It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
What they won't tell you is that Sony financed a garbage movie only intended for brand recognition, and the sale of merchandising from a tired IP, using women as a slave tool for that vision. And some women in the media have the audacity to march with pitchforks to the houses of the critics, when their sacred gender was more mistreated by Sony than anyone else, who simply piggybacked off of real concerns over sexism in the world in order to disguise the fact that their film was a steaming pile of garbage.
Of all the truly troubling struggles women have to face world wide in the real world, in many cultures that are still old testament in their mistreatment of them, people are whining about Ghostbusters and the all-female cast? Really? There's all these "vote with your wallet" discussions happening, but it really doesn't matter. Supporting this so-called pro-woman movie won't rescue women that die each day around the world for boneheaded reasons, or those who suffer in squalor as they watch men with half their experience getting the opportunities they are far more deserving of.
If you want to support a film that has a prominent female cast that doesn't degrade them, cast them in stereotypical roles or devote entire sections of the film to man-hating as Ghostbusters does, check out Mad Max: Fury Road. It's got a heavy female cast that never draws attention to that fact, never used a gender war to sell tickets, and just told a damn good story of empowerment against oppression for all, not just the women.
That's the kind of thing we should be supporting, not this Ghostbusters nonsense. Everyone involved in that production who knew what the real motives behind it were deserve everything they're getting in backlash. It's worse enough to have more greed than sense, but when you begin to try and mask that greed by appealing fraudulently to very serious gender concerns, you've gone too far.
Hey there. What I mean is that it is terrible in the sense that in 6 months time no one will remember it existed. It has none of the flavour of the original and does nothing unique of its own. They may as well have been firefighters, and made a team comedy about that. I highly doubt that this film would have received a quarter of the criticism it has gotten if it hadn't been based on a beloved license.
1. FRWL
2. DN
3. TB
4. GF
I'm reading the series in order again, up to YOLT... I was surprised how much I didn't care for GF this time around. It's in the bottom quarter for me. Seriously, I enjoyed reading TSWLM more. I liked Bond chasing the girl on a drive thru Europe but it didn't really develop the way I would like. Knocking over Ft Knox as it's "just a bank," is still an inspired and intriguing idea though.
Debatable. The Bond/Blofeld connection was weak, desperate writing, I found it more offensive.
@Murdock, passionately agree. I don't know how it can get more offensive than something like that that so blatantly insults every fiber of our intelligence.
The soap opera melodrama over the foster brother thing is so amusing, it almost hurts. It matches the dramatized criticism Severine's death in SF got when Bond calls it a "waste of scotch," with them entirely missing the subtext and nuance behind what he really meant by that comment. I could come up with far greater criticisms for SP than that angle (which I have no issue with), and I'm one of its biggest supporters. SP dissenters need to step their game up. ;)
Meh. I think they just wanted to cash in on the Ghostbusters name and thought a female cast would be an interesting departure from the original. I really, really doubt it was part of some conspiracy to smear the film's critics. And I doubt anyone honestly thinks that a Ghostbusters film is going to solve the problems of women's equality. It's a bloody film about ghosts.
However, considering all the half arsed remakes and abysmal comedies that are released every year, I don't think it was happenstance that an all female Ghostbusters recieved such a disproportionate level of vitriol. Obviously there were a lot of legitimate criticisms, particularly after the trailer was released, but you'd have to be in denial to believe that misogyny didn't come into the strange hate campaign that followed. You only had to read the comments on YouTube to see that.
I understand that Paul Feig's Ghostbusters wasn't for me (mainstream comedies rarely are), but I thought it was nice to see a predominantly female cast in a film that isn't a romantic comedy or period drama. Not everything can be made for man-children like us.
Ah, you hit on a point that I think has affected more recent Bond films. Science is advancing to a point where the possible will still seem to many impossible. Two things made some aspects of DaD seem implausible, one was the poorly executed effects; the other is the fact that the science presented, the physical engineering and the invisible car are both within reach of modern science but both were viewed as ridiculously far fetched.
This second reason provides some ammunition for those who want to see Bond done as a period piece.
http://www.foresight.org/policy/brief2.html ( nanotechnology and human engineering)
As far as the Bond/Blofeld connection, it's obvious nature and laziness of the concept that I find more offensive. not the believability.
The whole of DAD insults everyone's intelligence so I find it difficult to single things out for special criticism.
The point of the Craig era,I thought, was that we were resetting from ground zero after the cataclysm of DAD and embarking on a new era of quality.
