› › ›

No Time to Die production thread

1…159160162164165…1208

Comments

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,257
    Resurrection wrote: »
    lets move on.

    Indeed.

    In a debate about who's the bigger idiot, I'd say it's the one running with unconfirmed rumours like it's the truth.

    So, yes, let's move on and stick to what we know rather than to what we fear the most.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    edited July 2019 Posts: 2,541
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Resurrection wrote: »
    lets move on.

    Indeed.

    In a debate about who's the bigger idiot, I'd say it's the one running with unconfirmed rumours like it's the truth.

    So, yes, let's move on and stick to what we know rather than to what we fear the most.

    Certainly
    This might the first time we get our first poster without the title. Would they wait for August to release the poster after teaser.
    Damn, I need a teaser @-)
  • UnivexUnivex
    Posts: 6,710
    Well, we're all idiots if we let the thread about filming get to 200 pages quick without a single word on filming for the last 50 pages or so.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,819
    Univex wrote: »
    Well, we're all idiots if we let the thread about filming get to 200 pages quick without a single word on filming for the last 50 pages or so.

    giphy.gif
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    Univex wrote: »
    Well, we're all idiots if we let the thread about filming get to 200 pages quick without a single word on filming for the last 50 pages or so.

    But but... Jane Bond... :-<
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited July 2019 Posts: 3,497
    Resurrection wrote: »
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »
    Resurrection wrote: »
    Take a closer look at the all the social media majority of them are already boycotting or disgusted by this idea
    How Many of them do you think are older or younger fans.

    Most of them are utter idiots who think Lynch and Craig are both going to be playing James Bond in the same bloody film. If they can't read, they're no great loss.

    Though, granted, one thing it does show is how linked the iconography of the 007 logo is with the character with casual audiences. I do understand and respect this, and I find the assumption that if you don't like the idea then you're a racist to be utterly braindead and devoid of any perspective whatsoever. However, the repeated baiting of other members such as @007Blofeld, aided by the ever charming, utterly nonsensical input of @Mendes4Lyfe and co. is really not helping and just goes to show how overblown this thread can become. Take a day off, lads. You're not the only Bond fans around, yet you speak as if you're the majority. This era has been a massive failure for you it seems, yet you're still no more a Bond fan than anyone who helped Skyfall cross the $1Billion mark.

    I'm not buying this idea that the film is going to flop because it's pushing an SJW agenda. Your examples, repeated a few pages back, are pretty weak.

    Ghostbusters may have been doomed to fail from the getgo. Sure. But it may also have failed because it was a rubbish movie, combined with the fact that most people just don't give a shit about Ghostbusters anymore. The same will likely apply for Terminator: Dark Fate, a film which very well may end up being good, but is part of a series that has clearly outstayed its welcome with casual audiences. T3, Salvation and Genisys were all sizeable box-office disappointments, and they didn't have this so-called SJW agenda. Perhaps people just don't give a shit about Terminator anymore, regardless of "motive".

    The same cannot be said of Bond, whose last two films have an almost $2billion total gross combined. People are here for Dan's Bond, big time. Now, I agreed a few pages back that this Nomi craic is a bit gimmicky to me, however it is a one-film deal and makes logical sense in the context, allows Dan's Bond to do something different and give a fresh perspective on the action. It could be a cool gimmick. It's also not the core focus of the film, clearly. Just two days ago we were discussing Blofeld's return, and as plenty of other members have posted above and to the left, there are dozens upon dozens of other very Bondian staples in the film already, too.

    Do you really think the film is going to flop because of this tiny thread of the story? That because Bond is retired, not 007 anymore but will likely be 007 again by film's end that people will completely reject it? That it somehow won't recoup its costs? Even the worst Bond films have done that, and they had a lot of stuff fundamentally wrong with them. If you really do believe that, there seems to be a lot of growing up needed on your part. Eon don't need to do any damage control, unless they're feeling generous and want to pay for nightschool lessons for those Facebook folk who comment on articles before they read them. They just need to continue onwards, finish the film, get the trailer out and sit back and watch people hype up Dan's last film. They could very well make a balls of this little subplot, and I'll be the first to call them out if they do, but for the moment I'm happy to let them do their thing - because ultimately the 007 iconography isn't going anywhere, and Bond 26 will likely be more your speed.

