No Time to Die production thread

CraigMooreOHMSS

DarthDimi wrote: »

Exactly, @boldfinger.

I know this is off-topic, but just one more thing.

A colleague of mine told me the other day, when we were talking about NTTD and how much I am looking forward to the film, that she won't allow her 11-year old son to see the film. Because "he's too young for those films". It's true that Bond films aren't made for children, but I still don't think age has anything to do with it.

I watched a guy's heart getting ripped out when I was 7. That moment in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom made me not want to sleep with the lights out for weeks! And you know what, I loved it! And I still do. Every time I watch that movie--and I'm in my 30s now--I fondly recall being really impressed by that scene.

Films that were completely safe for children barely did it for me then (which is why I'm not the Disney cartoon kinda guy), let alone now. But films that made me tense up, that weren't made with a 10-year old in mind, like The Terminator, Poltergeist, Goonies, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, were the ones I actively sought out and that are still my darlings.

Kids don't get enough credit in my opinion. They want to be spooked--and the ones that don't can still be kept safe from cinematic traumas by their parents. The Bonds aren't horror, but there's some edgy stuff in them that 7-year old or even 10-year old me didn't fully understand. Some of the fruitier jokes, for example... "Take me around the world one more time," or "Just keeping the British end up, sir," held no significance for me when I was in my single digits. But that was fine because Jaws had creeped the hell out of me, so I was still trying to keep my heartbeat under control. Perhaps that is why I still love these movies so much! And a few years later, when I obviously caught the jokes but was still just in my early teens and not supposed to catch them, I had these internal giggles.

Most kids can handle edgier movies, even if they weren't necessarily made for them. It's okay for most kids to get the chills from watching a horror flick or to blush when watching something juicier. They brag about it at school; they learn things their parents will no longer have to explain, they'll also develop a clear fear or loathing of "bad things". And years later, they'll watch these films again thinking back on those days when they got goosebumps doing so the first time. That's the fun of it all.

If we made our Bond films morality tales that are even safe for children, grown-ups won't like them, and the children of today won't like them ten years from now either. Part of why I love Spielberg and Lucas so much is that they used to not care about upsetting us as kids. There are moments in Raiders of the Lost Ark, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Jaws and even Star Wars that are absolutely not safe for children. Yet we, as children, devoured those films, religiously. Have we turned traumatic, maniacal, abusive, aggressive, ... because of them?

Age has nothing to do with it; if anything, most kids, other than the extremely sheltered, crave a little tension in their films too. True, not every kid out there can handle an edgier movie with ease; neither can every adult. That doesn't mean we need to overgeneralize things and either exclude kids from our Bond audience or make our Bonds safe for them, whatever that means. I'll repeat what I said before: we aren't giving our kids enough credit these days... We were given loads of freedom to explore the world of cinema as kids, and we turned out all right, didn't we?

Lovely stuff. And an upbringing that mirrors my own in this context. I fully, fully agree.

Though some of us turned out better than others, admittedly.....;)

TripAces

DarthDimi wrote: »

Makes sense that more and more people are trying to counter the #MeToo "threat". If EON are smart, they will follow that advice. Let's not forget that part of what made Bond "hot" in the '60s was the daring nature of the films amidst the more careful average of the mainstream films.

Right now, a smoking protagonist, a ruthless assassin, some sex,... can get you an R. But even more than that, there are social warriors out there. We've given them a forum and they're using it. They're keeping count of things and they will build a case against you if the male-female unbalance is there. They'll overanalyse the lines, the gestures, the plot twists, ... and "deduce" that Bond is a sexist creep, a terrible role model, a bad example for future husbands, ... Why Bond? Because the bigger their target, the more attention people will pay to their nonsense.

And that's what we need, isn't it? The Bonds are no longer the biggest action flicks. They may not even be the most glamorous spy adventures anymore. Others have surpassed the Bonds where they used to be the hottest property in filmland. But Bond has a secret weapon and journalists with an agenda have handed it to us on a plate.

Bond still reaches a wide audience. And at the same time, Bond can strike a little controversy. Controversy sells. Nothing worse than a bland, boring, tediously PC perfect Bond. A Bond who shows some sexual prowess, who doesn't want to be a role model, who reminds people that this world is not controlled by body-positive Instagram celebs, now THAT Bond sells hard! Let the equality crusaders have it in big for Bond--the more they write about how Bond is swimming upstream in their river of perfect social conscience, the more "risqué" it feels to watch and enjoy a Bond film. Everyone likes that bit of "safe danger", of sitting comfortably in your movie theatre chair, enjoying what the holy media are saying is "wrong". Like the juries deciding on porn, or Wertham's "Seduction of Innocent"--dark forces have railed against the very thing that ended spinning totally out of their control. The more "forbidden" the fruit, the better its taste.

I'm not saying Bond has to actively pursue controversy. But by staying true to its Flemingian nature, the film series can easily defy the voodoo curse of enforced gender equality and whatnot that has infected even the Marvel films and--some will say--even Star Wars. James Bond can become edgier again by basically not changing a bloody thing about the formula. By not giving in, by not swinging the pendulum even farther away from his legacy, Bond can gain popularity. Obviously we don't need to go back to Bond hitting women. But a little Fleming in our Bond doesn't hurt, now does it?

Let's clarify something: There is a difference between the franchise's approach to women and James Bond's approach to women. It is EON that put women in skimpy outfits and made them sexual objects. James Bond the character did not do any of that.

