James Bond

[Dazzle1]

Another franchise being woke

https://nypost.com/2019/07/14/lashana-l ... ie-report/

I don't object to a new character for MI6 but just give her own number and do not emasculate James Bond. BTW Craig had to be the most wimpy Bond.

[Damselbinder]

I'm sure the forum's response to this will be measured, enlightened and intelligent.

[tallyho]

Why? Just ...WHY?

[brdiy]

Anyone who dares object will be labelled racist and/or un-progressive.

[Imagineer]

According to an insider. *shrug*
James Bond has sucked before and figured out how to rejuvenate itself. And it's hardly strict about canon.
So if this turns out to be true, I'll wait and see how it turns out, and if it sucks, I'll revisit the previous flicks that don't suck until the next one comes out.
As long as Bond is an adult Brit and a F-Cool Badass, I'll give it a shot.

[4havokk]

Pffft... Proof that creating new characters in TV/Movie land is trully dead. Give us something NEW ya Twits! Gender swaps race swaps ugggg! Talentless witless wonder F*cks.

[Imagineer]

Pffft... Proof that creating new characters in TV/Movie land is trully dead. Give us something NEW ya Twits!

Wow, that's a fresh take on a James Bond film.

[tallyho]

Oh having read the article its just they are giving her his 007 number after he retired and is called back. So its a one shot token scene sorta deal.
The Craig films have been a mess. I mean a defibrilator in the glove box? "Where are the machine guns Q?" " Oh we had to take them out to make way for the kidney dialysis unit". Shame the Aston Martin didnt have an airbag either when he rolled it in Casino Royale. Quantum of Plot was the worst bond ever (a show down with a short French businessman who gives a trained assassin a run for his money? Wow.) -never thought it would beat Licence to Bore for forgetability but it did.Skyfall you could see when the money ran out and rather than Macau we were in MacDonald country and Spectre was just pants, total waste of Christophe Waltz talents and my time.

[Dazzle1]

Oh having read the article its just they are giving her his 007 number after he retired and is called back. So its a one shot token scene sorta deal.
The Craig films have been a mess. I mean a defibrilator in the glove box? "Where are the machine guns Q?" " Oh we had to take them out to make way for the kidney dialysis unit". Shame the Aston Martin didnt have an airbag either when he rolled it in Casino Royale. Quantum of Plot was the worst bond ever (a show down with a short French businessman who gives a trained assassin a run for his money? Wow.) -never thought it would beat Licence to Bore for forgetability but it did.Skyfall you could see when the money ran out and rather than Macau we were in MacDonald country and Spectre was just pants, total waste of Christophe Waltz talents and my time.

I agree and Daniel Craig is a great actor he is just not Bond, anymore than Calpadi was the Doctor

[tallyho]

Worst bit for me was him looking at himself in a tux as if for first time. He was a COMMANDER IN THE ROYAL NAVY FFS and went to public school - dress uniform and nice suits arent anything special to him and Craig acted it out like a brickie in a suit. (And Craig is a good actor just these Bond scripts have been wank)

[Visitor]

Reassigning a number makes sense unless you want to go the way of sports teams in retiring the number of a "great" agent. You can't expect that James Bond was the first and only 007 in the service when continuity was adjusted to bring the current one in modern times. Now if they went and moved the series back to the Cold War when it was written, it would make more sense.

It's not like they are calling the new character James Bond or Jane Bond. Back in the Sean Connery era with Goldfinger and a few others they mention the other 00 agents and replacing dead one with investigations.

[Dazzle1]

I'm sure the forum's response to this will be measured, enlightened and intelligent.

If you think we can get contenious, go to LinkedIN which is a professional networking site; regarding this topic

[lionbadger]

I don't object to a new character for MI6 but just give her own number and do not emasculate James Bond. BTW Craig had to be the most wimpy Bond.

you know "James Bond" and "007" are code names right, it's not the same guy from Dr No to Spectre

What I object to is bond being younger than me!

[GeekyPornCritic]

I don't object to a new character for MI6 but just give her own number and do not emasculate James Bond. BTW Craig had to be the most wimpy Bond.

you know "James Bond" and "007" are code names right, it's not the same guy from Dr No to Spectre

What I object to is bond being younger than me!

A lot of people have been missing that point. 007 is just a code name. I am assuming the code name is only given to the best agents. I am sure they will probably name her Jane Bond or any feminine name with the first letter as J.

This isn't even a gender swap as some people have stated. She is not a female James Bond as in the man who plays the agent.

[Dazzle1]

I don't object to a new character for MI6 but just give her own number and do not emasculate James Bond. BTW Craig had to be the most wimpy Bond.

you know "James Bond" and "007" are code names right, it's not the same guy from Dr No to Spectre

What I object to is bond being younger than me!

Comeon 007 and Bond have been the same character

This is a trend many of us find disturbing, taking an iconic character who happens to be a white male and changing it to satisfy a small vocal group.

They did this with DW, with WB 's Batwoman (because sorry Kathy Kane never had access to any of Bruce Wayne's stuff)

[GeekyPornCritic]

I don't object to a new character for MI6 but just give her own number and do not emasculate James Bond. BTW Craig had to be the most wimpy Bond.

you know "James Bond" and "007" are code names right, it's not the same guy from Dr No to Spectre

What I object to is bond being younger than me!

Comeon 007 and Bond have been the same character

This is a trend many of us find disturbing, taking an iconic character who happens to be a white male and changing it to satisfy a small vocal group.

They did this with DW, with WB 's Batwoman (because sorry Kathy Kane never had access to any of Bruce Wayne's stuff)

James Bond has not been changed. The previous agent with the title is in this movie. The previous agent with the title retired, and a new agent has the title. The previous agent hasn't been change. He is still white.

Many minorities in history have been changed to white. Jesus is black, and he is almost always played by a white actor. That is much more disturbing because a real person from history has been changed to satisfy a large group of people. James Bond is not a real person. James Bond is only a title.

