There are obviously other 00 agents, male and female. Nobody has an issue with that. I also think it makes sense that 00 numbers would be recycled, and we know Bond retired at the end of Spectre. If true, this may be a benign plot point, and for obvious reasons (CLICKS!) the Daily Mail article was written in an incendiary fashion.
But allow me to offer a counter point: Rather than give a new female agent the “007” designation, why not give her a new number which will allow the character to stand on her own? If the idea is to create a strong, interesting female character, it’s a remarkable act of self-sabotage by the writers to burden said character with James Bond’s famous code number. It deprives the character of her own independent identity. It’s perhaps one of the most sexist things they could do! That’s why I don’t think it’s true. It might be consistent with the knee-jerk “feminism” of the twitter generation, but I think it would make a lot of thoughtful people cringe.
Besides for cheap laughs, it really makes no sense for Miranda Frost to be 00-agent „0069“.
When she‘s in bed with Bond, she says: „This is crazy, you’re a double-o.“ what implies that she isn’t one. So we got a continuity error here.
As for Bond temporarily being replaced as 007 by a female, I‘m not opposed to the gender (even if it‘s shoehorned in in today‘s context; we still had female double-o‘s in TB and TWINE), I don‘t like the idea in general.
It‘s just one if those topics a lighter action-packed 007 should not delve into.
Bond should not have to deal with real life-problems like having personal ties (at least to the extent of the DC-era), being replaced or too old.
Bond should be escapism for us viewers!
Just have Britain‘s best spy on a mission with gadgets, going to the most beautiful places in the world and meet the most stunning women while facing the most menacing megalomaniacs there are.
It worked great for 40 years and I believe nobody is in need for things like that nowadays.
This is what we need on AJB ....Healthy debate! -{
BTW, on TWINE, DAD, Skyfall and SPECTRE, all MIS Operatives had ID cards however not all were displayed on screen. In TWINE a deleted scene shows Bond using his to gain access to the section where King and his funds are about to go boom!
This is what we need on AJB ....Healthy debate! -{
BTW, on TWINE, DAD, Skyfall and SPECTRE, all MIS Operatives had ID cards however not all were displayed on screen. In TWINE a deleted scene shows Bond using his to gain access to the section where King and his funds are about to go boom!
I've heard of this scene, I'd like to see it sometime. Any links available?
Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
This is what we need on AJB ....Healthy debate! -{
BTW, on TWINE, DAD, Skyfall and SPECTRE, all MIS Operatives had ID cards however not all were displayed on screen. In TWINE a deleted scene shows Bond using his to gain access to the section where King and his funds are about to go boom!
I've heard of this scene, I'd like to see it sometime. Any links available?
There are obviously other 00 agents, male and female. Nobody has an issue with that. I also think it makes sense that 00 numbers would be recycled, and we know Bond retired at the end of Spectre. If true, this may be a benign plot point, and for obvious reasons (CLICKS!) the Daily Mail article was written in an incendiary fashion.
But allow me to offer a counter point: Rather than give a new female agent the “007” designation, why not give her a new number which will allow the character to stand on her own? If the idea is to create a strong, interesting female character, it’s a remarkable act of self-sabotage by the writers to burden said character with James Bond’s famous code number. It deprives the character of her own independent identity. It’s perhaps one of the most sexist things they could do! That’s why I don’t think it’s true. It might be consistent with the knee-jerk “feminism” of the twitter generation, but I think it would make a lot of thoughtful people cringe.
I always was of the mind that the ending of SPECTRE did strongly infer that Bond was done with MI6 but could always be easily undone. Like many prizefighters and characters like Dirty Harry (who threw his badge in the bay at the end of the first film) Craig's Bond could always "unretire" and come back.
With regards to your counterpoint comment, very well put and makes a ton of sense IMO. Craig's characterization of Bond is no misogynistic, woman hitting, chauvinistic, anachronism. He has seduced women as part of his job, but he himself was basically targeted for seduction in CR. Having Craig's Bond "put in his place" so to speak by a young female MI6 agent would be forced and downright incongruous with his behavior in the previous four films. Now having Bond mentor or work with a young female MI6 agent who displays the same recklessness (if not more) that he did as a young agent might be interesting and lead to some interesting conflicts and clever banter....and it need not dominate the whole film.