How EON has painted women for this franchise has indeed changed. To a lesser degree, Bond's relationship with women has changed, too. But this whole idea of Bond (the character) being a misogynist is inflated and based on reputation, not reality. Thee are actually very, very few incidents of Bond truly mistreating women. The Patricia Fearing incident in TB is the main one. There is the ass slap in GF, which is relatively minor. Another that is borderline is the slap of Tatiana, and that leads to my main point. We're talking about a spy game, here, folks. These are not innocent people, playing a game of Monopoly, with fake money. From a standpoint of espionage, Bond's actions are justified. He uses sex and sexuality as a weapon.

The furor over Bond's "rape" of Pussy Galore is the most egregious act of this kind of ignorance. Critics of Bond's behavior conveniently side step the fact that Galore's character is an accomplice in the planning of a nuclear detonation at a major U.S. military installation. Chew on that. Bond's job is to thwart that effort, and he could have done this quite violently. Bond is an assassin, but when it comes to women, within this world of espionage, he has other tools he can use (sorry for the pun).

Bond does not generally interact with women who are NOT part of this world. Sylvia, Honey, Patricia, Tilly, and Vesper are just a few. One could also make a case that Fields is not a part of it, either, and her presence in QoS is one of the most complex. That's a different discussion. In general, Bond's approach to women outside that world is quiote a bit different and always has been. One need only look at his reaction to Tilly Masterson being struck down by Odd Job. Bond leaves his position, risking his own life, to check on her, and he is visibly shaken by her death. (He is also quite bothered by Fields' death, as well). This notion that Bond hates and mistreats women is simply not true. Yes, he has hit women...but who were those women and what were their motivations? (Tatiana is the one act of violence that is hard to watch, if only because Bond jumps to a horrible and wrong conclusion.)

While I am sympathetic to the MeToo movement, I just do not see it as applicable to Bond, the character. In terms of the franchise, EON has more and more created stronger female characters, and there is nothing wrong with that. At the same time, @DarthDimi , I don't buy the franchise has ever been particularly "Flemingian." I don't think the argument that "enforced gender equality" is a voodoo curse. Gender equality isn't forced, it's a reality. How did Triple-X ever become a Soviet agent in the first place? Was that forced or a reality?

boldfinger

@TripAces, good point about GF. I recently read somewhere here on a thread that GF would be a notorious example of Bond's ineffetiveness, because he doesn't solve the problem personally. But actually GF is a very good example of Bond applying his not-so-role-model skills to save the world. In a situation where the bad guys seemingly have him, who is the only one who knows of the impending doom for mankind, under total control he finds a window to stop the evil plan. Which is quite a stroke of genius on behalf of the writing. And by Bond later referring to 'her maternal instincts' the writing even lifts Pussy from a weak woman who is manipulated by the naughty man to an even stronger and more intelligent woman than she already was right from the start.

DarthDimi

TripAces wrote: »

DarthDimi wrote: »

Makes sense that more and more people are trying to counter the #MeToo "threat". If EON are smart, they will follow that advice. Let's not forget that part of what made Bond "hot" in the '60s was the daring nature of the films amidst the more careful average of the mainstream films.

Right now, a smoking protagonist, a ruthless assassin, some sex,... can get you an R. But even more than that, there are social warriors out there. We've given them a forum and they're using it. They're keeping count of things and they will build a case against you if the male-female unbalance is there. They'll overanalyse the lines, the gestures, the plot twists, ... and "deduce" that Bond is a sexist creep, a terrible role model, a bad example for future husbands, ... Why Bond? Because the bigger their target, the more attention people will pay to their nonsense.

And that's what we need, isn't it? The Bonds are no longer the biggest action flicks. They may not even be the most glamorous spy adventures anymore. Others have surpassed the Bonds where they used to be the hottest property in filmland. But Bond has a secret weapon and journalists with an agenda have handed it to us on a plate.

Bond still reaches a wide audience. And at the same time, Bond can strike a little controversy. Controversy sells. Nothing worse than a bland, boring, tediously PC perfect Bond. A Bond who shows some sexual prowess, who doesn't want to be a role model, who reminds people that this world is not controlled by body-positive Instagram celebs, now THAT Bond sells hard! Let the equality crusaders have it in big for Bond--the more they write about how Bond is swimming upstream in their river of perfect social conscience, the more "risqué" it feels to watch and enjoy a Bond film. Everyone likes that bit of "safe danger", of sitting comfortably in your movie theatre chair, enjoying what the holy media are saying is "wrong". Like the juries deciding on porn, or Wertham's "Seduction of Innocent"--dark forces have railed against the very thing that ended spinning totally out of their control. The more "forbidden" the fruit, the better its taste.

I'm not saying Bond has to actively pursue controversy. But by staying true to its Flemingian nature, the film series can easily defy the voodoo curse of enforced gender equality and whatnot that has infected even the Marvel films and--some will say--even Star Wars. James Bond can become edgier again by basically not changing a bloody thing about the formula. By not giving in, by not swinging the pendulum even farther away from his legacy, Bond can gain popularity. Obviously we don't need to go back to Bond hitting women. But a little Fleming in our Bond doesn't hurt, now does it?

TripAces wrote: »

Let's clarify something: There is a difference between the franchise's approach to women and James Bond's approach to women. It is EON that put women in skimpy outfits and made them sexual objects. James Bond the character did not do any of that.

Correct. When I'm talking about "the Bonds" or "a Bond", I mean the Bond films, not the character.

