No Time to Die production thread

15945955975996001208

Comments

  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I don't know, but having a Bond film every 2-3yrs is part of the magic that makes him 'Bond'....long absence then 'He's back' tag, which makes the public cherish his return even more. I don't know if creating a Bond Cinematic Universe would suit the character's universally accepted immortality.

    I hope they don't create a Bond Cinematic Universe, but it's unlikely unless the franchise gets sold to Disney or some such place.
    Disney and Marvel are excellent at creating fatigue, they've done it with super hero films and Star Wars already.

    Genuine question: you mean from a quality standpoint, right? Because box office wise Endgame was a massive success.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I don't know, but having a Bond film every 2-3yrs is part of the magic that makes him 'Bond'....long absence then 'He's back' tag, which makes the public cherish his return even more. I don't know if creating a Bond Cinematic Universe would suit the character's universally accepted immortality.

    I hope they don't create a Bond Cinematic Universe, but it's unlikely unless the franchise gets sold to Disney or some such place.
    Disney and Marvel are excellent at creating fatigue, they've done it with super hero films and Star Wars already.

    Yeah, I just hope they don't....or maybe they have started eyeing the next guy to play Bond to meet up with the 60th anniversary....coz I don't think Eon would want to miss the 60th anniversary. And coupled with the uncertainty before Craig finally returned as Bond....is something Eon might not want to do again. Maybe the Rumours of PWB being told to pen Bond 26, is for the New Bond Actor and to meet up with the 60th anniversary.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,366
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I don't know, but having a Bond film every 2-3yrs is part of the magic that makes him 'Bond'....long absence then 'He's back' tag, which makes the public cherish his return even more. I don't know if creating a Bond Cinematic Universe would suit the character's universally accepted immortality.

    Yes that’s fair enough.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    In my opinion there's a reason the James Bond movie series is named after the main character whereas Star Wars and the MCU are not called "The Adventures of Luke Skywalker" (although that's how Lucas originally titled it) and the Iron Man movie series; the latter two are suited to having an expanded universe with lots of characters each telling their own story. Bond does not. Yeah, you may make a movie about Leiter or a Jinx spin off movie but neither characters are so compelling to justifying a movie dedicated entirely to them. At that point you'd basically be creating a new character, so why even attach it to James Bond (yeah, I know, money and such - I'm just looking at this from an artistic point of view).
  • Posts: 1,680
    Apparently after Boyle left broccoli and Wilson considered scrapping the film.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    Apparently after Boyle left broccoli and Wilson considered scrapping the film.

    Source?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,366
    I thought they did scrap his script?
  • Posts: 3,164
    Walecs wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    Apparently after Boyle left broccoli and Wilson considered scrapping the film.

    Source?

    The EW article.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,366
    Do you mean not make B25 at all? That doesn’t seem likely: the studio wouldn’t exactly be happy about them doing that just because they lost a director you’d imagine.
  • Posts: 6,709
    Walecs wrote: »
    In my opinion there's a reason the James Bond movie series is named after the main character whereas Star Wars and the MCU are not called "The Adventures of Luke Skywalker" (although that's how Lucas originally titled it) and the Iron Man movie series; the latter two are suited to having an expanded universe with lots of characters each telling their own story. Bond does not. Yeah, you may make a movie about Leiter or a Jinx spin off movie but neither characters are so compelling to justifying a movie dedicated entirely to them. At that point you'd basically be creating a new character, so why even attach it to James Bond (yeah, I know, money and such - I'm just looking at this from an artistic point of view).

    +1

    An expanded universe is the first right step on the "how to kill your golden egg goose" instruction compendium. Spinoffs, streaming series, and fan fiction being subsections of said chapter.Thankfully, it seems EON have their hearts and minds in the right place. Let's hope Gregg Wilson is an apple fallen not far from that (family) tree.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    matt_u wrote: »
    Everybody already assumed she’s the new 007. I don’t see the point of saving this revelation for the film at this stage. Lots of people I talked even (wrongly) presume she will take the reign in the sequel. Perhaps they won’t do it because the don’t want to sell the film as the “black powerful woman 007 installment”, because that’s the real story for the media regarding NTTD.