There are obviously other 00 agents, male and female. Nobody has an issue with that. I also think it makes sense that 00 numbers would be recycled, and we know Bond retired at the end of Spectre. If true, this may be a benign plot point, and for obvious reasons (CLICKS!) the Daily Mail article was written in an incendiary fashion.
Oh it absolutely is, just as they always do. Just compare it to any other coverage of this news. And it worked: plenty of folks, as we have seen, fell for it.
But allow me to offer a counter point: Rather than give a new female agent the “007” designation, why not give her a new number which will allow the character to stand on her own? If the idea is to create a strong, interesting female character, it’s a remarkable act of self-sabotage by the writers to burden said character with James Bond’s famous code number. It deprives the character of her own independent identity. It’s perhaps one of the most sexist things they could do! That’s why I don’t think it’s true. It might be consistent with the knee-jerk “feminism” of the twitter generation, but I think it would make a lot of thoughtful people cringe.
Because they're not setting up a new lead character: it's a Bond film and as such, he's the main character. That is not a sexist thing to do: it's just how drama works. So presumably the point would be that there's a psychological impact on Bond of having his old number given to new blood. Much like how M sold his flat in Skyfall: no-one would be complaining that it's sexist that some character got to live in an old flat- the point was that it was his flat.
Besides for cheap laughs, it really makes no sense for Miranda Frost to be 00-agent „0069“.
When she‘s in bed with Bond, she says: „This is crazy, you’re a double-o.“ what implies that she isn’t one. So we got a continuity error here.
Yeah, I suspect (unless this card was shown onscreen) that it's from perhaps an earlier draft of the film where she was a Double O and they changed their minds. As I say, there are props (documents etc.) with Gala Brand's name on, so they were clearly changing the film even after prop making had started.
As for Bond temporarily being replaced as 007 by a female, I‘m not opposed to the gender (even if it‘s shoehorned in in today‘s context; we still had female double-o‘s in TB and TWINE), I don‘t like the idea in general.
It‘s just one if those topics a lighter action-packed 007 should not delve into.
Bond should not have to deal with real life-problems like having personal ties (at least to the extent of the DC-era), being replaced or too old.
Bond should be escapism for us viewers!
Just have Britain‘s best spy on a mission with gadgets, going to the most beautiful places in the world and meet the most stunning women while facing the most menacing megalomaniacs there are.
It worked great for 40 years and I believe nobody is in need for things like that nowadays.
I don't really agree with that: films like Casino Royale were massive hits because Bond had to deal with more realistic dramatic issues. It doesn't mean he can't meet crazy baddies as well.
This is what we need on AJB ....Healthy debate! -{
BTW, on TWINE, DAD, Skyfall and SPECTRE, all MIS Operatives had ID cards however not all were displayed on screen. In TWINE a deleted scene shows Bond using his to gain access to the section where King and his funds are about to go boom!
I've heard of this scene, I'd like to see it sometime. Any links available?
Besides for cheap laughs, it really makes no sense for Miranda Frost to be 00-agent „0069“.
When she‘s in bed with Bond, she says: „This is crazy, you’re a double-o.“ what implies that she isn’t one. So we got a continuity error here.
Yeah, I suspect (unless this card was shown onscreen) that it's from perhaps an earlier draft of the film where she was a Double O and they changed their minds. As I say, there are props (documents etc.) with Gala Brand's name on, so they were clearly changing the film even after prop making had started.
As for Bond temporarily being replaced as 007 by a female, I‘m not opposed to the gender (even if it‘s shoehorned in in today‘s context; we still had female double-o‘s in TB and TWINE), I don‘t like the idea in general.
It‘s just one if those topics a lighter action-packed 007 should not delve into.
Bond should not have to deal with real life-problems like having personal ties (at least to the extent of the DC-era), being replaced or too old.
Bond should be escapism for us viewers!
Just have Britain‘s best spy on a mission with gadgets, going to the most beautiful places in the world and meet the most stunning women while facing the most menacing megalomaniacs there are.