    I do hope we can move on from this bloody topic and on to actual important story details and filming-related news. Let the people who are actually still happy about the film remain so.
    matt_u wrote: »
    In more or less 2 weeks we could have a teaser trailer and a title.

    Tempus fugit.

    A poster would be very nice right now.

    "Most of them are utter idiots" awesome I hope you feel superior or better about yourself after that. Anyways when I said look closely it meant there are more sensible comments not just any nonsense. Most of the headlines clearly Indicates that she is playing 007 not bond . They are not angry because she is playing 007 or bond they feel disgusted because it's another gimmick to satisfy SJW's and not even a clever one it's downright stupid and lazy writing. Try to have some meaningful conversation with those idiotic you are calling them might give you an idea.

    Any James bond film will bring cash but that's not what we are arguing about it right here sure lots of films got busted while changing gender and Game of thrones is clear cut ex. Of why it's shouldn't- all the male characters by the end looks highly stupid and look how great they try to portray female even a 10 year old female child vs 10 year old male child. If anyone can't see it or ignoring it intentionally, go for it . I have nothing to say to them anymore.

    I am not going to go for name calling or say someone idiots/racist/child just because our opinions differ. It will eventually show growing up on our part.

    As of now I am still trying to stay positive about this film.lets move on.

    Fact remains that, again, a thread went off the track because of a stupid tabloid rumor. Where is the proof? where are the set pics? where are the leaked script pages, etc...
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Resurrection wrote: »
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »
    Resurrection wrote: »
    Take a closer look at the all the social media majority of them are already boycotting or disgusted by this idea
    How Many of them do you think are older or younger fans.

    Most of them are utter idiots who think Lynch and Craig are both going to be playing James Bond in the same bloody film. If they can't read, they're no great loss.

    Though, granted, one thing it does show is how linked the iconography of the 007 logo is with the character with casual audiences. I do understand and respect this, and I find the assumption that if you don't like the idea then you're a racist to be utterly braindead and devoid of any perspective whatsoever. However, the repeated baiting of other members such as @007Blofeld, aided by the ever charming, utterly nonsensical input of @Mendes4Lyfe and co. is really not helping and just goes to show how overblown this thread can become. Take a day off, lads. You're not the only Bond fans around, yet you speak as if you're the majority. This era has been a massive failure for you it seems, yet you're still no more a Bond fan than anyone who helped Skyfall cross the $1Billion mark.

    I'm not buying this idea that the film is going to flop because it's pushing an SJW agenda. Your examples, repeated a few pages back, are pretty weak.

    Ghostbusters may have been doomed to fail from the getgo. Sure. But it may also have failed because it was a rubbish movie, combined with the fact that most people just don't give a shit about Ghostbusters anymore. The same will likely apply for Terminator: Dark Fate, a film which very well may end up being good, but is part of a series that has clearly outstayed its welcome with casual audiences. T3, Salvation and Genisys were all sizeable box-office disappointments, and they didn't have this so-called SJW agenda. Perhaps people just don't give a shit about Terminator anymore, regardless of "motive".

    The same cannot be said of Bond, whose last two films have an almost $2billion total gross combined. People are here for Dan's Bond, big time. Now, I agreed a few pages back that this Nomi craic is a bit gimmicky to me, however it is a one-film deal and makes logical sense in the context, allows Dan's Bond to do something different and give a fresh perspective on the action. It could be a cool gimmick. It's also not the core focus of the film, clearly. Just two days ago we were discussing Blofeld's return, and as plenty of other members have posted above and to the left, there are dozens upon dozens of other very Bondian staples in the film already, too.

    Do you really think the film is going to flop because of this tiny thread of the story? That because Bond is retired, not 007 anymore but will likely be 007 again by film's end that people will completely reject it? That it somehow won't recoup its costs? Even the worst Bond films have done that, and they had a lot of stuff fundamentally wrong with them. If you really do believe that, there seems to be a lot of growing up needed on your part. Eon don't need to do any damage control, unless they're feeling generous and want to pay for nightschool lessons for those Facebook folk who comment on articles before they read them. They just need to continue onwards, finish the film, get the trailer out and sit back and watch people hype up Dan's last film. They could very well make a balls of this little subplot, and I'll be the first to call them out if they do, but for the moment I'm happy to let them do their thing - because ultimately the 007 iconography isn't going anywhere, and Bond 26 will likely be more your speed.

