Hey, Koroush, sorry for the over-emphasis.
|Posted: 17 July 2019 at 6:50pm | IP Logged | 7
But still, you're keeping to the "cashing in on a recent phenomenon" bit? Haven't you heard? These days, if you "get woke," you "go broke." It is deeply weird to me that you have opponents of this casting working both sides of the economic argument. On one hand, they want to save the studio from making a disastrous financial decision, since nothing could be clearer that these endeavors do nothing but fail on an epic scale, creating "cost-sunk fallacies" that could only exist if the "liberal agenda" were trying to "socially engineer" our very lives. Money matters nothing to these LGBTQ/Diversity-crazed madmen! They will stop at nothing to cram their politics down our unwitting gullets! Oh, woe is us that ever a day such as this should come!
Yet, here we have to defend against the opposite charge, that somehow the studio is throwing the 007 property under the bus, not because they are the mindless automatons of eeeeevil puppet master George Soros, but because they are... making a grab at somea' dat lovely lovely low-hanging fruit on the pop-culture money tree, junking decades of character integrity for the sake of easy money, right there for the picking. They could just make a straight-up 007 film with either Craig starring again or pick a new white guy, but no... They're selling out instead to those crazed crowds of diversity-hungry young folks who flood the theaters every time one of these things is announced, threatening to flood the box office with so much filthy lucre that the cash drawers spill out onto the floor and up to the knees of the hapless seventeen-year-old ticket takers.
Like I said, weird.
In any case, I don't know what the cash returns on projects like these are. STAR TREK: DISCOVERY is a win. GHOSTBUSTERS was not. I don't know where OCEAN'S 8 fits into the rubric. I hardly think the box office is a guarantee, no matter what approach is taken to diversity. They may simply be shooting, as studios do, to generate some buzz and hope that translates to sales at the box office. Raise some curiosity. Kick up some dust. Which is standard practice, no?
"Slap 007 on a black woman, you get something else, not a Bond movie." I don't know that we can say that at this point. Bond is a character in the film. And we have no idea how this new 007 is going to be written or played. Fleming didn't simply create a single individual in his books. He created the world in which Bond operates as well, and made him part of an organization that sanctions him to do the sort of awful things that he does so well. He gave it all a veneer of class and sophistication intermixed with the moments of brutality and allowed the hero a measure of sardonic celebration of his successes along the way.
All of that is still very much on the table with this casting. Yes, we've moved on from the Cold War era, during which a Black secret agent would have seemed unlikely ("But that's what makes me such a good one," as someone once said) But that's been written into the films since the Brosnan era. The game has moved on and passed Bond by. Surely that was not in keeping with Fleming's original aims and intentions, but now... We've introduced race and gender and suddenly people are up in arms. They were fine with the modern-day settings and attitudes, so long as everyone remained White. And male. This happens, and well, now we have to start calling into question all those things we took in stride throughout the Brosnan and Craig years.
Not because we hate diversity, of course, the critics protest, but because we love the property. Yet no one said anything about a modern setting until now.
Like DOCTOR WHO, the 007 franchise prepped us for this move by switching up long-established members of the supporting cast like "M" and the Master (Heyyy... waitaminnit!) and yet this, this is a bridge too far. Too far. A little social change around the edges is fine, throw the disenfranchised a bone now and again, what the hey. But give them the keys to the Tardis or the Aston Martin, and suddenly something must be said!
"Does this do justice to the concept of women achieving things on their own merit?" Well, now you've pissed me off. Why wouldn't it, Koroush? Why is it okay to hand over a multi-billion franchise to a guy but not to a woman? Why does she have to work harder? Find a different path to "earning it?" Why does he get to coast on the coattails of a massively successful franchise but the woman must stand aside and let him go by while she struggles in her low-budget indie world?
Would you buy Lashana Lynch in "Atomic Blonde 2: Not a Blonde" but insist she not be allowed on the 007 gravy train because, well... reasons? Until when? Ever? Can she never headline an established franchise? She has to build her own from scratch in order to play with the big boys? As far as the studio is concerned, she's right for this. Do they know anything at all about what they're doing? Or is there an "order to things" that this upsets?
She won the part. That's all it takes. Had it gone to, say, Henry Cavill, we might question his suitability for the part, but would we be asking if he's really earned it? Does it do his people a disservice to make things so easy for him, giving him a big role in a big franchise? Shouldn't he, y'know, struggle for us a bit more? Doesn't this encourage Cavill's type to be lazy and shiftless, as they are, simply giving them this undeserved prize? Just handing them something everyone else had to work for? Was there a quota? It's still a mixed bag of compromises and shared screen time with the guy who previously held the top spot. Maybe you can take a quantum of solace in that.
Edited by Brian Hague on 17 July 2019 at 6:54pm