The left are set to emasculate James Bond in the name of advancing feminism...

[Remodeling Maidiac]

This will either destroy the franchise or the movie will be treated as an outlier. Woody Allen made a James Bond movie that was never considered a real James Bond movie.

We do have an innate ability to block out what we wish to not be so.

We have an innate ability to cause failure to that which we wish not to be so.

Ocean's 8
The New Ghostbusters
Batwoman
The geriatric Terminator
Wrinkle in Time
Many others

Fantasy life is not real life.

Losses in the BILLIONS are the only reality that matters.

Of course money is all that matters in american society, was this ever in question?

It is a for profit entity dumbass

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

We do have an innate ability to block out what we wish to not be so.

We have an innate ability to cause failure to that which we wish not to be so.

Ocean's 8
The New Ghostbusters
Batwoman
The geriatric Terminator
Wrinkle in Time
Many others

Fantasy life is not real life.

Losses in the BILLIONS are the only reality that matters.

Of course money is all that matters in american society, was this ever in question?

It is a for profit entity dumbass

So is america pard, look around.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The only James Bond was Sean Connery, but since he's like a million years old now, it doesn't really matter who they put in the role.

He’s dead. It does matter who they put in the role and what hole 007 is hitting.

Sean Connery is still alive.

Roger Moore is dead, as is Barry Nelson (the very first actor to play the James Bond role). Everyone else who has ever played the role on screen is still alive. That is, unless you count the 1967 Casino Royale, which I see no reason to count.

In my opinion, of all the actors who have played James Bond, Pierce Brosnan was the best for the role, but alas, his era came at a time when they were seriously scraping the bottom of the barrel for stories to make into James Bond movies.

I think my favorite of all the movies was License to Kill, even though I think that Timothy Dalton was one of the less suitable actors in the role.

I like what they did with the Daniel Craig reboot, with the four movies covering the character from earning is 00, to retirement and an implied “…and they lived happily ever after” ending. I think they should leave this version where it was at that point, and reboot again. From what I've read, the next movie in this sequence is probably just going to spoil it.

I very much hope that some of what I've been reading about future plans beyond that are false. Plans to make a female,, homosexual, or even transgender version of the character are just plain wrong. Political Correctness in any form, but especially the degenerate misandristic strains thereof, have no place anywhere near the James Bond franchise. It was bad enough, in Skyfall, when they gave us a villain that was implied to be wearing slip-on footwear of insufficient mass. That crap doesn't belong in James Bond stories, period.

James Bond is an ultra-masculine, womanizing, politically-incorrect male character. There is no reason to depict him any other way, unless the intent is to alienate his entire fan base, and kill off the franchise completely.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Not even sure this nonsense will be worth pirating.

Actually James Bond will be a white male but 007 the number will be given to a female...

So no James Bond is not becoming Jane Bond...

 

[Bob Blaylock]

If you don't mind I'll remain a strong, independent female, wrapped in the arms of a confident, masculine male...

Sure you are hon.

I think it is a pretty safe bet that The Irish Ram was not thinking of you when she made her remark.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Bond's a fictional character, I read a book by Rory Miller and he more or less revealed that films are just theatrics, and that real life "combat" is nothing like you see in the movies, movies are meant to be pretty, he says.

I'm sure most James Bond fans are very much aware of that.

It seems obvious to me that a genuine secret agent, of the sort that James Bond is intended to depict, would be very different. For one obvious thing, he'd be very subtle, and avoid attracting attention to himself and his activities. But that would make for poor theater. An audacious, daring agent like James Bond is unrealistic, but much more entertaining.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

If money was their top priority they would not be pushing the SJW nonsense.

Multiple tv shows
And MANY MANY movies pushing the PC shit have crashed and burned. Yet Hollywood keeps pushing the agendas in new movies. From Ghostbusters to Terminator to the new Charlie's Angels. There is PLENTY of evidence that their agenda is KILLING their profit margins but they keep on keeping on.

Capitalism is slapping them in the face via low ticket sales and massive losses.