    +1 exactly it's like what's the point @matt_u
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,205
    1
    antovolk wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    Apparently after Boyle left broccoli and Wilson considered scrapping the film.

    Source?

    The EW article.

    If so, SP would have been Craig’s curtain call and the , probably, long wait for the next Incarnation of Bond would have begun.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    mtm wrote: »
    Do you mean not make B25 at all? That doesn’t seem likely: the studio wouldn’t exactly be happy about them doing that just because they lost a director you’d imagine.

    Maybe they just considered scrapping Craig's fifth movie, take another 6 month or a full year of rest and then start over with a new Bond. Not really quitting Bond for good. But yeah, I can't imagine the studio being happy with that.

    I can't find the EW article, but it'd be interesting to see how much thought really went into considering this possibility. They hired Fukunaga only one month after Boyle's departure, after all. Unless maybe they put a deadline to themselves and decided that if they couldn't find a replacement director within, like, three months, then they would scrap everything.
  • Posts: 3,164
    Walecs wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Do you mean not make B25 at all? That doesn’t seem likely: the studio wouldn’t exactly be happy about them doing that just because they lost a director you’d imagine.

    Maybe they just considered scrapping Craig's fifth movie, take another 6 month or a full year of rest and then start over with a new Bond. Not really quitting Bond for good. But yeah, I can't imagine the studio being happy with that.

    I can't find the EW article, but it'd be interesting to see how much thought really went into considering this possibility. They hired Fukunaga only one month after Boyle's departure, after all. Unless maybe they put a deadline to themselves and decided that if they couldn't find a replacement director within, like, three months, then they would scrap everything.

    https://ew.com/movies/2020/01/21/daniel-craig-rami-malek-no-time-to-die-cover/
    Broccoli admits that she and Wilson considered shutting down the production entirely following Boyle’s departure. Instead they met with Fukunaga, whose credits include 2015’s Beasts of No Nation and HBO’s True Detective, and who had been one of the filmmakers the producers considered before hiring Boyle. “Cary wasn’t available originally,” says Broccoli. “But he became available. He was very excited to join us, and we kept going.”
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,546
    Walecs wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I don't know, but having a Bond film every 2-3yrs is part of the magic that makes him 'Bond'....long absence then 'He's back' tag, which makes the public cherish his return even more. I don't know if creating a Bond Cinematic Universe would suit the character's universally accepted immortality.

    I hope they don't create a Bond Cinematic Universe, but it's unlikely unless the franchise gets sold to Disney or some such place.
    Disney and Marvel are excellent at creating fatigue, they've done it with super hero films and Star Wars already.

    Genuine question: you mean from a quality standpoint, right? Because box office wise Endgame was a massive success.

    Good point, I think Disney / Star Wars is the better example there. Beloved 40 year old film franchise, Disney promised to make a new Star Wars film every year until the sun goes out, Last Jedi, Solo, and Rise of Skywalker were relative failures at the box office. Now they’re backtracking.
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    edited January 2020 Posts: 871
    Univex wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    In my opinion there's a reason the James Bond movie series is named after the main character whereas Star Wars and the MCU are not called "The Adventures of Luke Skywalker" (although that's how Lucas originally titled it) and the Iron Man movie series; the latter two are suited to having an expanded universe with lots of characters each telling their own story. Bond does not. Yeah, you may make a movie about Leiter or a Jinx spin off movie but neither characters are so compelling to justifying a movie dedicated entirely to them. At that point you'd basically be creating a new character, so why even attach it to James Bond (yeah, I know, money and such - I'm just looking at this from an artistic point of view).

    +1

    An expanded universe is the first right step on the "how to kill your golden egg goose" instruction compendium. Spinoffs, streaming series, and fan fiction being subsections of said chapter.Thankfully, it seems EON have their hearts and minds in the right place. Let's hope Gregg Wilson is an apple fallen not far from that (family) tree.

    In a Variety interview, EON didn't rule out the possibility of offering Bond content on a streaming service in the future.

