No Time To Die: Production Diary

1237523762378238023812507

Comments

  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Man this thread needs an enema.

    I already PM'd a Moderator

    You are such a school prefect

    In other news, The Playlist reporter who revealed Scott Z Burns would be involved posted this:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/CorneelVf/status/1117460960615313409



    Seems Boyle wanted to make a Kingsman-Esque film.....yuck

    If that is the case, the good riddance to Boyle.

  • Posts: 4,619
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Man this thread needs an enema.

    I already PM'd a Moderator

    You are such a school prefect

    In other news, The Playlist reporter who revealed Scott Z Burns would be involved posted this:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/CorneelVf/status/1117460960615313409

    Seems Boyle wanted to make a Kingsman-Esque film.....yuck
    Wow. Maybe I will end up thanking Barbara for firing Boyle!
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Just a quick thought; if we do get a female agent/007 (as in taking Bonds number that is), that could also open up the possibility
    that the Norway sequence – if a flashback, could just as well be a flashback for the female agent, as much as Madeleine Swann, right?

    How about something even more controversial....
    What if the opening action sequence is a car chase in Matera with the new 007 - and not Bond. Essentially, the female 007 gets the big opening action sequence/PTS.

    Bond can make his introduction later in the first act.

    I'd kind of love that. We need some fully-rounded female characters in these films.

    Did I just make every angry white guy cry?

    No because it's not a Bond film if Bond isn't in it. It's a female agent film. ;)

    +1

    Honestly I don't get what the point of having another 007 in the story is. What would it add to the plot?
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Man this thread needs an enema.

    I already PM'd a Moderator

    You are such a school prefect

    In other news, The Playlist reporter who revealed Scott Z Burns would be involved posted this:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/CorneelVf/status/1117460960615313409

    Seems Boyle wanted to make a Kingsman-Esque film.....yuck

    @Pierce2Daniel what am I supposed to do let this thread get out of control? And let you mock people by calling them (Angry White Men) because they don't think the same as you.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited April 2019 Posts: 5,970
    Walecs wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Just a quick thought; if we do get a female agent/007 (as in taking Bonds number that is), that could also open up the possibility
    that the Norway sequence – if a flashback, could just as well be a flashback for the female agent, as much as Madeleine Swann, right?

    How about something even more controversial....
    What if the opening action sequence is a car chase in Matera with the new 007 - and not Bond. Essentially, the female 007 gets the big opening action sequence/PTS.

    Bond can make his introduction later in the first act.

    I'd kind of love that. We need some fully-rounded female characters in these films.

    Did I just make every angry white guy cry?

    No because it's not a Bond film if Bond isn't in it. It's a female agent film. ;)
    Honestly I don't get what the point of having another 007 in the story is. What would it add to the plot?
    No-one can say cause we don't know the plot? Another reason we should really wait to pass judgement on this so early. I'm all for opinions on ideas, but a lot of you are already saying it's crap before you've even seen the context. It might not even be true. She might just be an MI6 agent and people are just assuming she's the new 007.
  • edited April 2019 Posts: 2,081
    Denbigh wrote: »
    @Tuulia My point regarding the whole "#MeToo" thing is that the DailyMail seem to be implying that because Phoebe Waller-Bridge may be being brought on, it means that she is there to shift gears in response to MeToo, when it may just be as simple as injecting something new into the script. Bridge is great at writing women and also great writing comedy so it has nothing to do with #MeToo, and also I'm here to try and stop people from assuming that the film will have #MeToo context. For some reason people think the film will address it directly in some way and also seem to think having a female 007 is addressing that.

    Thanks. I don't read the Daily Mail "articles" (life's too short), but I don't know why anyone would think that Waller-Bridge (or anyone else) would even need to do something for a new Bond movie in response to MeToo - I don't see where the presumed problems are that need addressing. No idea why MeToo context is being assumed (I don't have time to read all rumours and speculation), or how that could fit into a Bond movie (though maybe it would and I just lack imagination). Obviously an assumption that a female character (007 or any other) would in itself make such a connection is... bizarre to put it mildly.

