First Ariel, now 007 is casted with a Black Female Actress. (Craig is still James Bond)

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

What even is the point of making a James Bond movie if you're gonna strip it of everything that makes it a James Bond movie.

The same point that people are constantly trying to make Star Wars stories without the Jedi or the Sith.

I also think that's missing the point. I've never been a fan of stretching self-contained stories into "universes" or whatever they call them for the sake of marketing. Didn't like the Lucas prequels, don't like Disney's happy meals. It's all just wheels spinning. And for that matter I don't like Craig (he's a bore) or his era past Casino Royale either. Connery and Brosnan remain the best.

Look, I'm Latino. Put Diego Luna or Salma Hayek as the new 007, I still think it's pandering.

I'm not the biggest Bond fan. In fact, two things I've liked about Bond was Golden Eye, Casino Royale (Craig version... that beach thing made me understand gay a little bit there), and the question of if Bond was just one character, or if the concept that Bond itself was a cover id. I would love to explore that further.

It's like Hobbes' reality in the comic Calvin and Hobbes. Is he a magical stuff tiger that comes to life whenever no one is around? Or is he just a product of Calvin's imagination. So many clues are left around to make you think both sides. Like how the hell can Calvin tie himself up [http://bartbeaty.ucalgaryblogs.ca/files/2013/04/Calvin-and-Hobbes-Chair.png]? With the knot at the back of the chair. It's impossible.

Anyway, if Jamie Bond is a thing, that will quell the mystery. And it will make sense. In espionage, you go for the spy that will arouse the least suspicion. Black Lady in an office, probably won't get as much focus as a handsome man in an impeccable suit.

 

[votemarvel]

Why is it even news when "OMG a black person did something" or "omg it was a WOMAN!!" in the first place? Seriously, they would not make a woman play " James Bond" but they very well could make a woman agent with the same characteristics. James bond makes women seem disposable, why would it be any different if a woman makes the men seem disposable? I am not seeing the issue of having a woman, black or otherwise treat men the same way Bond treat's women or why that should bother or outrage anyone in the first place.
Only men are allowed to portray "power fantasies" or something? WTH do they think Beyonce has been doing? The story may even be more interesting as a woman. I have no idea why people get their undies in a wad over allowing different perspectives to be shown.

Because the power brokers of the world tend to me men who see women (and all people really) as disposable. Bond blends into that world, as he shares many of the characteristics of the people he is there to stop.

Switch it to a woman acting exactly the same way and things change precisely because she is a woman. James sleeping his way to the people in power would be seen as a stud, by them. Jane sleeping her way to the people in power would be seen as a slut, for want of a better word, and would make the people she was there to stop think even less of her (therefore not letting her into areas Jame would be able to access).

It's a product of our society that viewpoint in taken when it comes to sexual encounters but it is precisely for that reason that a Bond movie would have to reflect the society in the time of which it takes place, just as it has always done.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Take Dr. Who. The quality of writing has been dross since Tennant, but as soon as the Doctor is a woman-- despite this being totally internally consistent with the in-universe rules-- then the criticism reaches a fever pitch and focuses almost exclusively on that.

Or, perhaps...

...the writing quality overall severely slipped under Moffat's stewardship as you yourself admit, leading to a lot of vocal grumbling and audience dissatisfaction, and season 10 for its numerous failings was the last straw and broke trust? Funny how quickly we forget the "Bill haters are racists" nonsense of season 10. Thus, when Chibnall was announced as Moffat's successor and that he was bringing former Broadchurch writers with him, and Whittaker as Thirteen, audiences saw it as a nepotistic publicity stunt?

Which is funny you mention Tennant, because my favorite compare-and-contrast between later "woke" Doctor Who and the RTD era, is "Family of Blood" versus "Thin Ice". Because they both involve black companions going back in time to imperial England, having to deal with the racism of the era, and the Doctor having to navigate treacherous social waters which leads to extreme acts. In one case the Doctor's extreme acts foreshadow his darker nature while simultaneously reminding the audience the Doctor is not human in reasoning or morality, even if the extremity of his action boils down to a matter of disproportionality in otherwise sorely-needed justice. In the other, the Doctor shrugs off a dead orphan and solves racism by punching a dude.

Funny how little criticism Family of Blood received. Nor Freema Agyeman as Martha (well, for her race, anyhow). One would think that if Whovians were really as X-ist as they're accused of being, that story in particular would be a target of ire especially for its content. Alas, no; not only is that not the case, Family of Blood often shows up in "best of nu-Who" lists.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Calling it now, Alice Trevelyon.

Well, there's tonnes of Bond/Trevalyan slash fanfiction out there already, so sure, why not?