Yet we end up with a dire third act where we not only learn that Blofeld has actually been behind everything for the past four films but Bond and his nemesis were childhood playmates. Fuck me that would get rejected at the script meeting for a Mexican soap opera.
Personally I find something that pisses on Fleming far more offensive than something outlandish in an over the top comic book of a film.
Interesting. I haven't seen it since last November either. Although, I do own the Blu-ray, it's just been collecting dust. At first, I had no desire to watch it because I was so massively disappointed in it. Then I realized that I needed more time away from it, so that I could approach it with an open mind next time out. Perhaps the anticipation will even help me see it in a new light? We'll see. I'm not holding my breath.
https://heatst.com/entertainment/exclusive-james-bond-auditions-have-started-and-2-actors-have-already-been-nixed-as-007/
I have no idea of the credentials of the source.
Yes!
Yea, Bell's fell short.
To be fair, calling Blofeld the person behind all in the Craig era isn't exactly true, to be completely honest. His organization and his leadership were there, sure, but Le Chiffre was doing what he was doing on his own, so Blofeld had no say in that. Greene had his own schemes running with Medrano, and it seemed the land deal had more of his name on it than anyone else's; even still, he had separate, private dealings. In Skyfall, it's assumed Blofeld gave Silva funds to wreak havoc, but what he did with those resources weren't of any concern to him beyond that, so again, Silva did what he did of his own volition and at nobody's specific orders. CR and QoS change very little in our perception of them, because back then all we thought was "these guys are all listening to Quantum higher brass." Now, we know that it was SPECTRE they were working under, but nothing about what we saw really changes anything. Quantum and SPECTRE mold into one, as a collective unit.
As for the pissing of Fleming comment, you must hate the majority of this franchise, then, because over half of the movies are a far, far cry from Fleming's Bond, and those that aren't don't exactly hit the money in ways you'd expect either. The cinematic Bond is it's own separate thing, always has been, so looking for Fleming in it to a satisfying degree can often be a mission in futility.
How so?
Whoa. Everybody involved appeared to have signed off on the basic treatment that preceded the July 2013 press release (based on my reading of the material in the Sony hacks.)
So after July 2013, John Logan goes off and starts writing. Barbara Broccoli, based on what I've seen, doesn't read any of Logan's drafts until spring 2014. Was she ever curious how it was going?
Or, is it possible, BB was dealing with The Silent Storm and didn't have time to read the Logan drafts of Bond 24 until spring 2014?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/bp/invisible-mercedes-brings-james-bond-technology-life-171557818.html
I've seen that video so many times, and I love it!
Bell end?
'its assumed'? By who? You you mean to back up your own theories?
In SF I assume that Silva is working under direct orders of Blofeld and is paving the way for the Nine Eyes scheme by committing a terrorist attack on the UKL. In addition he is also paving the way for C by discrediting the 007 'program'. Blofeld knows he is a loose cannon but doesnt really care what havoc he wreaks.
Its incredibly easy to come up with any theory you want and then find 'evidence' to back it up when the scripts are so full of holes. Rather like religious nutters finding all sorts of justification in the bible and koran for doing unspeakable things (although even SP is not as badly written as those!).
In any event I dont really know how you differentiate here:
When Microsoft release a new shit version of Windows do people slag off the guy who programmed it or Bill Gates?
Is this statement meant as a defence? Might as well exonerate the Captain of the Titanic for ploughing on at full speed through an ice field because 'he didnt have time' if he wanted to break the Blue Riband record.
I would have been fine with this with 'adaptive camouflage' being presented exactly as that but the car in the film is completely invisible to the human eye which is utterly wank.
Of the two, Theo James by a mile. He has the look of a ladykiller, with a bit of that deadly edge. He's not a clean-shaven Hiddletwink, either.
Aidan Turner: I just don't see the appeal in his guy of course I f he is cast I will watch his four movies and that will be that (in this day and age sadly you can only seem to get four films out of an actor) I don't think he is bad mind you I just haven't seen anything exciting and clips of him acting on you tube are scarce.
Tom Hiddleston: I have already put my support behind him so I will be brief, he is a good actor can do the suave lady killer thing with ease and was quite brutual in The night Manger and looks bad ass in the pics from Kong Skull Island. Out of the names mentioned he is my fav but honestly I don't know why eon can't go to Fassbender or Hardy.
Dominic Cooper: meh I heard he was bad in Fleming the man who would be bond and while he was ok in first avenger he wasn't memorable either...