Welp, we can add 007 (https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/movies/amazon-taking-control-james-bond-movie-franchise-rcna192967) to the list of franchises to be ruined (looking at you Star Wars).
Guess we can look forward to Bond affectionately referring to the film's love interest as "alive girl" and somehow getting to sleep with her anyway.
Packages shall be shaken not stirred.
Does Amazon ruin franchises like Disney does? I am honestly ignorant of whether they do or don't.
Quote from: SectorZ on February 21, 2025, 08:18:07 AMDoes Amazon ruin franchises like Disney does? I am honestly ignorant of whether they do or don't.
Rings of Power hasn't gotten good reviews. And as far as Bond as concerned, in discussions with Barbara Broccoli, Amazon executives said they wanted to do a whole bunch of spinoffs and one of them said "Bond isn't a hero".
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 21, 2025, 02:48:15 AMGuess we can look forward to Bond affectionately referring to the film's love interest as "alive girl" and somehow getting to sleep with her anyway.
Oh no, there won't be any more romance between Bond and any female characters. That would be upholding the Patriarchy. All the women 007 will come across will be stoic, overpowered girlbosses and if they show any romantic interest, it will be toward other women.
007 movies are a mixed bag anyways. There are a handful that are really good while most are just okay.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 21, 2025, 08:42:26 AMOh no, there won't be any more romance between Bond and any female characters. That would be upholding the Patriarchy. All the women 007 will come across will be stoic, overpowered girlbosses and if they show any romantic interest, it will be toward other women.
While the very last part of that probably won't end up being true, I strongly suspect the rest of it will.
The days of calling a movie Octopussy are long gone.
The differences between the 007 movies and 007 books are so great that they might as well exist in two different universes, not to mention that they are products of their respective times. In some cases, the only thing shared between the book and the movie is the title and maybe a character or three.
Disney has been terrible for Doctor Who. Although the party line has been that Disney would only act as a distributor, their behind-closed-doors influence on the show is as obvious as the Russian-sourced polonium that sometimes pops up in journalist's beverages...
Quote from: kphoger on February 21, 2025, 09:16:23 AMQuote from: kernals12 on February 21, 2025, 08:42:26 AMOh no, there won't be any more romance between Bond and any female characters. That would be upholding the Patriarchy. All the women 007 will come across will be stoic, overpowered girlbosses and if they show any romantic interest, it will be toward other women.
While the very last part of that probably won't end up being true, I strongly suspect the rest of it will.
The days of calling a movie Octopussy are long gone.
That's where I thought things were going when I saw Ana de Armas in the trailers for No Time to Die. I guess to an extent that was true in the movie, but her role wasn't nearly as big as the trailers suggested. Then again who am I to complain about a movie with her in the cast? Fair chance I'll be seeing the next John Wick movie (be it good or bad) because she is in it.
Wait...another John Wick movie is coming out? His survival after falling of the Cosmopolitan was unbelievable enough, let alone after how the last movie ended...
Quote from: Rothman on February 21, 2025, 09:39:27 AMWait...another John Wick movie is coming out? His survival after falling of the Cosmopolitan was unbelievable enough, let alone after how the last movie ended...
Apparently a side story of some kind. Set between John Wick 3 and 4:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_World_of_John_Wick:_Ballerina
Quote from: Rothman on February 21, 2025, 09:29:50 AMDisney has been terrible for Doctor Who. Although the party line has been that Disney would only act as a distributor, their behind-closed-doors influence on the show is as obvious as the Russian-sourced polonium that sometimes pops up in journalist's beverages...
I think the word that you are looking for that is affecting not only the entertainment industry but other industries as well is "enshittification" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification).
Quote from: kphoger on February 21, 2025, 09:16:23 AMQuote from: kernals12 on February 21, 2025, 08:42:26 AMOh no, there won't be any more romance between Bond and any female characters. That would be upholding the Patriarchy. All the women 007 will come across will be stoic, overpowered girlbosses and if they show any romantic interest, it will be toward other women.
While the very last part of that probably won't end up being true, I strongly suspect the rest of it will.
The days of calling a movie Octopussy are long gone.
I watched For Your Eyes Only a few months ago, and man are there some cringe-worthy parts of that moview when it comes to the "romance." The 70s and 80s were very horny times.
