Because half of the thread topics were about a woman being 007

And?

That was only true up until 'Die Another Day', that being said, they never really had any call backs or hints to the past so it might as well have not been.

Since Casino Royale, it has been a continuing story, and thanks to that, in Spectre, it seems Bond does retire from being 007 (also because he is getting older), so it only makes sense that another Agent would take his double 0 position, and it just so happens that Agent is a woman, its not a big deal, its just the same deal as Sean Bean being 006.

They were crap because they were put together with little thought with the hope that an all star cast could make it successful where as a new film is more thought out in my opinion they only have to look at a few recent all female movies that were fantastic

You're right. The Ocean's franchise NEVER uses an all star cast. That's not what made ANY of them successful.

Uou are failing to grasp my point in an attempt to troll

You said Ocean's 8 failed because they attempted to sell it on its all star cast.... you know, just like the George Clooney and Brad Pitt ones, even the Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin one.

But... this one was about women, therefore THAT must be the reason it failed. :idc:

Try discussing the point instead of resorting to insults.

Bye felicia

Just as I thought.

:joker:

A clickbait-y story to rile up the racists and misogynists.

The idea of James Bond having to contend with or even take another 007 under his wing is pretty good and it's quite unique in a series that is historically reliant on it's own tropes.

I don't think that's true with Ghost Busters, Paul Feig thought he was genuinely making a funny film, he wasn't trying to rest on the laurels on WE CAST WOMEN at all. The problem was that too much improv a) was allowedto happen and b) was left in the film.

Plus it had the problem a lot of modern films do - it wasn't allowed to take itself seriously. The original Ghostbusters movie wasn't scary, but at times it acted like it thought it was.

Did they not outright state on Casino Royale's release that it was a semi-reboot? I personally think anything pre Casino Royale needs to be taken as a previous version of the story. Some of the events that happened in those films MAY have happened to this Bond (e.g. I think having been married has been mentioned?) but... Only in the same way that MCU's Peter Parker has a dead Uncle Ben. Having elements of the back story doesn't mean its a continuation of the same character.

I think people are being exposed a little here. There's always been backlash against James Bond 007 (the actual character) being recast as a different sex / race and I personally agreed with that, because I like continuity in movie sequels. However. I was always fine with and am still fine with Bond retiring and a new 007 of whatever description the writers want taking over the role and that seems to be the way they're going.

But lo and behold... A lot of people who claimed they didn't want "a black bond" because it didn't make sense, are STILL not happy with a black (or female? Or both?) 007 even though it is being made clear that it's a brand new character.

Funny that, isn't it.

Err I'll have you know that Vigo from Ghostbusters 2 gave me nightmares for MONTHS when I was a kid.

Sort of similar to Batman, and DC comics in general - 2011 was a semi reboot, so the slates were simultaneously wiped clean, but the characters had some of the same history as before 2011. So like, Batman had still had Grayson, Jason, and Tim as his Robins and they had the same fates, but this version of Bats hadn't met all of his foes yet, and he had only been around for about 5 years.

I've not seen GB2 :o

Ah yeah, that was what I forgot to mention, Casino Royale was a reboot, the first scene was literally James Bond getting his 00 status

Iconic.

Will she be doing this 2 times when she says her code name..:nono::nono: