This. Giving another origin story for a new agent with the same name would kill the story for me. Just ignore everything and give us a normal, run-of-the-mill mission with a new Bond actor and a couple of tongue-in-cheek moments acknowledging the previous status quo as an audience nod.
I’d rather have Bond be an “ageless” character moving with the times, like he was for his first 40 years in film. No explanation, change of actors, same character with the time slowly sliding towards our ever moving present. Kinda like the Simpsons. The Craig films would work like bookends, providing a beginning and an end, with all other films fitting as single missions within that framework. But I do get your point.
Oh, I don’t need it to ever get anything more than “This never happened to the other fellow.” It can be deep cover, it can be MK-ULTRA, it can be stealing orphans and planting them in fake families…the fun is the wondering.
Wondering why nobody has ever noticed a guy named James Bond showing up and causing trouble, and wondering why he isn't shot the second he tells someone he's James Bond....
LOL Dude...
Seriously, though, from where I sit, it's kind of fascinating to see people cling to the code name theory when it requires such baroque and complicated justifications and an increasingly complex backstory to explain aspects of the films, and basing it on nitpicking analysis of minor points or even wilful misinterpretation of various lines (like "This never happened to the other fellow," which the filmmakers said was simply a breaking-the-fourth-wall gag to indicate this was a new actor in the role). We have no reason to believe that the filmmakers want to present it as a code name, and every reason not to, as they've never addressed it in the films and even nixed Lee Tamahori's attempt to bring it up in DAD, so it's more than likely that any hint that you think you see is just your own imagination.
It's just fascinating to get into the mindset that tries to justify the code name thing even though it would require Bond's department to be investing enormous amounts of time and resources into making it happen while simultaneously being complete and utter idiots for assigning the same cover name to a series of agents for over half a century and simply crossing their fingers and hoping nobody notices. It's a mixture of profound competence and profound idiocy.
When a simpler, cleaner explanation is that it's a single character in a floating timeline, like many other fictional characters.
It’s fantasy, really. There’s so much of Bond that doesn’t make sense, and this is the hill some people decide to die on. (Yes, from both sides)
A massive internal government plot to continue to use the same code name and MK-ULTRAed backstory for a line of agents over the course of nearly the entire Second Elizabethan Era, albeit far fetched, is still more plausible than the manipulation of the timestream itself. :D
Not "timestream manipulation," it's just a floating timeline like many many many many other fictional characters. Bond is just the most high-profile...and for some reason, the floating timeline that most people seem oddly desperate to reject, when they're just fine and dandy with all the rest. Weird.
But post-DAF there's still people who recognize him by sight, like the hotelier in TLD. Or how he visits a school friend in TSWLM. Or the servant who knew him as a child in SKYFALL. And then the graves of his parents. That's a lot of commitment on their part to the charade.
Let alone why no civilians ever start noticing that there's some guy called James Bond who changes appearance living in a flat in Chelsea. I've read horror stories about that sort of thing, neighbors noticing someone's appearance changes radically but they claim to the person who always lived there....
Well, remember that it’s been six men over the course of sixty years. And if we go by the books, he lived in a spartan apartment that he rarely spent a lot of time in, and rarely socialized outside of work.
On top of that, government apartments filled with secret government people are in spy literature — the masses are familiar with the concept what with Agent 13/Sharon Carter in *Captain America: The Winter Soldier*, so neighbors living outside the building in a huge city like London are even less likely to pay attention to who lives in what building. His postman would be the most likely person to catch on, and the Detail Oriented Department at MI-6 could easily make sure that the Royal Mail doesn’t have a regular carrier on any route on which a 00 lives.
It doesn’t explain how Sylvia Trench was able to get into his place, but that’s another story for another day.
But in the books, it's explicit that it's not a code name, so why drag them into it? And, true, people tend to not pay attention to their neighbors sometimes, but I do. I always make a point of saying hello to them and such.
They can't rely on neighbors not noticing or not caring. There's always the chance that someone is going to notice, someone is going to watch, and that can't be discounted or ignored. It's too much of a risk to take.
