If anybody was excited to see this film, that’s been rectified!
Last rant, I discussed Lashana Lynch’s comments regarding her desire to include a scene wherein she disposes of a tampon. I still believe this to be a troll by the actress, however the longer it goes uncorrected the more damage is done.
EON needs to set the record straight quick if they don’t want to lose complete control of the narrative regarding their â¤200 million movie. They say the only bad publicity is no publicity, but I beg to differ in this case. The more they let this go, the more this will be known as the film in which lady 007 dispenses tampons!
This film’s public perception in a nutshell
Apparently fan reaction to the news that Lynch would be borrowing Bond’s 007 code number in this film has EON reeling. So much so, according to this article, it appears they may be rethinking that bit of stunt writing.
However, plans for her to become the first black, female 007 â taking over the codename from Craig’s Bond after he retires â could be scrapped after a social-media backlash. Sources say she is now likely to get another agent number, 001.
If only they had taken the hint when the idea of Bro-feld had been panned on the net, that was far more damaging to cannon than “007” getting appropriated for an hour or so by another agent.
Come on Bro!
I can’t help but wonder if Lynch’s code number reassignment has more to do with copyright than fan displeasure. More on that in the next rant!
I can tell the excitement is palpable!
Another bit of info discovered since last I wrote, Craig and Swann will be married at the start, when Craig says this:
“Good morning, Mrs Bond’, to which she replies: ‘Don’t you mean Ms Swann?”
The fact they’re married at all is just cheap On Her Majesty’s Secret Service rehash and hammers home how theyâve given up on this reboot being âBond Beginsâ or fitting into the Fleming/classic film lore in any way, shape, or form.
Writing films that fit in the established universe is hard!
According to the article it’s very ‘woke,” her not taking his name! Never mind the fact she’s 34 and he’s old enough to be her father at 51!
Come along darling
Her not taking his name makes even less sense when you remember her fatherâs surname was White. Now that may have been a code name, but it was established she was in hiding when Bond found her, so if Swan was her real last name or even her motherâs maiden name, SPECTRE has to be the most incompetent espionage organization ever conceived! Therefore the assumed name Swann, should have no significance to her what so ever and she should be happy to cast off that chapter of her life and move on regardless of her politics!
I never understood why “woke” people like this get married anyway, marriage is a religious institution and most “woke” folk mix with religion about as well as oil does with water. Sure there are tax advantages but that’s what civil unions are for. And why is Craig finding out her surname politics on their honeymoon, did he really dive into matrimony with a woman he knows so little about?!
I now pronounce you two contractually obligated persons
It doesn’t really matter since Ms Swann/Not Mrs. Bond will be dead by the time the titles roll anyway.
Much like the beginning of the second Austin Powers film. Yes Austin Powers, remember him?! The character who, as Craig so eloquently put it f@%ked them! Once again EON rips off Mike Myers! Just as brother Blofeld emerged from the Dr. Evil, Austin Powers fraternal sub plot in Goldmember, a dead wife at the beginning seems to have been inspired by The Spy Who Shagged Me. In the beginning of that film, Powers’ wife is revealed to have been a “Fembot” the entire time and is subsequently destroyed, prompting Powers to declare, “Wait a minute I’m single again!”
Playing on a loop in the EON writer’s room.
And much like Powers, after he’s single and free to mingle again, Craig will apparently have lost his “mojo” as well:
“Bond tries his usual seduction techniques (on the women in the film) but they fail miserably. It’s very funny.”
This would almost be a better film!
Failing miserably at attracting women? Par for the course for old creaky, craggy Craig’s “Bond!” That’s why he’s resorted to some of the more cringe inducing “seduction” scenes in the franchise over the last two films, taking advantage of a former child sex slave in Skyfall and forcing himself on a widow in SPECTRE.
Don’t mind me, I’ll just help myself! Also an example of what the politically correct brigade consider pro-woman.
But don’t fret, some great news has also leaked!
In one scene, Daniel Craig’s suave secret agent is struggling to get a seaplane airborne as his passenger cries out ‘Get it up! Get it up!’ â prompting the wry reply: ‘I’ve never had a problem with that before.’
Yuck, yuck, yuck…
YUCK!
I take it all back, Austin Powers is too good to be compared to this trash!
