This discussion is burying the lede, sadly, which is that Pheobe Waller-Bridge is a writer on the new Bond movie. **Pheobe Fucking Waller-Bridge. ** She’s one of the most brilliant writers (and actors) working in television right now and is on an amazing hot streak. I can’t WAIT to see her take on Bond. Just take my money right now.
I hesitate to jump into the quagmire, but I think I can speak for Banquet Bear by clarifying:
He claims that, compared to other franchise movies (like Star Trek), Ghostbusters wasn’t statistically a meaningful “flop”. Its cost and income are comparable.
So, to claim that it was a “flop” or obviously would have been bigger if only the cast wasn’t all women is a totally unfounded statement.
I would guess there are nine, tops, unless they get into quadruple digits.
Although maybe there’s a 000 who has a license to commit mass murder.
The problem is, those things actually exist. Bond films (and similar) should have things that don’t exist. Remember the laser in Goldfinger? The most powerful laser on the planet at that time could be blocked with a piece of paper. It was all in the screenwriter’s head. I know, this is off-topic. But what is the point of Star Wars if you could get an R2D2 from Radio Shack? People want to see on screen what they can’t see in real life.
Agent 014 might not have had a LTK, but he was “twice as good as 007”.
I was gonna say. Sheesh.
Yes!
hold up… certainly some traditions are worth saving, aren’t they?
You mean a *g-g-g-girl *is writing James Bond?
What are some other things that Pheobe Waller-Bridge has written, so we can compare?
I’ll admit, I don’t usually pay much attention to the writers for TV shows and movies.
Fleabag, Killing Eve
At least, that is his line to the barflys at the Airport Ramada bar at last call.
Gosh, I thought you meant David Mitchell the writer of whom I’m doing a reading blitz (heh) right now.
Fleabag, which is about as far from James Bond as you can possibly get, but is one of my top 3 shows of the last 5 years, if not my favorite. It’s hard to get how amazing it is in clip form, but here’s a trailer.
Killing Eve is spy/action-oriented and would give you a better idea of what she might do with Bond.
She also has an earlier series on the BBC called Crashing, which I have not yet seen.
I just have to mention that my previous passport number ended in -007. I got a lot of mileage out of it. When asked my number, I always recited it as double-oh-seven instead of oh-oh-seven while raising one eyebrow, especially if it was an airline agent or other official who was giving me trouble. 
Unfortunately that one expired and my present one is completely prosaic.
I’m not sure I’m parsing this bit correctly, but in Hollywood terms, a movie’s break-even point is if the domestic box office is double the budget. Both Ghostbusters and Star Trek failed to even match the budget with domestic box office, much less double it, so they are both pretty severe flops.
This statement is conjecture, though I happen to agree with it. (I personally kind of liked the movie, and the women were fine.) I think the argument went something like “Gamergate demonstrated the depths of nerd culture misogyny, and nerd culture is the target audience for Ghostbusters. If the cast were guys all those trolls who stayed home would have gone to see it.”
Even IF that were true – which I seriously doubt – nerds have consistently demonstrated to Hollywood that they will NOT come out in force to support a movie, even if they go on to be beloved movies like Kick-Ass (under-performed) or Scott Pilgrim (massive flop).
Going with the most charitable reading of Banquet Bear’s point: “How come we don’t hear people saying how terrible Star Trek is in unrelated threads, and gnashing of teeth about how badly it flopped?” As someone else already answered: We do! I’ve seen countless drive-by shitting on JJ’s star Trek movies in unrelated threads on the dope for years.
So if that was the point, it isn’t a stupid point (so apologies for that), but it is wrong.
…they both weren’t “severe flops.” By Hollywood standards they were run-of-the-mill flops. Star Trek Beyond was such a " run-of-the-mill flop" that most people don’t even associate the movie with the word “flop.” Both movies made over their production budget when you add the foreign box-office, add in streaming, merchandising, a bit of creative hollywood accounting, and all the other revenue streams and both movies didn’t lose money.
Who made that argument?
And WTF does this have to do with anything I said?
To understand my point it has to be read in the context of the post I replied too.
And we don’t see “countless drive-by shitting on JJ’s star Trek movies” to the same degree as we see the shitting on the Ghostbusters movie. It simply doesn’t happen.
It was an aside. A **tangental **point made to point out the ridiculousness of the original post I was replying too. People **don’t **jump into threads to point out that the all-male remake was a “box office flop.” The post I was replying too was both (using your words) stupid, and wrong. But you aren’t arguing with them, you are arguing with me. Why are you being selective with whom you argue with?
You might consider that how to measure success, but that’s not how Hollywood bean counters do it. Double the production budget in domestic box office is the baseline for a “success.” Well under half of that is a flop.
Alrighty then, here’s the original context:
And here’s my restating of that:
“How come we don’t hear people saying how terrible Star Trek is in unrelated threads, and gnashing of teeth about how badly it flopped?” As someone else already answered: We do! I’ve seen countless drive-by shitting on JJ’s star Trek movies in unrelated threads on the dope for years.
How is my paraphrasing of your post wrong?
Yes, we do. I have actually seen more drive-by shitting on of Star Trek than Ghostbusters. Maybe you don’t spend much time in Cafe Society? I’m all over this forum, and you aren’t one of the names I see very much here. And when I do see you in CS threads, it’s usually “SJW” threads like this one as opposed to fan discussions of shows and movies.
And no I’m not sucking up to the P.C. Police. They can go suck it. 
Think about it. In the Universe in which the 00 System exists, the numbers are assigned to different people. Agents die. ( They don’t retire. Just ask Jason Bourne. Whoops, wrong Universe )
I honestly do think it’s brilliant. If MI5 wants their spies to be able to spread across the planet, they need to NOT all look like they’re members of cast of Boondock Saints.
I have a friend. In real life, I might add. She stands a mighty mighty 5 foot 2" tall. She’s quite slender. She also made 1st Level Black in Brazillian Ju Jitsu. Do I fear her? Nah, she’s a pal. SHOULD I? Well, were I a bad person, yeah.
This idea that action heroes all have to look like a certain physical type is about as logical as insisting that only Men can do research into Radiation. ( Ring, Ring, phone call for Marie Curie )
It’s brilliant because it means anyone can be a 00.
Who will they know to look for now?
P = 16
R = 18
0 = 15
S = 19
A = 1
I = 9
C = 3
Now we know your Passport Number !!!
16181519193
Of course Bond would call (male) M “Sir”, just as he did in all the books. It’s a hallmark of the traditional Bond from an earlier era.