    I do hope we can move on from this bloody topic and on to actual important story details and filming-related news. Let the people who are actually still happy about the film remain so.
    matt_u wrote: »
    In more or less 2 weeks we could have a teaser trailer and a title.

    Tempus fugit.

    A poster would be very nice right now.

    "Most of them are utter idiots" awesome I hope you feel superior or better about yourself after that. Anyways when I said look closely it meant there are more sensible comments not just any nonsense. Most of the headlines clearly Indicates that she is playing 007 not bond . They are not angry because she is playing 007 or bond they feel disgusted because it's another gimmick to satisfy SJW's and not even a clever one it's downright stupid and lazy writing. Try to have some meaningful conversation with those idiotic you are calling them might give you an idea.

    Any James bond film will bring cash but that's not what we are arguing about it right here sure lots of films got busted while changing gender and Game of thrones is clear cut ex. Of why it's shouldn't- all the male characters by the end looks highly stupid and look how great they try to portray female even a 10 year old female child vs 10 year old male child. If anyone can't see it or ignoring it intentionally, go for it . I have nothing to say to them anymore.

    I am not going to go for name calling or say someone idiots/racist/child just because our opinions differ. It will eventually show growing up on our part.

    As of now I am still trying to stay positive about this film.lets move on.

    Fact remains that, again, a thread went off the track because of a stupid tabloid rumor. Where is the proof? where are the set pics? where are the leaked script pages, etc...

    It is goin to happen, even if it is still unconfirmed.
  • MattMatt
    Posts: 154
    I imagine this will keep being talked about until we get some more news. Here's hoping it's soon....!
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    Allow me to change the topic for which this thread was created for :

    Do we know for certain that trailer will be released in August, any rumour?

    Will this be the first time we get our first poster without a title?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,606
    Resurrection wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Resurrection wrote: »
    lets move on.

    Indeed.

    In a debate about who's the bigger idiot, I'd say it's the one running with unconfirmed rumours like it's the truth.

    So, yes, let's move on and stick to what we know rather than to what we fear the most.

    Certainly
    This might the first time we get our first poster without the title. Would they wait for August to release the poster after teaser.
    Damn, I need a teaser @-)

    I kind of think they wouldn't do a teaser poster without a title: you're kind of missing an opportunity. It would be nice to get the teaser at the same time the title is revealed though: sometimes the title reveal on its own is a bit anti-climactic.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    mtm wrote: »
    Resurrection wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Resurrection wrote: »
    lets move on.

    Indeed.

    In a debate about who's the bigger idiot, I'd say it's the one running with unconfirmed rumours like it's the truth.

    So, yes, let's move on and stick to what we know rather than to what we fear the most.

    Certainly
    This might the first time we get our first poster without the title. Would they wait for August to release the poster after teaser.
    Damn, I need a teaser @-)

    I kind of think they wouldn't do a teaser poster without a title: you're kind of missing an opportunity. It would be nice to get the teaser at the same time the title is revealed though: sometimes the title reveal on its own is a bit anti-climactic.

    That would be really great
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    matt_u wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Resurrection wrote: »
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »
    Resurrection wrote: »
    Take a closer look at the all the social media majority of them are already boycotting or disgusted by this idea
    How Many of them do you think are older or younger fans.

    Most of them are utter idiots who think Lynch and Craig are both going to be playing James Bond in the same bloody film. If they can't read, they're no great loss.

    Though, granted, one thing it does show is how linked the iconography of the 007 logo is with the character with casual audiences. I do understand and respect this, and I find the assumption that if you don't like the idea then you're a racist to be utterly braindead and devoid of any perspective whatsoever. However, the repeated baiting of other members such as @007Blofeld, aided by the ever charming, utterly nonsensical input of @Mendes4Lyfe and co. is really not helping and just goes to show how overblown this thread can become. Take a day off, lads. You're not the only Bond fans around, yet you speak as if you're the majority. This era has been a massive failure for you it seems, yet you're still no more a Bond fan than anyone who helped Skyfall cross the $1Billion mark.

