https://movieweb.com/no-time-to-die-lashana-lynch-007/
Go woke, go broke.
I predict the box office will be underwhelming and again the whining and bitching will b e along the lines of "it's the fault of toxic misogynist fans! boohoooo!!!"
Ridiculous.
Women can do anything a man can do, only better. Makes sense to have a lot more of them in these action movie roles, including changing the leads in iconic franchises so that they are female. Star Wars, 007, Pirates of the Caribbean now I hear, as it should be. It's the best way to fix a genre that historically has been misogynistic and male dominated.
shareI honestly cannot tell if you're sarcastic or not.
It could be sarcasm, it could be serious.
The latter reflects the issues of western society perfectly.
That's GOTTA be sarcasm because it fits the sarcasm just too perfect. But, yeah, I could see some Wokeian actually believing that.
Here's the issue... the real numbers. What they make at the box office.... it's not whether it is male or female lead, it's the money it makes or doesn't. There IS no higher accountability for it then that.
If it's male lead, makes ton of money, so be it. IF it is female lead, and DOESN'T make a ton of money, then there is the answer. For WHATEVER REASON, people aren't paying to see the female characters. We can push diversity, wokeness, equally sexes all we want, but if the end result doesn't WORK, then that is the truth.... the real answer.
We can't MAKE all audiences >>LIKE<< certain sexed movies better.... it's simply how it is on planet Earth.
Equality is a time wasting lie.
There will always be more women working in HR than men. And that's fine.
There will always be more men being mechanics than women. And that is fine.
Equality will never exist until women choose to date SHORTER men in equal numbers (never gonna happen), or men can give birth (never gonna happen)
Good luck to all WOKE movies. I'll be watching with my popcorn as they continue to not deliver what viewers truly want.
There is no way you are being serious. In case you aren't: The Bond franchise has had plenty of strong women before, Tracy is a prime example and what made her strong was that she was well written and she earned every moment she got, she also didn't have to announce every 5 minutes that she was a woman and that she had to put men in their places or whatever.
Either way this is the JAMES BOND franchise, James Bond is male, he is a straight, white male. If you want to make a spy franchise staring a strong black female, knock yourself out, but the JAMES BOND franchise should stay true to the source material.
I don't care if they want to make movies where women who weigh less than 100 pounds somehow beat the crap out of men who weigh twice as much. I just wish they'd make original movies, make up original characters. Taking familiar franchises and switching the genders of the characters just looks like a cynical cash grab (and yes, Literalism Junkies, I know ALL movies are cash grabs; don't waste any time with that response).
shareI find this very hard to believe. Would they really throwaway the franchise like this? I can't see it being true.
shareIt's like they don't learn from their mistakes. This is what happens when you give too much money to Hollywood and they got nothing better to do with it than waste it, suffering the loses, and still be in the green because people still pay them to do so. While I am not against it, why not make a solo franchise itself for it? Why replace iconic male roles for the male audience growing up? If you want to include women into action spy genres, there are plenty out there but not as entertaining or a box office draw for the most part. Are they trying to gender fluid/non-binary/androgynous the character or something?
shareI doubt it 's woke.
If they go all Fury Road, where the male character is used to get bums in seats, but he plays a secondary character, sure. I don't think that's the case here.
The story and the trailers describe it as being about the resolution of Craig's Bond story. The black and female getting assigned the 007 license is not something to lose your s**t over. It's just a secondary element of the story. The producers have already said there's no intention to re-write Bond as anything other than male.
Bond and the 007 designator are inseparable.
shareYes.
I'm okay if the movie starts out with Bond "retired" only to get pulled back in and only if, by the end of the movie, he's 007 again. If it ends with, "You're 007 now; you've earned it," or something like that, I'm out. If it ends with Bond not being 007, I'm out. Screw that.
Yeah, this whole thing is stupid and I'm amazed the producers don't realize this. Barbara Broccoli really should know better and it seems I remember reading a comment from her that said Bond/007 will ALWAYS be a man, and so I hope all of this is a big misunderstanding and much ado about nothing.
shareWell, I haven't heard anything about them giving Bond himself a sex change operation, but even migrating the 007 code to another agent (male, female, doesn't matter) is a mistake.
This is the thing that the Wokes don't understand: they turn purple in the face raging against sexism or racism or whatever-ism when fans react badly to stupid, propaganda-motivated changes in their favourite properties. They forget that fans don't like change at all, and it isn't (usually) related to race or gender. They seem to forget that fans hated Daniel Craig's donning of the 007 role because he was blonde.
He was *more* Aryan, and a small number of fans got a rash.
The fact is that making 007 another character doesn't work. Making 007 and/or Bond a woman (permanently) doesn't work. It alters the nature of the character beyond what fans want, expect, and beyond what Flemming envisioned. Make Bond a woman, or make somebody else 007, and shouldn't make it at all. It'd be like making him a vegan and suddenly opposed to caviar. Or making him a teetotaler.
Any time somebody says, "You just don't want Bond to be [whatever] because you're [whatever-ist]," just ask if they'd be okay with an American Bond. Not an American actor, an American *James Bond*. If they say "no", they're jingoistic.
The point is that there are core traits that characters have. Bond is a hedonist, lives in the moment (knowing he could die the next), a womanizer, a brute, a bit of a snob, cultured, knows his wines (etc.), is violent and tends to be direct (surprisingly so considering his profession), and he's British, and he's male, and he's handsome, and so on and so forth. Changing that a bit (ie, Roger Moore is more a gentleman, Craig is more violent, etc.) is okay. Making him blonde? I was fine with it (I think making him black would be a cosmetic change, too, although I understand why someone might reasonably object; I wouldn't think that racism (necessarily)). But making him a her, or a pacifist? No.
Nice post. And I agree.
It's as if many people don't understand that certain qualities are just part of the character and if you go changing those qualities, you end up with a different character.
I agree that small stuff (like hair color) can be tinkered with without changing the fundamental nature of the character, but I don't think you can change things like gender or even race without going too far and essentially creating something new. The idea of a female Bond is ludicrous, much the idea of making Blade a white guy is ludicrous.
I have the bad feeling that they are about to do something that's going to completely destroy the Bond franchise. I hope I'm wrong about that. But we'll just have to see.
It's probably only a matter of time before the SJWs decide that Bond must be taken down. That would be a big symbolic win for them.
Little do they realise, we'll retain our copies of Goldfinger and pass them on to the next generations, who will ask as one voice, "Why does Bond suck now if they made it this awesome in the '60s?"
They've been trying for years.
shareAnd if you object to this you are clearly a racist.
shareit can't be true.........it would be suicide
suicide blonde.........ehh, bond
bomb
share