TripAces wrote: »

How EON has painted women for this franchise has indeed changed. To a lesser degree, Bond's relationship with women has changed, too. But this whole idea of Bond (the character) being a misogynist is inflated and based on reputation, not reality. Thee are actually very, very few incidents of Bond truly mistreating women. The Patricia Fearing incident in TB is the main one. There is the ass slap in GF, which is relatively minor. Another that is borderline is the slap of Tatiana, and that leads to my main point. We're talking about a spy game, here, folks. These are not innocent people, playing a game of Monopoly, with fake money. From a standpoint of espionage, Bond's actions are justified. He uses sex and sexuality as a weapon.

I couldn't agree more.

TripAces wrote: »

The furor over Bond's "rape" of Pussy Galore is the most egregious act of this kind of ignorance. Critics of Bond's behavior conveniently side step the fact that Galore's character is an accomplice in the planning of a nuclear detonation at a major U.S. military installation. Chew on that. Bond's job is to thwart that effort, and he could have done this quite violently. Bond is an assassin, but when it comes to women, within this world of espionage, he has other tools he can use (sorry for the pun).

Once again, I couldn't agree more.

TripAces wrote: »

Bond does not generally interact with women who are NOT part of this world. Sylvia, Honey, Patricia, Tilly, and Vesper are just a few. One could also make a case that Fields is not a part of it, either, and her presence in QoS is one of the most complex. That's a different discussion. In general, Bond's approach to women outside that world is quiote a bit different and always has been. One need only look at his reaction to Tilly Masterson being struck down by Odd Job. Bond leaves his position, risking his own life, to check on her, and he is visibly shaken by her death. (He is also quite bothered by Fields' death, as well). This notion that Bond hates and mistreats women is simply not true. Yes, he has hit women...but who were those women and what were their motivations? (Tatiana is the one act of violence that is hard to watch, if only because Bond jumps to a horrible and wrong conclusion.)

And here too, I agree.

TripAces wrote: »

While I am sympathetic to the MeToo movement, I just do not see it as applicable to Bond, the character. In terms of the franchise, EON has more and more created stronger female characters, and there is nothing wrong with that. At the same time, @DarthDimi , I don't buy the franchise has ever been particularly "Flemingian." I don't think the argument that "enforced gender equality" is a voodoo curse. Gender equality isn't forced, it's a reality. How did Triple-X ever become a Soviet agent in the first place? Was that forced or a reality?

Well, I guess here we disagree, but only a bit. I wasn't referring to the characters we've already seen but to some people demanding that Bond be played by a woman, or that Bond doesn't ever outperform a woman at the crucial moments in the story. But even Triple-X, in the end, had to be rescued by Bond; and while she had considered killing him, a simple invitation to sex from Bond was enough to make her change her mind. While that's highly implausible in real life, it was probably the simplest way to end that particular movie. Bond saves the girl, no matter how talented she herself is, and certain other assets of his save himself. Some people had issues with that in '77, but nowadays you couldn't release a Bond film like this anymore, especially with that ending, or else the Internet would be burning down the house.

Gender equality and gender equality are two different things. One is a fact, the other a mission. Those crusading for it often lose perspective themselves; in fact, as you have laid it out very well in the previous three paragraphs, people accusing the Bond films of being mysoginist and whatnot, are doing the series a serious disservice.

Hence why I'm calling it a voodoo curse. We've never been screaming for a female Bond or a Bond "woman" (because "girl" is nowadays unacceptable, apparently) who saves him all the time. Yet from nowhere, these delirious opinions have come creeping in fast; suddenly, some people have seen the light! They claim that Bond is not of these times anymore, that he has to change, that he is a misogynist and that this is not something we want to get exposed to these days. But as you have said it yourself, Bond's attitude towards women has changed too; it's still perfectly acceptable, isn't it? So what are they talking about and why do they insist on pressing this issue, unless these people are gruesomely obsessed with their mission to invade EVERY popular property out there, just to find a platform. They will continue to find reasons to accuse popular movies of not being there just yet, no matter what the filmmakers do.

The series, I think, has always done its best to stay as Flemingian as possible, and I'll concede that's not the same thing as following Fleming's template straight on. What I meant was that Bond doesn't have to be perfect, faultless or a textbook example of "gender etiquette". By demanding that Bond surround himself with "strong women" without whom he couldn't accomplish his mission, or better still, that Bond become a woman himself, they are sucking the Fleming right out of it. I want a Bond film to tell a good story with characters that are essential for it. I don't want a Bond film that results from nothing but compromises to placate those insisting on something LGBT-positive, gender-positive, race-positive, politically correct, ... Because then there is not a lot to enjoy anymore.

boldfinger

00Agent wrote: »

JamesCraig wrote: »

The addition of Phoebe made people lose their minds.

That's where it all started, yes. I would put it a bit differently though.
"The tabloid media coverage of Phoebes addition was designed to make people loose their minds."

And it worked, as it usually does.

Very good point, @00Agent.

007Blofeld

DarthDimi wrote: »

TripAces wrote: »

DarthDimi wrote: »

Makes sense that more and more people are trying to counter the #MeToo "threat". If EON are smart, they will follow that advice. Let's not forget that part of what made Bond "hot" in the '60s was the daring nature of the films amidst the more careful average of the mainstream films.

Right now, a smoking protagonist, a ruthless assassin, some sex,... can get you an R. But even more than that, there are social warriors out there. We've given them a forum and they're using it. They're keeping count of things and they will build a case against you if the male-female unbalance is there. They'll overanalyse the lines, the gestures, the plot twists, ... and "deduce" that Bond is a sexist creep, a terrible role model, a bad example for future husbands, ... Why Bond? Because the bigger their target, the more attention people will pay to their nonsense.