    I'm not buying this idea that the film is going to flop because it's pushing an SJW agenda. Your examples, repeated a few pages back, are pretty weak.

    Ghostbusters may have been doomed to fail from the getgo. Sure. But it may also have failed because it was a rubbish movie, combined with the fact that most people just don't give a shit about Ghostbusters anymore. The same will likely apply for Terminator: Dark Fate, a film which very well may end up being good, but is part of a series that has clearly outstayed its welcome with casual audiences. T3, Salvation and Genisys were all sizeable box-office disappointments, and they didn't have this so-called SJW agenda. Perhaps people just don't give a shit about Terminator anymore, regardless of "motive".

    The same cannot be said of Bond, whose last two films have an almost $2billion total gross combined. People are here for Dan's Bond, big time. Now, I agreed a few pages back that this Nomi craic is a bit gimmicky to me, however it is a one-film deal and makes logical sense in the context, allows Dan's Bond to do something different and give a fresh perspective on the action. It could be a cool gimmick. It's also not the core focus of the film, clearly. Just two days ago we were discussing Blofeld's return, and as plenty of other members have posted above and to the left, there are dozens upon dozens of other very Bondian staples in the film already, too.

    Do you really think the film is going to flop because of this tiny thread of the story? That because Bond is retired, not 007 anymore but will likely be 007 again by film's end that people will completely reject it? That it somehow won't recoup its costs? Even the worst Bond films have done that, and they had a lot of stuff fundamentally wrong with them. If you really do believe that, there seems to be a lot of growing up needed on your part. Eon don't need to do any damage control, unless they're feeling generous and want to pay for nightschool lessons for those Facebook folk who comment on articles before they read them. They just need to continue onwards, finish the film, get the trailer out and sit back and watch people hype up Dan's last film. They could very well make a balls of this little subplot, and I'll be the first to call them out if they do, but for the moment I'm happy to let them do their thing - because ultimately the 007 iconography isn't going anywhere, and Bond 26 will likely be more your speed.

    I do hope we can move on from this bloody topic and on to actual important story details and filming-related news. Let the people who are actually still happy about the film remain so.
    matt_u wrote: »
    In more or less 2 weeks we could have a teaser trailer and a title.

    Tempus fugit.

    A poster would be very nice right now.

    "Most of them are utter idiots" awesome I hope you feel superior or better about yourself after that. Anyways when I said look closely it meant there are more sensible comments not just any nonsense. Most of the headlines clearly Indicates that she is playing 007 not bond . They are not angry because she is playing 007 or bond they feel disgusted because it's another gimmick to satisfy SJW's and not even a clever one it's downright stupid and lazy writing. Try to have some meaningful conversation with those idiotic you are calling them might give you an idea.

    Any James bond film will bring cash but that's not what we are arguing about it right here sure lots of films got busted while changing gender and Game of thrones is clear cut ex. Of why it's shouldn't- all the male characters by the end looks highly stupid and look how great they try to portray female even a 10 year old female child vs 10 year old male child. If anyone can't see it or ignoring it intentionally, go for it . I have nothing to say to them anymore.

    I am not going to go for name calling or say someone idiots/racist/child just because our opinions differ. It will eventually show growing up on our part.

    As of now I am still trying to stay positive about this film.lets move on.

    Fact remains that, again, a thread went off the track because of a stupid tabloid rumor. Where is the proof? where are the set pics? where are the leaked script pages, etc...

    It is goin to happen, even if it is still unconfirmed.

    It can happen, and I wouldn't even mind. But...
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    One big question,although I didn't knew where else to post it.

    How old is mi6 community. I mean when was it created any day/month/year?

    Do we have/celebrate an mi6community day or anniversary?
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,819
    Have anyone thought about the timing of the recent news? If we're getting a trailer in a few weeks, it certainly will keep people talking and commenting until then.
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 488
    Well, the conversation has almost persuaded me that the secret agent was born Double O. Seven and that "James Bond" is just a codename. You know, the old theory.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Have anyone thought about the timing of the recent news? If we're getting a trailer in a few weeks, it certainly will keep people talking and commenting until then.