That being said, there were very powerful female figures in many of the 007 films.
Why would any girl accept James Bond if she knows she won't last?
Especially with 007's alcohol consumption.
From BBC (published 13 December 2013):
James Bond is an 'impotent drunk'QuoteVodka martini, "shaken not stirred" - often said as part of a bad Sean Connery impersonation - is one of the most quotable lines from Bond.
Yet Her Majesty's top secret agent's love of the bottle would leave him impotent and at death's door.
Doctors analysing the Ian Fleming novels show James Bond polishes off the equivalent of one and a half bottles of wine every day.
FULL ARTICLE HERE (https://www.bbc.com/news/health-25349738)
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 21, 2025, 09:52:46 AMI watched For Your Eyes Only a few months ago, and man are there some cringe-worthy parts of that movie when it comes to the "romance." The 70s and 80s were very horny times.
I'm glad you put "romance" in quotes. A romantic Bond is not.
Quote from: hotdogPi on February 21, 2025, 09:57:06 AMWhy would any girl accept James Bond if she knows she won't last?
I don't know? Because...
Quote from: EurythmicsSweet dreams are made of this.
Who am I to disagree?
I've traveled the world and the seven seas:
Everybody's lookin' for something.
Some of them want to use you;
Some of them want to get used by you.
Some of them want to abuse you;
Some of them want to be abused.
... ?
Then again, we might as well ask how we're to believe any female character would be sexually attracted to Woody Allen.
Quote from: hotdogPi on February 21, 2025, 09:57:06 AMWhy would any girl accept James Bond if she knows she won't last?
Women don't mind one night stands either?
Quote from: ZLoth on February 21, 2025, 10:01:53 AMQuoteDoctors analysing the Ian Fleming novels show James Bond polishes off the equivalent of one and a half bottles of wine every day.
It's said that the average ancient Roman citizen consumed a liter of wine every day. However, it was typically diluted to anywhere from 1:1 to 3:1, water:wine.
I have a beef with how Bond is mocked as a womanizer. I guess slut shaming is okay when it's done to men.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 21, 2025, 10:17:25 AMI have a beef with how Bond is mocked as a womanizer. I guess slut shaming is okay when it's done to men.
Who is mocking him as a womanizer? If that's what he wants, and the women are consenting, that's fine by me.
It's just cringe-worthy IMO. But that was very commonplace in the era in which the films were made.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 21, 2025, 10:25:32 AMQuote from: kernals12 on February 21, 2025, 10:17:25 AMI have a beef with how Bond is mocked as a womanizer. I guess slut shaming is okay when it's done to men.
Who is mocking him as a womanizer? If that's what he wants, and the women are consenting, that's fine by me.
It's just cringe-worthy IMO. But that was very commonplace in the era in which the films were made.
And some of his pickups in the novels were even sillier than the movies.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 21, 2025, 10:17:25 AMI have a beef with how Bond is mocked as a womanizer. I guess slut shaming is okay when it's done to men.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 21, 2025, 10:25:32 AMWho is mocking him as a womanizer?
That's what I was wondering too. But I just figured I was out of the loop and social media was abuzz with Bond-mocking or something.
Quote from: kphoger on February 21, 2025, 10:33:10 AMQuote from: kernals12 on February 21, 2025, 10:17:25 AMI have a beef with how Bond is mocked as a womanizer. I guess slut shaming is okay when it's done to men.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 21, 2025, 10:25:32 AMWho is mocking him as a womanizer?
That's what I was wondering too. But I just figured I was out of the loop and social media was abuzz with Bond-mocking or something.
There isn't much in the way of Bond-shaming I've seen on normal social media. If one digs into the dark recesses of the Internet they can find stylized shaming for everything.
Quote from: kphoger on February 21, 2025, 10:33:10 AMQuote from: kernals12 on February 21, 2025, 10:17:25 AMI have a beef with how Bond is mocked as a womanizer. I guess slut shaming is okay when it's done to men.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 21, 2025, 10:25:32 AMWho is mocking him as a womanizer?
That's what I was wondering too. But I just figured I was out of the loop and social media was abuzz with Bond-mocking or something.
Have you not seen Goldeneye?
