No Time to Die production thread

11451461481501511208

Comments

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,252
    talos7 wrote: »
    Again, there’s a possibility that Craig’s Bond never officially returns to service as an MI-6 agent.

    I don't think so. Remember that the 007 logo was displayed prominently when the film was announced, for instance on Twitter (where the account is @007). This weekend, the logo is still painted on the Formula 1 car. If they intended to have a film and a mission in which James Bond is never 007, even if there's some secrecy at work, they would have asked promo to downplay everything involving 007 for this one. Otherwise, people would get confused.

    All good points...
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,231
    echo wrote: »
    I guess people are mad as the '007' moniker is associated with white masculinity and strength. The notion of associating that number with a black female emasculates the notion of the strong white male saving the world. It also may appear scary as the strong white male (Daniel Craig's Bond) will seemingly be subservient in rank to a young black woman (Lashana Lynch's 007).

    There's a certain degree of indirect discrimination that prohibits people associating the '007' number with anything aside the white male hegemony. Any attempt to decry it as a 'gimmick' undermines the importance the move is to certain people.

    I'm not against the Nomi as 007 idea as I'm sure I've made clear previously, but I think this is extremely presumptious and unfair on those who simply just like these trademark aspects of the Bond films as part of being escapist fantasy and enjoy them without any consideration for such social viewpoints.

    It is also possible for something to be a gimmick (unless it's key to the plot, which it probably isn't) and important to certain people at the same time. It doesn't necessarily undermine anything.

    There are obvious social implications as this is 2019 and everything is political. But that only occurs if we push a post-modern filter on this news and analyse some kind of political motivation behind the casting.

    There is a very very good chance that Lashana Lynch was the best person for the part and that she just happens to be a black woman.

    In this respect, there is nothing stopping you enjoying the film as a piece of entertainment. Remember, none of us know how it will be handled. We are merely reacting off the idea off our own built-in value system.

    Which is all very well and good, and I'm sure Lynch was the best person for the part and will do a great job. But unless they auditioned both genders from all races for the part (which they didn't), her being a black woman is besides the point - unless it's actually relevant to the story.

    If Nomi was being played by a white actress, it would still be a gimmick. If it were a black male, it would still be a gimmick. If it were a white male, it would still be a gimmick. And it's the gimmick that people rightly/wrongly have an issue with. I'm personally fine with it and think it'll add something different to the film.

    However, this is the problem with putting a political/social filter on these types of developments.....sometimes you end up looking at things that aren't there.

    Which is why your statements regarding people's reluctance to let go of a symbol of "white masculinity and strength" might not be the wisest.

    That's your opinion. (Note that I did not say "opinion.")

    My opinion is that, no matter what his or her political views, anyone who is on a James Bond forum nine months prior to the release of B25 is going to see B25 in the theater, regardless of whom Lynch plays or whom 007 is.

    That goes without saying. I'm not really sure why you felt my comment was the one to reply to with that.
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,890
    QBranch wrote: »
    Nomi orders her martinis stirred not shaken and is given the cooler gadgets by Q, much to Bond's chagrin.

    That happened in SPECTRE with the DB10 going to 009.
  • Posts: 17,819
    Which is all very well and good, and I'm sure Lynch was the best person for the part and will do a great job. But unless they auditioned both genders from all races for the part (which they didn't), her being a black woman is besides the point - unless it's actually relevant to the story.

    Going off topic from the "white masculinity" discussion a bit here (as I don't have anything to add); I've been thinking that Lynch being a black woman might mean that her character has Jamaican/Caribbean heritage? Has anything been written about Nomi's background?

    Lynch is of Jamaican heritage, too. Nothing yet about Nomi's background, so I guess we'll have to see.

    @HildebrandRarity Giving Bond the temporary designation 7777 would be a nice little Easter egg, I think.

    Thanks, didn't know that. :-)
  • Posts: 4,410
    I guess people are mad as the '007' moniker is associated with white masculinity and strength. The notion of associating that number with a black female emasculates the notion of the strong white male saving the world. It also may appear scary as the strong white male (Daniel Craig's Bond) will seemingly be subservient in rank to a young black woman (Lashana Lynch's 007).

