Jump to content

Welcome to Nightly.Net
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Jane Bond 007


17 replies to this topic

#1
Tank

Tank

    Driver

  • Member
  • 34,817 posts
It's happening.

Did we ban all the manbabies, or is there anyone left here who wants to fight about it?

#2
Brando

Brando

    83% Muppet

  • Admin
  • 19,293 posts
Is it definitely happening with her really taking the role, or is it just a short thing where she's 007 until they get Daniel Craig back and then she dies tragically?

#3
Tank

Tank

    Driver

  • Member
  • 34,817 posts
I think her character will become 007, as in the agent number, and they'll do a few movies, at least one with Craig showing up, and then they'll reboot again, like they do every decade or so.

#4
zambingo

zambingo

    The Human Torch

  • Member
  • 3,255 posts
I dig it and a part of me doesnt. The part that digs it wants to see a really well written female super spy (good also meaning not necessarily realistic because Bond, I feel, works best when allowing itself to delve into the ridiculous... unlike Craigs first film). The part of me that doesnt like this has a few reasons:

1) In Skyfall (I think it was) Craigs Moneypenny appeared to be the new female super spy and I was so happy for it and I was like yes! yes! so much awesome and thank you. In part because **** yes, a female super spy equal and the other part being that the machismo that is Bond would never ever have her. And then they had her accidentally almost kill Bond.

2. OO7 is synonymous with James Bond. Yes, it is a designation however it should feel as awkward as giving a ship other than the Enterprise the designation of NCC-1701. As such, I feel like this is just asking for negative response just based on the association.

3. More important than 2, and in line with 1... it does also bug me that the new female super spy is being saddled with Bonds designation because it sorta but not really but maybe kinda I dunno feels like someone thought in order for this female spy to be important or accepted or marketable or whatever that she needed to have the mans name... essentially. Like why couldnt she just be another OO and one that doesnt die like they normally do and one (a female anyway) that Bond doesnt get to assert his dominance over through sex (as he does with all these female spies that have appeared in his franchise)... the latter can still occur of course, that being that she doesnt get bedded by Bond, but she would still be saddled with his baggage.

I hope that makes some sort of sense.

Anyway, yay! Female Super Spy! I do dig it.

Also discuss, dissect, or flame away, what have you. lol Like I said... I dunno.

Another Afterthought: Not that a female super spy cant bed whomever she pleases, its just that in the Bond films Bond asserts his dominance through sex. So while there could be a sexual game like was she dominating or was he or was it equal mutual etc... wouldnt it also just be I guess you know the same old thing of Bond bedding the female supporting character. A rose is a rose is a rose.

#5
Tank

Tank

    Driver

  • Member
  • 34,817 posts
I personally feel like a lot of the Bondisms are still rooted in the 60s. What would make me SUPER happy was if they set the Bond films in that era. I don't think the character evolved well.

I straight up admitted I've found the last round MI movies superior to Bond ones.
  • NumberSix and zambingo +1 this

#6
Brando

Brando

    83% Muppet

  • Admin
  • 19,293 posts
Unpopular Bond opinion: the Brosnan movies are better than the Craig movies.
  • Tank, zambingo, Zerimar Nyliram and 1 other +1 this

#7
Guest_El Chalupacabra_*

Guest_El Chalupacabra_*
  • Guests

.



#8
Zerimar Nyliram

Zerimar Nyliram

    Dude

  • Member
  • 3,169 posts

Unpopular Bond opinion: the Brosnan movies are better than the Craig movies.

That's an unpopular opinion?



#9
Metropolis

Metropolis

    Member

  • Member
  • 14,766 posts
The Bond films are a wonder. The franchise never really made a ton of money. Only one is the films (Skyfall) is in the top 100 all time domestic. Yet they still pump them out.

I've never been a big fan so I won't see the new ones. Of course I haven't seen any since Casino Royale. So take that as you will. Question is who are they marketing this movie to?
  • zambingo +1 this

#10
zambingo

zambingo

    The Human Torch

  • Member
  • 3,255 posts
I feel what youre saying, Met. But at the same time I dunno. lol It is a wonder.

I looked at Box Office Mojo...
https://www.boxoffic...d=jamesbond.htm

Maybe the adjusted for inflation is the only way to possibly grasp how pervasive the audience/sales were. Almost all of the films dont even have an estimated production budget though. lol It really is a wonder. I dunno.

[shrug]

#11
Kyrian

Kyrian

    I'm back

  • Member
  • 11,387 posts

They really missed a trick not making Moneypenny the new 007 if they wanted a black female Bond. Seriously, the character and actress have both proved they have what it takes, now suddenly they get another actress to do it? Kinda hoping it's a fake-out of some kind. 



#12
Dark Wader

Dark Wader

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,440 posts

Is this definite? Last year Barbara Broccoli flat out said it would never happen. Admittedly been heavily distracted with work but would of thought Internet fanboys would of had a melt down on this. . .though maybe I've just fortunately missed it all. 

 

 

Golden Eye is a f****** solid Bond film. One of my favs.  Honestly, every Bond is good in their era.  But Bond IS the Connery/Lazenb/Moore era to me.  

Yeah, Goldeneye for me is what would put the Brosnan era above Craig's. But counter to that, Die Another Day is why I'd put his era at the bottom of the barrel. . .

But both Brosnan and Craig really benefited from Martin Campbell kick starting their Bond movies. Casino Royale is up there with Goldeneye. 

 

Part of it though I think depends on the actor portraying Bond while you were growing up. Brosnan ones will always have a soft spot for me as they were the ones I first saw and were coming out when I was in high school. 


  • Kyrian +1 this

#13
Guest_El Chalupacabra_*

Guest_El Chalupacabra_*
  • Guests

.



#14
Brando

Brando

    83% Muppet

  • Admin
  • 19,293 posts
The Brosnan movies were ridiculously over the top, which is what made them great.

#15
Tank

Tank

    Driver

  • Member
  • 34,817 posts
If View To A Kill had been Brosnan’s first film instead of Moore’s last, I think it would have been great. Moore was kind of a clown by then.

I’ve been wracking my brain on Met’s question though— who exactly are the Bond films for? I’m guessing a very wide and general male audience, with some nostalgia seekers mixed in. That tells me a female lead isn’t going to give them the numbers they want, and let’s face it, between Marvel, Star Wars, MI, and pretty much any other wide action release, that demo is well served. So maybe they WANT to tap into a bigger female audience?

All I know is, having Pheobe Waller Bridge involved has my ticket sold already.
  • Kyrian +1 this

#16
Guest_El Chalupacabra_*

Guest_El Chalupacabra_*
  • Guests

.



#17
Brando

Brando

    83% Muppet

  • Admin
  • 19,293 posts
Even Goldeneye had no interest in being realistic, which was the goal of Casino Royale.

I'd say it would also have worked well as an M:I movie, which are also over the top and fun.

#18
Guest_El Chalupacabra_*

Guest_El Chalupacabra_*
  • Guests

.





Reply to this topic