    For now, Broccoli says Bond’s future will remain on the big screen, but she doesn’t rule out the possibility that a future 007 adventure could debut on a streaming platform.

    “We make these films for the audiences,” Broccoli says. “We like to think that they’re going to be seen primarily on the big screen. But having said that, we have to look to the future. Our fans are the ones who dictate how they want to consume their entertainment. I don’t think we can rule anything out, because it’s the audience that will make those decisions. Not us.”

  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Walecs wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    Everybody already assumed she’s the new 007. I don’t see the point of saving this revelation for the film at this stage. Lots of people I talked even (wrongly) presume she will take the reign in the sequel. Perhaps they won’t do it because the don’t want to sell the film as the “black powerful woman 007 installment”, because that’s the real story for the media regarding NTTD.

    Many even believed that she was the main character in this one and were shocked that Daniel Craig was in the trailer. Some still believe she's the main character even now. YouTubers made YouTube videos saying that "making James Bond a woman was a wrong move" and "ditching Daniel Craig was a huge mistake". I had many friends asking me how I felt about a man no longer being the main lead.
    Crazy how people seem to buy every single thing they see in the news and have no interest in doing some actual research. Is it so hard to actualy fact check stuff? I do all the time.

    People nowadays are so obsessed with continuity, world building and spin-offs that no one seemed to be able to think about the possibility that Nomi would be a one movie character within an already established 5 movies arc.
    Univex wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    In my opinion there's a reason the James Bond movie series is named after the main character whereas Star Wars and the MCU are not called "The Adventures of Luke Skywalker" (although that's how Lucas originally titled it) and the Iron Man movie series; the latter two are suited to having an expanded universe with lots of characters each telling their own story. Bond does not. Yeah, you may make a movie about Leiter or a Jinx spin off movie but neither characters are so compelling to justifying a movie dedicated entirely to them. At that point you'd basically be creating a new character, so why even attach it to James Bond (yeah, I know, money and such - I'm just looking at this from an artistic point of view).

    +1

    An expanded universe is the first right step on the "how to kill your golden egg goose" instruction compendium. Spinoffs, streaming series, and fan fiction being subsections of said chapter.Thankfully, it seems EON have their hearts and minds in the right place. Let's hope Gregg Wilson is an apple fallen not far from that (family) tree.

    Exactly.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Walecs wrote: »
    In my opinion there's a reason the James Bond movie series is named after the main character whereas Star Wars and the MCU are not called "The Adventures of Luke Skywalker" (although that's how Lucas originally titled it) and the Iron Man movie series; the latter two are suited to having an expanded universe with lots of characters each telling their own story. Bond does not. Yeah, you may make a movie about Leiter or a Jinx spin off movie but neither characters are so compelling to justifying a movie dedicated entirely to them. At that point you'd basically be creating a new character, so why even attach it to James Bond (yeah, I know, money and such - I'm just looking at this from an artistic point of view).

    Nicely said @Walecs ... but with one more perspective: From the outside looking in, not only does this not appear to be sustainable artistically (the characters really don’t have enough to offer in this Bondverse), but it doesn’t stand a chance commercially. If there was a MP spin-off or The Adventures of Felix Leiter, who is the audience? Who are the filmmakers targeting? And for every one of these films, the big question leading up to it would be: Does James Bond make a cameo?

    James Bond is the universe. He is front and centre, and unlike the Star Wars and Marvel worlds, his universe is not meant to be expanded. If even tried, it would collapse on itself.

    However, from what I know, TRS was a big project for EoN and specifically for Gregg Wilson.

    There is an expansion afoot— in the EoN universe: they are looking at expanding more into other mediums (they have so far dipped their toes into theatre and film and there’s some TV development going on too); for Gregg Wilson it seems like this was his puppy. Whenever B26 happens (with absolutely no intel on this, I am
    assuming this will be quite a wait; MGM can re-package Bond films and Rocky films on digitial for the umpteenth time every few years to keep those cash cows going, but BB will be in no rush), Gregg Wilson will officially replace his father. TRS was a film where he was getting the experience to co-run the Big Show with his aunt. And the film is an experiment to see how the company carries another modestly budgeted IP. This will be another revenue stream for EoN.