Well be fair; Brosnan and Bean had a very remarkable chemistry for characters who shared only fifteen minutes of screen time at the start.

What puzzles me most is how exactly they're going to swing this because say what else you can about Spectre - and much can be, most of it bad - it very clearly put a full stop next to Craig's Bond. Now they could go the OHMSS route and have the first of the two movies he's coming back for has his wife killed by someone. So he's brought back as a training officer for the new 007.

I could dig that. As you say, Spectre gave Bond a good reason to leave the game, so him training a successor is a good way to end his chapter, one that both honors Bond's role while paving the way for a new 007.

Or better yet, Bond could return to help solve the assassination of M, which leads him to ascend to that same position with whats her face as his new instrument of destruction. And hey, being M at least means he can go home to the missus at the end of each day.

 

[Squilookle]

Daniel Craig sucked as Bond anyways and we are literally having people defend Concentration Camps in America.

This doesnt matter.

You have your thread(s). Kindly quit stomping on others' sandcastles and allow them to have theirs.

That's why I did not respond to Sam's response, ya know, the one where he sorta agreed with me. I made my point. That said, I got a bunch of replies to respond to now.

Yes you made your point, got one line of acknowledgement, and ignored it. On your way now. Congrats again on your fishing trip.

Or better yet, Bond could return to help solve the assassination of M, which leads him to ascend to that same position with whats her face as his new instrument of destruction. And hey, being M at least means he can go home to the missus at the end of each day.

I'd be down for that. Just not Craig. I'm kinda fed up with him to be honest.

 

[Saelune]

Daniel Craig sucked as Bond anyways and we are literally having people defend Concentration Camps in America.

This doesnt matter.

You have your thread(s). Kindly quit stomping on others' sandcastles and allow them to have theirs.

That's why I did not respond to Sam's response, ya know, the one where he sorta agreed with me. I made my point. That said, I got a bunch of replies to respond to now.

Yes you made your point, got one line of acknowledgement, and ignored it. On your way now. Congrats again on your fishing trip.

Or better yet, Bond could return to help solve the assassination of M, which leads him to ascend to that same position with whats her face as his new instrument of destruction. And hey, being M at least means he can go home to the missus at the end of each day.

I'd be down for that. Just not Craig. I'm kinda fed up with him to be honest.

You're the one who keeps calling me back here just to be mad at me.

Edit: Point proven.

 

[Squilookle]

Daniel Craig sucked as Bond anyways and we are literally having people defend Concentration Camps in America.

This doesnt matter.

You have your thread(s). Kindly quit stomping on others' sandcastles and allow them to have theirs.

That's why I did not respond to Sam's response, ya know, the one where he sorta agreed with me. I made my point. That said, I got a bunch of replies to respond to now.

Yes you made your point, got one line of acknowledgement, and ignored it. On your way now. Congrats again on your fishing trip.

You're the one who keeps calling me back here just to be mad at me.

How does sending you on your way = calling you back?

Actually no, don't feel like you need to answer that. Let's just call it a rhetorical so we can both move on.

 

[Shadowstar38]

Either this decision comes from a place of smart casting decisions and a genuine interest in creativity, or blatant pandering. My cynicism usually has me placing my bets on the later. Although, good job not actually making her bond. That tells me someone had their had on straight during the conception of this.

 

[Trunkage]

Either this decision comes from a place of smart casting decisions and a genuine interest in creativity, or blatant pandering. My cynicism usually has me placing my bets on the later. Although, go job not actually making her bond. That tells me someone had their had on straight during the conception of this.

Remember in Skyfall when they had a female replace Bond. She didn't do to well so instead of teaching her to be a better agent, they put her behind a desk. Where a woman should be

Car 3 treats it characters better

 

[Thaluikhain]

So, ok, you're making a Bond movie, and in it Bond leaves and there's a new 007 who is a totally different person.

Ok, fine, there's a lot you can do with that.

But, this totally new character must be a white guy or it's the SJW apocalypse? Nobody else can be 007, either before or after James Bond was, or the franchise is ruined? Ok...someone is pushing an ideology there, don't think it's the SJWs.

Also, why are people assuming that it's a 007 movie, not a James Bond movie? Bond leaves, goes rogue or whatever (like Licence to Kill), new 007 has to stop him, they team up in the end, he gets his job back? I could easily see that happening.

Also also, it's not going to be a jaw dropping reveal in the movie if you tell everyone about it beforehand.

Daniel Craig sucked as Bond anyways and we are literally having people defend Concentration Camps in America.

This doesnt matter.

You could have gone with "Trump tells women of colour to go back to their terrible movies[/i] countries".

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

So, ok, you're making a Bond movie, and in it Bond leaves and there's a new 007 who is a totally different person.