    There's a certain degree of indirect discrimination that prohibits people associating the '007' number with anything aside the white male hegemony. Any attempt to decry it as a 'gimmick' undermines the importance the move is to certain people.

    I'm not against the Nomi as 007 idea as I'm sure I've made clear previously, but I think this is extremely presumptious and unfair on those who simply just like these trademark aspects of the Bond films as part of being escapist fantasy and enjoy them without any consideration for such social viewpoints.

    It is also possible for something to be a gimmick (unless it's key to the plot, which it probably isn't) and important to certain people at the same time. It doesn't necessarily undermine anything.

    There are obvious social implications as this is 2019 and everything is political. But that only occurs if we push a post-modern filter on this news and analyse some kind of political motivation behind the casting.

    There is a very very good chance that Lashana Lynch was the best person for the part and that she just happens to be a black woman.

    In this respect, there is nothing stopping you enjoying the film as a piece of entertainment. Remember, none of us know how it will be handled. We are merely reacting off the idea off our own built-in value system.

    Which is all very well and good, and I'm sure Lynch was the best person for the part and will do a great job. But unless they auditioned both genders from all races for the part (which they didn't), her being a black woman is besides the point - unless it's actually relevant to the story.

    If Nomi was being played by a white actress, it would still be a gimmick. If it were a black male, it would still be a gimmick. If it were a white male, it would still be a gimmick. And it's the gimmick that people rightly/wrongly have an issue with. I'm personally fine with it and think it'll add something different to the film.

    However, this is the problem with putting a political/social filter on these types of developments.....sometimes you end up looking at things that aren't there.

    Which is why your statements regarding people's reluctance to let go of a symbol of "white masculinity and strength" might not be the wisest.

    I think it's immensely difficult to ignore politics in the Bond films. Especially since Craig took over.

    For example, I watched CR with a family member and they were under the impression that Carlos was Middle Eastern hence why he was hired as a terrorist for a bombing at an airport. I have to confess the actor does look a little Middle Eastern.

    006CSR_Claudio_Santamaria_002.jpg

    Then you have SP which very clearly took place in a post-Edward Snowden world. In 2014/15 the discussion was over "big" government and its capacity to oversee everything and mine data.

    So it makes sense that in 2019 the film would address the bigger socio-political movement of MeToo. It's not exactly a negative thing. Surely, it should be embraced.
  • Posts: 6,710
    RC7 wrote: »
    I guess people are mad as the '007' moniker is associated with white masculinity and strength. The notion of associating that number with a black female emasculates the notion of the strong white male saving the world. It also may appear scary as the strong white male (Daniel Craig's Bond) will seemingly be subservient in rank to a young black woman (Lashana Lynch's 007).

    There's a certain degree of indirect discrimination that prohibits people associating the '007' number with anything aside the white male hegemony. Any attempt to decry it as a 'gimmick' undermines the importance the move is to certain people.

    I'm not against the Nomi as 007 idea as I'm sure I've made clear previously, but I think this is extremely presumptious and unfair on those who simply just like these trademark aspects of the Bond films as part of being escapist fantasy and enjoy them without any consideration for such social viewpoints.

    It is also possible for something to be a gimmick (unless it's key to the plot, which it probably isn't) and important to certain people at the same time. It doesn't necessarily undermine anything.

    There are obvious social implications as this is 2019 and everything is political. But that only occurs if we push a post-modern filter on this news and analyse some kind of political motivation behind the casting.

    There is a very very good chance that Lashana Lynch was the best person for the part and that she just happens to be a black woman.

    In this respect, there is nothing stopping you enjoying the film as a piece of entertainment. Remember, none of us know how it will be handled. We are merely reacting off the idea off our own built-in value system.

    Which is all very well and good, and I'm sure Lynch was the best person for the part and will do a great job. But unless they auditioned both genders from all races for the part (which they didn't), her being a black woman is besides the point - unless it's actually relevant to the story.

    If Nomi was being played by a white actress, it would still be a gimmick. If it were a black male, it would still be a gimmick. If it were a white male, it would still be a gimmick. And it's the gimmick that people rightly/wrongly have an issue with. I'm personally fine with it and think it'll add something different to the film.

    However, this is the problem with putting a political/social filter on these types of developments.....sometimes you end up looking at things that aren't there.

