Sine poena nulla lex.
*** JAMES BOND : NO TIME TO DIE ***
169,647 Views |
1426 Replies |
Last: 10 mo ago by Definitely Not A Cop
if only that were true of you and i money penny.
i miss brosnan
i miss brosnan
No, I don't think Craig's Bond has been womanizer like previous Bonds. But that's the "face" the franchise has as a whole. That said, I don't think this has anything to do with making James Bond feel guilty or repentant or anything like that. I seriously doubt they go there. Again, I just think this is a psychological obstacle for his character and nothing more. I could be way off, but this feels a bit like taking one of Superman's powers away. I know it's not a 1:1 comparison, but Bond almost always gets his man, ultimately succeeds, etc. In that sense, this feels like the writers asking themselves, "How can we challenge Bond in a new and exciting way?" And now perhaps they've settled on challenging his pride, his sense of relevancy in a changing world, etc. If so, I love that.
My guess is that Bond's arc in this movie has something to do with him grappling with a world that has moved on without him, past him, etc. Is he the kind of person to graciously let that happen and truly enjoy retirement? Or does he ultimately feel he has one last adventure left; one in which he can prove to himself - and to the "world" - that he CAN still make a difference? In that sense, I see this movie not only being a response to changing societal norms, but to pop culture as well. This time last year what were many of us doing? We were reveling in how fantastic Mission: Impossible - Fallout was, and in doing so, many of us were writing Bond off just a bit. Between M:I and #Me Too and all that, there was this sense that the spy genre had officially moved past Bond and into this whole other beast.
Now, I don't think Bond 25 will come even remotely close to matching the stunt work of the M:I series - and it shouldn't have to - but I can see this movie having that extra little "F all the haters" attitude, showing us exactly why James Bond matters, why he's the ****ing man, etc. And that's what this new 007 character seems to symbolize for me, at least; an opportunity for Bond to say, in Craig's last effort:
How could that not excite some of you?
My guess is that Bond's arc in this movie has something to do with him grappling with a world that has moved on without him, past him, etc. Is he the kind of person to graciously let that happen and truly enjoy retirement? Or does he ultimately feel he has one last adventure left; one in which he can prove to himself - and to the "world" - that he CAN still make a difference? In that sense, I see this movie not only being a response to changing societal norms, but to pop culture as well. This time last year what were many of us doing? We were reveling in how fantastic Mission: Impossible - Fallout was, and in doing so, many of us were writing Bond off just a bit. Between M:I and #Me Too and all that, there was this sense that the spy genre had officially moved past Bond and into this whole other beast.
Now, I don't think Bond 25 will come even remotely close to matching the stunt work of the M:I series - and it shouldn't have to - but I can see this movie having that extra little "F all the haters" attitude, showing us exactly why James Bond matters, why he's the ****ing man, etc. And that's what this new 007 character seems to symbolize for me, at least; an opportunity for Bond to say, in Craig's last effort:
How could that not excite some of you?
Transgender Bond?schmendeler said:
You realize that bond isn't staying a woman, right?
but i want bond to be sexist and misogynistic. a relic of the cold war. thats who he is. I also want a bit more humor in the bond series like back in the brosnan or connery days. i love craigs interpretation but his whole arch is rather depressing and giving into virtue signaling is the cherry on top for me
Sine poena nulla lex.
At this point, I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or not. If not, I don't know what to tell you.
why would i be trolling
The cold war ended 28 years ago...
did it tho ?
C@LAg said:To be honest, all the behind-the-scenes turmoil of this have left me rather... blah.TCTTS said:
- but I can see this movie having that extra little "F all the haters" attitude, showing us exactly why James Bond matters, why he's the ****ing man, etc. And that's what this new 007 character seems to symbolize for me, at least.
The revolving directors
Craig's attitude
The rewrites
The on set injury
Stories of the director playing video games instead of showing up to work
That reads as many so many people just phoning it in.