It worked great for 40 years and I believe nobody is in need for things like that nowadays.
I don't really agree with that: films like Casino Royale were massive hits because Bond had to deal with more realistic dramatic issues. It doesn't mean he can't meet crazy baddies as well.
Yes, CR worked really well despite the clear lack of the classical formula. Craig‘s other ones not so much, for me that is.
Yes, CR worked really well despite the clear lack of the classical formula. Craig‘s other ones not so much, for me that is.
I'd say because of the lack of formula, not despite it. Casino was a reboot; designed to shake things up. Skyfall was very popular with a lot of people (myself included) and seen as a big success. Quantum stuck more to the formula and was a bit rubbish; Spectre is a pretty old style Bond film too and that also isn't well liked.
But I'd say it's got less to do with any mystical formula ensuring success, and more that Quantum and Spectre just weren't written and planned as well as the other two.
Yes, CR worked really well despite the clear lack of the classical formula. Craig‘s other ones not so much, for me that is.
I'd say because of the lack of formula, not despite it. Casino was a reboot; designed to shake things up. Skyfall was very popular with a lot of people (myself included) and seen as a big success. Quantum stuck more to the formula and was a bit rubbish; Spectre is a pretty old style Bond film too and that also isn't well liked.
But I'd say it's got less to do with any mystical formula ensuring success, and more that Quantum and Spectre just weren't written and planned as well as the other two.
SP was or still is an interesting case, lookwise it appears as one of the old and classic Bond-flics (besides the silly brother thing), but overall it‘s bland.
But I‘d still say it‘s Craig‘s closest attempt of recreating good ol‘ times.
But allow me to offer a counter point: Rather than give a new female agent the “007” designation, why not give her a new number which will allow the character to stand on her own? If the idea is to create a strong, interesting female character, it’s a remarkable act of self-sabotage by the writers to burden said character with James Bond’s famous code number. It deprives the character of her own independent identity. It’s perhaps one of the most sexist things they could do! That’s why I don’t think it’s true. It might be consistent with the knee-jerk “feminism” of the twitter generation, but I think it would make a lot of thoughtful people cringe.
Because they're not setting up a new lead character: it's a Bond film and as such, he's the main character. That is not a sexist thing to do: it's just how drama works. So presumably the point would be that there's a psychological impact on Bond of having his old number given to new blood. Much like how M sold his flat in Skyfall: no-one would be complaining that it's sexist that some character got to live in an old flat- the point was that it was his flat.
So only lead characters need their own identity? Not sure I agree with your understanding of how drama works. Also, if Bond is mad/upset that someone else has his old number and that’s a genuine plot point, we can forget about any concerns as to the gender of the new 007, because this film has MUCH bigger problems.
Re SPECTRE: EON's biggest mistake was twisting Sam Mendes' arm and having him back again when he had clearly indicated he really had no more to offer. Mendes then fell back on some classic Bond tropes and for the sake of putting his own stamp on things, threw in the foster brother angle. Not a terrible film, IMO, as there are some very good moments, but more of a missed opportunity than a total failure especially given the gaps between Bond films these days.
Given the pre-production headaches that Bond 25 has endured, I found it very interesting during the introduction to Gone With The Wind on TCM last night, the host pointed out that GWTW went through three directors (one was fired, one had a nervous breakdown during production) and 12 writers (incl the producer) had cracks at the screenplay. Came out ok anyway. )
But allow me to offer a counter point: Rather than give a new female agent the “007” designation, why not give her a new number which will allow the character to stand on her own? If the idea is to create a strong, interesting female character, it’s a remarkable act of self-sabotage by the writers to burden said character with James Bond’s famous code number. It deprives the character of her own independent identity. It’s perhaps one of the most sexist things they could do! That’s why I don’t think it’s true. It might be consistent with the knee-jerk “feminism” of the twitter generation, but I think it would make a lot of thoughtful people cringe.
Because they're not setting up a new lead character: it's a Bond film and as such, he's the main character. That is not a sexist thing to do: it's just how drama works. So presumably the point would be that there's a psychological impact on Bond of having his old number given to new blood. Much like how M sold his flat in Skyfall: no-one would be complaining that it's sexist that some character got to live in an old flat- the point was that it was his flat.