Quote from: kernals12 on February 21, 2025, 10:37:22 AMQuote from: kphoger on February 21, 2025, 10:33:10 AMQuote from: kernals12 on February 21, 2025, 10:17:25 AMI have a beef with how Bond is mocked as a womanizer. I guess slut shaming is okay when it's done to men.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 21, 2025, 10:25:32 AMWho is mocking him as a womanizer?
That's what I was wondering too. But I just figured I was out of the loop and social media was abuzz with Bond-mocking or something.
Have you not seen Goldeneye?
Since when is Goldeneye modern? That movie came out in 1995.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 21, 2025, 10:17:25 AMI have a beef with how Bond is mocked as a womanizer. I guess slut shaming is okay when it's done to men.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 21, 2025, 10:25:32 AMWho is mocking him as a womanizer?
Quote from: kphoger on February 21, 2025, 10:33:10 AMThat's what I was wondering too. But I just figured I was out of the loop and social media was abuzz with Bond-mocking or something.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 21, 2025, 10:37:22 AMHave you not seen Goldeneye?
Yes, I've seen it. What does that have to do with the question? Was there a character in
Goldeneye that mocked James Bond for being a womanizer, and is that character still doing so today? If not, then I reiterate: Who is mocking him as a womanizer? Seems like it's just you.
Quote from: kphoger on February 21, 2025, 10:42:42 AMQuote from: kernals12 on February 21, 2025, 10:17:25 AMI have a beef with how Bond is mocked as a womanizer. I guess slut shaming is okay when it's done to men.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 21, 2025, 10:25:32 AMWho is mocking him as a womanizer?
Quote from: kphoger on February 21, 2025, 10:33:10 AMThat's what I was wondering too. But I just figured I was out of the loop and social media was abuzz with Bond-mocking or something.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 21, 2025, 10:37:22 AMHave you not seen Goldeneye?
Yes, I've seen it. What does that have to do with the question? Was there a character in Goldeneye that mocked James Bond for being a womanizer, and is that character still doing so today? If not, then I reiterate: Who is mocking him as a womanizer? Seems like it's just you.
Oh come on, Xenia Onatopp was the main female villain in GoldenEye. She literally gets off by killing dudes and being killed by Bond.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 21, 2025, 10:59:10 AMOh come on, Xenia Onatopp was the main female villain in GoldenEye. She literally gets off by killing dudes and being killed by Bond.
She was not a villain, she was a henchwoman.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 21, 2025, 11:05:03 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on February 21, 2025, 10:59:10 AMOh come on, Xenia Onatopp was the main female villain in GoldenEye. She literally gets off by killing dudes and being killed by Bond.
She was not a villain, she was a henchwoman.
She always did enjoy a good squeeze.
Which one was the one that wanted Bond to sign a statement that she was the best?
Quote from: Rothman on February 21, 2025, 11:15:36 AMWhich one was the one that wanted Bond to sign a statement that she was the best?
Fatima Blush from Never Say Never Again
Looking at the British fans' reaction to this, it's the mixed thing that there's zero faith in Amazon to deliver, but also the problem that the franchise doesn't work in the current year due to what was called 'enshittification' upthread - and despite Barbara Broccoli holding a lot of studio pressures back that we still ended up with the late Craig-era and
No Time to Die. So the view ends up as a shrug that it's hard for Amazon to be worse.
Quote from: Rothman on February 21, 2025, 09:29:50 AMDisney has been terrible for Doctor Who. Although the party line has been that Disney would only act as a distributor, their behind-closed-doors influence on the show is as obvious as the Russian-sourced polonium that sometimes pops up in journalist's beverages...
I take it you are unfamiliar with Auntie Beeb. Disney was not necessary for the downfall of Who. It's not mentioned at all in UK discourse about why the series declined.
Quote from: english si on February 21, 2025, 11:37:18 AMLooking at the British fans' reaction to this, it's the mixed thing that there's zero faith in Amazon to deliver, but also the problem that the franchise doesn't work in the current year due to what was called 'enshittification' upthread - and despite Barbara Broccoli holding a lot of studio pressures back that we still ended up with the late Craig-era and No Time to Die. So the view ends up as a shrug that it's hard for Amazon to be worse.
Quote from: Rothman on February 21, 2025, 09:29:50 AMDisney has been terrible for Doctor Who. Although the party line has been that Disney would only act as a distributor, their behind-closed-doors influence on the show is as obvious as the Russian-sourced polonium that sometimes pops up in journalist's beverages...