    (Btw, I'm not familiar with her writing, but happy to hear she's considered to be good.)
    Tuulia wrote: »
    You've been discussing MeToo in some very confusing ways for a long time, and now I finally have to ask... I just picked some examples from 1 page here, but I already wondered months ago what you guys (not all of you, but many of you) even mean by MeToo, because the way it is often used here makes no sense to me. I don't understand the way "MeToo" itself is used here, nor do I understand what exactly MeToo has to do with the content of new Bond movies anyway.

    You all do know that the MeToo movement is a movement against sexual assault and sexual harassment? (Something that concerns both women and men.) Okay, then... So what on earth are you on about in examples below (and others similar)?
    Denbigh wrote: »
    @PanchitoPistoles I'm all for a discussion but people seem to be getting the wrong idea from what was said in this article on multiple levels. I already tried rationalising this last night but no-one wanted to listen or even consider my argument, but I'll give it another go.

    In my opinion, the DailyMail have spun this possible news into a #MeToo situation. A female writer doesn't mean a #MeToo film or feminist film, neither does a female 007. Just because you have a female presence in either position, it doesn't mean the writer or Bond girl is going to burn their bras and throw them at the audience. It just means the character is female, and to think that that would be the case is incredibly close-minded.

    And just to make you feel a bit better, they are not, I repeat not, going to have this possible "female 007" (007 not James Bond) take up more screen time. She'll be a Bond girl in the same vein as the others and Craig's James Bond will be the main character. Do you really think they would do something like this for Craig's final film? Please start being a bit more realistic.

    Hopefully someone will actually listen this time.

    And @DoctorNo, surely they're just going to write a female character? There doesn't need to be an agenda behind it. This "new" 007 will just be characterised in the same way as if the "new" 007 was male. Just because SJW's exist and have had their say about the property, doesn't mean it's going to show up in the context of the film.

    EDIT: Also, are people just gonna give any "good idea" that shows up in Bond 25 to Boyle? Really?

    And to hammer the point home, most female writers do not and will not have an agenda when writing something, they're just doing what all writers want to do - create a good story and good characters.

    What is "a MeToo situation" with a Bond movie that people are worried about? What is "a MeToo film"?
    Denbigh wrote: »
    @PanchitoPistoles I'm all for a discussion but people seem to be getting the wrong idea from what was said in this article on multiple levels. I already tried rationalising this last night but no-one wanted to listen or even consider my argument, but I'll give it another go.

    In my opinion, the DailyMail have spun this possible news into a #MeToo situation. A female writer doesn't mean a #MeToo film or feminist film, neither does a female 007. Just because you have a female presence in either position, it doesn't mean the writer or Bond girl is going to burn their bras and throw them at the audience. It just means the character is female, and to think that that would be the case is incredibly close-minded.

    And just to make you feel a bit better, they are not, I repeat not, going to have this possible "female 007" (007 not James Bond) take up more screen time. She'll be a Bond girl in the same vein as the others and Craig's James Bond will be the main character. Do you really think they would do something like this for Craig's final film? Please start being a bit more realistic.

    Hopefully someone will actually listen this time.

    And @DoctorNo, surely they're just going to write a female character? There doesn't need to be an agenda behind it. This "new" 007 will just be characterised in the same way as if the "new" 007 was male. Just because SJW's exist and have had their say about the property, doesn't mean it's going to show up in the context of the film.

    EDIT: Also, are people just gonna give any "good idea" that shows up in Bond 25 to Boyle? Really?

    And to hammer the point home, most female writers do not and will not have an agenda when writing something, they're just doing what all writers want to do - create a good story and good characters.

    I agreed with you when you posted this first a few pages back, and I'll repeat that agreement here again. Strong female characters and #MeToo are not mutually exclusive, despite what the tabloids would have people believe. It seems people are falling for sensationalist language once again, despite the fact that the idea has great potential for a number of reasons, IF (as stated multiple times) it turns out to be 100% accurate.