Ok, fine, there's a lot you can do with that.

But, this totally new character must be a white guy or it's the SJW apocalypse? Nobody else can be 007, either before or after James Bond was, or the franchise is ruined? Ok...someone is pushing an ideology there, don't think it's the SJWs.

Also, why are people assuming that it's a 007 movie, not a James Bond movie? Bond leaves, goes rogue or whatever (like Licence to Kill), new 007 has to stop him, they team up in the end, he gets his job back? I could easily see that happening.

Also also, it's not going to be a jaw dropping reveal in the movie if you tell everyone about it beforehand.

Daniel Craig sucked as Bond anyways and we are literally having people defend Concentration Camps in America.

This doesnt matter.

You could have gone with "Trump tells women of colour to go back to their terrible movies[/i] countries".

I just think its weird to have a new central character, and yet the titular character is someone else. Like its a James Bond movie. What's it about? Oh Karen Washington, Bond's replacement. So its not really a James Bond movie? I mean he's in it. And we're calling it a Bond movie to... Sell tickets. Oh to sell tickets!

Its like a Batman movie, called The Batman Movie...about Batgirl. Just call it Batgirl.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I just think its weird to have a new central character, and yet the titular character is someone else. Like its a James Bond movie. What's it about? Oh Karen Washington, Bond's replacement. So its not really a James Bond movie? I mean he's in it. And we're calling it a Bond movie to... Sell tickets. Oh to sell tickets!

Its like a Batman movie, called The Batman Movie...about Batgirl. Just call it Batgirl.

Again, where does it say it's not about Bond? He's not 007 (at least for the duration). That doesn't mean it's about someone else.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

SNIP

Well I guess it depends how you want to read it. He's still Bond, its called a James Bond movie, but Bond is not 007. I guess it could be a movie about Bond not doing spy stuff, while some new completely unrelated girl in the background does 00 stuff? But I doubt they'd make Bond the bad guy, plus that'd mean either Bond doesn't get alot of screen time, or the big new black girl 007 doesn't, so either way people are gonna be pissed.

 

[Asita]

I could dig that. As you say, Spectre gave Bond a good reason to leave the game, so him training a successor is a good way to end his chapter, one that both honors Bond's role while paving the way for a new 007.

Or better yet, Bond could return to help solve the assassination of M, which leads him to ascend to that same position with whats her face as his new instrument of destruction. And hey, being M at least means he can go home to the missus at the end of each day.

...That could be so fun to see. Picture 007 going to see Q...and finds Bond there simply because he missed the gadgets. This would be punctuated with one slip-up where Q calls Bond by his old call-sign and Bond corrects him. I think I'd enjoy seeing MI6 trying to deal with an M who was still a little too hands on.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I don't question the ability of WB (is it WB?) to come up with ridiculous action plots, I question the point of dethroning Bond as 007. It's just a pandering move that exists outside the diegesis of the movie to get woke cred and I can so obviously see through it. In real life I'm 100% for the notion that anybody can be anything (woot!) but when you're creating a [fictional] character you're explicitly dictating what that character is and isn't. You make choices on who they are, how they think, where they come from, what they look like. You make it all up and you pick every detail for a reason or else why would you?

I don't know how much a movie studio values woke cred instead of just what's trendy, and what's trendy (what gets people talking on both sides) is not having a white guy as the lead in movies that usually do have a white guy for a lead. And yes, it's obviously a pretty blatant attempt from studios to go 'look at us, we're doing it too', but 1) that doesn't equate to the movie automatically not being what it usually is *points to Mad Max: Fury Road*, and 2) if it results in actors of a different race or gender getting some more exposure is it really that bad?

I mean, most if not all genre movies we get anymore are sequels, remakes, reboots, and adaptations, and most of those stem from properties that have white guys as the lead and white girls as the love interests. You can say 'this character should be how they were originally created' (and technically Bond still is, because Craig is still Bond in this movie), but that does leave out a lot of actors that aren't white guys or girls (as the love interest). You can say 'just create something new with a character of color', but that really isn't happening.

 

[Bilious Green_v1legacy]

The last few Bond movies have been pretty meh, so I don't care much. This casting could be an attempt to pander to the "woke" crowd, but its probably just a desperate attempt to appear relevant. Overall, I give this controversy a rating of - blah.

 

[Dalisclock]

I don't question the ability of WB (is it WB?) to come up with ridiculous action plots, I question the point of dethroning Bond as 007. It's just a pandering move that exists outside the diegesis of the movie to get woke cred and I can so obviously see through it. In real life I'm 100% for the notion that anybody can be anything (woot!) but when you're creating a [fictional] character you're explicitly dictating what that character is and isn't. You make choices on who they are, how they think, where they come from, what they look like. You make it all up and you pick every detail for a reason or else why would you?

