Lashana Lynch will play 007 in new James Bond movie

[Skorpionss]

Well, seeing as Tom Cruise started his movie career at 19, and Harrison Ford at 31, that kind of is the reason, doncha think?

Harrison Ford started his acting career at 24 not 31. At least according to IMDB. And he could have switched roles from action hero to something else... Again I don't blame him really, Like I said earlier I would've stopped completely after having enough money to live the rest of my life in fluff...

Anyway I won't derail the thread further... I love Harrison Ford and he's one of my favourites, he definitely is the only reason I find The Force Awakens watchable, I just wish he did more movies is all...

[Sykol]

Get woke, go broke.

[Crillam]

"Regarding Henry", domestic Box office, 45 million, 25 million budget.

"The Devil's Own", 86 million budget, 140 million made.

Those two probably did not break even. But the rest sure did.

[Skulltaker]

Well, he does have a point.

The infamous Sean Connery scene where the girl is in the bath, and he just waltzes in unannounced and joins her is pretty...well....






Also, from an article regarding James Bond's more 'infamous' actions...

"In Thunderball, he grabs an attending physiotherapist and forces his horrible Scottish lips on her reluctant face. In Goldfinger, he wrestles, ahem, Pussy Galore into the literal hay and, not reading her attempt to strangle him as a “no”, does what he always ends up doing. (The book’s suggestions that Pussy Galore is a lesbian are more lightly worn in the film.) In Diamonds Are Forever, now rendered even less palatable by the addition of a safari suit, Bond rips a woman’s bikini top free and aggressively wraps it around her neck. And so on."

So yeh, I think the statement of JB being a bit "rapey" is a fair one

I'd say these scenes are in poor taste, but a product of their time. They are all... how old? 30 years at least? The recent additions to the franchise were a lot more progressive, if I recall correctly.

As for the scenes: If I recall correctly, the girl he strangles with her Bikini works for Blofeld, doesn't she? I think he's usually much more brutal with enemy agents. If that scene is problematic, in the context of the movie, then I'd say all the people he shoots and blows up and poisons are problematic aswell.

Pussy Galore, if memory serves me right, also was an enemy agent, working for a man who planned to kill hundreds and contaminate the US federal gold reserve. Bonds advances lead to her betraying Goldfinger and saving US troops.

And the woman in the bath, again, enemy agent, working for SPECTRE. If blowing their personel up is fine, how is what he does suddenly that despicable? Craig's Bodn would have probably gotten the info he wanted from them, and then liquidated them, so they don't pose a threat.

Would or should you act like this towards women in private? No. Should you take this as a guideline as how to behave towards woman in general? No.

Did he not take no for an answer from time to time? Yes. But that kind of was his job. We're talking about a sanctioned killer with access to high-tech that murders his way across 7 continents because usually him failing meant the end for civilization as we knew it.

Bond has always justified the means with the end.

[Henock]

As a black person my default action when hollywood makes a move like this is to not see the movie. This is clearly pandering and I don't reward pandering with my money. I'm not sure why hollywood feels the need to pander. They simultaneously alienate loyal James Bond fans and don't appeal to any newcomers to the franchise with this movie. James Bond has been established as a white man for over 50 years. All this move is going to do is create a flop movie and damage the franchise. And of course James Bond can't get with the black woman, because his tactics only work on easy white women. *rolls eyes*. (even though there has been a uptick in Black female/White male relationships recently, so if we're talking demographics that's something that hollywood could probably capitalize on but whatever)

Side note: Generally when Black, Female or LGBT characters are introduced in a franchise their story arc almost always focuses on their respective "ism". This has got to be one of the most annoying things to witness as a black viewer (can't imagine what it's like for white people, probably annoying too). Usually all this does is distract from the main points of the plot. Oh the character is gay or black or whatever blah blah blah and they have to deal with that. What does this have to do with the main story or even the side story? So now we have characters that only serve a means to an end and they are hollow characters as such.

[Queen of Hamsters]

Get woke, go broke.

Has this actually proven to be correct at any point?

- - - Updated - - -

James Bond has been established as a white man for over 50 years.

And James Bond continues to be a white man.

Just an FYI. <.<

[Skulltaker]

Those two probably did not break even. But the rest sure did.

Regarding Henry only lists domestic box office. While that movie wasn't a great hit, I'd assume it still made some money overseas.

As for The Devil's Own, might be.

[Dch48]

The double O designation means the agent has the license to kill. It can be 001,005,007,008,009, they would all be the same type of agent. the 7 really doesn't mean anything beyond it always being associated with Bond.

[Skulltaker]

Am not disagreeing with the character, just mainly pointing out that the original films (and even the writer himself) said Bond was basically a bit of a cunt. Viewing women as nothing more than objects and tools in his arsenal.

Doesn;t change the fact the character is a little bit "rapey" for modern audiences in those films, and the books.

The modern films are great though, in that, he is more asshole than pervert.