    Of course "strong female characters and #MeToo are not mutually exclusive" - I'm amazed that even needs saying, and now I wonder where someone said they are, I must have missed that when glancing through the comments... and if indeed some morons at some tabloids write something suggesting that those are mutually exclusive then that just further proves that reading tabloids is a complete waste of time. Strong female characters and MeToo are two completely unrelated things, so they can occur both together or separately.
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    @Denbigh You have to see a female 007, even if it is not "feminist" driven is still baiting #MeToo not by trying to appease them but by incurring their wrath... they will be all over that. If female 007 doesn't get enough screen time they will be pissed. If she doesn't just take over for Bond, they will be pissed. If she's inept or gets killed or needs saving, they will be pissed.

    First of all, feminism and MeToo are very different things (though I imagine feminism was necessary to have existed first for there ever to appear any sort of wide/significant MeToo). But what even is "baiting #MeToo"? And, um, you seem to be saying that having a specific female character in a movie would be baiting the movement against sexual abuse, incurring the wrath of... of people who've been sexually abused and/or of feminists? What???
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    @Denbigh You have to see a female 007, even if it is not "feminist" driven is still baiting #MeToo not by trying to appease them but by incurring their wrath... they will be all over that. If female 007 doesn't get enough screen time they will be pissed. If she doesn't just take over for Bond, they will be pissed. If she's inept or gets killed or needs saving, they will be pissed.

    And if they don't do any of that, they'll still be pissed. There is no winning with some people, and I would be willing to bet that Eon know that at this stage. MeToo has shined a big light on the subject again, but it really is nothing new. Bond has gone through these movements before, and withstood the same repeated arguments time and time again.

    As the fella says, it'll be grand.

    "Again"? I believe it's actually the first movement that really has "shined a big light on the subject" of sexual assault and sexual harassment, and about time, too, that it has been talked about much more - perhaps things will truly improve eventually as a result of that. But it's not like the subject has been discussed all that much before, certainly not to the same extent, so it's hardly "again" - but naturally sexual abuse is "nothing new."



    Like has already been pointed out by some people here, what does MeToo have to do with modern Bond? There haven't been any actual issues on that front in any recent Bond movies, have there, so what the heck?

    It has plenty to do with ALL of Bond, not just modern Bond. But yes, there have been issues on that front in recent films. The treatment of Severine in Skyfall was a talking point for a short while after that film was released.

    Yes, we certainly do realise what the movement is about. But Bond has always been a punching bag for it due to its misogynistic creator and its tricky sexual politics, and its not so subtle sexual objectification of women. When Casino Royale was released, Craig in his Speedos was often the first image you saw on the web, usually accompanied by some tagline or phrase about how Bond was moving on and getting with the times by "finally appreciating the male form as well as the female form" or some such wording.

    So yes, while MeToo/TimesUp themselves have no direct connection to Modern Bond i.e. he hasn't sexually assaulted anyone, sexual politics is still very much intertwined with the series and likely always will be.

    But yes, @Tuulia, as I wrote above, MeToo and Strong Female Characters are totally separate things and as I also wrote above, the last few pages are not really a strong showing for some members here when it comes to digesting tabloid drivel.

    But sexual politics and MeToo are not the same thing. MeToo is about something specific that I don't think is really a problem with modern Bond movies. Used to be, yes, but not now, IMO.

    I'm aware of the Severine controversy, but I don't agree that Bond took sexual advantage of her vulnerable situation, though the writing and/or directorial choices were not exactly the best, and I get how Bond may have seemed callous there. If handled better it could have been made clearer that an abused person was making a choice of her own, free from any pressure, and because she really wanted to. I assumed that was what they were going for, and that's how I took it myself, but for sure it could have been done better. Obviously Silva sexually assaulted Bond, but it was presented as a creepy thing the bad guy did, and it was clear Bond hadn't given his consent and wasn't welcoming the advances. Of course some people had different opinions about that, too, but personally I thought that part was perfectly clear and very well written and directed. If Bond, as the hero, did a similar thing, and it was presented as the cool thing to do, it would be a very different situation, and therefore differently evaluated.

    You say "Yes, we certainly do realise what the movement is about. But Bond has always been a punching bag for it" - for what? It's a new movement, so Bond can't have always been a punching bag for it. If it now deserved to be, then it should be, but like I said, I just don't see it myself.