    Which is why your statements regarding people's reluctance to let go off a symbol of "white masculinity and strength" might not be the wisest.

    Spot on, Sir.

    Well said.
  • Posts: 3,278
    So it makes sense that in 2019 the film would address the bigger socio-political movement of MeToo.
    MeToo is so last year.

    Brexit is far more current ;-)
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 488
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Brexit is far more current ;-)

    Do people really want a James Bond film that would be an absurdist comedy from beginning to end?
  • edited July 2019 Posts: 6,710
    Well, the bright side is, all of this controversy, albeit stirred by dense people, might drive EON to launch a mood teaser of sorts, sooner than previously scheduled.

    Wishful thinking, I know ;)
  • Posts: 17,819
    So it makes sense that in 2019 the film would address the bigger socio-political movement of MeToo. It's not exactly a negative thing. Surely, it should be embraced.

    They need to do it cleverly though; if addressed, it must be seamlessly woven into the story, and not feel forced or out of place in any way. They might manage to do it properly.
  • edited July 2019 Posts: 3,278
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Brexit is far more current ;-)

    Do people really want a James Bond film that would be an absurdist comedy from beginning to end?

    No. But:
    "MI5 chief: Brexit risks UK security"
    https://www.bestforbritain.org/brexit-risks-uk-security

    Intelligence sharing and access to international databases is far more relevant to a Bond movie, than MeToo, IMO.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited July 2019 Posts: 8,231
    I guess people are mad as the '007' moniker is associated with white masculinity and strength. The notion of associating that number with a black female emasculates the notion of the strong white male saving the world. It also may appear scary as the strong white male (Daniel Craig's Bond) will seemingly be subservient in rank to a young black woman (Lashana Lynch's 007).

    There's a certain degree of indirect discrimination that prohibits people associating the '007' number with anything aside the white male hegemony. Any attempt to decry it as a 'gimmick' undermines the importance the move is to certain people.

    I'm not against the Nomi as 007 idea as I'm sure I've made clear previously, but I think this is extremely presumptious and unfair on those who simply just like these trademark aspects of the Bond films as part of being escapist fantasy and enjoy them without any consideration for such social viewpoints.

    It is also possible for something to be a gimmick (unless it's key to the plot, which it probably isn't) and important to certain people at the same time. It doesn't necessarily undermine anything.

    There are obvious social implications as this is 2019 and everything is political. But that only occurs if we push a post-modern filter on this news and analyse some kind of political motivation behind the casting.

    There is a very very good chance that Lashana Lynch was the best person for the part and that she just happens to be a black woman.

    In this respect, there is nothing stopping you enjoying the film as a piece of entertainment. Remember, none of us know how it will be handled. We are merely reacting off the idea off our own built-in value system.

    Which is all very well and good, and I'm sure Lynch was the best person for the part and will do a great job. But unless they auditioned both genders from all races for the part (which they didn't), her being a black woman is besides the point - unless it's actually relevant to the story.

    If Nomi was being played by a white actress, it would still be a gimmick. If it were a black male, it would still be a gimmick. If it were a white male, it would still be a gimmick. And it's the gimmick that people rightly/wrongly have an issue with. I'm personally fine with it and think it'll add something different to the film.

    However, this is the problem with putting a political/social filter on these types of developments.....sometimes you end up looking at things that aren't there.

    Which is why your statements regarding people's reluctance to let go of a symbol of "white masculinity and strength" might not be the wisest.

    I think it's immensely difficult to ignore politics in the Bond films. Especially since Craig took over.

    For example, I watched CR with a family member and they were under the impression that Carlos was Middle Eastern hence why he was hired as a terrorist for a bombing at an airport. I have to confess the actor does look a little Middle Eastern.

    006CSR_Claudio_Santamaria_002.jpg

    Then you have SP which very clearly took place in a post-Edward Snowden world. In 2014/15 the discussion was over "big" government and its capacity to oversee everything and mine data.

    So it makes sense that in 2019 the film would address the bigger socio-political movement of MeToo. It's not exactly a negative thing. Surely, it should be embraced.

    It is far easier to ignore than you make it seem, and I say that as someone who has a book titled "The Politics of James Bond" on the shelf in front of me as I type this.