I take it you are unfamiliar with Auntie Beeb. Disney was not necessary for the downfall of Who. It's not mentioned at all in UK discourse about why the series declined.
I find a decent number of British fans are deluded by the simple BBC line that they retained creative control in their agreement.
A tip of the hat to the old East India Company and the legacy of British capitalism, but, for those of us who have lived close to the Mouse's cutthroatness and see Disney Channel sitcom influences and fingerprints all over the Gatwa Era, those Brit fans come across as ridiculously naive when it comes to American savagery in our take on the economic system.
To think Disney would not care about the content it is distributing under its banner and not use its sole global distribution rights as leverage is first-grade level innocence. Rumors are already circulating that Disney is disappointed in the ratings and may pull out of the arrangement...which, please, let it happen even if it means another decade-long-plus hiatus.
Quote from: Rothman on February 21, 2025, 01:34:36 PMA tip of the hat to the old East India Company and the legacy of British capitalism, but, for those of us who have lived close to the Mouse's cutthroatness and see Disney Channel sitcom influences and fingerprints all over the Gatwa Era, those Brit fans come across as ridiculously naive when it comes to American savagery in our take on the economic system.
Doctor Who was in decline well before Disney took over.
- I would not put Amazon anywhere near the catagory of Disney in terms of ruining "franchise" series. Corporate spies sent from a rival could not do more harm to Disney than it has via its self-inflicted wounds.
- Bond has been up and down for years. A new start requires a new actor with the unique ability to pull off the character.
- The one way to ruin Bond, would be to dial back on the lifestyle Bond lives. He drinks and he chases women. If you want to make a picture different than that, have at it. Don't call it Bond.
Quote from: SP Cook on February 21, 2025, 02:40:07 PM- I would not put Amazon anywhere near the catagory of Disney in terms of ruining "franchise" series. Corporate spies sent from a rival could not do more harm to Disney than it has via its self-inflicted wounds.
- Bond has been up and down for years. A new start requires a new actor with the unique ability to pull off the character.
- The one way to ruin Bond, would be to dial back on the lifestyle Bond lives. He drinks and he chases women. If you want to make a picture different than that, have at it. Don't call it Bond.
I wouldn't be so sure. Look at what they did with Rings of Power. If they can make orcs into sympathetic characters, they can definitely take away James Bond's libido
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 21, 2025, 10:28:21 AMAnd some of his pickups in the novels were even sillier than the movies.
But were they sillier than "alive girl"?
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 21, 2025, 02:56:38 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on February 21, 2025, 10:28:21 AMAnd some of his pickups in the novels were even sillier than the movies.
Sillier than "alive girl"?
I dunno now, I had forgotten about the third nipple scene from The Man With The Golden Gun before I wrote that.
Quote from: Rothman on February 21, 2025, 01:34:36 PMI find a decent number of British fans are deluded by the simple BBC line that they retained creative control in their agreement.
No, you are deluded that only The Mouse™ is terrible. Auntie is too* - its other output, even with no involvement of Disney has seen similar problems that have infected Disney. The British fans are much more informed about the BBC than you will be.
*And to use a classic BBCism: "other media companies with crapified content are available".
Quote from: english si on February 21, 2025, 03:35:19 PMQuote from: Rothman on February 21, 2025, 01:34:36 PMI find a decent number of British fans are deluded by the simple BBC line that they retained creative control in their agreement.
No, you are deluded that only The Mouse™ is terrible. Auntie is too* - its other output, even with no involvement of Disney has seen similar problems that have infected Disney. The British fans are much more informed about the BBC than you will be.
*And to use a classic BBCism: "other media companies with crapified content are available".
Heh. Not really. There's little question Chibnall tanked the series, but the idea was that bringing back RTD would resurrect it. I think that things could have turned out somewhat better had Disney not been involved,
So, of course both are to blame. Defenders of even the crud that's being pumped out now claim Disney hasn't had an influence.
I half-expect the next episodes to have laugh tracks...
Just read this. Tick, tock, tick, tock. James Bond enters the public domain in 2035 in the USA and Europe (already is in Canada, which uses a different measure). At best Amazon might get off three movies before anyone can make one.