So only lead characters need their own identity? Not sure I agree with your understanding of how drama works.
I think that's because you're trying to twist it into something I didn't say. Their own identity, sure; but not independent. Everyone in a Bond film is defined, ultimately, by their relationship to Bond- even the ones who don't meet him. She's not a character in a film of her own: she's in a Bond film and thus has a relationship of a certain kind with him and they will be there to react to each other. If that's not how drama works then I'm happy to be informed.
If you think characters reacting to each others' circumstances is sexist then I'm not sure I agree with your understanding of how sexism works.
Would you claim it was sexist if a new male character was given the 007 suffix? Of course not.
Also, if Bond is mad/upset that someone else has his old number and that’s a genuine plot point, we can forget about any concerns as to the gender of the new 007, because this film has MUCH bigger problems.
I don't know what that means: we don't know how he reacts, but the point is that things happen in drama to create reactions from the other characters. Him/her being a different Double 0 Number won't create a reaction as interesting as their being 007, so why do anything else?
Re SPECTRE: EON's biggest mistake was twisting Sam Mendes' arm and having him back again when he had clearly indicated he really had no more to offer. Mendes then fell back on some classic Bond tropes and for the sake of putting his own stamp on things, threw in the foster brother angle. Not a terrible film, IMO, as there are some very good moments, but more of a missed opportunity than a total failure especially given the gaps between Bond films these days.
Given the pre-production headaches that Bond 25 has endured, I found it very interesting during the introduction to Gone With The Wind on TCM last night, the host pointed out that GWTW went through three directors (one was fired, one had a nervous breakdown during production) and 12 writers (incl the producer) had cracks at the screenplay. Came out ok anyway. )
Indeed: isn't Casablanca one of the best known completely-thrown-together-as-they-went classic films? And I remember all of the disaster stories about Titanic- I know it's not quite on the same recognised-classic pedestal, but it still seemed to do pretty well when it was released.
Also, if Bond is mad/upset that someone else has his old number and that’s a genuine plot point, we can forget about any concerns as to the gender of the new 007, because this film has MUCH bigger problems.
I don't know what that means: we don't know how he reacts, but the point is that things happen in drama to create reactions from the other characters. Him/her being a different Double 0 Number won't create a reaction as interesting as their being 007, so why do anything else?
It means that him having any meaningful reaction to someone else being assigned his old number would be a mischaracterization of Bond. Based on what we collectively know about Bond, he wouldn’t give a damn who had his number. He’s not sentimental. It’s also petty and beneath him. So if they’re writing this as a plot point, it’s not a promising sign.
Also, if Bond is mad/upset that someone else has his old number and that’s a genuine plot point, we can forget about any concerns as to the gender of the new 007, because this film has MUCH bigger problems.
I don't know what that means: we don't know how he reacts, but the point is that things happen in drama to create reactions from the other characters. Him/her being a different Double 0 Number won't create a reaction as interesting as their being 007, so why do anything else?
It means that him having any meaningful reaction to someone else being assigned his old number would be a mischaracterization of Bond. Based on what we collectively know about Bond, he wouldn’t give a damn who had his number. He’s not sentimental. It’s also petty and beneath him.
So his not reacting tells us about him. No matter the nature of his reaction, it gives us drama. Even him saying "I don't give a damn" (as he has done various times about various things in the Craig films) tells us about his nature. In fact you wouldn't have been able to suggest his reaction unless he'd been allowed to react in that way to other things, like his house or Mathis' body, or how his martini is mixed. All of those gave us insight into his character and gave us a little moment. So it's not a reason to avoid it.
Should they have removed the martini from Casino Royale because caring about whether it's shaken or stirred is petty and beneath him?
I don't know what that means: we don't know how he reacts, but the point is that things happen in drama to create reactions from the other characters. Him/her being a different Double 0 Number won't create a reaction as interesting as their being 007, so why do anything else?
It means that him having any meaningful reaction to someone else being assigned his old number would be a mischaracterization of Bond. Based on what we collectively know about Bond, he wouldn’t give a damn who had his number. He’s not sentimental. It’s also petty and beneath him.