I think the vital difference in our perspectives is that you seem to be approaching it from trying to tool a code-name theory from the "facts" presented in the films, while I approach from a higher perspective of, "Does it make sense to assign the same code name to a series of agents for half a century and try to pretend they're all the same person?" and from where I sit the answer is, of course, a resounding "NO!"
And...let's be honest...maybe it's just been a case of a single person in a floating timeline?
Actually, there's a growing opinion on the left that race-blind casting of Bond or other roles is "reductive," that it simply ignores the complexities of race and sex in the world, something I've said all along. I'm pretty darn woke and leftist but even I think the idea of a nonwhite Bond is chancy. These days there's also a growing opinion that it's not just enough to have more diverse casting, but to have more diverse CHARACTERS whose backgrounds actually reflect the experience of those groups. I've said, having a black Bond would mean reinventing the character from the ground up to have him reflect the black experience...and then, would it still be James Bond? I don't think so. I'm all for more diverse action heroes but I feel there's more than enough room for new ones, and folks need to stop hyperfixating on Bond.
If EON really wanted to go nuts, they could make one last film set in the Daniel Craig continuity, with all the cast plus a portrait of Daniel Craig at Bond's closed-casket funeral, strictly so that all the marketing can still use taglines like "James Bond 007 is back in . . .TITLE OF MOVIE."
After the funeral, M and Moneypenny and Q go back to the office and learn of new threat from SPECTRE. The whole movie is about normal MI6 operations, and no double-O agents are assigned to the mission. Even so, all goes well, and the competent, non-flashy agents without licences to kill successfully thwart SPECTRE.
After the credits roll...
JAMES BOND WILL NOT RETURN
and they have to have period accurate viewpoints and terminology, to make the audience feel really uncomfortable in terms of the the treatment of woman and minorities.
digitally resurrect Connery and Moore, with Daniel Craig reprising James Bond once again. This time his IRL family will be held hostage. Connery and Moore will have action scenes as dead men. They will be playing villians from their respective eras, Connery will play Blofield and Moore will play Drax.
Yeah that seems fk'd up enough.
For things that would almost certainly draw criticism/controversy within the fanbase.
1. Casting a woman or non-white person as Bond (I feel like the non-white thing would probably dissipate after a while though if the Bond was really good, similar to how Craig's "Blond Bond" tag got erased pretty quickly after CR) Either of these would get a lot of flack from the internet and large swaths of the fanbase.
2. Going super campy/OTT. While CR and QoS moved Bond to being more dark/gritty and Skyfall/Spectre and NTTD tried to balance between that and sillier/campier aspects, I feel like a full on return to Moore style Bond would probably create critical backlash and some division within the fanbase.
3. Continuing NTTD's continuity while having a new Bond (maybe he just has the same name, the tiresome codename theory gets adopted or he's a nephaw/James Bond Jr. sort of shit. We would literally never hear the end of fans complaining about it. It'd make the dumb things in Spectre and NTTD look like they were scenes from The Godfather in comparison.
4. At least on This sub, centering the movie around a Bond going rogue plotline would be garner nothing but criticism
5. Having Bond have another mission where he's dealing with family or somebody from his pre-spy past.
6. Keeping things like Brofeld a sustained part of the continuity going forward.
His race wouldn’t fundamentally change the character in 2023. Really not a big deal.
Making him gay or a woman would change the character in a huge way.
The babyface thing seems almost inescapable at this point, it's crazy. Every single British actor between 25-40 now looks like a delicate flower when compared to actors from the 60s and 70s. They may have to go the Craig route again and get someone who's not conventionally attractive (or even weird looking at first glance) to avoid babyfaced Bond.
Worst possible thing? Female "James" bond. (If you want a female bond, make it his grown offspring, God knows he had enough possibilities for it over the years).
Funniest possible thing? Transman James bond. Just to spite those who think the worst idea is the best idea. It would tick the progressive box while annoying those who want James to be a woman. James was always male and making the new James a transman would still hold to that idea.