Quote from: SP Cook on February 22, 2025, 09:35:19 AMJust read this. Tick, tock, tick, tock. James Bond enters the public domain in 2035 in the USA and Europe (already is in Canada, which uses a different measure). At best Amazon might get off three movies before anyone can make one.
Then again, given how
Never Say Never Again turned out, who's to say any public-domain Bond would be any better?
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 22, 2025, 10:17:35 AMQuote from: SP Cook on February 22, 2025, 09:35:19 AMJust read this. Tick, tock, tick, tock. James Bond enters the public domain in 2035 in the USA and Europe (already is in Canada, which uses a different measure). At best Amazon might get off three movies before anyone can make one.
Then again, given how Never Say Never Again turned out, who's to say any public-domain Bond would be any better?
Said film has some of the best weird Bond moments. If something isn't going to be all that good the least it can be is memorably strange or campy.
Quote from: hotdogPi on February 21, 2025, 09:57:06 AMWhy would any girl accept James Bond if she knows she won't last?
cause it'll be fun for a while anyway?
Quote from: kernals12 on February 21, 2025, 11:26:40 AMQuote from: Rothman on February 21, 2025, 11:15:36 AMWhich one was the one that wanted Bond to sign a statement that she was the best?
Fatima Blush from Never Say Never Again
Wow. I think I saw that once in the theatre when it came out, but it's very hard to find on any home media. I remember being surprised to see bare breasts in a Bond flick.
Quote from: kkt on February 22, 2025, 05:40:17 PMQuote from: hotdogPi on February 21, 2025, 09:57:06 AMWhy would any girl accept James Bond if she knows she won't last?
cause it'll be fun for a while anyway?
Quite a few people don't want to be in a committed relationship.
Quote from: kkt on February 22, 2025, 05:45:25 PMQuote from: kernals12 on February 21, 2025, 11:26:40 AMQuote from: Rothman on February 21, 2025, 11:15:36 AMWhich one was the one that wanted Bond to sign a statement that she was the best?
Fatima Blush from Never Say Never Again
Wow. I think I saw that once in the theatre when it came out, but it's very hard to find on any home media. I remember being surprised to see bare breasts in a Bond flick.
Don't believe that one had outright nudity in it. Dr. No very briefly did.
As far as Amazon, maybe. It's certainly better than Disney would be.
Judi Dench was a great M, I'm sorry she's not playing that role any more.
I would not be opposed to trying a female Bond - but she'd have to have the same enthusiasm for sex and booze and Aston Martins as James, and also great shot, athletic, knowledgable, etc. etc. I picture a personality a lot like Faith in Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Is everyone forgetting On Her Majesty's Secret Service in which James Bond actually married Teresa "Tracy" di Vicenzo, only for Tracy to be gunned down by Blofeld?
Quote from: ZLoth on February 22, 2025, 08:34:53 PMIs everyone forgetting On Her Majesty's Secret Service in which James Bond actually married Teresa "Tracy" di Vicenzo, only for Tracy to be gunned down by Blofeld?
Had to get the plot back to the status quo.
Quote from: kkt on February 22, 2025, 07:58:55 PMAs far as Amazon, maybe. It's certainly better than Disney would be.
Judi Dench was a great M, I'm sorry she's not playing that role any more.
I would not be opposed to trying a female Bond - but she'd have to have the same enthusiasm for sex and booze and Aston Martins as James, and also great shot, athletic, knowledgable, etc. etc. I picture a personality a lot like Faith in Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Doing V.I. Warshawski right is how this would turn out.
Quote from: ZLoth on February 22, 2025, 08:34:53 PMIs everyone forgetting On Her Majesty's Secret Service in which James Bond actually married Teresa "Tracy" di Vicenzo, only for Tracy to be gunned down by Blofeld?
Maybe she had second thoughts and chose to use the Ghost Protocol?
Quote from: kkt on February 22, 2025, 07:58:55 PMAs far as Amazon, maybe. It's certainly better than Disney would be.
Judi Dench was a great M, I'm sorry she's not playing that role any more.
I would not be opposed to trying a female Bond - but she'd have to have the same enthusiasm for sex and booze and Aston Martins as James, and also great shot, athletic, knowledgable, etc. etc. I picture a personality a lot like Faith in Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
If it's a woman, it's fundamentally a different character.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 22, 2025, 11:28:20 PMIf it's a woman, it's fundamentally a different character.
