever will be.
That started happening back when Bond made a quiche. If you still want him slapping helpless ladies and exclaiming ‘a woman!’ when he meets a female scientist then I’m afraid that boat set sail over thirty five years ago.
Is it still against forum policy to dish out personal barbs? 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)
The Bond films will always change to keep current. Although in a
Recent article it was pointed out that the BBC radio drama The
Archers is far more sexist than any Bond film
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
It is completely different to the role of M and you know it.
Do I? A man’s role taken by a woman. I would suggest it’s only different to you because you’re used to it. This is feeling a bit like the ‘blond Bond’ thing all over again.
What exactly is different other than ‘it just is and you know it’?
007 is James Bond. This plot would of course be intended to be progressive and PC. And what would be more PC than to have Bond mentor a new female 007 to carry on the mantle?
If you’re asking me to believe that it would be unacceptable for anyone but a man to to do Bond’s job, then I can’t see any other way to describe that than sexist; I’m sorry.
But let me ask you this question - once Craig quits the franchise, what would you think of having a female James Bond? So the next Bond (007) would be a woman and EON would produce films around her.
What are your thoughts?
I don’t want a woman Bond; Bond is defined in many ways by his masculinity. But we’re not discussing that, we’re just talking about this bizarre reaction to the idea of a woman daring to be cast as a double O: something we saw in World is Not Enough, not to mention various books like Devil May Care. Where was this reaction then?
You would suggest that it affects me because I am used to 007 being James Bond who is a man? I was used to M being played by a man for years... when Judi came on abroad did it bother me? Of course not. Why? Because it does not affect the role of Bond one iota.
It affects the role of M, yes; because it’s M. You’re only interested in one single role and character in fifty five years of these films?
I really don’t understand your explanation. It is as I said initially: that there would be some excuse as to why the two are different in some way: this excuse makes less sense than I expected though.
And no we are not discussing the 'bizarre reaction to a woman being cast as a double-o', we are discussing a woman playing the 007 in the new JAMES BOND movie. It's a completely different kettle of fish. Why? Because 007 is James Bond. Plain and Simple. You ask someone on the street who James Bond is, they say 007. You ask another who 007 is, they say James Bond. You ask someone on the street who 009 is, they say huh? 007 is Bond's identity. It is his motivation, his duty, it informs his every move. It is key to his character.
No it isn’t: it’s his job. If he had a different 00 number he’d still be the same character. Yes it’s iconic in the world at large, but we’ve even had two films recently where he wasn’t 007 for part of them. Possibly even Spectre too, but they didn’t make much of a thing about it then.
And like it or not, at the end of the last film he gave up being 007 too. Did you not notice that?
Are you really only objecting to the idea of Bond not being 007?
It is not like we're objecting to a woman playing 009 or some other random 00 like in TWINE, we're not against women in James Bond movies, so please don't try and make it sound as such. What we are against is a woman playing James Bonds role as 007 in a James Bond movie. How can you not understand that?
Because some of you keep phrasing it in terms such as ‘metoo’, ‘virtue signalling’, and ‘casting a woman is pandering to PC’. This is the language of people objecting to women. How can you not understand that?
He’s given up his role as 007: what’s wrong with someone else doing it until he returns? I’m sure he’ll get his number back twenty minutes in.
Secondly, I find it interesting that you would defend a woman playing 007 in a Bond film along side Daniel Craig yet you draw the line at an autonomous female Bond character with her own narrative agency... so it seems that even you have a limit to what you would accept from a woman on the screen.
So you're basically saying that you accept a female playing Bond's role as 007, yet you couldn't accept that character on it's own without that male figurehead in her own Bond film series?
No, come on: don’t try that. You’re trying to move the goalposts and failing. The conversation is not about changing James Bond’s gender- that is a different conversation entirely and is not what this news is.
You say that Bond is defined by masculinity? So by that statement are you saying that a woman couldn't do a man's job?
Nice try, but there’s no logic there. There’s no connection between those two statements: you’re really struggling here.
