Amazon takes control of Bond Franchise

[ZLoth]

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?

[Max Rockatansky]

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?

Had to get the plot back to the status quo.

[Rothman]

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.

Doing V.I. Warshawski right is how this would turn out.

[vdeane]

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?

Maybe she had second thoughts and chose to use the Ghost Protocol?

[kernals12]

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.

If it's a woman, it's fundamentally a different character.

[Scott5114]

If it's a woman, it's fundamentally a different character.

Only if you're a shit writer.

[kkt]

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?

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.

[kkt]

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?

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.
 

[oscar]

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.

"Diamonds Are Forever" had one scene with a very brief glimpse of bare breasts, where Bond pulls off a woman's bikini top.

[kphoger]

If it's a woman, it's fundamentally a different character.

Only if you're a shit writer.

Or maybe it's only not a fundamentally different character if you're an amazing writer.

[Scott5114]

If it's a woman, it's fundamentally a different character.

Only 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.

[kphoger]

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.

Sorry, I couldn't hear you over the nerd alert. 

[Scott5114]

Sorry, I couldn't hear you over the nerd alert. 

What, this one?

[vdeane]

If it's a woman, it's fundamentally a different character.

Only 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.

[kalvado]

If it's a woman, it's fundamentally a different character.

Only 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...

[Scott5114]

while you likely stayed under 10

lol

Oh, you sweet summer child...

[kphoger]

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.

[mgk920]

Now, will the next 'JAMES Bond' flick also pay homage to KCIII?

Mike

[english si]

Now, 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)

[kkt]

Now, 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.

[english si]

The 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).

The 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.

Cunard 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, Margaret and Jane are available, but dubious as to they Regnant status), I'd expect that we just get those 4 names recycled again and again.

[kkt]

"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.