Reply
Respected Contributor
Posts: 2,401
Registered: ‎05-01-2010

Re: The new 007 is...

@Sooner FYI, all the female roles during Shakespeare's time were played by men. Currently, many staged versions of Shakespeare's classics are being cast with all women   in all roles. The words remain the same. The musical Oklahoma was staged in Ashland Oregon with the main love interests portrayed as gay and lesbian. The music remained the same.

Honored Contributor
Posts: 15,425
Registered: ‎03-10-2010

Re: The new 007 is...


@Chessylady wrote:

@Sooner FYI, all the female roles during Shakespeare's time were played by men. Currently, many staged versions of Shakespeare's classics are being cast with all women   in all roles. The words remain the same. The musical Oklahoma was staged in Ashland Oregon with the main love interests portrayed as gay and lesbian. The music remained the same.


@Chessylady I know about theatre in Shakespeare's time, my point is that his plays do not always flow along modern pc lines.  

 

That the musical was played with gay and lesbian roles does not surprise me, nor does it make me want to see it in my beloved 007.  Go make up something new for all that.  DON'T mess with 007.  

Trusted Contributor
Posts: 1,289
Registered: ‎07-01-2012

Re: The new 007 is...

[ Edited ]

Do not like this one bit.

 

James Bond was 007.  No matter how many actors played the character the name and number stayed the same.

 

James Bond is now gone. It is only agent 007.

 

Agent 007 will not be James Bond therefore the franchise will not be the same.

 

Even as agent 007 the actress may have a very difficult time pulling this one off.

 

Think of what happened with Jodi Whittaker as The Doctor.

 

Whittaker was the Doctor as Lashana Lynch is 007.  The response from the public may not be good.

 

As for myself, 007 will always be Bond, James Bond.

 

 

an after thought, will they have James Bond die.

or maybe he will come out of retirement and be agent 0007 again.

Honored Contributor
Posts: 25,747
Registered: ‎06-11-2011

Re: The new 007 is...

I was looking forward to Idris Elba playing the next Bond or 007.  There was lots of buzz about him getting the role.

Honored Contributor
Posts: 49,078
Registered: ‎03-10-2010

Re: The new 007 is...


@MaryLamb wrote:

@Alter Ego wrote:
I don’t understand why people are upset. From all reports, this is happening in one movie - has anyone seen differently? A movie in which it is well documented that James Bond (played by Daniel Craig) has retired. James Bond is still a white man. His code 007 has been given to a woman.

One summary I read said that, as customary, James Bond makes a pass at her, but she rebuffs him (at least at the beginning.) If true, she sounds like one in his long line of smart women who eventually falls into his bed.

@Alter Ego  Several posts in the thread have explained how she’s not the new James Bond but how this is a passing of the torch rather than a replacement. I could go back and edit my original post and explain this in a huge font in all caps, but I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t prevent further comments revealing opinions of a certain nature.


And there it is... That assumption again... Simply because some folks would like to see a few traditions upheld along the way does not mean the revelation of  opinions of a certain nature are running rampant...

 

I did understand that, obvisouly, this recast will not be playing James Bond, but really, was there any good reason to assign the Code name 007... I tend to think not...

 

Smiley Wink


In my pantry with my cupcakes...
Honored Contributor
Posts: 15,425
Registered: ‎03-10-2010

Re: The new 007 is...

Why not be 006 or 009?  I am so tired of eveything on earth having to be different to make some political statement.  

 

I am all for including everyone.  But DO we have to destroy all of the characters that went before to do it?  It's about inclusion.  Not replacing, but making room for, not simply getting rid of. 

 

 

QVC Customer Care
Posts: 106
Registered: ‎07-21-2018

Re: The new 007 is...

This post has been removed by QVC because it is inappropriate.

Honored Contributor
Posts: 49,078
Registered: ‎03-10-2010

Re: The new 007 is...

[ Edited ]

@Sooner wrote:

Why not be 006 or 009?  I am so tired of eveything on earth having to be different to make some political statement.  

 

I am all for including everyone.  But DO we have to destroy all of the characters that went before to do it?  It's about inclusion.  Not replacing, but making room for, not simply getting rid of. 

 

 


@Sooner Precisely... Rewriting history seems to be our new national passtime, at least in some corners... It is possible to throw out the bathwater and hold onto the baby, but, as is so often the case, there seems to be this extreme belief that change for the better must automatically mean destruction of anything that came before... Silly... and ultimately dangerous... 


In my pantry with my cupcakes...
Valued Contributor
Posts: 736
Registered: ‎04-03-2019

Re: The new 007 is...


@stevieb wrote:

@Sooner wrote:

Why not be 006 or 009?  I am so tired of eveything on earth having to be different to make some political statement.  

 

I am all for including everyone.  But DO we have to destroy all of the characters that went before to do it?  It's about inclusion.  Not replacing, but making room for, not simply getting rid of. 

 

 


@Sooner Precisely... Rewriting history seems to be our new national passtime, at least in some corners... It is possible to throw out the bathwater and hold onto the baby, but, as is so often the case, there seems to be this extreme belief that change for the better must automatically mean destruction of anything that came before... Silly... and ultimately dangerous... 


@stevieb  No one is rewriting history. No one is causing the destruction of the history of James Bond. Your attempt to inject politics into this thread is sad and transparent.