Your argument has no grounds. A title can be passed to anyone with any demographics. This is not different from a white general in army retiring and a black person being appointed as the next general.

[Dazzle1]

I don't object to a new character for MI6 but just give her own number and do not emasculate James Bond. BTW Craig had to be the most wimpy Bond.

you know "James Bond" and "007" are code names right, it's not the same guy from Dr No to Spectre

What I object to is bond being younger than me!

Comeon 007 and Bond have been the same character

This is a trend many of us find disturbing, taking an iconic character who happens to be a white male and changing it to satisfy a small vocal group.

They did this with DW, with WB 's Batwoman (because sorry Kathy Kane never had access to any of Bruce Wayne's stuff)

James Bond has not been changed. The previous agent with the title is in this movie. The previous agent with the title retired, and a new agent has the title. The previous agent hasn't been change. He is still white.

Many minorities in history have been changed to white. Jesus is black, and he is almost always played by a white actor. That is much more disturbing because a real person from history has been changed to satisfy a large group of people. James Bond is not a real person. James Bond is only a title.

Your argument has no grounds. A title can be passed to anyone with any demographics. This is not different from a white general in army retiring and a black person being appointed as the next general.

You are being obtuse, Luke Skywalker was made a wimp to build up Rey, Batman is being made a deserter to build up Batwoman.

Jesus was not black he was Middle Eastern and Jewish

[GeekyPornCritic]

You are being obtuse, Luke Skywalker was made a wimp to build up Rey, Batman is being made a deserter to build up Batwoman.

Jesus was not black he was Middle Eastern and Jewish

How do you expect people to take this conversation seriously when you avoid discussion? Luke Skywalker and Batwoman are irrelevant to this topic. Neither character's demographics were changed in medias from your comments.

Jesus was a black Middle Eastern Jew. The bible describes his skin as black or brown. Why is it okay for a white person to play Jesus and it is wrong for a black woman to play 007?

[ivandobsky]

It seems like pretty much everything big and mainsteam is a wokeness delivery vehicle these days. Given this, IMO the more out there the better, since this feeds a desire for escapist entertainment, where people can leave corporate gender politics at work and just watch a movie like they used to. Bring on an alternative 'sploitation trend, please.

[Dazzle1]

You are being obtuse, Luke Skywalker was made a wimp to build up Rey, Batman is being made a deserter to build up Batwoman.

Jesus was not black he was Middle Eastern and Jewish

How do you expect people to take this conversation seriously when you avoid discussion? Luke Skywalker and Batwoman are irrelevant to this topic. Neither character's demographics were changed in medias from your comments.

Jesus was a black Middle Eastern Jew. The bible describes his skin as black or brown. Why is it okay for a white person to play Jesus and it is wrong for a black woman to play 007?

Stop the person attacks is suppose to be the rule. Star Wars and Batwoman are analogies to the problem

[GeekyPornCritic]

You are being obtuse, Luke Skywalker was made a wimp to build up Rey, Batman is being made a deserter to build up Batwoman.

Jesus was not black he was Middle Eastern and Jewish

How do you expect people to take this conversation seriously when you avoid discussion? Luke Skywalker and Batwoman are irrelevant to this topic. Neither character's demographics were changed in medias from your comments.

Jesus was a black Middle Eastern Jew. The bible describes his skin as black or brown. Why is it okay for a white person to play Jesus and it is wrong for a black woman to play 007?

Stop the person attacks is suppose to be the rule. Star Wars and Batwoman are analogies to the problem

I haven't personally attacked you. I have disagreed with your opinions on the matter. You continue to avoid my questions.

[Dazzle1]

You are being obtuse, Luke Skywalker was made a wimp to build up Rey, Batman is being made a deserter to build up Batwoman.

Jesus was not black he was Middle Eastern and Jewish

How do you expect people to take this conversation seriously when you avoid discussion? Luke Skywalker and Batwoman are irrelevant to this topic. Neither character's demographics were changed in medias from your comments.

Jesus was a black Middle Eastern Jew. The bible describes his skin as black or brown. Why is it okay for a white person to play Jesus and it is wrong for a black woman to play 007?

Stop the person attacks is suppose to be the rule. Star Wars and Batwoman are analogies to the problem

I haven't personally attacked you. I have disagreed with your opinions on the matter. You continue to avoid my questions.

I have answered your questions, you can't refute my arguments and points because you ignore them

[Disciple]

Gentlemen, gentlemen...

Can't we all just agree that Bond passed his expiration date around 1964 or thereabouts, and this is simply the latest shamble in a decades-zombified franchise?

(But seriously, anyone who thinks this is being cruel and insulting to Bond, I hope you never read The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.)

[shevek]

Sorry, Geeky, but Jesus wasn't a 'black' Middle Eastern Jew. Have you ever heard the song "It Ain't Necessarily So" from Gershwin's Porgy and Bess? "The things that you're liable to read in the Bible..." pretty much explains anything I would try to say already.

OK, back to James Bond. It's already been reported and explained on many websites that Lashana Lynch's character takes over 007's number for a short time, and spurns Bond's sexual advances initially (although it's not clear yet whether she eventually relents). It's been made clear that the Bond character returns to action for the rest of the film (Daniel Craig's final outing as the character).

So, Dazzle, some Youtube channels have already figured out the scheme behind this casting and storyline: it's meant to appease the yammerers on Twitter who would otherwise have attacked the movie for featuring yet another White Cis Male as the lead role. The Woke Brigade gets their crumb thrown at them (just like Tessa Thompson from the new Men in Black) and everyone is more or less happy. It's savvy marketing, and another way for this film to rise above being regarded as 'just another ho-hum James Bond movie in the franchise' (and yes, Disciple, it's increasingly difficult to gussy up a horse that's been beaten to death since the 1960s).