Only if you're a shit writer.
Quote from: ZLoth on February 22, 2025, 08:34:53 PMIs everyone forgetting On Her Majesty's Secret Service in which James Bond actually married Teresa "Tracy" di Vicenzo, only for Tracy to be gunned down by Blofeld?
I liked that one! Though a lot of fans don't. If I remember right, in that movie Bond only slept with one woman other than Tracy, which is probably a record low.
Quote from: vdeane on February 22, 2025, 11:20:33 PMQuote from: ZLoth on February 22, 2025, 08:34:53 PMIs everyone forgetting On Her Majesty's Secret Service in which James Bond actually married Teresa "Tracy" di Vicenzo, only for Tracy to be gunned down by Blofeld?
Maybe she had second thoughts and chose to use the Ghost Protocol?
Bond was with her when she get shot. He knew she was dead.
Quote from: Rothman on February 22, 2025, 06:06:32 PMQuote from: kkt on February 22, 2025, 05:45:25 PMWow. I think I saw that once in the theatre when it came out, but it's very hard to find on any home media. I remember being surprised to see bare breasts in a Bond flick.
Don't believe that one had outright nudity in it. Dr. No very briefly did.
"Diamonds Are Forever" had one scene with a very brief glimpse of bare breasts, where Bond pulls off a woman's bikini top.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 22, 2025, 11:28:20 PMIf it's a woman, it's fundamentally a different character.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 23, 2025, 01:11:36 AMOnly if you're a shit writer.
Or maybe it's only
not a fundamentally different character if you're an
amazing writer.
Quote from: kphoger on February 24, 2025, 10:28:43 AMQuote from: kernals12 on February 22, 2025, 11:28:20 PMIf it's a woman, it's fundamentally a different character.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 23, 2025, 01:11:36 AMOnly if you're a shit writer.
Or maybe it's only not a fundamentally different character if you're an amazing writer.
I dunno about that.
Sometimes my D&D group used to have thought-experiment conversations where we'd imagine how the characters we'd created would have turned out if one major element of their backstory had changed. Say, if they'd grown up in a different city, or a mentor figure was present or absent, or whatever. Sometimes this would result in huge changes to the character (one example went from being a druid to being a barbarian—which implies a total rewrite of her game statistics—because of the absence of the mentor that taught her druidic magic), but the overriding challenge was figuring out how to do it in such a way that you could still look at the radically-changed character and still be able to say who it was. The other fundamental things that made them
them still had to be there.
And, yeah, gender is something we played with pretty often for that. For some characters, growing up as a girl instead of a boy or vice versa changed their personality and outlook on life a lot. Others, not so much. But in all cases we were able to still say "This is Ivy, but if she were a boy" rather than coming out with a "fundamentally different character". Because, well, gender is just one of the multitudes of puzzle pieces that make someone who they are.
So either this is something that is within the grasp of a perfectly ordinary D&D group, or we're all just
that amazing, and the likes of Brennan Lee Mulligan and Matt Mercer can't hold a candle to us. I like to think we do a pretty good job with our writing and character design, but I don't think we're quite
that good.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 24, 2025, 03:07:24 PMI dunno about that.
Sometimes my D&D group used to have thought-experiment conversations where we'd imagine how the characters we'd created would have turned out if one major element of their backstory had changed. Say, if they'd grown up in a different city, or a mentor figure was present or absent, or whatever. Sometimes this would result in huge changes to the character (one example went from being a druid to being a barbarian—which implies a total rewrite of her game statistics—because of the absence of the mentor that taught her druidic magic), but the overriding challenge was figuring out how to do it in such a way that you could still look at the radically-changed character and still be able to say who it was. The other fundamental things that made them them still had to be there.
And, yeah, gender is something we played with pretty often for that. For some characters, growing up as a girl instead of a boy or vice versa changed their personality and outlook on life a lot. Others, not so much. But in all cases we were able to still say "This is Ivy, but if she were a boy" rather than coming out with a "fundamentally different character". Because, well, gender is just one of the multitudes of puzzle pieces that make someone who they are.
