I thought the code numbers stayed the same. As in, there were a set number of them and when an agent retires, that number is reassigned.

didnt you hear all that logic is thrown out the window in the name of diversity and inclusion

i am upset

But why?

It's already been established that this is protocol in the Bond universe. So I would love to hear you explain your "anger" and still sound like a rational human being who doesn't atomically think "diversity" and "inclusion" and #MeToo or whatever are negatives for no other reason than "libs" or "PC culture" or whatever.

The world has changed drastically since the last Bond movie. That's the reality the filmmakers are facing. You're kidding yourself if you think the status quo could remain and the franchise could stay the exact same. A major franchise blockbuster with a history of portraying women as objects and conquests - even if "fun" and, for the most part, innocuous - can't continue exactly as-is in this day and age without at least acknowledging or winking at the issue. Has the pendulum swung too far in the opposite direction? Probably so. Could this move be an over-reaction? Maybe. But on surface, given what little we know, and again, given the reality the filmmakers are facing, this seems to be about the most sane/organic/fresh/fun way this issue could be tackled; one that challenges Bond in a way we've never seen him challenged.

As alluded to in that tweet thread I posted earlier, Bond's *world* has always changed, while he has remained a constant. So you realize Bond himself is probably going to be just as "upset," right? He's likely going to share your exact same feelings. "I've been replaced by a woman?" Won't that be at least a little fun to see how James Bond, of all people, reacts to that situation? Won't that be at least a little fun to see him grapple with that and have to operate in that reality - same as you're "having" to do right now?

Further, in this context, I would love to hear what is so wrong with "diversity" and "inclusion" in the first place? Do you actually consider the words you're mocking or have you simply been programmed to rail against them any time you see them hinted at? To include more different types of people in a movie like this more often than not ends up including/creating a broader audience. Why is that a negative for a business? Besides, for a movie that partly takes place in Jamaica - which is, again, rooted in Bond lore - it would only be natural to make that formerly-of-British-rule connection to the character as well. Why is it so bad that the symbolism of Bond being replaced match that of his country, which was also "replaced" in Jamaica? That's so cool to me that they're potentially coming at it from that angle.

I know I'm not changing anyone's mind here, but just don't be such a cliche. To pound your fist at "diversity" and "inclusion" without A) first giving the movie a chance, and B) trying to better-understand the context is so ******* predictable and boring. Be better than that.

woke

Or... recognizes the reality of the situation.

tldr.

james bond is a white scottish male. 007 is HIS moniker.

Sorry but human psychology stills says men want to see a star man beat up bad guys and get the girl. That is because men will put themselves in the shoes of Bond. Women are not the target audience for the franchise. That said, women by and large want to be the hottie who gets the Alpha dog. The guy who will fight for them and save them. Sure they could have the women have more cool skills and scenes, no big deal. Guys like a kick butt woman. That will never change between.

Changing Bond to a woman (which isn't exactly happening here) kills the whole lore of the franchise. Yes there will be women who want to see a female bond. Yes men will still watch it. But that's because it is hip and new so once the shine fades no one will care. Women won't want to be Bond and men wont want to be needing saving.

You realize that bond isn't staying a woman, right?

Yes the "I realize that isn't exactly happening here" was just that. I read TCTS as this change is inevitable based on society trends. I dont disagree that Hollywood will take it that way but I dont believe it is truly what the audience wants. It is like a kid who only wants to eat candy. Sounds great on the first bar but after bar 10 the kid is going to be regretting it big time.

Ha, what are you even talking about?

How did we get from "A female might have the 007 moniker for a portion of the movie" to "James Bond will no longer be beating up bad guys or getting the girl"? There is no greater place than the TexAgs Entertainment board when it comes to A) jumping to conclusion, and B) completely missing the nuance of a conversation.

This movie STILL boasts Lea Seydoux, Naomie Harris, and freaking Ana de Armas, one the sexiest women alive. Do you really think Bond isn't going to get with at least one of them? Do you really think none of these women are going to be used as eye candy? Further, do you really think Bond is no longer going to "beat up bad guys"? How does the inclusion of a black, female 007 suddenly rid the movie of everything else that makes James Bond James Bond?

Obviously women are not the target audience. But why not try to put a few more in seats? As a business endeavor, why not try to make more money? That said, I would argue that this move is more to service Bond's CHARACTER than anything else. For the dozenth time, it's a way to challenge him in a way he hasn't be challenged before, and that's exciting.

My favorite part of your post, though, is complaining that they're changing Bond to a woman and then in the exact same sentence acknowledging that they're NOT changing Bond to a woman. Instead, they're simply giving the 007 moniker to a woman - for THIS movie and this movie alone (and likely not even all of the movie) - which is a completely different thing. This isn't a "female James Bond," and my guess is that her role is ultimately fairly small compared to everyone else.

Those of you who think this is being done solely in the name of political correctness and not largely because the studio thinks the idea will get attention and make money make me smile.

azulAg said:

---

tldr.

james bond is a white scottish male. 007 is HIS moniker.

---

And people wonder why it seems like discussing opposing ideals is dead.

If they want to make a movie about a black woman super British agent make it another movie. Don't call it a 007 James Bond movie because that's not what it is. Sorry woke dude.

Right up front, I will state that I have ZERO issue with this. It is a non-issue, as provided in earlier comments that the 00s can be recycled upon the previous bearer's retirement or death. The fact that a woman is now apparently 007 is also a non-issue, and can actually provide for some good scenes when Bond finds out, or asks for his 00 back.

I will comment on this (from my perspective, as this was directed to another poster)

Quote:

---

I would love to hear what is so wrong with "diversity" and "inclusion"

---

In and of themselves, not a damn thing. But having sat through many "diversity" meetings at various employers and listening to the drivel (and I do mean in the strictest term, garbage), these words as applied to current society do not mean what one would think they mean. In my experience, these meetings have inevitably landed at the males suck and especially white males suck. Again, only my personal experience, so possibly not a universal experience. So when I see these words, I will tend to disregard pretty much anything that follows.

Agree to disagree that Hollywood is driven by money first. Hollywood like the news plays a role on our society and with that politics gets intertwined. Just is what it is. That said I still like me some Bond, Mission Impossible, and Bourne (first 3).

I get annoyed with the forced SJW crap as much as the next...but that's not what's happening here.

This is like the Heineken outrage with the last film. Blown way out of proportion.

This is no different than having Moneypenny start out as a field agent in Skyfall. There will definitely be more to the story.

Exactly. Some people just enjoy being outraged...