    Would anyone unfamiliar with (or even just vaguely aware of) the discussion of "big Government" have picked up on SPs extremely weak riff on that motif? I don't think so. That's because the Bond films aren't "politically driven" films. They're action adventure films, full of fantasy and escapism. They used political landscapes to colour their backdrops, for sure, but rarely did they tackle a political issue head-on, especially not a socially driven movement like MeToo. The films even did a lot of dancing around the notion of the Cold War, during a time (60s, 70s) where most of the world had already decided who was good and who was bad. The only relevant comparisons here really would be the discussion around Dalton's reduced libido in the middle of the AIDS epidemic, or M's appointment in GE.

    You yourself said that Lynch may have simply just been picked because she was the best person for the job. You can't have it both ways, it's either political or it isn't. And as you said, it's 2019 and everything is political. But again, I don't think people have taken issue with Lynch specifically; so even if it political, insinuating that certain members take issue with the idea because they're racially sensitive is ridiculous and broad-stroked to the extreme.

    For sure, change absolutely should be embraced. And it's great to want to analyse the films in this way. But don't be a dick about it.

    Anyway, I'm sure Bond 25 will be great and I'm sure Lynch will be fantastic in it. I'm looking forward to see what she does with the part.
  • Posts: 3,333
    Univex wrote: »
    @bondsum, have you see Barbara Broccoli's interview in which see states there are better roles for women than James Bond, because the character was created as a man? She gave that interview in Jamaica, just the other day. Then Phoebe whatshername came and said James Bond should remain faithful to his character and not change because the world around him has. Which was straight out of Fleming, btw.
    I have, but she was talking specifically about the role of James Bond not 007. It appears she now sees the two as entirely separate identities and open to other interpretations.

    As for Phoebe whatshername, she also says: "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." Now, if I read into that, it could imply that Bond is going to be played as a bit of a misogynist in B25 and have the alternative 007 show him the error of his ways. I say "could" because I don't know and Phoebe's comment could be taken either way, hence my own reservations. I'll be honest with you, I don't know, but the filmmakers are going to have to convince me as a consumer that this isn't the case.
    Univex wrote: »
    This is what keeps me confident that this is just a gimmick, and a fun one at that, if they do it well.
    You see, this is where my own reservations begin. Does B25 need this "gimmick" to make it a good Bond movie? It sounds more like a throwaway sketch from Comic Relief than something that should be used in a Bond film. Some forum members even joked about this being Lashana's opening scene pretty much word-for-word that the Hollywood source claims to be in the script. If this is true, surely the producers knew that something like this would eventually leak out and not stay secret for very long, negating the whole "popcorn-dropping moment" to begin with. Again, I must emphasise I don't know how this will appear in the finished film, but it doesn't sound like the best idea to me.
    Univex wrote: »
    Sure, this is not the stand alone slightly formulaic adventure I, as a straight white male, want to see. The thing is, why can't a straight white male have something to identify with nowadays? But I guess I'll have to make do with plots and characters from the Craig universe, Craig himself, and a lot of formula messing around that's been around since 2006. I, for one, enjoyed this tenure so far, Craig and all, really, I really did and do. And I want this film to be in line with all of that. Now, if I want this for Bond26? I'd say, no. But then again, I'm the one who wanted straight adaptations for the Fleming novels all along.
    I can't argue with any of that.
    Univex wrote: »
    All and all, it's just a gimmick. So will be
    Blofeld coming back
    , probably. And this will pretty much be a Craig era movie. Those who don't want that, well, too bad.
    Which brings me back to why Lupita Nyong'o didn't want to be part of a "gimmick" and something that had the potential to be divisive just to create clickbait headlines and promote the movie by making it a talking point. Full props to Lupita Nyong'o for not wanting to be the actress to do that.
    Univex wrote: »
    Those who can appreciate that and desire other things completely different at the same time, as I do, will endure this better, I believe.
    I admire you confidence @Univex, but with the current trend of Hollywood blockbusters adopting a lot of wokeness in its narratives, I'm not so sure you'll get a fully satisfying experience, unless you're willing to go along with whatever they tell you to.
    Univex wrote: »
    Being an adult is making peace with having antagonistical feelings at the same time. It's being lucid about this sort of thing. Not hysterical. So, if I end up eating humble pie, as you say, It'll eat it, knowing that at least I didn't ruin the production process fun by being overly negative, dense and hysterically fobic. Not saying you are, @bondsum. Just saying you should keep an open mind. For your sake. See? I do care ;)
    The hysteria comes from only 5 Twitter users (so far) that have been posted above that didn't read the article fully, only the headline. Otherwise, I don't see any genuine hysteria. I'm willing to eat humble pie if the movie isn't woke, not that I've come straight out and said that it is, I'm only mildly concerned right now as nothing has been confirmed either way. However, I'm not going to pretend to be enthusiastic for a Bond picture that appears to be making decisions based on gaining approval from JSWs, if that is indeed the direction B25 is heading. The only reason I mentioned about "eating humble pie" is that I know from past experience, everything is wonderful and hunky dory, right up to the point the movie has been completed, and then the vitriol begins. Those that were the movie's biggest defenders suddenly become its biggest detractors. I would be lying if I said I like the premise of there being another 007 in the same movie other than James Bond having that prefix. For me, it's not a premise I care for, and I would've said the same thing had Lily James been cast as well.
  • edited July 2019 Posts: 6,710
    bondsum wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    @bondsum, have you see Barbara Broccoli's interview in which see states there are better roles for women than James Bond, because the character was created as a man? She gave that interview in Jamaica, just the other day. Then Phoebe whatshername came and said James Bond should remain faithful to his character and not change because the world around him has. Which was straight out of Fleming, btw.
    I have, but she was talking specifically about the role of James Bond not 007. It appears she now sees the two as entirely separate identities and open to other interpretations.