And that's what we need, isn't it? The Bonds are no longer the biggest action flicks. They may not even be the most glamorous spy adventures anymore. Others have surpassed the Bonds where they used to be the hottest property in filmland. But Bond has a secret weapon and journalists with an agenda have handed it to us on a plate.

Bond still reaches a wide audience. And at the same time, Bond can strike a little controversy. Controversy sells. Nothing worse than a bland, boring, tediously PC perfect Bond. A Bond who shows some sexual prowess, who doesn't want to be a role model, who reminds people that this world is not controlled by body-positive Instagram celebs, now THAT Bond sells hard! Let the equality crusaders have it in big for Bond--the more they write about how Bond is swimming upstream in their river of perfect social conscience, the more "risqué" it feels to watch and enjoy a Bond film. Everyone likes that bit of "safe danger", of sitting comfortably in your movie theatre chair, enjoying what the holy media are saying is "wrong". Like the juries deciding on porn, or Wertham's "Seduction of Innocent"--dark forces have railed against the very thing that ended spinning totally out of their control. The more "forbidden" the fruit, the better its taste.

I'm not saying Bond has to actively pursue controversy. But by staying true to its Flemingian nature, the film series can easily defy the voodoo curse of enforced gender equality and whatnot that has infected even the Marvel films and--some will say--even Star Wars. James Bond can become edgier again by basically not changing a bloody thing about the formula. By not giving in, by not swinging the pendulum even farther away from his legacy, Bond can gain popularity. Obviously we don't need to go back to Bond hitting women. But a little Fleming in our Bond doesn't hurt, now does it?

TripAces wrote: »

Let's clarify something: There is a difference between the franchise's approach to women and James Bond's approach to women. It is EON that put women in skimpy outfits and made them sexual objects. James Bond the character did not do any of that.

Correct. When I'm talking about "the Bonds" or "a Bond", I mean the Bond films, not the character.

TripAces wrote: »

How EON has painted women for this franchise has indeed changed. To a lesser degree, Bond's relationship with women has changed, too. But this whole idea of Bond (the character) being a misogynist is inflated and based on reputation, not reality. Thee are actually very, very few incidents of Bond truly mistreating women. The Patricia Fearing incident in TB is the main one. There is the ass slap in GF, which is relatively minor. Another that is borderline is the slap of Tatiana, and that leads to my main point. We're talking about a spy game, here, folks. These are not innocent people, playing a game of Monopoly, with fake money. From a standpoint of espionage, Bond's actions are justified. He uses sex and sexuality as a weapon.

I couldn't agree more.

TripAces wrote: »

The furor over Bond's "rape" of Pussy Galore is the most egregious act of this kind of ignorance. Critics of Bond's behavior conveniently side step the fact that Galore's character is an accomplice in the planning of a nuclear detonation at a major U.S. military installation. Chew on that. Bond's job is to thwart that effort, and he could have done this quite violently. Bond is an assassin, but when it comes to women, within this world of espionage, he has other tools he can use (sorry for the pun).

Once again, I couldn't agree more.

TripAces wrote: »

Bond does not generally interact with women who are NOT part of this world. Sylvia, Honey, Patricia, Tilly, and Vesper are just a few. One could also make a case that Fields is not a part of it, either, and her presence in QoS is one of the most complex. That's a different discussion. In general, Bond's approach to women outside that world is quiote a bit different and always has been. One need only look at his reaction to Tilly Masterson being struck down by Odd Job. Bond leaves his position, risking his own life, to check on her, and he is visibly shaken by her death. (He is also quite bothered by Fields' death, as well). This notion that Bond hates and mistreats women is simply not true. Yes, he has hit women...but who were those women and what were their motivations? (Tatiana is the one act of violence that is hard to watch, if only because Bond jumps to a horrible and wrong conclusion.)

And here too, I agree.

TripAces wrote: »

While I am sympathetic to the MeToo movement, I just do not see it as applicable to Bond, the character. In terms of the franchise, EON has more and more created stronger female characters, and there is nothing wrong with that. At the same time, @DarthDimi , I don't buy the franchise has ever been particularly "Flemingian." I don't think the argument that "enforced gender equality" is a voodoo curse. Gender equality isn't forced, it's a reality. How did Triple-X ever become a Soviet agent in the first place? Was that forced or a reality?

Well, I guess here we disagree, but only a bit. I wasn't referring to the characters we've already seen but to some people demanding that Bond be played by a woman, or that Bond doesn't ever outperform a woman at the crucial moments in the story. But even Triple-X, in the end, had to be rescued by Bond; and while she had considered killing him, a simple invitation to sex from Bond was enough to make her change her mind. While that's highly implausible in real life, it was probably the simplest way to end that particular movie. Bond saves the girl, no matter how talented she herself is, and certain other assets of his save himself. Some people had issues with that in '77, but nowadays you couldn't release a Bond film like this anymore, especially with that ending, or else the Internet would be burning down the house.

Gender equality and gender equality are two different things. One is a fact, the other a mission. Those crusading for it often lose perspective themselves; in fact, as you have laid it out very well in the previous three paragraphs, people accusing the Bond films of being mysoginist and whatnot, are doing the series a serious disservice.

Hence why I'm calling it a voodoo curse. We've never been screaming for a female Bond or a Bond "woman" (because "girl" is nowadays unacceptable, apparently) who saves him all the time. Yet from nowhere, these delirious opinions have come creeping in fast; suddenly, some people have seen the light! They claim that Bond is not of these times anymore, that he has to change, that he is a misogynist and that this is not something we want to get exposed to these days. But as you have said it yourself, Bond's attitude towards women has changed too; it's still perfectly acceptable, isn't it? So what are they talking about and why do they insist on pressing this issue, unless these people are gruesomely obsessed with their mission to invade EVERY popular property out there, just to find a platform. They will continue to find reasons to accuse popular movies of not being there just yet, no matter what the filmmakers do.