    It's about bloody time. SP teaser came out less than 4 months after filming began. So the timing for a teaser attached to Hobbs & Shaw is right.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    mtm wrote: »
    Resurrection wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Resurrection wrote: »
    lets move on.

    Indeed.

    In a debate about who's the bigger idiot, I'd say it's the one running with unconfirmed rumours like it's the truth.

    So, yes, let's move on and stick to what we know rather than to what we fear the most.

    Certainly
    This might the first time we get our first poster without the title. Would they wait for August to release the poster after teaser.
    Damn, I need a teaser @-)

    I kind of think they wouldn't do a teaser poster without a title: you're kind of missing an opportunity. It would be nice to get the teaser at the same time the title is revealed though: sometimes the title reveal on its own is a bit anti-climactic.

    A teaser poster could just be Craig and a confirmed Lynch standing back to back, side to side, one behind the other whatever with the number 007 on the bottom and "Coming Soon" or the release date below that. The title could be saved for the eventual trailer, much like Disney did with Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    Agent007391 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Resurrection wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Resurrection wrote: »
    lets move on.

    Indeed.

    In a debate about who's the bigger idiot, I'd say it's the one running with unconfirmed rumours like it's the truth.

    So, yes, let's move on and stick to what we know rather than to what we fear the most.

    Certainly
    This might the first time we get our first poster without the title. Would they wait for August to release the poster after teaser.
    Damn, I need a teaser @-)

    I kind of think they wouldn't do a teaser poster without a title: you're kind of missing an opportunity. It would be nice to get the teaser at the same time the title is revealed though: sometimes the title reveal on its own is a bit anti-climactic.

    A teaser poster could just be Craig and a confirmed Lynch standing back to back, side to side, one behind the other whatever with the number 007 on the bottom and "Coming Soon" or the release date below that. The title could be saved for the eventual trailer, much like Disney did with Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker.

    They should, imho, not be featured back to back. I'm betting, if true, she'll only be 007 for a few minutes.

  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Agent007391 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Resurrection wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Resurrection wrote: »
    lets move on.

    Indeed.

    In a debate about who's the bigger idiot, I'd say it's the one running with unconfirmed rumours like it's the truth.

    So, yes, let's move on and stick to what we know rather than to what we fear the most.

    Certainly
    This might the first time we get our first poster without the title. Would they wait for August to release the poster after teaser.
    Damn, I need a teaser @-)

    I kind of think they wouldn't do a teaser poster without a title: you're kind of missing an opportunity. It would be nice to get the teaser at the same time the title is revealed though: sometimes the title reveal on its own is a bit anti-climactic.

    A teaser poster could just be Craig and a confirmed Lynch standing back to back, side to side, one behind the other whatever with the number 007 on the bottom and "Coming Soon" or the release date below that. The title could be saved for the eventual trailer, much like Disney did with Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker.

    They should, imho, not be featured back to back. I'm betting, if true, she'll only be 007 for a few minutes.

    Also that sounds a bit DAD to me.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511

    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Agent007391 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Resurrection wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Resurrection wrote: »
    lets move on.

    Indeed.

    In a debate about who's the bigger idiot, I'd say it's the one running with unconfirmed rumours like it's the truth.

    So, yes, let's move on and stick to what we know rather than to what we fear the most.

    Certainly
    This might the first time we get our first poster without the title. Would they wait for August to release the poster after teaser.
    Damn, I need a teaser @-)

    I kind of think they wouldn't do a teaser poster without a title: you're kind of missing an opportunity. It would be nice to get the teaser at the same time the title is revealed though: sometimes the title reveal on its own is a bit anti-climactic.

    A teaser poster could just be Craig and a confirmed Lynch standing back to back, side to side, one behind the other whatever with the number 007 on the bottom and "Coming Soon" or the release date below that. The title could be saved for the eventual trailer, much like Disney did with Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker.

    They should, imho, not be featured back to back. I'm betting, if true, she'll only be 007 for a few minutes.

    ... and then everyone would think the title was 007, lol!
  • CraterGunsCraterGuns
    Posts: 618
    In Fleming's novel You Only Live Twice, doesn't Bond have his 007 rating taken from him by M -- for being a neurotic, booze-soaked screw-up in the wake of Tracy's death?