So either this is something that is within the grasp of a perfectly ordinary D&D group, or we're all just that amazing, and the likes of Brennan Lee Mulligan and Matt Mercer can't hold a candle to us. I like to think we do a pretty good job with our writing and character design, but I don't think we're quite that good.
Sorry, I couldn't hear you over the nerd alert. :)
Quote from: kphoger on February 24, 2025, 04:07:32 PMSorry, I couldn't hear you over the nerd alert. :)
What, this one?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/default/aards.png)
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 24, 2025, 03:07:24 PMQuote from: kphoger on February 24, 2025, 10:28:43 AMQuote from: kernals12 on February 22, 2025, 11:28:20 PMIf it's a woman, it's fundamentally a different character.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 23, 2025, 01:11:36 AMOnly if you're a shit writer.
Or maybe it's only not a fundamentally different character if you're an amazing writer.
I dunno about that.
Sometimes my D&D group used to have thought-experiment conversations where we'd imagine how the characters we'd created would have turned out if one major element of their backstory had changed. Say, if they'd grown up in a different city, or a mentor figure was present or absent, or whatever. Sometimes this would result in huge changes to the character (one example went from being a druid to being a barbarian—which implies a total rewrite of her game statistics—because of the absence of the mentor that taught her druidic magic), but the overriding challenge was figuring out how to do it in such a way that you could still look at the radically-changed character and still be able to say who it was. The other fundamental things that made them them still had to be there.
And, yeah, gender is something we played with pretty often for that. For some characters, growing up as a girl instead of a boy or vice versa changed their personality and outlook on life a lot. Others, not so much. But in all cases we were able to still say "This is Ivy, but if she were a boy" rather than coming out with a "fundamentally different character". Because, well, gender is just one of the multitudes of puzzle pieces that make someone who they are.
So either this is something that is within the grasp of a perfectly ordinary D&D group, or we're all just that amazing, and the likes of Brennan Lee Mulligan and Matt Mercer can't hold a candle to us. I like to think we do a pretty good job with our writing and character design, but I don't think we're quite that good.
This is one thing that bothers me about fan fiction a lot. It's very frequent that someone will come up with an interesting premise where some detail of canon is changed... and then proceed to write everything exactly the same as canon, even when they have to shoehorn things to fit. Or the reverse, where they start changing other things even if those things are unrelated and there isn't a credible plot thread that would have resulted in the change. Plotting out the butterfly effect so that changes cascade out logically without going off the rails (or at least giving the appearance of doing so; I can think of a couple where I noticed on a re-read that they skewed closer to the stations of canon than I had initially believed) is certainly a skill that few posses.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 24, 2025, 03:07:24 PMQuote from: kphoger on February 24, 2025, 10:28:43 AMQuote from: kernals12 on February 22, 2025, 11:28:20 PMIf it's a woman, it's fundamentally a different character.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 23, 2025, 01:11:36 AMOnly if you're a shit writer.
Or maybe it's only not a fundamentally different character if you're an amazing writer.
I dunno about that.
Sometimes my D&D group used to have thought-experiment conversations where we'd imagine how the characters we'd created would have turned out if one major element of their backstory had changed. Say, if they'd grown up in a different city, or a mentor figure was present or absent, or whatever. Sometimes this would result in huge changes to the character (one example went from being a druid to being a barbarian—which implies a total rewrite of her game statistics—because of the absence of the mentor that taught her druidic magic), but the overriding challenge was figuring out how to do it in such a way that you could still look at the radically-changed character and still be able to say who it was. The other fundamental things that made them them still had to be there.
And, yeah, gender is something we played with pretty often for that. For some characters, growing up as a girl instead of a boy or vice versa changed their personality and outlook on life a lot. Others, not so much. But in all cases we were able to still say "This is Ivy, but if she were a boy" rather than coming out with a "fundamentally different character". Because, well, gender is just one of the multitudes of puzzle pieces that make someone who they are.
So either this is something that is within the grasp of a perfectly ordinary D&D group, or we're all just that amazing, and the likes of Brennan Lee Mulligan and Matt Mercer can't hold a candle to us. I like to think we do a pretty good job with our writing and character design, but I don't think we're quite that good.
It could be that way because you wanted those stories to converge, maybe?
Slightly different aspect, but there are stories of identical twins (same sex, of course) separated early in life. Looks like predefined personality is a strong enough factor to yield similar human characters in different environments.