The series, I think, has always done its best to stay as Flemingian as possible, and I'll concede that's not the same thing as following Fleming's template straight on. What I meant was that Bond doesn't have to be perfect, faultless or a textbook example of "gender etiquette". By demanding that Bond surround himself with "strong women" without whom he couldn't accomplish his mission, or better still, that Bond become a woman himself, they are sucking the Fleming right out of it. I want a Bond film to tell a good story with characters that are essential for it. I don't want a Bond film that results from nothing but compromises to placate those insisting on something LGBT-positive, gender-positive, race-positive, politically correct, ... Because then there is not a lot to enjoy anymore.

@DarthDimi +1

JamesCraig

007Blofeld wrote: »

FrankXavier wrote: »

MakeshiftPython wrote: »

It’s interesting to me. Critics generally gave TLJ favorable reviews because they were judging it purely as a film rather than as a Star Wars film, whereas its the Star Wars nerds that were heavily divided because a very vocal half couldn’t accept aspects that the other half was willing to indulge (Skywalker being a deserter, etc).

I'm a fan of the ST, I enjoyed TLJ very much first time I saw it, but within time I started to feel less and less appreciative of it. A lot of decisions are simply headscratching. They wanted to make a big mystery of who Rey is, then she's a nobody, now she might be back to being somebody in ROTS. Just feels evidently not mapped out. So, I get the rejection from the fanboys to a point, although I'll never agree the prequels were any good, except for Duel of the Fates, maybe.

That said, the article seems to be alarmist about nothing at this stage. I'll give it this, though: it is true Spectre felt like a confused followup to SF, and I do agree that the progression of the Craig era is leaning far too heavily into making the stories personal. I just want NTTD to come out so I can wash away the bad taste from SP.

What does ST stand for?

Spectre Trash.

Contraband

Has the premiere date been changed from 3rd to 2 april?

antovolk

Contraband wrote: »

Has the premiere date been changed from 3rd to 2 april?

it's the new UK release date, yes. Was announced alongside the teaser poster.

Walecs

JamesCraig wrote: »

007Blofeld wrote: »

FrankXavier wrote: »

MakeshiftPython wrote: »

It’s interesting to me. Critics generally gave TLJ favorable reviews because they were judging it purely as a film rather than as a Star Wars film, whereas its the Star Wars nerds that were heavily divided because a very vocal half couldn’t accept aspects that the other half was willing to indulge (Skywalker being a deserter, etc).

I'm a fan of the ST, I enjoyed TLJ very much first time I saw it, but within time I started to feel less and less appreciative of it. A lot of decisions are simply headscratching. They wanted to make a big mystery of who Rey is, then she's a nobody, now she might be back to being somebody in ROTS. Just feels evidently not mapped out. So, I get the rejection from the fanboys to a point, although I'll never agree the prequels were any good, except for Duel of the Fates, maybe.

That said, the article seems to be alarmist about nothing at this stage. I'll give it this, though: it is true Spectre felt like a confused followup to SF, and I do agree that the progression of the Craig era is leaning far too heavily into making the stories personal. I just want NTTD to come out so I can wash away the bad taste from SP.

What does ST stand for?

Spectre Trash.

:)) :))

Denbigh

antovolk wrote: »

Contraband wrote: »

Has the premiere date been changed from 3rd to 2 april?

it's the new UK release date, yes. Was announced alongside the teaser poster.

And I can’t wait!! Definitely gonna take a day off work for it. The 2nd will be a Thursday I believe :)

Red_Snow

'The Report' director Scott Z Burns reflects on writing for Bond 25: 'the most significant movie character of all time'
https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/scott-z-burns-the-report-james-bond-no-time-to-die-162350366.html

And Burns was involved in 007’s new adventure, No Time To Die, after being hired as a script doctor by director Cary Joji Fukunaga. But what’s it actually like to write a Bond film?

“It sounds really corny,” Burns tells Yahoo Movies UK, “but if you’re a screenwriter, and you’re working in Final Draft, and you type in the character ‘Bond’ and you get to write dialogue: You do have to chuckle.”

“To me, it’s the most significant movie character of all time. It’s a privilege to work on that. You just can’t be cynical about it. And the work that Daniel has done to evolve the character is so great.

“Cary has all sorts of ideas about where he wants to take the story, and Phoebe Waller-Bridge and I overlapped a bit, and I’m a huge fan of hers.”

How does it feel to have another iconic writer come on to your project?

“When you’re brought in to rewrite something, it’s all hands on deck. Your job is to solve a set of problems. I was brought in late in the game, and we were barrelling towards production. And so, you know, you just want there to be ideas.

“It’s one thing when it’s a character you’ve created, when you have that pride of authorship.”

Zekidk

DarthDimi wrote: »

Exactly, @boldfinger.

I know this is off-topic, but just one more thing.

A colleague of mine told me the other day, when we were talking about NTTD and how much I am looking forward to the film, that she won't allow her 11-year old son to see the film. Because "he's too young for those films". It's true that Bond films aren't made for children, but I still don't think age has anything to do with it.

I watched a guy's heart getting ripped out when I was 7. That moment in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom made me not want to sleep with the lights out for weeks! And you know what, I loved it! And I still do. Every time I watch that movie--and I'm in my 30s now--I fondly recall being really impressed by that scene.