I hope I am wrong.
- The directors only "revolved" because Danny Boyle swooped in with an idea that the producers entertained for a hot second. But once they realized it wasn't the direction they wanted to go, they said no thanks to Boyle and went back to developing the original script they had been working on with the same writers before flirting with Boyle. Then they hired F-kunaga and made the movie they originally set out to make.
- Craig's attitude in the years leading up to know was sour, sure. But have you seen him in interviews once filming began? He comes across as genuinely excited again. He had a hand in picking the director, shaping the script, etc. He's been extremely involved with all aspects of the production, and seems as energized as ever.
- Nearly every major blockbuster nowadays go through rewrites on the fly like this. I'm not saying everything will be ok, but this isn't even remotely out of the ordinary. That, and the screenwriter Craig brought on (Phoebe Waller-Bridge) has been killing it in everything she does lately.
- I seem to recall another recent blockbuster that suffered an on set injury to its star, and went on to be one of the greatest action blockbusters of the past decade or so. The injury also proved to be a blessing in disguise for the production, as it gave McQuarrie the opportunity to take a breath and retool the script for the better. No reason to think they didn't do the same here.
- The video game thing was proven to be a false report. Even F-kunaga had fun with the rumor on Instagram by mocking it.
Yes, it has been a plagued production, but I don't think it has anything to do with anyone phoning it in. I haven't gotten that impression at all.
Remember the good old days when they named a character Christmas Jones for the sake of one sex joke at the end?
i member
TC, I ask out of genuine curiosity and as a fellow movie nerd, not meant as a put-down --
Are you particularly invested, emotionally or otherwise, in this particular franchise? I've noticed you defend this series more so than any other major movie franchise, but maybe I'm wrong.
Are you particularly invested, emotionally or otherwise, in this particular franchise? I've noticed you defend this series more so than any other major movie franchise, but maybe I'm wrong.
Ha, that's interesting, as I can't recall ever really defending this franchise in any significant way before today. In fact, a few posts up, I just alluded to how stale Bond felt last year in the wake of the Mission: Impossible franchise. So, to answer your question, no, I'm not particularly invested in the Bond franchise, emotionally or otherwise. I certainly enjoy it - especially the Craig movies - but truth be told, I've never even seen a non Brosnan/Craig Bond movie. Not even a Connery Bond movie.
I know this is going to sound arrogant - and will no doubt play into the "Entertainment Board Czar" moniker a handful of people love to give me, but I mainly just feel a duty to defend sanity on this board. That's it. Whether it's this particular issue, all that sh*t with First Man last year, or any number of other increasingly ignorant, premature, outrage takes, I just get super annoyed at the willfully ignorant crowd who comes to an entertainment board to constantly complain about entertainment. It would be one thing if it were constructive criticism - which I love to engage in and with - but it never, ever is. Time after time after time after time, as I mentioned earlier, these outrage takes are almost always proven wrong in the end. It's mainly a group of posters who more often than not happen to frequent forum 16 as well, always desperately looking to be offended by Hollywood. So, as someone who actually works there, I guess I feel it my job sometimes to dispel all the stereotyping, which can sometimes come across as me vehemently defending a particular franchise or character, when I'm mainly just trying to defend a certain point of view or dispel something that isn't even remotely the reality. And I know that rubs people the wrong way every so often, and I could absolutely stand to dial it down in certain situations, but sometimes my emotions and that feeling of, "I'm actually here living it and I'm telling you that what you want to believe isn't the reality" simply gets the best of me.