However, that's not to say there won't be character changes in the future. It could be that in 'Bond 26', the next 007 might be someone like Idris Elba. As long as Bond is dashingly handsome, like Jason Momoa in Aquaman and Chad Boseman in Black Panther, the ladies will like him just fine!

[lionbadger]

Comeon 007 and Bond have been the same character

This is a trend many of us find disturbing, taking an iconic character who happens to be a white male and changing it to satisfy a small vocal group.

They did this with DW, with WB 's Batwoman (because sorry Kathy Kane never had access to any of Bruce Wayne's stuff)

If we apply your own criteria of genetic purity, how can they be the same character when you've got a scottish guy, 3 english guys (one being half scottish half indian), an irish guy, an australian and even a welsh!, rotated in over the course of 50 years in a series which (unlike say Archer) acknowledges real world time lines like WW2 and cold war.

[tallyho]

They are ACTORS. THEY PLAY ROLES.
The role is the same. The only criteria is white male. Because the character is white male.
I have no issue with sexy female spies of any ethnic origin (just the opposite!) But they cant be Bond in the same way as a white man couldnt play Mulan or Ariel.

[Dogfish]

Amazed people fell for the bait with the new movie.

What is a thing that marketing and PR people have been doing for ages to gain positive attention for movies? Provoking reactionary folks.

The Ghostbusters remake started the trend. An incredibly poor movie with about three funny bits hit the headlines because of the outrage that it's casting provoked. It was a godawful movie but it made money and it made money* because people wanted to support it in the face of bigoted criticism.

Nike then perfected the formula by supporting Colin Kaepernick. Their support for him and his cause sent idiots and bigots round the bend and while they were burning running shoes and cutting up their socks the company made more money than God.

Then Captain Marvel appeared and they managed to weaponise the outrage of people on the far right to make that movie a spectacular success. They barely had to promote it, Brie Larson just had to give a smile and a seemingly off the cuff comment about some societal injustice or other and it would guaranteed that Captain Marvel would be the most talked about movie that week.

Gillette pulled the same trick with an advert for razors. The simple message, "Don't be an arsehole" was considered to be an attack on conservative values (I mean, I guess it is?) and suddenly idiots are chucking their razors away and Gillette made a huge chunk of cash from people who were like, "Yeah, I support not being an arsehole." Also presumably they made a chunk of cash from the idiots who chucked away their razors needing new ones.

It's funny that a lot of reactionary folks say that this kind of thing by a company is 'pandering to SJWs'. It's quite the opposite. You didn't see thousands of videos by social justice folks about Captain Marvel. You didn't see thousands of videos from social justice folks about Colin Kaepernick. There are hundreds of videos of people chucking away or burning Nike or Gillette products, yet you don't see any videos of people buying them out of support. No. This sort of move is not pandering to SJWs, it is actively trying to provoke an angry reaction from conservatives, bigots, nerds, anybody else who will make a lot of noise and is easy to laugh at.

If you're the sort of person who gets angry when a white male character gets replaced in media, remember, it's not being done to make other people happy, it's being done to provoke a reaction from you. They are banking on that reaction.

This James Bond thing is exactly the same. They're giving his codename to somebody after he retired and people are losing their shit right on cue. A handful of idiots who clearly weren't going to watch it anyway because they didn't even know Bond had retired get bent out of shape, their rage puts the movie in the news, and this benefits the movie longer term.

Honestly, I'm starting to wish movies wouldn't do it. I mean it's funny to see outraged morons co-opted into doing the marketing for products they claim to now hate, but on a purely human level it's pretty cruel.


As for this Bond movie, I don't give a shit. I haven't watched one in ages, I wasn't planning to, and then I found out that in the last one they stole the plot from one of the Austin Powers movies, by making Blofeld into Bond's brother. I mean. WHAT.

If anybody out there is fine with Blofeld being Bond's brother but gets upset about the possible ethnicity of the actor playing Bond, jog on.

At this point Bond could be played by an opera singing toucan and it wouldn't make the series any more absurd.



*Granted not a shitload of money, but a hell of a lot more than it would have done.

[GeekyPornCritic]

They are ACTORS. THEY PLAY ROLES.
The role is the same. The only criteria is white male. Because the character is white male.
I have no issue with sexy female spies of any ethnic origin (just the opposite!) But they cant be Bond in the same way as a white man couldnt play Mulan or Ariel.

You actually have a problem with female spies from ethnic origin. You clearly stated "they cant be Bond in the same way as a white man couldnt play Mulan or Ariel". This is pure racism at the core. 007 & James Bond are titles and code names given to spies. Why are women and minorities not allowed to have the title?

A white man could easily play Ariel. Just make male version of Ariel. Oh wait isn't there Aqua Man? Sure he isn't Ariel, but he is a masculine male from the ocean.

I find it ironic and distasteful that everyone has avoided my questions. People at this forum are okay with white men playing people such as Jesus who is a black Middle Eastern Jew, but are very angry when a black woman has the TITLE (not character) 007.

Many upset individuals are ignoring the fact of many characters like Bond were created during times of segregation and more open racism. Writers and directors only cared about their white audience because those people had the money to attend theaters, and very few blacks went to segregated theaters. Nearly all characters from those times were white. White actors were commonly hired for any role. You would mostly see blacks playing slaves or butlers.

[Dazzle1]

Amazed people fell for the bait with the new movie.

What is a thing that marketing and PR people have been doing for ages to gain positive attention for movies? Provoking reactionary folks.

The Ghostbusters remake started the trend. An incredibly poor movie with about three funny bits hit the headlines because of the outrage that it's casting provoked. It was a godawful movie but it made money and it made money* because people wanted to support it in the face of bigoted criticism.

Nike then perfected the formula by supporting Colin Kaepernick. Their support for him and his cause sent idiots and bigots round the bend and while they were burning running shoes and cutting up their socks the company made more money than God.