Really EON?! Is this how little you think of the fandom?! Is this what you think we want?! Crude frat-boy humor?! Is this what “brilliant” writer Waller-Bridge has been brought in for, “that’s what your mom said” caliber jokes?!
That’s what she said! Duh, huh, huh, huh!
Remember when Bond was the thinking man’s action franchise? When Bond was aspirational? When the name James Bond represented charm, class and sophistication? When Bond was an educated man of the world? When he not only spoke several languages but did so eloquently?
NAH! We’ll just pump the film full of pander politics and dick jokes, that’ll work!
Good news, Craig is returning for Bond 26 and pre-production has already begun!
Nobody is asking for this, not classic fans nor the neo Craig-heads, no one! You want to appeal to Bond fans? Try crafting a fully fleshed out story with characters who are more than cheap cardboard virtue signals! Try putting more than less a halfhearted effort into the film making! Throwing money at a conceptually bankrupt group of hack writers and flavor of the week directors isn’t going to cut it anymore!
Instead EON sits on their duff for three plus years between films, before finally and reluctantly slapping a film together last minute, writing on the fly, counting on some cheap fan service in the form of the monotonous homages they shoehorn in to distract from the convoluted mess they capture on celluloid. Then to placate the screeching media, who don’t give a crap anyway, cram in as much politically correct claptrap as is humanly possible, only for the same media to forget all about it come the next film!
EON, 3 years out of 4.
Bloody hell! Sir Roger himself would have balked at that line. In addition the seaplane scene smells very much like a ripoff of the similar bit from “Commando”, except Arnold and Rae Dawn Chong were actually funny and worked well together.
So anyway, assuming “Ms Swann” bites the dust fairly early in the proceedings, the Craig Bond is trying to get into Double-Oh-Whatever’s reinforced Q Branch knickers before his wife’s body has even cooled?
Can you imagine Lazenby’s heartbroken 007 doing this, if he’d done a follow on film from OHMSS?
Giving the non-Bond’s behaviour in the two previous outings, the plan seems to be to portray the character as a creepy sex pest. Perfect casting really for Daniel the Dull.
Craig is haemorraging fanboys by the hundreds if the comments on various Youtube videos are anything to go by and long may it continue.
The sound of massed wallets closing might even wake Barbara up… đ
Some absolutely spot on points Vin! I too picked up on the Commando similarity, of course rather than make a trite sex comment, Arnold screamed unintelligent and punched the plane into flight, his only recourse, and yet this scene from a 30+ year old B movie is leaps and bounds better than what is green lit in the “Cadillac” of action films today! I’ve also noticed the 180 degree turn on Craig, it only took a decade and a half for them to come around!
For me the biggest turnaround is how the Bond films and the franchise have gone from a swaggering, insolent cinematic upstart to an obedient neutered establishment toady figure under Barbara’s despotic reign.
“Frivolity is inappropriate” UGH!! Stick that bloody BAFTA where the sun doesn’t shine you silly spoiled brat.
Like something from a propaganda leaflet in a police state. RIP 007 indeed…
I looked up the word â wokeâ and itâs supposed to be a â cultural awakeningâ of sorts, so Iâm guessing old Babzy is trying to turn off those of us who prefer the original Bond ( found in Flemingâs novels and early films) vs the Gen Z who think Bond is like Jason Bourne or has to be a women due to âgender gap â or not enough diversity or whatever. Iâm probably one of the few to say to see Bond with anyone other than Moneypenny doesnât quite look right.
Yes, Daniel Craig’s Bond seduction scenes have always been far less than convincing. The seduction of Solange in CR in front of the hotel (with the weird expression on his face). Also, the awkward seduction of Fields in QoS. It’s a part of Craig’s performance that stretches credibility to breaking point. It wouldn’t matter so much if he was playing another character but in playing Bond it matters a lot. The craggy looks don’t help. He’s a good actor but just out of place.
Indeed Gareth, Craig is at his most uncomfortable when opposite a woman in his Bond films and as you say when playing world renown, debonair, lady’s man, playboy James Bond that fact is glaring!
The picture of the girl and her dad is obviously of a first communion, not a wedding. I’m not even Catholic and I could work that out. It seems you haven’t.
Dear lord! If true, this means my entire life has been a lie! Or… It could be a throw away image of an old man and a young lady in a white dress used as a metaphor for EON production’s bizarre obsession with May-December romances. But I’m sure you’re probably right.