How is this woke? Bond remains the focus and he is not denigrated. The female 007 is just another female agent that we have seen in many of these movies. Male supporting characters get plenty of screen time and development
If anything some of the other Bond movies are more woke. Remember in Goldeneye the new female M is introduced by calling Bond a sexist, misogynist, dinosaur?
Woke culture is so forced upon society in modern movies that when even a small amount of it is added to anything it sets off alarm bells for some people.
shareLMAO...WOKE CULTURE.
sharewhat is funny about that?
share🤣
shareYou people are fighting and crusading against something that doesn't exist, but you've become so outraged by it purely for the fact someone told you to be outraged.
shareYou are discrediting someone else's experience by saying that what they think doesn't exist
shareWell, that's normal.
Right-wingers say that COVID doesn't exist, and left-wingers say that evil government microchips in life-saving vaccine shots don't exist.
Right wingers do not say Covid doesn't exist. Stop spreading this propaganda.
They say it is way over blown or the media or gov is lying.
There is barely anyone who says that Covid doesn’t exist, right or left.
shareYou must think we're as dumb as you are.
shareYou people are fighting and crusading against something that doesn't exist
Don't mind him, he's just some old dude who trolls this board 24/7 because he's got nothing better to do in his life, apparently. He rarely adds anything useful or shares an honest opinion aside from personal attacks. There's unfortunately no point trying to discuss anything with him, it will always come down to what you've just witnessed.
I don't think he's a bad guy, but he behaves like a total idiot.
I don't understand it. smh
shareThis exactly.
shareI actually said once it came out it wasn’t woke the way we thought it would be, so if anyone is losing credibility it is yourself
shareLMFAO😂
shareYou are correct. Before the film was released the fanboys were losing their shit and screaming butthurtedly about the black female 007, and when the film came out it was confirmed that I was correct - she was just a supporting character who'd taken Bond's old job.
The film wasn't woke, it was about Bond the man, Bond the hero, Bond the icon.
To be honest though we had every reason to be concerned.
shareOh for God's sake, I called exactly what happened before the film came out - she wouldn't be "The New Bond", she'd be another agent who filled the vacant 007 job!
Some of you lot are so busy freaking out over anything even remotely "woke" that you lose all contact with reality. And the reality is that the producers of the Bond franchise may pay a bit of lip service to modern beliefs now and then, but they're not going to lose money supporting wokeness.
I was saying that as well, however the SJW crowd was fanboying in their pants about how there was going to be a female James Bond and how this was such a huge step forward for POC, women, etc. who have been ignored by Hollywood for decades. It was the SJW crowd who was spewing out that bullshit, not the "anti-SJW" crowd. Go back to 2019, I was saying straight up that Lashona was not going to be the new Bond, however they were clearly baiting us with that notion because they wanted to give the film some publicity.
shareAny real fan of the franchise would have been upset with them handing the 007 number to another character and it wouldn't matter if the character was a woman, a man, black, white or whatever. The producers ignore the longstanding canon that the number designation is handed presented to agents that become licensed to kill, James Bond was the 7th such agent. To ignore the way the book and movies have been for decades was simply stupid. The fact that they decided to do it by handing it to a black female just added to the problem by making it appear woke as well.
It was plenty woke, actually, just not in the way you'd expect. The once suave, sexy, debonair pantie dropper that is James Bond, has been turned into a single lady man, even when he breaks up with Madeleine (anytime there's any notable sexual tension between him and one of the ladies, the film does a "Ha! Gotcha!" on us). For about at least half the action scenes, the focus is on the girls kicking ass rather than Bond. The film even shows a more physically capable agent in the form of Ana de Armas, who can drop 200 pound men with a single kick, whereas Bond has difficulties taking down a single goon himself. There was also that needless reference to Q's sexual preference (guess we finally know what that letter stands for), as well as the fact that James himself is portrayed as much more emotionally charged, sensitive, and less of an embodiment of "toxic masculinity" in this one.
It's not that Bond has never been shown being emotionally vulnerable before, but in the past, the character had always been reserved and stoic in how he chose to express his feelings. Here however, Bond acts like someone with an overabundance of estrogen flowing through his system, as a result of consuming too much soy ("I'll have a pumpkin spice soy latte, shaken not stirred"). And of course, there's that horrible ending, which is purposely designed for the possibility of a spin-off with a black female lead in charge as the new 007 (no one will go see it but feel free to give it a try so we can all sit back and laugh).