Then Captain Marvel appeared and they managed to weaponise the outrage of people on the far right to make that movie a spectacular success. They barely had to promote it, Brie Larson just had to give a smile and a seemingly off the cuff comment about some societal injustice or other and it would guaranteed that Captain Marvel would be the most talked about movie that week.

Gillette pulled the same trick with an advert for razors. The simple message, "Don't be an arsehole" was considered to be an attack on conservative values (I mean, I guess it is?) and suddenly idiots are chucking their razors away and Gillette made a huge chunk of cash from people who were like, "Yeah, I support not being an arsehole." Also presumably they made a chunk of cash from the idiots who chucked away their razors needing new ones.

It's funny that a lot of reactionary folks say that this kind of thing by a company is 'pandering to SJWs'. It's quite the opposite. You didn't see thousands of videos by social justice folks about Captain Marvel. You didn't see thousands of videos from social justice folks about Colin Kaepernick. There are hundreds of videos of people chucking away or burning Nike or Gillette products, yet you don't see any videos of people buying them out of support. No. This sort of move is not pandering to SJWs, it is actively trying to provoke an angry reaction from conservatives, bigots, nerds, anybody else who will make a lot of noise and is easy to laugh at.

If you're the sort of person who gets angry when a white male character gets replaced in media, remember, it's not being done to make other people happy, it's being done to provoke a reaction from you. They are banking on that reaction.

This James Bond thing is exactly the same. They're giving his codename to somebody after he retired and people are losing their shit right on cue. A handful of idiots who clearly weren't going to watch it anyway because they didn't even know Bond had retired get bent out of shape, their rage puts the movie in the news, and this benefits the movie longer term.

Honestly, I'm starting to wish movies wouldn't do it. I mean it's funny to see outraged morons co-opted into doing the marketing for products they claim to now hate, but on a purely human level it's pretty cruel.


As for this Bond movie, I don't give a shit. I haven't watched one in ages, I wasn't planning to, and then I found out that in the last one they stole the plot from one of the Austin Powers movies, by making Blofeld into Bond's brother. I mean. WHAT.

If anybody out there is fine with Blofeld being Bond's brother but gets upset about the possible ethnicity of the actor playing Bond, jog on.

At this point Bond could be played by an opera singing toucan and it wouldn't make the series any more absurd.



*Granted not a shitload of money, but a hell of a lot more than it would have done.

Sorry the push for an African America taking the Bond role has been pushed for a decade by left wing media and SJW type, same as the female Doctor

Hide your head in the sand, if you wish.

[GeekyPornCritic]

Sorry the push for an African America taking the Bond role has been pushed for a decade by left wing media and SJW type, same as the female Doctor

Hide your head in the sand, if you wish.

Oh so people need to hide their heads in the sand when a black person is given the role of bond. Well isn't that racist...

But it's okay with a Scottish, two English men, one half English and Indian to play James Bond.

I'm sure Trump has a wonderful room at the White House for all of you racist to enjoy this racist conversation over some tea.

[lionbadger]

They are ACTORS. THEY PLAY ROLES.
The role is the same. The only criteria is white male. Because the character is white male.
I have no issue with sexy female spies of any ethnic origin (just the opposite!) But they cant be Bond in the same way as a white man couldnt play Mulan or Ariel.

Err, no sun. Clearly established by David Niven in Casino Royale.

The criteria would be "looks like a mean Hoagy Carmichael" if staying true to the books, but as I mention the character is chopped and changed all over the place.

[lionbadger]

Sorry the push for an African America taking the Bond role has been pushed for a decade by left wing media and SJW type, same as the female Doctor

Hide your head in the sand, if you wish.

........where the actual fuck do you start with this

By "African American" do you British citizen whose parents might be from a crown dominion?

[Dazzle1]

Sorry the push for an African America taking the Bond role has been pushed for a decade by left wing media and SJW type, same as the female Doctor

Hide your head in the sand, if you wish.

........where the actual fuck do you start with this

By "African American" do you British citizen whose parents might be from a crown dominion?

My mistake on African American sorry

[Dazzle1]

Sorry the push for an African America taking the Bond role has been pushed for a decade by left wing media and SJW type, same as the female Doctor

Hide your head in the sand, if you wish.

Oh so people need to hide their heads in the sand when a black person is given the role of bond. Well isn't that racist...

But it's okay with a Scottish, two English men, one half English and Indian to play James Bond.

I'm sure Trump has a wonderful room at the White House for all of you racist to enjoy this racist conversation over some tea.

Typical SJW/ AOC/ Tlaib race baiter comment

Trump is not a racist,he is obnoxious.
The racists are those 4 Harridans on TV, who did take tough questions

[Dogfish]

Nah he's as racist as it's as possible to be, by any definition you care to name.

[GeekyPornCritic]

Typical SJW/ AOC/ Tlaib race baiter comment

Trump is not a racist,he is obnoxious.
The racists are those 4 Harridans on TV, who did take tough questions

You avoided all of my questions. I asked you why is it okay for white men to play Jesus when Jesus is a black Middle Eastern Jew. You refused to answer the question.

So telling people to put their heads in the sand when a black person plays 007 is okay to you? Tell black people to go back to their country when they were forced to be here as slaves is okay to you? A president with a history of calling black people the N word is okay to you.

[tallyho]

They are ACTORS. THEY PLAY ROLES.
The role is the same. The only criteria is white male. Because the character is white male.
I have no issue with sexy female spies of any ethnic origin (just the opposite!) But they cant be Bond in the same way as a white man couldnt play Mulan or Ariel.

You actually have a problem with female spies from ethnic origin. You clearly stated "they cant be Bond in the same way as a white man couldnt play Mulan or Ariel". This is pure racism at the core. 007 & James Bond are titles and code names given to spies. Why are women and minorities not allowed to have the title?

A white man could easily play Ariel. Just make male version of Ariel. Oh wait isn't there Aqua Man? Sure he isn't Ariel, but he is a masculine male from the ocean.
.

