I repeat, if they make 007 a woman, she better be sexually active-predatory.
Film James Bond: No Time to Die
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
Does he not mean that another existing agent (008) will just replace him on the case?
In the books, it was suggested that only 00 agents have a licence to kill and that Bond is the most senior of all of them.
I’m interpreting it that after Bond retired this girl got promoted to 00 status and took the vacant 007 number.
The page below seems to back that up and shows multiple individuals associated with a given 00 number.
https://jamesbond.fandom.com/wiki/00_agents
Yea that's fair, I stand corrected, in which case the temporary redesignation would work, although it would just muddy things when Bond is brought back wouldn't it?
It would be somewhat contrary to the point if they have a female character the '007' title and then when Bond came back they took it back off her to hand it back to him.
He’s probably not back officially, just as a consultant or whatever. Think License to Kill (the movie).
Not a huge fan of this, but Bond is always a divisive choice. I don’t like Daniel Craig’s Bond so what’s the worst that can happen? I don’t like the new 007? I’ve seen all of these films (except the latest one) and probably only about a third of them are really good.
Isn't there meant to be a retirement age of 45 or something too? Roger Moore tested that one
The living Daylights was written for him as well. He would have been 60 if he hadn’t dropped out
009 was supposed to get the Aston Martin that Bond takes in Spectre.
That’d be an easy way to integrate him into the story.
The living Daylights was written for him as well. He would have been 60 if he hadn’t dropped out
Uh, I think it was mostly written with Brosnan in mind? 1986?
I Personally think that after Bond 25 it will be a soft reboot when the recast James Bond. He’ll back to being 007 again for sure.
Or if they stick within the same continuity, maybe she will give up the 007 number or even die. Who knows
Hardcore pseudo-reboot: Bond dies in 25 and passes to torch to the new 007 (a woman).
I doubt they'd take it back off her, they'd just bring him back as James Bond rather than as 007.
My suspicion would be that neither the female 007 nor the woman Bond opens the film settled with would be long for the world, in which case you'd end the film with Bond back in the game as 007.
Daisy Ridley for 007.
No you are right. Just googled it. It’s a classic misconception that it was written specifically for Moore.
Sounds like the initial drafts centred around a much younger Bond-hence the Brosnan links.
Further re-writes removed the younger character angle and Christopher Reeves was offered $1 million to star as Bond. He turned it down and then Broccoli re-approached the retired Moore. Moore felt he was too old (correct). They then settled on Dalton.
They were very interested in Brosnan, but a combination of his contract on Remington steel and the fact they felt he was too young for the role meant they passed on him.
Brosnan could have pulled it off: 4th Protocol. But the producers of RS fecked him hard.
Goldeneye was well worth the wait. He was fantastic in that. One of my favourite Bond films as well.
The movie has not aged well, but in 1995 it sure was an event. I personally prefer Brosnan's haircut in TND.
Goldeneye holds up relatively well, as far as any Bond film holds up. Famke and Bean are good villains, it has a good song, the opening sequence is great and it’s the first Dench M (even though he WAS WRITTEN AS A MAN!!!) ... also Minnie Driver is in it for about 5 seconds completely randomly.
On the negative side, a lot of Brosnans films had some god awful mid-90s electro dancey scores. Though this was also around the time Limp Bizkit were doing the Mission Impossible theme, so maybe Bond got off lightly with Orbital.
On the negative side, a lot of Brosnans films had some god awful mid-90s electro dancey scores. Though this was also around the time Limp Bizkit were doing the Mission Impossible theme, so maybe Bond got off lightly with Orbital.
Martin Campbell has to have one of the weirdest movie careers. Makes the greatest Bond film of all time in 95, does a decade of rubbish shite then comes back and makes Casino Royale.
Why has this man only made two Bond films ?
Why has this man only made two Bond films ?
Agreed.
Yeah, Goldeneye is still quality. What's striking is how much worse every other Brosnan Bond film was.
Yeah it was a real shame as Brosnan had real charisma and was massively let down.
How the feck was this utter nonsense made, like, four or five years before Casino Royale?! They could be decades apart.
I loved Brosnan as Bond - for me that was the epitome of what the James Bond character and persona "should" be. Suave, smarmy and utterly over the top. When you start trying to make Bond too serious (like Craig did, for me) then it just loses some of its charm.
Not really a fan of the gender swap. I dont understand the modern need to diversify and change long established characters. You want to make show in the Bond universe but with a female lead? Great, crack on! But why do you need to find some way of fudging them into specifically the 007 role whilst retiring Bond? I cant see why that is a preferable option for storytelling than just having a new agent (008?). The very fact that it is being marketed as *Bond* 25 irks me, if the main character is not Bond. Too early to tell, I suppose - maybe the whole swapping of the 007 codename will just be a side of the main plotline, with Bond faking his death or something. If you are marketing the film as Bond 25, Bond needs to be the main character for me. And Bond is a male.
Not really a fan of the gender swap. I dont understand the modern need to diversify and change long established characters. You want to make show in the Bond universe but with a female lead? Great, crack on! But why do you need to find some way of fudging them into specifically the 007 role whilst retiring Bond? I cant see why that is a preferable option for storytelling than just having a new agent (008?). The very fact that it is being marketed as *Bond* 25 irks me, if the main character is not Bond. Too early to tell, I suppose - maybe the whole swapping of the 007 codename will just be a side of the main plotline, with Bond faking his death or something. If you are marketing the film as Bond 25, Bond needs to be the main character for me. And Bond is a male.
He’s obviously going to be the main character in B25.
Having not read much of the plot yet, I can only hope so. However from the few article snippets I have seen, it sounds like there is going to be a lot of heavyhanded and forced attempts at diversity. The same sort of approach that led to everyone getting pissed off at the “women unite!” scene in endgame etc
"Everyone" in this case meaning "a small amount of people".
It's taken me over a decade of adulthood to conclude and accept that James Bond films are just crap and only seemed good when you're a kid. At least the ones you saw before you grew up still have the nostalgia factor and are pretty enjoyable to watch. I remember thinking Die Another Day was a bit crap but chalking it down to a downfall in the franchise but perhaps that was around the age my film tastebuds developed out of infancy. I also wrote off the last few 'because Daniel Craig is a crap Bond' but maybe it's not his fault either. Next week I'm going to watch a few of the classics.
Funnily enough, when I watched the film I didn’t even notice it. It was only coming back to the enlightenment of the Caf that I saw people up in arms about it. I don’t think it can be denied that it was rather heavy handed and lacked any sort of subtlety or nuance though. My concern is that the same is going to be true of B25, based on the little that I have read so far.
I think there is great potential for other protagonists in the bond universe. We have seen the likes of Marvel building individual characters and then having an epic team film with all of them together. There is also great potential for the Bond character - an “old fashioned” predatory type guy, to have a female co-star with all sorts of chemistry and hilarity to ensue. It currently just feels a bit like they are just trying to forex square pegs into round holes and sacrifice Bond to the gods of political correctness, just to show how progressive and modern they are.
How the feck was this utter nonsense made, like, four or five years before Casino Royale?! They could be decades apart.
Bourne films changed the genre.
Definitely, that trilogy was great and when Identity was released there was a lot of talk about it being what Bond should be.
Very true, but even just in how they look it's incredible that they aren't decades apart.
Wasn't he talking to Dr. No for this scene?
And anyone who dares to disagree with this is automatically a racist and a misogynist.
In a perfect world, we'd get a black actor to play Bond but do it with whiteface.