The film is clever in how it does all these things to subtly emasculate and castrate the character of Bond, but without flat out verbally addressing it to avoid triggering single, 30+ year old incels living in their mama's basement while playing password games on their computer all day, like me. They purposely had the scene of M giving the 007 title back to Bond to seemingly confirm that the series will always belong to him, only to then kill him off in the end to make way for the aforementioned spin-off ("You expect me to go woke? No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!"). It's just like how Q(ueer) planted those breadcrumbs in Skyfall, too small and they may miss it, too large and they'll smell a rat.
Wow. You hammered this. I’m still going to see it and make my own judgment but I am very impressed by your arguments. The OP challenged someone to make the case re wokeness b.s. and you damn sure accepted.
shareI'm guessing by Ha! Gotcha! the women weren't really interested in Bond at all and were just using him or having a laugh. Perhaps he ends up getting put in his place like a high school loser trying to get with the head cheerleader? Something along those lines.
"the women weren't really interested in Bond at all and were just using him or having a laugh."
Uh, that's all casual sex right there!
And totally standard for a Bond film, there's always one woman who develops serious feelings for him, and others who either use him for their own ends, or who want a bit of fun. Bond is okay with all three, even if you aren't.
I was replying to someone who said that Bond spends the movie either simping for his ex wife or when he seems to experience some sexual tension with a woman, they do a "Ha! Gotcha" on us. That's the phrase he used.
I haven't seen the movie, so I was asking what he meant by that. It did not sound like any of those flirtations went well for Bond in this movie. Ha! Gotcha sounded to me like the women were only pretending for one reason or another, and not actually into Bond all that much.
I've seen the movie, I thought it was good, but honestly... I don't remember any of the flirtations. Mainly he's concerned with his ex, but for believable reasons.
And I think that Bond is okay with pretending, casual flirtation, and totally using people in both sexual and non-sexual ways, that's probably in his job description.
Yeah, no Bond the ladies man or casual relationships for this Bond. That's what the movie makers and others have been saying. He spends the movie mooning over a woman who has no use for him. She's too busy outdoing him in the action scenes.
It's still Bond, though, he's just grown! I'm not really interested in a Bond that spends his latest movie acting like that when a woman has made it pretty clear she is over him completely. Getting in touch with your emotions a little is one thing, that just sounds pathetic.
They killed him off in brutal fashion anyway, so I guess that's it for this version of the character, which is probably for the best.
They made 007 a Black woman for no reason other than to check intersectionality boxes
They made Q gay for no other reason than to check intersectionality boxes
If doing these things were somehow necessairy to make the plot work, I would have forgiven them, they weren't.
It's woke.
How can people not see the obviousness of that? Protest blinders or something?
shareThe woman being black or Q being gay had 0 effect on the plot and did not go against established Bond tropes. Which is why you shouldn't complain about them.
Now if they make Bond non-binary or Asian or fat, that would be twisting the character to the point of non-recognition.
The OP is right. You all should learn to pick your fights.
No the fact that it wasn't needed for the plot makes my point. Q was never gay before and he was a major character in the Bond franchise. They made him gay for the sake of making him gay. To ponder to the woke crowd and to spread left wing values. The movie is therefor un necessary political.
shareIt wasn't that Q was never gay. His sexual orientation was never relevant to the plot. So they could change it without really having it make a difference.
Just like when M was made a woman in the 90s.
So you are saying they've always written him to be gay, it's just that they've only revealed it in this movie. There's no reason to think that and it almost certainly isn't true. Gay population is only about 2%. The idea of making him gay only occurred to them for this movie because it's 2021 and we're now supposed to all celebrate and promote homosexuality. My point stands.
shareGay population is only about 2%.
No doubt Q being a homosexual is an effort to "diversify" the characters
That isn't a good argument. 2% means about a million people in Britain, and homosexuals evidently come from all walks of life.
I can understand not liking that the writers decided "hey, let's show how inclusive we are by briefly noting one of Bond's sidekicks is a homosexual," since that can come across as condescending, opportunistic and/or lazy. I don't think there's much of a "political agenda" in it, for the simple reason that homosexuality is mainstream and plenty of shows and movies are expected to have some sort of gay representation. So the writers are basically just following the business trend.
If a Bond film in the 1960s-90s had implied Q was a homosexual, there would have been boycotts and a loss in sales. The decision would have only made sense in a political context (e.g. to challenge the prevailing portrayal of homosexuals in the media as perverts, criminals, and/or flamboyant caricatures.) It would have been a very risky decision for the franchise.
But in 2021, as I said, it's just seen as good business sense to have a secondary character who happens to be gay, even if it is irrelevant to the plot.