I know this is going to sound arrogant - and will no doubt play into the "Entertainment Board Czar" moniker a handful of people love to give me, but I mainly just feel a duty to defend sanity on this board. That's it. Whether it's this particular issue, all that sh*t with First Man last year, or any number of other increasingly ignorant, premature, outrage takes, I just get super annoyed at the willfully ignorant crowd who comes to an entertainment board to constantly complain about entertainment. It would be one thing if it were constructive criticism - which I love to engage in and with - but it never, ever is. Time after time after time after time, as I mentioned earlier, these outrage takes are almost always proven wrong in the end. It's mainly a group of posters who more often than not happen to frequent forum 16 as well, always desperately looking to be offended by Hollywood. So, as someone who actually works there, I guess I feel it my job sometimes to dispel all the stereotyping, which can sometimes come across as me vehemently defending a particular franchise or character, when I'm mainly just trying to defend a certain point of view or dispel something that isn't even remotely the reality. And I know that rubs people the wrong way every so often, and I could absolutely stand to dial it down in certain situations, but sometimes my emotions and that feeling of, "I'm actually here living it and I'm telling you that what you want to believe isn't the reality" simply gets the best of me.
(I actually just went to forum 16 to confirm that that was, in fact, the correct forum number, and at least I've learned to let go of arguing over there ever again. I peeked into their Bond thread on this very topic and that whole thing is a masterclass in ignorance, taking a clickbait headline at face value, and falsely running with it in order to fit a preconceived agenda. It's just mind-boggling how little nuance or context is allowed to exists over there. That, and there are more than a few utterly sincere, batsh*t crazy posts that make your jaw drop and wonder, "How does this person actually hold a job that allows them the money to pay for a phone and/or internet connection?" And yet, I have no desire whatsoever to engage in that outrage fest.)
texagbeliever said:
Changing Bond to a woman (which isn't exactly happening here) kills the whole lore of the franchise.
Three of my favorite things ever. Two of them recast a traditional male role with a female who kicks ass. The third took a male-dominated franchise that I love more than anything else in entertainment and made the lead female in the latter episodes. Not just the lead but a virtual unknown at that.
Just to clarify are those examples of traditional male leads that switched to female that had no impact on how much you liked them.
TCTTS said:
I've never even seen a non Brosnan/Craig Bond movie. Not even a Connery Bond movie.
Take tomorrow off, get into your childhood frame of mind, and watch "The Spy Who Loved Me" immediately.
Roger Moore has a Lotus that turns into a submarine
RIchard Kiel from Happy Gilmore fights and kills a great white shark in the water by biting it with his steel teeth.
Dude, Barbara Bach as the Russian agent trying to kill James Bond. I saw this movie for the first time when I was 10 in 1984 on TV one day. By the time it was over my voice had dropped 3 octaves and I had grown a mustache.
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, but I like Kara Thrace way more than I ever liked Dirk Benedict as Starbuck.texagbeliever said:
Just to clarify are those examples of traditional male leads that switched to female that had no impact on how much you liked them.
Switching to a female lead didn't make you stop liking the franchise or like the franchise with the female lead less.
Guys, can't you see? This movie is actually the OPPOSITE of woke - strong, black female replaced by an old white dude!
CNN is an enemy of the state and should be treated as such.
TCTTS- Do yourself a favor and watch From Russia With Love and Goldfinger. Other than Goldeneye, the Brosnan movies were crap. I like Craig's movies but none of them have been ones I want to watch over and over again, where I can't tell you how many times I've seen the Connery and Moore films.
Definitely watch FRWL and Goldfinger. I have a soft spot for You Only Live Twice, as it was the first Bond movie I recall seeing way back when it aired on TV in the early 70s. Thunderball is a good one; that one was remade in 1983 as Never Say Never Again.Cstrickland05 said:
TCTTS- Do yourself a favor and watch From Russia With Love and Goldfinger. Other than Goldeneye, the Brosnan movies were crap. I like Craig's movies but none of them have been ones I want to watch over and over again, where I can't tell you how many times I've seen the Connery and Moore films.
For Moore's movies, I'd suggest The Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only.
Watch both of Dalton's outings - The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill.
The World is Not Enough is pretty ridiculous, but at the time, and being 11, I pretty much loved it. And Denise Richards, whew.
