entertainment

Bond footage thrills CinemaCon as theaters eye recovery

34 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2021 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

34 Comments
Login to comment

I dont want a man or a woman as Bond. Much too limiting and bigoted. I want a Bond who identifies as a unicorn masquerading as a trans Idi Amin in a tuxedo.

Sounds pretty cool. I'd watch it.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Would you want a black or white Hikaru Sulu in a STAR TREK film? Would you want a new 'A Team' with a white or Oriental Asian 'Mr. T'? 

That’d be no problem, except for the white part of course.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

For some people, that will be the suave, being an amazing spy, and being british. Something that could be done by men or women of various race.

I dont want a man or a woman as Bond. Much too limiting and bigoted. I want a Bond who identifies as a unicorn masquerading as a trans Idi Amin in a tuxedo.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Would you want a 'Wonder Man'?

Wonder Man exists in both Marvel and DC Comics.

Politics is inherent in all media. If you think something is apolitical, it just means that you agree with those politics.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

TokyoJoeAug. 26  06:56 pm JST

same tired franchise of escapist fantasy 

Exactly, nobody wants escapism when they go to the cinema. Instead they need a dose of 21st century politics and a side dish of preaching.

Yes, there certainly is. Disney and Hallmark are guilty as hell of it, not by their format so much as wanting us to pretend that everything is alright and that people everywhere are tolerant and that hate doesn't exist.

And that's shoving it under the rug. The past few years in America prove otherwise and it's wake-up call. But 'woking' it up and sugar-coating our entertainment like this is no solution, not even close. It keeps it all out of sight until some Antichrist like Trump emerges.

> Pacific SauryToday  09:59 am JST

It's our pie, too. You do not own James Bond.

Nonsense.

The woke fight for "equal" representation in entertainment. All y'all need to be concerned about characters who are somewhere on the "spectrum".

Ian Flemming owned James Bond. And he created Bond as a SWM. If you want a QBG (queer black genderfluid) as a secret agent, go make your own story. Stop poisoning other people's entertainment.

Agreed. James Bond is an original creation. More writers need to make *their own original creations, their own creative characters. ***There is absolutely ZERO originality today! Would you want a black or white Hikaru Sulu in a STAR TREK film? Would you want a new 'A Team' with a white or Oriental Asian 'Mr. T'? Would you want a 'Wonder Man'? Would you go see a moviw with a gay Chewbacca? The Marvel and DC superheros have already been horribly bastardized beyond belief, the newer films are utter crap! Rubbish! **

Note that the all-woman 'Ghostbusters' in name only sank like a stone, and so did the 2019 'Charlie's Angels'. It had an obligatory black, an obligatory Latina and an obligatory white lesbian. A total bastardization of a franchise that has run its course and should've been put to pasture (those films of the same name from the 00's were dreadfully stupid too). Gar-bahjjj!!!

Hollywood, get off your butts and start creating again, start being original and come with new fresh ideas! Quit recycling and hosing up and rehashing all these tired ideas.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

You are getting a bit hysterical here. 

No, very relaxed.

Didn’t say you weren’t. My post was in answer to another poster.

Can you just clarify if You’re interested/invested in the franchise, or not?

No real interest in Bond movies but I’m quite interested in the ‘woke’ debate.

This stuff really triggers right wingers who have it on the hymn sheet. They generally can’t be reasoned with and say pretty much the same thing. Uninteresting.

In this case, I see it as up to the makers of the films how they choose to portray Bond. We are talking about spy novels here, not inviolable ‘holy’ texts. If they go ‘woke’ in the future and the films bomb, I’m sure they’ll take a look at the reasons why.

I remember Milo Yiannopoulos endeared himself to the hymn sheet crowd by lambasting the Ghostbusters film. I saw the film made a profit. That’s the bottom line.

Films are made to entertain and make money. If the next Bond makes money by casting a black lesbian in the leading role and makes cash, good luck to them.

Free market and all that. Don’t watch it if you don’t like it. That used to be on the right wing hymn sheet. Did someone erase it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ah, so any aspect of a character made over half a century ago that wasn't explicitly defined should be considered malleable

Well, they all are, insofar that owners of the copyright can literally write them however they want. So yes, they are all malleable.

