I think they milked James Bond for about all is worth. I don't blame them for introducing a new concept to see if they can beat a few more miles out of the dead house.
Meet the New James Bond
- Thread starter georged
- Start date
.gif)
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
Elbert, solid posts.
As far as Bond, they will never replace Sean or Roger... Daniel Craig a distinct distance behind the 1st 2. But IMHO, Bond should fade into the sunset. The best have passed by. A new reboot could be great. If they do not stick to the original tropes. And as far as PC, is anything PC anymore or just mirroring the reality of a different culture? If I am going for the minority audience, the new generation audience, I am going with someone from the cast of the BP or with Idris.
As far as Bond, they will never replace Sean or Roger... Daniel Craig a distinct distance behind the 1st 2. But IMHO, Bond should fade into the sunset. The best have passed by. A new reboot could be great. If they do not stick to the original tropes. And as far as PC, is anything PC anymore or just mirroring the reality of a different culture? If I am going for the minority audience, the new generation audience, I am going with someone from the cast of the BP or with Idris.
How about a new all female Good, Bad & Ugly?
Only need one name change...Blondie and Angel Eyes still works. But the Ugly...Tootsie? Tulip?
And they just gotta do The Outlaw Josie Wales and the Pussycats.
I'd love to see another True Grit also...Hen Cogburn.
It cracks me up when people think this is about PC. This is about capitalism. All these moves towards increased representations of different races and genders and sexual orientations is about money. The people making the movie do not really care about the demographics of the people they might lose with this move, and they think they can easily make more money by engaging different groups of fans. Not just here in America, but around the world. Frankly, I don't blame them. I think they're making a smart bet.
Personally, I think it's cool to see different takes on characters. I mean, the traditional James Bond died years ago anyway, when he started drinking Heinekens because of paid product placement. Give me Roger Moore smoking a Montecristo Especial anyway.
Personally, I think it's cool to see different takes on characters. I mean, the traditional James Bond died years ago anyway, when he started drinking Heinekens because of paid product placement. Give me Roger Moore smoking a Montecristo Especial anyway.
I loved Widows, which turned the traditional crime movie on its head by casting mostly black women as the leads. Why not the Bond movie?
It's only an assumption on your part that the primary motivation is profit. I think that was true at one time, and still is in certain instances, but in some cases these days the primary motivation is cultural influence and culture creation. I base that opinion on a number of things that I would not attempt to get into here, so we can just disagree.
All of that aside, based on everything I've heard and read, most of this stuff coming out of Hollywood lately has not done well at the box office...such as the movies I mentioned above.
But even if it was all being done purely out of a profit motive, that doesn't negate the fact that it's PC. And again, to me the real distinction is between originality and contrived rip-offs...not just whether it's "PC" or not.
But, nevertheless, there is plenty of info out there supporting the case that PC is not very profitable...particularly in regard to comedy:
And I don't know much about the comic book world, but I've heard it's hurting sales there also:
I think we'll just have to disagree, as I have 100% confidence in the idea that Hollywood executives makes their decisions based on profit 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. There was a time when it made financial sense to gear things towards a whiter, American-centric audience. But changing demographics in the United States, particularly among entertainment consumers, and the globalization of entertainment means white people are a small minority of potential customers. Consumers in Asia, Africa, the ME generate massive amounts of revenue, and these companies are increasingly relying on the foreign box office.
Besides, there are plenty of white dudes that have no problem seeing increased representation of various groups, or re-takes on classics, as long as they deliver the goods from an entertainment standpoint. I don't see a black, female James Bond as any type personal affront against me as a white dude. YMMV. We're all entitled to spend our dollars as we see fit.
Besides, there are plenty of white dudes that have no problem seeing increased representation of various groups, or re-takes on classics, as long as they deliver the goods from an entertainment standpoint. I don't see a black, female James Bond as any type personal affront against me as a white dude. YMMV. We're all entitled to spend our dollars as we see fit.
Correct. First, last, and always, it's about making money. I get a kick from reading punditry from people who have not worked in this industry. I've worked in it for 42 years. It's a business, not a cause, and when a production is going to spend $100,000,000 or more on a movie, it's because they think there's a market for what they're doing, and that they're going to make a bundle doing it.
I don't think that Dan's post tries to turn this into a "racial" issue, rather it examines logically the demographics applicable.
There's quite a difference.
Just mentioning factors that include race or culture does not immediately make it an emotional point of contention or a cue to begin the tired, old partisan-like poo flinging.
IBTL, amigos.
There's quite a difference.
Just mentioning factors that include race or culture does not immediately make it an emotional point of contention or a cue to begin the tired, old partisan-like poo flinging.
IBTL, amigos.
I will concede to the view that profit is always the motive because it's not possible to prove the case here that it's sometimes not.
So now that that's settled, it's interesting to me that profitability continues to be the focus of discussion here. I guess that's the only terms that people can think in these days.
For me personally, I base my opinion of any form of art or entertainment that I encounter based on authenticity, creativity, originality, etc. Not on whether I think it will be profitable or not.
Many of my favorite movies were not very profitable.
Well, you must not be reading the same post I am. Particularly the second paragraph.
Sadly, that's one thing about our amoral, modern existence.
Many truly can not (will not) see things in terms other than financial.
Many truly can not (will not) see things in terms other than financial.
Mine too. One of my favorite films, which I also happened to work on, was A Little Princess Alfonso Cuaron's first US feature film. A beautiful little film, made for very little money.
As Samuel Goldwyn famously said, "If I wanted to send a message, I'd use Western Union!"
That's not to say that film makers never have a message they want to convey, but when the budgets are large the first, last, and always concern is will it make a profit.
When it comes to business, money comes first. During the Depression, my mother's parents owned a bakery, and they never turned anyone away hungry because they lacked the money to buy bread. It cost them their business, and their home. Eventually they built back, but it was touch and go for years. They didn't regret feeding people, but they were hardly overjoyed about losing everything either.
From what I’ve read so far, James Bond will be retiring and she will inherit his 007 license to kill number, but she won’t be the actual Bond character.
- Status