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.
As far as I've heard, Daniel Craig has invited Phoebe Waller-Bridge in to inject some humour into the script. It was discussed at length this morning on Radio 4. What's startling is at this stage we seem to have (in some people's opinions) an unsatisfactory script. This is not the first time a woman would have worked on a Bond script. Johanna Harwood worked way back on the Dr No screen play.
The problem isn't letting a female agent having the 007 number for parts of the film, the problem is letting any agent other than James Bond having that number.
What's startling is at this stage we seem to have (in some people's opinions) an unsatisfactory script.
Even in Dr. No, dialogue was changed/added during filming by Terence Young. The film did not suffer.
Indeed, but then in 2019 you'd expect things to be a little different, I dare say most films have changes of dialogue etc once the cameras start rolling.
A certain book that came out last year may have had a 007 that wasn't Bond.
Apparently everyone is ok with bond taking the 00 number from a former agent but someone taking the number after him is somehow ludicrous.
This community cracks me up sometimes. So many overreactions to plot points that aren't really bad at all. What is the problem with it? If bond retired then of course they'll hire another agent. And why not give them the 007 number? I'm sure other agents have been assigned numbers that precious 00s formerly held. None of you have given a real reason for outrage aside from " aw nah I don't like that"
What is the problem with it? If bond retired then of course they'll hire another agent. And why not give them the 007 number? I'm sure other agents have been assigned numbers that precious 00s formerly held. None of you have given a real reason for outrage aside from " aw nah I don't like that"
Yes, I’m sure plenty of other agents have been given a desig that others have previous had...but we’re not talking about other nameless agents here, we’re talking about James Bond, the character in this film series that has been around and held the “007” number for more or less 60 years now. James Bond is 007, 007 is James Bond. If they want to introduce any new 00’s as side characters in B25 there’s absolutely no problem with that, however they can use other numbers.
For a series that has been going on for so long about the character of James Bond, agent 007—his codename, which is essentially now his identity, can not just be given to another character in a Bond film. It would be like a new Get Smart show/film coming out where a new character is given the code “Agent 86” when Maxwell Smart is present or a new X-Men movie in which the name Wolverine is given to another new character that has claws when the original Wolverine is present—sure they’re just code names/nicknames and the new characters do the same thing, but the names have been looooooong associated with a certain character, they can’t just be casually thrown to someone else.
If this turns out to be the case, then I've a terrible suspicion that Eon may call the film simply "007". If it were a different franchise, I'd say I have a bad feeling about this.
What is the problem with it? If bond retired then of course they'll hire another agent. And why not give them the 007 number? I'm sure other agents have been assigned numbers that precious 00s formerly held. None of you have given a real reason for outrage aside from " aw nah I don't like that"
Yes, I’m sure plenty of other agents have been given a desig that others have previous had...but we’re not talking about other nameless agents here, we’re talking about James Bond, the character in this film series that has been around and held the “007” number for more or less 60 years now. James Bond is 007, 007 is James Bond. If they want to introduce any new 00’s as side characters in B25 there’s absolutely no problem with that, however they can use other numbers.
For a series that has been going on for so long about the character of James Bond, agent 007—his codename, which is essentially now his identity, can not just be given to another character in a Bond film. It would be like a new Get Smart show/film coming out where a new character is given the code “Agent 86” when Maxwell Smart is present or a new X-Men movie in which the name Wolverine is given to another new character that has claws when the original Wolverine is present—sure they’re just code names/nicknames and the new characters do the same thing, but the names have been looooooong associated with a certain character, they can’t just be casually thrown to someone else.
This community cracks me up sometimes. So many overreactions to plot points that aren't really bad at all. What is the problem with it? If bond retired then of course they'll hire another agent. And why not give them the 007 number? I'm sure other agents have been assigned numbers that precious 00s formerly held. None of you have given a real reason for outrage aside from " aw nah I don't like that"
If you read the thread, you’ll note that the ‘overreactions’ relate to a Daily Mail article which sought to associate #metoo with the new script following Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s appointment. This movement, as N24 points out, is about sexual harassment. I for one would not like to see Bond belittled or treated as some malignant sexual predator. It has nothing to do with an agent, male or female, being assigned the 007 number. I’d like to think, however, that the Daily Mail is an agent provocateur and that Ms W-B is being drafted in just to give the script sparkle. -{
A certain book that came out last year may have had a 007 that wasn't Bond.
Apparently everyone is ok with bond taking the 00 number from a former agent but someone taking the number after him is somehow ludicrous.