Films that were completely safe for children barely did it for me then (which is why I'm not the Disney cartoon kinda guy), let alone now. But films that made me tense up, that weren't made with a 10-year old in mind, like The Terminator, Poltergeist, Goonies, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, were the ones I actively sought out and that are still my darlings.

Kids don't get enough credit in my opinion. They want to be spooked--and the ones that don't can still be kept safe from cinematic traumas by their parents. The Bonds aren't horror, but there's some edgy stuff in them that 7-year old or even 10-year old me didn't fully understand. Some of the fruitier jokes, for example... "Take me around the world one more time," or "Just keeping the British end up, sir," held no significance for me when I was in my single digits. But that was fine because Jaws had creeped the hell out of me, so I was still trying to keep my heartbeat under control. Perhaps that is why I still love these movies so much! And a few years later, when I obviously caught the jokes but was still just in my early teens and not supposed to catch them, I had these internal giggles.

Most kids can handle edgier movies, even if they weren't necessarily made for them. It's okay for most kids to get the chills from watching a horror flick or to blush when watching something juicier. They brag about it at school; they learn things their parents will no longer have to explain, they'll also develop a clear fear or loathing of "bad things". And years later, they'll watch these films again thinking back on those days when they got goosebumps doing so the first time. That's the fun of it all.

If we made our Bond films morality tales that are even safe for children, grown-ups won't like them, and the children of today won't like them ten years from now either. Part of why I love Spielberg and Lucas so much is that they used to not care about upsetting us as kids. There are moments in Raiders of the Lost Ark, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Jaws and even Star Wars that are absolutely not safe for children. Yet we, as children, devoured those films, religiously. Have we turned traumatic, maniacal, abusive, aggressive, ... because of them?

Age has nothing to do with it; if anything, most kids, other than the extremely sheltered, crave a little tension in their films too. True, not every kid out there can handle an edgier movie with ease; neither can every adult. That doesn't mean we need to overgeneralize things and either exclude kids from our Bond audience or make our Bonds safe for them, whatever that means. I'll repeat what I said before: we aren't giving our kids enough credit these days... We were given loads of freedom to explore the world of cinema as kids, and we turned out all right, didn't we?

Will you marry me? :-) That post made my day. Made me think back to when I was 10 and watching people melt in 'Raiders..' and seeing Bond kicking Loques car from the cliff. Trauma-stuff today. A jolly good time back then.

Tuck91

The writers are really talking this movie up

Contraband

antovolk wrote: »

Contraband wrote: »

Has the premiere date been changed from 3rd to 2 april?

it's the new UK release date, yes. Was announced alongside the teaser poster.

Thanks..

Denbigh

Tuck91 wrote: »

The writers are really talking this movie up

Well they’re obviously very proud of it.

DarthDimi

Zekidk wrote: »

DarthDimi wrote: »

Exactly, @boldfinger.

I know this is off-topic, but just one more thing.

A colleague of mine told me the other day, when we were talking about NTTD and how much I am looking forward to the film, that she won't allow her 11-year old son to see the film. Because "he's too young for those films". It's true that Bond films aren't made for children, but I still don't think age has anything to do with it.

I watched a guy's heart getting ripped out when I was 7. That moment in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom made me not want to sleep with the lights out for weeks! And you know what, I loved it! And I still do. Every time I watch that movie--and I'm in my 30s now--I fondly recall being really impressed by that scene.

Films that were completely safe for children barely did it for me then (which is why I'm not the Disney cartoon kinda guy), let alone now. But films that made me tense up, that weren't made with a 10-year old in mind, like The Terminator, Poltergeist, Goonies, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, were the ones I actively sought out and that are still my darlings.

Kids don't get enough credit in my opinion. They want to be spooked--and the ones that don't can still be kept safe from cinematic traumas by their parents. The Bonds aren't horror, but there's some edgy stuff in them that 7-year old or even 10-year old me didn't fully understand. Some of the fruitier jokes, for example... "Take me around the world one more time," or "Just keeping the British end up, sir," held no significance for me when I was in my single digits. But that was fine because Jaws had creeped the hell out of me, so I was still trying to keep my heartbeat under control. Perhaps that is why I still love these movies so much! And a few years later, when I obviously caught the jokes but was still just in my early teens and not supposed to catch them, I had these internal giggles.

Most kids can handle edgier movies, even if they weren't necessarily made for them. It's okay for most kids to get the chills from watching a horror flick or to blush when watching something juicier. They brag about it at school; they learn things their parents will no longer have to explain, they'll also develop a clear fear or loathing of "bad things". And years later, they'll watch these films again thinking back on those days when they got goosebumps doing so the first time. That's the fun of it all.

If we made our Bond films morality tales that are even safe for children, grown-ups won't like them, and the children of today won't like them ten years from now either. Part of why I love Spielberg and Lucas so much is that they used to not care about upsetting us as kids. There are moments in Raiders of the Lost Ark, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Jaws and even Star Wars that are absolutely not safe for children. Yet we, as children, devoured those films, religiously. Have we turned traumatic, maniacal, abusive, aggressive, ... because of them?

Age has nothing to do with it; if anything, most kids, other than the extremely sheltered, crave a little tension in their films too. True, not every kid out there can handle an edgier movie with ease; neither can every adult. That doesn't mean we need to overgeneralize things and either exclude kids from our Bond audience or make our Bonds safe for them, whatever that means. I'll repeat what I said before: we aren't giving our kids enough credit these days... We were given loads of freedom to explore the world of cinema as kids, and we turned out all right, didn't we?