Tomorrow Never Dies is actually pretty decent, though. I always liked the motorcycle chase scene in China, and the remote control BMW. The two big complaints I have are the opening scene and climaxes being kind of weak. But it's a pretty standard "Bond movie" in the style of the Roger Moore ones.
There's no defending Die Another Day, though.
Tomorrow Never Dies is actually pretty decent, though. I always liked the motorcycle chase scene in China, and the remote control BMW. The two big complaints I have are the opening scene and climaxes being kind of weak. But it's a pretty standard "Bond movie" in the style of the Roger Moore ones.
There's no defending Die Another Day, though.
It's not fair to the actors, but when I see diversity casting (which I define as recasting an existing as another ethnicity/gender or casting for a specific diversity reason), I always wonder whether it's because there's a good story to be told that way/just hiring the best actor, or because the writers just wanted diversity for its own sake.
Starbuck in the Battlestar Galactica remake is an example of the former, while Ghostbusters 2016 is the latter. Based on what I've read, the 007 thing could be the former, but it's dependent on how it's actually done.
Starbuck in the Battlestar Galactica remake is an example of the former, while Ghostbusters 2016 is the latter. Based on what I've read, the 007 thing could be the former, but it's dependent on how it's actually done.
Agree with the previous recs for Connery's and Moore's best movies. Also, if you haven't watched Lazenby's "On Her Majesty's Secret Service", watch it. I went through all the Bond movies a couple of years ago and had never seen it prior. It's one of the best IMO.
So, is this movie about James Bond, or 007? They have been one and the same since I was seven years old.
If it is about 007, then why call it Bond 25" Why not just a title containing 007? If you want to transition from 007 being someone other than James Bond, kill him off and reassign his number.
Put me in the column with "Quit changing characters to be other than the way they were created; , male characters should remain male, black characters should remain black, and short characters should not be played my someone 6'4"
If it is about 007, then why call it Bond 25" Why not just a title containing 007? If you want to transition from 007 being someone other than James Bond, kill him off and reassign his number.
Put me in the column with "Quit changing characters to be other than the way they were created; , male characters should remain male, black characters should remain black, and short characters should not be played my someone 6'4"
***It's your money, not theIRS! (At least for a little while longer.)
That was what I thought when I first saw it several years ago. It's so easy to forget it exists, though, given that was Lazenby's only appearance in the series.Quote:
Also, if you haven't watched Lazenby's "On Her Majesty's Secret Service", watch it. I went through all the Bond movies a couple of years ago and had never seen it prior. It's one of the best IMO.
While the idea may play out fine/harmless, why they are making that into news worthy spoiler leaks is kinda crazy. Bond has been about a good looking spy who gets to play with really cool tech gadgets, hook up with multiple hot women and usually has a strong, sexy traditional woman supporting him throughout. What were they thinking the obvious direct targeted audience for these films reaction would be? Somehow it would help at the box office if 75% of the fanbase would consider boycotting? Film makers get to make their choices, and so do their customers. Bewildering some of these choices with the lack of vision.
TC responding basically acknowledging he isn't a Bond fan but telling everyone else they're being ridiculous - as the target audience, no less - is pretty deaf.
TC responding basically acknowledging he isn't a Bond fan but telling everyone else they're being ridiculous - as the target audience, no less - is pretty deaf.
I would be extremely in favor of a female 007 hooking up with multiple hot women.whiryno said:
Bond has been about a good looking spy who gets to play with really cool tech gadgets, hook up with multiple hot women
"Captialism is BADASS...but only if it's done the way I want." [/texags]fig96 said:
Those of you who think this is being done solely in the name of political correctness and not largely because the studio thinks the idea will get attention and make money make me smile.
Featured Stories
See All
Baseball Thoughts: No. 1 Aggies back top spot with T-Town takedown
by Ryan Brauninger
33:53
17h ago
5.6k