This community cracks me up sometimes. So many overreactions to plot points that aren't really bad at all. What is the problem with it? If bond retired then of course they'll hire another agent. And why not give them the 007 number? I'm sure other agents have been assigned numbers that precious 00s formerly held. None of you have given a real reason for outrage aside from " aw nah I don't like that"
No “outrage” from me. And I have offered a reason why I’m not in favor of the idea. Take a look at post #4,777 if you’re interested.
Even though this was not EON Productions, Sir James Bond has stood down previously on screen and been replaced by a new 007 back in 1967 and look what a complete sh*t pie that was ....everyone was James Bond 007!
"James Bond is too (sic) be given a makeover for the MeToo era by Fleabag"
"‘Her dialogue is sharp and brilliant. It’s young, it’s fun and it is all about female empowerment. This will be a very modern Bond for the MeToo era.’"
I doubt if anyone here has an issue with one potential story line involving a young female agent being given the 007 designation. If, however, the writing is designed to belittle Bond as a virtue-signalling initiative, we have every right to roll our eyes.
If it's done well I dont see a problem. Everything I have seen from Waller- Bridge has been superb.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
‘Her dialogue is sharp and brilliant. It’s young, it’s fun and it is all about female empowerment.
‘This will be a very modern Bond for the MeToo era.’
This makes no sense. It's the complete opposite of what Bond films are about. It's about male empowerment or male fantasy - a masculine, impersonal male action hero saving the world and regarding women as sexual distractions. It's the complete antithesis of the MeToo era.
Pheobe Waller-Bridge may or may not even be a James Bond film fan. If she's not then Eon/MGM are playing with fire hiring her because she'll be reinventing the dialogue to fit her own image of what a Bond film should be like. And hiring people to redo dialogue at such a late stage in pre-production doesn't bode well for the end product. Ideally you'd want the screenplay locked in place, not hiring 'flavour of the day' tv actresses/writers at the last moment to make the dialogue more pro-women or whatever.
Seems like a gimmick to cash in on the female demographic. Old Bond is so old fashioned let's make Bond pro-women and we'll get more women to see the film.
Looking at it from a wider perspective, 25 films in a row is mighty impressive but it takes a wise person to know when to call it a day. I wouldn't be surprised if Eon call it quits after Bond 25. They may do a 20th Century Fox and Lucasfilm and sell their share to Disney. Sure, Disney Bond films may be awful but it will be a new start. And I'm sure Disney's choice of Bond - some American from a cancelled tv show - will be cool once you get over his dodgy Brit accent.
To say that Bond is a relic from a bygone era would be an understatement. I guess the question we must ask ourselves is how much of what Fleming depicted can be stripped away before it’s no longer James Bond? I have no appetite for the casual racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. in Fleming. It goes without saying that belongs in the past. But if you sterilize Bond entirely what are you left with? Ethan Hunt. Once Bond becomes a fully generic action hero it’s time to call it a day.
I think Bond 25 is an important film for the franchise. I don’t envy the filmmakers’ task given the particular cultural moment in which we are living. For what it’s worth, I believe they’re trying to make a film that is true to the character but also sensitive to the moment. I think it’s possible to strike the right balance, but I don’t know if they have the right ingredients at their disposal to do it. Specifically, Craig is too old, and his Bond is a bit too brutish.Take the scene with Lucia in Spectre. It came off as uncomfortable and aggressive. I can’t imagine the scene would have played that way with Brosnan or Moore as Bond. Or the shaving scene with Moneypenny is Skyfall. Bond makes no real effort at seduction; he just lazily tries to undress her. Craig just doesn’t convince in these scenes, and Bond comes off wrong as a result. Casino Royale was different, however. So perhaps they need to channel some of that.
I don't think Bond movies should reflect the #MeToo movement in an obvious way, but some aspects of the movies reflect modern times. If done correctly it won't take away anything from Bond, rather the opposite. An example:'
There was some criticism of the scene in SF where Bond slips into the shower to join the former underage sex slave Severine. Let's imagine a twist on that scene: Bond enters the cabin of the yacht and glances around for Severine. She knocks on the glass wall of the shower, Bond spots her and Severine playfully waves at him to join her.
This solution would not be a target of such criticism, but I also think it would be more Bondian. The scene is more playful and sexually aggressive women have always been typical for Bond stories. Both James Bond and the women are often open to casual sex. If it's done well feminism and Bond can mix very well, because Bond stories often involve strong women who engage in guiltless sex when they wish to. This is also a feminist ideal. The traditional conservative and Christian ideals of timid and submissive women and sex as a negative (especially with the women too taking the initiative) is is often far more at odds with the typical Bond novel or movie than feminism is.
‘Her dialogue is sharp and brilliant. It’s young, it’s fun and it is all about female empowerment.
‘This will be a very modern Bond for the MeToo era.’