Oh, bless your heart. The point being that becomes a story about a MER -MAN. Not the Little MER-MAID. You see how that works?

My point was if you change every major aspect of the story, you no longer have THE STORY. You have what I like to call a 'NEW STORY'.
Nothing wrong with a new story. Might turn out better than the original, who can say, but dont try and pass it off as the original

I am from an ethnic minority where my great grandparents were made to wear a rope around their necks in school if they spoke their native language. I have spoken out against racism, I have marched against racism I have written against racism. (Read my story Supergirl and the Last Human and then tell me I am racist to the core again, go on, I dare you)
I am not racist in the slightest - I shared a flat with a gentleman from Tanzania for 3 months in college and one of my best friends in school was asian- but apparently preferring defined characters to be depicted as they were written is racist. Well alrighty then, I shall get Dr Dom to ban my sorry ass.


In other news lets avoid the political references shall we ladies and gents and keep it civil


(I'm racist to the core, eh? You'd have thought I mighta noticed by now but there you go. Someone shoula told me. Who'da thunk it? )

[GeekyPornCritic]

They are ACTORS. THEY PLAY ROLES.
The role is the same. The only criteria is white male. Because the character is white male.
I have no issue with sexy female spies of any ethnic origin (just the opposite!) But they cant be Bond in the same way as a white man couldnt play Mulan or Ariel.

You actually have a problem with female spies from ethnic origin. You clearly stated "they cant be Bond in the same way as a white man couldnt play Mulan or Ariel". This is pure racism at the core. 007 & James Bond are titles and code names given to spies. Why are women and minorities not allowed to have the title?

A white man could easily play Ariel. Just make male version of Ariel. Oh wait isn't there Aqua Man? Sure he isn't Ariel, but he is a masculine male from the ocean.
.

Oh, bless your heart. The point being that becomes a story about a MER -MAN. Not the Little MER-MAID. You see how that works?

My point was if you change every major aspect of the story, you no longer have THE STORY. You have what I like to call a 'NEW STORY'.
Nothing wrong with a new story. Might turn out better than the original, who can say, but dont try and pass it off as the original

I am from an ethnic minority where my great grandparents were made to wear a rope around their necks in school if they spoke their native language. I have spoken out against racism, I have marched against racism I have written against racism. (Read my story Supergirl and the Last Human and then tell me I am racist to the core again, go on, I dare you)
I am not racist in the slightest - I shared a flat with a gentleman from Tanzania for 3 months in college and one of my best friends in school was asian- but apparently preferring defined characters to be depicted as they were written is racist. Well alrighty then, I shall get Dr Dom to ban my sorry ass.


In other news lets avoid the political references shall we ladies and gents and keep it civil


(I'm racist to the core, eh? You'd have thought I mighta noticed by now but there you go. Someone shoula told me. Who'da thunk it? )

Your comments in this topic are very racist. 007 is a title or codename. It is not different than other titles such as sheriff, mayor, president, etc. It is very racist to say no other race should be given this title. The new female character is not James Bond.

The complaints in this topic centered around a black woman getting a lead in this film. You and many others are upset because she has the title 007.

James Bond has not been changed at all. He's in the the movie, and he is WHITE.

A lot of people like yourself fail to realize or consider the time of James Bond's creation. Many classic characters were developed during times of segregation and open racism. An overwhelming amount of main characters from this time frame are white. The majority of minority characters were slaves, maids, and butlers. You offer no solutions to this problem. This is 2019 and times have greatly changed. Continuing filming movies with only white characters would further alienate non-white viewers.

There is a double standard for white people getting respect and compliments when they play historic figures from different ethnic. I have mention white actors playing Jesus who is a black Middle Eastern Jew. Everyone avoided this question and refused to answer it. Their refusal says they're okay with white people playing any role, and black people need to go elsewhere.
Here is an article with a short list of white actors playing minorities.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/26-times ... 0dab313ffc

The double standard is pure racism and it is worst when people complain about a black person playing a fictional character.

[Femina]

honestly as long as her NAME isn't 'James Bond' than it's not all that bad. The number is just a sort of 'Yeah its a spy thriller' JAMES BOND is James Bond, 007 is whomever MI6 says is 007. We've already had multiple 00#'s of some of the other 00's so they've been indicating pretty hard for a long time the numbers are a sort of ranking/identifying structure.

So long as the movie doesn't SUCK (Some of the James Bond movies suck afterall) I don't really care... if it does suck, I'll call it out for sucking, but this is not a 'Thor' situation, she's not taking his NAME.

[tallyho]

I never said people couldnt be 007 I referred to BOND. Bond isnt a code name its the name of the agent
My first post here was subsequently qualified by my SECOND POST when I said 'oh its just the code name they are dishing out' or something similar, after I read the article rather than when I had just read the sensationalist headline of 'they are making Bond a woman' or whatever it was

Anyone can be the number, 007, but for my money anyone cant be Bond due to 40 years of having that character being defined in a particular way.

No one is suggesting only filming movies with white characters but the point is art should be an expression of the time it is created,. If you are doing a Bond movie you are living off the back of 40 years of what Bond is, so you are utilising the creation of 40 years ago. If you want to change major aspects of the character then you are NOT making a Bond film you are making a NEW film which is fine just call it something new rather than piggybacking off 40 years of advertising. if you are making a spy / action thriller NOW, set in the present then MAKE IT A CREATION OF NOW, and the wonderful multicultural world we live in, not a bastardisation of something 40 years old.

But hey what the hell do I know, racist pig that I am?

[Dazzle1]

I thin k what people are missing is that traditional characters who are white males are being replaced or diminish in comics, tv franchises or movies.

It does not need or should not be done.

Best example and this goes back to the 70S the Bionic Woman, they made Jamie Sommers a strong character in her own right without making Steve Austin a jerk or a lesser character in a process. But in their two shows that they did together after the Bionic woman started they did not have to tear one down to build the other

But that does not happen now.