You seem to be as stupid as they are

You certainly have to wonder what is going on in the heads of Hollywood. Surely, they have to know that homosexuals make up less than 4% of the population, and that a very, very large portion of us remaining 96%+ really don't want to see that crap. Their motive should be to make the maximum profit, but how can they not understand that alienating most of 96% of their potential audience to pander to less than 4% is not going to accomplish that? And then throw in all the other politically-correct crap, that likewise is off-putting to most mainstream Americans, just to pander to other tiny degenerate minorities—same principle.

 

[Questioner]

If money was their top priority they would not be pushing the SJW nonsense.

Multiple tv shows
And MANY MANY movies pushing the PC shit have crashed and burned. Yet Hollywood keeps pushing the agendas in new movies. From Ghostbusters to Terminator to the new Charlie's Angels. There is PLENTY of evidence that their agenda is KILLING their profit margins but they keep on keeping on.

Capitalism is slapping them in the face via low ticket sales and massive losses.

You seem to be as stupid as they are

You certainly have to wonder what is going on in the heads of Hollywood. Surely, they have to know that homosexuals make up less than 4% of the population, and that a very, very large portion of us remaining 96%+ really don't want to see that crap. Their motive should be to make the maximum profit, but how can they not understand that alienating most of 96% of their potential audience to pander to less than 4% is not going to accomplish that? And then throw in all the other politically-correct crap, that likewise is off-putting to most mainstream Americans, just to pander to other tiny degenerate minorities—same principle.

I'm aware many don't want to see it, but how many are actually willing to boycott it?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

If money was their top priority they would not be pushing the SJW nonsense.

Multiple tv shows
And MANY MANY movies pushing the PC shit have crashed and burned. Yet Hollywood keeps pushing the agendas in new movies. From Ghostbusters to Terminator to the new Charlie's Angels. There is PLENTY of evidence that their agenda is KILLING their profit margins but they keep on keeping on.

Capitalism is slapping them in the face via low ticket sales and massive losses.

You seem to be as stupid as they are

You certainly have to wonder what is going on in the heads of Hollywood. Surely, they have to know that homosexuals make up less than 4% of the population, and that a very, very large portion of us remaining 96%+ really don't want to see that crap. Their motive should be to make the maximum profit, but how can they not understand that alienating most of 96% of their potential audience to pander to less than 4% is not going to accomplish that? And then throw in all the other politically-correct crap, that likewise is off-putting to most mainstream Americans, just to pander to other tiny degenerate minorities—same principle.

I'm aware many don't want to see it, but how many are actually willing to boycott it?

Look at the most recent social engineering flops for your answer

 

[Questioner]

If money was their top priority they would not be pushing the SJW nonsense.

Multiple tv shows
And MANY MANY movies pushing the PC shit have crashed and burned. Yet Hollywood keeps pushing the agendas in new movies. From Ghostbusters to Terminator to the new Charlie's Angels. There is PLENTY of evidence that their agenda is KILLING their profit margins but they keep on keeping on.

Capitalism is slapping them in the face via low ticket sales and massive losses.

You seem to be as stupid as they are

You certainly have to wonder what is going on in the heads of Hollywood. Surely, they have to know that homosexuals make up less than 4% of the population, and that a very, very large portion of us remaining 96%+ really don't want to see that crap. Their motive should be to make the maximum profit, but how can they not understand that alienating most of 96% of their potential audience to pander to less than 4% is not going to accomplish that? And then throw in all the other politically-correct crap, that likewise is off-putting to most mainstream Americans, just to pander to other tiny degenerate minorities—same principle.

I'm aware many don't want to see it, but how many are actually willing to boycott it?

Look at the most recent social engineering flops for your answer

Like what? The Ghostbusters film, which was a flop. Other than that, what?

Most likely the generation after this crop of Hollywood will be more conservative, it was likely just a generational fad that emerged during the 1960s. The new "SJWs" may be the so-called "alt-right", some of whom will probably attack old World War 2 films for being "racist" because they show people killing Nazis, lmao.