This makes no sense. It's the complete opposite of what Bond films are about. It's about male empowerment or male fantasy - a masculine, impersonal male action hero saving the world and regarding women as sexual distractions. It's the complete antithesis of the MeToo era.
Pheobe Waller-Bridge may or may not even be a James Bond film fan. If she's not then Eon/MGM are playing with fire hiring her because she'll be reinventing the dialogue to fit her own image of what a Bond film should be like. And hiring people to redo dialogue at such a late stage in pre-production doesn't bode well for the end product. Ideally you'd want the screenplay locked in place, not hiring 'flavour of the day' tv actresses/writers at the last moment to make the dialogue more pro-women or whatever.
Seems like a gimmick to cash in on the female demographic. Old Bond is so old fashioned let's make Bond pro-women and we'll get more women to see the film.
Looking at it from a wider perspective, 25 films in a row is mighty impressive but it takes a wise person to know when to call it a day. I wouldn't be surprised if Eon call it quits after Bond 25. They may do a 20th Century Fox and Lucasfilm and sell their share to Disney. Sure, Disney Bond films may be awful but it will be a new start. And I'm sure Disney's choice of Bond - some American from a cancelled tv show - will be cool once you get over his dodgy Brit accent.
Might be a bit of an overreaction to a "quote" attributed to no one that may be from who knows where and have absolutely nothing to do with reality....but then again we're the same folks who were having a fit over Bond having a beard in SF and EON using stand-in locations and jumping to the conclusion that the film was being made on the cheap. )
You know the obvious just might be possible.....they brought Waller-Bridge on board simply to punch up the dialogue between Bond and the young female agent and Craig believes she's talented and would do a good job of it. There wasn't this backlash when Paul Haggis was brought in to punch up the dialogue in CR (we were probably too busy obsessing over DC's hair color and height). )
What is the problem with it? If bond retired then of course they'll hire another agent. And why not give them the 007 number? I'm sure other agents have been assigned numbers that precious 00s formerly held. None of you have given a real reason for outrage aside from " aw nah I don't like that"
Yes, I’m sure plenty of other agents have been given a desig that others have previous had...but we’re not talking about other nameless agents here, we’re talking about James Bond, the character in this film series that has been around and held the “007” number for more or less 60 years now. James Bond is 007, 007 is James Bond. If they want to introduce any new 00’s as side characters in B25 there’s absolutely no problem with that, however they can use other numbers.
For a series that has been going on for so long about the character of James Bond, agent 007—his codename, which is essentially now his identity, can not just be given to another character in a Bond film. It would be like a new Get Smart show/film coming out where a new character is given the code “Agent 86” when Maxwell Smart is present or a new X-Men movie in which the name Wolverine is given to another new character that has claws when the original Wolverine is present—sure they’re just code names/nicknames and the new characters do the same thing, but the names have been looooooong associated with a certain character, they can’t just be casually thrown to someone else.
It really can be given to someone else. It’ll be a nice shock but it’s not the end of the world. What’ll happen? Is it like them ringing out a film where Spider Man isn’t Peter Parker? They’d never do that, surely...
Comments
There wasn't one. All you said was:
Which are just names, not reasoned explanations. I'm sorry that you think it makes sense, but it doesn't.
Gimmicks work. And when marketing works, it's good marketing.
Thank you for conceding.
Even in Dr. No, dialogue was changed/added during filming by Terence Young. The film did not suffer.
True. the story could be exagerated or even false.
Apparently everyone is ok with bond taking the 00 number from a former agent but someone taking the number after him is somehow ludicrous.
This community cracks me up sometimes. So many overreactions to plot points that aren't really bad at all. What is the problem with it? If bond retired then of course they'll hire another agent. And why not give them the 007 number? I'm sure other agents have been assigned numbers that precious 00s formerly held. None of you have given a real reason for outrage aside from " aw nah I don't like that"
Yes, I’m sure plenty of other agents have been given a desig that others have previous had...but we’re not talking about other nameless agents here, we’re talking about James Bond, the character in this film series that has been around and held the “007” number for more or less 60 years now. James Bond is 007, 007 is James Bond. If they want to introduce any new 00’s as side characters in B25 there’s absolutely no problem with that, however they can use other numbers.
For a series that has been going on for so long about the character of James Bond, agent 007—his codename, which is essentially now his identity, can not just be given to another character in a Bond film. It would be like a new Get Smart show/film coming out where a new character is given the code “Agent 86” when Maxwell Smart is present or a new X-Men movie in which the name Wolverine is given to another new character that has claws when the original Wolverine is present—sure they’re just code names/nicknames and the new characters do the same thing, but the names have been looooooong associated with a certain character, they can’t just be casually thrown to someone else.