Will you marry me? :-) That post made my day. Made me think back to when I was 10 and watching people melt in 'Raiders..' and seeing Bond kicking Loques car from the cliff. Trauma-stuff today. A jolly good time back then.

My girlfriend insists that I shouldn't, but hey... I'm glad we're on the same page. ;-)

JamesCraig

DarthDimi wrote: »

Zekidk wrote: »

DarthDimi wrote: »

Exactly, @boldfinger.

I know this is off-topic, but just one more thing.

A colleague of mine told me the other day, when we were talking about NTTD and how much I am looking forward to the film, that she won't allow her 11-year old son to see the film. Because "he's too young for those films". It's true that Bond films aren't made for children, but I still don't think age has anything to do with it.

I watched a guy's heart getting ripped out when I was 7. That moment in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom made me not want to sleep with the lights out for weeks! And you know what, I loved it! And I still do. Every time I watch that movie--and I'm in my 30s now--I fondly recall being really impressed by that scene.

Films that were completely safe for children barely did it for me then (which is why I'm not the Disney cartoon kinda guy), let alone now. But films that made me tense up, that weren't made with a 10-year old in mind, like The Terminator, Poltergeist, Goonies, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, were the ones I actively sought out and that are still my darlings.

Kids don't get enough credit in my opinion. They want to be spooked--and the ones that don't can still be kept safe from cinematic traumas by their parents. The Bonds aren't horror, but there's some edgy stuff in them that 7-year old or even 10-year old me didn't fully understand. Some of the fruitier jokes, for example... "Take me around the world one more time," or "Just keeping the British end up, sir," held no significance for me when I was in my single digits. But that was fine because Jaws had creeped the hell out of me, so I was still trying to keep my heartbeat under control. Perhaps that is why I still love these movies so much! And a few years later, when I obviously caught the jokes but was still just in my early teens and not supposed to catch them, I had these internal giggles.

Most kids can handle edgier movies, even if they weren't necessarily made for them. It's okay for most kids to get the chills from watching a horror flick or to blush when watching something juicier. They brag about it at school; they learn things their parents will no longer have to explain, they'll also develop a clear fear or loathing of "bad things". And years later, they'll watch these films again thinking back on those days when they got goosebumps doing so the first time. That's the fun of it all.

If we made our Bond films morality tales that are even safe for children, grown-ups won't like them, and the children of today won't like them ten years from now either. Part of why I love Spielberg and Lucas so much is that they used to not care about upsetting us as kids. There are moments in Raiders of the Lost Ark, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Jaws and even Star Wars that are absolutely not safe for children. Yet we, as children, devoured those films, religiously. Have we turned traumatic, maniacal, abusive, aggressive, ... because of them?

Age has nothing to do with it; if anything, most kids, other than the extremely sheltered, crave a little tension in their films too. True, not every kid out there can handle an edgier movie with ease; neither can every adult. That doesn't mean we need to overgeneralize things and either exclude kids from our Bond audience or make our Bonds safe for them, whatever that means. I'll repeat what I said before: we aren't giving our kids enough credit these days... We were given loads of freedom to explore the world of cinema as kids, and we turned out all right, didn't we?

Will you marry me? :-) That post made my day. Made me think back to when I was 10 and watching people melt in 'Raiders..' and seeing Bond kicking Loques car from the cliff. Trauma-stuff today. A jolly good time back then.

My girlfriend insists that I shouldn't, but hey... I'm glad we're on the same page. ;-)

When's the wedding, you know I don't live that far from you...
[-(

Minion

JamesCraig wrote: »

007Blofeld wrote: »

FrankXavier wrote: »

MakeshiftPython wrote: »

It’s interesting to me. Critics generally gave TLJ favorable reviews because they were judging it purely as a film rather than as a Star Wars film, whereas its the Star Wars nerds that were heavily divided because a very vocal half couldn’t accept aspects that the other half was willing to indulge (Skywalker being a deserter, etc).

I'm a fan of the ST, I enjoyed TLJ very much first time I saw it, but within time I started to feel less and less appreciative of it. A lot of decisions are simply headscratching. They wanted to make a big mystery of who Rey is, then she's a nobody, now she might be back to being somebody in ROTS. Just feels evidently not mapped out. So, I get the rejection from the fanboys to a point, although I'll never agree the prequels were any good, except for Duel of the Fates, maybe.

That said, the article seems to be alarmist about nothing at this stage. I'll give it this, though: it is true Spectre felt like a confused followup to SF, and I do agree that the progression of the Craig era is leaning far too heavily into making the stories personal. I just want NTTD to come out so I can wash away the bad taste from SP.

What does ST stand for?

Spectre Trash.

Actually, it stands for Stop Talking (about off-topic inflammatory nonsense)

JamesCraig

Minion wrote: »

JamesCraig wrote: »

007Blofeld wrote: »

FrankXavier wrote: »

MakeshiftPython wrote: »

It’s interesting to me. Critics generally gave TLJ favorable reviews because they were judging it purely as a film rather than as a Star Wars film, whereas its the Star Wars nerds that were heavily divided because a very vocal half couldn’t accept aspects that the other half was willing to indulge (Skywalker being a deserter, etc).

I'm a fan of the ST, I enjoyed TLJ very much first time I saw it, but within time I started to feel less and less appreciative of it. A lot of decisions are simply headscratching. They wanted to make a big mystery of who Rey is, then she's a nobody, now she might be back to being somebody in ROTS. Just feels evidently not mapped out. So, I get the rejection from the fanboys to a point, although I'll never agree the prequels were any good, except for Duel of the Fates, maybe.

