The new 007 is a woman - jumping the shark moment confirmed.

[Makeshift Python]

So... is there any reason why they couldn't just create another 00 agent (or agents)?
Like expand the franchise to other characters? Give spotlight to new or other characters? Kind of how the new MiB film did, for example

That’s exactly what they just did. James Bond is still played by Daniel Craig, and is still the star. Lashana Lynch is playing a new character named Nomi, who was given the 007 number after Bond quit the service in the last film.

Or like how a lot of Brosmins era had Bond dealing with the end of the Cold War or Craig's Era and the rise of terrorism, cyber or otherwise.

This is a point I wanted to delve more into. James Bond has always been sort of a man out of time, even as far back as the original novels. Bond is basically the last guy to carry the flag of the fallen British Empire, trying to find himself in post-WWII era, standing between the US and Russia. It wasn't a point that was heavily emphasized in the films as the books were, but the Brosnan films did play with that idea by focusing on post-Cold War setting and whether Bond still has a place. Bond finding himself in the #MeToo era keeps up the dynamic of him being a man out of time, now personified by a female agent who has been assigned his old number. Where does Bond stand in 2020?

There's a quote by Waller-Bridge that gets into what it means to make a Bond film in the #MeToo era, and I what she had to say. I emphasize the bold as that really caught my attention.

There's been a lot of talk about whether or not Bond is relevant now because of who he is and the way he treats women. I think that's b******s. I think he's absolutely relevant now. [The franchise] has just got to grow. It has just got to evolve, and the important thing is that the film treats the women properly. He doesn't have to. He needs to be true to his character.

To me it sounds like she has a firm understanding of who Bond is and how he should be portrayed. The films have changed throughout the decades, but Bond has always been Bond. If you want to understand the character of Bond, look no further than the very words of his creator, Ian Fleming:

“Bond is not a hero, nor is he depicted as being very likeable or admirable.…He’s not a bad man, but he is ruthless and self-indulgent. He enjoys the fight—but he also enjoys the prizes.”

[Admiral X]

I predict another round of outrage marketing, followed by a reaction similar to what happened to the Ghostbusters reboot.

[Makeshift Python]

I predict another round of outrage marketing, followed by a reaction similar to what happened to the Ghostbusters reboot.

I think they’ll handle it like how they handled how the media bashed on Craig’s casting in 2006: They’ll ignore it. EON productions has always been relatively classy, never involving themselves in the mudslinging. Maybe the closest was when during a red carpet premiere interview for CASINO ROYALE Eva Green rolled her eyes when the subject of fans boycotting online over Craig’s casting came up.

And the main failing of GHOSTBUSTERS ‘16 wasn’t its female casting but that it was simply not a funny film, well below the quality that the cast and crew delivered in the past. I get that MRAs love to bring it up as if it flopping at the box office was a victory for them, because they can’t say the same for THE LAST JEDI or CAPTAIN MARVEL, so GB16 flopping is as “good” as it gets for them.

Besides, this is still a James Bond film with Daniel Craig as the star. This is clearly not a GB situation, as bad as angry fanboys want something to be upset about and cry about how they’re the real victims.

[Admiral X]

I think they’ll handle it like how they handled how the media bashed on Craig’s casting in 2006: They’ll ignore it. EON productions has always been relatively classy, never involving themselves in the mudslinging. Maybe the closest was when during a red carpet premiere interview for CASINO ROYALE Eva Green rolled her eyes when the subject of fans boycotting online over Craig’s casting came up.

One can only hope, but I suspect it won't be the studio doing the work so much as media news outlets and other useful idiots.

And the main failing of GHOSTBUSTERS ‘16 wasn’t its female casting but that it was simply not a funny film, well below the quality that the cast and crew delivered in the past. I get that MRAs love to bring it up as if it flipping was a victory for them.

You're right in that it wasn't the female casting so much as the writing, but the thing is that the poor writing had a lot to do with the attitude and politics of the people making it. The fact they accused everyone who didn't like it of being sexist didn't help anything other than maybe keeping people away from the movie. So it serves as a perfect example of how identity politics can ruin a film (or an industry), along with Marvel Comics.

Besides, this is still a James Bond film with Daniel Craig as the star. This is clearly not a GB situation, as bad as angry fanboys want something to be upset about and cry about how they’re the real victims.

[Makeshift Python]

The fact is that Lashana Lynch isn’t even the star. She’s just a new twist on how past films presented a Bond girl that was supposed to be Bond’s equal, like Agent XXX in THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, only in this case it’s an 00-agent that has been given his old designation.

At the very least I hope she’s much more believably kickass than Halle Berry was in DIE ANOTHER DAY, who was originally slated to get her own spin-off movie before that got scrapped.

[Mecha82]

It'a funny to think how back in 2006 people were against Daniel Craig being cast as Bond and now they are praising him after they actually saw him in role. Cases like this is why I say that people need to be patient and wait and see before judging outright without any actual knowledge beyond person x has been cast as character y in movie z.

[Admiral X]

The difference here is that this is obviously a gimmick, and of course the politics that are behind it. With Craig, it was more about him just not being like previous incarnations.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I think it's more like MGM doesn't want to push the womanizing trope that's tied to the historically masculine character.

I think Craig's lament for the character itself might have had some influence on things.

All and all if you don't think there is any kind of agenda when they choose a black woman to take on the title, then at the least I'd say it's a bit ignorant to just ignore that. But there's also the fact that it's really possible that people are starting to see his archetype as archaic to some extent. In other words it's one thing when it comes out of nowhere, but this isn't exactly out of nowhere.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

People don't talk about Michelle Yeoh in Tomorrow Never Dies enough.

[Mecha82]

The difference here is that this is obviously a gimmick, and of course the politics that are behind it. With Craig, it was more about him just not being like previous incarnations.

So with that you pretty much say that are outraged because you think that politics that you are against are behind this when you have no way to prove your claim. You are dishonest if you try to pretend that your outraged is nothing else than outrage for sake of outrage. After all at end of day you are no better than those that you hate so much. Different side of same coin.