So his not reacting tells us about him. No matter the nature of his reaction, it gives us drama. Even him saying "I don't give a damn" (as he has done various times about various things in the Craig films) tells us about his nature. In fact you wouldn't have been able to suggest his reaction unless he'd been allowed to react in that way to other things, like his house or Mathis' body, or how his martini is mixed. All of those gave us insight into his character and gave us a little moment. So it's not a reason to avoid it.
Should they have removed the martini from Casino Royale because caring about whether it's shaken or stirred is petty and beneath him?
In post 4,783 above, you said this: “So presumably the point would be that there's a psychological impact on Bond of having his old number given to new blood.” I went along with your presumption, and stated that this would be a lousy plot point because I don’t think it would have any psychological impact on Bond. He wouldn’t care. Sounds like you agree with my read of Bond’s character. Thanks for that. -{
It means that him having any meaningful reaction to someone else being assigned his old number would be a mischaracterization of Bond. Based on what we collectively know about Bond, he wouldn’t give a damn who had his number. He’s not sentimental. It’s also petty and beneath him.
So his not reacting tells us about him. No matter the nature of his reaction, it gives us drama. Even him saying "I don't give a damn" (as he has done various times about various things in the Craig films) tells us about his nature. In fact you wouldn't have been able to suggest his reaction unless he'd been allowed to react in that way to other things, like his house or Mathis' body, or how his martini is mixed. All of those gave us insight into his character and gave us a little moment. So it's not a reason to avoid it.
Should they have removed the martini from Casino Royale because caring about whether it's shaken or stirred is petty and beneath him?
In post 4,783 above, you said this: “So presumably the point would be that there's a psychological impact on Bond of having his old number given to new blood.” I went along with your presumption, and stated that I think this would be a lousy plot point because I don’t think it would have any psychological impact on Bond. He wouldn’t care. Sounds like you agree with my read of Bond’s character. Thanks for that. -{
Yeah sure, you're probably right. And it's good that you agree with my assessment that moments like this allow you to read Bond's character, thus providing a richer experience.
He does often say he doesn't care and of course this isn't true every time as we've seen him hide his true self on a number of occasions. It'd be interesting to see if that would be an occasion which shakes him a little, offends him or is perhaps glad. Any of those would be an impact: and the 007 number itself would help to bring that about and provide something towards dramatic irony for the audience; as well of course being a good marketing angle. You haven't really managed to persuade me that it wouldn't, and have, if anything, helped me to realise it could be a good move even more. So thanks for that.
I think Bond would be upset about his number being given to someone else. Despite quitting the service in some form in every one of his Bond films, Bond has always felt a strong duty to his country. If he found out there were another 007 out there, it would lend more weight to his leaving the service and would make him sad.
So his not reacting tells us about him. No matter the nature of his reaction, it gives us drama. Even him saying "I don't give a damn" (as he has done various times about various things in the Craig films) tells us about his nature. In fact you wouldn't have been able to suggest his reaction unless he'd been allowed to react in that way to other things, like his house or Mathis' body, or how his martini is mixed. All of those gave us insight into his character and gave us a little moment. So it's not a reason to avoid it.
Should they have removed the martini from Casino Royale because caring about whether it's shaken or stirred is petty and beneath him?
In post 4,783 above, you said this: “So presumably the point would be that there's a psychological impact on Bond of having his old number given to new blood.” I went along with your presumption, and stated that I think this would be a lousy plot point because I don’t think it would have any psychological impact on Bond. He wouldn’t care. Sounds like you agree with my read of Bond’s character. Thanks for that. -{
Yeah sure, you're probably right. And it's good that you agree with my assessment that moments like this allow you to read Bond's character, thus providing a richer experience.
He does often say he doesn't care and of course this isn't true every time as we've seen him hide his true self on a number of occasions. It'd be interesting to see if that would be an occasion which shakes him a little, offends him or is perhaps glad. Any of those would be an impact: and the 007 number itself would help to bring that about and provide something towards dramatic irony for the audience; as well of course being a good marketing angle. You haven't really managed to persuade me that it wouldn't, and have, if anything, helped me to realise it could be a good move even more. So thanks for that.