The common theme I've seen is human stupidity, sadly that won't dawn on some.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Craig's my favorite Bond, after Connery. All the other Bonds were perfect -- too perfect to be believable.

Craig's Bond is broken, flawed, human -- and believable.

I think that may well be why I liked License to Kill so much. It took the James Bond character out of his usual perfect professional role as a government agent. In this story, he was an angry, vengeful character, gone rogue, out to destroy the drug kingpin who was responsible for an attack on his best friend and that friend's new wife, that left the friend badly mutilated, and the wife dead; and he didn't care much what rules he had to break and what collateral harm he had to cause, to achieve that revenge. It gave us a different view of the character; and it put the least suitable actor to play the role in a position where he could not look so much to those who played the role before him as to how to play the role, and was compelled more to pay the role his own new way.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

‘The left’ isn’t doing any such thing.

It’s just a movie – stop whining and lying about it.

If recent reports are to be believed, the left wrong—at least that portion thereof that so destructive infests the entertainment industry—is set to utterly destroy a franchise that has produced some of the most entertaining movies over the past sixty years, as a sacrifice on the idol of their degenerate Politically-Correct ideology.

 

[CWayne]

Not even sure this nonsense will be worth pirating.

Well, to be honest, Daniel Craig did more to emasculate Bond than the liberals.

 

[CWayne]

INCELs are so predictable in how they get triggered by females.

What are you?

To be honest, if Hall & Oats were to write a song about her, it would be "Man-hater". But I base that on limited observation.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

This is a great example of willfull ignorance

It's C_Clayton_Jones.

But then, that's the same thing you said, isn't it?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

This will either destroy the franchise or the movie will be treated as an outlier. Woody Allen made a James Bond movie that was never considered a real James Bond movie.

Woody Allen appeared in that movie. I don't know that it's really fair to credit him with blame him for making that movie.

What a mess that movie was. The actual Casino Royale story appears as a brief, momentary subplot in that movie, surrounded by a much larger, mostly incoherent mess of a story, featuring three primary “James Bond” characters (David Niven, Peter Sellers, and Woody Allen), and some subplot in which all British agents are renamed “James Bond” to confuse the enemy/audience.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It's called capitalism. They're making it because they think it will sell.
If it doesn't, then they lose money. If it does, then they make money.
You think they give a shit about anything other than money?

then they are stupid and need to go out of business.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Your best bet would be to boycott TV and film altogether - I more or less have.
The same with the alleged social justice warriors and their conspiracy theories about "toxic masculinity", or whatnot. Most people seem to agree that film and TV especially isn't generally great art to begin with, but is often laden with product placement, "special interest" groups attempting to promote a "message", and so on - I prefer reading books myself.
Why nitpick over a restaurant like McDonald's serving nasty food, when boycotting fast food and processed food altogether is a better option.
Honestly, it wouldn't shock me if video games end up replacing Hollywood and the like as the primary entertainment medium, I think they have quite a bit more to offer a consumer than TV, radio, film, and the like do.

Agreed, but I dont get why you are asserting it is easier to ignore bad Woketard entertainment when you yourself are not ignoring the reaction to the whole pile of shyte.

 

[JimBowie1958]

In the grand scheme of things, I tend to view these things as minute obsessions, yet everything I've seen is that humanity is plagued with them.
For example, how many people here who believe Hollywood has become left-wing and feminist, or conversely believe it is a bastion of toxic masculinity, will simply boycott it altogether and go get some fresh air?
Most likely they will just pick another film or TV show to watch, then complain about some similar grievance in that film as well, and so on and so on - never taking a radical step, and probably apparently unable to imagine life without film and TV, despite them having been luxuries for the rich just a decade ago or so.

Jeebus, how many times are you going to regurgitate this?

You have said it three times now, we get the point.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Not even sure this nonsense will be worth pirating.

Actually James Bond will be a white male but 007 the number will be given to a female...
So no James Bond is not becoming Jane Bond...

That *is* pointed out in the video you apprently didnt watch.