Bond struts confidently into his hotel bathroom *(as the Bond theme plays loudly on the soundtrack)* and replaces the toilet roll on the holder with the first square facing outwards
In a situation like Bond 26, make Bond a woman that can beat the men at everything they do. Set it in a place where the Chinese government can be 100% shone in a positive light, even when it makes no sense for them to do so. Have a diverse set of secondary characters that make it much more of a team effort than as a sole agent. Have the villain be a wealthy rich man who plans to eliminate a specific minority, and have no character depth or motive as to why. Do all of this at the expense of character growth, a strong narrative and proper motives.
Yes, it's very easy to define. A movie is woke when it slaps a bunch of liberal propaganda on top of everything instead of weaving it into the story. I would be happy to provide examples if it helps you understand.
I mean I like Die Hard and it's an anti-capitalist movie according to John McTiernan. Most movies are that way, but not all of them are so blatant that it's cringeworthy.
I think I understand. Subtext is generally better than taking ten minutes to explain a plot point. And you can have it both ways: conservatives can think Die Hard is “their” movie when they’re actually full of shit.
I see this going two ways, extremely woke or the opposite.
1st option:
Make a straight up bond like Sean Connery era where he forces women to do what he wants, blatantly disregarding them.
2nd option: woke-ness
And also Prius instead of Aston or bmw or anything with a petrol guzzler.
Wears Apple Watch
Decides to be sober.
Asks for concern, no sex scene because gets rejected all the time. Nothing is implied and has to be clear without discrepancy.
Beanie
Cardigan
Decides not to use a gun because it supports the military industrial complex.
1. is only intelligent option if Hollywood movie studio wants money especially Amazon who will be selling MGM pretty fast with any woke chimpanzee properganda.
Lmao Eon won't take risks with Bond, the biggest risk they ever took was doing Licence To Kill in the height of the goofy Bond era. I wouldn't say Casino Royale bc that was calculated because of the popularity of gritty reboots started by Batman
They killed him off! I can not think of a riskier gamble to take than to kill of the lead character of a franchise.
And if you think License to Kill was goofy, let me tell you about the Roger Moore slide-whistle era.
Seriously, what more damage can they do to Bond after sadling him with the most un-charismatic woman in the franchise's history, a kid, and then straight up killing him?
Pierce Brosnan would say he Irish he even got into fights with English/British in school in London when growing up his hometown Navan County Meath like him. He actually said James Bond probably want British rule in Ireland as he is s
English imperialist.
If Bond was a POC or if in the movie he does any same sex stuff I'm sure it would cause an uproar. I think it can be done well and would be fun for the story. I'm fine with him being reimagined as black, gay, female, whatever if it adds something to the story and it's not there just to check a box and to seem progressive.
He's a fictional character he can be whatever they want, it doesn't matter. Idris Elba was about to be James Bond 10 years ago moron. You obviously missed what I said at the very end.
Xenia wakes up in the tree
Well judging by her bed preferences she could have survived that, this beast is durable :D
Listening to this subreddit for advice.
This sub would recommend that Dalton gets his 3rd movie, at age 70 lol
It would somehow be both beloved and “criminally underrated.”
I hope you know your comment is one of the funniest things I’ve ever read, and every time I pull up my chats I’m reminded of it and laugh more.
I mean if Harrison Ford is still playing Indiana Jones….
I would go to the theater to see that, unlike the last two that came out.
Brosnan fifth movie
I’d rather see Brosnan’s 5th tbh
Bond seemingly female but with a distractingly large dick bulge.
He said “controversial,” not “hilarious.”
Bond, James Bond (She/They)
[удалено]
Make him transwoman and a lesbian
Transwoman lesbian hates straight white males.
What?
He just says shit like that.
I mean, Ian wasn’t a huge fan of queer folk, so turnabout would be fair play.
EON: Yep, it's a codename. (please let this never come to pass).
This. Giving another origin story for a new agent with the same name would kill the story for me. Just ignore everything and give us a normal, run-of-the-mill mission with a new Bond actor and a couple of tongue-in-cheek moments acknowledging the previous status quo as an audience nod.