    The reason I was questioning what some people's understanding of MeToo is, was stuff like only-MeToo-want-to-see-female-007, or female-007-is-baiting-MeToo, which literally make zero sense to me. It's like "MeToo" is used as some sort of a slang term that has a meaning I'm not aware of. The fact that there are people here condescending towards or worried about MeToo is really peculiar in itself.

    And yeah, well, people would just be better off not reading tabloid drivel in the first place. :)

  • Jeez, all these new unread posts I thought we had some good news! The one rumor I like is the news of a press conference in Jamaica in 2 weeks time. All else sounds terrible, especially female 007.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    I want "real" news the press conference can't come soon enough
  • Posts: 6,709
    2402 pages of dreck and dregs. That's a modern novel right there. Someone sell this stuff, it'll surely be a best seller.
  • Posts: 832
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Man this thread needs an enema.

    I already PM'd a Moderator

    You are such a school prefect

    In other news, The Playlist reporter who revealed Scott Z Burns would be involved posted this:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/CorneelVf/status/1117460960615313409

    Seems Boyle wanted to make a Kingsman-Esque film.....yuck
    Wow. Maybe I will end up thanking Barbara for firing Boyle!

    I don’t know what changed between now and before. Things have largely fallen into line with my expectations. Guess we had different ideas about what a boyle/ fukunaga bond would look like.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,196
    I'm looking forward to a press conference within two weeks and news of filming in Jamaica beginning in April and going into May.

    Until then I'll continue to sift through this thread looking for legitimate information like a prospector searching for gold nuggets in a gravel filled stream.
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    I honestly would not be opposed to a new thread being opened once the PC occurs. This thread is toxic & littered with irrelevant information.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited April 2019 Posts: 8,207
    Tuulia wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    @Tuulia My point regarding the whole "#MeToo" thing is that the DailyMail seem to be implying that because Phoebe Waller-Bridge may be being brought on, it means that she is there to shift gears in response to MeToo, when it may just be as simple as injecting something new into the script. Bridge is great at writing women and also great writing comedy so it has nothing to do with #MeToo, and also I'm here to try and stop people from assuming that the film will have #MeToo context. For some reason people think the film will address it directly in some way and also seem to think having a female 007 is addressing that.

    Thanks. I don't read the Daily Mail "articles" (life's too short), but I don't know why anyone would think that Waller-Bridge (or anyone else) would even need to do something for a new Bond movie in response to MeToo - I don't see where the presumed problems are that need addressing. No idea why MeToo context is being assumed (I don't have time to read all rumours and speculation), or how that could fit into a Bond movie (though maybe it would and I just lack imagination). Obviously an assumption that a female character (007 or any other) would in itself make such a connection is... bizarre to put it mildly.

    (Btw, I'm not familiar with her writing, but happy to hear she's considered to be good.)
    Tuulia wrote: »
    You've been discussing MeToo in some very confusing ways for a long time, and now I finally have to ask... I just picked some examples from 1 page here, but I already wondered months ago what you guys (not all of you, but many of you) even mean by MeToo, because the way it is often used here makes no sense to me. I don't understand the way "MeToo" itself is used here, nor do I understand what exactly MeToo has to do with the content of new Bond movies anyway.

    You all do know that the MeToo movement is a movement against sexual assault and sexual harassment? (Something that concerns both women and men.) Okay, then... So what on earth are you on about in examples below (and others similar)?
    Denbigh wrote: »
    @PanchitoPistoles I'm all for a discussion but people seem to be getting the wrong idea from what was said in this article on multiple levels. I already tried rationalising this last night but no-one wanted to listen or even consider my argument, but I'll give it another go.

    In my opinion, the DailyMail have spun this possible news into a #MeToo situation. A female writer doesn't mean a #MeToo film or feminist film, neither does a female 007. Just because you have a female presence in either position, it doesn't mean the writer or Bond girl is going to burn their bras and throw them at the audience. It just means the character is female, and to think that that would be the case is incredibly close-minded.