    As for Phoebe whatshername, she also says: "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." Now, if I read into that, it could imply that Bond is going to be played as a bit of a misogynist in B25 and have the alternative 007 show him the error of his ways. I say "could" because I don't know and Phoebe's comment could be taken either way, hence my own reservations. I'll be honest with you, I don't know, but the filmmakers are going to have to convince me as a consumer that this isn't the case.
    Univex wrote: »
    This is what keeps me confident that this is just a gimmick, and a fun one at that, if they do it well.
    You see, this is where my own reservations begin. Does B25 need this "gimmick" to make it a good Bond movie? It sounds more like a throwaway sketch from Comic Relief than something that should be used in a Bond film. Some forum members even joked about this being Lashana's opening scene pretty much word-for-word that the Hollywood source claims to be in the script. If this is true, surely the producers knew that something like this would eventually leak out and not stay secret for very long, negating the whole "popcorn-dropping moment" to begin with. Again, I must emphasise I don't know how this will appear in the finished film, but it doesn't sound like the best idea to me.
    Univex wrote: »
    Sure, this is not the stand alone slightly formulaic adventure I, as a straight white male, want to see. The thing is, why can't a straight white male have something to identify with nowadays? But I guess I'll have to make do with plots and characters from the Craig universe, Craig himself, and a lot of formula messing around that's been around since 2006. I, for one, enjoyed this tenure so far, Craig and all, really, I really did and do. And I want this film to be in line with all of that. Now, if I want this for Bond26? I'd say, no. But then again, I'm the one who wanted straight adaptations for the Fleming novels all along.
    I can't argue with any of that.
    Univex wrote: »
    All and all, it's just a gimmick. So will be
    Blofeld coming back
    , probably. And this will pretty much be a Craig era movie. Those who don't want that, well, too bad.
    Which brings me back to why Lupita Nyong'o didn't want to be part of a "gimmick" and something that had the potential to be divisive just to create clickbait headlines and promote the movie by making it a talking point. Full props to Lupita Nyong'o for not wanting to be the actress to do that.
    Univex wrote: »
    Those who can appreciate that and desire other things completely different at the same time, as I do, will endure this better, I believe.
    I admire you confidence @Univex, but with the current trend of Hollywood blockbusters adopting a lot of wokeness in its narratives, I'm not so sure you'll get a fully satisfying experience, unless you're willing to go along with whatever they tell you to.
    Univex wrote: »
    Being an adult is making peace with having antagonistical feelings at the same time. It's being lucid about this sort of thing. Not hysterical. So, if I end up eating humble pie, as you say, It'll eat it, knowing that at least I didn't ruin the production process fun by being overly negative, dense and hysterically fobic. Not saying you are, @bondsum. Just saying you should keep an open mind. For your sake. See? I do care ;)
    The hysteria comes from only 5 Twitter users (so far) that have been posted above that didn't read the article fully, only the headline. Otherwise, I don't see any genuine hysteria. I'm willing to eat humble pie if the movie isn't woke, not that I've come straight out and said that it is, I'm only mildly concerned right now as nothing has been confirmed either way. However, I'm not going to pretend to be enthusiastic for a Bond picture that appears to be making decisions based on gaining approval from JSWs, if that is indeed the direction B25 is heading. The only reason I mentioned about "eating humble pie" is that I know from past experience, everything is wonderful and hunky dory, right up to the point the movie has been completed, and then the vitriol begins. Those that were the movie's biggest defenders suddenly become its biggest detractors. I would be lying if I said I like the premise of there being another 007 in the same movie other than James Bond having that prefix. For me, it's not a premise I care for, and I would've said the same thing had Lily James been cast as well.

