OK, last night I watched the latest Bond movie. It was pretty good -- the best one in a while, IMO, with real emotional stakes -- but there was one choice in it that utterly baffled me. Maybe I missed something? Short thread.
When the movie begins, Bond is retired. He gets pulled back in (of course) & in the process meets ... the new 007! She's a young black woman, a total badass, & the highlight of the movie. Lots of zingy banter between her & Bond. Great stuff.
At that point I was thinking, "ah, sweet, they've elegantly solved the problem of who's going to take over for Daniel Craig. It works perfectly in the movie & she's a great choice." (I have not followed Bond discourse at all, obv.)
But then, in the last third of the movie, she ... asks her boss to give the "007" tag back to Bond! WTF. Why? It doesn't even make much sense in the context of the movie. And now, having googled around, I see everyone's back to discussing which *dude* should be Bond next.
I don't get it. Why introduce a new 007 -- an exciting choice that opens up all kinds of new possibilities & is guaranteed to get lots of attention -- and then ... undo it? Why flirt w/ the possibility of a non-white-dude choice, take all the "woke" heat for it, & then bail?
If they're just gonna give "007" to another suave womanizer dude (🥱), why include this subplot at all? Were they *going* to make her the new 007 & then changed their mind at the last minute? Why flirt w/ diversity & then reverse course so awkwardly? A baffling choice. </fin>
Never mind. God knows what horrors a female 007 would wreak.
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1463886950704820232
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