    And just to make you feel a bit better, they are not, I repeat not, going to have this possible "female 007" (007 not James Bond) take up more screen time. She'll be a Bond girl in the same vein as the others and Craig's James Bond will be the main character. Do you really think they would do something like this for Craig's final film? Please start being a bit more realistic.

    Hopefully someone will actually listen this time.

    And @DoctorNo, surely they're just going to write a female character? There doesn't need to be an agenda behind it. This "new" 007 will just be characterised in the same way as if the "new" 007 was male. Just because SJW's exist and have had their say about the property, doesn't mean it's going to show up in the context of the film.

    EDIT: Also, are people just gonna give any "good idea" that shows up in Bond 25 to Boyle? Really?

    And to hammer the point home, most female writers do not and will not have an agenda when writing something, they're just doing what all writers want to do - create a good story and good characters.

    What is "a MeToo situation" with a Bond movie that people are worried about? What is "a MeToo film"?
    Denbigh wrote: »
    @PanchitoPistoles I'm all for a discussion but people seem to be getting the wrong idea from what was said in this article on multiple levels. I already tried rationalising this last night but no-one wanted to listen or even consider my argument, but I'll give it another go.

    In my opinion, the DailyMail have spun this possible news into a #MeToo situation. A female writer doesn't mean a #MeToo film or feminist film, neither does a female 007. Just because you have a female presence in either position, it doesn't mean the writer or Bond girl is going to burn their bras and throw them at the audience. It just means the character is female, and to think that that would be the case is incredibly close-minded.

    And just to make you feel a bit better, they are not, I repeat not, going to have this possible "female 007" (007 not James Bond) take up more screen time. She'll be a Bond girl in the same vein as the others and Craig's James Bond will be the main character. Do you really think they would do something like this for Craig's final film? Please start being a bit more realistic.

    Hopefully someone will actually listen this time.

    And @DoctorNo, surely they're just going to write a female character? There doesn't need to be an agenda behind it. This "new" 007 will just be characterised in the same way as if the "new" 007 was male. Just because SJW's exist and have had their say about the property, doesn't mean it's going to show up in the context of the film.

    EDIT: Also, are people just gonna give any "good idea" that shows up in Bond 25 to Boyle? Really?

    And to hammer the point home, most female writers do not and will not have an agenda when writing something, they're just doing what all writers want to do - create a good story and good characters.

    I agreed with you when you posted this first a few pages back, and I'll repeat that agreement here again. Strong female characters and #MeToo are not mutually exclusive, despite what the tabloids would have people believe. It seems people are falling for sensationalist language once again, despite the fact that the idea has great potential for a number of reasons, IF (as stated multiple times) it turns out to be 100% accurate.

    Of course "strong female characters and #MeToo are not mutually exclusive" - I'm amazed that even needs saying, and now I wonder where someone said they are, I must have missed that when glancing through the comments... and if indeed some morons at some tabloids write something suggesting that those are mutually exclusive then that just further proves that reading tabloids is a complete waste of time. Strong female characters and MeToo are two completely unrelated things, so they can occur both together or separately.
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    @Denbigh You have to see a female 007, even if it is not "feminist" driven is still baiting #MeToo not by trying to appease them but by incurring their wrath... they will be all over that. If female 007 doesn't get enough screen time they will be pissed. If she doesn't just take over for Bond, they will be pissed. If she's inept or gets killed or needs saving, they will be pissed.

    First of all, feminism and MeToo are very different things (though I imagine feminism was necessary to have existed first for there ever to appear any sort of wide/significant MeToo). But what even is "baiting #MeToo"? And, um, you seem to be saying that having a specific female character in a movie would be baiting the movement against sexual abuse, incurring the wrath of... of people who've been sexually abused and/or of feminists? What???
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    @Denbigh You have to see a female 007, even if it is not "feminist" driven is still baiting #MeToo not by trying to appease them but by incurring their wrath... they will be all over that. If female 007 doesn't get enough screen time they will be pissed. If she doesn't just take over for Bond, they will be pissed. If she's inept or gets killed or needs saving, they will be pissed.