[GeekyPornCritic]

I never said people couldnt be 007 I referred to BOND. Bond isnt a code name its the name of the agent
My first post here was subsequently qualified by my SECOND POST when I said 'oh its just the code name they are dishing out' or something similar, after I read the article rather than when I had just read the sensationalist headline of 'they are making Bond a woman' or whatever it was

Anyone can be the number, 007, but for my money anyone cant be Bond due to 40 years of having that character being defined in a particular way.

No one is suggesting only filming movies with white characters but the point is art should be an expression of the time it is created,. If you are doing a Bond movie you are living off the back of 40 years of what Bond is, so you are utilising the creation of 40 years ago. If you want to change major aspects of the character then you are NOT making a Bond film you are making a NEW film which is fine just call it something new rather than piggybacking off 40 years of advertising. if you are making a spy / action thriller NOW, set in the present then MAKE IT A CREATION OF NOW, and the wonderful multicultural world we live in, not a bastardisation of something 40 years old.

But hey what the hell do I know, racist pig that I am?

Art does not have a rule of thumb. Art is the vision of the creator. The last 40 years of Bond do not fully define his future. An artist can create any Bond. If he wants a Black, Indian, or Asian playing Bond, then he is within his right as an artist.

Changing a character's race does not change the franchise or create a new franchise. Nobody says Jesus is no longer Jesus because a white guy is playing him. If a black James Bond was acting like Snoop Dog, then I would agree this is no longer James Bond. However, a person's sex and race do not define their character and personality.

Furthermore, some fans argue Bond is also a code name.
https://whatwouldbaledo.com/2015/02/24/ ... -codename/

You are suggesting filming movies with only white characters. You don't want these classic characters to change races. The majority if not all classic characters are white. Thus, you are suggesting filming only white characters. Keep Bond and everything as they were in the past, and you have an all white film. Enjoy your racist casting call! I'm sure Trump would approve!

I love how everyone is avoiding my questions about white people given roles of characters and historic people of other races. It shows people's true character.

[GeekyPornCritic]

I thin k what people are missing is that traditional characters who are white males are being replaced or diminish in comics, tv franchises or movies.

It does not need or should not be done.

Best example and this goes back to the 70S the Bionic Woman, they made Jamie Sommers a strong character in her own right without making Steve Austin a jerk or a lesser character in a process. But in their two shows that they did together after the Bionic woman started they did not have to tear one down to build the other

But that does not happen now.

Alright let's try it your way. Keep all traditional characters white and male. Do you want new characters added or keep everything as is?

[Femina]

Changing a character's race does not change the franchise or create a new franchise. Nobody says Jesus is no longer Jesus because a white guy is playing him. If a black James Bond was acting like Snoop Dog, then I would agree this is no longer James Bond. However, a person's sex and race do not define their character and personality.

I actually don't agree with this, like at all, and I DO believe there's a problem in current Hollywood where characters races are concerned ALL AROUND. You can't change the Black Panther or Blade into white guys without utterly transforming the franchise. A person's ethnicity is intrinsically associated with their race (It's not EVERYthing about them or anything but it will ALWAYS be an enormous factor). One of the first things you learn in a cultural communications class is that IGNORING completely ethnicity isn't actually all that preferable to racism. Racial difference brings with it differing perspectives of the same things. VALUABLE perspectives of the same things. Acknowledging the differences in race, valuing differing perspectives and not feeling either inferior or superior is actually much less racist than just pretending like everyone of every race is exactly the same. In any case, back to the point, race changes EVERYTHING about a character, I guess an argument could be made Blade could be any race I suppose, but try telling that to a fan of Blade? If Blade was recast as a white guy, if ANY minority character is recast as a white guy it gets legitimate (and I DO call it legitimate) pushback. Typically minority characters shouldn't ordinarily be recast to white people. It changes the character, might as well have just made a new series about a similar type of character in a similar setting but make it something new.

But another problem is that the inverse is NOT considered true. Not currently. A character who was white traditionally being cast as a minority is lauded as brave or bold and anyone who feels slighted by it is assaulted by a sort of hypocritical pushback.

Now I want to be clear here because I consider myself one of those dastardly 'SJW's all the SIW's(Social INJUSTICE warriors) like to whine about. I see the situation as is being primarily the fault that, most minorities have an alarming SHORTAGE of 'storied 40 year old franchise heroes' to draw from. It's easy to say 'go create something new and leave the classics alone' when you've got dump trucks full of storied classics created specifically for your demographic and I would like to here formally acknowledge THAT. I in no way shape or form feel qualified to make to clear an opinion on something like this where I don't necessarily have a better solution in mind, but I think the current situation is definitively a double standard, I think it was VERY true that white people WERE being cast in all sorts of traditionally minority roles in the past, but that's drying up in the wake of legit 'whitewashing' backlash... and that's GOOD... minority roles don't belong in the hands of someone who can't ever FULLY comprehend what its like to be of that ethnicity...

BUT, I'm just not sure that accusing whitewashers of racism then turning around and say, lauding a 'blackwash' as somehow different is a solution worth having? It's just a different coat of paint over the same old problem. Really I just wish we had a better trove of 40 year old classics made for all different sorts to be drawn from... in this day of remakes and rehashes though, I'm not sure this issue is really going to work itself out for a good long while as yet.


To the point of THIS particular topic, this I don't see as 'blackwashing' or anything. She's not playing James Bond, so its not the same thing. Similarly I have a different opinion where VOICE ACTING is concerned or where characters ethnicity were nebulous to begin with.

[tallyho]

Art does not have a rule of thumb. Art is the vision of the creator. The last 40 years of Bond do not fully define his future. An artist can create any Bond. If he wants a Black, Indian, or Asian playing Bond, then he is within his right as an artist.