James Bond does his job his way; we know other people do the same job (some of them have been been shown to be women! Shock!) ergo we know that his way is not the only way. Suggesting that James Bond is a man is not the same as saying super spies can’t be women. I don’t really hav3 to point this logical flaw out as it’s so obvious, but there we go nevertheless.
Again, if this plot is actually correct, then the filmmakers know that they can't actually cast a woman as James Bond after Craig because even feminists like you are hypocrites and would not accept it, so they're doing the next best thing. Have 007 be a woman and Bond can be encouraging her on because #timesup.
‘Hypocrites’. Uh-huh. Is this personal enough for you, Barbel?
The #metoo age has undoubtedly changed cinema and has shifted the goal posts. In that climate, films and their heroes are affected. James Bond too many is a symbol of alpha-male chauvinism and there are many in the industry that would want to turn that symbol into one that aligns with their current moral virtues.
That started happening back when Bond made a quiche. If you still want him slapping helpless ladies and exclaiming ‘a woman!’ when he meets a female scientist then I’m afraid that boat set sail over thirty five years ago.
Is it still against forum policy to dish out personal barbs? 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)
What’s the barb? I’m discussing your point: they started changing Bond to suit modern day attitudes over a generation ago. I’m struggling to see how you can take that personally.
James Bond is James Bond. 007 is just the number associated with the designation in MI6. Being given the 007 number does not make one James Bond, be it a woman or man....it makes you a "00". The problem is, the number is so connected to the character of James Bond that reassigning it causes all kinds of problems. I haven't read Forever and A Day so I'm not familiar with any literary version of what happens with a "00" number once the agent retires, dies, etc.
Well it’s not really a spoiler to say that Bond investigates the previous 007’s death, so it seems the numbers are passed on (I think he asks to be given the dead man’s number in order to send a message to his killers).
You’re right that 007 has cultural significance, which is why ‘The new 007 is a woman!’ headlines will be everywhere and create good publicity if it happens, but Bond isn’t going anywhere and neither is his number. This is nothing to be concerned about, even if it is true.
‘Hypocrites’. Uh-huh. Is this personal enough for you, Barbel?
You persist in trying to provoke me, emtiem. Check some timings and you will see that the passage you quote was altered before your post.
I’m not trying to provoke you: I’m pointing out a personal insult to you. That he edited it after I saw it and before I had time to finish my post doesn’t really affect the fact that he insulted me and I saw it. Is it not personal to call someone a hypocrite?
I see a couple of members link this plot twist to #MeToo. That's a misunderstanding. #MeToo is about unwanted sexual advances, so that movement is irrelevant to the New rumoured plot twist.
It's not the plot twist, it was the wording of the article
Interesting point perhaps? in Die Another Day Miranda Frost was in fact a Double O, tongue in cheek her prefix was 0069. EON nearly followed up said 40th Anniversary jaunt with Jinx which would have again starred Halle Berry in the title role where Bond would have played second fiddle to her character. Even though the project was scrapped at the zero hour because EON finally got the rights to Casino Royale strong female lead characters have always featured in Bond movies...Honey Rider most definitely comes to mind. Pussy Galore seriously kicked Bond's ass & of course there was perhaps the greatest lead female antagonist of all in 1965 with Fiona Volpe! however taking sexism out of the conversation Ian Fleming's James Bond was a bloke and a sexist misogynist dinosaur to boot! EON could not just make 007 a woman because apart from anything else they would have to seek approval from The Fleming Estate and with that license being up for renewal in the not too distant future I'm not convinced they would receive said approval? Just the Donkey's two penneth worth!
Your post was directed at me, implying that action needed to be taken when it already had.
It did take a few minutes to write my post, yes. I’m afraid that I cannot know when something has been edited after I quote it while I’m still writing the post, nor do I go back and check the original post again after I’ve quoted it; I doubt many of us do.
I was indeed hoping you’d take action, as I understood you don’t like this stuff, but you obviously took action against the personal attack before I had to a chance to point it out to you, so that’s all good: thank you for that.