    @bondsum, all I can say is that we're on the exact same page about everything. The difference being, I'm trying to be positive about it all. But I admit that, sometimes, I see myself trying to hard ;)
    insinuating that certain members take issue with the idea because they're racially sensitive is ridiculous and broad-stroked to the extreme.

    Exactly the point I was trying to make.
  • Posts: 3,333
    Univex wrote: »
    @bondsum, all I can say is that we're on the exact same page about everything. The difference being, I'm trying to be positive about it all. But I admit that, sometimes, I see myself trying to hard ;)
    Cheers, my friend. I wasn't trying to make an undignified dig at you. I just wanted to explain my own reasons why I'm not particular upbeat about Hollywood's output at the moment, and was hoping it wouldn't infect B25.
  • edited July 2019 Posts: 6,710
    bondsum wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    @bondsum, all I can say is that we're on the exact same page about everything. The difference being, I'm trying to be positive about it all. But I admit that, sometimes, I see myself trying to hard ;)
    Cheers, my friend. I wasn't trying to make an undignified dig at you. I just wanted to explain my own reasons why I'm not particular upbeat about Hollywood's output at the moment, and was hoping it wouldn't infect B25.

    And I can relate to that as you've been mirroring my own feelings throughout these pages. Bond 25 can be a helluva film, but I'm certain it won't be the Bond film I've been longing for years. And that's down to the type of circumstance given by time and space. I could say the exact same thing about the entire world and the whole of the human race. Honestly, negativity is realism nowadays. And anything else, positivism, for instance, is somewhat counter current. Yes, that's it, realism is counter-current. Lucidity is a rare commodity these days. I'm glad we share it, my friend. I'm not afraid for this last film of this particular era. I'm deeply afraid for Bond26. Deeply.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,592
    Has anyone seen the Twitter reactions? My god people are dense.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,256
    jake24 wrote: »
    Has anyone seen the Twitter reactions? My god people are dense.

    What did I miss?
  • Posts: 6,710
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Has anyone seen the Twitter reactions? My god people are dense.

    What did I miss?

    They don't seem to understand that James Bond and 007 are not mutual exclusive ;)
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,231
    jake24 wrote: »
    Has anyone seen the Twitter reactions? My god people are dense.

    They tend not to read stories before they comment on them. Same goes for Facebook, which is like a live-wire today.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Brexit is far more current ;-)

    Do people really want a James Bond film that would be an absurdist comedy from beginning to end?

    No. But:
    "MI5 chief: Brexit risks UK security"
    https://www.bestforbritain.org/brexit-risks-uk-security

    Intelligence sharing and access to international databases is far more relevant to a Bond movie, than MeToo, IMO.