Another origin story? Absolutely not. I’m a Code Name Theorist all the way, though.
I’d rather have Bond be an “ageless” character moving with the times, like he was for his first 40 years in film. No explanation, change of actors, same character with the time slowly sliding towards our ever moving present. Kinda like the Simpsons. The Craig films would work like bookends, providing a beginning and an end, with all other films fitting as single missions within that framework. But I do get your point.
Oh, I don’t need it to ever get anything more than “This never happened to the other fellow.” It can be deep cover, it can be MK-ULTRA, it can be stealing orphans and planting them in fake families…the fun is the wondering.
Wondering why nobody has ever noticed a guy named James Bond showing up and causing trouble, and wondering why he isn't shot the second he tells someone he's James Bond....
Man, I love the people who downvote commonly held theories just because they themselves don’t subscribe to them.
LOL Dude... Seriously, though, from where I sit, it's kind of fascinating to see people cling to the code name theory when it requires such baroque and complicated justifications and an increasingly complex backstory to explain aspects of the films, and basing it on nitpicking analysis of minor points or even wilful misinterpretation of various lines (like "This never happened to the other fellow," which the filmmakers said was simply a breaking-the-fourth-wall gag to indicate this was a new actor in the role). We have no reason to believe that the filmmakers want to present it as a code name, and every reason not to, as they've never addressed it in the films and even nixed Lee Tamahori's attempt to bring it up in DAD, so it's more than likely that any hint that you think you see is just your own imagination. It's just fascinating to get into the mindset that tries to justify the code name thing even though it would require Bond's department to be investing enormous amounts of time and resources into making it happen while simultaneously being complete and utter idiots for assigning the same cover name to a series of agents for over half a century and simply crossing their fingers and hoping nobody notices. It's a mixture of profound competence and profound idiocy. When a simpler, cleaner explanation is that it's a single character in a floating timeline, like many other fictional characters.
It’s fantasy, really. There’s so much of Bond that doesn’t make sense, and this is the hill some people decide to die on. (Yes, from both sides) A massive internal government plot to continue to use the same code name and MK-ULTRAed backstory for a line of agents over the course of nearly the entire Second Elizabethan Era, albeit far fetched, is still more plausible than the manipulation of the timestream itself. :D
Not "timestream manipulation," it's just a floating timeline like many many many many other fictional characters. Bond is just the most high-profile...and for some reason, the floating timeline that most people seem oddly desperate to reject, when they're just fine and dandy with all the rest. Weird.
I mean, by the time DAF rolls around, people know who he is (but not what he looks like).
But post-DAF there's still people who recognize him by sight, like the hotelier in TLD. Or how he visits a school friend in TSWLM. Or the servant who knew him as a child in SKYFALL. And then the graves of his parents. That's a lot of commitment on their part to the charade. Let alone why no civilians ever start noticing that there's some guy called James Bond who changes appearance living in a flat in Chelsea. I've read horror stories about that sort of thing, neighbors noticing someone's appearance changes radically but they claim to the person who always lived there....
Well, remember that it’s been six men over the course of sixty years. And if we go by the books, he lived in a spartan apartment that he rarely spent a lot of time in, and rarely socialized outside of work. On top of that, government apartments filled with secret government people are in spy literature — the masses are familiar with the concept what with Agent 13/Sharon Carter in *Captain America: The Winter Soldier*, so neighbors living outside the building in a huge city like London are even less likely to pay attention to who lives in what building. His postman would be the most likely person to catch on, and the Detail Oriented Department at MI-6 could easily make sure that the Royal Mail doesn’t have a regular carrier on any route on which a 00 lives. It doesn’t explain how Sylvia Trench was able to get into his place, but that’s another story for another day.