    He is demoted to Agent "777", without a licence to kill.

    Of course, by the end of The Man With the Golden Gun Bond has won back his spurs as 007.

    In the Craig-Bond movie universe, wouldn't M logically appoint someone else "007" in James Bond's absence (retired to Jamaica)?

    It'd be a safe bet to say that Ms. Lynch's character will not be Agent 007 by the end of B25.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited July 2019 Posts: 8,231
    Resurrection wrote: »
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »
    Resurrection wrote: »
    Take a closer look at the all the social media majority of them are already boycotting or disgusted by this idea
    How Many of them do you think are older or younger fans.

    Most of them are utter idiots who think Lynch and Craig are both going to be playing James Bond in the same bloody film. If they can't read, they're no great loss.

    Though, granted, one thing it does show is how linked the iconography of the 007 logo is with the character with casual audiences. I do understand and respect this, and I find the assumption that if you don't like the idea then you're a racist to be utterly braindead and devoid of any perspective whatsoever. However, the repeated baiting of other members such as @007Blofeld, aided by the ever charming, utterly nonsensical input of @Mendes4Lyfe and co. is really not helping and just goes to show how overblown this thread can become. Take a day off, lads. You're not the only Bond fans around, yet you speak as if you're the majority. This era has been a massive failure for you it seems, yet you're still no more a Bond fan than anyone who helped Skyfall cross the $1Billion mark.

    I'm not buying this idea that the film is going to flop because it's pushing an SJW agenda. Your examples, repeated a few pages back, are pretty weak.

    Ghostbusters may have been doomed to fail from the getgo. Sure. But it may also have failed because it was a rubbish movie, combined with the fact that most people just don't give a shit about Ghostbusters anymore. The same will likely apply for Terminator: Dark Fate, a film which very well may end up being good, but is part of a series that has clearly outstayed its welcome with casual audiences. T3, Salvation and Genisys were all sizeable box-office disappointments, and they didn't have this so-called SJW agenda. Perhaps people just don't give a shit about Terminator anymore, regardless of "motive".

    The same cannot be said of Bond, whose last two films have an almost $2billion total gross combined. People are here for Dan's Bond, big time. Now, I agreed a few pages back that this Nomi craic is a bit gimmicky to me, however it is a one-film deal and makes logical sense in the context, allows Dan's Bond to do something different and give a fresh perspective on the action. It could be a cool gimmick. It's also not the core focus of the film, clearly. Just two days ago we were discussing Blofeld's return, and as plenty of other members have posted above and to the left, there are dozens upon dozens of other very Bondian staples in the film already, too.

    Do you really think the film is going to flop because of this tiny thread of the story? That because Bond is retired, not 007 anymore but will likely be 007 again by film's end that people will completely reject it? That it somehow won't recoup its costs? Even the worst Bond films have done that, and they had a lot of stuff fundamentally wrong with them. If you really do believe that, there seems to be a lot of growing up needed on your part. Eon don't need to do any damage control, unless they're feeling generous and want to pay for nightschool lessons for those Facebook folk who comment on articles before they read them. They just need to continue onwards, finish the film, get the trailer out and sit back and watch people hype up Dan's last film. They could very well make a balls of this little subplot, and I'll be the first to call them out if they do, but for the moment I'm happy to let them do their thing - because ultimately the 007 iconography isn't going anywhere, and Bond 26 will likely be more your speed.

    I do hope we can move on from this bloody topic and on to actual important story details and filming-related news. Let the people who are actually still happy about the film remain so.
    matt_u wrote: »
    In more or less 2 weeks we could have a teaser trailer and a title.

    Tempus fugit.

    A poster would be very nice right now.

    "Most of them are utter idiots" awesome I hope you feel superior or better about yourself after that. Anyways when I said look closely it meant there are more sensible comments not just any nonsense. Most of the headlines clearly Indicates that she is playing 007 not bond . They are not angry because she is playing 007 or bond they feel disgusted because it's another gimmick to satisfy SJW's and not even a clever one it's downright stupid and lazy writing. Try to have some meaningful conversation with those idiotic you are calling them might give you an idea.

