Which is why his replacement can, in-story, logically be a Black woman. That Bond's Fifties-era viewpoints no longer keep pace with the times makes things a bit awkward in today's world. We could try trimming this view from his character, and that one, and everything he said about this... Make sure that he never repeats this whole bit that he said here... but then you wind up with a character who is very much not Bond.
|Posted: 18 July 2019 at 10:33pm | IP Logged | 8
So, since that is the direction in which we are headed, we may as well have the 007 designation fall to a character who is very much not Bond herself.
I am hoping the series retains that mordant sense of humor and ability Bond has to devise on the fly. There is no reason why this new agent can't be as agile and clever as Bond, if not more so, and leave her victims with a parting quip as well.
Peter, I'm assuming there was some sarcasm in that response re: M's comment, but since I was referring to his critics and not to anything in-story, I don't think you're keeping up. You point out that there have long been calls to keep 007 as a period piece, but the films have never gone that way, nor have the novels. And no one outside of a small number of purists have said "boo" about that. Until now, when the modern context allows for something a great many more people find unacceptable. Now, NOW, we need to discuss this being a period piece, apparently so THIS sort of thing can't happen again.
David, thanks for the kind words. I get that a great number of people don't like the idea of switching Bond out for anyone, but we can look at it from this perspective: Since the new 007 only comes in AFTER Bond retires, should film audiences reject this new premise, the films going forward can simply take place long before Bond is of retirement age. There we go. The new 007 is a phantom hovering out there in Bond's future, and not someone we need ever speak of again, until the film is inevitably made that contradicts her existence, and then, she will simply be dismissed as a continuity blip from some years past.
In many ways, this new 007 is no more a "replacement" for Bond than Mary Russell is a replacement for Sherlock Holmes. So long as we never go into that part of Holmes' life where he is an aged beekeeper, we never have to account for her. A youthful Bond not yet thinking of retirement will never have to meet this new character and the producers will never have to mention her again, should they deem this experiment a failure.
Koroush, you're just repeating yourself at this point, and still not making your points clear.
Please elaborate on the many film successes that exist proving that the producers are making an easy cash grab here. From where I sit, this is just as much a risk as any other film they might try with the franchise, and moreso of one in many respects. The casting switch generates a measure of controversy, but that does not guarantee box office. Where is your proof that this is a can't-miss prospect which is somehow the easiest, most cynically motivated path for the producers to take?
Also, a woman of color has been given the central role in an ongoing franchise which will receive top-flight promotion and support from the studio. Nothing about that speaks to condescension or, really, anything evil that I can see. Yet, you still continue to insist that it is a bad thing without saying why. Again, please elaborate. The condescension here seems entirely on your end, not theirs.
Edited by Brian Hague on 18 July 2019 at 10:35pm