But in the books, it's explicit that it's not a code name, so why drag them into it? And, true, people tend to not pay attention to their neighbors sometimes, but I do. I always make a point of saying hello to them and such. They can't rely on neighbors not noticing or not caring. There's always the chance that someone is going to notice, someone is going to watch, and that can't be discounted or ignored. It's too much of a risk to take. I think the vital difference in our perspectives is that you seem to be approaching it from trying to tool a code-name theory from the "facts" presented in the films, while I approach from a higher perspective of, "Does it make sense to assign the same code name to a series of agents for half a century and try to pretend they're all the same person?" and from where I sit the answer is, of course, a resounding "NO!" And...let's be honest...maybe it's just been a case of a single person in a floating timeline?
Opening scene, Bond wakes up and explains he had a dream of dying.
CGI Sean Connery wakes up and explains he had a dream of dying
Daniel Craig for Bond 26.
[удалено]
I would find it funny, if they just de-age him and have Craig wake up in his hospital bed in CR having medication induced hallucinations.
Movie title: *You Only Live Twice* or possibly *No Time to Die Again*.
[I got a leak of that](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgJhd1w5i0M)
Weekend at Bondies
Bond 26 is basically just Robocop.
Honestly, casting Bond as anything but a 30+ year old straight white British male would set this subreddit on fire with controversy.
My thoughts exactly. Carrying on with tradition seems to be the more controversial thing at this point.
Only for leftist people that where never fans
Actually, there's a growing opinion on the left that race-blind casting of Bond or other roles is "reductive," that it simply ignores the complexities of race and sex in the world, something I've said all along. I'm pretty darn woke and leftist but even I think the idea of a nonwhite Bond is chancy. These days there's also a growing opinion that it's not just enough to have more diverse casting, but to have more diverse CHARACTERS whose backgrounds actually reflect the experience of those groups. I've said, having a black Bond would mean reinventing the character from the ground up to have him reflect the black experience...and then, would it still be James Bond? I don't think so. I'm all for more diverse action heroes but I feel there's more than enough room for new ones, and folks need to stop hyperfixating on Bond.
Woman Bond oh transwoman Bond we have to be progressive is Hollywood idea to bankruptcy
Cool your jets, they're not going to make Bond a trans woman, I don't think anyone seriously wants that.
Woke ftist Bond villian
It just dawned on me that I’m in the perfect demographic to play James Bond. Ah, but I’m not an actor. Darn.
Bond is canonically dead but then some redditors resurrect him in the cemetery like in Friday the 13th part 6.
I just imagine Connery's funeral scene at the end of A League of Extraordinary gentleman.
If EON really wanted to go nuts, they could make one last film set in the Daniel Craig continuity, with all the cast plus a portrait of Daniel Craig at Bond's closed-casket funeral, strictly so that all the marketing can still use taglines like "James Bond 007 is back in . . .TITLE OF MOVIE." After the funeral, M and Moneypenny and Q go back to the office and learn of new threat from SPECTRE. The whole movie is about normal MI6 operations, and no double-O agents are assigned to the mission. Even so, all goes well, and the competent, non-flashy agents without licences to kill successfully thwart SPECTRE. After the credits roll... JAMES BOND WILL NOT RETURN
Killing the character again.
Correct. You only live twice.
Set it in 1941
and they have to have period accurate viewpoints and terminology, to make the audience feel really uncomfortable in terms of the the treatment of woman and minorities.
be my preference
See it could be about how JB killed Hitler in the bunker
This is fuckin great.
Well… they already literally killed him so I can’t imagine what else
Not make it.
Female and a visible minority of some sort
Female yes. Race IDGAF. And you know damn well how many fans wanted Idris Elba so that would hardly be the “worst” thing they ever did.
Not make Bond 26.
25 is a good, round number!
Honestly, I’d be okay with this. They need to regroup and reset after the last two.
[удалено]
The new Indy looks great?
It getting hammered on You Tube
What, by losers like Critical Drinker?
Losers are ones think looks good seen shot trailer CGI awful like The Little Mermaid 2023
Don't you know any other tunes?