    That's some very selective quoting you chose to do there. Nice work. Next time, perhaps quote everything that's relevant, not just the bit that gives you a springboard to go on wee rant that funnily enough mirrors a lot of my own statements yesterday, eh? ;) Good man.

    P.s. If that's what you meant, then that's what you should have said. Your original post has literally no indication of the mean you alluded to in the follow-up.

    But hey, I hope you feel better now.
    antovolk wrote: »
    Pierce2Daniel wrote: »

    People are excited by this development and so am I. To label this ‘anti-male’ is a sentiment borne from insecurity. I don’t look to films for empowerment of my male ego. I’m content enough. If a black female 007 is going to empower a young minority woman, then I’m happy for those people. Anyone looking for anything negative here is reaching.

    Now that's what I'm talking about. More people being brought into the fold and converted into fans like this is GOOD for the franchise. If you doubt that representation is a thing - just take one look at the box office for the likes of Black Panther and Crazy Rich Asians, especially in the US. Being 'woke' isn't a bad thing...

    Anyway, moving away from that - still no word on trailer / poster yet it seems. If it's indeed coming with Hobbs and Shaw it should get rated in the next week or so.

    A Bond 25 trailer would almost make me go see Hobbs & Shaw, just to experience it on the big screen. Hopefully we get something, even if it's small.

    This is going to be great.
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Have anyone thought about the timing of the recent news? If we're getting a trailer in a few weeks, it certainly will keep people talking and commenting until then.

    This is a good point. The last ten pages are a sure example of that.

    All news is good news.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    CraterGuns wrote: »
    In Fleming's novel You Only Live Twice, doesn't Bond have his 007 rating taken from him by M -- for being a neurotic, booze-soaked screw-up in the wake of Tracy's death?

    He is demoted to Agent "777", without a licence to kill.

    Of course, by the end of The Man With the Golden Gun Bond has won back his spurs as 007.

    In the Craig-Bond movie universe, wouldn't M logically appoint someone else "007" in James Bond's absence (retired to Jamaica)?

    It'd be a safe bet to say that Ms. Lynch's character will not be Agent 007 by the end of B25.

    The difference between retiring from the role and letting the alcohol consume you in a loss. If all of this is true and Bond has retired, the 007 number wouldn't have retired with him.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited July 2019 Posts: 5,970
    Just quickly. For everyone whose not gonna see this film because of the recent news or the people who will see it and judge anyway because they can't give anyone a chance...

    giphy.gif

  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,231
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Just quickly. For everyone whose not gonna see this film because of the recent news or the people who will see it and judge anyway because they can't give anyone a chance...

    giphy.gif

    :))
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Just quickly. For everyone whose not gonna see this film because of the recent news or the people who will see it and judge anyway because they can't give anyone a chance...

    giphy.gif

    I'm not going to see it because they didn't let me drive the Vantage.

    :-w
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited July 2019 Posts: 7,593
    CraterGuns wrote: »
    In Fleming's novel You Only Live Twice, doesn't Bond have his 007 rating taken from him by M -- for being a neurotic, booze-soaked screw-up in the wake of Tracy's death?

    He is demoted to Agent "777", without a licence to kill.

    Of course, by the end of The Man With the Golden Gun Bond has won back his spurs as 007.

    In the Craig-Bond movie universe, wouldn't M logically appoint someone else "007" in James Bond's absence (retired to Jamaica)?

    It'd be a safe bet to say that Ms. Lynch's character will not be Agent 007 by the end of B25.

    He’s actually promoted to a diplomatic position and given the number 7777. Otherwise I totally agree with your post.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited July 2019 Posts: 5,970
    Guys, remember when M was cast as a woman and she became really succesful even though the original M created by Ian Fleming was a man and even though this film will only have a different 007 for one film :)

    Oh ,and then they changed him back to a man played by Ralph Fiennes because change is good and makes things more interesting.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Guys, remember when M was cast as a woman and she became really succesful even though the original M created by Ian Fleming was a man and even though this film will only have a different 007 for one film :)

    Oh ,and then they changed him back to a man played by Ralph Fiennes because change is good and makes things more interesting.

    And Ralph is an excellent actor anyway. :)
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,185
    In the immortal words of Pierce Brosnan:
    "It's only a number."
Sign In or Register to comment.