No, it's nothing to do with "business sense". The movie isn't selling any better because of it. They did it to be woke and to virtue signal. It's part of an agenda.
shareThe movie clearly isn't suffering financially because of it. They can claim it's yet more evidence of how "modernized" Bond is, especially if the Q from this movie goes on to remain Q in future Bond films.
If it was merely "part of an agenda," why wasn't it done in any of the earlier Bond films? Why is it only done in 2021 when homosexuality is, as I said, mainstream? If it's "virtue signaling" then that just confirms they're doing it because they're expected to do so, not because those in charge of the business side of things are willing to take giant financial risks to publicize their own political principles.
Your post doesn't make any sense at all. They didn't have him gay in previous Bonds because social attitudes towards homosexuality were more conservative back then and they didn't have him gay in later Bond films because the "woke" virtue signalling far leftist ideology hasn't yet infested the society as much as it has today. The gay lobby today now proudly demands that 20% of all characters in movies and TV be LGBT. In the past they were demanding 10%, but you know how it's like, give someone an inch and he'll take a mile
My point was that the movie isn't doing any better because of it so the decision to make Q gay didn't benefit the movie, not that the movie is doing worse. And how do you even know the movie hasn't suffered because of it? You don't know that. It's very probable plenty of conservative and anti woke people found out about Q being gay on the internet and decided not to see this movie in theatres because of it. I'm certainly one of them. I
They didn't have him gay in previous Bonds because social attitudes towards homosexuality were more conservative back then
the "woke" virtue signalling far leftist ideology hasn't yet infested the society as much as it has today. The gay lobby today now proudly demands that. . .
My point was that the movie isn't doing any better because of it
And how do you even know the movie hasn't suffered because of it?
It's not that much against the audience. Today enough people have been brainwashed to tolerate forced diversity in movies so it doesn't hurt the movie as much as in the past. I still think it hurts it a little bit, but not much.
Weather they did it in order to appease the gay lobby mafia or because the writers themselves believe in this ideology is irrelevant. They needlessly made him gay and needlessly revealed his sexuality. It's totally unnecessary to the plot.
The definition of a conspiracy theory in the minds of leftists has become insane. Calling out George Soros who openly believes in a certain ideology for financially supporting that ideology which he believes in is now a conspiracy theory. Likewise calling out Hollywood who proudly promotes LGBT agenda, for promoting LGBT agenda is a conspiracy theory. You need to read the defining of that phrase. People doing what they openly believe in is not a conspiracy.
There doesn't need to be a campaign to boycott the film in order for a movie to be financially negatively hit. I'm sure you know the phrase, get woke, go broke. There aren't any publicized boycott campaigns, people stop buying those products themselves. And just because the movie did good doesn't mean it wouldn't have done even better had it not been woke.
But why am I even bothering to argue with someone that needlessly putting Black woman and gays in a movie in 2021 is due to wokneness and political agenda? It's fucking obviously true.
Weather they did it in order to appease the gay lobby mafia or because the writers themselves believe in this ideology is irrelevant.
People doing what they openly believe in is not a conspiracy.
There doesn't need to be a campaign to boycott the film in order for a movie to be financially negatively hit.
. . . putting Black woman and gays in a movie in 2021 is due to wokneness and political agenda? It's fucking obviously true.
Meh, I still think they did it because of their ideology and to ponder to the gay lobby about representation. And Latasha Lynch's character (along with Moneypenny) is pure intersectionality. Black women are at the highest ladder of oppression Olympics in the minds of SJWs (even though it's totally bogus, the true oppressed people are White males). The movie is woke, that's all I'm trying to say.
shareThen how do you know a film is being "financially negatively hit" in any significant manner?
It is relevant if one actually wants to understand why it's done, instead of just ranting and bringing up contradictory explanations because you don't like what you call the "promotion" of homosexuality.
Then why use terms like "brainwashing" or "mafia"?
But again, you're treating this as some sort of conspiracy entirely above the heads of moviegoers and the operations of a market economy, rather than businesses trying to keep up with (and monetize) trends in society.
[deleted]
(I prematurely clicked "add reply" before I was done finishing my post, hence why there's a deleted post of mine)
Probably not in a significant manner, but almost certainly in some manner. There are enough anti Woke people around. Just look at these boards and Youtube.
If a politician passes a law that screws over workers due to him believing in it or due to him caving to corporate pressure, does it matter? No. He still screwed over the workers.
Even liberals like Bill Maher called them a mafia.
Conspiracy means doing something illegal.
The movie definitely won't do any better because they put a gay guy and a Black woman in it.
They needlessly made him gay and needlessly had two Black women in the movie for purely intersectional ideological reasons. The movie is woke. My point stands.
shareWoke or not, there's absolutely nothing wrong with either.