Interesting point perhaps? in Die Another Day Miranda Frost was in fact a Double O, tongue in cheek her prefix was 0069.
Is this in an early script draft or something? She’s MI6 obviously, but I don’t think she’s double O in the final movie. I’m sure she comments on Bond being a Double O at some point in a slightly dismissive way, suggesting she isn’t one.
Do I? A man’s role taken by a woman. I would suggest it’s only different to you because you’re used to it. This is feeling a bit like the ‘blond Bond’ thing all over again.
What exactly is different other than ‘it just is and you know it’?
If you’re asking me to believe that it would be unacceptable for anyone but a man to to do Bond’s job, then I can’t see any other way to describe that than sexist; I’m sorry.
I don’t want a woman Bond; Bond is defined in many ways by his masculinity. But we’re not discussing that, we’re just talking about this bizarre reaction to the idea of a woman daring to be cast as a double O: something we saw in World is Not Enough, not to mention various books like Devil May Care. Where was this reaction then?
You would suggest that it affects me because I am used to 007 being James Bond who is a man? I was used to M being played by a man for years... when Judi came on abroad did it bother me? Of course not. Why? Because it does not affect the role of Bond one iota.
It affects the role of M, yes; because it’s M. You’re only interested in one single role and character in fifty five years of these films?
I really don’t understand your explanation. It is as I said initially: that there would be some excuse as to why the two are different in some way: this excuse makes less sense than I expected though.
And no we are not discussing the 'bizarre reaction to a woman being cast as a double-o', we are discussing a woman playing the 007 in the new JAMES BOND movie. It's a completely different kettle of fish. Why? Because 007 is James Bond. Plain and Simple. You ask someone on the street who James Bond is, they say 007. You ask another who 007 is, they say James Bond. You ask someone on the street who 009 is, they say huh? 007 is Bond's identity. It is his motivation, his duty, it informs his every move. It is key to his character.
No it isn’t: it’s his job. If he had a different 00 number he’d still be the same character. Yes it’s iconic in the world at large, but we’ve even had two films recently where he wasn’t 007 for part of them. Possibly even Spectre too, but they didn’t make much of a thing about it then.
And like it or not, at the end of the last film he gave up being 007 too. Did you not notice that?
It is not like we're objecting to a woman playing 009 or some other random 00 like in TWINE, we're not against women in James Bond movies, so please don't try and make it sound as such. What we are against is a woman playing James Bonds role as 007 in a James Bond movie. How can you not understand that?
Because some of you keep phrasing it in terms such as ‘metoo’, ‘virtue signalling’, and ‘casting a woman is pandering to PC’. This is the language of people objecting to women. How can you not understand that?
He’s given up his role as 007: what’s wrong with someone else doing it until he returns? I’m sure he’ll get his number back twenty minutes in.
Secondly, I find it interesting that you would defend a woman playing 007 in a Bond film along side Daniel Craig yet you draw the line at an autonomous female Bond character with her own narrative agency... so it seems that even you have a limit to what you would accept from a woman on the screen.
So you're basically saying that you accept a female playing Bond's role as 007, yet you couldn't accept that character on it's own without that male figurehead in her own Bond film series?
No, come on: don’t try that. You’re trying to move the goalposts and failing. The conversation is not about changing James Bond’s gender- that is a different conversation entirely and is not what this news is.
You say that Bond is defined by masculinity? So by that statement are you saying that a woman couldn't do a man's job?
Nice try, but there’s no logic there. There’s no connection between those two statements: you’re really struggling here.
James Bond does his job his way; we know other people do the same job (some of them have been been shown to be women! Shock!) ergo we know that his way is not the only way. Suggesting that James Bond is a man is not the same as saying super spies can’t be women. I don’t really hav3 to point this logical flaw out as it’s so obvious, but there we go nevertheless.