That said, the article seems to be alarmist about nothing at this stage. I'll give it this, though: it is true Spectre felt like a confused followup to SF, and I do agree that the progression of the Craig era is leaning far too heavily into making the stories personal. I just want NTTD to come out so I can wash away the bad taste from SP.

What does ST stand for?

Spectre Trash.

Actually, it stands for Stop Talking (about off-topic inflammatory nonsense)

I know. I usually leave it to porters to tell me this sort of thing.

matt_u

Pierce2Daniel wrote: »

BonSimonLeBon_1 wrote: »

Contraband wrote: »

Screenshot from the Land Rover video. Look at the plate:

Yes, Russian, as already seen filming.

Also Safin is a Russian surname...you thinking what I’m thinking

Well that’s pretty obvious. I pointed out Safin being a Russian name the minute after they broke the news. The connection between the name and all those car plates seen in the Norway/Scotland shoots sounds like a super strong confirmation about Russia featuring in the third act.

Resurrection

@DarthDimi I Haven't got a my doctorate yet, still a psychology student but I agree generally bond films aren't for childrens but most James bond films doesn't have any nudity or bloodbath violence or any of that sorts (like Game of thrones). There is nothing wrong if an 11 year old wants to watch bond films but my advice for your
colleague would be to have a conversation with him to explain everything. In fact it would be great to have an adult supervision rather than learning it from one's peer groups. It is up to the parents to teach their kids from right and wrong, communication is the key here. With internet and TV and all the mediums these days children are growing at faster pace and parents have to keep up with them as well. Film's and television does have an impact on our life for a certain period and age, not every kid is intelligent enough to differentiate between right or wrong that is where parents come in. If she wants her child to see bond film's let her start with Roger films because they are more light hearted and really popcorn entertainment (as we call it) with minimum to no adult content or even pierce films because they are fun and enjoyable for younger one's and classy enough to give new fans a taste of world's most famous superspy ;)

matt_u

Walecs wrote: »

FrankXavier wrote: »

They wanted to make a big mystery of who Rey is,

They never did, it was the fans who insisted she was someone special.

Well, actually they did. JJ hinted at Rey being somebody special the whole film... and surprise, actually she isn’t a so called “nobody”! The fans just wanted an instant answer, they had to wait 4 years.

Contraband

matt_u wrote: »

Pierce2Daniel wrote: »

BonSimonLeBon_1 wrote: »

Contraband wrote: »

Screenshot from the Land Rover video. Look at the plate:

Yes, Russian, as already seen filming.

Also Safin is a Russian surname...you thinking what I’m thinking

Well that’s pretty obvious. I pointed out Safin being a Russian name the minute after they broke the news. The connection between the name and all those car plates seen in the Norway/Scotland shoots sounds like a super strong confirmation about Russia featuring in the third act.

But have we seen the Land Rover at all in Scotland, Norway, Matera, in racing action? That's why I brought up the russian plates (and Safin being russian villain). I know some other cars have them.

Contraband

BTW, the female stunt/racing driver Jessica Hawkins we saw in Land Rovers Defender plug. Having fun:

octofinger

DarthDimi wrote: »

Well, I guess here we disagree, but only a bit. I wasn't referring to the characters we've already seen but to some people demanding that Bond be played by a woman, or that Bond doesn't ever outperform a woman at the crucial moments in the story. . . . nowadays you couldn't release a Bond film like this anymore, especially with that ending, or else the Internet would be burning down the house.

Hence why I'm calling it a voodoo curse. We've never been screaming for a female Bond or a Bond "woman" (because "girl" is nowadays unacceptable, apparently) who saves him all the time. Yet from nowhere, these delirious opinions have come creeping in fast; suddenly, some people have seen the light! They claim that Bond is not of these times anymore, that he has to change, that he is a misogynist and that this is not something we want to get exposed to these days. But as you have said it yourself, Bond's attitude towards women has changed too; it's still perfectly acceptable, isn't it? So what are they talking about and why do they insist on pressing this issue, unless these people are gruesomely obsessed with their mission to invade EVERY popular property out there, just to find a platform. They will continue to find reasons to accuse popular movies of not being there just yet, no matter what the filmmakers do.

Much ado about nothing, I think.
You're elevating a minority opinion into far too much importance. Who are these "some people" you're talking about, anyway? A very loud but very small number of people on YouTube or Twitter?
The last 2 Bond films have made over $2 billion. Things are fine.

Denbigh

Ask one of these guys (YouTube/Twitter trollers) to give their opinion, they'll throw it at you. Ask them to make a successful franchise that is current, progressive and original, yet still honours the traditions that came before it, they'll probably shrug it off and come up with something that sounds like glorified fan fic... Just sayin'

Matt007

Some people spend too much time trying to overthink and justify things created half a century ago when it’s much more accurate and honest to accept that on occasion bond acts like a giant arsehole.

I’m sure we may look back in 10-20 years time and just accept these societal changes that drive change in the franchise. For example Judy denchs casting as the female M was IMo instrumental in making everything at MI6 post Goldeneye seem fresher, more contemporary and less like dads army.

00Agent

This counter outrage culture that we see emerging on Youtube has become a joke. They aren't better than the other side they are complaining about (sjw's and feminists) and are just as extreme.

The part that is unforgiving is, to boycott a film that even us hardcore fans know very little about, only based on tabloid trash and 'stuff that people been saying online'.
And then producing countless hours of 'commentary' about it. Must suck not to have a life.

shamelord

Official pic of the Defender and its Russian plate.