Ok the rule of thumb is used extensively by artists to measure scale on paintings etc so literally you couldnt be more wrong there, lol. And if its the vision of the creator then if youa re going to use that artists creation shouldn't it fit in to his conception of the said character?

'The last 40 years of Bond do not fully define his future' - well it kinda did because they used up all the material from the books to make the stories these last 40 years.

Yes they (artists) can call anything they create Bond, it could be a tramp under a Bridge - but ITS NOT BOND as defined by the artist who conceived it 60 years plus ago (and as the creator it is surely his concept that is correct as a definition of the character?) . And whilst its in their right as an artist to use the name if they so chose its doesnt make it so. I am short fat and look like a potato. I can declare I am 6ft 2 and rakishly handsome, a sure fire hit with the ladies. DOESN'T MEAN I AM.

"You are suggesting filming movies with only white characters" - I have not said this AT ALL. PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE. I am suggesting filming BOND movies with white male characters on account of Bond BEING A WHITE MALE for 60 years since Fleming created him. Halle Berry as Jynx was a great character and there was briefly talk of her having her own spin off and I would have welcomed that - she's a beautrifly talented actress with enough sense not to take herself too seriously . If you want characters of any colour or creed MAKE THEM is all I am saying

You keep going back to Jesus in your other comments - the images we have of him are based on statues of Zeus when Constantine usurped the Roman deities so i got no idea what you are on about there unless you have actually met him, (or HER?) [DUN-DUN-DUUUUHHHHH!!!!]

You can now follow your pattern of posting, by ignoring any salient points people have made and just cherry picking quotes out of context can I suggest using my potato reference and instead turning me into Brad Pitt. Please.

[Dazzle1]

I thin k what people are missing is that traditional characters who are white males are being replaced or diminish in comics, tv franchises or movies.

It does not need or should not be done.

Best example and this goes back to the 70S the Bionic Woman, they made Jamie Sommers a strong character in her own right without making Steve Austin a jerk or a lesser character in a process. But in their two shows that they did together after the Bionic woman started they did not have to tear one down to build the other

But that does not happen now.

Alright let's try it your way. Keep all traditional characters white and male. Do you want new characters added or keep everything as is?

New characters are fine, heck if Marvel want to do another Captain America movie with the actor who player the Falcon now that Steve has passed on his sheild. go for it. That was a sucessful pass on that no one can object to. The John Stewart Green Lantern has work well in the JLA animation and no one complained about it even though he was not the original one.

as opposed to the female Thor in the comics

[GeekyPornCritic]

Changing a character's race does not change the franchise or create a new franchise. Nobody says Jesus is no longer Jesus because a white guy is playing him. If a black James Bond was acting like Snoop Dog, then I would agree this is no longer James Bond. However, a person's sex and race do not define their character and personality.

I actually don't agree with this, like at all, and I DO believe there's a problem in current Hollywood where characters races are concerned ALL AROUND. You can't change the Black Panther or Blade into white guys without utterly transforming the franchise. A person's ethnicity is intrinsically associated with their race (It's not EVERYthing about them or anything but it will ALWAYS be an enormous factor). One of the first things you learn in a cultural communications class is that IGNORING completely ethnicity isn't actually all that preferable to racism. Racial difference brings with it differing perspectives of the same things. VALUABLE perspectives of the same things. Acknowledging the differences in race, valuing differing perspectives and not feeling either inferior or superior is actually much less racist than just pretending like everyone of every race is exactly the same. In any case, back to the point, race changes EVERYTHING about a character, I guess an argument could be made Blade could be any race I suppose, but try telling that to a fan of Blade? If Blade was recast as a white guy, if ANY minority character is recast as a white guy it gets legitimate (and I DO call it legitimate) pushback. Typically minority characters shouldn't ordinarily be recast to white people. It changes the character, might as well have just made a new series about a similar type of character in a similar setting but make it something new.

But another problem is that the inverse is NOT considered true. Not currently. A character who was white traditionally being cast as a minority is lauded as brave or bold and anyone who feels slighted by it is assaulted by a sort of hypocritical pushback.

Now I want to be clear here because I consider myself one of those dastardly 'SJW's all the SIW's(Social INJUSTICE warriors) like to whine about. I see the situation as is being primarily the fault that, most minorities have an alarming SHORTAGE of 'storied 40 year old franchise heroes' to draw from. It's easy to say 'go create something new and leave the classics alone' when you've got dump trucks full of storied classics created specifically for your demographic and I would like to here formally acknowledge THAT. I in no way shape or form feel qualified to make to clear an opinion on something like this where I don't necessarily have a better solution in mind, but I think the current situation is definitively a double standard, I think it was VERY true that white people WERE being cast in all sorts of traditionally minority roles in the past, but that's drying up in the wake of legit 'whitewashing' backlash... and that's GOOD... minority roles don't belong in the hands of someone who can't ever FULLY comprehend what its like to be of that ethnicity...

BUT, I'm just not sure that accusing whitewashers of racism then turning around and say, lauding a 'blackwash' as somehow different is a solution worth having? It's just a different coat of paint over the same old problem. Really I just wish we had a better trove of 40 year old classics made for all different sorts to be drawn from... in this day of remakes and rehashes though, I'm not sure this issue is really going to work itself out for a good long while as yet.


To the point of THIS particular topic, this I don't see as 'blackwashing' or anything. She's not playing James Bond, so its not the same thing. Similarly I have a different opinion where VOICE ACTING is concerned or where characters ethnicity were nebulous to begin with.

I agree historical people should be played by someone of the same race. This acknowledges the person's true story and place in history. However, I disagree fictional characters such as James Bond, Superman, or Blade cannot be changed. Black Panther can be changed to an Asian, but he would require a different backstory.

Many fictional stories constantly change their lore. We could easily create a black Superman if we wanted to, and that has happen. He is from a different universe so he doesn't replace the original man of steel. He just isn't a popular character because the original Superman is well established.