There is absolutely no reason that the next 007 couldn't be a black woman, there's no reason the current Q couldn't be gay.
What is not reasonable and never was, is having no gay people on staff at MI6 for the last 24 films, or likewise having no top black or female agents. And if you just hate seeing black, female, or gay people on your movie screens, you can eat shit and die.
There's no reason why the original 4 ghostbusters can't be replaced with all females. Oh wait, that didn't work out well now did it?
shareThat was an okay movie, to anyone willing to relax and enjoy it, and not just look for reasons to hate it, like some of the bile-spitting sexist dipshit fanboys did.
shareYou're a moron incapable of critical thinking. How many people's sexualities are revealed in an average movie? Maybe one or two out of something like 10-15 characters. By that statistics it's perfectly plausible that no gay person's sexuality hasn't been revealed in 24 Bond films. As for Black women, women are less likely to be special agents than men and Blacks have a standard deviation lower IQ so it's also probably they would be less representative. And your last comment is telling about your troubled psychology. I suggest you seek help.
shareYes there is, because James Bond is a male and that was how he was written. If you cast a black woman then it is no longer the “James Bond Franchise” and by that point you’d might as well just create an entirely new series about a diverse, politically correct POC super spy. Go knock yourself out.
shareYou aren't getting it.
James Bond is a person, a British male person, who was James Bond before and after he held the 007 job. 007 is a job title, a job that can be held by anyone qualified, and that was held by someone before James Bond, and which would be held by someone else after he died or retired.
In the movie he left the job, and it went to someone else.
No he’s a literary character and the movies are based off that character. If you are going to deviate so far from the source material then he’d might as well just be a different character in a different franchise. What’s the matter? Are you afraid that if they made a series about a black, diverse, PC super spy it wouldn’t sell? Is that why you have to latch onto an already well established IP to spew out your SJW propaganda?
Also in this movie Bond was still the central character and the new 007 was a supporting character. I don’t have a problem with that, he lost the 007 title in one of the novels as well, James Bond should be the main focus and he was in NTTD.
Who was 007 after James Bond?
Who will be 007 after James Bond?
Oh fuck off, I'm tired of talking to a fool.
I see you can’t respond to my previous response, instead you choose to just pitch a temper tantrum like some bitchy 2 year old whose Mommy wouldn’t buy him a candy bar in the grocery store.
I don’t give a shit if for part of NTTD, Bond wasn’t 007, Bond was still the main character.
why can't people just enjoy an action movie anymore without bringing up woke this, sjw that? wow.
shareBecause most people don't want woke this, sjw that and it's in every new movie.
shareBecause in their mind, if it "ain't white, it ain't right". They're idiots.
shareIt’s more along the lines of: A) the actor chosen for the role should be able to accurately depict the source material, that is why I would never get chosen to play James Bond, I can’t do a convincing British Accent, and B) The same people who are bitching about how we need a Black James Bond would flip their shit if a white actor was cast in a role that was traditionally played by a black person.
Also playing the race card is a pretty cowardly move, not to mention divisive. Although I’m sure it makes you feel good about yourself which I’m guessing was your primary motivation.
Your credibility is below zero, so just worry about yourself and your pathetic needs to support the victimization and repression of other people, and let SJW whatever they are worry about their own credibility.
shareThey're killing off the white male bond to make way for an ugly, uninteresting, black female James Bond. How is that not woke?
shareOh honey, they aren't going to make her into the next James Bond, they're going to find a butch male white (or close to white) actor, and reboot the whole franchise. These films cost an unholy fortune to make, and need to capture the worldwide mainstream audience to make their money back, so they're going to go with what they know sells, because the Bond films are not made to send a message, they're made to generate profits!
If a bit of wokeness started to creep into the franchise starting with "Goldeneye", it was a necessary concession to the modern world, and has been kept at the level of lip service to political correctness ever since.
No they are going to cast a white male because that is who James Bond is. If they don’t respect the source material then it might as well be an entirely different character. You wouldn’t cast a white woman to play Blade now would you?
shareThey're talking about casting someone who isn't white, and if they cast Henry Golding I'm fine with that even if you aren't. Like Batman, there's no reason that Bond couldn't be mixed-race, he comes from a British "good family", the kind that gets their boy into Eton and Oxford, but these days the "good families" are marrying who they like, not just white people from other "good families".
But it probably won't happen. Like I say, these movies need to be seen by billions if they're to earn their money back, and they don't take chances with the franchise.
Yes there is you idiot, because that’s not consistent with the source material and it would undermine the title of the franchise.
Also just admit it, if someone recast Blade as a white person you’d lose your shit.