I guess at the core I see a cheap and somewhat manipulative marketing gimmick and you see a brilliant dramatic idea. Still, if it ends up happening, I’ll approach it with an open mind.
I guess at the core I see a cheap and somewhat manipulative marketing gimmick and you see a brilliant dramatic idea.
That would be you putting words in my mouth again rather than reading what I'm saying. If you found it a bad marketing idea I'm not quite sure why you tried to claim it would be 'sexist', but there we go.
I guess at the core I see a cheap and somewhat manipulative marketing gimmick and you see a brilliant dramatic idea.
That would be you putting words in my mouth again rather than reading what I'm saying. If you found it a bad marketing idea I'm not quite sure why you tried to claim it would be 'sexist', but there we go.
Apologies. You think it would be a “good” idea. Not a a brilliant one.
And it being bad marketing and potentially sexist (I concede much would depend on the execution) are not mutually exclusive. It could be both.
I guess at the core I see a cheap and somewhat manipulative marketing gimmick and you see a brilliant dramatic idea.
That would be you putting words in my mouth again rather than reading what I'm saying. If you found it a bad marketing idea I'm not quite sure why you tried to claim it would be 'sexist', but there we go.
Apologies. You think it would be a “good” idea. Not a a brilliant one.
And it being bad marketing and potentially sexist (I concede much would depend on the execution) are not mutually exclusive. It could be both.
It could be both, but dodging around between the two (or more) suggests that you're trying to find any reason why it's bad rather than sticking to one. I wonder why that is?
If it could be sexist (and god knows how; you haven't actually shown how), then other such wild possibilities include the much less far-fetched one that it could be good, you must concede that?
Quite what 'bad marketing' means I have no idea. Other than provoking the sort of people who react so wildly to being baited by the Daily Mail mentioning 'me too' and making them go on the internet and complaining about women a lot, but even that didn't seem to do Captain Marvel's box office much harm!
That would be you putting words in my mouth again rather than reading what I'm saying. If you found it a bad marketing idea I'm not quite sure why you tried to claim it would be 'sexist', but there we go.
Apologies. You think it would be a “good” idea. Not a a brilliant one.
And it being bad marketing and potentially sexist (I concede much would depend on the execution) are not mutually exclusive. It could be both.
If it could be sexist (and god knows how; you haven't actually shown how), then other such wild possibilities include the much less far-fetched one that it could be good, you must concede that?
Quite what 'bad marketing' means I have no idea. Other than provoking the sort of people who react so wildly to being baited by the Daily Mail mentioning 'me too' and making them go on the internet and complaining about women a lot, but even that didn't seem to do Captain Marvel's box office much harm!
I did explain how in my prior post. I’m sorry if you don’t understand my explanation.
And I called it cheap and manipulative. Which you interpreted to be “bad.” In any event, it means that I don’t find “a new female 007” to be a good selling point. It’s gimmicky. But I’ve gone round on this enough. There’s no real evidence it will even happen.
Comments
We also had Sam Johnston 0012, the agent Bond was looking for at the begining of TWINE.
I always thought that in the photo Bond had of him he didn’t look particularly Double O material: a bit ‘middle manager’!
Good point! Although I guess it didn’t work!:)
But allow me to offer a counter point: Rather than give a new female agent the “007” designation, why not give her a new number which will allow the character to stand on her own? If the idea is to create a strong, interesting female character, it’s a remarkable act of self-sabotage by the writers to burden said character with James Bond’s famous code number. It deprives the character of her own independent identity. It’s perhaps one of the most sexist things they could do! That’s why I don’t think it’s true. It might be consistent with the knee-jerk “feminism” of the twitter generation, but I think it would make a lot of thoughtful people cringe.
When she‘s in bed with Bond, she says: „This is crazy, you’re a double-o.“ what implies that she isn’t one. So we got a continuity error here.
As for Bond temporarily being replaced as 007 by a female, I‘m not opposed to the gender (even if it‘s shoehorned in in today‘s context; we still had female double-o‘s in TB and TWINE), I don‘t like the idea in general.