Again, if this plot is actually correct, then the filmmakers know that they can't actually cast a woman as James Bond after Craig because even feminists like you are hypocrites and would not accept it, so they're doing the next best thing. Have 007 be a woman and Bond can be encouraging her on because #timesup.
‘Hypocrites’. Uh-huh. Is this personal enough for you, Barbel?
I did modify this and you have my apologies if i offended you with this comment.
- The role of M is an exposition character (SF aside), male or female it doesn't matter. It means nothing. The only role that matter in the Bond series is Bond. Tell me do you think the series has been going for 55 years because of one constant character that is not Bond?
- If you don't think Bond and his job are synonymous with the worldwide brand of 007 then you delusional. And yes 007 is iconic the world over, that is the very point of the idea of subverting the series by making that 007 character a woman. If you think they would do such a thing purely because there are women working in intelligence agencies then are you kidding yourself. Is it a socially savvy statement? Of course it is.
- Also your example of the recent films are not applicable to this. No other character had taken his role in those films. He wasn't sharing his number and identity with anyone else. This scenario is no way comparable to that. Weak example.
- It's not about objecting to women, it's about objecting to the idea that male characters in film need to be subverted or denigrated in some way in order for high-powered industry people to latch onto current trends for the sake of appearances. You lack objectivity in this respect and I really feel you would benefit by taking a step back and looking more closely at the motivations behind some of these creative decisions.
- Do you not see that making 007 a woman is in a subversive way, changing Bonds gender? An all out gender change is just the next step to this.
- I was taking the piss by making an outlandish statement in an attempt to match some of your own.
Interesting point perhaps? in Die Another Day Miranda Frost was in fact a Double O, tongue in cheek her prefix was 0069.
Is this in an early script draft or something? She’s MI6 obviously, but I don’t think she’s double O in the final movie. I’m sure she comments on Bond being a Double O at some point in a slightly dismissive way, suggesting she isn’t one.
Yep, Donk's right, it's on Frost's ID card that she is 0069, and the scrapped Gala Brand character was meant to be 0089.
Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
The role of M is an exposition character (SF aside), male or female it doesn't matter. It means nothing. The only role that matter in the Bond series is Bond. Tell me do you think the series has been going for 55 years because of one constant character that is not Bond?
No, but equally it’s not just him onscreen for 55 years on his own. Without the colourful baddies, beautiful girls and well-played allies he’d be nothing. If you really had no interest in M then fair enough.
And yes 007 is iconic the world over, that is the very point of the idea of subverting the series by making that 007 character a woman. If you think they would do such a thing purely because that's there are women working in intelligence agencies then are you kidding yourself. Is it a socially savvy statement? Of course it is.
Kidding myself. Yup.
To an extent it would be recognising the ‘will they ever make a Bond a woman?’ questions, sure. But that’s no bigger than Agent XXX turning out to be a woman.
Also your example of the recent films are not applicable to this. No other character had taken his role in those films. He wasn't sharing his number and identity with anyone else. This scenario is no way comparable to that. Weak example.
Well not really: with those I’m just trying to establish what the issue is. You say he’s synonymous with 007 but now you say you didn’t mind when he wasn’t 007. So it’s just the idea of someone else being 007? And if they’re a woman that’s worse, or is it just as bad if it’s a new guy?
It's not about objecting to women, it's about objecting to the idea that male characters in film need to be subverted or denigrated in some way in order for high-powered industry people to latch onto current trends for the sake of appearances. You lack objectivity in this respect and I really feel you would benefit by taking a step back and looking more closely at the motivations behind some of these creative decisions.
I lack objectivity? Okay, as long as we’re not being personal!
I’m not seeing how this would denigrate Bond at all. He gave up being 007 in the last movie. Objectively, there’s no denigration here. Is there subversion? Sure, making sequels is often about even the smallest subversion of the formula in order to keep it interesting.
Interesting point perhaps? in Die Another Day Miranda Frost was in fact a Double O, tongue in cheek her prefix was 0069.