I think the best solution is to create original characters of minorities. Look at Tyler Perry's Madea. This character is loved by many people from all races. Anyone can create an original character from any race. Writers need to stop being lazy.

Then, there are times when an actor of color is given the name of a classic character, but the writers change the classic character's personality as well. If you change Jimmy's name from the Supergirl TV series, then you would have a brand new character. This version of Jimmy is not like Jimmy at all.

I thin k what people are missing is that traditional characters who are white males are being replaced or diminish in comics, tv franchises or movies.

It does not need or should not be done.

Best example and this goes back to the 70S the Bionic Woman, they made Jamie Sommers a strong character in her own right without making Steve Austin a jerk or a lesser character in a process. But in their two shows that they did together after the Bionic woman started they did not have to tear one down to build the other

But that does not happen now.

Alright let's try it your way. Keep all traditional characters white and male. Do you want new characters added or keep everything as is?

New characters are fine, heck if Marvel want to do another Captain America movie with the actor who player the Falcon now that Steve has passed on his sheild. go for it. That was a sucessful pass on that no one can object to. The John Stewart Green Lantern has work well in the JLA animation and no one complained about it even though he was not the original one.

as opposed to the female Thor in the comics

So this black woman is a new character, but that's not fine?

Why is fine for white people to get roles as historical black people? You continue to avoid this question.

Ok the rule of thumb is used extensively by artists to measure scale on paintings etc so literally you couldnt be more wrong there, lol. And if its the vision of the creator then if youa re going to use that artists creation shouldn't it fit in to his conception of the said character?

'The last 40 years of Bond do not fully define his future' - well it kinda did because they used up all the material from the books to make the stories these last 40 years.

Yes they (artists) can call anything they create Bond, it could be a tramp under a Bridge - but ITS NOT BOND as defined by the artist who conceived it 60 years plus ago (and as the creator it is surely his concept that is correct as a definition of the character?) . And whilst its in their right as an artist to use the name if they so chose its doesnt make it so. I am short fat and look like a potato. I can declare I am 6ft 2 and rakishly handsome, a sure fire hit with the ladies. DOESN'T MEAN I AM.

"You are suggesting filming movies with only white characters" - I have not said this AT ALL. PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE. I am suggesting filming BOND movies with white male characters on account of Bond BEING A WHITE MALE for 60 years since Fleming created him. Halle Berry as Jynx was a great character and there was briefly talk of her having her own spin off and I would have welcomed that - she's a beautrifly talented actress with enough sense not to take herself too seriously . If you want characters of any colour or creed MAKE THEM is all I am saying

You keep going back to Jesus in your other comments - the images we have of him are based on statues of Zeus when Constantine usurped the Roman deities so i got no idea what you are on about there unless you have actually met him, (or HER?) [DUN-DUN-DUUUUHHHHH!!!!]

You can now follow your pattern of posting, by ignoring any salient points people have made and just cherry picking quotes out of context can I suggest using my potato reference and instead turning me into Brad Pitt. Please.

You are lying. I have not avoided or dodged any comments in this topic. I am not required to agree with you. I am my own man. Almost everyone has avoided my questions to them.

If you want only white people playing classic characters, then you want white only films. There aren't any non-white characters from the original source material. Thus, you are suggesting white only films. You know exactly what you are saying.

Let's make a new Dracula, but wait Tallyho only wants white people playing traditional roles. That means no non-whites are allowed on set. This is a casting call for white people only!

Let's make a new Superman, but wait Tallyho only wants white people on set for this one as well! Remember there were only white people in the original comics, and this includes citizens. If there are any blacks on set, then call the Trump police's top cop Tallyho.

You know what I am talking about when I am referring to Jesus. It is common knowledge that at least everyone agrees he is Jewish, and he is falsely portrayed as a white man. I have been very reason when I asked why that is okay for white men to play Jesus who is black Middle Eastern Jewish. You are aware of what I am referring to and just like most racist you are ignoring the facts.

I'm done with this community. As I will not be a part of or support a racist forum.

[Bugsy]

Why do you choose to disregard the original actual creator of the character????? If that is the was how Ian Flemming wrote him then it's up to him!!!! Not some unimaginative hack who lacks the ability to create his own characters that resonates with fans!!!!

[Dogfish]

Why do you choose to disregard the original actual creator of the character????? If that is the was Ian Flemming wrote him then it's up to him!!!! Not some unimaginative hack who lacks the ability to create his own characters that resonates with fans!!!!

As I mentioned earlier, Ian Fleming and any real fans would be far more outraged by the fact that the last movie lifted the 'Actually the hero and his nemesis are brothers' plot point from Austin Powers 3 than anything to do with the casting.

[Femina]

I agree historical people should be played by someone of the same race. This acknowledges the person's true story and place in history. However, I disagree fictional characters such as James Bond, Superman, or Blade cannot be changed. Black Panther can be changed to an Asian, but he would require a different backstory.

If you have to make up a new backstory you should just make a new character. Changing whats already there isn't clever or neat, its just making yours out of something that you stumbled upon. If you're rewriting superman to be black, do you actually run across a fewer issues than ordinary because, as an alien from ANOTHER PLANET, his backstory wouldn't share the cultural ramifacations of his race... he could very well have been the privileged race of his society right?... but you're still change everything about his day to day, his interactions with his peers, how his peers view him etc. Do we stick with him growing up on earth then? That preserves the ordinary farmboy arc... except now he DOES share his ethnic identity with the African Americans growing up around him... etc. etc. etc. And at some point you as a writter ought to just acknowledge that you're only writing 'Superman' in name and name only, and really ought to quit aping on someone else's work and continue working on your own thing.

In adaptation one ought to ask themselves, at which point have you just taken liberties with the story and cannon, and at which point have you simply written something else entirely. The movie World War Z is supposedly based on a book, but it shares no similarities with its novelization WHATSOEVER. Shouldn't it have been named something else so that something more approaching what its source material actually was could use the title?