Well, yes. I thought that was the point? For modern audiences, yes. Well, modern audiences are way to fragile. I mean, what's next? People accusing Luke Skywalker for genocide because he killed a gajillion Stormtroopers on the Death Star? I mean, technically the Rebels are a terrorist organization.

And it wasn't only women he treated as objects and means, it was everyone. Which was what he was trained for.

[Rotted]

Before people fall for the OP’s bait.

Daniel Craig is still James Bond. Some else is now 007 at MI6

So its someone else assuming the 007 mantle? It's not just casting a woman as the actual james bond?

If thats the case I'm 100% fine with that.

[NihilSustinet]

So its someone else assuming the 007 mantle? It's not just casting a woman as the actual james bond?

If thats the case I'm 100% fine with that.

yup, that's what it is.

[Dch48]

This kind of stuff has been going on for a long time now. The black "Honeymooners", the totally ridiculous remake of Kojak with Ving Rhames as the title character, and as much as I like Dwayne Johnson, he had no business playing Hercules. Even worse was when he played Buford Pusser in the remake of "Walking Tall". Imagine the uproar if they remade "The Jeffersons" with a white guy as George. You have to stay true to the original character and not pander to this so called "progressive" agenda. Most of what is called progressive is actually regressive but that's a whole other story.

[Rhaide]

It's about time.

https://nypost.com/2019/07/14/lashan...-movie-report/

Oh god it's ghostbusters all over again. I wouldn't hate a female Bond at all - just drop it in, Bond doesn't have to be a dude, but to advertise it by basically saying 'ALL YOU MILLENIALS ARE GONNA LOVE IT, IT'S A BLACK CHICK' is like hanging out a billboard saying 'LOOK, WE'RE GOOD GUYS, CAN WE HAVE YOUR MONEY'?

- - - Updated - - -

This kind of stuff has been going on for a long time now. The black "Honeymooners", the totally ridiculous remake of Kojak with Ving Rhames as the title character, and as much as I like Dwayne Johnson, he had no business playing Hercules. Even worse was when he played Buford Pusser in the remake of "Walking Tall". Imagine the uproar if they remade "The Jeffersons" with a white guy as George. You have to stay true to the original character and not pander to this so called "progressive" agenda. Most of what is called progressive is actually regressive but that's a whole other story.

I thought Johnson was awesome in Walking Tall. I actually think that was a great example of how changing a race/gender doesn't make a difference when done right. Just don't virtue-signal it and you're golden. But nowadays all the regressive idiot white people are suckers for virtual-signalling. I don't get why we can't just put people of color and women in more stuff and act like it's normal instead of stepping into a spotlight for being the saviors of the underprivileged.

- - - Updated - - -

So its someone else assuming the 007 mantle? It's not just casting a woman as the actual james bond?

If thats the case I'm 100% fine with that.

Nothing wrong with it at all. Lots wrong with using it as a main selling-point.

[Vakir]

It's the fucking Post/Daily Mail.

Let's go on ahead and wait for Movie 25 to actually come out considering how hard it's been development hell'd before we assume who the next casting choice is.

[Orby]

This should be funny to watch. People on both sides will make this way bigger then it should be.

that's usually the case.

:P

Funny thing is, she isnt even James Bond... it says so int he article. But I guess people are going to outrage and just go by the headline. It's like playing 'spot the illiterate' :P

[Darknessvamp]

"he’s having to learn to deal with the world of #MeToo.”

That Judi Dench gets killed off as the competent leader of MI6 and so later he gets retired just to give someone else his codename? So how is it a James Bond film if it's not about James Bond?

[NihilSustinet]

Oh god it's ghostbusters all over again. I wouldn't hate a female Bond at all - just drop it in, Bond doesn't have to be a dude, but to advertise it by basically saying 'ALL YOU MILLENIALS ARE GONNA LOVE IT, IT'S A BLACK CHICK' is like hanging out a billboard saying 'LOOK, WE'RE GOOD GUYS, CAN WE HAVE YOUR MONEY'?

- - - Updated - - -



I thought Johnson was awesome in Walking Tall. I actually think that was a great example of how changing a race/gender doesn't make a difference when done right. Just don't virtue-signal it and you're golden. But nowadays all the regressive idiot white people are suckers for virtual-signalling. I don't get why we can't just put people of color and women in more stuff and act like it's normal instead of stepping into a spotlight for being the saviors of the underprivileged.

- - - Updated - - -



Nothing wrong with it at all. Lots wrong with using it as a main selling-point.

if you actually read it, its nothing like ghostbusters. its not a remake, its not a reboot, daniel craig is still james bond, and is still the star of the movie.

- - - Updated - - -

"he’s having to learn to deal with the world of #MeToo.”

That Judi Dench gets killed off as the competent leader of MI6 and so later he gets retired just to give someone else his codename? So how is it a James Bond film if it's not about James Bond?

it is about james bond, but he just doesnt have the 007 callsign. how is that so hard to understand?

[Skroe]

Maybe.. I don't know.. .come up with NEW stories and NEW franchises?