It‘s just one if those topics a lighter action-packed 007 should not delve into.
Bond should not have to deal with real life-problems like having personal ties (at least to the extent of the DC-era), being replaced or too old.
Bond should be escapism for us viewers!
Just have Britain‘s best spy on a mission with gadgets, going to the most beautiful places in the world and meet the most stunning women while facing the most menacing megalomaniacs there are.
It worked great for 40 years and I believe nobody is in need for things like that nowadays.
IG: @thebondarchives
Check it out, you won’t be disappointed
BTW, on TWINE, DAD, Skyfall and SPECTRE, all MIS Operatives had ID cards however not all were displayed on screen. In TWINE a deleted scene shows Bond using his to gain access to the section where King and his funds are about to go boom!
Sure thing, just tune in at 05:00 -{
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lajajkrSa2c&t=4s
IG: @thebondarchives
Check it out, you won’t be disappointed
I always was of the mind that the ending of SPECTRE did strongly infer that Bond was done with MI6 but could always be easily undone. Like many prizefighters and characters like Dirty Harry (who threw his badge in the bay at the end of the first film) Craig's Bond could always "unretire" and come back.
With regards to your counterpoint comment, very well put and makes a ton of sense IMO. Craig's characterization of Bond is no misogynistic, woman hitting, chauvinistic, anachronism. He has seduced women as part of his job, but he himself was basically targeted for seduction in CR. Having Craig's Bond "put in his place" so to speak by a young female MI6 agent would be forced and downright incongruous with his behavior in the previous four films. Now having Bond mentor or work with a young female MI6 agent who displays the same recklessness (if not more) that he did as a young agent might be interesting and lead to some interesting conflicts and clever banter....and it need not dominate the whole film.
Oh it absolutely is, just as they always do. Just compare it to any other coverage of this news. And it worked: plenty of folks, as we have seen, fell for it.
Because they're not setting up a new lead character: it's a Bond film and as such, he's the main character. That is not a sexist thing to do: it's just how drama works. So presumably the point would be that there's a psychological impact on Bond of having his old number given to new blood. Much like how M sold his flat in Skyfall: no-one would be complaining that it's sexist that some character got to live in an old flat- the point was that it was his flat.
Yeah, I suspect (unless this card was shown onscreen) that it's from perhaps an earlier draft of the film where she was a Double O and they changed their minds. As I say, there are props (documents etc.) with Gala Brand's name on, so they were clearly changing the film even after prop making had started.
I don't really agree with that: films like Casino Royale were massive hits because Bond had to deal with more realistic dramatic issues. It doesn't mean he can't meet crazy baddies as well.
Ah great: Tom Chadbon there getting his role cut- luckily he got a part in Casino Royale and made it to screen!
Yes, CR worked really well despite the clear lack of the classical formula. Craig‘s other ones not so much, for me that is.
IG: @thebondarchives
Check it out, you won’t be disappointed
I'd say because of the lack of formula, not despite it. Casino was a reboot; designed to shake things up. Skyfall was very popular with a lot of people (myself included) and seen as a big success. Quantum stuck more to the formula and was a bit rubbish; Spectre is a pretty old style Bond film too and that also isn't well liked.
But I'd say it's got less to do with any mystical formula ensuring success, and more that Quantum and Spectre just weren't written and planned as well as the other two.
SP was or still is an interesting case, lookwise it appears as one of the old and classic Bond-flics (besides the silly brother thing), but overall it‘s bland.
But I‘d still say it‘s Craig‘s closest attempt of recreating good ol‘ times.
IG: @thebondarchives
Check it out, you won’t be disappointed
So only lead characters need their own identity? Not sure I agree with your understanding of how drama works. Also, if Bond is mad/upset that someone else has his old number and that’s a genuine plot point, we can forget about any concerns as to the gender of the new 007, because this film has MUCH bigger problems.
Given the pre-production headaches that Bond 25 has endured, I found it very interesting during the introduction to Gone With The Wind on TCM last night, the host pointed out that GWTW went through three directors (one was fired, one had a nervous breakdown during production) and 12 writers (incl the producer) had cracks at the screenplay. Came out ok anyway.