I'd posit that the franchise stops being much of a franchise if people stop watching though, and conversely, if they character isn't updated as time passes, the character will become outdated. So the owners of the franchise will likely want to determine what the core fundamental parts of the character are that matter to their viewers, and not mess with the bread and butter.

I'm not saying that the fundamental parts of the character are what I listed before, I pointed out how for some people they could be. The question is what the character means to the base of Bond fans, but current and future.

I do know, the modern generation is a lot more open to the idea of exploring characters in different ways, so maybe race and sex don't matter to the core of Bond viewers. Or maybe they do. My point was that I was agreeing with you on this:

Changing the actor is not a problem. Changing the character is. Learn the difference.

I just pointed out that what you consider to be "the character" may not be what the base of Bond viewers considers to be "the character".

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It was in response to your claim that it is your pie too. Your pie consists of LGBT characters. You can do whatever you want with them. Change their gender every day for a year for all I care.

There are plenty of LGBT fans of James Bond. Bond is as much theirs as he is yours.

Once more, and read this carefully: you do not own James Bond.

Sure, I totally agree! But the reason I said "equal" and not equal was because I don't believe your idea of equal is actually equal.

"Equality isn't equal" is not the argument you think it is.

Changing the actor is not a problem. Changing the character is. Learn the difference.

The character has changed a lot during the series. The Craig Bond films are wildly different from the Moore films. They're different characters with the same name.

But for some reason, you didn't care about that. Only when the idea that Bond might be black is floated do you get riled up about "the character".

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Depends what you consider to be the integral parts of the character.

For some people, that will be the suave, being an amazing spy, and being british. Something that could be done by men or women of various race.

Ah, so any aspect of a character made over half a century ago that wasn't explicitly defined should be considered malleable - and certainly tweaked in the direction of LGBT - despite these issues being absolute non-issues at the time, so the author of the character would not have even considered them - these aspects should changed. Is that what you're suggesting?

And if it's all about being British, then why isn't he played by someone with terrible teeth?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Changing the actor is not a problem. Changing the character is. Learn the difference.

Depends what you consider to be the integral parts of the character.

For some people, that will be the suave, being an amazing spy, and being british. Something that could be done by men or women of various race.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I said you don't own James Bond, and you said, "Nonsense".

It was in response to your claim that it is your pie too. Your pie consists of LGBT characters. You can do whatever you want with them. Change their gender every day for a year for all I care.

Equal representation is good, and it's a good and cool thing to fight for.

Sure, I totally agree! But the reason I said "equal" and not equal was because I don't believe your idea of equal is actually equal.

At the suggestion that the actor for James Bond be black or queer, you said, "Stop poisoning other people's entertainment."

Changing the actor is not a problem. Changing the character is. Learn the difference.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Never claimed to.

I said you don't own James Bond, and you said, "Nonsense".

You obviously don't know how to read. I'm suggesting that the woke think they're fighting for equality.

Equal representation is good, and it's a good and cool thing to fight for.

Never suggested it was. Again, learn to read.

At the suggestion that the actor for James Bond be black or queer, you said, "Stop poisoning other people's entertainment."

It'd be good to keep your former posts in mind.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

"I do own James Bond", is your argument? OK. The thing is, you literally don't. Get over it.

Never claimed to.

Thank you for admitting that you are against equality. It makes your posts a lot easier to understand.

You obviously don't know how to read. I'm suggesting that the woke think they're fighting for equality.

He's dead.

Hence my usage of the past tense. The current owner of the James Bond franchise is the Wilson/Broccoli family.

It's not poison to change the actor for James Bond. Get a grip.

Never suggested it was. Again, learn to read.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Interesting evaluating both sides of this debate and if it’s worth seeing.

@Kentarogaijin 8/26 8:29am: “No time to Bond movies.. Thanks..” -

@Jimizo 8/26  10:14am: “Each to their own, sport. You like your comics and cartoons.” -—

@Jimizo Today 10:11am: “Don’t watch it. I haven’t watched a Bond movie for about 20 years I think[??]. Hasn’t affected my life in the slightest.” -

Can you just clarify if You’re interested/invested in the franchise, or not?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

You are getting a bit hysterical here. 

No, very relaxed.

Don’t watch it if you don’t like it.

I wouldn’t of they went that route.

It really is that simple. I haven’t watched a Bond movie for about 20 years I think. Hasn’t affected my life in the slightest.