Is this in an early script draft or something? She’s MI6 obviously, but I don’t think she’s double O in the final movie. I’m sure she comments on Bond being a Double O at some point in a slightly dismissive way, suggesting she isn’t one.
Yep, Donk's right, it's on Frost's ID card that she is 0069, and the scrapped Gala Brand character was meant to be 0089.
Is that right? We see that in the film? I didn’t know that. Does that definitely mean she’s a a Double O or it’s just her ID number? I’m not sure we’ve had a 00 in the double numbers before, although I think Fleming did.
Interesting point perhaps? in Die Another Day Miranda Frost was in fact a Double O, tongue in cheek her prefix was 0069.
Is this in an early script draft or something? She’s MI6 obviously, but I don’t think she’s double O in the final movie. I’m sure she comments on Bond being a Double O at some point in a slightly dismissive way, suggesting she isn’t one.
Yep, Donk's right, it's on Frost's ID card that she is 0069, and the scrapped Gala Brand character was meant to be 0089.
Is this in an early script draft or something? She’s MI6 obviously, but I don’t think she’s double O in the final movie. I’m sure she comments on Bond being a Double O at some point in a slightly dismissive way, suggesting she isn’t one.
Yep, Donk's right, it's on Frost's ID card that she is 0069, and the scrapped Gala Brand character was meant to be 0089.
-{
Interesting thanks! And it does say Double O division.
Was that actually in the film though? I’ve seen props made for DAD which actually have the Gala Brand name on, so I think they were still changing things pretty close to the wire.
Comments
Is it still against forum policy to dish out personal barbs? 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)
She has also said: "I suppose every time [something bad happens], I have that instinct to make that joke that distracts." Isn't that what Bond has been doing for decades?
James Bond and 007 are synonymous with one another and forever will be.
It most certainly is. Please PM me.
+ 1
Done
Recent article it was pointed out that the BBC radio drama The
Archers is far more sexist than any Bond film
It affects the role of M, yes; because it’s M. You’re only interested in one single role and character in fifty five years of these films?
I really don’t understand your explanation. It is as I said initially: that there would be some excuse as to why the two are different in some way: this excuse makes less sense than I expected though.
No it isn’t: it’s his job. If he had a different 00 number he’d still be the same character. Yes it’s iconic in the world at large, but we’ve even had two films recently where he wasn’t 007 for part of them. Possibly even Spectre too, but they didn’t make much of a thing about it then.
And like it or not, at the end of the last film he gave up being 007 too. Did you not notice that?
Are you really only objecting to the idea of Bond not being 007?
Because some of you keep phrasing it in terms such as ‘metoo’, ‘virtue signalling’, and ‘casting a woman is pandering to PC’. This is the language of people objecting to women. How can you not understand that?
He’s given up his role as 007: what’s wrong with someone else doing it until he returns? I’m sure he’ll get his number back twenty minutes in.
No, come on: don’t try that. You’re trying to move the goalposts and failing. The conversation is not about changing James Bond’s gender- that is a different conversation entirely and is not what this news is.
Nice try, but there’s no logic there. There’s no connection between those two statements: you’re really struggling here.
James Bond does his job his way; we know other people do the same job (some of them have been been shown to be women! Shock!) ergo we know that his way is not the only way. Suggesting that James Bond is a man is not the same as saying super spies can’t be women. I don’t really hav3 to point this logical flaw out as it’s so obvious, but there we go nevertheless.
‘Hypocrites’. Uh-huh. Is this personal enough for you, Barbel?
What’s the barb? I’m discussing your point: they started changing Bond to suit modern day attitudes over a generation ago. I’m struggling to see how you can take that personally.
Well it’s not really a spoiler to say that Bond investigates the previous 007’s death, so it seems the numbers are passed on (I think he asks to be given the dead man’s number in order to send a message to his killers).
You’re right that 007 has cultural significance, which is why ‘The new 007 is a woman!’ headlines will be everywhere and create good publicity if it happens, but Bond isn’t going anywhere and neither is his number. This is nothing to be concerned about, even if it is true.