    Expanded Bondverse? I just can’t see the sustainability, commercially or artistically. But I think we will see an expansion of EoN’s universe over the next half decade or so.
  • DeerAtTheGatesDeerAtTheGates Belgium
    Posts: 524
    peter wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    In my opinion there's a reason the James Bond movie series is named after the main character whereas Star Wars and the MCU are not called "The Adventures of Luke Skywalker" (although that's how Lucas originally titled it) and the Iron Man movie series; the latter two are suited to having an expanded universe with lots of characters each telling their own story. Bond does not. Yeah, you may make a movie about Leiter or a Jinx spin off movie but neither characters are so compelling to justifying a movie dedicated entirely to them. At that point you'd basically be creating a new character, so why even attach it to James Bond (yeah, I know, money and such - I'm just looking at this from an artistic point of view).

    Nicely said @Walecs ... but with one more perspective: From the outside looking in, not only does this not appear to be sustainable artistically (the characters really don’t have enough to offer in this Bondverse), but it doesn’t stand a chance commercially. If there was a MP spin-off or The Adventures of Felix Leiter, who is the audience? Who are the filmmakers targeting? And for every one of these films, the big question leading up to it would be: Does James Bond make a cameo?

    James Bond is the universe. He is front and centre, and unlike the Star Wars and Marvel worlds, his universe is not meant to be expanded. If even tried, it would collapse on itself.

    However, from what I know, TRS was a big project for EoN and specifically for Gregg Wilson.

    There is an expansion afoot— in the EoN universe: they are looking at expanding more into other mediums (they have so far dipped their toes into theatre and film and there’s some TV development going on too); for Gregg Wilson it seems like this was his puppy. Whenever B26 happens (with absolutely no intel on this, I am
    assuming this will be quite a wait; MGM can re-package Bond films and Rocky films on digitial for the umpteenth time every few years to keep those cash cows going, but BB will be in no rush), Gregg Wilson will officially replace his father. TRS was a film where he was getting the experience to co-run the Big Show with his aunt. And the film is an experiment to see how the company carries another modestly budgeted IP. This will be another revenue stream for EoN.

    Expanded Bondverse? I just can’t see the sustainability, commercially or artistically. But I think we will see an expansion of EoN’s universe over the next half decade or so.

    That’s quite the analysis and intel and information and insight there, @peter! Thank you for explaining some of the inner workings at EON!

    However, if I can be very blunt (at the risk of losing a lot of nuance from your post), we can summarise it thusly:
    EON isn’t in a hurry to get started on the next Bond, but wants to spread its wings creatively, with other projects, including the possibility of more Rhythm Section films. And they rather would continue with these projects than to make Bond spin offs.
    So can we then conclude that not only there will be a large gap in between NTTD and Bond 26, but that EON has no intention of churning out Bond films in a two-year cycle, instead preferring to make them when they feel for it?
    And can we then further conclude that 4 to 5 year gaps will become the norm?

    Or am I completely missing the point here?
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    peter wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    In my opinion there's a reason the James Bond movie series is named after the main character whereas Star Wars and the MCU are not called "The Adventures of Luke Skywalker" (although that's how Lucas originally titled it) and the Iron Man movie series; the latter two are suited to having an expanded universe with lots of characters each telling their own story. Bond does not. Yeah, you may make a movie about Leiter or a Jinx spin off movie but neither characters are so compelling to justifying a movie dedicated entirely to them. At that point you'd basically be creating a new character, so why even attach it to James Bond (yeah, I know, money and such - I'm just looking at this from an artistic point of view).

    Nicely said @Walecs ... but with one more perspective: From the outside looking in, not only does this not appear to be sustainable artistically (the characters really don’t have enough to offer in this Bondverse), but it doesn’t stand a chance commercially. If there was a MP spin-off or The Adventures of Felix Leiter, who is the audience? Who are the filmmakers targeting? And for every one of these films, the big question leading up to it would be: Does James Bond make a cameo?

