The idiots Hollyweird destroys the Bond Franchise (page 2)

JinVA

Gave up on Bond after Connery and Moore.

Pistoff

So a film franchise with 25 entries should just keep doing the same damn thing?

I welcome the change, it will be fun.

Nathan Natas

JeffT -

In my opinion Daniel Craig has been a very good Bond. If you have an opportunity on a cold rainy weekend, check out Casino Royale (2006), Quantum of Solace (2008), and Skyfall (2012).

Like many others, I have zero interest in a trans-species morphodite robot James Bond.

A Jane Bond, however, could be interesting IF she wasn't a "Tugboat Annie" Biker Dyke or an insatiable lipstick lesbian.

JeffT

Nathan, I'll take a look. I like Daniel Craig. On of my problems was that I don't think I've ever seen Pierce Brosnan in anything I liked. The man just grates on my nerves.

smiddy3

Hey JeffT , give Pierce Brosnan one more go in a movie with Michael Caine " The Fourth Protocol " if you haven`t already seen it.

I have the same problem you have with Hugh Grant , he just grates me the wrong way, but I`ll still give him a chance .

LoveUniHateExams

Hollywood can't change James Bond.

James Bond was created by Ian Fleming and was always supposed to be a white, straight man.

So James Bond cannot be otherwise.

Hollweird *could* release some kind of spin-off 007 movie that features a black woman or Idris Elba.

The free market will judge the film. If it's good, it'll make a ton of money; if it's crap it will bomb.

APieceOfShitNamedTate

Hollywood can't change James Bond.

They can if they own the rights.

LoveUniHateExams

They can if they own the rights - only artists can create art. A corporation is not an artist so cannot create art.

Ian Fleming was an artist who created the fictional character James Bond. No corporation can legally take his creation from him.

Let me give another example: Disney does not own The Force Awakens (2015). The person who created that piece of art owns it, in this case JJ Abrams. Disney doesn't actually own Star Wars. It's creator, George Lucas, does.

Yes, I know Disney paid Lucas 4 billion dollars for the franchise but ownership of a piece of art stays with the creator of that art.

What Disney can do is sue anyone else that makes a product for sale and tries to call that product 'Star Wars'. Only Disney can legally sell Star Wars products. But the ownership will always be the intellectual property of George Lucas.

Here's another example: George Lucas created Han Solo. So, because Disney bought the franchise from Lucas, Disney can hire a film-maker to put out a Han Solo film (which they did). But Disney cannot just decide to make Han a black woman.

What Disney could do is hire a film-maker to create a film with a female outlaw/pilot type character. But it wouldn't be Han Solo. And if that happened this new female character would be the intellectual property of the person who created him.

punkofnice

I'm afraid we're at the hands of gender study snowflakes that wake up in the morning wondering what kind of victim they can be today. They are sad little cry babies.

The media agenda, as I've seen in the BBC, is to virtue signal that they are diverse and inclusive.

In following this dull rhetoric, they remove value from 'inclusivity(tm)' and'diversity'. They produce lack lustre stories that go below banal.

What are these snowflakes afraid of? Nothing. They love the power that crocodile tears gives them because we're all too bloody soft with these cretins.

Dr Who is now a woman. In itself I don't care providing she can act well and the stories are fantastic. The stories, as it happens, are now beyond boring and have a glaring agenda. The agenda overshadows any story or exciting plot. Instead, we have all the snowflake bollocks. The fact that the Doctor is now a female is only objectionable to me because it's just a move to virtue signal to purple haired, gender student feminazis, by the BBC. Plus, Jodie Whitaker is a crap actress.

So. Bond. I am not keen on the franchise anyway. However, I do object to changes made just to stop snowflakes crying in their safe spaces. Feckin' eejits!

redvip2000

She may be the new 007 but apparently a male Bond is still in the picture , isnt that right ?

Yeah a lot of hyperbole is the OP's post. The female actress is not replacing Bond, she is replacing the 007 agent position inside the agency. In other words, she is just another character in the movie, yet another female that Bond wants to have sex with.

The type of paranoia in the OP's post will only be warranted if the new actual main character of the Bond movies become a woman. Now perhaps this signals that change, but it's early to tell.

The idiots Hollyweird destroys the Bond Franchise

Share this