    And if they don't do any of that, they'll still be pissed. There is no winning with some people, and I would be willing to bet that Eon know that at this stage. MeToo has shined a big light on the subject again, but it really is nothing new. Bond has gone through these movements before, and withstood the same repeated arguments time and time again.

    As the fella says, it'll be grand.

    "Again"? I believe it's actually the first movement that really has "shined a big light on the subject" of sexual assault and sexual harassment, and about time, too, that it has been talked about much more - perhaps things will truly improve eventually as a result of that. But it's not like the subject has been discussed all that much before, certainly not to the same extent, so it's hardly "again" - but naturally sexual abuse is "nothing new."



    Like has already been pointed out by some people here, what does MeToo have to do with modern Bond? There haven't been any actual issues on that front in any recent Bond movies, have there, so what the heck?

    It has plenty to do with ALL of Bond, not just modern Bond. But yes, there have been issues on that front in recent films. The treatment of Severine in Skyfall was a talking point for a short while after that film was released.

    Yes, we certainly do realise what the movement is about. But Bond has always been a punching bag for it due to its misogynistic creator and its tricky sexual politics, and its not so subtle sexual objectification of women. When Casino Royale was released, Craig in his Speedos was often the first image you saw on the web, usually accompanied by some tagline or phrase about how Bond was moving on and getting with the times by "finally appreciating the male form as well as the female form" or some such wording.

    So yes, while MeToo/TimesUp themselves have no direct connection to Modern Bond i.e. he hasn't sexually assaulted anyone, sexual politics is still very much intertwined with the series and likely always will be.

    But yes, @Tuulia, as I wrote above, MeToo and Strong Female Characters are totally separate things and as I also wrote above, the last few pages are not really a strong showing for some members here when it comes to digesting tabloid drivel.

    But sexual politics and MeToo are not the same thing.

    And that's the gravy of it. You know this, and I know this. But while they're not the same thing, the series' history makes it a prime target for these baity articles. It's not right, but that's just how it is. Personally, I'd rather not use the term MeToo in relation to Bond. Ever. At all.

  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    I honestly would not be opposed to a new thread being opened once the PC occurs. This thread is toxic & littered with irrelevant information.
    A bit of an exaggeration, isn't it? Nothing wrong with some passionate debate, as long as it doesn't get personal.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,196
    jake24 wrote: »
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    I honestly would not be opposed to a new thread being opened once the PC occurs. This thread is toxic & littered with irrelevant information.
    A bit of an exaggeration, isn't it? Nothing wrong with some passionate debate, as long as it doesn't get personal.

    Absolutely, but so much of this thread is dominated by speculation based on opinion presented as fact.
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    jake24 wrote: »
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    I honestly would not be opposed to a new thread being opened once the PC occurs. This thread is toxic & littered with irrelevant information.
    A bit of an exaggeration, isn't it? Nothing wrong with some passionate debate, as long as it doesn't get personal.

    Almost 2500 pages & maybe 50 of them contain legitimate information pertaining to B25. And as for the passionate debate, hard to say things haven’t gotten personal. I may not comment on everything, but I do read everything. This thread is toxic.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    talos7 wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    I honestly would not be opposed to a new thread being opened once the PC occurs. This thread is toxic & littered with irrelevant information.
    A bit of an exaggeration, isn't it? Nothing wrong with some passionate debate, as long as it doesn't get personal.

    Absolutely, but so much of this thread is dominated by speculation based on opinion presented as fact.
    Nothing we can do about that, unfortunately. That'll surely transfer into another thread if this one is closed.

    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    I honestly would not be opposed to a new thread being opened once the PC occurs. This thread is toxic & littered with irrelevant information.
    A bit of an exaggeration, isn't it? Nothing wrong with some passionate debate, as long as it doesn't get personal.