    James Bond is the universe. He is front and centre, and unlike the Star Wars and Marvel worlds, his universe is not meant to be expanded. If even tried, it would collapse on itself.

    However, from what I know, TRS was a big project for EoN and specifically for Gregg Wilson.

    There is an expansion afoot— in the EoN universe: they are looking at expanding more into other mediums (they have so far dipped their toes into theatre and film and there’s some TV development going on too); for Gregg Wilson it seems like this was his puppy. Whenever B26 happens (with absolutely no intel on this, I am
    assuming this will be quite a wait; MGM can re-package Bond films and Rocky films on digitial for the umpteenth time every few years to keep those cash cows going, but BB will be in no rush), Gregg Wilson will officially replace his father. TRS was a film where he was getting the experience to co-run the Big Show with his aunt. And the film is an experiment to see how the company carries another modestly budgeted IP. This will be another revenue stream for EoN.

    Expanded Bondverse? I just can’t see the sustainability, commercially or artistically. But I think we will see an expansion of EoN’s universe over the next half decade or so.

    That’s quite the analysis and intel and information and insight there, @peter! Thank you for explaining some of the inner workings at EON!

    However, if I can be very blunt (at the risk of losing a lot of nuance from your post), we can summarise it thusly:
    EON isn’t in a hurry to get started on the next Bond, but wants to spread its wings creatively, with other projects, including the possibility of more Rhythm Section films. And they rather would continue with these projects than to make Bond spin offs.
    So can we then conclude that not only there will be a large gap in between NTTD and Bond 26, but that EON has no intention of churning out Bond films in a two-year cycle, instead preferring to make them when they feel for it?
    And can we then further conclude that 4 to 5 year gaps will become the norm?

    Or am I completely missing the point here?

    @DeerAtTheGates it’s my personal belief that:

    1/ with no intel, and I’m not in BB’s head, there is absolutely no rush to find Bond 007/B26. If there is a quick turn around, I will genuinely be very, very, very surprised. Very (very) surprised.
    2/ I think EoN is definitely and already spreading its wings artistically with smaller films and commercially with TRS. I feel more is on the way in theatre, film and television. They have the luxury to explore, and they can fall back on the Bond franchise at any time (the only way I see a fast turn around on The next James Bond film is if they have some serious bombs; but they’re very smart and savvy filmmakers and their more artistic films are tight, lower budgets; TRS is modestly budgeted so over time in ancillary streams of revenue it should make its money back).

    3/ once the new 007 is in place, I think they will spin the cycle efficiently (not every 2 years, but every 3 or 4 years; there’s always the case of the debut film being such a smash that they try and capitalize with a fast follow up in 2 or 2.5 years; I think the others will settle in that 3 year or 4 year gap).

    4/ I based most of my original thoughts on what I was originally told about TRS (and how it was Gregg’s puppy; I know the stress was enormous and Lively injuring herself and the delay of filming mid-shoot created immense and intense strain. But the point is he survived and delivered a film that will be hitting cinemas in one week. EoN has my loyalty and $$$, so I will be there next Friday (plus I am curious how it does since I have my own female thriller out there at the moment; under option with some producers, we are looking at the numbers they do, not just in the theatre, but in all revenue streams)).
  • edited January 2020 Posts: 1,314
    Regarding "teams" and "hating" Bond teaming up.....

    Bond Teams up with female agents and or women whose actions and skills either save his life or directly affect the plot in the following Films:

    YOLT
    TSWLM
    Moonraker
    FYEO
    GoldenEye
    TND
    DAD
    CR
    QOS
    Spectre

    You're following the wrong franchise if its suddenly a problem now. Why is it a problem this time?

    Read FYEO by Fleming. Melina Havelock tells bond to go to hell essentially and insists on being a part of the lakeside ambush. Good enough for Ian Fleming good enough for me.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @Matt007 ... love that last line... and totally correct!
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    Matt007 wrote: »
    Regarding "teams" and "hating" Bond teaming up.....