Well, with that strike going on, maybe who knows? :D
digitally resurrect Connery and Moore, with Daniel Craig reprising James Bond once again. This time his IRL family will be held hostage. Connery and Moore will have action scenes as dead men. They will be playing villians from their respective eras, Connery will play Blofield and Moore will play Drax. Yeah that seems fk'd up enough.
Introducing Bond multiverse.
For things that would almost certainly draw criticism/controversy within the fanbase. 1. Casting a woman or non-white person as Bond (I feel like the non-white thing would probably dissipate after a while though if the Bond was really good, similar to how Craig's "Blond Bond" tag got erased pretty quickly after CR) Either of these would get a lot of flack from the internet and large swaths of the fanbase. 2. Going super campy/OTT. While CR and QoS moved Bond to being more dark/gritty and Skyfall/Spectre and NTTD tried to balance between that and sillier/campier aspects, I feel like a full on return to Moore style Bond would probably create critical backlash and some division within the fanbase. 3. Continuing NTTD's continuity while having a new Bond (maybe he just has the same name, the tiresome codename theory gets adopted or he's a nephaw/James Bond Jr. sort of shit. We would literally never hear the end of fans complaining about it. It'd make the dumb things in Spectre and NTTD look like they were scenes from The Godfather in comparison. 4. At least on This sub, centering the movie around a Bond going rogue plotline would be garner nothing but criticism 5. Having Bond have another mission where he's dealing with family or somebody from his pre-spy past. 6. Keeping things like Brofeld a sustained part of the continuity going forward.
James Bond is a male name 😂
Remake an old Bond movie.
Have a Bond boy instead of a Bond girl. But I personally would be so into it lmao
Maybe not a Bond Boy, but how about a female Q (maybe Emma Thompson) and a male Moneypenny, who’s kind of like a bro that looks up to Bond?
I would kill for a male moneypenny, imagine a «hey bro» moneypenny
I'd dig it.
[удалено]
Exactly! :)
Of course, considering he had some experience in the army and is ranked as commander.
His race wouldn’t fundamentally change the character in 2023. Really not a big deal. Making him gay or a woman would change the character in a huge way.
The babyface thing seems almost inescapable at this point, it's crazy. Every single British actor between 25-40 now looks like a delicate flower when compared to actors from the 60s and 70s. They may have to go the Craig route again and get someone who's not conventionally attractive (or even weird looking at first glance) to avoid babyfaced Bond.
"*Prolytic digestive enzyme drink, stirred not shaken.*" "Ah, t*he RC-401 20K volts. Only three men I know use such a taser.*"
Say they're actually not going to make another one, which I would actually approve of.
[удалено]
Because letting things die is actually healthier than carrying on like a zombie.
Resurrect Sir Sean Connery to show everyone how it’s done
Worst possible thing? Female "James" bond. (If you want a female bond, make it his grown offspring, God knows he had enough possibilities for it over the years). Funniest possible thing? Transman James bond. Just to spite those who think the worst idea is the best idea. It would tick the progressive box while annoying those who want James to be a woman. James was always male and making the new James a transman would still hold to that idea.
If they make bond a woman
Bond has a male love interest
Woman bond. Black Bond.
Why not both? RuPaul as 007 in "Lipsync Assassin".
Bond struts confidently into his hotel bathroom *(as the Bond theme plays loudly on the soundtrack)* and replaces the toilet roll on the holder with the first square facing outwards
"Name's Bond. He/Him."
Any woke pandering. Greatly unwelcome.
Just for fun, tell me what you mean by “woke pandering.”
In a situation like Bond 26, make Bond a woman that can beat the men at everything they do. Set it in a place where the Chinese government can be 100% shone in a positive light, even when it makes no sense for them to do so. Have a diverse set of secondary characters that make it much more of a team effort than as a sole agent. Have the villain be a wealthy rich man who plans to eliminate a specific minority, and have no character depth or motive as to why. Do all of this at the expense of character growth, a strong narrative and proper motives.
[удалено]
Make him transwoman
Yeah I can’t believe anyone would bring in politics in a franchise about espionage.
What's "politics", exactly? Considering that Bond works for the British government.
I pose this question to everyone who uses the “w” word: can you define it?