You persist in trying to provoke me, emtiem. Check some timings and you will see that the passage you quote was altered before your post.
I’m not trying to provoke you: I’m pointing out a personal insult to you. That he edited it after I saw it and before I had time to finish my post doesn’t really affect the fact that he insulted me and I saw it. Is it not personal to call someone a hypocrite?
It's not the plot twist, it was the wording of the article
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
It did take a few minutes to write my post, yes. I’m afraid that I cannot know when something has been edited after I quote it while I’m still writing the post, nor do I go back and check the original post again after I’ve quoted it; I doubt many of us do.
I was indeed hoping you’d take action, as I understood you don’t like this stuff, but you obviously took action against the personal attack before I had to a chance to point it out to you, so that’s all good: thank you for that.
Is this in an early script draft or something? She’s MI6 obviously, but I don’t think she’s double O in the final movie. I’m sure she comments on Bond being a Double O at some point in a slightly dismissive way, suggesting she isn’t one.
I did modify this and you have my apologies if i offended you with this comment.
- The role of M is an exposition character (SF aside), male or female it doesn't matter. It means nothing. The only role that matter in the Bond series is Bond. Tell me do you think the series has been going for 55 years because of one constant character that is not Bond?
- If you don't think Bond and his job are synonymous with the worldwide brand of 007 then you delusional. And yes 007 is iconic the world over, that is the very point of the idea of subverting the series by making that 007 character a woman. If you think they would do such a thing purely because there are women working in intelligence agencies then are you kidding yourself. Is it a socially savvy statement? Of course it is.
- Also your example of the recent films are not applicable to this. No other character had taken his role in those films. He wasn't sharing his number and identity with anyone else. This scenario is no way comparable to that. Weak example.
- It's not about objecting to women, it's about objecting to the idea that male characters in film need to be subverted or denigrated in some way in order for high-powered industry people to latch onto current trends for the sake of appearances. You lack objectivity in this respect and I really feel you would benefit by taking a step back and looking more closely at the motivations behind some of these creative decisions.
- Do you not see that making 007 a woman is in a subversive way, changing Bonds gender? An all out gender change is just the next step to this.
- I was taking the piss by making an outlandish statement in an attempt to match some of your own.
That’s fine, thank you.
Oh hang on: I didn’t see the rest of your post. I’m ‘delusional’ now? C’mon: play nice.
I did say that mate yes. I'm sure you'll survive
No, but equally it’s not just him onscreen for 55 years on his own. Without the colourful baddies, beautiful girls and well-played allies he’d be nothing. If you really had no interest in M then fair enough.
Yeah, thanks for that 8-)
Kidding myself. Yup.
To an extent it would be recognising the ‘will they ever make a Bond a woman?’ questions, sure. But that’s no bigger than Agent XXX turning out to be a woman.
Well not really: with those I’m just trying to establish what the issue is. You say he’s synonymous with 007 but now you say you didn’t mind when he wasn’t 007. So it’s just the idea of someone else being 007? And if they’re a woman that’s worse, or is it just as bad if it’s a new guy?
I lack objectivity? Okay, as long as we’re not being personal!
I’m not seeing how this would denigrate Bond at all. He gave up being 007 in the last movie. Objectively, there’s no denigration here. Is there subversion? Sure, making sequels is often about even the smallest subversion of the formula in order to keep it interesting.
It’s not, no.
Oh you didn’t mean it? You meant to say something ridiculous in a ‘I know you are but what am I?’ sort of say? Millions wouldn’t believe you but I do
Is that right? We see that in the film? I didn’t know that. Does that definitely mean she’s a a Double O or it’s just her ID number? I’m not sure we’ve had a 00 in the double numbers before, although I think Fleming did.
Apologies: I was writing the reply post when you posted this.
Interesting thanks! And it does say Double O division.
Was that actually in the film though? I’ve seen props made for DAD which actually have the Gala Brand name on, so I think they were still changing things pretty close to the wire.