    Bond Teams up with female agents and or women whose actions and skills either save his life or directly affect the plot in the following Films:

    YOLT
    TSWLM
    Moonraker
    FYEO
    GoldenEye
    TND
    DAD
    CR
    QOS
    Spectre

    You're following the wrong franchise if its suddenly a problem now. Why is it a problem this time?

    Read FYEO by Fleming. Melina Havelock tells bond to go to hell essentially and insists on being a part of the lakeside ambush. Good enough for Ian Fleming good enough for me.

    LMAO at this post.

    First of all, Bond was pretty much alone most of the time in GE, TND, DAD and CR. Natalya, Michelle Yeoh (forgot her character's name) and Jinx all joined at the very end whereas Mathis did not join up in the action.

    Secondly, no one said it's "suddenly a problem this time". Read other people's posts before making criticisms and please restrain yourself from using whataboutism since that's a logical fallacy and it is VERY annoying.

    Third; you've just mentioned all the Bond movies which have my least favourite third acts in the series (apart from CR and QoS and the former doesn't have a team up third act) so what kind of point are you trying to make here?

    I'm telling you:
    None, you just wanted to criticise other people's opinions for whatever reason. Imagine if I did that to your opinions, I bet you wouldn't like that. Even if you did, you're not justified.

    Fourth; I'm laughing at how you quoted Fleming to prove your point yet that very quote proves you're wrong. Talk about own goal. Fleming's Bond has always been a lonely person and he prefers to work on his own (although he did occasionally team up with Quarrel and Leiter), so much so that other people have to insist on being part of their ambush.

    Fifth; "you're following the wrong franchise". Ah yes, some good ol' gatekeeping about what people can and should or can't and shouldn't enjoy. You don't like a certain thing about a movie franchise? Well then you shouldn't even watch Bond movies at all, I get to decide it.
  • edited January 2020 Posts: 1,314
    not at all old chap. Im putting forward a counter argument. I couldn't care less if you agree with me or not, or criticise my opinions because I'm an adult. you're free to like or dislike my post.

    No own goal, perhaps you haven't read TMWTGG, OHMSS.... Bond is very happy to see Felix, who incidentally saves his arse on the train. Oh and so does Tracy. Have you seen the end of YOLT, or TSWLM. Big team ups there - Japanese ninjas, Navy... Kerim Bay etc etc

    Maybe Bond does prefer to work alone. Thats unfortunate because a lot of the time he's forced into collaborating for the good of the mission. Maybe he will in NTTD. Maybe not. And the FYEO example shows how Bond is forced into collaborating whether he likes it or not. I think the same will happen in NTTD. Maybe against his will, but or the good of the mission

    Nuance.....
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2020 Posts: 16,366
    It’s surprising how much of the series some fans don’t actually like. That’s not far off half of them! :D

    When you say Bond teaming up is bad we can’t possibly know all of the small print attached to that (it’s actually okay as long as it’s not with someone specifically from MI6, although some of them are fine depending on whether they have guns or something, or happens in the last bit of the film etc.).
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    Matt007 wrote: »
    not at all old chap. Im putting forward a counter argument. I couldn't care less if you agree with me or not

    Whataboutism isn't a counter argument, it's a logical fallacy used to win an argument.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
  • edited January 2020 Posts: 1,314
    In some contexts but not all IMO.
    The world’s isn’t so binary.

    I actually think you’ve missed the subtlety of whataboutery. Its mainly Using similar unconnected examples to discredit. Like an ad hominem attack distracts from the argument . We’re talking about inconsistency of opinion and contradiction in one film franchise.

    It’s also too late to argue with strangers online. 👍🏻
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    edited January 2020 Posts: 3,126
    i think people just don't like "this" team up as its similar to jinx. the female Bond
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,366
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    i think people just don't like "this" team up as its similar to jinx. the female Bond

    She didn’t work for MI6 though: apparently it’s only the MI6 ones which are bad..? It’s a very confusing set of rules.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    i think people just don't like "this" team up as its similar to jinx. the female Bond

    We don't know if it's similar to Jinx-- and hopefully not since Fukunaga is a superior story-teller and wouldn't stoop to the stereotypical "yo momma" idiocies of DAD.
Sign In or Register to comment.