I love Bond, but I understand your point.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It's our pie, too. You do not own James Bond.

Nonsense.

"I do own James Bond", is your argument? OK. The thing is, you literally don't. Get over it.

The woke fight for "equal" representation in entertainment. All y'all need to be concerned about characters who are somewhere on the "spectrum".

Thank you for admitting that you are against equality. It makes your posts a lot easier to understand.

Ian Flemming owned James Bond.

He's dead.

And he created Bond as a SWM. If you want a QBG (queer black genderfluid) as a secret agent, go make your own story. Stop poisoning other people's entertainment.

It's not poison to change the actor for James Bond. Get a grip.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Nonsense.

The woke fight for "equal" representation in entertainment. All y'all need to be concerned about characters who are somewhere on the "spectrum".

Ian Flemming owned James Bond. And he created Bond as a SWM. If you want a QBG (queer black genderfluid) as a secret agent, go make your own story. Stop poisoning other people's entertainment.

You are getting a bit hysterical here.

Don’t watch it if you don’t like it. It really is that simple. I haven’t watched a Bond movie for about 20 years I think. Hasn’t affected my life in the slightest.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It's our pie, too. You do not own James Bond.

Nonsense.

The woke fight for "equal" representation in entertainment. All y'all need to be concerned about characters who are somewhere on the "spectrum".

Ian Flemming owned James Bond. And he created Bond as a SWM. If you want a QBG (queer black genderfluid) as a secret agent, go make your own story. Stop poisoning other people's entertainment.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

If they want to make a separate character, I’m all for it. Go for it and create a new one. Where I draw the line is when people want to take traditional characters and change them to be politically correct and woke and if that’s the case, the next time they remake “Roots” then a white person should be able to play the role of Kunta Kinte.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

There is talk of a female Bond, a black Bond... So people are trying anyway.

None of this would kill Bond. I don't know if you knew this, but Bond has been portrayed by many actors in the past who look nothing like one another. Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan look like different people, because they are, but they both portrayed Bond on screen.

Why do the woke insist on trying to stick their fingers in everyone else's pie?

It's our pie, too. You do not own James Bond.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Bond has retired from M16 in this film, but is forced to return. I’m looking forward to it.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

None of those things have been killed off.

There is talk of a female Bond, a black Bond... So people are trying anyway. Why do the woke insist on trying to stick their fingers in everyone else's pie?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I bet its totally different from all the other Bond films.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

same tired franchise of escapist fantasy 

Exactly, nobody wants escapism when they go to the cinema. Instead they need a dose of 21st century politics and a side dish of preaching.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

If this movie isn't 100% woke it will certainly be the last white male bond we see. I'm sure some in Hollywood are twitching uncontrollably whilst sipping their double soy lattes when they see that marketing shot. 'Won't somebody please think of the diversity!!'

3 ( +4 / -1 )

According to reviews and gossip, Bond has been killed off by the woke no doubt along with Marvel,Disney, Star Wars and Dr Who. Sad times!

None of those things have been killed off. This article is about a new James Bond film that is about to come out.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

According to reviews and gossip, Bond has been killed off by the woke no doubt along with Marvel,Disney, Star Wars and Dr Who. Sad times!

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Bit worried about this, as Craig's Bond films have a 50/50 fantastic/crappy ratio. But I'll probably watch it anyway, tbh.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Bond, that same "licence to kill" guy? No beef with Daniel, a good geezer, no doubt. But the latest offering is sure to be just more of the same tired franchise of escapist fantasy bollocks with a nasty, violent sub-text. Yawn.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Latest Bond movies are connected and the best scenarios.

Daniel Craig is a very bright actor.

I will go see it in the cinema only because I can get special prices. It is otherwise a rip off because ticket price has been inflating with no better experience than 20 years ago : screen no larger, sound no better, special effects not giving additional interest to the experience.

I will wait and switch to my VR headset way more as it brings much more interest to the feeling of the movie, if not accompanied.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

No time to Bond movies.. 

Thanks..

Each to their own, sport. You like your comics and cartoons.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Looking forward to seeing it in the Cinema.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Why is it, each time a Bond film is released the media always says it's the last time for this actor to play Bond.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

No time to Bond movies..

Thanks..

-13 ( +1 / -14 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites