Since the amount of interesting storytelling in this new Bond film is likely to be minimal - replaced by multiple scenes of a slender woman kicking larger and more powerful men in the genitals in the cause of “female badassery” (and certainly not in any cause benefitting the British Government) - this advice becomes even more important.
“Goldfinger”, here I come. :)
Yet ANOTHER movie I won’t pay to see
Yawn Hollywood! We’re just not that in to you
Stunning? Hardly. And no amount of snake oil salesmanship will change that.
However, what WILL change is that the Bond franchise is finished. Ruined. Destroyed. As a 50-something dude, I know 50 guys who were devoted to all things Bond but none will go near a PC-movie that transitions to a female 007.
I hope the production budget is $300 million so the moron who let this happen loses his shirt.
Barf! Haven’t watched a Bond movie since they replaced Sean Connery — the one and only 007!
I have a feeling they will write the plot so that if a female Bond is a box office stinker, they will be able to write her off in the next movie. Like George Lazenby.
Sounds like Hollywood attempting to facilitate Big Mike for president...
OK, here goes, I am going against the prevailing tide.
With respect to those people that actually do spy work, the Brits found out females were quite effective in WWII simply because no one ever expected a woman to do such work. I learned this on some BBC stuff regarding WWII history. I believe the Nazi’s and Soviets took advantage of this too.
Now I can realistically see a woman do clandestine work within her physical limitations. However Hollywood has little 100 pound hotties throwing around 300 lb men.
My point is, if this show is properly done, it might be good. However we all know political correctness will prevail and the movie will suck accordingly.
Sorry, there is only one 007 and that is Sean Connery !
will probably be as bad as the first female Dr Who
will she be a lesbian ????
If she’s stunning, I must be out of this world gorgeous!
Female 007 is worst marketing decision since the New Coke. Good luck with that!
The Bond persona is equally as important as the action and storylines.Part of James Bond’s appeal is that he is such a charming male chauvinist womanizer. Sorry but a black woman in the role does not compute.
I can’t believe the producers are considering this. It’s been a golden franchise since about 1962. I am 64 and saw “Dr. No” when it came out and that series has been a big part of a lot lives for a long time.
Frankly I am surprised it has lasted this long.
We have had plenty of movies with strong female characters and yet I guess the goal of Femenists is take down the last bastion of male dominance.
About two years ago the movie “Atomic Blonde” came out with a uber cool female spy. The movie was pretty good and the fight scenes were brutal though, no woman would come out looking as good as the hero in that film did, she would be in the hospital. It also had the sex seduction scene, but it was a lesbian one, which was to be expected.
Sorry “Jane Bond” isn’t going to work. Will she be Bi-Sexual so she can get information form both sexes? The series was great because it allowed for a suspension of belief and gave great escapism to everyone.
If they do this then I guess my long love affair watching Bond is over. I will always have the films a I really liked and can watch anytime. I suspect the first film may do well out of curiosity value, after that I don’t know.
It’s called “Bond 25” because that’s the expected audience.
From Wikipedia:
Another general attitude and prejudice of Fleming’s that Bond gives voice to includes his approach to homosexuality. While Fleming had a number of gay friends, including Noël Coward and his editor, William Plomer, he said that his books were “written for warm-blooded heterosexuals”.[74] His attitude went further, with Bond opining that homosexuals were “a herd of unhappy sexual misfits – barren and full of frustrations, the women wanting to dominate and the men to be nannied”, adding that “he was sorry for them, but he had no time for them.
I find the name Lynch offensive.
And I will promptly go out and by DVDs of Roger Moore as 007. This is freakin’ stupid.
So, now are we going to have a character called Penis Galore?
It’s getting ridiculous. Reminds me of Sherlock Holmes fighting Nazis.
Bond was born in 1920 or 1921. Bond joined a branch of what was to become the Ministry of Defence in 1941 and becomes a lieutenant in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, ending the war as a commander. Enough. I prefer the masculine Bond in his times, not what he’s morphing into now.
I love this description of James Bond in the novel FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. It’s from a dossier compiled by SMERSH. SMERSH is a portmanteau of two Russian words: “SMERt’ SHpionam” meaning “Death to Spies”.
From the dossier:
“Name: Bond, James. Height: 183cm, weight: 76 kilograms; slim build; eyes: blue; hair: black; scar down right cheek and on left shoulder; signs of plastic surgery on back of right hand (see Appendix “A”); all-round athlete; expert pistol shot, boxer, knife-thrower; does not use disguises. Languages: French and German. Smokes heavily (NB: special cigarettes with three gold bands); vices: drink, but not to excess, and women. Not thought to accept bribes.
This man is invariably armed with a .25 Beretta automatic carried in a holster under his left arm. Magazine holds eight rounds. Has been known to carry a knife strapped to his left forearm; has used steel-capped shoes; knows the basic holds of judo. In general, fights with tenacity and has a high tolerance of pain (see Appendix “B”).
Conclusion. This man is a dangerous professional terrorist and spy. He has worked for the British Secret Service since 1938 and now (see Highsmith file of December 1950) holds the secret number “007” in that Service. The double 0 numerals signify an agent who has killed and who is privileged to kill on active service. There are believed to be only two other British agents with this authority. The fact that this spy was decorated with the CMG in 1953, an award usually given only on retirement from the Secret Service, is a measure of his worth. If encountered in the field, the fact and full details to be reported to headquarters (see SMERSH MGB and GRU Standing Orders 1951 onwards).”
The narrative continues:
“General G.’s hand went to the internal office telephone. He spoke to his ADC. ‘Death Warrant,’ he said harshly. ‘Made out in the name of “James Bond”.’ He spelled the names out. ‘Description: Angliski Spion. Crime: Enemy of the State.’ He put the receiver back and leant forward in his chair. ‘And now it will be a question of devising an appropriate konspiratsia. And one that cannot fail!’”
“To be killed WITH IGNOMINY. Grubozaboyschikov.”
Anthony Burgess Burgess suggested that from the very beginning Fleming (Casino Royal, 1953) had a message for the British people: “Tough, brave, and yet no cold-bath ascetic, Bond reminded his readers of qualities they seemed to have lost.”
Bond reminds me of the character Sam Vincent created by Stephen Hunter in his novel BLACK LIGHT: “His was a life of certitude. He was an absolute believer. He hated revisionism, hindsight, detached examination, the whole spirit of equivocation and ironic ambivalence which had become the American style in the nineties.” Just so. Like Vincent, Bond was an antidote to the fecklessness and timidity of the modern beta male.
To me Connery will always be the definitive Bond with Craig a close second. Fleming and Connery agreed the film FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE was the best. To be fair this assessment was early on as Fleming died in 1964. I do not think he would have cared for the later movies, though he would have enjoyed the money immensely.
After Craig, I won’t see another Bond movie again until they put a proper 007 in the role.
People don’t consider Lazenby to be a real Bond, either. I sure don’t. Welcome to the club.