Well said -{
I just wanted to say that.
I've unilaterally decided that the Pinewood filming will start on Monday 6 May.
Let the Tabloids hence report it as Gospel fact!!
If you read the thread, you’ll note that the ‘overreactions’ relate to a Daily Mail article which sought to associate #metoo with the new script following Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s appointment. This movement, as N24 points out, is about sexual harassment. I for one would not like to see Bond belittled or treated as some malignant sexual predator. It has nothing to do with an agent, male or female, being assigned the 007 number. I’d like to think, however, that the Daily Mail is an agent provocateur and that Ms W-B is being drafted in just to give the script sparkle. -{
Yes, lets get back to some solid positive news -{
No “outrage” from me. And I have offered a reason why I’m not in favor of the idea. Take a look at post #4,777 if you’re interested.
So many inaccuracies, so little time. I'm wondering if the writers have seen more than one or two Bond movies. Thanks, ppw3o6r.
If it's done well I dont see a problem. Everything I have seen from Waller- Bridge has been superb.
This makes no sense. It's the complete opposite of what Bond films are about. It's about male empowerment or male fantasy - a masculine, impersonal male action hero saving the world and regarding women as sexual distractions. It's the complete antithesis of the MeToo era.
Pheobe Waller-Bridge may or may not even be a James Bond film fan. If she's not then Eon/MGM are playing with fire hiring her because she'll be reinventing the dialogue to fit her own image of what a Bond film should be like. And hiring people to redo dialogue at such a late stage in pre-production doesn't bode well for the end product. Ideally you'd want the screenplay locked in place, not hiring 'flavour of the day' tv actresses/writers at the last moment to make the dialogue more pro-women or whatever.
Seems like a gimmick to cash in on the female demographic. Old Bond is so old fashioned let's make Bond pro-women and we'll get more women to see the film.
Looking at it from a wider perspective, 25 films in a row is mighty impressive but it takes a wise person to know when to call it a day. I wouldn't be surprised if Eon call it quits after Bond 25. They may do a 20th Century Fox and Lucasfilm and sell their share to Disney. Sure, Disney Bond films may be awful but it will be a new start. And I'm sure Disney's choice of Bond - some American from a cancelled tv show - will be cool once you get over his dodgy Brit accent.
IG: @thebondarchives
Check it out, you won’t be disappointed
I think Bond 25 is an important film for the franchise. I don’t envy the filmmakers’ task given the particular cultural moment in which we are living. For what it’s worth, I believe they’re trying to make a film that is true to the character but also sensitive to the moment. I think it’s possible to strike the right balance, but I don’t know if they have the right ingredients at their disposal to do it. Specifically, Craig is too old, and his Bond is a bit too brutish.Take the scene with Lucia in Spectre. It came off as uncomfortable and aggressive. I can’t imagine the scene would have played that way with Brosnan or Moore as Bond. Or the shaving scene with Moneypenny is Skyfall. Bond makes no real effort at seduction; he just lazily tries to undress her. Craig just doesn’t convince in these scenes, and Bond comes off wrong as a result. Casino Royale was different, however. So perhaps they need to channel some of that.
There was some criticism of the scene in SF where Bond slips into the shower to join the former underage sex slave Severine. Let's imagine a twist on that scene: Bond enters the cabin of the yacht and glances around for Severine. She knocks on the glass wall of the shower, Bond spots her and Severine playfully waves at him to join her.
This solution would not be a target of such criticism, but I also think it would be more Bondian. The scene is more playful and sexually aggressive women have always been typical for Bond stories. Both James Bond and the women are often open to casual sex. If it's done well feminism and Bond can mix very well, because Bond stories often involve strong women who engage in guiltless sex when they wish to. This is also a feminist ideal. The traditional conservative and Christian ideals of timid and submissive women and sex as a negative (especially with the women too taking the initiative) is is often far more at odds with the typical Bond novel or movie than feminism is.
Might be a bit of an overreaction to a "quote" attributed to no one that may be from who knows where and have absolutely nothing to do with reality....but then again we're the same folks who were having a fit over Bond having a beard in SF and EON using stand-in locations and jumping to the conclusion that the film was being made on the cheap.
You know the obvious just might be possible.....they brought Waller-Bridge on board simply to punch up the dialogue between Bond and the young female agent and Craig believes she's talented and would do a good job of it. There wasn't this backlash when Paul Haggis was brought in to punch up the dialogue in CR (we were probably too busy obsessing over DC's hair color and height).
It really can be given to someone else. It’ll be a nice shock but it’s not the end of the world. What’ll happen? Is it like them ringing out a film where Spider Man isn’t Peter Parker? They’d never do that, surely...