All this race/gender swapping is just a cheap gimmick for publicity and a pathetic alternative to originality.

Doctor Who is a prime example. The Doctor was turned into a woman and we were forcefed the dichotomy that "It's the same Doctor, just a woman, nothing will be any different", and "OMG the Doctor being a woman is so radically new and fresh and different. It's about time!." They lapped up all the press, labelling anyone with criticism as misogynistic and complaining about the white-male-boogeyman.

Turns out that changing the Doctor to a woman didn't do anything about it being a stale half-century old franchise with crap writing and embarrassing special effects.

Likewise, it turns out making the Ghostbusters into women is a great publicity move if you can't think of a new idea, but won't do anything to help if your movie is utterly creatively bankrupt.

So they could create a NEW spy-franchise with a female poc as a lead, with a great concept and writing (If anything Bourne proved new takes on a concept can succeed) or we can just slap a new identity on another stale old franchise and we'll all have to pretend how it's somehow deeply rivetting exciting and new now. Look at Killing Eve, that's great. We need more new stuff, not gender/race swapped old stuff.



Watch Luther it's a great show. LOVE Idris Elba but again, I'd MUCH MUCH rather see him in a Luther movie or another new film or franchise than see a 28th James Bond movie.

Doctor Who isn't the example you think it is. All the regenerations since 2005 have been substantially different from each other in ton, acting, cinemetography and writing. There is no mistaking David Tennant's doctor for Peter Capaldi (my personal favorite) or Matt Smith's iconic take. They've all been successful reinventions. And yes, the latest one has been too. Doctor Who certainly has "rules" it follows regeneration to regeneration, but that's kind of the point: to see how the regenerations flex within the constraints of those rules. Jodie Whittaker is considerably different and refreshing compared to Capaldi. That was the entire point.

As for why not new Stores and franchies? I mean you know why: they usually don't sell. A James Bond movie can command a $150-$200+ million budget and bring in north of $600 million (Skyfall over $1 billion). Consider the new Star Wars films. With the originals and even the prequels, they could leverage visual effects scenes no other franchise could do. FLeets of ships, fighting over fast cities. A lot of CG. Now every sci-fi movie does it. Go watch Mortal Engines - itself a failed attempt to start a new franchise - and watch those fantastic visual effects scenes. If they had been X-Wings instead of airships, it basically could have been Star Wars. So Star Wars can't leverage scale and visuals as the draw it used to. So it leverages the name, the story, the franchise, the mythology. That's how Disney makes back its multi-billion investment.

Hell I think one kind of issue with the Last Jedi - of which there were many - was that Canto Bight (the Casino planet) was just visually tame compared to the fantastic worlds other movies and franchises show routinely now. Hell it didn't even compare well to the escape from Asgard in Thor: The Dark World.

One reason there hass been so many attempts at transfering Young Adult fiction into movies in recent years is because Harry Potter and The Hunger Games successfully translated an already sucessful book series with a proven fanbase into a major movie. Most attempts (like Mortal Engines) haven't worked.

In a sense, even the MCU is this. The movies are new, but the characters are very old. But they largely have proven, sustainable popularity. And where they don't (Black Panther), they hook them into something that is popular. It's no accident that the subtitle in the US, and the main title in other countries of the first Captain America movie was "The First Avenger". Because it was designed to hook a movie which was feared might flop into a hotly anticipated movie that was expected do make a lot of money by billing it as the essential lead in. It was a very smart move.

So the question of "why no new franchises" really is more about why people keep going back to the old familiar and seem adverse to moving outside proven names, even when they are completely different than what they came before.

Just you wait: the Long Night on HBO is going to be tagged with "5000 years before Game of Thrones there was.... THE LONG NIGHT". Because pulling it into GoT is safer than letting it stand on its own at first.


Bond 25 has a huge budget and will probably make nearly $1 billion if billed as Craig's last outing. A new franchise would have a much smaller budget and see much smaller returns.

[Jastall]

Yeh, it all depends to me how exactly they handle the whole thing. Terry Crews playing her father (as he has asked to do) would be amazing!
However, they also apparently have made sure they have a gay merman as well, which makes me feel they are just ticking boxes to please, rather than do what is best for a story, which is why I do the *rolleyes* thing.

A good film doesn't need diversity quota's, the characters should stand up on their own, and their ethnicity/sexuality shouldn't be even raised unless it is important to the story itself as a whole. But just my thinking is all.

Terry Crews as King Triton would make the entire thing worth it. Bonus points if he gets a song.

I don't put it past Disney to just add diversity hires for its own sake, but I also won't assume they do that just because the lead is black. And I sure won't get my panties in a twist either way, since I view these live-action remakes as mediocre from the onset.

[Adamas102]

I mean James Bond is a character. And a big part of that character is that he is a misogynist philanderer. I guess this lady could be bi or a lesbian on the role?

What would her being bi or lesbian have anything to do with it? She isn't playing James Bond (that's still Daniel Craig).