I don't know how much a movie studio values woke cred instead of just what's trendy, and what's trendy (what gets people talking on both sides) is not having a white guy as the lead in movies that usually do have a white guy for a lead. And yes, it's obviously a pretty blatant attempt from studios to go 'look at us, we're doing it too', but 1) that doesn't equate to the movie automatically not being what it usually is *points to Mad Max: Fury Road*, and 2) if it results in actors of a different race or gender getting some more exposure is it really that bad?

I mean, most if not all genre movies we get anymore are sequels, remakes, reboots, and adaptations, and most of those stem from properties that have white guys as the lead and white girls as the love interests. You can say 'this character should be how they were originally created' (and technically Bond still is, because Craig is still Bond in this movie), but that does leave out a lot of actors that aren't white guys or girls (as the love interest). You can say 'just create something new with a character of color', but that really isn't happening.

There's also the inherent issue of Corporations attempting to broaden their market base so they can continually squeeze more profits out to please investors and executives. If that requires pandering to new audiences, so be it. Welcome to capitalism, where the money machine must be fed.

Those in charge likely don't give a shit about being woke or not, but if it gains them attention, free media exposure and make it more likely people will go see the film , why the fuck wouldn't they?

 

[Silvanus]

Or, perhaps...

...the writing quality overall severely slipped under Moffat's stewardship as you yourself admit, leading to a lot of vocal grumbling and audience dissatisfaction, and season 10 for its numerous failings was the last straw and broke trust?

The writing was slipping under Davies. I find it inexplicable how fondly early Tennant under Davies is remembered.

Funny how quickly we forget the "Bill haters are racists" nonsense of season 10. Thus, when Chibnall was announced as Moffat's successor and that he was bringing former Broadchurch writers with him, and Whittaker as Thirteen, audiences saw it as a nepotistic publicity stunt?

Uh-huh, but we're not talking about nepotism complaints. We're talking about the (intense) complaints about the main character being a woman.

These innocuous casting decisions get bundled up with a bunch of other sentiments (in this case, concerns about poor writing and nepotism) in order to make diverse casting itself seem like a symptom of bad writing. It's simple conflating. People are just getting angry about women getting cast and then dressing it up to make the complaint seem less base and ignoble.

Which is funny you mention Tennant, because my favorite compare-and-contrast between later "woke" Doctor Who and the RTD era, is "Family of Blood" versus "Thin Ice". Because they both involve black companions going back in time to imperial England, having to deal with the racism of the era, and the Doctor having to navigate treacherous social waters which leads to extreme acts. In one case the Doctor's extreme acts foreshadow his darker nature while simultaneously reminding the audience the Doctor is not human in reasoning or morality, even if the extremity of his action boils down to a matter of disproportionality in otherwise sorely-needed justice. In the other, the Doctor shrugs off a dead orphan and solves racism by punching a dude.

Funny how little criticism Family of Blood received. Nor Freema Agyeman as Martha (well, for her race, anyhow). One would think that if Whovians were really as X-ist as they're accused of being, that story in particular would be a target of ire especially for its content. Alas, no; not only is that not the case, Family of Blood often shows up in "best of nu-Who" lists.

It's almost as if Family of Blood wasn't dealing with the same themes.

There are loads of valid criticisms of the Whittaker era. I don't like it much at all. But why are the most constant, intense complaints focusing on the non-issue of the character's womanhood? The whining about "SJW" doesn't have writing as its core concern. If it did, it would focus on... the writing.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

I could dig that. As you say, Spectre gave Bond a good reason to leave the game, so him training a successor is a good way to end his chapter, one that both honors Bond's role while paving the way for a new 007.

Or better yet, Bond could return to help solve the assassination of M, which leads him to ascend to that same position with whats her face as his new instrument of destruction. And hey, being M at least means he can go home to the missus at the end of each day.

...That could be so fun to see. Picture 007 going to see Q...and finds Bond there simply because he missed the gadgets. This would be punctuated with one slip-up where Q calls Bond by his old call-sign and Bond corrects him. I think I'd enjoy seeing MI6 trying to deal with an M who was still a little too hands on.

I could dig that to be honest.

 

[Agema]

I just think its weird to have a new central character, and yet the titular character is someone else.

Who says there's new central character?

They're called James Bond movies, not 007 movies: it's not exactly like the "retiree returns to active service" plot device is a rare one.

For all we know, the new 007 is bumped off in the pre-credits sequence (q.v. Octopussy, or the subverted cliche in Goldeneye). Although more likely she'll be who he's shagging just before the end credits.