    Almost 2500 pages & maybe 50 of them contain legitimate information pertaining to B25. And as for the passionate debate, hard to say things haven’t gotten personal. I may not comment on everything, but I do read everything. This thread is toxic.
    With all due respect, nobody is forced to contribute.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited April 2019 Posts: 12,480
    Popping in just to say I think Pheobe being on board is definitely a good thing. Relax. Cheers! B-)
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    It hasn't gotten personal, and I've been following this discussion thoroughly.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,207
    It's actually been pretty good lately compared to what it was like a few months ago.
  • Posts: 4,619
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    I honestly would not be opposed to a new thread being opened once the PC occurs. This thread is toxic & littered with irrelevant information.
    A bit of an exaggeration, isn't it? Nothing wrong with some passionate debate, as long as it doesn't get personal.

    Almost 2500 pages & maybe 50 of them contain legitimate information pertaining to B25. And as for the passionate debate, hard to say things haven’t gotten personal. I may not comment on everything, but I do read everything. This thread is toxic.
    Look, I have been attacked, mocked and berated more than anyone else in this thread. Still, I would never advocate for this thread getting locked. "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!"
  • Posts: 9,843
    Can I offer an opinion I really think I you people should find a better place to meet
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited April 2019 Posts: 8,196
    jake24 wrote: »
    With all due respect, nobody is forced to contribute.

    True, and many who could contribute thoughtful interaction choose to stay out of the muck.

  • Posts: 385
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Can I offer an opinion I really think I you people should find a better place to meet

    Where do you think you’re going?
  • NS_writingsNS_writings Buenos Aires
    Posts: 544
    Just a quick thought; if we do get a female agent/007 (as in taking Bonds number that is), that could also open up the possibility
    that the Norway sequence – if a flashback, could just as well be a flashback for the female agent, as much as Madeleine Swann, right?

    How about something even more controversial....
    What if the opening action sequence is a car chase in Matera with the new 007 - and not Bond. Essentially, the female 007 gets the big opening action sequence/PTS.

    Bond can make his introduction later in the first act.

    I'd kind of love that. We need some fully-rounded female characters in these films.

    Did I just make every angry white guy cry?

    You can purchase Atomic Blonde here: https://www.amazon.com/Atomic-Blonde-Charlize-Theron/dp/B073VF84W4

    I'll ignore the racist coment.
  • Posts: 1,680
    They’re running the risk of too many cooks in the kitchen. Too much script work by too many writers. Regardless of the quality it’s likely going to stick out and Certain dialogue or scenes will resemble each writer accordingly
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    edited April 2019 Posts: 3,126
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    I honestly would not be opposed to a new thread being opened once the PC occurs. This thread is toxic & littered with irrelevant information.
    A bit of an exaggeration, isn't it? Nothing wrong with some passionate debate, as long as it doesn't get personal.

    Almost 2500 pages & maybe 50 of them contain legitimate information pertaining to B25. And as for the passionate debate, hard to say things haven’t gotten personal. I may not comment on everything, but I do read everything. This thread is toxic.
    Look, I have been attacked, mocked and berated more than anyone else in this thread. Still, I would never advocate for this thread getting locked. "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!"

    @PanchitoPistoles isn't because you don't listen to mods or been in trouble with them or?
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,767
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    They’re running the risk of too many cooks in the kitchen. Too much script work by too many writers. Regardless of the quality it’s likely going to stick out and Certain dialogue or scenes will resemble each writer accordingly
    These are Bond films with a long history of writing films by committee and circuiting through a series of writers. It's the producers and the director that make it a cohesive product during filming.

    Cubby Broccoli: "Bond is the only script written by a committee," he said. "I sit down with the writer, director and executive producer and we decide what we want in the script. The final decision," he added, "is made by me."

  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    Yeah not a fan of these recent rumors apart from the press conference possibly being held in Jamaica. The rest? No thanks.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    They’re running the risk of too many cooks in the kitchen. Too much script work by too many writers. Regardless of the quality it’s likely going to stick out and Certain dialogue or scenes will resemble each writer accordingly
    These are Bond films with a long history of writing films by committee and circuiting through a series of writers. It's the producers and the director that make it a cohesive product during filming.

    Cubby Broccoli: "Bond is the only script written by a committee," he said. "I sit down with the writer, director and executive producer and we decide what we want in the script. The final decision," he added, "is made by me."

    Cubby was ahead of his time. Everyone is doing what he did back in '61/'62...
Sign In or Register to comment.