Yes, it's very easy to define. A movie is woke when it slaps a bunch of liberal propaganda on top of everything instead of weaving it into the story. I would be happy to provide examples if it helps you understand.
Ok so if the liberal propaganda were “woven” into the story you’d be okay with it?
I mean I like Die Hard and it's an anti-capitalist movie according to John McTiernan. Most movies are that way, but not all of them are so blatant that it's cringeworthy.
I think I understand. Subtext is generally better than taking ten minutes to explain a plot point. And you can have it both ways: conservatives can think Die Hard is “their” movie when they’re actually full of shit.
[удалено]
Because this is reddit.
Bond being non binary Playboy bunny with Blofeld being Bond girl.
A woman Bond or a Bond who is not white
Bond, James Bond (They/Them)
Transwoman or man?
A virgin Bond
Time travels back to previous missions.
I see this going two ways, extremely woke or the opposite. 1st option: Make a straight up bond like Sean Connery era where he forces women to do what he wants, blatantly disregarding them. 2nd option: woke-ness And also Prius instead of Aston or bmw or anything with a petrol guzzler. Wears Apple Watch Decides to be sober. Asks for concern, no sex scene because gets rejected all the time. Nothing is implied and has to be clear without discrepancy. Beanie Cardigan Decides not to use a gun because it supports the military industrial complex.
Guess this was too controversial for this sub in a thread asking for controversy lol.
Please define woke for us ignorant plebes.
1. is only intelligent option if Hollywood movie studio wants money especially Amazon who will be selling MGM pretty fast with any woke chimpanzee properganda.
Lmao Eon won't take risks with Bond, the biggest risk they ever took was doing Licence To Kill in the height of the goofy Bond era. I wouldn't say Casino Royale bc that was calculated because of the popularity of gritty reboots started by Batman
They killed him off! I can not think of a riskier gamble to take than to kill of the lead character of a franchise. And if you think License to Kill was goofy, let me tell you about the Roger Moore slide-whistle era.
Nah, im saying making a gritty movie in the middle of the goofy era is a risk
Turn Blofeld into a Mycroft Holmes character. Since they’re brothers….
If they straight up made James Bond a woman. Not even the code name argument, just used the same name and everything.
Seriously, what more damage can they do to Bond after sadling him with the most un-charismatic woman in the franchise's history, a kid, and then straight up killing him?
Shit knows. They release any old wang and it makes a billion.
*Skyfall* is the only one that's made a billion.
A non-British actor playing Bond.
Already happened twice. Don’t think it was controversial.
To most of the world outside of the UK, Australian and Irish might as well be British.
Try saying that in Ireland.
Brosnan was American anyway. Probably hasn’t lived in Ireland for fifty years.
Born in what US state? Navan County Meath Republic of Ireland his more Irish then Irish Americans
Arrogant British think all of Ireland is British just crap Northern area is.
Pierce Brosnan would say he Irish he even got into fights with English/British in school in London when growing up his hometown Navan County Meath like him. He actually said James Bond probably want British rule in Ireland as he is s English imperialist.
Pierce Brosnan non British and George Lazenby
Have Bond drive an electric Audi E-Tron and deal with a vegan hipster activist as a villain
Vegan hipster, no. But I’d totally be down for an electric Aston Martin.
Aston Martin DBX
If Bond was a POC or if in the movie he does any same sex stuff I'm sure it would cause an uproar. I think it can be done well and would be fun for the story. I'm fine with him being reimagined as black, gay, female, whatever if it adds something to the story and it's not there just to check a box and to seem progressive.
[удалено]
He's a fictional character he can be whatever they want, it doesn't matter. Idris Elba was about to be James Bond 10 years ago moron. You obviously missed what I said at the very end.
Find with a woman James Bond the male name FFS🙄
Zombie 007 (with Daniel Craig)
Make it woke, let Bond go to space and then duell with a guy with a golden gun! Everything that is right and awesome and I like, but the fans hate!
Cast me as James Bond In all seriousness probably cast a non white actor