I think that's because you're trying to twist it into something I didn't say. Their own identity, sure; but not independent. Everyone in a Bond film is defined, ultimately, by their relationship to Bond- even the ones who don't meet him. She's not a character in a film of her own: she's in a Bond film and thus has a relationship of a certain kind with him and they will be there to react to each other. If that's not how drama works then I'm happy to be informed.
If you think characters reacting to each others' circumstances is sexist then I'm not sure I agree with your understanding of how sexism works.
Would you claim it was sexist if a new male character was given the 007 suffix? Of course not.
I don't know what that means: we don't know how he reacts, but the point is that things happen in drama to create reactions from the other characters. Him/her being a different Double 0 Number won't create a reaction as interesting as their being 007, so why do anything else?
Indeed: isn't Casablanca one of the best known completely-thrown-together-as-they-went classic films? And I remember all of the disaster stories about Titanic- I know it's not quite on the same recognised-classic pedestal, but it still seemed to do pretty well when it was released.
It means that him having any meaningful reaction to someone else being assigned his old number would be a mischaracterization of Bond. Based on what we collectively know about Bond, he wouldn’t give a damn who had his number. He’s not sentimental. It’s also petty and beneath him. So if they’re writing this as a plot point, it’s not a promising sign.
So his not reacting tells us about him. No matter the nature of his reaction, it gives us drama. Even him saying "I don't give a damn" (as he has done various times about various things in the Craig films) tells us about his nature. In fact you wouldn't have been able to suggest his reaction unless he'd been allowed to react in that way to other things, like his house or Mathis' body, or how his martini is mixed. All of those gave us insight into his character and gave us a little moment. So it's not a reason to avoid it.
Should they have removed the martini from Casino Royale because caring about whether it's shaken or stirred is petty and beneath him?
In post 4,783 above, you said this: “So presumably the point would be that there's a psychological impact on Bond of having his old number given to new blood.” I went along with your presumption, and stated that this would be a lousy plot point because I don’t think it would have any psychological impact on Bond. He wouldn’t care. Sounds like you agree with my read of Bond’s character. Thanks for that. -{
Yeah sure, you're probably right. And it's good that you agree with my assessment that moments like this allow you to read Bond's character, thus providing a richer experience.
He does often say he doesn't care and of course this isn't true every time as we've seen him hide his true self on a number of occasions. It'd be interesting to see if that would be an occasion which shakes him a little, offends him or is perhaps glad. Any of those would be an impact: and the 007 number itself would help to bring that about and provide something towards dramatic irony for the audience; as well of course being a good marketing angle. You haven't really managed to persuade me that it wouldn't, and have, if anything, helped me to realise it could be a good move even more. So thanks for that.
I guess at the core I see a cheap and somewhat manipulative marketing gimmick and you see a brilliant dramatic idea. Still, if it ends up happening, I’ll approach it with an open mind.
That would be you putting words in my mouth again rather than reading what I'm saying. If you found it a bad marketing idea I'm not quite sure why you tried to claim it would be 'sexist', but there we go.
As a cheap marketing gimmick? Yes, very open!
Apologies. You think it would be a “good” idea. Not a a brilliant one.
And it being bad marketing and potentially sexist (I concede much would depend on the execution) are not mutually exclusive. It could be both.
It could be both, but dodging around between the two (or more) suggests that you're trying to find any reason why it's bad rather than sticking to one. I wonder why that is?
If it could be sexist (and god knows how; you haven't actually shown how), then other such wild possibilities include the much less far-fetched one that it could be good, you must concede that?
Quite what 'bad marketing' means I have no idea. Other than provoking the sort of people who react so wildly to being baited by the Daily Mail mentioning 'me too' and making them go on the internet and complaining about women a lot, but even that didn't seem to do Captain Marvel's box office much harm!
I did explain how in my prior post. I’m sorry if you don’t understand my explanation.
And I called it cheap and manipulative. Which you interpreted to be “bad.” In any event, it means that I don’t find “a new female 007” to be a good selling point. It’s gimmicky. But I’ve gone round on this enough. There’s no real evidence it will even happen.
Run along and play with someone else.