Yet another thing specifically for original Bond case, is to make scenario that would be organic enough to be fun to watch, while maintaining recognizeable features of original character. That would require much more detailed work than what you would do with a game character. That scenario would be hundreds pages, while you likely stayed under 10...
Quote from: kalvado on February 25, 2025, 06:35:02 AMwhile you likely stayed under 10
lol
Oh, you sweet summer child...
Thanks to this thread, I exposed the boys to their first James Bond movie last week. I came up with a short list of the ones I thought kids might stay engaged watching. Went with The Spy Who Loved Me.
Now, will the next 'JAMES Bond' flick also pay homage to KCIII?
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on March 11, 2025, 01:26:33 PMNow, will the next 'JAMES Bond' flick also pay homage to KCIII?
Chances of it being a gender-swapped remake called 'On His Majesty's Secret Service' must be non-zero. But it would be JANE Bond then :)
(and it should surely be KC3, like QE2 - though that comes from the boat named after the boat named after QEQM)
Quote from: english si on March 11, 2025, 01:43:48 PMQuote from: mgk920 on March 11, 2025, 01:26:33 PMNow, will the next 'JAMES Bond' flick also pay homage to KCIII?
Chances of it being a gender-swapped remake called 'On His Majesty's Secret Service' must be non-zero. But it would be JANE Bond then :)
(and it should surely be KC3, like QE2 - though that comes from the boat named after the boat named after QEQM)
The 1969 liner QE2 is the second ship named after Queen Elizabeth, the wife of King George VI and mother of Queen Elizabeth II. The liner Queen Elizabeth launched 1939 was still in service in 1969, so the QE2 had to have the 2 attached.
The Queen Mary launched 1936 was named after Queen Mary, the wife of King George V. The Queen Mary 2 launched 2004 is named after the 1936 Queen Mary.
Cunard seems pretty determined to name their liners after queens consort or after previous ships. Perhaps their next liner will be Queen Camilla.
Quote from: kkt on April 13, 2025, 04:22:51 AMThe 1969 liner QE2 is the second ship named after Queen Elizabeth, the wife of King George VI and mother of Queen Elizabeth II.
That's what I said (wrongly, see below): it was named after the boat named after QEQM (though, sure, she was just QE then).
QuoteThe liner Queen Elizabeth launched 1939 was still in service in 1969, so the QE2 had to have the 2 attached.
A year off either side (per wikipedia) 1938-68, and the QE2 was to be QE without those two sharing. But Lizzy Two named it QE2 and so that was that.
And because QE2 put the two in, it was considered to be named after herself, rather than her mother as planned.
QuoteCunard seems pretty determined to name their liners after queens consort or after previous ships. Perhaps their next liner will be Queen Camilla.
The Queen Mary was meant to be named after Queen Victoria (as Cunard had an -ia naming convention: Brittania, Arabia, Aquitania, Mauritania, Lusetania, Carinthia, etc) and when representatives asked King George V permission to name it after "Britain's greatest queen", he said his wife would be delighted. Another ship already had the name they were forced by politeness to give it and so that one had to be renamed QM2 (it had gone by the time the Queen Mary went off to Long Beach, and so the replacement could be QM2 in 2004, per the 1969 Elizabethan convention that they then dropped in 2010 with a return to QE)!
They got a ship with that name over 70 years later - I saw the fireworks for the launch of the Queen Victoria (never been a consort with that name).
And they've got a new Queen Elizabeth (not called QE3) as well (named correctly after the first boat).
They've recently (last year) launched Queen Anne (explicitly after the last monarch of England / first monarch of Great Britain, rather than her great-grandmother, or the three earlier consorts of England with that name).
The other two names for Queens Regnant of England/Scotland/GB/UK are Mary and Elizabeth, and they have ships with those names - though those boats are named after the first boats with that name (after consorts).
Unless they need a fifth name (Matilda (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empress_Matilda), Margaret (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret,_Maid_of_Norway) and Jane (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Jane_Grey) are available, but dubious as to they Regnant status), I'd expect that we just get those 4 names recycled again and again.
"Britain's greatest queen" is so subject to interpretation! If the story about Cunard representives asking George V in those words is true, it serves Cunard right that he misunderstood.