    +1000
  • Posts: 22
    I don’t get what all this ‘certainty’ is about that B25 isn’t going to be any good. Life is a lot more enjoyable if you try and be a bit more optimistic. Bond has made a rod for its own back by delivering the (widely recognised) best Bond film of all time with Casino Royale and then following it up with Skyfall. Whether you liked QoS and SP or not, Bond has sunk a LOT lower and they’re not bad films. We’ve got a real visionary in CJF, an academy award winner in Sandgren and PWB, CJF and SZB are all acclaimed screenwriters in their own right. There’s no reason why this movie won’t be killer. Let’s try a bit of enthusiasm and see how this plays out.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,252
    I’ve watched CR more times than I care to mention and Carlos’ ethnicity, nationality and political or religious affiliations have never entered my mind .
    That’s looking for something that isn’t there.
  • Posts: 3,278
    jake24 wrote: »
    Has anyone seen the Twitter reactions? My god people are dense.

    The user loanerbrain does have a fair point:
    "They are laying down the ground work so all the SJW's can push for James Bond to be replaced by whoever is not a straight white male."
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Univex wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    @bondsum, all I can say is that we're on the exact same page about everything. The difference being, I'm trying to be positive about it all. But I admit that, sometimes, I see myself trying to hard ;)
    Cheers, my friend. I wasn't trying to make an undignified dig at you. I just wanted to explain my own reasons why I'm not particular upbeat about Hollywood's output at the moment, and was hoping it wouldn't infect B25.

    And I can relate to that as you've been mirroring my own feelings throughout these pages. Bond 25 can be a helluva film, but I'm certain it won't be the Bond film I've been longing for years. And that's down to the type of circumstance given by time and space. I could say the exact same thing about the entire world and the whole of the human race. Honestly, negativity is realism nowadays. And anything else, positivism, for instance, is somewhat counter current. Yes, that's it, realism is counter-current. Lucidity is a rare commodity these days. I'm glad we share it, my friend. I'm not afraid for this last film of this particular era. I'm deeply afraid for Bond26. Deeply.

    Afraid, but positive, right?
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,380
    Zekidk wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Has anyone seen the Twitter reactions? My god people are dense.

    The user loanerbrain does have a fair point:
    "They are laying down the ground work so all the SJW's can push for James Bond to be replaced by whoever is not a straight white male."

    Overblown.

    https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2019/0426/1045790-bond-producer-says-007-will-always-be-male/
  • Posts: 385
    echo wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Has anyone seen the Twitter reactions? My god people are dense.

    The user loanerbrain does have a fair point:
    "They are laying down the ground work so all the SJW's can push for James Bond to be replaced by whoever is not a straight white male."

    Overblown.

    https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2019/0426/1045790-bond-producer-says-007-will-always-be-male/

    And Oberhauser isn’t Blofeld either.

    Pull the other leg.
  • Posts: 3,278
    echo wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Has anyone seen the Twitter reactions? My god people are dense.

    The user loanerbrain does have a fair point:
    "They are laying down the ground work so all the SJW's can push for James Bond to be replaced by whoever is not a straight white male."

    Overblown.

    https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2019/0426/1045790-bond-producer-says-007-will-always-be-male/

    "Barbara Broccoli insisted that 007 will always be male."

    Guess the Sun article is fake news, then.
  • Posts: 22
    Zekidk wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Has anyone seen the Twitter reactions? My god people are dense.

    The user loanerbrain does have a fair point:
    "They are laying down the ground work so all the SJW's can push for James Bond to be replaced by whoever is not a straight white male."

    Overblown.

    https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2019/0426/1045790-bond-producer-says-007-will-always-be-male/

    "Barbara Broccoli insisted that 007 will always be male."

    Guess the Sun article is fake news, then.

    With the amount of tripe they publish would you be surprised...

  • edited July 2019 Posts: 6,710
    echo wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Has anyone seen the Twitter reactions? My god people are dense.

    The user loanerbrain does have a fair point:
    "They are laying down the ground work so all the SJW's can push for James Bond to be replaced by whoever is not a straight white male."

    Overblown.

    https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2019/0426/1045790-bond-producer-says-007-will-always-be-male/

    But she also said that male, yes, white, not so sure. She said the part was open for any actor who would be a good actor in the part. I wish she had said Bond was white and a man, as written by his author, and that there was no need to be ashamed or feel guilty about that, about maintaining the character's depiction as written by its author. And that this shouldn't be considered racist or misogynist, just coherent and respectful. And that all races, cultures and genres deserve characters as strong and representative as James Bond. And that finally there's room in the world to create them.

    Now THAT would've been a speech.
Sign In or Register to comment.